this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
254 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2805 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

And in this case, tyranny of the majority isn't even saying "you need to get an abortion." If your religion says that abortion is wrong and thus you refuse to have any, great. Go for it. That's your choice. However, what the majority is saying is that the minority can't impose their religious beliefs on everyone else.

I'm in the minority due to being Jewish and not Christian. I'm also somewhat religious to the extant that (among other things), I don't eat bacon. However, while I won't be indulging in bacon, I would never dream about telling other people that they couldn't eat bacon due to my religious beliefs.

I'm even fine if people eat bacon in front of me. I don't have any control over what they do with their bodies. I'd be upset if someone intentionally gave me food containing bacon in an attempt to get me to eat bacon. But that goes back to control over my own body, not other people's bodies.

(And, I know that "not eating bacon" isn't anywhere close in scale to abortion. I just find it a handy analogy to use.)

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This is what Republicans don't understand. The more tightly they try to squeeze, the more the future will be exactly what they don't want. Pushing an unpopular position this hard will only make people consider even more extreme versions of the opposing opinion.

I mean, it's a very good point -- why should the government have any say? It's antithetical to what libertarians and small government proponents say.

[–] hark@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Republican politicians don't actually care about abortion, they're just using it for the controversy. If anything, they like this since the fight is what fires up their base and drives them to the polls.

[–] zombuey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

its a divider issue they don't give a shit they just know they can maintain the religious vote with it while they rob everyone blind. They've also figured out making places not worth living in for progressives will drive them out of their districts.

[–] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They do this with everything. They never pass any useful bill, they just go for easy shit to rile people up.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It's much worse than that. The anti-abortion drive is anti-woman. Sure, it's a wedge issue for some politicians, but overall it's about rolling back women's rights until they're domestic non-citizens who depend entirely on their father, brother, uncle, husband. The anti-abortion drive also has the benefit of pleasing the ones who hate the poor, as the poor women are the most affected, while rich ones can "find ways around" the bans. In the US, that combines with racism too.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/15/1857976/--The-Only-Moral-Abortion-is-My-Abortion-an-article-by-Joyce-Arthur

The essence of conservatism being: "rights and liberty for me, but not for thee"

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

That's what they want. They want extremism.

It shows how much they lack self-awareness, since they themselves only double down when told “no.”

[–] Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (26 children)

Huh.

If only there was supreme court legislation that fit what the majority of Americans have always wanted.

[–] sci@feddit.nl 11 points 1 year ago

if supreme court was for the people it would be appointed by the people.

[–] the_inebriati@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

supreme court legislation

The supreme court does not legislate. No court of any kind should be legislating. That's the damn problem.

The reason the US is in the position it's in is because while the rest of the world was going through its bodily autonomy revolution and democratically legislating abortion access, the US relied on a judicial decision (without a lawmaker being involved) based on a fragile foundation of "right to privacy".

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] zerkrazus@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Well, yeah, it's almost like the government shouldn't get to control your body.

[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Politicians shouldn't practice medicine without a fucking license either.

[–] golamas1999@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ben Carson is a great neurosurgeon but the dumbest of dumb when it came to any government. He is either paid to be that dumb or he is actually just that cognitively dissonant.

[–] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

Hey buddy, are you really saying that the guy who said "the pyramids were for storing grain" is dumb?

[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, he's a good example of specialized intelligence. He's is pretty damn stupid outside of his core specialization. And even if he's a medical professional, he shouldn't be able to put broad, invasive, extreme sweeping medical decisions on the people of the US. That should all be between patients and their doctors.

[–] FreeloadingSponger@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

So 3 seconds before the head crowns, you should be able to kill the baby?

edit: no debate, just downvotes, huh?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (18 children)

An abortion '3 seconds before the head crowns' is called a birth. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. If you can terminate the pregnancy without killing the fetus, go for it. The fact is, almost every abortion performed in the third trimester is due to the fetus being unviable or the health of the mother.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FreeloadingSponger@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What if there's 1mm of the baby's toe still inside the mother, and she decides to shoot it in the head? Still legal?

[–] edgarallenpwn@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

This is not how it works and I believe you know this. Fuck off

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How are abortion rights tyranny against anybody?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Personally I don't think the vast majority of states deserve senatorial representation, much less the right to spend a significant portion of their budgets on exquisite buildings full of overpaid suits deciding asinine shit like "The state fruit of Missouri is the blueberry"

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is that federal representatives only represent their states. More often than not they don't give a flying fuck about anyone else. Which means they will burn the world to the ground as long as they get even the smallest concessions for their own voters. It might not be a bad idea to have a more fluid form of representative, where there's overlap between represented areas, but no two senators represent the exact same base. You'd leave the House alone, excepting to maybe expand it so it better reflects its representative states.

Obviously a pretty radical change that'd never happen, and kind of a spur-of-the-moment kind of thought by someone with literally no political training or experience... but it sounds better than what we have, at least in my internet addled brain.

[–] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Meh, who needs representatives? Throw them all in the meat grinder and direct democracy everything. You could probably even pay everyone to vote and still come up ahead of the endless pageantry, security, and other associated costs.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

sadly (and frighteningly), a growing number of state legislatures don't give a fuck what voters want.

[–] Tenthrow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Too bad they won't let US vote on it.

[–] dottedgreenline@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Cue Robin Williams Jumanji image macro with, "WHAT YEAR IS IT" text.

[–] dumples@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think the growing change in opinion is likely based on and more stories and information about late stage abortions out there. I knew I didn't think about them as much before Roe. However, it's pretty obvious that the viability compromise is the real middle position with more people favoring no restrictions each day

[–] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

People take the extreme since it's hard to argue with. But in reality, it's across the board better to leave it as an option in plenty of circumstances. You're saving a life in technical terms, but by and large those kids will not be born into a good situation. And it will ruin their parents lives too.

[–] Mereo@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Indeed. The more unfortunate horror stories people will hear, the more Americans will be against limiting abortions.

[–] dumples@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

That's how it always works. The fact is that no one wants a late stage abortion its the least worst choice

load more comments
view more: next ›