U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[Deleted member 586536]

here's one. Leftist define themselves as being against the right. Definitely not the other way around.

Wait, the right define themselves as being against the left, not the other way around.

Except that's oversimplifying. What your using is the "American definition", which is a interesting view point again for a Japense person to be so heavily focused in a US subject.
What do I mean the "American definition"

The Republican party entirely focuses on doing whatever is the opposite of the Democratic party.
While Democrats are a compromise (voter wise), is made up of people who agreed with the Democratic party, but also actual leftists don't have a party of their own, and have to deal with putting up for a Democrat since the two party system. The end result(Elected wise) is a middle right party.
Okay, so what is leftist define by?
Leftists are defined by understanding of class struggle, and a heavy criticism of capitalism function. Most fall also under the camp of providing more rights and a stronger democracy, through getting rid of a representative democracy (what we have now) to a policy based one done by majority vote.
This is more Democratic since we literately just had at least two presidents who didn't win the popular vote/majority vote. But won in the electoral collage. Straight up minority rule.
If you so will argue with me for just a second. Let's call these leftists... progressives.

Now let's look at the right in general. This includes Democrats (middle right) and Republicans (far right)
If anything I'd have to point out the extremes since that's the only thing giving us relativity on the subject. So I'll be separating the two extremes. Most Democrats (voters, excluding the actual leftist faction) believe in having a stronger democracy akin to leftists. However they don't see any issues with capitalism itself to the same degree actual leftists do.

For example a Democrat would say Capitalism is fine, as long as their is a government to hold it back. This is just a issue of practice. At least acknowledging that companies/capitalism is not = moral.
A leftists would say, Well if you need a government to step in to fix the problem, that most likely means it's a fundamental issue with the system itself. They want a system that can function without a government curtailing it. without also having the system cripple people's rights. Which they believe capitalism as a system does.

Now what Republicans believe is that there is no problems with such a system. And if anything, the government should just be straight up removed because it'll "empower free speech"
I put this in air quotes because as a leftist myself. Companies will just eventually become the new state. And we'll end up here at square one. If your thinking just the first generation of people. Yes, technically that is 100% fair. But once we start getting to multiple generations of people, wealth transferring and such. If the main goal was to keep a 100% fair system. You now have people who have a starting situation of $0 vs people who have two businesses from the start to be the CEO of because their dad made it.

Anyways Republicans are what we can call conservative, they want to keep the same system, and or regress.

Let's now throw another mess into the matter. Nazi's. We can both agree history is a very ugly thing right? we had racial issues, xenophobia, and a whole other ugly messes.
So what side would Nazi's agree with the most? It wouldn't be leftists or democrats. Both are in favor of increasing rights and not limiting them. And as a result of that mentality, they're more aware of other people's issues.
Republicans however, want to keep the same system, and they just believe that the government is a problem. At least Republicans pre 2014ish.

Which as leftists again, have described, the goverment isn't the only issue. Your resource management or economic system or however you want to describe it, can also cause issues. After all, people didn't just one day think "I want to enslave another person" They did it because it made a fuck ton of money.

So which side would Nazi's want to side on most likely? It would be the side that's regressing. Regressing bad towards that ugly past. But also in favor of a system (resource management) that allows and continues to enable people to be oppressed. Regardless if you go authoritarian capitalist, or anarcho capitalist. Either the goverment oppresses and the system or just the system.

 

[Stone_Wings]

I guess you don't eat meat? not get me wrong i think killing lions is wrong but not sure how this compares to the current issues been discussed in this place.

You know full well if some Democrat posted that they killed an animal and then shared the meat, claws, skull, sinew, body fluids, teeth, blood, organs, skin, hair, tongue, eyeballs, etc etc..." followed with a baby animal killing comment, deplorables would all be screaming some stupid "THOSE DEMONIC SATANIST DEMOCRATS AND THEIR BLOOD DRINKING ANIMAL SACRIFICES!!!!" bullshit.

I don't give one fuck about eating meat or not. That's beside the entire point and you know it. Stop playing dumb. It fits the topic perfectly fine. It demonstrates hypocrisy from the right regarding life and death as meaningful only where they see fit. You all aren't pro-life. You're pro-birth.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

republican party must be destroyed. they are anti-rights and nazi party.

Let me guess, you support BLM, a black supremacist company that grifts money of the very same black people that they kill most of the time, and support antifa, who are funnily enough, facists themselves. Liberals are definitely the future for democracy for sure.

Another fine example of pro-life, anti-baby killing conservatives.

View attachment 309707

Lame example. Hunting has been going on since the dawn of time. There's a difference between a practice that's been going on for millions of years vs. killing a baby because you're too selfish and immature to take care of it and raise it.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

and support antifa, who are funnily enough, facists themselves.

do you know what antifa stands for?

 

[The Catboy]

I don't think he cares about supporting freedom, he just wants to annoy you so he can feel good about himself.

Yeah, but yet I keep walking into it. I really need to take a break from this section. If anyone needs me, I am going to be spending time with my wife.

 

[KennyAtom]

republican party must be destroyed. they are anti-rights and nazi party.

democratic party must be destroyed. they are anti-rights and slave owning party. (this is true, look it up, abe lincoln created the republican party to go against racism, when the DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS wanted them.)

 

[AleronIves]

It looks like calling the baby in the mothers womb by other names than a baby and classifying it as a non-human helps these satanic baby killing lunatics deal with the fact they've killed and want to kill human babies. They are pure evil and calling the baby comparable to "cancer", which @Lacius is doing is just wrong on many, many levels.

Do you think women who get abortions and doctors who perform abortions should be put on trial for murder and go to prison if convicted, then?

 

[Creamu]

I hate the term “pro-life” because there’s no such thing as “pro-life.” There’s only “pro-forced birth” and “pro-back alley abortions.”

That is a really good point. The hermetic dialectic that is at play here seems to be designed to keep debate oscillating without resolving anything in the long run. In my observation it is an useful tool to activate different voter segments and have a everlasting struggle that results in nothing.

A more productive direction would be a pro motherhood and family discourse, that is centered on the idea that mothers and families play anexistential role in society and should be valued accordingly. This direction would take an implicit anti-abortion stand while constructing a fertile cultural context, that would be critical in preventing the current fall and the liquidation of civilisation.

That this is not the direction the discourse is moving shows you that the leading actors on both sides of the debate must be cynical.

Abortions will continue to happen but they will go back into dirty motels and cheap apartments.

That is true under a realistic perspective. There have been, however, regimes in history that were determined enough to have the constitution to stop even that. That being said, this would be very unlikely to happen.

Abortions still happen in countries where even miscarriages come with a death penalty. The idea of outlawing abortion is just another means of controlling people’s bodies and it’s disgusting. Conservatives are hypocrites that hate freedom.

Yes, it would be better to make it highly unattractive to have abortions on a cultural route. Conservatives have never understood this, this amount of disfunction can only explained by deliberite design.

 

[osaka35]

democratic party must be destroyed. they are anti-rights and slave owning party. (this is true, look it up, abe lincoln created the republican party to go against racism, when the DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS wanted them.)

The democrats back then were the right-wing, and the republicans were human rights activist. And before that, the USA had another political party called the Whigs. There was some internal struggle in the Whigs party over slavery, and basically the anti-slavery Whigs were like "nah, brah, slavery is dumb" and formed the Republican Party in 1854. It wasn't until the 1930s they flipped, with republicans becoming right-wing and democrats being human rights activist.

here's a fun article about the transition: https://history.house.gov/Exhibitio...eeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/

I'd say now the republicans and the democrats have been pulled more and more to the right. The reasons why are beyond my pay-grade. Those of the left, and some argue the center, are not currently represented and must make do with what they can get from the democratic party.

 

[smf]

A more productive direction would be a pro motherhood and family discourse, that is centered on the idea that mothers and families play anexistential role in society and should be valued accordingly. This direction would take an implicit anti-abortion stand while constructing a fertile cultural context, that would be critical in preventing the current fall and the liquidation of civilisation.

I think you're missing the point. Abortion doesn't devalue motherhood, if anything getting rid of abortion devalues motherhood.

 

[Creamu]

I think you're missing the point. Abortion doesn't devalue motherhood, if anything getting rid of abortion devalues motherhood.

I wanted to demonstrate, that the republican side is a completly visionless entity, that moves along the line of the left with increased latency. It is a hermetic game and is meant to distract from the idea of actually funticional discoursive maneuvering.

 

[tabzer]

A typo is not a literacy issue. It's accidently pressing the wrong button on a tiny phone keyboard. Making false accusations because of reading comprehension issues isn't the same thing whatsoever. LMFAO!

You failed to proof-read your own insult about my literacy. You know that's funny. You are just being sour because that's how reasonable you are. Now tell me about these false accusations. Let's hear more about how you approach logic.

Except you cannot determine that a soul exists as something separate from brain activity.

Brain activity is actually irrelevant to the base definition. If a potato had lungs, it would be described as having "naphesh". That means soul, if you were paying attention.

It's not an interesting belief

It's interesting by definition because you concerned yourself with it. Jeez, do you know about words?

 

[Lumstar]

I think you're missing the point. Abortion doesn't devalue motherhood, if anything getting rid of abortion devalues motherhood.

Puritans rejoice. Women would be mortally terrified to have sex.

 

[Dakitten]

Let me guess, you support BLM, a black supremacist company that grifts money of the very same black people that they kill most of the time, and support antifa, who are funnily enough, facists themselves. Liberals are definitely the future for democracy for sure.

democratic party must be destroyed. they are anti-rights and slave owning party. (this is true, look it up, abe lincoln created the republican party to go against racism, when the DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS wanted them.)

Golden.

Seriously, I know PragerU has a LOVELY video about how the southern switch didn't happen, but... it did. I used to live in Tennessee, in a small town that literally had a black population of less than 30 folks and a store with a decorative placard talking about how even after being ordered not to, they refused to serve "colored folk" until the 80s. Care to guess the dominant political affiliation of the town by a huge margin?

If you want to go further, just look at how often minorities vote Democrat over Republican, or how many minorities take part in either party. There are the occasional odd ducks, but the numbers are a complete avalanche for the Dems. Republicans tend to push legislation that doesn't benefit minority households, conservatives draw in actual neo-nazis, and voter suppression tactics tend to be focused on minorities by the GOP. There really isn't a case for Dems being the "pro slavery" party in this day and age, and this whole thread is about Roe v. Wade being overturned, denying a right for women.

I wager you probably felt a bit attacked by the pretty bombastic comment about needing to destroy the Republican party, and I aknowledge that some people in this thread are getting a bit bitey, but this thread has devolved into some pretty frustrating and ugly stuff with very little being offered by the conservatives here. We've got Tabzer preaching how the soul is real (which you can't and his argument about etymology is adorable but even equating "life" to "souls" still leaves it to the debate of when life starts, which doesn't support him), Baxter who has jumped straight onto the Jesus jet, and Bit and Val who can't go five minutes without making insane suppositions like the Dems support terminating pregnancies at 9 months (which is just stupid on so many levels, at 9 months you're pushing out a self sustaining child or enduring a tragedy and emergency medical procedure, and in either case it should not be taken lightly and they should be ashamed for even insinuating that women and health care providers are just wanting to murder).

I appreciated your taking a moment earlier, and encourage you to take another. Don't just sling mud, go play the new Ogre Battle translation or something. You want nothing to do with some of the trolls that lurk in this place, and spoilers... they tend to be conservative elitists.

 

[Stone_Wings]

You failed to proof-read your own insult about my literacy. You know that's funny. You are just being sour because that's how reasonable you are. Now tell me about these false accusations. Let's hear more about how you approach logic.

A typo is not a literacy issue. It's accidently pressing the wrong button on a tiny phone keyboard. Making false accusations because of reading comprehension issues isn't the same thing whatsoever. LMFAO!

And you want to give lessons on logic.

 

[tabzer]

A typo is not a literacy issue. It's accidently pressing the wrong button on a tiny phone keyboard. Making false accusations because of reading comprehension issues isn't the same thing whatsoever. LMFAO!

And you want to give lessons on logic.

Your failure to comprehend the irony is the literacy issue. Like, "learn to reed". If you are going to try to insult someone's literacy, making typos will make you look stupid. Needing someone to spell that out? Well, that is actually stupid.

 

[Stone_Wings]

Your failure to comprehend the irony is the literacy issue. Like, "learn to reed". If you are going to try to insult someone's literacy, making typos will make you look stupid. Needing someone to spell that out? Well, that is actually stupid.

There is no irony when a typo is not a literacy issue. It's accidently pressing the wrong button on a tiny phone keyboard. Making false accusations because of reading comprehension issues isn't the same thing whatsoever. LMFAO!

And you want to make comments about stupidity.

 

[tabzer]

There is no irony when a typo is not a literacy issue. It's accidently pressing the wrong button on a tiny phone keyboard. Making false accusations because of reading comprehension issues isn't the same thing whatsoever. LMFAO!

And you want to make comments about stupidity.

You still are accusing me of making false accusations. Care to demonstrate how?

 

[smf]

Puritans rejoice. Women would be mortally terrified to have sex.

Incels would be happy I guess, because they would feel more included.

 

[tabzer]

Except that's oversimplifying. What your using is the "American definition", which is a interesting view point again for a Japense person to be so heavily focused in a US subject.
What do I mean the "American definition"

The Republican party entirely focuses on doing whatever is the opposite of the Democratic party.
While Democrats are a compromise (voter wise), is made up of people who agreed with the Democratic party, but also actual leftists don't have a party of their own, and have to deal with putting up for a Democrat since the two party system. The end result(Elected wise) is a middle right party.
Okay, so what is leftist define by?
Leftists are defined by understanding of class struggle, and a heavy criticism of capitalism function. Most fall also under the camp of providing more rights and a stronger democracy, through getting rid of a representative democracy (what we have now) to a policy based one done by majority vote.
This is more Democratic since we literately just had at least two presidents who didn't win the popular vote/majority vote. But won in the electoral collage. Straight up minority rule.
If you so will argue with me for just a second. Let's call these leftists... progressives.

Now let's look at the right in general. This includes Democrats (middle right) and Republicans (far right)
If anything I'd have to point out the extremes since that's the only thing giving us relativity on the subject. So I'll be separating the two extremes. Most Democrats (voters, excluding the actual leftist faction) believe in having a stronger democracy akin to leftists. However they don't see any issues with capitalism itself to the same degree actual leftists do.

For example a Democrat would say Capitalism is fine, as long as their is a government to hold it back. This is just a issue of practice. At least acknowledging that companies/capitalism is not = moral.
A leftists would say, Well if you need a government to step in to fix the problem, that most likely means it's a fundamental issue with the system itself. They want a system that can function without a government curtailing it. without also having the system cripple people's rights. Which they believe capitalism as a system does.

Now what Republicans believe is that there is no problems with such a system. And if anything, the government should just be straight up removed because it'll "empower free speech"
I put this in air quotes because as a leftist myself. Companies will just eventually become the new state. And we'll end up here at square one. If your thinking just the first generation of people. Yes, technically that is 100% fair. But once we start getting to multiple generations of people, wealth transferring and such. If the main goal was to keep a 100% fair system. You now have people who have a starting situation of $0 vs people who have two businesses from the start to be the CEO of because their dad made it.

Anyways Republicans are what we can call conservative, they want to keep the same system, and or regress.

Let's now throw another mess into the matter. Nazi's. We can both agree history is a very ugly thing right? we had racial issues, xenophobia, and a whole other ugly messes.
So what side would Nazi's agree with the most? It wouldn't be leftists or democrats. Both are in favor of increasing rights and not limiting them. And as a result of that mentality, they're more aware of other people's issues.
Republicans however, want to keep the same system, and they just believe that the government is a problem. At least Republicans pre 2014ish.

Which as leftists again, have described, the goverment isn't the only issue. Your resource management or economic system or however you want to describe it, can also cause issues. After all, people didn't just one day think "I want to enslave another person" They did it because it made a fuck ton of money.

So which side would Nazi's want to side on most likely? It would be the side that's regressing. Regressing bad towards that ugly past. But also in favor of a system (resource management) that allows and continues to enable people to be oppressed. Regardless if you go authoritarian capitalist, or anarcho capitalist. Either the goverment oppresses and the system or just the system.

Trump has done a lot to convince people who don't trust the government to vote for and participate in the government under the pretense that things are going to change, which I see as something that somewhat parallels the recruitment that the democratic party does of those who are against capitalism. The government becomes emboldened and further legitimized as a result.

You might be more interested with the nuances of how the government politics work than I, but what I see is a long-term system of right hand washing the left and vice versa. Government becomes more bureaucratic and more of a racket and I don't see an end to that trajectory. Maybe it has always been that way, and what I am seeing is just the result of "government transparency". Call me cynical, but I see human rights being a recruitment tool (and other) instead of an actual goal. So far, more people find themselves more obligated to work longer and harder to maintain the idea of freedom as the government debases its own currency via inflationary practice (and their mission seems to be to find more excuses to do so). Inflation increases the value of the assets for people who have them while decreasing the value of the working people's wages, directly contributing to class struggle.

That's my take, and I appreciated your thought out analysis.