World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Ack]

I think this entire debate is merely a distraction from other ongoing concerns within the US, particularly concerning executive and legislative actions within the last few weeks.

[Sarge]

Probably. But that never stopped us denizens of the Internet before!

[MrPopo]

Maybe Trump is actually trying to pull off some sort of Leto Atreides II Golden Path plan, wherein he pisses off so many people that in reaction they fix a ton of problems with our system that he's pointing out, eventually leading to reigning in the power of the executive branch that's grown over the last century and getting people more engaged in the political process.

[Sarge]

I am actually okay with this. Executive power is at a level it shouldn't be, regardless of who holds the reins of power. (I also happen to believe this to be true for the other two branches, what with being a limited-government guy and all.)

[prfsnl_gmr]

Roe v. Wade is an incredibly nuanced decision, and anyone who is participating in this debate should take the time to read and - more importantly - understand it. It carefully balances the state's right in unborn life against a woman's right to autonomy, and regardless of whether you agree with its outcome, it is really a remarkable piece of legal writing.

Also, and IMO, I think that, if we were serious about reducing the number of abortions, we would provide more assistance (and protections) to pregnant women. That is, we would make having a child less burdensome and less costly, and we would make it easier for women to continue their lives and careers both during pregnancy and after they have a child. Some of our society's most strident anti-abortion politicians have been historically unwilling to pass legislation providing for things like extended parental leave, subsidized child care, subsidized pediatric medicine, etc.; so, I often question their bona fides.

Finally, if we were to outlaw abortion, what would such a prohibition look like? Certainly, we would prohibit licensed physicians from performing abortion procedures and prescribing drugs for the purpose of inducing an abortion. Likewise, I suspect that we would punish people for performing "back alley" abortions (procedures that would certainly increae . Would we be willing to bar abortion procedures in all circumstances, however? If not, in what circumstances would we permit it? Likewise, would we be willing to punish or jail women for having an abortion? Would we be willing to punish or jail women for seeking an abortion? Finally, what sort of powers would we grant our law enforcement agencies to investigate abortions? Are we willing to subject women who have miscarried to scrutiny by law enforcement? If so, what kind of scrutiny? The devil really is in the details here.

I think this entire debate is merely a distraction from other ongoing concerns within the US, particularly concerning executive and legislative actions within the last few weeks.

...such as increased violence in Ukraine? It will be interesting to see what Donald Trump's administration does about that. I can only speculate...

[ElkinFencer10]

I am actually okay with this. Executive power is at a level it shouldn't be, regardless of who holds the reins of power. (I also happen to believe this to be true for the other two branches, what with being a limited-government guy and all.)

I'm not all that limited government a guy, but executive power is out of control. The Congress's sole authority to declare war is meaningless when we've invaded or attacked dozens of countries over the past 70 years and haven't declared war since December 8, 1941.

[MrPopo]

I think the weirdest part re: the ability to declare war is how we called up the draft for Vietnam (and I think Korea?) without needing Congress to declare war. The post-Nam stuff has been the President executing his position as Commander-in-Chief to order around the existing enlisted and commissioned military but how was he able to conscript without a formal declaration?

[Sarge]

It should be noted in many of these conflicts that Congress did authorize the use of military force in them, including Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. The only thing that was missing was the formal declaration of war.

[ElkinFencer10]

As far as I'm concerned, given how we pissed and moaned to have an attack without a formal declaration of war be recognized as a war crime after Pearl Harbor, an authorization isn't enough. We are, by our own definition, war criminals and have been in literally every military action we've taken since 1945.

I think the weirdest part re: the ability to declare war is how we called up the draft for Vietnam (and I think Korea?) without needing Congress to declare war. The post-Nam stuff has been the President executing his position as Commander-in-Chief to order around the existing enlisted and commissioned military but how was he able to conscript without a formal declaration?

We had a draft to some degree from World War I until the end of Vietnam.

[MrPopo]

As I think about it, Congress declaring war seems like it has two major consequences. The first is in the nature of international relations; declaring war is a higher level of engagement than simply being in a firefight. The second is an implied movement of the country to a wartime economy, wherein production would be shifted to support such an effort. Under our current force organization and with our current conflicts being so asymmetrical I'm not sure declaring war really is necessary. Maybe it would be if it was a dust-up between us and a Russo-Sino alliance.