260
submitted 4 months ago by Beaver@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago

WOW, I love that you're argument in favor of states rights is "sure women in all these states completely lost their bodily autonomy, but I'm not a woman so I think it's the way to go!"

Well, I certainly didn't write that. At all. In fact, it seems you didn't read what I wrote at all. The only way to guarantee abortion rights for all women in all 50 states is a constitutional amendment, an amendment that is very unlikely to pass. So, what do you propose?

[-] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You literally used the fact that states are currently undoing abortion access in your argument that you support states right to choose!

Edit here are some quotes, all I removed was rambling

The third option is we split up, and go our separate ways. Personally, I prefer the third option, and I think it's already happening.

Take abortion, for instance. The overturning of Roe v Wade didn't make abortion illegal throughout the whole country, it simply returned the matter to the states.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think it's better to have a weaker federal government and for more power to be returned to the states

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

"Sure, some people are still property. But that decision is made at the state level, so it's all good."

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago

You folks keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that a decision automatically becomes morally right when it is made at the state level instead of the federal level. I never said that restricting abortion access was right or good.

I really would like an answer from someone about how you all would make abortion legal in all 50 states. Please, my all means tell me. If that is the only acceptable option to you, how do you think it can be accomplished?

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Pass a law that medical decisions are between a patient and a doctor. You claim it needs to be an amendment, but there's no reason for that.

Your entire premise seems to be capitulating to fascism because you're afraid it can't be stopped at the federal level. Do you really think "some fascism at the state level" would be a peaceful solution in the long term?

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Pass a law that medical decisions are between a patient and a doctor.

They tried passing a law to make abortion legal in all 50 states. It was called the Women's Health Protection Act. It was defeated in the Senate, twice. I'm sure they'll keep trying, but even if they succeed the law will be challenged and I think it's likely the current supreme court would overturn it. Plus, laws passed by one Congress can be repealed by another Congress. The only way to guarantee abortion rights in all 50 states would be to amend the constitution.

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago

What you call rambling, is actually context.

You literally edited my words to change what I said. The FULL sentence I wrote was:

I think it's better to have a weaker federal government and for more power to be returned to the states, then to have a strong federal government that gets taken over by fascists, for instance.

You're just being deliberately dishonest.

[-] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

Context doesn't matter when all it does is attempt to justify heinous decisions like allowing states to restrict abortion and other fundamental rights. When it does that it's just rambling.

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago

If you think having a fascist federal government, in which abortion is illegal for all, is between than some states having abortion rights and some states not, that's your opinion, I'm just saying I disagree with it.

[-] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

Why would I be in favour of a fascist federal government? Where did I say something to support that? Have we completely given up on not having federal fascism already?

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago

Have we completely given up on not having federal fascism already?

Not necessarily, but you won't tell me how you plan to stop the fascists? Are you going to fight them or try to compromise with them?

[-] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

Compromise? Like by giving them only SOME states to do heinous shit in?

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Ok, that's fair. That is a kind of compromise. So, you're saying you agree that breaking up is the best option? I mean, you just absolutely refuse to give a definitive answer, so I feel I need to clarify.

this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
260 points (95.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
1716 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS