7 ms·

> 10 year old being forced to travel out of state People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some

> 10 year old being forced to travel out of state People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal. If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.

runako 4y ago
> People in the US are able to freely travel between states This is not a right that is specifically enumerated by the Constitution. The current Supreme Court has indicated that rights that are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution are subject to evaluation and curtailment.
SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
This comment isn’t acknowledging that long-term solutions are necessary but not sufficient to make whole the continued injustice of trauma and death that will result from laws that deprive reproduce rights. It’s important to keep in mind there is a current and ongoing number of people who are dying, who have died, who are being deprived medical care (some who aren’t even pregnant!) and that an amendment to the constitution will not right the wrongs made to them.
- linuxftw 4y ago
  Personally, I don't feel the idea of government is legitimate, but if you do, then you must abide by the process, for better or worse. There was plenty of time between Roe v Wade and present to pass an amendment or secede, so clearly the matter wasn't urgent.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    No, there is nothing saying that just because you believe government is necessary that one must consider the government wholly, uncritically sufficient.
  - softcactus 4y ago
    [flagged]
jjulius 4y ago
>People in the US are able to freely travel between states... Easier said than done, for many.
softcactus 4y ago
- buscoquadnary 4y ago
  Laws should be made based on reason, justice, and after due consideration and we'll reasoned discussion not empathy, emotion, or crises of the moment. Doing that will only lead to poorly conceived and implemented laws that fail at their purpose and give power to demogauges and the power hungry.
  - softcactus 4y ago
    I never said laws should be based on empathy. I just said that OP had no empathy in order to make the point that taking an aloof legalist stance is stupid when it has actual real world negative impacts on others that they were incapable of considering. My second paragraph expands upon the reason and justice aspect. Also the current constitutional crisis we are in demolishes the legalist justification anyways. States being able to ban travel to other states for abortion, states allowing private citizens to sue others for getting abortions in other states. States limiting access to websites that are legal in other states and limiting the first amendment. Because repealing Roe was done on an ideological basis it has caused a cascade of problems around how much power states should have, one that has been largely settled since the Civil War.
- linuxftw 4y ago
  I don't pretend to know what is best for everyone nor dictate my morals to them. So if SC thinks they should have a law to do whatever, that's their business. If the people living there don't like it, they should work to change the law, or start lynching politicians, whichever is easier, that's for the people of SC to decide. As for the people not in South Carolina, they should work to pass an amendment or secede from the union, those are the only legal options if you believe in how the federal government is supposed to work (maybe there's a 3rd option to kick out SC?).
  - softcactus 4y ago
fipar 4y ago
> People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Do you know of countries with a federal government and where people can't travel freely between the member states? The ones I know don't have this problem so I'm not sure how that's something unique to the US.
falcolas 4y ago
Any amendment or law would be subject to review by the current SC - an entity which is currently very goal orientated - and it's quite likely they would find an argument to nullify or void it entirely. One really simple example of what the SCOTUS could do is they could rule that an unborn child - from the time of conception - is covered by the rights laid out in the 14th amendment. Takes all choice back away from the state once more.
32163704 4y ago
People in the US are free to not get raped, too, but unfortunately there are circumstances where that freedom is severely abridged.

runako 4y ago

> People in the US are able to freely travel between states This is not a right that is specifically enumerated by the Constitution. The current Supreme Court has indicated that rights that are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution are subject to evaluation and curtailment.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago

This comment isn’t acknowledging that long-term solutions are necessary but not sufficient to make whole the continued injustice of trauma and death that will result from laws that deprive reproduce rights. It’s important to keep in mind there is a current and ongoing number of people who are dying, who have died, who are being deprived medical care (some who aren’t even pregnant!) and that an amendment to the constitution will not right the wrongs made to them.

linuxftw 4y ago
Personally, I don't feel the idea of government is legitimate, but if you do, then you must abide by the process, for better or worse. There was plenty of time between Roe v Wade and present to pass an amendment or secede, so clearly the matter wasn't urgent.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  No, there is nothing saying that just because you believe government is necessary that one must consider the government wholly, uncritically sufficient.
- softcactus 4y ago
  [flagged]

jjulius 4y ago

>People in the US are able to freely travel between states... Easier said than done, for many.

softcactus 4y ago

buscoquadnary 4y ago
Laws should be made based on reason, justice, and after due consideration and we'll reasoned discussion not empathy, emotion, or crises of the moment. Doing that will only lead to poorly conceived and implemented laws that fail at their purpose and give power to demogauges and the power hungry.
- softcactus 4y ago
  I never said laws should be based on empathy. I just said that OP had no empathy in order to make the point that taking an aloof legalist stance is stupid when it has actual real world negative impacts on others that they were incapable of considering. My second paragraph expands upon the reason and justice aspect. Also the current constitutional crisis we are in demolishes the legalist justification anyways. States being able to ban travel to other states for abortion, states allowing private citizens to sue others for getting abortions in other states. States limiting access to websites that are legal in other states and limiting the first amendment. Because repealing Roe was done on an ideological basis it has caused a cascade of problems around how much power states should have, one that has been largely settled since the Civil War.
linuxftw 4y ago
I don't pretend to know what is best for everyone nor dictate my morals to them. So if SC thinks they should have a law to do whatever, that's their business. If the people living there don't like it, they should work to change the law, or start lynching politicians, whichever is easier, that's for the people of SC to decide. As for the people not in South Carolina, they should work to pass an amendment or secede from the union, those are the only legal options if you believe in how the federal government is supposed to work (maybe there's a 3rd option to kick out SC?).
- softcactus 4y ago

fipar 4y ago

> People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Do you know of countries with a federal government and where people can't travel freely between the member states? The ones I know don't have this problem so I'm not sure how that's something unique to the US.

falcolas 4y ago

Any amendment or law would be subject to review by the current SC - an entity which is currently very goal orientated - and it's quite likely they would find an argument to nullify or void it entirely. One really simple example of what the SCOTUS could do is they could rule that an unborn child - from the time of conception - is covered by the rights laid out in the 14th amendment. Takes all choice back away from the state once more.

32163704 4y ago

People in the US are free to not get raped, too, but unfortunately there are circumstances where that freedom is severely abridged.