Senate Election Thread (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Cool. There's no one advocating for abortion with absolutely no restrictions, which was the point @MT15 was making.


    So, the Democrat's position. Also, the position we had before the overturn of Roe.


    Yea. There's not much difference. People generally agree on a middle ground, which is pretty much the position of the Democractic party.
    Actually, the impression that is being left by some democrats during debates is that they favor no restrictions. I heard a couple of debates where the democrat was asked if they favored any restrictions, and they avoided answering the question by saying the decision is up to the mother and her doctor. Since SOME (albeit very few) mothers would abort in the 3rd trimester despite a healthy pregnancy and fetus, then that's essentially saying no restriction. I did hear one democrat say that they favor no restrictions up until viability, and that is the answer that the vast majority of Americans support, which is essentially Roe. Democrats that want to win have to say that, otherwise it can be interpreted as no restrictions. Some democrats are afraid to say that it shouldn't be completely the woman's choice in the 3rd trimester, because there are a substantial number of people that believe that, but they are not going to vote for Republicans, and really only 20% say it should be legal in the 3rd trimester just because the woman doesn't want the baby. Regardless of one's personal preference on abortion, the smart political position is to say you support Roe, because anything beyond that starts to get into small numbers that are going to vote for the more liberal party anyway. The democrats gain nothing by trying to advocate for no 3rd trimester restrictions. It's just dumb politics.

     
    Honestly, it doesn't matter what the Democrats message is on the economy is. American voters have it baked into their unconscious/conscious beliefs that Republicans are better for the economy because they cut taxes and regulation. That belief is reinforced by corporate America because Republicans allow them to operate with impunity as long as they fill their campaign coffers and keep their mouth shut on social issues. It's also reinforced by a 24 hour conservative and main stream news cycle that often parrot Republican talking points.

    Democrats are often scared to talk about regulations and new taxes because of fear of backlash from the public sense it's been so conditioned to believe that those things are negative and evil after years of propaganda. They also receive plenty of corporate political donations to effect their vote on bills that do go through to make policy more advantageous for corporate America. And while trickle down economics have been shown over and over again to be a farce, there are many Americans (a large majority of which are poor and middle class) that believe it does work and want to keep those principles in play.

    And too many people are too busy or stupid to have an informed opinion on the economy, so tropes and biases rule the day.
    That's true, but Democrats need to empathize with the pain caused by inflation, but don't allow that to define the economy. They need to emphasize that inflation is cyclical and global. Then they need to bang the message about how much better we are doing relative to our peer nations, that the economy is very good, and the benefits in the long term to our debt and deficit. I've heard Biden doing it, but not many other Democrats, and Biden isn't the best messenger anyway.
     
    Last edited:
    Actually, the impression that is being left by some democrats during debates is that they favor no restrictions. I heard a couple of debates where the democrat was asked if they favored any restrictions, and they avoided answering the question by saying the decision is up to the mother and her doctor.
    That's not avoiding the question. That's facing the reality that the woman and the doctor know best, and putting a blanket *NO ABORTIONS AFTER 20 WEEKS* or whatever on it ignores the reality that sometimes, the doctor doesn't find out about complications, fetal abnormalities, and the like until the 3rd trimester.

    Since SOME (albeit very few) mothers would abort in the 3rd trimester despite a healthy pregnancy and fetus, then that's essentially saying no restriction.
    A stretch. You'll have a hard time finding a doctor willing to abort a perfectly viable baby in the third trimester.

    I did hear one democrat say that they favor no restrictions up until viability, and that is the answer that the vast majority of Americans support, which is essentially Roe. Democrats that want to win have to say that, otherwise it can be interpreted as no restrictions.
    Versus the extreme conservative position of "life begins at conception and all abortions are illegal after that, regardless of rape, incest, life of the mother, viability of the fetus or any other factors."

    The difference here is that no one is actually arguing for completely unrestricted access to abortion - that's only your "interpretation" of what's being argued. On the other hand, Republicans are, right now, passing laws that enshrine the extreme conservative position.
     
    That's not avoiding the question. That's facing the reality that the woman and the doctor know best, and putting a blanket *NO ABORTIONS AFTER 20 WEEKS* or whatever on it ignores the reality that sometimes, the doctor doesn't find out about complications, fetal abnormalities, and the like until the 3rd trimester.


    A stretch. You'll have a hard time finding a doctor willing to abort a perfectly viable baby in the third trimester.


    Versus the extreme conservative position of "life begins at conception and all abortions are illegal after that, regardless of rape, incest, life of the mother, viability of the fetus or any other factors."

    The difference here is that no one is actually arguing for completely unrestricted access to abortion - that's only your "interpretation" of what's being argued. On the other hand, Republicans are, right now, passing laws that enshrine the extreme conservative position.
    I'm a democrat, and that's the interpretation that I'm getting by not answering the question affirmatively to restrictions. The restrictions could be life and health of the mother and fetus, but that's a restriction, so why is it so hard to say that? If you are not willing to answer that question unambiguously, then it leaves it open to interpretation. You may interpret it otherwise, but many won't interpret it like you. It should be answered unambiguously. It may be hard to find a doctor willing to do it, but not impossible, so that's irrelevant. If no doctor would do it in the 3rd trimester unless it is health related, then that restriction is a layup. If that's the case, then say that, but don't avoid answering the question. No one can deny that a woman and her doctor know best, however it isn't out of the realm of reality that a woman may abort, even if it isn't medically needed in the 3rd trimester. The democrat will lose nothing by saying that we should only allow abortions due to health in the 3rd trimester, but will lose some middle of the road people by leaving the ambiguity. Democrats that do otherwise are going to lose voters, and with a very closely divided electorate, that's dumb politics.

    By the way, the 3rd trimester begins on the 27th week, so this isn't about 20 weeks, so I'm not sure why you put that in your reply. No governmental restrictions in the 2nd trimester are much more palatable to most people.

    Also, many Republicans are arguing that Democrats want no restrictions, even up until the birth of the baby. Democrats can dispel that by being clear, and not equivocating on their response to the question of restrictions. Republicans that argue for total bans are also going to lose voters. The difference is that they'll lose less voters, because Republican voters are more willing to vote for people they don't like.
     
    Last edited:
    I'm a democrat, and that's the interpretation that I'm getting by not answering the question affirmatively to restrictions. The restrictions could be life and health of the mother and fetus, but that's a restriction, so why is it so hard to say that? If you are not willing to answer that question unambiguously, then it leaves it open to interpretation. You may interpret it otherwise, but many won't interpret it like you. It should be answered unambiguously. It may be hard to find a doctor willing to do it, but not impossible, so that's irrelevant. If no doctor would do it in the 3rd trimester unless it is health related, then that restriction is a layup. If that's the case, then say that, but don't avoid answering the question. No one can deny that a woman and her doctor know best, however it isn't out of the realm of reality that a woman may abort, even if it isn't medically needed in the 3rd trimester. The democrat will lose nothing by saying that we should only allow abortions due to health in the 3rd trimester, but will lose some middle of the road people by leaving the ambiguity. Democrats that do otherwise are going to lose voters, and with a very closely divided electorate, that's dumb politics.
    If your argument is one primarily of messaging versus actual policy, then I generally see your point.

    By the way, the 3rd trimester begins on the 27th week, so this isn't about 20 weeks, so I'm not sure why you put that in your reply. No governmental restrictions in the 2nd trimester are much more palatable to most people.
    The "or whatever" part after that was because I was just arbitrarily throwing out a number of weeks, which is generally how these sorts of restrictions are implemented.
     
    If your argument is one primarily of messaging versus actual policy, then I generally see your point.


    The "or whatever" part after that was because I was just arbitrarily throwing out a number of weeks, which is generally how these sorts of restrictions are implemented.
    Until our democracy is secured again, it is mostly about messaging, because we need Democrats to win so they can pass legislation to fortify our democratic institutions.

    Note, if the politician believes in no restrictions in the 3rd trimester, then avoiding the question is the best approach, because admitting that they don't believe in any restrictions is going to cost them more votes than they will win by admitting to their true belief. I don't condone lying to get elected, but since that is a minority position, it won't get implemented into policy any time soon, so I suppose it is harmless; however, most thought that Roe wouldn't be overturned, so similarly some places may remove all abortion restrictions, and that will weaken the Democratic party over time in those areas. Also, if that's the position of the Democrat's that are avoiding the question, then I think we put forth the wrong candidate, because that is not the mainstream position. If Democrats want to maintain a majority, then need to acknowledge that some restrictions are acceptable.
     
    Actually both the position that it is a woman's choice, without any restrictions, is just as radical as the position that a woman can't have an abortion after 6 weeks or if a pregnancy will inevitably fail. The middle ground is that 3rd term abortions should have restrictions, 1st terms should not have any restrictions, and then something in between for 2nd term abortions. Also, while women are overwhelmingly pro choice, about half of women believe there should be restrictions, which is just barely less than men. So there isn't much of a difference between men and women. That may not be reflected by legislatures yet.

    I don’t think you came close to understanding my point. Not even sure why you quoted me in this reply.
     
    I'm a democrat, and that's the interpretation that I'm getting by not answering the question affirmatively to restrictions. The restrictions could be life and health of the mother and fetus, but that's a restriction, so why is it so hard to say that? If you are not willing to answer that question unambiguously, then it leaves it open to interpretation. You may interpret it otherwise, but many won't interpret it like you. It should be answered unambiguously. It may be hard to find a doctor willing to do it, but not impossible, so that's irrelevant. If no doctor would do it in the 3rd trimester unless it is health related, then that restriction is a layup. If that's the case, then say that, but don't avoid answering the question. No one can deny that a woman and her doctor know best, however it isn't out of the realm of reality that a woman may abort, even if it isn't medically needed in the 3rd trimester. The democrat will lose nothing by saying that we should only allow abortions due to health in the 3rd trimester, but will lose some middle of the road people by leaving the ambiguity. Democrats that do otherwise are going to lose voters, and with a very closely divided electorate, that's dumb politics.

    By the way, the 3rd trimester begins on the 27th week, so this isn't about 20 weeks, so I'm not sure why you put that in your reply. No governmental restrictions in the 2nd trimester are much more palatable to most people.

    Also, many Republicans are arguing that Democrats want no restrictions, even up until the birth of the baby. Democrats can dispel that by being clear, and not equivocating on their response to the question of restrictions. Republicans that argue for total bans are also going to lose voters. The difference is that they'll lose less voters, because Republican voters are more willing to vote for people they don't like.
    You still don’t get it. There are lots of women who get really bad news at about 28 weeks - the fetus is lacking a vital organ completely, or only has a brain stem, etc. The treatment should be between a doctor and a patient at that point. The government has no say.

    The “elective” abortion of a healthy fetus in the area of viability is a myth perpetuated by forced-birthers who want only to control women. There are zero elective abortions of viable fetuses. Zero. So you can quit talking and worrying about it.
     
    You still don’t get it. There are lots of women who get really bad news at about 28 weeks - the fetus is lacking a vital organ completely, or only has a brain stem, etc. The treatment should be between a doctor and a patient at that point. The government has no say.

    The “elective” abortion of a healthy fetus in the area of viability is a myth perpetuated by forced-birthers who want only to control women. There are zero elective abortions of viable fetuses. Zero. So you can quit talking and worrying about it.
    I do get it. You haven't read what I've written in multiple posts. I've said that Democrats can and should say that health for both the mother or the fetus is a reasonable reason to have an abortion in the 3rd trimester, but there should be restrictions for other reasons. When Democrats refuse to say whether OTHER reasons should be restricted by simply saying it is the woman's choice, then many will interpret that to mean that they would allow abortions for ANY reason the woman wants. If they don't mean that, then they should say so, because they will not lose votes for saying that.
     
    I do get it. You haven't read what I've written in multiple posts. I've said that Democrats can and should say that health for both the mother or the fetus is a reasonable reason to have an abortion in the 3rd trimester, but there should be restrictions for other reasons. When Democrats refuse to say whether OTHER reasons should be restricted by simply saying it is the woman's choice, then many will interpret that to mean that they would allow abortions for ANY reason the woman wants. If they don't mean that, then they should say so, because they will not lose votes for saying that.
    I agree. The ones who don't do well in articulating the nuance there do a disservice overall imo and are wide open in leaving and being attacked upon the impression that they're OK with abortion at any point in the pregnancy for any reason.
     
    I agree. The ones who don't do well in articulating the nuance there do a disservice overall imo and are wide open in leaving and being attacked upon the impression that they're OK with abortion at any point in the pregnancy for any reason.
    To illustrate the point, from survey of 2020 Democratic Presidential nominees:

    Asked if they supported restrictions after 24 weeks — roughly when a healthy fetus can survive outside the womb, though viability varies from pregnancy to pregnancy — only Mr. Sestak said yes. (Ms. Gabbard, who did not complete the survey, has also said she supports restrictions in the third trimester.) Several candidates emphasized that less than 1 percent of abortions happen that late, often because of life-threatening conditions or severe fetal abnormalities.

    From the actual survey itself:
    q:Should there be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability (roughly 24 weeks)? If so, what restrictions?

    a:Bernie believes that women should control their own bodies, period.

    OK, got it. But in plain language I'd say there's some portion of voters that are pro-choice who'll be put off by that answer to a specific question regarding viability and also to just say it like that in response to a question directly asking about viability is too easily reframed and attacked as "he's OK with abortion at any time in a pregnancy for any reason, period."
     
    Here’s the issue - there’s no way a legislature can articulate exactly which conditions during the third trimester are valid for abortion and which are not. Medicine is too complicated.

    And when you criminalize medical care the actual patient who possibly could be saved will suffer. And might die. If you say the “life of the woman” then physicians will wait until the woman’s life is actually in danger, in other words - they will wait until the woman starts to die before they make a move. We are seeing this happen already. Doctors are being told that the woman’s vital signs must be unstable before they can intervene. This is insane.

    I will say this again-nobody is aborting healthy viable babies. It’s not happening, no matter how often you guys speculate about it. It’s a lie told by those who wish to punish and control women. But if you start putting conditions in writing - there will be women who die because doctors are trying to figure out what they can and cannot do, instead of doing their jobs.
     
    Here’s the issue - there’s no way a legislature can articulate exactly which conditions during the third trimester are valid for abortion and which are not. Medicine is too complicated.

    And when you criminalize medical care the actual patient who possibly could be saved will suffer. And might die. If you say the “life of the woman” then physicians will wait until the woman’s life is actually in danger, in other words - they will wait until the woman starts to die before they make a move. We are seeing this happen already. Doctors are being told that the woman’s vital signs must be unstable before they can intervene. This is insane.

    I will say this again-nobody is aborting healthy viable babies. It’s not happening, no matter how often you guys speculate about it. It’s a lie told by those who wish to punish and control women. But if you start putting conditions in writing - there will be women who die because doctors are trying to figure out what they can and cannot do, instead of doing their jobs.
    Then there is the rest of the story...If you say "life of the woman," what happens when a woman is undergoing a difficult pregnancy, and if she continues to carry the child, there is a 99% chance that she will end up damaging her uterus to the point that she can never have a child again? That's not "life of the woman," so no termination of that pregnancy. What if she will lose her sight? or a limb?

    As you said, trying to articulate only certain medical conditions ends up leaving a position where anything outside of that verbiage is available as a condition for termination.
     
    Yes, we have already have a woman who had to have an emergency hysterectomy and now will no longer be able to have children because the doctors had to wait for the fetal heartbeat to cease before they could intervene.

    This is insane.
     
    Here’s the issue - there’s no way a legislature can articulate exactly which conditions during the third trimester are valid for abortion and which are not. Medicine is too complicated.

    And when you criminalize medical care the actual patient who possibly could be saved will suffer. And might die. If you say the “life of the woman” then physicians will wait until the woman’s life is actually in danger, in other words - they will wait until the woman starts to die before they make a move. We are seeing this happen already. Doctors are being told that the woman’s vital signs must be unstable before they can intervene. This is insane.

    I will say this again-nobody is aborting healthy viable babies. It’s not happening, no matter how often you guys speculate about it. It’s a lie told by those who wish to punish and control women. But if you start putting conditions in writing - there will be women who die because doctors are trying to figure out what they can and cannot do, instead of doing their jobs.

    Then there is the rest of the story...If you say "life of the woman," what happens when a woman is undergoing a difficult pregnancy, and if she continues to carry the child, there is a 99% chance that she will end up damaging her uterus to the point that she can never have a child again? That's not "life of the woman," so no termination of that pregnancy. What if she will lose her sight? or a limb?

    As you said, trying to articulate only certain medical conditions ends up leaving a position where anything outside of that verbiage is available as a condition for termination.
    I would agree that "life of the mother" is too specific an exception because there's much that can go beyond that such as your example.

    To try and nail this down, I think for me we're really more or less talking about if and when during a pregnancy should consultation and potentially sign off by a doctor/doctors be required beyond a woman's basic right to request and have an abortion performed with no questions asked.

    In that way, "it's between a woman and her doctor" is largely evasive to that specific point.
     
    Doctors already take an oath - do no harm. It’s just a bad idea to criminalize any medical care, IMO. If the fetus is viable, as soon as it is removed it is a person-and is protected by all our laws. Why do we need to intrude on women’s medical care?

    I will repeat - third trimester abortions do not happen unless there is something seriously wrong with the fetus or the condition of the mother.

    Women feel such a bond by the third trimester. These are wanted pregnancies. Often names have been selected, nurseries are in progress, the woman feels the fetus move, hiccup, knows when it is sleeping and when it is awake. Knows what foods will cause some hyper-activity.

    We have laws which would apply to the death of a viable baby. It’s enough.
     
    Here’s the issue - there’s no way a legislature can articulate exactly which conditions during the third trimester are valid for abortion and which are not. Medicine is too complicated.

    And when you criminalize medical care the actual patient who possibly could be saved will suffer. And might die. If you say the “life of the woman” then physicians will wait until the woman’s life is actually in danger, in other words - they will wait until the woman starts to die before they make a move. We are seeing this happen already. Doctors are being told that the woman’s vital signs must be unstable before they can intervene. This is insane.

    I will say this again-nobody is aborting healthy viable babies. It’s not happening, no matter how often you guys speculate about it. It’s a lie told by those who wish to punish and control women. But if you start putting conditions in writing - there will be women who die because doctors are trying to figure out what they can and cannot do, instead of doing their jobs.
    Is it hard to simply say that the only exceptions after viability is the life of the mother or fetus? Doctors can definitely make the diagnosis of a serious health risk, and that can be required by legislation. The problem has been not including the fetus in the assessment, so doctors have had to wait to remove dead fetuses.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom