HeloDude

I can’t wait for the left to call for her resignation and indictment for attempting to incite an insurrection…

Progressives: You need to adjust the minimum wage for inflation. Also progressives: When the market is up, you don’t adjust for inflation.

The left: We are a democracy and the right is trying to destroy our democracy. Also the left: States are going to use democracy to ban abortion…that’s horrible!

So why was their new law limiting abortions to a heartbeat is detected challenged if it was in accordance with Roe? The Dems started going much further left on abortion and in turn, the GOP started going much further to the right (or mixture of both). Politically it wasn’t too smart for the left to challenge these laws if they were concerned they could lose at the Supreme Court. Don’t worry man, you and others can donate as much money as you want to organizations which will help women in Texas go to a different state to get their abortion. And unlike if I go buy an AR-15 in Texas and move to Massachusetts and bring my property with me (I will be prosecuted), I’m not aware of any state that plans on prosecuting a woman who had an abortion out of state…though I guess crazier stuff has been suggested, so we’ll see. And I’m pretty sure if I’m caught bringing in a magazine holding more than 10 rounds in a few states that I can be prosecuted…you know, because they’re banned. Additionally, you asked the other day what politicians/states were against any government restrictions on abortions…well, I just read that the Dem nominee for Senate in Ohio is recently on record for saying he doesn’t support any government restrictions. Ohio is definitely more of a “middle of the road” state in the US, especially compared to California, Maryland, Massachusetts, etc. So will Ryan beat Vance, since Ryan is for zero restrictions and Vance is for banning abortions?

If I own my own private track, is there a speed limit? I don’t own a public road…I can’t just go firing my gun if it’s in a public parking lot of the county court house. Again, who am I bothering if I have a magazine that can carry more than 10 rounds? I appreciate you admitting you don’t have answers for arbitrary limits you like to see/don’t like to see. But isn’t that what Texas and Mississippi originally did? They didn’t ban abortion…they just put limits on when you could get one.

But it’s your business if I choose to have a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition…even though no one is being harmed at all if I own one. But if I only have a magazine that can hold 10 rounds then I’m somehow in better standing in your eyes? And why are you ok with abortion in the 27th week but not in the 28th/29th week?

All you needed to say—thanks. Just spare us your “rights” argument though…just say you’re for a woman being able to kill her unborn child (fetus I guess is the “medical” term), and I’ll accept it as that’s what you support, whether I personally agree or disagree.

Pretty sure it’s illegal in all 50 states to harm someone with a firearm (or any other weapon) unless you’re defending your life, etc. By the way…weren’t you in a favor of a ban limiting the ammunition capacity of magazines? I find it rich how you and your fellow progressives believe in “rights”, but are all about limiting the rights of others when it’s not about abortion. This goes for conservatives as well…they’ll say they’re for “rights”, but have no problems banning/limiting the use of drugs, gambling, prostitution, who you can marry, etc.

It’s just an “undocumented life”…

Oh, there would be more credibility to the left’s argument if they echoed Dave’s argument on abortion: “If you get to kill them, then men should be able to abandon them (ie not being on the hook financially whatsoever).” But yeah…not so much.

You missed my point man. My point was that 90% (if not more) of Americans only want “Liberty for me but not for thee”. Meaning that they claim to be for personal freedom (ie abortion, firearms, drugs, etc), but very few people support that personal freedom on all issues.

Do you think the GOP will take the majority in the House?

The Democrats in charge (at the state and federal level) are literally advocating for no restrictions on abortion, regardless of what their party members want. As for women not wanting to go through a pregnancy if not wanting a baby they don’t want to care for…aren’t we then lucky that there are some righteous women who aren’t that way? Again, if you’re for a woman wanting to be able to kill her unborn child, that’s not an uncommon position…and you’ll stilL be able to do so even when Roe is overturned. But let’s not use the “personal freedom” rationale as its BS for 90% of Americans.

Ok…so then you’re not really for personal freedom. Just say you’re for a woman being able to have an abortion and that’s that. Don’t use the personal freedom argument because it’s disingenuous.

Kind of hard if you’re 7 months pregnant and wanting an abortion (that’s what the left wants btw)…usually women show quite a bit by then. But…the point remains—I want to know who actually would think an abortion is better than having a baby and giving it up for adoption. I know there are those on the far left who love sharing their abortion stories, but personally I wouldn’t want to be even be acquaintances with someone whose moral compass told them that an abortion is better than adoption. Note—I am arguing this from a moral point of view. As I’ve said many times before, if you’re a Libertarian and you believe that an abortion should be available up until the moment of delivery then I’ll respect you for your consistency. If not, well then you’re not really for personal freedom, rather you just are pro-abortion.

Are you full up supportive of the Libertarian Party and it’s platform now? If so, jump in, the water is definitely warm. If not, then your argument based on personal freedom is quite selective.

You originally made an argument that society would judge people more harshly for having a baby and giving it up for adoption vs having an abortion. And you didn’t provide any examples other than some personal opinions on what “could happen”. By the way, would your parents and in-laws be “WTF, you have up your baby for adoption instead of just having an abortion?” So let’s try again…do you really believe abortion is a better and more approved societal option to an unwanted pregnancy vs giving up the unwanted baby for adoption?

Do you really believe this? Outside of the government financial welfare benefits, what is this “societal pressure” against giving a newborn baby you don’t want up for adoption? Can you provide some examples?

Really dude? That’s your response? By that same logic, an argument can be made that we should allow zero immigration (legal or illegal) because there are some immigrants who murder American citizens. Let me know one person on this page who have have advocated for blowing up an abortion clinic. Likewise, let me know how many abortion clinics have been blown up in the last 20 years compared to the number of abortions in that same time period. You can be against abortion and not be for blowing up clinics…hence why very few have blown up, but let me know what you find. Again, I’m all for going full Libertarian Party platform (link below) if that’s what you and the others are advocating? But until then, let the states decide if it’s not addressed in the Constitution. https://www.lp.org/platform/

Well, pregnant women who want abortions usually get one, and if they don’t, they then have a newborn. So it’s kind of hard to discuss one without the other. Unless you’re suggesting that a pregnant woman…who wanted an abortion, but somehow couldn’t get one, decided to then not give her baby up for adoption, but then later ran into problems, is now the fault of the government for not allowing her to have an abortion? Perhaps the left could be more pro-adoption along with being pro-abortion?

And here you go…I literally said this was the one argument that was complete BS, and you just made it. I have zero problems with the argument that someone should be able to do what they want with their own bodies, because it’s a valid argument to make, regardless of my personal/moral opinions on abortion. But…suggesting that abortion is necessary because unwanted newborns will not be adopted is a flat out lie. There is a long waiting list for adoptions of newborn children…and yes, that goes for non-white babies as well.

The left literally now says that men can also have abortions…

Actually, I’m very correct. States might choose to ban abortion, but the ruling itself will not. Someone can still go to California and get all the tax-payer funded abortions they want. CH, take a look at my most recent post above—if the country wants to go full blown Libertarian, then I’m on board. Until then, it has to be a States’ Rights issue unless it’s specifically pro/against in the Constitution. Slavery, can’t do it. Banning guns, can’t do it. Keeping women from voting, can’t do it. Drugs? Abortion? And a long list of other issues…States’ Rights. But as usual, for 90% of the country it comes down to “Liberty for me but not for thee”.

Isn’t it though? Let me clarify—the left would have a much better argument of saying they’re for individual rights, if well, they actually were. Please do not at all take this as defending the right. As I’ve said plenty fo times before on this forum, if the argument for preserving abortion is because we want to exercise individual liberty to the maximum (and assuming we have no regard for an unborn child), then I can accept that argument. But that’s not what the left (or right) is about. So until then, the best thing is for more laws handled at the state level and not the federal level. Don’t forget, this ruling won’t ban abortion at all. So yeah…pretty…uhhh…rich.

Your points aren’t invalid…but the current process/system isn’t working either. So again, this one foot in, one foot out, challenge every new law at the federal level (even though Roe said the states could regulate abortion but just not ban it), the argument that you can do whatever you want with your own bodies unless it has to do with drugs or a covid shot, on and on…at some point, we need a better system. And The Constitution actually provides it—changing Roe just gets us back closer to it, regardless of whether or not you’re for or against the legality of abortion. But now to address the bigger elephant in the room—here it goes: We’re so divided as a country right now that one can ask why we’re even a country. States’ Rights are continuously taking a back seat to an ever growing federal government. If the pro-abortion crowd doesn’t like the upcoming change, then perhaps they should stop trying to dictate how everyone else in the country wants to live their life. I like making the Libertarian Party’s arguments, but then people here call me “weird” or “out of touch”…but then are cool with unborn child being killed the moment before it exits the womb.