U.S. Politics

[Seat68]

36 minutes ago, His Name Is Death said:

Those are fighting words from the ex-frontman of the band Rapeman.

I recall Rapeman and the fallout from it. Let's not discount what he is saying purely for taking a band name from a comic. 

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, choffer said:

In most states you can legally buy weed (which I’m all for) but soon you won’t be able to have an abortion? Madness. 
And I’m sure I read somewhere that the proposed punishments for having a termination were harsher than those for rape. You could get a ridiculous situation where some poor girl is made pregnant, finds a way to get rid and she’ll be in prison longer than her rapist. Crazy, crazy country. 

I read a case last week in America where a girl couldn't bring herself to abort a child, conceived when she was raped. I think she was 12/13 at the time. A few weeks ago, the rapist filed for custody of his 12/13 year old daughter, and won.

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, His Name Is Death said:

You say this as if there's no inherent value behind legal, ethical and social principles, such as rights to birth control and a same-sex relationship, and that ultimately these concepts are all just fads being thrown about by the prevailing wind. Should legislators just shrug if the 'will of the people' ends up damaging a lot of people's lives?

I get the impression these issues are not fads for a lot of these states. My understanding is that the socially conservative states have held a constant view on abortion for decades and see the (relatively recent) change to legalising abortion as a theological wound that they have been forced to adopt and have been fighting to change back ever since.

 

[cyrusr]

13 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

Abortions will always be legal there . They will just have to wait until the seventh year of pregnancy and send the kid to school.

Also known as the 40th trimester. 

Just all about control. No one is forcing people to get abortions, it is just sad that they cannot allow people to have their choice about it. 

[Brumerican]

10 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Why have elections at all?

[El Zen]

18 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

As an interesting aside, I believe that is what the Swiss do.

Not quite. The Swiss do hold referenda far more often than most other countries, but still have a bicameral parliament and representative democracy. 

And majority rule is a very narrow definition of ‘democracy’ anyway. The protection of minorities’ and individuals’ basic human rights is equally important in a true democracy. Even if a majority of voters in US Bible Belt states actively want to ban abortions, I would argue it fundamentally undemocratic to take away the right to decide over their own body from half the state’s citizens. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by El Zen

[His Name Is Death]

15 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I get the impression these issues are not fads for a lot of these states. My understanding is that the socially conservative states have held a constant view on abortion for decades and see the (relatively recent) change to legalising abortion as a theological wound that they have been forced to adopt and have been fighting to change back ever since.

 

I meant, though perhaps I didn't write it very clearly, that you seem to be saying that these certain rights are no better than fads, in that legislators should cast them aside not because a better moral argument has been presented but simply because the spirit of the times has changed and a large group of bozos has strong feelings against them.

Edited June 24, 2022 by His Name Is Death

[LondonLax]

13 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

The unpleasant truth is that a lot of the public are barely educated, spiteful and stupid, and things as fundamental as human rights shouldn't be based on the whims of mere popular opinion.

Do away with democracy because the public are not smart enough and enact rule by Davkaus instead

[LondonLax]

1 minute ago, His Name Is Death said:

I meant, though perhaps I didn't write it very clearly, that you seem to be saying that these certain rights are no better than fads, in that legislators should cast them aside not because a better moral argument has been presented but just because the spirit of the times has changed and a large group of bozos have strong feelings against them.

I was saying that ‘the spirit of the times’ hasn’t changed in those places. They have kept consistent in their views for decades, they had a period where their views were cast aside and overruled but this ruling allows them to get back something they believe in fundamentally (as much as I can not understand them myself). 

[Davkaus]

6 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Do away with democracy because the public are not smart enough and enact rule by Davkaus instead

We ignore popular opinion all the time, it's just that most of the time, it's not a central enough issue for most people to care about it.

For decades after it was abolished, as recently as a couple of years ago, the majority of the British public was in favour of reinstating the death penalty, despite it clearly being immoral, expensive, and ineffective. There was no referendum, so nobody kicked up a fuss about "the will of the people" being denied. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Davkaus

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

We ignore popular opinion all the time, it's just that most of the time, it's not a central enough issue for most people to care about it.

For decades after it was abolished, as recently as a couple of years ago, the majority of the British public was in favour of reinstating the death penalty, despite it clearly being immoral, expensive, and ineffective. There was no referendum, so nobody kicked up a fuss about "the will of the people" being denied. 

I’m not talking about popular opinion or some sort of poll though. I’m talking about voters electing officials but those officials being overruled from enacting legislation by outside states. 

My hope is this decision fires up progressive voters to actually get out and vote in progressive politicians who enact progressive agendas. The US midterms are coming up, the Democrats were on track to be trounced because of the economic situation but this decision might give them something to rally behind (or maybe I’m just being overly optimistic).

 

[LondonLax]

17 minutes ago, El Zen said:

Not quite. The Swiss do hold referenda far more often than most other countries, but still have a bicameral parliament and representative democracy. 

And majority rule is a very narrow definition of ‘democracy’ anyway. The protection of minorities’ and individuals’ basic human rights is equally important in a true democracy. Even if a majority of voters in US Bible Belt states actively want to ban abortions, I would argue it fundamentally undemocratic to take away the right to decide over their own body from half the state’s citizens. 

Certainly, the ‘tyranny of the majority’ is an inherent problem of democracy and I would absolutely include abortion as a human right if I were world king.

All laws regarding human rights are ultimately decided on and upheld on the basis of the democratic will and consent of the people though. If the population of Norway suddenly (and inexplicably) decided they passionately did not want certain human rights legislation it would be changed and their will would be done (and we would all sit here looking bemused at you guys).

Fortunately we are lucky to live in more progressive societies which think along the same lines we do (or maybe we think along the lines we do because we were raised in progressive societies? Maybe it’s a bit of a case of the chicken or the egg scenario )

[StefanAVFC]

No words really 

[El Zen]

11 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Certainly, the ‘tyranny of the majority’ is an inherent problem of democracy and I would absolutely include abortion as a human right if I were world king.

All laws regarding human rights are ultimately decided on and upheld on the basis of the democratic will and consent of the people though. If the population of Norway suddenly (and inexplicably) decided they passionately did not want certain human rights legislation it would be changed and their will would be done (and we would all sit here looking bemused at you guys).

Fortunately we are lucky to live in more progressive societies which think along the same lines we do (or maybe we think along the lines we do because we were raised in progressive societies? Maybe it’s a bit of a case of the chicken or the egg scenario )

Changing the Norwegian constitution requires 2/3 majority and must be debated over by two parliaments (four year fixed terms.) And even then, UN Human Rights takes precedent over Norwegian law. 

But yes, of course, human rights legislation obviously reflects the democratic will of each country’s population. Over time. The built in inertia safeguards fundamental rights from knee-jerk reactionary zeitgeisty attacks.

Edited June 24, 2022 by El Zen

[LondonLax]

1 minute ago, El Zen said:

Changing the Norwegian constitution requires 2/3 majority and must be debated over by two parliaments (four year fixed terms.) And even then, UN Human Rights takes precedent over Norwegian law. 

But yes, of course, human rights legislation obviously reflects the democratic will of each country’s population. Over time. The built in inertia safeguards fundamental rights from knee-jerk reactionary zeitgeisty attacks.

Absolutely.

And just to step into the shoes of one of the religious voters from the ‘red states’, they see the Row vs Wade legislation as a form of ‘knee-jerk reactionary zeitgeisty attack’ that goes against the beliefs of their two thousand year old religion.

[StefanAVFC]

8 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Absolutely.

And just to step into the shoes of one of the religious voters from the ‘red states’, they see the Row vs Wade legislation as a form of ‘knee-jerk reactionary zeitgeisty attack’ that goes against the beliefs of their two thousand year old religion.

Absolutely nothing in the bible banning abortion. In fact, specific verses mention the soul only entering the body once the baby is born.

it’s all complete nonsense. 

[TheAuthority]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Absolutely nothing in the bible banning abortion. In fact, specific verses mention the soul only entering the body once the baby is born.

it’s all complete nonsense. 

Well there you go, conclusive scientific proof right there.

[LondonLax]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Absolutely nothing in the bible banning abortion. In fact, specific verses mention the soul only entering the body once the baby is born.

it’s all complete nonsense. 

Yeah, I’ve not read it myself so couldn’t say  

The impression I get from them is they see abortion as akin to murder and feel like they have human rights on their side when banning it.

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

Well there you go, conclusive scientific proof right there.

Well, I know we don’t believe it but where does this idea that the reason behind their views is the bible?

it just isn’t there. 

[Arj Guy]

So now some of you guys care so much about freedom despite also wanting American citizens to have their guns taken away. I guess you only care about freedom when it suits your own politics. I’m not anti abortion btw