1. #3701
    I consider myself a pragmatic person, but it's becoming harder and harder to not think that we are truly seeing the rise of fascism in the US. It has been a worry for decades, but I always hoped/assumed that the US would overall improve.

    I believe that anyone that calls themselves a GOP supporter today can, without hyperbole, also probably be called a fascist - the lines are becoming less blurred, and anyone who supports the GOP today and is offended by that should take a long hard look at themselves and at their party, at other fascist movements across the world today and throughout history. Recognize the rot before it's too late, before you are too sucked into fascism.
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  2. #3702
    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    I consider myself a pragmatic person, but it's becoming harder and harder to not think that we are truly seeing the rise of fascism in the US. It has been a worry for decades, but I always hoped/assumed that the US would overall improve.

    I believe that anyone that calls themselves a GOP supporter today can, without hyperbole, also probably be called a fascist - the lines are becoming less blurred, and anyone who supports the GOP today and is offended by that should take a long hard look at themselves and at their party, at other fascist movements across the world today and throughout history. Recognize the rot before it's too late, before you are too sucked into fascism.
    I mean the gop said the same thing a decade ago. Times change the pendulum swings it will sway back in time.

  3. #3703
    Fairy tales are more than true–not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten. -G. K. Chesterton & Neil Gaiman

  4. #3704
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    Agree. I think the phenomenon is more about the way the issues change than the people.
    You agree with false statements. That isn't what has happened with abortion in the US (it differs in other countries - the abortion travel will now go from the US to Mexico instead of the opposite https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/13/a...ntl/index.html ).

    I understand that many don't want this folk wisdom to be true, since it would indicate that either they have become more "conservative" themselves or that they will do so in the future. It's more convenient to falsely claim that you stayed true (and will stay true) and the world changed.

    But the abortion-question hasn't fundamentally changed since Roe v. Wade - at least not until this new ruling, and 50+-year old views stayed fairly constant from 1980 to 2019; and in comparison 30-49 year olds have consistently been more pro-abortion during that time (with some peak in the 1990s).

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/246206/...rends-age.aspx

    Obviously for this question it may be that it depends on your life-situation which depends on age - but the same is true for many other questions; people might be more pro-choice if they think they might use the choice themselves.

  5. #3705
    Isn't it the most fun when Americans have to become state immigrants to get healthcare? The US is the upper lower class of countries pretending to be upper upper class.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  6. #3706
    Quote Originally Posted by Dontrike View Post
    Isn't it the most fun when Americans have to become state immigrants to get healthcare?
    Working as intended. Clearly, 10 year-olds who don't want to get pregnant should have thought about the consequences and take responsibility for looking so sexy to the people who want to rape them.

    and now I need to take a shower after saying that...

  7. #3707
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtbrig7390 View Post
    What is the point of voting
    If you have to ask such a question, there is probably no point in even replying to you on this.

    I will say that I definitely think SCOTUS should, if nothing else, be expanded. Having an odd number of justices was always asking for it to lean one way or the other, imo. That and the fact it can even be touched by either political party. No political party should be involved.

  8. #3708
    There are a lot of things that are frankly outdated at best and outright asinine in the constitution or "how the founding father intended".

    Too bad all you have to say is "FoUnDiNg FaThErS" and then people will push back against changes.

    It's too bad we can't take away any technology not available in the 18th century from those idiots. Surely these new witchcraft is also not what the founding fathers intended right?

  9. #3709
    The Lightbringer Nymrohd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    That and the fact it can even be touched by either political party. No political party should be involved.
    How would you avoid that though? Who appoints them?

  10. #3710
    Yeah, it's impossible to remove political affiliations from judges, or really anything.

    All you can do is give them limited terms. My understanding is that SC judges are given life terms so they would not be influenced by politics. If that was the original intention these founding fathers are actually just tripping, because people going into politics ARE going to be politic-minded and all you give them is just all the power with zero the accountability.

  11. #3711
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    How would you avoid that though? Who appoints them?
    Therein lies the problem. If nothing else, just stop it being a lifetime appointment. That's the dumbest shit ever.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by david0925 View Post
    There are a lot of things that are frankly outdated at best and outright asinine in the constitution or "how the founding father intended".

    Too bad all you have to say is "FoUnDiNg FaThErS" and then people will push back against changes.

    It's too bad we can't take away any technology not available in the 18th century from those idiots. Surely these new witchcraft is also not what the founding fathers intended right?
    Yeah, I've said so many times it is a massively outdated document and is in dire need of updating. And I don't just mean adding an amendment or two. Or just get rid of it and have a new one, one actually related to the present day, written.

    But people treat it like its the literal word of God or something.

  12. #3712
    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    Or they are pro-choice because being able to have bodily autonomy is a basic human right?
    Whoosh!

    The question was why it depends on age where people 50 and up are more against abortion than the 30-49 year olds; and the rather obvious answer was that maybe people are more likely to be pro-choice when they might use the choice themselves. You don't give any explanation for why that changes with age (for some).

    If you believe that people stop supporting basic human rights as the age you need to explain why.

    Remember that historically less than a third of the population in the US has been in favor of this, even though you consider it a 'basic human right'. It seems to have changed after 2019 - I don't know why.

    Note that it isn't listed as one of the "30 Universal Human Rights" (which was a compromise document that shows its age). There are some interpretations of that document indicating that in some cases abortion is a human right (especially when life and health of the pregnant
    woman or girl is at risk) - but that seems like a strenuous interpretation and in other cases right to life overrules bodily autonomy. The HRC (who makes such rulings) is similarly as the SC subject to political biases so we don't know how long it will last, and several members are fairly autocratic (going with the ignoble principle of: you can't be judged if you are the judge).

  13. #3713
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    All human beings are free and equal; women are human beings, foetus' are not.

    No discrimination

    SEX is in there as well as, since abortions are pretty much

    Right to life: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and SECURITY OF PERSON.

    If someone doesn't want to grow another person inside of them, they should be able to not do that, same with donating organs even in death.

    Pretty simple stuff: If you are anti-abortion, you are anywhere from a misogynist to a fascist. You can argue about "late term", however, where safe induced birth is done if possible.
    And before anyone tries to resurrect the religious bullshit of fetuses being people and thus also having rights (they're not and they don't), that wouldn't argue against abortion rights. It just specifies which style of abortions you'd have to use, removing the fetus without direct harm, even if it dies immediately because it's non-viable.

    Abortion rights would remain untouched even if a fetus was a legal person and had human rights. It isn't an argument, it's just religious extremism that seeks to control and subjugate women and is too chickenshit and dishonest to come right out and say that.


  14. #3714
    This is unfortunately a consequence of their rigid belief in "all life is sacred" (when it comes to being born at least). They have to oppose abortion for the 10-year old rape victim because otherwise their belief would be hypocritical. Any "all life is sacred"-person who makes an exception for this would be exposing their hypocrisy (of their belief, that is).
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  15. #3715
    I'm sure @tehdang will be right along to tell us, why this is fine because Ohio as a state has the perfect size to decide that children have to give birth to children now.
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  16. #3716
    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    All human beings are free and equal; women are human beings, foetus' are not.

    No discrimination

    SEX is in there as well as, since abortions are pretty much

    Right to life: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and SECURITY OF PERSON.

    If someone doesn't want to grow another person inside of them, they should be able to not do that, same with donating organs even in death.

    Pretty simple stuff: If you are anti-abortion, you are anywhere from a misogynist to a fascist. You can argue about "late term", however, where safe induced birth is done if possible.
    If a fetus isn’t a human then why bother arguing ‘late term’ abortion? Just food for thought, I’m not interested in getting dragged into a debate over fetal personhood, but this exception seemed at odds with your first assertion.

  17. #3717
    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    It could also be that older people grew up with different. . . Let's say "values" in strong quotations, that is absolutely possible, as well as younger generation coming to terms that "hey right to bodily autonomy is kind of cool".
    Wrong again, as that was already covered.

    The older people has had roughly the same opinion from 1980 to 2019 despite the older people being different persons that grew up in different times during that time and their younger counterpart had different opinions - that was the point; people change opinions as they age; and there seems to be a consistent trend in those changes.

    Obviously not everyone, and obviously some change in the other direction (and it is different in other countries); but the general trend is clear - and there have a potential clear explanations for why. There can also be a change in the mind-set for all ages, there was the start of increased pro-abortion support in the US during the 1990s but then it disappeared - I don't know why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    So almost 3/4 of the american people have a wrong opinion. It's okay, people used to think African-americans weren't equal to whites, or LBGTQ+ weren't people worth even rights.
    The point was that abortion-opinions in the US haven't changed much over time - until 2019; it's not that people kept their old views as they grew up - it's that people adopted the views of the older generation as they grow older.

    For the rest of America it's a more complicated issue where several countries have recently legalized abortion; and many now have higher public support for abortion than the US (and some have legalized through courts it with lower support; I don't know how that will play out).

    In the US we can compare with same-sex marriage that during a shorter time went from 27% accepting it to 67% (and now even higher) - https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/...-marriage.aspx
    That change happened faster than people aged, but still the older age-group is less supportive.

    However, it seems that abortion-opinion has now (as in this year - or possible last years) changed significantly in the US. I don't know if it is a reaction to the SC decision (if so why it changed - were many ignorant and just regurgitating someone else opinion during all those years; or has there been an actual change in recent months), or something else and whether it will stay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    Taking the "30 universal human rights", abortion is easily covered in the first 3:
    That is an interpretation of a flawed compromise that wasn't intended to be interpreted that way (e.g. Argentina and the US clearly didn't intend that when the voted for it); and thus HRW only recently sees that it legalizes some abortions.

    And the Vatican (a theocratic elective absolute monarchy without female suffrage) clearly sees it differently
    https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...rights_en.html
    Their opinion matters as they are permanent observers in the UN, and they are promoting that agenda.

    The simplest idea would be to actually have abortion (and other bodily autonomy) as a human right, instead of trying to "interpret" that from the document. But the "universal human rights" is even less open for amendments than the US constitution, and the ones interpreting it are even less democratic.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    This is unfortunately a consequence of their rigid belief in "all life is sacred" (when it comes to being born at least). They have to oppose abortion for the 10-year old rape victim because otherwise their belief would be hypocritical. Any "all life is sacred"-person who makes an exception for this would be exposing their hypocrisy (of their belief, that is).
    It's not even "all life is sacred", as there's a significant portion that say they oppose abortion regardless of viability and mother's health (polling has it at about 10% in the US - significantly less in most western countries).

    However, the current state laws in the US don't go that far, but it's still not entirely clear - https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...s-what-to-know

  18. #3718
    Republicans arguing that being anti-abortion is about preserving life will never work. It doesn't matter how much they claim that a fetus is a person with a soul. On just about every other issue they show a complete disregard for life.

    What would have been much easier to get away with is imposing a more sensible time limit above six weeks with clear exceptions for medical issues. It may would have still angered some voters into coming out for dems this year, but not as many. By handling the issue this way they have given dems their absolute best chance to keep control of congress when they probably wouldn't have otherwise.

  19. #3719
    Pointing fingers at this point is an exercise in futility. If people want to preserve whatever rights they have left and expand on those in the future, they have to vote for candidates that will advance their cause. The same way the pro-life did for the last 50 years.

  20. #3720
    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    This is unfortunately a consequence of their rigid belief in "all life is sacred" (when it comes to being born at least). They have to oppose abortion for the 10-year old rape victim because otherwise their belief would be hypocritical. Any "all life is sacred"-person who makes an exception for this would be exposing their hypocrisy (of their belief, that is).
    I believe the way they phrased it was that this is an opportunity for this 10-year old girl to raise her baby as a productive member of society.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •