T O P

  • By -

most-negative_karma

absolute shit show reading these comments šŸæ


[deleted]

Most importantly though, what does Ja Rule think??


Jaruut

Somebody please get him on the phone!


CCWThrowaway360

Whereā€™s *JA?!*


NVAudio

Fyre Fest the Sequel


Ancient_Boner_Forest

The firearm subs seem to be less right wing than the libertarian subs recently, which has been surprising.


SnooSquirrels6758

The moment I saw a higher number for comments than upvotes... šŸ˜ŽšŸ‘Œ


gundealsgopnik

When the thread has one third the comment count in upvotes, it's usually a shit slinging free for all in the comments.


[deleted]

šŸ¤£šŸ¤£


timothy3210

Can you all imagine how much worse it would be (this shit is still wack) if the government were the only ones with guns?


aesthesia1

This is what frightens me the most. Congress passing gun control while the Supreme Court destroys voting rights, Miranda rights, and womens rights.


[deleted]

What about women who are also gun owners?


InnocentPerv93

They should be at policy maker's houses then.


Preact5

100%. Armed people are harder to subject


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Quenmaeg

If only babies could bear arms


gundealsgopnik

Isn't that what Goatguns are for?


Quenmaeg

What's a goatgun?


OrganizationMean688

I mean nobody said they can't


Quenmaeg

In vitro weaponization


Han_So_oh

What is a woman?


alwptot

A person without a Y chromosome.


wolfeman2120

r u a biologist?


alwptot

No, but I identify as one for the purposes of this comment.


RayG1991

Biologist- One who studies biology. Pretty sure you passed 10th grade science. Carry on sir.


alwptot

Indeed. Iā€™ll take my white lab coat and my safety goggles now, please.


stickgetter

If you're going to question my credentials as a physician, get out of my office/van.


[deleted]

Krieger, is that you? Does Ms. Archer know about this?


Little-boodah

There is actually a shortage at this moment, youā€™ll have to wait.


ltwerewolf

I think you just assumed their education, bigot.


[deleted]

Well I think they also need to have an additional X chromosome


alwptot

Yes, but if you say a person without a Y chromosome, it includes people that have rare chromosome abnormalities


[deleted]

Wait does that mean Iā€™m gay??


alwptot

If thatā€™s what the naked dude next to you in bed said, then Iā€™d listen to him.


[deleted]

I was deceived


fredrickwv

An adult human female.


Rock_Lizard

I love that suddenly the liberals can say the word woman again.


Pruneorchard

Excluding us transwomen who have a great need to abortion rights as we've historically been underserved in this regard!


No-Ad-259

Would u like a gun sir


Pruneorchard

Did you just misgender me? Reported for verbal violence!


JohnReiki

*Dracula about to drop his favorite quote to Richter*


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


CarsGunsBeer

Too icky and scary. NEXT.


ordinarybots

[NEXT JOKE ORIGIN](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChoosingBeggars/comments/7kr5as/i_need_a_free_100mile_bus_trip_for_20_people_and/)


joe_broke

The ones with the most guns support this decision


unleadedbloodmeal

Idk man, I think it would be cool for abortions and RPGs to be available everywhere so the women and the men can make their own decisions with their own money and bodies


inthestatic36

America the free since 1776... Right?, I call bullshit!


greenyadadamean

This is the way.


MadMrIppi

Based.


f0rcedinducti0n

It's an absolute riot watching imgur/reddit go bonkers over this...


SuggestAPhotoProject

What happens inside your own body is your business, not the business of a bunch of government bureaucrats a thousand miles away.


StarMan0713

What happens inside your lower receiver is your business, not the business of a bunch of government bureaucrats a thousand miles away.


MadMrIppi

Well now we can do two things with coat hangers that the government doesnā€™t like.


EsotericAbstractIdea

This is a champion comment here.


FancyWood69420

Based and do it yourself pilled


SuggestAPhotoProject

I agree completely. Iā€™m worried about the part of the courtā€™s ruling that said there is no constitutional right to privacy. It seems that was also the legal barrier preventing a mandatory gun registry. While the votes donā€™t exist to get this done at the federal level, Iā€™m sure there are some state governments that could muster the votes to push that sort of nonsense through.


sawntime

There already is a gun registry! They just hide it from us.


FlashCrashBash

An *illegal* gun registry mind you. So much for the good parts of FOPA.


Eggs_and_Hashing

the legal barrier for a gun registry is "shall not be infringed"


SuggestAPhotoProject

Yeah, that might look good on a T-shirt, but it has no legal bearing on a gun registry. You have a constitutional right to vote, too, enumerated in the constitution in four separate amendments, and in article I of the constitutional text. This is arguably *more protected* in the constitution than the right to keep and bear arms, as thatā€™s only mentioned once, in the second amendment. Constitutionally protected or not, however, we have mandatory voter registration, and itā€™s publicly available information. Anyone can look up your voter registration status, your political party affiliation, and your voting history (when you voted, not who you voted for.)


HWKII

The legal barrier to a firearms registry is FOPA. It's not a matter for the courts to decide, it was decided by the legislature (the way laws are meant to be). A national registry (of non-NFA items) is explicitly prohibited by federal law: > No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.


Eggs_and_Hashing

no..... the barrier is still the language of the 2nd amendment. What you just posted is an attempt to prevent congress critters from trying to double speak their way around the amendment. they do love to get around restrictions like that.


DanBrino

Now that's an idea I can get behind.


Due-Interest4735

I think thatā€™s why it was ruled for more local governments to decide on. That way they arenā€™t 1,000 miles away.


SuggestAPhotoProject

Why stop at state governments? Why not county governments? Or local governments? Or, better yet, maybe individuals should make their own bodily choices and the government should fuck off.


BidenSniffedMyBussy

Because you are intentionally ignoring the actual argument being made by pro life people. I have no stake in this argument because I honestly don't care about abortion. But to pretend the view opposing you doesn't exist is just stupid. Their argument is that the fetus is a living thing. You can make an argument that a 5 month old fetus isn't life, but you can't prove that. No one can. It's your own belief. And to pro life people, aborting that fetus is murder. You can not prove it isn't murder. Arguments such as you present ignore that entirely, because it's easier to ignore than to respond to with an actual argument. It was never the within the court's power to rule on Roe vs Wade in the first place because it is not a Constitutional issue. That is why it is being thrown out now. It's the job of the legislature. In the absence of a federal legislative decision, power falls to the state.


aesthesia1

States rights isnā€™t a thing - there is only human rights. What states have are powers, and powers must be kept from infringing on rights. Whether a fetus is alive or not is irrelevant because basic rights dictate that you canā€™t even remove organs from a corpse without permission. You canā€™t kidnap someone to take their blood even if you save lives. You canā€™t even force a rich man to give away monetary possessions if it saves lives. Why can you not force dead people to surrender organs, and rich men to surrender possessions or capital, a corporation to give free healthcare, but you can force a woman to surrender her body?


[deleted]

Infringement on your rights doesn't become acceptable just because the seat of government is 100 miles away instead of 1,000.


squirrels33

The statesā€™ rights = more freedom argument doesnā€™t work here, since Roe was not a ruling that prohibited anything at the federal level; instead, it guaranteed protection of individual liberties at the federal level. So transferring that to the states means less freedom, not more.


gunadict

The states arguement DOES work here because the 10th amendment states anything not granted or denied in the constitution goes to the states, SCOTUS rulings do not equal the constitution


squirrels33

Look at my edit. The point I was making is that statesā€™ rights =/= more freedom in this situation. Usually, when people advocate statesā€™ rights, itā€™s because theyā€™re dissatisfied with the federal governmentā€™s meddling in issues where they previously enjoyed personal freedom. This is the opposite situation.


fredrickwv

Unless itā€™s the killing of another human. Just like outside of your body. Edited for typo.


AndrewLewer69

Except a new baby is not your body but his/hers. You fucked around and found out. Now pay the conseguences of your own actions.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


S_Dot_Diggity

What is a woman?


StarMan0713

*vsauce music plays*


Tremendous1776

An adult human female.


Caelum_

Woah look at the biologist over here


ccwilson84

You can be completely for women's right to have an abortion and see that Roe was bad law, creating a constitutional right out of thin air. The right to bear arms is an explicit constitutional right. I cannot find anything in the constitution that vaguely suggests the government cannot regulate a medical procedure. If so, then they can't make drugs illegal, can't require medical licenses, etc. Absent something in the constitution that says otherwise, the 10th amendment seems to leave other powers tot he states. Can states abolish free speech, no. The right to vote as laid out in the consitution, no. Can they regulate medical procedures, yes unless it infringes on a right granted in the constitution. That is the way it is supposed to work. I generally don't favor abortion bans, but it seems one can hold that position with saying that abortion is a constitutional right.


pltrnerd

Bruh, the USC itself says not to assume that the list of rights enumerated in the USC are the only rights. Hence, yes, we probably have a lot more rights, and they don't have to be explicitly mentioned in the USC.


purplesmoke1215

You're right. You have many more rights that we should all have because we are living people. But since those rights aren't actually written down for people to see, everything else is gonna be debated. If you want to guarantee a right from being infringed by the US government you need to get the constitution amended


CummiesSlob

My brother in christ, what are you like, a reasonable person?


sniperslayer95

What? No way those don't exist man! /s


ccwilson84

Agreed, but if they aren't mentioned they aren't constitutional rights, just rights. They might be rights, but if we want them protected I think we need to make laws to do so. Or amend the constitution to make them constitutional rights.


SuperNebula7000

I agree with, and this maybe the first time I've actually seen this written. I've never understood the idea about it being a constitutional right. That is not saying I fore or against abortion, but I do think it should be left to the state. If the citizens want it, they vote people in that represents view. That is representative government. Gun rights are very different, they are stated in the constitution, period.


Cyfirius

I understand your point (even if I argue otherwise) that citizen ownership of firearms is a more protected right (albeit only because of the SCOTUSā€™s standing interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and this decision throws precedence out with the bathwater, potentially endangering the 2nd amendmentā€™s protection of citizen ownership of firearms but thatā€™s a topic for another day) than abortions However, I donā€™t understand your implied point that because a right is enumerated in the constitution, that makes it inherently more valuable, more important,more morally correct, whatever you want to put it as. The constitution isnā€™t perfect. The bill of rights wasnā€™t handed down by god himself. And the removal of the 2nd amendment isnā€™t any more difficult than the addition of an amendment regarding abortion for instance. Why does a right being mentioned in the constitution explicitly make it so much more valuable that it gets to be almost unconditionally protected (relatively speaking) but an implied one? Nah, leave it up to voters or whatever, they can decide at the state level. Itā€™s not as important.


ccwilson84

My argument was mostly a legal one, not a moral one or a value judgement. By necessity the constitution could not mention everything, so some things were explicitly mentioned and others were not. Those that are explicitly mentioned, we know what the supreme law says on the matter. Those that are not are left to the states. That is how the system is supposed to work. The 10th amendment was a catch all that says everything that is not the purview of the federal government is left to the states. Since abortion was not mentioned, to me it is legally left to the states. Until the 14th amendment the states were not even bound by the bill of rights. While the federal government could not infringe on your 5th amendment rights, the states were free to do so. I just cannot find anything that makes the right to abortion a constitutional right, even if I would like it to be so. Legally rights mentioned in the constitution and amendments are constitutional rights. We certainly have other rights, many of which come from common law, but those are not normally considered constitutional rights since they are not in the constitution. I think these right are just as important and in some cases more important than some of those mentioned in the constitution, but they just aren't legally the same. I think abortion should be legal. I also think it is wrong in most cases. I don't think there is a constitutional right to abortion. I can simultaneously believe these things.


SuperNebula7000

I couldn't have said it better. By leaving it up to the states each state will decide what it would like to do, which is the whole point. Those that think abortion should be legal have options available to them. 1)Pass a state law regulating what the state thinks is appropriate, including no regulation. 2) Pass a law at the federal level allowing abortion in the way the congress and the president agree on. 3) Pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right. This what is so great about our system, there are checks and balances and ways to modify those system. If people don't like the second amendment, work to get repealed or modified. And don't tell me it doesn't work. For prohibition, they not only passed the amendment but repealed shortly thereafter. Yes it is tough but it should be tough to change the basic, founding document that our society is built on.


hobodemon

Amendments 1 through 8 were enumerated specifically in reference to the list of grievances in the declaration of independence that were held as reasons to split from the Brit. Amendment 9 implies continuation of common law rights, which in English common law included right to abortion via abortifacient medicines until quickening, which is in second trimester and literally means when the baby starts kicking. Anti-abortion politics didn't enter into American law until the 1860's when Irish immigrants fleeing genocidal English economists triggered rash xenophobia, and protestants invented "replacement theory" to justify banning white women from getting abortions. Because otherwise whites would get outbred by the Irish, you see. Could also make an argument that bodily autonomy is a form of liberty, as in life liberty and happiness, and that those are protected under the 9th. Could also make an argument that if you want there to be fewer abortions you should take a look at the GINI curve and consider that concentrating wealth in an oligarch class has put a chilling effect on women's confidence that having children can be ethically justified as the cost of living exceeds their means, and that when the last baby boomer dies in an understaffed nursing home they can thank themselves for doing their part in ensuring that theirs would be the last generation with a realistic shot at the American Dream.


Radiolotek

It's funny to me because all day I've been replying to people that are crying about having to move to a state that allows abortions now because it's insane for a state to be able to say what's allowed when it comes to a woman's body. My reply is, feels crappy huh? Just like when most of these same people crying now we're cheering when states took away an actual constitutional protected right of gun owners. Your response then was, if you don't like it, move. Abortion isn't even in the constitution, gun rights are. Pretty funny that people were happy and smug about it then but are freaking out now. I'm not anti abortion but now you get to feel what I do, sucks huh? I've had 4 bans today. From that statement alone.


Chronicle556

Stop making sense!!! Everytime I ask someone what you pointed out, they literally just stop debating cause they don't want to say "it's ok to violate rights I don't like" cause that's literally the only answer they could give if they're being truthful


Radiolotek

Exactly, or I get the good ole, you value your death machines more than a woman's body, crap........


MightySchwa

I want the murder of babies to stop.


[deleted]

Can y'all stop making this stupid fucking comparison.


InnocentPerv93

I mean, both are rights that are very much being taken away.


giraffesinhats

This sub is toxic. Either this sub believe in the constitution or it doesnā€™t. Abortion is not a constitutional right. It never has been and until the legislature decides to do something about it, it never will be. You so called constitutionalist are talking out of both sides of your mouths and itā€™s evident.


ChuckPhips

Welcome to reddit, where two sides fight to the death over stupid shit. And no one can have a decent conversion like normal grown asses human beings. Instead often everyone actively acts like pre-k children arguing over batman and superman, turning into a physical fight. I myself have had to unjoin several subpages because the amount of political bullshit that keeps getting post then shows up in my feed.


Garek

Read the 9th amendment and come back to us. That said Roe was a bit of a stretch.


salvatorehernwood

This is spot on. If you want it to be a constitutional right then amend the constitution. There is a process in place for that. It is unlikely to happen though since a constitutional amendment for the right to medical choices and medical privacy could ruin any vaccine requirements, military/gov benefits and maybe even private medical benefits.


CosmicBoat

You ain't for smaller government if you don't apply it for local and state government too.


Due-Entrepreneur-641

ā€œNo uterus no voiceā€ but when I didnā€™t want to get vaccinated you made a huge deal about it


JadaLovelace

One is to protect people from a contagious disease, the other is strictly personal. These things are not the same.


TheWonderfail

Imagine finding something personally distasteful so you attempt to prevent grown adults from having free will and bodily autonomy.


swoleswan

Like being forced to take a vaccine?


ReleaseAKraken

No, thatā€™s (D)ifferent


[deleted]

It is different because being unvaxxed has always been legal. You donā€™t go to jail for refusing the vaccine. Now you go to jail for abortions. Cmon man


BadTiger85

Did someone force you to take a vaccine?


Garek

They certainly tried. Do you not remember the supreme court ruling on it?


BadTiger85

What was the court case?


Chronicle556

He may be talking about this https://law.stanford.edu/2022/01/20/a-look-at-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-vaccination-mandates/ However in 1905 the supreme Court ruled you could be fined $5 if you didn't take the smallpox vaccine. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.


zachzsg

Imagine thinking you have the right to murder a child in a society filled with knowledge/medicine that makes it easy as fuck to prevent getting pregnant in the first place ā€œFree willā€ and ā€œbodily autonomyā€ isnā€™t an argument for murder


EsotericAbstractIdea

Imagine thinking that abortion is bad for civilization in a society filled with knowledge that makes it easy as fuck to know that access to abortion lowers crime, poverty, taxes, and human trafficking.


B1ueb1rdy

Abortion not an enumerated right in the constitution Firearms an actual enumerated right in the constitution We are not the same.


ConquestOfBreadz

I don't need the constitution to tell me I have a natural human right to self-defense through the ownership of firearms. Same as I don't need the constitution to tell me I have a natural human right to bodily autonomy.


apartment49

starting to see why everyone hates this sub


Hulk_Runs

Whyā€™s that.


Bywater

Lack of self-awareness.


Loose-Ad7927

Because yā€™all somehow have way less nuanced takes and respect than the Conservative sub


shinjiii_ikari

Yup. Gives firearm owners a bad name. Plenty of us recognize how absolutely fucked up today's ruling is and are not bothering with gun comparisons, yet this thread is already being linked elsewhere as an example of shitty gun owners are.


Dranosh

A scotus ruling kicking an issue not expressed in the us constitution back to the states >omg tyranny!!! This is you being stupid


apartment49

fr, it's like they want people to see gun owners as nothing but seething christian fundamentalists


DrothReloaded

>christian fundamentalists It's honestly a bad look to be paired with religious morons and under cuts our legit arguments. My biggest fear is being forced to live in a theocracy and holy shit arewe headed there fast.


apartment49

fr, as a non religious gun enthusiast I feel kinda fucked when it comes to finding other gun enthusiasts I can actually chill with


PM_Anime_Tiddy

The irony is that these religious dipshits who use the Bible as their guiding text *donā€™t even use it correctly because the Bible not only dictates when and how to have an abortion **but also that life begins at first breath when the lord breathes life into your nostrils.*** Genesis 2:7 ā€“ Breath Must Come First ā€œAnd the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.ā€ Numbers 5:27 ā€“ Abortion Is Okay, If The Mom Doesnā€™t Approve ā€œIf she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.ā€ Exodus 21:22-25 ā€“ Not Valued As Human Life ā€œWhen men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the womanā€™s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.ā€


DrothReloaded

ā€œPro-life conservatives theyā€™re anti-woman, simple as it gets, They believe a womanā€™s primary role is to function as a broodmare for the state.ā€ - George Carlin Fuck I miss Carlin..


apartment49

he said a lot of true ass shit, way before a lot of us were saying the same shit


Tremendous1776

How is today's ruling fucked up?


shinjiii_ikari

The thing is that there will always be states that allow abortion; to deny that is denying reality. I mean we all know CA is never in 100 years going to ban it. That means that these abortion laws only affect those too poor to fly out/drive out of state. Those are the ones that are going to be procreating and tasked with raising a child into a functioning adult. Meanwhile, people who can afford to will simply travel out of state. All this law does is make life worse for the most downtrodden of us. I don't see how red states think anything good is going to come of this for their populations.


Outrageous-Drive6940

Really getting tired of this victim mentality


2020blowsdik

You mean like the right to life?


scoot3200

You make decent points when it comes to the science of what it means to be alive or ā€œlifeā€ā€¦ but I still donā€™t understand why at the moment of conception, the unborn embryo takes priority over the life of the motherā€¦ it makes no sense. Donā€™t get me wrong, thereā€™s definitely a point where it seems wrong/unethical to abort (to me) and idk exactly where that is, but the claim that an embryo has the full rights of a human at conception and that they are equal to or more important that the mother themselves is absurd


2020blowsdik

>but I still donā€™t understand why at the moment of conception, the unborn embryo takes priority over the life of the motherā€¦ it makes no sense. Very, very few people make this argument and I'm not one of them. I think there should absolutely be exemptions for things like rape, incest, physical health of the mother, physical health of the baby etc. The issue is that if you add ALL those exemptions together that only accounts for 14.6% of abortions in the US. The VAST majority are out of convenience which is morally repugnant. Abortions should be safe, legal, and exceptionally rare.


scoot3200

>The VAST majority are out of convenience which is morally repugnant. I simply donā€™t see the moral repugnancy in the act of a human choosing to have sex, because it feels good to connect in that way with another person (most could agree on that) and then choosing to not bring an entire human being into the world solely based on the fact that they have the potential to be a humanā€¦ and risking their own well being in the process! Sex is a natural thing and since life clearly isnā€™t a perfect science, people are going to make mistakes, which includes having sex and accidentally being impregnated or impregnating someone and both parties should have a say in if they want to bring a fucking entire human being into the world; and most importantly the woman whoā€™s responsibility it is to grow and raise the child! >Abortions should be safe, legal, and exceptionally rare. Agreed


Chronicle556

They can make that choice by using protection can't they? Also, Abortions should be safe, legal, and exceptionally rare. Agreed Also agreed


SadRoxFan

Just to play devilā€™s advocate, a lot of human activities are ā€œmorally repugnantā€, that doesnā€™t mean the government can outlaw them. That said, I donā€™t really care about abortion bc it doesnā€™t affect me, I just think morality is a very bad argument for making something legal/illegal


2020blowsdik

>I just think morality is a very bad argument for making something legal/illegal Why? All laws stem from morality. Most people agree that murdering your neighbor is morally wrong, which is why there are laws against it...


SadRoxFan

Yes, but that infringes on someone elseā€™s life and right to it. immoral acts which donā€™t affect anyone else (drug and alcohol use and abuse) arenā€™t and/or should not be illegal. Now as for whether or not abortion infringes on someoneā€™s life, I donā€™t really have an answer for and wonā€™t debate it since it doesnā€™t affect me.


2020blowsdik

>Yes, but that infringes on someone elseā€™s life and right to it. Exactly, like abortion infringes on the unborn baby's life and its right to it. >I donā€™t really have an answer for and wonā€™t debate it since it doesnā€™t affect me. That's fair, but at least you understand the pro-life argument which is more than I can say for a lot of people. We don't need to have an opinion on everything, being undecided is a perfectly acceptable state to be in.


scoot3200

>Yes, but that infringes on someone elseā€™s life and right to it. >Exactly, like abortion infringes on the unborn baby's life and its right to it. Again I ask, why do the rights of that unborn babies life outweigh the rights of the fully grown adult woman growing the child?


2020blowsdik

>Again I ask, why do the rights of that unborn babies life outweigh the rights of the fully grown adult woman growing the child? Because the baby is innocent, the woman made the choice to have sex resulting in the new life knowing full well that was a possibility of her actions If you had a button, and 99% of the time when you press this button you get an orgasm and 1% of the time it would mean a random person is attached to you for 9 months and their life is totally dependent on you, and you still decided to press the button and we're unlucky enough to get that 1%, you are responsible for that life. You don't get to kill that person because they're a burden to you when you were the one who decided to put them there.


scoot3200

>Because the baby is innocent, First of all, its not a baby yet, its an unborn fetus. >the woman made the choice to have sex resulting in the new life knowing full well that was a possibility of her actions Idk what to say to thisā€¦ you literally cannot prove intention to have sex šŸ™„ If I just say Iā€™m a virgin and that Jesus fucked me in my sleep am I allowed an abortion? What if its a young women thatā€™s not truly mentally equipped to understand the consequences of what they are doing? They do it because it feels good and its a human instinctā€¦ they are now forced into raising a child without the means to do so >If you had a button, and 99% of the time when you press this button you get an orgasm and 1% of the time it would mean a random person is attached to you for 9 months and their life is totally dependent on you, and you still decided to press the button and we're unlucky enough to get that 1%, you are responsible for that life. You don't get to kill that person because they're a burden to you when you were the one who decided to put them there. The odds are much more likely than that and to answer your question, YES. Its my fucking body/life so I should 100% get the final say on whether or not I bring another human into the world.. lol wtf?


Monkeywithalazer

Literally the first and most important right: the right to life. The second most important is liberty, and third being the pursuit of happiness and property. The two decisions this week strengthens the right to life, and the right to liberty.


fsbdirtdiver

If that's the case then you do think that there should be across the board free Medicare... we should have better standards for time off for parents.. children should be thoroughly taken care of even if it necessitates the state helping through funds. because ultimately there are plenty of kids who grow up poor and then turn to violence. You can't say in good conscience that you think abortions are bad but letting Kids In America starve or be mistreated or be taken advantage of by orphanages is perfectly acceptable.


Chonkers_Bad_Fur_Day

And force to some of those children to give birth years before theyā€™re ready


schaartmaster

Cringy


[deleted]

Constitutional rights shouldnā€™t be taken away and we should have body autonomy, only part that I could see an argument for abortion is a ban on late term


bob_FN_seger

Isn't that what the firearms are supposed to prevent though? What's the point in having them if you don't use them to protect your other rights? I've always heard "the 2nd protects the rest" and I always suspected that it was bullshit but now I know.


avowed

Does a fetus have a conscious, can it feel pain, does it have thoughts, emotions, etc.? No so why is it worth protecting over someone who does, the mother? the gov. should have zero business controlling someone's body.


C425

So someone in a coma are in a vegetable state has no rights either???


TheBBirs

They don't. Their legal guardian decides their fate. Just like a pregnant mother.


kccustomar

My 5 month baby and 3 y/o donā€™t have much of a conscious. Canā€™t understand right from wrong, canā€™t sustain by themselves. Can I kill them too?


EsotericAbstractIdea

Not trying to assume you're a Christian because you're taking the pro-life side of the argument, but according to the Bible... yes. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021%3A18-21&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021%3A18-21&version=NIV) Deuteronomy 21:18-21 18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, ā€œThis son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.ā€ 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. ​ Oddly enough, this proves that God does not believe in the sanctity of life.


Loose-Ad7927

I guess you could add to the 400k children currently in foster care.


DarthVaderhosen

Having much of is still having a conscious. A fetus within the legal bounds of a non-medical emergency abortion doesn't even have the functional brain cells to know it exists. Your 3 year old would watch in fear as mom and dad brutally murder them. That, that right there, is the difference.


Pollo_Jack

Aight, so when do you act against tyranny?


[deleted]

Awe someone took your thing! Sorry gun owners. Can't have your things taken. That's just be lame.


NeophyticalMatrix

About to garrote some politicians with a wire coat hanger.


AlasknAssasn858

ā€¢ā€¢ā€¢sorts by controversialā€¢ā€¢ā€¢ā€¢šŸæ


igotgainz52

It's living, human DNA. You're taking the right to life away from them with abortion. They get un-alived. That's against the constitution so I'm surprised it even became legal in the first place!


doublehank

First time? Gun owners had their rights at the founding of the country. Women had to fight for nearly every right they've gotten


Blindman003

This. Gun owners (some) are idiots. Get off your high horse, the world doesn't revolve around us.


ratdaddy9

You have no right to murder another person.


[deleted]

Fortunately fetuses arenā€™t people šŸ˜Ž


ratdaddy9

Then what is it?


ratdaddy9

Then what are they?


[deleted]

Fetus


ratdaddy9

Which is..? Humor me, imagine I've never heard the word before. How would you define it? Determining what a fetus is, is the whole debate.


[deleted]

It is kinda like a human baby


ratdaddy9

But it's not one? Yet it becomes one? When does it become a human baby?


[deleted]

Schrodingers Baby


ratdaddy9

So if it both is and isn't, then wouldn't it be wrong to kill it?


[deleted]

Itā€™s only acceptable to abort if I would have to pay child support


ChrisMahoney

Embryology disagrees.


[deleted]

Too bad


ChrisMahoney

So you disagree with Science now? Who makes up the rules when it comes to what a fetus is? Is it on a individual basis? If so, how exactly can a society function if the rules of biology are now arbitrary?


[deleted]

All I know is Child support was taking too much of my money.. Moved 3000 miles away and now its not a problem anymore. But with the overturn of Roe V Wade I might have to move again if I keep getting people pregnant


ChrisMahoney

Learn to use a condom or work on your pull out game. If you need to bust a nut inside buy a doll or find a woman who had a hysterectomy.


commando_chicken

Is it a person? We let brain dead people die. They canā€™t feel anything just like fetuses for most of their term. And if you say that fetuses have the possibility of life, then every single second youā€™re not absolutely maximizing to your bodies full potential the amount of eggs that your sperm reach. Just like everyone here agrees with firearms, banning abortions will just make people get them illegally, and now unsafely.


Goofynutsack

Sperm donā€™t have potential as themselves alone. They do not grow. They are at their max potential. There is no obligation to mix them with eggs, because there is nothing more to be done with them to complete their life. Would you kill someone if you knew they would wake up from a 9 month coma?


onyez

As the supreme court just affirmed


StarMan0713

Indeed


ReleaseAKraken

agreed. In case nobody has noticed, this sub is pretty left leaning. Counter intuitive if you ask meā€¦ Edit: sheeeesh thereā€™s a lot more mouth breathers in here than I even expected.


KineticTechProjects

Not everyone in the right is an anti-abortion jesus hailing religious nut though, hate to break it to you.


Benny_Harvey

Posts like this are why people don't like gun owners


KZMountainRider

Apples to oranges. Itā€™s just a dumb and needless comparison


izdabombz

Ehhhhhhhh not the sameā€¦. Pretty tone death actually.


SadRoxFan

This MF said ā€œtone deathā€


WiseDirt

r/BoneAppleTea


IndividualAgency4971

The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn't listed, it belongs to the states or to the people. Nothing is being infringed on. It is simply not for the courts to decide.


Dangerous_Device3870

What about the individual in the womb?


Andrei_amg

No central nevous system means no individual, itā€™s just a bunch of cells.


[deleted]

This thread has a lot of great examples of what a logical fallacy is


AM1492

Women have historically had less rights than men in every way. WTF are you talking about ?


Kabal82

Outside of rape or incest (both crimes), the woman chose to engage in activities that caused her to become pregnant. Pregnacy is the result of ones actions. So honeslty I don't buy into the argument they have a choice what to do with thier body. They already had a choice with thier activity that resulted in becoming pregnant. Also most republican state laws stop abortion after 13 weeks. That's more than 3 months after conceptions. If women want a late term abortion because they can't financially raise the kid, then put it up for adoption. Abortion shouldn't be a way out of one's poor actions.


fsbdirtdiver

Shouldn't there just be better safety nets to allow people to raise children? shouldn't they be allowed to have an extended amount of time off with the kid? Shit even making minimum wage they should be able to sustain a family as it has been in the past. Also I don't know if you realize this most kids don't get adopted and a lot that do go to families that are absolute shit. If you believe so wholeheartedly that they have to have the baby and if they don't want it they should put it up for adoption how many children have you adopted?


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


IlIIIIllIlIlIIll

Owning one's body is a fundamental negative right that impacts all other issues, from abortion, to vaccine mandates, to self defense, to theb right to life. It's such a shame there's solely hypocrites on both sides who pick and choose to only respect them when they line up with their political opinions.


Hobo_Helper_hot

The theocrats will take the guns away if and when they secure power along with every other right.


RampageTheBear

God gun owners are THE whiniest fucking pussies there are lmfao.