Jump to content
mclumber1

Are further restrictions on abortion at all similar to restrictions on firearms in terms of Constitutional rights?

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SilentWorld said:

hot take: fuck the constitution 

 

Wear protection please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

StarshipTroopers-NewsReel.jpg?fit=740,%2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extreme late term abortion should be legalize as the our constitution already protects the tools to allow it to happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, osxmatt said:

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.

 

 

 

100% Prohibition of a thing/concept/idea is stupid and generally doesn't work. We have thousands of years of human history that attest to this.

 

Prohibition can lower the occurance of such actions, but is entirely dependent on the existing culture and societal framework.

 

Prohibition typically works when the existing culture/society generally has little value for a thing/concept/idea and rarely, if ever, works when the thing/concept/idea holds great value within the existing culture/society. 

 

e.g. United States vs Australia on Gun Control

 

Guns do not kill people. Guns are designed to protect & destroy life, including but not limited to humans. Human's are utterly irresponsible when it comes to legitimate usage and storage of firearms and as such, any argument for gun control should target the lax nature of firearms training and gun purchase/ownership laws. The " guns kill" argument will simply go in one ear and out the other. 

 

Abortions certainly kill people in the legal sense of the word. It's merely a matter of deciding at which point during the gestation process that we give a fetus legitimate rights as a human person. As was mentioned in the other thread, Islam actually specifies when a person actually becomes a person, so there isn't any debate to be had on abortion because people know exactly when a gestating fetus becomes a person. Considering that most proponents of pro-life are christian and Christianity doesn't really dictate with certainty as to when a fetus actually becomes a person, you will get wildly varying responses from "the second sperm is created" to "when they exit the womb."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My actual thoughts on the matter:

 

 

Abortion

 

  • Abortion should be the legal right of the mother up to the 25th week of gestation. By the 25th week, statistically speaking, over 50% of fetuses become viable to a degree worthy of bestowing personhood upon them. After the 25th week of gestation, adoption becomes the only viable option except when (see below)
     
  • Abortion should be the legal right of the state all the way up until the moment of birth in cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
     
  • Abortion should be the legal right of the mother all the way up until the moment of birth in cases where the child, without a shadow of a doubt, will prove to be a burden that will significantly degrade the mother's quality of life to the point of physical, mental or financial impoverishment, with approval from a medical practitioner and the state of course.
     
  • Abortion should be the legal right of the mother all the way up until the moment of birth in cases where the child is the product of incest or rape.
     
  • 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.
     
  • A public, national registry should be setup for women who choose to endure abortion and men who choose to abandon their responsibility to the mother and child so that people can make more informed relationship decisions before engaging in sex acts with people who may turn out to habitually have abortions performed or who repeatedly relinquish responsibility as a parent.

 

Gun Control

 

  • Keep the Second Amendment. Regulate the fuck out of it.

 

 

All or Nothing chuds can suck my dick. You're insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

:cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

swedish_chef.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chris- said:

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. 

 

swedish_chef.jpg

 

I actually include myself in the "Everyone is retarded" category so that when I render my opinion, you'll already know that it's retarded and that it shouldn't be surprising in the least.

 

Edit: I also think men who choose to abandon their responsibility should also register so that any potential partners know as to whether or not they're dealing with a deadbeat. HASHTAG EQUALITY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dodger said:

 

 

I'm sure we'd have zero problems finding future tax payers under this system. 

It's easy tbh. Whoever doesn't pay taxes earns a ball of lead, all-expenses-paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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. 

Well, the person who wrote it actually doesn't mind if humanity goes extinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about you can just fucking get an abortion whenever you want for whatever reason you want? Fuck bullet points. Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

How about you can just fucking get an abortion whenever you want for whatever reason you want? Fuck bullet points. Done.

I have a dick for you to suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...