4 ms·

No, not ironic. One side says the government should be involved in the decision (and may tell you that you can't get care). The other says it's up to you. There

No, not ironic. One side says the government should be involved in the decision (and may tell you that you can't get care). The other says it's up to you. There's no third option.

giantg2 2y ago
I know of no proposals that don't involve the government regulation of care. The government can mandate treatment just as they can ban treatments in any of the systems. There are a variety of proposed systems that display these properties to varying degrees.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  You can frame it however you want, but there's no common ground between the abortion position of even mainstream Republican politicians and the position of the typical Democratic voter.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    That's because the real root questions have been hidden under all the political games. Now we will likely never get answers to these because of how perverted the debate has become. The issue philosophical boils down to 1) what defines a human life, and 2) when is it acceptable to kill.
    - dpkirchner 2y ago
      If this were merely a philosophical debate then yeah, we could have a lively discussion to come up with some answers that would satisfy us individually. We probably wouldn't all agree and that'd be OK. But IMO the debate is not really about that -- it's about what we do based on the answer to those questions. It's about what governments can force upon people. Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?
      - musicale 2y ago
        > Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable? Should they? Maybe not - penalties that are disproportionate to provable harm seem unjust and opposed to personal liberty. Do they? Absolutely, because for certain things we've decided (rightly or wrongly) that we should lock people up. For example, a case of attempted murder can result in a life sentence, even if the attempted victim is provably very alive and physically unharmed.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        "Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?" They do all the time, on a variety of issues. That's part of the social contract of living in a society.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - musicale 2y ago
    Do you think there is at least some amount of overlap/agreement between republicans and democrats on things like: 1) prohibiting late term abortion in non-exceptional cases, and 2) imposing some degree of penalty or liability for assault, including harm to a pregnant woman herself as well as to any potential offspring that are in development? There may also be some other areas of agreement, even between conservative republicans and democrats, on permitting certain forms of abortion in some cases (e.g. ectopic pregnancies) to save the life of the mother.
- dpkirchner 2y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding me, which may be my fault because I'm being a little vague. I'm talking specifically about abortion. There are those that want abortion banned under all circumstances, allowed, and allowed only in some cases. That third option is deceiving, however, and should for all practical purposes be treated as "banned" because: a) one must prove they meet the government's requirements b) the government with such a law is de facto hostile and run by those predisposed to deny requests c) the government must make their decision quickly (which may be impossible, like if a rape must be proven in court) It really is as simple as that. The reason I was being vague is that this applies in a lot of other cases. Frankly, I think the problem isn't that some algorithm is causing a divide or merely reflecting it. The real problem is that many people aren't used to thinking about the second-order details of their policies, they just respond and vote with their gut. (Ironically, the same side that wants to ban abortion also tends to argue against policies like UBI because they say if the government can grant it the government can also take it away.)
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    > I'm talking specifically about abortion. We know, but notice it took you three posts to actually mention the word. In your other posts you euphemistically used the nicer sounding (and more general) "healthcare" word to make your point. That's what OP is talking about: You're ironically doing the same thing the "other side" does. Using euphemisms and vague, but extreme positions (healthcare itself is under attack) such that it's hard to have conversation. For what it's worth, I agree with you, but it's hard not to notice you using the same tactics the other side uses.
    - dpkirchner 2y ago
      Like I said later in my post, this applies in other cases. Those that wanted to ban alcohol didn't consider the second order effect of creating powerful criminal organizations. Bans on drugs have done the same thing, and outlawing guns would have the same effect. Similarly, policies that would outlaw, say, coal burning in our country will just outsource that pollution to other countries because we don't enforce the ban on exporters. Such policies make some folks feel good about themselves because they don't think them through to their logical conclusions. And with regards to abortion specifically, I didn't even get in to the forms of punishment and tracking being proposed. That's where there's a middle ground -- exclusively between far-right conservatives.

No, not ironic. One side says the government should be involved in the decision (and may tell you that you can't get care). The other says it's up to you. There's no third option.

giantg2 2y ago

I know of no proposals that don't involve the government regulation of care. The government can mandate treatment just as they can ban treatments in any of the systems. There are a variety of proposed systems that display these properties to varying degrees.

BobaFloutist 2y ago
You can frame it however you want, but there's no common ground between the abortion position of even mainstream Republican politicians and the position of the typical Democratic voter.
- giantg2 2y ago
  That's because the real root questions have been hidden under all the political games. Now we will likely never get answers to these because of how perverted the debate has become. The issue philosophical boils down to 1) what defines a human life, and 2) when is it acceptable to kill.
  - dpkirchner 2y ago
    If this were merely a philosophical debate then yeah, we could have a lively discussion to come up with some answers that would satisfy us individually. We probably wouldn't all agree and that'd be OK. But IMO the debate is not really about that -- it's about what we do based on the answer to those questions. It's about what governments can force upon people. Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?
    - musicale 2y ago
      > Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable? Should they? Maybe not - penalties that are disproportionate to provable harm seem unjust and opposed to personal liberty. Do they? Absolutely, because for certain things we've decided (rightly or wrongly) that we should lock people up. For example, a case of attempted murder can result in a life sentence, even if the attempted victim is provably very alive and physically unharmed.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      "Should they be allowed to imprison you if those that write laws believe in something without hard evidence and for which harm is likely unprovable?" They do all the time, on a variety of issues. That's part of the social contract of living in a society.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- musicale 2y ago
  Do you think there is at least some amount of overlap/agreement between republicans and democrats on things like: 1) prohibiting late term abortion in non-exceptional cases, and 2) imposing some degree of penalty or liability for assault, including harm to a pregnant woman herself as well as to any potential offspring that are in development? There may also be some other areas of agreement, even between conservative republicans and democrats, on permitting certain forms of abortion in some cases (e.g. ectopic pregnancies) to save the life of the mother.
dpkirchner 2y ago
I think you're misunderstanding me, which may be my fault because I'm being a little vague. I'm talking specifically about abortion. There are those that want abortion banned under all circumstances, allowed, and allowed only in some cases. That third option is deceiving, however, and should for all practical purposes be treated as "banned" because: a) one must prove they meet the government's requirements b) the government with such a law is de facto hostile and run by those predisposed to deny requests c) the government must make their decision quickly (which may be impossible, like if a rape must be proven in court) It really is as simple as that. The reason I was being vague is that this applies in a lot of other cases. Frankly, I think the problem isn't that some algorithm is causing a divide or merely reflecting it. The real problem is that many people aren't used to thinking about the second-order details of their policies, they just respond and vote with their gut. (Ironically, the same side that wants to ban abortion also tends to argue against policies like UBI because they say if the government can grant it the government can also take it away.)
- ryandrake 2y ago
  > I'm talking specifically about abortion. We know, but notice it took you three posts to actually mention the word. In your other posts you euphemistically used the nicer sounding (and more general) "healthcare" word to make your point. That's what OP is talking about: You're ironically doing the same thing the "other side" does. Using euphemisms and vague, but extreme positions (healthcare itself is under attack) such that it's hard to have conversation. For what it's worth, I agree with you, but it's hard not to notice you using the same tactics the other side uses.
  - dpkirchner 2y ago
    Like I said later in my post, this applies in other cases. Those that wanted to ban alcohol didn't consider the second order effect of creating powerful criminal organizations. Bans on drugs have done the same thing, and outlawing guns would have the same effect. Similarly, policies that would outlaw, say, coal burning in our country will just outsource that pollution to other countries because we don't enforce the ban on exporters. Such policies make some folks feel good about themselves because they don't think them through to their logical conclusions. And with regards to abortion specifically, I didn't even get in to the forms of punishment and tracking being proposed. That's where there's a middle ground -- exclusively between far-right conservatives.