orangemaroon25 t1_j23zytu wrote
Reply to comment by zen-shen in What’s the difference between an American girl and an Iranian girl? by vartha
Most Americans would have much greater access to this than Iranians.
Iran actually lives under theocratic rule. Some Americans claim they do, or fear that they will, but they should look at somewhere like Iran and realize where they actually stand.
zen-shen t1_j245dro wrote
This got serious.
You are right that Americans have greater access.
But they are heading in the same direction as Iran.
Americans have been fighting it for a long time. Over ruling of roe vs. Wade has this fight even longer.
If both iranian and Americans are fighting the same fight, right now, I believe Iran has a better chance right now.
One regime change vs. A lengthy case that goes through all the courts? Yes, Iran has better hopes.
orangemaroon25 t1_j246o55 wrote
No, you're missing my point. America is not at all "heading in the same direction." We're not fighting the same fight either. America is not and never will be under the kind of oppressive theocratic rule that Iran suffers, despite what your chosen media tries to scare you with.
Dottsterisk t1_j24a2bg wrote
It’s dangerous and ahistorical to believe that American democracy is invincible and that fascism or theocracy could never happen here.
orangemaroon25 t1_j24a5kl wrote
And it's objectively false to believe we're in any imminent danger of it right now
Dottsterisk t1_j24adga wrote
That’s a bold claim presented with no evidence or argument.
orangemaroon25 t1_j24aihb wrote
That's because the claim I'm refuting wasn't presented with any evidence or argument either. There's no burden of proof on my statement here. So it's really not that bold of a claim.
Dottsterisk t1_j24b046 wrote
Considering we just saw an attempted insurrection by a very popular American fascist and former president and we rolled back abortion rights, I don’t think discussion of the fragility of American democracy in the face of the religious right is too off-base.
But you’re clearly more interested in downvoting and dismissing than discussion, so have a good one and stay insulated.
orangemaroon25 t1_j24bduo wrote
I don't think you know what fascism means, and we "rolled back" rights that never existed anyway according to our Constitution, not because of any religious anything, so I don't know why you're afraid of the "religious right".
I'm downvoting bad takes and dismissing illogical arguments, as is the purpose of the downvote button. I'm trying to have discussion but that requires the other person to make logically valid points too which isn't happening.
Dottsterisk t1_j24c1c1 wrote
Trump is definitely a wannabe fascist and his authoritarian tendencies and constant scapegoating of minority populations while harkening back to a mythical time of American greatness and emphasizing might is right from the fascist playbook. You can blithely claim it ain’t so, but that doesn’t mean everyone else is going to forget what they’ve seen.
And if you think that the religious right has nothing to do with the battle over abortion rights in the US, then you simply have not been paying attention and should not be speaking on the matter.
So no, you’re just downvoting stuff you don’t want to hear.
Lonke t1_j24dn3i wrote
Didn't women recently lose abortion rights in many states of the US?
On second thought, considering the amount of deliberate alive baby killing in the bible (like 1 Samuel 15:3), I guess it's reasonable to argue it's not just theocratic oppression.
orangemaroon25 t1_j24dy77 wrote
Yes, you could say that, but you can't "lose" something you never had anyway and our Supreme Court ruled that there never was any such "right" granted by the Constitution.
Lonke t1_j24gbwm wrote
I might not be completely clear on the nuances of the situation, but would it then be fair to say they still lost right even if it wasn't constitutional?
orangemaroon25 t1_j24x052 wrote
Isn't that what I just said?
They lost a "right" that never was a right to begin with. So yes, you can say that they lost that right but you cannot say it's a bad thing because now we have the correct situation the way it's supposed to be.
Laurenhynde82 t1_j25dgq6 wrote
Right, your constitution has never been wrong about anything - that’s why it has never been amended! Oh…
orangemaroon25 t1_j25dyg1 wrote
That's not what I said at all. But that means it isn't wrong unless and until so amended.
I'm glad you realize that the correct way to get the "rights" you want in this country is by an amendment.
Laurenhynde82 t1_j25jgai wrote
I don’t live in your country, but hopefully you understand the difference between a “right” and a “constitutional right”. Bragging that the same rights afforded to women in far less developed countries aren’t in your constitution isn’t the mic drop you seem to think it is.
orangemaroon25 t1_j25l677 wrote
Yet again, that's not what I said. Please stop trying to argue with me if you can't even understand what it is I have actually stated.
Laurenhynde82 t1_j24ond9 wrote
The term gaslighting is over-used on the internet, but this really does take the cake.
orangemaroon25 t1_j24vuce wrote
Thanks for this useful contribution. /s
Laurenhynde82 t1_j24w3yu wrote
No, thank you for completely diminishing the impact on American womens’ bodily autonomy, and denying that this is a remotely concerning move.
orangemaroon25 t1_j24xh6c wrote
I didn't do that though.
I never said the first thing about anyone's bodily autonomy, chiefly because that isn't relevant to this discussion since it isn't affected by restricting abortion. I certainly never denied that it was a concerning move. I just said it's not as bad as some of you doom scrollers are making it sound and certainly not as bad as an actually theocratic country like Iran.
Go back and read the actual words that I actually said and respond only to those, not to whatever you think I said or want me to have said to fit your chosen narrative that makes me your opponent.
Laurenhynde82 t1_j25432f wrote
Bodily autonomy isn’t affected by restricting abortion? You just keep digging yourself deeper. American government is literally limiting access to healthcare for women for ideological and religious reasons. As has been demonstrated in the last few months, those who achieved this limitation do not wish to stop at restricting abortion access (and there is now clinical data on how the change in law has risked the lives of women unnecessarily). So arguing that America is not heading down a road where rights are curtailed and risked due to religious beliefs is ignoring the obvious, no matter how dismissive you wish to be.
orangemaroon25 t1_j257eqi wrote
>95% of the time women do not get pregnant without having already exercised their bodily autonomy. The choice already happened.
Abortion is not healthcare. It can't be, by definition, because it literally destroys life. This is a known fact of science, so please don't try and argue with it.
These limitations are not coming from religious reasons though. The Supreme Court explained why Roe v Wade was wrong in the first place and why they overturned it and none of this is necessarily about religious reasons. The limitations came from Constitutional reasons, which is what the Court is supposed to do.
That's why I'm arguing that nobody is restricting rights for religious reasons, because they're not.
Laurenhynde82 t1_j259w7k wrote
You are incredibly ignorant and incredibly wrong. Care to share where your knowledge of pregnancy and abortion comes from? I’m going to take a wild guess you don’t work in maternity - handily enough I do.
Abortion absolutely is healthcare. Do you know even remotely what you’re talking about it? Do you know abortifacients are used when a miscarriage does not happen fully, when there’s an ectopic or extra uterine pregnancy, when a pregnancy cannot be continued for maternal or foetal medical reasons?
Do you understand the risks to a woman’s life and long term health where pregnancy is concerned, especially a complex or high risk pregnancy?
Do you know that abortion laws in some states are preventing doctors from treating women with intrauterine death, risk of sepsis, women who need chemotherapy or urgent abdominal surgery or other conditions not compatible with continuing pregnancy, or extremely early labour well before the point of viability even though those babies cannot survive?
Are you saying that 98% of pregnancies are consensual and planned? If so, there wouldn’t be much call for abortion would there, aside from termination for medical reasons, so why restrict it? Obviously you’re absolutely incorrect on that point, of course - but we can get into a discussion on how pregnancy occurs and therefore who is in control of that if you like.
It’s entirely disingenuous to say that the reasons are not religious, as you well know.
[deleted] t1_j25d2yf wrote
[removed]
zen-shen t1_j24ivc0 wrote
I am not asking about theocratic rule. I am saying this about rights to abortion. The way I see it, right now, the difference between iranian girls and american girls is minuscule and still the iranians are ahead. That's why I said...
Iranian girl can get an abortion.
orangemaroon25 t1_j24wq6k wrote
Most Americans can, and I don't live in Iran but I'm pretty sure that would be very much illegal under their actually theocratic government.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments