mclumber1 Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 I thought about asking this question in the Alabama abortion thread, but I didn't want to derail it any further. What do you think? On the right, you have states trying to further restrict (or outright ban) abortions, which have been constitutional since the 1970s. On the left, you have states trying to further restrict (or outright ban) firearms, which are also a constitutional right. Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 No, next question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted May 16, 2019 Author Share Posted May 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, Chris- said: No. Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said: No, next question But why? Are they not both rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 No, because the pretzel-like logic used to decide Roe v. Wade has less of a basis in that goddamned stupid archaic document for the small-minded than restrictions on the murder toys for the masculinity-challenged. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 Just now, mclumber1 said: But why? Are they not both rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Because abortion is about the literal control and agency women have over their bodies, and owning a gun is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentWorld Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 hot take: fuck the constitution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted May 16, 2019 Author Share Posted May 16, 2019 1 minute ago, SilentWorld said: hot take: fuck the constitution Wear protection please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 When Roe v. Wade is inevitably overturned, perhaps then "liberals" will come to their senses and realize what I have been saying for ages: (a) there are no such things as "rights" (b) there are only "privileges" that are granted through the possession of power (c) the Constitution is an utterly useless document for the 21st century and should be ignored/ridiculed at every opportunity if only to create the public perception of its impotence and irrelevance (d) be prepared to "nullify" rulings of courts and endure the resultant consequences (e) create a new paradigm in which the legitimacy of laws are not based on "rights" but are based on what is "good" for society Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 No because like it or not the right to own a gun is explicitly stated in the constitution and even includes the words "shall not infringe". There is no right to an abortion actually specially laid out in the constitution. I really would rather see Roe V Wade overturned and then abortion law actually specified by congress specifically outlining what is and isn't legal. I want it black and white, like abortion is legal up until 20 weeks or whatever the normal agreed on time frame is. That way it's right there, hey abortions are legal up until this point, with whatever exceptions like rape or health of the mother or whatever in the law as well. No more arbitrary gray area that we currently have that's subject to change with every ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted May 16, 2019 Author Share Posted May 16, 2019 1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said: When Roe v. Wade is inevitably overturned, perhaps then "liberals" will come to their senses and realize what I have been saying for ages: (a) there are no such things as "rights" (b) there are only "privileges" that are granted through the possession of power (c) the Constitution is an utterly useless document for the 21st century and should be ignored/ridiculed at every opportunity if only to create the public perception of its impotence and irrelevance (d) be prepared to "nullify" rulings of courts and endure the resultant consequences (e) create a new paradigm in which the legitimacy of laws are not based on "rights" but are bases on what is "good" for society Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littleronin Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 Extreme late term abortion should be legalize as the our constitution already protects the tools to allow it to happen. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littleronin Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 Personally I'm tired of half-assed in this country. Let's just go all in on all forms of "abortion." Cop kills someone, justified or not, same law as Alabama passed applies. Fuck up at committing suidcide, locked up for life. Protect your ground and kill someone, life in prison. Car accident and someone dies, the living get locked up. Someone doesn't know about an allergy and causes death... you guessed it. Death row inmate is killed, those responsible get locked up. It really is a dream scenario, everyone gets to do want they want when it comes to killing and know that no matter what life at what stage is aborted they have a clean cut jail time coming their way. On top of that the for-profit prison system in the country stays well stocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 I don't know if this answers your question, but two thoughts: Banning actions is stupid, and doing so generally doesn't lower the occurrence of such actions. Banning manufactured items though makes a lot of sense, and is typically high successful. Guns kill people. Abortions don't kill people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remarkableriots Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Littleronin said: Extreme late term abortion should be legalize as the our constitution already protects the tools to allow it to happen. Up to 18 since they could still be a financial burden on the mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted May 16, 2019 Author Share Posted May 16, 2019 13 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said: Up to 18 since they could still be a financial burden on the mother. Up to 45 since they could be neckbeards living in their mother's basement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 8 minutes ago, Man of Culture said: A father has legal rights up until the 25th week of gestation to determine whether or not he wishes to stay with the mother and help in rearing the child. If he decides to stay or fails to render a decision to the state, he assumes responsibility for the child and will be subject to child support laws. If he renders his decision by the 25th week, he may choose to abandon his responsibility as a father, but by doing so, he will relinquish any and all rights to the child. 1 hour ago, Man of Culture said: For real though, literally everyone is a fucking retard when it comes to either of these issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 I think my favorite part of this thread is Lucian acting like he's the only one who isn't retarded, then proposing that all women who get abortions should be listed in a registry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 Here are the provisions of the Secretariat for the Propagation of the Species: Anyone who voluntarily permanently sterilizes themselves will receive a lifetime stipend of at least $10,000/year (adjusted for inflation) and the State will pay the costs of the sterilization All contraception will be provided by the State for free Those who wish to propagate the species shall be subjected to a rigorous socio-economic/psychological/physiological evaluation process to determine whether they should be licensed to reproduce and how many children they will be allotted to reproduce. The State will bear as many costs as necessary to ensure that the child(ren) and its(their) family will not endure financial hardship in support of species propagation. Any "unlicensed" reproduction will be subjected to the following stipulations: If the unlicensed parent(s) wish to abort the child, the State will provide the service for free. If the unlicensed parent(s) wish to give the child up for adoption to licensed parent(s), then all associated costs will be borne by the State If the unlicensed parent(s) wish to keep the child but are willing to be permanently sterilized, then the State will bear the costs of the sterilization, but the tax/other economic benefits provided by the State that would be associated with licensed parents would be reduced by 50% for the unlicensed parent(s) If the unlicensed parent(s) wish to keep the child and decline permanent sterilization, then the tax/other economic benefits provided by the state that would be associated with licensed parents would be reduced by 100% for the unlicensed parent(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 13 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: Here are the provisions of the Secretariat for the Propagation of the Species: Anyone who voluntarily permanently sterilizes themselves will receive a lifetime stipend of at least $10,000/year (adjusted for inflation) and the State will pay the costs of the sterilization All contraception will be provided by the State for free Those who wish to propagate the species shall be subjected to a rigorous socio-economic/psychological/physiological evaluation process to determine whether they should be licensed to reproduce and how many children they will be allotted to reproduce. The State will bear as many costs as necessary to ensure that the child(ren) and its(their) family will not endure financial hardship in support of species propagation. Any "unlicensed" reproduction will be subjected to the following stipulations: If the unlicensed parent(s) wish to abort the child, the State will provide the service for free. If the unlicensed parent(s) wish to give the child up for adoption to licensed parent(s), then all associated costs will be borne by the State If the unlicensed parent(s) wish to keep the child but are willing to be permanently sterilized, then the State will bear the costs of the sterilization, but the tax/other economic benefits provided by the State that would be associated with licensed parents would be reduced by 50% for the unlicensed parent(s) If the unlicensed parent(s) wish to keep the child and decline permanent sterilization, then the tax/other economic benefits provided by the state that would be associated with licensed parents would be reduced by 100% for the unlicensed parent(s). I'm sure we'd have zero problems finding future tax payers under this system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 Yes, they are similar. Because we have a thinly written founding document that hasn't ever been updated in what it actually says outside of 27 amendments. Laws are made by the legislatures and interpreted by the courts, which form a legal system based on precedent, which is common law. Common law, rather than civil law, means that all these judges have the power to change laws based on the opinions they write. They did it with guns by saying everyone gets a gun because let's ignore the second half of the 2nd Amendment. And now that's the law. Roe v. Wade was decided and the precedent was not to alter the central ruling of the opinion. And there's nothing stopping a new challenge and a new opinion that tramples all over the "precedent" because there are no safeguards against a judge or panel of judges just deciding that they're more right than those that went before them. Because common law systems suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, Man of Culture said: It's easy tbh. Whoever doesn't pay taxes earns a ball of lead, all-expenses-paid. Yeah, look I get the whole you should have a license to have children thing, but if we get all super restrictive on who can have kids, probably not nearly enough will be born (who would then also be subject to the same guidelines) there just wouldn't be enough babies being made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 How about you can just fucking get an abortion whenever you want for whatever reason you want? Fuck bullet points. Done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted May 16, 2019 Share Posted May 16, 2019 edit. wrong thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 2 hours ago, Dodger said: Yeah, look I get the whole you should have a license to have children thing, but if we get all super restrictive on who can have kids, probably not nearly enough will be born (who would then also be subject to the same guidelines) there just wouldn't be enough babies being made. Yeah, it's not like humanity as a whole is dangerously overpopulated or anything like that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted May 17, 2019 Author Share Posted May 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, marioandsonic said: Yeah, it's not like humanity as a whole is dangerously overpopulated or anything like that. Eh, we're not really. We are just really inefficient at using existing resources. The carrying capacity for humans (on Earth) is probably 10 times the current population if we managed our resources correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 27 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Eh, we're not really. We are just really inefficient at using existing resources. The carrying capacity for humans (on Earth) is probably 10 times the current population if we managed our resources correctly. That's a very big "if". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 8 minutes ago, BlueAngel said: I've stayed away from this sub-forum for a while now but here are my thoughts: I am pro-life up and to a point, I feel if the fetus has a heartbeat abortion should be illegal, if no heartbeat then do what you want the fetus is not viable. In the case of rape or incest then abort all you want, I know it's double standards but it's an extreme case and no woman/couple should have to deal with that situation at any point in their life. Guns well it's in the constitution, shall not be infringed. Case closed. How do you define "heartbeat"? Because at six weeks, that "heartbeat" is merely a collection of cells with electrical activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 1 minute ago, BlueAngel said: If the fetus has a heartbeat, pretty straight forward. Not really as can be seen from the article that I posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Abortions don't kill people, unless done incorrectly. Guns are meant to kill things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 I'll freely admit that an abortion essentially "kills" at the very least a potential life and abortion proponents should have the courage to admit that as well. I just don't care that it does because the cost to society of that potential life's possible "mistaken existence" infinitely outweighs the costs of its non-existence (which are zero). Abortion proponents should have the courage to embrace this rationale as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 47 minutes ago, BlueAngel said: I've stayed away from this sub-forum for a while now but here are my thoughts: I am pro-life up and to a point, I feel if the fetus has a heartbeat abortion should be illegal, if no heartbeat then do what you want the fetus is not viable. In the case of rape or incest then abort all you want, I know it's double standards but it's an extreme case and no woman/couple should have to deal with that situation at any point in their life. Guns well it's in the constitution, shall not be infringed. Case closed. But a fetus has a heartbeat at 6 weeks, and it isn’t viable. So what is your definition for personhood? A heartbeat? Or viability? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 No. Well, I suppose if the reason someone is arguing for less restriction on abortion because "rights" then that person's argument happens to be similar to opposing gun regulation. But we don't need to do that. Allowing abortions is a good policy for society, and regulating gun access is also a good policy for society. The end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 35 minutes ago, legend said: But we don't need to do that. Allowing abortions is a good policy for society, and regulating gun access is also a good policy for society. The end. That's the whole problem with the entire system predicated on that degenerate, Enlightenment-era, bourgeois liberal, garbage document: whether a law or regulation is "a good policy for society" is completely and totally irrelevant if it conflicts with the intent of that degenerate, Enlightenment-era, bourgeois liberal, garbage document. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.