|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 23 2020 06:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 06:25 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2020 06:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 05:41 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2020 05:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 03:34 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2020 03:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 03:00 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2020 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2020 02:02 Danglars wrote:
If you want to say “the Supreme Court has no actual power,” then states can decide whatever the hell they feel about abortion and gay marriage. They have no power, right? They have power because there is a great deal of respect for the court in all states. If that stopped being true, poof, all gone. That's why Alabama kind of complies. I think you overestimate the respect angle. Many Midwestern states hate the way the fed, with the support of the Supreme Court, just rolls out blanket laws & court decisions that upend state law. They’re just scared of a clean break from the circuit courts of appeals and Supreme Court. There’s no other institution to get relief in state vs state and state vs federal when they think they can win. Once leftists decide a 6-3 court means it has no respect and power, and they don’t have to abide it, you’ll see the breaks happen quickly. I don’t think you win in that constitutional crisis (and should honestly think about winning and keeping hold of the senate) It's telling that you think that it would be the Democrats to cause a loss in the legitimacy of our government and a resulting constitutional crisis when many progressives see Republicans abusing the system to enact a tyranny of the minority on them and see that as the delegitimization of government in-and-of-itself. Maybe I’ve just seen more Democrats losing their shit over RBG, and a helluvalot of Trump being defeated at the Supreme Court by justices nominated by Republicans ... and him just accepting it and moving on. A real tyrant would’ve just moved forward using executive orders to undo other executive orders. “Abusing the system” = “the Electoral College is illegitimate, and popular vote is only legitimacy.” You need to sit down for an hour and think about how the constitutionally legitimate allocation of powers is illegitimate because of results you don’t like and want to call abuse of the system. I don’t really see people calling into question the legitimacy of the electoral college and Supreme Court as righteous crusaders countering abuse ... literally, work on winning more in the present system instead of delegitimizing it when you lose. I don’t really care that progressives want to tear it down and act all self-righteous in the process. They don’t decide what’s good and bad about the system. Actually, they do decide what is good or bad. That's how the world works. The people in the system decide if it's good or bad. If the amount of people that think it's bad reaches a critical point, you end up with laws being changed, protests, riots, constitutional crises, revolutions, etc. depending on the severity of the situation and the type of government. Just because it's built into the system doesn't mean that it's legitimate or just. It has been made abundantly clear that the Constitution is a highly flawed document that isn't and shouldn't be taken as gospel. There are a number of comparisons to various fascist and authoritarian regimes in history that developed entirely by legal means, so while we're making suggestions to each other, I would suggest that you take some time to critically reflect on your blind support for the system, because your current attitude paints a very poor picture of yourself. Nah, I don't think progressives have a privileged viewpoint on what systems are good and what systems are bad. I think they are merely one opinion in the universe of opinions, and have no special claim as to what's abuse, or well designed, or harmful to democracy, or good exercise of power. I happen to think they're dead wrong on most of their most common points, and I'm not alone in this criticism. You know that just because it's built into the system, it isn't legitimate or just. I think just because someone offers a criticism of the system, doesn't mean it has any merit or their alternate plans would be any improvement over the existing system. No one said that progressives have a unique claim to criticizing the system or otherwise have a "privileged viewpoint". However, you tried to summarily dismiss their criticisms simply on the basis of being progressive. I called you on your B.S. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion of thinking that most progressives are dead wrong. I happen to think that, not only are you dead wrong, but that you are a disgustingly immoral human being. You aren't special and you aren't a unique arbiter of legitimacy, just like progressives aren't, but their opinions count just as much as yours. It's telling that you think that it would be the Democrats to cause a loss in the legitimacy of our government and a resulting constitutional crisis when many progressives see Republicans abusing the system to enact a tyranny of the minority on them and see that as the delegitimization of government in-and-of-itself. It shouldn't be "telling" at all, since the only evidence you gave in that post was that progressives see the exact opposite occuring. I don't see the constitution and the government it set up in the same way progressives do, so you should assume it's only natural for me to find opposite conclusions to what progressives think is a problem. It tells me things about you and your thought process. You demonstrate basically no understanding of why progressives think the way they do. You demonstrate no understanding of the longstanding frustrations that progressives (particularly the younger adult generations) have with our political system, the way that it operates, and how it represents them (or doesn't). You don't seem to put even the slightest effort into understanding your political opponent's concerns or viewpoints. This is why the way that you framed that statement is telling. I guess I can say that you are right though and that it shouldn't actually be "telling", as I probably could've already come to that conclusion from your statements over the past several years.
I understand and reject their framing of the issues, their estimation of the "pros" of their favored changes, and their abysmal evaluation of the "cons" of their changes. I talked a lot about what I say is understandable exemptions for religious institutions with Nouar and Nevuk. I just talked about why I prefer less of a match between actual population distribution and representative distribution, since it tends to marginalize the interests of people not living in major urban areas.
Knowledge of the progressive aims and means does not imply acceptance of their claims, and it's high time you learned to separate those two things. "If only conservatives would know more about what we plan to do, then they'd be all on board" is just not good enough here. Progressives have been just fine with the Supreme Court when it's writing legislation in court decisions, until they see that power center slip from their fingers, and now they've (by and large) decided to switch sides on its legitimacy instead of making peace with originalist(/textualist) philosophy. Progressives loved Executive Orders when it was Obama writing them (muh legislative deadlock!), then flipped with Trump. They should see the wisdom in denying presidential powers in what can be done in the executive branch, since they shouldn't take a progressive president to be a given occupant. And on and on for the progressive laundry list that they hope Biden passes some of, as he's communicated via Bernie and other left-wingers at the party conference. I recognize and oppose the progressive agenda.
Learn not to accuse others of not understanding progressives when their real problem is the unconvincing arguments they offer and the level of discourse typical of your last few posts. Whatever description of problems within the system is not endorsement of the alternatives, as socialists have often done historically against capitalism.
|
On September 23 2020 06:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 06:25 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2020 06:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 05:41 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2020 05:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 03:34 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2020 03:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 03:00 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2020 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On September 23 2020 02:02 Danglars wrote:
If you want to say “the Supreme Court has no actual power,” then states can decide whatever the hell they feel about abortion and gay marriage. They have no power, right? They have power because there is a great deal of respect for the court in all states. If that stopped being true, poof, all gone. That's why Alabama kind of complies. I think you overestimate the respect angle. Many Midwestern states hate the way the fed, with the support of the Supreme Court, just rolls out blanket laws & court decisions that upend state law. They’re just scared of a clean break from the circuit courts of appeals and Supreme Court. There’s no other institution to get relief in state vs state and state vs federal when they think they can win. Once leftists decide a 6-3 court means it has no respect and power, and they don’t have to abide it, you’ll see the breaks happen quickly. I don’t think you win in that constitutional crisis (and should honestly think about winning and keeping hold of the senate) It's telling that you think that it would be the Democrats to cause a loss in the legitimacy of our government and a resulting constitutional crisis when many progressives see Republicans abusing the system to enact a tyranny of the minority on them and see that as the delegitimization of government in-and-of-itself. Maybe I’ve just seen more Democrats losing their shit over RBG, and a helluvalot of Trump being defeated at the Supreme Court by justices nominated by Republicans ... and him just accepting it and moving on. A real tyrant would’ve just moved forward using executive orders to undo other executive orders. “Abusing the system” = “the Electoral College is illegitimate, and popular vote is only legitimacy.” You need to sit down for an hour and think about how the constitutionally legitimate allocation of powers is illegitimate because of results you don’t like and want to call abuse of the system. I don’t really see people calling into question the legitimacy of the electoral college and Supreme Court as righteous crusaders countering abuse ... literally, work on winning more in the present system instead of delegitimizing it when you lose. I don’t really care that progressives want to tear it down and act all self-righteous in the process. They don’t decide what’s good and bad about the system. Actually, they do decide what is good or bad. That's how the world works. The people in the system decide if it's good or bad. If the amount of people that think it's bad reaches a critical point, you end up with laws being changed, protests, riots, constitutional crises, revolutions, etc. depending on the severity of the situation and the type of government. Just because it's built into the system doesn't mean that it's legitimate or just. It has been made abundantly clear that the Constitution is a highly flawed document that isn't and shouldn't be taken as gospel. There are a number of comparisons to various fascist and authoritarian regimes in history that developed entirely by legal means, so while we're making suggestions to each other, I would suggest that you take some time to critically reflect on your blind support for the system, because your current attitude paints a very poor picture of yourself. Nah, I don't think progressives have a privileged viewpoint on what systems are good and what systems are bad. I think they are merely one opinion in the universe of opinions, and have no special claim as to what's abuse, or well designed, or harmful to democracy, or good exercise of power. I happen to think they're dead wrong on most of their most common points, and I'm not alone in this criticism. You know that just because it's built into the system, it isn't legitimate or just. I think just because someone offers a criticism of the system, doesn't mean it has any merit or their alternate plans would be any improvement over the existing system. No one said that progressives have a unique claim to criticizing the system or otherwise have a "privileged viewpoint". However, you tried to summarily dismiss their criticisms simply on the basis of being progressive. I called you on your B.S. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion of thinking that most progressives are dead wrong. I happen to think that, not only are you dead wrong, but that you are a disgustingly immoral human being. You aren't special and you aren't a unique arbiter of legitimacy, just like progressives aren't, but their opinions count just as much as yours. It's telling that you think that it would be the Democrats to cause a loss in the legitimacy of our government and a resulting constitutional crisis when many progressives see Republicans abusing the system to enact a tyranny of the minority on them and see that as the delegitimization of government in-and-of-itself. It shouldn't be "telling" at all, since the only evidence you gave in that post was that progressives see the exact opposite occuring. I don't see the constitution and the government it set up in the same way progressives do, so you should assume it's only natural for me to find opposite conclusions to what progressives think is a problem. It tells me things about you and your thought process. You demonstrate basically no understanding of why progressives think the way they do. You demonstrate no understanding of the longstanding frustrations that progressives (particularly the younger adult generations) have with our political system, the way that it operates, and how it represents them (or doesn't). You don't seem to put even the slightest effort into understanding your political opponent's concerns or viewpoints. This is why the way that you framed that statement is telling. I guess I can say that you are right though and that it shouldn't actually be "telling", as I probably could've already come to that conclusion from your statements over the past several years.
For someone all about maximizing the utility of the majority giving them all the power, don't you realize that young progressive americans are a small minority? You see no dichotomy in what you're saying? There's a reason our system didn't have simple majority rules for most things. You're going to see far more volatility and political polarization in such a system. The 17th Amendment destroyed the Senate and led to the current climate, it's not hard to see what a "17th Amendment" for the Presidency and gutting of all filibusters would do. The yo-yo of ram all this through next 4 years repeal all this and ram your stuff through, pack the courts, pack the courts more, etc. Progressives are myopic. I see nothing in their arguments or systems put forward that are any way superior to the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates. (To be clear I'm a very staunch defender of the Anti-Federalists and wish we still had the Articles of Confederation, but I guess that's neither here or there)
The Constitution has many flaws, but I am sure we do not see eye to eye on what those flaws are.
PS: I understand your frustrations, my political ideology is as much a minority position as yours, but I realize how damaging your ideas would be (on a system level, not as a remark on the practicality of your positions or programs). It's not like progressives don't have enclaves and states that they can live in relative peace under their ideal systems. Maybe instead of focusing all your energy on national politics and systems using localities and states is a better option. Used to be a time when progressives cherished the small and local. Instead you just want control of the national system to foist your ideology upon everyone regardless if they don't want it and that goes for the religious part of the GOP too. Meanwhile us libertarians are more focused on the local and state avenues and small coalition building when we can take it (e.g. gun rights; take a guess at what's more successful).
|
On September 23 2020 06:48 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 06:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 06:25 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2020 06:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 05:41 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2020 05:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 03:34 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2020 03:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 03:00 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2020 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
They have power because there is a great deal of respect for the court in all states. If that stopped being true, poof, all gone. That's why Alabama kind of complies. I think you overestimate the respect angle. Many Midwestern states hate the way the fed, with the support of the Supreme Court, just rolls out blanket laws & court decisions that upend state law. They’re just scared of a clean break from the circuit courts of appeals and Supreme Court. There’s no other institution to get relief in state vs state and state vs federal when they think they can win. Once leftists decide a 6-3 court means it has no respect and power, and they don’t have to abide it, you’ll see the breaks happen quickly. I don’t think you win in that constitutional crisis (and should honestly think about winning and keeping hold of the senate) It's telling that you think that it would be the Democrats to cause a loss in the legitimacy of our government and a resulting constitutional crisis when many progressives see Republicans abusing the system to enact a tyranny of the minority on them and see that as the delegitimization of government in-and-of-itself. Maybe I’ve just seen more Democrats losing their shit over RBG, and a helluvalot of Trump being defeated at the Supreme Court by justices nominated by Republicans ... and him just accepting it and moving on. A real tyrant would’ve just moved forward using executive orders to undo other executive orders. “Abusing the system” = “the Electoral College is illegitimate, and popular vote is only legitimacy.” You need to sit down for an hour and think about how the constitutionally legitimate allocation of powers is illegitimate because of results you don’t like and want to call abuse of the system. I don’t really see people calling into question the legitimacy of the electoral college and Supreme Court as righteous crusaders countering abuse ... literally, work on winning more in the present system instead of delegitimizing it when you lose. I don’t really care that progressives want to tear it down and act all self-righteous in the process. They don’t decide what’s good and bad about the system. Actually, they do decide what is good or bad. That's how the world works. The people in the system decide if it's good or bad. If the amount of people that think it's bad reaches a critical point, you end up with laws being changed, protests, riots, constitutional crises, revolutions, etc. depending on the severity of the situation and the type of government. Just because it's built into the system doesn't mean that it's legitimate or just. It has been made abundantly clear that the Constitution is a highly flawed document that isn't and shouldn't be taken as gospel. There are a number of comparisons to various fascist and authoritarian regimes in history that developed entirely by legal means, so while we're making suggestions to each other, I would suggest that you take some time to critically reflect on your blind support for the system, because your current attitude paints a very poor picture of yourself. Nah, I don't think progressives have a privileged viewpoint on what systems are good and what systems are bad. I think they are merely one opinion in the universe of opinions, and have no special claim as to what's abuse, or well designed, or harmful to democracy, or good exercise of power. I happen to think they're dead wrong on most of their most common points, and I'm not alone in this criticism. You know that just because it's built into the system, it isn't legitimate or just. I think just because someone offers a criticism of the system, doesn't mean it has any merit or their alternate plans would be any improvement over the existing system. No one said that progressives have a unique claim to criticizing the system or otherwise have a "privileged viewpoint". However, you tried to summarily dismiss their criticisms simply on the basis of being progressive. I called you on your B.S. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion of thinking that most progressives are dead wrong. I happen to think that, not only are you dead wrong, but that you are a disgustingly immoral human being. You aren't special and you aren't a unique arbiter of legitimacy, just like progressives aren't, but their opinions count just as much as yours. It's telling that you think that it would be the Democrats to cause a loss in the legitimacy of our government and a resulting constitutional crisis when many progressives see Republicans abusing the system to enact a tyranny of the minority on them and see that as the delegitimization of government in-and-of-itself. It shouldn't be "telling" at all, since the only evidence you gave in that post was that progressives see the exact opposite occuring. I don't see the constitution and the government it set up in the same way progressives do, so you should assume it's only natural for me to find opposite conclusions to what progressives think is a problem. It tells me things about you and your thought process. You demonstrate basically no understanding of why progressives think the way they do. You demonstrate no understanding of the longstanding frustrations that progressives (particularly the younger adult generations) have with our political system, the way that it operates, and how it represents them (or doesn't). You don't seem to put even the slightest effort into understanding your political opponent's concerns or viewpoints. This is why the way that you framed that statement is telling. I guess I can say that you are right though and that it shouldn't actually be "telling", as I probably could've already come to that conclusion from your statements over the past several years. For someone all about maximizing the utility of the majority giving them all the power, don't you realize that young progressive americans are a small minority? You see no dichotomy in what you're saying? There's a reason our system didn't have simple majority rules for most things. You're going to see far more volatility and political polarization in such a system. The 17th Amendment destroyed the Senate and led to the current climate, it's not hard to see what a "17th Amendment" for the Presidency and gutting of all filibusters would do. The yo-yo of ram all this through next 4 years repeal all this and ram your stuff through, pack the courts, pack the courts more, etc. Progressives are myopic. I see nothing in their arguments or systems put forward that are any way superior to the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates. (To be clear I'm a very staunch defender of the Anti-Federalists and wish we still had the Articles of Confederation, but I guess that's neither here or there) The Constitution has many flaws, but I am sure we do not see eye to eye on what those flaws are. PS: I understand your frustrations, my political ideology is as much a minority position as yours, but I realize how damaging your ideas would be (on a system level, not as a remark on the practicality of your positions or programs). It's not like progressives don't have enclaves and states that they can live in relative peace under their ideal systems. Maybe instead of focusing all your energy on national politics and systems using localities and states is a better option. Used to be a time when progressives cherished the small and local. Instead you just want control of the national system to foist your ideology upon everyone regardless if they don't want it and that goes for the religious part of the GOP too. Meanwhile us libertarians are more focused on the local and state avenues and small coalition building when we can take it (e.g. gun rights; take a guess at what's more successful).
1) I never said I was "all about" giving the majority "all" of the power. I am opposed to allowing a conservative minority from smaller/sparsely populated states to force their oppressive ideology on others.
2) Young progressive Americans aren't nearly as much of a minority as you think they are. Movement towards universal healthcare, real action on climate change, a meaningful change to our education system (both pre and post-secondary education) and changes to policing are all actually very popular, and are popular with a majority of Americans overall. Of course, the particulars of what is actually done is up for debate (as is the degree of progressiveness), but the problem is that conservatives provide no meaningful solutions to these problems when the majority of the country wants some. The younger generations skew quite a bit more to the left than you like to admit, and these are the people that feel like they aren't properly represented by our system of government.
3) The haven of localized government doesn't work when (as an example) fundamentalist Christians want to use the Supreme Court to deny basic rights to the LGBTQ+ community or women, destroy protections for the environment, etc. Conservatives use the federal government as a weapon to enforce their ideology on blue states just as much (if no more so) than progressives do to red states.
4) I hope you see the hypocrisy of saying that progressives want to "foist their ideology" on others when Republicans are the ones that want to forcibly instill an oppressive Christian moral ideology on others, regardless of their beliefs. The party that you support has a significant group of individuals that want to turn the U.S. into an explicitly theocratic Christian state. By any reasonable metric, Republican policies would curtail far more meaningful rights than would Democratic policies.
I understand and reject their framing of the issues, their estimation of the "pros" of their favored changes, and their abysmal evaluation of the "cons" of their changes. I talked a lot about what I say is understandable exemptions for religious institutions with Nouar and Nevuk. I just talked about why I prefer less of a match between actual population distribution and representative distribution, since it tends to marginalize the interests of people not living in major urban areas.
Knowledge of the progressive aims and means does not imply acceptance of their claims, and it's high time you learned to separate those two things. "If only conservatives would know more about what we plan to do, then they'd be all on board" is just not good enough here. Progressives have been just fine with the Supreme Court when it's writing legislation in court decisions, until they see that power center slip from their fingers, and now they've (by and large) decided to switch sides on its legitimacy instead of making peace with originalist(/textualist) philosophy. Progressives loved Executive Orders when it was Obama writing them (muh legislative deadlock!), then flipped with Trump. They should see the wisdom in denying presidential powers in what can be done in the executive branch, since they shouldn't take a progressive president to be a given occupant. And on and on for the progressive laundry list that they hope Biden passes some of, as he's communicated via Bernie and other left-wingers at the party conference. I recognize and oppose the progressive agenda.
Learn not to accuse others of not understanding progressives when their real problem is the unconvincing arguments they offer and the level of discourse typical of your last few posts. Whatever description of problems within the system is not endorsement of the alternatives, as socialists have often done historically against capitalism.
You are arrogant enough to think that you understand, but the strawmen that you consistently create and argue against say otherwise.
Also, my level of discourse tends to match the amount of respect that I have for the person I am debating with. The party that you consistently support has shown an abhorrent disregard for any kind of respect for their political opponents, let alone their rights, safety, or general well-being. Why do you deserve any real respect when both your party and you explicitly don't show it to others? Both you and Wegandi have basically pulled a Cartman on the last 10 pages of this thread alone, and you think you deserve respectful dialogue?
|
One of the Republican tentpole objectives has been overturning Roe v Wade. Can't get much more oppressive than 'we want to be able to control what women do with their bodies'.
|
Stratos I am curious how you feel about the Canadian political system (is it good, bad, somewhere in between, adequate, etc.?). Should we move more in their direction? (Just follow me for a second on this) If you don't know enough about it then that's ok too.
|
On September 23 2020 02:10 Erasme wrote:www.newyorker.comAnother scandal on the handling of the crisis by the Trump administration. They put a dozen young people with barely any experience to deal with the covid19's logistic crisis. Led by the brilliant Kushner whos main achievement is fucking trump's daughter. Do you care in the slightest about this Danglars ? Corruption and negligence that costed american lives.
Woah there, I think that Kushner bit is out of line. There's no proof that they've had sex.
|
On September 23 2020 07:53 iamthedave wrote:
One of the Republican tentpole objectives has been overturning Roe v Wade. Can't get much more oppressive than 'we want to be able to control what women do with their bodies'.
That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). If your quote is what you believe you're not discussing or having a dialogue, but it's just 2 people talking past each other. (For the record I'm somewhere on the Walter Block evictionism scale myself...anywho)
As far as I am aware over-turning Roe v Wade will allow the states that believe in the prior statement to enact limitations/laws protecting said unborn life. It doesn't require states to make abortion illegal. It will have no affect on liberal/Democrat run states. (Prior to Roe v Wade abortion in some form or fashion was legal in 20 states, and illegal in 30)
To me it seems like it's more apt to say that Roe v Wade was forcing states to do things they didn't want rather than vice versa (e.g. states could at any time prior to Roe v Wade make abortion legal if they wanted and many did).
|
On September 23 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:
Stratos I am curious how you feel about the Canadian political system (is it good, bad, somewhere in between, adequate, etc.?). Should we move more in their direction? (Just follow me for a second on this) If you don't know enough about it then that's ok too.
I haven't studied the Canadian political system beyond the basics, so I can't really say. Are you thinking of certain characteristics in particular?
That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). If your quote is what you believe you're not discussing or having a dialogue, but it's just 2 people talking past each other. (For the record I'm somewhere on the Walter Block evictionism scale myself...anywho)
As far as I am aware over-turning Roe v Wade will allow the states that believe in the prior statement to enact limitations/laws protecting said unborn life. It doesn't require states to make abortion illegal. It will have no affect on liberal/Democrat run states. (Prior to Roe v Wade abortion in some form or fashion was legal in 20 states, and illegal in 30)
To me it seems like it's more apt to say that Roe v Wade was forcing states to do things they didn't want rather than vice versa (e.g. states could at any time prior to Roe v Wade make abortion legal if they wanted and many did).
The only thing it "forces" a state to do is not limit the freedoms of the women in that state.
The problem with the argument "plenty of states will still have it legal" is that this still leaves millions of women in red or purple states that potentially won't have any access to abortion, including in medically necessary scenarios (and yes, there are several states that will outright ban abortion, no exceptions, as they have tried to do in the recent past).
It isn't real freedom if you have to spend an inordinate amount of money and travel thousands of miles to receive a procedure.
|
It depends on how they want to interpret it. The SC can 100% outlaw abortions on all states. There's not really grounds for any position on Roe in the constitution, imo.
The most likely thing for them to do is to continue the process chipping away at abortion rights in red states - for instance, saying that it is OK to functionally outlaw abortion but not literally - perhaps like those insane restrictions that were written to make all clinics close in a southern state (they did something like measure the width of the hallways and say all clinics had to have wider hallways than they had).
The main argument against overturning Roe v Wade is that it would have 0 effect on rich white people and doesn't actually prevent abortions. The rich can easily leave the country for a cheap abortion. All it does is force those without the necessary means to seek illegal, extremely risky abortions from criminals.
I've always been baffled by those who are "libertarians" claiming they're against it, as it's the exact same logic used as to why drugs should be legalized or why guns shouldn't be made illegal. To me, if a libertarian claims they're pro-life, they're nothing but a republican with a different set of talking points.
Personally, I think it's a stupid debate to have on a male dominated forum (be it either the Senate, the SC, or here), as it literally doesn't affect us in even 1/100 of the ways it can affect women.
|
On September 23 2020 08:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:
Stratos I am curious how you feel about the Canadian political system (is it good, bad, somewhere in between, adequate, etc.?). Should we move more in their direction? (Just follow me for a second on this) If you don't know enough about it then that's ok too. I haven't studied the Canadian political system beyond the basics, so I can't really say. Are you thinking of certain characteristics in particular? Show nested quote +That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). If your quote is what you believe you're not discussing or having a dialogue, but it's just 2 people talking past each other. (For the record I'm somewhere on the Walter Block evictionism scale myself...anywho)
As far as I am aware over-turning Roe v Wade will allow the states that believe in the prior statement to enact limitations/laws protecting said unborn life. It doesn't require states to make abortion illegal. It will have no affect on liberal/Democrat run states. (Prior to Roe v Wade abortion in some form or fashion was legal in 20 states, and illegal in 30)
To me it seems like it's more apt to say that Roe v Wade was forcing states to do things they didn't want rather than vice versa (e.g. states could at any time prior to Roe v Wade make abortion legal if they wanted and many did). The only thing it "forces" a state to do is not limit the freedoms of the women in that state. The problem with the argument "plenty of states will still have it legal" is that this still leaves millions of women in red or purple states that potentially won't have any access to abortion, including in medically necessary scenarios (and yes, there are several states that will outright ban abortion, no exceptions, as they have tried to do in the recent past). It isn't real freedom if you have to spend an inordinate amount of money and travel thousands of miles to receive a procedure.
Ok, I'll re-frame do you believe the Canadian political system as a whole works OK, well, adequately, etc.? (Again, feel free to say you don't know enough that's ok)
As for the other bit, well, it seems to me that it's hard to take the position that it is the Republicans foisting one size-fits all rules (with regard to Roe v Wade / abortion) on the country when they're doing no such thing for the states where people want abortion legal, but merely giving the option to the states that don't want it (and yes, many women are anti-abortion as well). If anything the side forcing all 50 states to make abortion legal is the one foisting their rules on everyone, no?
|
On September 23 2020 08:21 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 08:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:
Stratos I am curious how you feel about the Canadian political system (is it good, bad, somewhere in between, adequate, etc.?). Should we move more in their direction? (Just follow me for a second on this) If you don't know enough about it then that's ok too. I haven't studied the Canadian political system beyond the basics, so I can't really say. Are you thinking of certain characteristics in particular? That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). If your quote is what you believe you're not discussing or having a dialogue, but it's just 2 people talking past each other. (For the record I'm somewhere on the Walter Block evictionism scale myself...anywho)
As far as I am aware over-turning Roe v Wade will allow the states that believe in the prior statement to enact limitations/laws protecting said unborn life. It doesn't require states to make abortion illegal. It will have no affect on liberal/Democrat run states. (Prior to Roe v Wade abortion in some form or fashion was legal in 20 states, and illegal in 30)
To me it seems like it's more apt to say that Roe v Wade was forcing states to do things they didn't want rather than vice versa (e.g. states could at any time prior to Roe v Wade make abortion legal if they wanted and many did). The only thing it "forces" a state to do is not limit the freedoms of the women in that state. The problem with the argument "plenty of states will still have it legal" is that this still leaves millions of women in red or purple states that potentially won't have any access to abortion, including in medically necessary scenarios (and yes, there are several states that will outright ban abortion, no exceptions, as they have tried to do in the recent past). It isn't real freedom if you have to spend an inordinate amount of money and travel thousands of miles to receive a procedure. Ok, I'll re-frame do you believe the Canadian political system as a whole works OK, well, adequately, etc.? (Again, feel free to say you don't know enough that's ok) As for the other bit, well, it seems to me that it's hard to take the position that it is the Republicans foisting one size-fits all rules (with regard to Roe v Wade / abortion) on the country when they're doing no such thing for the states where people want abortion legal, but merely giving the option to the states that don't want it (and yes, many women are anti-abortion as well). If anything the side forcing all 50 states to make abortion legal is the one foisting their rules on everyone, no?
Except that abortion being legal doesn't force anyone to have an abortion. It just means women have the right to abort their pregnancy. They don't have any obligation to do so.
Just like you can still be a teetotaller despite alcohol being legal.
|
On September 23 2020 08:19 Nevuk wrote:
It depends on how they want to interpret it. The SC can 100% outlaw abortions on all states. There's not really grounds for any position on Roe in the constitution, imo.
The most likely thing for them to do is to continue the process chipping away at abortion rights in red states - for instance, saying that it is OK to functionally outlaw abortion but not literally - perhaps like those insane restrictions that were written to make all clinics close in a southern state (they did something like measure the width of the hallways and say all clinics had to have wider hallways than they had).
The main argument against overturning Roe v Wade is that it would have 0 effect on rich white people and doesn't actually prevent abortions. The rich can easily leave the country for a cheap abortion. All it does is force those without the necessary means to seek illegal, extremely risky abortions from criminals.
I've always been baffled by those who are "libertarians" claiming they're against it, as it's the exact same logic used as to why drugs should be legalized or why guns shouldn't be made illegal. To me, if a libertarian claims they're pro-life, they're nothing but a republican with a different set of talking points.
Personally, I think it's a stupid debate to have on a male dominated forum (be it either the Senate, the SC, or here), as it literally doesn't affect us in even 1/100 of the ways it can affect women.
I can see why a libertarian would support self-ownership (anti-abortion position) if they believe the unborn has all the rights and protections as that of the born. Libertarians tend to also believe in proportionality so even if the unborn is an "intruder" it is not an imminent threat to the life of the woman (in some 99%+ of the cases) so killing them is not justified. Hence, the position of Walter Block evictionism (I can see you're not well versed in libertarian abortion ethics). It is not difficult at all for (and is not anti-libertarian ethos) to be anti-abortion, pro-abortion, or in between with WB evictionism. They all have merit. Hence, why I say it's such a complex issue that people attempting to boil it down to bumper sticker dialogue are fools.
I don't see any way the SC outlaws abortion in all 50 states. If anything repeal of Roe v Wade will just have the country go to where it was before - if a state wants to make it legal, that's their pregorative, if they don't that's also up to them. I imagine in our current cultural climate that it would be a minority of states where abortion is made illegal (in varying degrees). It's not going to make abortion illegal in CA or NY.
|
On September 23 2020 08:21 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 08:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:
Stratos I am curious how you feel about the Canadian political system (is it good, bad, somewhere in between, adequate, etc.?). Should we move more in their direction? (Just follow me for a second on this) If you don't know enough about it then that's ok too. I haven't studied the Canadian political system beyond the basics, so I can't really say. Are you thinking of certain characteristics in particular? That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). If your quote is what you believe you're not discussing or having a dialogue, but it's just 2 people talking past each other. (For the record I'm somewhere on the Walter Block evictionism scale myself...anywho)
As far as I am aware over-turning Roe v Wade will allow the states that believe in the prior statement to enact limitations/laws protecting said unborn life. It doesn't require states to make abortion illegal. It will have no affect on liberal/Democrat run states. (Prior to Roe v Wade abortion in some form or fashion was legal in 20 states, and illegal in 30)
To me it seems like it's more apt to say that Roe v Wade was forcing states to do things they didn't want rather than vice versa (e.g. states could at any time prior to Roe v Wade make abortion legal if they wanted and many did). The only thing it "forces" a state to do is not limit the freedoms of the women in that state. The problem with the argument "plenty of states will still have it legal" is that this still leaves millions of women in red or purple states that potentially won't have any access to abortion, including in medically necessary scenarios (and yes, there are several states that will outright ban abortion, no exceptions, as they have tried to do in the recent past). It isn't real freedom if you have to spend an inordinate amount of money and travel thousands of miles to receive a procedure. Ok, I'll re-frame do you believe the Canadian political system as a whole works OK, well, adequately, etc.? (Again, feel free to say you don't know enough that's ok) As for the other bit, well, it seems to me that it's hard to take the position that it is the Republicans foisting one size-fits all rules (with regard to Roe v Wade / abortion) on the country when they're doing no such thing for the states where people want abortion legal, but merely giving the option to the states that don't want it (and yes, many women are anti-abortion as well). If anything the side forcing all 50 states to make abortion legal is the one foisting their rules on everyone, no?
No, they're not.
Roe v. Wade doesn't force the states to do anything. All it does is prohibit states from taking away a right from someone. It doesn't require states to explicitly provide abortion services or resources/funding for them. This isn't enforcement of an ideology, it's actually, by definition, prohibiting conservatives from enforcing their ideology.
Not only this, but Republicans aren't pushing for just individual states to be able to ban abortion. They are 100% pushing for a nationwide abortion ban, either through the courts or through the legislature. They're also pushing for abortion limits/bans in every state, not just red states. This is clearly shown by the national anti-abortion groups funding bills and political pushes in non-red states to limit abortion rights.
As to Canada, again, I don't know enough to say if the system as a whole "works OK" or not. I know the basic structural principles of it, but the function of a governmental system goes far beyond this and includes party dynamics, procedural laws, etc. etc.
|
Well, libertarians are against murder too. So if you think abortion is baby murder it makes sense.
|
On September 23 2020 08:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 08:21 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 08:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:
Stratos I am curious how you feel about the Canadian political system (is it good, bad, somewhere in between, adequate, etc.?). Should we move more in their direction? (Just follow me for a second on this) If you don't know enough about it then that's ok too. I haven't studied the Canadian political system beyond the basics, so I can't really say. Are you thinking of certain characteristics in particular? That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). If your quote is what you believe you're not discussing or having a dialogue, but it's just 2 people talking past each other. (For the record I'm somewhere on the Walter Block evictionism scale myself...anywho)
As far as I am aware over-turning Roe v Wade will allow the states that believe in the prior statement to enact limitations/laws protecting said unborn life. It doesn't require states to make abortion illegal. It will have no affect on liberal/Democrat run states. (Prior to Roe v Wade abortion in some form or fashion was legal in 20 states, and illegal in 30)
To me it seems like it's more apt to say that Roe v Wade was forcing states to do things they didn't want rather than vice versa (e.g. states could at any time prior to Roe v Wade make abortion legal if they wanted and many did). The only thing it "forces" a state to do is not limit the freedoms of the women in that state. The problem with the argument "plenty of states will still have it legal" is that this still leaves millions of women in red or purple states that potentially won't have any access to abortion, including in medically necessary scenarios (and yes, there are several states that will outright ban abortion, no exceptions, as they have tried to do in the recent past). It isn't real freedom if you have to spend an inordinate amount of money and travel thousands of miles to receive a procedure. Ok, I'll re-frame do you believe the Canadian political system as a whole works OK, well, adequately, etc.? (Again, feel free to say you don't know enough that's ok) As for the other bit, well, it seems to me that it's hard to take the position that it is the Republicans foisting one size-fits all rules (with regard to Roe v Wade / abortion) on the country when they're doing no such thing for the states where people want abortion legal, but merely giving the option to the states that don't want it (and yes, many women are anti-abortion as well). If anything the side forcing all 50 states to make abortion legal is the one foisting their rules on everyone, no? No, they're not. Roe v. Wade doesn't force the states to do anything. All it does is prohibit states from taking away a right from someone. It doesn't require states to explicitly provide abortion services or resources/funding for them. This isn't enforcement of an ideology, it's actually, by definition, prohibiting conservatives from enforcing their ideology. Not only this, but Republicans aren't pushing for just individual states to be able to ban abortion. They are 100% pushing for a nationwide abortion ban, either through the courts or through the legislature. They're also pushing for abortion limits/bans in every state, not just red states. This is clearly shown by the national anti-abortion groups funding bills and political pushes in non-red states to limit abortion rights. As to Canada, again, I don't know enough to say if the system as a whole "works OK" or not. I know the basic structural principles of it, but the function of a governmental system goes far beyond this and includes party dynamics, procedural laws, etc. etc.
I know a lot of Republicans. Almost to a tee, none of the ones I know (or the majority of what I read) is them wanting to outlaw abortion in all 50 states (through the SCOTUS). That's not what the fight of Roe v Wade is about. Anyways, we just disagree on the issue of federalism on this one, so not much more point in keep going.
The reason I bring up Canada is most people here would I say, tend to believe Canada works pretty well, however Canada also has a system much like our own:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Canadian_federal_election
As you can see the Conservative Party had more popular votes, but lost. (Less seats in their "Congress") Hardly no one I know is calling for Canada to abandon their system and move to a pure direct democracy, that Canada is fundamentally broken and "unfair". My point being, if you think the US system is beyond broken you also have to think all formerly-British colonies/common-wealths are also broken. I am intrigued if you will follow your chain of logic with regards to the forms and nature of Governments of this type. Is the US one broken and so then are too the other British-based ones as well? Or is only ours broken, and if so I would be eager to hear your arguments as to how it is so here, but not there when the exact same "unfair" process happens.
|
On September 23 2020 08:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 08:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 08:21 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 08:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:
Stratos I am curious how you feel about the Canadian political system (is it good, bad, somewhere in between, adequate, etc.?). Should we move more in their direction? (Just follow me for a second on this) If you don't know enough about it then that's ok too. I haven't studied the Canadian political system beyond the basics, so I can't really say. Are you thinking of certain characteristics in particular? That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). If your quote is what you believe you're not discussing or having a dialogue, but it's just 2 people talking past each other. (For the record I'm somewhere on the Walter Block evictionism scale myself...anywho)
As far as I am aware over-turning Roe v Wade will allow the states that believe in the prior statement to enact limitations/laws protecting said unborn life. It doesn't require states to make abortion illegal. It will have no affect on liberal/Democrat run states. (Prior to Roe v Wade abortion in some form or fashion was legal in 20 states, and illegal in 30)
To me it seems like it's more apt to say that Roe v Wade was forcing states to do things they didn't want rather than vice versa (e.g. states could at any time prior to Roe v Wade make abortion legal if they wanted and many did). The only thing it "forces" a state to do is not limit the freedoms of the women in that state. The problem with the argument "plenty of states will still have it legal" is that this still leaves millions of women in red or purple states that potentially won't have any access to abortion, including in medically necessary scenarios (and yes, there are several states that will outright ban abortion, no exceptions, as they have tried to do in the recent past). It isn't real freedom if you have to spend an inordinate amount of money and travel thousands of miles to receive a procedure. Ok, I'll re-frame do you believe the Canadian political system as a whole works OK, well, adequately, etc.? (Again, feel free to say you don't know enough that's ok) As for the other bit, well, it seems to me that it's hard to take the position that it is the Republicans foisting one size-fits all rules (with regard to Roe v Wade / abortion) on the country when they're doing no such thing for the states where people want abortion legal, but merely giving the option to the states that don't want it (and yes, many women are anti-abortion as well). If anything the side forcing all 50 states to make abortion legal is the one foisting their rules on everyone, no? No, they're not. Roe v. Wade doesn't force the states to do anything. All it does is prohibit states from taking away a right from someone. It doesn't require states to explicitly provide abortion services or resources/funding for them. This isn't enforcement of an ideology, it's actually, by definition, prohibiting conservatives from enforcing their ideology. Not only this, but Republicans aren't pushing for just individual states to be able to ban abortion. They are 100% pushing for a nationwide abortion ban, either through the courts or through the legislature. They're also pushing for abortion limits/bans in every state, not just red states. This is clearly shown by the national anti-abortion groups funding bills and political pushes in non-red states to limit abortion rights. As to Canada, again, I don't know enough to say if the system as a whole "works OK" or not. I know the basic structural principles of it, but the function of a governmental system goes far beyond this and includes party dynamics, procedural laws, etc. etc. I know a lot of Republicans. Almost to a tee, none of the ones I know (or the majority of what I read) is them wanting to outlaw abortion in all 50 states (through the SCOTUS). That's not what the fight of Roe v Wade is about. Anyways, we just disagree on the issue of federalism on this one, so not much more point in keep going. The reason I bring up Canada is most people here would I say, tend to believe Canada works pretty well, however Canada also has a system much like our own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Canadian_federal_electionAs you can see the Conservative Party had more popular votes, but lost. (Less seats in their "Congress") Hardly no one I know is calling for Canada to abandon their system and move to a pure direct democracy, that Canada is fundamentally broken and "unfair". My point being, if you think the US system is beyond broken you also have to think all formerly-British colonies/common-wealths are also broken. I am intrigued if you will follow your chain of logic with regards to the forms and nature of Governments of this type. Is the US one broken and so then are too the other British-based ones as well? Or is only ours broken, and if so I would be eager to hear your arguments as to how it is so here, but not there when the exact same "unfair" process happens.
I don't think this is a good comparison. The US system is pretty fundamentally different than the Canadian (and other parliamentary) ones. There's a good book on this, which was written for US political science students taking graduate level survey courses on the Canadian political system.
In short, I believe US levels of trouble in government would actually affect us much worse, as there is far more to the operation of our government that is done by convention. It was only in the 90s that we bolstered our constitution with some fairly basic provisions. We also elect our MPs and MPPs to govern completely in our stead, not really to directly represent their constituencies on a regular basis.
In practice, Canadians have come to presume that our government works more like the US system than it really does, because of the weight of the media coverage on US issues in our news. (For example, the book I just mentioned outlines how this was the primary contributor to us adopting a fixed 4-year election cycle--previously it required the loss of a vote of a confidence to trigger an election.) I think this can skew the understanding that everyone--foreigners and Canadians alike--actually have about how our political system is intended to function.
One thing that is definitely seen widely as "broken" here is the FPTP system. It was a substantial enough issue that it was a significant contributing factor to the federal Liberals being re-elected this time around, and then they punted on it about as quickly as they possibly could have.
|
On September 23 2020 08:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 08:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 08:21 Wegandi wrote:On September 23 2020 08:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 23 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:
Stratos I am curious how you feel about the Canadian political system (is it good, bad, somewhere in between, adequate, etc.?). Should we move more in their direction? (Just follow me for a second on this) If you don't know enough about it then that's ok too. I haven't studied the Canadian political system beyond the basics, so I can't really say. Are you thinking of certain characteristics in particular? That's a strawman simplification (it's not about women and their body it's about one side believing that at a certain point in the pregnancy the unborn life is entitled to the same rights as the born). If your quote is what you believe you're not discussing or having a dialogue, but it's just 2 people talking past each other. (For the record I'm somewhere on the Walter Block evictionism scale myself...anywho)
As far as I am aware over-turning Roe v Wade will allow the states that believe in the prior statement to enact limitations/laws protecting said unborn life. It doesn't require states to make abortion illegal. It will have no affect on liberal/Democrat run states. (Prior to Roe v Wade abortion in some form or fashion was legal in 20 states, and illegal in 30)
To me it seems like it's more apt to say that Roe v Wade was forcing states to do things they didn't want rather than vice versa (e.g. states could at any time prior to Roe v Wade make abortion legal if they wanted and many did). The only thing it "forces" a state to do is not limit the freedoms of the women in that state. The problem with the argument "plenty of states will still have it legal" is that this still leaves millions of women in red or purple states that potentially won't have any access to abortion, including in medically necessary scenarios (and yes, there are several states that will outright ban abortion, no exceptions, as they have tried to do in the recent past). It isn't real freedom if you have to spend an inordinate amount of money and travel thousands of miles to receive a procedure. Ok, I'll re-frame do you believe the Canadian political system as a whole works OK, well, adequately, etc.? (Again, feel free to say you don't know enough that's ok) As for the other bit, well, it seems to me that it's hard to take the position that it is the Republicans foisting one size-fits all rules (with regard to Roe v Wade / abortion) on the country when they're doing no such thing for the states where people want abortion legal, but merely giving the option to the states that don't want it (and yes, many women are anti-abortion as well). If anything the side forcing all 50 states to make abortion legal is the one foisting their rules on everyone, no? No, they're not. Roe v. Wade doesn't force the states to do anything. All it does is prohibit states from taking away a right from someone. It doesn't require states to explicitly provide abortion services or resources/funding for them. This isn't enforcement of an ideology, it's actually, by definition, prohibiting conservatives from enforcing their ideology. Not only this, but Republicans aren't pushing for just individual states to be able to ban abortion. They are 100% pushing for a nationwide abortion ban, either through the courts or through the legislature. They're also pushing for abortion limits/bans in every state, not just red states. This is clearly shown by the national anti-abortion groups funding bills and political pushes in non-red states to limit abortion rights. As to Canada, again, I don't know enough to say if the system as a whole "works OK" or not. I know the basic structural principles of it, but the function of a governmental system goes far beyond this and includes party dynamics, procedural laws, etc. etc. I know a lot of Republicans. Almost to a tee, none of the ones I know (or the majority of what I read) is them wanting to outlaw abortion in all 50 states (through the SCOTUS). That's not what the fight of Roe v Wade is about. Anyways, we just disagree on the issue of federalism on this one, so not much more point in keep going. The reason I bring up Canada is most people here would I say, tend to believe Canada works pretty well, however Canada also has a system much like our own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Canadian_federal_electionAs you can see the Conservative Party had more popular votes, but lost. (Less seats in their "Congress") Hardly no one I know is calling for Canada to abandon their system and move to a pure direct democracy, that Canada is fundamentally broken and "unfair". My point being, if you think the US system is beyond broken you also have to think all formerly-British colonies/common-wealths are also broken. I am intrigued if you will follow your chain of logic with regards to the forms and nature of Governments of this type. Is the US one broken and so then are too the other British-based ones as well? Or is only ours broken, and if so I would be eager to hear your arguments as to how it is so here, but not there when the exact same "unfair" process happens.
The majority of Republicans don't support an outright ban on abortion, but they support a party that is actively working towards this.
Just like the majority of Republicans may not be explicitly racist, but they still support a racist president and a party that helps perpetuate racism.
|
United States43989 Posts
On September 23 2020 08:34 IgnE wrote:
Well, libertarians are against murder too. So if you think abortion is baby murder it makes sense.
Not really because abortion isn’t anything like murder, it’s refusing to surrender your own person to support another who cannot support themselves. It’s the most fundamental of libertarian rights, bodily autonomy. No libertarian would say that there exists a legal mandate to donate blood to people who would die without it, and pregnancy is far, far more intrusive than that.
|
On September 23 2020 09:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 08:34 IgnE wrote:
Well, libertarians are against murder too. So if you think abortion is baby murder it makes sense. Not really because abortion isn’t anything like murder, it’s refusing to surrender your own person to support another who cannot support themselves. It’s the most fundamental of libertarian rights, bodily autonomy. No libertarian would say that there exists a legal mandate to donate blood to people who would die without it, and pregnancy is far, far more intrusive than that.
I can tell you don't understand libertarianism at all with your analogy.
|
On September 23 2020 08:34 IgnE wrote:
Well, libertarians are against murder too. So if you think abortion is baby murder it makes sense.
Depends on the libertarian. I've read some that think murder should be legal, something to do with free market incentives. There are some pretty extreme ones out there (not that libertarians are unique as a group in this respect)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
