Why I'm voting yes on Prop 2 & 5

Submitted by ButtonFactoryJoe t3_y85xhg in vermont

For the Vermont State elections this year there are two important constitutional amendments on the ballot this year, Proposition 2 and Proposition 5. I feel that these amendments are important to add to our State constitution because they're intended to preserve our rights.

Proposition 2 is intended to remove any exceptions to where slavery is permitted. It removes language that would have allowed it in cases where someone is in debt or in prison. I feel this is long overdue and important to say slavery is not acceptable in any form.

Proposition 5 is to create a new amendment to protect our rights to reproductive autonomy. I feel this is important because there are many aspects to reproductive health. This protects everything around if, when, and how someone gets pregnant and deals with their pregnancy. So things like whether or not I want to get a vasectomy, whether or not I want to be a sperm donor, and dealing with things like infertility and how I would manage that. This covers helping those who are pregnant manage and ensure they have a healthy pregnancy and a safe birth. This is about so much more than abortion, and framing this amendment as anything other than preserving our freedoms feels disingenuous. These are just some of the reasons and not an exhaustive list of what is covered. If you'd like to look at things that are considered reproductive health, the CDC has a great informational page on reproductive health with topics to explore. The link is https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/index.html

I hope that anyone eligible to vote in Vermont takes time to look past the decisive rhetoric, and see these amendments for what they are intended for, which is to preserve our freedoms.

Please vote.

301

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

MortaLPortaL t1_isydm3y wrote

I voted yes on both. Honestly as a man, who the fuck am I to tell a woman what to do with her body? We seriously need to stop policing people on fucking choices they make.

192

vermontaltaccount t1_isyzpfp wrote

> Honestly as a man, who the fuck am I to tell a woman what to do with her body?

Minor nitpick, but I haven't been a big fan of this as the most focused on aspect of the debate; a lot of the pro-lifers use the argument that "it's murder of the baby", and I don't think saying "Well that's the woman's choice" is the proper counter-argument to that.

Anyway, as a man I also voted yes because I follow the scientific reasoning that life does not begin at conception.

Not saying you felt differently, just adding in my thoughts on the messaging of the issue that I see as a whole.

71

ginguegiskhan t1_isz0wpq wrote

That's the problem with this issue in politics in general. The sloganeering on both sides doesn't address any of the arguments face on. If you listen to a structured, nuanced, non-attacking debate about abortion it brings out the complexity of the topic. But its much easier to say "my body" or "murder"

46

1DollarOr1Million t1_isz50j7 wrote

Hey! Stop being reasonable and balanced in opinion! There’s no place for that here in American politics!

/s

28

Go_Cart_Mozart t1_isz6ya9 wrote

Yes. "Sloganeering" is a huge detriment to discussion.

I'm quite anti abortion. I'm also very pro choice. It's possible to be both. Try making a slogan out of that ; )

28

Eagle_Arm t1_isz9jld wrote

I don't support your decision, but I support your choice to make that decision.

I see it similar to, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

29

amoebashephard t1_iszktzc wrote

It's also possible to be anti abortion, and realize that all of the states that are enacting this legislation against abortion are having very drastic effects on women's health; both access to doctors and their ability to respond to emergencies during pregnancy.

17

Successful_Order_638 t1_it03zml wrote

It doesn’t matter what you realize; it only matters how you vote.

1

amoebashephard t1_it058nv wrote

Yes, let's encourage voting without critical thinking. /S

My point still stands-enshrining reproductive medical access in law is about much more than just abortion.l

1

vermontaltaccount t1_iszsild wrote

Absolutely. I think a lot of the issue is the desire to have something be "catchy" and "simple". Which is great in theory, but the problem is people often lean towards "catchy and simple" at the detriment of "accurate", and it leads to the alienation of some people who generally agree.

It's a lot easier to say "men shouldn't make a decision on women's bodies" than it is to say "Due to the scientific consensus that life does not begin at conception, this no longer becomes a debate about infringing upon the rights of others, including the unborn fetus; it becomes a body autonomy issue which only impacts women".

Not to mention all the people saying "Men shouldn't make decisions that only impact women" are inadvertently validating the opinions of Amy Coney Barrett; and I do not believe those opinions to be ethically right.

6

kraysys t1_it2cz9r wrote

> "Due to the scientific consensus that life does not begin at conception, this no longer becomes a debate about infringing upon the rights of others, including the unborn fetus; it becomes a body autonomy issue which only impacts women"

Source on your "scientific consensus"? Everything I've seen in biology 101 indicates that conception produces a distinct life -- the question is rather whether we ought to give that life moral equivalency to the mother and thus legal protection, and at what stage in its development.

0

airhogg t1_it56pmh wrote

Estimates run from 50 to 80 percent, and even some implanted embryos spontaneously abort. The woman might never know she was pregnant.

Assuming that fertilization and implantation all go perfectly, scientists can reasonably disagree about when personhood begins, says Gilbert. An embryologist might say gastrulation, which is when an embryo can no longer divide to form identical twins. A neuroscientist might say when one can measure brainwaves.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/

1

kraysys t1_it59tu7 wrote

Define “abort” as you use it — that’s just simple word obfuscation. A miscarriage (and its medical equivalents) are not the same as an abortion procedure.

Yes, I’ve said multiple times that the question of personhood is a different and much more relevant one. I’ve been specifically arguing about whether it’s a “life” here.

1

ChocolateDiligent t1_it2jfcp wrote

Look to other examples of bodily autonomy that we already use in the medical fields and you will find the counter argument. Specifically around autonomy and those in an induced coma and how decisions are made for the state of which the person in an unconscious state, which is always to assume that the person would rather be in the state they possessed prior to being placed into an induced coma.

The conversation of when life starts is irrelevant because there are is no analogous standing for this argument in the medical field. There are no medical standings where we prioritize a non-autonomous, non-decision making body over that of a mother who is exactly all of those things, it's rather simple logic and there is precedent for this argument. The counter argument cannot contest this with any real life examples.

5

draggar t1_it264i9 wrote

>Minor nitpick, but I haven't been a big fan of this as the most focused on aspect of the debate; a lot of the pro-lifers use the argument that "it's murder of the baby", and I don't think saying "Well that's the woman's choice" is the proper counter-argument to that.

It's about body autonomy.

I give this example:

Say someone has leukemia and they need a bone marrow transplant to survive. I am their only match as a donor. Should I have 100% say if I will or will not donate marrow?

If I decide not to, does the government have the right to force me to donate marrow? Does the government have the right to create a law to force everyone to donate marrow?

(I use a bone marrow transplant as an example since it is rather intrusive on the donor, can cause harm, and has a recovery period - it's the closest thing (medically) I can think of to pregnancy / birth (other than living organ donation).

It may not be a 100% perfect example and it may be flawed, but, again, it's the closest I can think of.

2

vermontaltaccount t1_it299vz wrote

But the issue is, people who believe "abortion is murder" think that the woman shouldn't have control over the fetus, as they believe it to be a separate person.

It's like how you can't force someone to give marrow to save your own life; the people who believe "abortion is murder" don't think you should force the fetus to die to save the mom.

Thats why I prefer to focus on the "abortion is NOT murder" part of the argument.

2

eye-brows t1_it2ropa wrote

No, I totally get what you're saying.

To be clear, I don't think abortion isn't murder and women should have the right to bodily autonomy, and I will also be voting Yes on both these propositions.

It's weird for me when Republicans ban abortion except for rape or incest. Because if they truly believed abortion was murder, the conception would be irrelevant. Like, if they really think a fetus is a baby, why would they make exceptions? We don't kill actual living, breathing, not-in-the-womb babies born out of rape.

Which tells me they're hypocrites who just want to control women.

3

kraysys t1_it2u0xc wrote

> It's weird for me when Republicans ban abortion except for rape or incest. Because if they truly believed abortion was murder, the conception would be irrelevant. Like, if they really think a fetus is a baby, why would they make exceptions? We don't kill actual living, breathing, not-in-the-womb babies born out of rape.

Pro-lifers generally promote this as a policy because it's very popular among Americans to have a 12-15 week ban with those few exceptions. I agree that it's intellectually inconsistent though. But isn't it also inconsistent for pro-choicers who talk about bodily autonomy and how the fetus isn't a human life to generally want abortion restrictions after 12-15 weeks?

> Which tells me they're hypocrites who just want to control women.

There are millions upon millions of pro-life women. The "controlling women" trope is so tired.

0

kraysys t1_it2rqaa wrote

This is one of the classic arguments in favor of abortion, but it really misses the mark for a number of reasons (as you concede at the end of your comment).

The relationship of a mother to a child is not at all equivalent to a person with leukemia. A child isn't a random disease that pops up, it's a new life that was created by the mother via having sex or IVF.

Additionally, an unborn baby can be removed for medical necessity to save the life of the mother without forcibly terminating it -- e.g. through a C-section or by early labor induction. There is no medically necessary reason when saving the mother to terminate the life instead of removing the unborn baby and trying to keep it alive as well. Etc. etc. etc.

0

Thor5858 t1_it127kc wrote

The counter argument is “any law restricting abortion causes further barriers in scenarios where abortion is necessary for the survival of the mother, or where a kid was raped and wishes to abort” nothing else matters. We’re also right about the rest of it, but unless someone can look you in the eye and say the believe a 13 year old who was raped should be forced to also give birth, there is no argument supporting abortion restriction. Every restriction is a barrier. Every barrier means someone will die or be fucked up forever.

0

vermontaltaccount t1_it28sbd wrote

>unless someone can look you in the eye and say the believe a 13 year old who was raped should be forced to also give birth, there is no argument supporting abortion restriction

That's the thing; pro-lifers who believe it is murder WILL say that.

3

Thor5858 t1_itcv63y wrote

Fortunately, a lot of them actually do agree in those cases. Another example is when the mothers life is threatened and the baby will be a stillbirth. As long as concrete situations where abortion is literally the only option are brought up, there is no counter argument.

1

kraysys t1_it1ddme wrote

Please elaborate on this claim:

> I follow the scientific reasoning that life does not begin at conception.

In another comment you describe it as the “scientific consensus.” I am very curious to know what exactly you mean by this.

Edit: Downvotes (as can be expected, I suppose) yet no reply. This is a good-faith question. Everything I've seen, and my public VT high school education taking biology, indicates that science is pretty settled around the idea that a distinct human life forms when the sperm meets the egg and forms a zygote (i.e. fertilization).

Is there some perspective within the scientific community that I'm missing here? Typically the abortion question deals with when one ought technically consider the fetus a human and worthy of equal moral consideration to the mother -- a live debate for sure -- but I've never really seen anybody argue that science says the fetus isn't a distinct life.

−2

vermontaltaccount t1_it2erpu wrote

The neural tube doesn't fully close until 6 or 7 weeks after conception was what I was going with. Beyond that it does admittedly get trickier.

3

kraysys t1_it2gjqn wrote

Why the neural tube distinction? Surely the existence of a neural tube and its closure isn’t the defining characteristic of a new life according to biology.

0

vermontaltaccount t1_it2jva8 wrote

Brain death is considered death therefore we can derive something without a functional brain is not considered alive in a legal/ethical sense.

Plants are also "alive" in the same way a fetus is, and also cannot be murdered.

Also for clarity, I do still support abortion post-7 weeks, but the reasoning and my own personal thoughts on the matter are more complex.

2

kraysys t1_it2pxzu wrote

You're really getting more into ethics here than science.

The clear consensus in biology is that a distinct human life is formed at the point of conception with the formation of the zygote. You claimed multiple times that science says life does not begin at conception. That is simply a false claim.

> Also for clarity, I do still support abortion post-7 weeks, but the reasoning and my own personal thoughts on the matter are more complex.

That's interesting, since you said elsewhere that

> "I also voted yes because I follow the scientific reasoning that life does not begin at conception"

which implies that this is your primary reason.

As an aside, I appreciate your reflexive downvoting of my comments, really leads me to believe you're acting with intellectual honesty and in good faith here.

0

vermontaltaccount t1_it2u6dt wrote

>The clear consensus in biology is that a distinct human life is formed at the point of conception with the formation of the zygote.

Plant life also begins at a seed, and I also don't think it's unethical to pull an undeveloped seed out of the ground either, because it doesn't have a brain.

>You claimed multiple times that science says life does not begin at conception. That is simply a false claim.

I'll admit my wording in my original post is fairly simplified, but I think I've elaborated enough in subsequent posts to detail what I meant at a scientific level.

> which implies that this is your primary reason.

I've also talked in depth about how it's difficult to really elaborate on the full extent of the issue because of how complex it is. I have a job not related to politics so the amount of time I spend on reddit threads explaining minute details of my arguments is minimal. Ultimately, yes, it is my primary reason, and I do have other reasoning.

>As an aside, I appreciate your reflexive downvoting of my comments, really leads me to believe you're acting with intellectual honesty and in good faith here.

I am not downvoting you.

2

kraysys t1_it2uzta wrote

> Plant life also begins at a seed, and I also don't think it's unethical to pull an undeveloped seed out of the ground either, because it doesn't have a brain.

Sure, but you made an argument with regard to life generally. Most people can distinguish between moral claims around plant life and human life. I also don't think it's unethical to pull an undeveloped seed out of the ground early; not because of a brain or lack thereof but because it's not a human life -- and plants and humans are not morally equivalent.

> I'll admit my wording in my original post is fairly simplified, but I think I've elaborated enough in subsequent posts to detail what I meant.

Yes it was, and no I don't think you have anywhere actually. You made a clear claim multiple times around what the supposed scientific consensus was, and in fact the scientific consensus is the exact opposite of what you claimed.

> I have a job not related to politics so the amount of time I spend on reddit threads explaining minute details of my arguments is minimal. Ultimately, yes, it is my primary reason, and I do have other reasoning.

Haha same, I understand that. But as a primary point it seems to me to be deeply flawed insofar as you've only really made a moral argument because the science-life argument you led with is flatly false.

> I am not downvoting you.

Good to know, thanks. Happened a few times quickly after I made a comment responding to you so I assumed -- but you know what they say about assuming!

1

cpujockey t1_iszdzbk wrote

> who the fuck am I to tell a woman what to do with her body?

amen.

5

historycat95 t1_it41cr7 wrote

>Honestly as a man, who the fuck am I to tell a woman anyone what to do with her their body? Except when it spreads a disease in my community.

Adapted and expanded.

2

lazerem91 t1_itifo94 wrote

thank you for this, i'm seeing so many people frame reproductive freedoms as just a women's issue when it's so much more than that

1

LJS6348 t1_it1z9gh wrote

Especially when it comes to experiment drugs.

1

potato-balls t1_it0jg1k wrote

If youre a man with no say then why do you get a vote? Which is it?

−11

MortaLPortaL t1_it0q8rd wrote

Im not them. I rather vote to give them a chance other states are taking away for stupid fucking reasons.

9

potato-balls t1_it0qnr7 wrote

No need to swear, its a question...why so upset?

−10

Revolutionary-Lie198 t1_isylgrc wrote

I have been pro-choice for years but only NOW did I remember (because abortion rights are front and center every time) that EVERYONE'S reproductive rights should be covered under a law like this. The Refucklicans are already going after IVF, and they will not stop there. Thanks for the reminder and more excellent reasons to vote yes!

61

timberwolf0122 t1_isyrdx5 wrote

They are going after IVF? I missed that. WTF? What is there justification for that?

17

ryan10e t1_isz00ue wrote

It’s common to fertilize multiple eggs and implant only one embryo a time. The remaining embryos would be frozen until needed or destroyed, and the abortion bans can be interpreted to ban destruction of any embryo, even one not implanted in a uterus.

24

Candycorn_Pizza t1_isytwd5 wrote

“God doesn’t want you to have kids if you’re not able to do it naturally” Essentially just bull about IVF being too close to playing God

15

hotseltzer t1_isz6w85 wrote

Except for the fact that I know some ultra-religious types who are vehemently against abortion but have done multiple rounds of IVF themselves. Make it make sense.

7

Candycorn_Pizza t1_isz75pn wrote

Yeah really depends on the individual and their personal beliefs, often which are just like the most wildly contradictory ideas you’ve ever heard

7

Amyarchy t1_iszkvoz wrote

"Rules for thee and not for me."

It makes no sense but it's their whole ethos.

6

timberwolf0122 t1_isz6v6k wrote

Given the position of god is vacant, someone sure needs to step up and play it

4

Jerry_Williams69 t1_it011fo wrote

My daughter is an IVF baby. We had our embryos genetic tested because we had no idea what was causing our infertility. We had like 9 embryos, but only one was viable (my daughter). The rest would have died in the womb, painfully shortly after birth, or been severely disabled their whole life. Zero regrets about destroying the non-viable embryos. It sounds like my wife would have been expected to attempt to carry all of them if the right evangelicals had their way. Total nightmare. We probably would have just not had kids if their desired rules were in place.

17

Quirfg t1_isycjw0 wrote

Everyone who respects their fellow Americans should vote yes. I couldn't imagine being friends with people who think I don't deserve the right to choose what I do with my body.

50

cpujockey t1_isze4uu wrote

> fellow Americans

you spelled Vermonters incorrectly.

5

NotTooWicked t1_iszghkp wrote

Not necessarily. Things like this help establish precedent which may end up helping people in other states have guaranteed access to their rights as well.

14

cpujockey t1_iszh7jt wrote

Sure, but voting for prop 2 or 5 only effects Vermont. As it should be.

What ever happens at the federal level is whatever, what's important is the here and now in Vermont.

I'm so proud of everyone taking action on this. Women's health and bodies need autonomy, and slavery sucks. So it's def a no-nonsense issue for voters.

−2

Howard_Scott_Warshaw t1_it8mg8p wrote

Spicy take on the anti-vax movement.

0

Quirfg t1_it8q8h8 wrote

Only an anti-vaxxer would compare. Like redcaps who think them facing prosecution for treason is akin to the holocaust.

1

Howard_Scott_Warshaw t1_it8svj9 wrote

I don't know what a redcap is.

You stated "I couldn't imagine being friends with people who think I don't deserve the right to choose what I do with my body."

Where is that line? Who is defining that line? Why is your line better/more moral than anyone elses line?

0

nice_popcorn1108 t1_isz8j4v wrote

As a Vermonter who lives near derby where can I vote?

22

BooksNCats11 t1_isz3xoy wrote

Just voted yes on both of these this morning! I've had many a conversation with my teenagers using the mass mailed out propaganda in the last month or so.

21

serenity450 t1_it0m8nx wrote

Right there with ya! But I’ve had my ballot for a couple weeks and still haven’t voted. Need to get on that!

3

montpelier28 t1_it0tl0v wrote

I am also voting yes on Prop 5 I wasn't really aware of Prop 2 so will look at it and see.

3

Corbeau_from_Orleans t1_it0btzk wrote

Does Prop 2 close the loophole I’ve heard about in a recent r/BraveLittleState podcast?

2

maxwutcosmo t1_it22c2r wrote

Will proposition 2 stop companies like nestle, mars, and Hershey selling their chocolate in Vermont? Those companies support abducting children and enslaving them…

2

mdeer1st t1_it25smr wrote

"Article 22. Personal reproductive liberty.
That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means"

Constitutional rights must be applied to all or to none. If they are only applied to a segment of the population, it is not a right at all. And let me ask this in all seriousness, If there are competing interests, and the courts decide the issue, how is that enshrining a right at all? As well as the whole "unless justified by a compelling State interest" in the proposal. How is it that if it's a right, there can be any consideration of any government interest? So what this will really do, is make the decision between a woman, her doctor, the man involved and the courts. Or the government if somewhere down the road some politician decides there is a "compelling State interest" to either allow or disallow.

And let's play devils advocate for just a minute. How does this apply to men. After all, they are people as well. As I said, in order for something to be considered a right, it must be applied to everyone. How will this be applied to men? I can easily see some scumbag trying to shirk financial responsibility for their child by claiming reproductive autonomy was violated. Downvote if you like, but this is a serious question. Or what of the man who wants his offspring whereas the woman does not? It then ends up in the courts. As clearly stated during the hearings on the subject by the planned parenthood attorney I believe. Is that what we really want? The courts or government to decide? Because that's exactly what this will create.

"Article 1. All persons born free; their natural rights; slavery and indentured servitude prohibited
That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; therefore slavery and indentured servitude in any form are prohibited."

​

When was the last time there was a case of slavery or indentured servitude in Vermont? I'd wager not in a couple of hundred years. We all understand and agree that it would be unacceptable under any circumstances.

Then again, how does that apply to the person who has a child and does not have custody, nor visitation yet must pay child support? Is not forced financial responsibility indentured servitude? How is personal reproductive autonomy impacted? What of the person who owes the courts fines and is imprisoned for nonpayment? Is that not slavery? To be held captive due to debt.

​

Just some thoughts.

1

Biobot42 t1_it47ckp wrote

>And let me ask this in all seriousness, If there are competing interests, and the courts decide the issue, how is that enshrining a right at all?

These paragraphs are all over the place, but this is what you seem to keep coming back to. The point is not to keep every case out of the courts here, it's to give a legal foundation to bodily autonomy for when the courts do get involved. Sometimes things need to be decided on a case by case basis and that's okay. Broadly, the courts should be involved in a person's bodily autonomy as little as possible, which is the clear and obvious intent of this amendment and, furthermore, a point that I think you're agreeing with? Again, these musings are not fully consistent.

>Won't someone please think of the men?

No. More seriously, we already think about the men, every day and in every situation and putting too much weight on the desires of men is why we now need a constitutional amendment to ensure the bodily autonomy of women.

>When was the last time there was a case of slavery or indentured servitude in Vermont?

It is currently very much legal for prisons to do this, as a common example. I'm personally not given to believe it is currently happening at the state level but that doesn't stop us from being proactive and clearing up the confusing language in the state constitution.

>Then again, how does that apply to the person who has a child ... Is that not slavery? To be held captive due to debt.

No, it is not slavery. It feels disingenuous to have a debate about whether financial debt and slavery are the same thing, but if that's really the hill you want to die on I can't stop you.

2

mdeer1st t1_it77u2s wrote

My main point on Article 22 is that nothing can be a right unless it is applied to all people. Not a segment of the population. How would this be applied to all people?

1

Biobot42 t1_it7ccwv wrote

I don't see how this isn't being applied to all people. The language is constructed without gendered language. All individuals, any One's rights, etc. And that's without even debating your premise. Be specific, how is this going to be unfairly favoring any person over any other?

1

mdeer1st t1_it7fove wrote

Can you tell me how this would be applied to a woman after impregnation vs how it applies to a man after said act? I will grant that the man cannot carry the fetus to term physically, however, it is still his reproduction that will be decided. Just as it is hers. Which autonomy holds more weight. According to this act, they hold equal weight. So then a court must decide which holds more weight. If one outweighs the other, they are not equal. Therefore not a right being equally applied to all individuals.

And as with anything that is versed to include a caveat of potential governmental interference, it should be loathed and cannot be a right. If an institution, in this case the government, can supersede what is alleged to be a right, it is not a right. But a granted privilege until said institution decides it will not be applied in a given case. Where is the "right" then?

1

Biobot42 t1_it7i70c wrote

>Can you tell me how this would be applied to a woman after impregnation vs how it applies to a man after said act?

You're making a bold claim here that a man's bodily autonomy is infringed upon when the women's is codified. You need to defend that claim. "it is still his reproduction that will be decided" doesn't mean anything, what reproduction is being decided? Where in this law does it infringe on that?

>So then a court must decide

Again, this is not a bad thing nor a failing of the ammendment. The point of the language is to strengthen an individual's legal flooring in cases where it does go to court, not to prevent them from ever being in court in the first place. Literally anyone can be taken to court for anything, God Bless the USA, but winning is a different matter.

>If an institution, in this case the government, can supersede what is alleged to be a right, it is not a right.

Do you know what prison is? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness get suspended given a compelling state interest, in this case a conviction following a crime being committed. Are those no longer rights? Nonsense.

1

Vermonter623 t1_it393ov wrote

Two wasted votes for pure virtue signalling. Slavery is illegal already and abortion is legal in Vermont. Let’s try and help the working class for once instead of being a contestant on r/lookatmyhalo

1

you_give_me_coupon t1_it3ff16 wrote

> I hope that anyone eligible to vote in Vermont takes time to look past the decisive rhetoric, and see these amendments for what they are intended for, which is to preserve our freedoms.

The abortion debate is very depressing. Both sides craft their pitches for their respective bases, not to win anyone over. This is a great case in point: if someone believes abortion is murder, why would they want to preserve anyone's freedom to do it?

1

Master__Midnight t1_it0bt8w wrote

I'm 100% on board with Prop. 2. With Prop. 5 I certainly agree with the aim of it, and I will probably vote for it. I'm curious how it might apply to the male population. If someone kept or aborted a fetus against the father's will, would that be considered a violation of his reproductive autonomy?

−5

SideQuestWriter87 t1_it1xi1h wrote

Well… let me ask you this. Is the father the one that’s going to have grow the baby? Is he going to have undergo the (sometimes severe) physical consequences of pregnancy and birth? Many women never fully recover from having babies. It’s not like in the movies where they pop a kid out and it’s like nothing ever happened, afterward.

The reason women are the focal point of abortion discussions is because they are the ones who have to do the actual work of pregnancy and birth. Your attempt to make it about men is ridiculous at best.

I think the better question for you, is who in the hell is going to want to let you get them pregnant if this is the way you think?

4

Master__Midnight t1_it3kxvi wrote

You seem to be arguing against all sorts of opinions I never expressed. Prop 5 is written in gender/sex neutral terms and just refers to an individual's reproductive autonomy. Obviously women are the main focus of this, but my question is how a court might interpret that as it relates to men and if there might be unintended consequences from it. Its a legal question.

0

MYrobouros t1_ithsyom wrote

I think it's more like, you can't force sterilize a dude

1

KustyTheKlown t1_iszfbve wrote

serious question/no snark - obviously i am against 'slavery'. but i am not really necessarily against imprisoned people being forced to work if they are physically and mentally able to work and if they are not willing to work by their own choice. i am also fine with that work paying very marginally. would this amendment prohibit prison labor?

−7

YPG-Got-Raqqa t1_iszg90u wrote

Yes because if you are forcing people to work that is slavery. People who are imprisoned cannot consent because they are imprisoned.

If we want to provide work opportunities to prisoners we need to do it for at least minimum wage and not exploit them.

In the world's wealthiest society there is a profound issue if we need to use slave labor rather than fair labor to produce our goods and services.

33

joycethegod t1_iszxaoi wrote

If you’re sent to prison though, after a sentencing by a court, that acts as the consent that you no longer have a right to your freedoms for a certain amount of time. Thus people in prison are referred to as ‘state property’ technically. So, Why not allow them to work for minimum wage or less if they want to. I say or less because it’s not fair to people not in jail to make the same amount as those who have broken laws.

−14

zepfan t1_it09zh4 wrote

> i am against ‘slavery’. but i am not really necessarily against imprisoned people being forced to work

So forced to work is fine if they did something wrong? What level of crime makes that acceptable to you?

4

eye-brows t1_it2scdi wrote

But think about what it really means for the capitalist system we live in.

Prisoners become labor that you can pay literal pennies on the hours for. This takes jobs from others, it exploits the prisoners themselves, benefits corporations, and most importantly gives the prison incentive to keep people imprisoned, because they're making money off them. This has ripple effects all over our justice system.

3

DiceyWoodchuck t1_isz90fm wrote

I don’t like the wording on the end of if- that needs to be changed then voted on again

−10

CowHuman7223 t1_iszn5be wrote

I honestly can't wait for prop 5 to pass. No one is talking about how this will legally bolster 2nd amendment arguments against Vermont's gun laws. Prepare to see magazine restrictions lifted and private sales without a background check once agin...

−11

geminimindtricks t1_iszzb80 wrote

How are they related?

7

CowHuman7223 t1_it21jjq wrote

It's readily apparent to anyone who actually reads the proposed bill. Section 1 a) specifically.

0

geminimindtricks t1_it4bkmt wrote

Well I read it and would love for you to answer my question.

2

foomp t1_it6tlal wrote

I see it. Prop 5 reiterates that the VT constitution is the ' overarching ' legal framework of the state and provides "... natural, inherent, and unalienable rights."

By supporting prop 5, there will be a referendum on the primacy of the state Constitution. Said Constitution is quite thin in its description of the right to bear arms, and by extension, the additional framework that can be applied to moderate access to guns.

Passing prop 5 will open up lawsuits on several fronts, not just gun control.

1

Norse-Gael-Heathen t1_it02toz wrote

Yeah, I hate echo-chamber cheerleading...so I'm going to say NO on #2.

Criminal sanctions restrict the rights of the perpetrator (such as jail), but do dick-squat in terms of compensating the victim for their damages. That has to be obtained from a civil case.

So someone assaulted you, and put out your eye, so you sue them in civil court and win $1 million. Oh, but wait - they have no assets, so you get didley squat. Until you sue them to recover, but oops, they've been thrown in jail on the criminal charges - which, once again, does nothing for the victim.

If the prisoner can be pressed into service, with their income being garnished and sent to the victim - I'm all for it. Call it 'slavery' if you want - I call it restitution.

−13

Corey307 t1_it0etvd wrote

The US does not have a debtors prison system, your example does not work. People don’t get sent to prison because they can’t pay a judgment assuming they haven’t committed fraud or other financial crimes to avoid paying a settlement.

5

Master__Midnight t1_it0dmkd wrote

I'm not a lawyer, but I know how to use Google, and I don't think you can be sent to jail from civil lawsuits or debt.

3

Norse-Gael-Heathen t1_it0et4m wrote

Well, for child support, you clearly do. If you fail to appear for a hearing based on failure to pay a judgement, you are jailed for that and the bail is usually set for the amount of the judgement.

But the point is that if a person is jailed for the criminal charge (say, assault), and has no assets to pay the civil damages in the parallel case, then they should be working off their civil debt while incarcerated.

0

Master__Midnight t1_it0itam wrote

Fair point. I'd be ok if prison work paid prevailing wages + overtime instead of $0.40/hour, which would be more money for your civil damages, and remove the incentive to create and exploit prison labor.

4

Beardly_Smith t1_it0c24b wrote

I remember when voting was a secret thing and you didn't tell everyone how you did it

−13

Corey307 t1_it0ejrm wrote

They’re shedding light on topics that a lot of people don’t know about and this information could be useful to them before they vote. They aren’t just telling people how they’re voting, they’re encouraging other people to vote the same way and explaining why. I don’t see what you’re complaining about.

15

Master__Midnight t1_it0d2or wrote

People still wrote anonymous political pamphlets back then. How is this different?

13

kraysys t1_it0eus1 wrote

Lol this sub is such a hive mind

Respectfully, OP, nobody gives a shit that you’re voting yes on Prop 5 and why; 95% of this sub is as well. It’s just not an interesting or useful or conversation-inducing take, because everybody here agrees with you.

−16

theGazella t1_it1gjb7 wrote

At least you said respectfully. /s piss off, chub.

4

kraysys t1_it1jyme wrote

And I meant it. Did I say anything false or are you just mad because I don’t agree with you re: Prop 5?

Edit: Apparently the latter.

−3

pro_conser333 t1_isz05dy wrote

If you want to start adding ridiculous things to the constitution, then the second amendment will not be infringed. We that own guns can carry whatever we want. I’m so done with liberal nonsense.

−70

doctorchivago t1_isz2v63 wrote

You absolute moron..

31

KustyTheKlown t1_iszf39a wrote

come on now, he's clearly part of a well regulated militia.

10

doctorchivago t1_iszgrt4 wrote

"we that own guns can carry whatever we want" tell that to the ATF, homie. I been asking for an HIMARS system for a while now...

6

escobert t1_iszvx4j wrote

Vermont constitution is what's in question, which does not specify militias at all.

Article 16 of the Vermont constitution

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

I know the original person said 2nd Amendment but that has nothing to do with altering the Vermont constitution.

6

redfieldp t1_isz5e6h wrote

You get that you don't need to add that to the State Constitution because it's already in the Federal Constitution, right? If a state tried to override the second amendment, the Supreme Court would throw out that override.

Folks are in favor of adding the reproductive amendment because the Supreme Court has essentially said "states should decide this", and so now states are doing exactly that.

AFAIK the slavery amendment is more for show/principle, and does fall under what could be categorized as liberal nonsense. Although, it never does any harm to make sure no one is keeping slaves, for any reason.

19

gownuts t1_iszgred wrote

Plenty on nonsense out there but a vote ‘yes’ on this one should be right up your alley. This locks in a right, prevents government over-reach, removes a restriction so we can govern our own lives, ensures personal accountability, etc etc…

I understand the constitutional pro 2A position, but I don’t understand why many of the same people oppose a small-government, pro-choice answer to abortion. What’s up with that?

18

CountFauxlof t1_iszjm5w wrote

You sound like a fucking moron. We already have one of the most explicit enumerations on the right to keep and bear arms in the Vermont constitution. Article 16. I'm fully in favor of that as am I in favor of both of the propositions mentioned by OP.

You should educate yourself.

14

DamonKatze t1_iszkq3s wrote

> I’m so done with liberal nonsense

You do realize many liberals own firearms, right?

13

YPG-Got-Raqqa t1_iszfz1e wrote

> We that own guns can carry whatever we want.

That's where you're wrong.

3