11 ms·

> I'll be the begrudging devils advocate There are plenty of devils out there, they can advocate for themselves. This ruling can be as technically correct as a

by kdtsh 4y ago

> I'll be the begrudging devils advocate There are plenty of devils out there, they can advocate for themselves. This ruling can be as technically correct as anyone likes, but it is disastrous in every conceivable way. All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights. Edit: there are a lot of people who are clearly very clever advocating for the devil. The devils have the best lawyers money can buy; all I can really suggest, as someone who is not American and not a woman, is that you advocate for human beings for a change.

orthecreedence 4y ago
> All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights. Another devil's advocate here...the people advocating for outlawing abortion are also convinced it's a rights issue: the rights of the unborn child. This isn't an open and shut case. Granted, I think Roe v Wade struck a fairly nuanced balance and I also think this is a disastrous decision. It's unfortunate RBG didn't quit when she had the chance and also unfortunate the dems ran Abuela in 2016. This could have been avoided, along with 4 years of complete buffoonery and international embarassment. It sucks our one-party-with-two-factions system has one faction that's consistently spineless and lacking foresight.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > the people advocating for outlawing abortion are also convinced it's a rights issue: the rights of the unborn child. Then authority shouldn’t be given to the states, right? Presumably those people will be proposing a federal ban soon, right?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - orthecreedence 4y ago
    > Presumably those people will be proposing a federal ban soon, right? Sure, that'd be a logical next step. The people who argue for states' rights are often doing so as a ruse to eventually exercise federal control. That said, I think it will end up like marijuana: illegal federally with a bunch of states who just don't give a fuck. In the end, it may only weaken the power the federal government holds, which at this point is a good thing because power has been concentrating more and more the past 100 years. I feel I have to reiterate though: this is still a disastrous outcome for a lot of people. I'm not happy about it. The conservative morons who "want the government out of their lives" but also continuously try to legislate people's bodies and sexuality have scored a real win, and I'm scared and upset for all the women in red states who have to live under their reign of hypocritical terror.
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      > That said, I think it will end up like marijuana: illegal federally with a bunch of states who just don't give a fuck. And don't forget the immense amount of suffering inflicted disproportionately on minority and disadvantaged groups.
      - orthecreedence 4y ago
        You mean how our drug laws and penal system are the constitutionally-protected successors to slavery? I haven't forgotten.
    - chmod600 4y ago
      "The people who argue for states' rights are often doing so as a ruse to eventually exercise federal control." It's funny how symmetrical hypocrisy is. Liberals are hypocrites because they favor states rights when it comes to firearm regulations but not for abortions; and conservatives are hypocrites for exactly the opposite positions. (I'll point out that in this instance, on a purely logical basis, the conservatives have the upper hand because they can clearly point to the second amendment, whereas the liberals need to try to identify abortion as some kind of implicit natural right that's not written down anywhere. I say this as a pro-choice person.) In either case, you are right, it is largely a ruse. If abortions and firearms were both illegal nationally, then liberals would fight for states' rights on abortion but not for firearms; and conservatives would again have the opposite positions. Political creatures fight on the battlefield where they can win (or, more often, keep the status quo and stay in office but look like they are fighting to keep the campaign cash rolling in).
  - TheAxe 4y ago
    It's dangerous to generalize but I think a least some subset of them already have: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ba...
  - ravitation 4y ago
    This is one of those cases, where, people like the original commenter, if we assume they are arguing in good faith, will then be "surprised" when it turns out those they are electing actually aren't committed to it being a "states' rights" issue. Devolution of authority to the states is just the current tool the right have to further restrict access to abortion, if federal legislative power to ban abortion becomes available to them, they will drop the "states' rights" approach immediately. It's really a tale as old as time (or at least as old as the United States). "States' rights," outside of theoretical discussions, has always simply been a tool, not a true guiding ideology.
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      Good faith is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. If you're proposing something bad I'm going to oppose you regardless of whether you're proposing it in good faith.
      - ravitation 4y ago
        My point about good faith was assuming people that claim to simply be in favor of devolution of authority to legislatures or states are being truthful; and not just also saying that because its a useful and expedient defense.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      Yup. Funny how Thomas, in his opinion, believes "access to contraceptives, "same sex relationships", "same sex marriage" are all "errors that need to be corrected in the context of "states' rights", but somehow "interracial marriage" isn't.
  - hobo_in_library 4y ago
- zorpner 4y ago
  The relevant quote on the subject, from David Barnhart ( https://www.facebook.com/dave.barnhart/posts/pfbid0qt4dXV6kKCpJj9NGisVAhwnBqxsttdvtJcZdWozPSpFvnhQgWuQiFxpS7XTVE2pZl https://www.facebook.com/dave.barnhart/posts/pfbid0qt4dXV6kK... ): ---------------------------------------- "The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn. ----------------------------------------
  - orthecreedence 4y ago
    Thanks, I like this. I also find it insanely hypocritical that "these people" want children born no matter the cost, but once they are born they are left to fend for themselves. The same people advocating for illegal abortion are often advocating for stripping services that would help single mothers. Most are not actually interested in the welfare of children, but in moral grandstanding and exercising control over the bodies of "sluts."
    - achenet 4y ago
      I wrote this a while back - you might enjoy it: It has come to my attention recently that the abortion of unwanted fetuses is likely to become illegal in large parts of the United States. Fortunately, there is another alternative, which I am sure members of the Republican Party will hearty approve of. Have the unwanted baby. Shortly after birth, drive to the middle of nowhere. Place the baby on the ground, naked, look at it sternly, and say "Listen here, you whining little brat! You think I'm just going to support you for 18 years because I'm some sort of bleeding heart liberal? You got another thing coming you stupid welfare queen! This ain't socialist Europe! There ain't no leftist safety net here! You're just going to have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" Then just leave it there, crying itself to death.:)
- achenet 4y ago
  I think the real problem is your two party system. You don't have a real democracy, you have two gangs of career politicians competing to ruin your country.
  - orthecreedence 4y ago
    Agree! I consistently vote for people who advocate for voter reform (ranked choice elections/STV and all that). It's the only way to break out of this ridiculous mess. Unfortunately I seem to be one of the only people who cares about such things. Granted, there are deeper problems to our democracy than selecting representatives. At this point, our federal government is a puppet to the financial and corporate worlds: a marriage of industry and state. Hmm, where else did that happen?
    - ClayShentrup 4y ago
      The voting method is by far the biggest problem.
  - subpixel 4y ago
    Add too that that voters now understand voting as an activity to be leveraged against an opponent as much as or more than in support of an ally. Hence Americans regularly vote against there own self-interest because they have been turned into fans.
  - thelamest 4y ago
    I’m strongly in favor of abandoning FPTP everywhere, etc., but I’d caution against tying hopes to a single cause. IRV/STV/RCV/PV are used around the world, and their effects are not that revolutionary. (My softly preferred approval voting sees least real world use, either way I’m not letting my fantasy run wild.) Politicians, parties and voters adapt to the new ruleset, and in the end some form of median voter theorem still rules (Two coalitions dominate, fighting around the center.) The US system legal and geographical pecularities mean, in broad strokes, that it’s a median voter in a median district in a median state. On the party side, the system shifts much of the coalition-building to significantly before the elections, in comparison to other countries, where it’s done close to or after votes are cast. But then, I too believe we can and should do better.
- stormbrew 4y ago
  > the people advocating for outlawing abortion are also convinced it's a rights issue: the rights of the unborn child. This is a nice fiction but it doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny most of the time. Largely the "pro-life" people also believe in things like self-defense laws and the castle doctrine, which require that you not believe anyone has a real right to life. Unless you think they'd all be ok with a squatter coming into their house and demanding food and that they wouldn't use their guns on them. But they think a mother should be required to literally risk her life in order to support a being she may not have chosen to create. You don't need to give the benefit of the doubt here. You don't need to believe disingenuous arguments just because people say they're what they mean. Dig a little deeper and understand what they really believe: women with unwanted pregnancies deserve to have it carried out against their will because they think they've sinned.
  - orthecreedence 4y ago
    All of what you said is fine and makes sense and, regardless of the vast generalizations, I agree with most of it given what I know about anti-abortion people. It's shrouded in hypocracy. That said what I said holds: this is not a clear-cut case of rights, because the rights of two entities are in question and they are in conflict. Is a handful of cells with human DNA a person? Of course not, it's less biologically developed than an ant. Is a fetus that's developed for 8 months a person? Yeah, at that point it could exit the mother and be a (somewhat) functioning being. Where do we draw the line? At what point is a fetus a person? And from there, we can determine where its rights to not die at the hand of another person begin. And yes, we have to factor in the health of the mother, the health of the fetus, etc into these decisions. This is, and always has been, a nuanced issue.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
      I'm sorry but it really is not a nuanced issue. My mom marched with Operation Rescue during the summer that culminated in the bombing of an abortion clinic, and later the execution of the Dr that ran the clinic, in his own church, during service, while he was collecting offerings as an usher. I know in painful depth every detail of how these people think. It is not nuanced on their side. They outright reject empirical facts. They believe the earth is only 6000 years old, that the dinosaurs died in Noah's flood, and that evolution is a myth, not the central mechanism of all biology. They do not care about the facts other than pattern matching them as rhetorical thought ending cliches. They believe because they had an imaginary conversation in their head once, they are now born again, and have a private telepathic phone line to absolute truth. When they feel certain about something, it's the will of god revealed to them through the holy spirit. When other people express opposing certainty, it's because they have been tricked by the devil. There is no good faith debate on the basis of facts or nuance with these people. You could spend years refuting every single thing they believe on a factual basis beyond any nuance or doubt, and they will blink, look at you, and then say something like "I know what's true in my heart of hearts." Every single detail of how they talk about this and the actions they take make clear their actual grievance is regulating women's sexual behavior outside of their theocratic conception of marriage. There is no need to defend these people as some sort of morally principled people confused by the underlying nuances. They are no where near that intellectually honest on the subject.
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
He that knows only his side of the case, doesn't even know that. -John Stewart Mill If you can’t steelman any topic, you don’t understand the topic. I don’t pick begrudge Republicans that actually believe and really feel the abortion has been terminating a human life unfairly. I’m more begrudge Democrats that refuse to understand this is a nonfalsifiable issue. That we will never understand truly the point of which a thing becomes a human. There will never be agreement. You need understand and accept that. So given the choice between federally legal and federally illegal, where there will always be conflict, you could do worse than 50 state rules. For all the rage that “some number of weeks abortion bans” in the certain state received, that is Germany’s every day. They have a 12 week ban with mandatory counseling. I have difficulty understanding how the same pitched here would get red eyed outrage from most Pro-Choice but Germans seem to be getting along. I don’t think the issue is abortion, I think it’s just like everything else hyper-polarization. I think it’s absolutely stupid that if I see you still wearing a mask in a store, that I can pretty much determine your views on abortion. We’re being played.
- kdtsh 4y ago
  > There will never be agreement. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. Can it be simpler?
  - rhino369 4y ago
    You must know that you aren't really addressing the fundamental disagreement, which is whether a fetus is a human life. The prolifers would respond sarcastically and say: "If you don't want to murder your 8 month old, don't do it? Can it be simpler?"
- zorpner 4y ago
  > If you can’t steelman any topic, you don’t understand the topic. This fundamentally misunderstands the actual Republican position, and it does so in the way that they are intending to trick you into doing. If they cared about lives, they would protect schoolchildren. If they cared about lives, they would protect the poor. If they cared about lives, they'd care about death from car accidents, from Covid, from lack of medical care. They don't. So it's not about caring about lives, trivially.
corrral 4y ago
> All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights. Natural rights are a terribly shaky concept to begin with—hardly "real".
refurb 4y ago
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  - refurb 4y ago
    If it’s an attack on a specific gender why are 50% of that gender in favor (women who are pro-life). Your extremist rhetoric will cause more harm than good in the end. Cry wolf enough and people stop listening to you.
    - codeguro 4y ago
      - refurb 4y ago
        Not sure how “extreme” a position is when 50% of the population hold it including women.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
dpbriggs 4y ago
That edit is a nice but ultimately impotent statement. What matters is the mechanics of how we're in this situation. They're complicated and thankfully this decision doesn't mean an outright ban for all Americans. Providing access for the rest is what should be discussed, over shaking fists and platitudes.
codeguro 4y ago
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  Ridiculous. A fetus is not a person. A pig or a cow is more sentient. If we're going to call a fetus a person, first we gotta do intelligent livestock and outlaw killing animals for food. The difference is that most Americans would be outraged if the government forbade them from eating meat, because that takes away their freedom and forces them to spend slightly more money on food that doesn't taste quite as good. It astounds me that these same people think the government should have the power to force someone to give birth to a child they don't want and can't afford. The amount of suffering that will cause is unimaginable. Of course, most people who are against abortion won't hesitate to get one if they or their daughter needs it. It's always different when it's your life and dreams that are about to be destroyed.
  - throw1122334 4y ago
  - codeguro 4y ago
    - catlifeonmars 4y ago
      Idk man. How come human lives have more value than other primate lives? Sounds like a perspective that comes from privilege (as in lucky enough to to be born human.
      - codeguro 4y ago
        Name one civilization raises primates to be eaten like cattle.
        jyounker 4y ago
drstewart 4y ago
>all I can really suggest, as someone who is not American and not a woman Why do you think your nationality and gender are relevant to your opinion?
- paganel 4y ago
  Not the OP but as a fellow non-American who likes to dabble in American politics I try to always mention that detail when I’m commenting on a hot/intense socio-political subject (like this one), so that the other people involved in the same conversation (presumably most of them Americans, both here and on Reddit) can judge for themselves how valid my opinion can be seeing that (most likely) I’m not directly involved or affected by the subject being discussed.
  - drstewart 4y ago
    In my experience, people mentioning that they're not American (and in particular they they are European) seem to think that confers some infallible wisdom to their arguments
    - ianai 4y ago
      better than foreign propaganda flying under a false flag.
    - brynjolf 4y ago
      I just think you don't like foreigners
mikkergp 4y ago
> the people advocating for outlawing abortion are also convinced it's a rights issue: the rights of the unborn child. This isn't an open and shut case. Does the decision at all call out the rights of the unborn child? If so why would it be left up to the states and not outright banned? Why are contraception and gay marriage called out as comprable rights?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
omginternets 4y ago
He is advocating for human beings, by taking the defense of democratic processes and institutions, even when he disagrees with the specific decision. Your plea is exactly reducible to: “thou shalt support the Right Thing, always”. It’s almost disturbingly naive.

by kdtsh 4y ago

orthecreedence 4y ago

> All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights. Another devil's advocate here...the people advocating for outlawing abortion are also convinced it's a rights issue: the rights of the unborn child. This isn't an open and shut case. Granted, I think Roe v Wade struck a fairly nuanced balance and I also think this is a disastrous decision. It's unfortunate RBG didn't quit when she had the chance and also unfortunate the dems ran Abuela in 2016. This could have been avoided, along with 4 years of complete buffoonery and international embarassment. It sucks our one-party-with-two-factions system has one faction that's consistently spineless and lacking foresight.

tshaddox 4y ago
> the people advocating for outlawing abortion are also convinced it's a rights issue: the rights of the unborn child. Then authority shouldn’t be given to the states, right? Presumably those people will be proposing a federal ban soon, right?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- orthecreedence 4y ago
  > Presumably those people will be proposing a federal ban soon, right? Sure, that'd be a logical next step. The people who argue for states' rights are often doing so as a ruse to eventually exercise federal control. That said, I think it will end up like marijuana: illegal federally with a bunch of states who just don't give a fuck. In the end, it may only weaken the power the federal government holds, which at this point is a good thing because power has been concentrating more and more the past 100 years. I feel I have to reiterate though: this is still a disastrous outcome for a lot of people. I'm not happy about it. The conservative morons who "want the government out of their lives" but also continuously try to legislate people's bodies and sexuality have scored a real win, and I'm scared and upset for all the women in red states who have to live under their reign of hypocritical terror.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    > That said, I think it will end up like marijuana: illegal federally with a bunch of states who just don't give a fuck. And don't forget the immense amount of suffering inflicted disproportionately on minority and disadvantaged groups.
    - orthecreedence 4y ago
      You mean how our drug laws and penal system are the constitutionally-protected successors to slavery? I haven't forgotten.
  - chmod600 4y ago
    "The people who argue for states' rights are often doing so as a ruse to eventually exercise federal control." It's funny how symmetrical hypocrisy is. Liberals are hypocrites because they favor states rights when it comes to firearm regulations but not for abortions; and conservatives are hypocrites for exactly the opposite positions. (I'll point out that in this instance, on a purely logical basis, the conservatives have the upper hand because they can clearly point to the second amendment, whereas the liberals need to try to identify abortion as some kind of implicit natural right that's not written down anywhere. I say this as a pro-choice person.) In either case, you are right, it is largely a ruse. If abortions and firearms were both illegal nationally, then liberals would fight for states' rights on abortion but not for firearms; and conservatives would again have the opposite positions. Political creatures fight on the battlefield where they can win (or, more often, keep the status quo and stay in office but look like they are fighting to keep the campaign cash rolling in).
- TheAxe 4y ago
  It's dangerous to generalize but I think a least some subset of them already have: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ba...
- ravitation 4y ago
  This is one of those cases, where, people like the original commenter, if we assume they are arguing in good faith, will then be "surprised" when it turns out those they are electing actually aren't committed to it being a "states' rights" issue. Devolution of authority to the states is just the current tool the right have to further restrict access to abortion, if federal legislative power to ban abortion becomes available to them, they will drop the "states' rights" approach immediately. It's really a tale as old as time (or at least as old as the United States). "States' rights," outside of theoretical discussions, has always simply been a tool, not a true guiding ideology.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    Good faith is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. If you're proposing something bad I'm going to oppose you regardless of whether you're proposing it in good faith.
    - ravitation 4y ago
      My point about good faith was assuming people that claim to simply be in favor of devolution of authority to legislatures or states are being truthful; and not just also saying that because its a useful and expedient defense.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    Yup. Funny how Thomas, in his opinion, believes "access to contraceptives, "same sex relationships", "same sex marriage" are all "errors that need to be corrected in the context of "states' rights", but somehow "interracial marriage" isn't.
- hobo_in_library 4y ago
zorpner 4y ago
The relevant quote on the subject, from David Barnhart ( https://www.facebook.com/dave.barnhart/posts/pfbid0qt4dXV6kKCpJj9NGisVAhwnBqxsttdvtJcZdWozPSpFvnhQgWuQiFxpS7XTVE2pZl https://www.facebook.com/dave.barnhart/posts/pfbid0qt4dXV6kK... ): ---------------------------------------- "The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn. ----------------------------------------
- orthecreedence 4y ago
  Thanks, I like this. I also find it insanely hypocritical that "these people" want children born no matter the cost, but once they are born they are left to fend for themselves. The same people advocating for illegal abortion are often advocating for stripping services that would help single mothers. Most are not actually interested in the welfare of children, but in moral grandstanding and exercising control over the bodies of "sluts."
  - achenet 4y ago
    I wrote this a while back - you might enjoy it: It has come to my attention recently that the abortion of unwanted fetuses is likely to become illegal in large parts of the United States. Fortunately, there is another alternative, which I am sure members of the Republican Party will hearty approve of. Have the unwanted baby. Shortly after birth, drive to the middle of nowhere. Place the baby on the ground, naked, look at it sternly, and say "Listen here, you whining little brat! You think I'm just going to support you for 18 years because I'm some sort of bleeding heart liberal? You got another thing coming you stupid welfare queen! This ain't socialist Europe! There ain't no leftist safety net here! You're just going to have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" Then just leave it there, crying itself to death.:)
achenet 4y ago
I think the real problem is your two party system. You don't have a real democracy, you have two gangs of career politicians competing to ruin your country.
- orthecreedence 4y ago
  Agree! I consistently vote for people who advocate for voter reform (ranked choice elections/STV and all that). It's the only way to break out of this ridiculous mess. Unfortunately I seem to be one of the only people who cares about such things. Granted, there are deeper problems to our democracy than selecting representatives. At this point, our federal government is a puppet to the financial and corporate worlds: a marriage of industry and state. Hmm, where else did that happen?
  - ClayShentrup 4y ago
    The voting method is by far the biggest problem.
- subpixel 4y ago
  Add too that that voters now understand voting as an activity to be leveraged against an opponent as much as or more than in support of an ally. Hence Americans regularly vote against there own self-interest because they have been turned into fans.
- thelamest 4y ago
  I’m strongly in favor of abandoning FPTP everywhere, etc., but I’d caution against tying hopes to a single cause. IRV/STV/RCV/PV are used around the world, and their effects are not that revolutionary. (My softly preferred approval voting sees least real world use, either way I’m not letting my fantasy run wild.) Politicians, parties and voters adapt to the new ruleset, and in the end some form of median voter theorem still rules (Two coalitions dominate, fighting around the center.) The US system legal and geographical pecularities mean, in broad strokes, that it’s a median voter in a median district in a median state. On the party side, the system shifts much of the coalition-building to significantly before the elections, in comparison to other countries, where it’s done close to or after votes are cast. But then, I too believe we can and should do better.
stormbrew 4y ago
> the people advocating for outlawing abortion are also convinced it's a rights issue: the rights of the unborn child. This is a nice fiction but it doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny most of the time. Largely the "pro-life" people also believe in things like self-defense laws and the castle doctrine, which require that you not believe anyone has a real right to life. Unless you think they'd all be ok with a squatter coming into their house and demanding food and that they wouldn't use their guns on them. But they think a mother should be required to literally risk her life in order to support a being she may not have chosen to create. You don't need to give the benefit of the doubt here. You don't need to believe disingenuous arguments just because people say they're what they mean. Dig a little deeper and understand what they really believe: women with unwanted pregnancies deserve to have it carried out against their will because they think they've sinned.
- orthecreedence 4y ago
  All of what you said is fine and makes sense and, regardless of the vast generalizations, I agree with most of it given what I know about anti-abortion people. It's shrouded in hypocracy. That said what I said holds: this is not a clear-cut case of rights, because the rights of two entities are in question and they are in conflict. Is a handful of cells with human DNA a person? Of course not, it's less biologically developed than an ant. Is a fetus that's developed for 8 months a person? Yeah, at that point it could exit the mother and be a (somewhat) functioning being. Where do we draw the line? At what point is a fetus a person? And from there, we can determine where its rights to not die at the hand of another person begin. And yes, we have to factor in the health of the mother, the health of the fetus, etc into these decisions. This is, and always has been, a nuanced issue.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
    I'm sorry but it really is not a nuanced issue. My mom marched with Operation Rescue during the summer that culminated in the bombing of an abortion clinic, and later the execution of the Dr that ran the clinic, in his own church, during service, while he was collecting offerings as an usher. I know in painful depth every detail of how these people think. It is not nuanced on their side. They outright reject empirical facts. They believe the earth is only 6000 years old, that the dinosaurs died in Noah's flood, and that evolution is a myth, not the central mechanism of all biology. They do not care about the facts other than pattern matching them as rhetorical thought ending cliches. They believe because they had an imaginary conversation in their head once, they are now born again, and have a private telepathic phone line to absolute truth. When they feel certain about something, it's the will of god revealed to them through the holy spirit. When other people express opposing certainty, it's because they have been tricked by the devil. There is no good faith debate on the basis of facts or nuance with these people. You could spend years refuting every single thing they believe on a factual basis beyond any nuance or doubt, and they will blink, look at you, and then say something like "I know what's true in my heart of hearts." Every single detail of how they talk about this and the actions they take make clear their actual grievance is regulating women's sexual behavior outside of their theocratic conception of marriage. There is no need to defend these people as some sort of morally principled people confused by the underlying nuances. They are no where near that intellectually honest on the subject.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

He that knows only his side of the case, doesn't even know that. -John Stewart Mill If you can’t steelman any topic, you don’t understand the topic. I don’t pick begrudge Republicans that actually believe and really feel the abortion has been terminating a human life unfairly. I’m more begrudge Democrats that refuse to understand this is a nonfalsifiable issue. That we will never understand truly the point of which a thing becomes a human. There will never be agreement. You need understand and accept that. So given the choice between federally legal and federally illegal, where there will always be conflict, you could do worse than 50 state rules. For all the rage that “some number of weeks abortion bans” in the certain state received, that is Germany’s every day. They have a 12 week ban with mandatory counseling. I have difficulty understanding how the same pitched here would get red eyed outrage from most Pro-Choice but Germans seem to be getting along. I don’t think the issue is abortion, I think it’s just like everything else hyper-polarization. I think it’s absolutely stupid that if I see you still wearing a mask in a store, that I can pretty much determine your views on abortion. We’re being played.

kdtsh 4y ago
> There will never be agreement. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. Can it be simpler?
- rhino369 4y ago
  You must know that you aren't really addressing the fundamental disagreement, which is whether a fetus is a human life. The prolifers would respond sarcastically and say: "If you don't want to murder your 8 month old, don't do it? Can it be simpler?"
zorpner 4y ago
> If you can’t steelman any topic, you don’t understand the topic. This fundamentally misunderstands the actual Republican position, and it does so in the way that they are intending to trick you into doing. If they cared about lives, they would protect schoolchildren. If they cared about lives, they would protect the poor. If they cared about lives, they'd care about death from car accidents, from Covid, from lack of medical care. They don't. So it's not about caring about lives, trivially.

corrral 4y ago

> All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights. Natural rights are a terribly shaky concept to begin with—hardly "real".

refurb 4y ago

OkayPhysicist 4y ago
- refurb 4y ago
  If it’s an attack on a specific gender why are 50% of that gender in favor (women who are pro-life). Your extremist rhetoric will cause more harm than good in the end. Cry wolf enough and people stop listening to you.
  - codeguro 4y ago
    - refurb 4y ago
      Not sure how “extreme” a position is when 50% of the population hold it including women.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

dpbriggs 4y ago

That edit is a nice but ultimately impotent statement. What matters is the mechanics of how we're in this situation. They're complicated and thankfully this decision doesn't mean an outright ban for all Americans. Providing access for the rest is what should be discussed, over shaking fists and platitudes.

codeguro 4y ago

welshwelsh 4y ago
Ridiculous. A fetus is not a person. A pig or a cow is more sentient. If we're going to call a fetus a person, first we gotta do intelligent livestock and outlaw killing animals for food. The difference is that most Americans would be outraged if the government forbade them from eating meat, because that takes away their freedom and forces them to spend slightly more money on food that doesn't taste quite as good. It astounds me that these same people think the government should have the power to force someone to give birth to a child they don't want and can't afford. The amount of suffering that will cause is unimaginable. Of course, most people who are against abortion won't hesitate to get one if they or their daughter needs it. It's always different when it's your life and dreams that are about to be destroyed.
- throw1122334 4y ago
- codeguro 4y ago
  - catlifeonmars 4y ago
    Idk man. How come human lives have more value than other primate lives? Sounds like a perspective that comes from privilege (as in lucky enough to to be born human.
    - codeguro 4y ago
      Name one civilization raises primates to be eaten like cattle.
      - jyounker 4y ago

drstewart 4y ago

>all I can really suggest, as someone who is not American and not a woman Why do you think your nationality and gender are relevant to your opinion?

paganel 4y ago
Not the OP but as a fellow non-American who likes to dabble in American politics I try to always mention that detail when I’m commenting on a hot/intense socio-political subject (like this one), so that the other people involved in the same conversation (presumably most of them Americans, both here and on Reddit) can judge for themselves how valid my opinion can be seeing that (most likely) I’m not directly involved or affected by the subject being discussed.
- drstewart 4y ago
  In my experience, people mentioning that they're not American (and in particular they they are European) seem to think that confers some infallible wisdom to their arguments
  - ianai 4y ago
    better than foreign propaganda flying under a false flag.
  - brynjolf 4y ago
    I just think you don't like foreigners

mikkergp 4y ago

> the people advocating for outlawing abortion are also convinced it's a rights issue: the rights of the unborn child. This isn't an open and shut case. Does the decision at all call out the rights of the unborn child? If so why would it be left up to the states and not outright banned? Why are contraception and gay marriage called out as comprable rights?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

omginternets 4y ago

He is advocating for human beings, by taking the defense of democratic processes and institutions, even when he disagrees with the specific decision. Your plea is exactly reducible to: “thou shalt support the Right Thing, always”. It’s almost disturbingly naive.