Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to email@example.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
Another place where I comment a lot is going to a no comment format -- RH Reality Check. The new look will come tomorrow. See, e.g., how this article on a 20 week ban prime to pass in South Carolina is now posted on "Rewire." Like Slate, this is basically the "Facebook" path, comments (leaning toward brief ones, less likely to be responded to/interacted with) allowed there and other such "social media" locations. Apparently, "managing" those comments is not really a problem.
I find it unfortunate (no matter how gung ho they are about the changes) that the site will not allow comments. Think that is a value of online blogs and media sites -- the chance for feedback and interaction. There, the comments generally were one-sided though there were some difference of opinion (often from me). And, the opposite side -- at times even when I disagreed on a point as too strident (eventually, better to just let that go*) was often treated as per se trolls, even when they did not completely act that way. To be fair, often they did, the blog again not really a place to go for reasonable debate with opponents of your p.o.v. But, there is a value there all the same. A chance to vent and discuss among fellow travellers.
One person, e.g., suggested that rape should be considered "attempted murder" if abortion is not allowed in such cases. And, she argued that rape is treated special in that respect. It really isn't. No "special pleading" to say as such. Felony murder involves being charged for a death -- even if not intentional -- in the course of a felony. This includes if the death happens later on, but is still a result of the crime. As usual, roughly speaking, these things complex and subject to varying laws. Rape is a felony. And, it wouldn't be "attempted" murder. The person didn't intend to kill the person. Plus, to differentiate, the woman would not be able to have an abortion even if her life depended on it. Not this bill, putting aside it only dealt with after twenty weeks.
Rape is horrible; this is factored into the crime. But, there are other crimes with more of a chance of leading to death in some fashion where murder charges aren't likely even if the person dies. Finally, the chance of death here is tiny -- you have to get pregnant and die as a result. The numbers are concern but even "pregnancy related" includes indirect. So, I would assume that only a very small number of rape victims would be covered here though a larger number if abortion was illegal. All the same, if the women died, the government very well might punish the rapists more anyway. Not thinking this will help bash the anti-choice side.
But, people will think things like this and it's helpful to go at it online. It is rather amazing really, putting aside that of course I like the chance to read myself and figure a non-zero (basically this blog) number of people are reading me. Anyway, keep up the good work RH or whatever though that name might be a bit too much like "Freeform" for "ABC Family." The new title is more explanatory of what happened than a good name imho. Also, the new site has a lot of good stuff, but it is a bit overwhelming.
Oh well. Didn't like Mets Blog's reboot either including it making it much harder to comment. Don't even go there any more. I will check this out though since there are good articles and podcasts etc. Sigh though. It seems worth the effort to allow comments, cut them off after a few days or maximum number maybe, especially since there were so few except in certain cases. And, a more smaller intimate look works too.
* At times, it's hard. For instance, I once tried to explain that men would care about abortion rights too (of their wives, daughters, etc.), especially given the horrible nature of deprivation according to those on that blog. But, couple people repeatedly tried to say I as a guy didn't really understand. If there is such a lack of empathy out there, how do we manage to have juries decide things?
Another case involved the idea you sometimes vote for bad choices (at least on one issue) since the alternative is worse. For instance, anti-choice Democrats when the alternative is an anti-choice Republican also worse on a variety of issues. I gave a hypo -- who would you vote for pre-Roe v. Wade? After all, each side was against abortion rights in many cases. But, people still managed to vote for one (e.g., an anti-racist) candidate. The person simply couldn't understand what to me was an obvious point. But, that happens, and overall the person seemed a good person on the issues generally speaking.
You have to let it go at some point though it can cause problems when rational thinking is blocked. That can't be cabined so easily and can poison the well at times on the "right" side too.