Worthy of Better, Stronger Together for Reproductive Rights bundle live on itch.io

Sorry to have so many short posts but using mobile to write on is less than ideal.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyAs a possibly-relevant example, the US Constitution does not contain equal rights for women. But it clearly should.

Quoting: TherinSEverything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (and its amendments)

You are correct. As I remember, individual voting was only at a state level when the nation was new, and then limited to land holders They were the ones paying the taxes, so they were allowed a voice/vote.

Something something no taxation without representation...

Numerous amendments and bills and stuff afforded ownership rights, rightfully, to all citizens. Among these were the expanded right to vote, even if you didn't pay into a system.

Quoting: TherinSWith the decision, Democracy in the USA is shown to be stepping in the correct direction! Removing the choice from the people is something governments, at a national level, have done for thousands (?) of years. Now the choice of forging our own future on this matter has been rightfully returned to individual states where the citizens get to decide for themselves how they wish to be governed. This bundle SHOULD be raising money promoting the freedom to choose our own paths, instead of going to organizations/efforts that wish to strip away the rights of the people to Democratically vote for their own rulers who represent THEM.

If a bundle comes along that supports the rights of citizens to make their voices heard in the democratically way our founders intended, then it will be a bundle worth supporting.

Conservatives don't care about children (not just in the USA but everywhere), they just want control of womens bodies. It's also a ridiculous thing to consider the unborn thing a baby and totally disregard a pregnant womans needs or feelings over it. It's not a casual thing women do between lunch and dinner. Where it's legalised there are no abortion factories either, the women have to talk to their doctors and at least one psychologist.

I think it's also quite simplistic view of freedom (political or otherwise) to say that whatever you will should happen. There are a lot of heinous things lots of people would vote for given the freedom. But what we understand as the limits on our freedom is the product of the scientific progress (both the natural and the human parts), law and local history.

Of course fascists around the globe make gains by disregarding the human sciences as useless, and give false natural explanations to stuff (like the old school racists). They also commonly target womens rights.

But hopefully at least the western world is beyond that. (oh god i hate the term western world)

Quoting: TherinSYou mean, this ruling takes a law you cannot change away from the federal government and returns it to the people to vote in thier state as they see fit, right? Isn't that freedom? To change what you want as you see fit?

Cute. Of course, we both know that the people have little to no actual power over their state’s decisions, much like the country’s, especially when their views don’t align perfectly with whichever of the two available parties (lol) is in office; and so returning power to individual states is only really beneficial to the state representatives that disagree with the majority of the others.

But since you prefer to argue about abstract principles rather than practical effects, if the majority opinion in each state (in a fictional USA that isn’t gerrymandered to hell and where the majority opinion isn’t meaningless anyway) is more important than the majority in the country, why have federal laws at all? Nay, why have a federation? Why not break the US into independent states? Then break those into independent counties because those can’t agree either? Then into city-states because urban and rural citizens really don’t have the same needs and will never see eye to eye? Why not keep going and let everyone choose for themselves? You know, the same kind of self-determination that Roe vs Wade protected for everyone at a federal level?

Quoting: TherinSGetting to the base of it is the belief of when life begins.

If you ask me, the real base is a good deal simpler: if it’s in my body, I can choose to get rid of it. I don’t care if it’s a fetus, a baby, mom’s spaghetti or the cure to cancer. But if your ultimate goal is to save every life no matter how miserable and detrimental to society it’s fated to be, you’ll want to know that sexual education and accessible contraceptives are the most effective tools to avoid unwanted pregnancies and, in turn, abortions — and both tools are becoming increasingly hard to attain in the US. You’ll also want to read up on how many women commit suicide rather than being forced to carry to term, or die trying to get an abortion (or perform it upon themselves) illegally, or end up killing themselves and/or their infants after being forced to look after them for a while.

Maybe it’s worth considering how life ends, not just when it begins?


Last edited by Salvatos on 5 July 2022 at 10:18 pm UTC

Quoting: TherinS

Quoting: GBGamesAnd yet the rhetoric keeps getting repeated, and it sounds so innocent and earnestly about freedom when in fact it is often double-speak for driving the opposite outcome.

In a country that claims to value freedom as a whole, it makes no sense to say "And we'll turn it to the states to let the people decide if YOU get to have the same freedoms." We, in fact, tried that, and it turned out to be a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, that is the POINT of free states allowing its citizens to vote how they want thier state run, within the confines of some basic rules set in place at a Federal level. No one is being forced to remain in thier state (there's 48 easy to travel to) or being prevented from traveling to another state.

If one city decides jaywalking is legal and another decides its punishable by jail time, then don't jaywalk in the illegal areas. Nothing is keeping you from walking all you want, but jaywalking is viewed differently in the two cities. If the population of one city wants to make jaywalking legal, then vote into office the officials who will make that legal.

This decision is, in SPIRIT, no different than the example of jaywalking. The people can now vote for/against it as they wish and majority rules.

So hypothetically, what about repealing the second amendment and let each state decide on guns, gun control and even total gun ban?

Quoting: CyborgZetaThe most I can say is that I am not a fan of states picking which freedoms/rights they want to defend, and which ones they want to disregard as lesser (or just show disdain for altogether); any freedom/right should not end at the border to another state.

Quoting: SamsaiThe "states' rights" argument is basically just nonsense. It doesn't help anybody's democracy when the states that "benefit" from Roe v. Wade being overruled are ones that are horrendously voter suppressed and gerrymandered. We've also seen what this "states' rights" thing has been used to campaign for in the past and it definitely wasn't for something that would lead to greater equality and democracy for all.

I agree with you both, but would like to note a small counterpoint that is often often overlooked. While the vocal "States Rights" partisans over often use it to rail against Federal Oversight, standards, and restrict people's rights, there are quiet examples where states have granted extra rights and protections not found at the federal level. An easy example would be many State constitutions, which offer enhanced privacy protections beyond what is offered by the Constitution. You can also find examples in local laws and local Criminal Rules as well.

I think, in hypothetical government world, modern states might be more efficient if they only existed as administrative entities rather than political subdivisions. Of course, the difficulty would be in determining what local administrative authority would exist.

But, that would largely solve the issues of personal rights across borders. Maybe simplify some other things while we're at it.

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: TherinS

Quoting: GBGamesAnd yet the rhetoric keeps getting repeated, and it sounds so innocent and earnestly about freedom when in fact it is often double-speak for driving the opposite outcome.

In a country that claims to value freedom as a whole, it makes no sense to say "And we'll turn it to the states to let the people decide if YOU get to have the same freedoms." We, in fact, tried that, and it turned out to be a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, that is the POINT of free states allowing its citizens to vote how they want thier state run, within the confines of some basic rules set in place at a Federal level. No one is being forced to remain in thier state (there's 48 easy to travel to) or being prevented from traveling to another state.

If one city decides jaywalking is legal and another decides its punishable by jail time, then don't jaywalk in the illegal areas. Nothing is keeping you from walking all you want, but jaywalking is viewed differently in the two cities. If the population of one city wants to make jaywalking legal, then vote into office the officials who will make that legal.

This decision is, in SPIRIT, no different than the example of jaywalking. The people can now vote for/against it as they wish and majority rules.

So hypothetically, what about repealing the second amendment and let each state decide on guns, gun control and even total gun ban?

Up until the most recent Supreme Court Decision, gun control was largely left up to local jurisdictions. Even down to the city level. Some cities banned handguns. Others required registration of firearms or set rules of the discharge if guns. States still set age restrictions, prohibitions, carry requirements, and licensing. What's legal in one city is not in another with regards to guns. If you have a license to carry in your state, it does not mean another state will honor it. If you are allowed to carry in your state without a license, you'll still need one to carry in a state that has a license requirement.

...Not confusing at all....

Over the last 20+ years, a lot of restrictions have been removed, often by courts or legislatures, but it's still very much locally controlled. The most recent decision combined with the ideological makeup of the court does throw into question how many of those regulations will still exist in the future, but for now, each state can regulate guns independently to some extent.


Sorry for the double post.


Last edited by denyasis on 5 July 2022 at 11:30 pm UTC

Quoting: TherinSGetting to the base of it is the belief of when life begins. Is it at conception? Is it only when that baby becomes self-sufficient? I could argue that I have some relatives who have still not reached that point after 30 years.

Of course the question isn't where "life" begins. There are millions and millions of live things in and on everyone's body. Bacteria, many of them beneficial, microscopic little bugs living in our skin, on and on. Indeed, there are some things which are independently mobile and have human DNA (certain white blood cells and glial cells, for instance). Nobody says we shouldn't be allowed to do them in if we want.

The question is where "personhood" begins, or at a minimum, when some entity capable of independent experience or sensation begins. There are at least two ways to look at that--scientific and religious. I don't like looking at it the religious way because it's foolish superstition, the US Constitution doesn't like looking at it the religious way because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". That leaves the scientific way. Looking at it the scientific way, it's not a person or capable of registering experiences until it has, at least, both a brain and some kind of thought-like activity in that brain. That happens relatively late. There could be a lot of fruitful discussion about the science of just when there might be grounds to worry about the ethics of abortion . . . if the religious people would shut up. But they won't, so that discussion can't really take place.

And the only people arguing for abortion bans are doing it on religious grounds (which, themselves, are mainly excuses for forms of social engineering); again, if they think it useful they may reach for pseudo-scientific arguments like "when does life begin", but that's not what they mean. They mean "When is there a soul?" To which my answer is "Never, there's no such thing", but to which the pre-20th-century Catholic doctrine's answer was "at the quickening"--which is to say, when you can feel it move. Christians never had a soul-based early abortion ban doctrine until modern times, when some of found the need to invent it as a weapon against feminism.

Quoting: dvdConservatives don't care about children (not just in the USA but everywhere), they just want control of womens bodies. It's also a ridiculous thing to consider the unborn thing a baby and totally disregard a pregnant womans needs or feelings over it. It's not a casual thing women do between lunch and dinner. Where it's legalised there are no abortion factories either, the women have to talk to their doctors and at least one psychologist.

That's about a B.S. argument if I ever heard one. Conservatives want to CONSERVE LIFE. The whole point is to PROTECT children, born and unborn. The only ones determined to show they do not care about children are the groups eager to murder them in the womb. Its big business for them and a political ploy, and dehumanizes the sanctity of life itself.

<s>
I've never been to an abortion before but I get the feeling that Planned Parenthood and the ilk have a conversation that goes like this:

Mother-to-be: I wanna get rid of my baby.

Nurse or doctor: Are you sure?

Mtb: Yes

NoD: Are you of sound mind?

Mtb: Yup

NoD: Ok hop up on the table.....

Maybe there is more concern in other countries, but that organization and the whole movement supporting them is determined to make killing babies akin to removing a wart. It's a life at conception, but each state gets to set its own murder laws now, so that should make some Liberal states very happy.
</s>

Quoting: dvdI think it's also quite simplistic view of freedom (political or otherwise) to say that whatever you will should happen. There are a lot of heinous things lots of people would vote for given the freedom.

Fortunately, heinous things are almost never voted into law because people KNOW they are heinous. Gimme some examples of this happening in recent history (preferably in the USA, since that's where this whole flap is happening).

Quoting: dvdOf course fascists around the globe make gains by disregarding the human sciences as useless, and give false natural explanations to stuff (like the old school racists). They also commonly target womens rights.

Fascists also blame everyone else for failures and rally the people with "Its THESE people that are the problem, they have to go!" That's how one of the most fascist governments in world history expanded its power in the late 1930s. Seems like there is alot of blame getting thrown around currently but most reasonable adults are wising up.


Last edited by TherinS on 6 July 2022 at 2:04 am UTC

Quoting: SalvatosCute. Of course, we both know that the people have little to no actual power over their state’s decisions, much like the country’s, especially when their views don’t align perfectly with whichever of the two available parties (lol) is in office; and so returning power to individual states is only really beneficial to the state representatives that disagree with the majority of the others.

Isn't that what voting is all about? I'll argue again, Democracy is about voting for what you want and the majority gets the win. If the candidate you are voting for is not winning because of the platform they stand for, then that means they are not getting enough support for their (and by extention, your) opinion.

Quoting: SalvatosBut since you prefer to argue about abstract principles rather than practical effects

Let's talk practical effects, then. Yes, a state that forbids its doctors from performing abortions will likely see an increase of detrimental incidents like self or less than safe procedures, more births, more mothers with mental issues (that seems to be the biggest concern I keep reading about, now that I look back on it). Birth control (or, laughably I'll admit, abstinence) is the best way to prevent ALL of those horrible things from happening. Abortion is murder, not birth control. I am fully in favor of encouraging manufacturers to produce more (and make more available) birth control options, of which there are plenty already. While I don't quite agree with making birth control available at taxpayer expense, I do realize that having babies whose parents depend on the welfare state to survive is going to cost much, much more than the couple hundred dollars a year for contraception. Having less welfare babies will help reduce welfare costs and (again, according to what I've read here) help with mental issues from having to go through or not go through the procedure, whether on welfare or not.

People are meant to be free to live their lives as they see fit without being beholden to a Federal government controlling their lives, telling them what to do, eat, wear, drive, or whatever. If having a baby will interfere with a person having a happy life then use birth control, not murder.


Last edited by TherinS on 6 July 2022 at 2:24 am UTC

Quoting: SalvatosIf you ask me, the real base is a good deal simpler: if it’s in my body, I can choose to get rid of it. I don’t care if it’s a fetus, a baby, mom’s spaghetti or the cure to cancer.

...and therein lies the biggest difference of opinions. Some people think a baby is a wart to be removed for unsightly reasons, while others realize its a human life. Dehumanizing a baby is not cool.

Quoting: SalvatosYou’ll also want to read up on how many women commit suicide rather than being forced to carry to term, or die trying to get an abortion (or perform it upon themselves) illegally, or end up killing themselves and/or their infants after being forced to look after them for a while.

Before 1973, I might agree with you. Name for me one state that has had a prolific problem in that regard since then. This RvWade decision does NOT ban anything by itself and I believe that fact is not expressed enough. Now the people get to vote how they want their state to treat unborn babies instead of being dictated at the National level. Don't like what your state decides? Move or vote in people who reflect your beliefs. I'll bet the number of states that outright ban the procedure is going to be alot lower than what the talking heads on TV want us to believe.

Quoting: SalvatosMaybe it’s worth considering how life ends, not just when it begins?

Yes! A thousand times yes! Killing a baby is murder. Thank you.