Is America Hopelessly Divided ?

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  105 comments

Is America Hopelessly Divided ?
Trump and MAGA -ism have divided this country gravely. We have a sizeable number of Americans who base their beliefs more on conspiracy theories than on facts and reality. We already have that, and now this decision by the Supreme Court will exacerbate the already existing divide. 


Are the 5 ultra conservative Supreme Court justices cognizant of the fact that their decision to overturn Roe v Wade will split the country in half? 

How could they not be? And yet they went forward with it. 

On ABC's This Week today guests made the point that the 5 far right justices made a decision to "go for it". What does that mean?  It means that Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh , and Barrett, made a knowing decision to overturn Roe even though they know that it will split the country into two distinct pieces. If a ban takes place, about half the states will ban abortion and about half will keep it (for now). Isnt this a defacto "civil war" ? 

Many conservative politicians have been for years saying that they want to promote unity in the nation. Of course their idea of unity is that everyone come around to their views, many of which that are at odds with the modern world. 

Trump and MAGA -ism have divided this country gravely. We have a sizeable number of Americans who base their beliefs more on conspiracy theories than on facts and reality. We already have that, and now this decision by the Supreme Court will exacerbate the already existing divide. 

Where will future "unity" in America come from?

It almost seems to be a question that will require divine intervention. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

The topic is a divided country.

Off topic comments, including trolling, are subject to deletion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

SCOTUS rules on points of law, not popular opinion.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2    2 weeks ago

I am going to flag every comment on this seed that does not address the topic. Your comment does not address the topic. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    2 weeks ago

There will be civil war over this issue.

How stupid for SCOTUS not to realize this.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
There will be civil war over this issue.

Extremely doubtful.

How stupid for SCOTUS not to realize this.

That isn't the SCOTUS' job to worry about yahoos revolting.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

SCOTUS mentioned in article. Are you suggesting that talking about specifics in your seed is off topic???

[John, Texan is right.  You can't declare SCOTUS off-topic while simultaneously blaming SCOTUS for a divided country.  SCOTUS is fair game.  Comments about SCOTUS will stand.]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3    2 weeks ago

[Deleted.]

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
4  afrayedknot    2 weeks ago

Three comments in and I think the question has been answered in the affirmative. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

Is anyone actually naive enough to think the country was united before this? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @5    2 weeks ago

Yep, I think some actually some are.

The worker drones and useful idiots.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @5.1    2 weeks ago

Have you and Tex forgotten Pearl Harbour?  9/11 came in second best on that.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

Recently Buzz?

Also, 9/11 unity didn't last past the "Who was to blame for it investigation". Followed by the tin foil hat brigade that thought that Bush Jr actually planned out 9/11; and it was some big government plot to get us involved in the Middle East again. Of course that self same tin foil hat brigade didn't think Bush Jr could walk and chew gum at the same time; but was more than capable of planning out an intricate attack like 9/11; getting every single person involved not only stick to the script; and never open their mouths about it.

When have we been unified since 9/11?

The last 6 years of Bush were a Democrat bash fest with countless investigations being into his administration.

Returning the favor Republicans investigated the hell out of Obama for 8 years. 

Democrats went full blown TDS; and will never recover. They started as soon as Trump rode down the escalator and haven't stopped since. 2 impeachments. And the Jan 6th commission. Countless legal investigations at the state and local levels. The Clintons must be jealous that Trump has easily passed them as the most investigated President ever. He it ever bit as Teflon as they are.

Biden only thinks things are bad now; after mid terms he might just resign to get away from the coming Republican storm of inquiries into every level of his administration; and his pay for play using Hunter Biden to get money from China, Ukraine, and Russian oligarchs.

Next president; whomever they may be; had better hope they have a majority for their entire term. Otherwise they will be impeached on any Congressional whim.

There will be no coming together; the Establishment powers like us divided. We are easier to lead that way. They are safe behind their money, status, and gated communities. It is the rest of us that will suffer.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

Okay, forget I mentioned 9/11, but you didn't criticize Pearl Harbour.  In any event you have confirmed that division will remain.  I'm sure that if Putin were to drop a nuclear bomb on NYC Americans just might forget their differences for a little while.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
"There will be no coming together; the Establishment powers like us divided. We are easier to lead that way. They are safe behind their money, status, and gated communities. It is the rest of us that will suffer."

Other than an outright invasion I think you're right that there will be no coming together.  And as for the fact that the Establishment powers prefer the situation, well, after all, haven't the rich been getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
Have you and Tex forgotten Pearl Harbour?  9/11 came in second best on that.  

WHAT?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.5    2 weeks ago
"Is anyone actually naive enough to think the country was united before this?"

Am I naive to think that the country was united when the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbour?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.6    2 weeks ago
Am I naive to think that the country was united when the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbour?

Oh, come on.

You know quite well I was referencing the present era. 

Do you think America was divided BEFORE the SCOTUS leak?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.7    2 weeks ago
"Do you think America was divided BEFORE the SCOTUS leak?"

Absolutely.  And you are aware, I'm sure, that the bible says....

Matthew, 12:25: “And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.”

Good luck.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
The last 6 years of Bush were a Democrat bash fest with countless investigations being into his administration

that seems to be a thing for the Democrats.  They don't like what's going on so they run useless investigation after investigation just to find out there was nothing to investigate.  And it continues to this day.  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
6  charger 383    2 weeks ago

The USA was and is and will be divided and that is a part of our freedom.  The hard part is, we have to put up with each other enough to have a good life.

My second point is overpopulation is making all divisions and problems worse.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7  Sparty On    2 weeks ago

Approximately 20% of the country is hopelessly divided.    Roughly 10% on each side.    These are the true believers.  The fundamentalists.   They are “my way or the highway” thinkers.   No flexibility or respect for other opinions.

None.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.1  cjcold  replied to  Sparty On @7    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @7.1    2 weeks ago
Removed for context - sandy

What in his post led you to write such nonsense?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @7.1    2 weeks ago

Lol ....thanks for more empirical evidence which proves my point.

Much appreciated 

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8  Hallux    2 weeks ago

Spending one's days online 'bantering' with 20 to 40 partisans will certainly make it seem so. Although the internet has given voice to one and all it is the herd that brays the loudest and for what, not their individual freedoms but for those of the herd leaders who really don't give a shyte other than to drum up the cacophony. Squeaky wheels get the oil and all that sort of thing. More oinking please! /s

In the end it is actually each side that trolls its own.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
9  Drinker of the Wry    2 weeks ago
Are the 5 ultra conservative Supreme Court justices cognizant of the fact that their decision to overturn Roe v Wade will split the country in half?  How could they not be? And yet they went forward with it. 

First we don't know that they "went forward with it".  I think the leak was from a Pro-Life Clerk that was worried that one or more of these five were wavering and wanted to make it politically difficult to vote to uphold Roe.  Second, decisions shouldn't be made on the basis of how it will be received. We got some of the worst SCOTUS decisions that were popular or at least not controversial at the time:

  • An eight to one court upheld forced sterilization in Buck v. Bell.
  • The Court found interment of Japanese-Americans as legal.
  • Plessy v. Ferguson made separate but equal allowing segregation and Jim Crow.  
Trump and MAGA -ism have divided this country gravely.

The divides in the country predate Trump and helped him to win and Clinton to lose.  We aren't hopeless as officials both red and blue states conducted a fair election in 2020 and then prevented a coup.   State attorneys general in a cross section of states blocked Trump on an large number of issues. Call it the 'Deep State' or responsible government but many Trump initiatives were stopped.

What would have led to helplessness is all political power at the federal level.  I see state government with mixed power between Dem and Repubs passing laws, issuing budgets without incurring debt and functioning with the drama of Washington.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
10  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

rump and MAGA -ism have divided this country gravely. 

That's the progressive con in a nutshell. They  want to "fundamentally transform" America and anyone who doesn't parrot their ideology is dividing America. 

Federalism is the genius of the country. Progressives hate it because it makes it more difficult to control everyone.  California should be California and Texas should be Texas. The problem is California wants Texas to be California. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    2 weeks ago

The idea that abortion could be a grave evil (according to the right) and yet still left to the states to decide is the real con job. 

Leaving it up to the states is actually a validation of the concept of "choice", yet the right, the so called party of individual rights , is not willing to give individuals the right to choose. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
10.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    2 weeks ago
eaving it up to the states is actually a validation of the concept of "choice"

Absolutely.  That's the core principle of a democratic form of government.  People choose the laws they want to be governed by. 

You want abortion to be decided by an unelected group of mainly men. 

Alito disagrees. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
10.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    2 weeks ago
Leaving it up to the states is actually a validation of the concept of "choice",

It may be a validation of what the Constitution say and doesn't.  

Justice Ginsburg, criticized Roe V. Wade both before joining SCOTUS and after.  She believed that an incremental state by state was both better and legally sound.  She also argued that a ruling based on the Equal Protection Clause and one less sweeping was proper and would have avoided the big target that the Roe ruling became. 

Several months before her SCOTUS confirmation, she said, “Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade,” 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.1.1    2 weeks ago
You want abortion to be decided by an unelected group of mainly men. 

I dont want abortion to be "decided" by anyone. It is a private decision by the woman and her closest advisers. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
10.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.3    2 weeks ago

The real issue is not so much about abortion but abortion after viability

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @10.1.4    2 weeks ago

There would be less controversy if that were actually true.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10.1.6  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @10.1.4    2 weeks ago

Bull! Late term abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother or sometimes in cases of incest where the pregnancies are kept a secret until near the end of term...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
10.1.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @10.1.6    2 weeks ago
Late term abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother or sometimes in cases of incest where the pregnancies are kept a secret until near the end of term...

Not in Alaska, Oregon, New Mexico, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado or DC.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
10.1.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.1.2    2 weeks ago

I truly doubt that Justice Ginsburg was aware when she made those statements and held those beliefs of the extent that the Republican State governments were going to go to enslave women, especially to the extent of enabling vigilante bounty-hunters.  Return of the 19th century. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.3    2 weeks ago
"You want abortion to be decided by an unelected group of mainly men."

No, those unelected group of mainly men are the ones who want to be the ones who decide.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @10.1.6    2 weeks ago
"Bull! Late term abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother or sometimes in cases of incest where the pregnancies are kept a secret until near the end of term..."

or if the fetus is not viable.  

Some repeat that lie all the time - that women have abortions up to delivery.  It's ridiculous.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.2  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    2 weeks ago
They  want to "fundamentally transform" America and anyone who doesn't parrot their ideology is dividing America. 

Fortunately most Americans aren’t that stupid and won’t fall for that nonsense.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
10.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    2 weeks ago
Federalism is the genius of the country.

Completely agree,  Without it, we would be more divided. I think part of our current problem is to much power and money at the federal level.  Problems should be addressed and handled at the lowest practical level.  States can try different approaches and solutions can be better tailored to meet more local environments.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
10.4  Hallux  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    2 weeks ago

You sound like the paint salesman who proclaims one coat covers all.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
10.4.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hallux @10.4    2 weeks ago
You sound like the paint salesman who proclaims one coat covers all.

One coat?  More like 20,000 cities, 3,000 counties, 50 states and one federal government.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
10.4.2  Hallux  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.4.1    2 weeks ago

That's not what I was getting at.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
10.4.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hallux @10.4.2    2 weeks ago

Sorry, I had keyed on federalism.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.4.4  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @10.4    2 weeks ago

If you use the proper paint it will.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.4.5  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @10.4.2    2 weeks ago

He likes to pretend to know what we're thinking

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
11  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

What is the nature of the division?  What is causing the division?

The author is pointing to a SCOTUS decision concerning Roe v. Wade as escalating divisions in the US.  The original Roe v. Wade decision was made 50 years ago.  And the Roe v. Wade decision actually addressed a highly technical point with limited scope.  The United States has had five decades to address the issue of abortion through a democratic process that addresses the shortcomings of a court imposed decree.

The Roe v. Wade example suggests that the divisions we're experiencing may be due to a failure of democracy.  Roe v. Wade is actually an autocratic imposition of abortion onto the country.  SCOTUS decided, imposed, and enforced.  The people of the United States did not have a democratic say in the issue of abortion.

Democracy in the United States requires either a direct vote by the people - or - decision making by elected officials representing the people and accountable to the people.  SCOTUS (and courts in general) is strictly an autocratic institution.  Judges are not appointed to represent the people and are not accountable to the people.  The people have not had a democratic say in the issue of abortion.

In the example of Roe v. Wade, it appears that the division involves a conflict between autocratic government (the courts) and democratic government (the voters and legislatures).  

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @11    2 weeks ago
The people have not had a democratic say in the issue of abortion.

Did the people have a democratic say on the issue of slavery?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
11.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1    2 weeks ago
Did the people have a democratic say on the issue of slavery?

Yes.  The issue of slavery was addressed through legislation by representative government.  Slavery was not autocratically imposed onto the United States by the courts.  The abolition of slavery was accomplished by a democratic process involving legislation.  (Constitutional amendments are legislated and approved or rejected by elected representatives of the people.  The courts are not involved in amending the Constitution.)

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.1.2  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.1    2 weeks ago
The abolition of slavery was accomplished by a democratic process involving legislation.

Will the states ever be granted the right to bring back slavery?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
11.1.3  bugsy  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.2    2 weeks ago

If they are, they will most likely again appear in democratic run states.

Old times are hard to break.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
11.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.2    2 weeks ago
Will the states ever be granted the right to bring back slavery?

Is there a movement to eliminate the 14th Amendment?  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.2    2 weeks ago
Will the states ever be granted the right to bring back slavery?

If you believe in a "living constitution" it is  of course possible that five justices could decide the Constitution evolved and it's legal again. 

Otherwise, its only possible with a Constitutional Amendment. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
11.1.6  Nerm_L  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.2    2 weeks ago
Will the states ever be granted the right to bring back slavery?

No.  That's because the Constitution has been amended through a democratic process.  The Constitutional amendment means the courts cannot autocratically allow slavery.

Slavery was not legal everywhere in the United States at any time during the history of the United States.  The courts could not autocratically overturn legislated prohibitions on slavery.  The courts could not autocratically decree that owning slaves was a fundamental right because the issue of slavery had already been addressed through a democratic process.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.1.7  mocowgirl  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.1.4    2 weeks ago
Is there a movement to eliminate the 14th Amendment?  

Where there's a will there's a way to eliminate just about anything including the right to bodily autonomy of anyone.

Free speech has been under attack for years.  People have been banned from internet forums for just having differing beliefs than what is acceptable to the political powers in the United States.  What happens when we can't express differing religious beliefs?

I remember Phil Donahue being taken off television because he dared to question why the US should invade Iraq. 

Helen Thomas was a liberal reporter who covered the White House for decades beginning with Kennedy presidency and ending with Obama's first term.  

Helen Thomas - Wikipedia On July 1, 2009, Thomas commented on the Obama administration's handling of the press, "we have had some control but not this control. I mean I'm amazed, I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and you have controlled...". [43] [44] [45]  She also said that not even  Richard Nixon  tried to control the press as much as President Obama. [46]

And today, we have President Biden appointing an official "Disinformation Board" to decide on who is allowed to say what.  

How can anyone be in favor of what President Biden is doing to suppress freely expressing their own thoughts?  

Is the democratic solution to division the act of making it illegal?  Where are the Democrats and Republicans speaking out against this power play?  Why aren't they divided when it comes to creating and paying government operative to suppress free speech?

Our government reps don't seem divided at all when it comes to protecting their own power and wealth, do they?

Homeland Security's "Disinformation Board" is Even More Pernicious Than it Seems (substack.com)

Homeland Security's "Disinformation Board" is Even More Pernicious Than it Seems

The power to decree what is "disinformation" now determines what can and cannot be discussed on the internet. It is now in the hands of trained disinformation agents of the U.S. Security State.

Indeed, the concept of “anti-disinformation expert” is itself completely fraudulent. This is not a real expertise but rather a concocted title bestowed on propagandists to make them appear more scholarly and apolitical than they are. But the function of this well-funded industry is the same as the one served by the pre-election letter from “dozens of former intelligence officials": to discredit dissent and justify its censorship by infusing its condemnation with the pretense of institutional authority. The targeted views are not merely  wrong ; they have been adjudged by  official, credentialed   experts   to constitute "disinformation.”

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
11.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.7    2 weeks ago
Free speech has been under attack for years. 

When hasn't it been attacked?

I remember Phil Donahue being taken off television because he dared to question why the US should invade Iraq. 

I remember that too I was a Donahue fan but MSNBC was to focused on the ratings.  I preferred Bill Moyer for his viewpoint on the tragedy we were rushing to make.  I also always enjoyed listening to Helen Thomas.  

How can anyone be in favor of what President Biden is doing to suppress freely expressing their own thoughts?

I'm not for the Imperial Presidency.  

Our government reps don't seem divided at all when it comes to protecting their own power and wealth, do they?

You got that right!

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.1.9  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.6    2 weeks ago
Slavery was not legal everywhere in the United States at any time during the history of the United States.  The courts could not autocratically overturn legislated prohibitions on slavery.  The courts could not autocratically decree that owning slaves was a fundamental right because the issue of slavery had already been addressed through a democratic process.

Abortion was legal everywhere in the United States long before it was made illegal (in part) to restrict our economic opportunities to work outside the home and have a hope of supporting ourselves and our children if a marriage failed or our spouse died.  

There are no reasons that women's access to any form of birth control should be limited because of someone else's emotional issues.

Women should not be subject to be governed as broodstock by anyone for any reason.

For women, access to all forms of birth control is vital to our emotional, physical and economic well-being.  

Women's rights should not be allowed to be used for political power plays.   The people who believe our rights to bodily autonomy should be restricted are equally in favor of slavery.  

The History of Abortion Law in the United States - Our Bodies Ourselves

In the United States, abortion was originally   legal before quickening , the point at which a pregnant person feels the fetus move, generally at around four or five months. Abortion was widely practiced, primarily done using herbs with the assistance of midwives and other female healers. Some of the earliest anti-abortion laws were poison control measures, passed in the mid-19th century in response to the proliferation of chemical abortifacents that became popular at the time. But by the late 19th century, most states had laws banning abortion except to save the life or health of a pregnant person.

The move to ban abortions occurred for a variety reasons. First, it was part of a backlash against the growing women’s rights movement, which advocated for “voluntary motherhood.” Even though the movement did not support abortion, the demand for birth control was a threat to male dominance. Restricting abortion was part of   an effort to control women   and confine them to a traditional childbearing role. It was also a way for men in the newly-established medical profession to wrest control over the highly-profitable business of childbirth from midwives, whom they condemned for performing abortions.

The attacks on abortion access were   rooted in racism and white supremacy . White doctors often targeted Black midwives for particular condemnation. People seeking to criminalize abortion were also motivated by increased immigration, specifically of Catholic immigrants, and the declining birthrate among U.S.-born white Protestant women in the late 1800s. The U.S. government and the eugenics movement were concerned about “race suicide” and wanted white Protestant women to have more children.

In the late 1960s, the  Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion  — a network of concerned pastors and rabbis — set up referral services to help women find safer illegal abortions.

While many were thrilled and relieved that abortion was now legal across the country, others were furious and turned to state legislatures to restrict access. From 1973 until 1992, restrictions on abortion were passed in almost every state. Abortion rights activists appealed, but the Supreme Court rejected hearing most of these cases. However, during this time period the Court handed down two major rulings that limited young and poor women’s access to abortion.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, since the 1973  Roe v. Wade  decision, states have passed  more than 1000  abortion restrictions.  More than a third of them  were enacted between 2011 -2019, accelerating after the election of President Barack Obama
 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
11.1.10  Nerm_L  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.7    2 weeks ago
Where there's a will there's a way to eliminate just about anything including the right to bodily autonomy of anyone.

Where does intervention in suicide fit into that argument?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.9    2 weeks ago
bortion was legal everywhere in the United States long before it was made illegal (in part) to restrict our economic opportunities to work outside the home and have a hope of supporting ourselves and our children if a marriage failed or our spouse died.  

Lol.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
11.1.12  Nerm_L  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.9    2 weeks ago
Abortion was legal everywhere in the United States long before it was made illegal (in part) to restrict our economic opportunities to work outside the home and have a hope of supporting ourselves and our children if a marriage failed or our spouse died.

That's not true.  In 1910 abortion was illegal nationwide. 

There are no reasons that women's access to any form of birth control should be limited because of someone else's emotional issues.

Abortion does not prevent pregnancies.  There are many, many methods available to prevent pregnancies.  There are medical procedures, devices, and drugs available to prevent pregnancies.  And controlling behavior also prevents pregnancies.  Abortion is not a substitute for women failing to exercise or being denied autonomy over their own bodies to prevent pregnancies.

Preventing pregnancies is a different issue than abortion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.12    2 weeks ago
That's not true.  In 1910 abortion was illegal nationwide. 

Cherry-picking?

Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions... During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.1.14  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.10    2 weeks ago
Where does intervention in suicide fit into that argument?

Until science comes up with a way to cure brain abnormalities that cause people to be suicidal, I don't believe it is humane to make people suffer because their families or societies fear their own deaths.  This is why I support assisted suicide for people who are desperate to end either their mental or physical torture.  The practice of starving the elderly to death is one of the horrors that I have witnessed with my loved ones.  I determined decades ago that the most loving thing I could do is to never put myself and my children through that.  I don't fear death any more than I fear sleep.  I am not a masochist and choose to avoid pain and suffering.  

People, who are committed to ending their life, usually do it effectively because they don't tell anyone and really don't want to live.  If they are somehow revived, they usually continue until they are successful.

Interventions only work if the person doesn't really want to end their existence.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.1.15  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.13    2 weeks ago
Cherry-picking?

Definitely.

This is why I rarely engage for long with people who either can't or won't have an honest discussion about the facts of an issue.  

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.1.16  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.12    2 weeks ago
Preventing pregnancies is a different issue than abortion.

When other forms of birth controls fail, then abortion does prevent the unwanted pregnancy from causing further injury to the woman's life.

At the end of the day, controlling the consensual sexual lives of women is nothing more than slavery.  Slavery is illegal.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
11.1.17  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.13    2 weeks ago
Cherry-picking?

You are claiming that Planned Parenthood is cherry picking?  The facts, as presented by Planned Parenthood, are that abortion was illegal nationwide in 1910.  Abortion has not always been legal in the United States.  And the prohibitions on abortion were put in place through a democratic process.  The courts did not autocratically decree that abortion was illegal (or legal).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.17    2 weeks ago
You are claiming that Planned Parenthood is cherry picking? 

No, obviously.  Faux obtuseness is a crappy tactic.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
11.1.19  Nerm_L  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.14    2 weeks ago
Until science comes up with a way to cure brain abnormalities that cause people to be suicidal, I don't believe it is humane to make people suffer because their families or societies fear their own deaths. 

In the case of suicide, what appears to be a personal choice affecting an individual can and does cause harm to others; sometimes irreparable harm.  Do those who would be harmed have a right to intervene?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.1.20  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.19    2 weeks ago
Do those who would be harmed have a right to intervene?

People, who have empathy, would rather mourn the loss of their loved one than make them suffer.

People, who take pleasure in the pain of others, are sadists.  Sadists are self-serving individuals who would mourn the loss of losing a person to torture.

So who is more likely to demand a "right" to prevent someone ending pain and suffering - the empath or the sadist?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
11.1.21  charger 383  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.12    2 weeks ago
Abortion does not prevent pregnancies.

No, but it solves the problem of unwanted pregnancy 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
11.1.22  afrayedknot  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.1    2 weeks ago

“The abolition of slavery was accomplished by a democratic process involving legislation.”

After a civil war, lest one forget. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
11.1.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @11.1.22    2 weeks ago
After a civil war, lest one forget. 

Exactly, are you ready to go to war?  Are we as divided as we were 160 years ago? 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
11.1.24  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.1.23    2 weeks ago

“Exactly, are you ready to go to war?  Are we as divided as we were 160 years ago?”

I’m not.

But I’m also pretty sure my neighbor, friend, and classmate from the 70’s would shoot me down if he knew my political philosophies and he was called to arms by whatever, whomever, and whenever to stoke his itchy trigger finger. 

So yeah, we’re divided. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
11.1.25  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.1.23    2 weeks ago
"Are we as divided as we were 160 years ago?"

I think you are - not across geographical lines as in the civil war, but in political beliefs, and it pits neighbour against neighbour no matter where you are in the USA.   I've seen stories that at family celebrations everyone has to keep their mouths shut about politics or there will be a divisive fight that will tear families apart forever.  I never heard about restaurants banning people or asking them to leave because of a differing politics until the last few years.  What is scary,while the divide continues to deepen, is that so many people have guns. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  mocowgirl @11.1.7    2 weeks ago
"How can anyone be in favor of what President Biden is doing to suppress freely expressing their own thoughts?"  

Oh brother.  There you go again.  It's always the Democrats who are the problem with you and Nerm and certain others.  

It's tiresome.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @11    2 weeks ago

Abortion is not, at bottom, a legal issue, it is a moral issue. Alito acknowledged this. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2    2 weeks ago
bortion is not, at bottom, a legal issue, it is a moral issue. Alito acknowledged this.

Why would you think that helps your argument? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.2.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.2.1    2 weeks ago

We have people saying that Alito is righting a legal wrong.  That should not be the main consideration. The main consideration about abortion is not the legal one. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
11.2.3  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2    2 weeks ago
Abortion is not, at bottom, a legal issue, it is a moral issue. Alito acknowledged this. 

Does that mean morality has greater authority than democracy?  

A child may or may not be an inconvenience for a woman.  A child may or may not be a burden for a woman.  A child may or may not interfere with the freedom of a woman.  But a child does not take away the rights of a woman.  What are the moral issues involved in abortion?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
11.2.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Nerm_L @11.2.3    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
11.2.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Nerm_L @11.2.3    2 weeks ago

The woman's rights are paramount

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11.2.6  mocowgirl  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2    2 weeks ago
Abortion is not, at bottom, a legal issue, it is a moral issue.

For some people.  That is why they have to argue from an emotional standpoint on why they believe they have a moral duty to control the sex lives of women.  That is all they have.  There are no logical reasons why government should be involved in legislating the sex and reproductive lives of consenting adults.

Abortion, in the US, was not legislated in the 1600s, 1700s and majority of the 1800s.  The men, who wrote the founding documents of this country, did not concern themselves with legislating abortion. 

What has changed? 

It has nothing to with religion.  People were far more likely to be a member of a religious organization until the last few decades. The majority of women who have had abortions (since the 1600s) were religious, most likely Christian since that is the dominant religious sect in the US.   Even if the Bible was against abortion, the US is not governed by religious laws or we would have to kill people for working on Sunday in order to please Yahweh and keep his laws.

What has changed?

The vast majority of citizens of the US are intelligent enough to access and use birth control effectively enough to cause the US population to be shrinking instead of expanding.  This is causing great alarm to the men at the top of our capitalist system.  Their economic model requires a continual population growth and it is not happening in the US or any other industrialized nation.

This is NOT a moral issue.  It is an economic issue framed as a moral issue.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
12  Drinker of the Wry    2 weeks ago

This issue does highlight how united both both sides are how how to debate the issue.  Most of the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life talking points continue to be repeated along with whataboutisms.  I see very little discussion of Altio's words in the draft and the legal or not merits of his argument. It wouldn't surprise me if most here as well as the talking heads on TV have never read the draft.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @12    2 weeks ago

see 11.2

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
12.1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1    2 weeks ago

Yes, I have read those 15 words as well as this 1st draft from early February.  I wonder how many drafts Alito has written since then and which other Justices have written them.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @12    2 weeks ago

It is quaint to see people suppose that issue can be approached from a simple perspective of "the law". Once this new "law" is in place it will be immediately broken by many women who need an abortion. Maybe its not a good place for the law to be then, eh? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
12.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @12.2    2 weeks ago
Once this new "law" is in place it will be immediately broken by many women who need an abortion.

Yes, it might be a good time to buy stock in Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @12.2    2 weeks ago
nce this new "law" is in place it will be immediately broken by many women who need an abortion.

Just like pretty much every other law? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
12.2.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @12.2.1    2 weeks ago
"Yes, it might be a good time to buy stock in Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro."

Or to invest in wire hanger manufacturers.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
12.3  Hallux  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @12    2 weeks ago
I see very little discussion of Altio's words in the draft and the legal or not merits of his argument.

By that you mean Alito's reliance on Matthew Hale the 17th Cent. English jurist and proponent of burning witches?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
12.3.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hallux @12.3    2 weeks ago
By that you mean Alito's reliance on Matthew Hale

I wonder how much he leans on Hale in his current draft.  He probably keeps RBG's words though.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
12.3.2  Hallux  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @12.3.1    2 weeks ago

I expect any references to Hale will be omitted. He opened a can of worms with that and to add insult to injury tossed in a can of Haggis soup. We will see in early July if there was method to his recipe of madness.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
12.3.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hallux @12.3.2    2 weeks ago
I expect any references to Hale will be omitted.

Agree.  

We will see in early July if there was method to his recipe of madness.

And if Roberts can get the scope defined more narrowly.  

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
12.3.5  Hallux  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @12.3.3    2 weeks ago

Alito shot him in the foot most fouly and he will need to be nimble without grimacing.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
13  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago

I don't think so. I spent 2 hours this morning shoveling and hauling dirt for my dad, who I have said repeatedly is retardedly conservative, and we had great conversations, laughing, and generally enjoying each other companies (while I naturally did all the real work). My father and I could not be more apart politically (except on Ukraine) but when politics is not mentioned (or barely mentioned) we are best friends. 

I think a lot of it has to do with internet interaction vs personal reaction. I will fully admit that I am more hostile online than otherwise. Granted I have punched more than one motherfucker in my life, but generally I am a lot more chill IRL. Social media/the interaction has really just been awful for our species. 

I think if people would pay less attention to their phones, and more attention to digging/clearing ditches with their dad's, we would all be a lot better off. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
13.1  Sparty On  replied to  Thrawn 31 @13    2 weeks ago

That’s because the threat of getting your ass beat is much greater IRL.    For everyone.

And we all know some folks on the internet are the biggest, baddest mofo’s in the valley ..... well okay ..... at least in their moms basement but you get the gist ....

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
13.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sparty On @13.1    2 weeks ago

Very true. I have kicked ass and had my ass kicked, and that is okay. Some people though... lol, you can tell the hardest thing they have ever hit is a pillow. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
13.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Thrawn 31 @13.1.1    2 weeks ago
you can tell the hardest thing they have ever hit

Or a Hostess Twinkie ....

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
Freshman Silent
14  Gulliver-Swift    2 weeks ago

The country is certainly divided. I personally think both parties have played their role in doing this.

The abortion wedge issue is the one we have before us at the moment. And to be honest, it's not a slam dunk for Democrats. Most Americans support abortions in at least some circumstances and most support some restrictions. A majority of our states are expected to further restrict abortion access as soon as the Supreme Court issues their ruling on Roe v Wade.

This is eerily similar to how some of the other social issue that Democrats are on the losing end of keep playing out. Democrats are convinced they are in the majority and inside every Republican there is a Democrat waiting to escape.

The USA is simply not yet a woke socialist nation. It is far more moderate if not conservative than Democrats pretend it is.

And that disconnect from reality is costly for Democrats. They forget the first lesson of politics and civil discourse: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
14.1  JBB  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @14    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
14.1.1  bccrane  replied to  JBB @14.1    2 weeks ago

"The Future the Left Wants", yeah I can go along with that, a community ruled by the few that continually gets your community into life threatening situations where everyone underneath them gets no say even though it directly affects their very life and if you do say or do anything against their rule you would be demoted or thrown into the brig, so yes that is a great analogy.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
14.1.2  JBB  replied to  bccrane @14.1.1    2 weeks ago

In Rightwing Gilead dissidents go to The Wall!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
14.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @14.1    2 weeks ago

Your continuing misconceptions of what the right wants shows how little you know about the right.

Or do you just not care you are posting falsehoods?

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
14.1.4  bccrane  replied to  JBB @14.1.2    2 weeks ago

I refused to comment on the "The Future the Right Wants" because for one thing it was preposterous, but OK fine let's do it, The Handmaids Tail was about fighting against oppression of the ruling class of the few and rightfully winning their freedom, so I guess I will go with that analogy too.

So what do you think of the Star Trek analogy.  Don't you wonder what crewman #6 thought about the command crew? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2  Tessylo  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @14    2 weeks ago
"I personally think both parties have played their role in doing this."

I disagree 100%

I get so tired of the both sides equally guilty stuff

You imagine greatly what Democrats think and feel and do

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
Freshman Silent
14.2.1  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Tessylo @14.2    4 days ago
You imagine greatly what Democrats think and feel and do

You don't have to imagine what Democrats think and feel and do. You can simply watch them do it and talk about it themselves.

It's not like the Democrats are a bunch of shrinking violets without a record or an agenda.

 
 

Who is online



35 visitors