Leaderboard

Well if life begins at conception (sperm fertilizing and egg) and you use birth control methods that.. make it impossible for the fertilized egg (which is definitely a full human) to attach to the uterine wall.. some states with particularly backwards trigger laws may soon consider you a murderer.

1. Who cares what the Europeans think? They do not determine what we should do as a country. But I'll entertain that line of reasoning. 2. Don't cherry pick the European laws because context matters. I'll take your word that the Europeans are more stringent on abortion. But they also have extensive paid maternity leave and access to healthcare as part of their citizenship. So that mother and child have a much more generous social safety net provided to them by the government than what exists in the US. Meanwhile in the US a childbirth easily costs thousands of dollars, and there is no mandatory paid maternity leave. The euros probably consider our healthcare system as a whole barbaric... 3. I'd wager most pro choice people are against 3rd trimester abortions, and probably would be okay with restrictions in the 2nd trimester. But that's not what's being debated or being put into law 4. The notion that we have a ruling class in the US is a tragedy, and points to our country failing to live up to it's ideals. And the abortion issue seems to be a ploy to energize the Republican base and maintain power for powers sake. The sad part is that for the wealthy or the "ruling class", the pro life laws just don't matter if they put a member of their family decides an abortion is appropriate for them.

There is a lot of intentional, and frankly ignorant, binary comparisons being made where they are not appropriate. If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, is that okay? If you leave a trail of $20 bills from the sidewalk into your house, then shoot the person who walks in picking them up, is that okay? In both cases you're shooting an intruder. Of course the pro-life crowd can do the exact same thing. If it's okay to kill a fetus, why isn't it okay to kill a 2-year-old? It's your kid, what's the difference? Either side can come up with an endless list of comparisons that are provocative on their surface but clearly absurd. That's all fine and well in a good faith philosophical exploration, but that's not what's happening here. There are two very different concepts being argued, the court-imposed "right" to abortion that is being overturned vs the morality of abortion, and the pro-choice side is frantically avoiding the former. I haven't yet seen a single constitutional or logically consistent argument for supporting Roe/Casey. The pro-choice crowd seems quite aware that they performed and end-run around our entire governmental system with those rulings. It's easy to look the other way when the violation favors your position. But it's bad for the country to do things that way. The pro-choice crowd is also going to have to realize at some point that they are simply not the majority of the human species. Take a quick look at the European laws and you'll see that the American system of abortion until this ruling has been wildly permissive and arguably barbaric in comparison Most people simply don't agree with third trimester abortions, and even the second term is questionable to many. I think the biggest fear of the ruling class is that this issue is actually going to die down with the overturning of Roe. Lots of money, and lots of votes in that fight. But the states are going to come to solutions that satisfy the majority of their citizens, meaning the majority of Americans are finally going to be relatively satisfied with whatever The New Normal becomes. Of course, the pro-choice crowd would do well to consider what the now-firmly-conservative supreme court would do if given the same power to create rights out of thin air that the 1973 SCOTUS felt entitled to...

This is an interesting fear, since the GOP has had trifecta control of the Texas state government since 2003 🤷‍♂️ Can't say I blame the Democrats for any laws passed in Texas anytime recently... @Lord Ratner I think you've argued in good faith here, cheers. I am not a lawyer, but here are a my thoughts on some of the topics you've posted about previously, in no specific order (too many to quote). Feel free to respond if you'd like, or just skip the #WallOfText and have a great day: It seems like while you don't like abortion, you're basically pro-choice, along the lines of what Roe allowed, as modified by Casey. Early-term abortion is perhaps regrettable yet is allowed, but not late-term abortion, life of the mother medical exemptions notwithstanding. The exact definition of where the line falls has changed over time but is now IVO 15-21 weeks. Do you agree with that characterization? In fact, this is where I fall. I'm "pro-choice" if you ask me in a survey but I've only personally been a part of two pregnancies and we have two children, so we've "chosen life" both times, easy call. I am opposed to abortions after the point of fetal viability unless there's some threat to the life of the mother. The vast majority of abortions that take place in the US (approx. 95%) happen before 15 weeks, and 98% happen before 21 weeks. That is the status quo under Roe et al today and it feels like a fair line to say ok, that's the tipping point between a woman's freedom of choice and the fetus' freedom to have a life, both of which I can see the argument for. Therefore why are we overturning an important right (in my view) and landmark precedent for the 2-5% of cases that are unsavory to my personal morals? Maybe you support the likely decision on Dobbs simply because you believe Roe was badly decided to begin with rather than because you are rabidly anti-abortion in all cases, and that's fair. But don't be deceived, several state laws already on the books ban abortion entirely, from 0.001 weeks onward, and have no exemptions for rape, incest or the life/safety of the mother. Idaho and Texas come to mind there. Many others have full restrictions except for life of the mother situations, i.e. no timetable, no rape/incest exemptions. These laws will take effect immediately if Roe is overturned. I get what you're saying in that states should have the right to legislate as they see fit, but the courts have always found limits to that - state and federal lawmakers aren't free to enact things that are not permissible under either their state or the federal constitutions, it's been that way from day one of our current system of government. Ok so you can't enact things that are unconstitutional, and presently under Roe total abortion bans are unconstitutional, so moving a thing from one category to another is a big deal! Which I can see why maybe you've been mad all along if you think Roe was wrongly decided, and now the forthcoming Dobbs decision would just undue that past wrong. I disagree. Granting a constitutionally protected right like Roe did is a major precedent that should not be overturned lightly, which is basically what Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB promised Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (and the Democrats) in their SCOTUS appointment hearings. Sic "Roe is settled law" and etc. I don't remember exactly what Alito and Thomas said on the subject. Roberts at least seems to be signaling that he is anti-abortion but doesn't want to destroy the Roe precedent, and especially no in the way that Alito does, which IMHO threatens other rights as well. If Roe is overturned for the reasons that Alito sketched out in the leaked draft opinion, I'm also very concerned it will open an enormous can of worms that will spill out into many other issues that everyday people will notice and care about. If the 14th Amendment is essentially gutted, which is where I think we're headed, i.e. the Due Process Clause (and perhaps the Equal Protection Clause also?) no longer include unenumerated rights and really it only protects rights with a (sic) "long historical tradition" as Alito puts it, that would allow states to legislate away gay marriage, sodomy, and perhaps even reinstitute segregation in schools. I can think of some very recent times when banning gay marriage and sodomy were A+ cool and not so long ago when segregated schools were also perfectly fine in the eyes of both the law and the public. None of those rights are specifically enumerated in the federal constitution nor do they enjoy a "long historical tradition" in my view, and therefore are vulnerable under Alito's logic. I for one don't want states to be able to get rid of the right to marry who I want, stick it in whatever hole I want, or send my kids to an inclusive and equal school with peers of all races/religions/etc., just because they don't like it, and I know basically all Democrats and even a sizable share of Republicans who share that view, especially ones < age 55. I will bet you a bottle of fantastic Tennessee whiskey that there will be a state that looks at Alito's logic, passes a ban on gay marriage, and that such a ban would be upheld by the current makeup of SCOTUS because well now the 14th Amendment just ain't what it used to be. Let's give it 10 years, you can Manchester me on that one if you want. Alito tries to says that's not on the table because abortion is a special case where there are X-factors blah blah blah, I don't believe it. Some state will argue passionately and honestly that they believe it's a huge moral imperative to preserve traditional marriage, and I think a state-level ban on gay marriage would pass muster if brought before SCOTUS again, overturning Obergefell. Despite what the polling says today, as recently as GWB's second term the GOP wanted to enact a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage! There are certainly crazy-ass state legislators who would be chomping at the bit to ban it in their state if they had the power to do so. Final parting shot: I know you have not argued this, but others have argued vehemently that "life begins at fertilization, and all human rights for the unborn fetus begin there." Essentially any act that intentionally destroys a fertilized egg is a heinous crime. Got it, that is a coherent worldview, even if I don't share it. Do we ban IVF treatments then? That process definitely involves destroying fertilized eggs, all in the name of actually getting the most viable one(s) implanted and successfully turned into a baby, often times for couples desperate to "choose life." If folks want to subscribe to the worldview that fertilized egg = full human with all the rights of you and I, IVF has to be banned unfortunately and they need to be honest about that. FWIW this is the view of the Catholic Church (full disclosure that I am Catholic), and ok fair enough. But a lot of fairly hard-line pro-life protestant christians I know are fine with IVF and I'm struggling to understand their rationalization there. Maybe it boils down to, "Look, I'm against things I don't like and think are bad and am fine with things I do like and think are good and I want the law to reflect that," with no underlying, coherent logical or legal throughline, and ok, that's probably the case honestly. Enough for now, good talk. 🇺🇸

Congrats...and it is America...where you are supposed to be free to have an opinion and or belief.

Probably the most illogical post you've ever made on this forum. You and others have been quoting the science on where life begins. If indeed it is at conception (fertilization), then IUD's are just as bad as an abortion, you are purposely killing a viable form of human life. Those who use IUDs and adhere to the Pro-Life mantra are hypocrites of convenience. As I've stated I think abortion is abhorrent and my personal vote in 51% in favor. I think if abortion is legal there should be reasonable limits like 1st term, very limited 2nd term and by medical exception like survival of the mother in the 3rd term. The post birth comparison is specious at best because someone else can step in and take care of a child post viability. I am catholic (well sort of)...and have several aunts that are nuns but I have always pushed back (as has my mom who is the oldest of 7 siblings with parents who really wanted her to become a nun). It is my opinion that religious groups are opposed to contraception and abortion because they want more followers of whatever group they are in. Regardless of my take, your argument is completely flawed, an IUD is not a passive measure, it may have been inserted before sex, but it kills a fertilized egg which is exactly the same as taking a Plan B and killing it 24 hours later. Agreed, it is a very complicated issue which lends itself to the science argument everyone was spouting on here until the IUD came up. Intellectual honesty goes a long way. I'm Irish so if you happen to hear anything on this front I would greatly appreciate if you passed it along. I simply disagree as well, 49% of me is sickened to think abortion is possible, but I live in a country and swore an oath to a Constitution that supports a government that gives freedom of religious belief, so this being a moral issue is irrelevant to me, it is a freedom choice for a woman. Again we disagree, as you attempt to impose on a woman that she must "endure" and you have made the assessment of "her risk", both statements are an anathema to the foundation of freedom in our country. I sincerely hope states don't ban IUDs, but the door is now open. The far left has obviously seized on this almost decision and will use it for political capital to say the conservatives are coming for everything. In my opinion what would have been a clean sweep in the house and the senate in November is now far less likely (although with inflation numbers like we saw this morning, even abortion won't stop the sweep). The bottom line is for all the folks screaming life begins at conception please done be a hypocrite, acknowledge an IUD does the exact same thing as an abortion. Condemn them and insist your spouse or significant other stop using them immediately.

The Russians continue to take HEAVY losses in both personnel and equipment. As the fight in the east intensifies it was expected the Russians would hold a great advantage due to the flat terrain and expected maneuver/combined arms warfare. From this video near Donetsk, that is not working out for them thanks to anti-armor weapons like Javelin and some very savvy RPA/Artillery coordination by the Ukrainians. The Russians seem incompetent but I hope that is not the take away from our folks in DoD who are no doubt soaking up every tron and lesson learned.

Fair; I guess clarification is needed. I view the abortion law passed last year as very bad public policy, ripe for use to mobilize less moderate progressives, who already have a foothold in most urban centers within the state. Fast forward to SCOTUS striking down Roe, and a new law even more extreme than the previous iteration. At some point it becomes a watchspring that gets wound tighter and tighter, and at some point progressives start making gains not just in TX urban centers, but in the suburbs, and at some point the political balance shifts to Illinois, where the vast majority of the land mass is conservative, but that means jack squat.

93d FS World Famous Makos 2022 UPT Board MOVED UP to Aug 6-7 2022 - APPs due to 93FSMakoUPThiring@gmail.com No Later Than 6 June 2022. Send us your Champions. Good Luck!

That’s fantastic his mother made that CHOICE. If she felt having the baby despite her situation was the best option then I don’t think anyone believes there is anything wrong with that. But the important thing is there is choice based on each persons own individual values. Values that you may not share or agree with. A female teammate on my track team in college faced this same decision. 19 years old, not on birth control because it can impact athletic performance. Gets a little carried away one night with her college boyfriend (my roommate), as 19 year olds with raging hormones are prone to do, misses her next period, and oh shit she’s actually pregnant. She’s a pre-med major, outstanding athlete, on full scholarship and comes from a family that can’t pay for her college all on their own. She makes the excruciating painful decision to terminate the pregnancy very early as she simply was not in a position life to care for a child. Heck even carrying the child to birth and then putting it up for adoption would have had life altering consequences. Now I’m sure some will look at this situation as a selfish decision, or be quick to condemn her with the line of “if you have sex, these are the risks you take”; and in my experience these people are frankly hypocrites who are in no position to judge another’s scenario or decisions. I have seen what some of my pro-life “friends” on Facebook have been posting, a few of which I know quite well who they were when they were 19, and they are in absolutely no position to judge another. They just simply got lucky and didn’t have to make the same tough call. Personally I don’t see how anyone could look a young woman in the eye facing that scenario and tell her with a straight face, “Sorry, but you must have this baby and permanently alter your life simply because you made a mistake that any 19 year old in the history of human kind could make”. Should there be limits on abortion? Absolutely. Enough time for a woman to know she is pregnant but before a fetus would be viable outside the womb seems pretty reasonable to me. I will let the doctors and scientists figure out where that falls. The biggest issue I have with the pro-life crowd in general (not accusing anyone here specifically) is the assumption that anyone that supports a choice to have an abortion is somehow against someone who decides that path is not right for them. If someone believes abortion is not the path for them then that is fantastic and I support that choice wholeheartedly. Each person on earth is going to have different values and different life situations at various times in their life, and I certainly am in no position to judge what is right for someone else, even if it’s not something I would have done. I think we tend to forget that as a society.

You guys are drawing distinctions at a different location, then complaining that people draw distinctions somewhere else. Is it or is it not okay to murder a 1-year-old? How about 6 months? How about 2 days after birth? Why? Is it merely the encapsulation of the body inside another body? The transfer of nutrients and blood through the umbilical cord? The one month old is still completely reliant on its mother for survival as it is post-viability, so why do we draw the line at birth? Because life isn't black and white, and you have to draw lines somewhere. I'm not religious, so I can't speak for Catholics who are against birth control or condoms, or anybody else with different views. But I believe there is a fairly obvious difference between an IUD, which is a passive measure that must be undertaken before conception, and abortion, which is an active measure taken after the life is created. Is it perfect? Obviously not. I would much rather a bulletproof method of contraceptives that can be given once via handshake, has 100% effectiveness, prevents the discharge of an egg from the ovary until a reversing drug is taken, and makes my dick bigger during sex. The primary difference here is I am not acting as though your position is unreasonable or illogical, though your characterization of the opposition is. I simply disagree and have a differing view of the various factors, and the point of this whole thread the Roe ruling rather than the morality, which is clearly one of the most constitutionally unfounded Supreme Court rulings in American history. I do not consider your position absurd, nor do I view you as immoral for holding it, though I do believe the sanctity of life is a moral issue. That's why I disagree with (most) abortion, which is separate from disagreeing with the train-wreck-rulings that are Roe and Casey. But it is getting tiring hearing a bunch of people act like a biological function, in fact the primary biological function, is somehow a massive imposition on the species. Billions of women living in much harsher times have endured the rigors of childbirth just fine, while the medical risks have been enormously reduced and the non-abortion options to avoid pregnancy have multiplied in both methods and access. It's never, ever been easier to be a woman (or man) of any class. The hysteria over the supposed suffering to be endured by women as a result of the banning of abortion is simply overblown. If a state bans IUDs I will oppose it, for fuck's sake I'm not even in favor of banning first trimester abortions, but I will not subvert our entire system of governance for this issue. Contested social issues are decided by votes, not judges. IUDs and abortions are not immune from such considerations. If it's a matter of human rights, add it to the constitution; there's a process for that too. We the people, not we the people who agree with my position and not the other ones.

I know someone who'd have an answer...

Our laws are pretty messed up here as well. There's no room for escalation of violence: no brandishing a weapon to deter an intruder, no warning shots, no rocksalt/beanbag shells, no shoot to wound. The legal precedent is that it is better to kill the intruder than it is to compel them to leave through escalation of violence, which I think is a problem I can see the reasoning behind states with a "duty to retreat" law, even though an intruder is violating your property and space, human life is valuable so you should retreat when possible and let law enforcement bring justice to you. That intruder could be someone looking to do you harm, or just desperate for money, or maybe they are just drunk and went to the wrong house. That being said, I don't agree with those laws being in place because there can bea myriad of reasons why retreating could have been a worse option than standing your ground, so I'd rather err on the side of allowing the homeowner more leeway to defend themselves. Now imagine that instead of your house being violated, it's your body (ie rape).

oof. That sucks. Off the top of my head, seems like you can: -try to convince his staff that he isn't the authority, and they're actually required to forward the packages with his non-concurrence. At least on active duty, proving your case in AFI, based on process that something has to happen usually wins those types of arguments. -go to the IG -go get a guard job instead The first two might fail regardless. If he's actually as vindictive as his staff fears, he may have the ability to tube the hire regardless of waiver.

The esteemed person who is respectfully against retaining current qualified 11Fs during a retention crisis is Maj Gen Radliff, the 10th AF commander. I do not know the official reasoning why he is willing to drive out 20+ year experienced pilots who are volunteering to work for almost free and fill available TR spots. I’m sure like everything big blue does, there is a good reason.

I have always said that a good day is learning something new and I have never heard of an oologist. Interesting. So, does this mean that the question "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" can have a corollary question, "Which came first, the omelet or the chef?"

I presume all the fervent pro-life folks here have forced their wives to remove their IUDs.

Lol if you’ve ever personally dealt with SWOs you’d know it never did.

The lady that will be leading this board labeled the Hunter Biden Laptop Russian Disinformation and by your rule set it would have ceased to exist. If you can't grip the importance of that one fact, then yes it is a massive waste of time for you to be here.

Ironic, CH starts a thread about disinformation, and suddenly we have two new members arguing he's wrong about it...

I'm a Paul Harvey fan.

You're not normally an idiot. What's going on?

To play devils advocate, how many kids do you have and why isn’t it 10+? We can get into never ending debates about what valuing life looks like. I can claim that you not creating life when you could have proves hypocrisy. How is denying life through family planning not just as bad as abortion, or why is it different? You’re gonna say “zygote,” but looking pragmatically at reality: you have personally denied potential life from existing by using birth control/family planning, have you not?

CH. skin cells contain DNA that could be used i the creation of life via cloning. Does your argument mean I shouldn’t itch my arm? That’s about how logical your argument is. Take a step back and realize LR hasn’t called you names or got all emotional, etc. he simply called out your statements using logic and reason and how your statements aren’t making sense. And if you don’t feel the need to do so then might I suggest just stepping away for a bit and either letting it go or assessing what it is that is causing you to react emotionally and without reason? Throughly enjoy your interactions in other instances. Just seems like someone stole your login info this time around.