4 ms·

FIRST: If SCOTUS should stay out of big, divisive cultural decisions, then they should do it point-forward and not by hopping right back in the fray. SECOND: A

FIRST: If SCOTUS should stay out of big, divisive cultural decisions, then they should do it point-forward and not by hopping right back in the fray. SECOND: Abortion is seen as a fundamental right for womens' health, and there are many documented reasons for getting abortion that are not merely "convenience". There are things which should not be prohibited by the democratic process, since they are human rights. THIRD: There is no scientific basis for restricting abortion; I would place a large bet that more than 95% of people who are against abortion rights base their opinion on faith-based teachings. FOURTH: We need to abolish the two party system via *ballot reform* and move to Ranked-Choice or approval voting. This will weaken the two parties, allow citizens to vote /for/ someone rather than against, and will be a more accurate gauge of popular sentiment.

mountainriver 4y ago
I guess the Supreme Court shouldn’t have ruled on segregation then. Also most anti-abortion people I talk to have more developed views than just faith based. There is actually no scientific argument for abortion
- Jotra7 4y ago
- generj 4y ago
  Except of course for all the medically necessary abortions which are extremely scientifically justified. This decision will almost certainly kill thousands of women annually.
  - inlined 4y ago
    And we have representatives who are literally pro-death. Some have said no exception for ectopic pregnancies and some have clearly stated that there is no exception for the life of the mother.
    - mountainriver 4y ago
      if you believe a fetus is a human life then Roe v. Wade is certainly pro-death
      - generj 4y ago
        But relatively few people believe this. Maybe 30% of the country, and even then it is unclear how earnestly they do because most people who are staunchly anti-abortion support or use other techniques which functionally destroy embryos and fetuses. For example, IVF would create and then kill dozens of children for every successful birth. But IVF is extremely popular. It is unclear to me why 30% of the country gets to impose their morals on 70% of the country. It is clearly a moral argument either way, there are compelling moral issues about removing bodily autonomy and consent from women even beyond the medically preventable fatalities which will occur. Then there are the moral issues with rape and incest victims, being required to give birth, etc. Do the 30% have a far superior moral compass than the 70% who have examined the same complicated issue and come to a different conclusion?
        mountainriver 4y ago
        Totally agree, I'm more arguing devils advocate than anything. I think a minority imposing laws on the majority is undemocratic. I just also think it's worth trying to actual meet people where they are, most genuinely think we're killing babies and want to stop that, and to be fair we have no idea when a human life starts. I'm just really over the villainization of people who are just concerned.
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    Almost happened this week in Malta: https://www.euronews.com/2022/06/23/barbaric-maltas-abortion-law-threatens-us-womans-life-say-doctors https://www.euronews.com/2022/06/23/barbaric-maltas-abortion...
  - mountainriver 4y ago
    It's a question of morals not science, that should be completely obvious. If you believe a fetus is a human life then its probably more justified morally to end the mothers life instead of the newborn. There are of course some exceptions where the fetus wouldn't be viable in any scenario, those rapidly change with technology. To be clear I'm pro abortion when its medically needed, I just think people give the other side too bad of a wrap and act like this is settled science. Also worth noting that overturning Roe v Wade would reduce the loss of life if you believe a fetus is a person. Most abortions are not medically needed, meaning we are killing millions of people
achenet 4y ago
> FOURTH: We need to abolish the two party system via ballot reform and move to Ranked-Choice or approval voting. This will weaken the two parties, allow citizens to vote /for/ someone rather than against, and will be a more accurate gauge of popular sentiment. Yes please. The current system is completely dysfunctional.
i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
cmurf 4y ago
Requires either 50 states to change state law, or 3/4 of the states to ratify a federal constitutional amendment. And any of these requires the cooperation of the two parties to make it happen, or voting in their replacements. So it's a really tough nut to crack. It's hard to change the constitution. If 85% of the country had any damn idea how the current system works let alone a modern alternative, it would be straight forward but they don't. And any states that think they will lose their inflated advantage will refuse to cooperate.

mountainriver 4y ago

I guess the Supreme Court shouldn’t have ruled on segregation then. Also most anti-abortion people I talk to have more developed views than just faith based. There is actually no scientific argument for abortion

Jotra7 4y ago
generj 4y ago
Except of course for all the medically necessary abortions which are extremely scientifically justified. This decision will almost certainly kill thousands of women annually.
- inlined 4y ago
  And we have representatives who are literally pro-death. Some have said no exception for ectopic pregnancies and some have clearly stated that there is no exception for the life of the mother.
  - mountainriver 4y ago
    if you believe a fetus is a human life then Roe v. Wade is certainly pro-death
    - generj 4y ago
      But relatively few people believe this. Maybe 30% of the country, and even then it is unclear how earnestly they do because most people who are staunchly anti-abortion support or use other techniques which functionally destroy embryos and fetuses. For example, IVF would create and then kill dozens of children for every successful birth. But IVF is extremely popular. It is unclear to me why 30% of the country gets to impose their morals on 70% of the country. It is clearly a moral argument either way, there are compelling moral issues about removing bodily autonomy and consent from women even beyond the medically preventable fatalities which will occur. Then there are the moral issues with rape and incest victims, being required to give birth, etc. Do the 30% have a far superior moral compass than the 70% who have examined the same complicated issue and come to a different conclusion?
      - mountainriver 4y ago
        Totally agree, I'm more arguing devils advocate than anything. I think a minority imposing laws on the majority is undemocratic. I just also think it's worth trying to actual meet people where they are, most genuinely think we're killing babies and want to stop that, and to be fair we have no idea when a human life starts. I'm just really over the villainization of people who are just concerned.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  Almost happened this week in Malta: https://www.euronews.com/2022/06/23/barbaric-maltas-abortion-law-threatens-us-womans-life-say-doctors https://www.euronews.com/2022/06/23/barbaric-maltas-abortion...
- mountainriver 4y ago
  It's a question of morals not science, that should be completely obvious. If you believe a fetus is a human life then its probably more justified morally to end the mothers life instead of the newborn. There are of course some exceptions where the fetus wouldn't be viable in any scenario, those rapidly change with technology. To be clear I'm pro abortion when its medically needed, I just think people give the other side too bad of a wrap and act like this is settled science. Also worth noting that overturning Roe v Wade would reduce the loss of life if you believe a fetus is a person. Most abortions are not medically needed, meaning we are killing millions of people

achenet 4y ago

> FOURTH: We need to abolish the two party system via ballot reform and move to Ranked-Choice or approval voting. This will weaken the two parties, allow citizens to vote /for/ someone rather than against, and will be a more accurate gauge of popular sentiment. Yes please. The current system is completely dysfunctional.

i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago

cmurf 4y ago

Requires either 50 states to change state law, or 3/4 of the states to ratify a federal constitutional amendment. And any of these requires the cooperation of the two parties to make it happen, or voting in their replacements. So it's a really tough nut to crack. It's hard to change the constitution. If 85% of the country had any damn idea how the current system works let alone a modern alternative, it would be straight forward but they don't. And any states that think they will lose their inflated advantage will refuse to cooperate.