American Politics XI: No Moe Roe(Likely, Anyway)

[Senkaku]

...what I'm reading here is that 88% of women would be against a complete ban? Try all you like to fudge the numbers, but polling consistently shows huge majorities of Americans wanted to keep Roe around and don't want to ban abortion.

nevermind the fact anybody's desire to keep roe has fuck all to do with whether roe should be kept, you're the one fudging numbers.

What numbers am I fudging? "Legal under some circumstances" is a long way of saying "legal"-- the circumstances each respondent thinks are appropriate are presumably too varied to be captured by the poll, so we're looking at a plurality saying legal under any circumstances, and almost everyone else, except for a small group of hardliners, saying they think it shouldn't be banned even if they support some program of restriction. Even if you say three quarters of that middle 45% have such restrictive views that they basically want it banned (which you certainly haven't quantified), that still leaves you with a sizable majority in favor of keeping it legal. I have no idea how you could interpret these numbers as the country being divided on whether or not to ban abortion, much less as women broadly supporting your position.

As for whether the will of the people should have anything to do with the laws they're governed by, I think you and I have some irreconcilable differences of the heart on that matter.

[American Legionaries]

nevermind the fact anybody's desire to keep roe has fuck all to do with whether roe should be kept, you're the one fudging numbers.

What numbers am I fudging? "Legal under some circumstances" is a long way of saying "legal"-- the circumstances each respondent thinks are appropriate are presumably too varied to be captured by the poll, so we're looking at a plurality saying legal under any circumstances, and almost everyone else, except for a small group of hardliners, saying they think it shouldn't be banned even if they support some program of restriction. Even if you say three quarters of that middle 45% have such restrictive views that they basically want it banned (which you certainly haven't quantified), that still leaves you with a sizable majority in favor of keeping it legal. I have no idea how you could interpret these numbers as the country being divided on whether or not to ban abortion, much less as women broadly supporting your position.

As for whether the will of the people should have anything to do with the laws they're governed by, I think you and I have some irreconcilable differences of the heart on that matter.

The point it appears Tarsonis was making is that beliefs on abortion track closely between genders. The narrative that pro-life movements are the will of men who are unaffected by the laws pushing pro-life stances upon women who are opposed to them is simply untrue.

[Tarsonis]

nevermind the fact anybody's desire to keep roe has fuck all to do with whether roe should be kept, you're the one fudging numbers.

What numbers am I fudging? "Legal under some circumstances" is a long way of saying "legal"-- the circumstances each respondent thinks are appropriate are presumably too varied to be captured by the poll, so we're looking at a plurality saying legal under any circumstances, and almost everyone else, except for a small group of hardliners, saying they think it shouldn't be banned even if they support some program of restriction. Even if you say three quarters of that middle 45% have such restrictive views that they basically want it banned (which you certainly haven't quantified), that still leaves you with a sizable majority in favor of keeping it legal. I have no idea how you could interpret these numbers as the country being divided on whether or not to ban abortion, much less as women broadly supporting your position.

As for whether the will of the people should have anything to do with the laws they're governed by, I think you and I have some irreconcilable differences of the heart on that matter.

As usual you misunderstand completely. With regard to the numbers AL summed it up nicely:

The point it appears Tarsonis was making is that beliefs on abortion track closely between genders. The narrative that pro-life movements are the will of men who are unaffected by the laws pushing pro-life stances upon women who are opposed to them is simply untrue.

You're trying to twist the numbers to show broad gender stratification between women being completely for it, and men being against it. That simply isn't the case. As the data shows the stratification on the issue is more or less equal between the genders with men leaning more toward being against it, and women leaning more toward being for it. The narrative you're spinning thus doesn't match up with the data at hand.


As for the say in the law, again you misunderstand the issue. The people absolutely should have a say in the Laws, but that is the purview of the legislature.. Roe is not a piece of legislation, it is a judicial decision. The people do not get a say (at least not as directly) in this regard, because the judicial decisions aren't determined by popular will. It doesn't matter if Roe had 100% popular support. What matters is "did the Court interpret the Constitution correctly in deciding the case of Roe v. Wade?" The answer as determined now, (and frankly as legal scholars have known, but always tried to avoid admitting) is not really no.

So now the issue is back before the legislature, where the people have their say. It may not happen immediately, and it might take a long drawn out fight over many election cycles, but as you pointed out popular support is on your side. Ultimately, I'm pretty confident that the pro-choice side will win the day.

[Ifreann]

That there are pro-life women is obviously true but hardly relevant to anything. That doesn't change the misogynistic character of the pro-life movement.

[Punished UMN]

Take it to the designated abortion containment thread

[Maricarland]

The U.S. Constitution is vastly outdated and should be trashed.

Some of the changes needed:

* Making it easier to amend, and providing an option for a referendum to amend the Constitution. It should not be easy to amend the Constitution, but we should be able to get at least one amendment every 2-3 years or so.
* Eliminating the electoral college
* Eliminating the Senate or weakening the Senate
* Weakening the Supreme Court
* Ranked Choice Voting and Multi-Member Districts
* Enshrining marriage right, abortion rights, privacy rights, etc...
* Enshrining a right to food, housing, healthcare, clothing, employment, etc...
* Banning the death penalty and lifetime incarceration or incarceration longer than 20 years
* Enshrining labor rights
* Getting money out of politics and anti-corruption regulations
* Voting right protections
* and so on...

[Maricarland]

The deeper reason the anti-abortion movements are against abortion is because they want more children to be their workers, soldiers, tools, and sexual abuse victims.

[Tarsonis]

Take it to the designated abortion containment thread

With RvW being overturned, the issue of abortion is not only relevant to American Politics, but currently forefront. Sorry, my friend, but you're gonna have to endure it the same as the rest of us.

[The Jamesian Republic]

The U.S. Constitution is vastly outdated and should be trashed.

Some of the changes needed:

* Making it easier to amend, and providing an option for a referendum to amend the Constitution. It should not be easy to amend the Constitution, but we should be able to get at least one amendment every 2-3 years or so.
* Eliminating the electoral college
* Eliminating the Senate or weakening the Senate
* Weakening the Supreme Court
* Ranked Choice Voting and Multi-Member Districts
* Enshrining marriage right, abortion rights, privacy rights, etc...
* Enshrining a right to food, housing, healthcare, clothing, employment, etc...
* Banning the death penalty and lifetime incarceration or incarceration longer than 20 years
* Enshrining labor rights
* Getting money out of politics and anti-corruption regulations
* Voting right protections
* and so on...

Based but it will be impossible unfortunately.

[Second Republic of Cuba]

The deeper reason the anti-abortion movements are against abortion is because they want more children to be their workers, soldiers, tools, and sexual abuse victims.

No, it’s definitely more to do with religion.

Not this unsubstantiated fruitiness.

[Second Republic of Cuba]

* Banning the death penalty and lifetime incarceration or incarceration longer than 20 years...

This is just ridiculous.

How can a murderer have a sentence of only twenty years?

[Punished UMN]

Take it to the designated abortion containment thread

With RvW being overturned, the issue of abortion is not only relevant to American Politics, but currently forefront. Sorry, my friend, but you're gonna have to endure it the same as the rest of us.

Sure, but there's literally nothing new that can be said of the issue, it's unbelievably boring to discuss and only serves to be morally outraged on the part of everyone. No one is ever convinced by anything discussed in the abortion argument because every possible argument has been made a million times over the 50 plus years it's been a major American political issue. I don't see the point of discussing it.

[Tarsonis]

The U.S. Constitution is vastly outdated and should be trashed.

Some of the changes needed:

* Making it easier to amend, and providing an option for a referendum to amend the Constitution. It should not be easy to amend the Constitution, but we should be able to get at least one amendment every 2-3 years or so.
* Eliminating the electoral college
* Eliminating the Senate or weakening the Senate
* Weakening the Supreme Court
* Ranked Choice Voting and Multi-Member Districts
* Enshrining marriage right, abortion rights, privacy rights, etc...
* Enshrining a right to food, housing, healthcare, clothing, employment, etc...
* Banning the death penalty and lifetime incarceration or incarceration longer than 20 years
* Enshrining labor rights
* Getting money out of politics and anti-corruption regulations
* Voting right protections
* and so on...

Translation: "The Constitution is a barrier to me getting what I want, and thus must be removed." That mentality is exactly why it's so hard to remove, and so hard to change. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

[Tarsonis]

The deeper reason the anti-abortion movements are against abortion is because they want more children to be their workers, soldiers, tools, and sexual abuse victims.

Nothing like like shooting yourself in the foot to spite your face. Espewing dogmatic nonsense like that only makes people less likely to side with you.

[Maricarland]

The deeper reason the anti-abortion movements are against abortion is because they want more children to be their workers, soldiers, tools, and sexual abuse victims.

No, it’s definitely more to do with religion.

Not this unsubstantiated fruitiness.

There is a major religious component to it (even though the Christian Bible does not condemn abortion, but actually demands it in parts). The generally surface level reasoning is religious. However, looking at the deeper psychology of conservatism and the history of anti-abortion movements, it is clear that there is a deeper reasoning that is a sub-conscious current in the movement, and that is they want more workers, soldiers, human tools, and children to victimize.

[Tarsonis]

* Banning the death penalty and lifetime incarceration or incarceration longer than 20 years...

This is just ridiculous.

How can a murderer have a sentence of only twenty years?

I'm acquainted with a man who killed another man in a bar fight at 16. Is the life sentence without parol really justified? I won't tell you the ethnicity of this man, but it shouldn't be hard to guess.

[Maricarland]

The U.S. Constitution is vastly outdated and should be trashed.

Some of the changes needed:

* Making it easier to amend, and providing an option for a referendum to amend the Constitution. It should not be easy to amend the Constitution, but we should be able to get at least one amendment every 2-3 years or so.
* Eliminating the electoral college
* Eliminating the Senate or weakening the Senate
* Weakening the Supreme Court
* Ranked Choice Voting and Multi-Member Districts
* Enshrining marriage right, abortion rights, privacy rights, etc...
* Enshrining a right to food, housing, healthcare, clothing, employment, etc...
* Banning the death penalty and lifetime incarceration or incarceration longer than 20 years
* Enshrining labor rights
* Getting money out of politics and anti-corruption regulations
* Voting right protections
* and so on...

Translation: "The Constitution is a barrier to me getting what I want, and thus must be removed." That mentality is exactly why it's so hard to remove, and so hard to change. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Most countries get regular amendments to their Constitutions or new Constitutions every so often. We don't. Many Countries have already enshrined some or all of what I wrote. I did not put in every policy I want, only the things I think should be foundational to a society, which is what a Constitution is supposed to be, the foundation.

[Maricarland]

* Banning the death penalty and lifetime incarceration or incarceration longer than 20 years...

This is just ridiculous.

How can a murderer have a sentence of only twenty years?

Ask Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, and several other coutnries.

[Senkaku]

What numbers am I fudging? "Legal under some circumstances" is a long way of saying "legal"-- the circumstances each respondent thinks are appropriate are presumably too varied to be captured by the poll, so we're looking at a plurality saying legal under any circumstances, and almost everyone else, except for a small group of hardliners, saying they think it shouldn't be banned even if they support some program of restriction. Even if you say three quarters of that middle 45% have such restrictive views that they basically want it banned (which you certainly haven't quantified), that still leaves you with a sizable majority in favor of keeping it legal. I have no idea how you could interpret these numbers as the country being divided on whether or not to ban abortion, much less as women broadly supporting your position.

As for whether the will of the people should have anything to do with the laws they're governed by, I think you and I have some irreconcilable differences of the heart on that matter.

The point it appears Tarsonis was making is that beliefs on abortion track closely between genders. The narrative that pro-life movements are the will of men who are unaffected by the laws pushing pro-life stances upon women who are opposed to them is simply untrue.

You're trying to twist the numbers to show broad gender stratification between women being completely for it, and men being against it.

No, I'm just pointing out the numbers clearly show that women are broadly against a complete ban (as are men, by the way), not that women are completely for unrestricted abortion and men are generally in favor of complete bans. Wanting to protect the right to abortion under more limited circumstances is still ultimately wanting to protect the right to abortion, and the numbers show broad majorities of both sexes don't support a complete ban. Framing it as women being "just as divided as men" is grammatically accurate, I suppose, but it implicitly represents both groups as being meaningfully divided on the issue... which the numbers show they really aren't.

As for the say in the law, again you misunderstand the issue. The people absolutely should have a say in the Laws, but that is the purview of the legislature..

So now the issue is back before the legislature, where the people have their say.

Do you think the actions of the American legislature typically represent the will of the people?

It may not happen immediately, and it might take a long drawn out fight over many election cycles, but as you pointed out popular support is on your side.

Why should people tolerate a "long drawn-out fight over many election cycles" to secure a right that broad majorities agree should be protected?

Ultimately, I'm pretty confident that the pro-choice side will win the day.

Why? Looking at the political forces aligned alongside the anti-choice movement, what gives you confidence that pro-choice elements will be able to organize and overcome them in the short or long term? What has the political reaction to this decision been? What trajectory is American democracy on?

[Tarsonis]

No, it’s definitely more to do with religion.

Not this unsubstantiated fruitiness.

There is a major religious component to it (even though the Christian Bible does not condemn abortion, but actually demands it in parts).

False. Already been refuted. Stop spreading false information.

The generally surface level reasoning is religious. However, looking at the deeper psychology of conservatism and the history of anti-abortion movements, it is clear that there is a deeper reasoning that is a sub-conscious current in the movement, and that is they want more workers, soldiers, human tools, and children to victimize.

Clear in your wildest first year psych student jam sessions maybe.

[Senkaku]

The generally surface level reasoning is religious. However, looking at the deeper psychology of conservatism and the history of anti-abortion movements, it is clear that there is a deeper reasoning that is a sub-conscious current in the movement, and that is they want more workers, soldiers, human tools, and children to victimize.

Clear in your wildest first year psych student jam sessions maybe.

Alito literally references the "domestic infant supply" in the fucking decision.

[The Jamesian Republic]

How possible would it be to add self defense into the American PE curriculum?

[Tarsonis]

Translation: "The Constitution is a barrier to me getting what I want, and thus must be removed." That mentality is exactly why it's so hard to remove, and so hard to change. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Most countries get regular amendments to their Constitutions or new Constitutions every so often. We don't. Many Countries have already enshrined some or all of what I wrote. I did not put in every policy I want, only the things I think should be foundational to a society, which is what a Constitution is supposed to be, the foundation.

So call your representatives, and get them to try and introduce some. We don't get Amendments, because we don't agree on them, not because the mechanic isn't there. It would also help of the amendments that get proposed are actually substantive and aren't some inane thing like Banning flag burning.

Work the problem. it's easier to throw rocks at a house than build one.

[Mettaton-EX]

The U.S. Constitution is vastly outdated and should be trashed.

Some of the changes needed:

* Making it easier to amend, and providing an option for a referendum to amend the Constitution. It should not be easy to amend the Constitution, but we should be able to get at least one amendment every 2-3 years or so.
* Eliminating the electoral college
* Eliminating the Senate or weakening the Senate
* Weakening the Supreme Court
* Ranked Choice Voting and Multi-Member Districts
* Enshrining marriage right, abortion rights, privacy rights, etc...
* Enshrining a right to food, housing, healthcare, clothing, employment, etc...
* Banning the death penalty and lifetime incarceration or incarceration longer than 20 years
* Enshrining labor rights
* Getting money out of politics and anti-corruption regulations
* Voting right protections
* and so on...

abolish the states altogether tbh. all their functions can be served better by either the federal government or smaller local governments

* Banning the death penalty and lifetime incarceration or incarceration longer than 20 years...

This is just ridiculous.

How can a murderer have a sentence of only twenty years?

arguably nobody over twenty is the same person they were twenty years ago. kind of an arbitrary line though

[Shrillland]

How possible would it be to add self defense into the American PE curriculum?

Well, there is no "American curriculum," everything education is placed in the states' hands(the US Education Department mostly serves to guide and set federal standards which the states can happily ignore), so it depends on the state. I think it might be quite palatable in a lot of states myself.