Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
So this opinion is not based on science then.
No post body was provided.
Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
211–220 of 297 posts
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#212Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…
It's not politics, it's religion trying to force their own beliefs onto an entire country.
Except that's not the kind of country USA is supposed to be like some middle-eastern countries for example.
In the USA you are allowed to believe/practice whatever crazy religion you want.
But your rights stop at another person's autonomy.
But also unjustly in the USA the corporation has way more rights than the individual, every time and that's perpetuated by every "side" of political power.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#213Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…
I do not think that each get is ignoring the important parts of the other. I think they think that these important things are simply wrong. A foetus is "alive" since the conception. "Wrong" says the other side, it is alive when (something). Contraception and sex ed are key. "Wrong" says the other side, you can just be abstinent and learn as you go because this is natural. Ignoring would be simpler, because you could…
I was mostly referring to conversation within a certain camp, not between the two sides.
For example, I'm pro-choice and my own side would be ready to flay me alive for agreeing with the legal theory behind the overturning + thinking the economy is likely to be more important politically than abortion. I'm on their side; my opinions matter because they determine which strategies I think would be best to pursue. (In this case, that we need to legislate what we want + that people can't organize to do so unless they have stable housing/food/basic needs so we'll have to help people with that if we want their time and brainpower for social change.)
On the pro-life side, there's a lot of bickering about whether or not the women should be punished (versus the abortion providers) and there is a decent contingent that actually wants their fellows to put their money where their mouths are and financially support pregnant women and their kids.
Talking with enemies is always fraught. This is a dumpster fire because we can't talk to our ALLIES except in thought-terminating cliches.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#214Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…
“The issues” themselves aren’t even fully agreed upon, especially if they’re not believed to be core by everyone. Everyone believes that the start of human life is a core issue. It’s the basis for the pro-life movement. It’s also a core component of the pro-choice movement (that it doesn’t start that early, thus not killing babies, etc). There are other things some people believe are core which others don’t believe e…
> Everyone believes that the start of human life is a core issue.
"Core" does not have a clear meaning here, so let's be more precise: everyone agrees it's an important issue, but not everyone agrees it's a decisive issue. Many pro-choice people believe that no person has a right to demand part of someone else's body for themselves, so even if a fetus is a person the mother still has the right to remove it. Comparisons to the illegality of forced organ donation are often made here.
Note that I'm not taking a position here. I'm just explaining a position many hold. To the extent that you ascribe a different reasoning/motivation to pro-choice folks, I think your "everyone believes" is not a valid axiom. Whether intentionally or not, it comes across more as an appeal to (questionable) popularity, and pretty much make Mezzie's point about how impossible it is to talk about this.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should people be forced into abstinence? Why are republicans trying to make contraceptives illegal?
I have no idea (I am French and we thankfully do not have this problem). My point is that the adversaries do not ignore the important points of the other side. These are usually the important point for them as well, they are just exactly at the other side of the spectrum. This is why there is no way for them to come to consensus as the differences of opinion are about these points. It is not like someone, when hearin…
No post body was provided.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like this? https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/organizer-behind-anti-...
Quoted post unavailable.
Or that might be a situation of no one wanting to enact vigilante justice against someone who's not actively doing anything violent? This isn't hard to imagine. In my experience, anti-social behavior on public transit is regularly met with apathy from all the other passengers, yet I doubt you'd lump all the passengers as being anti-social and/or condoning anti-social behavior themselves.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social conservatives spent virtually all of their political capital on Roe and it still took them 50 years to get rid of a precedent that was not only completely lacking in foundation, but forced Georgia to allow elective abortions two months further into a pregnancy than France. And you think that banning abortion nationwide is “guaranteed” to “be on the agenda” the next go around?
Conservatives didn't spend anything close to all of their political capital, rather they have more now than they ever had, and getting rid of Roe has always been a pretext to banning abortions entirely. This isn't merely a political issue for them, it's religious and existential. Conservatives aren't just going to stop at Roe on principle, even though they have a lock on the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas suggested t…
I’m curious: have you informed yourself about the actual legal doctrine Thomas is talking about, or is it just about the social policy to you?
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> like we approach discussions around kubernetes I've already deployed my CloudNative Political Belief System in a fault-tolerant EKS cluster with a fully implemented CI/CD pipeline. > Yes i wish people would stop being so emotional about their rights being stripped from them On a more serious note, I appreciate this sarcasm as my wife and I were devastated about this news because of how we feel it impacts us (we're…
An appeal to fewer emotions in politics can sometimes come from a place of privilege, but I'm coming to realize that it's still USEFUL.
I'm also in an odd, semi-orthogonal situation: I'm a homosexual female of child-bearing age, so while I may be impacted by this, it's far less likely than for other women and the situation would always be one of those tricky exceptions (plus, since most women are raped by men they know... if you know me and you rape me without murdering me, you're an idiot, and dead women don't get pregnant).
The issue with things being too emotional isn't that the emotions are bad or that people don't need support. They absolutely do. The issue is that if we ONLY focus on emotions and keep ourselves in panicked, fight-or-flight mode for all of our waking hours that we can't plan or strategize effectively. Deciding what to DO to make change requires a little emotional distance.
I think it's possible to both acknowledge the devastation people are feeling while also thinking it's counter-productive to ONLY have that conversation.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sound like you have no friends and are replacing that lack with co-workers.
It’s a testament to the relative lack of problems in my life that my single biggest current problem is scheduling time with my friends. I think having serious conversations with my coworkers is a very good thing for all parties involved, especially when I don’t want them to eventually become friends. Opinions and beliefs are plainer that way.
I can't see a reason why anyone would avoid scheduling time with you.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conservatives didn't spend anything close to all of their political capital, rather they have more now than they ever had, and getting rid of Roe has always been a pretext to banning abortions entirely. This isn't merely a political issue for them, it's religious and existential. Conservatives aren't just going to stop at Roe on principle, even though they have a lock on the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas suggested t…
> Clarence Thomas suggested they consider rolling back contraceptive rights and gay marriage as well. No, he flat out stated that all substantive due process precedent, including but not limited to the cases establishing the right to same sex marriage, marital contraception, and freedom against sodomy laws, are “demonstrably erroneous” and that it is obligatory for the Court to “correct the error” that they represent…
You’re leaving out that Thomas also said that some of those and other implied rights might be found in the privileges and immunities clause. Thomas doesn’t deny that there are unenumerated rights that were recognized at the time of the founding.
Also, I’d be curious to know if any other advanced democracy has a doctrine similar to Griswold. It’s Constitutionally infirm, and if they don’t need it, why do we?