Your thoughts on the latest abortion ruling

[Billtx49]

What percentage of unplanned pregnancies would you say are when the man wants to keep the baby and woman does not as opposed to vice versa?

That is an unanswerable question. I don’t do guesses …

 

[EyeBRollin]

That is an unanswerable question. I don’t do guesses …

Right..

Do you think the ratio is slanted more towards men wanting to keep the baby or abort the baby?

 

[Billtx49]

Right..

Do you think the ratio is slanted more towards men wanting to keep the baby or abort the baby?

Nice rephrase, still an unanswerable question.
I give my opinion based on facts.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Nice rephrase, still an unanswerable question.
I give my opinion based on facts.

Facts do not support the position that abortion is denying men fatherhood.

 

[Billtx49]

Facts do not support the position that abortion is denying men fatherhood.

Men are not victims here, abortion denies Both sexes the parenting opportunity for the sake of modern convenience …

 

[EyeBRollin]

Men are not victims here, abortion denies Both sexes the parenting opportunity for the sake of modern convenience …

Its not denying anyone the parenting opportunity. On the contrary. Criminalizing abortion just creates more illegitimate, messed up children.

 

[zekko]

What percentage of unplanned pregnancies would you say are when the man wants to keep the baby and woman does not as opposed to vice versa?

I honestly don't know the answer to this. Probably the reason why the answer is not readily available is that we've been told that the man's opinion is basically irrelevant.

Men are not victims here, abortion denies Both sexes the parenting opportunity for the sake of modern convenience …

To say nothing of denying the child a chance to have a life.

 

[Billtx49]

Its not denying anyone the parenting opportunity. On the contrary. Criminalizing abortion just creates more illegitimate, messed up children.

Hate to break it to you, but abortion is still legal in a great number of states.

 

[EyeBRollin]

The part that is States' rights is the ability to restrict abortions or not.

Last time I heard States’ rights as a legitimate argument my own grandparents were nearly beaten to death for using “whites only” services in Alabama.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Hate to break it to you, but abortion is still legal in a great number of states.

States rights is hogwash. We’ve gone through this as a country already.

 

[Pierce Manhammer]

10th Amendment

The Federalist, on the New Constitution

books.google.com

it’s the law of the land. Ratified circa 1788…

read them you might learn something.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

Last time I heard States’ rights as a legitimate argument my own grandparents were nearly beaten to death for using “whites only” services in Alabama.

There was a strong centralized government in Eurasia that killed over 50 million of its own citizens. One in Asia as well (still exists actually).

 

[zekko]

States rights is hogwash. We’ve gone through this as a country already.

State rights is fundamental to the country. Yes, you provided a bad example of it, a misuse of it, but that was the world at the time, and it was not unique to the United States. There's a lot of brutality in human history, medieval people were downright barbaric. Hopefully we learn from our mistakes.

Anyway, as divided as the country is, I think states rights are maybe the only way we're going to be able to live together. This way, people in some states can live they way they want, and people in other states can live the way they want. If it's a free for all for who can grab the Federal authority and then use that to browbeat everyone else into doing everything their way, that's going to get really ugly.

 

[EyeBRollin]

State rights is fundamental to the country. Yes, you provided a bad example of it, a misuse of it, but that was the world at the time, and it was not unique to the United States.

The misuse of it in that example was for almost 200 years; a clear majority of the United States history. That indicates it was not an exception but the rule. States rights is malarkey. Don’t let history repeat itself.

 

[Pandora]

When you see the aspect of female nature throwing a hissy fit over murdering babies, 80% + divorce initiated by women, the stat of cuckoldry in the UK, and a number of things, you see how repugnant and repulsive modern women are.


It's less than 1% worth as damn outside busting a nut. The same women champion vaccine and now want talk their body after the promotion of government mandates. Gtfo!

I totally agree bro.

 

[zekko]

That indicates it was not an exception but the rule. States rights is malarkey. Don’t let history repeat itself.

I'm not going to get into a drawn out argument with you over this, but I'll say this: Concentrating power in the central government is extremely dangerous IMO.

Also, you know as well as I that a person in Oregon does not want the same thing as a person in Iowa. Why shouldn't they be able to govern themselves to as great an extent as possible? You think the intellectually superior elite in NY will want to live by the same rules as us poor ignorant uneducated pig farmers? Or you think they should rule over us as our kings? Nope, states rights is the way to go.

 

[Bible_Belt]

States rights is hogwash. We’ve gone through this as a country already.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley commented in the Civil Rights Cases that "individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [Fourteenth] Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."

 

[Pierce Manhammer]

Bananas are yellow.

There was a strong centralized government in Eurasia that killed over 50 million of its own citizens. One in Asia as well (still exists actually).

 

[EyeBRollin]

I'm not going to get into a drawn out argument with you over this, but I'll say this: Concentrating power in the central government is extremely dangerous IMO.

Also, you know as well as I that a person in Oregon does not want the same thing as a person in Iowa. Why shouldn't they be able to govern themselves to as great an extent as possible? You think the intellectually superior elite in NY will want to live by the same rules as us poor ignorant uneducated pig farmers? Or you think they should rule over us as our kings? Nope, states rights is the way to go.

Sounds good and rational- until we look at how “states right” have been applied in United States history. Our first draft constitution failed entirely because the Federal government lacked any power over the states. History says that states rights will devolve into citizens of one state deciding they simply hate certain groups of people. The only recourse is the Federal government stepping in to protect those people.

 

[zekko]

Sounds good and rational- until we look at how “states right” have been applied in United States history. Our first draft constitution failed entirely because the Federal government lacked any power over the states. History says that states rights will devolve into citizens of one state deciding they simply hate certain groups of people. The only recourse is the Federal government stepping in to protect those people.

Oh yeah? Well, what about when the states legalize marijuana, while it's still a crime at the federal level?

Drops mic. /end thread.