-
@Nat said in US Politics:
Sad sad news, undermining decades of women's rights. Of course those most affected will likely be poorer women who can't afford to move out-of-state for an abortion - how can they manage? Even though it's been coming, the impact today feels ... shattering
But where should this decision be made. By elected representatives. Or appointed judges. And I'm within reason in favour of abortion. But maybe judges in the past have made a bad decision and this had righted it. Leave it up to the states to decide. Or decide at a national level. But by elected reps. Not a court
-
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Frank I respect your beliefs and can understand your position. I just think it is way more complicated. I don't think many woman have an abortion out of convenience, that is a little dismissive of the trauma these woman go through when making these decisions.
One would have to be very callous to terminate a pregnancy without grappling with the morality of it. What would be beneficial is to have long form conversations with woman who have had abortions. Try to get an understanding of why they chose termination, what is their story that made them take this extreme measure to terminate their own fetus.
I suggest we would find the reasons would be very complicated, personal and likely very different to what we assume or think.
Nothing is black and white and every woman would have their own story. Taking away their choice will likely lead to some very poor outcomes now and in the future.
I don't think any forum post will ever change one's mind on this matter as we have all made our minds up. I think an open mind and actually talking with those impacted would be very helpful.
I do find this a telling critique of a number of very vocal people.
-
@nzzp said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
Clarence Thomas sounds like he isn't finished yet
And a nicely succinct article following the logical conclusions:
Nothing prevents the will of the people being reflected in the constitution. Other than their elected representatives...
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I do find this a telling critique of a number of very vocal people.
Not sure I see that as a valid argument or critique.
Substitute "women" for "the unborn" and you can pretty much use it to "argue" Biden and the Democrats only really care about women's rights and things like Roe v Wade when it's easy - as evidenced by their abandoning of woman in Afghanistan to the mercy of the Taliban and shrugging their shoulders.
But that's the problem with the abortion debate in the US, I guess. Both sides claiming a unique moral superiority and seeing the other side as evil barbarians.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I do find this a telling critique of a number of very vocal people.
Not sure I see that as a valid argument or critique.
Substitute "women" for "the unborn" and you can pretty much use it to "argue" Biden and the Democrats only really care about women's rights and things like Roe v Wade when it's easy - as evidenced by their abandoning of woman in Afghanistan to the mercy of the Taliban and shrugging their shoulders.
I don't see how that analogy works. Women can advocate for themselves.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I do find this a telling critique of a number of very vocal people.
Not sure I see that as a valid argument or critique.
Substitute "women" for "the unborn" and you can pretty much use it to "argue" Biden and the Democrats only really care about women's rights and things like Roe v Wade when it's easy - as evidenced by their abandoning of woman in Afghanistan to the mercy of the Taliban and shrugging their shoulders.
But that's the problem with the abortion debate in the US, I guess. Both sides claiming a unique moral superiority and seeing the other side as evil barbarians.
Decisions are made about lives all the time by governments and those that are directly affected usually have little to no say. The hypocrisy from politicians that claim a moral standing here to 'protect a life' would be funny if it wasn't so impacting.
Let's see some follow up that says life saving drugs have to be made available to those they will save. That median barriers must be funded on major roads (proven to reduce deaths by 60%). The obvious gun laws needed to stop access to military weapons etc etc
The 'unborn' are a very easy hook to hang morality hats on.
I get the legal arguments about the constitution etc but this decision was unlikely to have happened without the driver of desire from a belief system and the power to implement it.
The knowledge that the divisive situation between the political groups would grab this result and empower those that supported one group to advance their cause well beyond the situation the ruling was about is what emboldened Thomas. -
@Crucial Great post and again highlights how we somehow value some lives more than others. I have always been sad at the number of people who die from overdose every year, but society seems to think they bought that on themselves.
As a society we should be doing everything we can do reduce the number of people who suffer from addiction and the related harms.
Again, not a popular idea but making all drugs legal and available to addicts means the quality is guaranteed and if they have safe places to use, they are far less likely to die. They are also far less likely to commit property crime to support the habit if the drug is supplied.
Switzerland has a similar model and saw deaths drop by 60%+ and theft dropped by an enormous amount.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I do find this a telling critique of a number of very vocal people.
Not sure I see that as a valid argument or critique.
Substitute "women" for "the unborn" and you can pretty much use it to "argue" Biden and the Democrats only really care about women's rights and things like Roe v Wade when it's easy - as evidenced by their abandoning of woman in Afghanistan to the mercy of the Taliban and shrugging their shoulders.
I don't see how that analogy works. Women can advocate for themselves.
And calling them morally uncomplicated is a bit of a stretch too
-
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Crucial Great post and again highlights how we somehow value some lives more than others. I have always been sad at the number of people who die from overdose every year, but society seems to think they bought that on themselves.
As a society we should be doing everything we can do reduce the number of people who suffer from addiction and the related harms.
Again, not a popular idea but making all drugs legal and available to addicts means the quality is guaranteed and if they have safe places to use, they are far less likely to die. They are also far less likely to commit property crime to support the habit if the drug is supplied.
Switzerland has a similar model and saw deaths drop by 60%+ and theft dropped by an enormous amount.
Not to mention all those deaths by firearms
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I don't see how that analogy works. Women can advocate for themselves.
And the unborn can't. Which kinda answer Barnhart's question as to why people give them more focus, does it not?
-
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
@Crucial Great post and again highlights how we somehow value some lives more than others. I have always been sad at the number of people who die from overdose every year, but society seems to think they bought that on themselves.
As a society we should be doing everything we can do reduce the number of people who suffer from addiction and the related harms.
Again, not a popular idea but making all drugs legal and available to addicts means the quality is guaranteed and if they have safe places to use, they are far less likely to die. They are also far less likely to commit property crime to support the habit if the drug is supplied.
Switzerland has a similar model and saw deaths drop by 60%+ and theft dropped by an enormous amount.
Decriminalising drugs is a complete no brainer.
Unfortunately far too many people are rusted on to the idea that tougher sentences => less crime for it to get off the ground in most places.
And of course in the US the corporations who rely on an increasing prison population to keep increasing profits might have something to say about it.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I don't see how that analogy works. Women can advocate for themselves.
And the unborn can't. Which kinda answer Barnhart's question as to why people give them more focus, does it not?
It does, but it doesn't address the other component of his argument in that their concern doesn't extend to actually improving anything once they're born. You don't have to actually do anything that might be mistaken for a Christian act.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Decisions are made about lives all the time by governments and those that are directly affected usually have little to no say. The hypocrisy from politicians that claim a moral standing here to 'protect a life' would be funny if it wasn't so impacting.
Let's see some follow up that says life saving drugs have to be made available to those they will save. That median barriers must be funded on major roads (proven to reduce deaths by 60%). The obvious gun laws needed to stop access to military weapons etc etc
That seems like an argument that, because bad things happen and government does things all the time which impact people who have little say, those who campaign on, say, child sex abuse, are moral hypocrites as they don't campaign equally on other issues like drug access or gun laws.
And wouldn't child sex abuse be an equally " easy hat to hang your morality on."?
I get the legal arguments about the constitution etc but this decision was unlikely to have happened without the driver of desire from a belief system and the power to implement it.
Of course it didn't happen without being driven by a belief system and the power to implement it. That is exactly what happened with Roe v Wade in '73.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I don't see how that analogy works. Women can advocate for themselves.
And the unborn can't. Which kinda answer Barnhart's question as to why people give them more focus, does it not?
It does, but it doesn't address the other component of his argument in that their concern doesn't extend to actually improving anything once they're born. You don't have to actually do anything that might be mistaken for a Christian act.
Which kinda goes back to my original point about the selective morality which Barnhart criticises, which is it is equally evident on both sides of the argument.
-
-
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
Again, not a popular idea but making all drugs legal and available to addicts means the quality is guaranteed and if they have safe places to use, they are far less likely to die. They are also far less likely to commit property crime to support the habit if the drug is supplied.
The "war on drugs" is/was daft, but are you talking about making all drugs legal or only legal for addicts?
Switzerland has a similar model and saw deaths drop by 60%+ and theft dropped by an enormous amount.
Think you'll find all drugs, even cannabis, are illegal in Switzerland. Was living in Switzerland then and Zurich's "Needle Park" was a national and international embarrassment for the country. They put in place a similar model to much of Europe where drugs are banned but a pragmatic approach from stopping supply thru clean needles to addiction treatment has been in place since the late '80's and has made a huge difference.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@chimoaus said in US Politics:
Again, not a popular idea but making all drugs legal and available to addicts means the quality is guaranteed and if they have safe places to use, they are far less likely to die. They are also far less likely to commit property crime to support the habit if the drug is supplied.
The "war on drugs" is/was daft, but are you talking about making all drugs legal or only legal for addicts?
Decriminalised, rather than legalised. So they're still restricted / prohibited, you just don't end up with a criminal record for them.
Would have to be for everyone for it to work.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
I don't see how that analogy works. Women can advocate for themselves.
And the unborn can't. Which kinda answer Barnhart's question as to why people give them more focus, does it not?
It does, but it doesn't address the other component of his argument in that their concern doesn't extend to actually improving anything once they're born. You don't have to actually do anything that might be mistaken for a Christian act.
Which kinda goes back to my original point about the selective morality which Barnhart criticises, which is it is equally evident on both sides of the argument.
Nothing wrong with pointing out Democrat hypocrisy, but it's no mitigation for Republic hypocrisy
-
@Victor-Meldrew I believe Switzerland allows heroin addicts to get medical grade heroin at clinics and they inject it on site. If the US had a similar program their deaths would be far lower.
My personal opinion is certain drugs like cannabis should be legal and taxed just like alcohol. Other drugs should be decriminalised as the current model is just stupid and penalises those in need of help. It also fuels gang warfare and an entire illegal distribution network.
There should also of course be a well-funded treatment program. This program could easily be paid for with the tax from cannabis and the reduction of people in the criminal justice system.
No amount of Police enforcement will ever make any difference to the supply and use of illegal drugs. It should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one.
US Politics