Super anon
@superanon
casting anon because truthfully i'm afraid to cast this not-anon. women of farcaster: 1. what existing rights is the newly elected president taking away from you? 2. why is it assumed people who vote Trump hate women or condone SA? it is okay to be a single-issue voters on non-policy related (like SA, which majority of us condone) but not okay for people to be single-issue voters on crypto? 3. if you immediately call someone racist, sexist, homophobic, dumb, etc. for their vote without asking "why?", how do you expect them to react? do ad hominem attacks create space for mutual understanding required to move society forward?
16 replies
2 recasts
7 reactions
Goksu Toprak
@gt
(I am not a women) 1. Trump replaced 3 supreme court justices in which I think all actually stated that "Roe vs. Wade" was a super-precedent. Given chance, they overturned it and moved it to each state to make a decision. Decision by the supreme court immediately resulted in loss of rights women had in certain states. Democrats should have codified it with Obama when they had the chance, but does not change the fact that Trump is somewhat responsible as he was the one who nominated these justices. In terms of "newly elected president taking away from you" — he stated he won't do a national ban on abortion. I would not be shocked if he is lying or he is truthful. Trust him at your own peril. It makes sense to me that women electors may not. 2. Being a "single-issue" voter imo is a privileged position. No candidate should be dumbed down to a binary outcome. Politics are multi-faceted. 3. Overall agree its unproductive. However, not everyone is entitled to get every opinion they have entertained seriously.
3 replies
0 recast
16 reactions
Super anon
@superanon
it also makes sense to me that women may be hesitant to trust Trump's claims or skeptical about the Supreme Court, but "i don't trust him" is a very different claim than "he is taking away our rights." both candidates planned to veto a national ban and no president can make Roe v Wade federal law given the current SC. so, given they have the same stated stance, what is the logic in presenting a state issue as a federal issue?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
adrienne
@adrienne
(I am a woman) +1 to everything @gt says I don’t know if men can truly understand what it means to not have complete and utter control of when and whether to have a child. We take birth control for granted but imagine life without the ability to decide when to have kids. And imagine if you were the one who was default responsible for childcare. 6 week abortion bans are frightening. Do you know you can’t even find out you’re pregnant until at the earliest 4 weeks? Most women don’t even look visibly pregnant until 3-4 months. There’s a good chance they won’t even know they are pregnant by 6 weeks. I am not a single issue voter but I will fight for women’s equality, for autonomy over our bodies and health care, and freedom to live how we choose.
2 replies
0 recast
13 reactions
christopher
@christopher
Democrats didn’t need to codify it because Roe was already decided, and the ACA was far more important to pass. There were also pro-life democrats in the senate which jeopardized the supermajority.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
