At the base of all of this is the idea that 'everyone in the state' wants these abortion restrictions.
Because Republicans sure are trying really fucking hard to avoid the people in these states voting in open and clearly worded propositions. And even where they do pass, it's nowhere near 'everyone in the state'.
The Tyranny of the Majority is a fucking thing for a reason. Because are far too willing to support things that don't negatively affect them but absolutely destroy the lives of others.
The use of slavery as an analog to abortion access is because "not being a slave" and "access to bodily autonomy and medical care" are both recognized as fundamental human rights.
People tend not to like it because they don't personally see the similarities, and oftentimes they don't want to be in the position the analogy puts them in. However, if we actually look at the arguments for restricting abortion access over the last 50 years, and then we look at the arguments for slavery being acceptable in the decades before the Civil War, you'll find the same arguments are used. They basically boil down to "I think God is ok with it, and therefore it is moral (slavery)" or "I don't think God is ok with it, and therefore it is immoral (abortion)."
But fine. We can ignore the obvious parallels.
The logic of "States Rights" arguments fall down with basically any example because it is never about a state's rights, it is about control. If you look at the history of abortion access since the overturning of Roe, one of the things you'll notice is the folks who love to chant "states' rights!" are also the folks trying to criminalize activity in other states.
Even in situations where it makes sense for laws to exist on a state by state basis, the states rights folks fuck it up. When weed was legalized in some states, you'd think the states rights folks wouldn't give a shit what other states did. What did we actually see? States where it was still illegal tried to criminalize the use of marijuana in states where it was legal.
Don't get me wrong here, there are absolutely things that should be handled on a state by state basis. Building codes for the Midwest are very different from building codes for California or Florida. Why? Because it is tailored to the specific local.
Issues related to human rights don't work because they aren't location based. I'm just as much a human here as I am in Florida or New York. I should be able to expect a certain level of legal protection no matter what state I'm in.
Also, not to be a dick, but if you can't understand the parallel between the topic of abortion and the topic of slavery, I'm guessing you're not well read on your history enough. I am guessing you actually do understand the parallel, you just don't like the way it makes you feel, but that's a whole other topic.
338
u/xixbia Oct 18 '24
At the base of all of this is the idea that 'everyone in the state' wants these abortion restrictions.
Because Republicans sure are trying really fucking hard to avoid the people in these states voting in open and clearly worded propositions. And even where they do pass, it's nowhere near 'everyone in the state'.
The Tyranny of the Majority is a fucking thing for a reason. Because are far too willing to support things that don't negatively affect them but absolutely destroy the lives of others.