Comments by "Scott Charney" (@scottcharney1091) on "‘Righteous rage’: How female rage translates to political progress" video.

@PaloDuro1021 Women's rights shouldn't be up to elections of legislators/governors in heavily gerrymandered states, or anywhere. Women should have the same rights, even in places where certain rights might be unpopular.
8
@PoliticallyHomeless1 That's a false equivalence. For one thing, there is no "far left" in anything approaching a position of power in the US. For another, rights are not matters of compromise.
8
@SpaceBethC131 Embryos aren't babies, and asking for asylum is perfectly legal. Also, it was Trump who cajoled Republicans into not supporting the recent border bill.
8
@SpaceBethC131 Is that an abortion reference? Embryos aren't babies.
8
@aaronwilson8403 Embryos aren't children. Neither are fetuses. I do know the history of abortion (it goes back as far as recorded history does), and I do know quite a bit about Margaret Sanger. What are you trying to say?
7
@Nclake5485 Abortion rights, for a start.
6
@aaronwilson8403 I do know said history. Abortion was only criminalized in the late-19th century, due to the efforts of people like Anthony Comstock, it also had a lot to do with the male medical establishment curtailing the powers of midwives. Yes indeed, Sanger was a eugenicist. Family-planning advocates of that era often were. Thankfully, her embrace of eugenics didn't involve things like mandated euthanasia, and (this is important) she was no bigot, contrary to a pernicious lie. Edwin Black, author of War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, makes this clear. As you might expect, he's a very harsh critic of hers, but he stresses that she was not bigoted, and the various things used to support the claim that she was are either out of context or complete fabrications. Educate myself? On the contrary, educate yourself.
5
There's no logic in voting for, among other things, a climate change denier.
5
@Nclake5485 That's not feasible for a huge number of women.
4
@Nclake5485 You don't know what you're talking about.
4
@Nclake5485 How so? You're under the impression that traveling for abortion access is a simple matter.
4
@aaronwilson8403 Are you familiar with Project 2025?
4
@aaronwilson8403 It would spell the end of democracy as we know it, among other things!
4
@Nclake5485 What do asylum seekers have to do with a banana republic?
3
@SummerSmithC131 How would you like to punish women who have abortions, particularly those who induce their own?
3
They ruled that way because they see that topic as an issue for the federal government, not the states. They explicitly referred to Trump in the ruling as an insurrectionist.
3
@aaronwilson8403 Why do you want to punish people for said "irresponsible actions?" Yes, it can seem surprising after all this time- Margaret Sanger saw the unsafe abortions happening in her neighborhood as women desperately tried to limit the size of their huge families, and she sought to curtail that (and curtail abortion in general) with family planning. She and her colleagues made an enormous amount of progress. There's still work to do.
3
@gazzdav You are correct. However: *their.
2
@SummerSmithC131 It's good that you're being consistent. However, understand that this would require investigating every miscarriage in the country, and enlarging the prison capacity to gargantuan levels. You know how many women have abortions, right?
2
The situation stems from the justices he appointed.
2
@PaloDuro1021 It shouldn't be left to the states. It's a right, even in states where it's unpopular.
2
True, but what relevance does that have?
1
@dixonmopar2129 Migrants, no matter their status, commit less crime than US-born citizens.
1
@SpaceBethC131 Again: Migrants, no matter their status, commit less crime than US-born citizens.
1
Among other things, he appointed justices who overturned Roe. That's a pretty big deal.
1
@SpaceBethC131 Not so. The differences are great, and make all the difference in the world.
1
@PaloDuro1021 That's not how it's currently working out, however.
1
What do you mean by that?
1
There's no harm in not being born.
1
@evolutionistheflyingspaghe2702 No, as long as it's decided correctly.
1
@evolutionistheflyingspaghe2702 On what grounds do we decide that killing is wrong? It's a matter of personhood- sentience, the will to live, biological autonomy, and everything else that's taken away when a person is killed. In a rudimentary but very real way, babies have that. Embryos and fetuses don't and can't.
1
@evolutionistheflyingspaghe2702 That potential is completely hypothetical. Also, whether viable or not, embryos & fetuses are inextricably in a quasi-parasitic relationship with a host.
1
@dixonmopar2129 ?
1