politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Technically Roe was a shakey foundation. It really reached to make abortion covered by the bill of rights. Best thing was to rip the bandaid off and get people pissed. Hopefully it leads to federal law adoption or better yet a new Amendment.
I dunno. Seemed to work pretty well for 50 some odd years before Trump stacked the SC with his acolytes.
It worked because people stayed away from it and didn't touch it. Doesn't mean it was solid.
It was "settled law" according to several of the right wing Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn it.
I disagree. Privacy is one of the innumerable rights described at the end of the document, it's implied not only by the presence of the other specific rights but by society itself. Civilization, morals, even entire cultures (!) existed before the constitution. Personal rights; privacy, bodily autonomy and property were all established before the Enlightenment laid the framework for the American and French revolutions,
[Aside]...ultimately sunsetting the divine right to rule held up by monarchs - which is why it took revolutions - power rarely, and I mean RARELY, steps down voluntarily (I can think of 2 leaders. George Washington and Cincinnatus, that's it). It then Napoleon to settle once and for all, that the only thing divine in their rule is that the people haven't overthrown them yet, which ultimately Big little N had to be reminded of himself! The remaining monarchs are figureheads with democratic parliaments doing the actual governing.
Phew. Anyways
Roe established that doctors should make the medical decisions, that what's discussed between doctor and patient is of no one else's concern and other people need to mind their own fucking business, full fucking stop.
That's rock fucking solid ground, yr high to think otherwise.
I'm fully aware of the subtitles and context that are and were wrapped up in the decision. I know it was sold to the laymen in the press that it's about saving women's lives (from bleeding out in back alley abortions), and that opinion is still true to this day, but it isn't the reason that allowed Roe.
Privacy 100% is solid ground. Funnily enough, in classic conservative colonial thought doublespeak, Alito and his American hating "Originalism" klan whined about protesting outside their houses, while going on about how, because it's not said SPECIFICALLY in the bill of rights there's is no right to privacy. But THEY do. Just not us.
Motherfuckers get killed over twenty fucking dollars on the streets everyday and these bitches wanna come this duplicitous? They're nothing but bad faith. No rational person should respect the law at this point, and I'd argue no one does. Those without means FEAR the law, but respect?! GTFO. Those with means? They'll do w/e the fuck they want. The rules are to keep YOU in line, not for them, sucker.
I don't want, or need Mitchell the plumber, my guy down the street, to pipe in on dietary decisions I'm entertaining due to specific genetic lottery "winnings". Focus on your pipes Mitch, not mine.
We acknowledged, as a society, the need for specialization in trades long ago. Being a blacksmith doesn't make you jeweller just bc you both swing, albeit very different, hammers. Technically Pianists are just swinging hammers too, ya see the point I'm getting at?
No fucking HOA Vice President, military wife, Sunday school teacher and community barber, Karen Antagonist's opinion is NOT valid just because she has one. Her opinion should begin and end with whether she chooses that for herself and then, she needs to shut the fuck up. No one cares about your personal 'why's'. It's personal, leave it that way. The topic is above their pay grade and you know fucking what? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Let the professionals do the professionalling, for fucks sake. It allows you to do the you thing that makes you, you, you know (😎). Do that instead.
It's fine if it's just a decision for yourself. You should have that privacy. The problem arises when others disagree that the fetus is inseparable from the mother. That's why it was so shaky. If you had full privacy over yourself and someone else then murder could easily be argued the same. Like I've said it needed to have it's own law, not sit precariously on other unrelated ones.
No-one else is involved. A fetus is not someone.
Your opinion is not the only one on earth. That's my point. There's lots of people who would take the stance that it's two separate people and an abortion is murdering one. Privacy would have nothing to say about that. Might as well actually make it a law about abortion based on a foundation made for it.
And there's lots of people who think the earth is flat. Just because there's "lots" doesn't make either of them right.
Idiots who think their opinion is a fact is a big part of what's wrong with the world. People who think their opinion matters is another.
This is not a science problem that has a definite solution. It's muddy morals which each person has based on their experiences and upbringing. You can't say it's right or wrong.
Fetal personhood isn't a thing, and conservatives don't want to go their either. If fetal personhood exists, getting in an accident and causing a miscarriage is now manslaughter. No one is advocating for that, so no one is advocating that fetuses are people deserving of the rights of a person.
Exactly. Fetal personhood opens up an entirely different can of worms. Some ladies have successfully made the argument that being pregnant permits them to use the carpool lane while on the freeway. There's also the possibility of taking out a life insurance policy, collecting back child support, etc.
The point is Roe v. Wade was always on shaky ground and we're finally getting to a place where real laws are being made instead of being legislated from the bench.
Y'know, 20 weeks was the compromise. Arguing fetal personhood is lunacy. LUN.A.CY. even the BIBLE disagrees with that. Compensation for murdered family members didn't have the pregnant wife at 200%. All of which is fucked anyway because it implies people are property, which is something the majority of us don't agree too today. The BIBLE also only mentions abortion ONE TIME and HOW TO GET ONE.
There is no Christian high horse here. I've read the bible. I've studied the bible, as in all I did for months was read that book, have a notepad for thoughts and notation. The Christian right have been manipulated into taking a position that prior to the 70s propaganda campaign they supported (look it up, it's true).
Are these the same people arguing against science and "wokeness" in school? What about their children's rights to factual knowledge or a degree from an accredited school? When do we, as a society, stop letting parents treat their kids as property? Because that's the core of what their doing, and their arguments come in bad faith.
They aren't gonna find the heaven their hoping for, not if that socialist carpenter who fucking hated bankers but loved dinner parties, drinking wine, chillin with the prostitutes. You KNOW JC was singing every fucking shanty known with them fishermen. He must've been the life of every party, by default, yea? Christ also said, so there's absolutely zero confusion, that those that seek forgiveness at the end will not be welcomed into heaven. The religion is modeled, in fact there's a couple books named it in the bible, on ACTS. The followers are supposed to embody the sentiment (WWJD? Letting JC into your heart - meaning to know his mentality so well you are just the kind of person who defaults to the same conclusion he does. So like 3 Christians I've met in my whole life will get to heaven, by the standards Jesus himself laid out)and lead the kind of life that gives to the point of hurting, having FAITH that their needs will be meet, thru the Lord. So a Christian, living the way we're supposed to, is potentially going hungry every night and giving/helping everyone they can trusting that God will send someone to help them. Faith only lives in the face of uncertainty and for those faithful, they'll feel no fear. You have to LIVE the gospel. It takes ACTS. Plural. Many. Daily. You have to be ready to be a martyr. You have to BE the saviour you seek. That's where you'll find heaven. And only there do you find moral high ground.
You can't put onto others that which you won't put on yourself. That includes opinions on how life should be led and what people "should" be allowed to do. People will do what they're gonna do, regardless of legality, imposing the trite into law (say, mixing your fabrics) just diminishes the law, not the person. You can make giving water to the thirsty illegal and it's the law that's the monster there, not the human. Well, the humans behind the law are. Definitely.
So shit man. King Solomon didn't think a baby was of the same value as a grown woman. For almost all of human existence children weren't named until they were thought to survive. First it was 3 years, then naming, then 1 year (as SCIENCE improved) etc.
If science has done one thing, just ONE thing we should all be proud of, it's reducing infant mortality for both the child and the mother. It's assumed they'll both survive now. This essentially presupposes the current argument. We are coming from a condition of Aplenty to even have this argument. Thanks to science, not God - unless you think he's behind the scientists - but then you'd have to accept the scientific definition of zygote, fetus and child - cuz God sent all that right?
God commanded us to be good shepards and use our agency. Part of our agency is what seperates us from beast, and that's our rationality. To be a Christian worthy of heaven you Must. Be. Rational. or not only are you complacently living in sin by ignoring what God wants for us, but you are actively throwing away your God given gifts and FLAUNTING it with pride, hiding behind a misunderstood version of faith.
Bruh wtf? I'm not even religious. I'm just saying that some people hold different opinions and it doesn't have to come DIRECTLY from their god. Morals are fluid and so something unacceptably evil to some may be correct to others. Doesn't make one side right or wrong. It's not based on some fundamental law.
Alright I can accept that.
Personally I consider the fetus a baby once it's viable. Thankfully, Technology has lowered the internal incubation time frame, in other words, preemies have a much higher survival rate now.
The ensuing sketch situations then, is that if a fetus can be external incubated from week 16 (just throwing a number out there, I have no idea what the current medical limit is) then do we mandate a birth, (I assume thru caesarian, I don't know if pitocin can induce whenever, but beyond that, I think pitocin needs to be way more restricted than it currently is. I'm no OBGYN, my opinion means nothing) forcing the women to carry to term, or does society pick up the tab for the next 5 months, cuz no ones jumping up to fund that. And then where does the infant go? Adoption is thrown out like it's a cure all and for some, sure, but I could read daily a novel case of child abuse in just foster care alone. There is no cure all.
The keao that all fetuses deserve personhood is insane. That makes miscarriages murder or manslaughter at best, and women can do everything right and still lose the child. Allowing the state fetal person hood will not only relegate women to 2nd class citizens without their own bodily autonomy but then we'll see state overreach, where miscarriages are treated as crimes and women are jailed for them.
We know that for a fact, because it's already happening down in Alabama.
So a person goes from advocating that all life is sacred at conception to jailing, terrorizing and traumatizing our girls. Our girls, many if whom are in a fragile state from having just had a miscarriage and distraught, and in their time of need and vulnerability, we lock them up and vring them up in charges?
Yo, bro. That cure is worse than the disease, ya get me? That's a traumatized, just for fucking funsies, woman who probably will never want to have children now. That's guaranteeing our falling birth rate drops off the cliff.
When women are too scared to have babies, un, I don't know if you know this, but THATS IT. Humanity no more. Civilization crumbles without enough young people to support the needs of the old. we are already staring down that loaded barrel, so instead of working to lower that gun, why are y'all raising more?
So we're clear, every women you know could have 2 kids and somehow afford them, but thats maybe 1000 women and when off in the big city there's 4 million women refusing any and all vaginal sex (the poophole's the loophole, guess what? your society still ends and those 2000 babies you know, they're all gonna starve with everyone else, cuz none of us subsistence farm anymore.
Bruh
Roe wasn’t specific enough to provide a good guidance to the lower courts. At what point do abortion restrictions become unreasonable? That was left up to the lower courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. Which basically meant that conservatives started throwing shit at the wall, to see what would stick. Because there wasn’t any hard “do not cross” line, they were able to slowly erode rights by pushing the boundary further and further.
They just had to toe the line, and see if judges would slap them. If the judge didn’t fuss about them stepping a foot over, they’d scoot the line a little further and try again. And democrats were happy to let them, in the name of compromise. But now that Roe is repealed, Dems have been forced to actually take action and draw hard lines.
The issue is that lots of people in conservative (or just heavily gerrymandered) areas will suffer. Texas, for instance, is purple when you look at the actual population numbers. But liberal voters in the cities are overwhelmed by the conservative voters in the boonies.
Only if you buy the SCOTUS argument that a right has to be explicitly mentioned for us to have it. It's an argument that goes completely against the 9th Amendment, which says explicit rights don't mean we don't have other rights too.
I would disagree. It's pretty clear it should be covered under the 9th amendment. The right to an abortion has been a right held by the people for many centuries. It only became an issue in the 50s when the new field of obstetrics created doctors who wanted to take the jobs that women, as midwives, used to posses. They used abortion to demonize them, and then took over their work.
Now, I don't know why the 9th amendment wasn't used in arguments, but it's clearly the one that should be pointed to. It's probably one of the most important amendments, and it's known by too few people.
5 years, tops before US Republicans claim this was their goal the whole time to take "credit" for what has happened.
Nah, that would be lose-lose for them.
Liberal-leaning voters would see straight through their shit and keep voting democrat, while religious conservatives would drop republicans and go independent after rioting over their vote going to a party that supports "child murder."