9 ms·

> All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights. Another de

> 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.

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.