-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Roe v Wade overturned.
- Thread starter Hammerhead
- Start date
the current scientifical consensus, afaik, puts sentience (ie the brain structures are in place to be able to experience... experience) at about 24 weeks, so i like to err on the 22 week side of things: elective abortions until 20 or 22 weeks i think is appropriate; medical jurisprudence takes over after that and i don't think legislative bodies have the right to get in the way of a doctor and their patient, in terms of giving proper care.
abortion bans kill moms.
i reeeaallly don't want to get into the semantics battle of when a mom becomes a mom, but i did go ahead and ask my wife for shits and giggles "when, between conception and birth, does a mom become a mom!" (to paraphrase), and she said:
and she also brought up how even a mom whose pregnancy ended in miscarriage is a mom.
but beyond that, even moms that have had kids before want more kids... and pregnancy is complicated and dangerous.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Just so you know, I prefer people didn't have abortions, but I usually don't think it's my right to intervene in private matters that don't concern me. Making disinterested people pay for somebody else abortion crosses that line though and I wouldn't support that.
We might even agree that legislative bodies don't have the right to get in the way of things, but maybe for different reasons.
Legislative bodies are comprised of individual people, none of those individual people have the right to force their opinions on other people who aren't forcing their opinions on them, particularly concerning self-ownership of our own bodies. You probably believe that, at least as far as abortions go. I go further than that...
If you or I as individuals don't have a right to do blank, no legislator claiming to be "our representative" could have that right either. Not if all humans have equal rights anyway.
The reason is if you and I don't possess a given right, we couldn't possibly delegate a non-existent right which we don't have to someone else, even if they call themselves "representative".
It's literally impossible to add all of our "zero right" up and come up with a positive sum.
"some animals are more equal than others..." - George Orwell in "Animal Farm"
rules for thee and not for meee kinda stuff?
just what we need to augment an already two- tiered and inherently violent health'care' system...
a bunch of entitled, old, rich- and- out- of- touch, and quite pale men
telling doctors they can't perform needed medical care because of virtue signalling and the desire to punish the promiscuous.
just what we need to augment an already two- tiered and inherently violent health'care' system...
a bunch of entitled, old, rich- and- out- of- touch, and quite pale men
telling doctors they can't perform needed medical care because of virtue signalling and the desire to punish the promiscuous.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
"Rules for thee and not for me" is a common complaint for people trained to look to "authority" as the final decision maker rather than using principles as the guide-line on how to make decisions.
Most people get the rights-based idea I expressed in my previous post when it's applied to their preferences. The problem is political people apply it only to the things they prefer. As in, "you don't have the right to do that to me". Everybody gets that and says that when talking about their own rights.
Then if a different "issue" comes up, something they personally have no right to make another person do, but they prefer the person does, they forget about a rights-based conversation and proceed to push government to act on their preferences. Everybody loves democracy when it pushes their agenda, even if their agenda is not rights based.
From my observation being apolitical, this behavior is a feature of both Democrats and Republicans and all other political types. Each will claim a harm when their opponent uses government to violate their rights, but have no problem using government to force their opponent to follow their preferences. They do that even when they as an individual don't have any right to do the thing they are pushing government to do.
Applying a rights based argument to our preferences and a preference based argument when considering an opponents position pretty much sums up political action. This is the proverbial plank in the political advocate's eye. I see this time after time after time.
Why is it important to recognize this happens and change it?
Until people do, and begin to proceed from a more consistent rights based principles model, no matter the particular issue, moving towards a peaceful society becomes impossible.
not to be a dick, but i guess you're one of those.. "enlightened centrists"?
i really detest the "both sides" b.s...
you look at a path with a rabid bear blocking the way, then see the other path is blocked by a geriatric chihuahua... "both" paths are shitty, right?
i really detest the "both sides" b.s...
you look at a path with a rabid bear blocking the way, then see the other path is blocked by a geriatric chihuahua... "both" paths are shitty, right?
Captain Red Eye
Active member
No, not at all. I am apolitical. A centrist is a political creature, I am not.
I am an "enlightened" freedom. peace and liberty advocate, which is an opposite path from politics.
Not meaning to be a dick, but I think you skimmed what I wrote and /or didn't comprehend it.
I recognize some will see it as a "wall of text" and not read it. Which can be both amusing and frustrating but also sort of emboldens the point I was making.
Last edited:
not everyone that gets pregnant is "promiscuous." (i know that is not what you implied.
) nor are all that get an abortion doing so as "birth control", and many that NEED an abortion would have welcomed a baby. life is fucking full of many shades of gray, rather than the black/white dichotomy many on the right see...
the difference (as i see it) between the right and left is best explained this way - the left/liberals want people to be ALLOWED to live their lives with minimal interference and maximum freedom. they do not FORCE right wing/religious people to live like that. they are free to sit at home wearing sack-cloth and rub ashes in their hair every day if they wish. nobody tries to force religious folks to smoke dope, have wild sex, or get an abortion. but, the right wing/religious insist that EVERYONE should be restricted to THEIR idea of "freedom" as defined by their personal "morals" biglaugh and religious beliefs. convince me that i'm wrong. 
i'll wait. 
biglaugh and religious beliefs. convince me that i'm wrong. i'll wait. 
eastcoastjoe
Well-known member
eastcoastjoe
Well-known member
This didn’t age well
eastcoastjoe
Well-known member
the difference (as i see it) between the right and left is best explained this way - the left/liberals want people to be ALLOWED to live their lives with minimal interference and maximum freedom. they do not FORCE right wing/religious people to live like that. they are free to sit at home wearing sack-cloth and rub ashes in their hair every day if they wish. nobody tries to force religious folks to smoke dope, have wild sex, or get an abortion. but, the right wing/religious insist that EVERYONE should be restricted to THEIR idea of "freedom" as defined by their personal "morals"
Your extreme liberal ideas are twisted. Most of the country agrees. There really isn’t much else to say. You extremists pushed too far and now people have had enough. Keep complaining all you want, it won’t change anything.
ah yes, the "extreme" liberal concept of personal liberty.
somehow i don't buy that the majority of the country are authoritarian right wing nutjobs
eastcoastjoe
Well-known member
You saying I’m a right wing nut job ?
eastcoastjoe
Well-known member
You mean the part saying kill billionaires and even millionaires ? That’s your idea of freedom ? Kill the wealthy and divide the wealth ? Some pretty fucking commie to me. But I’m the nut job
. I’m dying over hear
Captain Red Eye
Active member
eastcoastjoe
Well-known member
Are you actually reading this thread ??
