Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[GodFearinGunTotin]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA…they’ve obviously never met a hillbilly who gets up at 0400 just to go wait in a tree for hours to kill a deer, gut and skin that deer himself and carve the meat off it’s bones, make his own whiskey, roll his own smokes, fix his own truck and literally talk for hours around the campfire with his friends about wishing some whiny-ass leftist would come out to the sticks…

S/he/whatever won’t stack up. it might cold-cock you with a bike lock when you’re not looking but that’d be about it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Bloomington, Indiana’s own little land of fruits and nuts.

 

[Ingomike]

Kinda makes me wonder if there shouldn't be a separate unit that is under SCOTUS.

NO! The court does interpretation but has no enforcement ability. That was a feature, not a bug…

 

[LeftyGunner]

AndreusMaximus, I saw your response to my post, but from my perspective it read too much like hyperbole to risk responding. I do not feel welcome here, and I am not interested in engaging in that level of discourse on this forum. I do not want to be accused of insincerity, dishonesty, baiting, or trolling...I’ve read the “list your shooter” thread.

Jamil is correct, I do not view this issue in those terms.

To me, this is rather more a question of jurisdiction than morality: that which happens inside a persons body is solely that person’s business. To me the life inside a pregnant woman belongs to her until the point she allows it to pass through her into our world.

I view abortion as medical care. As such, I do not see it as imposing a death sentence on a peer, I see it as allowing a peer agency over their own body, which I think is the natural default position to take.

My argument wasn’t that unwanted people create social suffering, though I think there is probably some uncomfortable truth there. My argument is that a society that produces a surplus of unwanted children also produces a surplus of suffering, and much of that suffering will fall upon the unwanted themselves. I think this feeds voracious detrimental social forces that ultimately result in a cycle of hopelessness for everyone stuck the pull.

Reducing the availability of abortion does not reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which I think is the more important side of the equation to address - as well as the less harmful - as it can be done without adding suffering to the math at all.

 

[Ingomike]

Yeah…. he’s “not the organizing type” and he’s not the “think this all the way through” type either.

Keyboard warrior…

 

[Bollorollo]

LOL…

This was in that same thread.

View attachment 207977

I doubt any of them understand what pain really feels like from fighting and would **** themselves and run once they're challenged in a fight or slapped The obese one is living on borrowed time and should focus on his or maybe her or what ever it is own personal health.

 

[Hkindiana]

Does anyone else think that sone women (sorry, PEOPLE) will get pregnant just to get a week of paid time off, meals, lodging, and travel expenses to get an abortion? It could be a yearly thing to get an extra week of vacation.

 

[Ingomike]

LOL…

This was in that same thread.

View attachment 207977

A pic like that makes me question my position on abortion…

 

[Bollorollo]

People that like to kill babies be mad…
View attachment 207964

This person already deleted their social media accounts. Guess this couldn't handle the back lash from running their mouth. If the fight is taken out the the rural areas the hate America mob will learn what true resistance is when the people out in the country side use their arms to protect their community..
Those who can bring true violence are not on their side.. Even Noam Chumsky said this in a interview before..

 

[AndreusMaximus]

AndreusMaximus, I saw your response to my post, but from my perspective it read too much like hyperbole to risk responding. I do not feel welcome here, and I am not interested in engaging in that level of discourse on this forum. I do not want to be accused of insincerity, dishonesty, baiting, or trolling...I’ve read the “list your shooter” thread.

Jamil is correct, I do not view this issue in those terms.

To me, this is rather more a question of jurisdiction than morality: that which happens inside a persons body is solely that person’s business. To me the life inside a pregnant woman belongs to her until the point she allows it to pass through her into our world.

I view abortion as medical care. As such, I do not see it as imposing a death sentence on a peer, I see it as allowing a peer agency over their own body, which I think is the natural default position to take.

My argument wasn’t that unwanted people create social suffering, though I think there is probably some uncomfortable truth there. My argument is that a society that produces a surplus of unwanted children also produces a surplus of suffering, and much of that suffering will fall upon the unwanted themselves. I think this feeds voracious detrimental social forces that ultimately result in a cycle of hopelessness for everyone stuck the pull.

Reducing the availability of abortion does not reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which I think is the more important side of the equation to address, as well as the less harmful, as it can be done without adding suffering to the math at all.

I like to speak frankly and call things as they look to me, as do a lot of others on this forum, in my experience. I apologize as it seems in this case I overstepped and said some unfair things to you due to not appreciating the context of what you had stated. Hopefully this doesn't turn you away from continuing discussion, and I certainly don't mean to make you feel unwelcome.

There's a lot going on in your post, and I admit I'm still having trouble discerning what your central points are, and what you are bringing in as "secondary" points, so I'll try to hone in on what I think is your central premise:

"that which happens inside a persons body is solely that person’s business"

Okay, I was trying to type out a response to what I think of this statement, but I think it goes back to defining person. If you have a person inside another person isn't that two people's business? Would you agree that the whole question revolves around whether or not an unborn child is a "person" in the sense of having human rights, or do you believe that to be irrelevant, because someone should have the right to even go so far as end another person's life if that person is inside their body?

 

[Jaybird1980]

People that like to kill babies be mad…
View attachment 207964

Defenseless

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If you have a person inside another person isn't that two people's business?

What about a person inside another person, inside another person, inside another person... well, you see where I'm going.

 

[LeftyGunner]

I doubt any of them understand what pain really feels like from fighting and would **** themselves and run once they're challenged in a fight or slapped The obese one is living on borrowed time and should focus on his or maybe her or what ever it is own personal health.

In my more politically liberal social circles I am regarded as the crazy gun nut and doomsday prepper because I lobby for private gun ownership and a personally actionable survival plan in emergencies.

I constantly remind my liberal peers that we will lose a straight-up fight against the far-right, and that it is foolish and detrimental to frame the issue in these terms at all. The right and left are not enemies. The enemy is a corrupt and abusive state, and in-fighting between political factions only weakens our own positions in that fight.

In an online world the most radical voices speak with the same authority and volume as the most reasonable and measured, and it can be difficult to see that we have far more to gain by pulling together than we do from pulling apart.

Dropping that group from the tweet off in the middle of Dubois county would make for great TV, though!

 

[MCgrease08]

People that like to kill babies be mad…
View attachment 207964

Bless their little heart. Bring it cupcake. **** around and find out.

 

[DragonGunner]

Once again I find myself writing yet again…Pro-choice, my body if I want to kill….. not true, if it was your body you would be the one that died. A parent is responsible for their baby before and after birth. If you don’t think it’s right to kill them after their born then why and how in Gods name would one think killing a defenseless child in its safe and secret place in the womb be ok? Abortion is nothing but a death sentence to the innocent.

 

[MCgrease08]

To me, this is rather more a question of jurisdiction than morality: that which happens inside a persons body is solely that person’s business. To me the life inside a pregnant woman belongs to her until the point she allows it to pass through her into our world.

Wouldn't that life also belong to the woman after it passes through her into our world?

It's not as if a newborn, infant, toddler, child or even teenager can fend for itself or survive on its own with no assistance.

This feeds into the argument that a child isn't a life until it's viable. But at what point is a child actually viable? That seems to be the thing no one can agree on. So shouldn't we err on the side of protecting that life?

 

[Libertarian01]

AndreusMaximus, I saw your response to my post, but from my perspective it read too much like hyperbole to risk responding. I do not feel welcome here, and I am not interested in engaging in that level of discourse on this forum. I do not want to be accused of insincerity, dishonesty, baiting, or trolling...I’ve read the “list your shooter” thread.

Jamil is correct, I do not view this issue in those terms.

To me, this is rather more a question of jurisdiction than morality: that which happens inside a persons body is solely that person’s business. To me the life inside a pregnant woman belongs to her until the point she allows it to pass through her into our world.

I view abortion as medical care. As such, I do not see it as imposing a death sentence on a peer, I see it as allowing a peer agency over their own body, which I think is the natural default position to take.

My argument wasn’t that unwanted people create social suffering, though I think there is probably some uncomfortable truth there. My argument is that a society that produces a surplus of unwanted children also produces a surplus of suffering, and much of that suffering will fall upon the unwanted themselves. I think this feeds voracious detrimental social forces that ultimately result in a cycle of hopelessness for everyone stuck the pull.

Reducing the availability of abortion does not reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which I think is the more important side of the equation to address - as well as the less harmful - as it can be done without adding suffering to the math at all.

"My argument wasn’t that unwanted people create social suffering, though I think there is probably some uncomfortable truth there."

As I understand it there have been studies, and they are controversial, that make a direct link between the reduction of crime and the passage of Roe.

Their basic premise is that when abortion was legalized women and poor families were no longer forced to carry the burden of an unwanted child. As they gained easier access to abortion they avoided undesired stressors on their life, financial and otherwise. They thrived more than they otherwise would have, and what children they did wind up having were at a time when they were wanted and loved, not seen as a burden. Whereas children born to parents who didn't want them would go out and commit crimes as they were not socially well adjusted.

I believe C. Everett Koop said it best once when he said (and I paraphrase), "The problem isn't abortion, the problem is unwanted pregnancy. When we get rid of unwanted pregnancies we won't have an abortion issue."

The problem is that too many people don't fully appreciate the risk of unprotected sex. They are either irresponsible or allow themselves to get into positions (ex: drunk) where they make poor decisions that WILL affect the rest of their lives. I have hope that this number is reducing through education but it is still out there.

Regards,

Doug

 

[LeftyGunner]

I like to speak frankly and call things as they look to me, as do a lot of others on this forum, in my experience. I apologize as it seems in this case I overstepped and said some unfair things to you due to not appreciating the context of what you had stated. Hopefully this doesn't turn you away from continuing discussion, and I certainly don't mean to make you feel unwelcome.

There's a lot going on in your post, and I admit I'm still having trouble discerning what your central points are, and what you are bringing in as "secondary" points, so I'll try to hone in on what I think is your central premise:

"that which happens inside a persons body is solely that person’s business"

Okay, I was trying to type out a response to what I think of this statement, but I think it goes back to defining person. If you have a person inside another person isn't that two people's business? Would you agree that the whole question revolves around whether or not an unborn child is a "person" in the sense of having human rights, or do you believe that to be irrelevant, because someone should have the right to even go so far as end another person's life if that person is inside their body?

I must impress this point: I think the moral and legal aspects of this discussion have separate, but broadly overlapping scopes.

Legally speaking, yes, I think the human rights of a fetus are irrelevant until birth.

Morally speaking, I think abortion late in pregnancy for any reason other than to save the life of a physically-distressed mother or end the suffering of a deformed fetus is abhorrent.

 

[Ingomike]

Legally speaking, yes, I think the human rights of a fetus are irrelevant until birth.

Many courts disagree with this as many have been charged with killing a fetus/baby in the womb…

 

[LeftyGunner]

Wouldn't that life also belong to the woman after it passes through her into our world?

It's not as if a newborn, infant, toddler, child or even teenager can fend for itself or survive on its own with no assistance.

This feeds into the argument that a child isn't a life until it's viable. But at what point is a child actually viable? That seems to be the thing no one can agree on. So shouldn't we err on the side of protecting that life?

If you are serious, and not trying to play gotcha, I’ll answer seriously.

I see no reason it must.

A newborn may be best served by its own mother’s breast, but it can survive on formula in the arms of a complete stranger, and there have been countless toddlers and teens raised to successful adulthood by those with no blood relation.

I think ”viability” is the point someone other than the mother can attend to the child’s needs, a line that can only be drawn after live birth.

I hope that makes sense and helps the conversation stay on-track.