• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Of fucking course the Arizona Supreme Court – the same bunch of fuckheads who resurrected the anti-abortion law from 1864 before Arizona was even a state – did this. Hopefully Arizona voters do the right thing and give those stupid bastards on the court a metaphorical kick in the teeth this November.

  • DogPeePoo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s crazy how they only care about unborn human beings.

    Once they are born it’s, “Now fuck off!!!”

  • Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Then it’s only fair to call abortion a “second opportunity” or whatever to capture what it really represents for the women who desperately need it. Idk, I’m not clever with these things, but I don’t mind playing their stupid game to give them a taste of their own medicine.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Because it’s not “free speech”. It’s government sponsored speech to describe what voters are choosing, and supposed to be an impartial description of the proposal.

        Inflammatory language is not impartial.

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            A bundle of cells that might, a meaningful distance in the future after a woman’s body has been taken away from them, eventually become a human.

              • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 month ago

                It’s the exact mirror equivalent of the other side calling the fetus an “unwanted parasite”. We know, for a fact, that the framing of questions massively impacts how people vote, which is why requiring objective, neutral wording is mandatory for a democratic result.

                • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Maybe they should just have a Republican section and a Democrat section.

                  Also abortion is one of those things people dig in about. Words aren’t going to change high held beliefs