4 ms·

That’s missing the forest for the trees. The outrage here is that they violated our basic rights as Women by suddenly overturning a law with no warning or inpu

That’s missing the forest for the trees. The outrage here is that they violated our basic rights as Women by suddenly overturning a law with no warning or input from citizens. The further outrage is that they’re actually being revolting enough to chase after us for it. What a disgusting, disturbing, revolting country. :( ‘freedom’, lol…

hatefulmoron 4y ago
>they violated our basic rights as Women by suddenly overturning a law with no warning or input from citizens. This statement is kind of funny when the right you're referring to was invented (right or wrong) by a group of unelected judges, and is now open to be legislated on by the citizens you want input from.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >This statement is kind of funny when the right you're referring to was invented (right or wrong) by a group of unelected judges, and is now open to be legislated on by the citizens you want input from. No. Humans (and that includes women) have agency. That includes bodily autonomy and any "law" that restricts that is unethical, misogynistic and flat wrong. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. As far as anyone else is concerned it's none of your concern.
  - snapplebobapple 4y ago
    While I am a huge fan of abortion (it has killed so many future criminals that you can see its implementation in the crime stats), this idea of agency as justification for allowing abortion is completely wrong because we already curtail agency for various things like self harm and harming others and at some point long past inception but before birth it gets pretty hard to argue you aren't harming someone else.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      Okay. If that's what you believe, then you should have no problem being required, under penalty of imprisonment or execution to: 1. Submit blood/dna samples to a state organ donor program; 2. Give up a kidney, a lung, part of your liver, perhaps a testicle to someone who is a good donor match. What you're advocating is essentially the same thing. What's that? You don't want to be required to do so? Why is that? As an aside, according to the Donor Care Network[0]: "Kidney donor surgery has a .007% mortality rate, which means that on average, for every 100,000 living donor surgeries, seven donors die." At the same time, according to the CDC[1]: "In 2020, 861 women were identified as having died of maternal causes in the United States, compared with 754 in 2019 (3). The maternal mortality rate for 2020 was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births" Making it more than three times as dangerous for a woman to carry a child to term than it is to donate a kidney. Would you support legislation that would require you to provide a kidney, part of your liver, a lung or some other organ to another person? And if you refuse, you will be subject to imprisonment or even the death penalty if the designated recipient died? If not, then why is it okay to have laws that require essentially the same thing from women with functioning reproductive systems, with the additional burden of such a requirement entailing more than three times the risk of death than donating a kidney? [0] https://www.donorcarenet.org/education/kidney-donation-risks/ https://www.donorcarenet.org/education/kidney-donation-risks... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020/maternal-mortality-rates-2020.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020... Edit: Fixed typos. Added the missing link.
      - snapplebobapple 4y ago
        Well, now you're just confusing positive and negative rights. The curtailment of agency that we have a long history of is to enforce negative rights (I.e you do not have the right to kill someone) or to protect you from yourself if there is strong evidence you are not of sound mind (i.e. inpatient psychiatric care and that is really a negative right as well because we are stopping the crazy person in front of us from harming the potentially sane person underneath that has been overcome by crazy). Your examples are all of the form this person has X problem therefore I can be compelled to do Y, which is pretty clearly not allowed when you read the constitution. In the case of an abortion the right to autonomy clashes with the right to not be murdered. And that is what has had a significant portion of the population so up in arms that they spent fifty years trying to get a supreme court that would overturn Roe because they correctly think that point is before birth. How much before birth is what needs to go through the sometimes ugly but often cathartic democratic process at the state level.
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    - lostgame 4y ago
      If you’re a man, don’t make laws for women. Let us vote on it ourselves. Feel free to move to one of the many countries that embraces toxic misogyny. Thanks.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        > If you’re a man, don’t make laws for women. Let us vote on it ourselves. That's not how universal suffrage works.
nathanaldensr 4y ago
- lostgame 4y ago
  [flagged]
Ekaros 4y ago
What law? I thought it was judicial decision that was overturned for a reason. If the populace wanted a law they have had years to do it. Should blame the voters and not the court for failing to vote people who would vote for such a law.

hatefulmoron 4y ago

>they violated our basic rights as Women by suddenly overturning a law with no warning or input from citizens. This statement is kind of funny when the right you're referring to was invented (right or wrong) by a group of unelected judges, and is now open to be legislated on by the citizens you want input from.

nobody9999 4y ago
>This statement is kind of funny when the right you're referring to was invented (right or wrong) by a group of unelected judges, and is now open to be legislated on by the citizens you want input from. No. Humans (and that includes women) have agency. That includes bodily autonomy and any "law" that restricts that is unethical, misogynistic and flat wrong. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. As far as anyone else is concerned it's none of your concern.
- snapplebobapple 4y ago
  While I am a huge fan of abortion (it has killed so many future criminals that you can see its implementation in the crime stats), this idea of agency as justification for allowing abortion is completely wrong because we already curtail agency for various things like self harm and harming others and at some point long past inception but before birth it gets pretty hard to argue you aren't harming someone else.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    Okay. If that's what you believe, then you should have no problem being required, under penalty of imprisonment or execution to: 1. Submit blood/dna samples to a state organ donor program; 2. Give up a kidney, a lung, part of your liver, perhaps a testicle to someone who is a good donor match. What you're advocating is essentially the same thing. What's that? You don't want to be required to do so? Why is that? As an aside, according to the Donor Care Network[0]: "Kidney donor surgery has a .007% mortality rate, which means that on average, for every 100,000 living donor surgeries, seven donors die." At the same time, according to the CDC[1]: "In 2020, 861 women were identified as having died of maternal causes in the United States, compared with 754 in 2019 (3). The maternal mortality rate for 2020 was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births" Making it more than three times as dangerous for a woman to carry a child to term than it is to donate a kidney. Would you support legislation that would require you to provide a kidney, part of your liver, a lung or some other organ to another person? And if you refuse, you will be subject to imprisonment or even the death penalty if the designated recipient died? If not, then why is it okay to have laws that require essentially the same thing from women with functioning reproductive systems, with the additional burden of such a requirement entailing more than three times the risk of death than donating a kidney? [0] https://www.donorcarenet.org/education/kidney-donation-risks/ https://www.donorcarenet.org/education/kidney-donation-risks... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020/maternal-mortality-rates-2020.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020... Edit: Fixed typos. Added the missing link.
    - snapplebobapple 4y ago
      Well, now you're just confusing positive and negative rights. The curtailment of agency that we have a long history of is to enforce negative rights (I.e you do not have the right to kill someone) or to protect you from yourself if there is strong evidence you are not of sound mind (i.e. inpatient psychiatric care and that is really a negative right as well because we are stopping the crazy person in front of us from harming the potentially sane person underneath that has been overcome by crazy). Your examples are all of the form this person has X problem therefore I can be compelled to do Y, which is pretty clearly not allowed when you read the constitution. In the case of an abortion the right to autonomy clashes with the right to not be murdered. And that is what has had a significant portion of the population so up in arms that they spent fifty years trying to get a supreme court that would overturn Roe because they correctly think that point is before birth. How much before birth is what needs to go through the sometimes ugly but often cathartic democratic process at the state level.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  - lostgame 4y ago
    If you’re a man, don’t make laws for women. Let us vote on it ourselves. Feel free to move to one of the many countries that embraces toxic misogyny. Thanks.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      > If you’re a man, don’t make laws for women. Let us vote on it ourselves. That's not how universal suffrage works.

nathanaldensr 4y ago

lostgame 4y ago
[flagged]

Ekaros 4y ago

What law? I thought it was judicial decision that was overturned for a reason. If the populace wanted a law they have had years to do it. Should blame the voters and not the court for failing to vote people who would vote for such a law.