Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
American Politics Is Changing
For decades, Democrat politicians have based their campaigns on the idea that capitalism was mean to poor people. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work. Poverty and inequality can be cured only through socialism. The only reason for you to complain that your taxes are too high is if you hate poor people.
Now that Democrats are in charge, and are implementing their preferred policies, we are seeing their impact in real-time. Particularly on poor people. Inflation bothers rich people like me, but it’s devastating to those trying to live on $50,000 a year. Voters are starting to wonder if perhaps, just perhaps, centralized control systems are less humane than Democrats have claimed. Bernie Sanders is responding to this as one might expect, by demanding expansions of Social Security and Medicare. But other Democrats are reading the tea leaves differently.
I think that all Democrats can do, at this point, is double down on racism and global warming: “Ok, our fiscal policies are horrifying. But if you elect Republicans, they’ll kill black people and destroy Mother Earth! Do you hate black people? Do you hate our planet? No? Well then, you have no choice but to vote Democrat. Never mind the economy, the border, European wars, or all those other petty complaints. You vote on the side of the angels!” This is an interesting, but fundamental, change to our national discussion. But wait – there’s more!
Because Democrat policies were obviously destructive, Americans have long been hesitant to put too many Democrats in power. Bill Clinton was a “New Democrat”. Barack Obama was a saintly figure above earthly politics. Joe Biden didn’t campaign on anything – in fact, he didn’t campaign at all. No Democrat could win running on Democrat policies.
But the Democrat party continued our leftward surge with two institutions: the media and the Supreme Court. The media did their best to promote leftism, and the Supreme Court wrote new laws that Congress could never pass. This worked fairly well, for a long time.
But the internet has created problems for the old media. Fox News was the first crack in the dam, but The Daily Wire, Powerline, Ricochet, and many others have provided a source of alternative viewpoints that didn’t exist until recently. Not just conservative viewpoints. But alternative viewpoints. People started to think, just a bit.
And the Supreme Court has changed. It has recently developed an interest in the U.S. Constitution. Which is obviously a very serious problem for Democrats.
So I look at the Democrats being forced to change their message from hope for a better day, to simply avoiding mean tweets. And I look at alternative forms of media gaining a foothold. And I look at a new Supreme Court which seems more interested in our Constitution.
And I think to myself, “The Democrats have a very serious problem, here…”
Of course, my optimism is based on the idea that America selects its leaders via elections. If that is no longer true, then never mind – forget I said anything.
But if elections resume in the future, then perhaps the Democrats have a problem, and perhaps America has hope.
What do you think?
Are these changes as significant as I suggest?
Is there hope that America can climb out of the hole that we have dug for ourselves?
Perhaps things are changing. Perhaps there is hope.
What do you think?
Published in General
Well the point is that Plan B, and some other birth control pills, ARE abortifacient. Maybe not always, but they can have that effect if ovulation has already occurred. That’s simply a fact.
Some/many/maybe even most people may not think that’s sufficiently important, at such an early point, but it’s still a fact.
Various conservatives and conservative groups – many based on religion but not all – have determined that THEIR MEMBERS are not to participate in that, and remain in good standing (if either they or the various levels of officials of their group sufficiently care, which may not necessarily be the case even for Catholics, considering the Joe Bidens and Nancy Pelosis etc).
Whether Plan B should be made illegal because it’s an abortifacient, is different from the position of various conservatives/religions that it’s a sin, or whatever. And you can argue that Plan B and other abortifacient “birth control” chemicals should be legal, maybe just for utilitarian reasons because you think it’s less bad if the woman does it to herself earlier with a pill rather than going to a “doctor” (or a back alley or whatever). But some “birth control” pills, including Plan B, can have an abortifacient effect which ends a developing human life, and that’s all there is to it. Pretending that it’s not true doesn’t help your position.
You don’t think this topic is fully vetted publicly, including by doctors, then so be it.
If you made them widely available, and advertised it for when people screw up, the amount of abortions, including what you are saying here, would go way down.
Just for extra clarity, I don’t think threatening to stop abortions with government force does any net good for society.
Maybe it helps teach people that human life isn’t supposed to be disposable? Seems like we could use a lot more of that attitude, these days.
You think that making a relatively cheap abortion pill widely available, would mean FEWER people would use it? I’m still rather surprised that your views here would be so apparently opposite your positions regarding economics. When does making something easier and cheaper, result in LESS of it?
Yes, it probably reduces the number of surgical abortions, but again, the point here is that an abortifacient chemical is still an abortion.
If it were to be less expensive per “incident” than, say, condoms – which need to be used EVERY TIME to be effective – do you think people would still shell out for condoms? Why? Especially if they “take the hint” that it’s no big deal to just take a pill and forget about it.
What should be done?
What this comes down to is the percentage of times that you et. al. say it acts like an abortion pill and when doctors say it acts like an abortion pill.
The first policy defense is to encourage men and women to use the over one dozen ordinary contraceptives.
The second one is Plan B.
The public policy order of battle is obvious.
That seems rather utilitarian, which is what the left specializes in.
You can either go with the obvious math or something else. Be my guest.
It doesn’t need to be 90% or 50% or even 10% or 1% abortifacient rather than contraceptive, in order to be abortifacient. (Although given the facts of timing with ovulation etc, it’s probably abortifacient more than people want to believe, more than doctors want to say, etc.) Which is why people who are serious – really serious – about opposing abortion, oppose abortifacient “contraception” too. “Plausible deniability” is insufficient in that situation.
Teach men and women to be less irresponsible, keep their legs together, etc? You may think that battle is lost, but that’s not the only position someone can have.
That’s very nice, and feel free to keep pushing that policy position.
Why do you think it’s obviously good math? I just pointed out that if you make chemical abortion (even if it’s only a fraction of the events) cheap and easy, why wouldn’t people do MORE of it rather than less? And living down to base instincts seems to be one of the calling cards of the left, again.
Almost 6am, time for bed.
I already explained why this is wrong.
Feel free to petition the government to use force in the way you are recommending. Nobody is going to stop you.
The government could do it at gunpoint. That’s how they do everything else.
Getting back to the OP, this is outstanding about how the financial system and the political system interact.
https://www.theinvestorspodcast.com/episodes/what-is-money-w-lyn-alden/
In other words, if you are frustrated with why everything moves left all of the time, a lot of the answers are in there.
Hard to win a battle when there are no consequences for the other side. Time to bring back consequences for sexual promiscuity.
Don’t IUD s prevent implantation.
I’m not going make a big public deal out of it, but that’s basically what one of the other doctors was talking about on this website on a different post and discussion. Pro life doctor. I’m going with him. I’ve never seen the other way get much political recognition or whatever you want to call it. There must be a reason.
If the worst that was out there was Plan B and IUD, I’d call that a win.
Infanticide is baked into the human condition.
All cultures have practiced it.
I’ll take what 8 can get.
deleted
This proves my point I think. Thanks Rufus.
What’s NFP?
I’ll guess natural family planning.
No form of NFP, or using condoms etc, can ever be abortifacient. They serve to prevent conception, and nothing else.
NFP is natural family planning. It uses knowledge of sperm longevity and female cycles to strategically abstain from sex in order to avoid pregnancy. We were quite successful with it until my husband ignored my warning and decided he wanted sex anyway :p
Are you here all night? Are you available for weddings and bar mitzvahs? wtf