-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned
- Thread starter Cameramonkey
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
LeftyGunner
Sharpshooter
This thread is moving so fast I almost missed your reply.
Does a person have a right to alter their own reproductive organs? To what degree?
Does a man have an absolute right to perform a vasectomy, or does the government have a legitimate stake in stopping that activity?
In my view, he does and it does not.
Does a woman have an absolute right to a hysterectomy if she is certain she never wants to carry a pregnancy to term or experience delivery without permission from the state?
In my view, she does.
Does a pregnant woman still have that right?
In my view, she still does.
The uterus that an unborn child needs to sustain life belongs to a completely different person, and she can do whatever she wants with it - including having it surgically removed - regardless of the contents of the organ.
“Fetal Rights” can too easily be used as a Trojan horse for state control over bodily (and reproductive) liberty. I am far more comfortable with a pregnant woman speaking for the life inside her than I am with the state doing so.
Again, I don’t see abortion as murder, because in my view a person has absolute authority over their own body, including anything (or anyone) else inside it.
Murder is unjustified homicide. Even if we could agree that abortion is homicide, I will still argue that the right to arbitrate justification belongs to the individual (woman) over the state.
Last edited:
I don’t think that’s true. So the idea is that, but for progressives going too far, the right would not have pursued getting justices appointed who could overturn RvW. The right has been pursuing this moment for decades. I suppose the excesses of the left make this ruling more delicious. But the moment was coming anyway.
That said, I could agree that the excesses of the Obama administration brought about the possibility of Trump. And Trump had the opportunity to nominate the justices on the list. But that’s not the same thing as claiming that up to the moment before birth abortions is what got this ruling.
And the end game there is, what exactly? That if enough men aren't getting done they will somehow influence SCOTUS to take back the ruling that a 'right to abortion' doesn't existWait a minute! Isn't this the root of the problem?
Sex Strike! Abstinence trends on Twitter in wake of Roe v. Wade ruling
A number of pro-choice Americans on social media were also pushing for a nationwide sex strike after Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.nypost.com
Or that their representatives, who in many cases seem to be banging anything that will hold still, will somehow be motivated to hitch their star to a proposed law that they know would be doomed?
SMH
As others have said - repeatedly - the baby, once conceived, is its own entity. Deliberately ending its life for no other reason than convenience is murder. However, I'm not surprised in this day and age that some people don't see it that way. Of course, many of those people will shout "SCIENCE!!!!" over things like Global Warming and COVID vaccinations, but they sure don't want to hear about "SCIENCE" when it comes to fetuses.
AN ADDED THOUGHT:
Seems to me I recognize some of those women screaming "My body, My Choice" were the same ones demanding that I - and everyone else - be mandated to get an experimental and unproven vaccination for a disease with a 95+% recovery rate. Where was "My body, my choice" for me?
Last edited:
LeftyGunner
Sharpshooter
There are only two tents in our system, if you want to participate you have to stand under one of them.
In my experience, I could probably find several people standing under the other tent that actively work against my specific interests. People who, in order to advance their interests, actively work to destroy mine. If I were of a mind to, I might call those people my enemy.
The problem is this: I can find plenty of people fitting that description under my own chosen tent, too. We have allowed our political system to “divy up” our human rights into partisan property, and then pit them against one another access enhance their own position.
I find the “enemy” rhetoric wholly counterproductive because our system forces this dynamic…you have to choose a tent, but you don’t get to choose who else stands there with you.
Our system is a true or false question in an essay-format world.
It is human nature to build coalition, but we are forced into an artificial binary if we wish to engage in our political institutions here, so we end up performing surgery with blunt objects.
The irony is that pro-life advocates have been saying for years that if
Edited to change women to "people". Like jamil has repeated pointed out, men share in this responsibility too.
I think if a wife cuts off her husband over this, it should inform him about the mental stability of his life partner.
It’s an empty threat tho. He don’t get none she don’t either. Unless she goes the other way too. In which case informs the husband more about the status of the relationship.
Anna:
Oh, but you do expect women to be faithful?
King:
Naturally!
Anna:
Well why naturally?
King:
Because it is natural. It is like old Siamese saying. A girl is like a blossom, with honey for just one man. A man is like a honey bee and gather all he can. To fly from blossom to blossom a bee must be free. But blossom must not ever fly from bee to bee to bee.
https://www.quotes.net/mquote/1099836
(The King And I)
