Yeah, I think that will work.

Thomas is going to inadvertently reinstate slavery and seeing him led away in chains will be somewhat worth it.

As for the LGBTQ+ well.....
https://www.pinkpistols.org

Why am I hearing about abortion being illegal in some states already? Do they have this automatic switch for whenever Roe v Wade was overturned?

Seriously though, this is horrible, and a massive step back. It's tempting to say "haha dumb Americans", but whatever happens there affects all of us in some way or another. The hopeful end is that it somehow ends up being a right given by law, not a court decision, but I'm not 100% caught up on how common law works. In Norway, as I understand it, the right to abortion is in the law itself, voted in by the parliament.

Yes

This is where America needs to take notes. The only way we can get out of this dark period is if we not only overrule the overruling of Roe v. Wade, but we also make it law that guarantees the right to an abortion.

But then again, considering how divided things are at the moment, that could take a while.

I agree. It's not idiot proof, our conservative elements (mostly the tiny Christian People's Party) attempts to tamper with the law, making it more restrictive whenever they can, but it still stands, and I would be shocked if the parliament ever got a majority to remove it entirely.


Yeah, the legislative branch in the US seems to be stuck in some eternal gridlock about important issues. The only time some action is taken is when the courts pull something like or the executive branch does executive orders, that usually are temporary.

So some conservative critics are claiming that our government had 50 years to codify Roe V Wade into law and they didn't. Why didn't we?

Because of those conservatives, natch.

Simple, the favoring party didn't have the necessary votes to do so. Clinton apparently didn't even push for it at the time based on what I've read (I mean, at the time when it was brought up during his presidency, not when it was first ruled in the 70s)

Democrats and liberals got complacent. Since the 1950s, the Supreme Court had served as a tool for expanding the rights of the marginalized, even after Chief Justice Warren passed the torch to Warren Burger; that didn't start to change under the latter years of the Rehnquist court. Even then, most folks who weren't actively agitating for the overturning of Roe v. Wade continued to believe there was no way a majority on the court would vote to overturn, especially after Casey. I think it's only been in the last few years that the idea really got real for a lot of folks, and by then it was too late.

https://www.wcvb.com/article/after-roe- ... d/40297551

I'm homesick

Fuckin' 'ell. I certainly hope a sizable number of other states uphold abortion now that it's up to them.

Unfortunately, in my state of North Carolina, I don't see that happening. And I imagine it's the same for the rest of the south.

Wrong. Even if anything close to resembling that happens, it'll be entirely consequential but nothing that makes it "somewhat worth it." Gross.

At least half of what you post here are lazy dogwhistles and the sooner you fuck up to the point the mods finally toss your ass, the better.

I fear this May embolden groups like Jane’s Revenge.

Dick’s Sporting Goods is offering $4000 reimbursement for those wanting to express their right to choice. I wanna see more businesses follow suit. Hell, let’s see a lot of these businesses pull out of the shitty red states.

The problem with pulling out of red states is red states are allowed to fester and gain power and all of the sudden they go for a power grab.

I think the system itself is fundamentally rigged. 1. Why would the reproductive right be delegated to a group of only 9 people to determine, while none of them is elected by the people and effectively none of them has the reproducing ability (Amy Barrett is 50-yo, others are men)? 2. More importantly, why would people fight so fiercely, in opposite directions, to have a right granted to all or none? Why do people love so much to force their views onto others, knowing that they could never convince the opposite? Can't we leave the right to individual choice?

The government can simply create a database, asking everyone about their choice on the right of abortion. If you don't want this right, then this right doesn't exist for you, and you will be criminalized if you do have an abortion. But don't force your "fundamentalist, religion-terrorist views" (as described by pro-choicers) onto others. If you want this right, then you have the right, and you have access to abortion clinics and services. But don't force your "debaucherous lifestyle and murderous intent" (as described by pro-lifers) onto others either. Everyone gets what (s)he wants for him/herself, without impeding anyone else.

Same should apply to other contentious rights.

Are you suggesting a system where individual people choose what rights apply to them?

That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. All rights apply to all people, all the time. If you don't want to exercise them, that's up to you. Also, your deliberate use of "(s)he" and "him/herself" in 2022 is putting up multiple red flags in my head.

Well, thank fuck you aren't in charge of anything because that concept sounds absolutely repugnant

In reality, a sizable portion of people believe abortion is a fundamental right (which I personally concur), while another sizeable portion of people believe it is a sin and should be criminalized. They are directly opposite and incompatible. The people must agree on who are to decide if it's a right or not, otherwise, there will be eternal fighting. It's not you or me, nor the pro-choicers, nor the pro-lifers to decide. It's up to the 9 justices in the Supreme Court. But people don't seem to respect the mechanism of the system when they don't like the result. Even a federal lawmaker says "The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them.", and others chant "If we don't get it, burn it down." I can certainly imagine that the pro-lifers would do no less if Roe is not overturned. That makes the system rather paradoxical.


Why is my proposal automatically dumb? I understand it if you deeply believe that "All rights apply to all people, all the time." and never thought about any alternatives. Think about this, do legalizing same-sex marriage sound dumb 100 years ago? Absolutely yes. It was unthinkable. But now, it is a constitutional right. Please, just give any idea a thought even if sounds dumb. I have no malignant intent whatsoever. Also, I encourage thinking about possible alternatives to solve the problem.

Also, I didn't say all rights, I specifically mentioned contentious rights when both sides have a sizeable portion of people and no hope for one side to convince the other.


Sorry, I do NOT live in a primarily English-speaking environment. I stick to grammatical conventions taught to second language learners. I do not know why this styling is offensive to someone. Please enlighten me how I should write it to be neutral.

You’re getting ganged up on.

There are no dumb ideas in brainstorming

Alright, fine, let's play this game



Yes, in a sense it kind of is



It's more the fact that the SCOTUS is tasked with interpreting the legislation in a way that's supposed to be, in theory, unbiased, nonpartisan and objective. This never works in practice because, for better or worse, it's very difficult for humans to be entirely unbiased and objective for the most part. This can be devastating because legalese is a fucked language. It isn't quite English. I like to view it like this; a genie tells you you have three wishes. You tell him your wishes (the laws/legislation), but you phrase it in a way to where it can be twisted and manipulated into convenient shapes because you weren't specific enough or used the wrong wording or phrasing (the judicial branch). If SCOTUS finds a law to be unconstitutional based on precedent or based on how they see it holds up to closer scrutiny, then it can be struck down and have some very serious effects on the lives of Americans. As we see with Roe v. Wade



Do you not understand what a right is? It's something that you can willingly choose to opt out of should you desire. It doesn't require any sort of intervention by some sort of government database.

The point is, these rights were not something that was granted by the government. It was agreed upon to be fundamental human rights in a free and democratic society. The government is merely acknowledging them to be so. There is an argument to be made that these rights still exist even if one's government decides it no longer wants to acknowledge them. Such as the right to control what happens to your own body and your own reproductive rights.



because humans suck and have a tendency to want to stick their noses where it's neither needed nor wanted. I'm not sure what else to tell you except that...

And we already do have a right to individual choice. There doesn't need to be any further steps or anything else implemented.



Are you insane? I ask you again, do you not understand what a right is? And you are dangerously trusting of your government to assume that they would not abuse such a database in the case that it came into existence. This completely flies in the face of the whole "freedom of choice" thing that you just brought up earlier

It's not the Supreme Court's job on paper to decide what rights people have. They exist to interpret the law and weigh it against the Constitution, a hilariously outdated document that has seen an inadequate amount of change in the area of civil rights protections. In the past, they've found implied rights in the Constitution that have been integral to human rights advancement. In this case, they're rolling back and clearly letting their bias get in the way of a ruling that has stood for 50 years.

Your idea smacks of "both sides" to me, suggesting that the pro life side has credence and also talking about eternal fighting. Well, I say: that eternal fight for abortion rights is one worth fighting. "Forcing" this right onto others who don't believe in it is worth doing. All who don't believe in it, their opinions can be safely discarded. And why on earth are you bringing up the Overton window? I find it hard to make sense of what you say.

About the usage of pronouns: "he/she" and its derivatives are outdated now and "they" and its derivatives are more appropriate when referring to a vague person. I would have thought that one with as much fluence in the English language as you clearly have would know this by now. It's not egregiously problematic, especially with the excuse of not knowing the linguistic nuances, and I'm probably overreacting. It's just something that irks me.

Edit: basically echoing what MalignantTyrant said.

Hey, I could be wrong, but I think that what Snow Listener is trying to get at, as confusing as it may be, is just some extension of the concept of: people who don't like abortions can just not personally get them, and people who wish to get them can get them. Yes, the part about people opting out of the right or whatever is weird and not how rights work, but especially as they have admitted to not being a native English speaker, I feel that it is very possible that there is some sincere misunderstanding occurring (potentially in terms of how rights work, even) moreso than some sort of malice or demonstration of bad faith.

edit: This all became even more of a mess after this post, so I'm now much less generous feeling about it being simple miscommunication as I posited here.

Yeah... I guess that is a possibility. If it is true, I have totally overreacted and I apologize. Some of the language just seemed troublesome to me.

Not to be “that guy” but did you notice there were snipers on the roof of the SCOTUS building? Where the fuck were they on 1/6/21?!?!?

I stress again, there are a sizeable portion of people who believe abortion is a sin and should be banned. To take an extreme comparison, you cannot say that murder is a right ("my body, my say") that one could/should opt out; no, it's forbidden, a crime. The pro-lifers view abortion is a type of murder, that is what drove them all the way to the SCOTUS.

So it was not me who brought up the issue, it's the pro-lifers. Once this issue is here, I can discuss it, in a manner that might lead to a solution.



To be blunt, the cruel fact, it was NOT agreed upon to be a fundamental right. The pro-lifers are so many that they elected a president who nominated three conservative judges, who then played a vital role in overturning Roe. I don't like pro-lifers, but I will not treat them as non-existent or as a mount of rubbish that can be cleared within a month. They are equally numerous, equally strong, strong enough to get a win in this landmark ruling. Also you might want to provide textual evidence for abortion right, like the constitution, well, the SCOTUS (whose job is to interpret the laws), now says it's not a constitutional right based on their professional interpretation. What say you? "F them, they are wrong."? This type of rebuttal doesn't work.


The thing is, pro-lifers can use exactly the same argument for their belief. The argument itself does not lean to or give credence to either side.

Why I smacked "both sides", and generally, the polarization of American politics, is that, once you get a belief, it gets stuck so deep. You wouldn't tolerate any different voices, let alone opposite voices. You then sink into an imaginary world where almost everyone has the same idea as you do, and if there's anyone opposite, you think the world should get rid of them within a short time. That's why so many pro-choicers fall into disbelief when the draft was leaked. They can't understand that there are constitutional originalists on board, that they are actually so many such justices enough to overturn Roe.

Sir, you think pro-life has evidently no credence. No, I would never make such an assumption of my opponent. Think about this, why do you believe your belief is "evidently, naturally" right? How could it be possible for so many people to hold an evidently "wrong" belief? How could they not turn to the evidently "right" belief once they are exposed to it? I do not believe that these people are downright dumb or brainwashed. They must have their reasoning, their supporting evidence, that we never saw. So despite of their outwardly "loathsome" (to me) opinion, I need to delve into their world, --if I want to fight them effectively.

Pro-choicers will not go to r/conservatives, where pro-lifers celebrate and do the mockery; pro-lifers will not go to r/democrat, where pro-choicers unleash their anger and dismay. I believe, fighting or forcing the other side under this circumstance will not yield a good and lasting solution.

In my humble opinion, to get a good solution,
1. both sides must calm down, carefully study the argument of the other side, and put yourself into situations depicted in the other side's theory. Engage in civilized, logical, in-depth and humanistic discussions, debates, negotiations with the other side, with a mind to achieve a solution that might involve concessions from both sides. (To bring up gay-marriage again, it was only made possible when people who loathed gays were willing to engage in serious, less biased, in-depth discussions. It was not possible 100 years ago, when homosexuality was universally viewed as obscene.)
2. Or if either side is unable, unwilling to do 1, one might think of creating a "middle solution", weird and whimsical they may be, but could suit the need of both sides.

Or if neither side is willing to concede, and fight fiercely to "force" his belief onto others, well, more ideological agonies will surely befall America. --Every battle ends with one side suffering while the other side enjoying the suffering of the opponent.

That's not the USA I knew.

There is no engaging in civilized discussion anymore. We've been doing that shit for the last 60 years. Racism still exists. Genderism still exists. LGBTQphobia still exists. And 50 years of legal precedent just got taken away. We need some new tactics.

Look, man, I once thought as you do. I used to think it was worth it to engage in "civilized discussion" with bigots, social justice skeptics, and "centrists". I thought that we'd all rap about the issue at hand and maybe come away with one side's mind changed for the better.

Then I actually engaged with the aforementioned people. And it was fruitless. Frustrating.

When someone says "you need to listen to both sides" or "you need to engage in peaceful discussion" I say "shut the fuck up, you are a useful idiot and dangerously complacent. This isn't a entry level debate class scenario where you use the pillow method to argue about whether it's better to put butter or jelly on your toast every morning. You are asking me to listen to, pay attention to, and even respect the same crap that I have heard countless times before and demonstrably is dangerous. You are as dangerous as the actual bigots, pro-lifers, and social justice skeptics by being apathetic and even implying that the "other side" has any amount of credence. And by using the time honored tactic of staying as cool as you suggest I do, you're able to easily sway other useful idiots and complacent people over to your apathetic worldview and thus have great potential to hamper progress."

Pro-life is the wrong belief to force on others because it demonstrably causes harm by forcing people to have babies that they got by accident, rape, or some other means. It prevents someone's livelihood from being saved by choosing not to have that ill-begotten child when they are in a position where they could not afford to raise it or keep it in a safe place. It means that if abortion is criminalized, the safe and sanitary haven of the abortion clinic will be no more and people might get hurt by going DIY. It removes the sense of bodily autonomy, which is a good thing in this situation as it betters the public health.

There's no debate to be had here. It's quite simple: If you're in favor of pro life, apathetic, or you're suggesting that I should debate people who have a harmful worldview and cannot be swayed, you're a bad fucking person. There's a lot of bad fucking people with no empathy in the world.

The issue is, they are wrong, plain and simple. Contrary to what Western society has tried to finagle its way around, right and wrong do exist. If a sizeable portion of the population believed that the moon was green and that James Bond was the sun god, then we should respect their opinion and allow them to practice and exercise their religion peacefully and to the fullest extent of their right to do so...but their right to swing their fists ends at our collective noses. Not everyone gets to have what they want if it means expense of the individuals and, in the larger scheme, a society that is supposed to be free and democratic.

And they believe it to be a sin...that's fine, it's their right to believe such things. As far as reproductive rights involving murder? Well...the science says otherwise, plain and simple. And that should and overwhelmingly does influence how we as a society operate, more than what we give credit for here in the West. The right of the individual to control what happens to their own body and their own reproduction/reproductive organs outweighs their misinformed belief that it involves murder in any sense.





This plays into that rigged system you brought up. For fifty years, Roe v. Wade was a more or less de facto established legal precedent. It fell under the 14th amendment as being implicit with the right to privacy and, in fact, set a rule against the government not to deprive individuals of their right to life, liberty, property, etc without the proper due process and such.

The keystone to any well oiled free/democratic society is the concept of the individuals rights.

The right to keep and bear arms would fall under this; even if you don't subscribe to the whole fighting against tyranny thing (tyranny comes in many forms, mind you. There is an argument to be made that a minority group being oppressed by a bigoted group is a form of tyranny), it is really just an extension of the right to defend and preserve your own life against those who wish to unjustly deprive you of it...a firearm in the modern world just happens to be the most effective and efficient way to do so when all else fails. An 88 year old grandmother has a much better chance of being able to successfully protect her own life against any person who wishes to do her harm with a decent handgun than with her fists and feet or any melee weapon or pepper spray.

The right to have control over your own body and, by extension, your own means of reproduction and reproductive organs also falls under this. Roe v. Wade didn't just say "FREE ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE ALL THE TIME!!". It did set up specific timelines between early term abortions and later term abortions. It comes with the science that says when a cluster of cells eventually becomes a living, breathing, viable featus. This is what influenced these parameters. It gave the government some wiggle room to regulate it, but not outright ban it. With this ruling, many states' trigger laws were immediately made operational, which outright banned abortion for millions of women who live in those areas. This would be going against the science to play into the factually incorrect belief that all abortion is murder and also deprives the individual women of their right to control their own means of reproduction, and what happens to their own body, their own uterus.




The justices interpreted it in a way that would leave it up to states rights. Fine, states rights is indeed a real concept in American government, for better or worse. The downside comes when those states leaders buy into this belief that is informed by bad information and bad science, because now they've enacted laws that deprive the affected individuals of their individual rights. if that is something you care about, then you should be outraged. If we as a society care about individual rights, then we can indeed make a very strong argument that they are wrong.





A bad faith argument is a bad faith argument, plain and simple. Nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to do. That's the cool thing about the freedom of choice. You can just choose to opt out, and nothing and nobody is being harmed as a result. You have just decided to go do your own thing.



Yes, politics in general are polarizing. That's just the nature of the beast. Also, are you joking or...? We tolerate so many different voices that it isn't even funny. It's just the fact that some voices hold more weight than others, that's just how it is. There was a time not so long ago that even suggesting that a woman has a right to choose or that a gay man or woman could and should be able to marry who they please would've gotten you ostracized at best. Are there still a multitude of intolerant, fingers-in-ears people out there? 1000%. But we have made progress.




I can't speak for anyone else, but as far as the ruling itself goes, all it effectively did was leave the abortion issue up to individual states rather than make it a federal issue. That part I couldn't care less about, that's just fine. Again, states' rights.

The problems come from the results of said ruling, because now we have states that have come out and enacted pretty devastating laws against reproductive rights and set us back another five decades. If these states came out and said "Ok, great! We all fifty of us acknowledge the reproductive rights of the individual American! We will codify protections for this in our state constitutions!"

But, as we see, that isn't exactly what happened.




Because it doesn't...I refer you back to my initial statement about right and wrong and opinion v. fact.

I believe that every pro-lifer has the natural right to hold their viewpoint and will fight for their right to do so. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that it holds any factual validity. It just doesn't...




You don't exactly have to look far to understand why pro-lifers believe what they believe. Do I really need to say it out loud? Again, I would encourage you to reread what I've already posted and see exactly where we come from when we use terms like "naturally, evidently"

And, unfortunately, many people are indeed brainwashed and dumb. That's just how it is, there are people like that in society...a whole slew of them, actually. Even more unfortunately? Those people often times vote. It's their right to do so as Americans, but the consequences can be devastating if they cast their vote informed by their misled beliefs. Why is it such a bad thing to acknowledge this?



If a society values the individuals' right to life, liberty, property, etc...or some approximation of that, then said society should actively fight against that which erodes those things. It's that simple.



I think that option has started to become less and less viable when you have things like blowing up abortions clinics, killing doctors who perform abortions and committing hate crimes against people who don't fall into these people's list of approved demographics. This is why I was telling Goatfangs earlier to arm himself and encourage his friends and other people who identify with that demographic to do so as well, because there may come a day where words won't be effective any longer at all.



If there was a middle solution, it sure as hell wouldn't involve anything that you have suggested so far...



And what USA have you known? The fact of the matter is, whether we want to swallow the pill or not...but every freedom and right that we take for granted in this country has been won and fought with blood, sweat and tears, whether it be gay rights, black rights, etc. They are only as strong as those who are willing to make sure that they stay respected and enshrined, whether that be peacefully...or not. You should always be open to peaceful solutions and have some level of compassion, but there are times where your kindness and peace will be traits that your enemy will not share. If you want to continue to enjoy those rights that have been fought for, then you should, in theory, be ready to do so as well should the day come.

The forefathers of this nation deliberated the Constitution draft from May 25 to September 10, 1787, during which time the Great Compromise was made. We established the government to thoughtfully, civilly debate. We established the court to hear facts, reasonings and civil debates. In fact, the very definition of democracy is that the people or their elected representatives have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation. Also the world order after WWII has been based on civilized debate.

Now some people just outright claim that this is no longer the viable way. I don't buy it. I still firmly believe in the core of democracy.
Harassment, intimidation, coercion, violence, or even bloodshed should be avoided at all cost.
Let us end this discussion civilly, please.

Are you just upset because we picked apart your entire argument? Or did you even bother to read and comprehend anything I or the other posters wrote in response?

Yes, right to the point. I am upset because you guys picked apart my entire argument. I carefully read it. Brilliant writing. Morally high, full of pride, compassionate and compelling.
You won. I concede. Enjoy your victory, online.

Absolutely none of this matters, and the "forefathers" were mostly wealthy slaveowners. Fuck them.



What does the "core of democracy" have to do with the US constitution, in particular?



This is an applause light, not a statement of political belief.



You're welcome to leave any time.

I bet all those who stayed home or voted 3rd party instead of voting for Hillary in 2016 feel PRETTY GOOD about themselves right now. No one could have seen that coming.

Given that I lived in a blue state until just shy of a year ago? Yeah. I'm still feeling pretty good about trying to get a brighter light on actual leftist parties.

God I fucking hate these sanctimonious garbage-ass posts blaming third party voters. I didn't even vote third party or like any of those candidates and it still makes my blood boil. Like yeah sure the government and political parties just have no responsibility here...

People like you are exactly why third parties end up having much less of a chance to actually show folks what they are made of.

But you do you, boo...

lol fuck off, third parties have no chance because of how the system is built, not because someone like Curious_Dead votes pragmatically to protect civil rights

People have been essentially put in a position where they're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils for a while now. I wasn't exactly thrilled about Hillary but she was objectively better than what we ended up with. But is this really the best we've got to offer? Doubtful...

A fresh new face with new ideas would probably do more good than harm should such a thing ever get a foothold.

The 2016 margin in Wisconsin was a matter of 20,000 votes. The Green Party votes alone were ten thousand more. The Libertarian Party (most of whose voters expressed that they would otherwise have voted Dem) took over five times the margin. Smaller left-wing parties took a few thousand as well. The margin in Michigan was even smaller-- just 5% of those third party voters sucking it up and voting Clinton would have flipped the state.

Obviously in the end it's on the party to appeal to those voters. I also don't care if you wanna vote third party statewide in Massachusetts or California. But I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that all those Green and Libertarian voters in swing states who refused to vote for a Democrat because 'both sides bad!' don't share some responsibility for their state going for Trump. And I'm sure as hell not gonna pretend it's totally cool to vote third party and act like Dems and Republicans are equally bad when our entire democracy is on the line. That's not 'sanctimonious'. People are going to die because of a Supreme Court decision that would not have happened if a few thousand voters in swing states had gone with Clinton, their second choice, instead of a third party. That's just a fact. Elections have consequences. If you want to vote for a third party you know ain't getting anywhere near winning, that's your right, but you also better face up to the fact that you're one less vote for keeping a Republican from voting to institute the death penalty for abortion and overturn the next presidential election won by a Democrat. That may not matter in a blue state, which is why I don't care if you do that in Hawaii, but I sure as heck care if you do it in Pennsylvania.


Lol, can we also not act like third parties are offering amazing candidates? Think what you want about Clinton in 2016, but like... Gary 'What is Aleppo?' Johnson? Jill 'Wi-Fi kills kids' Stein?

We don't have a political system that favors the emergence of a third party that is viable in the long-term. That has nothing to do with people choosing to vote for Democrats because that's the only way their vote is going to make a difference. Personally, I wouldn't mind more viable parties, but if you think it's gonna happen because of a mass exodus from the two main parties into the others, you're gonna be waiting a real long time.

The point is NONE of this would’ve been discussed if HRC actually won in 2016. Mitch McConnell would’ve had massive egg on his face for trying to hold up a SC seat, there would’ve been no Trump tax cuts in 2017, and we would’ve had Covid well under control much earlier. Then again she would’ve probably ran against an emboldened Ted Cruz or Nikki Hailey in 2020.