2 ms·
Not really, bodily/medical control is a popular perspective on the abortion debate and it's a fairly classic human right, and as we've seen in the recent pandem
by themacguffinman 4y ago
Not really, bodily/medical control is a popular perspective on the abortion debate and it's a fairly classic human right, and as we've seen in the recent pandemic, it's a right that the US takes very seriously, more seriously than almost every other country. Wanting the unrestricted freedom to choose what medical/physical procedures can be performed on your own body shouldn't be hard to understand, I'm sure I can find a link to a better explanation if you're really struggling to wrap your head around it.
I'm not really sure what mentioning those European countries is supposed to demonstrate. Are Western European countries supposed to be the last word on human rights? I can believe France, Denmark, Germany, Italy and Spain currently violate a variety of rights I consider human rights, rights that the US upholds. Europe will have substantial political differences with other countries on how it sees rights, this is to be expected. This is a very odd appeal to authority.
- ModernMech 4y ago> This is a very odd appeal to authority. They're just the talking points of the last cycle, when the case was argued in front of the court. I don't think the poster as quite internalized what this opinion means in relation to those old talking points. The thinking back then was that the court was maybe going slightly soften Roe by changing something subtle like the line past which an abortion is no longer legal. With a decision like that, the defense would be "Well look at these European countries! You can't say we're worse than them, because Europe is so progressive and liberal, right?" It was supposed to be a way to short-circuit Democratic arguments. With this newly leaked opinion, the calculus has changed -- it seems that the court will not go with a slight modification to Roe and is instead going with a complete overturning. I think the mistake is in assuming that that's where it all ends. The court has surprised the right and the left here (in opposite ways). So I think it's a valid question as to how far this goes. Because who can stop it? All it takes to invalidate gay marriage is for some religious conservative to put it before the court, and it's done if the court says so.