Alabama abortion bill says Roe v. Wade is worse than crimes against humanity
86 replies, posted
Then I truly pity you. There's a whole world outside the United States that tends to be marginally more sane. Even if the country is moving in the direction of becoming a Saudi Arabia-esque shithole, it's not the only place to be. If it's that toxic living there, start setting aside money so you can eventually move.
if i could i would
One state passes a law and suddenly the entire country is a theocracy?
You ought to visit California or the Northeast some time.
based on everything that has occurred in the past 4 years, yes, the united states is very far from a functional democracy right now, and given the audacity of its worst members, will certainly never fully recover
You thought this is bad. The dissolution of the US may cause staggering mortality rates that would resemble what happened during and after the dissolving of the Soviet Union. Russia had a population of 148 million in 1991, the US today has 327 million.
https://external-preview.redd.it/CEaZeOnchWiaQzWBF9zFyOSjMVOtTQxur7-rvud1Axo.png?auto=webp&s=8c186e00cdc8f6e985b63cbeec59d21a5d36fa10
The minority that are in power right now seem very theocratic. I've lived in the states, I know most aren't like alabama government or like those at the white house. But they represent america now, and the system is rigged against the majority of decent people.
Even in that case it was legal for rape and incest, pretty sure this bill has no such exceptions.
That's not the only path. This despondent feeling is a common feeling on both sides from what I've seen. Only some really pathological people really want everything to a come to a head in a national conflict that would transform everything.
We should we be working towards deescalation through decentralization. The biggest problem with our democracy is how top heavy yet all encompassing government is, it forces this kind of deep political division that must be resolved in a way bordering on violence. It's why modern politics is so destabilizing and mass-based in nature, the latter was liberalism's undoing in the 20s/30s and it still is today.
I'm trying to keep my head above water, much like everyone else I suppose.
The AD&D 2 year payout is actually a thing, my last job drove me to learn that.
Family is basically all that keeps me alive, that and debt.
It's wonderful having like $20k in medical debt to stay alive. Makes you wish you'd never have done it.
Emigration to Canada seems like something, but then again, that costs a lot of money. Can't escape when you're pinned down with debt.
You're not in the wrong for trying to offer support to a random stranger struggling, you're in the right.
Pat Robertson (Highly conservative christian televangelist) says this is going too far
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/05/16/pat-robertson-alabama-abortion-mh-orig.cnn
When you have other conservatives saying you did something stupid it probably is
Statiscally, there's less depression during civil, or real wars.
Your depression will oddly enough, disappear when your life is at threat on a daily basis.
This is something I have noticed too, when people focus predominately only on national or international politics they tend to get very depressed and frustrated or disillusioned with democratic systems of government, but this is mainly because things are very difficult to change on a national or international level. It's better to focus on things closer to home, i.e. a regional/state/local level, because that's where change actually happens, and in fact I'd argue that part of the reason that things aren't changing for the better is that people focus far too much on things like the presidential and congressional elections while almost completely ignoring the local or state-level elections, expecting that the presidency is the most important elected position for deciding their future wellbeing when in reality the state and local elections are far more likely to affect your daily life.
It's also much easier to affect things at a local or state level because so few people actually actively participate that it doesn't require many who actually do participate to change things. Historically it only requires a small percentage of a population, about 10%, to actually believe something in order to change the status quo, because the vast majority of people are very fickle and simply adopt the path of least resistance. An even lower percentage than that (about 3.5%) is actually needed to be actively campaigning for change. With smaller electorates, like towns and cities or even states, as opposed to an entire country, a much smaller number of people makes up a larger percentage of the population. To affect change at a national level, tens of millions of people would need to actively protest for months on end in order to cause enough disruption that the population as a whole would be roused/annoyed enough to support change. And even though many of the protests against Trump's previous acts have been some of the largest protests in American history, it was barely a blip on the radar because there just aren't enough people who can afford to skip work or education in order to join a political rally when most people are struggling to get by as it is.
But it only takes a few thousand people to protest in a large city, a few hundred in a medium-sized town or even a few dozen in a small town hall meeting in order to blow up local news media or even get national attention in some cases. Think about how much news attention the neo-nazi demonstration got in the small city of Charlottesvile, for example, where a few thousand neo-nazis (even though they were outnumbered by tens of thousands of counter-protesters) got international attention for weeks on end while millions of anti government shutdown protesters outside the Whitehouse got barely a mention. Even some political organisations like the NRA use this approach, strategically flying their small number of political operatives to town hall meetings in small, rural towns all across the country in order to make it seem like they have much wider support than they actually do. I've got to say that conservatives in the US are far more effective at this kind of thing.
So, in summary, it IS possible for political change to happen. But in order to do so, it's necessary to break down these wider political aims into smaller achievable, local-level grassroots change. A few dozen people in the right place at the right time is far more effective than tens of millions of people protesting ineffectively on the side of a highway. It's obvious that there are far more people against far-right wing extremism than there are people who support it. Anti-far-right anti-protestors nearly always seem to outnumber far-right protestors at far-right political rallies. But far-right people are far superior when it comes to effective mobilization and issue management. If far-right political activists can affect so much change despite making up such a small fraction of the population, it's quite likely that other, opposing groups can do the same thing. But this lethargic, defeatist attitude that has effectively taken over so much of traditionally left-leaning political discourse make it very difficult to effectively organize an effective response despite superior numbers. Some people may argue that political in-fighting is the main cause of this problem, but in-fighting also exists in far-right political discourse and it doesn't seem to hinder them anyway.
Far-right extremist groups almost always implode or succumb to infighting, and the alt-right is no exception. Many of the groups that made headlines last year (and even this year) have since disbanded. Vanguard America and the Traditionalist Workers Party, who organized the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, both succumbed to internal squabbling, and the Proud Boys effectively disbanded after founder Gavin McInnes quit the group. As a result, no rally has even approached the numbers Charlottesville drew last year.
...
The issue, though, is that while there’s satisfaction and schadenfreude in watching these public flounderings, the alt-right doesn’t have to be visible to succeed. In fact, going underground is a return to the status quo for American white supremacy. For decades, leaders like David Duke have been instructing their followers to blend in to polite society, and then occasionally make oblique calls for lone-wolf terrorist actors. It’s that kind of individual and small-cell violence that’s on the rise in 2018: Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School experienced a massacre at the hands of a radicalized racist student, Oakland’s Nia Wilson was fatally stabbed by a suspected alt-righter; worshipers at a Pittsburgh synagogue were murdered by an anti-Semitic alt-right sympathizer.
There’s a sick rhythm to these acts of violence: The news breaks, reporters scour social media to learn more about the perpetrator, and the next day is awash in stories about the mounting death toll caused by American white supremacy. Hate crime in America is still on the rise, and US law enforcement has found itself woefully ill-equipped to fight (or even understand and report) it.
Besides, even in retreat the alt-right has reshaped our political discourse. Its outsize internet presence (and free signal boosts provided by well-intentioned media) has given such ideas disproportionate weight in First Amendment and immigration debates. Researchers have found that around 11 million Americans have come around to the alt-right way of thinking. To turn on Fox News (especially alt-right favoritesTucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham) is to hear thinly veiled white supremacist talking points presented as news.
The alt-right is ideologically more dangerous the more invisible it gets, because it’s easier to make prejudice palatable when it is presented alongside mainstream conservative ideas. The alt-right may have gone underground physically, but its ideas persist and are being actively normalized—there’s no need to risk walking the streets when presidents and respectable-looking talking heads will spread your ideas for you.
Ok putting to one side that everything you said here is either flat out wrong or ignorant.
Whether or not you think abortion is immoral is completely irrelevant and should in no way impact how other people live their lives. So what if people don't use contraception and get abortions, that's their choice and it should remain an option instead of being forced to bring a child into the world they don't want.
This comes off like an r/incel post from some salty dude who isn't getting any so they invent some dumbass narrative about women happily getting abortions because they can't be bothered to use birth control because it gives you a way to justify controlling how they use their bodies.
Boy it's a good thing that the same people who push these hideous laws aren't also against birth control and accurate sex education etc etc
If I'm going to die without a kidney transplant, you wouldn't have an issue with me just taking yours right? The operation (probably) won't kill you so my sacred and inviolable right to life comes before any silly objections you might have, sound fair?
Do you have this belief due to religious reasons?
I want to see a fucking source for this claim.
That's a lot of concentrated wrong in one post there.
Any chance you're gonna back up this claim or did you just make a big stinking shitpost before running away?
He hasn't been online since he made that post.
Ah, yes, because healthcare and medical procedures in this country are so cheap that it's cheaper to just get abortion after abortion than to invest in birth control or getting their tubes tied.
Laughs in $9200 for literally 2 hours in an ER bed, an IV pack with water, and a CT Scan for what wound up being 'it's just dehydration'.
https://americanpregnancy.org/preventing-pregnancy/birth-control-failure/
this should give you some idea about how flat out wrong you are when it comes to the effectiveness of sterilization methods. A condom by itself has a one in five chance to fail, male or female, and in such a case, do you still think a pregnancy should be brought to term because the preventive measure failed? Even a fucking vasectomy has a 0.15% failure chance for a year after the surgery's done lol, so are they still expected to carry that pregnancy to term because of a <1% chance? Keep your morals out of this, you're not the authority to decide what's moral and what's legal or not.
I really can't imagine believing I should have the right to dictate what other people do with their bodies. Abortions aren't done for fun, and no one enjoys them. They're not a fun thing done frivolously.
Honestly, every person who believes they should have a say over another persons womb should lose the right to their own personal agency in some fashion as a result. Just to demonstrate the deep, deep violation of self that you are willing to inflict on others.
Isn't the vast majority of condom failures due to misuse, not the actual rubber failing?
What difference does that make? In a country where abstinence-only sex education is promoted, widespread condom misuse is inevitable.
Because it's wrong to blame it on the rubber and instead blame it on under-educated?
Because it's wrong to blame the under-educated when our programs strive to keep them under-educated.
Source in 24 or ban
The disturbing thing about coldroll spouting anti-abortion rhetoric is, the far right is trying to restart the argument in Canada.
For all the shit I said (and will gladly still say) about Stephen Harper when he was Prime Minister, even he had the good fucking sense to understand that the overwhelming majority of Canadians do not want to reopen the abortion debate (the only reason to restart the debate is an attempt to ban abortion) and he shut down his rowdy backbenchers.
Right-wing radicalization is on the rise in Canada and I don't like it. Letting the Internet escape the confines of educational institutions was a fucking mistake.
How many of those sources actually mention what you're talking about?
Just mentioning "unintended pregnancy" and "birth control" isn't the same as a source proving that women knowingly avoid birth control because of abortions.
Furthermore, a source saying "providing cheap birth control and education about it reduces abortions" still isn't the same as "women choose abortions rather than birth control". Those sources instead imply ignorance and cost measures rather than willfully shunning birth control due to abortions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.