not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by fiksal » Tue, 28. Jun 22, 19:08

As you may have seen we/US recently undone protection of abortions.

No benefits to unborn added, no citizenship, no child care payments, no parental leave, etc. No effort to reduce abortions via economical means.

It's up to States now to decide which way to go, and we have a good idea where half will go.

Next in line, a supreme court justice says, are same sex marriage, contraceptives, sex before marriage.

So how does the US measure up to the rest of the developed countries on the freedom scale?

Is it logical to consider this as a measure of a free country?
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

matthewfarmery
Posts: 3674
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 17:49
x3

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by matthewfarmery » Tue, 28. Jun 22, 21:25

I certainly think this is a step backwards. But also this has been coming for a long time now. Trump did help to set most of this in action, afterall, he did choose the judges. Also Trump himself is worred about this new ruling, sure on one hand, he in favour of it, but on the other, worried about the midterm elections/

But still, this isn't going to go down well, and america in general will be paying a pretty big price for some time, until this is again overturned. (but when that will happen is unknown, certainly not for a very long time) But anyway, this is a step back, America is becoming less and less free. I do hope the GOP will get their behinds kicked for this.
=

Warenwolf
Posts: 1668
Joined: Wed, 13. Apr 05, 04:22
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Warenwolf » Tue, 28. Jun 22, 22:34

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 28. Jun 22, 19:08

So how does the US measure up to the rest of the developed countries on the freedom scale?

Is it logical to consider this as a measure of a free country?
Depends on who is doing the measuring? People who believe that women's primary role is to carry children for the nation or a group call this freedom or at most consider the loss of freedom as inconsequential. If you believe in individualism, in many places/states in the USA the 50% of population have been shown a giant middle finger.

As to what effect this will have on USA in long term, history has precedent - Decree 770 in Romania and its after effects and how the generations and children affected by it fared in their life is well documented.

Falcrack
Posts: 4927
Joined: Wed, 29. Jul 09, 00:46
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Falcrack » Tue, 28. Jun 22, 22:53

The US is free as long as the citizens are able to vote on laws, or at least vote for representatives who vote on laws, and can have confidence that the elections are legitimate. Whether you personally agree or not with a particular policy does not make a country free or not.

Abortion is one of those positions where an all or nothing absolutist position makes little sense. Allow abortions at all points in pregnancy, which at later stages basically amounts to infanticide? Do not allow it in any case, where even victims of rape/incest are denied or mother's health is determined to be at serious risk, like an ectopic pregnancy? Where is the line to be drawn, and by whom? Should elective abortions (not from rape/incest or life-threatening) be allowed up to the point of fetal viability (some amount of weeks of gestational age), or not?

I think judges are not the people who should be making these decisions. Rather, they should be decided by the legislative process. Personally, I think the original Roe decision was a mistake, because it granted rights which were never explicitly granted in the constitution or the legislature.

However we feel about whether abortions should be allowed and under what circumstances, I believe it should be decided by the voice of the people. That would determine whether we are a free country or not.

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30368
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Alan Phipps » Tue, 28. Jun 22, 23:22

If it applied to my country, I would feel better represented if such decisions and laws were made on and with the advice of an expert non-political Medical Board that considered situations based on the prognoses for the embryo, for the physical and mental health of the mother, and across different future care and support situations. One size fits all cannot apply in medical situations.
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

Falcrack
Posts: 4927
Joined: Wed, 29. Jul 09, 00:46
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Falcrack » Tue, 28. Jun 22, 23:27

Alan Phipps wrote:
Tue, 28. Jun 22, 23:22
If it applied to my country, I would feel better represented if such decisions and laws were made on and with the advice of an expert non-political Medical Board that considered situations based on the prognoses for the embryo and for the physical and mental health of the mother. One size fits all cannot apply in medical situations.
The question of allowing abortion in most cases or not is more of an ethical question, based on the values of the people, than a medical one. As such, who chooses the medical board, and hence the ethical alignment of the board? Would the board be elected by anyone, or have any checks or balances placed on their decisions?

It is impossible in my opinion for any such board to be non-political.

User avatar
JSDD
Posts: 1378
Joined: Fri, 21. Mar 14, 20:51
x3tc

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by JSDD » Wed, 29. Jun 22, 00:43

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 28. Jun 22, 19:08
As you may have seen we/US recently undone protection of abortions.
not really, afaik they just declared it a legal issue that has to be managed on state level ... (am i wrong?)

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 28. Jun 22, 19:08
No benefits to unborn added, no citizenship, no child care payments, no parental leave, etc. No effort to reduce abortions via economical means.
i think if these werent the questions, then the court doesnt have to rule on them

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 28. Jun 22, 19:08
It's up to States now to decide which way to go, and we have a good idea where half will go.

Next in line, a supreme court justice says, are same sex marriage, contraceptives, sex before marriage.
one thing to consider is, that the term "marriage" is defined by the church (the pope said that last time, i think)
you can create something like "same-sex partnership" and give it the same legal status as "marriage", then the problem is (or should be) solved
(i think thats how it is defined in germany today)

"playing" around with the term "marriage" is a bit dangerous and doesnt lead to anything, cause you can annoy a lot of (truly) religious people
(and there are a lot of them in the US)

with "truly religious", i mean .. "conform with the rules of that church / denomination"
if adherend to the catholic church (for example), "same-sex marriage", gay / woman priests and the like will never be accepted ...
reason is: you cannot pretend to be truly catholic while constantly and blatantly violating the canon law / catholic rules

some might say: "if we dont like the rules, lets get rid of them and create new rules" ...
but the bible itself excluded such heretical arbitrariness by stating ...
.. the bible ... wrote:For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation, 22:18-19

if you are gay and want to be "kind of catholic", the only possibility is then to make your own religion and declare the laws as you want them to be :D
(but dont forget to rename it to something other than "catholic")
(finding "followers" these days should be that hard and doesnt take 2000 years ^^)


------------------

on the issue:

kind of difficult, i understand both sides ...
if you are an unborn child and are waiting to see the light of life ... its just unfair to "kill" / "destroy" / "dissolve" / ".." (do whatever) you, you are unable to make your voice "heared". a child on NOT property, parents DONT "own" their child, they are just responsible for it (until it is grown up). thats common sense, i hope ...
on the other side, its growing up in your body, and if it can cause you harm or possibly death to keep that "thing" within your body, its a dilemma ...
either you die or the child does ... nature isnt always "fair" ^^

some argue, that if the child is disabled of ill and will never be able to live a normal life without (your?) help, then "it" should be aborted ...
a cynic might answer: "then lets go kill all ill and disabled people"

some might say, that if you are too young (or not willing) to "get" a child (just made a sexual mistake some months ago), lets abort "it"
a cynic might respond like: "my son / daughter just got a bit annoying these days, i might consider to kill him/her :roll: "


does "freedom" include the right to "abort / kill people within your body" ??
is it a "personal" decision rather than an legal question ??

... my opinion: i dont know, these are very difficult morale questions ...
(dont get my wrong, i am not republican, i'm quite liberal with understanding for conservatives)
To err is human. To really foul things up you need a computer.
Irren ist menschlich. Aber wenn man richtig Fehler machen will, braucht man einen Computer.


Mission Director Beispiele

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Vertigo 7 » Wed, 29. Jun 22, 03:26

JSDD wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 00:43
fiksal wrote:
Tue, 28. Jun 22, 19:08
As you may have seen we/US recently undone protection of abortions.
not really, afaik they just declared it a legal issue that has to be managed on state level ... (am i wrong?)
That's the same bs confederates used to justify the civil war and continued slavery. That language was only used to try to attempt to absolve SCOTUS of any responsibility for criminalizing abortions, knowing full well that the republican held states either had laws on the books already that went into effect the moment the SCOTUS ruling was over turned or had planned legislature to do it.
JSDD wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 00:43
fiksal wrote:
Tue, 28. Jun 22, 19:08
No benefits to unborn added, no citizenship, no child care payments, no parental leave, etc. No effort to reduce abortions via economical means.
i think if these werent the questions, then the court doesnt have to rule on them
No, but forced pregnancy is directly impacted by that, is it not? For a supposed "pro-life" crowd not to accommodate actual life (mind you, the same whack jobs that won't do shit to legislate gun control when schools are getting shot up on a regular basis), I mean it's pretty on brand for them to ignore those issues as well.
JSDD wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 00:43
fiksal wrote:
Tue, 28. Jun 22, 19:08
It's up to States now to decide which way to go, and we have a good idea where half will go.

Next in line, a supreme court justice says, are same sex marriage, contraceptives, sex before marriage.
one thing to consider is, that the term "marriage" is defined by the church (the pope said that last time, i think)
you can create something like "same-sex partnership" and give it the same legal status as "marriage", then the problem is (or should be) solved
(i think thats how it is defined in germany today)

"playing" around with the term "marriage" is a bit dangerous and doesnt lead to anything, cause you can annoy a lot of (truly) religious people
(and there are a lot of them in the US)

with "truly religious", i mean .. "conform with the rules of that church / denomination"
if adherend to the catholic church (for example), "same-sex marriage", gay / woman priests and the like will never be accepted ...
reason is: you cannot pretend to be truly catholic while constantly and blatantly violating the canon law / catholic rules

some might say: "if we dont like the rules, lets get rid of them and create new rules" ...
but the bible itself excluded such heretical arbitrariness by stating ...
.. the bible ... wrote:For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation, 22:18-19

if you are gay and want to be "kind of catholic", the only possibility is then to make your own religion and declare the laws as you want them to be :D
(but dont forget to rename it to something other than "catholic")
(finding "followers" these days should be that hard and doesnt take 2000 years ^^)


------------------

on the issue:

kind of difficult, i understand both sides ...
if you are an unborn child and are waiting to see the light of life ... its just unfair to "kill" / "destroy" / "dissolve" / ".." (do whatever) you, you are unable to make your voice "heared". a child on NOT property, parents DONT "own" their child, they are just responsible for it (until it is grown up). thats common sense, i hope ...
on the other side, its growing up in your body, and if it can cause you harm or possibly death to keep that "thing" within your body, its a dilemma ...
either you die or the child does ... nature isnt always "fair" ^^

some argue, that if the child is disabled of ill and will never be able to live a normal life without (your?) help, then "it" should be aborted ...
a cynic might answer: "then lets go kill all ill and disabled people"

some might say, that if you are too young (or not willing) to "get" a child (just made a sexual mistake some months ago), lets abort "it"
a cynic might respond like: "my son / daughter just got a bit annoying these days, i might consider to kill him/her :roll: "


does "freedom" include the right to "abort / kill people within your body" ??
is it a "personal" decision rather than an legal question ??

... my opinion: i dont know, these are very difficult morale questions ...
(dont get my wrong, i am not republican, i'm quite liberal with understanding for conservatives)
That's great and wonderful, but marriage has existed long before christianity ever did so, good for the pope and all that. Also, the pope, and Germany, don't write our laws, so it doesn't really matter what either define marriage as.

2ndly, if the bible thumpers wanna be upset, that's their problem, but according to their own religious doctrines, judgement is in the hands of their deity, not up to them individually or as a whole. Trying to apply "separate but equal" labeling to same-sex marriage stinks of Jim Crowe and that evil bs should not be applied to anyone.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

User avatar
felter
Posts: 6961
Joined: Sat, 9. Nov 02, 18:13
xr

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by felter » Wed, 29. Jun 22, 05:08

I think it's great, not what they have done but that they have done it, as it is the final nail in the coffin on how corrupt the American legal system actually is, as even their highest court makes decisions not in the best interest of the country or the citizens of that country, or even the laws of their country, no, their decisions are made on a personal, political or even worse, religious beliefs. So now whenever any American citizen, judge or lawyer goes, we have the best legal system in the world, all we have to do is point at their corrupt supreme court and laugh at them.
Florida Man Makes Announcement.
We live in a crazy world where winter heating has become a luxury item.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by fiksal » Wed, 29. Jun 22, 05:50

being on the phone I am giving up to use the quotes feature properly,

so I will just selectively continue some of the points that were brought up


re: Depends on who is doing the measuring?
maybe let's do a simple one ... vs Europe?

re: history has precedent - Decree 770 in Romania
I am not familiar with that one, I shall Google it

re: The US is free as long as the citizens are able to vote on laws
are those laws required to guarantee freedoms then? Should the country be called free if the elected officials deny rights of group of people?

re: Where is the line to be drawn, and by whom?
I would maybe say it another way, should judges have the authority to prohibit it, should legislature?
To me it seems like a decision between doctor and the patient.

And speaking of lines. There are set of laws in US already about body autonomy - your body can't be used or forced to save or to prolong another life, child or not. Those laws are still in force too.

re: not really, afaik they just declared it a legal issue that has to be managed on state level ... (am i wrong?)
they basically said it's not a constitutionally protected right. Which is up to interpretation considering Ninth Amendment.
(The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.)
In practice this means ban on abortions, which is what the justices admit is the goal, and everyone knows too.

Nevermind that the talk is about banning abortions, not reducing them. The later is also not the goal.

re: i think if these werent the questions, then the court doesnt have to rule on them
you are technically correct. However the Supreme Court should take into account all existing laws, and not work in a vacuum.

re: one thing to consider is, that the term "marriage" is defined by the church (the pope said that last time, i think)
not quite so in US. The State creates the Marriage license, not the church. If the State doesn't participate then any marriage in any church is invalid. Marriage license is also not based on any religion.


re: with "truly religious", i mean .. "conform with the rules of that church / denomination"
I see what you are saying, and these people exist in US government, but they are operating outside of the Constitution and all US laws, as US is a secular State. There's however no one to punish them


re: does "freedom" include the right to "abort / kill people within your body" ??
what do you think about the body autonomy laws, that your body can't be forced to sustain a child's life? should it be forced under all situations? some? or none?
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by mr.WHO » Wed, 29. Jun 22, 21:12

Oh boy.

We had the same conversation here in Poland over a year ago, except that here, we don't have "states level", so the Constitutional Court decision apply fully to whole country.

It was widely commented as move on against, what was for years treated as nation-wide consensus on abortion.
It basically allow abortion only on 4 conditions:
1) When pregnacy is danger to women long term health or life.
2) When pregnancy is a fruit of incest.
3) When pregnancy is a fruit of rape.
4) When child has been indentified with un-treatable health condition that will make it unable to live or will cause it to live in unberable pain.


Now before we delve into it any further we need to admit there is A LOT of BS on both sides of discussion:
Far Left tell they want to be "pro-choice", but they basically want to turn abortion into another form of on-demand anti-conception. I'd say there are multiple levels of other "choices' to consider, before having an abortion, like not spreading your legs? or using rubber? or like 20 other forms of anti-conception?
Far Right on the other side want to be "pro-life", but more often than not, they don't give a sh*t anymore once the child is born, so it's same level of BS.


Now going back to 4 point of legal abortion, they seems to be solid, but on deeper look they are kinda fluid as well.
1) When pregnacy is danger to women long term health or life - seems no brainer, there is no way in hell to force anybody to do something that might be life threatening. However, what do we classify as health? I can imagine creative people could just invent a mental health syndrome, or just fake general depression. it would be probably very hard to prove it's legit or fake? I could see excluding Mental Health from this, but then again someone could just fake suicidial depresion, that would turn in into physical danger. Tough nut to crack - you can't erase this point obviously, but to make it solid and bad-will proof is rather hard.
2) Again seems like no-brainer and such children have elevated risk of genetic defects. Still, the child itself is innocent and elevated risk is not certain risk - there is a fair chance the child could be OK. In worse case scenario we had multiple dynasties in Europe running for long on this somewhat livable conditions (Habsburgs? the funny chin dynasty). Personally, this point is resonable on genetic risk, but questionable on moral ground.
3) This one is so far the least problematic - unfortunately there is no moral solution here, simply accepting the lesser evil.

However, I could imagine in future, people trying to abuse it with false rape accusations, making that you would have to sign a contract with 3 copies and co-signature of 2 witness, full video coverage with backup copies and aftermentioned 2 witness, just to make sure you're not accused of anything. Hopefully this is only imagination, but I recall there was South Park episode with joke like that and so far, SP episodes seems to be predicting things with frightful accuracy.

However (part2), I could see it also going in opposite direction, as I totally wouldn't mind coercion to unprotected/unsafe sex to be considered rape...damn, maybe you do need witheses, paperwork and full video coverage on multiple angles, to legally prove one side did bad :D

4) The last point and the actual point that was covered by Constitutional Court last year in Poland. it caused an uproar (mainly driven by low informed social media) and protest for a few weeks.
The Court was analyzing, what could be considered un-treatable or making severe life problems condition. The main focus of the Court were pregnancies with Down Syndrome. I don't know full details, but Court decided that current medical knowledge and treatment make Down syndrome not to be considered as valid ground for abortion point 4 (I don't remember if ALL Down cases, or only the mild spectrum cases).
What is interesting, the MP who was send this case to the court is far-right, kinda asshole, but actually a father of a child with Down syndrome - so at least in this case he was able to provide first-hand life experience, rather than empty words.

IMO the Court decision simply prove, that point 4 is fluid as well and simply confirm that point 4 will have less and less cases over time as health care and medical treatments will develop further.
Unfortunately this conclusion was buried veeeeeeeeery deep under social media meltdown and outrage.


Last but not least - we need to consider the wealth factor, since abortion due to poverty, is also a big thing.
I still stand on case that rubber or literally any other anti-conception is way cheaper than abortion or pregnancy, but if everything fails...you can always give the child away, no questions asked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_hatch
That's another "choice" for so called "pro-choice" people. In most of Western countries, newborn children doesn't wait much for adoption, to the point Westerners even go outside EU/US to try to adopt them.


Now going back to US decision and OP question about freedom:
The court send it back to state decision - if anything, you as a voter and your vote count more in one state vs 300 milion votes in 50 states.
Moreover, if you don't like the vote result, you're free to move (even just temporary), if I recall correctly US is split 50:50 on pro-life and pro-choice states, so if anything you have a lot of freedom and choices avaliable.
It's slightly different in EU, but I think there is absolutely no problem in getting into the bus/train for a quick trip to other EU state, so you're free to choose as well.


That's why I think this whole outrage and discussion is artificial - if anything having one law across EU/US would be less freedom and far more dangerous.
You would have 50% chance you would end up on the side you don't like.
Even if you end up with the side you like...who guarantee it won't be flipped again a few years later (especially if you pack the court)?
I usually treat this expression as dumb joke, but in this case it's really "diversity is our strenght".
If you don't like something, you can easily move to different EU/US state - that's the freedom luxury, that people from outside of EU/US doesn't have.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Vertigo 7 » Wed, 29. Jun 22, 21:49

mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 21:12
Now going back to US decision and OP question about freedom:
The court send it back to state decision - if anything, you as a voter and your vote count more in one state vs 300 milion votes in 50 states.
Moreover, if you don't like the vote result, you're free to move (even just temporary), if I recall correctly US is split 50:50 on pro-life and pro-choice states, so if anything you have a lot of freedom and choices avaliable.
It's slightly different in EU, but I think there is absolutely no problem in getting into the bus/train for a quick trip to other EU state, so you're free to choose as well.
No, the majority of states are republican controlled but most of those are also the least populated. Support for abortion, however, is closer to 70% of the population, but republican lawmakers don't listen to their constituents, rather they listen to their donors.

2ndly, moving to get an abortion, or even traveling out of state to get one, isn't an option for most people. Not everyone will have a job that will let them just move whenever they feel like it, especially out of state. Not everyone can afford to see a doctor out of state. Compounded with republican states going so far as to criminalize seeking out of state abortions as well, the "freedom" you speak of is practically non existent, unless you're rich and white.
mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 21:12
That's why I think this whole outrage and discussion is artificial - if anything having one law across EU/US would be less freedom and far more dangerous.
You would have 50% chance you would end up on the side you don't like.
Even if you end up with the side you like...who guarantee it won't be flipped again a few years later (especially if you pack the court)?
I usually treat this expression as dumb joke, but in this case it's really "diversity is our strenght".
If you don't like something, you can easily move to different EU/US state - that's the freedom luxury, that people from outside of EU/US doesn't have.
Uhh.... "artificial outrage" da fuq you on about? People are legitimately and rightfully pissed at being told their bodies are property of the state. Republicans are even trying to ban contraception and criminalize pre-marital sex, not to mention rolling back civil rights on interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, and who knows wtf else is next. People are going to be charged with homicide and given the death penalty to appease the "pro-life" nut cases. Rationalize that.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by mr.WHO » Wed, 29. Jun 22, 22:05

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 21:49
2ndly, moving to get an abortion, or even traveling out of state to get one, isn't an option for most people. Not everyone will have a job that will let them just move whenever they feel like it, especially out of state. Not everyone can afford to see a doctor out of state. Compounded with republican states going so far as to criminalize seeking out of state abortions as well, the "freedom" you speak of is practically non existent, unless you're rich and white.
I might be looking too much from EU perspective, where you can ride train/bus across a state or two for a price of McDonalds meal or two.

Unironically, seem like EU has more freedom of choice.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Vertigo 7 » Wed, 29. Jun 22, 22:18

mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 22:05
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 21:49
2ndly, moving to get an abortion, or even traveling out of state to get one, isn't an option for most people. Not everyone will have a job that will let them just move whenever they feel like it, especially out of state. Not everyone can afford to see a doctor out of state. Compounded with republican states going so far as to criminalize seeking out of state abortions as well, the "freedom" you speak of is practically non existent, unless you're rich and white.
I might be looking too much from EU perspective, where you can ride train/bus across a state or two for a price of McDonalds meal or two.

Unironically, seem like EU has more freedom of choice.
If it was only the cost of a tank of gas, sure, but here... no, we don't have socialized health care and insurance coverage across state lines is iffy, at best. Hell its already difficult in your home city/county. There's no way that going out of state to get an abortion isn't going to rack up in the neighborhood of 10k in costs unless the state border runs across your back yard and the clinic is just on the other side. Immagine someone in the southern tip of Florida needing an abortion... They would have to travel all the way to Virginia or Maryland as everything in between is a red state.

The sad fact of the matter is the GOP has manipulated the system to get their way for decades and they're winning while the democrats have sat on their thumbs for decades and let this happen. Biden, Schumer, Peolosi, they're f'n weak and won't do shit to fight back besides get on TV and say how mad they are. I said it in the Hamburdler thread and I'll say it again here too. Democrats need to kick these jack asses in the damn teeth.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

User avatar
JSDD
Posts: 1378
Joined: Fri, 21. Mar 14, 20:51
x3tc

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by JSDD » Wed, 29. Jun 22, 22:41

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 22:18
If it was only the cost of a tank of gas, sure, but here... no, we don't have socialized health care and insurance coverage across state lines is iffy, at best. Hell its already difficult in your home city/county.
... then just go to cuba, there you have medical care for free (i think) :D
To err is human. To really foul things up you need a computer.
Irren ist menschlich. Aber wenn man richtig Fehler machen will, braucht man einen Computer.


Mission Director Beispiele

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Observe » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:07

I am opposed to abortion. That said, in spite of my personal opinion, I realize there are 7.96 billion other opinions that are equally valid to mine. Actually, I don't know anyone who is totally in favor of abortion.

I think that life starts at conception and that abortion is murder. So what? There is nothing in nature that says that human life (or any other) is somehow particularly important or sacrosanct. We invent stories to elevate the value of human life, while at the same time many of us attach little to no value for the life of a cow, or a sheep, or a tree, etc. Humans are not special, but we are life and I tend to think that means something.

So, is murder ever acceptable? Evidently it is for many under varied circumstances. Sometimes this is approved by the law and other times not. My position is leave the decision of aborting pregnancy to the person who is affected. In other words, let us mind our own bloody business and let others make their own decision and live with whatever karma (natural consequence) may be associated with their actions.

Let us have a deep reverence for ALL life and compassion for those who struggle with the question of whether to abort or not. Let us support them in their decision without judgement.
Last edited by Observe on Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:39, edited 1 time in total.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Vertigo 7 » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:37

Observe wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:07
My position is leave the decision of aborting pregnancy to the person who is affected. In other words, let us mind our own bloody business and let others make their own decision and live with whatever karma (natural consequence) may be associated with their actions.
And that's the way it had been as the right to abortion was rooted in the right to privacy, as are many of the other rights republicans are gunning for (so much for small government :roll: )

I'd even go a step further and say that other than the male who sired the child, men should have 0 say so when it comes to abortion.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by fiksal » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:41

Vertigo answered what I was going to say. These law will hit the poor and middle class the hardest. The rich will have the way to go to another State punishment free.

So let's not forget, the ban will not reduce abortions, but will criminalize them, putting women in jail, and increase abortions outside of hospitals, increasing cases of suicide and death.

I am also interested in anyone's comment on body autonomy question, and where they see their ownership of their body end and State ownership to begin.


@ Mr Who, where did pregnancies below adult age and in low income fall in?
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Warenwolf
Posts: 1668
Joined: Wed, 13. Apr 05, 04:22
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Warenwolf » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 12:18

fiksal wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:41
Vertigo answered what I was going to say. These law will hit the poor and middle class the hardest. The rich will have the way to go to another State punishment free.
I will point out that it was predicted that traveling to another state in order to have abortion, at least if we are talking about some jurisdictions in USA, is seen as the next moral fight for anti-abortion crowd.

As an example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... eme-court/

This suggestion above was shelved, but I would not be no way surprised that "loophole" (which as pointed out previously in this thread, is not that much of a loophole*) will not be next target for anti-abortionists.


*in addition to what was said regarding just traveling to another land in EU:

Andrea Prudente which nearly died in Malta due to doctors refusing life saving abortion was lucky - her health complications made travel a health risk.
Source:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... ation.html

And in Poland Izabela Sajbor and Agnieszka T, unlike Andrea above, never had chance at all.

Point being is that abortion is not always planned. And even if you have money and resources on your hands, sometimes you don't have time.

User avatar
Stars_InTheirEyes
Posts: 5086
Joined: Tue, 9. Jan 07, 22:04
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Stars_InTheirEyes » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 21:45

I guess it depends if you consider a 'free country' to mean a place where its residents are free to make their own choices, or a place where elected representatives are free to decide what its electors can and can't do.
Sometimes I stream stuff: https://www.twitch.tv/sorata77 (currently World of Tanks)
This sı not ǝpısdn down.
MyAnimeList,
Steam: Sorata

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”