• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

...at 18 weeks, the routine ultrasound displayed a severe issue with the fetus. There was no brain development due to a crimped and broken spinal cord. When the baby was to be born in another 21 weeks or so, the probability of a stillborn was near 95% with a 5% chance being born alive, which death would occur within the first minute of life.

Should the mother be put through another 21 weeks of this trauma and the fetus under that amount of stress?

I should assume the reasonable pro-life solution would be: Put the baby on life support at birth then pull the plug (legally)!??!??!??
 
Bubba said:
I'm not touching the abortion/Roe debate, but...

...in Georgia, signing up for organ donation is literally just checking a box when you renew your drivers license. I have not idea what the heck she's babbling about.
Click to expand...
OK...if that doesn't "work" for you...

No one can force you to give a piece of your body to save another. You aren’t required to give blood, a kidney or an organ. You, especially as a male, have bodily autonomy. Women should not be required to sacrifice their bodies to save another.
 
NHPlanner said:
OK...if that doesn't "work" for you...

No one can force you to give a piece of your body to save another. You aren’t required to give blood, a kidney or an organ. You, especially as a male, have bodily autonomy. Women should not be required to sacrifice their bodies to save another.
Click to expand...
I'll simply refer you to the first statement in my post:
Bubba said:
I'm not touching the abortion/Roe debate
Click to expand...
 
My whole problem with this thing is you believe what you want to believe just don't interfere with what I believe. No one has declared that abortion is murder so it's not. Abortion just won't be legal anymore based on a religious minority using the government to persecute the rights of the majority. If you're pro life, good for you, do the right thing. If you feel you need an abortion, good for you. In the end, leave me and the government out of it. Neither of us can make that choice for you.
 
DVD said:
My whole problem with this thing is you believe what you want to believe just don't interfere with what I believe. No one has declared that abortion is murder so it's not. Abortion just won't be legal anymore based on a religious minority using the government to persecute the rights of the majority. If you're pro life, good for you, do the right thing. If you feel you need an abortion, good for you. In the end, leave me and the government out of it. Neither of us can make that choice for you.
Click to expand...
And yet, we now have State lawmakers trying to go after people who now leave their state to have a procedure done. When did the Republican party get so lost? They used to be small government, lower taxes, and actual platforms related to pro-business, pro-gun, etc. Now we just care about social issues that don't really exist, and are generally going to be lost by the R's in the long term.

Social Issue Historical Bingo:
Racial Rights - Republicans on the wrong side
LGBTQ Rights - Republicans on the wrong side
Women's Right to Choose - Republicans on the wrong side
Drug Legalization - Republicans on the wrong side
Immigration - Republicans on the wrong side

Looking at that R's have already been proven to be wrong historically on racial issues, and LGBTQ rights. Now with abortion they are going for 3/3. In the long term our society will correct the wrong, like they have done with racial and LGBTQ rights, but it is unfortunate that we have so many people who can't see the forest for the trees.

The other side of that argument is that with the reduction in religion in the country, we will see more and more legislation that "protects" religion for those who think it is being attacked. Fewer and louder voices will continue to try and take away people's freedoms. It is just odd that the party pushing the most freedoms being taken from people, is the Republican party.

Will the Libertarians switch sides?

Don't get me wrong I believe the D's have A LOT of issues with their party, and they want the world to take LEAPS instead of baby steps towards change, which is their primary problem and why they are losing so much support. In the world of "what have you done for me today", the D's need more and more and more, and they need it now. Baby steps would allow for change, would allow for people who are uncomfortable with change to slowly acclimate, and would keep the Country moving forward.

2024 just gets more and more interesting to me.
 
Have you ever witnessed someone in the middle of a cocaine fueled rant? After this, you can check it off your bucket list.

 
DVD said:
My whole problem with this thing is you believe what you want to believe just don't interfere with what I believe. No one has declared that abortion is murder so it's not. Abortion just won't be legal anymore based on a religious minority using the government to persecute the rights of the majority. If you're pro life, good for you, do the right thing. If you feel you need an abortion, good for you. In the end, leave me and the government out of it. Neither of us can make that choice for you.
Click to expand...
I've never really understood the Christian opposition to at least some limited abortion. Most people I know that are practicing in the Jewish faith are pro-choice, some are militantly so. Biblical references to a fetus are Old Testament scary and seem to treat them as part of mother or the sin of the mother.

I guess I get if you are Catholic and believe that the Pope is the divine messenger of God and he says its a no go and every sperm is sacred....but otherwise its never made sense to me. We can force women to have a child that they do not want, may be unviable, or they cannot provide for. Or under my very poor understanding of a protestant afterlife, an innocent and pure child immediately ascends to eternal paradise and the loving embrace of our creator. Again, I'm not a very good Baptist nor theologian.
 
This was in Bloomberg's CityLab email posts:

As some states have constricted abortion rights, it’s not just policy organizations and abortion funds that have filled the gap. Some employers have stepped in with a new kind of benefit: Paying travel and other costs for employees whose nearest abortion clinic is far from their home. These benefits have taken on new value with the news this week that a leaked draft Supreme Court ruling would revoke the right to an abortion in the U.S.

My colleague Kelsey Butler has been covering these employer policies and has the latest:

Amazon this week told workers in the U.S. that it would cover up to $4,000 in travel costs for workers seeking abortion care. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, about half the states in the country would ban or restrict abortion care within their borders, meaning far more Americans would have to travel for the procedure.

Companies — whether they like it or not — are coming up with game plans. Match Group, Yelp and Apple have pledged similar commitments to cover reproductive health care.

Alloy, a New York-based startup, is giving staff up to $1,500 in abortion-related travel expenses and the same amount for out-of-pocket medical costs. They’ll also cover some of employees’ legal costs that might arise due to anti-abortion laws. "I am proud to offer our team these options but devastated that they are necessary," chief revenue officer Laura Spiekerman said this week.

But even as corporations take this step, these policies leave out many people who may need this kind of help the most: Women of color, low-income individuals and those who are newer to the workforce and not in salary jobs, says Sue Dunlap, CEO of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles.

“It’s the people who are over and over left behind in our systems," Dunlap told me in March.

Read Butler’s past coverage of these benefits here and here.

-Sarah Holder
 
I still think the timing of the death of RBG is uncanny. It could not come at a worse time. As I've said before, Trump's reshaping of the Supreme Court is unprecedented and will resonate for decades to come.

It's not too late to pack the court and neuter the firebrands like Gorsuch,
Bubba said:
Ah...Baptists are Protestants. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
..ahh but are all Protestants, Baptists?

Actually, I don't even know how this got posted. It was in draft mode. I mean to add ...firebrands like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
 
Super Amputee Cat said:
I still think the timing of the death of RBG is uncanny. It could not come at a worse time. As I've said before, Trump's reshaping of the Supreme Court is unprecedented and will resonate for decades to come.

It's not too late to pack the court and neuter the firebrands like Gorsuch,
Click to expand...
I'd contend McConnell did more reshaping than Trump, but...political semantics I guess.
 
mendelman said:
I'd contend McConnell did more reshaping than Trump, but...political semantics I guess.
Click to expand...
Oh yes. In one way he's even worse because he stonewalled Garland's nomination during Obama Administration and tried to stonewall Jackson too. So he has even more blood on his hands. I mean, how hypocritical can you get!

Still, Trump was president and it was his ultimate decision.
 
As with the Disney fight and Florida, I think companies are going to be forced to take harder stands against stupid laws. This is especially true for larger companies or tech companies that have work forces that are pretty clearly on the left.

Tech companies were looking at Texas and Florida as ways to get away from California's taxes, but I think it is going to be harder and harder to pick places like Texas, when laws that go against the majority of people's positions are enacted.
 
Hink said:
And yet, we now have State lawmakers trying to go after people who now leave their state to have a procedure done. When did the Republican party get so lost? They used to be small government, lower taxes, and actual platforms related to pro-business, pro-gun, etc. Now we just care about social issues that don't really exist, and are generally going to be lost by the R's in the long term.

Social Issue Historical Bingo:
Racial Rights - Republicans on the wrong side
LGBTQ Rights - Republicans on the wrong side
Women's Right to Choose - Republicans on the wrong side
Drug Legalization - Republicans on the wrong side
Immigration - Republicans on the wrong side

Looking at that R's have already been proven to be wrong historically on racial issues, and LGBTQ rights. Now with abortion they are going for 3/3. In the long term our society will correct the wrong, like they have done with racial and LGBTQ rights, but it is unfortunate that we have so many people who can't see the forest for the trees.

The other side of that argument is that with the reduction in religion in the country, we will see more and more legislation that "protects" religion for those who think it is being attacked. Fewer and louder voices will continue to try and take away people's freedoms. It is just odd that the party pushing the most freedoms being taken from people, is the Republican party.

Will the Libertarians switch sides?

Don't get me wrong I believe the D's have A LOT of issues with their party, and they want the world to take LEAPS instead of baby steps towards change, which is their primary problem and why they are losing so much support. In the world of "what have you done for me today", the D's need more and more and more, and they need it now. Baby steps would allow for change, would allow for people who are uncomfortable with change to slowly acclimate, and would keep the Country moving forward.

2024 just gets more and more interesting to me.
Click to expand...

How do you define historical in terms of racial issues. Keep in mind that the Democrats were opposed to emancipation. If you are limiting it to more recent situations, I am curious if you would expand on that a bit more. I don't disagree with you that the Republic Party is seriously F-ed up, but I would like to more about your perception regarding the R's and that issue.

I find it ironic that you use the term "Baby Steps" in an abortion conversation. As for 'wrong' side, personally, I feel you and many others are on the 'wrong' side when it comes to abortion. There are so many other options including but not limited to contraception, abstinence, or adoption. I believe a woman should have the right to choose any of those options.
 
michaelskis said:
How do you define historical in terms of racial issues. Keep in mind that the Democrats were opposed to emancipation. If you are limiting it to more recent situations, I am curious if you would expand on that a bit more. I don't disagree with you that the Republic Party is seriously F-ed up, but I would like to more about your perception regarding the R's and that issue.

I find it ironic that you use the term "Baby Steps" in an abortion conversation. As for 'wrong' side, personally, I feel you and many others are on the 'wrong' side when it comes to abortion. There are so many other options including but not limited to contraception, abstinence, or adoption. I believe a woman should have the right to choose any of those options.
Click to expand...
Come on now, you know that the modern Democratic party was not the Southern Democrats who opposed emancipation. That is very misleading...

I get that you think people who support a women's right to freedom are on the wrong side. You have the right to believe that. My point before, as it is now, is that history will correct these issues, as it has done in the past. I am pretty confident which side will end up winning in the end, as the United States has a bit of a pattern. Freedom and choice for individuals has always found a way to move forward. It may take a while, but it keeping pushing. Both parties, when trying to deny people the right to freedom, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness have always lost over time. So will be the case here.

Abstinence is certainly a great option, but like most of the arguments made against abortion, it is unrealistic and idealistic in today's world. Contraception and adoption are great. Providing free contraception would be a great start. They could do it with federal funding at clinics throughout the US. Maybe we could suggest that they plan their parenthood?

Adoption is great, but if you expect a women to put herself through something for 9 months without support, financially or emotionally, I have issues. I would agree with you about that being a viable option if the government covered all costs, and then paid out emotion support payments to the woman after the birth of the child she didn't want to have, but was forced to by generally men who seem to think women shouldn't be able to choose what they do with their bodies. Nevermind, I don't agree that is an actual solution. I do think adoption is wonderful though for those who are willing to go through with it. It is gut wrenching for those who do it though on both sides.

Actual feasible solutions over the years that have been provided (not pie in the sky 1920's forced morals solutions), are never supported by the people who continue to want to force their religious desires on government. It seems to me that if we saw universal healthcare we would likely reduce the # of abortions. Why wouldn't that be completely supported by the R's if their seemly most important policy position relates to the importance of denying a women a right to choose what happens to her body? What about parental leave? Or SO many other social issues that could help reduce the number of people needing to make that terrible, horrible decision.
 
Hink said:
Come on now, you know that the modern Democratic party was not the Southern Democrats who opposed emancipation. That is very misleading...

I get that you think people who support a women's right to freedom are on the wrong side. You have the right to believe that. My point before, as it is now, is that history will correct these issues, as it has done in the past. I am pretty confident which side will end up winning in the end, as the United States has a bit of a pattern. Freedom and choice for individuals has always found a way to move forward. It may take a while, but it keeping pushing. Both parties, when trying to deny people the right to freedom, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness have always lost over time. So will be the case here.

Abstinence is certainly a great option, but like most of the arguments made against abortion, it is unrealistic and idealistic in today's world. Contraception and adoption are great. Providing free contraception would be a great start. They could do it with federal funding at clinics throughout the US. Maybe we could suggest that they plan their parenthood?

Adoption is great, but if you expect a women to put herself through something for 9 months without support, financially or emotionally, I have issues. I would agree with you about that being a viable option if the government covered all costs, and then paid out emotion support payments to the woman after the birth of the child she didn't want to have, but was forced to by generally men who seem to think women shouldn't be able to choose what they do with their bodies. Nevermind, I don't agree that is an actual solution. I do think adoption is wonderful though for those who are willing to go through with it. It is gut wrenching for those who do it though on both sides.

Actual feasible solutions over the years that have been provided (not pie in the sky 1920's forced morals solutions), are never supported by the people who continue to want to force their religious desires on government. It seems to me that if we saw universal healthcare we would likely reduce the # of abortions. Why wouldn't that be completely supported by the R's if their seemly most important policy position relates to the importance of denying a women a right to choose what happens to her body? What about parental leave? Or SO many other social issues that could help reduce the number of people needing to make that terrible, horrible decision.
Click to expand...
I am not saying it is. My question was how far back are you considering history.

In terms of the other options, I think that there is a lot that we could do as a society to make these options more readably available. Once again, I have no concerns about what a woman wants to do with "Her" body. But it is the body of the unborn child we are talking about here. But you seem to want to ignore that point because you don't agree with it.
 
michaelskis said:
I am not saying it is. My question was how far back are you considering history.

In terms of the other options, I think that there is a lot that we could do as a society to make these options more readably available. Once again, I have no concerns about what a woman wants to do with "Her" body. But it is the body of the unborn child we are talking about here. But you seem to want to ignore that point because you don't agree with it.
Click to expand...
I can go back and forth about viability and "unborn" baby, but you will define it at a place that has no viability, which again makes having a rational discussion difficult. If a definition of what an "unborn" baby could be created, formally, it would make the discussion possible.

Viability is key to that discussion and should be front and center. Their is no such thing as an "unborn" baby, as noted previously. There is a fetus, which is not, and has never been viable in the history of the world, before 21 weeks. I'm happy to debate the abortion issue related to post-21 week viability. If you want to talk about anything prior to that as being an "unborn" baby, it is pointless to discuss, as we will never have a rational debate.
 
When Roe was handed down, nobody lost any rights, and a lot of people gained rights. When Roe and Casey are overturned as expected this summer, a lot of people will lose rights, and no one will gain any. Big, big, big difference. It's the first time in my lifetime (I'll be 62 in a few months) that I can recall previously constitutional rights being taken from the people.

I'm not for packing the court. I am for term or age limits, a congressionally-approved code of ethics for the court/federal judiciary, and perhaps a re-engineering of the court. Perhaps we discuss limiting each party to four members with one independent/non-party justice, for example. Maybe we'd need 3/3/3/.

The conservative justices on the Roberts court have made it Political and diminished it in the eyes of the public. Stare decisis my ass. The court may never recover. Perhaps it shouldn't.
 
Gedunker said:
When Roe was handed down, nobody lost any rights, and a lot of people gained rights. When Roe and Casey are overturned as expected this summer, a lot of people will lose rights, and no one will gain any. Big, big, big difference. It's the first time in my lifetime (I'll be 62 in a few months) that I can recall previously constitutional rights being taken from the people.
Click to expand...
This.

It smells of the terrible consequences of Plessy v. Ferguson that established 'separate, but equal'.
 
This is why "rights" as we like to call them really don't mean a thing. It's not really a "right" if it can be taken away.
 
Gedunker said:
When Roe was handed down, nobody lost any rights, and a lot of people gained rights. When Roe and Casey are overturned as expected this summer, a lot of people will lose rights, and no one will gain any. Big, big, big difference. It's the first time in my lifetime (I'll be 62 in a few months) that I can recall previously constitutional rights being taken from the people.

I'm not for packing the court. I am for term or age limits, a congressionally-approved code of ethics for the court/federal judiciary, and perhaps a re-engineering of the court. Perhaps we discuss limiting each party to four members with one independent/non-party justice, for example. Maybe we'd need 3/3/3/.

The conservative justices on the Roberts court have made it Political and diminished it in the eyes of the public. Stare decisis my ass. The court may never recover. Perhaps it shouldn't.
Click to expand...
I thought Roe was about equal protection, not about "viability" anyway. How can a restriction on only women afford equal protection?
 
fringe said:
I thought Roe was about equal protection, not about "viability" anyway. How can a restriction on only women afford equal protection?
Click to expand...
Professor Jill Lepore points out in the New Yorker that Roe was based more on privacy than on equal protection. She said RBG's analysis of Roe found that fact an Achilles heel. She also notes caustically that the Constitution does not mention women at all.
 
fringe said:
She also notes caustically that the Constitution does not mention women at all.
Click to expand...
The actual Constitution doesn't, but the 19th Amendment does (women's right to vote). This is a big distinction and also a rhetorical trap as the Bill of Right and the Amendments are part of The Constitution.
 
Hink said:
I can go back and forth about viability and "unborn" baby, but you will define it at a place that has no viability, which again makes having a rational discussion difficult. If a definition of what an "unborn" baby could be created, formally, it would make the discussion possible.

Viability is key to that discussion and should be front and center. Their is no such thing as an "unborn" baby, as noted previously. There is a fetus, which is not, and has never been viable in the history of the world, before 21 weeks. I'm happy to debate the abortion issue related to post-21 week viability. If you want to talk about anything prior to that as being an "unborn" baby, it is pointless to discuss, as we will never have a rational debate.
Click to expand...
So under your definition "Viability", my middle son was not a human until after he was able to leave the NICU and was able to breathe without assistance of a machine? It wasn't for those devices, he would not have been able to survive.

Planit said:
Interesting nobody commented on the post at the top of the page.
Click to expand...

It does not warrant a response because I personally disagree with the personal belief on this.
 
michaelskis said:
So under your definition "Viability", my middle son was not a human until after he was able to leave the NICU and was able to breathe without assistance of a machine? It wasn't for those devices, he would not have been able to survive.



It does not warrant a response because I personally disagree with the personal belief on this.
Click to expand...
I am not sure I have ever used the word human in the discussion to this point. And I am not engaging on any discussion about your family or a unique situation to you, as again, there is unlikely to be any way to have a rational debate.
 
Hink said:
I am not sure I have ever used the word human in the discussion to this point. And I am not engaging on any discussion about your family or a unique situation to you, as again, there is unlikely to be any way to have a rational debate.
Click to expand...
You are correct. You are unwilling to have a rational debate.
 
Planit said:
Interesting nobody commented on the post at the top of the page.
Click to expand...
I know several people that have had to make this type of gut wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy past 20 weeks due to incompatibility with life genetic and physical defects. Nobody is the same after that.
 
The old-school, racist, Southern conservative Democrats were to a large extent pulled into the Republican Party by Reagan. Nothing to reconsider.
 
michaelskis said:
I am not saying it is. My question was how far back are you considering history.
Click to expand...
A more accurate statement would be liberalism. The parties of the Civil War are the same in name only.

Gedunker said:
When Roe was handed down, nobody lost any rights, and a lot of people gained rights. When Roe and Casey are overturned as expected this summer, a lot of people will lose rights, and no one will gain any. Big, big, big difference. It's the first time in my lifetime (I'll be 62 in a few months) that I can recall previously constitutional rights being taken from the people.

The conservative justices on the Roberts court have made it Political and diminished it in the eyes of the public. Stare decisis my ass. The court may never recover. Perhaps it shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Another issue I see is other court cases that used the 14th Amendment arguments being overturned, including same sex marriages. There is quite a few arguments that have reversed policy recently, including those that impact our profession.
 
No surprise that Moscow Mitch is the far and away the most hated Senator out there. The popularity of the Ds does look hopeful, except for that DINO Manchin.

How Every Senator And Governor Ranks According To 'Popularity Above Replacement'

Worst Senators.jpg
 
So Fox News or should I say Tucker is claiming the student loan relief is a slap in the face to Veterans everywhere who worked hard and served to get GI bills and all the college help. I understand some people have the I paid my debt so you should too or you signed for it so honor it ideas, but insulting to Vets? When I went through boot camp the first thing they asked is why are you joining and you can't say for college money because there are a lot of easier ways to get more money if that's what you want. Is it just me or are people like Tucker who don't serve and claim to know what vets think a slap in the face to vets? In other words, stop speaking for me!
 
DVD said:
So Fox News or should I say Tucker is claiming the student loan relief is a slap in the face to Veterans everywhere who worked hard and served to get GI bills and all the college help. I understand some people have the I paid my debt so you should too or you signed for it so honor it ideas, but insulting to Vets? When I went through boot camp the first thing they asked is why are you joining and you can't say for college money because there are a lot of easier ways to get more money if that's what you want. Is it just me or are people like Tucker who don't serve and claim to know what vets think a slap in the face to vets? In other words, stop speaking for me!
Click to expand...
I paid off my loans about 2 years ago, but I want everybody else's forgiven.

I also think the cost of an undergrad degree is obscene anywhere/everywhere.

Podunk State U. does not warrant $9,000 per year.

And University of Michigan certainly shouldn't be charging $15,000 per year.
 
People come to ASU because out of state here is less than instate there. I always thought WTF?
 
DVD said:
So Fox News or should I say Tucker is claiming the student loan relief is a slap in the face to Veterans everywhere who worked hard and served to get GI bills and all the college help. I understand some people have the I paid my debt so you should too or you signed for it so honor it ideas, but insulting to Vets? When I went through boot camp the first thing they asked is why are you joining and you can't say for college money because there are a lot of easier ways to get more money if that's what you want. Is it just me or are people like Tucker who don't serve and claim to know what vets think a slap in the face to vets? In other words, stop speaking for me!
Click to expand...
I have to say I have never seen Tucker, but because it is Fox it doesn't have to make any sense.
 
The New Yorker online edition has the best column I have read in a long time re Alito's outrageous opinion.

It compares him to a children's book character named Amelia Bedelia who keeps house for a rich family. She follows their directions while they are away but because of her concrete and literal interpretation of the directions she gets everything wrong.

Amelia is just like the so-called "originalist" judges who claim the constitution cannot be freely interpreted.

The author is the magazine's lawyer, named Fabio Bertoni.
 
The real horror in college loans as I've read/understand is the predatory loan racket & interest rates.

If you borrow $40,000 & then pay on it for 10 years let's say, how is your balance now $62,000 (or more)?
 
That's my beef with all the talk about loan forgiveness. If there was ACTUAL discussion about the process of how these loans are administered I could get behind that. Months ago Kjel had several excellent suggestions that would help a tremendous amount of people and still make money for the loan servicers. This is heading toward looking like the Affordable Health Care Act which did absolutely nothing to lower insurance costs, it just passed them on to others.
 
MD Planner said:
That's my beef with all the talk about loan forgiveness. If there was ACTUAL discussion about the process of how these loans are administered I could get behind that. Months ago Kjel had several excellent suggestions that would help a tremendous amount of people and still make money for the loan servicers. This is heading toward looking like the Affordable Health Care Act which did absolutely nothing to lower insurance costs, it just passed them on to others.
Click to expand...
Fixing the problem is usually never the goal. Talking about fixing the goal, and affixing blame for not fixing the problem is more lucrative.
 
Back
Top