CashMoney wrote:

wargames wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

wargames wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

wargames wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

martin wrote:This is reality in one state. Today.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/status/1540349909311832067

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/status/1540349912956780547

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/status/1540349925531168769

I personally think it's insane but it's a state issue and would like to think that rational and logical thinking/reasoning will prevail.

That’s bull**** because they just took away the states right to regulate gun licenses…

You can’t waive this away as a state issue the Supreme Court is a radical body and they are making choices based on their politics with no legal standing.

Negative sir. New York can no longer dictate the number of licenses provided to citizens who should have never been denied the right to carry a firearm. The denial was found to be unconstitutional.

Bull****…. Also don’t call me Sir. It makes it seem like you’re trying to be reasonable when your argument is anything but.

It’s all the same issue regarding state rights. States are going to dictate the number of abortions that take place within them. Also don’t say “well the constitution” because the constitution isn’t sacred and that same argument was used to support other monstrous policies like slavery and segregation for most of this countries existence.

There is no justification for this change besides they wanted to do it. In literally a two day span this particular court has lost any legal justification for its decision making besides “we have power” which is fantastic because it’s the minority dictating terms on the majority.If they were a states right court they would have allowed NY to continue to dictate gun licenses within its borders. At least then what they did today could have been justified as them being a court that was supportive of states rights as you like to say.

I'm unreasonable because I you don't agree with my point of view?

I never said the constitution was sacred. If it were sacred there would be no way to ratify the constitution which eliminated policies like slavery and segregation. If the constitution were sacred Roe v Wade would have never been put into law in 1973.

"Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion for the ideologically divided court, writing that New York's "proper-cause requirement" prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right, and its licensing regime is unconstitutional."

New York state can still prevent non-law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm. What made the licensing unconstitutional is that New York State was providing licenses to some law-abiding citizens but not all law-abiding citizens using the proper clause requirement thus violating the 2nd Amendment.

"Under the law in place since 1913, a person applying for a license to carry a concealed handgun in public has to show "proper cause," or a specific need, to carry the weapon."

New York state can create restrictions as long as the state does not violate the constitution. Every state has its own constitution but it cannot infringe on the constitution of the U.S. State law cannot infringe upon federal law.

You’re unreasonable because on one hand your trying to sound polite while on the other hand arguing for taking away from your fellow citizen rights to appease a document that was written hundred of years ago because you know you would lose if you just said “I feel this way because a preacher told me too”. Your argument and points insults my intelligence because you’re trying to seem reasonable defending decisions that are anything but.

Going beyond changing the constitution. The 14th amendment still allowed for segregation and the court supported this with their Plessy v. Ferguson decision on the books until Brown vs. Board of Ed almost 60 years later. Certain prior decisions literally make up the fabric of our current society and saying something half assed like “let the states decide” is avoiding owning up to what just happened.

The court is made up of Radical Conservatives and that may align with your views but don’t come here and try to justify it as anything but a vocal minority forcing the rest of us to deal with your side’s bull****. Now to the gun laws once again this is a over 100 year old law that was based on the state deciding who and how to give gun licenses. You could argue the 10th amendment gives states the right to decide how people get guns since the federal government doesn’t pass laws. Yet this state right isn’t on par for the radical conservative court to a state saying a woman cannot have abortions? If people in NY want to own guns with no hassle they could just move to another state right? This is a state issue right?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/miranda-warnings-supreme-court-alito-kagan.html They on the low began to gut Miranda rights.

Because you don't agree with our form of government and laws of this country doesn't mean I'm insulting your intelligence.

When the constitution was put into effect the framers had no idea of social issues that could arise in the future. That's why the constitution may be ratified and new amendments can be put into place and why case law exists as you showed at the beginning of your statement. You know how it works and you simply disagree with the decision the SC made in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

In New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen it was found that the "proper clause," provision as part of the licensing application process violated the 2nd amendment. New York case law defines proper cause as requiring an applicant to "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community." Mr. Nash and Mr. Koch were granted a gun license but restricted gun license and wanted the restrictions removed for the purpose of self-defense. Self-defense meets the "proper clause" requirement but the issue at hand is why can self-defense be used in certain areas but not in others. This was a 2nd amendment issue plain and simple. If you don't agree read the case and get back to me.

Nowhere in the constitution is abortion mentioned and nowhere in the constitution is the taking of life protected. Abortion was protected by the 14th amendment under the right to privacy in Roe V Wade and the SC in hearing Dobbs created new case law in which abortion was given back to the state because there was no constitutional amendment protecting abortion. Wan be on different sides of the fence or on the same side but it doesn't change anything. NY gun law and abortion are not comparable because they are two different and apart issues.

It will be up to the people in the states where abortion will be made illegal to overturn that law.

No. Sorry I am not the radical here. Don’t label me as not “ agree[ing] with our form of government and laws of this country” I am not the supporter of radical change from an activist court. It sounds like you’re the one here who has issues with the current laws of the United States and want to see them changed to fit your views.

Also how are you completely ignoring the right of liberty in the constitution. Forcing a woman to have a child isn’t a form of arbitrary and unreasonable restraint on her individual? Taking on the cost of raising that child isn’t a form of arbitrary and unreasonable restraint on her individual? There is nothing in the constitution that says Abortion is illegal but we’re seeing laws on the “state” level are on the books that will arrest and detain women for using their right to control their body as they see fit.

Also you’re whole argument for “guns” is the argument for abortion, but the laws for Abortion don’t even provide the courtesy of it being legal is a woman can demonstrate a special need. It’s hypocritical to argue states have no self determination on one topic but say the opposite for another. You just can’t see that because of the topics being discussed.

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:Nowhere in the constitution is abortion mentioned and nowhere in the constitution is the taking of life protected. Abortion was protected by the 14th amendment under the right to privacy in Roe V Wade and the SC in hearing Dobbs created new case law in which abortion was given back to the state because there was no constitutional amendment protecting abortion. Wan be on different sides of the fence or on the same side but it doesn't change anything. NY gun law and abortion are not comparable because they are two different and apart issues.

It will be up to the people in the states where abortion will be made illegal to overturn that law.

Anybody who grew up in the 60s understands impact of "states rights" and how it made discrimination and disenfranchising people very convenient. Different issues, similar results in 2022.

So if the supreme court becomes more liberal in 10 years and reverses the reversal you're still going to claim this is about the constitution? This is about politics.

If a case made it to the SC and it was found that the decision made in Dobbs was erroneous and shouldn't have been made then yes. It's always about politics when there are no term limits in congress. Even with the proposed bill, I see no reason why members of congress should serve longer than the POTUS but that's a different topic.

CashMoney wrote:Acorns grow from Oak trees so if I don't want acorns I'll just chop down the tree before the acorns grow. Better yet, if I don't want acorns I won't grow an oak tree. Organic is not the same as alive because in order for something to be alive it must be organic. Consciousness is a state of human life that begins with organic matter. All different but intertwined.

I get it though. You're deciding factor is consciousness whereas mine is I have a problem with not allowing consciousness to develop. However, consciousness is not present until leaving the womb and has only been proven in infants as young as 5 months old but possibly occur as early as 2 months old.

Would it be okay to give birth to a child, change my mind and toss it into the trash? Of course not because that is murder because the child is a human life even though it does not yet have consciousness.

With that being said, would you agree that a child is not a child until it leaves the moves and achieves consciousness?

BigDaddyG wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

MaTT4281 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

martin wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade

By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.

Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.

Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.

After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.

Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.

That is a ridiculous comparison.

You compared getting pregnant to drunk driving just a few pages back...

Consequences of actions are comparable.

No they are not. We can all agree that you going and getting hammered impacts the health and safety of everyone you interact with in that time period. Whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion does not necessarily impact you, me or anyone else on this board. If it does, than maybe you have some other issues to sort out. I don't believe life begins at conception. That definition is nebulous and broad. The danger with that is that the interpretation can be further expanded to include things like contraception, masturbation etc. And most people accept that definition as nonsense.

I've never thought that jerking off would ever legitimately come up on a serious discussion in a nationally decided topic but there it is

MaTT4281 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

MaTT4281 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

martin wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade

By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.

Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.

Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.

After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.

Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.

That is a ridiculous comparison.

You compared getting pregnant to drunk driving just a few pages back...

Consequences of actions are comparable.

Are you purposefully being this thick headed?

Fuck off with your "consequences" bull****. No those two acts have nothing to do with one another and in trying to equate the two, you're either saying there's no good reason for women to have sex or that there are good reasons to drive drunk. Which do you prefer?

Meanwhile "states rights" in the context of slavery is ridiculous? That's god damn history and the argument you hear nonstop in the south any time you see that Confederate flag waving proudly.

This is all ignoring the context of this decision coming right on the heels of SCOTUS striking down the states rights argument RE: gun control.

People will die because of the laws that are springing up now. Not fetuses. People. Others will bring life into the world just to have them suffer and starve because they cannot afford it, because they will not get any help covering the medical costs or any help from the state to feed that child they forced into existence. But that's ok because we can look down on them from our soapboxes and remind them of their consequences. Should have just got behind that wheel instead.

From your Count Down days til now I've never seen you so passionate. I love it.

MaTT4281 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

MaTT4281 wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

martin wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade

By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.

Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.

Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.

After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.

Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.

That is a ridiculous comparison.

You compared getting pregnant to drunk driving just a few pages back...

Consequences of actions are comparable.

Are you purposefully being this thick headed?

Fuck off with your "consequences" bull****. No those two acts have nothing to do with one another and in trying to equate the two, you're either saying there's no good reason for women to have sex or that there are good reasons to drive drunk. Which do you prefer?

Meanwhile "states rights" in the context of slavery is ridiculous? That's god damn history and the argument you hear nonstop in the south any time you see that Confederate flag waving proudly.

This is all ignoring the context of this decision coming right on the heels of SCOTUS striking down the states rights argument RE: gun control.

People will die because of the laws that are springing up now. Not fetuses. People. Others will bring life into the world just to have them suffer and starve because they cannot afford it, because they will not get any help covering the medical costs or any help from the state to feed that child they forced into existence. But that's ok because we can look down on them from our soapboxes and remind them of their consequences. Should have just got behind that wheel instead.

Just have to shake my head.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

wargames wrote:
That’s thing tell me that the 6 radical conservatives on the Supreme Court aren’t just a bunch of all pharisees and charlatans too.

I said that before, my takeaway from Thomas's opinion is that he is a legalist rather than someone bent on pushing radical conservative agenda. But I am not familiar with the way one should read these opnions and make inferences from them.

I think in his space, they think of Thomas as a ****ing idiot. I think that's the nuanced legal phrasing.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:
Very good that you are trying to apply Aristotelian teleological reasoning. Still, an acorn is not the same as an oak, organic is not the same as alive, alive is not the same as conscious, and conscious is not the same as human.

Acorns grow from Oak trees so if I don't want acorns I'll just chop down the tree before the acorns grow. Better yet, if I don't want acorns I won't grow an oak tree. Organic is not the same as alive because in order for something to be alive it must be organic. Consciousness is a state of human life that begins with organic matter. All different but intertwined.

I get it though. You're deciding factor is consciousness whereas mine is I have a problem with not allowing consciousness to develop. However, consciousness is not present until leaving the womb and has only been proven in infants as young as 5 months old but possibly occur as early as 2 months old.

Would it be okay to give birth to a child, change my mind and toss it into the trash? Of course not because that is murder because the child is a human life even though it does not yet have consciousness.

With that being said, would you agree that a child is not a child until it leaves the moves and achieves consciousness?

Acorns also fall to the ground to be picked up and eaten, while they can still develop into an oak tree.

I honestly cannot tell you at what point a mother cannot kill her child just because she does not want to raise it. Definitely not after birth, I think most will agree that would be murder, because at that point the child is a human being. Is the act of the child exiting the womb and getting the umbilical cord materially change the child's status from a dumb fetus to a human being. Also probably not. But neither the moment of sperm injecting genetic material into an egg change the status of human cells into a human being. So, that point is somewhere in between, and one way or another it would somewhat arbitrary. Some point of compromise, by general consensus and common convention. Not great, but that is how it is.

That is except for case of rape, incest or grave defect of the fetus. No woman should be forced to carry and give birth to a child imposed on her against her will. The child in that case will be the victim of the rapist, there is no justification for victimizing the woman twice.

That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.

A 1000% agree that in cases of incest, rape, grave defect of the fetus as well as a risk to the mother's life that abortion is justified.

CashMoney wrote:That's exactly my point. IMO regardless of when the abortion takes place, the end result is the killing of human life.

just curious but when did you learn/believe that conception was considered a human? was this something you learned as a kid? teen? adult? and where did you learn this? parents? religious place/person? school? on your own? (i didn't read the entire thread so apologies if you already stated it.)