Roe to be overturned!!!!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Side bar note: Many former slaves upon the issuing of Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment bolted like their hair was on fire from the South to the North. Smart! In their search for work, they were willing to take a very low wage for altruistic reasons such as not starving to death and such. Apparently, the Northern unions did not like that very much, the under cutting of wages and losing jobs to "former slaves" so they implemented a thing called minimum wage with minimum qualifications - thus removing the competition that was driving down wages.

sorry to pop your fantasy on this. thats false.


the minimum wage didn't come in U.S. usage until 1920s by state legislatures.

[dilbert firestorm]

geraldo vs gutfeld on roe vs wade
3:05

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

sorry to pop your fantasy on this. thats false.
the minimum wage didn't come in U.S. usage until 1920s by state legislatures.

Law vs ... you know... the thing... In-Practice. Come on man. There is a difference between 'law' and 'in-practice', aka reality. I did not say that they passed a law implementing the minimum wage. Right? I used 'implemented'. In practice, they tried to bar slaves working up North in the manner I stated. Apparently they we OK with freed slaves, just not in their own back yard.

I thought E95 made an excellent point about this.That would be like me saying that slavery was completely eradicated on 1 January 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation). Or was it 9 April 1863 (Appomattox) or was it 6 December 1865 (13th Amendment) or was it 9 July 1868 (14th amendment) or was it 3 February 1870 (15th Amendment) or was it 2 July 1964 (Civil Rights Bill) or is it a yet to be determined future date as BLM seems to imply?

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

...Okay, the thirteenth amendment didn't abolish slavery completely....

Your quote, further below, was an excellent point. To this day BLM seems to hang their hat there - IMHO (underlined section of your quote). I have wondered if that is why they included this stanza in the 13th Amendment

...except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted...

One might think all it did was legalize prison chain gangs, but it's proximity within that amendment sure makes it seem more than an accident. In practice; was it intended to be used as a loophole to control? Imma say, highly likely.

After the Civil War, new offenses like “malicious mischief” were vague, and could be a felony or misdemeanor depending on the supposed severity of behavior. These laws sent more Black people to prison than ever before, and by the late 19th century the country experienced its first “prison boom,” legal scholar Michelle Alexander writes in her book The New Jim Crow.

“After a brief period of progress during Reconstruction, African Americans found themselves, once again, virtually defenseless,” Alexander writes. “The criminal justice system was strategically employed to force African Americans back into a system of extreme repression and control, a tactic that would continue to prove successful for generations to come.”

States put prisoners to work through a practice called “convict-leasing,” whereby white planters and industrialists “leased” prisoners to work for them.

But then, this here OP of this here thread is about abortion.
So why are we even leveraging the Civil War to talk about abortion or illegal alien birthing rights anyway? (Ouch)

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Questions for the pro lifers. Why do you have a problem with abortion in the first trimester?

Because it ends an innocent Human life.

Originally Posted by Tiny

If a person believes in the right to bear arms and speak freely, if he believes in the right not to wear a mask during a pandemic, why does he believe the government should restrict a woman's right to do what she wants with her body?

Because it's killing another person

Originally Posted by Tiny

If you're going to say it's because she's killing her baby, why do you consider an embryo to be a child?

If the child growing inside the mothers womb is not a human life, then WTF is it? Science says "LIFE" begins at conception. That's the moment that the egg and sperm DNA combines and begins to divide at about 24 hours... I've written elsewhere that we might consider it when the fertilized egg attaches to the womb and begins to grow (3-5 days).

These are definitive structural and chemical waypoints in the development of a human (for the mother too). We can measure them. They are objective and not open to argument.

Originally Posted by Tiny

Where do you draw the line? No condoms, like what the Catholic Church preaches? No Plan B?

no issue with condoms... since they prevent the life from even being created. Plan B? Well if you agree that life begins when the egg attaches to the womb, plan B is fine. From my point of view, that's probably the most logical, since we know that eggs can be fertilized in a petri dish, but if not implanted in a womb, they fail to develop.

Every other argument - relies on the supposition that their is no consciousness, no soul, before a certain point on the calendar. But none of us can ever know that for certain.

I am 100% in favor of bodily autonomy, but when you are carrying another life, you no longer have autonomy over that other life... the state has a compelling interest to insure that that little life gets the same chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the mother enjoys.


Answer me this question.... if NASA announced that they found a single cell organism in the sands of Mars, would the headline be "Life found on Mars" or would it be "Non-viable clump of cells found on Mars?"

We generally measure death by the absence of a heartbeat, I'm fine with measuring the beginning of life by the same measure... and we know that the beating of the structure that becomes the heart starts at about 16 days after conception....

In this world with the access to birth control being cheap and universal there is zero reason for the barbaric practice of abortion to be allowed.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

geraldo vs gutfeld on roe vs wade
3:05

Geraldo was about to abort Gutfeld!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Because it ends an innocent Human life.

Because it's killing another person

If the child growing inside the mothers womb is not a human life, then WTF is it? Science says "LIFE" begins at conception. That's the moment that the egg and sperm DNA combines and begins to divide at about 24 hours... I've written elsewhere that we might consider it when the fertilized egg attaches to the womb and begins to grow (3-5 days).

These are definitive structural and chemical waypoints in the development of a human (for the mother too). We can measure them. They are objective and not open to argument.

no issue with condoms... since they prevent the life from even being created. Plan B? Well if you agree that life begins when the egg attaches to the womb, plan B is fine. From my point of view, that's probably the most logical, since we know that eggs can be fertilized in a petri dish, but if not implanted in a womb, they fail to develop.

Every other argument - relies on the supposition that their is no consciousness, no soul, before a certain point on the calendar. But none of us can ever know that for certain.

I am 100% in favor of bodily autonomy, but when you are carrying another life, you no longer have autonomy over that other life... the state has a compelling interest to insure that that little life gets the same chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the mother enjoys.


Answer me this question.... if NASA announced that they found a single cell organism in the sands of Mars, would the headline be "Life found on Mars" or would it be "Non-viable clump of cells found on Mars?"

We generally measure death by the absence of a heartbeat, I'm fine with measuring the beginning of life by the same measure... and we know that the beating of the structure that becomes the heart starts at about 16 days after conception....

In this world with the access to birth control being cheap and universal there is zero reason for the barbaric practice of abortion to be allowed.

While I don't agree, particularly with the last two paragraphs, your arguments are well-stated.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

It always comes down to making personal choices. While walking down a hallway, I notice a hand grenade (figuratively) and Lizzo (actually). Which one am I gonna hurl myself onto? I typically choose the hand grenade whereas Chung Tran may be more apt to choose Lizzo...

As far as law making goes, we are predominately a representative form of government where we elect people to craft and pass laws (ignoring that lobbyists actually do most of the crafting), as opposed to the people voting on every little thing directly.

Given the average attention span and some other things (long list), having the people direct vote on everything is unwieldy. You ever see propositions or proposed amendments on the ballot? What percentage of people do you think make their entire decision based on the 30 words or so on the ballot versus having already read the whole potato-e?

The state in which I reside does a pretty fair job of juggling state supremacy vs county, city etc. At the end of the day, many things are not discretionary at the very local level, not because they can't be necessarily. Some just should not, while others are just to messy to do. How can you have constitutional carry at the state level, while banning an and all guns, including the beloved Red Ryder BB gun in Austin, from 1st Street North to 38 12 Street? Also, Mayor Adler is a prime example why everything should not rest in the hands of city governments. Regardless, the math still favors the people at the state level vs the federal level. You know... the thing... Constitutional Republic. Come on man.

"...There are around 850,000 abortions annually in the United States..."
I'll say that is directionaly correct for simplicity. But what about demographically? Do they run equally balanced (ratios) across demographic (ethnic) groups or is skewed more heavily towards one particular demographic (Margaret Sanger-ishly)? What about the distribution between political party affiliation?

"...most of the women would be Democrats. Since they're Democrats it's more likely their children would be Democrats..."
I don't even know a decent adjective/label to call that. But it sounds like your premise is poor, under educated people are Demonicrats maybe. Or are you saying Demonicrats can't handle personal responsibility? Or are you saying that most of our taxes go towards propping up Demonicrats? Just not sure what your inferred point is about Demonicrats. Though I am eager to hurl myself on that hand grenade in another thread, as you may well know.

Pert near forgot about the child support hand grenade. Touchy I know. Third rail-ish even. "When you pull the pin from Mr Hand Grenade, he is no longer your friend ~ Adam Sandler) I often figured the expression "My Body My Choice" was an abbreviated marketing slogan, mainly because using the whole quote "My Body My choice Your Wallet", is too awkward for a variety of reasons. Not to mention, nobody wants to talk science and personal responsibility these days for some inexplicable reason, unless it involves bullying those that you disagree with to force them to kowtow to your own whims and weaknesses.

I would like to point out an important difference - contract, implied or otherwise. Two people get married <awwwe, fuck that shit> a man and a women get married and decide to have a kiddo or two and later split up. Hell yeah there should be financial support! As you iterate through other relationship permutations, perhaps down to this here hobby board - how does on-going monetary support trump personal responsibility and science?

Originally Posted by Tiny

Your point about the states is a good one. I'd take it down to the county level, believing government closest to the people is best. If you're going to argue that abortion should be determined by popular vote, and that it's something government and not the individual should decide, then leave it to the voters of Travis County (or Dallas County or Loving County, etc.)

As to the hand grenade, be careful. It may go off in your hands. There are around 850,000 abortions annually in the United States. I'd guess most of the women who wouldn't get abortions if they were outlawed are already or would become single mothers. You as a taxpayer would end up supporting many of their children. And most of the women would be Democrats. Since they're Democrats it's more likely their children would be Democrats. Think about that, millions and millions more Democratic voters than there would be otherwise in decades to come.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Tiny

While I don't agree, particularly with the last two paragraphs, your arguments are well-stated.

You don't agree that heartbeat is an objective measure of life?

You don't think birth control is cheap and easily available?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by texassapper

You don't agree that heartbeat is an objective measure of life?

You don't think birth control is cheap and easily available?

I don't agree that a heartbeat is THE objective measure of life. I do agree about the birth control. Which, like Plan B, doesn't always work.

If you want a better objective measure of life, you could make it "when the fetus can survive outside the womb." My uneducated personal view is that abortion up to the first trimester, when an embryo becomes a fetus, may be a logical cutting off point.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Tiny

... when an embryo becomes a fetus, may be a logical cutting off point.

"when an embryo becomes a fetus, may be a logical cutting off point" literally, as in cutting off it's life.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

It always comes down to making personal choices. While walking down a hallway, I notice a hand grenade (figuratively) and Lizzo (actually). Which one am I gonna hurl myself onto? I typically choose the hand grenade whereas Chung Tran may be more apt to choose Lizzo...

As far as law making goes, we are predominately a representative form of government where we elect people to craft and pass laws (ignoring that lobbyists actually do most of the crafting), as opposed to the people voting on every little thing directly.

Given the average attention span and some other things (long list), having the people direct vote on everything is unwieldy. You ever see propositions or proposed amendments on the ballot? What percentage of people do you think make their entire decision based on the 30 words or so on the ballot versus having already read the whole potato-e?

The state in which I reside does a pretty fair job of juggling state supremacy vs county, city etc. At the end of the day, many things are not discretionary at the very local level, not because they can't be necessarily. Some just should not, while others are just to messy to do. How can you have constitutional carry at the state level, while banning an and all guns, including the beloved Red Ryder BB gun in Austin, from 1st Street North to 38 12 Street? Also, Mayor Adler is a prime example why everything should not rest in the hands of city governments. Regardless, the math still favors the people at the state level vs the federal level. You know... the thing... Constitutional Republic. Come on man.

"...There are around 850,000 abortions annually in the United States..."
I'll say that is directionaly correct for simplicity. But what about demographically? Do they run equally balanced (ratios) across demographic (ethnic) groups or is skewed more heavily towards one particular demographic (Margaret Sanger-ishly)? What about the distribution between political party affiliation?

"...most of the women would be Democrats. Since they're Democrats it's more likely their children would be Democrats..."
I don't even know a decent adjective/label to call that. But it sounds like your premise is poor, under educated people are Demonicrats maybe. Or are you saying Demonicrats can't handle personal responsibility? Or are you saying that most of our taxes go towards propping up Demonicrats? Just not sure what your inferred point is about Demonicrats. Though I am eager to hurl myself on that hand grenade in another thread, as you may well know.

Pert near forgot about the child support hand grenade. Touchy I know. Third rail-ish even. "When you pull the pin from Mr Hand Grenade, he is no longer your friend ~ Adam Sandler) I often figured the expression "My Body My Choice" was an abbreviated marketing slogan, mainly because using the whole quote "My Body My choice Your Wallet", is too awkward for a variety of reasons. Not to mention, nobody wants to talk science and personal responsibility these days for some inexplicable reason, unless it involves bullying those that you disagree with to force them to kowtow to your own whims and weaknesses.

I would like to point out an important difference - contract, implied or otherwise. Two people get married <awwwe, fuck that shit> a man and a women get married and decide to have a kiddo or two and later split up. Hell yeah there should be financial support! As you iterate through other relationship permutations, perhaps down to this here hobby board - how does on-going monetary support trump personal responsibility and science?

You're getting way too deep for me Why_Yes_I_Do. However, firstly, if Lizzo refers to Elizabeth Warren, I might be tempted to shove her in the general direction of the hand grenade and run like hell. And second, single women vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and a much higher % of unmarried women, versus married women, vote for Democrats.

https://www.asanet.org/news-events/s...-and-2016-vote

https://www.unmarried.org/featured/w...-a-new-answer/

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

"when an embryo becomes a fetus, may be a logical cutting off point" literally, as in cutting off it's life.

Well first please answer, is that embryo-soon-to-become-a-fetus a Republican or a Democrat?

[bambino]

Mebbe Pro Choice folks should commit suicide. Your body, your choice. If you’re going to talk the talk…….

As the Golden Rules states;

Do unto others as you would do unto yourself.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I don't agree that a heartbeat is THE objective measure of life. I do agree about the birth control. Which, like Plan B, doesn't always work.

I didn't say it's THE... I said it's AN objective measure... why shouldn't we use it?

Originally Posted by Tiny

If you want a better objective measure of life, you could make it "when the fetus can survive outside the womb."

That's not objective either. Technology has increased the window in which children can survive outside of the womb. Who's to say technology won't further extend that window tomorrow. You are't really arguing about what LIFE is if that is your suggestion, you're arguing about what is a good environment. If I took you as an adult and left you outside in -30 degree temps you aren't viable either. Environment is worthless in defining what life is and when it begins. And if you're saying it CANNOT SURVIVE outside of the womb, you have already implied that the child is ALIVE... hence it cannot survive outside of the womb.

Originally Posted by Tiny

My uneducated personal view is that abortion up to the first trimester, when an embryo becomes a fetus, may be a logical cutting off point.

Sorry, that is a life...and you're simply saying it's not a form of life you recognize as worth allowing to live.