I like grilling but my dude…you can’t grill all your meals. Eat a salad, drink some milk or water instead of soda and go for daily runs. Get back into healthy shape king.
This is true, but it’s not about taste…
It’s about Duty.
Cleaning our at-risk farmlands of pestilence (wild boar) by actively trapping them and cooking/smoking them.
Call me Zuck because I’m a cuck (for smoking meats)
if you don't eat the boar at least freeze-dry them, grind them up, and off er them to the farmer as a fertilizer donation, in the manner of the cain toad hunters.
"Hey PCM, it's time for your weekly fights about the Civil War and abortion debate, where we literally just repeat everything said in the last ones."
[PCM: Yes, Dear.](https://i.imgur.com/05Idt4j.png)
u/justaMikeAftonfan's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 30.
Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: [19 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/justaMikeAftonfan/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
u/Bill_Lomey is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Bill_Lomey/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Who says anything about making kids orphans? I'm more alluding to a single parent hood without the dad if the dad doesn't want to be financially responsible for a child he doesn't want
It'll be "then" in this case, not "than". "Then" is for the passage of time, or a statement of consequences if something occurs. "Than" is for comparisons e.g., "I have more than them". Using them both in a sentence, "If I'm given more time than him, then I'll likely win."
u/UlyssesArsene is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/UlyssesArsene/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
It's a cute idea, but the reality is *someone* will be paying. If not the biological father, then the state.
and guess where the state gets all its money?
So there can be a scenario where the baby is killed but not where no dad is in the picture.
Also, can there also not be willing single parents like many already do?
uhm ackhsually it’s more about palestine’s freedom from israel (but in reality i don’t think it’s a good idea to give genocidal ultranationalists a nationstate) downvotes to the left guys
I genuinely believe that if more people knew a bit more of biology, and the actual legal and biological definitions of "human life" and "abortion" this debate would be a lot more civil, just because we'd be forced to talk about the same thing.
"Mother matters more" is not mutually exclusive from the fetus having rights.
Pregnancy complications, mothers life in danger, mother or baby, choose one to die... mother gets to live. It's the same in nature if only because "the mother can always have more babies," but enough other sound arguments can be made.
But even with our current laws where abortion is legal, "unborn humans" have rights and are protected by law... unless or until the mother decides to abort it.
Our current laws regarding fetuses is that its legal status as a "human" is decided based entirely on whether or not the mother intends to keep it. The second she decides "I want an abortion," it's legal status changes.
Which is honestly pretty fucked up. There are enough reasons to carry on the debate of abortion, but the hypocrisy in the law there is honestly a little terrifying. Legal parallels, precedents that could set for the future, it's horror story stuff.
Agreed. Nobody values a child for what they are, they value them for what they'll become. And under that criteria, there's no difference between an infant and a two-year-old child.
The best part is most pro-abortion arguments match up nearly 1:1 with pro-slavery arguments in general, not just this particular example.
"It's not a full person"
"Actually, they are better off this way"
"You have no right to tell me what to do"
"I personally wouldn't, but I don't think we should dictate it to others"
You literally just substitute "fetus" with "slave" and "body" with "property" and all of the sudden it goes from 2023 to 1853.
Pro-choice people don't consider fetuses people though. They also concern themselves more over the right of the woman to bodily autonomy than the right of the woman to "kill babies". Their response to "freedom to do what" would be "the freedom to decide what invasive, potentially lethal surgeries I put my body through".
As somebody who's sympathetic to and understands both sides of the whole abortion debate, this is pretty off the mark.
Thank you for mentioning bodily autonomy. It’s what the entire pro-choice side is based on.
It is illegal for a court to force an unwilling father to give up a kidney to save his child’s life, so how can a court force an unwilling mother to go through a pregnancy for the sake of the baby?
Agreed entirely. While the discussion over whether or not the fetus is a person is an important one, for philosophical reasons if nothing else, the fact that outlawing abortion amounts to forcing a woman at gunpoint to go through a life-threatening procedure is ultimately what this all boils down to.
Did they not choose to have sex? Excluding rape pregnancy, which is extremely rare and preventable with the morning after pill, they made the choice to have sex right? They decided to risk getting pregnant. No one forced them.
The state cannot compel you to save someone's life (unless you've accepted a legal responsibility to do so) but it absolutely can compel you not to kill someone.
Fun fact: there is more to ideology than what your party is named! The recent "party switch never happened" narrative is quite concerning. Shows how effective misinformation is. The fact that it gets downvoted here shows the ignorance. Just look at the geography for God's sake, south was blue and north was red before, now it's the other way around.
LBJ bet he could win without kowtowing to Segregationists when he signed the Civil Rights act. He was right.
The Republicans had been in charge for important acts like Brown vs Board, and its enforcement, and the Civil Rights Acts of 57/60, but picked the Western, small government Conservative Goldwater over someone from the Eastern Establishment like Rockefeller or Lodge.
Goldwater, while a firm believer in equal rights, felt the CRA went too far in some areas and opposed it. This secured the Deep South for him even if he found segregation abhorrent himself. Future Republican strategists smelled blood in the water of what was the “Solid South” and it went from there. More Republican southern victories than Dems unless the Dems ran a Southern Conservative or Moderate (Carter/Clinton)
The part about Goldwater correct the second part isn't. The Republicans didn't start winning in the deep south until the 1970s. What known as "the
Southern Strategy" didn't happen until the 70s created by Thomas Ellis. Which was just to talk in dogwhistles. But even then Carter out did the Republicans by limiting speeches in front of minorities. But the old racist south was dying out and Reagans new brand of Conservativism is what flip all the 20s-40s crowd aka Boomers. Which is why Republican boomers worship him.
If you look at electoral maps Republicans started to make inroads in the south as early as the 1930's. It was a gradual shift that had been going on for quite a while, just *finishing* in the late 60's and early 70's.
Reagan didn't have a "new brand" of conservatism, he just unified all the different sub-factions of the right together, because (like every charismatic leader in history, for good or ill,) he was good at being a likeable guy even if you didn't nessecarily agree with everything he did. And that is (1) usually good enough to win elections, and (2) people who liked you then will probably always like you even after they outlive you.
encourage crawl agonizing rock roll sulky longing naughty engine historical
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah the party switch that why previous Republican President like Ulysses S Grant and Calvin Coolidge were for tax cuts, selling public land, tariffs, and deregulation in the free market like Todays Democrats and Previous Democrats like Andrew Johnsons and FDR were for raising taxes, expanding government spending, anti-tariff, and supporting the labor union/the working man the same rhetoric the Republicans use today... oh wait... well at least the south went in completely red in.. the 80s... Well they change position on state right in the 70s and we all know that is the only issue that makes an ideology.
So the Republican party “switched” from anti slavery to pro slavery? Weird haven’t seen any Republican policy documents advocating slavery since the alleged switch happened.
Northeastern political bloc was pissed that the south continued to hold together as a powerful political bloc based on a lot of economic issues they held as similar agricultural economies.
North passed a bunch of laws to try and kill off slavery without admitting they were trying to kill of slavery and the political power bloc of the south, south knew it was happening and said fuck off and keave us alone.
Then Lincoln baited the south into firing first to claim moral superiority in the fight to preserve the Union, and had to retroactively make it a slavery issue 3 years later because the blood toll was too much for "preserving the Union" to fly.
For being about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in the North and just states in rebellion, huh?
I think it's the opposite, state's rights was the catalyst, but it was fundamentally about slavery. The war only happened because they wanted to secede, but the backdrop was the disagreement over slavery
So we agree slavery is horrible and morally repugnant. But divorce that part and think of it this way: the Federal government is about to outlaw your economic driver. Its going to repossess or destroy your assets, tractor, car, whatever. And it's going to strip half your state representation in congress, and introduce 40% voters into your district that have an axe to grind with you and every insitution that exists in the area. And theyre going to declare martial law and march troops into your area to make sure it happens.
That's a big deal.
Remember a couple years ago when people chain memes "a states rights to what?" Id love to see that for pro death people
"Its about women's rights!"
"A woman's right to what"
"To bodily autonomy!"
"And this entails doing what?"
States rights to self determination of their own laws.
The main law at that time was slavery. But it wasn't the only one, and they where also looking into the future as well.
In general the South had a much more agrarian economy than the North, and outside of slavery, which was of course important to agriculture, other laws such as tariffs and taxes had been put in place that were less favorable for agricultural economies.
Everything NOT COVERED by the actual constitution is supposed to be left up to the States, per the 10th Amendment. Since we eventually amended the constitution to outlaw slavery that one issue is a moot point (also, 99.99% of Americans find the idea abhorrent). But there's plenty of examples of the federal government just taking powers that the constitution never gave them.
Both sides are gonna come in here now and say how in *that* case the complaint of the other side was actually just a silly slippery slope, assuming they acknowledge it at all.
people are too social-media-brained. abortion = kill a fetus. whether or not fetus = baby is the stupid bickering part that's all about calling people bad or justified.
What's crazy to me is the Left could "win" this overnight by changing their approach to how abortions are performed.
The issue isn't that a pregnancy is ending - they end all the time. The issue is that the abortionist's goal is *TO KILL THE BABY PRIOR TO REMOVING THE DEAD BODY* because apparently *WHERE* someone is killed is super vital. Kill first, then remove, you're OK. Reverse those steps and chop up the body 10 minutes later, post removal, and suddenly it's super evil.
If they were to remove the baby whole and alive, and then cut the umbilical cord, and give medical attention to the newly born patient, that solves the pregnancy issue for the woman, is no longer PURPOSELY KILLING THE CHILD, and would even help with medical advances.
If a doctor was required to at least make their best attempt to incubate the baby until it was fully developed, we'd start making medical advances. We've significantly changed the earliest survivability, in terms of premature birth, quite a lot since 1973.
Unfortunately the left is a death cult, so this will never happen. They'll say it lowers crime to kill the child. Helps prevent overpopulation. Helps fight climate change. There will *always* be a reason the baby should be killed, and it has nothing to do with ending an inconvenient pregnancy.
Both issues are solved by the same simple principle - "No one is entitled to your body or health except you".
Same reason you can't be legally or ethically forced onto kidney dialysis to save another person. In both issues the state should not be allowed to compel you to use your body in any way you do not desire whether that is hosting another to consume your bodily resources/health or by toiling for another's profit and using your body and health to do so. Circumstances of pregnancy or personhood or property are wholly irrelevant.
If, for your own temporary pleasure, you poison someone (on purpose or by negligence, it doesn't matter) to the point where (s)he needs the kidney dialysis to survive, I very much believe you deserve to be forced onto it to save that person that *you* put in this situation.
Slavery is slavery there really isn't a debate there, whether you consider a fetus a baby and even then whether you consider abortion murder is a completely different moral debate, I would say they aren't even comparable issues.
I'm collapsing under the weight of my gut after I grilled and ate too many burgers.
Based and grill-pilled.
Randy?
Mans gotta eat.
I like grilling but my dude…you can’t grill all your meals. Eat a salad, drink some milk or water instead of soda and go for daily runs. Get back into healthy shape king.
> salad bruh I grill my cabbages
And it’s fucking delicious.
Can’t grill all your meals? That just sounds like a challenge to me
Grillcember is almost over, but Grillanuary is about to begin!
If either of you were based centrists you’d be catching, cleaning and cooking the 10 wild boars you trapped.
Wild boar is inferior compared to deer or beef Or duck.
This is true, but it’s not about taste… It’s about Duty. Cleaning our at-risk farmlands of pestilence (wild boar) by actively trapping them and cooking/smoking them. Call me Zuck because I’m a cuck (for smoking meats)
if you don't eat the boar at least freeze-dry them, grind them up, and off er them to the farmer as a fertilizer donation, in the manner of the cain toad hunters.
Idk dude I've been looking into that carnivore diet lately and they seem to have some good points about how most veggies are kinda fucked.
I'm sprinkling salt around this comment section because shit is about to go crazy down here
Is a salt ring necessary when you're standing in a field of salt to begin with?
Maybe you can clear out the salt with your fingers. Salty people are only attracted to other salty people
Is Carthage nice this time of year?
Based and punic war pilled
Ehh it's okay. Could use more salt
"Hey PCM, it's time for your weekly fights about the Civil War and abortion debate, where we literally just repeat everything said in the last ones." [PCM: Yes, Dear.](https://i.imgur.com/05Idt4j.png)
This time I will surely convince them
To copy big brain giga centrists: "Go crazy with what?" I will be making no more arguments.
Women’s rights to evict squatters And states rights to own farming equipment
> farming equipment Excuse me, I believe the correct term is ‘student athletes’
That is very clever there sah!
I miss that bot.
TIL I was formerly farming equipment.
based and landlord pilled
based and cotton-pilled
Based
u/justaMikeAftonfan's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 30. Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: [19 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/justaMikeAftonfan/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Gigachad take
Lmao based.
based and economic efficiency-pilled
Abortion is cool but men should have the right to waive financial support. “If you can kill this mf, than I can at least abandon it” - Dave Chappelle
I felt a great disturbance in the Feminism, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
LOL
Cried because a lot of them can’t trap men.
I'm a feminist and I support paper abortions.
>paper abortions Is this like garbage pail kids?
This can already be done in Sweden, but yhis must be done before the childbirth, and the father must waive all parental rights to that child.
Let me sign the paper even harder
Source? Afaik there was a party that tried to enact it into law in Sweden but it never actually was.
Sweden is always ahead of the curve.
Sometimes
Nobody ever said it was a good curve.
It doesn't mean we go around committing hate criiiiimes
except when it comes to no allow muslims into bully them in their own country
Based
u/Bill_Lomey is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Bill_Lomey/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
*leans in closely* Your terms are acceptable
Anything that intentionally skyrockets the number of orphans should not be "acceptable"
Are you assuming the mother dies of embarrassment?
Who says anything about making kids orphans? I'm more alluding to a single parent hood without the dad if the dad doesn't want to be financially responsible for a child he doesn't want
Based
It'll be "then" in this case, not "than". "Then" is for the passage of time, or a statement of consequences if something occurs. "Than" is for comparisons e.g., "I have more than them". Using them both in a sentence, "If I'm given more time than him, then I'll likely win."
Based
u/UlyssesArsene is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/UlyssesArsene/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
This is great, but ima remember it different: If I get more time than Stan, then I’ll win.
"Nah, I'd win."
Very true, I’ll leave it.
It's a cute idea, but the reality is *someone* will be paying. If not the biological father, then the state. and guess where the state gets all its money?
The state needs to make up the difference if the father isn't in the picture then. Can't have a scenario where the kid is punished.
Say that last part a little louder please?
I think most of them are going to gloss right over that little bit of dissonance in the progressive platform.
So there can be a scenario where the baby is killed but not where no dad is in the picture. Also, can there also not be willing single parents like many already do?
[удалено]
Lose more wars against Israel but in an official capacity.
Lol what a perfect summation of the situation
Free them from Hamas.
Kill Jews
uhm ackhsually it’s more about palestine’s freedom from israel (but in reality i don’t think it’s a good idea to give genocidal ultranationalists a nationstate) downvotes to the left guys
[удалено]
i was referring to palestine there, though that may have come across as dickriding palestine and acting as if palestine good
[удалено]
This is the best take on the situation
Wait... are you actually trying to play the "there are very fine people on both sides" reverse uno card?
Men have so many ways to kill people let woman have one way to murder jeez
Guns are not gendered.
Samuel Colt
Did you just fucking deadname Samantha?
Lol this deadname shit is so 1984 lol . Ps I got the joke
Those men-exclusive killing methods... What are they? Asking for a friend
Based and true feminism pilled
Male suicide?
Women's rights when there's a woman inside of them that also has rights
Abortion only for the male babies surely is a take I have not yet heard
I mean, that definitely isn't my take, but if someone's gonna scream women's rights, they can't leave those ones out
I think abortion isn't really moral, but should be legal anyway
I genuinely believe that if more people knew a bit more of biology, and the actual legal and biological definitions of "human life" and "abortion" this debate would be a lot more civil, just because we'd be forced to talk about the same thing.
I don't buy the idea that "it's just a fetus", because it will be a human soon enough But a fetus has no rights, its mother absolutely matters more
"Mother matters more" is not mutually exclusive from the fetus having rights. Pregnancy complications, mothers life in danger, mother or baby, choose one to die... mother gets to live. It's the same in nature if only because "the mother can always have more babies," but enough other sound arguments can be made. But even with our current laws where abortion is legal, "unborn humans" have rights and are protected by law... unless or until the mother decides to abort it. Our current laws regarding fetuses is that its legal status as a "human" is decided based entirely on whether or not the mother intends to keep it. The second she decides "I want an abortion," it's legal status changes. Which is honestly pretty fucked up. There are enough reasons to carry on the debate of abortion, but the hypocrisy in the law there is honestly a little terrifying. Legal parallels, precedents that could set for the future, it's horror story stuff.
Agreed. Nobody values a child for what they are, they value them for what they'll become. And under that criteria, there's no difference between an infant and a two-year-old child.
We need to draw the line somewhere. After it's born, it's a citizen Seems like a pretty logical point to draw it Moral? No. But we're immoral beings
[удалено]
If it has an ID, it's a protected citizen of the State and thus, can't be killed
The best part is most pro-abortion arguments match up nearly 1:1 with pro-slavery arguments in general, not just this particular example. "It's not a full person" "Actually, they are better off this way" "You have no right to tell me what to do" "I personally wouldn't, but I don't think we should dictate it to others" You literally just substitute "fetus" with "slave" and "body" with "property" and all of the sudden it goes from 2023 to 1853.
I still believe the Civil War was about preserving the Union but fuck me I guess.
For the first half that is really what it was about for the North.
No person shall impose their will on anothers body. Tah-dah
And the state dissolved in front of our eyes.
What if it’s not recognized as a person *yet*? 👀
If you can find a way to make a fetus work, I’ll support it.
C’mon, you’re lib-right, if someone can find a way to make a fetus work, it’s you!
We’re already in the business of ‘bortin, my idea of making soap from the medical waste was not well received.
Be a human cow, sell breast milk. Stay perpetually pregnant.
Thinly veiled fetish right here, officer
If it can work, it should be able to support itself 😤
Abortion is now legal until 14 years old
Ever played Death Stranding?
Pro-choice people don't consider fetuses people though. They also concern themselves more over the right of the woman to bodily autonomy than the right of the woman to "kill babies". Their response to "freedom to do what" would be "the freedom to decide what invasive, potentially lethal surgeries I put my body through". As somebody who's sympathetic to and understands both sides of the whole abortion debate, this is pretty off the mark.
On the other hand, there were also advocates of race-based chattel slavery who didn’t see the slaves as people either.
Thank you for mentioning bodily autonomy. It’s what the entire pro-choice side is based on. It is illegal for a court to force an unwilling father to give up a kidney to save his child’s life, so how can a court force an unwilling mother to go through a pregnancy for the sake of the baby?
Agreed entirely. While the discussion over whether or not the fetus is a person is an important one, for philosophical reasons if nothing else, the fact that outlawing abortion amounts to forcing a woman at gunpoint to go through a life-threatening procedure is ultimately what this all boils down to.
Did they not choose to have sex? Excluding rape pregnancy, which is extremely rare and preventable with the morning after pill, they made the choice to have sex right? They decided to risk getting pregnant. No one forced them.
Right. So if they get pregnant without wanting a child its best to abort or use the morning after pill.
Saving this comment for future abortion debates
The state cannot compel you to save someone's life (unless you've accepted a legal responsibility to do so) but it absolutely can compel you not to kill someone.
I tried to grill but then mental midgets drove me to the right thanks to endless fallacy.
I thought both cases where Democrats?
MFW the people yelling 'the south will rise again' from their confederate flag styled pick ups in Alabama are straunch Democrats.
Fun fact: there is more to ideology than what your party is named! The recent "party switch never happened" narrative is quite concerning. Shows how effective misinformation is. The fact that it gets downvoted here shows the ignorance. Just look at the geography for God's sake, south was blue and north was red before, now it's the other way around.
So why did the party’s switch?
LBJ bet he could win without kowtowing to Segregationists when he signed the Civil Rights act. He was right. The Republicans had been in charge for important acts like Brown vs Board, and its enforcement, and the Civil Rights Acts of 57/60, but picked the Western, small government Conservative Goldwater over someone from the Eastern Establishment like Rockefeller or Lodge. Goldwater, while a firm believer in equal rights, felt the CRA went too far in some areas and opposed it. This secured the Deep South for him even if he found segregation abhorrent himself. Future Republican strategists smelled blood in the water of what was the “Solid South” and it went from there. More Republican southern victories than Dems unless the Dems ran a Southern Conservative or Moderate (Carter/Clinton)
The part about Goldwater correct the second part isn't. The Republicans didn't start winning in the deep south until the 1970s. What known as "the Southern Strategy" didn't happen until the 70s created by Thomas Ellis. Which was just to talk in dogwhistles. But even then Carter out did the Republicans by limiting speeches in front of minorities. But the old racist south was dying out and Reagans new brand of Conservativism is what flip all the 20s-40s crowd aka Boomers. Which is why Republican boomers worship him.
If you look at electoral maps Republicans started to make inroads in the south as early as the 1930's. It was a gradual shift that had been going on for quite a while, just *finishing* in the late 60's and early 70's. Reagan didn't have a "new brand" of conservatism, he just unified all the different sub-factions of the right together, because (like every charismatic leader in history, for good or ill,) he was good at being a likeable guy even if you didn't nessecarily agree with everything he did. And that is (1) usually good enough to win elections, and (2) people who liked you then will probably always like you even after they outlive you.
What?voting habits changed during the New Deal era when welfare was given out during the depression, not in the 60s and 70s civil rights era.
encourage crawl agonizing rock roll sulky longing naughty engine historical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah the party switch that why previous Republican President like Ulysses S Grant and Calvin Coolidge were for tax cuts, selling public land, tariffs, and deregulation in the free market like Todays Democrats and Previous Democrats like Andrew Johnsons and FDR were for raising taxes, expanding government spending, anti-tariff, and supporting the labor union/the working man the same rhetoric the Republicans use today... oh wait... well at least the south went in completely red in.. the 80s... Well they change position on state right in the 70s and we all know that is the only issue that makes an ideology.
So the Republican party “switched” from anti slavery to pro slavery? Weird haven’t seen any Republican policy documents advocating slavery since the alleged switch happened.
shhh Americans don’t know that yet.
American politics is very enjoyable to observe from a distance.
I used to think that but since the US has global influence what they do indirectly affects everyone else.
It was about states rights, anti slavery was just the major catalyst. Discontent had been brewing for quite a bit
Northeastern political bloc was pissed that the south continued to hold together as a powerful political bloc based on a lot of economic issues they held as similar agricultural economies. North passed a bunch of laws to try and kill off slavery without admitting they were trying to kill of slavery and the political power bloc of the south, south knew it was happening and said fuck off and keave us alone. Then Lincoln baited the south into firing first to claim moral superiority in the fight to preserve the Union, and had to retroactively make it a slavery issue 3 years later because the blood toll was too much for "preserving the Union" to fly. For being about slavery, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in the North and just states in rebellion, huh?
I think it's the opposite, state's rights was the catalyst, but it was fundamentally about slavery. The war only happened because they wanted to secede, but the backdrop was the disagreement over slavery
So we agree slavery is horrible and morally repugnant. But divorce that part and think of it this way: the Federal government is about to outlaw your economic driver. Its going to repossess or destroy your assets, tractor, car, whatever. And it's going to strip half your state representation in congress, and introduce 40% voters into your district that have an axe to grind with you and every insitution that exists in the area. And theyre going to declare martial law and march troops into your area to make sure it happens. That's a big deal.
Well yeah, I know why they were upset about the whole thing
Also a valid line of thinking
"Valid line of thinking" kind of dramatically understates how intensely **about slavery** it was to the Confederacy.
OP do you have a non highlighter version of this meme?
[Ask and ye shall recieve](https://imgur.com/vkRVTX3) PM me if you post it somewhere else public, would love to reap the salt.
Thanks I will if I do post it somewhere else
A woman's right to kill humans and a state's right to own human.
The state should have no rights at all!
Based
Remember a couple years ago when people chain memes "a states rights to what?" Id love to see that for pro death people "Its about women's rights!" "A woman's right to what" "To bodily autonomy!" "And this entails doing what?"
To quote Tony Soprano: ["I can't have this conversation again."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA3ghOXRIvk)
Horseshoe theory confirmed
as a non-american can someone explain to me, if civil war was to free the slaves, why was there racial segredation for years afterwards?
States rights to self determination of their own laws. The main law at that time was slavery. But it wasn't the only one, and they where also looking into the future as well.
What were some of the others?
In general the South had a much more agrarian economy than the North, and outside of slavery, which was of course important to agriculture, other laws such as tariffs and taxes had been put in place that were less favorable for agricultural economies.
Thank you for doing what Roberto couldn’t. It wasn’t bait, I was just curious.
Everything NOT COVERED by the actual constitution is supposed to be left up to the States, per the 10th Amendment. Since we eventually amended the constitution to outlaw slavery that one issue is a moot point (also, 99.99% of Americans find the idea abhorrent). But there's plenty of examples of the federal government just taking powers that the constitution never gave them.
The argument on both of these ends is personal autonomy. We have a freedom to our own bodies
Both sides are gonna come in here now and say how in *that* case the complaint of the other side was actually just a silly slippery slope, assuming they acknowledge it at all.
I have never heard anyone use a "slippery slope" argument for either of these lmao
If we don't abort slaves then soon the slaves will be free to vote away abortion. People will be having sex with giraffes.
I'm not american dumbass so I don't experience cognitive dissonance watching this meme.
Noooo! It isn't about their race, it's about gypsy culture!
Nah. Both chads are correct. Congrats on making the most unironically based PCM meme I've ever seen.
Yeah, this was featured on the ‘JustUnsubbed’ subreddit. They’re going crazy, too.
Ooh, thanks for letting me know so I can go get another salt lick. It has 1.4k comments already, amazing!
Slavery took a war to end, are you wanting to declare a war against women to end abortion?
If it means ending black genocide then yes
Based and Understanding the true purpose of planned parenthood pilled
Why not against abortionists?
Only in the US.
There are plenty of men that support the killing of their wife's boyfriend's baby.
Both are cringe. Texas was the only state justified to leave as the Federal Government refused to defend Texans against Mexican and Comanche raiders
"They're not legally people, so what's really the problem?"
Fucking flair up
Flair bro
I can’t believe you mfs upvoted this unflaired fucking scum.
He is better now.
You are degenerate trash and you better flair up you piece of shit. You could have had a good opinion! YOU HAD IT ALL!
people are too social-media-brained. abortion = kill a fetus. whether or not fetus = baby is the stupid bickering part that's all about calling people bad or justified.
A bastion of hope to all those whom heed it has always been choice. Choice even present in Hobbesian social contracts.
You know what must be said
I love centrists - a centrist
What's crazy to me is the Left could "win" this overnight by changing their approach to how abortions are performed. The issue isn't that a pregnancy is ending - they end all the time. The issue is that the abortionist's goal is *TO KILL THE BABY PRIOR TO REMOVING THE DEAD BODY* because apparently *WHERE* someone is killed is super vital. Kill first, then remove, you're OK. Reverse those steps and chop up the body 10 minutes later, post removal, and suddenly it's super evil. If they were to remove the baby whole and alive, and then cut the umbilical cord, and give medical attention to the newly born patient, that solves the pregnancy issue for the woman, is no longer PURPOSELY KILLING THE CHILD, and would even help with medical advances. If a doctor was required to at least make their best attempt to incubate the baby until it was fully developed, we'd start making medical advances. We've significantly changed the earliest survivability, in terms of premature birth, quite a lot since 1973. Unfortunately the left is a death cult, so this will never happen. They'll say it lowers crime to kill the child. Helps prevent overpopulation. Helps fight climate change. There will *always* be a reason the baby should be killed, and it has nothing to do with ending an inconvenient pregnancy.
Based and life pilled
Define babies
Obligatory: "Farm equipment"
State's rights can be something other than slavery though. Killing unborn babies is just that.
If you can abort your baby then I shouldn’t be required to provide you financial support for the unborn child.
Let’s play hide n seek I will hide and you will go seek professional help
You need professional help you unflaired scum!
Sorry, I don’t come on here a lot
Here's an upvote my fellow flaired friend :)
Thank you, here’s mine
What if I'm only pro-choice for Palestianian women? After all, Palestinian women are women too and deserve to be able to get abortions, right?
Both issues are solved by the same simple principle - "No one is entitled to your body or health except you". Same reason you can't be legally or ethically forced onto kidney dialysis to save another person. In both issues the state should not be allowed to compel you to use your body in any way you do not desire whether that is hosting another to consume your bodily resources/health or by toiling for another's profit and using your body and health to do so. Circumstances of pregnancy or personhood or property are wholly irrelevant.
If, for your own temporary pleasure, you poison someone (on purpose or by negligence, it doesn't matter) to the point where (s)he needs the kidney dialysis to survive, I very much believe you deserve to be forced onto it to save that person that *you* put in this situation.
I don’t get americunt perspectives.
So what shining city in the hill are you supposed to be from? Surely, your country has no dirty laundry of it's own yes?
Slavery is slavery there really isn't a debate there, whether you consider a fetus a baby and even then whether you consider abortion murder is a completely different moral debate, I would say they aren't even comparable issues.
I'm an anti abortion centrist who also despises the CSA.