Angriest Comments

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

What the frick is this argumentMinority communities are specifically targeted by pro-choice campaigns because fetal tissue + organs are ridiculously valuable to pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies. It's no exaggeration to say that the minority underclass of the United States is being liquidated to prop up US oligarchs. Did you forget that fetuses have rights too?1) Men can't become pregnant, so they can't decide to have an elective abortion. Whatever right to abortion that purportedly exists doesn't apply to them for that reason. Full stop.2) Negative rights are actions that demand non-interference from others in order to function. Abortion, as an action, requires at least two participants. That's why it categorically cannot be classified as a negative right. (1)

An accurate one. Slavery is clearly a violation of bodily autonomy, and we fought a civil war over states who wished to violate that right for a portion of their citizens. I then followed up with an example of a state that is CURRENTLY violating the rights of its citizens by punishing them for actions taken outside of the state. Actions that they are forced to take because of the state's violation of their bodily autonomy.You're missing the forest for the trees here, and it has a whiff a racism as well, but I'm just going to assume that you either haven't fully examined root causes on this topic, or that are just blindly repeating a talking point that you heard but haven't fully thought out.First, the prevalence of clinics in minority communities is primarily due to demand. Minority communities tend to have lower incomes and lower levels of education, both of which are indicators of an increase in unprotected sexual activity. More pregnancies in an area inherently mean more unwanted... (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

To answer your questions: YESConservatives would simply never even think to regulate the freedom of men to be sovereign over their own bodies like this. Their base wouldn't have it.Their resistance to gun control is a good parallel. Guns are the number one cause of death of minors, yet Conservatives refuse to act. Curious how that concern with the life of children ends the moment protecting them no longer involves controlling women.There is zero room to call such hypocrisy "pro life" IMO. (1)

See this is the cartoonish vision of those that dont vote like you do that leads to issues. If someone could own a license to kill a child with a gun do you really think "conservative" voters would ignore that because it involves guns and not women? That's the equivalent here, the issue isn't on banning incisors or bio vacuums which are cowtools with more uses thank abortions, but on the license to kill that those with facilities for abortion have. So this is not a parallel, there still seems far more complicated factors than a arbitrary targeting of women. Killing kids with guns is already illegal. Again this seems so obvious to me that this is a whataboutism. There are big differences in the subjects even if on some very surface level you see "dead child" as a connection point. I mean I don't doubt that people truly are exist in this world and have a thrill of enacting power on those not like them. But your imagining of this nuanced and deep argument as a 95% malice is just going to ... (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

Roe was problematic for several reasons.The first was that it prohibited states from deciding the issue of abortion. Anti-abortion states were forced to accept abortion regardless of the will of the electorate. The second was that it invented a negative right out of whole cloth by asserting that women (and only specifically women) have an inalienable right to abortion based on medical privacy.Ignoring for the moment that all rights are universal and inalienable, SCOTUS asserted that a positive right was essentially a negative right, and that no state could interfere for that reason. (1)

History has shown that there are certain topics to which states can not be trusted to decide for themselves. Slavery, for instance, is an apt comparison because slavery is another violation of bodily autonomy. States are already overreaching in the wake of the Dobbs decision. Texas is trying to violate interstate travel laws by prohibiting people from seeking abortions in other states, all in the name "protecting the sanctity of life." Heck, they even offered bounties for turning in people who even ASSIST in getting someone to another state for an abortion.A couple of points here. First, women wouldn't be the only ones to have a right to an abortion. They would simply be the only ones to exercise that particular right. Second, abortion access isn't exactly one-sided when trying to determine the type of right it is (positive vs. negative). It is a negative right in the sense that the government wouldn't be able to pass laws prohibiting access, and it is a positive right in the sense ... (1)

Biggest Lolcow: /u/OfTheAtom

Score: 🐮🐮🐮🐮🔘

Number of comments: 9

Average angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

Maximum angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

Minimum angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

NEW: Subscribe to /h/miners to see untapped drama veins, ripe for mining!

autodrama: automating away the jobs of dramneurodivergents. Ping HeyMoon if there are any problems or you have a suggestion