SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[diller]

Alt-left, socialists, a few alt right trolls and fence sitting centrists "THE DEMOCRATS NEVER DO ANYTHING FOR ME, WHY SHOULD I VOTE FOR THEM? THEY HAVE TO EARN MY VOTE! BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAAAAAAAAAAAAME"

Yeah I don't get people that won't vote or vote on a pointless 3rd party candidate because the democrats doesn't do enough, it's just stupid.

Even if they aren't doing enough they are clearly the best pick.

I mean I'm a socialist and if I lived in the US I would vote for the Democrats while trying to pick a better candidate.

[Paranoid Android]

Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) says in the GOP response to the State of the Union that Republicans "strongly support continued nationwide access to in vitro fertilization."

Gawd I LOVE Republicans! They are some shameless mofo's.

In the State of the Union response: newly crowned star, State Senator of Alabama, lied that Republicans support IVF when her own state outlawed it and are no scrambling to make it legal again. Remember it is being blocked in the Senate as nationwide protection. But hey eff it, just keep lying.

Also Britt's stance is at best shady. When asked several times by reporters if embryos are children and did she agree with the state's decision, she refused to answer.. If you can bare to watch her whole rebuttal and who she claims, its a shocker! She is an extreme Christian Fundamentalist, who wants to force her beliefs on everyone else.

[Muzjhath]

Yeah I don't get people that won't vote or vote on a pointless 3rd party candidate because the democrats doesn't do enough, it's just stupid.

Even if they aren't doing enough they are clearly the best pick.

I mean I'm a socialist and if I lived in the US I would vote for the Democrats while trying to pick a better candidate.

Same as lots of them also don't seem to be otherwise politically active.

If someone is struggling just to survive it's one thing.
Those who aren't and just whine?

They should shut the fuck up. Hold their nose and vote Dem on a national/federal level.

Then go get active locally.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/iow...are-rcna142458

Iowa state House Republicans on Thursday night passed a personhood bill that would make it a felony offense to “cause the death” of an “unborn person,” putting the conservative midwestern state directly into the national battle over protections for in-vitro fertilization.

The bill, in its current form, does not provide any protections for embryos created via IVF — which, according to Democrats in the state and reproductive rights advocates, means the measure could easily be interpreted as criminalizing IVF care and services.

Passage of the bill by the GOP-controlled state House makes Iowa the latest state where lawmakers have taken steps that could threaten IVF. The procedure involves the creation of embryos outside the body, and many are often discarded if not used.

The vote in Iowa came just hours after Republican lawmakers in Alabama — trying to curtail the fallout over a state Supreme Court ruling that said embryos are children — enacted a bill intended to protect IVF. The Alabama court's ruling had prompted broader concerns that conservative measures targeting abortion elsewhere would also go after the medical procedure.

To be enacted, the Iowa bill would still have to be passed by the state Senate and be signed by Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds.

Iowa Republicans apparently saw the mess in Alabama and decided they wanted in on that action, actually. Without apparently actually seeing what happened and how Alabama had to quickly pass a law to protect the entire IVF industry in the state.

[Malkiah]

Yeah I don't get people that won't vote or vote on a pointless 3rd party candidate because the democrats doesn't do enough, it's just stupid.

not to whip up yet another derail in a different thread (i won't indulge in this extensively) but i feel like you kind of asked, and while i can't speak for all people who don't vote i can speak for a person who is highly politically interested but doesn't vote:
because voting democrats implicitly endorses the system, and the system is completely and utterly fucked to its core and is on its face immoral, on top of the fact that it represents zero of my core values.

i can (and do) recognize that democrats are a fine and good conservative party (as of right now i'd say they're my favorite conservative party of any western democratic country) and that republicans are a disgusting fascist and theocratic death cult, but the entire US political system is a farce and it has been since the moment this country was founded and i want nothing to do with it whatsoever.

now obviously there's logistic and pragmatic considerations for the fact that i live here and so i'm in it regardless, but... US politics will do what it does with or without 100% participation.
also, research shows that non-voters are split at about the same ratio as voters in terms of left/right, so if voting was compulsory in the US there wouldn't actually be a change in the political outcome - more voting doesn't equal progressive utopia.
also also, of the 22 countries on earth right now that have compulsory voting like half of them have gone partially or full blown fascist in the last 10 years, so again... more people voting does not give the outcome you think it does.

what you want is not "more voting" what you want is "politics not being fucked" - which well you should want, we all want that. but "more people voting" isn't how you get there.

[Endus]

not to whip up yet another derail in a different thread (i won't indulge in this extensively) but i feel like you kind of asked, and while i can't speak for all people who don't vote i can speak for a person who is highly politically interested but doesn't vote:
because voting democrats implicitly endorses the system, and the system is completely and utterly fucked to its core and is on its face immoral, on top of the fact that it represents zero of my core values.

i can (and do) recognize that democrats are a fine and good conservative party (as of right now i'd say they're my favorite conservative party of any western democratic country) and that republicans are a disgusting fascist and theocratic death cult, but the entire US political system is a farce and it has been since the moment this country was founded and i want nothing to do with it whatsoever.

now obviously there's logistic and pragmatic considerations for the fact that i live here and so i'm in it regardless, but... US politics will do what it does with or without 100% participation.
also, research shows that non-voters are split at about the same ratio as voters in terms of left/right, so if voting was compulsory in the US there wouldn't actually be a change in the political outcome - more voting doesn't equal progressive utopia.
also also, of the 22 countries on earth right now that have compulsory voting like half of them have gone partially or full blown fascist in the last 10 years, so again... more people voting does not give the outcome you think it does.

what you want is not "more voting" what you want is "politics not being fucked" - which well you should want, we all want that. but "more people voting" isn't how you get there.

"I've done absolutely nothing to make anything better, and I demand you consider my position as a moral stance."

Your entire position is no different than those who offer their "thoughts and prayers" for victims of a school shooting. It's performative indolence, so you can feel justified in looking down on others who actually make an effort to make things better.

More people getting involved is the only way to "fix politics".

[Malkiah]

"I've done absolutely nothing to make anything better, and I demand you consider my position as a moral stance."

yes endus, we all know that is your philosophy - you shout it in every thread you post in, and grunt it like a howler monkey over and over whenever i try to address other people with questions on a subject that i have some knowledge of.

you do nothing to make anything better, and you and everyone like you is actively trying to make everything continue to be shitty, and you are SO PROUD of yourself for that. we get it.

More people getting involved is the only way to "fix politics".

you've made this claim repeatedly, ad nauseam, and without evidence many times over the last couple of years and i'm not being drawn into another derail on the subject.

if you can come up with one single shred of scientific or even anecdotal evidence that more voting = liberal outcomes, by all means post it in the thread about whether voting matters as i would love to see that research.

[Endus]

cool beans, have fun with your unfounded delusions about reality, you've made your claims repeatedly, ad nauseam, and without evidence many times over the last couple of years and i'm not being drawn into another derail on the subject.

What "delusions"? You're the one claiming that doing nothing is better than doing something.

if you can come up with one single shred of scientific or even anecdotal evidence that more voting = liberal outcomes, by all means post it in the thread about whether voting matters as i would love to see that research.

I never said it defaulted to "more liberal".

But the reality is, elections are decided by those who vote, and who get more involved than simple voting. Choosing not to vote is not a statement of protect, it's a statement of apathy or indifference. It changes nothing other than allowing the current system to continue without you making any effort whatsoever to improve upon it, however limited your capacity to effect change may be. You're doing nothing to make anything better.

[Malkiah]

What "delusions"? You're the one claiming that doing nothing is better than doing something.

no actually, i'm not.

I never said it defaulted to "more liberal".

yes actually, you have.

But the reality is, elections are decided by those who vote, and who get more involved than simple voting. Choosing not to vote is not a statement of protect, it's a statement of apathy or indifference. It changes nothing other than allowing the current system to continue without you making any effort whatsoever to improve upon it, however limited your capacity to effect change may be. You're doing nothing to make anything better.

voting* does nothing but allow the current system to continue without making any effort whatsoever to improve on it, not voting is at least morally defensible as having not participated int it.

you're making things worse by actively perpetuating the system, i am a part of it but have never lifted a finger to support it.

*in a corrupt and morally bankrupt governmental system.
i don't advocate a condemnation of voting in concept, nor do i encourage others to not vote - i have no argument about the morality of voting on general principle.

[Edge-]

voting* does nothing but allow the current system to continue without making any effort whatsoever to improve on it, not voting is at least morally defensible as having not participated int it.

On this specifically...it absolutely does not, in either case.

Voting is, often, how the current system is changed. It can be how it's reinforced as well, but "voting" inherently doesn't have one outcome or the other.

Not voting is absolutely not morally defensible in any capacity and is, arguably, the immoral action that can only be taken by someone with no personal stake/risk for not voting, ignoring the risk to others. This topic being a pretty great example of the kinds of risks and consequences that happen when people don't want to participate and don't vote - their decision not to vote is not only morally indefensible on this topic, but we have a demonstrably harmful outcome in part as a result of their decision not to vote.

This is trivially untrue.

[Malkiah]

On this specifically...it absolutely does not, in either case.

i mean ok... prove it? i'll accept verified research or principled arguments based on history.
when has voting, in and of itself, ever changed anything for the better?

advocacy changes things, shifting culture changes things, sometimes organized violence changes things.
the only things that 'voting' ever did was give hitler power and establish 200 years of brutal oppression of africans in america.

Voting is, often, how the current system is changed. It can be how it's reinforced as well, but "voting" inherently doesn't have one outcome or the other.

well two things:
1. it really isn't, at least not in the way you're suggesting, and in the way everyone always screams at me about it when this subject comes up.
voting doesn't ever make anything better, the only things you can really track as having improved in any given society based on voting is to make things worse.

2. changing culture is how things get better, and exerting that cultural pressure to order how a given society operates is how things get better.
sometimes, in some countries and in some circumstances, voting is a part of that process... but voting in-and-of-itself has never done anything for anyone.

Not voting is absolutely not morally defensible in any capacity and is, arguably, the immoral action that can only be taken by someone with no personal stake/risk for not voting, ignoring the risk to others.

not voting (in the US at least) is the only morally defensible choice, as voting is outwardly immoral philosophically and mechanically evil pragmatically.
your argument is akin to saying that being a conscientious objector is immoral because you're making us lose the vietnam war by not participating.

This topic being a pretty great example of the kinds of risks and consequences that happen when people don't want to participate and don't vote - their decision not to vote is not only morally indefensible on this topic, but we have a demonstrably harmful outcome in part as a result of their decision not to vote.

this topic is a great example of how some people are utterly blinded by their feefees and have a sadly limited capacity to rationally discuss the practical and material conditions of the world.
your argument is utterly without scientific merit, and i would argue it's without philosophical merit either.

btw, i just posted in response to someone commenting on the mindset of non-voters, i'm not wanting to derail this thread with this conversation.
i tried to make a thread on this topic once due to my interest in it, if you want to continue this feel free to revive that thread... i'm done with clogging up the roe v. wade thread with this convo.

[Sunseeker]

Why do we continue to entertain discussion with someone who is clearly more concerned about their own moral high ground, than doing fuck all about anything?

The beginning and end of this for me is: for a guy who wont participate and doesnt give a fuck, he sure has a lot to say.

[Endus]

advocacy changes things, shifting culture changes things, sometimes organized violence changes things.
the only things that 'voting' ever did was give hitler power and establish 200 years of brutal oppression of africans in america.

1> You're not doing those things. You're not even doing the bare minimum.
2> Hitler wasn't voted into office. American slavery was well-established before the USA was even a country. And it was voting that's led to every move forward on social justice, like the Civil Rights Act. Which you casually pretend isn't true. That or you're trying to play stupid semantic games about how voting didn't achieve that, the representatives who were voted in did that, as if that's a meaningful difference.

well two things:
1. it really isn't, at least not in the way you're suggesting, and in the way everyone always screams at me about it when this subject comes up.
voting doesn't ever make anything better, the only things you can really track as having improved in any given society based on voting is to make things worse.

Democratic societies have improved in myriad ways over the decades, trivially proving this claim false.

2. changing culture is how things get better, and exerting that cultural pressure to order how a given society operates is how things get better.
sometimes, in some countries and in some circumstances, voting is a part of that process... but voting in-and-of-itself has never done anything for anyone.

And you exert that cultural pressure by voting.

You're again trying to play the intentionally dishonest semantic game by separating voting from the actions of elected officials once voted into office.

not voting (in the US at least) is the only morally defensible choice, as voting is outwardly immoral philosophically and mechanically evil pragmatically.
your argument is akin to saying that being a conscientious objector is immoral because you're making us lose the vietnam war by not participating.

There's the baseless moral condescension you've kept claiming you weren't engaging in.

[Malkiah]

Why do we continue to entertain discussion with someone who is clearly more concerned about their own moral high ground, than doing fuck all about anything?

because people who believe things spiritually feel the need to scream bloody fucking murder about how righteous they are to compensate for the fact they have no rationally defensible argument for their position.
this is why a small handful of folks needs to post-bomb any time i casually reply to questions about non-voters: because the belief in voting as a spiritual matter requires constant and aggressive reinforcement.

this extends to the abortion issue as well and in the general anti-LBGQT+ sentiment in the US, and why the fight over this will never end politically - when you allow people to participate in governance who operate purely on the basis of uninformed beliefs about how physical reality works, and who cannot handle the One Truth being questioned and need to vigorously try and enforce it on other people at all times in order to justify it to themselves, you get all kinds of absolutely psychotic behavior.

[Edge-]

i mean ok... prove it? i'll accept verified research or principled arguments based on history.
when has voting, in and of itself, ever changed anything for the better?

Civil Rights Act, while hardly perfect, was a big step forward. Women got the right to vote in the US because people worked within the system to change the system. Two very easy, basic examples.

advocacy changes things, shifting culture changes things, sometimes organized violence changes things.
the only things that 'voting' ever did was give hitler power and establish 200 years of brutal oppression of africans in america.

Advocacy doesn't actually change anything. It's important in helping raise awareness for issues and getting people to vote on those issues, but things don't change unless people vote in representatives and leaders that enact that change.

If those are the only two things you think voting has ever done then like...what? That's ludicrously ahistorical nonsense.

well two things:
1. it really isn't, at least not in the way you're suggesting, and in the way everyone always screams at me about it when this subject comes up.
voting doesn't ever make anything better, the only things you can really track as having improved in any given society based on voting is to make things worse.

Like? I gave you two positive examples of change that came through voting. Again, it can go either way, it's neither an inherent good or bad.

2. changing culture is how things get better, and exerting that cultural pressure to order how a given society operates is how things get better.
sometimes, in some countries and in some circumstances, voting is a part of that process... but voting in-and-of-itself has never done anything for anyone.

There you go, voting is a part of the process, thanks for being on the same page.

not voting (in the US at least) is the only morally defensible choice, as voting is outwardly immoral philosophically and mechanically evil pragmatically.
your argument is akin to saying that being a conscientious objector is immoral because you're making us lose the vietnam war by not participating.

A bold, unhinged, unproveable claim that's contradicted by objective reality. Your comparison to a consientious objector is bad and false, you're not risking life or limb by voting and quite the contrary, you may be protecting the rights of others by voting and choosing to abstain from voting might be sending marginalized communities off to the slaughterhosue.

I means, surely all those folks that took a principled stand against say, voting for Hillary Clinton didn't have any negative outcomes for others, right? Like how it resulted in three deeply conservative SCOTUS Justices being appointed and Roe v. Wade being overturned? Resulting in this thread chronicling the harms and suffering women are enduring purely as a result of that?

Just so we're clear, that's the position you're fundamentally arguing is the moral position. Staying home, letting someone like Donald and Republicans win power, while knowing full well that the SCOTUS was in play/in jeopardy and that the issue of Roe would be coming back in front of the court as everyone was warning about. That is your "moral" position if we're to take your argument seriously.

this topic is a great example of how some people are utterly blinded by their feefees and have a sadly limited capacity to rationally discuss the practical and material conditions of the world.
your argument is utterly without scientific merit, and i would argue it's without philosophical merit either.

Scientific merit? What argument are we talking about here? We're not talking science?

i tried to make a thread on this topic once due to my interest in it, if you want to continue this feel free to revive that thread... i'm done with clogging up the roe v. wade thread with this convo.

I mean, we're literally pointing out how your position results in this thread being created and the women being harmed and how that's not moral but I guess take your toys and go home or whatever. Your positions are pretty indefensible as you argue them.

[Malkiah]

Civil Rights Act, while hardly perfect, was a big step forward. Women got the right to vote in the US because people worked within the system to change the system. Two very easy, basic examples.

the civil rights act was an executive order, not a law that was voted on. same with women's suffrage.

if you want to go into a broader discussion of social pressure on political leadership i'd be happy to entertain that, but frankly i think it's a losing position because historically voting has been the weakest and slowest of the ways in which a population can exert pressure for specific changes.

I means, surely all those folks that took a principled stand against say, voting for Hillary Clinton didn't have any negative outcomes for others, right? Like how it resulted in three deeply conservative SCOTUS Justices being appointed and Roe v. Wade being overturned? Resulting in this thread chronicling the harms and suffering women are enduring purely as a result of that?

did it? can you prove that?
seemed to me that the overwhelming majority of people who publicly declared a refusal to vote for clinton either did so while living in states that went to clinton anyways (ie: their non-vote had zero material impact) or they advised the establishment of their intent to not vote for clinton well in advance of clinton becoming the nominee and thus they were never classifiable as a clinton vote in the first place (ie, had no material impact).

i'd say that trump becoming president had less than zero to do with people (any people, for whatever reason) not voting.
maybe that's not entirely accurate, but... we have no way of discerning the accuracy of that statement either way.
you can't prove it, i can't disprove it (not that i want to disprove it, i care more about accurate than i do about right so i just want to know the concrete details) - so the claim is a wash either way.

Scientific merit? What argument are we talking about here? We're not talking science?

you can't prove scientifically that more people voting causes "better" outcomes, and i don't know if you (or endus or anyone else on this forum) can prove it anecdotally, because all you people do on this subject is go REEEEEEEEEEEEEE about it.
i can prove scientifically that people who decide to be non-voters have no discernible impact on vote outcomes, and i feel i can pretty strongly discuss anecdotally that such non-voters don't change the landscape of a given society one way or the other.

[Edge-]

the civil rights act was an executive order, not a law that was voted on. same with women's suffrage.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-d...vil-rights-act

The Civil Rights Act was signed into law after being passed by both chambers of Congress on July 2, 1964.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-d...19th-amendment

Women got the right to vote through the 19th Amendment, passed by Congress on June 4, 1919 and ratified by state legislatures on August 18. 1920.

If you're this historically clueless I don't think there's anywhere productive discussion can go beyond asking you to open some history books.

[Endus]

the civil rights act was an executive order, not a law that was voted on. same with women's suffrage.

Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
(Also untrue of the prior Civil Rights Acts of '57 and '60, though '64 is the one people usually reference)

And also Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninete...s_Constitution

Incorrect on both counts.

Edit: Beaten to it, but the two different links provide different background to back each other up.

you can't prove scientifically that more people voting causes "better" outcomes, and i don't know if you (or endus or anyone else on this forum) can prove it anecdotally, because all you people do on this subject is go REEEEEEEEEEEEEE about it.

This remains a straw man. No one said higher turnout automatically meant better outcomes. You're making shit up rather than dealing honestly.

[Benggaul]

"I don't want to derail but" *folllows it up with more posts of incessant whining about how the system is broken but they refuse to do the bare minimum to improve it*

If you're not going to participate in helping change the process you forfeit any reason someone should take your thoughts on it seriously. Yes, even on a gaming forum.

[Malkiah]

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-d...vil-rights-act

The Civil Rights Act was signed into law after being passed by both chambers of Congress on July 2, 1964.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-d...19th-amendment

Women got the right to vote through the 19th Amendment, passed by Congress on June 4, 1919 and ratified by state legislatures on August 18. 1920.

If you're this historically clueless I don't think there's anywhere productive discussion can go beyond asking you to open some history books.

so you think that those were voted on by the populace?
i'm really not sure what you're angling at here.