7 ms·

> the overwhelming majority of female voters are against those restrictions. Source? The polls I can find easily [0][1] show very similar levels of support fo

by akavi 4y ago

> the overwhelming majority of female voters are against those restrictions. Source? The polls I can find easily [0][1] show very similar levels of support for/against abortion restrictions between genders. Women tend to to be slightly more pro-choice, but certainly not "overwhelmingly". [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/mississippi/views-about-abortion/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... (annoyingly this one answers "what percentage of people who are pro/anti abortion are female, rather than what percent of women are pro/anti-abortion") [1] https://www.cbs42.com/news/new-polling-shows-alabama-primary-voters-split-on-abortion-roe-v-wade/ https://www.cbs42.com/news/new-polling-shows-alabama-primary...

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Still proving my point... People who get pregnant (not just women) are politically less powerful. And it is exclusively the almost-completely-male legislative bodies that are denying them those basic health care rights. In my book a democracy doesn't deny people health care for religious reasons. You wouldn't let muslims deny non-muslims (or other muslims) blood transfusions. (Yes, it's a thing...)
- akavi 4y ago
  These people are affirmatively voting for these restrictions. Like, I don't think abortion is murder, but if I did, I'd vote for restrictions even if I could get pregnant. Just like I would vote for restrictions on "normal" murder if it were up for debate.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    They are taking away the liberty of other Human beings. That is a fundamental problem in this. And lack of access to abortion services has profound implications on women's rights, health, even life...
- rayiner 4y ago
  Obviously, the majority of Texas female voters who voted for Greg Abbott after he signed a 6-week abortion ban don't agree with you about what is a "basic health care right." Also, women are significantly more religious than men! Anything that excludes religion as a basis for politics is going to disempower women. You have a bizarre definition of "democracy." In my Muslim home country, abortion and homosexuality are both illegal. That's democratic. Having some member of the elite, such as a judge, decide that the people cannot have the laws they want, because of their personal ideology, is not democratic.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    This is an argument that would repeal Brown v. Board of Education. You might have a valid point about Democratic norms allowing people in Alabama to have different abortion policies than people in Connecticut, but you can't make it with an argument that "proves" as much as your "my home country bans homosexuality" argument does. Can you try harder? For instance, it's hard to tell whether you're trying to make a case against democracy and for a panel of philosopher kings, or whether you're making a case about what abortion policy means vis a vis women's rights and interests.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      No it wouldn't, because the U.S. isn't a pure democracy. It's a constitutional democracy, where the founders created a system of anti-democratic "rights" mainly to protect the integrity of the political process itself, and to protect wealthy landowners from the masses. The fact that the system has been used to good effect doesn't make it any less "anti-democratic." I'm not advocating for or against democracy versus philosopher kings. I'm pointing out that OP's assertion is backward--he wants less democracy, not more. If you want to protect racial or religious minorities, etc., you need to take power away from the public and put it in the hands of philosopher kings. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's not. But in all events, you're making the system less "democratic." Conversely, Bangladesh or Egypt aren't less "democratic" because the people are free to vote to impose Islamic values upon themselves.
      - 4y ago

by akavi 4y ago

bayesian_horse 4y ago

Still proving my point... People who get pregnant (not just women) are politically less powerful. And it is exclusively the almost-completely-male legislative bodies that are denying them those basic health care rights. In my book a democracy doesn't deny people health care for religious reasons. You wouldn't let muslims deny non-muslims (or other muslims) blood transfusions. (Yes, it's a thing...)

akavi 4y ago
These people are affirmatively voting for these restrictions. Like, I don't think abortion is murder, but if I did, I'd vote for restrictions even if I could get pregnant. Just like I would vote for restrictions on "normal" murder if it were up for debate.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  They are taking away the liberty of other Human beings. That is a fundamental problem in this. And lack of access to abortion services has profound implications on women's rights, health, even life...
rayiner 4y ago
Obviously, the majority of Texas female voters who voted for Greg Abbott after he signed a 6-week abortion ban don't agree with you about what is a "basic health care right." Also, women are significantly more religious than men! Anything that excludes religion as a basis for politics is going to disempower women. You have a bizarre definition of "democracy." In my Muslim home country, abortion and homosexuality are both illegal. That's democratic. Having some member of the elite, such as a judge, decide that the people cannot have the laws they want, because of their personal ideology, is not democratic.
- tptacek 4y ago
  This is an argument that would repeal Brown v. Board of Education. You might have a valid point about Democratic norms allowing people in Alabama to have different abortion policies than people in Connecticut, but you can't make it with an argument that "proves" as much as your "my home country bans homosexuality" argument does. Can you try harder? For instance, it's hard to tell whether you're trying to make a case against democracy and for a panel of philosopher kings, or whether you're making a case about what abortion policy means vis a vis women's rights and interests.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    No it wouldn't, because the U.S. isn't a pure democracy. It's a constitutional democracy, where the founders created a system of anti-democratic "rights" mainly to protect the integrity of the political process itself, and to protect wealthy landowners from the masses. The fact that the system has been used to good effect doesn't make it any less "anti-democratic." I'm not advocating for or against democracy versus philosopher kings. I'm pointing out that OP's assertion is backward--he wants less democracy, not more. If you want to protect racial or religious minorities, etc., you need to take power away from the public and put it in the hands of philosopher kings. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's not. But in all events, you're making the system less "democratic." Conversely, Bangladesh or Egypt aren't less "democratic" because the people are free to vote to impose Islamic values upon themselves.
    - 4y ago