ViperMan

LOL the broads wearing masks on a zoom call.🤣

So, "manchester"? Or not?

Update: No new opinions are circulating within the Supreme Court. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/11/alito-abortion-draft-opinion-roe-00031648?utm_source=pocket-newtab

I've seen so many people here make the claim that the right is attempting to outlaw all abortion - in this thread, I've yet to see anyone make that argument, though there have been plenty of straw men who have had the absolute shit beat out of them. In fact, most folks who come from the right seem to be saying that there are limited circumstances under which they agree abortion should be legal, so I really don't see the hyper focus on this extreme case (i.e. IUDs = abortion = 8-mos-pregnant abortion) as anything but an attempt to muddy the water, create overlap where there is none, and avoid the conversation. Perhaps it would be best (for the country) if the conversation would distinguish between "medical" abortions and "elective" abortions. Most of us here (I think) tend to agree on what would be considered "medical" abortions. Really, circumstances make them both categorically and morally different - in the same way killing someone in combat is morally different from murder - and this is the point that I think gets lost in all the back and forth. On the left, abortion is sometimes a difficult "choice" - which it certainly is in cases of rape, incest, last night's one night stand, etc. On the right, a normal pregnancy at 8 months, which somehow becomes inconvenient, is most certainly not a choice. Is either of those positions a misrepresentation? There is a qualitative difference between a single celled human and one which has taken on a human form, heart beat, nervous system, has begun dreaming, etc. All fair people recognize this, even if they can't provide a mathematical proof. Obviously life is a continuum, and it is difficult (probably impossible) to draw clean lines anywhere. The democrats currently in office support elective abortion, in all cases, up to birth. It is their platform. That's a moral problem in our country, and also happens to be wholly unrelated to the state of "tax payer funded paid maternity leave" for mothers. That's where the thrust of the opposition lies - not on disallowing plan B, but on stopping the governor of VA along with other radical organizations who have co-opted previously laudable movements from enacting radical policy positions in order to assert status or maintain grasp of expired political power.

For those of you who care to hear an analysis of the actual court case that led to our current state, as well as an unpacking of the draft decision, this quick podcast does a good job covering some decent ground quickly and to the point. The two gentlemen are highly regarded law professors. It's focus is on the legal case in and of itself - it generally steers clear of the political issues that surround the case. I even learned some history I didn't know before. It's from a conservative bent, so be forewarned. https://www.hoover.org/research/law-talk-leak-heard-round-world

Yep, I'm tracking the conversation, thanks. The point is that there are other court cases that govern rights regarding birth control et al, so the argument that all these other derivative rights from the 14th amendment (i.e. non-enumerated rights) will instantly disappear because Roe v Wade is overturned is a void argument. It's pearl clutching.

This is simply not factual. Birth control has a long history of legality in the country prior to 1973 - it has nothing at all to do with Roe v. Wade. There is long-standing supreme court precedent ruling that birth control can't be restricted. The FDA has had approved birth control pills since 1960.

Abortion is currently the law of the land, and you're confused as to why laws protecting human beings don't apply to the unborn...who are currently allowed to be aborted??? You see the problem with that argument, right? 🤔 The example makes no sense. Pooter is equating a natural death with an intentional one. They are categorically different. If your argument is that *if* Roe is overturned, *then* those things will need to happen for consistencies sake, then that is a different argument, but I've yet to hear that articulated. Ok, you're arguing in good faith, but you felt the need to draft a false equivalency between abortion and miscarriage??? Yeah, I'm confused. If that's your point, I just don't understand the need to do that. But whatever. Either way, it's a weak argument. Not all deaths are investigated as homicide. Even the majority of deaths are not investigated as homicide. And don't you think that if your concern became a real problem, our legislators could simply enact a law that says the presumption is that miscarriages are resultant from natural causes? It's just not the big issue you're making it out to be. Finally, yes, you're right about the state-by-state murder issue. The "state's issue" trope is inconsistent. Abortion will need to be regulated at the federal level.

I'm having a hard time determining if you're arguing in good faith. Are you serious? Are you honestly confused about the qualitative differences between an abortion and a miscarriage? One is a natural event that will occur from time to time no matter what humanity does. The other requires an intentional intervention by an individual. How are you confused about this or how/why are you equating these two categorically different things? Why they're not focused on it is the same reason anti-death penalty folks are not trying to stop all death. "Oh, you're anti-death penalty? Then why aren't you out there trying to develop technology that will extend life indefinitely. How 'bout some consistency bruh."

Well excuse me! Your argument would be easier to parse if you hadn't attempted to smuggle your point through via a screen play. It was hard to pick through all the actual, literal irrelevant detail in order to figure out what you were communicating. I think your second post boils down to "a zygote needs to be either a full human being or nothing, in the eyes of the law., lest we be inconsistent." Is that basically right? If so, I think you're hitting on the crux of the issue for most people. I get the "absurdity" of calling a zygote a "human being," I really do. That said, if the political parties in this country make me pick between two extremes and either call a zygote a human being or a 9-mo old baby still in the womb a "clump of cells" or a a "parasite" or a "choice," I'm going with option A, because even though it's "absurd," it's less absurd than all the rest.

Dude, you just shat out a wall of irrelevant text. Your argument boils down to this: because some bad things might happen in the future to a child, that is my post hoc justification for allowing abortion in order to prevent a bunch of bad things from taking place. In short, your argument is specious, hypothetical, post hoc bull shit.

@Pooter I wasn't originally responding to you. I was responding to @ClearedHot when he referenced "bible bangers" and "a very draconian ruling based on religion." The other post was in response to @Demonrat who made the same argument. The bottom line point I was making is that it is a cop out from the left to argue that because a large group of people make a religious argument, the conclusion they reach is false. It's a model example of arguing from false premises. In the form of the argument they made, it's of course valid, but they choose to ignore the actual scientific reality that it is an independent life inside the woman. The plain matter of fact is that the conclusion they reach is true, but it's easier to dismiss religious arguments than scientific ones. You are cool with calling it a "woman's choice." To a point, so am I, but only to a point. At some point, it's no longer her choice. At some point, she's bought that merge. But hey, that's life in the city. What I think the world needs to get beyond is this framing that the government is somehow forcing a woman to have a child. That's also a false frame. Nature is forcing her to have the child. The government provides some (limited) outs, but they need to be acted upon early and/or in limited circumstances. I agree that there is unfair portrayal on both sides as to what the other side believes, but there is no scientific gray area as to when life begins - it's absolutely clear and unequivocal - and that's not a religious viewpoint, it's a scientific one. What constitutes "life" from a philosophical viewpoint, and when it has "value" is a different question where there is gray area. But in that separate context "life", the word, has a different meaning.

Ok, fair enough. Please disregard much of my most recent post then. Yeah, I'm not very religious, but I see the pro-choice side of this argument paint the other side as religious fanatics and it confines the argument to a place where it frankly doesn't belong. And yeah, I do respond to multiple posts at once. I was responding to @Demonrat in there somewhere. Anyway

It's a dodge because the left side of this argument paints any pro-lifer as a religious fanatic or zealot (which you did) precisely so they can dismiss religion (which is easy / justified) without having to deal with hard science that shows that there is an independent life inside a pregnant woman. That was the structure of your argument from a couple posts ago. You painted the other side as religious and then you closed the book without ever having to grapple with something scientific. Go re-read your post. And it is absolutely settled scientifically. It's not settled by our courts because we live in a messy and self-interested society. I agree that it is a messy issue and that there is probably wiggle room on the early side for things like abortion to take place. That said, there is clearly a human at 7, 8, and 9 months of pregnancy. I'm trying to find time to read the whole draft decision, but the first 6-7 pages make some pretty good arguments. And you can't talk about abortion without implicitly talking about life. Here's some words for you: Abortion (noun) - "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy." Pregnant (adjective) - "(of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus." Finally, to your point about Roe, I don't think you really care what the courts say as far as your argument is concerned, and neither does anyone else on the left. It's an appeal to authority - nothing more. How do I know this? Because they're not all of a sudden going to go away when/if the court comes down with this decision...

Dude, forget the Christian argument. Did your life not start in the womb? If not, then where did it start? Outside the womb? Are you Schrodinger's baby? You didn't exist until you passed through the birth canal? And if you passed back through in reverse, would you immediately un-exist again? What about a C-section, at exactly what point during the incision does the baby pop into existence? Or does it ever? The "secular" argument is every bit as ridiculous as the so-called religious argument. At some point prior to the event called birth, there is a human in there. That's irrefutable and scientific. You equating death from a natural cause (miscarriage) to one requiring intervention (abortion) is gross. I'm not sure where it falls on the moral continuum, but it's gross. And to your point about a pregnant woman being murdered, you better believe that there is precedent for that person to be charged with double murder, which makes our legal system all the more ridiculous. We all know it's a messy issue. People come down on different ends of what the other party considers extreme. I guess I just admit that aside from all the religious arguments against it and all the "secular" arguments for it, I found the defense of "abortion" by the governor of VA to be outrageous. Yeah, let's go with an abortion when a woman is dilating because it might impair her "mental" health. Yeah, let's allow a child to die that happened to be born because I was performing an abortion, so that makes it ok if that's what the parents originally wanted. The morning after pill doesn't bother me, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9-month abortions do. We all have freedom, none of us - including women - has absolute freedom.

Nice dodge, but as I said, it's a difficult position to stake out morally that someone should be allowed to abort a life because they find it convenient. I invite you to make that case as opposed to avoiding the subject. And to your point about it being "my" morals or "your" morals being used to regulate society, guess what, you were born into a society and culture that is riddled with rules and laws that came from someone else's moral code. So I find this argument disingenuous on its face. I know you don't agree with every law that is written - neither do I. That's not an argument either for or against abortion.

I think I agree with your general position, but I don't think this current trope of calling it a "state's issue" is consistent. Should murder be a states' issue? Murder is illegal by state law and federally. If people really consider this to be equivalent to murder, then it does require a law at the federal level outlawing it. This ain't a states' issue in just the same way murder isn't. Here's the thing. It doesn't matter that abortions will continue if Roe happens to be overturned. Murder happens. Do you think that murder shouldn't be outlawed? Do you think outlawing guns will clean up the streets? Get real. The point of having laws is to collectively state what we-the-people are not going to accept. What we think constitutes "right" and "wrong." What we want our government to enforce on our behalf to make a society that we can all live and thrive in. And casting proponents of the issue purely in religious terns is a convenient way of avoiding having to grapple with a very contentious issue - regardless of your religion. It's an easy way to paint the target, label it something else, and move on without ever having to lend real support to their position. I'm areligious and against abortions of convenience. It is an easy off ramp from the argument, and people love to take it because arguing that someone should be allowed to abort someone else because it's going to be inconvenient is a pretty hard position to stake out morally - hence the disproportionate focus from the left on incest, rape, danger to the mother, etc - it's a framing tactic. Most abortions are carried out for convenience - not because of one of those (arguably) reasonable exceptions. Finally (FYI) there is plenty of fantastic precedent for overturning cases. Stare Decisis is important, but it's more important that the court is to be able to correct errors. Do you honestly think the court shouldn't be able to overturn previous decisions? JFC. Seriously. See the following: Plessy Brown Dred This. Have whatever opinion you want to about the abortion issue - no fair reading of the constitution provides some sort of magical privacy that allows for abortion. It's the only right that has been derived from this supposed broad-based privacy which flows from the 14th amendment, and for something that is supposedly so fundamental, it is pretty strange that it doesn't rear its head in any other case law. But maybe I'm the only one that finds that strange. No doubt this won't be the last of the issue (either way) - what it absolutely does do, however, is begin to re-establish the credibility of the court to enact decisions that actually make sense.

There's an unavoidable and fatal flaw to your approach, i.e. when "operatives" (trolls) promulgate true things. What then? Are you going to ban the actual truth because it's promoted by someone who has been classified as a troll? As soon as you adapt your approach, they'll adapt theirs. They'll sock-puppet the truth and now you're going to be on record suppressing it! Have fun with that. If something is true, it's true - it makes no difference who or what says it. No, the futile thing is to attempt to control something that is so slippery as speech. If there is misinformation out there, there is information out there that can and will refute it. Sorry, this is a bad idea all the way down.

Two holes? Still about 6-9 less than Putin's mom has.

For real? Like no shit? *If* this is the case, there needs to be a massive come to Jesus with regard to how our media apparatus functions. That's already true, but this should make it obvious for everyone, regardless of which side of the isle you're on.

Pretty sure the answer is yes. You can't be "put" on orders in order to take leave, but if you're on an order, you're allowed to use it. LES = Leave and Earnings Statement. Some other nuances: I don't think you accrue leave (or other benes) if you're on an order of less than 31 days.

Don't click on (or otherwise use) those sources. They get some money (somehow) when you do. Refuse to use them and visit others. Vote with your dollars. That's the best min effort / max impact thing you can do to help kill the beast.

Dude, this invasion is the definition of totally premeditated and unprovoked - there is no middle ground here. Provoking something necessarily involves you doing something illegitimate. Ukraine determining their own destiny is fully legitimate. "NATO expansion" is a pretext to BS foreign policy goals Russia has long held. So regardless of the total lack of moral logic required to suggest that a country executing their own ambitions is justification for a hostile invasion, you've got Russia who has knowingly, and legally, signed agreements that have disallowed nothing the West has done. So this notion that NATO expansion is somehow responsible or culpable for Russia's current actions is fully hollow. Worth about eight minutes of your time from this mark. For real? Sorry, did I miss the major news story that China has invaded a sovereign country (unprovokedly) and is shelling civilians in a criminal manner? I get China ain't our friend, but this comparison exemplifies "specious." Call me when China starts dropping cluster munitions in Taipai...I'll get on board with your theme.

No fan of Joe, but what's the alternative? To legitimize Putin and his ilk by dealing with him and in doing so tacitly approve of his actions? That'll just engender even worse. It's clear to me that Putin does have to go. The "West" cannot afford to deal with him in really any capacity after this adventure. Not sure what that means, but there is plenty short of WWIII which that can mean. For starters, we really should offer to be Europe's energy guarantor and take real and visible steps towards that end. Putin thinks the current sanctions are biting? Wait until he (and his people) realizes he's getting cut off from his largest market.

That's the exact feeling I had upon first reading. I was struck by how similar it all was to my "modern" experience and how its absurdism was present in my own experience. A passage (in reference to Colonel Cathcart)