Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I don't have the time for a full reply but 1) obviously forcing surgery on an unwilling person isn't the answer and seems like a counter to a point I never made and 2) didn't we just learn from John Oliver that many abortions don't even require surgery?

Unless I missed something, the"forced surgery" reference is about childbirth, not abortion.

Quite a bit of what you posted seems tangential to my post so I'll just reiterate that the child is not solely the women's responsibility, nor should she have sole decision making power over the life or potential life of the child. You shouldnt get to have full control over birth/abortion then expect someone else to split the responsibility once the child is born. Sharing responsibility should start at conception, not birth. "It's my body and my child until it's born then pay up" does not sound like a good philosophy when it comes to taking responsibility for a child's life.

Until the fetus is born and becomes a child, the sole responsibility for its well-being and sustenance is on the woman. Until men can carry a pregnancy to term, this is fact. The man doesn't have morning sickness, the man cannot become anemic and be placed on bedrest, the man cannot be kept from traveling because of the pregnancy, etc.

Pregnancy dramatically affects a woman's body in physical and emotional ways, in ways that it simply cannot possibly affect a man's body. The woman has to do all of the work for the first 9 months no matter what, and she will continue to deal with those effects long after childbirth happens. Both sides have to be responsible and aware, but until men can gestate, women get the final say. There should obviously be a discussion, and of course there are women who will disregard the man's desires, but I'd imagine that happens just as or less often than a deadbeat dad who refuses to support his child.

There are bad men and bad women, but if corpses get bodily autonomy, actual living women deserve it as well.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Quite a bit of what you posted seems tangential to my post so I'll just reiterate that the child is not solely the women's responsibility, nor should she have sole decision making power over the life or potential life of the child. You shouldnt get to have full control over birth/abortion then expect someone else to split the responsibility once the child is born. Sharing responsibility should start at conception, not birth. "It's my body and my child until it's born then pay up" does not sound like a good philosophy when it comes to taking responsibility for a child's life.

Don't have time to do a full reply, so I'll start by just saying I think I generally agree with Cecil's position. From conception, the embryo, fetus, and eventually baby is biologically as much the father's as the mother's, and assuming there was no force or coercion (to apply the phrasing used above, he chose not to wrap it up and she chose not to keep her legs closed), then I see no reason why he father should have to wait until birth to have any rights.

That said, I also agree that forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will is not an acceptable solution. So, IMO, the solution is that if a woman has voluntarily had unprotected sex with a man and carries the child to term against his objections, she should forego the right to claim support payments from him (so long as he doesn't later change his mind and want to participate in the child's life) just as a woman has no right (at least in BC) to claim support from a sperm donor who does not participate in the child's life.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Most of my post is still about pain. I don't think the majority here posting really understand the amount of pain these people are going through. As I also stated, I don't think "forced abortion" would ever happen, but the utter amount of unnecessary pain sure makes people wish it could...

The lack of any empathy from"The Usual Suspects" isn't surprising in the least. Instead of the instant attack mode, that they frequently take, it would sure be different to hear: "TBQH, reading what you posted certainly tells me that a lot of hurt has gone on in your life or people close to you and you feel that this subject is being ignored. If I imagined myself having a child and then being treated in such a way I too would have a very hard time. That must be difficult for you."

Originally Posted by jayswin

Damnit, whoever mentioned how formulaic and repetitive this show is in regards to jokes ruined it for me, lol. Now all I notice is...

Doing XXXXX is like doing XXXXX and saying your XXXXXXX - laughter and applause

That XXXXX is like if you took XXXXX and combined him with XXXXX and XXXXX while showing XXXXX - laughter and applause

John Oliver and his team do such a fantastic job on the show. I wouldn't be so upset over the formula, because akmost everything has a formula to it. I could talk to you about Marvel's formula for their movies, and they do have a formula, but it shouldn't bother you. While the delivery is similar the jokes themselves aren't. It's like reading Cracked articles, which I really enjoy, where they drop hyperbole in their explanations.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Let's say I have a son and he needs a heart transplant. A perfect donor is found in a patient who just died in the next bed in the hospital.

If that now deceased person is not an organ donor, the hospital cannot take that organ to save my son's life.

Insisting a woman has to go to term with a pregnancy she doesn't want is basically saying a corpse has more rights than does a living woman.

If a man wants control over his possible offspring, only have sex when you're certain you want to conceive with that woman, only when you can afford to support that child on your own, when you can (in the US anyway) pay for her medical bills (a completely normal, healthy birth in the US runs well into 5 figures), also make sure her bills are covered in the weeks her body needs to recover from said pregnancy. (A typical woman who gives birth often has major repercussions from giving birth for 4-6 weeks after the child is born, and many women are never the same after giving birth)

Giving birth isn't just surgery, it's not like arthroscopic surgery where she goes in, has the procedure and is home that night. Even a normal birth is multiple days in the hospital. It is a hugely invasive process unlike almost anything men can experience. And that's just the final part of a pregnancy, that doesn't include the other 30-some weeks of misery beforehand.

Woah there.. Now, I'm not about to get into the weeds of this debate, but this is categorically incorrect. Birth is a normal part of a woman's life, is not like surgery, and is not a multiple day in hospital thing.

Most births are uncomplicated, and you can go home within hours. Both of my kids were born in home environments: the first at the birth centre and the second in my home.

In both cases we were either already at home or went home within 3 hours.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Don't have time to do a full reply, so I'll start by just saying I think I generally agree with Cecil's position. From conception, the embryo, fetus, and eventually baby is biologically as much the father's as the mother's, and assuming there was no force or coercion (to apply the phrasing used above, he chose not to wrap it up and she chose not to keep her legs closed), then I see no reason why he father should have to wait until birth to have any rights.

Parents do not have "rights". The rights of the child are paramount, and everything has to be viewed through that lens. Parents have obligations.

When we talk about custody and access, "rights" are viewed from the context of what is best for the child. It is the right of the child to have a relationship with each parent consistent with their best interests.

Edit: I did not make clear I'm only talking about born children (MikeF's comment about a father waiting to have rights after birth)

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by troutman

Parents do not have "rights". The rights of the child are paramount, and everything has to be viewed through that lens. Parents have obligations.

When we talk about custody and access, "rights" are viewed from the context of what is best for the child. It is the right of the child to have a relationship with each parent consistent with their best interests.

You are conflating a "post-born" baby with a fetus. A fetus has no rights until it is born. The woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not is about her own choice about what to do with her body.

The only rights in that equation are that of the woman's and no one else's.

On a personal level, I'm "against" abortion, except for in extreme circumstances, that being said, it is really none of my business what another person chooses to do with their body. Framing it that way, it is easy to separate moral opinions from legal rights.

[Locke]

Not on the abortion episode, but I completely disagreed with Oliver on the Voting episode. I dont think having ID in order to vote is an unreasonable boundary at all and in order to prove his point he cherry picked stats that suited him.

The Trump episode was brilliant though.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Really? You're on board with the voter ID thing? Can you explain why? I have always been persuaded by the issue that it's a fix to a non-existent problem.

Now, if everyone had ID, I'd be fine with it. But it can be pretty damned difficult to get ID in some cases, apparently.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by troutman

Parents do not have "rights". The rights of the child are paramount, and everything has to be viewed through that lens. Parents have obligations.

When we talk about custody and access, "rights" are viewed from the context of what is best for the child. It is the right of the child to have a relationship with each parent consistent with their best interests.

Well actually parents do have rights. And while I tend to agree with you when we are talking about custody and things like that after birth or in the case of a divorce or something it does not apply to pregnancy.

A fetus has no real rights so what is best for the child is moot. Not unless you want to get into some really slippery territory, like arguing whether birth is better than abortion and whether the fetus has the right to life.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Really? You're on board with the voter ID thing? Can you explain why? I have always been persuaded by the issue that it's a fix to a non-existent problem.

Now, if everyone had ID, I'd be fine with it. But it can be pretty damned difficult to get ID in some cases, apparently.

I honestly figured it wasnt an issue. People should have ID. Its just a thing that you should have.

It isnt that hard to get ID, it cant possibly be when probably 99% of people have it. I know he cherry-picked statistics about some random backwater registry office in the middle of nowhere where its difficult to get ID but I would guess the reason he didnt give out the location and hours of every other registry office in the country is because they would invalidate his 'hard to get ID' point.

Its not even about fraud or whatever, I just found that 'requiring ID' being akin to outrageously discriminating against huge demographics of low-income ethnics to be a bit of a ridiculous leap.

If you're an adult, ie. of the age to vote, you should probably be able to identify yourself.

It deosnt seem to be this huge barrier that its being made out to be.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Locke

I honestly figured it wasnt an issue. People should have ID. Its just a thing that you should have.

It isnt that hard to get ID, it cant possibly be when probably 99% of people have it. I know he cherry-picked statistics about some random backwater registry office in the middle of nowhere where its difficult to get ID but I would guess the reason he didnt give out the location and hours of every other registry office in the country is because they would invalidate his 'hard to get ID' point.

Its not even about fraud or whatever, I just found that 'requiring ID' being akin to outrageously discriminating against huge demographics of low-income ethnics to be a bit of a ridiculous leap.

If you're an adult, ie. of the age to vote, you should probably be able to identify yourself.

It deosnt seem to be this huge barrier that its being made out to be.

And yet in the clip, a GOP official straight up admits they did better in an election after voter ID laws than without them, noting the lower minority turnout. While expecting ID may not be asking much, the purpose of these laws is unquestionably a GOP tactic to lower minority voter turnout (minorities of course generally vote Democrat, not GOP). It's not about preventing voter fraud in any way, shape or form. It's just another cheap tactic that shows how gross American politics are.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Unless I missed something, the"forced surgery" reference is about childbirth, not abortion.




Until the fetus is born and becomes a child, the sole responsibility for its well-being and sustenance is on the woman. Until men can carry a pregnancy to term, this is fact. The man doesn't have morning sickness, the man cannot become anemic and be placed on bedrest, the man cannot be kept from traveling because of the pregnancy, etc.

Pregnancy dramatically affects a woman's body in physical and emotional ways, in ways that it simply cannot possibly affect a man's body. The woman has to do all of the work for the first 9 months no matter what, and she will continue to deal with those effects long after childbirth happens. Both sides have to be responsible and aware, but until men can gestate, women get the final say. There should obviously be a discussion, and of course there are women who will disregard the man's desires, but I'd imagine that happens just as or less often than a deadbeat dad who refuses to support his child.

There are bad men and bad women, but if corpses get bodily autonomy, actual living women deserve it as well.

I feel like we are partly having a discussion that isn't aligned. I really didn't support any suggestions for forced surgery or debate that the woman physically carries the child. I really hate to just repeat the same thing over and over so I'll just say that I think you need to read my posts and think about rights and responsibilities and how they pertain to pre and post birth. Is it 50/50 the whole time? If not, why not? Do you honestly believe that it should be 100/0 in favour of the mother until birth, then it should revert to 50/50? And if you do believe the father should have no say in whether or not his child is born or is aborted, how do you justify forcing that father to take responsibility once the child is born?

I'm not saying I have any solutions. All I'm saying is that I can't imagine that it is fair to break down responsibility of conception/pregnancy/raising a child as 50/50 for conception, 100/0 mother/father in pregnancy then revert to 50/50 in childbirth.

I'd recommend that we make a new thread for this to stop derailing but I think keeping this discussion hidden in the Last Week Tonight thread has kept it low key and allowed for some pretty civil back and forth.

[Coach]

Do we get ID'd at poll stations? I honestly can't recall but I'm fairly certain we do.

I know that, if we didn't, I would be on a rampage to every polling station I could find to make sure I get 4 or 5 more votes than other people: said no one ever.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Locke

I honestly figured it wasnt an issue. People should have ID. Its just a thing that you should have.

It isnt that hard to get ID, it cant possibly be when probably 99% of people have it.

I don't know that it is. The two primary means of identification are a driver's license and a passport. There are perfectly legitimate reasons why people would not have those things: you don't drive, and you never leave the country. They're both reasonably difficult to acquire, requiring testing and a long application process, not to mention the attendant monetary cost. So I have to disagree with both of your above points, factually.

In my view, if you want to institute voter ID, you need the bedrock first: a program that issues an identification card to literally every person who is entitled to vote, and a law that you must possess such an ID. That's a bit Orwellian, but in a minimally intrusive way, or so I'm inclined to think.

This is obviously a separate issue from the "sinister motivations" point that Clay makes - it's a strong enough case on its own even without noticing who benefits from the policy politically.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Do we get ID'd at poll stations? I honestly can't recall but I'm fairly certain we do.

I know that, if we didn't, I would be on a rampage to every polling station I could find to make sure I get 4 or 5 more votes than other people: said no one ever.

Funny because I tend to agree with Locke on this one that I really don't see the huge deal about requiring ID since they ask for it in Canada whenever I've voted.

I get why the Republicans do it and that it is based on demographics that don't vote for them and in that respect I totally agree it is wrong.

I agree that it isn't likely to result in massive numbers of people committing voter fraud.

Perhaps I'm just ignorant of Canada's requirements and how they differ from the US. What I do know is that in the last Federal Election I was forced to go to the polling station to which I was assigned and produce ID. I think they said if I didn't have ID that I'd have to have someone vouch for me, which sounds like a huge PIA. Can someone confirm how voting rules work in Canada vs the US and why the ID debate is such a big deal?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't know that it is. The two primary means of identification are a driver's license and a passport. There are perfectly legitimate reasons why people would not have those things: you don't drive, and you never leave the country. They're both reasonably difficult to acquire, requiring testing and a long application process, not to mention the attendant monetary cost. So I have to disagree with both of your above points, factually.

In my view, if you want to institute voter ID, you need the bedrock first: a program that issues an identification card to literally every person who is entitled to vote, and a law that you must possess such an ID. That's a bit Orwellian, but in a minimally intrusive way, or so I'm inclined to think.

This is obviously a separate issue from the "sinister motivations" point that Clay makes - it's a strong enough case on its own even without noticing who benefits from the policy politically.

Haha! Are you serious?

Um, factually, you are wrong.

You can walk into any registry office right now and get Government issued photo ID without writing any tests or being allowed to cross borders or be required to operate a vehicle.

Ever know someone who doesnt get their driver's license until they're in their 20s but still goes to bars or buys alcohol?

Its just ID.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Locke

Haha! Are you serious?

Um, factually, you are wrong.

You can walk into any registry office right now and get Government issued photo ID without writing any tests or being allowed to cross borders or be required to operate a vehicle.

Ever know someone who doesnt get their driver's license until they're in their 20s but still goes to bars or buys alcohol?

Its just ID.

The poor and destitute are far more likely not to have ID. Most likely is guess because of laziness.

Does that mean they shouldn't get to vote? Is voter fraud really a concern? I can tell you it's not

[Senator Clay Davis]

ID isn't free either. Last time I got one it was $70. And when you're talking about poor/low income, $70 just to vote is a pretty hefty expense, one that most could never justify and thus simply choose to not vote. It's a clear tactic to discourage voting, not to prevent voter fraud, which has been proven to be a non-issue.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The poor and destitute are far more likely not to have ID. Most likely is guess because of laziness.

Does that mean they shouldn't get to vote? Is voter fraud really a concern? I can tell you it's not

Define "poor" & "destitute"?

If we are talking working poor, I suspect they will have ID.


If we are talking about those living on the street and the very margins of society, then I can see how they might not have ID. They are all small (not small enough) segment of society, and they might not even be interested in voting. This isn't to say they should not be allowed to vote, or encouraged to vote.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

ID isn't free either. Last time I got one it was $70. And when you're talking about poor/low income, $70 just to vote is a pretty hefty expense, one that most could never justify and thus simply choose to not vote.

AB ID card is $51 and it lasts 5 years. Replacement of that card is $22.