Except when you have states Gerrymandered in such a way that over represents a minority electorate over the majority, resulting in politicians focusing on certain districts and ignoring others. That is not the voters picking the politicians that's politicians picking their voters which makes the system less democratic as a result.
texaspolitics.utexas.edu
Ignoring the article's obvious spin and bias, it does seem that attitudes towards the ban have abruptly shifted in Texas, but not quick enough for the voting cycle and the margins are still very close. While more contested than the media would have you think, Texas has historically trended towards pro-life and there's clear support for restrictions on abortion in general, even if most don't want complete abolition of abortion.
Supreme Court will hear Mississippi's request to uphold its 15-week limit and also overturn Roe vs. Wade.
www.latimes.com
Either I'm bad at this or it's weirdly hard to find recent Mississippi polling on this specific law, but here's polling that shows more support for upholding the law from Americans on the whole.
Both of these are corroborated by other polling I've seen that suggest there is little support for a total abortion ban, but most are in favor of restrictions of some form. So I fail to see the issue when the current proceedings are lining up with how the nation actually views this topic. Again, this isn't a total ban on abortion, but restrictions on the time frame of the procedure.
Which, yeah, you know people have different opinions on what constitutes life and thus when abortions are ok or not. If you are the type of person to believe abortion is ok up to the day of birth, then this will probably not please you. If you have a line where you draw when it is acceptable, then you should understand why some people might have different opinions on where that line is.
This is completely inline with other more clearly defined constitutional rights like free speech and the right to bear arms. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or legally bear every arm available. And I know some of you are in that other topic advocating for gun control. So I'm not sure why people are pretending it is somehow a uniquely grave offense to suggest there might be a potential need for restrictions on abortion as well, other than partisan hackery.
Seriously expecting the entire human population, or even just the entire population of a single country, to completely abstain from sex except for the purpose of making babies is very naive and not something that should be considered an option on the table at all
Yeah, the whole abstinence thing feels like a cheap way of using "personal responsibility" to avoid talking about the issue.
It really is only 0 or 100 with you people, isn't it?
Abstinence is
a choice you can make. You also don't
have to make it either. You can also choose to do it anytime and stop at anytime. You are perfectly free to do what you want in this regard and there is nothing in my posts that ever said otherwise. You just can't pretend abstinence isn't effective when actually practiced.
If the courts can giveth and taketh away abortion so easily, is it really a good idea to rely so heavily on state power?
If men are so mean and misogynistic, is it a good idea to rely on them to manage your birth control?
If you are so financially strapped for cash that you can't even afford drugstore condoms, is it a good idea to worry about sex in the first place?
If having sex ultimately is your decision and you desire it to be your decision, why do you think society needs to be involved in the potential consequences resulting from it?
To put things bluntly, I don't have strong opinions on abortion. Abortion is my least favorite topic next to religion and the dumbest arguments always spring forth from both sides. But I would like to hear how sex and abortion are personal choices, but the consequences from them are societal responsibility. I will be the first to call out people who twist and misuse "personal responsibility" to justify the unjustifiable, but I would like pro-choice advocates to stop dancing around this and throwing words that end with "ist" as a distraction.
Poverty isn't a choice as it is largely controlled by factors outside your control. When the federal government completely guts your economy by outsourcing manufacturing, thanks to the "economic and cultural heart of the state" and their brainless decisions driven by greed and indifference, you have no control over that as the "minority". Trying to insinuate that being poor is "personal responsibility" is actual fascist thinking.
Sex is a choice; time, place, and person. Outside of ****, which not many would oppose making an exception for, you have complete control with what happens in this regard. That puts you on the same level as smokers, alcoholics, and fat people. You partake in an activity that has risks to it for the purpose of pleasure (in most instances). Why is the rest of society responsible for the outcome when they didn't make this decision and don't even share the benefits? In other words, why are we privatizing the benefits and socializing the costs?
This seems to be one of the major sticklers for anti-abortionists and I've yet to see a coherent answer to what is IMO a good question. I'm sure you can get a good chunk to support your right to abortion, but then you start throwing in public subsidization of abortion and birth control. And if you're going to make the public foot the bill of your personal decision, should they not have some say in what their money goes toward?
Healthcare is in the general interest of society because everyone gets sick. Not everyone can even get pregnant and even unprotected sex doesn't result in pregnancy all of the time. It gets even harder to sell when there are relatively affordable contraceptives that further reduce the chance of pregnancy.
Abortion in the case of medical complications or **** seems to be widely supported. Abortion on demand for any reason, especially publicly subsidized, is significantly less so. It doesn't seem to be that out there to think that maybe people should take more responsibility for their decisions.
Ultimately you made your choice so I'm not "expecting" anything and certainly not the entirety of society having sex only for the purposes of procreation. I'm more pointing out that reality has other ideas and that you probably should act accordingly if you want a decent life. And you probably shouldn't lead others astray with completely unrealistic expectations of reality.
Freedom is great and I fully support it, but as said many times before, freedom comes with responsibility. Education to make informed decisions should go in hand with freedom in order to protect the free individual. You cannot have informed decisions when you spend most of your time lying and gaslighting people in order to win a debate, which is the bulk of the abortion discourse. Trying to convince people that all that is being done is "snipping" a "clump of cells" is terrible just as telling an 11-year-old that she has to bear her uncle's **** baby is also horrible. There's a hell of a lot more that goes with that than abortion proponents would have you believe.
And that's ultimately why I entered a topic I don't like. There's an insane amount of misinformation that's always thrown around and this thread is no exception. Watching people flop from women should be able to make their own decisions to women are completely incapable of managing their own sex lives without state intervention will always be cringe. At least construct a coherent argument without resorting to name-calling and pretending people are part of some secret patriarchy that only care about controlling women.