by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,3672,3682,3692,3702,3712,3722,373. . .2,6342,635»

Great julunaphra

I feel like honestly the partisan divide isn't really going to spiral into an all out civil war, but it is worth noting that these distinctions in what I would believe to be common sense between political parties are impacting the people and providing a hostile, polarized environment for the average American. This is already demonstrated by how teens (myself included) are pushing for social reform that won't be approved by the Republican party, therefore causing a sort of rift between the youth and the current conventional political climate (if that's the right term to use). I know that many people my age look disfavorably upon older generations for their oftentimes more socially conservative views and unwillingness at times to listen to the facts. Of course, my own personal political leanings might be slightly biased seeing as I come from a much more leftist country (Ecuador) and seeing the sort of way the government here in the US is run is sort of... underwhelming, per se (In the way that politicians act in the sole purpose of their own benefit, or their political party, and are almost always unwilling to work together).

Jutsa wrote:I'd make a counterargument and say that, on average, Texas republicans (and democrats) are more conservative than, say, New England republicans (and democrats). While they may be heavily influential in the US, they're also somewhat peculiar.

To be fair... New Englad republicans are also a peculiar subclass of Republicans not necessarily representative of the party as a whole - iirc, Mitt Romney attended a BLM march in 2020 and posted about it on his Twitter, for example (and was viciously flamed by his partymates and constituents for it).

Great julunaphra wrote:I feel like honestly the partisan divide isn't really going to spiral into an all out civil war.

Agreed, I'm certainly no expert but my sense is that the majority of people in positions of power (on the national level) can still be relied upon to prioritize stability over radicalism of any kind because stability pays - civil war does not.

The bad news is that polarization seems to continue increasing anyways, and if I'm right that the federal government won't let it come to a head, then the only alternative will be an increase of authoritarian measures to keep people from fighting each other in the streets (and is that a desirable compromise? i really couldn't say!).

The commies in Vermont and Oregon are complaining that their gender rights are under attack, the fascists in Texas and Indiana are complaining that their freedom of speech is under attack. The American government still commands the largest military force in history and you're nuts if you think it's gonna let something as flighty and unsubstantial as the whims of the American people, be they Texan or Vermonter, upset the Monopoly board.

Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Canaltia, Zerphen, and 3 othersNation of ecologists, Difinbelk, and Great julunaphra

Yeah, fair enough. I sorta forgot that states don't control their own military I guess, so my concerns have officially de-escalated from imminent conflict to concern for the direction society will trend. Fortunately, the latter is a lot easier to influence. Sorry to be melodramatic on the RMB, but I think I'm justified in not wanting a facist regime on our southern border. Guess as annoying as status-quo politics is, it's not the worst.

Einswenn, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Zerphen, and 2 othersNation of ecologists, and Great julunaphra

Rip stats ;-;

Canaltia, Dacay, and Great julunaphra

Hi Forest! Hope y'all are having an amazing day ^_^

Canaltia wrote:
https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6-Permanent-Platform-Committee-FINAL-REPORT-6-16-2022.pdf

They’re just afraid of p*rn (149).

Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Zerphen, Phillip isle, and 2 othersWest Barack and East Obama, and Great julunaphra

Canaltia wrote:-big snip about texas gop platform-

The Texas Republican party is the most influential state republican political party considering Texas is the biggest red state, with Florida being second. A lot of this stuff is going to be reflective of the platforms of other states, and the Republican party as a whole, which is very concerning because on top of the usual insane stuff they have in there (anti-abortion stuff, hyper pro-gun stuff, transphobia and homophobia, etc) there is also some extremely wacko insane stuff in there, a lot of which you have listed. I don't think they will be able to get away with a lot of the stuff they propose, but I do think it is indicative of what they would like to have.

As for how this might impact America's allies, I don't think it bodes well. To my understanding, a lot of right leaning European political parties have moved a lot further to the right due to the influence from America's movement right. While I don't think America will have a civil war, I do think there could be another (possibly successful) coup attempt which would cause all sorts of international instability.

Siornor wrote:Agreed, I'm certainly no expert but my sense is that the majority of people in positions of power (on the national level) can still be relied upon to prioritize stability over radicalism of any kind because stability pays - civil war does not.

The bad news is that polarization seems to continue increasing anyways, and if I'm right that the federal government won't let it come to a head, then the only alternative will be an increase of authoritarian measures to keep people from fighting each other in the streets (and is that a desirable compromise? i really couldn't say!).

The commies in Vermont and Oregon are complaining that their gender rights are under attack, the fascists in Texas and Indiana are complaining that their freedom of speech is under attack. The American government still commands the largest military force in history and you're nuts if you think it's gonna let something as flighty and unsubstantial as the whims of the American people, be they Texan or Vermonter, upset the Monopoly board.

While this may have been true for a while, I fear that as time goes on and more people are radicalized towards the right we will lose the sensibility in politics that currently holds our country together by a thread. We already have a lot of elected officials at the national level who support Qanon conspiracy theories, and many of the people who have been radicalized by those conspiracies are now running for elected offices. On the somewhat bright side, some federal institutions like the FBI and CIA do tend to support the country not burning to bits, since they do support the American neoliberal status-quo, though I don't know how much they would be able to do in the event we have a successful coup attempt.

Einswenn, Ruinenlust, Heidgaudr, Nation of ecologists, and 2 othersDifinbelk, and Great julunaphra

Dacay wrote:Hi Forest! Hope y'all are having an amazing day ^_^

Hi!

Dacay and Great julunaphra

Einswenn wrote:
They’re just afraid of p*rn (149).

I remember a libertarian slogan from a few years ago which played in on this Republican fear: "Keep the Democrats out of our wallets and the Republicans out of our bedrooms"

Einswenn, Siornor, and Great julunaphra

Nation of ecologists

Heidgaudr wrote:This is what stuck out to me. The GOP has officially become QAnon. Almost every single position in the platform is back to either fascist or secessionist rhetoric - sometimes both.

This is what Texas has been recently. Governor Abbott's executive order requiring all parents of trans children to be investigated for child abuse, and the Legislature's recent abortion bill are just further evidence of how far right authoritarian current Republicans are.

Absolutely. They are probably the best barometer for measuring the general sentiment of Republicans in the US. They say what the national GOP wants to say, but would be political suicide to. It's actually incredible how overt they are in their beliefs - no dog whistles required anymore, I guess.

Yeah, you're pretty much right. This is just the Republican Party platform at this point, ever since Trump was elected the party drifted hard to the right and I don't see it coming back. It was pretty predictable given the general right-wing populist surge in the 2010s, and especially predictable given that American politics are usually at least 5x more right-leaning than your average country. Pretty much all state Republican parties (save for the New England and maybe the California ones) are going to adopt a platform more or less similar to this one and will cement the GOP's place in the right-wing to far-right area of politics.

I think another big issue is that the Democrats don't seem to be nearly as scared by these platforms as they should be, and I think it's because they know that a lot of people are going to vote for them just to keep the literal f*cking fascists out of power, even though this probably won't even work in most red states. This is why I really don't like 2-party politics, because you get situations where one is on the far-right and the other party is a moderate liberal coalition of generally left-leaning people who range from being third way neoliberals to left-wing populists. The fact that the state government gets to draw electoral districts doesn't help either, given that they basically get to guarantee themselves unlimited terms if a massive change in state politics doesn't occur.

Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Zerphen, Heidgaudr, and 1 otherGreat julunaphra

As soon as the Resistance movement has gathered enough power, the latest events of local student gatherings evolved into unprecedented national unity. Various social groups chaotically filled the streets of largest cities of Einswenn on the Eve of Summer Solstice, locally known as Medsommar. Every capital of each province randomly elected their moderators and organised national elections the way it has never been done before.

    "We just felt it, we knew it's time to stop Eivart Rriu from his autocratic actions. Some of our leaders decided to call it a temporary government of his because now, right before the Midsommar, it would be the end of Einset traditional presidential term we used to have before. So now it's done, Rriu has reached the end of his not-so-legitimate term and we choose someone else." ― Felis Mataim, a student activist at Keepenhest State University.

There were various candidates in the run, sometimes the event went too messy. For example, the people of Engam-e Ritsen have proposed an Einset singer Catheline who represented Einswenn in NS Eurovision 2022 to be their candidate, while other district had no such name on their ballot. However, the Top-3 of most voted politicians in all of the provinces were Sanië Surroi (the most prominent Resistance figure), Jorden Frey (one of the former presidents of Einswenn), and Markove Rogelan (an eccentric governor from Einset Dominion - the colonial land of Einswenn in Southern Forest). All of them, including Cathelina, were happening to be travelling to Europe to attend The Oriental Empire's Midsummer Masquerade.

    "It was hard to choose between them. Sanië is the most promising woman in modern Einset politics but she could be too radical, not much of a change comparing to Rriu, just with less nationalistic nonsense. Mr. Frey is a well-known nationalist but in a better way than Eivart. However, he doesn't seem to be interested in running again, it's the people who chose him. And Mr. Rogelan is just a clown who would make this term fun and I bet he would make Einswenn even more corrupt than it is now because top corporations of our nation invest a lot in the colony of Einset Dominion" ― Are Samberveik, a school teacher from Ostar Village.

As The Midsummer Masquerade lasts, Einseters seem to have decided on who is going to be their next leader. It is yet to see if Sanië Surroi is aware that she became the new icon for inspired circles of what the press now calls The New Politics. Eivar Rriu has been unreachable for the past few days so there were no comments from his Office so far, as well as there are no sign of life in EINSAR Headquarters. Some less optimistic activists are now worried if their autocratic leader prepares to counter-attack or rather just fled the country to avoid justice. Whatever it is, the National Halls are empty and the government went literally nonexistent.

Cameroi, Siornor, Jutsa, Uan aa Boa, and 7 othersThe Oriental Empire, Northern Wood, Rakavo, Nation of ecologists, Skelleftella, Brantanaria, and Great julunaphra

Canaltia wrote:I'm not from the states, so I'm not too sure how this stuff works, so I guess I'm looking for assurance that we (as NATO countries) aren't about to get pulled into an American civil war... I'm really hoping this isn't as big a deal as it seems to be. Because this seems like a threat to international stability from where I'm sitting.

Most state and local political platforms have a tenancy to be a bit extreme (on both sides)... they know most of it is not realistic. The bulk of this ties back to federal overreach. Traditionally, issues that were not expressly granted to the federal government by the constitution were to be left to the states. In recent years the federal government has increasingly stepped on the state's toes and stuck their nose in the state's business. Most states don't particularly like this (depending on which party is in control at the federal level... ex; CA is happy now, TX is not. a few years ago it was the other way when Trump was President). Never the less Texas tends to dislike this more than most any other state. Basically the states don't want anyone else telling them what to do.

Yes, Texas reserves the right to secede from the Union (the only state that has this right). No, that isn't likely to actually happen. If it does, I don't see it upending international stability. I'm not quite sure what would actually happen (other than a mass migration to Texas from other parts of the US) but I really don't think a civil war would happen. I would see it being more akin to the UK leaving the EU.

EDIT: I don't have time to read the entire platform.

Siornor, Jutsa, Ownzone, Canaltia, and 2 othersNation of ecologists, and Great julunaphra

It's day 120 of Putin's 3-day Special Military Operation and Ukraine has received EU candidate status, which Russia did not invade specifically to prevent.

Jutsa, Canaltia, Kase, West Barack and East Obama, and 2 othersBrantanaria, and Great julunaphra

Canaltia wrote:Why is that allowed? Don't y'all have an amendment against unreasonable search and seizure? Like, I could maybe understand if it was, say, suicide stemming from untreated gender dysphoria or something, but even that is an overreach. If someone suggested investigating all parents of children with ADHD (which has some environmental influences actually indicitive of an unsafe home) for child abuse, they'd be laughed out of the room. I guess we're still running with the "transgenderism happens when the parents give their son a doll" nonsense.

It probably is unconstitutional, on both privacy and 14th amendment grounds. It's being challenged in court, and I don't think anyone expects it to stand.

[quote] Gonna be honest, that's maybe the last thing I wanted to hear. I was hoping it was just a half-dozen people that were put in charge of writing a document that should've been left to someone else. [/quote]

Don't worry about it, the state party platforms tend to just be a wishlist for the most radical elements of them. Provisions are almost never voted down when they are proposed, so whatever the craziest people in the room propose tends to wind up in them. Couple that with the fact that state parties can get away with a lot more crazy than the federal parties can and you have a recipe for lunacy.

Siornor, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Zerphen, and 2 othersNation of ecologists, and Great julunaphra

Regarding the Texas GOP platform and whatnot, I don't know that it's such a bad thing for these things to be increasingly blatant and out in the open. While there are a few ideas of the Republican Party that majorities of the American people agree with (e.g. elements of their immigration policies, the general "law and order" vibe, reluctance towards acceptance of transgender people, etc.), there are other elements that they are squarely out of step with what the American people want (e.g. abortion restrictions, gay marriage, gun control, the Trump-era conspiracies like "stop the steal," etc.). So if the Democrats could actually stay on message and nail the GOP to the cross over the particularly unpopular parts, they could get it into the heads of low-information voters that "GOP = wacky."

One of the main problems I see in the current landscape of American politics is that each party is playing a different game, and that things work differently in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. In general, the Democrats benefit from having larger numbers, having individual policies that majorities tend to agree with, and to appeal to groups within society that ought to expand over time, like young people. They've chosen the winning side on things like LGBT issues, the environment, the legalization of weed, etc. At the same time, the Republicans also have advantages: they appeal to people who tend to vote more consistently (i.e. older people), they are better at staying on message and operating with a homogenous identity, and they are seasoned veterans of the culture wars, and are much better at creating issues where they don't exist and controlling the narrative (e.g. critical race theory, the elusive transgender athletes, and increasingly just outright conspiracy theories, like "stop the steal"). Furthermore, they benefit from being geographically well distributed, and from happening to be in the right places in the right numbers to punch above their weight via mechanisms like the Senate (and consequently the federal judiciary and Supreme Court), the Electoral College (and consequently the presidency and Executive Branch), and via gerrymandering for state governments (and consequently for the House of Representatives).

So we're in this weird sort of pseudo-stalemate in which the Republicans manage to control one or both branches of the legislature, many of the state governments (since the average state is smallish and rural-ish), and where they are competitive nationwide, except for the states that are urban or in the Northeast. And they can appeal to larger numbers of people than those who actually agree with everything hook, line, and sinker, because they are much better than the Democrats at convincing you that group X is bad and evil and wants to destroy YOUR America and make YOUR kids into this or that terrible thing. By contrast, the Democrats are more numerous and have more winning ideas, but they are concentrated in cities, and so are not really competitive in the majority of the states. Also, they are a coalition of diverse groups to a much greater extent than the Republicans, and so tend to scatter their energies into many different directions and into "niche" interests, for lack of a better term. Things are becoming more homogenized, and there is a group of (mostly younger, mostly white, mostly well-educated) true progressives who tend to check all of the boxes, but the reality is that "defund the police" just doesn't fly. It doesn't win elections. Same thing for the most progressive opinions on transgender issues, which are canon in liberal circles, but which are simply foreign and seem to be contrived to a large majority of Americans at large. As a whole, the country simply does not have a good opinion of the Black Lives Matter movement, despite whatever merits there are to the movement in itself. But to the extent that the Republican propaganda machines can blare constantly about the extreme left wing fringe, and most Democratic politicians don't speak out and openly tack to the center in many cases for fear of incurring the wrath of progressive activists, the Democrats get painted as something they aren't, and tend to punch below their weight.

And this is part of the problem: in a country where the average person is neither a BLM activist nor a Proud Boy seditionist, and neither a preferred pronoun advocate nor an anti-abortion warrior, there is no party that makes good sense. It's always a contest between Option Bad and Option Worse. And increasingly, absolute adherence to the party orthodoxy is demanded by the loudest fringes on the extreme left and extreme right, so that any sort of nuance or going against the party line makes one a RINO/DINO/closet liberal/closet conservative/traitor/softie/Satanist/etc. But the fact remains that a large, healthy majority of the American public are not behind "stop the steal," and nor are they in favor of saying, "birthing person" instead of "mother." I'm not saying that these things are equivalents, or that people have properly assessed things, or that some of the extreme positions don't have merit, but simply that they are outside of what the average American is willing to go for.

(^And again, I just want to say that I'm making these observations in the most clinical and objective way that I can; I'm not trying to let my own preferences or ideas go into the assessment. While I do not hold uniformly-liberal ideas, most in our community will know already that I tend to come down on the liberal side of many issues, and more long-time Forestians will know that I also have some rather radical ideas well outside of the entire mainstream of thoughts (like my fairly iconoclastic view that the human population is simply far too high and that people should stop having kids or stop at one or two at most). Nor am I trying to imply that objecting to use of a word or term for something is equivalent to trying to overthrow the government. I'm just trying to point out that there are sizable numbers of people who are motivated by these things and vote accordingly, and that's the way it is, for the time being.)

Also, Texas cannot secede from the United States. That was settled with the Civil War. Texas may "reserve the right" to secede, but I also "reserve the right" to declare myself as the Fabulous Eternal Dictator of North America and the Moon (the FEDNAM, for short, so get your mandatory forehead tattoos ready for when I take over), so...

And, if Texas were to try such a thing, they'd be in for a very rude awakening. I love people are like "but we need our guns in case the government tries to take over." So, who is in charge now? Not the government? And you've got a shotgun or an AR-15 and the government has...tactical nukes, fighter jets, nuclear-powered submarines, aircraft carriers, and a standing army. Oh, yeah, good that you have your gun. I see it now. *where's the liquor? or maybe the edibles?*

Uan aa Boa, Zerphen, Nation of ecologists, Kase, and 3 othersWest Barack and East Obama, Brantanaria, and Great julunaphra

welp, Roe v Wade is overturned. I'm curious if Jews and other religions which mandate abortions will still be allowed them, or if it will remain banned in those states without exception.

Siornor, Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, and 6 othersCanaltia, Nation of ecologists, Difinbelk, West Barack and East Obama, Brantanaria, and Great julunaphra

Rhodevus wrote:welp, Roe v Wade is overturned. I'm curious if Jews and other religions which mandate abortions will still be allowed them, or if it will remain banned in those states without exception.

Fantastic idea for all you Americans: say that your religious denomination guarantees you the right to get an abortion, and voila! You're back to having your basic reproductive rights.

Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Canaltia, and 4 othersNation of ecologists, Difinbelk, Berlin and Hanover, and Great julunaphra

Rhodevus wrote:welp, Roe v Wade is overturned. I'm curious if Jews and other religions which mandate abortions will still be allowed them, or if it will remain banned in those states without exception.

I think that jews will be allowed, other religions idk but my guess is those won't

Ruinenlust and Great julunaphra

Not a Forestian, but I would like to suggest that The Handmaid's Tale be added to the book list. Feels appropriate after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Brantanaria wrote:Not a Forestian, but I would like to suggest that The Handmaid's Tale be added to the book list. Feels appropriate after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

ooh, definitely a good choice. Margaret Atwood took inspiration for the book from the rise in religious movements, particularly in Iran in the 1970s, and the United States in the 70s and 80s.

Great julunaphra

Rhodevus wrote:welp, Roe v Wade is overturned. I'm curious if Jews and other religions which mandate abortions will still be allowed them, or if it will remain banned in those states without exception.

shows the f*cked up state our country is in right now, can't believe that just because of the politcal views of an individual party, women's basic reproductive rights are stolen. at least some states will still allow abortions, and since most abortions are performed with two pills, many people could ask to have them inconspicuously mailed to them from those states.

I just endorsed everyone who ranked at least in the top 5% for eco-friendliness, weather, and environmental beauty (because those are my goals)
Damn that was painful!

Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, Kase, and 2 othersBerlin and Hanover, and Great julunaphra

On the amendment amendment - how about it may] be triggered by significant interest, and must be triggered by max(5. 5%). That avoids giving the governmentthe power to block an amendment by deciding there isn't sufficient interest.

Siornor, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Difinbelk, and 1 otherGreat julunaphra

Rhodevus wrote:welp, Roe v Wade is overturned.

Oh boy. I'd like to say my peace about this, but I think my opinions on abortion are probably the most controversial ones I hold, so to explain what my issue with this is, I'm going to have to do quite a bit of talking. I'll spoiler it and then tl:dr at the end, so hopefully it won't be too egrigous.

Right. So I consider myself both pro-choice and pro-life. That is straight up contradictory, so I'd like to broaden the pro-choice definition to be the right to choose wether or not to be a parent or even to give birth, rather than just the choice to get an abortion. I'll touch on it in a bit, but I feel like this makes it no longer contradictory. I've done a lot of thinking about this, because being pro-life sticks out like a sore thumb next to all of my other political beliefs.

I'd like to first give my reasoning for being pro-life, which I think is also very important. In the past, I've written about how I think that what makes someone human is the potential for self-awareness, because I believe self-awareness to be uniquely human, but if you were to just say self-awareness, that excludes toddlers, people in comas, and a few other groups that I think should still be considered humans, otherwise some pretty awful stuff can no longer be excluded on any argument of humanity. I'd rather avoid that entirely. However, this definition also includes fetuses. As such, I believe it to be an extension of my position against murder to be against abortion.

I'd also like to acknowledge that this point, even though it is backed through an objective line of reason, it's still a subjective opinion, it's just what I feel like is the most correct. I could also argue that under this definition, any gamete is a human because it can reproduce to reach this standard, or if I wanted to get really abstract, that individual carbon-based molecules have the potential for self awareness if they are used to produce said gametes. I don't, because I think that that's a stupid argument to make, but I digress. The same goes for the other side. The best I can think of is that because the fetus is both attached to another entity and incapable of self-awareness, it is not a seperate being yet, though I'm not comfortable at drawing the line at the detachment of the umbilical cord. Regardless, if I wanted to, I have no doubt that I could tweak my definition of a human to exclude a fetus. It'd just be a betrayel of my intuitive and learned beliefs, which are still subjective, but real regardless.

Despite my beliefs about what defines a human, I still consider myself pro-choice for one simple reason: No one wants to get an abortion, it's just the best avaliable remedy to a situation. If someone goes out of their way to get pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion, that's kinda weird and a bit psycopathic in my opinion, but I don't think that ever happens anyways. Because of this, I think the root issue isn't abortion itself, it's the conditions that lead people to get abortions. I'm absolutely in favour of women's (+trans and intersex, but I'm just going to use "women" for brevity) reproductive rights, but I'm still not in favor of abortion for the reasons above. I don't think these views conflict.

However, I have issues with the pro-life crowd, which I believe are more anti-choice than pro-life. Rather than engage with these issues intellectually, a lot of pro-life rhetoric is just emotionally manipulative. There's a lot "would you feel comfortable murdering [picture of third trimester fetus]" stuff, meaningless benchmarking (i.e. heartbeat at 8 weeks stuff, which I'm pretty sure isn't even true), and straight up shock photos. None of that is helpful, and it's just meant to create outrage. Then there's the outright vilifying of those who are pro-choice, especially if they've had an abortion. I fail to see how calling people murderers is going to win them over, especially because the decision to get an abortion is often a pretty hard decision to make. As I've said, no one wants to get an abortion, it's just preferable to the alternative.

The main reason I think it's more anti-choice than pro-life is that the same crowd puts very little importance into the lives of anyone that isn't a fetus. You can't just ban abortion and call it a day. A child born into a home (or lack thereof) incapable for caring for them is going to either be neglected (or outright abused), or thrown into the woefully undersupported fostercare system, which can, and will, mess a child up permanantly. Not to mention the strain that can be put on the parent(s). Raising a child is so expensive and time-consuming, and can literally ruin someone's life if they are not prepared for it. Financial distress, social stigma, and unsupportive parents are all pretty terrible things. How many stories are there of teens getting pregnant then getting disowned? And then after all of that, there's a lot of health issues that can befall both the parent and child.

I'm going to gatekeep here a bit, and say that anyone who is pro-life should also be concerned about these issues, and willing to remedy them. Free (or even just affordable) contraceptives and pre/post-natal care can remedy a lot of health issues. Comprehensive sex education and a crackdown on the social stigmas around sex would go a long way. Teaching consent and putting less pressure on boys to be romantically active as well. Hell, make raising a child a paid job, or better yet, impliment a universal basic income. Put more resources towards foster care, and give better incentives for adoption. Also let non-straight cisgender couples adopt, that'd be pretty great. If the circumstances require it, I'd even be in favor of state-funded artificial wombs, where a fetus can be surgically removed and grown in some kinda vat or something. When all of the factors leading people to get abortions are aleviated, then, and only then, can abortion be banned in my opinion. This is an attitude that is woefully lacking in pro-life circles. A lot of them seem more concerned about punishing people for daring to have sex.

Even if I think it's wrong, abortion is kinda necessary to allow for reproductive rights and autonomy, which I think is good. So instead of wrapping everything up in politics and vilifying the other side of the argument (admittedly, calling someone a murderer is definately worse than sexist, so pro-life has a lot more to work on), I'd rather work towards ensuring reproductive rights without abortion being necessary, which is a win-win (unless you want to punish people you don't like, but I'm fine with that stance losing). Really, I think this is a completely unnecessary conflict, and banning abortion will just lead to the worst possible outcome.

Making it illegal isn't going to stop abortions, it's just going to make safe ones harder to come by. Fetuses aren't exactly robust, but anything that can harm a fetus can harm an adult in excessive amounts. Not to mention the mess it will be if miscarriages start getting investigated as murders, that'd be super dystopian (especially since pro-lifers tend to support the death penelty for murder). But the people in power rarely ever care about their constituent's wellbeings above their own, so I doubt they will start now, and nothing to alleviate the circumstances will happen systemically. I'd be surprised if abortions were still allowed in some states a month from now, and I'd guess it's about 6 months until a lot of people start getting arrested. Either that, or a new Row v. Wade will happen, and we'll be back to square one, only more polarized and angry.

Hopefully my point is well substantiated here, and I don't sound like a flaming mysoginist or anything. Women deserve the right to choose, but that choice needs to be better integrated. Preventative care is better than prescriptive and all that.

Tl;dr: I don't think pro-life and pro-choice are mutually exclusive and this is bad for both of them anyways. Please don't quote edit me into oblivion.

West Barack and East Obama wrote:Fantastic idea for all you Americans: say that your religious denomination guarantees you the right to get an abortion, and voila! You're back to having your basic reproductive rights.

Didn't the Satanists unironically do that in Texas? This may actually be a valid solution if that went well for them.

Jutsa, Mount Seymour, Isbjorn Maerenne Bava Paerani, Ruinenlust, and 8 othersUan aa Boa, The void territories, Northern Wood, Zerphen, Nation of ecologists, Difinbelk, Brantanaria, and Great julunaphra

^If you believe that people have the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion for themselves, regardless of your own personal beliefs, then you are pro-choice. Regardless of the nitty-gritty, of if you yourself would get an abortion, or if you personally think it's wrong or not to get an abortion, it's still allowing for a choice, therefore pro-choice.

Pro-life was never really about being in favour of life, because if it was, then the same people who are 'pro-life' would also be in favour of better healthcare, maternity/paternity leave, daycare, vaccinations, sex education (abstinence only is not good sex education) and plenty of other services which can and do help new parents.

Cameroi, Einswenn, Frieden-und Freudenland, Jutsa, and 9 othersMount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, Zerphen, Nation of ecologists, Difinbelk, Phillip isle, Brantanaria, and Great julunaphra

«12. . .2,3672,3682,3692,3702,3712,3722,373. . .2,6342,635»

Advertisement