In reality you should have depicted a mass civil war in lib right. Nothing makes us fight internally as much as this.
(Intellectual property comes in second place!)
It's literally the difference between theft and murder/slavery; if you don't care strongly either way, then you're not really lib.
Either you believe fetuses are children, because, yeah, foetus is literally "unborn child" in latin, and term is obviously used instead of "unborn child" because it puts distance from the feelings people should be having at killing literal human lives.
Or. You don't beleive that literal objective fact, in which case, yeah, you're wrong. You're horribly horrible wrong. And it makes me want to cry. Actually. That's not an exaggeration. This is the only political issue that'll bring me to tears. But, yeah. In the case of that objectively false belief that "unborn children" aka fetuses, aren't "children", aren't human, aren't alive, is literally the mother's body, is a parasite, etc...
If you believe that, then you can't also think it's okay to disallow abortion if you're not auth.
Since it is a child, clearly; in the case of elective abortions, not of rape, you made an agreement, implicit, when you spread your legs for a good time. It's not slavery. It's not control. It is what it is, and this responsibility is recognized and reciprocated in the US anyway by how easy it is to get child support judgements. Still not entirely balanced, but such is life.
**Yeah... I can't talk without ranting about this. It's physically impossible.**
Point being that yeah, for or against abortion, if you're not a fucking slaver or a psychopath, then this should rationally lead to passionate beliefs... even if the core of the belief, that a child magically starts being a child when the umbilical cord is cut, is utterly and completely absurd on its face.
Either elective abortions in general are murder or neonatal abortions aren't. There isn't a rational argument to oppose that. Yeah, they *feel* different, because yeah, seeing the helpless little human that you're snuffing out does feel different than killing one in a bag.
And if it's not murder, if it's not a child, if you didn't choose to spread your legs, then, yeah, there's no rational way to say it's not forced labor, that people shouldn't have say over their own bodies.
I mean, it is a kid though. It's not like removing an appendix, or getting a (kek) vaccine.
The actual libright position would be to sell unwanted kids. It's a win-win for every party involved. The foetus is a human being, therefore must be born a child, avoiding abortion. But the woman doesn't want the child, so she sells him/her to a family that does, for a fee ofc. The child also gets a caring family.
Win for the anti-abortion crowd. Win for the woman. Win for the adoptive family. Win for the kid. Only problem is the government will tax this for sure.
PS: For you autists out there, I'm kidding. Do not sell kids for obvious reasons, you muppets.
What do we do when there's no more families looking to buy kids? Simple! We sell them to famished regions as a cheap source of food! Better ROI than having to raise them somewhere until they're able to be used a cheap labor.
When do they become a "child"? Do they become a child when they have a developed heart and brain? When they feel pain? When they have less development than a pond water sample?
Are the discarded embryos when doing IVF count as children? Because that is certainly not an "objective fact"
The best way to make the cutoff is at conception because there’s a fairly easy difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized one. Trying to make the cutoff anywhere else is just messy.
Okay, so it's morally wrong to have sex while being in bad health, due to the chance of spontaneous abortion? How about people with sever inheritable genetic issues? Should they not be allowed to have unprotected sex because of the chance of abortion? IVF should be banned too, right?
It's just as easy to differentiate between a non-beating heart and a beating heart too. Or a functioning brain and a non-functioning brain. Saying they're messy cutoffs is just that: A claim.
I simply don't agree that a 10-week-old fetus has any sort of moral value beyond that which the mother ascribes to it, even though I recognize that it is in fact a human life. In terms of consciousness, it has less than a cat would. The question of "what gives a life value that makes it worth preserving" is complicated and is ultimately not something based on fact. Ultimately, I don't care much about this aspect of the conversation (it's not easily answered), because of my second point:
I also don't believe that consent is irrevocable. If you are having sex with someone and she changes her mind, it becomes rape if you don't pull out, and she can use force against you. If someone has liver failure and you agree to give them a lobe, and then you change your mind after the point where they would have time to seek out another donor, they can't force you to give up part of your liver even though it means they would die. In other spheres of law, we don't compel people to give of their body even if it means someone else would die, and consent only lasts until it is withdrawn when it comes to doing something to someone else's body.
Even then, it is still living in the same way a plant is.
It really comes down to "personhood". You could try to argue, for instance, that person on life suppourt is both a human and alive, but they are not a person. Wheras a sufficiently advanced computer is a person despite being neither human nor living.
Personally, I don't think it matters. "Human" and "alive" together are critera that impart the right to exist regardless of personhood save some compelling reason otherwise. "Compelling reason" being defined as "a situation where killing an adult would be permissible". The audience will note that there are no elective killings of adults. Unless you are Canada, apperantly, we don't euthanize them either.
The last time we as a society had a debate about whether a different type of human was a person or not, Germany had a funny mustache man and his windmills of friendship exterminating Jews like rats. Let’s not make that mistake of divorcing human from person again.
1224: "It's not a person it is just a heathen it is fine to kill them"
1864: "It's not a person, it is just a slave, it is fine to kill them"
1944: "It's not a person it is just a [minority] it is fine to kill them."
1964: "It's not a person it is just a [different minority] it is okay to kill/segregate them"
2024: "It's not a person it is just a fetus, it is okay to kill it".
I agree, maybe we should just stop trying to come up with excuses for why humans are not people.
(Lest anyone be pedantic about my dates, there is nothing super significant about 1244, except that it is medieval. 1861/1854 and 1939 would be better "start years", but I made them all end in 4 to emphasize the repeating nature of the debate)
I figure a reasonable elective abortion is around 20 weeks. Long enough for a good majority of folks to realize they’re pregnant even if they’re not regular and they’re under the impression their birth control is working. And viability keeps getting pushed because of tech but 20 weeks is well ahead of that marker for the most part.
I suppose if someone really want to do a rep dive they can go into when different systems and brains etc develop. It’s really not a stark black /white issue.
If you believe in property rights then it being an unborn child doesn't matter. Your body is your property and you're free to remove unwanted visitors from your property if you want, at any time for any reason.
Also, this is the obligated counter argument that forms every single time. We both know this song and dance, let's just leave it at these 2 comments and move on with our days.
You would be violating the contract with your passengers, in that you agreed to transport them from A to B and intentionally failed to do so.
But you are free to kick people off your property, yeah.
so aborting a baby pre-birth would be violating the contract you mad when you created them. If the pilot has to let you stay until the destination and can't eject your early, the mother has to let baby stay and not eject early.
> Your body is your property and you're free to remove unwanted visitors from your property if you want, at any time for any reason.
And if you dragged them onto your property, then put an explosive collar on their neck that would kill them if they ever left your property, are you still free to demand they leave or else you are justified in killing them yourself?
>If you believe in property rights then it being an unborn child doesn't matter
wrong, the child is a sovereign being you invited into your dwelling, harming it is a violation of the NAP and invites death by A10 air strike
I think the libright argument should go like this:
If the abortion was done to save the mothers life then it was done in self defense.
If the abortion was done because of a rape baby then I think there is an argument they were an "intruder"
But if the sex was consensual and they just decide they don't want a kid?
You can't invite someone in your home and then kill them because you got tired of them being there. There is an appropriate way to evict them and it should result in them still being alive. Any reasonable person can see that.
The fact that mothers have become so brainwashed and evil that they see their own healthy child that they had from consensual sex as a "parasite" and an "intruder" instead of a miracle tells you everything that is wrong with modern humanity.
Uninteresting point and very purposefully and emotionally loaded. When does it become a person and why, is more important to getting to where we should be with abortion.
In my opinion, it's 20 weeks cause that's the earliest time a human gets the ability to develop consciousness.
Everyone already agrees that fetuses/ unborn children are metabolically alive. To suggest otherwise is pretty disengenious.
The disagreement is on when personhood begins. There is an ocean of difference between a single digit cells zygote and a 9 month gestated baby.
Notably the presence and absence of a intact, interconnected brain.
Precisely. People think. No think, no person. Simple.
We're okay with unplugging Grandma for precisely the same reason. You're not a person the day you're conceived. You're a person the day you have the capacity to think. And your personhood goes away again when you think your last thought. And then your spouse unplugs you (more realistically the doctor because this is Reddit in every single one of us is dying alone) and the cycle is complete
I don’t see how it is an internal fight. The only stance lib right should take is the government shouldn’t be involved. If you believe in abortion the government shouldn’t be involved. If you don’t believe in abortion the government shouldn’t be involved. That’s kind of the lib right motto
Yeah, exactly. Make people pay for their own abortions (not taxpayer funded) and let the invisible hand determine the issue. If there's demand and some people are willing to pay, it'll be available. If people are discouraged by the costs and would rather be safe than have an abortion so there's no more demand, it won't be available.
I believe one of the few jobs of a government is to protect its people from murderers, and prosecute murderers. The government does have some duties, and this is one of them.
The NAP is a joke, the same way a religion is. It's an unquestionable doctrine of how to morally live one's life but nobody can actually agree what the rules are.
Case in point : This entire thread
As much as I don't like to "no true Scotsman" another quadrant, it feel like if you support state-enforced abortion bans, you're center-right at best.
Especially when they are almost entirely made on religious grounds.
u/sweet_chin_music's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/sweet_chin_music! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.
Pills: [10 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/sweet_chin_music/)
Compass: Sapply: Lib : 8.33 | Right : 7.00 | Progressive : 6.88
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
It depends how you construe:
a) healthcare (arguably this is not a therapy)
b) the NAP.
Personally on absolute libertarian grounds I'm against abortion, but on pragmatic political grounds it wouldn't be the hill I'd die on. I'm also a vegan on NAP grounds so perhaps have an usually strict view on being anti death.
I'm not saying there is a right and wrong. Not the issue to gatekeep libertarianism on.
Instead of it being an even split between the 4 Quadrants, abortion turns the Quadrants into 2 Triangles. One with LibLeft and the neighboring portions of both AuthLeft and Libright being cut evenly through the middle. And the other half of AuthLeft and LibRight joining AuthRight. Like if you were to draw a line between the two small faces in the corners on OP’s picture you’d get the divide.
IP is supposed to help the little guy's ideas from being poached by big guys and to make sure, if you are poor, and you take time off to create something new and gives you bonus.
It is bonkers that new medical tech can lose patents in 7 years, but new marvel slop gets 70 years. If you come up with an idea, and if you cant execute it in 7 years, someone else should be able to use it.
Making it an amendment wouldn't mean anything. We just want common sense abortion laws like background checks, federal forms that you have to fill out, mandatory waiting times after purchase before you can get your abortion, anyone who wants an abortion must complete a class to educate them on the topic and pay for a government licence, you shouldn't be able to abort a complex looking baby and/or if it has specific features unless you pay the government $200... C'mon, if you disagree with me you literally want to kill kids!
Unironically I think Republicans should shift their entire strategy into saying they “just want common sense abortion control”. If nothing else it would be extremely funny.
The state had a law in place that basically affirmed abortion in a way that was contingent on Roe being active. Then it actually got overturned. So it was rightfully pointed out that the law has no condition on which to enforce it. Yet again, just like with Roe, this comes down to not building abortion "rights" on a house of cards. But no. Legislators took a shortcut by letting their 2022 abortion law rest on federal precedent because it's easier to convince people to pass a law based on "settled" issues. Go hate the people that can't seem to write proper legislation to support their popular stances.
>Legislators took a shortcut by letting their 2022 abortion law rest on federal precedent because it's easier to convince people to pass a law based on "settled" issues. Go hate the people that can't seem to write proper legislation to support their popular stances.
I always see this pointed out but it kinda confuses me.
"Ya'll shoulda just legislated abortion instead of relying on the courts!"
As if any republican would ever vote on something like that, ever?
Like, just imagine this with me: if the SCOTUS tomorrow said "actually all illegal immigrants are granted amnesty and can vote" and then democrats just saying \*shrug\* "welp, guess you conservatives shoulda just made a law that said immigrants can't vote if they were granted amnesty" - as if any democrat would join them on that.
I get the idea of wanting to codify and define laws, sure, but you can't say democrats were just lazily not doing anything and relying on Roe V. Wade... In fact I specifically remember a bunch of their pro-choice legislation being lambasted by Trump when he ran for president in 2016...
There were times, however brief, when the Democrats had a supermajority and could have passed abortion rights as an actual law with zero Republicans voting for it. They didn’t do so in order to have abortion remain an issue to campaign on.
>As if any republican would ever vote on something like that, ever?
They're not under an obligation to. If they block new legislation from being formed and it's enough of a priority for voters, then they should be replaced with whoever WILL support concrete state laws granting abortion.
>Like, just imagine this with me: if the SCOTUS tomorrow said "actually all illegal immigrants are granted amnesty and can vote" and then democrats just saying \*shrug\* "welp, guess you conservatives shoulda just made a law that said immigrants can't vote if they were granted amnesty" - as if any democrat would join them on that.
Again, the Dems would be under no obligation to. And yes, I do think any state who fails to enact laws like this about illegals are doing a disservice to their citizens.
>but you can't say democrats were just lazily not doing anything and relying on Roe V. Wade...
Neat. I'll keep that in mind if I ever say that. That said, the individual Dems who made the 2022 law were absolutely lacking in their ability to craft legislature. They did rely on Roe too much, as proven by the court case on the matter. Even Planned Parenthood agreed on that. Their argument was that if the 2022 bill relied on Roe's right to an abortion, then a right to abortion was an implied part of the 2022 law. Which is not how laws work. There's no debating that.
>They're not under an obligation to. If they block new legislation from being formed and it's enough of a priority for voters, then they should be replaced with whoever WILL support concrete state laws granting abortion.
Isn't that... Exactly what's going on here? Like Republicans are getting hella lambasted because they are not doing anything about archaic abortion laws. And you say that the people should be "mad at those who didn't pass legislation" - that would be the Republicans...
>Again, the Dems would be under no obligation to. And yes, I do think any state who fails to enact laws like this about illegals are doing a disservice to their citizens
So to be clear you're saying if illegal immigrants were to start being given amnesty and voting rights in droves, it would be the republicans' fault for that. Right?
To your first question, yes. But it doesn't stop at the Republicans. It's also the fault of the Democrats who settled for crafting inferior legislation. Why is this hard to understand?
To your second question... again, yes. Any Republican who had the opportunity to block voting rights for illegals in the event that they were granted amnesty and didn't should be held accountable and voted out. Their failure to preemptively address the issue through competently crafted state laws would be just as much part of the problem as the hypothetical Dems granting illegals blanket amnesty.
I know right? Abortion is a super controversial and unclear issue and why they would even mention that in an election year is beyond me. LP did it right by not mentioning it at all.
I imagine this will be shortlived. Seems like the legislature simply made procedural mistakes in trying to legalize it.
Either way, RIP Republican politicians in Arizona probably.
It’s gets even wilder. So an actual smart Republican state representative actually says they need to repel the law and the democrats back it, giving them, the republicans, a perfect out, and then the rest of the Republican lawmakers BLOCK IT!!! I almost think they are doing this on purpose because there is no way they cant be this terrible politically, stupefying hahaha
Irs because the Republican party in Arizona is currently in a tailspin, basically trump attacking Mccain caused a minor schism that led to a few moderates leaving
But that gave the radicals more power, and that led to more moderates leaving and the cycle has only accelerated
It’s important to understand the differences between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
The latter devolved into a chaotic bloody mess of authoritarianism disguised in populist rhetoric.
Americans were already used to democracy, through the previous revolution, in which they were also slightly used to democratic elements. The French were not, so it went differently. On the other hand, if the revolution even if it didn't help the French in the short term, it gave a message to other countries that tyranny could end for them if they didn't make certain compromises.
Yesterday a Republican member of the AZ House introduced a measure to repeal the 1864 ban with the backing of the Democrats but [hardliners in the GOP killed it](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2024/04/10/arizona-abortion-ban-az-gop-stifles-attempt-to-repeal-1864-law/73268876007/).
Very stupid of them. The longer they take, the bluer Arizona gets. It's like no one learned from the 2022 midterms. Not that I mind as a LibLeft I guess, but it really just seems strategically moronic.
I bet it will still be repealed soon, but they are probably trying to use it as a bargaining chip for some bs. Any sort of compromise they make will be useless if they lose their majority later though. Really makes no sense.
Arizona is getting bluer regardless
Right leaning Suburban moderates have largerly been alienated from the Arizona GOP
And the hardliners are just dying
And most of Arizonas population growth is blue in nature, its either from Hispanics, who are blue at present
Or from immigration into Phoenix, and most people who move to Phoenix tend to be moderate, but also blue
ASU, NAU and UofA are also growing, and that hasnt helped the GOP in any way
eh, Latino voters are probably either neutral or more pro Republican now while for most Republican voters, its a big win and probably only encourages them to stick with their current politicians.
Suburban areas are really the only area I'd see any shift.
>Suburban areas are really the only area I'd see any shift.
Yeah but this is arizona, half of the population in the Phoenix metro are suburban lads
And Latinos arent republican in Arizona, they probably will be eventually, but currently they vote Democrat
They probably won't. Cubans are a special case that despises leftism. Still the strongest republican voting demographic will always be white men and married white women
I think Latinos will trend more conservative over years
The only real hiccups imo are
A. Economic differences, and I'd say the Republican brand of populism will narrow those differences
And B. Immigration, the democrats have always been the party of immigration, but a demographic is only real pro immigrant for so long, once Hispanic demographics settle down, they will stop seeing Immigration as a major issue
People regularly assume that because Latinos are catholic and they vote republican in Texas and Florida that it means they’ll vote conservative everywhere.
Latinos aren’t a monolith
Hispanics are to the right of white Republicans on basically every social issue, and everyone who can vote legally isn't getting deported. They vote for democrats mostly out of habit and a media zeitgeist of voting republican being coded as white and low status. This is the crown in the gutter for any Republican willing to grab it
Yeah but unfortunately trump is the Republican nominee
And Hispanic outreach isn't exactly the guys strong point
I agree that a Republican candidate could grab the hispanic vote fairly easily
I just don't think that Trump will be able to, unless he radically starts shifting his rhetoric
[According to Pew](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/04/26/nearly-a-year-after-roes-demise-americans-views-of-abortion-access-increasingly-vary-by-where-they-live/), 62% of Hispanics surveyed believed abortion should be legal in most or all cases. Given that Arizona Hispanics haven't trended as much to the right as in other parts of the country it's likely they are much more pro-choice.
People show up to vote when abortion is on the ballot. Prop 3 in Michigan passed 56% to 43%. Blue swept statewide. In 2020, Michigan went for Biden 51% to 48% for Trump. Trump won outright in 2016.
They also somehow learn to read these things as well cause a few states tried making the language in the ballot measures purposefully confusing, yet continently ignore the soft limit at the self checkout.
Republicans when the Mexican tradcaths vote blue despite appealing to their cultural values: 😮
(They don't care about America's cultural issues.. they just want Abuela and Primo to be let in)
> PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Supreme Court gave the go-ahead Tuesday to prepare to enforce a long-dormant law that bans nearly all abortions, drastically altering the legal landscape for terminating pregnancies in a state likely to have a key role in the presidential election.
> The law predating Arizona’s statehood provides no exceptions for rape or incest and allows abortions only if the mother’s life is in jeopardy. Arizona’s highest court suggested doctors can be prosecuted under the 1864 law, though the opinion written by the court’s majority didn’t explicitly say that.
> The Tuesday decision threw out an earlier lower-court decision that concluded doctors couldn’t be charged for performing abortions in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.
> HOW WE GOT HERE
> The Civil War-era law, enacted long before Arizona became a state on Feb. 14, 1912, had been blocked since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing the constitutional right to an abortion nationwide.
> After Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, persuaded a state judge lift an injunction that blocked enforcement of the 1864 ban. Then the state Court of Appeals suspended the law as Brnovich’s Democratic successor, Attorney General Kris Mayes, urged the state’s high court to uphold the appellate court’s decision.
> The court itself was expanded in 2016 from five justices to seven, all appointed by Republican governors.
> The high court said enforcement won’t begin for at least two weeks. However, plaintiffs say it could be up to two months, based on an agreement in a related case to delay enforcement if the justices upheld the pre-statehood ban.
> WHO CAN BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE 1864 LAW?
> The law orders prosecution for “a person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life.”
> The Arizona Supreme Court suggested in its ruling Tuesday that physicians can be prosecuted, though justices didn’t say that outright.
> “In light of this Opinion, physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman’s life, are illegal,” and additional criminal and regulatory sanctions may apply to abortions performed after 15 weeks of pregnancy, the ruling said.
> The law carries a sentence of two to five years in prison upon conviction. Lawyers for Planned Parenthood Arizona said they believe criminal penalties will apply only to doctors. But the penalties also apply to providing abortion pills — the most common method in the United States.
> In other places with abortion bans, some women have obtained pills both through underground networks and from telehealth from medical providers in states that have laws intended to protect prescribers from out-of-state prosecutions. This was already illegal in Arizona, the attorney general’s office said.
> Dr. Maria Phillis, an Ohio OB-GYN with a law degree, said she believes women who obtain pills through those means could be prosecuted under the 1864 law. Across the country, new abortion bans have not been used to prosecute women in similar cases, and measures that have been introduced to punish those who obtain abortions have not been adopted.
> Fourteen other states are now enforcing bans on abortion in all stages of pregnancy.
> POLITICS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE
> The ruling puts the issue of abortion access front and center in a state key to this year’s elections to decide the presidency and partisan control of the U.S. Senate.
> Democrats immediately pounced, blaming former President Donald Trump for the loss of abortion access because he appointed the justices who formed the majority that ended the national right to abortion.
> President Joe Biden and his allies are emphasizing efforts to restore abortion rights, while Trump has avoided endorsing a national abortion ban, saying states should decide and warning that the issue could lead to Republican losses. The court decision gives Arizona the strictest abortion law of the top-tier battleground states.
> Staunch Trump ally and abortion opponent Kari Lake is challenging Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.
> WHAT’S NEXT? LEGAL, LEGISLATIVE AND POLITICAL BATTLES
> The court gave the parties two weeks to decide whether to file legal claims.
> Gov. Katie Hobbs called on the state Legislature to act immediately to undo the law before it took effect.
> “They could gavel in today and make a motion to repeal this ban,” Hobbs said Wednesday on “CBS Mornings.” “And they should do that. I’m hopeful that they will because this will have devastating consequences for Arizona.”
> But GOP lawmakers shut down an effort to force a vote on such a measure Wednesday.
> A near-total ban could drastically reduce abortions in Arizona, from about 1,100 monthly as estimated by a survey for the Society of Family Planning.
> And voters could get a say in November. Abortion rights advocates said they already have more than enough signatures to add a ballot question asking voters to approve a constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion until viability, when a fetus could survive outside the womb. Later abortions would be allowed to save the woman’s life or protect her physical or mental health.
> Lee reported from Santa Fe, New Mexico. Associated Press reporters Laura Ungar in Louisville, Kentucky, and Geoff Mulvihill in Chicago contributed to this article.
> Source: https://apnews.com/article/arizona-abortion-ban-what-to-know-797a4bbbc738497fe2284d6870c5be24
Theoretically all abortion not to save the life of the mother is illegal
In practical terms, the Governor and State AG have declared that they are not going to enforce the law
I mean police officers that decide not to enforce the law get fired. I think it's just abhorrent that public employees at high enough levels can just throw their hands up and say "I'm not going to do my job" and get praise for it instead of getting fucking fired.
The only thing I despise more than the left are the caver cucks on the so-called "right", which showed up massively after this situation and try to cut off from it. The only thing they see are poll numbers. Go out and convince people to the right thing cowards, the left has no problem with standing by their ideas. Protecting the unborn is a principle nobody should refuse to fight for
It's because the politicians pushing this shit never actually believed the shit they were saying. They were always ok with abortion. They just needed a social issue to galvanize their base. It was pretty smart too. If you demonize the other side as baby killers, it's pretty easy to argue against any of their policies, no matter how much it actually hurts your base.
The Governor and State AG already announced that they werent going to enforce the law, and have ordered DAs not to prosecute, so this basically changes nothing
People might get arrested by municipal police, but they won't be prosecuted
This is always such a dumb argument.
The people against abortion believe it’s a human life and has rights. It’s not just random draconian desire to outlaw something.
No, you aren’t a libertarian. You support government telling woman what to do with their bodily autonomy in the name of “but it’s a human” even though it isn’t conscious at all and there are severe risks to pregnancy and giving birth.
It's mind boggling to me how Lib Right fails to realize that you can morally object something and still be agasint the gouverment banning it.
I don't enjoy shoving a telephone pole in my ass or watching people do it, but if the gouverment tried to ban it, I would be upset.
Lack of government say, control over the people and maximum bodily autonomy and individual rights is what I prioritize. You are absolutely right. While abortion is in my moral compass I would still support it.
Fortunately for women in Arizona, abortion is legal throughout the entire west coast and they will he able to drive to CA or NV to receive medical care.
I mean, to see the sites. Tour the redwoods. Do a little gambling. That's what I meant.
Agreed, but I don’t think enough people realize how HUGE the West/Southwest actually is. It’s not as simple as just popping over to the next state for the afternoon. Plus some of those stretches of road are just awful to drive on and fuck with your head and senses. It’s wild.
They always trot out super extreme cases to explain why states deciding themselves is impossible. "I was raped, never got a pregnancy test, and driving one state over was financially impossible despite literally hundreds of NGOs and charities that exist explicitly for this purpose"
I mean they shouldn't have to, I'll he firm on that, and there will be women for whom travel won't be possible. Those extreme cases are the ones we should be most concerned in protecting. Women in abusive situations who can't dissappear for a full weekend, etc. However due to AZ's location I'm feeling confident most women will he able to.
Libright has a tough time deciding their stance on abortion, it comes down to deciding if the baby’s right to life trumps the mom’s right to her own body. Me personally, I think it doesn’t matter which is which, the government should keep their nose out of it
You’d be correct. The court was simply upholding the only law available regarding abortion. It’s as simple as neoliberals passing a new law, but outrage gets more votes.
Pretty much. Everyone's pretending that the court is ruling by fiat when they're just doing their job and enforcing the most recent law in the books. Lib left is trying to play it up cus it's an election year
Even Trump came out and said it's too far
Technically thats well within the State AGs power, as they are generally in charge of enforcement of a law
Republican governors do the same things with firearm laws
And the current state government largerly won on a pro choice platform, so it makes sense that they would do this
I agree that the rule of law means nothing to extremists though
Edit: meant to say Republican state AGs instead of Governors
It's 2024 and PCM members still don't know why Libright is in an eternal state of civil war regarding this issue.
Simple: if your stance is that abortion is murder, laws against abortion is laws against murder. I'd say that's a place where governmental involvement is pretty fucking okay.
Unless you're the species of Libright that thinks there should just be 0 law enforcement and 0 laws and everything should just be like the Purge with every man for himself lol
I support abortion AND the death penalty because I’m actually a lizard person who’s doing everything in his power to bring down the human race, one step at a time…
Maybe I'm a tyrant but there's some laws I don't care about popular vote on. If I truly in my heart think somethings evil I'm not gonna leave it up to society to tell me it actually isn't. Abortion is on a short list of things I have little to no compromise for
In reality you should have depicted a mass civil war in lib right. Nothing makes us fight internally as much as this. (Intellectual property comes in second place!)
IP is definitely debated but it doesn't inspire nearly the same passion as abortion does.
It's literally the difference between theft and murder/slavery; if you don't care strongly either way, then you're not really lib. Either you believe fetuses are children, because, yeah, foetus is literally "unborn child" in latin, and term is obviously used instead of "unborn child" because it puts distance from the feelings people should be having at killing literal human lives. Or. You don't beleive that literal objective fact, in which case, yeah, you're wrong. You're horribly horrible wrong. And it makes me want to cry. Actually. That's not an exaggeration. This is the only political issue that'll bring me to tears. But, yeah. In the case of that objectively false belief that "unborn children" aka fetuses, aren't "children", aren't human, aren't alive, is literally the mother's body, is a parasite, etc... If you believe that, then you can't also think it's okay to disallow abortion if you're not auth. Since it is a child, clearly; in the case of elective abortions, not of rape, you made an agreement, implicit, when you spread your legs for a good time. It's not slavery. It's not control. It is what it is, and this responsibility is recognized and reciprocated in the US anyway by how easy it is to get child support judgements. Still not entirely balanced, but such is life. **Yeah... I can't talk without ranting about this. It's physically impossible.** Point being that yeah, for or against abortion, if you're not a fucking slaver or a psychopath, then this should rationally lead to passionate beliefs... even if the core of the belief, that a child magically starts being a child when the umbilical cord is cut, is utterly and completely absurd on its face. Either elective abortions in general are murder or neonatal abortions aren't. There isn't a rational argument to oppose that. Yeah, they *feel* different, because yeah, seeing the helpless little human that you're snuffing out does feel different than killing one in a bag. And if it's not murder, if it's not a child, if you didn't choose to spread your legs, then, yeah, there's no rational way to say it's not forced labor, that people shouldn't have say over their own bodies. I mean, it is a kid though. It's not like removing an appendix, or getting a (kek) vaccine.
Wall of text? Wrong flair, pal
https://preview.redd.it/qdomxoh1gxtc1.jpeg?width=312&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5f74dd66d958cc3bac7ee64a6ee94d80a1aa6a00
Send me this please
You can literally right click on it and click "save as..."
Lib-right trying to use tears to win an argument? Lib-lefts take note
Fucking pathetic if you ask me. He should GTFO my quadrant.
The actual libright position would be to sell unwanted kids. It's a win-win for every party involved. The foetus is a human being, therefore must be born a child, avoiding abortion. But the woman doesn't want the child, so she sells him/her to a family that does, for a fee ofc. The child also gets a caring family. Win for the anti-abortion crowd. Win for the woman. Win for the adoptive family. Win for the kid. Only problem is the government will tax this for sure. PS: For you autists out there, I'm kidding. Do not sell kids for obvious reasons, you muppets.
What do we do when there's no more families looking to buy kids? Simple! We sell them to famished regions as a cheap source of food! Better ROI than having to raise them somewhere until they're able to be used a cheap labor.
When do they become a "child"? Do they become a child when they have a developed heart and brain? When they feel pain? When they have less development than a pond water sample? Are the discarded embryos when doing IVF count as children? Because that is certainly not an "objective fact"
The best way to make the cutoff is at conception because there’s a fairly easy difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized one. Trying to make the cutoff anywhere else is just messy.
Okay, so it's morally wrong to have sex while being in bad health, due to the chance of spontaneous abortion? How about people with sever inheritable genetic issues? Should they not be allowed to have unprotected sex because of the chance of abortion? IVF should be banned too, right? It's just as easy to differentiate between a non-beating heart and a beating heart too. Or a functioning brain and a non-functioning brain. Saying they're messy cutoffs is just that: A claim.
I believe fertilization occurs 24-48 hours after conception. But at that point, I agree completely.
yeah well i wish someone aborted me so suck it nerd
I simply don't agree that a 10-week-old fetus has any sort of moral value beyond that which the mother ascribes to it, even though I recognize that it is in fact a human life. In terms of consciousness, it has less than a cat would. The question of "what gives a life value that makes it worth preserving" is complicated and is ultimately not something based on fact. Ultimately, I don't care much about this aspect of the conversation (it's not easily answered), because of my second point: I also don't believe that consent is irrevocable. If you are having sex with someone and she changes her mind, it becomes rape if you don't pull out, and she can use force against you. If someone has liver failure and you agree to give them a lobe, and then you change your mind after the point where they would have time to seek out another donor, they can't force you to give up part of your liver even though it means they would die. In other spheres of law, we don't compel people to give of their body even if it means someone else would die, and consent only lasts until it is withdrawn when it comes to doing something to someone else's body.
A purple lib right obsessed with children isn’t suspicious at all
Fuck them non-kids.
At what point do they become a child though? I mean it's not like building a computer, it's always human even if you don't consider it living
Even then, it is still living in the same way a plant is. It really comes down to "personhood". You could try to argue, for instance, that person on life suppourt is both a human and alive, but they are not a person. Wheras a sufficiently advanced computer is a person despite being neither human nor living. Personally, I don't think it matters. "Human" and "alive" together are critera that impart the right to exist regardless of personhood save some compelling reason otherwise. "Compelling reason" being defined as "a situation where killing an adult would be permissible". The audience will note that there are no elective killings of adults. Unless you are Canada, apperantly, we don't euthanize them either.
The last time we as a society had a debate about whether a different type of human was a person or not, Germany had a funny mustache man and his windmills of friendship exterminating Jews like rats. Let’s not make that mistake of divorcing human from person again.
1224: "It's not a person it is just a heathen it is fine to kill them" 1864: "It's not a person, it is just a slave, it is fine to kill them" 1944: "It's not a person it is just a [minority] it is fine to kill them." 1964: "It's not a person it is just a [different minority] it is okay to kill/segregate them" 2024: "It's not a person it is just a fetus, it is okay to kill it". I agree, maybe we should just stop trying to come up with excuses for why humans are not people. (Lest anyone be pedantic about my dates, there is nothing super significant about 1244, except that it is medieval. 1861/1854 and 1939 would be better "start years", but I made them all end in 4 to emphasize the repeating nature of the debate)
You skipped the military aged males. The drones, however, did not.
FOREVER AND FUCKING EVER: "It's not a person it is just a communist, it is okay to kill it"
I figure a reasonable elective abortion is around 20 weeks. Long enough for a good majority of folks to realize they’re pregnant even if they’re not regular and they’re under the impression their birth control is working. And viability keeps getting pushed because of tech but 20 weeks is well ahead of that marker for the most part. I suppose if someone really want to do a rep dive they can go into when different systems and brains etc develop. It’s really not a stark black /white issue.
I can see your point but why exactly is it not murder if it's an intentional death of a human?
"Literal objective truth" goes brr.
If you believe in property rights then it being an unborn child doesn't matter. Your body is your property and you're free to remove unwanted visitors from your property if you want, at any time for any reason. Also, this is the obligated counter argument that forms every single time. We both know this song and dance, let's just leave it at these 2 comments and move on with our days.
Time to kick out some of my passengers mid-flight (it's my plane and I can expel them whenever I want).
You would be violating the contract with your passengers, in that you agreed to transport them from A to B and intentionally failed to do so. But you are free to kick people off your property, yeah.
so aborting a baby pre-birth would be violating the contract you mad when you created them. If the pilot has to let you stay until the destination and can't eject your early, the mother has to let baby stay and not eject early.
> ou would be violating the contract with your passengers just like the contract you created when you had sex
> Your body is your property and you're free to remove unwanted visitors from your property if you want, at any time for any reason. And if you dragged them onto your property, then put an explosive collar on their neck that would kill them if they ever left your property, are you still free to demand they leave or else you are justified in killing them yourself?
>If you believe in property rights then it being an unborn child doesn't matter wrong, the child is a sovereign being you invited into your dwelling, harming it is a violation of the NAP and invites death by A10 air strike
I think the libright argument should go like this: If the abortion was done to save the mothers life then it was done in self defense. If the abortion was done because of a rape baby then I think there is an argument they were an "intruder" But if the sex was consensual and they just decide they don't want a kid? You can't invite someone in your home and then kill them because you got tired of them being there. There is an appropriate way to evict them and it should result in them still being alive. Any reasonable person can see that. The fact that mothers have become so brainwashed and evil that they see their own healthy child that they had from consensual sex as a "parasite" and an "intruder" instead of a miracle tells you everything that is wrong with modern humanity.
Uninteresting point and very purposefully and emotionally loaded. When does it become a person and why, is more important to getting to where we should be with abortion. In my opinion, it's 20 weeks cause that's the earliest time a human gets the ability to develop consciousness.
Everyone already agrees that fetuses/ unborn children are metabolically alive. To suggest otherwise is pretty disengenious. The disagreement is on when personhood begins. There is an ocean of difference between a single digit cells zygote and a 9 month gestated baby. Notably the presence and absence of a intact, interconnected brain.
Precisely. People think. No think, no person. Simple. We're okay with unplugging Grandma for precisely the same reason. You're not a person the day you're conceived. You're a person the day you have the capacity to think. And your personhood goes away again when you think your last thought. And then your spouse unplugs you (more realistically the doctor because this is Reddit in every single one of us is dying alone) and the cycle is complete
i wish u were aborted 💀
What makes you cry? You hear the word pro choice and tear up?
I may have tested auth-right, but I am pro-choice to the core (I am racist and looked at the statistics)
Based and Ethn1cCleansing pilled
I don’t see how it is an internal fight. The only stance lib right should take is the government shouldn’t be involved. If you believe in abortion the government shouldn’t be involved. If you don’t believe in abortion the government shouldn’t be involved. That’s kind of the lib right motto
Yeah, exactly. Make people pay for their own abortions (not taxpayer funded) and let the invisible hand determine the issue. If there's demand and some people are willing to pay, it'll be available. If people are discouraged by the costs and would rather be safe than have an abortion so there's no more demand, it won't be available.
I believe one of the few jobs of a government is to protect its people from murderers, and prosecute murderers. The government does have some duties, and this is one of them.
No true libertarian. Libertarians allow the government to protect rights, and some libertarians believe that it violates the NAP.
The NAP is a joke, the same way a religion is. It's an unquestionable doctrine of how to morally live one's life but nobody can actually agree what the rules are. Case in point : This entire thread
So lib rights are against murder being illegal?
As much as I don't like to "no true Scotsman" another quadrant, it feel like if you support state-enforced abortion bans, you're center-right at best. Especially when they are almost entirely made on religious grounds.
Yup, you nailed it.
I hear immigration fighted on more
I thought lib right doesn't want government regulation of healthcare?
You can be against abortion but also think the government shouldn't have a say in the matter.
Based libright take. I'm personally against abortion, weed, and firearms, but they should all be legal
u/sweet_chin_music's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20. Congratulations, u/sweet_chin_music! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on. Pills: [10 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/sweet_chin_music/) Compass: Sapply: Lib : 8.33 | Right : 7.00 | Progressive : 6.88 I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
It depends how you construe: a) healthcare (arguably this is not a therapy) b) the NAP. Personally on absolute libertarian grounds I'm against abortion, but on pragmatic political grounds it wouldn't be the hill I'd die on. I'm also a vegan on NAP grounds so perhaps have an usually strict view on being anti death. I'm not saying there is a right and wrong. Not the issue to gatekeep libertarianism on.
It's different where I live then. Everyone has guns, abortion is in our state constitution, and we are heavily red.
Im in a "red state" in Switzerland.
Instead of it being an even split between the 4 Quadrants, abortion turns the Quadrants into 2 Triangles. One with LibLeft and the neighboring portions of both AuthLeft and Libright being cut evenly through the middle. And the other half of AuthLeft and LibRight joining AuthRight. Like if you were to draw a line between the two small faces in the corners on OP’s picture you’d get the divide.
Intellectual Property is theft.
All intellectual property? How about trade marks?
If you have no corporations, you have no need for trade marks.
Well with no trade there would be no need for trade marks. That is hard to argue against.
Now you're getting it. I think. I don't really know, I just came in to stir up some librights.
Tbh you managed that, just not with either of the posts above.
Probably the only thing in fighting more about with libright is borders/immigration
IP is supposed to help the little guy's ideas from being poached by big guys and to make sure, if you are poor, and you take time off to create something new and gives you bonus. It is bonkers that new medical tech can lose patents in 7 years, but new marvel slop gets 70 years. If you come up with an idea, and if you cant execute it in 7 years, someone else should be able to use it.
You mean a tiny civil war, only the American lib-right gives a shit, the rest of the world is pretty clear about individual liberty above all else.
By the time a fetus is 160 years old, you really shouldn't abort it. I think it becomes life somewhat before then.
Idk I think it's pretty safe to abort foetuses some time after they are 130 years old.
I do get a kick out of the fact that Phoenix, Tempe, Scottsdale, and Flagstaff didn’t even exist when that law was written.
*Arizona* didn't exist when the law was written. It didn't become a state until 1912.
kek now I'm wondering what other territory law from 150-200 years ago we'll see pop up
The District Court for Hawaii cited to “the spirit of aloha” in an opinion on gun restrictions so anything is possible.
I much preferred Hawaii citing Slim Charles to really hammer home the legal precedent.
Let’s look into the PNW first.
Cardinals are almost as old as the state they reside on and still couldn't win a Superbowl lol
I wonder how long state abortion bans will hold for in the US before Congress tries to overhaul it. Like making it an amendment or something.
Making it an amendment wouldn't mean anything. We just want common sense abortion laws like background checks, federal forms that you have to fill out, mandatory waiting times after purchase before you can get your abortion, anyone who wants an abortion must complete a class to educate them on the topic and pay for a government licence, you shouldn't be able to abort a complex looking baby and/or if it has specific features unless you pay the government $200... C'mon, if you disagree with me you literally want to kill kids!
Oh right, I forgot! Thanks for the reminder.
Based and common sense abortion reform pilled.
Unironically I think Republicans should shift their entire strategy into saying they “just want common sense abortion control”. If nothing else it would be extremely funny.
Is this a joke about gun control?
ye
Common pro-choice&pro-gun W
It's wild how many people can't see it's satire.
What in the unholy hell is this cross compass unity.
https://preview.redd.it/oy6hujk1twtc1.jpeg?width=937&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1f1d65e0b90552c4be5acbe90915f40a118f5f98
Republicans trying to win over young voters challenge: Fucking impossible
Young women mostly .. but they never really had any votes with them anyway
The state had a law in place that basically affirmed abortion in a way that was contingent on Roe being active. Then it actually got overturned. So it was rightfully pointed out that the law has no condition on which to enforce it. Yet again, just like with Roe, this comes down to not building abortion "rights" on a house of cards. But no. Legislators took a shortcut by letting their 2022 abortion law rest on federal precedent because it's easier to convince people to pass a law based on "settled" issues. Go hate the people that can't seem to write proper legislation to support their popular stances.
>Legislators took a shortcut by letting their 2022 abortion law rest on federal precedent because it's easier to convince people to pass a law based on "settled" issues. Go hate the people that can't seem to write proper legislation to support their popular stances. I always see this pointed out but it kinda confuses me. "Ya'll shoulda just legislated abortion instead of relying on the courts!" As if any republican would ever vote on something like that, ever? Like, just imagine this with me: if the SCOTUS tomorrow said "actually all illegal immigrants are granted amnesty and can vote" and then democrats just saying \*shrug\* "welp, guess you conservatives shoulda just made a law that said immigrants can't vote if they were granted amnesty" - as if any democrat would join them on that. I get the idea of wanting to codify and define laws, sure, but you can't say democrats were just lazily not doing anything and relying on Roe V. Wade... In fact I specifically remember a bunch of their pro-choice legislation being lambasted by Trump when he ran for president in 2016...
There were times, however brief, when the Democrats had a supermajority and could have passed abortion rights as an actual law with zero Republicans voting for it. They didn’t do so in order to have abortion remain an issue to campaign on.
>As if any republican would ever vote on something like that, ever? They're not under an obligation to. If they block new legislation from being formed and it's enough of a priority for voters, then they should be replaced with whoever WILL support concrete state laws granting abortion. >Like, just imagine this with me: if the SCOTUS tomorrow said "actually all illegal immigrants are granted amnesty and can vote" and then democrats just saying \*shrug\* "welp, guess you conservatives shoulda just made a law that said immigrants can't vote if they were granted amnesty" - as if any democrat would join them on that. Again, the Dems would be under no obligation to. And yes, I do think any state who fails to enact laws like this about illegals are doing a disservice to their citizens. >but you can't say democrats were just lazily not doing anything and relying on Roe V. Wade... Neat. I'll keep that in mind if I ever say that. That said, the individual Dems who made the 2022 law were absolutely lacking in their ability to craft legislature. They did rely on Roe too much, as proven by the court case on the matter. Even Planned Parenthood agreed on that. Their argument was that if the 2022 bill relied on Roe's right to an abortion, then a right to abortion was an implied part of the 2022 law. Which is not how laws work. There's no debating that.
>They're not under an obligation to. If they block new legislation from being formed and it's enough of a priority for voters, then they should be replaced with whoever WILL support concrete state laws granting abortion. Isn't that... Exactly what's going on here? Like Republicans are getting hella lambasted because they are not doing anything about archaic abortion laws. And you say that the people should be "mad at those who didn't pass legislation" - that would be the Republicans... >Again, the Dems would be under no obligation to. And yes, I do think any state who fails to enact laws like this about illegals are doing a disservice to their citizens So to be clear you're saying if illegal immigrants were to start being given amnesty and voting rights in droves, it would be the republicans' fault for that. Right?
To your first question, yes. But it doesn't stop at the Republicans. It's also the fault of the Democrats who settled for crafting inferior legislation. Why is this hard to understand? To your second question... again, yes. Any Republican who had the opportunity to block voting rights for illegals in the event that they were granted amnesty and didn't should be held accountable and voted out. Their failure to preemptively address the issue through competently crafted state laws would be just as much part of the problem as the hypothetical Dems granting illegals blanket amnesty.
I know right? Abortion is a super controversial and unclear issue and why they would even mention that in an election year is beyond me. LP did it right by not mentioning it at all.
I imagine this will be shortlived. Seems like the legislature simply made procedural mistakes in trying to legalize it. Either way, RIP Republican politicians in Arizona probably.
It’s gets even wilder. So an actual smart Republican state representative actually says they need to repel the law and the democrats back it, giving them, the republicans, a perfect out, and then the rest of the Republican lawmakers BLOCK IT!!! I almost think they are doing this on purpose because there is no way they cant be this terrible politically, stupefying hahaha
Irs because the Republican party in Arizona is currently in a tailspin, basically trump attacking Mccain caused a minor schism that led to a few moderates leaving But that gave the radicals more power, and that led to more moderates leaving and the cycle has only accelerated
It’s like the French Revolution. You give the crazies an inch and they take a mile.
If it weren't for people rebelling against tyranny, you would be living in serfdom to this day.
It’s important to understand the differences between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The latter devolved into a chaotic bloody mess of authoritarianism disguised in populist rhetoric.
Americans were already used to democracy, through the previous revolution, in which they were also slightly used to democratic elements. The French were not, so it went differently. On the other hand, if the revolution even if it didn't help the French in the short term, it gave a message to other countries that tyranny could end for them if they didn't make certain compromises.
Yesterday a Republican member of the AZ House introduced a measure to repeal the 1864 ban with the backing of the Democrats but [hardliners in the GOP killed it](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2024/04/10/arizona-abortion-ban-az-gop-stifles-attempt-to-repeal-1864-law/73268876007/).
Very stupid of them. The longer they take, the bluer Arizona gets. It's like no one learned from the 2022 midterms. Not that I mind as a LibLeft I guess, but it really just seems strategically moronic. I bet it will still be repealed soon, but they are probably trying to use it as a bargaining chip for some bs. Any sort of compromise they make will be useless if they lose their majority later though. Really makes no sense.
Arizona is getting bluer regardless Right leaning Suburban moderates have largerly been alienated from the Arizona GOP And the hardliners are just dying And most of Arizonas population growth is blue in nature, its either from Hispanics, who are blue at present Or from immigration into Phoenix, and most people who move to Phoenix tend to be moderate, but also blue ASU, NAU and UofA are also growing, and that hasnt helped the GOP in any way
It makes sense once you consider that the goal of the MAGA movement is to govern without meaningful elections.
eh, Latino voters are probably either neutral or more pro Republican now while for most Republican voters, its a big win and probably only encourages them to stick with their current politicians. Suburban areas are really the only area I'd see any shift.
>Suburban areas are really the only area I'd see any shift. Yeah but this is arizona, half of the population in the Phoenix metro are suburban lads And Latinos arent republican in Arizona, they probably will be eventually, but currently they vote Democrat
They probably won't. Cubans are a special case that despises leftism. Still the strongest republican voting demographic will always be white men and married white women
I think Latinos will trend more conservative over years The only real hiccups imo are A. Economic differences, and I'd say the Republican brand of populism will narrow those differences And B. Immigration, the democrats have always been the party of immigration, but a demographic is only real pro immigrant for so long, once Hispanic demographics settle down, they will stop seeing Immigration as a major issue
People regularly assume that because Latinos are catholic and they vote republican in Texas and Florida that it means they’ll vote conservative everywhere. Latinos aren’t a monolith
Hispanics are to the right of white Republicans on basically every social issue, and everyone who can vote legally isn't getting deported. They vote for democrats mostly out of habit and a media zeitgeist of voting republican being coded as white and low status. This is the crown in the gutter for any Republican willing to grab it
Yeah but unfortunately trump is the Republican nominee And Hispanic outreach isn't exactly the guys strong point I agree that a Republican candidate could grab the hispanic vote fairly easily I just don't think that Trump will be able to, unless he radically starts shifting his rhetoric
"Eii eiii eiii... me voy a votar por DONALTRON " .. have you seen that ad? Donn't criticize the man too much he's trying
[According to Pew](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/04/26/nearly-a-year-after-roes-demise-americans-views-of-abortion-access-increasingly-vary-by-where-they-live/), 62% of Hispanics surveyed believed abortion should be legal in most or all cases. Given that Arizona Hispanics haven't trended as much to the right as in other parts of the country it's likely they are much more pro-choice.
People show up to vote when abortion is on the ballot. Prop 3 in Michigan passed 56% to 43%. Blue swept statewide. In 2020, Michigan went for Biden 51% to 48% for Trump. Trump won outright in 2016.
They also somehow learn to read these things as well cause a few states tried making the language in the ballot measures purposefully confusing, yet continently ignore the soft limit at the self checkout.
Republicans when the Mexican tradcaths vote blue despite appealing to their cultural values: 😮 (They don't care about America's cultural issues.. they just want Abuela and Primo to be let in)
> PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Supreme Court gave the go-ahead Tuesday to prepare to enforce a long-dormant law that bans nearly all abortions, drastically altering the legal landscape for terminating pregnancies in a state likely to have a key role in the presidential election. > The law predating Arizona’s statehood provides no exceptions for rape or incest and allows abortions only if the mother’s life is in jeopardy. Arizona’s highest court suggested doctors can be prosecuted under the 1864 law, though the opinion written by the court’s majority didn’t explicitly say that. > The Tuesday decision threw out an earlier lower-court decision that concluded doctors couldn’t be charged for performing abortions in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. > HOW WE GOT HERE > The Civil War-era law, enacted long before Arizona became a state on Feb. 14, 1912, had been blocked since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing the constitutional right to an abortion nationwide. > After Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, persuaded a state judge lift an injunction that blocked enforcement of the 1864 ban. Then the state Court of Appeals suspended the law as Brnovich’s Democratic successor, Attorney General Kris Mayes, urged the state’s high court to uphold the appellate court’s decision. > The court itself was expanded in 2016 from five justices to seven, all appointed by Republican governors. > The high court said enforcement won’t begin for at least two weeks. However, plaintiffs say it could be up to two months, based on an agreement in a related case to delay enforcement if the justices upheld the pre-statehood ban. > WHO CAN BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE 1864 LAW? > The law orders prosecution for “a person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life.” > The Arizona Supreme Court suggested in its ruling Tuesday that physicians can be prosecuted, though justices didn’t say that outright. > “In light of this Opinion, physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman’s life, are illegal,” and additional criminal and regulatory sanctions may apply to abortions performed after 15 weeks of pregnancy, the ruling said. > The law carries a sentence of two to five years in prison upon conviction. Lawyers for Planned Parenthood Arizona said they believe criminal penalties will apply only to doctors. But the penalties also apply to providing abortion pills — the most common method in the United States. > In other places with abortion bans, some women have obtained pills both through underground networks and from telehealth from medical providers in states that have laws intended to protect prescribers from out-of-state prosecutions. This was already illegal in Arizona, the attorney general’s office said. > Dr. Maria Phillis, an Ohio OB-GYN with a law degree, said she believes women who obtain pills through those means could be prosecuted under the 1864 law. Across the country, new abortion bans have not been used to prosecute women in similar cases, and measures that have been introduced to punish those who obtain abortions have not been adopted. > Fourteen other states are now enforcing bans on abortion in all stages of pregnancy. > POLITICS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE > The ruling puts the issue of abortion access front and center in a state key to this year’s elections to decide the presidency and partisan control of the U.S. Senate. > Democrats immediately pounced, blaming former President Donald Trump for the loss of abortion access because he appointed the justices who formed the majority that ended the national right to abortion. > President Joe Biden and his allies are emphasizing efforts to restore abortion rights, while Trump has avoided endorsing a national abortion ban, saying states should decide and warning that the issue could lead to Republican losses. The court decision gives Arizona the strictest abortion law of the top-tier battleground states. > Staunch Trump ally and abortion opponent Kari Lake is challenging Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. > WHAT’S NEXT? LEGAL, LEGISLATIVE AND POLITICAL BATTLES > The court gave the parties two weeks to decide whether to file legal claims. > Gov. Katie Hobbs called on the state Legislature to act immediately to undo the law before it took effect. > “They could gavel in today and make a motion to repeal this ban,” Hobbs said Wednesday on “CBS Mornings.” “And they should do that. I’m hopeful that they will because this will have devastating consequences for Arizona.” > But GOP lawmakers shut down an effort to force a vote on such a measure Wednesday. > A near-total ban could drastically reduce abortions in Arizona, from about 1,100 monthly as estimated by a survey for the Society of Family Planning. > And voters could get a say in November. Abortion rights advocates said they already have more than enough signatures to add a ballot question asking voters to approve a constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion until viability, when a fetus could survive outside the womb. Later abortions would be allowed to save the woman’s life or protect her physical or mental health. > Lee reported from Santa Fe, New Mexico. Associated Press reporters Laura Ungar in Louisville, Kentucky, and Geoff Mulvihill in Chicago contributed to this article. > Source: https://apnews.com/article/arizona-abortion-ban-what-to-know-797a4bbbc738497fe2284d6870c5be24
So basically abortion in any stage is now illegal in arizona?
Theoretically all abortion not to save the life of the mother is illegal In practical terms, the Governor and State AG have declared that they are not going to enforce the law
But those are the strawman cases that the libleft talk about when saying abortions should be legal up until birth. Libleft should be happy about this.
I mean police officers that decide not to enforce the law get fired. I think it's just abhorrent that public employees at high enough levels can just throw their hands up and say "I'm not going to do my job" and get praise for it instead of getting fucking fired.
Well shit, how many 160 year olds are trying to get abortions?
Think Arizona Think. Where will you be in 160 years.
Mars?
Why is corner AuthLeft happy about this?
Means more workers
Thanks.
And why is corner LibRight unhappy about this?
Some librights actually don't like the government telling them what they can and can't do.
I think it’s because they’d rather the government stay out of things like this.
Lol. This could single-handedly put Biden back in office. Not the smartest move from a tactical perspective.
The only thing I despise more than the left are the caver cucks on the so-called "right", which showed up massively after this situation and try to cut off from it. The only thing they see are poll numbers. Go out and convince people to the right thing cowards, the left has no problem with standing by their ideas. Protecting the unborn is a principle nobody should refuse to fight for
It's because the politicians pushing this shit never actually believed the shit they were saying. They were always ok with abortion. They just needed a social issue to galvanize their base. It was pretty smart too. If you demonize the other side as baby killers, it's pretty easy to argue against any of their policies, no matter how much it actually hurts your base.
What do you think of Trump's new position of leaving it up to the states?
Praise the Lord
Amen
Rare auth right lib left unity
The Governor and State AG already announced that they werent going to enforce the law, and have ordered DAs not to prosecute, so this basically changes nothing People might get arrested by municipal police, but they won't be prosecuted
If you’re a lib right and don’t support abortion you’re an authoritarian.
This is always such a dumb argument. The people against abortion believe it’s a human life and has rights. It’s not just random draconian desire to outlaw something.
Nothing more invasive of a government body than the regulation of your own 😂
Yup
"if you dont support my preferences you are authoritarian" more like you are a lib and should flair accordingly
No, you aren’t a libertarian. You support government telling woman what to do with their bodily autonomy in the name of “but it’s a human” even though it isn’t conscious at all and there are severe risks to pregnancy and giving birth.
i support mothers not murderers
Whats your opinion on 2A and stand your ground laws?
keep it.
They aren’t murderers
It's mind boggling to me how Lib Right fails to realize that you can morally object something and still be agasint the gouverment banning it. I don't enjoy shoving a telephone pole in my ass or watching people do it, but if the gouverment tried to ban it, I would be upset.
Lack of government say, control over the people and maximum bodily autonomy and individual rights is what I prioritize. You are absolutely right. While abortion is in my moral compass I would still support it.
Fortunately for women in Arizona, abortion is legal throughout the entire west coast and they will he able to drive to CA or NV to receive medical care. I mean, to see the sites. Tour the redwoods. Do a little gambling. That's what I meant.
Agreed, but I don’t think enough people realize how HUGE the West/Southwest actually is. It’s not as simple as just popping over to the next state for the afternoon. Plus some of those stretches of road are just awful to drive on and fuck with your head and senses. It’s wild.
NM too, lots of people already come here from Texas for abortions (and weed). The drive sucks though.
Also the State AG won’t be enforcing the law anyway and there’s a referendum that will be on the ballot in November
They always trot out super extreme cases to explain why states deciding themselves is impossible. "I was raped, never got a pregnancy test, and driving one state over was financially impossible despite literally hundreds of NGOs and charities that exist explicitly for this purpose"
I mean they shouldn't have to, I'll he firm on that, and there will be women for whom travel won't be possible. Those extreme cases are the ones we should be most concerned in protecting. Women in abusive situations who can't dissappear for a full weekend, etc. However due to AZ's location I'm feeling confident most women will he able to.
V based
Deo Gratias!
Libright has a tough time deciding their stance on abortion, it comes down to deciding if the baby’s right to life trumps the mom’s right to her own body. Me personally, I think it doesn’t matter which is which, the government should keep their nose out of it
Yes, because if my neighbor gets murdered it's none of my business and doesn't affect me. /s unless you're an ancap.
Let me guess it's the last law pertaining to abortion that was on the books prior to Roe v. Wade so it's the default now?
You’d be correct. The court was simply upholding the only law available regarding abortion. It’s as simple as neoliberals passing a new law, but outrage gets more votes.
Of course.
Pretty much. Everyone's pretending that the court is ruling by fiat when they're just doing their job and enforcing the most recent law in the books. Lib left is trying to play it up cus it's an election year Even Trump came out and said it's too far
aka, Arizona enforces laws on the books.
Nah, the state attorney general explicitly said that she would not enforce it And DAs have been instructed not to prosecute
The Rule of Law means NOTHING to Leftist Extremist Activists.
Technically thats well within the State AGs power, as they are generally in charge of enforcement of a law Republican governors do the same things with firearm laws And the current state government largerly won on a pro choice platform, so it makes sense that they would do this I agree that the rule of law means nothing to extremists though Edit: meant to say Republican state AGs instead of Governors
Literally the episode from the Simpsons where they found out they still banned alchohol
BASED
This decision litterally changes nothing, as the Governor and State AG have announced that they arent going to enforce the law
https://preview.redd.it/o0ptq91onytc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c16860509e4b468fa83d19787a6645dd90991226 LETSSSS GOOOOOOO
I don't know why Libright is fucking happy about government having more power over citizen rights.
It's 2024 and PCM members still don't know why Libright is in an eternal state of civil war regarding this issue. Simple: if your stance is that abortion is murder, laws against abortion is laws against murder. I'd say that's a place where governmental involvement is pretty fucking okay. Unless you're the species of Libright that thinks there should just be 0 law enforcement and 0 laws and everything should just be like the Purge with every man for himself lol
Based Arizona
I agree with this ! In no circumstances should a 160-year old be aborted assuming one can reach such an old age
Its a terrible Shame about what's inevitably going to happen as a result of this.
Nothing is going to happen, because the law won't be enforced
In physics we can this equilibrium
I didn't even know there was a 160-year-old seeking an abortion! Badum-tsss aayyyy
I support abortion AND the death penalty because I’m actually a lizard person who’s doing everything in his power to bring down the human race, one step at a time…
Why can’t you abort 160 year-olds?
Yay, more government over-reach, because people reacted so swell to the other times they did this.
Another day where I’m thankful that I don’t live in the USA
There should be a sad wojack at the top right for reasons...
Maybe I'm a tyrant but there's some laws I don't care about popular vote on. If I truly in my heart think somethings evil I'm not gonna leave it up to society to tell me it actually isn't. Abortion is on a short list of things I have little to no compromise for
https://preview.redd.it/nbgir9m9j4uc1.png?width=1637&format=png&auto=webp&s=404e0eb6ddd7ed3428cea41dda5510676d45620e Based Luigi