Wow! This is really myopic. It wasn’t Schumer that changed the rules, it was McConnell. He’s the one who said this time we need to wait.
Do you really believe your last statement there? I’m utterly amazed. Do you remember the Garland thing at all?
I’m pretty sure he didn’t say that about “this time”. He said that about the Garland nomination, the one shortly before a Presidential election. Here, this PolitiFact article might help you understand:
Thank you for your condescension, Mr. White Night! Are you concerned that Silver Lining can’t defend him-/herself?
I’m pretty sure you’re right that McConnell didn’t say that about “this time”. I’m hoping you can connect the dot, though, about whether it’s Schumer or McConnell is being hypocritical here.
Hey, there’s another election coming. This might help you understand: 2018 United States elections - Wikipedia
I know the probability is remote, but the Democrats could take over the Senate. Don’t you think the voters should have their say before the president gets to nominate a SCOTUS justice?
Scalia died in February. Kennedy resigned in June. I’ll have to fire up the ol’ Excel spreadsheet to see which one is more “shortly before” an election.
“Hey, RS, I’ll need that report shortly.” “Sure, boss, I’ll get it to you in 9 months! I’m told that’s ‘shortly’”
The issue doesn’t center around “shortly” but around “an election”. Last time, it was a Presidential election. This time, it’s a mid-term. As has already been pointed out, Republicans have had no issues confirming justices during mid-term election years, even in the recent past.
True but never before 2016 had they flat out refused to even debate a confirmation. Never before have they changed the rules so there was no filibuster and it only took 51 votes to confirm. So it’s not like they can argue “things are like they’ve always been.” Why can’t this be a ‘new rule’ as well?
Then, why did you use the term “shortly”? Was that an honest attempt at debate? I didn’t use it, Silver Lining didn’t use it, you did. Can we agree that nine months before the election (whole children were conceived and born) and eleven months before the new president would be sworn in is not “shortly”?
As Old Guy mentioned, holding no debates because of an upcoming election was a new thing, so it seems wrong to blame Schumer for trying to hold McConnell to some sort of consistent position. This election may be similarly consequential if the Senate switches hands.
I really really hope not. My plan is to see that that dystopia never comes to be.
Sure there is - adoption comes with all sorts of restrictions. There’s an insistence that the couple make a certain amount of money, some agencies require each child have his/her own room (I recall a point where me and my three sisters all shared one room, and I had one of my sister’s as a roommate until they all moved out), some restrict based on religion, marital status, sexual orientation… if you don’t make the top grade either you are barred from adopting, or you’re only offered “special needs” kids nobody else wants.
Then there’s the problem of birth parents who don’t want to be re-contacted suddenly having to deal with a stranger showing up on their doorstep demanding a relationship that doesn’t exist. Or adopted kids suddenly being confronted with a birth parent they want nothing to do with. Sure, there are lots of heartwarming reunion stories but in reality those meetings don’t always work out so well long-term, and not everyone wants their life turned upside down by what is really a complete stranger.
Don’t get me wrong - I do think adoption is an *option *and it often turns out well, but let’s not sugar-coat it. Like anything else involving human beings adoption occasionally goes really, really wrong. Most people I’ve known who were adopted were happy with their lives, but not all of them.
On a certain level, though, adoption as presented by “pregnancy crisis centers” is a transfer of babies from poor people to rich people, from those without privilege or status or power to those that have all three.
This, to me, is a more rational plan than forcing women to bear children they don’t want.
So is pregnancy and childbirth.
If you were really serious about reducing risk to women you’d keep abortion legal, because legal abortions are safer than pregnancy and childbirth. That way, only women willing to assume the risks of giving birth would have to do so.
On the other hand, quite a few of us think forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want, or worse yet, poses a significant risk to her, is another bad thing we very much don’t want.
Since it’s two bad choices maybe that should be left up to the person who is going to have to live with that choice? You know - the woman who is pregnant and doesn’t want to be pregnant. Or whose pregnancy is very high risk and continuing might leave her existing children motherless and her significant other a widow/er.