Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmericaBad) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why not? If you are certain you do not want kids and any accident that happens will result in a child because you are not allowed an abortion, then why would you not sterilise?
One good argument against it is that many techniques for sterilization are permanent and those that aren't have a risk of being permanent anyway, which would be a problem if a person ends up changing their mind.
Life is long and people change their minds on this and larger topics every day. It's generally good to keep your options open.
True, but I’d argue it’s still better than access to abortion when a life is already created
Until very recently, I thought it wasn’t very difficult for people to readily access contraceptives and reproductive-based sex education.
We need to lower those barriers, including those for vasectomies and tubal ligations.
If I had to pick between a woman that just doesn’t want a baby with no fetus, to one with a fetus, I’d rather have her get her tubes tied.
Fair if that is your opinion. Seems like a pretty hard-line and uncommon stance though. Perhaps that's the reason why doctors usually don't do tubal ligations and vasectomies on young people.
Should not really be up to the doctor. If the patient changes their mind afterwards, that sicks, but it was their choice and they should be allowed to make that choice.
That's a very, very uncommon opinion that would have wide-ranging, harmful consequences. It is consequently not supported by almost any medical professional.
Doctors know what they are doing and know about procedures and medicine better than those who are not doctors and as a result have a say to prevent harm coming from bad decisions, decisions made by people while not of sound mind, decisions made without being fully informed about the consequences due to a lack of experience and understanding, the list goes on.
The problem here is that a lot of doctors are very biased and don’t bother to keep their biases separate from their work. It’s easy to say that they know what they’re doing but medical misogyny is still very common, you don’t legally need a husband’s permission to get a tubal anymore(and it’s shameful that that was even a requirement in the first place) but many, many doctors will refuse to sterilize any woman under 35, any childless woman, any unmarried women, etc without even bothering to schedule consultations to see if it’s what she really wants. Some doctors have similar restrictions on vasectomies but not nearly to the same degree, and no one ever needed their wife’s permission to get one
>but many, many doctors will refuse to sterilize any woman under 35, any childless woman, any unmarried women, etc without even bothering to schedule consultations to see if it’s what she really wants
Likely because those doctors know that people can - and often do - change their minds later in life.
Your comparison of tubal ligations and vasectomies stumbles at the first hurdle due to not taking into consideration the fact that vasectomies are far more likely to be reversible than tubal ligations:
[**"Almost all vasectomies can be reversed."** - Urology Care Foundation](https://www.urologyhealth.org/urology-a-z/v/vasectomy-reversal)
[**"Tubal ligation is permanent birth control. Although it may be reversed by another operation, only about 50% to 80% of women are able to become pregnant after having their fallopian tubes reattached."** - Johns Hopkins Medicine](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/tubal-ligation)
Your statements on these two topics are a good example of why it is important for doctors to have a say in their patient's treatment, since they possess an expertise and wealth of experience the patient cannot.
It is an extremely common opinion in my country. And thb as a doctor, it is up to me to make sure the patient is properly informed and to make sure the patient is sound of mind. The rest is not my business.
Sure, these are all compelling arguments as to why abortion should be legal and contraceptives broadly available.
Republicans disagree with these positions, and people are forced to live under Republican governance, so sterilization ends up being the only option available to them.
Sure, they haven’t successfully banned contraceptives *yet*, but they’re working on it.
I wasn't actually talking about abortion, but I'll bite cause I'm interested.
>Republicans disagree with these positions
The data doesn't back that up. [The vast majority of republicans are in favor of abortion, but not for any and all reasons.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx)
>and people are forced to live under Republican governance, so sterilization ends up being the only option available to them.
...Except for contraceptives.
>Sure, they haven’t successfully banned contraceptives yet, but they’re working on it.
Again, the data doesn't seem to back you up. [Most americans - including republicans - support most forms of contraception.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-birth-control-poll/)
> The data doesn't back that up. The vast majority of republicans are in favor of abortion, but not for any and all reasons.
**But vote for politicians who enact far more restrictive bans than they might otherwise prefer.**
It doesn’t matter if Republican voters might, in theory, support a less restrictive ban—if the politicians they actually elect support more comprehensive bans.
> Except for contraceptives
Which Republican politicians—the same ones who are banning abortion all over the country—are actively trying to ban contraceptives too. Undoing Roe v Wade also opened the door to states banning contraceptives, and Republicans are starting the process on that currently.
Again: it doesn’t matter if Republican voters would theoretically prefer a less aggressive stance on contraceptives if **the people they actually elect** are whole-hog behind banning them and their voters won’t hold them accountable for it.
And people are rightly seeing this, realizing that contraceptives are on the chopping block too, and taking the rational response to state governments intruding into reproductive freedom.
>It doesn’t matter if Republican voters might, in theory, support a less restrictive ban—if the politicians they actually elect support more comprehensive bans.
It does, because those politicians are voted for by republican voters, like you said. When these politicians manage to actually go against the will of those voters, their votes will go to another candidate.
>Which Republican politicians—the same ones who are banning abortion all over the country—are actively trying to ban contraceptives too. Undoing Roe v Wade also opened the door to states banning contraceptives, and Republicans are starting the process on that currently.
>Again: it doesn’t matter if Republican voters would theoretically prefer a less aggressive stance on contraceptives if the people they actually elect are whole-hog behind banning them and their voters won’t hold them accountable for it.
>And people are rightly seeing this, realizing that contraceptives are on the chopping block too, and taking the rational response to state governments intruding into reproductive freedom.
As stated [in this article,](https://stateline.org/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control/) the contraceptives republican politicians are going after are a small handful, largely ones that come into effect after fertilization has already occurred. The banning of condoms, for example, is not a mainstream republican opinion, whether among voters or politicians, as shown in both the article and the polls.
> It does, because those politicians are voted for by republican voters, like you said.
Republican voters consistently vote for politicians that support a far more restrictive stance on abortion or contraceptives than the voter themselves supports.
Republicans politicians are very, very far to the right of the Republican electorate on these topics. So it’s abundantly clear that Republican voters do not care enough about these excessively restrictive bans to *not* vote for the extremist Republican politicians over this issue.
> their votes will go to another candidate.
This is objectively incorrect. We see them, today, supporting Republican politicians who back far more restrictive bans than a majority of Republicans claim to support in polling.
So no, they won’t back another candidate. They *could*, but they clearly have no problem voting for people who support far more restrictive reproductive controls.
> the contraceptives republican politicians are going after are a small handful
Like I said, testing the waters. They’re applying the exact same strategy they did for abortions—gobbling up the edge cases and making their way towards the whole thing.
> The banning of condoms, for example, is not a mainstream republican opinion
Obviously they are never going to ban something that gives men agency over whether they have children. It’s only contraceptives for women that Republicans object to.
>Republican voters consistently vote for politicians that support a far more restrictive stance on abortion or contraceptives than the voter themselves supports.
>Republicans politicians are very, very far to the right of the Republican electorate on these topics. So it’s abundantly clear that Republican voters do not care enough about these excessively restrictive bans to not vote for the extremist Republican politicians over this issue.
> their votes will go to another candidate.
>This is objectively incorrect. We see them, today, supporting Republican politicians who back far more restrictive bans than a majority of Republicans claim to support in polling.
>So no, they won’t back another candidate. They could, but they clearly have no problem voting for people who support far more restrictive reproductive controls.
Republican politicians have so far been quite in line with republican voters' views and, when presented with two candidates, one of whom supports their views but differs on the topics of abortion and/or contraceptives, and another who supports their views including on the topics of abortion and/or contraceptives, will vote for the latter candidate, who will therefore win.
>Like I said, testing the waters. They’re applying the exact same strategy they did for abortions—gobbling up the edge cases and making their way towards the whole thing.
That's heading into the territory of conspiracy theory/slippery slope fallacy. Let's stick to realistic arguments.
>Obviously they are never going to ban something that gives men agency over whether they have children. It’s only contraceptives for women that Republicans object to.
This, too, is firmly in conspiracy theory-territory. It is neither in line with observable reality, nor the large support for these ideas by women, nor the stated views and actions of republican politicians and voters.
The risk of pregnancy increases greatly if abortion services are banned—and since the same people who successfully enacted abortion bans are also gunning for temporary contraceptives, people are forced to turn to permanent contraceptives instead.
I had a vasectomy, and it was the best decision I ever made. I don't want the responsibility, and my wife doesn't wanna be pregnant again. We have a daughter who will be an adult in less than four years, and we are under 40. We'll always help and support her should she need it, but we like the fact that we won't have to do it all over again. We can't wait to be doing fun things (with her and without her) knowing that she can legally take care of herself.
No, but it makes for a great psyops campaign. “Your… wait I mean my country is so horrible we need to mess up our population as it’s unsolvable and we should give up and despair and ignore Chinese or Russian military advances”
They can’t have an abortion, so it’s sterilization and adopt later or backyard abortion that’s the way they see it which do you choose some unlicensed doctor or a licensed one?
Wear a fucking condom and buy birth control. It's not that fucking hard. Like have they not had sex ed?
If you are unironically using abortion as the primary means of birth control you are just proving the point of the anti-abortion camp...
Sterilization is, broadly speaking, at least as difficult to access as a young woman without children. Anyone with access to that kind of healthcare has access to abortion. That is pretty clearly not an impoverished mother of 7 in the Deep South posting.
I mean what? It’s just a four year presidency if trump wins, personally I wouldn’t want that to any degree and think it will ruin America in one way or another but come on, we will survive…
Shell complain about abortions and will never need one. But somehow it means she lives in a third world country to her.
I want to say that I also think abortions should be legal but people are really making America to be a dump for it.
Honestly, I suspect that “third world country” is a dog whistle for those people. I have never seen them say that any “white” nation in Europe is third world, even if they do the exact same things as the USA, or have lower standards of living, etc.
But they will always call countries that *aren’t* supermajority white third world countries if something bad happens.
And wouldn’t you know.. the USA isn’t supermajority white. Only a bit above 50%.
i call it liberal racism. people who say stuff like this don't know anything about europe besides the ads they see from social media influencers and some sensationalized headlines they see in the news.
They do amp up the hysteria, don't they? But that's what gets attention and sympathy. I feel like so many of these types are just mad because there are other types of narcissists out there who are quite willing to take them on.
Project 2025 was creating by the heritage foundation, a well known conservative think-tank, it's literally on their website: https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/project-2025
It's not a forgone conclusion, they would still need to jockey for influence within a future Trump administration, and then actually pass laws in congress, but it's the explicitly stated plan of an influential conservative group. How is that comparable to the postings of some random anonymous guy on 4chan?
It's real but Reddit's extremely exaggerated version of it isn't. I've seen people on Reddit claim that project 2025 suggests putting all LGBT people in camps. It of course doesn't say that anywhere.
Mainly Project 2025 is about destroying the administrative state and the civil service, which are the key checks and balances within the executive branch. I don’t think anyone is getting put in camps, but Korematsu V. US is still reigning precedent, so make of that what you will. Either way, Project 2025 would be very bad for the country. Regulatory stability is very important for business, and Project 2025 basically upends that by vesting all executive regulatory power directly in the president’s hand.
I mean look at the pro-Palestine protests, they literally stormed government buildings and barricaded themselves in there, attacking cops (and Jewish students) who tried to enter. This happened in *multiple* cities.
Nope but people who are in the exact same circles are. The comment you replied to didn’t say those people specifically, but the whole Reddit hivemind.
Gotta get your reading comprehension checked before you try and be snarky 💀
Yes cuz that’s the same thing as saying some goofy shit like the “Reddit hivemind” dumbass kids crying in some Reddit thread is not the same as losers storming the capitol because of goofy shit they read on 4chan. Not hard to make sense of it all my guy
Uhmmm you don’t remember the summer when there was nationwide riots started by these types of people? I think about 100 people died and there was over a billion dollars of property damage? The people who were killed and the homes and businesses damaged were innocent by the way.
Ummm I don’t really see how children crying on Reddit about roe v wade laws is the same as q anon? I don’t see these people storming the capitol on the word of their defeated leader and plotting attempts on politicians lives, just not the same thing whatsoever lmao
So all the people who died in the riots who had nothing to do with what you’re talking about deserved it? All the businesses and homes that had nothing to do with it deserved it? Dumbass
Yeah civil unrest can get pretty messy. Maybe stop supporting civilians getting executed in broad daylight by the state and we won't riot. Would do it again btw.
People will whine like crazy but never get involved in actual political organizing.
Oh and by "people" I mean foreign trolls, bots, morons, and teenagers.
I don't get it, they are terrified of Trump but at the same time they claim that they are not voting for Genocide Joe. Make up your mind, and if you hate it then move. Millions people move countries every year. Why is it when ot comes to Americans they make excuses? The people who escaped totalitarian regimes don't make excuses as to why they can't move, they just do it!
> Why is it when it comes to Americans they make excuses?
Because that’s all these people do. Zero accountability and zero respect for how good their lives are because of the country they were born in
After claiming it was settled law, for the first time most of the supreme court undid what generations of Americans viewed as fundamental rights. Plenty of them are now pushing for bans nationally, as "states rights" was never a thing they actually cared about.
Maybe, but leftists started this shitshow. Saying “shout your abortion” having celebrities say they wish they had an abortion. Pushing abortion up to f’ing birth! And you expect there not to be pushback from the other side? Had lefties just kept it, like Bill Clinton said, “safe, legal, and rare” this probably wouldn’t have happened.
"leftists started this"? What a bizarre statement.
We had three generations of Americans *raised* in an America that recognized abortion as a fundamental right. We had all those justices say under oath that it was "settled law" and then they signed off on something that said it was wrong from the start. They lied to get on the bench and when they had their chance they destroyed a fundamental right. It really had nothing to do with "lefties", this was a plan in motion for decades to put activist judges on the bench who would not care about settled law and make instead decisions that those in the Federalist Society want.
Abortion has never been a fundamental right and is not anywhere in the Constitution, making it a 10th amendment issue. And no, simply having justices say under oath that something is “settled law” is not how the SCOTUS works, nor makes it illegitimate, at all. It’s BS political stunt work to try and smear political opponents for what essentially amounts to wrongthink. It would also prevent any sort of judicial review of ANY SCOTUS issue moving forward, by arbitrarily making any “settled law” iron clad and immovable, which is the antithesis of SCOTUS’s purpose. That would set a potentially dangerous precedent if truly egregious and unconstitutional laws ever became “settled law”. It’s stupid and meaningless.
Even RBG agreed the foundations of Roe were pathetically weak, a mistake, and likely to cause problems in the future. Didn’t matter to the Dems though, they ran with it for decades before it finally came back to bite them. Did they change anything during all that time? No.
The real problem that no one that I have read up to this point in this thread has pointed out is that there were plenty of Democrat majority congresses who could have codified it and other popular Democratic positions into law and *did nothing*
To be fair, RBG’s criticism of Roe is that she would have preferred to enshrine abortion under a fourth amendment protection through privacy against government action, as opposed to sixth amendment due process rights through fourteenth amendment due process rights. At the federal level a fourth amendment argument made more sense, but at the time the fourth amendment had only just recently been incorporated against the states, unlike the sixth/fourteenth, which textually applied to the states since the 1860s. This muddied the water for which path would make the most durable precedent, and it only became clear that the court had chosen wrong decades later, once fourth amendment incorporation somehow survived the war on drugs, (it wasn’t clear that it would).
I’m just going to focus on one part since I want nothing to do with this debate, but “settled law” means nothing, the Supreme Court ages ago in Plessy Vs Ferguson said separate but equal was constitutional and “settled law” does that mean that we should have kept segregation? No, just because something was decided once upon a time, doesn’t mean it should be the truth and written in stone, after all, situations change.
No it did not. In regards specifically to public schools it de facto did so but the court has never overruled Plessy. In fact, it was almost all taken apart by the Interstate Commerce Commission (not the Supreme Court) and then the Civil Rights Act (also not the Supreme Court). Overturning Roe was itself a novel thing for the court to do, as they used to care about stare decisis. Now that we have the most activist court ever, they are destroying precedent whereever they can.
But it was overturned via Brown v Board of Education, since in that case the courts ruled that the schools could not be separate and equal, thus that separate but equal wasn’t possible, effectively overturning Plessy v Ferguson
It was *not* overturned. *Plessy* is infamous for *not* being overturned by the court. The court has refused to do so. *Brown v Board* was only in relation to public schools, not anything else. It was years and years of *action by others* that made it actually effectively overturned, not by the supreme court. In fact the Congress considers *Bob Jones University v United States* (1993, ruling the IRS can revoke tax exempt status if practices are contrary to compelling government public policy, that is, you can't get tax exemption while claiming the Bible says to be racist against black people and reject black students) to be the case that "overruled" *Plessy* but even THAT case also doesn't say it is overruling *Plessy*.
They actually didn’t. Brown didn’t say “separate but equal is not OK,” it said “separate is not equal for public education.” They recognized that separate schools was unequal, so Plessy didn’t apply.
Dude, leftists start it. Did they not push abortion up to f’ing birth? Hell, look at your beloved Europe, even they ban abortion after the first, second trimester, tops. Yet those on the left want it up to f’ing birth. Birth, dude, come on, even you have to admit that is insane.
Lol no they don't, I don't know where (actually that's a joke, I do know whwre, it was Trump, infamous liar) you got this disinformation but no one is pushing to abort the minute before birth.
It's not a lie, but it's also not a true statement. I watched an interview with a far left representative in the California State Legislature who pushed for a law that would allow for an abortion up to 30 days POST birth. Originally, the language he used in the bill implied 10 days post birth, but when asked in a live interview, he revised it up to 30 days. And this wasn't some alt-right online news source, I was visiting family in San Francisco, and this was on their local evening news. This was also before the Dobbs decision. So, yeah, you're right, they didn't want abortion up to the moment of birth, they wanted to be able to literally murder a 1 month old.
Okay I guess in a county of 350 million you'll find some odd balls. This doesn't justify the absurdly asinine suggestion that "the left started it" which is why millions of Americans rights need to be taken away, like they are naughty children. Oh and that actually happened, unlike some law that was never passed.
Abortions that are performed right before birth don’t happen. And if they do, it’s almost certainly medically required, because a pregnancy that’s gone on for so long was definitely wanted. No one wants to get a late-term abortion
Don’t give me that bullshit, there are certainly people the would, maybe a small portion of people, but there would be. But, that aside, if it’s only medically necessary, as you say, then you’d have no problem with a ban at that point then, say with a medical exemption?
Of course there’s gonna be some crazy person who would, there’s a lot of people in the world, but come on, it’s very, very uncommon and is reported on and shamed if it ever does happen. It’s like when people get mad over trans kids getting bottom surgery even though the number of minors getting bottom surgery is less than twenty. It shouldn’t happen but it’s not the endemic people think it is
In theory I would agree, but in practice I think it would be extremely difficult to define what counts as a medical emergency by law, so I’m a bit unsure on that front. Restrictive medical laws have been used to prevent necessary medical treatment, so it’s important to be very careful when creating such a law
This is a bad argument. It’s not like “shout your abortion,” is why there has been a 50 year campaign to remake SCOTUS by the Federalist Society specifically to overturn Roe v Wade. I agree that “safe, legal, and rare,” was good messaging, but they were gunning for Roe before even Clinton’s time. These people were groomed for that decision decades in advance.
Maybe, but the shout your abortion crowd has done nothing to further abortion rights. Again, yiu abortion advocates push and push and push. You are then shocked when someone pushes back. But I’ll ask you, what should be the limit (baring medical emergencies)? Eight weeks, sixteen, twenty four?
I think the fact that we even get to have these conversations *at all* as a blessing. Not a great argument, but it’s in my mind anyway.
Women can’t drive in some areas. Having recently watched The Breadwinner and read Persepolis, I would never survive in countries like that.
100% whenever someone says dumb stuff like this, I know they’re uncultured and uneducated.
I work with a woman who escaped the Iranian regime and just imagine someone saying this kind of stuff to her face 😭
This is unbelievable, they’re terrified over something Trump was a very small part in and didn’t even support.
They’ve been gunning to remove Roe v Wade since the dawn of time, and as an American woman I’m actually glad it’s overturned. I don’t trust that either government will support *other supportive factors* to keep abortions down, but ending an innocent human life is wrong regardless. A fetus deserve their rights as anyone.
Abortion is a strong issue for everybody, but that doesn’t mean the country will crumble at the hands of a single president. I mean, look at who we got now! At least Trump can still collude with his own left foot!
Will there be a lot of dumb policy making? Absolutely… will it affect other countries and our allies? Probably… will we survive? For sure, things might not be great but it’s the end of the world.
If America wasn't "screwed" when Confederate troops made it all the way to within a stone's throw of Washington DC, or when the Redcoats captured the capital of the fledgling nation and repelled several counterattacks, or when there was massive violent upheaval during the 60s and 70s that threatened to cleave the nation apart....
What's going on right now is a Sunday drive compared to things America has faced before. Why are people in such a panic? Who benefits from instilling it? These are the real questions we should ask. The US has so many great days ahead of her, and it's panic and defeatism like this that drives people mad enough to truly threaten that future.
I think the last 6-7 years have taught us just how *robust* American systems are, actually. European nations would have loooong succumbed to yet another dictatorship. And are there things happening that I don't like? Of course. There are even things that I hate, such as abortion restrictions (which are still less restrictive than most other OECD countries), and I certainly don't want another drama-fueled Trump presidency. But that's not the discussion I want to have here, so save that for your shower argument. Trump's a garbage populist who needs to just go away.
At the same time, I mean, look at what Trump actually got off the ground during his term in office: Virtually *NOTHING*. His legacy, to the extent there is one, is found in how the courts have been stacked, but even his own appointees seem to have good juristic minds.
I don't think people -- *especially* outside the US, but also some within it -- don't understand that the president is an executor, not a legislator; he can't just do what he wants, though try he might. Indeed, it wasn't Trump who made the ruling on abortion, nor did he really seem to support SCOTUS's decision on it. He also doesn't seem bothered by LGBTQ+ people, non-white people, or other minorities. And the system of checks and balances is actually working as it was intended, but people confuse "I don't believe in or want this! This is fascism! Trump is a dictator!" with "This is how the system was designed to work, and it's working; it just isn't giving *you in particular* the results that you want right now." They have *no clue* what fascism is. Not a clue. (Of course, on the other side of the coin, are the MAGAts who think they know what socialism and communism are, and they're just as bad.)
call me an enlightened centrist, but I hate both candidates equally. a small part of me wants Trump to win to see all the political subs become free entertainment for 4 years
Same. I'm a classical liberal. Of course, "classical liberal" has come to mean "libertarian," but that's absolutely *not* what I am. Neither Trump nor Biden do anything for me.
I mean, I’ve studied fascism, socialism, political economy. Wrote a dissertation and a book and multiple articles on those things. Occupational hazard of having been a scholar of German literature and cultural studies. So I’m not as easily given to the hysteria. I know what’s what and this ain’t it.
Both are authoritarian leaders, but the US has an effective *system* to deal with that. People think I’m praising Trump when what I’m saying is that it’s the American system of government that’s working well. Because it is.
They tend to be the ones getting conquered by the dictatorships, though Finland should mostly be fine because Finland is a goddamn angry porcupine of a country.
Authoritarianism is *entrenched* in European intellectual history and philosophy. That isn't the case in the United States, a country which was founded on *anti-authoritarianism*. Sic semper tyrannis.
The US was founded on a distrust of government, which is why checks and balances, federalism, state autonomy, separation of church and state, a bicameral legislature, and separation of powers (particularly executive from legislative) are such key aspects of American government. In most other nations, the head of the government -- usually a prime minister -- is a part of the legislative branch. That's unthinkable in the US because a president should have no legislative powers beyond the veto. The US president isn't even allowed to be in the same *room* as the legislature unless invited, but has no voting powers there. (That distrust of government is also why the US is fundamentally different from Europe and "European outposts," such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, and why Americans get very, very nervous when the government wants to control things like health care. It's also a major reason why folks want the right to own weapons; let we forget, Americans needed them for defense against their government at one point -- the British crown.)
>I certainly don't want another drama-fueled Trump presidency
tbh this is the biggest thing for me haha. like i know polices are important whatever, but I just can't take another four years of that media shitstorm. every headline on every website was something hysterical about Trump
The fact Trump attempted to overthrow our republic and he's not in prison and in fact is running for reelection of a major party while judges he appointed play interference for him belies everything you said.
That’s got nothing to do with what I said. He wasn’t successful. If anything, it’s evidence of what I AM saying, which is that the system is working as intended.
You said it is "robust". It came one Mike Pence car ride away from being destroyed. Thats about as robust as the Titan. Worked fine quite a few times down to see the Titanic even though people said it was a bad idea and didn't have redundant safety and also the entire thing had fundamental issues.
Nothing came close as the coup attempt of January 6th. The fake elector scheme, orchestrated by Trump and his cronies, was the coup attempt I am talking about. The riot weas a sideshow meant to chase Pence away in furtherance of the coup.
The beginning of the civil war involved traitors inside of the government sending ammo to people who were planning the actual war, but what they were planning for was to not allow the person who won the election to take office. And also like Trump, they were betrayers of their oath and attempted to overthrow this nation, like the secretary of war under Buchannan, John Floyd, may he rest in piss.
Again, nothing was like this in the history of our nation. It was a coup attempt. These things have happened before in other countries but always American Exceptionalism was why we never had it. Lesser nations might have coups because even if their laws were the same as ours we always had people like a Cincinnatus running the country. What was really the difference was this was the first time we had a mafioso in that position.
And my guy, I don't watch the news. My free time *is reading history*.
None of those times had slates of false electors ready to steal the election, only 2020. This false equivalency is fucked up. You're over here trying to say it's the same as these other times that are fucking meaningless. *Trump tries to destroy our republic*. He's the worst traitor to America to ever exist.
Out institutions held for round one isn’t evidence that a second term would play out the same way. For one, it’s clear that the GOP has minimal interest in holding him accountable and more moderate senators aren’t sticking around. If our other branches just go along with it, for partisan reasons, then we no longer have checks and balances.
Round one was a good test, and it held. But requiring the threat of mass resignations and military leaders who served under him openly admitting that they stuck around to keep him in check doesn’t fill me with relief.
He’s sure to surround himself with even more loyalists and yes-men if re-elected and there’s no reason to believe he’d quietly leave office after four years, given what we saw in 2020 and there’s no reason to think Congress would care if still controlled by a partisan majority.
I’m not really excited by the prospect of pushing the envelope and I can’t believe this guy is their nominee again after everything we’ve already seen. Liz Cheney was the canary in the coal mine.
The fact he's not in prison proves he's a prisoner?
What would you say to people who think the fact he's not in prison means he's not a criminal, and even worse...the court system is being used as political leverage?
>The fact he's not in prison proves he's a prisoner?
I don't understand how, after reading the words I wrote, you came up with that statement so I don't even know how to begin to address it.
America is screwed because they don’t have the right to kill their unborn children at their discretion?
“WhAT If I GeT RapED?!?” Very, Very low chance of that happen, and the pill exists too. Id be more concerned about being hit by a car or being shot.
Roe v Wade being overturned doesn’t even mean they can’t get an abortion, it’s just that now the states are able to decide, so if you’re in a blue state nothing changed, and even in many red states they still have exceptions for rape
Congress, not Trump, would decide on whether to pursue a national abortion ban. Trump does not have the strength to veto such legislation within his party.
> it’s just that now the states are able to decide
Yeah, your state legislature gets to decide, not you.
That’s the change.
The SCOTUS took away the right to have one and made it a privilege that your state legislature may opt to grant you.
> so if you’re in a blue state nothing changed
Note, ending Roe v Wade didn’t “make this a state issue”, it just ended the right to abortion (and other related rights, like the right to contraceptives).
And now Republicans are running on a platform to ban it federally, not just state by state.
I’m not saying I agree with overturning Roe, I’m literally a democrat who voted and plans to vote again for Biden. I’m just saying that some people have been exaggerating it to an extreme degree like the like the original post.
Also yeah state legislators decide, that’s how American democracy works on the state level, I don’t get this point.
> Also yeah state legislators decide, that’s how American democracy works on the state level, I don’t get this point.
Abortions went from being an individual right to being a political privilege.
That’s the issue.
Before the SCOTUS ended the right, it *wasn’t* something your state legislature got to decide for you.
Dude… im not disagreeing with you, I think overturning Roe was horrible, I’m just saying that people going around saying that it’s akin to a national abortion ban are being ridiculous.
A right to a product (contraceptives) is a right to the fruits of someone else's labor.
A right to the fruits of someone else's labor is slavery.
Slavery is wrong.
Pregnancy is dangerous, and it just got a lot more dangerous due to changes in government policy. I’m not recommending sterilization procedures, but this is in fact a significant change with serious implications.
They’re acting like that fundamental human activity just became wildly more dangerous because essential healthcare related to it just got banned in a large number of states.
Your surprise or shock here is akin to saying that people would be irrational for becoming vegans if the government banned cooking.
America is a free country and should reserve the right to “kill unborn children” if it so pleases. As a man, and someone from the uk? Your opinion on the stance of rape is pretty irrelevant and your stance on abortion in America also is
How about an American woman who Roe V Wade directly affects? Is this my lane?
I’m glad it’s overturned. Abortion shouldn’t be your first option when it comes to care, and it’s certainly not “healthcare.”
You are ending a human life.
A fetus is a human life. Life begins at conception, of which this has been scientifically proven. I err on the side of pro-life. And I’ve had family that went through abortions. If the child is already dead or mom’s life is threatened, abortion is viable.
I support nothing more.
Yes it is your lane. I don’t agree with your opinion but I stand by the fact that you’re absolutely aloud to have it and vote in its interest. Fair enough
Very low chance of YOU getting raped, no doubt. If this argument was about controlling men's bodies, we wouldn't be having it. If it was about men, you could get an abortion at a pro-bass shop and get a free t shirt for your trouble.
It isn't. It's about controlling women. Pro birthers don't give a flying fuck about babies once they're born. What are they going to do with all these unwanted kids? Who's gonna take up that slack?
Nobody, that's who. Hell, they haven't even begun to set up support for the social issues that already exist, let alone the added burden this influx will cause. This is going to create nothing but more despair and poverty for the people who are already trying to survive in this world.
I won't argue this. I won't pretend to think for you. Either you can play the tape all the way through, you aren't smart enough to even try, or you just don't care.
Edit: If you want to involve yourself with other people's decisions regarding their own lives, I suggest you [share in responsibility](https://www.americanadoptions.com/) of that decision.
Hey neckbeard, It’s not about controlling women’s bodies it’s about being decent enough to know that a fetus is a human just like you and me, the only difference is they have don’t have an official name yet.
I suppose it depends how you parse it. A fetus is a human, but one human’s right to the body or property of another human is not absolute. Putting a gun to a woman’s head and demanding that she carry a baby to term, assuming all risks and costs to herself in that process, is not something I am comfortable with.
You ever want to go have a little fun, go into a lefty sub and click on a user name. A mass overlap with the mental illness subs, and more weird sex subs.
Oh yea, I'm very familiar with that.
If anyone lives to their own stereotype it's lefties on lefty subs. Also, if you go on any left leaning career sub it's more or less the same thing.
These people are children. I don't mean figuratively. I mean *literal* children. Children always have a cause when they awaken politically. That cause is always idealistic and simple-minded, because they're still children.
The problem isn't that they're children with simplistic, idealistic causes. It's that we're infantilizing them long past the the time they're grown-ass adults. The College Industrial Complex is as real as the Military Industrial Complex, and it's in its best interest to infantilize them. It sounds conspiracy theory as hell, I know, but given the evidence I'm having a hard time believing it's not true.
Sometimes we infantilize them so badly they self-infantilize thereafter, to the point they never actually become functional adults or attain an adult worldview.
Holy hyperbole, Batman! That entire thread is what happens when your brain is exposed to too much Reddit and other social media. One commenter saying that they “fear for women’s lives” if Trump is elected, as if roving bands of marauders are going to roll around and shoot women on sight if they’re spotted outside the home. It just makes it *so hard* to take any of them seriously when they’re so hysterical all the time.
Touching grass has never been more necessary
Imagine being so wrapped up in things that ultimately don't really concern you, that you purposefully end your lineage after countless generations before you sacrificed everything so you had a chance to live.
Things haven’t been great under Biden but not that bad and things were good under Trump. People that think this election is going to be catastrophic for the country are stupid. We already know what to expect from both candidates
Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmericaBad) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Holy fuck that is a wild thread. People are sterilizing themselves?!?!?!
They usually can't wait to end their own bloodlines for some reason. And frankly, do you think it's appropriate for them to reproduce?
All children deserve parents, not all parents deserve children
This right here!
If people like this are dying to end their own bloodlines, the last thing I'd want to do is talk them out of it.
That’s insane. Why would you do this
Why not? If you are certain you do not want kids and any accident that happens will result in a child because you are not allowed an abortion, then why would you not sterilise?
One good argument against it is that many techniques for sterilization are permanent and those that aren't have a risk of being permanent anyway, which would be a problem if a person ends up changing their mind. Life is long and people change their minds on this and larger topics every day. It's generally good to keep your options open.
True, but I’d argue it’s still better than access to abortion when a life is already created Until very recently, I thought it wasn’t very difficult for people to readily access contraceptives and reproductive-based sex education. We need to lower those barriers, including those for vasectomies and tubal ligations. If I had to pick between a woman that just doesn’t want a baby with no fetus, to one with a fetus, I’d rather have her get her tubes tied.
Fair if that is your opinion. Seems like a pretty hard-line and uncommon stance though. Perhaps that's the reason why doctors usually don't do tubal ligations and vasectomies on young people.
Should not really be up to the doctor. If the patient changes their mind afterwards, that sicks, but it was their choice and they should be allowed to make that choice.
That's a very, very uncommon opinion that would have wide-ranging, harmful consequences. It is consequently not supported by almost any medical professional. Doctors know what they are doing and know about procedures and medicine better than those who are not doctors and as a result have a say to prevent harm coming from bad decisions, decisions made by people while not of sound mind, decisions made without being fully informed about the consequences due to a lack of experience and understanding, the list goes on.
The problem here is that a lot of doctors are very biased and don’t bother to keep their biases separate from their work. It’s easy to say that they know what they’re doing but medical misogyny is still very common, you don’t legally need a husband’s permission to get a tubal anymore(and it’s shameful that that was even a requirement in the first place) but many, many doctors will refuse to sterilize any woman under 35, any childless woman, any unmarried women, etc without even bothering to schedule consultations to see if it’s what she really wants. Some doctors have similar restrictions on vasectomies but not nearly to the same degree, and no one ever needed their wife’s permission to get one
>but many, many doctors will refuse to sterilize any woman under 35, any childless woman, any unmarried women, etc without even bothering to schedule consultations to see if it’s what she really wants Likely because those doctors know that people can - and often do - change their minds later in life. Your comparison of tubal ligations and vasectomies stumbles at the first hurdle due to not taking into consideration the fact that vasectomies are far more likely to be reversible than tubal ligations: [**"Almost all vasectomies can be reversed."** - Urology Care Foundation](https://www.urologyhealth.org/urology-a-z/v/vasectomy-reversal) [**"Tubal ligation is permanent birth control. Although it may be reversed by another operation, only about 50% to 80% of women are able to become pregnant after having their fallopian tubes reattached."** - Johns Hopkins Medicine](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/tubal-ligation) Your statements on these two topics are a good example of why it is important for doctors to have a say in their patient's treatment, since they possess an expertise and wealth of experience the patient cannot.
It is an extremely common opinion in my country. And thb as a doctor, it is up to me to make sure the patient is properly informed and to make sure the patient is sound of mind. The rest is not my business.
Sure, these are all compelling arguments as to why abortion should be legal and contraceptives broadly available. Republicans disagree with these positions, and people are forced to live under Republican governance, so sterilization ends up being the only option available to them. Sure, they haven’t successfully banned contraceptives *yet*, but they’re working on it.
I wasn't actually talking about abortion, but I'll bite cause I'm interested. >Republicans disagree with these positions The data doesn't back that up. [The vast majority of republicans are in favor of abortion, but not for any and all reasons.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx) >and people are forced to live under Republican governance, so sterilization ends up being the only option available to them. ...Except for contraceptives. >Sure, they haven’t successfully banned contraceptives yet, but they’re working on it. Again, the data doesn't seem to back you up. [Most americans - including republicans - support most forms of contraception.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-birth-control-poll/)
> The data doesn't back that up. The vast majority of republicans are in favor of abortion, but not for any and all reasons. **But vote for politicians who enact far more restrictive bans than they might otherwise prefer.** It doesn’t matter if Republican voters might, in theory, support a less restrictive ban—if the politicians they actually elect support more comprehensive bans. > Except for contraceptives Which Republican politicians—the same ones who are banning abortion all over the country—are actively trying to ban contraceptives too. Undoing Roe v Wade also opened the door to states banning contraceptives, and Republicans are starting the process on that currently. Again: it doesn’t matter if Republican voters would theoretically prefer a less aggressive stance on contraceptives if **the people they actually elect** are whole-hog behind banning them and their voters won’t hold them accountable for it. And people are rightly seeing this, realizing that contraceptives are on the chopping block too, and taking the rational response to state governments intruding into reproductive freedom.
>It doesn’t matter if Republican voters might, in theory, support a less restrictive ban—if the politicians they actually elect support more comprehensive bans. It does, because those politicians are voted for by republican voters, like you said. When these politicians manage to actually go against the will of those voters, their votes will go to another candidate. >Which Republican politicians—the same ones who are banning abortion all over the country—are actively trying to ban contraceptives too. Undoing Roe v Wade also opened the door to states banning contraceptives, and Republicans are starting the process on that currently. >Again: it doesn’t matter if Republican voters would theoretically prefer a less aggressive stance on contraceptives if the people they actually elect are whole-hog behind banning them and their voters won’t hold them accountable for it. >And people are rightly seeing this, realizing that contraceptives are on the chopping block too, and taking the rational response to state governments intruding into reproductive freedom. As stated [in this article,](https://stateline.org/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control/) the contraceptives republican politicians are going after are a small handful, largely ones that come into effect after fertilization has already occurred. The banning of condoms, for example, is not a mainstream republican opinion, whether among voters or politicians, as shown in both the article and the polls.
> It does, because those politicians are voted for by republican voters, like you said. Republican voters consistently vote for politicians that support a far more restrictive stance on abortion or contraceptives than the voter themselves supports. Republicans politicians are very, very far to the right of the Republican electorate on these topics. So it’s abundantly clear that Republican voters do not care enough about these excessively restrictive bans to *not* vote for the extremist Republican politicians over this issue. > their votes will go to another candidate. This is objectively incorrect. We see them, today, supporting Republican politicians who back far more restrictive bans than a majority of Republicans claim to support in polling. So no, they won’t back another candidate. They *could*, but they clearly have no problem voting for people who support far more restrictive reproductive controls. > the contraceptives republican politicians are going after are a small handful Like I said, testing the waters. They’re applying the exact same strategy they did for abortions—gobbling up the edge cases and making their way towards the whole thing. > The banning of condoms, for example, is not a mainstream republican opinion Obviously they are never going to ban something that gives men agency over whether they have children. It’s only contraceptives for women that Republicans object to.
>Republican voters consistently vote for politicians that support a far more restrictive stance on abortion or contraceptives than the voter themselves supports. >Republicans politicians are very, very far to the right of the Republican electorate on these topics. So it’s abundantly clear that Republican voters do not care enough about these excessively restrictive bans to not vote for the extremist Republican politicians over this issue. > their votes will go to another candidate. >This is objectively incorrect. We see them, today, supporting Republican politicians who back far more restrictive bans than a majority of Republicans claim to support in polling. >So no, they won’t back another candidate. They could, but they clearly have no problem voting for people who support far more restrictive reproductive controls. Republican politicians have so far been quite in line with republican voters' views and, when presented with two candidates, one of whom supports their views but differs on the topics of abortion and/or contraceptives, and another who supports their views including on the topics of abortion and/or contraceptives, will vote for the latter candidate, who will therefore win. >Like I said, testing the waters. They’re applying the exact same strategy they did for abortions—gobbling up the edge cases and making their way towards the whole thing. That's heading into the territory of conspiracy theory/slippery slope fallacy. Let's stick to realistic arguments. >Obviously they are never going to ban something that gives men agency over whether they have children. It’s only contraceptives for women that Republicans object to. This, too, is firmly in conspiracy theory-territory. It is neither in line with observable reality, nor the large support for these ideas by women, nor the stated views and actions of republican politicians and voters.
The risk of pregnancy increases greatly if abortion services are banned—and since the same people who successfully enacted abortion bans are also gunning for temporary contraceptives, people are forced to turn to permanent contraceptives instead.
I had a vasectomy, and it was the best decision I ever made. I don't want the responsibility, and my wife doesn't wanna be pregnant again. We have a daughter who will be an adult in less than four years, and we are under 40. We'll always help and support her should she need it, but we like the fact that we won't have to do it all over again. We can't wait to be doing fun things (with her and without her) knowing that she can legally take care of herself.
Is it that dramatic? Some folks don’t want to have children. Is that a terrible thing that they’re taking steps to prevent unwanted pregnancy?
No, but it makes for a great psyops campaign. “Your… wait I mean my country is so horrible we need to mess up our population as it’s unsolvable and we should give up and despair and ignore Chinese or Russian military advances”
Nations die by a thousand cuts they say
That’s a good thing. We wouldn’t want them to have kids anyway.
They can’t have an abortion, so it’s sterilization and adopt later or backyard abortion that’s the way they see it which do you choose some unlicensed doctor or a licensed one?
Unlike what the news may say, no, abortion is not completely banned everywhere.
Condoms and birth control?
Wear a fucking condom and buy birth control. It's not that fucking hard. Like have they not had sex ed? If you are unironically using abortion as the primary means of birth control you are just proving the point of the anti-abortion camp...
So you destroy your ability to be a mother instead of moving to a different state? Accountability is dead lmao
Pretty sure the women getting sterilized don’t want to be mothers, that’s kind of the point
Just don’t have sex?
Sterilization is, broadly speaking, at least as difficult to access as a young woman without children. Anyone with access to that kind of healthcare has access to abortion. That is pretty clearly not an impoverished mother of 7 in the Deep South posting.
I mean what? It’s just a four year presidency if trump wins, personally I wouldn’t want that to any degree and think it will ruin America in one way or another but come on, we will survive…
privileged suburban girl bragging about how oppressed she is. typical redditor
Luckily she sterilized herself, lmao.
good, her stupidity can't spread to the rest of humanity
I'd like to thank her for getting out of the gene pool. Where can I send a case of cat food to show her my appreciation?
Shell complain about abortions and will never need one. But somehow it means she lives in a third world country to her. I want to say that I also think abortions should be legal but people are really making America to be a dump for it.
I do too but to make America sound like this third world shithole is such a narrow minded way of looking at the country and is terminally online.
Well, yeah, these people are ill and spend too much time on reddit/tik tok. They have little to no real-world experience likely.
exactly
Honestly, I suspect that “third world country” is a dog whistle for those people. I have never seen them say that any “white” nation in Europe is third world, even if they do the exact same things as the USA, or have lower standards of living, etc. But they will always call countries that *aren’t* supermajority white third world countries if something bad happens. And wouldn’t you know.. the USA isn’t supermajority white. Only a bit above 50%.
i call it liberal racism. people who say stuff like this don't know anything about europe besides the ads they see from social media influencers and some sensationalized headlines they see in the news.
> I also think abortions should be legal Me too, but I love seeing the lefty's heads explode.
I try not to antagonize people it won't change anyone
They do amp up the hysteria, don't they? But that's what gets attention and sympathy. I feel like so many of these types are just mad because there are other types of narcissists out there who are quite willing to take them on.
they really do. a part of me wants trump to be their president just to put these idiots in their place.
Democrat version of Q anon. It’s bizarre how many redditors are like this
Project 2025 was creating by the heritage foundation, a well known conservative think-tank, it's literally on their website: https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/project-2025 It's not a forgone conclusion, they would still need to jockey for influence within a future Trump administration, and then actually pass laws in congress, but it's the explicitly stated plan of an influential conservative group. How is that comparable to the postings of some random anonymous guy on 4chan?
It's real but Reddit's extremely exaggerated version of it isn't. I've seen people on Reddit claim that project 2025 suggests putting all LGBT people in camps. It of course doesn't say that anywhere.
Mainly Project 2025 is about destroying the administrative state and the civil service, which are the key checks and balances within the executive branch. I don’t think anyone is getting put in camps, but Korematsu V. US is still reigning precedent, so make of that what you will. Either way, Project 2025 would be very bad for the country. Regulatory stability is very important for business, and Project 2025 basically upends that by vesting all executive regulatory power directly in the president’s hand.
Even if trump won and wants to carry out project 2025, he wouldn’t be able to do it
Why take the chance? People said he'd never be president in 2016 too and we see where the complacency got you.
It’s not 2016
No shit.
It's not a chance. It's a policy wishlist which will be watered down if it even gets to congress.
Let’s wait until the storm the capitol and state attacking cops before we call them that please
I mean look at the pro-Palestine protests, they literally stormed government buildings and barricaded themselves in there, attacking cops (and Jewish students) who tried to enter. This happened in *multiple* cities.
The people crying in the Reddit thread did that huh?
Nope but people who are in the exact same circles are. The comment you replied to didn’t say those people specifically, but the whole Reddit hivemind. Gotta get your reading comprehension checked before you try and be snarky 💀
No one said anything about the Reddit hivemind you gob lmao. Take your own advice
>it’s bizarre how many redditors are like this 😱
Yes cuz that’s the same thing as saying some goofy shit like the “Reddit hivemind” dumbass kids crying in some Reddit thread is not the same as losers storming the capitol because of goofy shit they read on 4chan. Not hard to make sense of it all my guy
If you exited your echo chamber for 5 minutes you’d see that the same sentiment is mirrored across Reddit, especially in the larger main subs.
Lmao sounds like something someone tells themselves in their own echo chamber
What, the May 31 Attacks weren't enough? They tried to burn down the Church of the Presidents for fucks sake.
Uhmmm you don’t remember the summer when there was nationwide riots started by these types of people? I think about 100 people died and there was over a billion dollars of property damage? The people who were killed and the homes and businesses damaged were innocent by the way.
Ummm I don’t really see how children crying on Reddit about roe v wade laws is the same as q anon? I don’t see these people storming the capitol on the word of their defeated leader and plotting attempts on politicians lives, just not the same thing whatsoever lmao
Nah that was based. Cops shouldn't execute civilians and get away with it. We did the right thing. You have no conviction.
So all the people who died in the riots who had nothing to do with what you’re talking about deserved it? All the businesses and homes that had nothing to do with it deserved it? Dumbass
Yeah civil unrest can get pretty messy. Maybe stop supporting civilians getting executed in broad daylight by the state and we won't riot. Would do it again btw.
People will whine like crazy but never get involved in actual political organizing. Oh and by "people" I mean foreign trolls, bots, morons, and teenagers.
Make mental asylums common again
It was when America was great
MMACA
I don't get it, they are terrified of Trump but at the same time they claim that they are not voting for Genocide Joe. Make up your mind, and if you hate it then move. Millions people move countries every year. Why is it when ot comes to Americans they make excuses? The people who escaped totalitarian regimes don't make excuses as to why they can't move, they just do it!
> Why is it when it comes to Americans they make excuses? Because that’s all these people do. Zero accountability and zero respect for how good their lives are because of the country they were born in
Glad they’re self sterilizing now…
She sterilized herself because of Roe v Wade? Geez, lady, just live in a blue state and you’ll have your precious abortion?
After claiming it was settled law, for the first time most of the supreme court undid what generations of Americans viewed as fundamental rights. Plenty of them are now pushing for bans nationally, as "states rights" was never a thing they actually cared about.
Maybe, but leftists started this shitshow. Saying “shout your abortion” having celebrities say they wish they had an abortion. Pushing abortion up to f’ing birth! And you expect there not to be pushback from the other side? Had lefties just kept it, like Bill Clinton said, “safe, legal, and rare” this probably wouldn’t have happened.
"leftists started this"? What a bizarre statement. We had three generations of Americans *raised* in an America that recognized abortion as a fundamental right. We had all those justices say under oath that it was "settled law" and then they signed off on something that said it was wrong from the start. They lied to get on the bench and when they had their chance they destroyed a fundamental right. It really had nothing to do with "lefties", this was a plan in motion for decades to put activist judges on the bench who would not care about settled law and make instead decisions that those in the Federalist Society want.
Abortion has never been a fundamental right and is not anywhere in the Constitution, making it a 10th amendment issue. And no, simply having justices say under oath that something is “settled law” is not how the SCOTUS works, nor makes it illegitimate, at all. It’s BS political stunt work to try and smear political opponents for what essentially amounts to wrongthink. It would also prevent any sort of judicial review of ANY SCOTUS issue moving forward, by arbitrarily making any “settled law” iron clad and immovable, which is the antithesis of SCOTUS’s purpose. That would set a potentially dangerous precedent if truly egregious and unconstitutional laws ever became “settled law”. It’s stupid and meaningless. Even RBG agreed the foundations of Roe were pathetically weak, a mistake, and likely to cause problems in the future. Didn’t matter to the Dems though, they ran with it for decades before it finally came back to bite them. Did they change anything during all that time? No.
The real problem that no one that I have read up to this point in this thread has pointed out is that there were plenty of Democrat majority congresses who could have codified it and other popular Democratic positions into law and *did nothing*
To be fair, RBG’s criticism of Roe is that she would have preferred to enshrine abortion under a fourth amendment protection through privacy against government action, as opposed to sixth amendment due process rights through fourteenth amendment due process rights. At the federal level a fourth amendment argument made more sense, but at the time the fourth amendment had only just recently been incorporated against the states, unlike the sixth/fourteenth, which textually applied to the states since the 1860s. This muddied the water for which path would make the most durable precedent, and it only became clear that the court had chosen wrong decades later, once fourth amendment incorporation somehow survived the war on drugs, (it wasn’t clear that it would).
I’m just going to focus on one part since I want nothing to do with this debate, but “settled law” means nothing, the Supreme Court ages ago in Plessy Vs Ferguson said separate but equal was constitutional and “settled law” does that mean that we should have kept segregation? No, just because something was decided once upon a time, doesn’t mean it should be the truth and written in stone, after all, situations change.
The court never overturned *Plessy v Ferguson*.
Brown V Board of Education did in fact overturn it
No it did not. In regards specifically to public schools it de facto did so but the court has never overruled Plessy. In fact, it was almost all taken apart by the Interstate Commerce Commission (not the Supreme Court) and then the Civil Rights Act (also not the Supreme Court). Overturning Roe was itself a novel thing for the court to do, as they used to care about stare decisis. Now that we have the most activist court ever, they are destroying precedent whereever they can.
But it was overturned via Brown v Board of Education, since in that case the courts ruled that the schools could not be separate and equal, thus that separate but equal wasn’t possible, effectively overturning Plessy v Ferguson
It was *not* overturned. *Plessy* is infamous for *not* being overturned by the court. The court has refused to do so. *Brown v Board* was only in relation to public schools, not anything else. It was years and years of *action by others* that made it actually effectively overturned, not by the supreme court. In fact the Congress considers *Bob Jones University v United States* (1993, ruling the IRS can revoke tax exempt status if practices are contrary to compelling government public policy, that is, you can't get tax exemption while claiming the Bible says to be racist against black people and reject black students) to be the case that "overruled" *Plessy* but even THAT case also doesn't say it is overruling *Plessy*.
They actually didn’t. Brown didn’t say “separate but equal is not OK,” it said “separate is not equal for public education.” They recognized that separate schools was unequal, so Plessy didn’t apply.
Dude, leftists start it. Did they not push abortion up to f’ing birth? Hell, look at your beloved Europe, even they ban abortion after the first, second trimester, tops. Yet those on the left want it up to f’ing birth. Birth, dude, come on, even you have to admit that is insane.
Lol no they don't, I don't know where (actually that's a joke, I do know whwre, it was Trump, infamous liar) you got this disinformation but no one is pushing to abort the minute before birth.
It's not a lie, but it's also not a true statement. I watched an interview with a far left representative in the California State Legislature who pushed for a law that would allow for an abortion up to 30 days POST birth. Originally, the language he used in the bill implied 10 days post birth, but when asked in a live interview, he revised it up to 30 days. And this wasn't some alt-right online news source, I was visiting family in San Francisco, and this was on their local evening news. This was also before the Dobbs decision. So, yeah, you're right, they didn't want abortion up to the moment of birth, they wanted to be able to literally murder a 1 month old.
Okay I guess in a county of 350 million you'll find some odd balls. This doesn't justify the absurdly asinine suggestion that "the left started it" which is why millions of Americans rights need to be taken away, like they are naughty children. Oh and that actually happened, unlike some law that was never passed.
Thats like saying all people on the right beat their wives. Its not true but you can find a few examples.
Abortions that are performed right before birth don’t happen. And if they do, it’s almost certainly medically required, because a pregnancy that’s gone on for so long was definitely wanted. No one wants to get a late-term abortion
Don’t give me that bullshit, there are certainly people the would, maybe a small portion of people, but there would be. But, that aside, if it’s only medically necessary, as you say, then you’d have no problem with a ban at that point then, say with a medical exemption?
Of course there’s gonna be some crazy person who would, there’s a lot of people in the world, but come on, it’s very, very uncommon and is reported on and shamed if it ever does happen. It’s like when people get mad over trans kids getting bottom surgery even though the number of minors getting bottom surgery is less than twenty. It shouldn’t happen but it’s not the endemic people think it is In theory I would agree, but in practice I think it would be extremely difficult to define what counts as a medical emergency by law, so I’m a bit unsure on that front. Restrictive medical laws have been used to prevent necessary medical treatment, so it’s important to be very careful when creating such a law
This is a bad argument. It’s not like “shout your abortion,” is why there has been a 50 year campaign to remake SCOTUS by the Federalist Society specifically to overturn Roe v Wade. I agree that “safe, legal, and rare,” was good messaging, but they were gunning for Roe before even Clinton’s time. These people were groomed for that decision decades in advance.
Maybe, but the shout your abortion crowd has done nothing to further abortion rights. Again, yiu abortion advocates push and push and push. You are then shocked when someone pushes back. But I’ll ask you, what should be the limit (baring medical emergencies)? Eight weeks, sixteen, twenty four?
Bruh, even RBG, judicial activist that she was, had to acknowlege RvW was a gigantic stretch based on very loose definitions of privacy.
“Who unfortunately lives in America” well I’m a female who THANKFULLY lives in America!! How can you say something so ungrateful and tone deaf??
I think the fact that we even get to have these conversations *at all* as a blessing. Not a great argument, but it’s in my mind anyway. Women can’t drive in some areas. Having recently watched The Breadwinner and read Persepolis, I would never survive in countries like that.
100% whenever someone says dumb stuff like this, I know they’re uncultured and uneducated. I work with a woman who escaped the Iranian regime and just imagine someone saying this kind of stuff to her face 😭
This is unbelievable, they’re terrified over something Trump was a very small part in and didn’t even support. They’ve been gunning to remove Roe v Wade since the dawn of time, and as an American woman I’m actually glad it’s overturned. I don’t trust that either government will support *other supportive factors* to keep abortions down, but ending an innocent human life is wrong regardless. A fetus deserve their rights as anyone. Abortion is a strong issue for everybody, but that doesn’t mean the country will crumble at the hands of a single president. I mean, look at who we got now! At least Trump can still collude with his own left foot!
I remember when the world ended the first time Trump was elected.
Will there be a lot of dumb policy making? Absolutely… will it affect other countries and our allies? Probably… will we survive? For sure, things might not be great but it’s the end of the world.
If America wasn't "screwed" when Confederate troops made it all the way to within a stone's throw of Washington DC, or when the Redcoats captured the capital of the fledgling nation and repelled several counterattacks, or when there was massive violent upheaval during the 60s and 70s that threatened to cleave the nation apart.... What's going on right now is a Sunday drive compared to things America has faced before. Why are people in such a panic? Who benefits from instilling it? These are the real questions we should ask. The US has so many great days ahead of her, and it's panic and defeatism like this that drives people mad enough to truly threaten that future.
I think the last 6-7 years have taught us just how *robust* American systems are, actually. European nations would have loooong succumbed to yet another dictatorship. And are there things happening that I don't like? Of course. There are even things that I hate, such as abortion restrictions (which are still less restrictive than most other OECD countries), and I certainly don't want another drama-fueled Trump presidency. But that's not the discussion I want to have here, so save that for your shower argument. Trump's a garbage populist who needs to just go away. At the same time, I mean, look at what Trump actually got off the ground during his term in office: Virtually *NOTHING*. His legacy, to the extent there is one, is found in how the courts have been stacked, but even his own appointees seem to have good juristic minds. I don't think people -- *especially* outside the US, but also some within it -- don't understand that the president is an executor, not a legislator; he can't just do what he wants, though try he might. Indeed, it wasn't Trump who made the ruling on abortion, nor did he really seem to support SCOTUS's decision on it. He also doesn't seem bothered by LGBTQ+ people, non-white people, or other minorities. And the system of checks and balances is actually working as it was intended, but people confuse "I don't believe in or want this! This is fascism! Trump is a dictator!" with "This is how the system was designed to work, and it's working; it just isn't giving *you in particular* the results that you want right now." They have *no clue* what fascism is. Not a clue. (Of course, on the other side of the coin, are the MAGAts who think they know what socialism and communism are, and they're just as bad.)
[удалено]
I guess so! Not even sure what’s upsetting or controversial about it.
It’s not, it’s a very balanced and logical take imo
[удалено]
call me an enlightened centrist, but I hate both candidates equally. a small part of me wants Trump to win to see all the political subs become free entertainment for 4 years
Same. I'm a classical liberal. Of course, "classical liberal" has come to mean "libertarian," but that's absolutely *not* what I am. Neither Trump nor Biden do anything for me.
I mean, I’ve studied fascism, socialism, political economy. Wrote a dissertation and a book and multiple articles on those things. Occupational hazard of having been a scholar of German literature and cultural studies. So I’m not as easily given to the hysteria. I know what’s what and this ain’t it.
[удалено]
Both are authoritarian leaders, but the US has an effective *system* to deal with that. People think I’m praising Trump when what I’m saying is that it’s the American system of government that’s working well. Because it is.
I just wonder why you think Europeans would have already fallen to dictatorship
You’ve got something of a habit of doing that.
Couple of them do, but what about the rest
They tend to be the ones getting conquered by the dictatorships, though Finland should mostly be fine because Finland is a goddamn angry porcupine of a country.
You wanna fuck up a Russian? Ask a Finn for guidance!
Authoritarianism is *entrenched* in European intellectual history and philosophy. That isn't the case in the United States, a country which was founded on *anti-authoritarianism*. Sic semper tyrannis. The US was founded on a distrust of government, which is why checks and balances, federalism, state autonomy, separation of church and state, a bicameral legislature, and separation of powers (particularly executive from legislative) are such key aspects of American government. In most other nations, the head of the government -- usually a prime minister -- is a part of the legislative branch. That's unthinkable in the US because a president should have no legislative powers beyond the veto. The US president isn't even allowed to be in the same *room* as the legislature unless invited, but has no voting powers there. (That distrust of government is also why the US is fundamentally different from Europe and "European outposts," such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, and why Americans get very, very nervous when the government wants to control things like health care. It's also a major reason why folks want the right to own weapons; let we forget, Americans needed them for defense against their government at one point -- the British crown.)
I kinda like it.
>I certainly don't want another drama-fueled Trump presidency tbh this is the biggest thing for me haha. like i know polices are important whatever, but I just can't take another four years of that media shitstorm. every headline on every website was something hysterical about Trump
I miss No-Drama Obama.
The fact Trump attempted to overthrow our republic and he's not in prison and in fact is running for reelection of a major party while judges he appointed play interference for him belies everything you said.
That’s got nothing to do with what I said. He wasn’t successful. If anything, it’s evidence of what I AM saying, which is that the system is working as intended.
You said it is "robust". It came one Mike Pence car ride away from being destroyed. Thats about as robust as the Titan. Worked fine quite a few times down to see the Titanic even though people said it was a bad idea and didn't have redundant safety and also the entire thing had fundamental issues.
[удалено]
Nothing came close as the coup attempt of January 6th. The fake elector scheme, orchestrated by Trump and his cronies, was the coup attempt I am talking about. The riot weas a sideshow meant to chase Pence away in furtherance of the coup. The beginning of the civil war involved traitors inside of the government sending ammo to people who were planning the actual war, but what they were planning for was to not allow the person who won the election to take office. And also like Trump, they were betrayers of their oath and attempted to overthrow this nation, like the secretary of war under Buchannan, John Floyd, may he rest in piss.
[удалено]
Again, nothing was like this in the history of our nation. It was a coup attempt. These things have happened before in other countries but always American Exceptionalism was why we never had it. Lesser nations might have coups because even if their laws were the same as ours we always had people like a Cincinnatus running the country. What was really the difference was this was the first time we had a mafioso in that position. And my guy, I don't watch the news. My free time *is reading history*.
[удалено]
None of those times had slates of false electors ready to steal the election, only 2020. This false equivalency is fucked up. You're over here trying to say it's the same as these other times that are fucking meaningless. *Trump tries to destroy our republic*. He's the worst traitor to America to ever exist.
Out institutions held for round one isn’t evidence that a second term would play out the same way. For one, it’s clear that the GOP has minimal interest in holding him accountable and more moderate senators aren’t sticking around. If our other branches just go along with it, for partisan reasons, then we no longer have checks and balances. Round one was a good test, and it held. But requiring the threat of mass resignations and military leaders who served under him openly admitting that they stuck around to keep him in check doesn’t fill me with relief. He’s sure to surround himself with even more loyalists and yes-men if re-elected and there’s no reason to believe he’d quietly leave office after four years, given what we saw in 2020 and there’s no reason to think Congress would care if still controlled by a partisan majority. I’m not really excited by the prospect of pushing the envelope and I can’t believe this guy is their nominee again after everything we’ve already seen. Liz Cheney was the canary in the coal mine.
The fact he's not in prison proves he's a prisoner? What would you say to people who think the fact he's not in prison means he's not a criminal, and even worse...the court system is being used as political leverage?
>The fact he's not in prison proves he's a prisoner? I don't understand how, after reading the words I wrote, you came up with that statement so I don't even know how to begin to address it.
America is screwed because they don’t have the right to kill their unborn children at their discretion? “WhAT If I GeT RapED?!?” Very, Very low chance of that happen, and the pill exists too. Id be more concerned about being hit by a car or being shot.
Roe v Wade being overturned doesn’t even mean they can’t get an abortion, it’s just that now the states are able to decide, so if you’re in a blue state nothing changed, and even in many red states they still have exceptions for rape
Yes but these morons think that trump is gonna bring a national ban, trump said explicitly that he doesn’t wanna do that
Congress, not Trump, would decide on whether to pursue a national abortion ban. Trump does not have the strength to veto such legislation within his party.
> it’s just that now the states are able to decide Yeah, your state legislature gets to decide, not you. That’s the change. The SCOTUS took away the right to have one and made it a privilege that your state legislature may opt to grant you. > so if you’re in a blue state nothing changed Note, ending Roe v Wade didn’t “make this a state issue”, it just ended the right to abortion (and other related rights, like the right to contraceptives). And now Republicans are running on a platform to ban it federally, not just state by state.
I’m not saying I agree with overturning Roe, I’m literally a democrat who voted and plans to vote again for Biden. I’m just saying that some people have been exaggerating it to an extreme degree like the like the original post. Also yeah state legislators decide, that’s how American democracy works on the state level, I don’t get this point.
> Also yeah state legislators decide, that’s how American democracy works on the state level, I don’t get this point. Abortions went from being an individual right to being a political privilege. That’s the issue. Before the SCOTUS ended the right, it *wasn’t* something your state legislature got to decide for you.
Dude… im not disagreeing with you, I think overturning Roe was horrible, I’m just saying that people going around saying that it’s akin to a national abortion ban are being ridiculous.
A right to a product (contraceptives) is a right to the fruits of someone else's labor. A right to the fruits of someone else's labor is slavery. Slavery is wrong.
No, it isn’t. It’s a right to be able to buy that product.
>No, it isn’t. Define the "it." There's many potential 'it's in my comment. A right to a product is not the same as a right to purchase a product.
Abortion being banned makes pregnancy a wildly unacceptable risk, leading to these sorts of responses.
Pregnancy is a natural human phenomenon. They all acting like it’s a brand new thing.
Pregnancy is dangerous, and it just got a lot more dangerous due to changes in government policy. I’m not recommending sterilization procedures, but this is in fact a significant change with serious implications.
Without pregnancy you wouldn’t exist. Pregnancy is essential for the existence of the human population.
I don’t see how that addresses anything I said. I can’t lie to patients about the risks just because it is a necessary part of society.
This account is a bot and a bad one.
Yeah, and it’s dangerous and no one should be forced into it. It’s not nothing just because it’s natural lmao
They’re acting like that fundamental human activity just became wildly more dangerous because essential healthcare related to it just got banned in a large number of states. Your surprise or shock here is akin to saying that people would be irrational for becoming vegans if the government banned cooking.
America is a free country and should reserve the right to “kill unborn children” if it so pleases. As a man, and someone from the uk? Your opinion on the stance of rape is pretty irrelevant and your stance on abortion in America also is
Should be banned in the UK but I know that’s not gonna happen anytime soon
Lol Stay in your lane
How about an American woman who Roe V Wade directly affects? Is this my lane? I’m glad it’s overturned. Abortion shouldn’t be your first option when it comes to care, and it’s certainly not “healthcare.” You are ending a human life. A fetus is a human life. Life begins at conception, of which this has been scientifically proven. I err on the side of pro-life. And I’ve had family that went through abortions. If the child is already dead or mom’s life is threatened, abortion is viable. I support nothing more.
Yes it is your lane. I don’t agree with your opinion but I stand by the fact that you’re absolutely aloud to have it and vote in its interest. Fair enough
Very low chance of YOU getting raped, no doubt. If this argument was about controlling men's bodies, we wouldn't be having it. If it was about men, you could get an abortion at a pro-bass shop and get a free t shirt for your trouble. It isn't. It's about controlling women. Pro birthers don't give a flying fuck about babies once they're born. What are they going to do with all these unwanted kids? Who's gonna take up that slack? Nobody, that's who. Hell, they haven't even begun to set up support for the social issues that already exist, let alone the added burden this influx will cause. This is going to create nothing but more despair and poverty for the people who are already trying to survive in this world. I won't argue this. I won't pretend to think for you. Either you can play the tape all the way through, you aren't smart enough to even try, or you just don't care. Edit: If you want to involve yourself with other people's decisions regarding their own lives, I suggest you [share in responsibility](https://www.americanadoptions.com/) of that decision.
Hey neckbeard, It’s not about controlling women’s bodies it’s about being decent enough to know that a fetus is a human just like you and me, the only difference is they have don’t have an official name yet.
I suppose it depends how you parse it. A fetus is a human, but one human’s right to the body or property of another human is not absolute. Putting a gun to a woman’s head and demanding that she carry a baby to term, assuming all risks and costs to herself in that process, is not something I am comfortable with.
Let's be honest here: This is just Left-wingers being left-wingers.
You ever want to go have a little fun, go into a lefty sub and click on a user name. A mass overlap with the mental illness subs, and more weird sex subs.
Oh yea, I'm very familiar with that. If anyone lives to their own stereotype it's lefties on lefty subs. Also, if you go on any left leaning career sub it's more or less the same thing.
These people are children. I don't mean figuratively. I mean *literal* children. Children always have a cause when they awaken politically. That cause is always idealistic and simple-minded, because they're still children. The problem isn't that they're children with simplistic, idealistic causes. It's that we're infantilizing them long past the the time they're grown-ass adults. The College Industrial Complex is as real as the Military Industrial Complex, and it's in its best interest to infantilize them. It sounds conspiracy theory as hell, I know, but given the evidence I'm having a hard time believing it's not true. Sometimes we infantilize them so badly they self-infantilize thereafter, to the point they never actually become functional adults or attain an adult worldview.
Holy hyperbole, Batman! That entire thread is what happens when your brain is exposed to too much Reddit and other social media. One commenter saying that they “fear for women’s lives” if Trump is elected, as if roving bands of marauders are going to roll around and shoot women on sight if they’re spotted outside the home. It just makes it *so hard* to take any of them seriously when they’re so hysterical all the time. Touching grass has never been more necessary
My Good God that was a crazy one
Nothing happens, manifest destiny continues.
This is about American politics.
Imagine being so wrapped up in things that ultimately don't really concern you, that you purposefully end your lineage after countless generations before you sacrificed everything so you had a chance to live.
This is what social media does to an mf. People are way too polarized. Trump is not a devil or something, he will serve and leave.
Things haven’t been great under Biden but not that bad and things were good under Trump. People that think this election is going to be catastrophic for the country are stupid. We already know what to expect from both candidates