[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[FAST6191]

A theoretical artificial womb automatically resolves the abortion debate - nobody is particularly interested in women's uteri, they're not a very visually appealing organ to begin with. Most men are interested in other female organs, but I humorously digress. I'm not sure how such a transplant would work, I imagine it would be rather invasive, unless we're talking about some distopian Demolition Man scenario where actual person-to-person sex is an option people don't even consider, favouring cleaner and more clinical means. That's all within the realm of fantasy though, so sadly, we have to deal with the cards we're dealt with. All we can do that is unobjectionably good is to promote responsible intercourse and the use of contraceptives - chastity is great and all if that's people's jam, it's certainly not mine. Other than that, sensible limits in terms of the stage of development of the fetus, as measured by trimesters, seems like a mutually satisfactory solution for both camps. What those limits should be is not up to us or legislators, they should be based on the advice of medical professionals and bioethicists. But that's a crazy nut job take (and the current legal standard), so I'll refrain from further comments and focus on the election going forward.

If transplant is as cheap and easy as abortion, and you can financially cut yourself off from the results (one can hope but also looking around at the things like the sperm donor responsible rulings I am wary).
It would also not obviate the detection of serious illnesses and quality of life debate.

Invasiveness.

Other informative internet videos show me that the holes already used for abortion surgeries can fit things that size (possibly even literally those items in the picture but we will stick with simple girth for now) or otherwise be easily expanded to have even a decent safety margin if hitting the sides is an issue or you want some encapsulation. At anything like the timelines most abortions take place on then look within size tolerances.

If somehow full placenta can not be harvested and attached in time then establish a connection with the umbilical (possibly a simplified can exist like this for a while a la transplants) and then reattach (maybe with the full complement of long term/growth* requirements if they were skipped earlier). Also we have seen it with complex life (sheep in most cases you will read) already.

*I am curious there actually. Development wise the simplistic biology textbook notes that humans might otherwise carry their young for way north of 9 months (growth, bone fusion, joints, neural development milestones...). Would any additional time in have benefits that might outweigh the first year or so of development?

As far as "unobjectionably" goes I take it you have not been paying much attention to the abstinence only stuff in the US. My least favourite one as a fallout of that such things being "girls should not get HPV vaccinated because it will encourage them to have sex", though stats on condoms (which of course they do not teach which makes the worst case that much more likely to happen) is also an ever fun one. Likewise while the Roman Catholic church is wavering a bit on living together before marriage that is still a hard sell for many within it.

Sorry, yes - cloning was the subject on our previous exchange about that..

Societies pushback against artificial insemination and carrying out your child in an artificial womb? Sure you have seen that.. a little bit of a mix between 'Values, religions, social norms, fking is fun and cost.'.

Women would be brandmarked as uncaring/bad mothers probably.. Lets say I forsee, that this business will have an image problem..

I don't doubt they won't have the easiest ride and will have to play some PR.
However said PR is not very hard when you are helping people have a career, infertile couples, people receive life saving treatment, people start a family where pregnancy is risky for the host or the parasite (or has become it during it), in some places in the world then have a larger family, older women to have such things, possibly some gays to have a baby, the ability to grow cells to save someone (harder to sell there to some but to others... again we already have people get pregnant to harvest organs, cells and whatnot).
Every one of those is either sympathetic or rich enough to help push it through.

 

[Foxi4]

Sorry, yes - cloning was the subject of our previous exchange about that..

Societies pushback against artificial insemination and carrying out your child in an artificial womb? Sure you have seen that.. a little bit of a mix between 'Values, religions, social norms, fking is fun and cost.'.

Women would be brandmarked as uncaring/bad mothers probably.. (And natural births would be seen as 'luxury' if that scales, which first needs a society I cant even imagine yet. ) Lets say I forsee, that this business will have an image problem..

edit: Forgot "prior art".

For once we think alike - I too dislike the concept of replacing the real deal with blinking lights, for purely selfish reasons. In fact, I mentioned Demolition Man myself, what a great film!

 

[notimp]

Nice, here is your dessert: Cultural politics being used by the right as a distraction to maintain a public interest debate about - largely decided and superfluous issues:



Courts being used as 'have to do nothing' cards for political actors, in return meaning they become HEAVILY politicized. Then make it so you leave the same ones in place for 40 years without any electoral influence, and flipping feed the populous with absolute nonsense discussions, while anything important happens (trade deals, income disparity widening, wars ...).

Thats pretty much the meme that hits closest to reality right now.

Dont want to hurt people that have campaigned for 20 years to save them babies, but - at one point, grow up, would you? (Spoken to anyone that might read this.)

 

[UltraSUPRA]

If you don't want babies, don't have sex.

 

[gregory-samba]

You forgot a certain group which wishes war with Iran.

Which group is that?

For Decades the Liberals and Democrats cried about our troops fighting in wars or being stuck for long durations in other countries, yet the minute we get an anti-war President like Trump they attack him each time he orders troops to come home. I've yet seen them attack him for not starting any new wars, but based on their history of automatically being the polar opposite in opinion to anything Trump does I wouldn't put it past him. I'm referring to wanting to "cancel" the Nobel Peace Prize due to Trump being nominated or bashing Trump for working for free as he is donating his entire Presidential salary to worthy causes. Basically, if it benefits Trump or if Trump has an opinion on something you can expect without fail for the Liberal Democrats to have the polar opposite opinion/views/reaction and that's regardless of what their views or self proclaimed value system used to be.

Iran is a communist country and by their own admission our enemies. They seek to produce nuclear weapons and frequently threaten to harm the USA and its allies. Hell, they threaten other countries that aren't our allies. If anyone wants confrontation it's Iran and even though Trump has responded to their threats by basically saying "Don't you fucking dare" he hasn't gone out of his way to start a war. We aren't a weak country and shouldn't bow down to others especially when they are threatening us, but I don't see this current administration going out of its way to attack first.

 

[notimp]

Which group is that?

For Decades the Liberals and Democrats cried about our troops fighting in wars or being stuck for long durations in other countries, yet the minute we get an anti-war President like Trump they attack him each time he orders troops to come home. I've yet seen them attack him for not starting any new wars, but based on their history of automatically being the polar opposite in opinion to anything Trump does I wouldn't put it past him. I'm referring to wanting to "cancel" the Nobel Peace Prize due to Trump being nominated or bashing Trump for working for free as he is donating his entire Presidential salary to worthy causes. Basically, if it benefits Trump or if Trump has an opinion on something you can expect without fail for the Liberal Democrats to have the polar opposite opinion/views/reaction and that's regardless of what their views or self proclaimed value system used to be.

Iran is a communist country and by their own admission our enemies. They seek to produce nuclear weapons and frequently threaten to harm the USA and its allies. Hell, they threaten other countries that aren't our allies. If anyone wants confrontation it's Iran and even though Trump has responded to their threats by basically saying "Don't you fucking dare" he hasn't gone out of his way to start a war. We aren't a weak country and shouldn't bow down to others especially when they are threatening us, but I don't see this current administration going out of its way to attack first.

Beware of people that make terms like Liberals and Democrats FAT to denounce them better.

They are lying to you on other things as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Iran (The communist party in Iran is banned. Following the previous communist party in Iran, which was also banned.)

If you know nothing - the idea is, that in any open discussion you get laughed out of the room (or applauded, if the room is more polite). Otherwise why hold open debates.


edit: Also this to counter your other point:

 

[Seliph]

If you don't want babies, don't have sex.

"If you don't want to get hit by a car don't cross the street"

 

[UltraSUPRA]

"If you don't want to get hit by a car don't cross the street"

They're just soooo similar.

 

[notimp]

They're just soooo similar.

Accidents happen.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Accidents happen.

"accidental sex"

 

[notimp]

"accidental sex"

Accidental baby. When contraceptives fail, or the women forgot to take the pill f.e.

The argument is fully layed out on the previous page, you just had to read it.

Abortion is not the first choice, nor the second or third, for any responsible human being, but you need it as a contingency - or you are at the 'telling women to stay abstinent, just in case contraception fails' stages again. Chastity.

Also never forget, this is the 2020 presidential election thread.

You are tpromoting, voting for Trump, because of that baby killing issue that was decided on in the sixties. Regardless of RBG's replacement being voted in prior to the next term, juuuuust in case.

Other popular reasons include voting for Trump because of child molesters (actual argument brought in this thread), and terrorists. Or nonexisting communists.

Finish this sentence - you know the US has seized being a functioning democracy, when...

 

[Seliph]

"accidental sex"

Accidental pregnancy. Much like you don't HAVE to cross the street, you also don't HAVE to have sex. But everyone does both of those things anyway unless they're a loser because doing otherwise is impractical or just boring. Because of this fact, it makes much more sense to try to mitigate or prevent accidental pregnancy rather than promote abstinence just as it would make much more sense to mitigate or prevent traffic accidents rather than tell people not to cross the street. People will have sex and they will cross the street despite the risks no matter what you say.

Just like condoms are a contraceptive for sexual reproduction, traffic lights are a "contraceptive" for traffic accidents. Do they always work? No, but they're much better solutions than just saying "don't do the thing".

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Accidental pregnancy. Much like you don't HAVE to cross the street, you also don't HAVE to have sex. But everyone does both of those things anyway unless they're a loser because doing otherwise is impractical or just boring.

"Not having sex is impractical."

 

[Seliph]

"Not having sex is impractical."

1. You're just obviously just trying to divert the discussion from my main point.
2. I said OR BORING ya dummy. It's literally in what you quoted.
3. The definition of impractical is "(of an object or course of action) not adapted for use or action; not sensible or realistic." It is not sensible or realistic to expect most people to not have sex. Most people have sex, that's just a fact of life. You're trying to rebut my point from a semantical perspective which is already a fallacy in itself and you can't even do that right lol.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

The definition of impractical is "(of an object or course of action) not adapted for use or action; not sensible or realistic." It is not sensible or realistic to expect someone to not have sex. Most people have sex, that's just a fact of life. You're trying to rebut my point from a semantical perspective and you can't even do that right lol.

The fact that you're saying this on a gaming forum shows how ignorant you are.

 

[Seliph]

The fact that you're saying this on a gaming forum shows how ignorant you are.

What leap of logic led you to that conclusion?

You've still failed to address my argument anyways so I'm assuming you agree with me.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

What leap of logic led you to that conclusion?

Stereotypical nerd virginity.

 

[Seliph]

Stereotypical nerd virginity.

The tiny population of one gaming forum is in no way congruent to the population of the Earth. Just because proportionally more people on this site don't have sex according to your assumption doesn't mean the majority of people on Earth don't as well. There's apparently 444875 members on this website? Accounting for the fact that a lot of those accounts are probably bots or inactive, that's still only about 5% of the world's population, and would probably be much less once you factor in bots and throwaway accounts and inactive accounts.

So my statement is still true, and more people have sex than you'd think anyways, including people on this forum.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

The tiny population of one gaming forum is in no way congruent to the population of the Earth. Just because proportionally more people on this site don't have sex according to your assumption doesn't mean the majority of people on Earth don't as well. There's apparently 444875 members on this website? Accounting for the fact that a lot of those accounts are probably bots or inactive, that's still only about 5% of the world's population, and would probably be much less once you factor in bots and throwaway accounts and inactive accounts.

So my statement is still true, and more people have sex than you'd think anyways, including people on this forum.

So GBAtemp is the only forum with nerds and virgins.

 

[Lacius]

For terminating unborn life, I found it repulsive that anyone would defend such an action. I highly doubt the 51,000 unborn children that are slaughtered per month in the USA are all done "legally, safe and with rarity". I also highly doubt a large percentage were done to simply save the mother as most are done because the mother, father or both simply don't want the child. It really ticks me off that the Liberal news media values some microorganisms in Venus's clouds more than they do valid human being or what it to shortly become a full fledged human being.

1. They're fetuses, not children.
2. Fetuses aren't people.
3. Even if fetuses were people, that wouldn't negate a woman's right to bodily autonomy. In other words, she can't be forced to carry a pregnancy anymore than you can be forced to donate an organ.

I also don't believe in abandoning the child once it's born. While it's not my responsibility to pay or raise other peoples kids, it solely lies on the biological female and male that brought the human being into this world. I would want the child to be raised by a biological women and male, the same two that created it and they should be responsible enough to provide housing, food, clothing, medical care and anything else the child needs (not wants, NEEDS). The child should then be provided with a proper education, minus the indoctrination crap and be allowed to choose for himself of what he or she wants to be when they grow up (as in there's no socialism/communism where the child has no choice or say in the matter).

I imagine the point somebody was trying to make was that conservatives don't seem to care much about life after it's born. They want to defund social programs, they don't seem to care about people having access to affordable health care, etc.

I don't think we should get rid of the electoral college, but I find what @omgcat proposal of increasing the number of representatives logical and interesting. Of course, the number of representatives should be proportional to the number of legal USA citizens (not illegals).

There's no reason why a person who doesn't get the most votes should be elected president. Conservatives like the Electoral College because it gives them an advantage. Other than that one reason, it's pretty difficult to defend.

Finally, the entire deal between Trump filling a vacant seat is not even comparable to an extremely radical thing like adding 3 more Judges to the Supreme Court. There's a stark difference between the two, regardless of how hypocritical either side is being. I wouldn't agree with Trump adding 3 more after whomever he nominates takes the bench. There is a vacant seat and it does need to be filled, and even though @Lacius is glad I admit I could care less if the Conservatives are being hypocritical in a hypothetical situation they currently are not as there was and still is certain criteria that is different between back in 2016 and now in 2020.

It wouldn't be radical nor hypocritical to pack the court in response to a Republican power grab based in hypocrisy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Look, I'm pro-choice, but a fetus does start to develop sentience as it's brain and central nervous system begins to form, which happens at the beginning of the 2nd trimester (month 4). It does have a brain for at least half of the length of an average pregnancy. It's not fully developed, but if you want to get technical I'm not sure the human brain becomes fully developed until around 25 years of age.

Beginning to form a brain and central nervous system does not make sentience. It also doesn't matter if a fetus were sentient (it's not).