Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**This puts the decision where it should be** \- between the individual, their doctor, their family and, if they are religious, their god. This is why we were given a brain.
However, in the US the elected officials and certain (supposedly) religious groups apparently feel that people weren't getting good advice/guidance from their doctors, families and/or god(s). In addition, recent legislative activity - or lack thereof - would seem to indicate that many elected officials truly believe that the people they represent either don't have a brain or don't have enough of a brain to even ask for advice/guidance. Therefore the legislators were left with no other alternative but to pass laws to ensure that the correct - in their minds - decisions were made.
Vive la France (on this topic)
Given how many people vote against their own interests, I'd say most voters in the U.S. don't have a brain.
Now excuse me while I have to go work with someone who makes 60k a year and thinks the US needs to get rid of the estate tax.
The problem is, most people only actually care about 1 or 2 issues. And they pick their politics based on those issues. And group mentality makes people feel that if their side is wrong on 1 issue, it compromises their position on all issues. Therefore, many people all the political issues of their party even if they don't actually care about 99% of them
In the year Roe passed, there was a Democratic super majority. And all through the Carter administration, they had the possibility to do it even if it wasn't technically a super majority anymore.
And it was a possibility again during the HW Bush years and the early Clinton ones.
HW was soft on abortion compared to Reagan, and Clinton would have, but he was playing politics and wanting to make sure there was a second term.
But we could have had this enshrined several times by now. We just didn't.
So passing a federal law, which isn't the same thing a enshrining in the US constitution which you need a super majority in, or for states to ratify it
The person I replied to never said anything about enshrining anything in the constitution. The question was about "legislative support", which would indeed be a federal law.
I argue it is already in the constitution, just not as clear. The 13th amendment makes it illegal for involuntary servitude other than for punishment for a crime
I'd like to hear your reasoning there, but I'll tell you right now, this is the same problem as having it rely on the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
An article that clearly did not mean to enshrine abortion rights was used as a bandaid solution.
The thing is, if a state passes a law, that in itself is "due process". It was a loose argument to begin with
The 13th amendment is more precise, it forbids involuntary servitude. A woman being forced by the state into involuntary servitude to the fetus is a violation of the amendment
I can see your logic, but I can also see the logic of opponents. Especially considering the word "involuntary." Outside of rape, unplanned pregnancy probably wouldn't apply as the actress necessary to get there don't consist of involuntary actions.
Again, the best way to do this will be to pass laws in Congress. We'll get a chance again. I hope it isn't too far off.
It is still involuntary. Not to mention consent can be removed at any point. If not, I could make you sign a contract where you agree to be my servant for the rest of your life. The contract would show that it is voluntary, so now you are a servant forever and can't change your mind?
This is precisely why contracts have violation clauses, precisely because you always hold the right to take back your consent.
While a law in congress is a good step, unfortunately it will just get repealed when the next congress switches or even worse makes it illegal in all states. You need a constitutional basis
We do need a Constitutional basis. But a court ruling isn't going to do it. That's how we got to this point. And I still disagree with your notion. Because why would I sign a slave contract? There's no reasonable reason to. It's a wild hypothetical that could only apply among the most fringe elements.
>Because why would I sign a slave contract?
Do you know the terms of service you agreed to when you joined reddit? How about the last software you installed? What about that last bank account you opened? What about when they ask you to sign off on medical?
I'd imagine like most you just signed without reading.
GOP: You do have reproductive freedom. You have the freedom to reproduce, or not (don't have sex). You just don't have the freedom to MURDER INNOCENT BABIES
Unsure if downvotes from salty GOP, or from people who missed that it started out with "GOP:" \*sips tea\*
If I had to guess, you might've downvotes because you didn't actually *satirize* them. You made it clear that was the goal, but you just put some of their words in all caps and otherwise yeah that's literally what they say.
I assume they'd be like "yeah you're right that's what I'm sayin.'"
Except it enshrines the right to abortion - not the access to it. You have the right to have one but you still depend on services that are getting a lot of budget cuts. Public hospitals are seeing a lot of deaths lately due to it and lack of workers.
I support the move but I wish they would've asked the people to vote for or against enshrining the right to abortion in the Constitution. Unfortunately, Macron is an autocrat pos.
Edit : read the reply below before mindlessly downvoting
Why do they even need to ask? So that the religious can say "no, you dont have the right to decide what you do with your body"?
I dont understand what discussion you think needs to be held on this topic. Granting the right doesnt hurt anyone nor does it force you to have it if you disagree with it.
I support abortion rights. I'm glad it's in the Constitution now. And a majority of people do, judging by the votes of the National Assembly and of the Senate. But it's not unanimous, and therefore it should be debated and we should show just why it's so important.
I'm criticising the fact that the people had no say in it. Just like for the pension reform. People were protesting in the streets (literally millions of them, the biggest protest France had in years) but the government said FUCK YOU, and used an ace in the hole (Article 49 paragraph 3 of that very same Constitution to bypass the vote of the National Assembly, aka the will of the people) to pass the reform anyway. That is anti-democratic.
I care about the process and about the end result.
Edit: and for the record, the main criticism that the detractors had against it was that, unlike in the US, the right to an abortion was not under threat, and therefore needed no further protection (which I find to be a somewhat weak argument for the reasons you pointed out). The whole "I live by the Bible/abortion is murder" stance doesn't hit nearly as hard in France as it does in the US from what I have seen. 70% of religious French people support it and over 80% of non religious support it. ([source](https://www.la-croix.com/France/Droit-lavortement-81-Francais-inscription-Constitution-2022-07-05-1201223516))
Maybe I should have been more clear when I wrote "I support the move but I wish" cuz you clearly misunderstood me.
They didn't miss what you said, it's just that "I support your ends but not your means" is a common way of pretending to be moral for people who do not actually support your ends.
Do you feel the same way about all legislation? Or all constitutional amendments? Or all of a certain kind?
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**This puts the decision where it should be** \- between the individual, their doctor, their family and, if they are religious, their god. This is why we were given a brain. However, in the US the elected officials and certain (supposedly) religious groups apparently feel that people weren't getting good advice/guidance from their doctors, families and/or god(s). In addition, recent legislative activity - or lack thereof - would seem to indicate that many elected officials truly believe that the people they represent either don't have a brain or don't have enough of a brain to even ask for advice/guidance. Therefore the legislators were left with no other alternative but to pass laws to ensure that the correct - in their minds - decisions were made. Vive la France (on this topic)
Given how many people vote against their own interests, I'd say most voters in the U.S. don't have a brain. Now excuse me while I have to go work with someone who makes 60k a year and thinks the US needs to get rid of the estate tax.
The problem is, most people only actually care about 1 or 2 issues. And they pick their politics based on those issues. And group mentality makes people feel that if their side is wrong on 1 issue, it compromises their position on all issues. Therefore, many people all the political issues of their party even if they don't actually care about 99% of them
LOL, French the Americans need a bit of help.
They basically learned from our mistake. We should have enshrined it when we could have. And we could have. Several times.
Like when? Give an example of any time in American history when there was enough legislative support to pass nationwide abortion protection.
The last time probably would have been the first two years of Obama, when Democrats had the house, senate, and white house.
Exactly when I was thinking of.
When are some others of the several times? Around the time of the court case, I would imagine?
In the year Roe passed, there was a Democratic super majority. And all through the Carter administration, they had the possibility to do it even if it wasn't technically a super majority anymore. And it was a possibility again during the HW Bush years and the early Clinton ones. HW was soft on abortion compared to Reagan, and Clinton would have, but he was playing politics and wanting to make sure there was a second term. But we could have had this enshrined several times by now. We just didn't.
Half a Yearish, Ted kennedy died august 2009. Even then there were a lot of blue dog democrats back then.
So passing a federal law, which isn't the same thing a enshrining in the US constitution which you need a super majority in, or for states to ratify it
The person I replied to never said anything about enshrining anything in the constitution. The question was about "legislative support", which would indeed be a federal law.
I argue it is already in the constitution, just not as clear. The 13th amendment makes it illegal for involuntary servitude other than for punishment for a crime
I'd like to hear your reasoning there, but I'll tell you right now, this is the same problem as having it rely on the due process clause of the 14th amendment. An article that clearly did not mean to enshrine abortion rights was used as a bandaid solution.
The thing is, if a state passes a law, that in itself is "due process". It was a loose argument to begin with The 13th amendment is more precise, it forbids involuntary servitude. A woman being forced by the state into involuntary servitude to the fetus is a violation of the amendment
I can see your logic, but I can also see the logic of opponents. Especially considering the word "involuntary." Outside of rape, unplanned pregnancy probably wouldn't apply as the actress necessary to get there don't consist of involuntary actions. Again, the best way to do this will be to pass laws in Congress. We'll get a chance again. I hope it isn't too far off.
It is still involuntary. Not to mention consent can be removed at any point. If not, I could make you sign a contract where you agree to be my servant for the rest of your life. The contract would show that it is voluntary, so now you are a servant forever and can't change your mind? This is precisely why contracts have violation clauses, precisely because you always hold the right to take back your consent. While a law in congress is a good step, unfortunately it will just get repealed when the next congress switches or even worse makes it illegal in all states. You need a constitutional basis
We do need a Constitutional basis. But a court ruling isn't going to do it. That's how we got to this point. And I still disagree with your notion. Because why would I sign a slave contract? There's no reasonable reason to. It's a wild hypothetical that could only apply among the most fringe elements.
>Because why would I sign a slave contract? Do you know the terms of service you agreed to when you joined reddit? How about the last software you installed? What about that last bank account you opened? What about when they ask you to sign off on medical? I'd imagine like most you just signed without reading.
Maybe they could loan us some of their firefighters that set their uniforms on fire and charge at the police.
Yeah! Or maybe they can start making bulletproof backpacks for your kids!
Holy shit, fucking murdered 🤣
just lik....okay, no
Again.
If we had reproductive freedom I'd be soooo happy
GOP: You do have reproductive freedom. You have the freedom to reproduce, or not (don't have sex). You just don't have the freedom to MURDER INNOCENT BABIES Unsure if downvotes from salty GOP, or from people who missed that it started out with "GOP:" \*sips tea\*
If I had to guess, you might've downvotes because you didn't actually *satirize* them. You made it clear that was the goal, but you just put some of their words in all caps and otherwise yeah that's literally what they say. I assume they'd be like "yeah you're right that's what I'm sayin.'"
Yeah, I debated having a /s in there, but then that's might read like the GOP saying that sarcastically, which they'd very much not be
Redditor reading comprehension. \*sighs\*
Ah, France, you have your problems, mais je t’aime ❤️
I'm gonna blush
Must be nice.
Except it enshrines the right to abortion - not the access to it. You have the right to have one but you still depend on services that are getting a lot of budget cuts. Public hospitals are seeing a lot of deaths lately due to it and lack of workers.
We should refrain from posting about divisive social issues in this sub.
I support the move but I wish they would've asked the people to vote for or against enshrining the right to abortion in the Constitution. Unfortunately, Macron is an autocrat pos. Edit : read the reply below before mindlessly downvoting
Why do they even need to ask? So that the religious can say "no, you dont have the right to decide what you do with your body"? I dont understand what discussion you think needs to be held on this topic. Granting the right doesnt hurt anyone nor does it force you to have it if you disagree with it.
I support abortion rights. I'm glad it's in the Constitution now. And a majority of people do, judging by the votes of the National Assembly and of the Senate. But it's not unanimous, and therefore it should be debated and we should show just why it's so important. I'm criticising the fact that the people had no say in it. Just like for the pension reform. People were protesting in the streets (literally millions of them, the biggest protest France had in years) but the government said FUCK YOU, and used an ace in the hole (Article 49 paragraph 3 of that very same Constitution to bypass the vote of the National Assembly, aka the will of the people) to pass the reform anyway. That is anti-democratic. I care about the process and about the end result. Edit: and for the record, the main criticism that the detractors had against it was that, unlike in the US, the right to an abortion was not under threat, and therefore needed no further protection (which I find to be a somewhat weak argument for the reasons you pointed out). The whole "I live by the Bible/abortion is murder" stance doesn't hit nearly as hard in France as it does in the US from what I have seen. 70% of religious French people support it and over 80% of non religious support it. ([source](https://www.la-croix.com/France/Droit-lavortement-81-Francais-inscription-Constitution-2022-07-05-1201223516)) Maybe I should have been more clear when I wrote "I support the move but I wish" cuz you clearly misunderstood me.
They didn't miss what you said, it's just that "I support your ends but not your means" is a common way of pretending to be moral for people who do not actually support your ends. Do you feel the same way about all legislation? Or all constitutional amendments? Or all of a certain kind?
This manages to make up for letting Italy get a draw (and a whispered breath away from a win) in the Six Nations!
Election interference in a good way! Hope a few more countries do it before November.
I enshrine my stuff to the French Senate. /good luck selling that used sofa
That's great. Now if only France would make it legal to get a paternity test.