Leaked draft says that Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v Wade

[End]

Hey, we might’ve stumbled upon some common ground here. If a pregnant woman asked her doctor for a third trimester abortion for no reason other than she just changed her mind, I wouldn’t be okay with it. In fact, I would be horrified. I’ve seen pictures and videos depicting late term abortion, and it’s deeply upsetting.

Good! Then you may not be truly lost after all. After carrying a baby within herself for so long that her belly had swollen to such a state and given what data I've gathered about how the female mind works, well, if you're a girl you've just given me another valuable datapoint that confirms all my theories.

I suppose this is what the "demonstrative" function feels like in practice. I may outwardly disdain as bullshit focus on theoretics and meaningless semantics over applicability and what is "good enough" yet my entire worldview seems to depend on it paradoxically. I've always been trying to "make it all fit" from what is arguably a perspective but I always work backwards from that standpoint.

Find what works, do it, and be happy. Then the nagging question of "why" it always works comes into mind. I gather more data, and it tends to confirm my theories but I was trying to disprove myself damnit!

I wonder if this is an dominant thing. You get so sick of even your own half-baked prophecies working out IRL that you actually start to crave experiencing an anomaly that proves you wrong. Perhaps that's why we're so enamored by types. If anyone stands a good chance of delivering that experience, it's them.

But why would demons / Satan want to specifically sterilize women? Why is sterilization the only form of evil (as opposed to, say, having babies that are born with opioid addiction)?

You are, sadly, limited in your imagination apparently. A sterile woman is the saddest creature one might care to imagine. I know you're not going to like this description so I'll preface it with its mirror.

Imagine a truly sterile male. A male doomed to never leave a legacy nor ever impregnate a woman. He is doomed to never create even a stick-figure drawing let alone a fully independent and sentient life.

Many an "incel" are essentially that kind of male lifeform yet the crucial difference is that they could stop being an evolutionary dead end if they really wanted to try. I've mentioned attachment issues time and again but the key takeaway in regards to those issues is that they can be fixed if you believe they can.

I digress however. Contemplate the long-term consequences of the majority of women being sterile. I'll give you a further hint as to why the demons hate fertile women who willingly bear children so very much. Demons hate humans, and I mean hate humans. The filthy fuckers tend to accept God and his salvation more often than not in the grand scheme of it all.

For every WEF member/Bilderburg Group/Death Cultist/etc. that is forged in the fires of hell a dozen children of Christ are born. The answer to that problem is obvious. Stop babies from being born unless they are born into those bloodlines (and the horrors they're subjected to is another thread in and of itself).

As for that last part you mentioned? Well, addictions can be cured. You cannot ever undo a sacrifice to Moloch however and I can and will always refer to the ghastly practice of abortion as "The Moloch Ritual" for the plain and simple reason that it is exactly what it is if pushed.

Again, look at what the results of a third-trimester abortion are and tell me just throwing the pregnant woman into the bronze statue to literally bake in the oven is somehow better than that from a moral standpoint. No, how "quick" the death is doesn't count. Distinctions without differences in most cases...

[sudo]

It's just... wrong damnit!

Despite the fact that I ultimately agree with your conclusions, this isn't really compelling. The justification for a sense of morality must ultimately rest on teleology; that is, religion. Freelance's point isn't exactly wrong; there isn't a distinct material reason to give a fuck if some couple kills their child. And yet at the same time it's not worth arguing particularly strongly for or against because this proposed world with no God or religion or whatever is simply not the one we inhabit.

[xerx]

You are, sadly, limited in your imagination apparently. A sterile woman is the saddest creature one might care to imagine. I know you're not going to like this description so I'll preface it with its mirror.

Imagine a truly sterile male. A male doomed to never leave a legacy nor ever impregnate a woman. He is doomed to never create even a stick-figure drawing let alone a fully independent and sentient life.

Many an "incel" are essentially that kind of male lifeform yet the crucial difference is that they could stop being an evolutionary dead end if they really wanted to try. I've mentioned attachment issues time and again but the key takeaway in regards to those issues is that they can be fixed if you believe they can.

I digress however. Contemplate the long-term consequences of the majority of women being sterile. I'll give you a further hint as to why the demons hate fertile women who willingly bear children so very much. Demons hate humans, and I mean hate humans. The filthy fuckers tend to accept God and his salvation more often than not in the grand scheme of it all.

For every WEF member/Bilderburg Group/Death Cultist/etc. that is forged in the fires of hell a dozen children of Christ are born. The answer to that problem is obvious. Stop babies from being born unless they are born into those bloodlines (and the horrors they're subjected to is another thread in and of itself).

As for that last part you mentioned? Well, addictions can be cured. You cannot ever undo a sacrifice to Moloch however and I can and will always refer to the ghastly practice of abortion as "The Moloch Ritual" for the plain and simple reason that it is exactly what it is if pushed.

Again, look at what the results of a third-trimester abortion are and tell me just throwing the pregnant woman into the bronze statue to literally bake in the oven is somehow better than that from a moral standpoint. No, how "quick" the death is doesn't count. Distinctions without differences in most cases...

Indeed, I'm not as imaginative as you are (clearly). I'm sorry, but I don't believe your theory about a demonic / WEF plot to sterilize women.


Look, if bodily autonomy is worth preserving in the event of a pandemic, it follows that certain personal liberties, even radical liberties, supersede others. The same slippery slope argument that's applied to lockdowns and vaccine mandates (that mandates, temporary or not, open the door for other liberties to be taken away) can be applied to laws that criminalize abortion.

[End]

Despite the fact that I ultimately agree with your conclusions, this isn't really compelling. The justification for a sense of morality must ultimately rest on teleology; that is, religion. Freelance's point isn't exactly wrong; there isn't a distinct material reason to give a fuck if some couple kills their child. And yet at the same time it's not worth arguing particularly strongly for or against because this proposed world with no God or religion or whatever is simply not the one we inhabit.

That's where my own view comes into play most blatantly. At the end of the day it is patently obvious that the "Christain" God exists. Trust me I've tried to disprove his existence from all angles and failed utterly. Thus I had to begrudgingly accept his existence and all it entailed.

Question the ultimate fate of a civilization that cares not for their own unborn. What would that look like? If it's anything "good" in your eyes, well, more data points that yet further reinforce my own major conclusions...

Indeed, I'm not as imaginative as you are (clearly). I'm sorry, but I don't believe your theory about a demonic / WEF plot to sterilize women.


Look, if bodily autonomy is worth preserving in the event of a pandemic, it follows that certain personal liberties, even radical liberties, supersede others. The same slippery slope argument that's applied to lockdowns and vaccine mandates (that mandates, temporary or not, open the door for other liberties to be taken away) can be applied to laws that criminalize abortion.

It's one of many angles they can go about in their plans to reduce the global population to a more "manageable" size. The Mass Sterilization route is actually the one I'd take if I were them to be honest. It's way more subtle, insidious, and flat out just more likely to work than "firing up the ovens" or "purging the Untermenschen" if ya catch my drift.

More than one way to make a woman sterile and unrestricted access to abortion is the kiddie end of this particular and rather dark pool. I can make a given woman sterile with nothing but psychology if I really wanted to try. Convince her she's a man trapped in a woman's body for instance. Hell, with that logic a mascetomy is "gender affirming care" rather than the grotesque mutilation of what would have been an otherwise healthy, well-adjusted, and ultimately happy person who'd also have likely been a member of some form of Christian community.

Seriously, after a certain point on the highway you'll hit a wall. A wall raw and undiluted logic will not be able to compute. That's when "faith" will come in.

I take that back. It actually could and is able to, but it requires one to accept the existence of true and pure good and, by extension, the existence of pure and true evil. Once you slot that in it becomes possible to create/comprehend the potential system that actually makes sense of it all. It really can and does "fit" in the ultimate analysis.

I think it was Kirkegaard that put it into words. I can't exactly remember but it did resonate. It was a reflection about how so many people would gladly utter this prayer: "Lord give me my system even with the sole caveat that I am wrong".

People would rather society at large accept their opinions and prognostications as correct rather than them being objectively correct even if all of society tells them they're wrong by and large...

[xerx]

It's one of many angles they can go about in their plans to reduce the global population to a more "manageable" size. The Mass Sterilization route is actually the one I'd take if I were them to be honest. It's way more subtle, insidious, and flat out just more likely to work than "firing up the ovens" or "purging the Untermenschen" if ya catch my drift.

Lots of conspiracy theories vis a vis the so-called globalist elite draw this conclusion. But why would reducing a population's size make it more "manageable"? China, with the world's largest population, is among the world's most autocratic countries. The CPC is managing its population just fine, and its surveillance state even benefits from the mass of behavioural data collected (and parsed by AI) from its many citizens.

Iceland, on the other hand, with a smaller population than Cleveland, is one of the world's most democratic countries.

It isn't a universal principle or anything (Japan is is freer than Singapore, Germany and France are more democratic than Hungary, etc). But it isn't immediately clear that a smaller population is easier to manage, nor is it necessarily more conformist, than a larger one. Whatever the relationship, if there is one, between freedom, individualism, and population size seems more complicated. It may even include serious trade-offs between different assortments of liberties.

[Adam Strange]

Lots of conspiracy theories vis a vis the so-called globalist elite draw this conclusion. But why would reducing a population's size make it more "manageable"? China, with the world's largest population, is among the world's most autocratic countries. The CPC is managing its population just fine, and its surveillance state even benefits from the mass of behavioural data collected (and parsed by AI) from its many citizens.

Iceland, on the other hand, with a smaller population than Cleveland, is one of the world's most democratic countries.

It isn't a universal principle or anything (Japan is is freer than Singapore, Germany and France are more democratic than Hungary, etc). But it isn't immediately clear that a smaller population is easier to manage, nor is it necessarily more conformist, than a larger one. Whatever the relationship, if there is one, between freedom, individualism, and population size seems more complicated. It may even include serious trade-offs between different assortments of liberties.

@xerx, I'm interested in the topic of why some populations or groups are more democratic than others. Let me know if you have any good links on this subject.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

It isn't a universal principle or anything (Japan is is freer than Singapore, Germany and France are more democratic than Hungary, etc).

what about population density? japan is much less dense than singapore.

[xerx]

@xerx, I'm interested in the topic of why some populations or groups are more democratic than others. Let me know if you have any good links on this subject.

Will do.

what about population density?

I don't know.

[End]

Lots of conspiracy theories vis a vis the so-called globalist elite draw this conclusion. But why would reducing a population's size make it more "manageable"? China, with the world's largest population, is among the world's most autocratic countries. The CPC is managing its population just fine, and its surveillance state even benefits from the mass of behavioural data collected (and parsed by AI) from its many citizens.

Iceland, on the other hand, with a smaller population than Cleveland, is one of the world's most democratic countries.

It isn't a universal principle or anything (Japan is is freer than Singapore, Germany and France are more democratic than Hungary, etc). But it isn't immediately clear that a smaller population is easier to manage, nor is it necessarily more conformist, than a larger one. Whatever the relationship, if there is one, between freedom, individualism, and population size seems more complicated. It may even include serious trade-offs between different assortments of liberties.

Well, it's not just the "management" angle that is ultimately in question. It's also things like suffering, sin, and other such things. Like I've said time and again once you accept the reality of literal Demonic Influence as truly faithful Catholics understand it a whole bunch of otherwise confusing and illogical shit going on in the world starts to suddenly make perfect sense.

Though I will say, from a secular standpoint and my past as a really hardcore Libertarian what you just described confirms the theories of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Small communities are de-facto "covenant" communities if they're dead serious about that shit. The true "libertarian utopia" is a world of thousands of such enclaves. These will eventually boil down to religion I'd argue and he subconsciously understood that by calling them Covenant communities. The greatest secular minds will eventually come around to the religious mindset given enough time and honesty with themselves. Sadly, they'll have to learn the hard way if they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the existence of the divine and demonic...

@xerx, I'm interested in the topic of why some populations or groups are more democratic than others. Let me know if you have any good links on this subject.

r/K Selection theory handles this one quite handily. I don't have links but populations that live in areas with a harsh winter tend to be pretty gosh darn democratic. Those that don't are remarkably tolerant of tyrants. Now look at where immigration is coming from and to where it is going. Coincidence? I wish it were...

what about population density? japan is much less dense than singapore.

Japan is a unique beast given its recent history. Interesting you mention Singapore. This would be another lecture but let's just say that there are places "in between" this currently unfolding "Conflict of the Haves" we're currently suffering under.

Singapore is between the "West" and the "Rest". A liminal space that many a rich Chinaman and Capitalist European/American Fatcat alike is currently seeking to flee to with all their assets. China, at least as far as I can tell, has caught on to what their own "rabbits" are trying to do and are stopping them by apprehending them at airports and cutting up their visas and passports in front of them if they are unlucky enough to end up within Chinese air/landspace.

As this shit only gets more real as time goes on I'd actually tell you to warn your ex-pat friends if you have any. Once this shit really kicks off not even being deep within the territory of the "five eyes" will save you from a CCP agent with a grudge...

[End]

Despite the fact that I ultimately agree with your conclusions, this isn't really compelling. The justification for a sense of morality must ultimately rest on teleology; that is, religion. Freelance's point isn't exactly wrong; there isn't a distinct material reason to give a fuck if some couple kills their child. And yet at the same time it's not worth arguing particularly strongly for or against because this proposed world with no God or religion or whatever is simply not the one we inhabit.

Your wording is confusing. If your conclusion is that arguing from the standpoint of an "atheistic" universe is ultimately futile and a waste of time as it's rather obvious we're living in a theistic one than we're in agreement.

I'll also agree that just saying something is wrong with conviction and passion is great rhetoric in certain circumstances it isn't and will never be particularly compelling philosophically. Making the philosophically sound case involves typing out a wall of text that nobody who isn't obsessively valuing to the point of being cripplingly autistic will ever bother to read however. Thus, better to go with rhetoric on this one. Abortion is wrong and dare I say evil in all circumstances anyone could or would care to mention. The rare cases where I'd say you may have a point in allowing it are in the 0.XX percent territory of occurrences. Lottery odds.

You don't make laws of the land that depend on Lottery odds to make rational sense. The cases where abortion "makes sense" are in this territory. Better and ultimately more rational to just ban the practice outright. Some people will "hit" the lottery in the worst sense but far better off are those who are born to actually experience life because of it.

I don't know if I posted it in this thread but I currently exist because my own mother told her abortion-happy doctor to get fucked and bore me to term anyway. He told her I'd be a mishapen retarded mess of a human being and that everyone'd be better off if I was aborted.

She told him to get fucked. Turns out I ended up as anything but. Yeah, that gives me a rather ardent and unshakable bias against the practice even if I ended up a card-carrying atheist. Yes it's also not entirely "rational" but damnit shit like that can and will influence you pretty damn hard.

Also, demons are inherent to us. Moloch and other demons do not really want your babies or anything. Well, at least I think so.

 

I tried it one time and I did get what I wanted, but it was bad vibes overall. But I think the whole thing is about carrying burdens and suffering. We just don't like it because those are heavy topics, but they kinda teach us how to handle pain and be comfortable with imperfection. You see this even with benefics and malefics in astro.

Now getting woowoo here (pardon me), it's actually very weird to realize that the angel I was fond of talking to is the same demon I was talking to. I need them both anyway and they are around me because I'm both good and evil. I'm starting to feel that we're just here as a vessel to reconcile the two. Those two I talk to do not like each other but they pass messages to me anyway so the other can hear.

Even in your own life you feel demons whenever you do something and think "at what cost?". If you stay in demonic energy, it's just pain and suffering overall, but if you reconcile angelic and demonic, you carry the burden with you but but also feeling free from it. It's like happiness in suffering, or experiencing redemption. Being born again. We're supposed to be phoenixes in a sense though, I don't think my god wants me to just live in angelic land forever. I need to die and get reborn over and over again, each time learning something.

Err, you're sounding rather "gnostic" here and that's not a good thing. There is no true reconciling the divine with the demonic. The demonic refuses the divine out of an unlimited and irrational level of spite. If you want to say that evil can result in greater goods than you're on my level. God allows evil because he can and does bring greater good into existence because of it. Like I've said before, the case in point of this phenomenon is the Crucifixion. The literal murder of God allows for the salvation of an entire fallen world.

Also, if you're a Christian you also don't believe in "reincarnation" and all it implies. That's a heresy. Your body and soul are uniquely yours with all that implies. You don't get a "second chance" in the sense of reincarnation. History in the Christian/Western sense is linear and not cyclical. History and time have a beginning and an end. An Alpha and Omega. There is no "cycle" in the ultimate analysis. There is only "rhymes" in the historical record, no true repetitions...

[FreelancePoliceman]

I didn't take you for a nihilist Freelance. For that's the kind of response I'd expect out of one. The given couple might think nothing of it, but you can bet your ass if I saw them do that even as an absolute foreigner/alient outsider with no context whatsoever. I'd (and you'd hopefully as well if you're being honest with yourself) wretch on the Collective Unconscious level.

It's just... wrong damnit! Like selling your own children into slavery or sacrificing them to some so-called deity for another pull in a gatcha game as it were (channeling maximum nihilist energy here on my part).

I mean fuck. This kind of shit is exactly why the "Cosmic Horror" genre got off the ground.

I think slavery has bad social consequences, so I wouldn't say it's really that similar. But even if you'd be uncomfortable seeing a couple kill their baby in person, what would you have against them killing their baby in private?

I'll also agree that just saying something is wrong with conviction and passion is great rhetoric in certain circumstances it isn't and will never be particularly compelling philosophically. Making the philosophically sound case involves typing out a wall of text that nobody who isn't obsessively valuing to the point of being cripplingly autistic will ever bother to read however. Thus, better to go with rhetoric on this one. Abortion is wrong and dare I say evil in all circumstances anyone could or would care to mention. The rare cases where I'd say you may have a point in allowing it are in the 0.XX percent territory of occurrences. Lottery odds.

You don't make laws of the land that depend on Lottery odds to make rational sense. The cases where abortion "makes sense" are in this territory. Better and ultimately more rational to just ban the practice outright. Some people will "hit" the lottery in the worst sense but far better off are those who are born to actually experience life because of it.

I don't know if I posted it in this thread but I currently exist because my own mother told her abortion-happy doctor to get fucked and bore me to term anyway. He told her I'd be a mishapen retarded mess of a human being and that everyone'd be better off if I was aborted.

She told him to get fucked. Turns out I ended up as anything but. Yeah, that gives me a rather ardent and unshakable bias against the practice even if I ended up a card-carrying atheist. Yes it's also not entirely "rational" but damnit shit like that can and will influence you pretty damn hard.

I mean, the world is a chaotic place. Laws can't determine what genes are inherited when a sperm fertilizes an egg, laws can't force someone to develop a certain way, etc. They also can't prevent someone from being struck by lightning or killing themselves or whatever else. Laws can occasionally influence matters of life and death, sure, but they've never been able to fully control them. Why would you try to apply laws here? Even now, you're only able to appreciate life now that you're at your current age. You wouldn't have cared if your mother had killed you when you were an infant, so who exactly would she have hurt by killing you?

I'm not convinced it isn't a blessing to kill someone anyway. As Ecclesiastes says:

Again, I observed all the oppression that takes place under the sun. I saw the tears of the oppressed, with no one to comfort them. The oppressors have great power, and their victims are helpless. So I concluded that the dead are better off than the living. But most fortunate of all are those who are not yet born. For they have not seen all the evil that is done under the sun.

[xerx]

Though I will say, from a secular standpoint and my past as a really hardcore Libertarian what you just described confirms the theories of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Small communities are de-facto "covenant" communities if they're dead serious about that shit. The true "libertarian utopia" is a world of thousands of such enclaves. These will eventually boil down to religion I'd argue and he subconsciously understood that by calling them Covenant communities. The greatest secular minds will eventually come around to the religious mindset given enough time and honesty with themselves. Sadly, they'll have to learn the hard way if they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the existence of the divine and demonic...

I had to google this person (who seems like an unpleasant individual), and I had to search the definition of "covenant community" (which seems like an unpleasant place to live). What I wrote does not confirm his theories.

[xerx]

Well, it's not just the "management" angle that is ultimately in question. It's also things like suffering, sin, and other such things. Like I've said time and again once you accept the reality of literal Demonic Influence as truly faithful Catholics understand it a whole bunch of otherwise confusing and illogical shit going on in the world starts to suddenly make perfect sense.

Is there any percentage of human social behaviour that is purely secular / outside the scope of demonic influence?

[xerx]

This is a late response, but I must have forgotten to respond to this earlier.

This ruling could set precedent to limit bodily autonomy in other ways (vaccine mandates, social distancing, etc).

I doubt that. I think this ruling is in the mindset of "less government" that Cpig also argues for. Vaccine mandates and social distancing come from the opposite American political pole - more government.

I disagree. State governments are also governments. And this ruling sets precedent for government control over an individual's body.

I'm not a lawyer; I don't know whether or not it'll set a legal precedent under the current system. It will, however, almost certainly create a moral & political precedent. The same argument that's applied to lockdowns and vaccine mandates (that mandates open the way for government control through the backdoor) can be applied to laws that criminalize abortion.

It's also rather chilling that government now has the ability to dictate the definition of life.

[Not A Communist Shill]

[Ave]

This is a late response, but I must have forgotten to respond to this earlier.





I disagree. State governments are also governments. And this ruling sets precedent for government control over an individual's body.

I'm not a lawyer; I don't know whether or not it'll set a legal precedent under the current system. It will, however, almost certainly create a moral & political precedent. The same argument that's applied to lockdowns and vaccine mandates (that mandates open the way for government control through the backdoor) can be applied to laws that criminalize abortion.

It's also rather chilling that government now has the ability to dictate the definition of life.

No worries about the late reply.

But I don't agree; yes, I agree government shouldn't have the authority to dictate the definition of life; but that isn't what they are doing. Not anymore than outlawing murder dictates the definition of life. I'm not comparing abortion to murder; but for "pro-life" people, it is, and on what basis do we say they are factually wrong? Neither supreme court decision really takes into account scientific arguments here; the question isn't even asked, it is assumed that abortion is murder, or, if you take the "opposite" position, that it cannot be murder because the control people have over their bodies is the issue.

I agree that state governments are also governments, so I have nothing to argue against there. I think Cpig's argument (though he can correct me if I'm wrong) is more about how Roe v Wade is a bad law, because, it doesn't respect the way the structure of the US governement was intended to work - I believe this is the main reason the supreme court also made this decision. Though of course, many other laws that aeren't "hot button" issues (such as the Reagan administration's pressuring states to raise the drinking age to 21 back in the 1980s) don't seem to be question except by the more radical of libertarians, and yet, this law is. I do think overturning it and letting the states decide is how the American political system is conceived to work Not saying I agree or disagree with this system, but I like the idea of either scrapping a politcal system altogether, or sticking with it - but not the idea that you can take what you like and ignore what you don't without amending it first.

Your argument about vaccine mandates also strikes me as wrong because, while, covid vaccines were never mandatory in the US, I believe many vaccines are, and noone complains (well, almost noone) because it is a question of public health. I suppose there could be a correlation where one type of policy influences another, but I also don't think vaccine mandates are dicatorial when it comes to illnesses like polio (covid is a different story, especially since the vaccines were so new, but also because it wasn't as much of a public health threat as it was hyped up to be).

I also think pro-choice vs pro-life is comical as a public "debate" because it seems both sides completely ignore the other in favor of what they consider (more) "important" without realizing, it seems, the other side is doing the same thing, not because they have ill intents, but because they don't take into account the other side's argument. One side says abortion is murder. The other side says a woman has sovereignty over her body. These points are actually not in contradiction, it's the question of whether a fetus is a person or simply part of the woman's body and nothing more, that should be addressed.

I personally tend to be pro-choice because the consequences of outlawing abortion tend to make it worse for women, and don't stop them from getting abortions anyways. I also don't like how this is framed as "murder" as if the action of abortion was done in malice; it is a difficult decision for the women who make it. I'm more in favor of setting a limit to how late a woman get an abortion. I feel like for conservatives it's a question of what "makes a person a person" though, and I won't get into that here, though I find that valid to ask at least.

[xerx]

No worries about the late reply.

But I don't agree; yes, I agree government shouldn't have the authority to dictate the definition of life; but that isn't what they are doing. Not anymore than outlawing murder dictates the definition of life. I'm not comparing abortion to murder; but for "pro-life" people, it is, and on what basis do we say they are factually wrong? Neither supreme court decision really takes into account scientific arguments here; the question isn't even asked, it is assumed that abortion is murder, or, if you take the "opposite" position, that it cannot be murder because the control people have over their bodies is the issue.

I agree that state governments are also governments, so I have nothing to argue against there. I think Cpig's argument (though he can correct me if I'm wrong) is more about how Roe v Wade is a bad law, because, it doesn't respect the way the structure of the US governement was intended to work - I believe this is the main reason the supreme court also made this decision. Though of course, many other laws that aeren't "hot button" issues (such as the Reagan administration's pressuring states to raise the drinking age to 21 back in the 1980s) don't seem to be question except by the more radical of libertarians, and yet, this law is. I do think overturning it and letting the states decide is how the American political system is conceived to work Not saying I agree or disagree with this system, but I like the idea of either scrapping a politcal system altogether, or sticking with it - but not the idea that you can take what you like and ignore what you don't without amending it first.

Your argument about vaccine mandates also strikes me as wrong because, while, covid vaccines were never mandatory in the US, I believe many vaccines are, and noone complains (well, almost noone) because it is a question of public health. I suppose there could be a correlation where one type of policy influences another, but I also don't think vaccine mandates are dicatorial when it comes to illnesses like polio (covid is a different story, especially since the vaccines were so new, but also because it wasn't as much of a public health threat as it was hyped up to be).

I also think pro-choice vs pro-life is comical as a public "debate" because it seems both sides completely ignore the other in favor of what they consider (more) "important" without realizing, it seems, the other side is doing the same thing, not because they have ill intents, but because they don't take into account the other side's argument. One side says abortion is murder. The other side says a woman has sovereignty over her body. These points are actually not in contradiction, it's the question of whether a fetus is a person or simply part of the woman's body and nothing more, that should be addressed.

I personally tend to be pro-choice because the consequences of outlawing abortion tend to make it worse for women, and don't stop them from getting abortions anyways. I also don't like how this is framed as "murder" as if the action of abortion was done in malice; it is a difficult decision for the women who make it. I'm more in favor of setting a limit to how late a woman get an abortion. I feel like for conservatives it's a question of what "makes a person a person" though, and I won't get into that here, though I find that valid to ask at least.

The "states' rights" argument has merit (I personally support devolution and decentralization, and I believe that more laws should be transferred to local jurisdictions). But there is also a certain floor of guaranteed practices, liberties, and laws that apply nation-wide. If there were no commonly-held practices, there would be no point in belonging to the same country, and it would be better to have separate political systems altogether.

Individual states can't ban the ownership of guns, violating the second amendment in the process. Individual states certainly can't violate the first amendment, and it would be illiberal to give them the right to, say, enforce "cancel culture". If those decision can be overruled at the federal level (and rightly so!), it calls into question the unassailability of the states' rights argument. The tyranny from one's neighbour can be just as real, and just as cruel, as the tyranny from a distant government.



I stand by the comparison between abortion and COVID restrictions. We've all repeatedly heard that there was no evidence for the efficacy of lockdowns and vaccines, and I'll grant that for the sake of discussion. OK, likewise, there is no evidence that a phoetus is a living being. That may change one day, but not, seemingly, anytime soon.

[Poptart]

Florida court says parentless teen isn't mature enough to get an abortion

[Adam Strange]

Florida court says parentless teen isn't mature enough to get an abortion

Florida court in the racist trailer parks of north Florida says women are not mature enough to make any decisions at all about their lives.

”Property has no say in its use”, says one Florida Man.




_______________________________

Personally, I’ve hated Florida since the first time I saw it, back when I was seventeen. I remember thinking “They should just cut this state free of the US and let it and its roach-like inhabitants float out to sea. And shoot anyone who tries to swim back.”
Subsequent exposures have only confirmed my first impression.

[DogOfDanger]

I often think if this wasn't a political wedge issue, if you were just asked whether you supported this without any political context, that many of you wouldn't know what to think and wouldn't give a single crap about it. It's like you're just playing these roles that were allotted to you. Reading through these comments I just see a bunch of slogans - "this is not about the baby it's about women as property" - it is pretty obviously about the baby. Meanwhile I hear all these desperate scenarios of rape victims being deprived of abortion but I don't believe a single state has moved to pass legislation for that.
Christians actually oppose this on religious grounds, so they have a reason to care alot about it, but I don't understand what reason the non-Christians have to care about it... infact people have always indicated in polls about this issue that it was a very low-priority issue for them, aside from religious people. And left wing people historically recognized there were competing concerns here, they'd say things like... well we're okay with first trimester abortion. Or... abortion is fine in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. And we really don't care very much about it. But now I hear... abortion is an inalienable human right and how dare any republicunt narcissist hypocrite even question us on this.
The court decision isn't what spurred this massive response and change in attitude, it's the media messaging... it's the perception of what we now all agree is true that changed. TBH you're all just a bunch of dumb lemmings, you don't actually have your own opinions. You're lying to yourselves and everyone else when you pretend to have an opinion...
If you're a woman concerned about unwanted pregnancy there's something quite simple you can do to prevent that - take birth control. It is a pill, it works. There are even pills that work in the days after... the poor people in this country have plenty of access to birth control, it is provided free by planned parenthood, all they have to do is make the minor effort to go to a planned parenthood clinic - also known as taking responsibility for the potential ramifications of your actions.
If you people really cared about these poor women in exceptional circumstances... you'd promote the use of these pills. It would be your main strategy, it completely fixes the problem. But I haven't heard any of you mention that... if the media messaging was wall to wall "you need to be using birth control and the morning after pill" the culture would respond to that.
Instead... you prefer to act like toddlers, you mainly want to use these nightmare scenarios to empower yourselves to demonize your opposition, this is all you mindless people who involve yourselves in politics ever do, and that's why the country is completely dysfunctional, why we have so many problems and none of them get solved...

[ouronis]

I often think if this wasn't a political wedge issue, if you were just asked whether you supported this without any political context, that many of you wouldn't know what to think and wouldn't give a single crap about it. It's like you're just playing these roles that were allotted to you. Reading through these comments I just see a bunch of slogans - "this is not about the baby it's about women as property" - it is pretty obviously about the baby. Meanwhile I hear all these desperate scenarios of rape victims being deprived of abortion but I don't believe a single state has moved to pass legislation for that.
Christians actually oppose this on religious grounds, so they have a reason to care alot about it, but I don't understand what reason the non-Christians have to care about it... infact people have always indicated in polls about this issue that it was a very low-priority issue for them, aside from religious people. And left wing people historically recognized there were competing concerns here, they'd say things like... well we're okay with first trimester abortion. Or... abortion is fine in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. And we really don't care very much about it. But now I hear... abortion is an inalienable human right and how dare any republicunt narcissist hypocrite even question us on this.
The court decision isn't what spurred this massive response and change in attitude, it's the media messaging... it's the perception of what we now all agree is true that changed. TBH you're all just a bunch of dumb lemmings, you don't actually have your own opinions. You're lying to yourselves and everyone else when you pretend to have an opinion...
If you're a woman concerned about unwanted pregnancy there's something quite simple you can do to prevent that - take birth control. It is a pill, it works. There are even pills that work in the days after... the poor people in this country have plenty of access to birth control, it is provided free by planned parenthood, all they have to do is make the minor effort to go to a planned parenthood clinic - also known as taking responsibility for the potential ramifications of your actions.
If you people really cared about these poor women in exceptional circumstances... you'd promote the use of these pills. It would be your main strategy, it completely fixes the problem. But I haven't heard any of you mention that... if the media messaging was wall to wall "you need to be using birth control and the morning after pill" the culture would respond to that.
Instead... you prefer to act like toddlers, you mainly want to use these nightmare scenarios to empower yourselves to demonize your opposition, this is all you mindless people who involve yourselves in politics ever do, and that's why the country is completely dysfunctional, why we have so many problems and none of them get solved...

I mean true, I don't give a single shit about unborn fetuses and I'd be (more than) fine with using them as test subjects and growing them in a lab for science.

[Poptart]

Woman in Louisiana is denied an abortion for 10 wk fetus w/acrania. Her options:

1. Carry pregnancy to term, then give birth to a baby that has no skull
2. Travel across a minimum of five states for an abortion. Trip will likely take multiple days and cost thousands of dollars.

https://www.wafb.com/2022/08/15/moth...bys-condition/

[DogOfDanger]

Woman in Louisiana is denied an abortion for 10 wk fetus w/acrania. Her options:

1. Carry pregnancy to term, then give birth to a baby that has no skull
2. Travel across a minimum of five states for an abortion. Trip will likely take multiple days and cost thousands of dollars.

https://www.wafb.com/2022/08/15/moth...bys-condition/

I will admit that is quite dumb, and reading LAs laws I am surprised at how dogmatic / poorly written they are.
FWIW I don't think the ideal solution is for the states to handle all this, matters of life / death or medical concerns are universal, they have nothing to do with locality... It isn't hard to recognize that your scenario completely justifies having an abortion... though most cases are not medically justified like your scenario. But the supreme court also isn't a legislative body, their job is just to judge on whether a law is sound. It's the legislatures responsibility to pass laws regarding abortion. What's really needed is federal laws establishing an agreed upon baseline for when it is reasonable to have one... the legislature can pass those laws if they can agree on them. If that were to happen that'd be great and I'm on board. The issue arises when legislators can't agree on what's reasonable enough to pass even basic legislation, and instead are entrenched in one-dimensional partisan viewpoints such as this LA legislation, or "mah body mah choice"... or the idea abortion is an inalienable right. At that point leaving it with the states is the only alternative to one side imposing its arbitrary, poorly thought through opinion onto the other. The fundamental problem is the people involved refuse to engage in the reasoning process...
Here's what an agreed upon baseline should look like -
-in cases of rape, incest, or medical concern, legalize it federally in the 1st trimester
-for medical concern, legalize it federally in 2nd and 3rd trimester for very specific medical issues where the baby is very deformed, not viable, etc.
-make 3rd trimester illegal federally across the board except in the specific medically justified scenarios
-also change the media messaging from 'mah body mah choice' to 'make sure you all use birth control, it's free at planned parenthood for anyone that wants it'
-throw the rest back to the states if we can't agree on it
states ultimately do have to decide some of this, because it will never be completely agreed upon and it gets into fundamental beliefs about sex, life, personal responsibility, and so on.

[xerx]

-also change the media messaging from 'mah body mah choice' to 'make sure you all use birth control, it's free at planned parenthood for anyone that wants it'

I agree. Abortion should be as rare as possible, viewed as a desperate last recourse.