DeSantis-Crist debate

That is a simplistic characterization. They are rooted religious and medical reasons, although at this point those reasons largely don’t apply. It is my understanding (which may be wrong) and per cdc that those that aren’t circumcised may be at a higher risk of infection.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/MC-for-HIV-Prevention-Fact-Sheet_508.pdf


Health benefits: Male circumcision can reduce a man’s risk of acquiring HIV infection by 50 to 60 percent during sex with HIV-infected female partners, according to data from three clinical trials. Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42 percent), genital ulcer disease (by 48 percent), genital herpes (by 28 - 45 percent), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) associated with cancer (by 24 - 47 percent).
While male circumcision has not been shown to reduce the risk of HIV transmission to female partners, it does reduce the risk that a female partner will acquire a new syphilis infection by 59 percent. In observational studies, circumcision has been shown to lower the risk of penile cancer, cervical cancer in female sexual partners, and infant urinary tract infections in male infants

 

With all that considered I would still wager that the vast majority of parents do it because "daddy's looks like that." I'm honestly not harping on parents that do this just stating my opinion on why it is done. I'm not mad at my parents for doing it to me, however it may have been nice to leave that choice to me when I'm an adult (even though it's supposed to be HORRIBLE to have it done when growth is finished).

 

That argument might hold water if Trump was running against Democrats in the primary. He wasn't. He's not even an elected official anymore and still controls a good chunk of the Republican Party. Basically, GOP love for Trump isn't because of the Democrats. It's because they genuinely like him and what he stands for.

 

As a parent, our thought process was not as you describe, and I’m pretty sure most parents don’t think that way. I don’t know what the decision is like now but 18 years ago there wasn’t a lot of thought given to it, you may be aware of some benefits and that is what everybody else does/did. It is probably a harder decision now because people have dramatically different takes about it. Your expression that you were somehow victimized by the act is just not something that even crossed our minds (and still doesn’t).

 

I don't really feel victimized, but after learning more about it as an adult I'll always wonder what if they had left me intact. Anywho, this isn't the topic of the thread so I'll stop talking about my junk

 

Then his benefits really must outweigh his baggage, which looked to be the case until after the 2020 election. Now, I'd say other Republicans are clearly preferable (but I am not the Republican Party).

And yes, somebody who won't give Democrats an inch after decades of demanding Republicans go further and further to the left (and succeeding), somebody who will hold conservative ground in the face of endless vitriol, name-calling, and hysteria from the other side was (and is) desirable.

People seem to forget that Obama ran in favor of traditional marriage. That viewpoint is seen as radical and abhorrent these days. DeSantis supported abortion up until 15 weeks and that wasn't enough for Charlie Crist. The slippery slope in politics has proven to be an accurate prediction, not a fallacy.

 

Why would 15 weeks be enough for any person who believes in reproductive rights? In Florida, our constitutional right to privacy protects reproductive rights until viability. You are complaining that Crist didn't just concede when DeSantis rolled back people's rights in violation of the Florida Constitution?

As for "traditional marriage," I don't care what Obama ran on. Anybody who opposes gay people being allowed to marry is wrong and is taking a bigoted stance.

You can spare us the excuses. Republicans picked Trump because they like him. What happened to the party of personal responsibility? "It's the Democrat's fault my party chose Trump from a number of options and continues to stand behind him." What a crock.

 

Yes they did like him, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have baggage.

You frequently accuse the other side of supporting something for the most cynical of reasons, which is just gaslighting to make it easier to support leftist causes. Republicans don't support Trump because of his immaturity, they support him because they want somebody who will stand up to Democrats, and fight against a party that just keeps going further to the left. Republicans don't oppose abortion because they want to inconvenience women, they oppose it because they believe in preserving innocent life.

As far as whether Florida's privacy right includes abortion until "viability." Let's see this tested in Court. Stare Decisis isn't everything. Don't give me this lecture on "rights," there is no "right" to an abortion in the Florida Constitution, you are just prioritizing the convenience of women over the lives of the unborn.

 

I didn't claim Republicans support Trump "because" of his "immaturity." I claimed that they like him and his personality. It has nothing to do with the Democrats. He's the sort of leader they want.

There is an explicit right to privacy in the Florida Constitution, which was enacted via a citizen's ballot initiative less than 10 years after Roe ruled that the right to privacy protects the right to abortion. And it has already been tested in the courts. The Florida Supreme Court adopted viability as the line.
In Re TW
"Following viability, the state may protect its interest in the potentiality of life by regulating abortion, provided that the mother's health is not jeopardized."

I have zero doubt that the Republicans now in control of the Florida Supreme Court will rewrite the law simply because they have the power to do so, regardless of what the Florida Constitution does and doesn't say. But until they do that, that's the state of the law in Florida.

 

Fine.

And one way of implementing change in law through the courts is by enacting legislation that challenges that law.

Overturning a court decision is not "rewriting the law." It is overturning case law. Something courts do all the time, including liberally lead courts.

You're just lashing out now because you're not getting your way.

 

for many, it is that they fear the vocal minority that he controls

 

I screwed up on my reply to the post above. You have to open up the quoted language on the post immediately above to see my reply to it. I hope you get a good laugh.

 

This reminds me of the Episode of Friends where Joey and Monica try to fabricate a fake foreskin for Joey's audition.

 

None of this addresses your earlier claim---that Democrats and Charlie Crist should be grateful that DeSantis only pushed to ban abortion after 15 weeks. Why would we be grateful for that? Why would we not oppose something that is clearly unconstitutional and rolls back the rights of Floridians?

By this rationale, the courts can do no wrong. The Florida Supreme Court is controlled by Republican politicians. I have no doubt they're going to rewrite the law, but that's exactly what is. It takes a manifestly dishonest person to claim that Florida's right to privacy doesn't protect abortion rights when the people of Florida codified it right after the Roe decision. They knew what they were voting for.

 

It's going to be interesting to see how the Florida Supreme Court reasons its way to the abortion decision we all expect. Just last year, the First DCA relied heavily upon Florida abortion jurisprudence to rule against the mask mandate. I thought perhaps it was doing so in a bit of a snarky way; that they didn't actually agree with the abortion case law but were kind of saying "what's good for the goose...."

https://www.1dca.org/content/download/748047/opinion/201661_DC13_06112021_130157_i.pdf

We cannot reconcile this analysis of the trial court with the express privacy guarantee found in the Florida Constitution, as it has been characterized and interpreted by our supreme court. The trial court simply looked at the right asserted by Green too narrowly, relying on the wrong privacy jurisprudence. The right to be let alone by government does exist in Florida, as part of a right of privacy that our supreme court has declared to be fundamental. See, e.g., Winfield, 477 So. 2d at 547. As we are about to explain, the supreme court has construed this fundamental right to be so broad as to include the complete freedom of a person to control his own body. Under this construction, a person reasonably can expect not to be forced by the government to put something on his own face against his will. Florida’s constitutional right to privacy, then, necessarily is implicated by the nature of the county’s mask mandate. This means the trial court had to apply the single-prong, strict-scrutiny mode of analysis set out in Gainesville Woman Care. Because of its erroneous treatment of Green’s asserted right,
the trial court did not do so. That is the error we correct by reversing the order currently on review.

****

It would behoove the trial court also to consider that while article I, section 23 “was not intended to provide an absolute guarantee against all governmental intrusion into the private life
of an individual,” Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re Applicant, 443 So. 2d 71, 74 (Fla. 1983), “even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 68 (2020). And there is this warning from William Pitt the Younger, roughly paraphrasing a similar sentiment in John Milton’s Paradise Lost: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.

 

This is the same First DCA that rewrote standing law to avoid having to strike down DeSantis's 15-week ban. So yeah, if there's something you can count on, it's these new-wave Republican "judges" rewriting the law to fit the outcome they want.

 

Why be grateful? Because for all the hysteria that Democrats cry over DeSantis not respecting a right to an abortion, when he allows for ALL abortions in the first trimester and ALL abortions that threaten the life of the mother. Is it everything you want? Maybe not. But it’s more than meeting Crist in the middle. And frankly if you don’t consider that a fair offer, I’d say you’re doing a disservice to the pro-choice community in negotiating what exactly the policy should look like. Anyone who isn’t strongly pro-choice is going to dismiss that, and they should.

Then why not write an explicit right to abortion in the Florida Constitution?

Why write explicit rights at all, considering there’s no explicit right to privacy in the Federal Constitution?

 

So many people on the left think they understand those on the right but it is total BS. I for one have always hated Trumps personality. I refused to watch his TV appearances on the apprentice and any interviews he gave before he ran. What sold me on Trump was his standing up to the media. I know I will catch a bunch of crap here for saying this but I truly believe he loves America and wanted to Make America Great Again, although he was fought tooth and nail. To believe he was in it for the money is just asinine, especially when you look at the vast number of politicians who went into politics with almost nothing and are now multi multi millionaires.

 

Passing an abortion ban that violates the Florida Constitution and rolls back rights isn't meeting anybody in the middle. The Florida Constitution protections abortions until viability. That's the line.

Why would we write an explicit right to abortion when the explicit right to privacy already protects that right and others? Republicans tried to amend the Florida Constitution to disclaim any right to abortion, and Florida voters shot them down. The voters made their choice.