Summary
The Biden administration announced it will support a new Syrian government that renounces terrorism, protects women’s and minority rights, and dismantles chemical weapons.
This follows the ouster of Bashar al-Assad by the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which the U.S. designated as a terrorist organization in 2018.
While the U.S. may reassess HTS’s status, ongoing concerns about ISIS resurgence and regional instability persist.
Meanwhile, Israel has seized the Golan Heights buffer zone amid condemnation, and Biden is coordinating with allies, including Israel, on the evolving situation in Syria and Gaza.
The intent of those laws isn’t to hurt women or reduce their protections. Those laws are intended to protect what the law makers view as children from being murdered by the women. They are just implemented in a really poor way resulting in those horrible scenarios.
It’s obvious you were waiting for someone to finally say abortion so you could respond with that.
If women are dying because of laws denying them medical care that could have easily saved their lives, that is the definition of not protecting women.
I was waiting for someone to actually state their position. It is a bit weird how no one would actually say what their opinion was and instead relied on people making assumptions about their position. It’s rather terrible for communication imo.
You are right, women are being hurt by those laws, those are not anti womens healthcare laws though. As I said those laws are about the fetus. Women being hurt and killed is an unintended externality. People talk like there is a war on women here comparable to what the Taliban is doing when the US is one of the best places in the world to be a woman. That’s not to say the US isn’t backtracking but perspective is important.
It’s hard to perceive your “what do you mean?” as genuine, especially considering it wasn’t a vague reference. I think you could have asked, “Do you only mean abortion or is there something else?” and communicated your points in a less passive-aggressive “trap” framework.
Additionally, the original point only stated US governments are not protecting women, which is true regardless of your stance on abortion, regardless of the intended target of the law and regardless if it was intentionally targeting, “a war on”, women.
I’m unsure why people are expected to correctly interpret what they meant, yet I am required to spell out what I said. That seems like a double standard. Personally I felt what I wrote was clear enough as it was. I wanted to know what they meant by what they said, so I asked them what they meant.