Well…
Fuck
4 Likes
I realize this is a very hot button topic and a lot of people have a lot of very heated emotions about it. But from what I can tell the facts of it is rather simple, it just kicks the lawmaking of this back to the states. So it is up to the people in each state to decide for themselves who to elect based on their stance on the subject.
The way forward seems rather obvious, elect the local politicians that holds the values you do. If you find yourself in the minority and politicians that don’t hold your values get elected, well then, all the other people in your state has had their legitimate will enacted.
It seems to me also that the people the most upset about this are already living in states that wont by any means change any of these laws though.
2 Likes
also, this is the nature of democracy, it changes according to the will of the ppl, and if tomorrow enough ppl agree that u can eat babies, then babies will be eaten by those willing to do so
2 Likes
But there are blue cities in red states/red cities in blue states that would have their own majorities overturned by the rest of the state, so it should really be up to the cities.
Oh, but wait, each household would also have different opinions, so it should really be up to each household to decide.
Oh, but each person in the household might also have different opinions…ooh, I got it! Each person should have the choice to decide whether or not to get an abortion! Hey, I figured it out!
3 Likes
Sure, that’d work if the procedures were not in any way collectively subsidized. Everyone who is financially involved in something has some level of say in how funds are used, this would also include medical insurance but of course easier to make the argument for governmental financing.
The point is that some people find it morally reprehensible to frivolously terminate pregnancies and they want no part in that, which they are made to be through financing. This very same argument can be and is made against military actions and the death penalty for example.
The argument being that collective money is spent and actions are taken on behalf of the population and some find it unfair or straight up reprehensible that certain actions are. So they want a say on the matter. Which they get through local elections.
Now if one person wants to terminate their pregnancy and chose to do so through means that is not supported by the general public, then I would agree that the general public has no say in the matter.
1 Like
So you’re saying a potential purge day is only so many votes/agreements away, hypothetically of course. 
2 Likes
If it was about spending public money on things the public disagrees with, then the states enacting anti-abortion laws would choose to not allocate any money towards abortion-related operations, facilities, medical training, etc, requiring any such funding to come from local governments and individuals, should they choose to allocate it. Instead, some of these states are criminalising abortions no matter how one has them, no matter how the procedure and care are paid for.
And as imaynotbehere4long said, this still doesn’t make the decision local. It makes it a state decision, and most US states are country-sized, with lots of internal divisions of opinion on this and many other topics. You can live in a county that’s 100% pro-choice, but unless you can get a majority at the state level, your local government can’t choose to spend any of its own (local, not state) money on abortions.
Roe v. Wade was argued from a right to privacy standpoint, and I think that’s what’s missing now. People shouldn’t have to fund things that most of them disagree with, but they also shouldn’t have the right to decide what other people do with their own bodies and money.
4 Likes
Overturning Roe v Wade is deleting women’s rights. Sure it’s “returning the decision to the states” but how is that any different than deleting one of constitutional amendments and saying it’s up to the states? To be clear, said decision was made by 9 people that aren’t elected.
My state will vote on a state constitutional amendment on this very same thing on August 2nd. I expect it to pass, but I’ll at least try to block it.
4 Likes
It isn’t about the money, it’s primarily about moral sensibilities of the general public, the money is just one of the easier ways figure out what constitutes a reasonable geographic segmentation. Californian tax money does not pay for healthcare in Delaware, same way it does not pay for sewage infrastructure or most if any other state level operation. So in my opinion Californian politicians should have no say on what laws Delaware writes for itself. Same way the US as a whole has no say on what laws Brazil writes for itself.
We can strongly disagree with the laws in other regions, we can strongly disagree with laws in our own regions. The difference is that we have ways to directly influence the laws in our own region. We still have ways to try to indirectly influence laws in other countries and regions by choosing how we interact with those regions however. You feel free to opt out from purchasing Delaware made products or do business with Delaware headquartered companies.
Though I have no idea what Delaware’s stance on abortion or any other topic is.
There’s quite a lot of laws surrounding what you have the right to do to your own body. Drug use and euthanasia are just two quick and easy examples, but I’m pretty sure there are more strictly outlawed medical procedures you’re not allowed to even request be done to you. Abortion is not a unique case by any means.
I would encourage you to go out and speak publicly on the topic, convey your ideas to anyone willing to listen. Tell the general public how you think they should vote and why. Write a column and send it off to every regional news paper with your thoughts and arguments, join any peaceful protests and demonstrations and most of all of course vote. That is the right that has now been afforded to you.
2 Likes
well, yes, obviously. All that would take is new laws. And like Fraggles said, if enough ppl vote for politicians who want to make such laws, then it will happen
2 Likes
3 Likes
If they give me back a functional taskbar, I’m for it…
4 Likes
In therapy session: “And then they released another windows 
…”
5 Likes
My plan was to upgrade to Windows 11 around December next year but with this news I wonder if I should ever bother doing this at all or skip to Windows 12. 
Remembering that Windows 10 will receive updates until 2025, an year after the supposed release of this new and unexpected Windows. Ugh, they don’t know what they want! 
Let’s hope this is just a rumor like they’re saying and that MS don’t try to confuse us like this.
3 Likes
ROFL…
2 Likes
And the hits keep coming…Remember Sony’s rootkit debacle?
2 Likes
WTH, Florida???
Probably this…
Some also noted the trans flag displayed in the rear window of the car and speculated that might be the real root of complaints about his vehicle.
3 Likes
Are there Chronies from Indonesia here ? Stay strong!
4 Likes
You can, now, wear the universe…
3 Likes
Checks out.
7 Likes