U.S. Politics

[Chindie]

There's no justification for banning it that stands up. At the end of the day, it's a personal matter and a personal choice, there's absolutely no place for the state to have any say in allowing it or not.

[StefanAVFC]

10 minutes ago, Arj Guy said:

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

I don’t think anyone on here is in favour of actively taking guns away but background checks and not being able to carry whilst in public is a pretty sensible starting point. 

[His Name Is Death]

11 minutes ago, Arj Guy said:

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

You can see there's a difference between Americans being free to own guns without having to demonstrate a need for them and Americans being free to an abortion on health grounds or in circumstances such as rape, don't you? They're both freedoms, sure, but you don't have to 'care' about them equally or think they're equally reasonable.

Edited June 24, 2022 by His Name Is Death

[StefanAVFC]

Also if it was about life and freedom then there would be:

sex education 

Funding for babies

funding for mothers

parental leave and medical care 

all included 

there isn’t. It’s about control. That’s it. 

[LondonLax]

14 minutes ago, Arj Guy said:

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

That’s true of everyone isn’t it? Who would be for some kind of theoretical absolute freedom, against the wishes of their politics? Freedom to murder, freedom to rape etc.

[Stevo985]

I don’t care whether it’s dressed up as freedom or not. 

Allowing guns the way they do and banning abortions is **** backwards. 

Absolute joke of a country

[El Zen]

50 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.

Roe vs Wade isn’t legislation, though (and it certainly can’t be called reactionary by any stretch of the imagination.) 

[LondonLax]

6 minutes ago, El Zen said:

Roe vs Wade isn’t legislation, though (and it certainly can’t be called reactionary by any stretch of the imagination.) 

Yes, sorry it was a court case ruling, not legislation. The point I was making was that for someone of a religious conservative mindset that case law suddenly and overnight made a fundamental change based on the prevailing zeitgeist of the time. It didn’t have the legal inertia that would normally come with such a fundamental change like a change to the constitution would.

Edit. Of course the US government does actually have the power to enact legislation legalising abortion anytime it gets a mandate from its voters do to so.

Edited June 24, 2022 by LondonLax

[StefanAVFC]

8 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Edit. Of course the US government does actually have the power to enact legislation legalising abortion anytime it gets a mandate from its voters do to so.

In your eyes controlling all 3 branches of government isn’t this?

some democracy is more valid than others for you I guess. 

[villa89]

28 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

It’s about control. That’s it. 

And it's based on a load of religious clap trap. 

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

In your eyes controlling all 3 branches of government isn’t this?

some democracy is more valid than others for you I guess. 

They obviously don’t have control of parliament if they can’t enact legislation. Hopefully that can change in November (but I’m worried the US voters are go to take things further in the other direction).

[Davkaus]

8 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

They obviously don’t have control of parliament if they can’t enact legislation. Hopefully that can change in November (but I’m worried the US voters are go to take things further in the other direction).

In retrospect, they had 50 years to enshrine this in legislature, but there was never a need. It was ruled in in the supreme court. It was contested and upheld in the supreme court. AFAIK, this is pretty much unprecedented.

What is tasty is that 3 of the recent conservative appointments to the SC were specifically asked about Roe when being screened for the role, and all said they considered it settled law and a set precedent in the Supreme Court, and all 3 of them voted to overturn it. In an ideal world, elected justices with a life term would be above this petty partisanship, but it's hard to see how people can just move on and accept this with no attempt to reform the court. 

[El Zen]

14 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Yes, sorry it was a court case ruling, not legislation. The point I was making was that for someone of a religious conservative mindset that case law suddenly and overnight made a fundamental change based on the prevailing zeitgeist of the time. It didn’t have the legal inertia that would normally come with such a fundamental change like a change to the constitution would.

Edit. Of course the US government does actually have the power to enact legislation legalising abortion anytime it gets a mandate from its voters do to so.

Actually, more than anything, extreme legislative inertia has probably prevented abortion rights from being codified at the federal level. 

And it’s pertinent to remember that control of the US federal legislative process is so gerrymandered and skewed so heavily in favour of small, rural states and congressional districts, it doesn’t actually reflect the views held by a majority of voters nationwide on issues such as abortion rights etc. Even on state level, the legislatures are so heavily gerrymandered, legislation is deeply prone to not being representative. 

In reality, the very basic human right to decide over their own body has been taken away from millions of American women by a minority of reactionary religious fundamentalists they are unlucky enough to live in the same sub-national entity as. It is wholly undemocratic and an outright attack on basic human rights. It’s an absolute disgrace. 

[LondonLax]

8 minutes ago, El Zen said:

Actually, more than anything, extreme legislative inertia has probably prevented abortion rights from being codified at the federal level. 

And it’s pertinent to remember that control of the US federal legislative process is so gerrymandered and skewed so heavily in favour of small, rural states and congressional districts, it doesn’t actually reflect the views held by a majority of voters nationwide on issues such as abortion rights etc. Even on state level, the legislatures are so heavily gerrymandered, legislation is deeply prone to not being representative. 

In reality, the very basic human right to decide over their own body has been taken away from millions of American women by a minority of reactionary religious fundamentalists they are unlucky enough to live in the same sub-national entity as. It is wholly undemocratic and an outright attack on basic human rights. It’s an absolute disgrace. 

Yes I agree.

I would perhaps even suggest having abortion rights delivered by the Supreme Court and not by democratic led legislation was quite possibly a catalyst for it being such a big target for conservatives, a sense of injustice similar to how we feel when they rule in the opposite direction again today (but that’s just pure speculation on my part).

[El Zen]

12 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Yes I agree.

I would perhaps even suggest having abortion rights delivered by the Supreme Court and not by democratic led legislation was quite possibly a catalyst for it being such a big target for conservatives, a sense of injustice similar to how we feel when they rule in the opposite direction again today (but that’s just pure speculation on my part).

Well, sure, I think the de facto legislative (partisan) function of the SCOTUS is abhorrent. The obvious caveat to your point being that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest, as indeed Roe vs. Wade does, that the democratic legislation to protect abortion rights you are looking for is the USC itself. 

However, knowing the American right, I don’t think having it explicitly codified in federal legislation would stop them from doing anything and everything in their power to overturn it anyway. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by El Zen

[juanpabloangel18]

The pro-life / evangelist lobby are just useful idiots who've been weaponized by the billionaire class, this is about:

- correcting the falling US birth rate and ensuring a healthy supply of wage slaves for said billionaire class (a poor kid born out of wedlock with no social power whatsoever - perfect)

- keeping the prisons full and profitable

I say they're idiots because their position is fundamentally inconsistent - you won't find the pro-life camp also campaigning for free healthcare and midwifery for all pregnant women, funny that?

Kanye West's position that all women who choose not to get an abortion should get a $1m cheque is more logically coherent, and he's bipolar

[VillaJ100]

Wow what a decision. 

Regarding guns, I've always said the 2nd amendment should stand, in full... But as a product of its time. So you can own any firearm you like so long as it was built before the amendment was ratified, meaning any gun made in or before 1791. Leave everything else to the police or armed forces. 

Regarding abortions, just terrible decision they've made. I saw an article saying aside from investigation and forensic/technological advances, one of the reasons for the drop in the amount of serial killers in recent decades is due to more abortions. I'm paraphrasing but the jist was more abortions = less unwanted kids = less abused kids = less kids growing up with mental disturbances or hating the world because they were brutalised as a kid. 

I'd be worried about things like gay rights next. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by VillaJ100

[choffer]

3 minutes ago, VillaJ100 said:

I'd be worried about things like gay rights next.

Rightly so. It’s already clear it’s the next cab off the rank. 
They’ve “fixed”the transgender problem and now the abortion one. Gay marriage next then sodomy, presumably. 

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, choffer said:

Rightly so. It’s already clear it’s the next cab off the rank. 
They’ve “fixed”the transgender problem and now the abortion one. Gay marriage next then sodomy, presumably. 

Yes, gay marriage laws is another big issue that was not resolved in the US via democracy but via a court ruling. I think that democratic  deficit leads to an unsatisfactory resolution. 

[choffer]