Bi_3 wrote:It's worth noting that the majority of the effected demographic still has the same access that had before the decision.
*Affected, and not even remotely true.
Show me.
It's possible states (Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.) could move to modify existing laws but that is not what I said.
One fucking google my man:
The majority of the birthing body aged population does not live in South Dakota, Kentucky, Wyoming, or Idaho my dude. Again, the decision could motivate pro-lifers to attempt new restrictions that could change things, particularly in Georgia/Florida.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
"Things are basically the same" is a wild thing to say in response to trigger laws taking effect in 13 states, but I never should have doubted that old centrist magic.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
It's an issue that I don't see any possibility of consensus on. No negotiation or compromise is really possible.
Once again I am pleading with you to embrace the Divine Truth of radical decentralization and regional autonomy, while keeping emigration available. Everybody wins! But somehow I'm always the bad guy for suggesting it.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
E.H. Ruddock wrote:They may be. I don’t know. But I’m talking about the majority in the US. I’m trying to ask questions here, admitting that it may be naive. Why are you trying to “gotcha” me here? Must you always be a giant douche?
He is what he is…
Let me tell you, Homer Simpson is cock of nothing!
- C. Montgomery Burns
BurtReynolds wrote:It's an issue that I don't see any possibility of consensus on. No negotiation or compromise is really possible.
I disagree. We can find a common ground with something like the majority of the "developed" world has with with 12 weeks, plus indefinite for rape, incest, major quality of life issue, and/or to protect the life of the mother. Not entirely different than what the Mississippi law was in the Dobbs case.
But it must first be untangled from the blue/red binary or all the other culture war baggage comes along with it (fuck whytee, fuck Christians, etc.).
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Aren’t peoples jobs just going to fly them to abortion havens to avoid dealing with maternity leave? Some billionaire abortion Robin Hood will probably take care of the rest of the people who don’t work for google or Disney .
Bi_3 wrote:It's quoted in your posts above Mickey, nothing has moved
Sure man--we can get technical about it and say that because it does not affect (lol) 134 million people, that technically, right now, the majority of folks have the same access as before. You could argue in response that "affected population" shouldn't include citizens of states that have state-level legal or constitutional protections for abortion, as women in these states aren't directly dependent on Roe or Casey for such rights. I'd wager that if you subtract these numbers, you actually are looking at over half of the affected population (especially since Texas is one of the trigger law states and Ohio just passed a new ban over the weekend). But I don't particularly care to do that math in order to score some pedantic point online--I know we're built differently in that regard--since the broader upshot of your post, i.e. "let's just breathe, sit, chill out, it's not that bad" is on its face absolute fucking pablum.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
verb_to_trust wrote:Aren’t peoples jobs just going to fly them to abortion havens to avoid dealing with maternity leave? Some billionaire abortion Robin Hood will probably take care of the rest of the people who don’t work for google or Disney .
except some governers are threatening fines or jail time to those who leave the state for just such a reason
Both Texas and Oklahoma recently passed abortion bans that allow private citizens to sue people who perform abortions or who otherwise help someone get one.
verb_to_trust wrote:Aren’t peoples jobs just going to fly them to abortion havens to avoid dealing with maternity leave? Some billionaire abortion Robin Hood will probably take care of the rest of the people who don’t work for google or Disney .
except some governers are threatening fines or jail time to those who leave the state for just such a reason
Both Texas and Oklahoma recently passed abortion bans that allow private citizens to sue people who perform abortions or who otherwise help someone get one.
Ridiculous. We don’t arrest people who go to Vail to smoke weed with strat. Conservatives should just take the win and not go full psycho
BurtReynolds wrote:I don't really understand why people on the left keep repeating the argument that women have a right to control of their own bodies IN RESPONSE to the right's argument that no one has the right to kill a child. At first I thought it was just a rhetorical strategy or part of that strategy I mentioned earlier of ignoring opposing positions completely. But now I'm starting to realize that they genuinely aren't even registering that there is another argument with a different framing being made. Can that be right? Like, how else can someone think that this response is an actual argument or response to an argument? It's just a restatement of a position over and over.
Not saying that they have to think the right's argument has merit, but it does seem to merit actual response? Unless the purpose is not really debate or consensus, and they think they have the power to sort of brute force their position through, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Don't get me wrong, it all boils down to STRENGTH AND CUNNING at the end of the day, and I don't have much love for debate myself, but I'm not sure if a debate is actually trying to be had.
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here, but it does seem like this issue creates two sides arguing past each other, and is about different things (woman versus unborn). It makes for a messy, almost impossible debate.
BurtReynolds wrote:I don't really understand why people on the left keep repeating the argument that women have a right to control of their own bodies IN RESPONSE to the right's argument that no one has the right to kill a child. At first I thought it was just a rhetorical strategy or part of that strategy I mentioned earlier of ignoring opposing positions completely. But now I'm starting to realize that they genuinely aren't even registering that there is another argument with a different framing being made. Can that be right? Like, how else can someone think that this response is an actual argument or response to an argument? It's just a restatement of a position over and over.
Not saying that they have to think the right's argument has merit, but it does seem to merit actual response? Unless the purpose is not really debate or consensus, and they think they have the power to sort of brute force their position through, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Don't get me wrong, it all boils down to STRENGTH AND CUNNING at the end of the day, and I don't have much love for debate myself, but I'm not sure if a debate is actually trying to be had.
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here, but it does seem like this issue creates two sides arguing past each other, and is about different things (woman versus unborn). It makes for a messy, almost impossible debate.
women controlling their own bodies isn't a response about killing children. "they aren't children" is the response, as well as "stop using your religion to control my decisions". and then we get into a big, messy debate about science and some judgmental, angry dude in the clouds and his thoughts on when life starts.
Burt is well aware. He has pointed out multiple times in the past that, for a person with a religion-based opposition to abortion, there is zero justification for ever compromising on the issue.
And there isn’t….not for rape, not for risk to the mother, and not for state lines. That’s exactly why they would never support common sense compromise positions like the ones put forward by Bi_3…the legal enforcement of their theocratic values on this issue is the only answer that isn’t horrific mortal sin.
But that is also the perfect demonstration of why it’s a waste of time to even bother. Absent the ability to compromise, the entire argument boils down to “why can’t you take the time to listen and understand where I’m coming from, so you can see why I can never compromise with you.“
Rape exceptions don't make any sense, but risk to the mother does, short of some kind of really extreme fatalist Christian doctrine, which I don't think is taken very seriously.
And obviously state lines wouldn't matter in principle, but practically speaking they wouldn't be able to ban abortion where they have no power, assuming federal power is kept weak enough that it couldn't be used to force everyone under the same way of life.
