Jump to content

The Political Thread


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Whew! I was just assuming that by the time S5 came out, Watson would be bald. So relieved to know I'm wrong.....

 

17 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I've been thinking we might all be bald by then!  Glad to know that VBS's crystal ball says otherwise.   ;)

Right.

I'm glad I haven't told you guys what will happen at the end of episode 3. You know, er..how I feel about spoiler and all..

...

...

...

Anyway, what do you guys think if your favorite  TV character rock a mohawk for occupational purpose? It could be wig it could be real. Asking for a friend.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh. It can't possibly be worse than the haircuts the actors have been getting in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2019 at 7:37 AM, Arcadia said:

It can't possibly be worse than the haircuts the actors have been getting in real life.

Be careful what you say.  They may take it as a challenge.

According to this video, though Martin Freeman is currently sporting a minimalist version of The Swoop, which I would find far more believable on John than the Big Swoop was.  (As for how he wears his hair on his own time, that's his business.)

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, that's actually quite a decent haircut. There must be something wrong.....  :unsure:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2019 at 7:37 PM, Arcadia said:

Eh. It can't possibly be worse than the haircuts the actors have been getting in real life.

Wait, whaattttt?

What are they doing?

 

On topic, it's pretty messed up everywhere eh?

I was hoping to find in the news, Finally! New Robots that could do detail cleaning! Cancer cure, All Cancer! Super Tree, Grow In a Day! Super Plastic, Compose by Commands! Dogs Now Have Same LIfespan as Human!

Not wars, diseases, miseries, murders, again, again, again, again.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel you, I feel like there there is a lot of protests lately. Not just your ordinary peaceful protest against climate change or something, but violent and brutal. It's not just Hong Kong anymore but Chile as well, normally I would be proud of humanity fighting against an oppressive force, but with the brexit mess and president cheeto I've lost my optimism.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Not sure if this qualifies more for Politics or WTF, probably both at once. Yesterday I came upon this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/29/ohio-extreme-abortion-bill-reimplant-ectopic-pregnancy

I had to check it, despite The Guardian being a rather reliable source.
But is there a way to check if I'm actually dreaming?

I mean… they demand doctors to work wonders or go to jail.

WHAT.
THE.
ACTUAL.
BEEP ?!?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never sure it's really my place to comment on American matters...

but the UK has a general election in 11 days time!

Not of course that my vote counts at all, seeing as I live in Scotland.

We always get completely ignored!

Looks like we will be keeping the same awful Westminster government.

At least the Scottish government is an improvement...

Mind you, most parties ARE better than Boris Johnson and his Tories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are living in a dystopia - if someone ever has written this, the critics would tear it apart for lack of… sense? Of being totally random and absolutely impossible? And it's here as well. We have fascists in the parliament again. Imagine that.

PS: I've been watching The Handmaid's Tale S1 and A2 and the last season of Man in The High Castle. They are still more consistent (inside of their own worlds) than the reality. People get elected because their obvious lies sound nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J.P. said:

Not sure if this qualifies more for Politics or WTF, probably both at once. Yesterday I came upon this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/29/ohio-extreme-abortion-bill-reimplant-ectopic-pregnancy

I had to check it, despite The Guardian being a rather reliable source.
But is there a way to check if I'm actually dreaming?

I mean… they demand doctors to work wonders or go to jail.

WHAT.
THE.
ACTUAL.
BEEP ?!?

It appears that particular bill didn't go anywhere, but a new, slightly different one has been introduced. IMO, this is why Trump was elected and why he remains the darling of the religious right … they think by introducing all these new anti-abortion laws, they will finally get one in front of the Supreme Court and get the "Roe v. Wade" ruling overturned. So they're trying everything they can think of, hoping for a Supreme Court challenge (which naturally will go in their favor because they're just so freakin' moral. :rolleyes: ) They don't give a fig whether the local laws are passed or not, IMO … it's all about overturning Roe v. Wade.

(Just to clarify … the Roe v. Wade ruling made abortion legal. Due to Trump's election, we now have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. The anti-abortion faction seems to think "conservative" means "anti-abortion", but that's not necessarily the case; in legal terms, it means the justices are more likely to follow precedent than not. But in the Trump era, all conventions are under attack, so we shall see.)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proposed law, as quoted in the Guardian article, says merely that the doctor must "attempt" to reimplant the fetus, so there's a clear loophole.

By the way, I suspect that what's impossible today may well become possible at some point -- but considering that the fetus in a tubal pregnancy is likely to be very severely malformed (due to having grown in such a constricted space), I doubt that there'd be much point.

It seems to be human nature (common to both left and right) to keep proposing more and more extreme laws, in an apparent attempt to convince the public (or, as Arcadia says, the courts) that they're right -- whereas in fact they're more likely to convince the public (and/or the courts) that they're nuts -- thus sacrificing what might possibly have been a reasonable law by overdoing the hell out of it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But… but… it's impossible! How can anyone even think to demand impossible things by law?

 

For the same reason people think that overturning Roe v Wade is somehow going to stop women from getting an abortion, spoiler alert: it doesn't, it just stop women from getting a safe abortion, if abortion would become illegal again it would mean the return of abortions in a dark alleyway with a coat hanger.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

It seems to be human nature (common to both left and right) to keep proposing more and more extreme laws, in an apparent attempt to convince the public (or, as Arcadia says, the courts) that they're right....

Or, it occurs to me, perhaps they're hoping that the courts will say "Oh, heavens no!  You can't go that far; you're only allowed to go this far."  And they hope that "this far" is further than the current law permits.

45 minutes ago, Fantasy Lover said:

For the same reason people think that overturning Roe v Wade is somehow going to stop women from getting an abortion, spoiler alert: it doesn't, it just stop women from getting a safe abortion....

I cannot imagine Roe v Wade being overturned in the foreseeable future.  For anyone who doesn't know, that 1973 US Supreme Court ruling specified that no local, state, or federal governmental body could restrict abortions performed during the first trimester (three months) of a pregnancy; that they could restrict (but not ban) second-trimester abortions; and that they could restrict and/or prohibit third-trimester abortions.  I think (and recent polls confirm) that most Americans consider Roe v Wade to be a reasonable legal stance, regardless of their personal feelings about abortion.  So other than perhaps a bit of tinkering around the edges, I expect Roe v Wade to stand indefinitely.

It seems to me that the logical approach for anyone wanting to reduce the number of legal abortions in the US would be to 1) work to ensure that all states restrict and/or ban abortions to the full extent allowable under Roe v Wade; and also 2) test the boundaries (e.g., exactly how is "first trimester" defined in the context of this ruling?) in an attempt to further restrict what's allowable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easier access to contraception is not on the menu? :( Yeah, I know, that's unthinkable for some conservatives because it'd help people (even *gasp* women) enjoy sex. :rolleyes:

ggzQHl1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, J.P. said:

But… but… it's impossible! How can anyone even think to demand impossible things by law?

I don't think they care if it makes sense, as long as it gets them the attention they're seeking.

26 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I cannot imagine Roe v Wade being overturned in the foreseeable future.

Me neither, except … I couldn't have imagined a lot of the things that have happened in this country, and around the world, in the past two-three years. I am making no bets.

32 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Or, it occurs to me, perhaps they're hoping that the courts will say "Oh, heavens no!  You can't go that far; you're only allowed to go this far."  And they hope that "this far" is further than the current law permits.

Yep.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caya said:

Easier access to contraception is not on the menu?

ontraceptives have not been illegal in any state since 1972.  Some contraceptives (e.g., condoms, sponges, and morning-after pills) are available on an over-the-counter basis.  Others require a prescription, but I'm not aware of any that are particularly hard to come by if you're an adult.  Especially with teens, it may be more a question of taking the responsibility and/or affording the available materials and/or hiding them from disapproving parents or partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, still, from what I've read some states and areas don't exactly make things easy (quick google result: https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Health-Care-for-Underserved-Women/Access-to-Contraception?IsMobileSet=false , though this one is from 2015, but I can't imagine that things improved there during the Trump administration), and besides, if you were against abortion, wouldn't you try to make access as easy as you possibly could? I mean that could be my European perspective talking, but here in Vienna teens can get contraceptives (plus related stuff like anonymous medical checks for STDs and such) for free at hospitals, and there are organizations that offer the same for adults. Found a WHO map via another quick googling ( https://thescooponteenpregnancy.weebly.com/ ) that suggests this is handled similarly in most of Western Europe and Canada. Handing out free condoms would seem a more sensible approach to me than picketing abortion clinics, but again, that doesn't enable you to shame folks. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you say makes perfect sense within your framework.  But it's my understanding that people who oppose abortion often don't approve of contraception either.  Not so much a matter of shame as much as the idea that it's not natural to have sex without the possibility of having babies, so contraception is working against God's will.  Last I heard, that was official Roman Catholic doctrine, so what actually "should" be surprising is that contraceptives are so readily available in your nominally-Catholic country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Caya said:

... from what I've read some states and areas don't exactly make things easy (quick google result: https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Health-Care-for-Underserved-Women/Access-to-Contraception?IsMobileSet=false , though this one is from 2015....

After giving that lengthy list a quick scan, my impression is that the organization is primarily demanding 1) that all contraceptives be made available without a prescription and at no charge, and 2) that parental notification or consent not be required for underage females to receive (prescription) contraceptives or related services.  The first point goes well beyond the usual American concept of availability, and some of the demands also seem (to me, at least) medically irresponsible (since prescription contraceptives are well known to have side effects, some potentially serious, and should therefore be used only under a doctor's supervision).  As for the second point, I can see both sides -- if I were a parent, I'd certainly want to know if my teen daughter was even thinking about having sex, but on the other hand, some parents are far more harsh and less understanding than I'd like to think I would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm childless, so it's entirely possible that I'm talking out of my ass here, but I don't think you can stop a determined teen having sex (well unless you resort to illegal stuff like locking them up). All that those parental consent laws manage is to stop them having *safe* sex. At least that's the logic behind those "anyone between 14 and 18 can come in, no name or insurance card asked for, get checked by a doc and then handed the pill and/or pick up condoms for free" places in our hospitals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caya said:

I don't think you can stop a determined teen having sex....

I'm not a parent either, but I did use to be young, so I'm sure you're right about that!  However isn't it a parent's job to offer advice, in the hopes that some of it will prove useful?  If I were aware that my daughter was having sex (or considering it), I'd presumably offer somewhat more specific advice than might otherwise seem appropriate -- same as if I knew she was tempted to try drugs.  Not that even adults have much sense when it comes to those two activities, but at least one can try.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

It seems to me that the logical approach for anyone wanting to reduce the number of legal abortions in the US would be to 1) work to ensure that all states restrict and/or ban abortions to the full extent allowable under Roe v Wade; and also 2) test the boundaries (e.g., exactly how is "first trimester" defined in the context of this ruling?) in an attempt to further restrict what's allowable.

I'm thinking more about caring for BORN children and supporting mothers. I cannot even imagine how women manage to have kids in the USA. If they put the energy and means used for fighting abortion to actually make maternity easier as much as adoption, the abortion rates may go back by themselves.

As for the situation in Europe: In Germany it's not satisfying at all. It's more and more difficult to find doctors doing abortions and they are obviously under pressure (even if not so openly as in the US). We've had a case lately when a doctor got in trouble for giving the information online - it was interpreted as advertising and this is illegal. Condoms are available but you have to pay for them, the same with pills, which have to be prescribed by a gynecologist (which is good IMO)
In Poland it's getting worse in a frightening speed - the governing party frequently attempt to push trough a complete ban on abortions. At the same time pharmacies are allowed to refuse selling means of contraception for conscientious reasons. And they do. It's the twisted, "morality" spread by Catholic Church: "Sex is only for making children". I suppose other Christian churches are not better.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/08/poland-is-trying-to-make-abortion-dangerous-illegal-and-impossible/

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, J.P. said:

If they put the energy and means used for fighting abortion to actually make maternity easier as much as adoption, the abortion rates may go back by themselves.

You're probably right, but only to a certain extent.  For example, if a women doesn't want to have babies but enjoys having sex (which is perfectly understandable), your proposals wouldn't affect her in the least.  The only thing I can think of offhand that might affect her likelihood of having an abortion would be easier, cheaper, more effective means of birth control.

6 hours ago, J.P. said:

pharmacies are allowed to refuse selling means of contraception for conscientious reasons. And they do. It's the twisted, "morality" spread by Catholic Church: "Sex is only for making children". I suppose other Christian churches are not better

If one pharmacy refuses, isn't there another pharmacy more than willing?  That's the way such things work here.  As far as I'm aware, the two main types of churches opposing birth control are the Roman Catholics and (for certain types of birth control such as the morning-after pill) certain fundamentalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2019 at 7:38 PM, Carol the Dabbler said:

Especially with teens, it may be more a question of taking the responsibility [...]

I think that's a lot of it.  I've known teens whose parents basically said, "I'd prefer you didn't have sex, but if you're going to, here's some birth control, please be safe."  And then they didn't use it anyway, and wound up pregnant.  They just don't seem to believe it can happen to them.

9 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

But it's my understanding that people who oppose abortion often don't approve of contraception either.  Not so much a matter of shame as much as the idea that it's not natural to have sex without the possibility of having babies, so contraception is working against God's will.

That, and many view contraception as another form of abortion.  My dad (ambivalent to the abortion issue himself) was/is under the impression that all types of birth control kill already-conceived babies.  He doesn't really understand how most of them are actually preventative, stopping conception before it occurs.  And if that's what he thinks, I'm sure there are lots of other people who think it too.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 36 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.