Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrRoboto75]

You jest but young angry single men with little to lose is very dangerous, very easy to radicalize.

[McTraveller]

So Biden is asking Congress to make Roe a federal law.

What're the Vegas odds?

[TamerVirus]

I'm pretty sure a test vote for a federal law codifying Roe flopped with 49 votes on partisan lines like a month ago

[Lidku]

It actually might be kinda high, though a "unified" Democrat push to instate codification could be in danger from either Manchin or Sinema. Both of them are shady..

[bloop_bleep]

I dunno about you guys, but I'm really starting to feel like blowing up some things these past few years... nitric acid and glycerol ain't hard to find are they.

[MrRoboto75]

So Biden is asking Congress to make Roe a federal law.

What're the Vegas odds?

00 on the roulette wheel.

[TamerVirus]

*waves to federal agent assigned this forum*
All talks of explosives are for purely recreational usage

[Telgin]

So Biden is asking Congress to make Roe a federal law.

What're the Vegas odds?

Unless there are several Republicans up for election who fear they'll get tossed out if they don't support it, the odds are zero.  Maybe there are some like that but I doubt it.

I've read several conservative discussions on this topic today, and aside from just making me angrier, I find it interesting that so many of them find restricting rights like this to be a good thing and something that states should be able to decide on.  I'm not sure why anyone would think that it should be okay for something like this to be legal in California but illegal in Texas, for example.  How is something like this a local matter?

So far I haven't found any actively praising the fact that the other supreme court decisions protecting marriage and such are up next on the chopping block, but maybe you have to actually dig to find places that dark and grim, and I'm not particularly interested in it.

[McTraveller]

... and something that states should be able to decide on.  I'm not sure why anyone would think that it should be okay for something like this to be legal in California but illegal in Texas, for example.  How is something like this a local matter?

I think the argument is - why is it OK for different countries to have different views on this, but not different states?  Do you believe that everyone everywhere should have the same rules and social norms? If not, where do you draw the lines? Why stop at the borders of the US?

This is one of the few reasonable* parts of US political discourse.  And in this issue in particular, there are new unique challenges that arise due to things like crossing state lines.

A huge part of US ethos is that you can indeed find a place where you can live your lifestyle even if they aren't liked in other areas, with the assumption that its reciprocal, that the folks in those other areas will let you live your lifestyle "over there" without messing with you.  It's only when people try to make One Rule that things get really messy.  Go figure.

EDIT: * that is - a reasonable thing to talk about. Not that the content of the discussion is actually reasonable.

[Il Palazzo]

I think the argument is - why is it OK for different countries to have different views on this, but not different states?  Do you believe that everyone everywhere should have the same rules and social norms? If not, where do you draw the lines? Why stop at the borders of the US?

Of course, if you take this argument the other direction - if one believes each country, each state should decide for themselves, why stop there? Why not each city, each block, and eventually each person. And when you get there you arrive at the essence of liberalism: each person >should< be able to decide for themselves, and the only just system is one that permits everyone to do so without any obstacles.
I.e. it's not that the pro-life and pro-choice sides are both equally pushing for their brand of authoritarianism. Only one of those is doing so.

[McTraveller]

At some point there's a practical 'surface of interaction' which is the core of politics.

Nobody really cares what you do inside your home until the waste products start pouring out and polluting the surrounding areas.

Pollution isn't just limited to chemicals here; I do believe that ideas can be polluting.  Like how every appliance in the world should be connected to the internet. QUIT IT.

[Telgin]

...

Well, for one thing I believe we need stronger unification on a global level, especially regarding civil rights, but that's a much bigger and different discussion.

The way I see it is that this is essentially a civil rights matter, and letting those be decided locally is dangerous.  I understand the appeal of "If you don't like it you can leave!", but that's way easier to say to someone than to be on the receiving end of when you're faced with the potential of not being able to do that or being further disadvantaged in your attempts to do so.

On the topic of abortion specifically, I guess in practice the states that oppose this have been doing a good job of making it almost impossible to access already, but imagine you're in Texas and want or need an abortion.  Let's say you want the abortion because you're in no economic position to support a baby, which implies you have little to no extra income.  Now, someone says, "If you want an abortion, just go to California!"  Okay, so now you need to take time off work and spend what, at least a day driving there, paying for gas, and do the same on the way back?  As opposed to finding one locally if it were legal in Texas?  If you can't afford it, it's effectively illegal for you.

And that's just assuming that Texas merely criminalized it being performed in the state.  What happens if they criminalize having it done at all, and someone rats you out when you come back and you risk going to jail?

"Just go move to California then!"

Okay, but the overwhelming majority of Americans have like $500 or less in their checking accounts, so how is that going to work out in practice?  Just moving to find likeminded people so you can live in peace works a lot better in theory than practice.

[Dostoevsky]

At some point there's a practical 'surface of interaction' which is the core of politics.

Nobody really cares what you do inside your home until the waste products start pouring out and polluting the surrounding areas.

Pollution isn't just limited to chemicals here; I do believe that ideas can be polluting.  Like how every appliance in the world should be connected to the internet. QUIT IT.

As I believe has been previously noted, this decision (not just Thomas's concurrence) does raise serious doubts about the continued concept of 'substantive due process', and the right to privacy. E.g. the Lawrence case Thomas targets as being literally about the right to have (gay) sex in your own home with another consenting adult.

[hector13]

Cool, cool.

So at what point do we start worrying about America becoming a dystopia in which only heterosexual, white, cis-males have any rights?

Make America Great Again, right?

[McTraveller]

Nah, we'll probably be somewhere on the sliding scale of dystopias between that and, oh, nobody has any rights at all, because we're all owned by corporations?