Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[pronstar]

 

[Christopher Lucero]

a pathetic excuse

I suppose that in a perfect world, your postulation would be true, but this is not a perfect world. As I stated, humans make mistakes and contraception and the ability to control the moment are the points of imperfection that we want to make judgements about when we talk about the behavior of women who need to decide.

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand your desire to make the world better. I definitely feel the same.

BUT - I don't believe I have agency in some matters of family formation where it appears you believe that you do. I would not step in if you were telling me about how you were raising your family or even deciding upon having one...that is YOUR thing and I have no right to oppose any part of your decision.

I know you have your own moral thesis and it guides your life in how you behave, and no matter my feeling about it, I try to respect your personal dignity to run your life as you choose.

Two things I consider to be pertinent in qualifying for agency/influence/decision in this regard are;
1) do you have a uterus?
2) do you believe that you should be able to guide your familial future according to your own moral thesis?

I could be wrong, but I think you are disqualified by (1)

To supercede the woman's moral thesis with your own would require agency which you do not possess. At best, you MAY have some standing/agency IF you are the father of the zygote/embryo/fetus AND she has told you about it.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

in favor of abortion

I am afraid that you misunderstand. I argue for liberty. Reread and try again.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Lucero

Mr Monkey.
I know you are a family man. You are a good man. You have described troubles - we all have - and you have described the joys of surmounting them. It is a joy to know that fortune and effort coalesce into success.
I however do know - personally - many who do not enjoy such luck and willful effort or effectiveness, and for them I have decided devote my christian forgiveness and mercy to the largest extent I can.
thus
I want to argue for a woman's liberty to choose a future for a family that suits her own moral existence. it is the only way I can assure that families being formed have the absolute best possible starting point, and to battle against divorce and family sadness.
I do not like the idea that the government or some rando governor or administrator would have the unmitigated audacity to intercede in a choice this personal with such far reaching consequences. Authoritarian BS like that is confounding to increasing freedom, and points to decreasing liberty.
to me: If USA is not increasing liberty, we are moving in the wrong direction.
HOWEVER,
there ARE definitely opportunities for ANY citizen to abuse liberty.
So, everyone has to determine their own approach to how they will treat others within that construct of ethics based in their morals and values.
This ranges from 'reportnik' goons who are constantly involving their HOA in tiny skirmishes over who is cutting their lawn to the right height, or the snitch culture that law enforcement to a large degree depends upon, to lassiez faire attitudes that enable homelessness to go unsolved, to moralizing about others at church/temple on sabbath.
I object to reportniks and snitches, strangers and outsiders being given any quarter with personal decisions regarding family. I am almost certain you will agree.

 

[was thatguy]

I suppose that in a perfect world, your postulation would be true, but this is not a perfect world. As I stated, humans make mistakes and contraception and the ability to control the moment are the points of imperfection that we want to make judgements about when we talk about the behavior of women who need to decide.

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand your desire to make the world better. I definitely feel the same.

BUT - I don't believe I have agency in some matters of family formation where it appears you believe that you do. I would not step in if you were telling me about how you were raising your family or even deciding upon having one...that is YOUR thing and I have no right to oppose any part of your decision.

I know you have your own moral thesis and it guides your life in how you behave, and no matter my feeling about it, I try to respect your personal dignity to run your life as you choose.

Two things I consider to be pertinent in qualifying for agency/influence/decision in this regard are;
1) do you have a uterus?
2) do you believe that you should be able to guide your familial future according to your own moral thesis?

I could be wrong, but I think you are disqualified by (1)

To supercede the woman's moral thesis with your own would require agency which you do not possess. At best, you MAY have some standing/agency IF you are the father of the zygote/embryo/fetus AND she has told you about it.

Fine, where’s the part about me paying for your bullshit?

 

[Christopher Lucero]

me paying

valid point.
I agreed with @monkeyswrench about that earlier.
however, that is something I cannot help you with.
Maybe a congressperson or mayor or governor...
oh, wait. those fux can't be trusted.
damn. yer screwed

 

[monkeyswrench]

The path to liberty is often covered in blood and the bodies of the fallen.
I just prefer the path I follow to be paved with those who have chosen to fall, and chosen their fate.
3rd trimester means you have felt that life growing within. You have chosen to support it up until then.
My moral compass may not be the most true, but my previous penchant for violence and aggression has not ever been directed at the young.
As with any other forms of taking life, I believe it should take deep thought, and not be on a whim or a sudden change in situation.

Everyone's metric for right and wrong is different. Mine may be wrong to those further right of me, and surely is to those on the left. In life, there are very few people who's judgment carries any effect on me, my wife, children and myself. In my system of beliefs, my final judgment lies with a greater power...and that is the one in which I'll surely pay for my life's previous transgressions. For now though, I try to make what I feel are the right decisions.

 

[was thatguy]

valid point.
I agreed with @monkeyswrench about that earlier.
however, that is something I cannot help you with.
Maybe a congressperson or mayor or governor...
oh, wait. those fux can't be trusted.
damn. yer screwed

So I pay for your high ground.
Sounds familiar.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

So I pay for your high ground.
Sounds familiar.

View attachment 1139541

It should.
and it's not MY high ground.
believe me, I agree that the social engineering aspect and who pays to assure that society does not crumble - according to the big thinkers like SCOTUS - are costs I bear /share that are not within my control.
still, I believe in USA, FWIW. Warts and all.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

surely pay for my life's previous transgressions

FWIW, I believe god is merciful. god would not punish a man whose life evidences as pure a pursuit as a man can muster.
all god asks is that you try.

 

[regor]

I am afraid that you misunderstand. I argue for liberty. Reread and try again.

Nice dodge.

Let me pin you down a little more.

So if a woman wants to abort a baby at 8 or 9 months and kill it, you support her liberty to do it?

 

[snowhammer]

Merciful in terms of what?

What punishment, is there a purity standard, what is man in pursuit of, is "try" on a sliding scale?

 

[Doc]

I suppose that in a perfect world, your postulation would be true, but this is not a perfect world. As I stated, humans make mistakes and contraception and the ability to control the moment are the points of imperfection that we want to make judgements about when we talk about the behavior of women who need to decide.

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand your desire to make the world better. I definitely feel the same.

BUT - I don't believe I have agency in some matters of family formation where it appears you believe that you do. I would not step in if you were telling me about how you were raising your family or even deciding upon having one...that is YOUR thing and I have no right to oppose any part of your decision.

I know you have your own moral thesis and it guides your life in how you behave, and no matter my feeling about it, I try to respect your personal dignity to run your life as you choose.

Two things I consider to be pertinent in qualifying for agency/influence/decision in this regard are;
1) do you have a uterus?
2) do you believe that you should be able to guide your familial future according to your own moral thesis?

I could be wrong, but I think you are disqualified by (1)

To supercede the woman's moral thesis with your own would require agency which you do not possess. At best, you MAY have some standing/agency IF you are the father of the zygote/embryo/fetus AND she has told you about it.

Chris, I used one of your reasons which millions other do as an example of a "pathetic excuse" because it is. How many couples struggle or cannot as easily have children without major medical expenses feel about other people terminating pregnancies like it's not big deal? To treat an abortion which over 90% do as birth control is just another example of lack of accountability in today's society. Again, is there exceptions to it, sure there is.

In regards to qualifying I don't need a uterus to state my opinion. As a man, I am the other 50% of the reason why a female can create life. That being said I am not entitled to an opinion? Example, my wife or gf ends up getting pregnant, I have no problem with it and am looking forward to bringing a child into this world right? Well let's say she comes home a week later and says sorry I chose to get an abortion because I didn't want a child or another one let's say. So she is qualifying person because it's her body and I have no say in the matter? What do you say in that example.

Lastly, I am not superseding anyone, if you read my last post I stated I don't really care at this point and just stating an opinion. I do question though when people take a stance about "a woman's moral thesis" but when it came to vaccines morals go out the window real quick. So again I'll take the middle ground and say this, I don't want to pay for anyone's abortions or tell you what to do but don't make me pay for something that a.) has nothing to do with me b.) then force me to take something I don't want to. Planned parent hood is nothing more then a Democratic, money laundering, population control evil entity imho.

 

[was thatguy]

Merciful in terms of what?

What punishment, is there a purity standard, what is man in pursuit of, is "try" on a sliding scale?

Historically, “God” punishes those who enlighten mankind with knowledge.
We are supposed to be kept in the dark and fed bullshit.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Nice dodge.

Let me pin you down a little more.

So if a woman wants to abort a baby at 8 or 9 months and kill it, you support her liberty to do it?

well, the liberty I was speaking of was relative to family formation. I hope to lever the decision about family formation to the best outcome based upon the trust I have in other humans. I have no inclination to judge how other people behave.

To do so in the matter of family formation would violate my own principle of noninterference with sensitive matters that every human must decide for themselves.

If they fall afoul of gods rules or rules made by men, they will have to answer to god or the law of man for their actions.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Chris, I used one of your reasons which millions other do as an example of a "pathetic excuse" because it is. How many couples struggle or cannot as easily have children without major medical expenses feel about other people terminating pregnancies like it's not big deal? To treat an abortion which over 90% do as birth control is just another example of lack of accountability in today's society. Again, is there exceptions to it, sure there is.

In regards to qualifying I don't need a uterus to state my opinion. As a man, I am the other 50% of the reason why a female can create life. That being said I am not entitled to an opinion? Example, my wife or gf ends up getting pregnant, I have no problem with it and am looking forward to bringing a child into this world right? Well let's say she comes home a week later and says sorry I chose to get an abortion because I didn't want a child or another one let's say. So she is qualifying person because it's her body and I have no say in the matter? What do you say in that example.

Lastly, I am not superseding anyone, if you read my last post I stated I don't really care at this point and just stating an opinion. I do question though when people take a stance about "a woman's moral thesis" but when it came to vaccines morals go out the window real quick. So again I'll take the middle ground and say this, I don't want to pay for anyone's abortions or tell you what to do but don't make me pay for something that a.) has nothing to do with me b.) then force me to take something I don't want to. Planned parent hood is nothing more then a Democratic, money laundering, population control evil entity imho.

I tried to express that I respect your dignity, and I do understand your opinion.

my position and the way I expressed it was meant for your consideration. if you do not like it, or find it uncompelling, I again respect the dignity of your personal moral thesis and the reasons you hold those opinions.

you could have argued about agency, but you did not.

 

[regor]

well, the liberty I was speaking of was relative to family formation. I hope to lever the decision about family formation to the best outcome based upon the trust I have in other humans. I have no inclination to judge how other people behave.

To do so in the matter of family formation would violate my own principle of noninterference with sensitive matters that every human must decide for themselves.

If they fall afoul of gods rules or rules made by men, they will have to answer to god or the law of man for their actions.

A typical libturd who has no problem with his country going down the drain due to the immorality and filth being allowed to occur.

You really should consider San Francisco if you're not already there Lucy, it would fit you perfectly.

 

[was thatguy]

A typical libturd who has no problem with his country going down the drain due to the immorality and filth being allowed to occur.

You really should consider San Francisco if you're not already there Lucy, it would fit you perfectly.

He’d lose his stage presence there.

 

[Doc]

I tried to express that I respect your dignity, and I do understand your opinion.

View attachment 1139579

my position and the way I expressed it was meant for your consideration. if you do not like it, or find it uncompelling, I again respect the dignity of your personal moral thesis and the reasons you hold those opinions.

you could have argued about agency, but you did not.

Chris as I respect yours and everyone else's opinion in here even if I don't align with them.

I was just mainly saying in response to this statement you had:

"When it comes to family formation, and the ultimate initiation of such family unit - pregnancy and birth - the decision must remain within the mother's own moral thesis. That is, her determination of whether she can initiate or foresee a family unit that will delver goodness to her and her child should be her decision ALONE as she is considering all things and people involved - including the father.
There should NEVER be an instance where a woman is effectively turned into chattel, and forced to bear child when she can foresee only bad results, bad fathering, and weak family formation. That would result in a lifetime of torture for more than one human."

So while I partially agree with you here the issue then is I should respect the decision of the mother and her own moral thesis and not say anything then, ok fine. Then I am supposed to carry that financial burden via abortions because of that, ok fine. All I was saying is that specific reason was pathetic because there is no accountability before the fact, that's all. There are millions of other people that take major steps in planning when it comes to starting or expanding a family because they are accountable as a family unit. It's easy to take away that and just abortion as a form of BC till they were ready but many don't for many reasons. I don't think asking people be accountable for their actions/decisions is superseding them, in fact in many ways people already are asked to do so in other ways.

So then the next part "ALONE". I gave you another example where you have a female who wants to terminate but a father who doesn't. What's your opinion on a case like that? Does he have any rights or right to opinion?

What was there to argue about agency, you mistakenly take MY opinion as I am trying to tell someone else what do to maybe?

I also asked twice why is this different then vaccines and you haven't commented on that.

 

[monkeyswrench]

Merciful in terms of what?

What punishment, is there a purity standard, what is man in pursuit of, is "try" on a sliding scale?

I'm hopeful only to tip the scales in a slightly better direction for what remains of my time.
As for punishment, maybe a change of course will lessen the severity? One can hope...

 

[spectra3279]

I suppose that in a perfect world, your postulation would be true, but this is not a perfect world. As I stated, humans make mistakes and contraception and the ability to control the moment are the points of imperfection that we want to make judgements about when we talk about the behavior of women who need to decide.

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand your desire to make the world better. I definitely feel the same.

BUT - I don't believe I have agency in some matters of family formation where it appears you believe that you do. I would not step in if you were telling me about how you were raising your family or even deciding upon having one...that is YOUR thing and I have no right to oppose any part of your decision.

I know you have your own moral thesis and it guides your life in how you behave, and no matter my feeling about it, I try to respect your personal dignity to run your life as you choose.

Two things I consider to be pertinent in qualifying for agency/influence/decision in this regard are;
1) do you have a uterus?
2) do you believe that you should be able to guide your familial future according to your own moral thesis?

I could be wrong, but I think you are disqualified by (1)

To supercede the woman's moral thesis with your own would require agency which you do not possess. At best, you MAY have some standing/agency IF you are the father of the zygote/embryo/fetus AND she has told you about it.

There is only medical and child molestation reasons in my eyes. It's to easy to get free birth control. ITS FUCKING FREE, USE IT

 

[Christopher Lucero]

country going down the drain

stage presence

preserving the right to family formation of your own choosing, and not some opinion or belief of someone outside your family or persons directly involved (father and mother) is my concern.
allowing some outside individual's opinion to rule and deliver punitive long term consequences when a family is formed is a violation of basic liberty topped off with a punishment for exercising basic liberty... that approach is authoritarian BS
I am very glad that I have you guys to bounce ideas off of. Your opinions are valuable and provide perspective that is useful. I hope you always know I have respect for your opinions and try to assimilate them.

 

[was thatguy]

preserving the right to family formation of your own choosing, and not some opinion or belief of someone outside your family or persons directly involved (father and mother) is my concern.
allowing some outside individual's opinion to rule and deliver punitive long term consequences when a family is formed is a violation of basic liberty topped off with a punishment for exercising basic liberty... that approach is authoritarian BS
I am very glad that I have you guys to bounce ideas off of. Your opinions are valuable and provide perspective that is useful. I hope you always know I have respect for your opinions and try to assimilate them.

Rights and liberty end when they infringe on the rights and liberty of another.
When those with no voice, and the weakest among us, are steamrolled by those with the loudest screeching that is not the preservation of liberty.
It’s mob rules.
There has to be a line in a civilized society.
In fact, it’s arguable that is what DEFINES a civilized society.

To take your posted viewpoint to the extreme means we can shape our family however we want.
Well, 2 less kids seems cheaper, I’ll just kill 2 of them because that’s what I want.

It isn’t MY rules or wishes being imposed. It’s the rules of a civilized society. We also have rules and procedures about how we determine those rules and boundaries.
Some seem to think we should dispose of both rules and boundaries and moreover, the process of determining those rules and boundaries.

 

[regor]

preserving the right to family formation of your own choosing, and not some opinion or belief of someone outside your family or persons directly involved (father and mother) is my concern.
allowing some outside individual's opinion to rule and deliver punitive long term consequences when a family is formed is a violation of basic liberty topped off with a punishment for exercising basic liberty... that approach is authoritarian BS
I am very glad that I have you guys to bounce ideas off of. Your opinions are valuable and provide perspective that is useful. I hope you always know I have respect for your opinions and try to assimilate them.

I understand that, but I'll ask you again, up to what point of a pregnancy do you support an abortion?

That blanket statement of family formation liberty is lacking morality limits, unless you support my liberal depopulation liberty via hangings.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

I am supposed to carry that financial burden via abortions

First of all, thanks again for engaging with me. I really do appreciate the opportunity to discuss.

I am honestly unfamiliar with the reimbursement schema or the way you are paying for someone else's medical procedure. Can you draw the line from your pocket to the procedure for me? I agree that the costs that are incurred by another SHOULD be borne by them, but I do not have a comprehensive way to track these costs back to myself, so if you know how it works it would educate me.

accountability before the fact

I am taking a stand that support family formation decisions, no matter when they occur, onto those directly involved (mother and father). Pregnant and cant afford a fifth kid, or other unplanned events like BC ineffectiveness or raw human errors of commission or omission need coverage. To rescind the individual ability to choose to have a fifth kid, or reverse the 1% failure rate (when BC does not work), or a wild night with someone whom you find out later is unsuitable or unwilling to become a parent would deny healthful family formation.
as I said, humans are error machines. (from msg#390 above)
Our systems can either punish the errors or try to remediate them in ways that miximizes the benefit to individuals, that then benefit the locale, spreading outward to the community and then wider and wider.

female who wants to terminate but a father who doesn't

What's is your position? I find it hard to rationalize a father 'forcing' a woman to bear a child for him. That would, as I said before (msg #390 above), reduce her to chattel.

What was there to argue about agency, you mistakenly take MY opinion as I am trying to tell someone else what do to maybe?

Ok, I understand. So you are in agreement with me then that nobody should be telling anybody else what to do when they form a family? I sense that we do not agree, but it seems that we have some common ground in this aspect. SO let's see where the agreement about personal liberty is not correspondent.

I also asked twice why is this different then vaccines and you haven't commented on that.

I won't venture into that just yet, because it is a distraction. I don;t know if you try this tactic on purpose or by habit. I defer that conversation until we can thresh out the differences and agreements about family formation.

 

[was thatguy]

I understand that, but I'll ask you again, up to what point of a pregnancy do you support an abortion?

That blanket statement of family formation liberty is lacking morality limits, unless you support my liberal depopulation liberty via hangings.

Basically, but it’s a dangerous path to start legislating morality.
A society has to determine whether it’s civilized or not. Where rights begin and where they end.
Personally…I’m good either way.
I’ve got my list if shit breaks bad!

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Rights and liberty end when they infringe on the rights and liberty of another.
When those with no voice, and the weakest among us, are steamrolled by those with the loudest screeching that is not the preservation of liberty.
It’s mob rules.
There has to be a line in a civilized society.
In fact, it’s arguable that is what DEFINES a civilized society.

To take your posted viewpoint to the extreme means we can shape our family however we want.
Well, 2 less kids seems cheaper, I’ll just kill 2 of them because that’s what I want.

It isn’t MY rules or wishes being imposed. It’s the rules of a civilized society. We also have rules and procedures about how we determine those rules and boundaries.
Some seem to think we should dispose of both rules and boundaries and moreover, the process of determining those rules and boundaries.

That is well considered. Thank you for sharing it.

I had hoped there would be less imagery of the sad consequences of the reality of our errors, and leave people alone to deal with those sad consequences in whatever way they can or do.

In this case, can you please explain the rights of another being infringed by someone's family formation decisions? From where does such right of some uninvolved individual supersede the other individual's right to autonomy in decisions on their family composition?

 

[monkeyswrench]

Why is it that there are people that believe freedom and liberty must be protected by disgraceful protests to uphold the right to take life?

In some ways, the view of freedom is more of limited anarchy. Create a problem in which the "only" solution is a final one...in the past that was not good.

On the other hand. If the total collapse of a civil society seems to be their end game, so be it. At that point both "Faith" and "Darwinism" will converge.

Think of it this way. Abortion will become less of an issue in the near future. Oddly, with people being home, we did not see an increase in births, we saw a decline. We saw an increase in miscarriages, and problems with menstruation though. We also saw an increase in young men dying for many new found reasons.

Abortion is just another shiny thing to draw focus. Less of those that seek it, will need it. Yet the world seems to be too blind to see it.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

up to what point of a pregnancy do you support an abortion?

I am agnostic on that topic. my moral hypothesis is that the people who perform the procedure and who have the procedure performed on them should be the only ones involved. it is a private medical decision.
I'd rather see people given liberty, but the nature of government and society are confounding to full freedom.
we accept (or live unhappy with) the liberty we are granted.
sucks, huh?
I believe I stated elsewhere that - should the legal rollout actually result in a state's rights determination - it will be up to each state to determine a somewhat random asignemnt of when the procedure will be allowed, or perhaps not at all. that only reflects some gubberment administrators institutionalized form of liberty, not necessarily every citizen nor every person's exact opinion.

Still not hearing from any women.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Basically, but it’s a dangerous path to start legislating morality.
A society has to determine whether it’s civilized or not. Where rights begin and where they end.
Personally…I’m good either way.
I’ve got my list if shit breaks bad!

 

[regor]

I am agnostic on that topic. my moral hypothesis is that the people who perform the procedure and who have the procedure performed on them should be the only ones involved. it is a private medical decision.
I'd rather see people given liberty, but the nature of government and society are confounding to full freedom.
we accept (or live unhappy with) the liberty we are granted.
sucks, huh?
I believe I stated elsewhere that - should the legal rollout actually result in a state's rights determination - it will be up to each state to determine a somewhat random asignemnt of when the procedure will be allowed, or perhaps not at all. that only reflects some gubberment administrators institutionalized form of liberty, not necessarily every citizen nor every person's exact opinion.

Still not hearing from any women.

Come on Lucy, find that spine, you can do it!!!

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Why is it that there are people that believe freedom and liberty must be protected by disgraceful protests to uphold the right to take life?

People are a disappointment, but all we got here is each other, so if we get over the disappointment quickly, all of our lives will probably be better in the fastest way possible.

 

[was thatguy]

That is well considered. Thank you for sharing it.

I had hoped there would be less imagery of the sad consequences of the reality of our errors, and leave people alone to deal with those sad consequences in whatever way they can or do.

In this case, can you please explain the rights of another being infringed by someone's family formation decisions? From where does such right of some uninvolved individual supersede the other individual's right to autonomy in decisions on their family composition?

It’s not an individual infringing on you.
It’s the rules of the society in which you live.

This is true throughout the anima kingdom as well…but with much less fanfare.
You fuck up or fuck with another or break the rules and you will face the wrath of the pack.

Buy an island, make your own country with your own rules and cull your incestual family however you want.
It worked for Idi Amin.

But in this Country there are rules. And we all get to participate in finding the parameters of these rules.
Abortion is argued primarily by the different opinions of when a fetus becomes a person.
Some argue that it is not a person at all even when discharged from the mother. (Oops!! “Birthing person”)
Some argue it is a person from the time of conception.
My opinion is that we as a species are far too stupid to make these judgments because we still think of God as an invisible man in the sky who grants wishes, yet we think we are capable of determining life’s point of creation.
Lol…the only thing we are good at is removing life from animated biologicals. (Killing)

The harsh reality is that abortion is not efficient enough as a population control. It’s barbaric.
Sterilization will be the norm globally. Not in our lifetimes I’d guess, but certainly eventually.

If we eliminated abortion today we would create a population boom simply unsustainable, at least in this country.
NYC would more than double it’s birth rate in black babies alone.
That’s a load that one can quickly imagine being simply unbearable to a city financially.
So as you see I don’t have the answer concerning abortion…but your argument isn’t about abortion…it’s about implementation of societal rules.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Come on Lucy, find that spine, you can do it!!!

View attachment 1140931

 

[Christopher Lucero]

face the wrath of the pack

c'mon man. (LOL)

Hey, I understand you are more edgy than me, and the 'animal' rules your worldview more than mine.
Still, if such 'animal' tendencies were to become more prevalent, do you think we'd be more, or less, civilized?
There seemed to be a moral argument ongoing to protect the unborn, which is a very highly civilized sentiment, but this new 'animal' sense might shed light on the argument in a different way.
Believe me, I can and do enjoy wildness and animal thrills, but there is a cost to it that may be greater than the tolerance of the errors of others.


OH WAIT! DO YOU MEAN THIS PACK? vvvvvvv

 

[was thatguy]

c'mon man. (LOL)

Hey, I understand you are more edgy than me, and the 'animal' rules your worldview more than mine.
Still, if such 'animal' tendencies were to become more prevalent, do you think we'd be more, or less, civilized?
There seemed to be a moral argument ongoing to protect the unborn, which is a very highly civilized sentiment, but this new 'animal' sense might shed light on the argument in a different way.
Believe me, I can and do enjoy wildness and animal thrills, but there is a cost to it that may be greater than the tolerance of the errors of others.


OH WAIT! DO YOU MEAN THIS PACK? vvvvvvv

View attachment 1140934

Jesus Christ Lucy, stay on point here.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

Jesus Christ Lucy, stay on point here.

 

[Christopher Lucero]

but your argument isn’t about abortion…it’s about implementation of societal rules

Damned straight.
I cannot count how many places this nation mentions libetry.
Pledge of allegiance
The Constitution
The Bill of Rights
we parade liberty around like it is some old forgotten hag we drag out on holidays then drink beer and marvel at her
then the next day in a hangover our reality sets in once again.
until we all become principled americans once again, we will suffer and have views that we are somehow at odds, when all along we all were promised the same things and then took actions or held opinions that were against granting liberty to others

 

[was thatguy]

Damned straight.
I cannot count how many places this nation mentions libetry.
Pledge of allegiance
The Constitution
The Bill of Rights
we parade liberty around like it is some old forgotten hag we drag out on holidays then drink beer and marvel at her
then the next day in a hangover our reality sets in once again.
until we all become principled americans once again, we will suffer and have views that we are somehow at odds, when all along we all were promised the same things and then took actions or held opinions that were against granting liberty to others

Your liberty ends when you start infringing on others liberty , Lucy.
I don’t know how many ways I can say it.
This is a big problem these days.
Everyone wants what they alone think they are entitled to.
Going around killing and culling isn’t liberty, it’s murder.
That’s a big no no in a civilized society.
You seem to want to live in a anarchist existence disguised as personal liberty?
Hey, I’m a big fan of Alister Crowley myself!

 

[Christopher Lucero]

You seem to want to live in a anarchist existence disguised as personal liberty?

no. I don't embrace anything in the extreme. just keeping it boring, trying to be good and craft a good world for as many people as possible

 

[spectra3279]

preserving the right to family formation of your own choosing, and not some opinion or belief of someone outside your family or persons directly involved (father and mother) is my concern.
allowing some outside individual's opinion to rule and deliver punitive long term consequences when a family is formed is a violation of basic liberty topped off with a punishment for exercising basic liberty... that approach is authoritarian BS
I am very glad that I have you guys to bounce ideas off of. Your opinions are valuable and provide perspective that is useful. I hope you always know I have respect for your opinions and try to assimilate them.

So your a proponent for murder?

 

[Doc]

@Christopher Lucero

So how do you support family formation through death? So are you saying it's morally ethical to let people kill babies because either they had a wild night out and realized they messed up? How about the next example you gave when the female got pregnant thought about it and said maybe this isn't the person to have a child with? Ok cool good for you taking that position, I just don't agree with it is all. This is the part where accountability comes into play but I guess that's offensive to some and reduces the female to chattel like you said.

So if a Bf or a husband voices his opinion on pregnancy that would preserve life he then is reducing her to chattel? Aren't we then reducing the unborn child to chattel because we know the baby doesn't have a say in this? Again, never said the man should force her just asked if he has a say in the matter? Truth be told he doesn't. I have a friend that was in this situation where his gf got pregnant he wanted to keep the child get married do that family formation you talk about and she didn't. It crushed him for some time.

So it's not me agreeing with you or not. I stated my opinion and finished with I don't really care anymore. Do I agree with abortion no I do not. Again for the record, I am not "forcing" anything just stating my opinion simple as that so please keep that in mind.

Lastly, my comparison which you dodge isn't a bait or tactic by any means, and i know why you haven't answered it. It's because it might show hypocrisy on your part and I get it. So I will leave it at this then. Want to get an abortion then go right ahead, in fact get multiple ones if you so feel the need to, not my business and don't care. Now that being said you cannot tell me I cannot own a gun. You cannot force me to take a vaccine. You cannot infringe upon my liberties just like I cannot and will not yours. See, all done, easy!

 

[TeamGreene]

I am agnostic on that topic. my moral hypothesis is that the people who perform the procedure and who have the procedure performed on them should be the only ones involved. it is a private medical decision.
I'd rather see people given liberty, but the nature of government and society are confounding to full freedom.
we accept (or live unhappy with) the liberty we are granted.
sucks, huh?
I believe I stated elsewhere that - should the legal rollout actually result in a state's rights determination - it will be up to each state to determine a somewhat random asignemnt of when the procedure will be allowed, or perhaps not at all. that only reflects some gubberment administrators institutionalized form of liberty, not necessarily every citizen nor every person's exact opinion.

Still not hearing from any women.

Um there is a third person involved that can't speak and therefore express their desire for liberty.

 

[monkeyswrench]

People are a disappointment, but all we got here is each other, so if we get over the disappointment quickly, all of our lives will probably be better in the fastest way possible.

People aren't a disappointment as a whole. They are individuals, some capable of phenomenal things, others a waste of resources. The problems we have stem from only focusing on helping those that won't help themselves, or idolizing those that are a success. The middle 90% are still worth saving, or giving a chance. Some of them may even be born to the lower 5% that drain humanity.

So your a proponent for murder?

Personally, I feel there isn't much that separates murder from killing in general. So, that being the case, yes, yes I am. The difference I see being the reasoning. If someone's existence would make my life more difficult, force me to work harder, no. Life is full of tests. That "person" deserves no death sentence. Come at my loved ones with intent to do harm...then yes, that same death sentence is indeed an option.

 

[retaocleg]

and these forums could be a round up point........those that dont see a certain way
to think it cant get that bad, it can, and has................once a certain point of view gains traction

 

[was thatguy]

Lucy has yet to say when a fetus is a person in his mind.
This is 90% of the abortion debate.
He dances around the question to force us to make assumptions that he can then dispute.

 

[regor]

Lucy has yet to say when a fetus is a person in his mind.
This is 90% of the abortion debate.
He dances around the question to force us to make assumptions that he can then dispute.

Jelly fish

 

[spectra3279]

People aren't a disappointment as a whole. They are individuals, some capable of phenomenal things, others a waste of resources. The problems we have stem from only focusing on helping those that won't help themselves, or idolizing those that are a success. The middle 90% are still worth saving, or giving a chance. Some of them may even be born to the lower 5% that drain humanity.

Personally, I feel there isn't much that separates murder from killing in general. So, that being the case, yes, yes I am. The difference I see being the reasoning. If someone's existence would make my life more difficult, force me to work harder, no. Life is full of tests. That "person" deserves no death sentence. Come at my loved ones with intent to do harm...then yes, that same death sentence is indeed an option.

Monkey, you need a valid reason for it. Somebody fucking with your family. A baby ain't fucking with anyone. It's part of what makes a family. It was aimed at Lucy. And he apparently does support murder

 

[monkeyswrench]

Monkey, you need a valid reason for it. Somebody fucking with your family. A baby ain't fucking with anyone. It's part of what makes a family. It was aimed at Lucy. And he apparently does support murder

I know, different people, different views. I'm sure Lucy is not alone. I disagree with his view, but at least he has the gumption to try and explain his logic...whereas the protesters and common lib will just revert to name calling and shouting.

As for me, I don't care for the color of blood on my hands, nor the weight of guilt in my heart.
I wish to be judged for the life I lived, not the lives I've ended.
In many ways, I am a paradox, a "violent pacifist" or a "calming rage".

 

[Christopher Lucero]

morally ethical to let people kill babies

no. it is unethical to commit ethical breaches. 1st breach is the invasion of privacy in the decision about family formation, 2nd is the breach in guaranteed liberty of self and soul (more important than the first breach). I think you capitulated when you said that "Want to get an abortion then go right ahead, in fact get multiple ones if you so feel the need to, not my business and don't care." My own personal approach results in the same conclusion, except I have faith in the other human that they are doing what's best for them and theirs. Parents have every right of hegemony over their children after they are born and until they are 18. To intervene in their family decisions is reprehensible.

Aren't we then reducing the unborn child to chattel because we know the baby doesn't have a say in this?

Um. You better look up 'chattel'.

stating my opinion simple as that so please keep that in mind.

Yes, thank you. it is valuable to me to hear your perspective. I am glad we can discuss this honorably and deeply. I assume most people understand law and our existing statutory law and terms like 'agency'. It is becoming apparent that I must explain much at length.

Now that being said you cannot tell me I cannot own a gun. You cannot force me to take a vaccine. You cannot infringe upon my liberties just like I cannot and will not yours. See, all done, easy!

Within the law, you are A-OK by me. Granting liberty is a habit. Tell me: do you believe we in USA have too much liberty?

Um there is a third person involved that can't speak and therefore express their desire for liberty.

YES!
This is a key part of law and being and citizenship to consider. (Think: Anchor babies) The debate over the medical procedure is a distraction.
maybe someone will begin considering the root of our statutory problem here. Examine the roots of why parents have agency over children who have not reached the age of majority and report back here.

Lucy has yet to say when a fetus is a person in his mind.
This is 90% of the abortion debate.
He dances around the question to force us to make assumptions that he can then dispute.

YES! as stated above, the debate over the medical procedure is a distraction.
begin considering the root of our statutory problem here. Examine the roots of why parents have agency over children who have not reached the age of majority and report back here.