4 ms·

>Some states ban it or near ban it Well yes, this is the part that people are most objecting to and calling a human rights violation. How do you gloss over th

by slg 5y ago

>Some states ban it or near ban it Well yes, this is the part that people are most objecting to and calling a human rights violation. How do you gloss over the fact that millions of people in the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens?

remarkEon 5y ago
>the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens? This isn't true. The US is somewhat of an outlier in how liberal the abortion laws are here. What's likely is that, should SCOTUS not bow to the inevitable mob that will come after this leak, blue states keep their liberal abortion laws and red states don't. Most of the country will probably have abortion laws that look pretty similar to those of e.g. Germany. I don't see an issue; this is Federalism and it's by design.
- slg 5y ago
  Please reread both my comment and your comment. Do you not see how misleading your reply is? You completely left out a portion of my original quote so you could argue against a straw man. I didn't say "the US will lose a basic right...". I said "millions of people in the US will lose a basic right...". No one thinks this will result in a federal abortion ban, but over a dozen states will immediately ban abortion upon the overturning of Roe v Wade. Those states contain millions of people who will lose the right to an abortion.
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    Sure. Do you not understand how Federalism works? Voters in some states prefer more restrictive abortion laws. I'm still not following your argument. Is it that, according to you, "millions of people who want abortions" will not be able to get them because some states that are full of people (also millions, ostensibly) who want more restrictive abortion laws are now able to enact them? Because if that's your argument it sort of gives away the game about the robustness of the Roe/Casey decision(s) in the first place.
    - slg 5y ago
      The whole point of Federalism is not for the states to decide whatever they want. That would leave little purpose for the existence of the Federal government. The Federal government abdicating the protection of certain rights means states will infringe on those rights. I can be upset that my fellow citizens will lose those rights even if I live in state that will continue to protect my rights.
      - mmlkmlkm 5y ago
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        > That would leave little purpose for the existence of the Federal government. Yes, that's exactly the point. States run themselves like little countries and the glowies handle issues that are truly interstate or effect the entire nation. The idea that someone in "practically Canada" Maine and someone in "practically Mexico" California and someone in "I can see russia" (lol) Alaska all have to run their businesses in some particular way because some jerk on Wall Street ruined it for everyone and got a law made after them is asinine.
      - rayiner 5y ago
        But who gets to decide what those “rights” are? Very few countries around the world think that there is a “right” to abortion until viability. It was created out of whole cloth by elite lawyers in the US.
  - mmlkmlkm 5y ago
  - rayiner 5y ago
    Those states voted for those laws. What interest does someone in California or New York have in trying to overturn the local will? Abortion isn’t like civil rights, where southern states passed laws directed at a minority that had a unique historical position. States where voters choose to ban abortion have women the same as states who choose to allow abortion and those women agree with the bans. The majority of Black women in Mississippi think abortion should be illegal. Why should anyone in New York get a say?
  - zaccusl 5y ago
    "No one thinks this will result in a federal abortion ban" Nope, anybody paying attention thinks this will result in a federal ban. Conservatives are already calling for a senate majority to specifically apply a 6 week abortion ban nation wide. And that is just the start.
rayiner 5y ago
I think if Texans want to be like Ireland until 2020 or Poland now they should be allowed to do that and it’s none of my business here in Maryland.
- slg 5y ago
  Might as well dissolve the union then. What is the point of having a Federal government if what happens in Texas is none of my business?
- jfengel 5y ago
  And if Texans want to be like Texas until 1865?
  - rayiner 5y ago
    We had a whole civil war and enacted several amendments to address the unique situation of a majority in a state enslaving or discriminating against a discrete minority. That has nothing to do with a majority of people imposing restrictions on themselves. 59% of people in Mississippi oppose abortion, including the majority of women. There is no need for California or New York to parachute in and tell them otherwise.
    - 5678909787 5y ago
      They are not imposing restrictions on themselves. Anyone who doesn't want an abortion can just not have an abortion. They are imposing restrictions on other people. Being a majority doesn't give you the right to impose restrictions on the minority. Bodily autonomy is an individual right. I don't care if you vote 99% to 1%, that 1% still have the right to control their own body.
    - larntz 5y ago
      > That has nothing to do with a majority of people imposing restrictions on themselves. 59% of people in Mississippi oppose abortion, including the majority of women. There is no need for California or New York to parachute in and tell them otherwise. You could also argue that if 59% of people in Mississippi oppose abortion there's no need to make it illegal. No one will ever force that 59% to start having abortions. The 59% could simply _choose_ not to have an abortion.

by slg 5y ago

remarkEon 5y ago

>the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens? This isn't true. The US is somewhat of an outlier in how liberal the abortion laws are here. What's likely is that, should SCOTUS not bow to the inevitable mob that will come after this leak, blue states keep their liberal abortion laws and red states don't. Most of the country will probably have abortion laws that look pretty similar to those of e.g. Germany. I don't see an issue; this is Federalism and it's by design.

slg 5y ago
Please reread both my comment and your comment. Do you not see how misleading your reply is? You completely left out a portion of my original quote so you could argue against a straw man. I didn't say "the US will lose a basic right...". I said "millions of people in the US will lose a basic right...". No one thinks this will result in a federal abortion ban, but over a dozen states will immediately ban abortion upon the overturning of Roe v Wade. Those states contain millions of people who will lose the right to an abortion.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  Sure. Do you not understand how Federalism works? Voters in some states prefer more restrictive abortion laws. I'm still not following your argument. Is it that, according to you, "millions of people who want abortions" will not be able to get them because some states that are full of people (also millions, ostensibly) who want more restrictive abortion laws are now able to enact them? Because if that's your argument it sort of gives away the game about the robustness of the Roe/Casey decision(s) in the first place.
  - slg 5y ago
    The whole point of Federalism is not for the states to decide whatever they want. That would leave little purpose for the existence of the Federal government. The Federal government abdicating the protection of certain rights means states will infringe on those rights. I can be upset that my fellow citizens will lose those rights even if I live in state that will continue to protect my rights.
    - mmlkmlkm 5y ago
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      > That would leave little purpose for the existence of the Federal government. Yes, that's exactly the point. States run themselves like little countries and the glowies handle issues that are truly interstate or effect the entire nation. The idea that someone in "practically Canada" Maine and someone in "practically Mexico" California and someone in "I can see russia" (lol) Alaska all have to run their businesses in some particular way because some jerk on Wall Street ruined it for everyone and got a law made after them is asinine.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      But who gets to decide what those “rights” are? Very few countries around the world think that there is a “right” to abortion until viability. It was created out of whole cloth by elite lawyers in the US.
- mmlkmlkm 5y ago
- rayiner 5y ago
  Those states voted for those laws. What interest does someone in California or New York have in trying to overturn the local will? Abortion isn’t like civil rights, where southern states passed laws directed at a minority that had a unique historical position. States where voters choose to ban abortion have women the same as states who choose to allow abortion and those women agree with the bans. The majority of Black women in Mississippi think abortion should be illegal. Why should anyone in New York get a say?
- zaccusl 5y ago
  "No one thinks this will result in a federal abortion ban" Nope, anybody paying attention thinks this will result in a federal ban. Conservatives are already calling for a senate majority to specifically apply a 6 week abortion ban nation wide. And that is just the start.

rayiner 5y ago

I think if Texans want to be like Ireland until 2020 or Poland now they should be allowed to do that and it’s none of my business here in Maryland.

slg 5y ago
Might as well dissolve the union then. What is the point of having a Federal government if what happens in Texas is none of my business?
jfengel 5y ago
And if Texans want to be like Texas until 1865?
- rayiner 5y ago
  We had a whole civil war and enacted several amendments to address the unique situation of a majority in a state enslaving or discriminating against a discrete minority. That has nothing to do with a majority of people imposing restrictions on themselves. 59% of people in Mississippi oppose abortion, including the majority of women. There is no need for California or New York to parachute in and tell them otherwise.
  - 5678909787 5y ago
    They are not imposing restrictions on themselves. Anyone who doesn't want an abortion can just not have an abortion. They are imposing restrictions on other people. Being a majority doesn't give you the right to impose restrictions on the minority. Bodily autonomy is an individual right. I don't care if you vote 99% to 1%, that 1% still have the right to control their own body.
  - larntz 5y ago
    > That has nothing to do with a majority of people imposing restrictions on themselves. 59% of people in Mississippi oppose abortion, including the majority of women. There is no need for California or New York to parachute in and tell them otherwise. You could also argue that if 59% of people in Mississippi oppose abortion there's no need to make it illegal. No one will ever force that 59% to start having abortions. The 59% could simply _choose_ not to have an abortion.