-   Rantidote (
-   -   I can't even. (

crocoduck_hunter 07 November 2018 09:44 PM

I can't even.
So today I stopped for lunch at local restaurant.

Two guys sat down at the table next to mine shortly after I got there and began talking about yesterday's election.

They were complaining about the failure of Ballot Measure 106, which would have ended state funding for abortions (predictably, it lost by a very wide margin).

One of the guys said "if you can't afford to have kids, you can't afford to have them aborted" as if there was some insane form of logic in which the statement made sense.

Then the other guy said "well, the problem is that the Founding Fathers only ever intended for landowners to be allowed to vote. Ending that was how we got this mess."


RichardM 07 November 2018 10:14 PM

Male, white land owners.

crocoduck_hunter 07 November 2018 10:54 PM

Well, all land owners were male and white. And neither guy said male or white out loud.

E. Q. Taft 07 November 2018 11:10 PM

I have attempted to use the argument that one reason that insurance (including government insurance) should cover abortion, and birth control for that matter, is that people who can't afford them on their own, certainly can't afford to pay the much larger costs of pre-natal care and maternity services, not to mention the long-term costs of raising a child. So it's going to cost all of us a lot more in the long run than the birth control or, if necessary, abortion services would.

But that's not quite the same argument.

GenYus234 07 November 2018 11:53 PM

Also, the founding fathers did not intend that only (white male) landowners could vote. Many thought that women and free blacks should vote as well.

RichardM 08 November 2018 12:03 AM

Thanks for that clarification. But I'm sure the 2 overheard speakers thought that it was white and male.

ganzfeld 08 November 2018 01:32 AM


Originally Posted by GenYus234 (Post 1991148)
Many thought that women and free blacks should vote as well.

Many? Who, for example? I'm going to have to ask for a cite, please, on that. I don't see where the ones in the linked post support that.

jimmy101_again 08 November 2018 03:13 AM


Originally Posted by ganzfeld (Post 1991160)
Many? Who, for example? I'm going to have to ask for a cite, please, on that. I don't see where the ones in the linked post support that.

Does the state constitution of New Jersey count as many?

ganzfeld 08 November 2018 06:20 AM

I read his "should" and "and" as to mean there were many advocating the rights of both groups.

I don't think that particular case indicates many people advocating the right for both. The explicit removal from both groups at the same time also doesn't seem to have instigated any strong opposition. (The claim that it was merely political notwithstanding.)

That said, that some laws were explicitly adapted to the clause (at least in the case of women) and its survival for many years lends support to the slightly weaker claim that many in NJ were not opposed to allowing it. Which certainly is notable but the same.

GenYus234 08 November 2018 01:45 PM

The founding fathers didn't need to advocate for those rights in many states as women and free black people could already vote.

While New Jersey was the only state to explicitly permit women to vote, women were allowed to vote in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware under the same requirements as men. Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts all explicitly gave the right to vote to black people in their state constitutions when the US Constitution was enacted and only three states (Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia) specifically barred black people from voting.

ETA: It may not be enough for "many" to properly apply, but I think it is certainly enough to show that the founding fathers were not universally (or even overwhelming majorityly) in favor of only landowning, white men suffrage.
FETA: That sounds snarky, it is not meant to be.

ganzfeld 09 November 2018 11:18 PM

I don't find the argument that their silence was tacit approval the least bit convincing for several reasons. 1) When we do have a record of founders' opinions on the matter they were opposed or ambivalent. 2) Cases of actual voting would have been rare for the reasons discussed in the articles you linked to so it's unlikely they were even aware it was going on. In many cases it was simply an oversight in the first place and other prohibitions, such as wealth or land ownership would have kept out all but a very very few brave and wealthy women and people of color. (In most of these cases, no record of such voting survives.) 3) As soon as it became apparent there would actually be any such voting once wealth and property restrictions were removed, nearly all of those states immediately explicitly revoked the right — causing, as far as the record shows, little or no reaction at all, never mind opposition. It wouldn't be for another 50 years or so before it was even seriously considered in most cases. If "many thought they should" why did they not at least a very few leave a record of any debate or discussion? The most plausible explanation is that very very few cared about the disenfranchisement of people they never knew had the right in the first place.

I guess what the cases mentioned show is that it is plausible that more than a few (maybe even many) privately were not opposed to the idea. It's possible (although given the evidence I think it unlikely) that many privately supported the idea. It certainly doesn't show that many or even a good number were definitely in favor of it.

crocoduck_hunter 09 November 2018 11:38 PM

In any event, what the founding fathers actually intended isn't relevant here, as what the two guys from my original post thought the founding fathers intended was quite evident and what I was ranting about.

crocoduck_hunter 07 January 2019 01:49 AM

So, in the latest instance of situations where "I can't even" is the only coherent response I can come up with:

The family went to Mexican for dinner tonight. When we walked in, the Mexican immigrant owner was busy loudly talking to a customer about how much he approved of the president shutting the border down in response to the caravan of asylum seekers because we should keep "those types" out.

My head hurts.

Crius of CoH 07 January 2019 02:19 AM

About a month ago I listened to a mildly lengthy speech by a local small business owner who was married (per his statements) to a woman from somewhere in Asia (I believe from Thailand, but not sure and really beside the point). In summation, his wife was a legal immigrant who spent years going through the process, and she is apparently vocal about keeping illegal immigrants out - they need to go through the system, like she did.

I have heard a few other second-hand accounts of similar nature. The mother of my best friend is a naturalized American citizen (I still remember him proudly announcing his mother's legal status in class back in grade school), and while she isn't the vocal type, I am reasonably sure that she has similar sentiments.

Possibly something along these lines, possibly combined with a desire to "show the flag" as protective coloration?

thorny locust 07 January 2019 02:45 AM

Lock the door behind me!

-- though there may be something in the "protective coloration" theory, also.

WildaBeast 07 January 2019 03:20 AM

My own "I can't even" moment: The last time I got a haircut the stylist working at the chair next to the one I was in was in the middle of a rant about how political correctness is destroying the country of something like that, and then she turned to me and said, without any hint of irony, "It must be so hard for you being a white man." I honestly had no idea what to say and muttered something that was probably incoherent. I really wanted no part in that conversation.

RichardM 07 January 2019 03:49 AM

Well, to make you feel slightly better, at least I hope so - before the recent elections, when I went into the local Democratic party office to help with the phone bank, I got a big laugh when I asked where old white men went to help.

ETA: Turned out there were several of us.

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.