Does anyone else want a sane balance? Sure abortion has horror stories but those can be rectified with regulation, leaving it to the states is not going to do women any favors.
If you disagree please tell me why, tell me why women should give up their bodily autonomy for your beliefs.I don't think the general population is going to accept this, please watch out for riots and stay safe people!
Updates
1 y
I personally think in the end this is going to strengthen the radical left and undo some of the good work conservatives have been doing in counterbalancing woke sjws.
Updates
1 y
If you guys want to be slick and post a comment and then block me afterwards so I can't respond to you, I'm going to remove your comment.
Yes, I had this happen. Real cute. You guys know what to do if you're curious..
How am I (classical liberal) supposed to counterbalance woke sjws when you conservatives are overplaying your hand (Roe v Wade)?
I will not be telling people what to do with their bodies, infact, i find it commie to once allow a law and then strike it back down. They will soon be doing the same thing with guns coming up they even banned foot chases in Chicago? So as I always said the government wants crime in urban communities with a HIGH crime & poverty rate and refuses to fix it and making the police jobs even harder so they can't do anything to topple crime. Imagine not being able to foot pursuit a rapist, child molester or child abuser or just some Domestic Violent moron. What would be the point of doing your job there? Increased police presence brings crime down and that's a proven fact.
You whole country is like a pantomime, I am kind of desensitised to it because we hear about all the crazy shit that you do all the time and I guess a lot of the time I tend to view this stuff like its television or something but you really are doing all that stuff.
I honestly don't know how anyone could live in the States and not go completely mental, it must be like living in a circus.
I really dont think any of you understand how utterly bat shit crazy you are.
You know you are talking about trying to have some sort of balanced perspective, do you really think for even a moment during your wildist fantasies that these sort of people you are talking about are in any way even capable of being reasonable, even if they wanted to be?
I know I engage with Americans about this stuff sometimes, maybe even often, but there is never any expectation of a positive outcome.
I watched a youtube video about a black guy from the UK who went to America, basically to troll racists there, he called it an investigation and pretended to be from the BBC and he was able to get an interview with the grand dragon or whatever of the KKK.
I didn't really care for it myself, I found the jokes and things he made to be very childish and etc.
Anyway, this trolling guy really just kind of embarrased himself, at least in my eyes by mocking this KKK guy, because he ended up looking like the unreasonable twat, the KKK guy was just expressing his beliefs, his preferences, in a perfectly reasonable way actually. I mean racial segregation is pretty fucking awful but there is huge difference between it being a free choice that someone is making and it being forced upon everyone by the State.
So the point being that when you hear someone talking about something as famously awful as the KKK and it ends up sounding sane and reasonable, when you then look at this rabid, foaming at the mouth, banner waving madness it really does help, I think, to put into perspective how off the fucking map this stuff is.
America is absolutely rammed full of utterly fucking hopeless muppets, on all sides of every argument.
I don't want Bush era conservatism and I don't want Biden era progressivism, I want a sane balance. I don't want trannies competing against women and I don't want abortion to be banned, etc.
Where in Europe does it have freedom of speech like in America? I want to be able to criticize the government, say offensive racial epithens, say homophobic terms or whatever I want without the government getting in my business you feel me?
Well it is true to say that America enjoys slightly more freedom with regard to speech than in Europe, I'm not really sure exactly what the differences are.
Unless you actually spend your time standing on a box inciting bigoted hatred I think it is unlikely you would notice any difference.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that you aren't allowed to critise the government, this is mainstream entertainment on government controlled broadcasting in the UK.
I suppose technically you aren't allow to swear in public and perhaps that would be a culture shock, people do swear in public, it is extrodinarily unlikely that you would get into trouble for that alone, what might get you into trouble is if you piss someone off enough that they call the police and you are still 'making a scene' when they turn up they will probably invite you to go home, if you keep pushing the issue you might end up in a cell for the night but to actually be prosecuted? I think you would have to be trying pretty hard.
You aren't allowed to abuse people in their workplace, so if you have a need to call the person at the check out of your local shop a cunt loudly to their face that is going to be a problem.
I have been looking into this a little bit and to be honest Im not quite sure where the lines are.
It would seem that the main obstacle to complete freedom to say anything is the universal declaration of human rights, of which the US is a signatory. The US does however make some reservations which make it clear that its participation does not over ride freedom of speech.
The line in the United States seems to be that you cannot incite an unlawful act, so freedom of speech even in United States does have limits.
In Europe we are trying to determine a balance between freedom of speech and expression against 'hate speech' this does not seem to have been resolved adequately at this time.
In Europe we are trying to determine a balance between freedom of speech and expression and protection against 'hate speech' this does not seem to have been resolved adequately at this time.**
Well, you are preaching to the choir, personally I am advocate of complete freedom of speech.
The idea here though is not to repress, freedom of expression is protected after all by the UDHR.
These concepts are in no way unique to the US, they are perfectly well understood and respected here in Europe.
The point is to try to establish the difference between expressing a viewpoint and attacking a person.
This is understandably difficult, particularly in the current climate. While the US is undoubtably the champion of the world of ass clownery we are not unskilled in the art over here.
Would you for example consider it to be perfectly ok to have a group of people waiting outside someones house for them to come out and then for them all to scream abuse at the person?
Is that free speech to you?
It is not considered to be here, those people are not expressing a viewpoint they are attacking a person.
I don't think it's an overplay. I think it corrected an overplay, which is exactly what the court decision states. The original decision of Roe was based on the concept of liberty in the fourteenth amendment. But as we all know, liberty only works up to the point where you're affecting someone else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
So the court returned that particular decision to the states. To view that as overplaying a hand seems unreasonable to me.
I'm an independent. I personally don't think another person's decision to abort affects me in any way. I'm not legally, morally, spiritually, or financially responsible for what someone else decides in that matter. I don't personally like the fact that some states want to ban it because it seems more based in religion than reason, but I think the court made the right decision according to the constitution and legal construction. There is no right to abortion in the constitution, and no clause that gives the federal government the right to regulate it. Therefore, in line with the 10th amendment, the matter should be left to the people and the states. And that's exactly what they did
sounds like you're already going along with the mainstream media (which is ~90% Leftwing PRETENDING to be "objective/unbiased while acting as a political front for the DemoKKKrat party), which are the ones who STARTED inciting REAL insurrection through +500 "mostly peaceful" riots killing dozens /burning billions /taking over government offices , while suddenly voting I. D. and having a border wall became "racist"-but only for the U. S, not other nations which DO have borders and voter ID) . "why did media begin race baiting only during Trump's term, since they claim that cops have sought to murder black men for decades?" askes no Democrat/Leftist, EVER. or- "is it more than coincidental that Covid was unleashed from Wuhan 2 years into China's tariff recession with American employment rate the best in 4 decades, JUST B4 the U. S. election, while the Bidens were "gifted" $1.5 BILLION by China? Nooo! SAY IT AIN'T SO because that hurts my narrative!". Except for the brief JFK's admin ( REAL Liberals who actually loved the nation), Democrats lurched from 2 centuries of Jim Crow Slavery to the political slavery of Socialism. WEF globalists Palpatine Soros/Bill Gates-Norman Bates/ZuckerBORG PLANNED and FUNDED all those Marxist fronts such as 3rd wave feminism, BLM and Antifa to DESTROY the industrialized West and its nationalist defenders. So keep on defunding police and tearing down the institutions of nuclear family and printing trillions in now worthless money. You want Venezuelan dictatorship where 5,000 people who oppose socialist thievery are murdered each year? What you'll get is civil war against armed families who WORK for a living and can survive off grid. So, start fattening up your cats if you want any meat in your diet...
For disclosure purposes, I'm morally pro-life and legally pro-choice.
Even though those who are strongly pro-life are happy right now with this decision, the only real winners are going to be those who are hard-core pro-abortionists, and not those who are "reasonably" pro-choice. The vast majority of abortions in this country already occur in the liberal states of New York, Illinois, and California... and those 3 liberal states, along with other liberal states, are going to wind up legalizing late-term abortions. Most of the more conservative states, other than Texas and a few swing states, are sparsely populated and already have far less abortions than their liberal counterparts.
For every fetus "legally" saved in Texas, about a dozen are going to be "legally" terminated in their third trimester.
These evangelical conservatives are apart of a dooms day cult counting the days till rapture. The activity want the end times to come so every card is going to get played before the big day. That's way they don't care about long games or optics.
This was only possible because of qanon. This created a bridge from evangelical Christians and nazis to work together with trump as a figure head to these naturally opposing groups into one dooms day cult.
At some point the crying sjw people will look like an understated position to the potential hardships we will have if these cultists continue with there intentions.
I don't think this will strengthen the radical left. I believe it will ultimately do the opposite. The pendulum had swung quite far in one direction and now we have seen it swing again toward the other extreme, but ultimately I think it will settle somewhere in the middle. That may take some time though.
As far as I not being American understand it the Supreme Court ruling didn´t make abortion illegal. It just decided it´s not a constitutional right. I think it´s actually easier to get a fair compromise on the juridical of the states than on the federal state level. Because states law is easier to be changed than federal law plus it could give both camps a ground to be on. If you have a problem with how a state rules either consider to move or find a way to change the political climate. From my point of view abortion is no human right but a privilege because sex is a privilege and no human right. The whole debate is completely over-emotionalized and most people taking part in it aren´t interested in debating but are actually very happy with it being an emotionalized topic where they can tell how they feel and claim that these are the facts.
Right now, it wouldn't he hard to secure some abortion rights federally, the people overplaying their hand are the ones trying to get unrestricted abortions federally. Actually, the people who basically did it illegally with roe v. wade.
And remember, the supreme court could have overplayed their hand and banned everywhere, they didn't.
Abortion rights were inferred from another amendment. The amendments need to be clarified and rewritten in plain, exhaustive detail that leaves no room for misinterpretation.
It's stupid, another example of no one knowing what the fuck they're talking about. Leftists thinking it's about men wanting to control women, conservatives thinking their fighting for unreasonable abortion laws to be changed and all they're doing is the same shit on the other end of the scale.
I personally hate the idea that choice is taken away, because this comes down to bodily autonomy at the end of the day. Although I hate that people can abort babies, I will respect the decision at the end of the day.
The best way to handle the political fallout that I can think of is to emphasize that all the ruling does is revert abortion policy back to the states. RBG herself (may she rest in power, jk) criticized Roe because it was really made up out of whole cloth to bypass legislative effort instead of having a basis in the Constitution.
How about you stop playing the party based political bs and call both sides out on their crap? If anything we need more independents who are willing to do their own research and think for themselves rather then more sheeple trying to cover for their side.
Riots? Bring them here. I have plenty of weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo just waiting for the opportunity for stupid liberals to try that with me.
Come on M'fers. Start a civil war. Plenty of conservatives have been waiting for it.
The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, not to legislate. If they ruled that thereās nothing in the Constitution to neither guarantee the right to nor forbid abortion, I think they interpreted it correctly. Now talk to your governor and state legislators.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus.
Premeditated Murder and Genocidal extermination of babies in the Womb outwits your personal sensibilities. Your Liberal values are showing themselves. Perhaps now is the time to get Right/Wrong correct āļø
You have no clue... your Science is prehistoric. Even the Academic elite will tell you life begins at Conception. Get current... in both fluids there are full genetic codes (Helix) which means there is Identity. When they meet in Womb the Identity conjoins into one life, therefore, Life is at conception. No offense but that is just damn stupid and obviously uninformed to say. Update your knowledge base. www.lifevoyage.com is current Science from Harvard medical studied people... I mean really, I'm embarrassed for you... do something are you 60 ?
@Juxtapose You are no better than he if you think you can read a magical "right to abortion" into the Constitution, any more than he can read a magical "right to banning abortions". It just *isn't* there.
If you can't pass a law, in a Democracy... then guess what? you lose. Since I am a man, I will abstain from voting, on this issue, but I'll bet that more than 50% of women, vote to outlaw abortions. I believe killing the unborn is wrong.
If you REALLY are a "Classical Liberal", then you should understand the judicial hijacking of issues, reading magical things into the Constitution that are *just not there*, and leading to reading out of the Constitution what blatantly IS there. Let this issue get hashed out in the state houses, where it should have been done decades ago. THAT is what the Classical Liberal, who says he respects The Constitution, should know.
It doesn't make sense to have a country with so many different laws and fractures. States serve their purpose but to have each of them effectively be a different country in terms of laws is ridiculous.
Sorry, but the Civil War did not mean the Federal Judiciary could do whatever it wanted. It just meant that the states could not secede. Just stop already. REAL Classical Liberals professed fealty to the Constitution, with its limits on too much centralized power.
"Enlightenment age liberals protect bodily autonomy, period." In an age of Federal mandated medical procedures of increasingly dubious value, and Federal mandated shutdowns of economic activity of also increasingly dubious value, you said and did nothing. Be a REAL Classical Liberal, please!
All right, fair enough, if you were better than that on the Mandatory Vax and Economic Lockdown issues. I have you mixed up with someone else.
But the reality is that "Classical Liberalism" in the American sense, means sticking to the Constitution. When you let them of the Leftist ideology start making Supreme Court decisions without any real Constitutional basis, reading in what just *was not and is not there*, you already forfeited the battles and lost the war (metaphorically).
And no, states making their laws under the 9th and 10th Amendments is NOT "to have each of them effectively be a different country in terms of laws". Are they forming their own armies? No. (The National Guard is still federal even when state authorities use it under certain proscribed rules.) Are they printing their own currency? No. Setting their own tariffs? No. but on other issues, they may set their own laws.
Amendments are part of the constitution too lol. The first and second amendment were not encoded in the constitution, they were added. They are just as valuable as the one that guaranteed protection of women's bodily autonomy and now that is ruined.
If you really want to go on the states rights route, then let's have gun control and free speech be left up to the states. I'm sure nothing would ever go wrong with that š
"Amendments are part of the constitution too lol. The first and second amendment were not encoded in the constitution, they were added."
Wow, are you THAT obtuse? Yes, and amending the Constitution was (and still IS) done state by state. And once it is done, *it is settled enshrined Federal Law*.
Now if you want to lobby for a National Uniform Abortion Law, go for it. And that is what the "Second Wave" feminists of the 1960s and 1970s should have done all along. The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in state by state lobbying at about the same time.
Now some amendments were ill considered, the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 23rd come to mind), but they were legally passed, state by state.
" They are just as valuable as the one that guaranteed protection of women's bodily autonomy and now that is ruined."
THERE WAS NEVER ANY SUCH THING. Now if you want to make such a law, state by state, do it and good luck to you.
"If you really want to go on the states rights route, then let's have gun control and free speech be left up to the states. I'm sure nothing would ever go wrong with that."
Again, you are willfully obtuse. That is where those 2nd and 1st Amendments come in respectively.
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > How am I (classical liberal) supposed to counterbalance woke sjws when you conservatives are overplaying your hand (Roe v Wade)?
Most Helpful Opinions