5 ms·

I struggle to understand how the politics in America can on the one hand, restrict personal freedoms such as abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, and at

I struggle to understand how the politics in America can on the one hand, restrict personal freedoms such as abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, and at the same time, allow free use of firearms, which are clearly more detrimental to the public. I suspect people will say this is a partisan issue, and blame the Republicans, and I kinda get that, but can the Democrats truly be so ineffectual that this is the state of your country? I look at all other development nations (note, I'm not American), and I wonder how America can stand out so boldly backward on these issues. If somebody can point me to another developed country that has such seemingly (I'll be polite) backward policies, please let me know.

quantified 4y ago
The "if you can't ask someone to wear a mask, how can you ask them to unwillingly stay pregnant and gain a big C section scar" question is a good one too.
Originami 4y ago
warning26 4y ago
> can the Democrats truly be so ineffectual that this is the state of your country? Not to deny that the democrats certainly have their own sets of internal issues, but a key factor is that the US election system is designed to ensure that republican areas have far more voting power than non-republican areas. Take the Senate, for example. Since each state has exactly two senators regardless of population, a voter in California has far less power than one in, say, Arkansas. In this environment, it's basically impossible for the democrats to achive meaningful policy goals.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  Sure but that issue is compounded by Democrat's ineffectiveness. They don't try to generate chances that they can take advantage of as well as Republican's do. Dakota's split [1] provide 4 Republican senators while California only provides 2 Democratic senators. Republican Justices have no problem with overriding a state on how to conduct its elections [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
  - quantified 4y ago
    They tend to be rather less egregiously sleazy overall. Note the BS that gets slipped into large bills without review, for example.
credit_guy 4y ago
> personal freedoms such as abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception Same-sex marriage and contraception are personal freedoms, but abortion is different. In abortion there is one more human being that enters the equation.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  I don't concede that fetuses are human beings, but let's set that aside for a moment. Should it be mandatory for mothers to donate blood and organs to their dying children after they've been born, as well? Or does this only apply while in utero?
  - kobalsky 4y ago
    I'm pro choice but that point is ridiculous. If you have a dying kid and a blood transfusion or transplant saves them you are beyond saving if you run away from your responsibility.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      We're not talking about whether it's a moral responsibility to do it voluntarily. The question is whether you should be forced, under threat of prison, to donate your body to save them.
      - kobalsky 4y ago
        I fully support abortion rights but once the kid is alive there's no gray area. This isn't a good analogy, it just derails the discussion. If you have a dying kid that has some kind of disease and can only survive if the parents donate blood and bone marrow at some risk of their health. Yes, I would force them to donate some blood and bone marrow.
        jakelazaroff 4y ago
        It is a good analogy, because they're both cases in which someone would be forced by the state to risk injury or death and undergo a medical procedure. You might think there are good reasons to require people to do so in one case, but that doesn't mean the analogy is bad.
Ferrotin 4y ago
Nonsense. America was ahead of the curve on gay marriage before Obergefell and its abortion laws as of yesterday and in many states today are far more liberal than Europe.
- jen20 4y ago
  “In many states” is doing a lot of work there, and is basically a bad faith argument.
  - brandonmenc 4y ago
    Why? Most of Europe sets a time limit of 12 weeks but prior to this year just about every US state was 20-24 weeks or no limit at all. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1268439/legal-abortion-time-frames-in-europe/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1268439/legal-abortion-t... Is this not correct?
    - jen20 4y ago
      It’s irrelevant, since many states now have outright bans.
brandonmenc 4y ago
Because gun ownership is in the Constitution and the other things are not. Whether the other things should be in the Constitution is another discussion, but no rule prevents them from being added. > If somebody can point me to another developed country that has such seemingly (I'll be polite) backward policies Until very recently, Ireland? (excluding the gun thing, of course.)
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > Until very recently, Ireland? (excluding the gun thing, of course.) What's also interesting to consider is why "the gun thing" wasn't a thing in Ireland. You'll notice a certain neighbor meddling into internal affairs for a long time whose rulers sure didn't want the common Irishman to "stand his ground" so to speak. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
refurb 4y ago
What you’re mistaking is that Roe v Wade being struck means anything more than the court kicking it back to the legislature. It was a court decision made with spit and twine and the decision to overturn even mentions that having a weak judicial argument does nothing to resolve the issues. It only fell on the courts because the legislature was unable/unwilling to pass legislation. Actually having the federal and state government pass constitutional laws to protect those rights is the smart path forward. The courts can then interpret those laws according and get out of the cycle of challenges to the legitimacy of the Roe v Wade decision. If Roe v Wade wasn’t overturn now, it would have been challenged again and again until it was.
908B64B197 4y ago
> I look at all other development nations (note, I'm not American), and I wonder how America can stand out so boldly backward on these issues. And yet, seems people are trying to move to America rather than from it, simply looking at demographics and immigrations stats. That's especially true for smart, young and educated professionals. So it appears to be a very successful model.

quantified 4y ago

The "if you can't ask someone to wear a mask, how can you ask them to unwillingly stay pregnant and gain a big C section scar" question is a good one too.

Originami 4y ago

warning26 4y ago

> can the Democrats truly be so ineffectual that this is the state of your country? Not to deny that the democrats certainly have their own sets of internal issues, but a key factor is that the US election system is designed to ensure that republican areas have far more voting power than non-republican areas. Take the Senate, for example. Since each state has exactly two senators regardless of population, a voter in California has far less power than one in, say, Arkansas. In this environment, it's basically impossible for the democrats to achive meaningful policy goals.

lesuorac 4y ago
Sure but that issue is compounded by Democrat's ineffectiveness. They don't try to generate chances that they can take advantage of as well as Republican's do. Dakota's split [1] provide 4 Republican senators while California only provides 2 Democratic senators. Republican Justices have no problem with overriding a state on how to conduct its elections [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
- quantified 4y ago
  They tend to be rather less egregiously sleazy overall. Note the BS that gets slipped into large bills without review, for example.

credit_guy 4y ago

> personal freedoms such as abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception Same-sex marriage and contraception are personal freedoms, but abortion is different. In abortion there is one more human being that enters the equation.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
I don't concede that fetuses are human beings, but let's set that aside for a moment. Should it be mandatory for mothers to donate blood and organs to their dying children after they've been born, as well? Or does this only apply while in utero?
- kobalsky 4y ago
  I'm pro choice but that point is ridiculous. If you have a dying kid and a blood transfusion or transplant saves them you are beyond saving if you run away from your responsibility.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    We're not talking about whether it's a moral responsibility to do it voluntarily. The question is whether you should be forced, under threat of prison, to donate your body to save them.
    - kobalsky 4y ago
      I fully support abortion rights but once the kid is alive there's no gray area. This isn't a good analogy, it just derails the discussion. If you have a dying kid that has some kind of disease and can only survive if the parents donate blood and bone marrow at some risk of their health. Yes, I would force them to donate some blood and bone marrow.
      - jakelazaroff 4y ago
        It is a good analogy, because they're both cases in which someone would be forced by the state to risk injury or death and undergo a medical procedure. You might think there are good reasons to require people to do so in one case, but that doesn't mean the analogy is bad.

Ferrotin 4y ago

Nonsense. America was ahead of the curve on gay marriage before Obergefell and its abortion laws as of yesterday and in many states today are far more liberal than Europe.

jen20 4y ago
“In many states” is doing a lot of work there, and is basically a bad faith argument.
- brandonmenc 4y ago
  Why? Most of Europe sets a time limit of 12 weeks but prior to this year just about every US state was 20-24 weeks or no limit at all. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1268439/legal-abortion-time-frames-in-europe/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1268439/legal-abortion-t... Is this not correct?
  - jen20 4y ago
    It’s irrelevant, since many states now have outright bans.

brandonmenc 4y ago

Because gun ownership is in the Constitution and the other things are not. Whether the other things should be in the Constitution is another discussion, but no rule prevents them from being added. > If somebody can point me to another developed country that has such seemingly (I'll be polite) backward policies Until very recently, Ireland? (excluding the gun thing, of course.)

908B64B197 4y ago
> Until very recently, Ireland? (excluding the gun thing, of course.) What's also interesting to consider is why "the gun thing" wasn't a thing in Ireland. You'll notice a certain neighbor meddling into internal affairs for a long time whose rulers sure didn't want the common Irishman to "stand his ground" so to speak. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

refurb 4y ago

What you’re mistaking is that Roe v Wade being struck means anything more than the court kicking it back to the legislature. It was a court decision made with spit and twine and the decision to overturn even mentions that having a weak judicial argument does nothing to resolve the issues. It only fell on the courts because the legislature was unable/unwilling to pass legislation. Actually having the federal and state government pass constitutional laws to protect those rights is the smart path forward. The courts can then interpret those laws according and get out of the cycle of challenges to the legitimacy of the Roe v Wade decision. If Roe v Wade wasn’t overturn now, it would have been challenged again and again until it was.

908B64B197 4y ago

> I look at all other development nations (note, I'm not American), and I wonder how America can stand out so boldly backward on these issues. And yet, seems people are trying to move to America rather than from it, simply looking at demographics and immigrations stats. That's especially true for smart, young and educated professionals. So it appears to be a very successful model.