Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

Both situations do not need to be the same. There needs to be a constant in both situations which there is; bodily autonomy.

Why are you having such difficulty with this?

Ah yes, I know, because it doesn't suit your world view.

I have already explained the differences. I can't dumb it down any further.

Why the constant mental gymnastics to try and push your agenda?

The majority of pregnancies end up in miscarriages. This happens before the mother is aware she's pregnant. To say a few percent don't is a lie.

Want to reduce miscarriages? Use birth control.

Please, don't make me spit coffee. Your GQP, improving impoverished people's lives since... well, never. Reagan and his welfare queens? 1000 points of (non-existant) light? The Handmaid and her safety net nonsense?

Wow, that is a desperate twist.

I know you're in a tough spot because Republican run states are at the bottom of most per capita tables when it comes to everything from child poverty, infant and mother fatality, education, gun deaths etc etc but you can do better than that pathetic attempt.

Republicans want babies born and then wipe their hands clean of them - look at basically every policy they have and their voting records

You explained the differences but utterly failed to understand that there is a constant that relates to both.

You suggested that only things that are the same as each other should be compared. Seems like a strange starting point to accuse somebody of mental gymnastics.

And if you could outline what my "agenda" is exactly it would be much appreciated.

A nation once again.....!

You'll contort into any shape imaginable to avoid being reasonable.

Best of luck to you.

The US has throughout its history been run by an overwhelmingly by rich old white men so who else is to blame for it? Are you going to blame the one black president who did more to provide healthcare to the poor than any president in a generation?

If you knew anything about the US system you'd know that democrats don't have the power to make many changes because they don't have enough votes in the senate to get through most legislation and not enough votes to blow up the filibuster.

There are endless examples of the Republicans resisting helping the poor - here is one from just this week. Democrats originally passed a much larger bill to provide much more funding for meals for poor children but due to republican resistance they ending having to agree to a much smaller amount over a shorter period.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/politics/school-meal-aid-bill-congress.html

Sorry that the facts don't care about your feelings

If it was "overwhelmingly" white, why did slaves need to become 3/5ths of a person

Well to this day, though not as it was in the past, there are significant roadblocks for candidates who are not rich white men so it isn't surprising.

I think your issue is with the other poster who seemed very surprised that I blamed those in power for the state the country is in.

I agree, it isn't very complicated.

I’m not arguing about what Republicans have or haven’t done, I’m taking it as a given that they’ve done nothing already. Your argument amounts to the idea that Democrats have done nothing (or not much anyway), because of wealthy old white men who want to control women’s bodies, offering no acknowledgement of the fact that Democrats haven’t actually done anything different, which is why in the same 50 years that abortion has been available in the US, the wealth gap between the people who were always living in inter-generational poverty, and those people who have enjoyed inter-generational wealth, has only increased.

The difference between the two parties is that at least with Republicans, they make no secret of the fact that they’re not interested in alleviating poverty, whereas Democrats have continued to be elected on the basis of their promises to alleviate poverty, which they haven’t lived up to. They’ve done no different than you’re doing in playing identity politics and pointing fingers at wealthy old white men as being responsible for the current circumstances in which 40 million Americans of all shades, stripes, political, religious and social views who have one thing in common find themselves - living in inter-generational poverty.

Can it really, possibly be that difficult to understand that living in poverty is what contributes to a lack of social mobility, and not whether or not anyone has access to abortion, when by all the metrics I know you’re aware of - people living in poverty, regardless of their skin colour, or their sex, or their religious and political views, have lower income expectations, lower employment rates, lower educational achievement rates, higher rates of abortion, higher birth rates, and higher maternal and infant mortality rates, and are locked out of access to appropriate healthcare which is unaffordable to many in the US.

It’s not about wealthy old white men at all, who introduced the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments as a means to abolish slavery and recognise that all people were entitled to equal rights regardless of their previous status as being in servitude. The decision by the SC that those rights were intended to infer a right to privacy in the case of abortion, while still recognising the States interest in preserving and protecting human life, was as curious an interpretation of law as this one -

Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in this case on June 15, 2020. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that Title VII protections pursuant to § 2000e-2(a)(1) did extend to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. The decision then involved the statutory interpretation of Title VII (specifically the original meaning of "sex"), not constitutional law as in other recent landmark cases involving the rights of LGBT individuals such as Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court further held that Title VII protections against sex discrimination in the employment context apply to discrimination against particular individuals on the basis of sex, as opposed to discrimination against groups. Thus, Title VII provides a remedy to individuals who experience discrimination on the basis of sex even if an employer's policy on the whole does not involve discrimination. Gorsuch wrote:

An employer who fired an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

Gorsuch's decision also alluded to concerns that the judgment may set a sweeping precedent that would force gender equality on traditional practices. "They say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today but none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today."

In short, you’re not interested in treating anyone as an individual. You’re categorising people according to your personal standards. Took me a while to figure out who you were referring to as “pro-birthers” because by my understanding, most people are pro-birth as opposed to a minority view of anti-natalists. It’s why there is such an emphasis on infant and maternal mortality rates and so on, which are higher among low-income families in US society, which, in spite of the State having an interest in protecting the potential of human life, they appear to be more concerned about upholding a perceived right to extinguish that potential so they don’t have to provide for it.

You’d need to be incredibly naive to think people are in favour of abortion because they have any great interest in women’s equality. In reality, the latter has nothing to do with the former - women should be able to have families without being penalised by the idea that it reduces their opportunities to provide for their families as a result of the States pretending that there’s nothing to see here when they were always aware that the rug could be pulled out from under Roe by the SC at any time. I have little time for identity politics, even less time for performative politics that have become a thing in politics of late due to the ubiquity of social media.

The absolute neck of you saying that to me.

I'd expect nothing less.

You've consistently misrepresented me and lied about what I've said.

You have no regard for facts and regularly allow your feelings to dictate the absolute nonsense you post here and here you are attempting to take the moral high ground in a display of absolutely unbridled narcissism.

Are you sure I've been comparing masks to pregnancy?

I mean, really, really sure?