all 10 comments

[–]skookin 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

if huge numbers of people with uteruses end up dying and/or forced to carry unwanted fetuses to term, do i give a shit what the lofty motivations behind the theft of our bodily autonomy are?

[–]cojoco[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Okay ... while that is a very good point, you could also argue that the War on Drugs is only possible because states have allowed the Federal Government to over-ride state powers.

Prohibition required an amendment to the US constitution to be regarded as constitutional, yet the War on Drugs has been waged without any corresponding amendment to the constitution.

I guess one could argue that if Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, then the War on Drugs, which also kills huge numbers of people, should be overturned too, as it is also a states-right issue.

But then Matt Taibbi should be arguing against the War on Drugs, not Roe vs. Wade.

I wonder why he picked that issue?

[–]curious_electric 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Because he can get high but he can't give birth?

Seriously, people generally invoke States' Rights only when the thing they are arguing for is indefensible on its own. If you want the war on drugs to end, you want to end it, not to merely give states the choice of ending it. And you'll argue for ending it.

When you want to do something that you know is morally indefensible and you can't argue directly for it without looking like a gigantic dick, your recourse is to argue that it's being dealt with by the federal government instead of the states or vice versa.

[–]cojoco[S] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The reason I brought the War on Drugs into the discussion is because it's also caused a lot of death and horribleness, but I agree with you, I think you're correct.

[–]FZA 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

judging by that one sentence from that reason interview he sounds like he's full of shit. he says he is against against roe v. wade and then segues into talking about regulating drugs which is a complete red herring because the supreme court ruled that women have the right to abortion which needs to be balanced against the state's ability to regulate them. discussing whether states should be able to regulate drugs rather than the federal government is tangential to the discussion of rights at the core of roe v wade. he is just dressing up his anti-choice beliefs with some political buzz words like federalism and such

[–]cojoco[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, I agree.

[–]madbro_mcstarcraft 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

it is not defensible and it shows he is sexist

[–]Grey 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, that's completely disappointing and simultaneously unexpected.

[–]srsly 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Remember that a major role that the federal government has undertaken in the last hundred years is protecting minorities and those with less power and privilege against the state in which they live. The federal government especially put massive pressure on the individual states to remove many institutional racisms and sexisms. Roe V Wade was one such mechanism for removing equalizing against sexism, and opposing the federal government's role in protecting marginalized groups is opposing the marginalized groups themselves.

This is, of course, oversimplified, and often the federal government is on the wrong side of things (especially with DOMA, barf). Generally, though, the federal government has been on the progressive side of things. If Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi or Alabama had their way, Jim Crow would be viciously alive to this day.

[–]cojoco[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I wish I could vote you up, but my ancient firefox doesn't work here, so thanks instead.