Thinking of My American Friends Today

[Debater Slayer]

I have multiple friends living in the U.S. who will undoubtedly feel the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade reversal. I wish them the best along with other Americans here who also worry about this decision and the effects it could have on them.

Parenthetically, I find any ideology deeply harmful, inconsistent, and divorced from empathy if it favors abortion bans to "protect life" but has no issue with other measures that significantly affect or even threaten the lives of millions of people--such as anti-LGBT legislation, military adventurism, gendered discrimination, opposition to accessible and affordable health care for the poor, and retributive, inhumane prison systems.

Today, the SCOTUS has disgraced the U.S. among the developed world and among supporters of human rights whether inside or outside the developed world.

UN, world leaders condemn US Supreme Court ruling on abortion

I hope this period of regression in American politics comes to an end before it chips away at more hard-earned freedoms and rights.

 

[Aštra’el]

It is a great day, worthy of celebration.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It is a great day, worthy of celebration.

To people with your political ideology and focus on such regardless of any other considerations, perhaps. Certainly not to most of those who take into account the humanitarian and medical repercussions of such a ruling.

I find it quite telling that many anti-choice people don't seem to have nearly as strong of a reaction to issues that cause suffering or loss of life (e.g., poverty and inaccessible health care) as they do abortion.

 

[epronovost]

To people with your political ideology and focus on such regardless of any other considerations, perhaps. Certainly not to most of those who take into account the humanitarian and medical repercussions of such a ruling.

I find it quite telling that many anti-choice people don't seem to have nearly as strong of a reaction to issues that cause suffering or loss of life (e.g., poverty and inaccessible health care) as they do abortion.

It's almost as if it's not about life or preserving people's integrity or even human flourishment as it's about punishing "those damn slutty women"... isn't odd that profoundly antipathic and often misogynist people have actually no lasting interest in other people's wellbeing and more into harming those they view as immoral.

 

[Audie]

I have multiple friends living in the U.S. who will undoubtedly feel the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade reversal. I wish them the best along with other Americans here who also worry about this decision and the effects it could have on them.

Parenthetically, I find any ideology deeply harmful, inconsistent, and divorced from empathy if it favors abortion bans to "protect life" but has no issue with other measures that significantly affect or even threaten the lives of millions of people--such as anti-LGBT legislation, military adventurism, gendered discrimination, opposition to accessible and affordable health care for the poor, and retributive, inhumane prison systems.

Today, the SCOTUS has disgraced the U.S. among the developed world and among supporters of human rights whether inside or outside the developed world.

UN, world leaders condemn US Supreme Court ruling on abortion

I hope this period of regression in American politics comes to an end before it chips away at more hard-earned freedoms and rights.

Disgraced? It's the constitution.There is no right to abortion in it.
It's not perfect. But who has a better one?.

In the US there are states with a degree of autonomy. Each can set its own laws in this.
Taking the fed out of it is not so earth shaking.

 

[Audie]

It's almost as if it's not about life or preserving people's integrity or even human flourishment as it's about punishing "those damn slutty women"... isn't odd that profoundly antipathic and often misogynist people have actually no lasting interest in other people's wellbeing and more into harming those they view as immoral.

As with other issues with honourable people holding different views, it's best to
dehunanize them as despicable subhumans.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Disgraced? It's the constitution.There is no right to abortion in it.
It's not perfect. But who has a better one?.

In my opinion, multiple European and other developed countries have much better laws concerning specific issues such as health care, reproductive freedoms, and gun ownership.

Some parts of the U.S. Constitution are outdated at this point. If it can't even explicitly guarantee the right to bodily autonomy and the right to privacy so that they don't get overturned at the ideological whims of a partisan SCOTUS, then perhaps it needs further amendments.

In the US there are states with a degree of autonomy. Each can set its own laws in this.
Taking the fed out of it is not so earth shaking.

That will have a lot of harmful consequences for women wanting to have an abortion in almost half of the U.S. Because of this, I do think taking away the federal protection for it is both a far-reaching and significantly dangerous step.

 

[Audie]

To people with your political ideology and focus on such regardless of any other considerations, perhaps. Certainly not to most of those who take into account the humanitarian and medical repercussions of such a ruling.

I find it quite telling that many anti-choice people don't seem to have nearly as strong of a reaction to issues that cause suffering or loss of life (e.g., poverty and inaccessible health care) as they do abortion.

It's telling when people stereotype others so as to concoct amongst other grave sins of character the grim spectre of hypocrisy.
Good people apportion their attention with statistical precision among all societal issues. Right?

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's almost as if it's not about life or preserving people's integrity or even human flourishment as it's about punishing "those damn slutty women"... isn't odd that profoundly antipathic and often misogynist people have actually no lasting interest in other people's wellbeing and more into harming those they view as immoral.

While I think some anti-choice people fit that description, it seems to me an oversimplification of the position at large. More often than not, people I've talked to who oppose legal abortion genuinely believe they're supporting a baby's life.

I think it's completely mistaken to equate a fetus to a newborn, but their motivation doesn't seem to me to be invariably a product of misogyny, antipathy, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

As with other issues with honourable people holding different views, it's best to
dehunanize them as despicable subhumans.

It's more important to express derision
for the person than to reason for one's
own views, eh.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's telling when people stereotype others so as to concoct amongst other grave sins of character the grim spectre of hypocrisy.
Good people apportion their attention with statistical precision among all societal issues. Right?

I don't believe my posts have stereotyped any groups. You will notice that I used "many" to qualify what I said--and from what I've seen, it indeed applies to many people who oppose the legalization of abortion.

 

[Audie]

In my opinion, multiple European and other developed countries have much better laws concerning specific issues such as health care, reproductive freedoms, and gun ownership.

Some parts of the U.S. Constitution are outdated at this point. If it can't even explicitly guarantee the right to bodily autonomy and the right to privacy so that they don't get overturned at the ideological whims of a partisan SCOTUS, then perhaps it needs further amendments.



That will have a lot of harmful consequences for women wanting to have an abortion in almost half of the U.S. Because of this, I do think taking away the federal protection for it is both a far-reaching and significantly dangerous step.

Everyone is a legal savant and knows any decision that they don't like is by corrupt ideological biased partisans.
Read the decision to see what the arguments are? Maybe one in a thousand, and same proportion of those who understand it.

Lots in the USA is messed up. No guarantee of " bodily autonomy" isn't one of them
No country can do that.

 

[Audie]

It's more important to express derision
for the person than their views, eh.

How else can you promote a harmonious civil society?

 

[Audie]

I don't believe my posts have stereotyped any groups. You will notice that I used "many" to qualify what I said--and from what I've seen, it indeed applies to many people who oppose the legalization of abortion.

You know what I am talking about.
What have you seen?
You've never even been in the USA

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Disgraced? It's the constitution.There is no right to abortion in it.
It's not perfect. But who has a better one?.

In the US there are states with a degree of autonomy. Each can set its own laws in this.
Taking the fed out of it is not so earth shaking.

It's a very literal, narrow view of the Constitution that the Founders didn't intend. Hence, the 9th Amendment.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Everyone is a legal savant and knows any decision that they don't like is by corrupt ideological biased partisans.

We're talking about a specific major decision, though. There are decisions where there's much more room to rule for or against without being so explicitly partisan. This isn't one of them, especially since at least two of the justices had said they considered Roe v. Wade "settled law."

It's not a coincidence that it took 50 years and this particular SCOTUS to overturn it. The claims of bias are far from unjustified.

Read the decision to see what the arguments are? Maybe one in a thousand, and same proportion of those who understand it.

Lots in the USA is messed up. No guarantee of " bodily autonomy" isn't one of them
No country can do that.

I don't see why it can't be done. Of course, any constitutional amendment would be up for some degree of interpretation, but establishing a baseline seems possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

How else can you promote a harmonious civil society?

Civility, reason, friendliness, setting a positive example?

 

[Audie]

We're talking about a specific major decision, though. There are decisions where there's much more room to rule for or against without being so explicitly partisan. This isn't one of them, especially since at least two of the justices had said they considered Roe v. Wade "settled law."

It's not a coincidence that it took 50 years and this particular SCOTUS to overturn it. The claims of bias are far from unjustified.



I don't see why it can't be done. Of course, any constitutional amendment would be up for some degree of interpretation, but establishing a baseline seems possible.

Like I said it's correct if your bias is for it, wrong if not.
Anyone who did not read the
arguments or at least know constitutional law is just showing their own bias.

As for " bodily autonomy"??

Try thinking that through.
Of course that's impossible to guarantee as an absolute.

 

[Audie]

Civility, reason, friendliness, setting a positive example?

I don't want peace. It's boring. I want conflict, always!

 

[Debater Slayer]

You know what I am talking about.

Not really. If you're talking about my posts, I've responded to that and explained why I stand by what I've said. It's neither overgeneralized nor inaccurate.

What have you seen?
You've never even been in the USA

Opposition to elective abortion isn't exclusive to the U.S., as you surely know. What I've seen, both where I live and online, includes religious arguments to ban abortion because it's a "sin," assertions that women wouldn't need it if they didn't have "promiscuous sex," and that a woman who had sex outside of marriage and got pregnant by accident "must deal with the consequences" (that is, carry to term), among other things.

I staunchly oppose theocracy and any laws that stem from it. This holds for the U.S. as much as it does anywhere else.