Roe vs Wade, silver lining?

With Roe v Wade being sent back to the states to decide, could this  be a possible good thing?  It will create states that appeal to conservatives and states that appeal to everyone else. Lets be honest, everyone hates everyone for their political views. We can not coexist. This has been  proven. This opens the door to people being able to migrate to live with other like minded people. We don't have to have each others views and politics shoved down each others throats. We all find each others views abhorrent and immoral. I for one welcome this. I am more than happy to relocate to another state to get away from people who I find abhorrent and immoral and they will be glad to be rid of me for the same reason. It will also allow for somewhat of a social experiment. Which states will do better than others based on each states different abhorrent and immoral policies. I chose to describe the policies as abhorrent and immoral because that is how they will be described no matter how much good or bad they do.

I understand where you are coming from and I think that it's very accurate to say in terms of that if we turn a blind eye to the human rights violations happening in North Korea, let alone Russia rn without true intervention of a forceful freeing sense, we can't then pick and choose when the US government blackmails a 'state' to respect its people's 'rights' in terms of what it deems appropriate, especially if the federal law doesn't stop them restricting it.

I also think another silver lining which you will hate is that this is now allowing a stronger reasoned and concrete 13th Amendment to be instated, guaranteeing the right to abortion.

We will see how this pans out, right now the left-wing media is in a state of hysteria saying this is taking Americans in certain states back to the stone-ages and that contraception etc will get banned. I really hope not.

To me, as a progressive who is truly on the fence about abortion (and completely against anything past the first 3.5 months outside of medical emergency to save the mother), I see the attitude that the left-wing in general and right-wing Libertarians have towards abortion as akin to what the right-wing have to welfare recipients except this is worse; the welfare recipient at least has been able to live their life.

The dehumanisation of a fetus that we do to justify slaughtering human beings in the womb is no different, not one fucking iota different to the dehumanisaton of blacks during slavery or the poor right now today that the right-wing do to justify letting them perish.

If we are to say we defend people truly against abuse for the convenience of the lucky/fortunate, we ought to note that the mother got to live her life out, that fetus never did and is 100% a human being, it's a being and is human.

Is it worse to abuse children or adults? Who actually should we protect harder?

I hope migration works otherwise the prospect of a second civil war isn't far off. I am sick and tired of social engineering and forced acceptance of every kind of perversion humanity can think of. We can not coexist, there will be war.

Well I would support the US splitting up, as in allowing the most right-wing States to secede. Not just for abortion at all, it's not about that alone.

I think that the right-wing states have a huge amount of arrogance about themselves and need to appreciate that they rely on the left-wing states for the strong US economy they pride themselves on. I think this is the only way for the US to become a proper modern-day social democracy where the poor can get healthcare and education to standards that are sufficient, let alone existent at all in terms of healthcare.

Your question assumes a "United" States. We are not united on anything, we can not even agree on what a woman is or if men can have babies. I for one can not even engage such stupidity on any intellectual level. I can not coexist with such willful stupidity. I am however all for a state or states filled with such willfully stupid people  to coexist with each other so long as there can be states that can reject all such stupidity and those people can coexist and not have to deal with willfully stupid people. I know, My views are just as stupid in their eyes. Time to part ways and be stupid in our own ways. Time will tell whos ideas and policies are more stupid.

Why do the states have to succeed? Just let the people decide where they want to live. And don't give me this shit about the poor being trapped. People walk thousands of miles with nothing but the cloths on their backs to come to this country. If you don't like your state you will find a way to move to your utopia state. People crossed this country in horse drawn wagons to reach their utopias. Anyone with an ounce of effort could move to another state in this easy world we live in today. You could be there tomorrow with any effort at all.

Any effort cool. Money and loneliness aren't a factor, eh, easy as pie. Can find a new job just like that.

Have you ever been poor, like truly dirt poor?

The  latest available figures from 2020, says there were 930,160 abortions nationwide, up from 916,460 in 2019.  Where will these babies be going when they are not aborted?  Foster Care?

Mexico.

We have 8 billion people in the World. Remember when there were only 2?   The life span of a Human is one billionth the lifespan of the universe.

Not interested in engaging with an argument like this for a number of reasons, particularly as my position has little to do with the inherent humanity of the unborn. My answer to your question, of course, is no. I've got lots of problems with saying that that should apply to a multitude of stages of development of the unborn, none of which have anything to do with questioning their humanity.

Cowards are good at avoiding problems.

Keep avoiding it, at least you admitted you are afraid. At the very least you could admit that abortion is an unbiased variant of psychopathic eugenics.

I love my state and shouldn't have to leave it because of Neanderthals.

So your response to my telling you that you've entirely misrepresented my argument is to saying that I'm avoiding the problem? You're the one who directed this at me, dude. You clearly know my argument already, so why don't you explain my position to me so that I know what I'm avoiding?

To some extent I agree with you, but we must also see that group think isn’t the right answer. If we aren’t challenged on our views because we all agree with them, it leaves other, possible better perspectives untouched. On some issue like what’s a woman, I completely agree with you. 

That is not at all true, you said you refused to say your position out if fear, you still are.

…I’m sorry, did you mistake my refusal to engage with an argument that was clearly strawmanning my perspective with fear? Don’t know how you managed that, but hey, here we are.

Yes I did. I didnt strawman, I offered you to choose to strawman yourself or clarify your stance.

You didn't ask to clarify my stance. You asked a single question about whether I'd support any mother murdering an infant out of convenience. I said no.

If you want clarification with regards to my stance on abortion, ask.

Yes.

When is it too inconvenient? If it is not needed, it is not "too" inconvenient. As people running on logic I believe that you saw this coming. Having something legal and having it reprehensible is not mutually exclusive. There is the death penalty, do you enforce it on a woman who just aborted her fetus? No. You don't use it easily, but it still exists.

Leaving the way out for something for it to be available is always better than not, as there is a reason for abortion to come into existence, yes, and the reason persists to exist. There are possible scenarios where an abortion is justified: For example, miscarriage and when the mother's life is in danger.

Tell me why in these scenarios abortion is not justified.

Again, if abortion is still a concern, then maybe we should focus on biology, not politics.

Yeah I think he likes the CCP.

He said 'abortion in case of miscarriage' like it is even a point.

I'm not a fan of the 'if you don't like it, you can move to another state' mentality. This seems the opposite of what America is meant to represent... Especially when objection is to the removal of rights.

That is at least what many Chinese thinks as well, I mean the abortion statement. They do consider miscarriages abortions.

I have no need to dehumanize a fetus to justify abortion. I consider the personhood argument against abortion to be irrelevant in fact. 

This question is irrelevant in a different way. Murdering someone in cold blood is not analogous to disallowing use of one's organs.

Resorted to ad hominem, it seems that you have. Again, why exactly are miscarriages not considered abortions? I always thought they are.

And how do you suppose we miraculously stop a miscarriage?

Do you support murder being legalised?

It is absolutely relevant except that because it's legal we can call it slaughter instead of murder.

No. What does this have to do with my statement that abortion can be justified without dehumanizing a fetus?

I dont call abortion slaughter or murder. In my view, either assessment comes from a place of emotionality and that is not the basis of my position on abortion. You are making assumptions on my behalf.

I, nor anyone, should be obligated to allow my body to be used to keep someone else alive. The decision to sustain the life of another must come from the individual - not pastors, politicians, or governments.

Stop? What stop? We just let it happen naturally, and move on with life.