Decline & Fall

[waitingman]

So in the USA it's now much easier to openly carry a gun to kill people & much harder to get an abortion, even if you're the victim of sexual assault

History has shown what comes next...

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Comments

Devil hide in details

[paserbyp]

Openly carry gun for self-protection and harder to get abortion in some states where republicans has majority in state government only.

Re: Devil hide in details

[waitingman]

For now...

Re: Devil hide in details

[anais_pf]

Actually, the Supremes struck down portions of our anti-gun statutes here in Democrat-ruled New York.

Re: Devil hide in details

[paserbyp]

Anti-gun statues is anti-constitutional movement against second amendment.

Re: Devil hide in details

[waitingman]

No. No it isn't

It's actually an exercise in your Constitutional right to free speech. An anti-gun statue is not anti-constitutional, it is an expressed opinion - just as you are free to express yours

Why do you seek to ban someone else's opinion, just because you don't agree with it? That's not democracy, that's tyranny. The anti-gun movement is not seeking to silence you... why do you want them silenced?

Is Freedom of Speech & Expression only a good thing when people say what you want to hear??

Re: Devil hide in details

[paserbyp]

Free speech against second amendment? In this case, don’t ask if someone will try shout down rights for free speech & expression.

Re: Devil hide in details

[waitingman]

I saw a post somewhere online today, that said 'Guns Have More Rights Than Women'

Right now, that's hard to argue with...

Re: Devil hide in details

[paserbyp]

Not a guns, but rights for self protection and woman just want have rights for self protection by killing unborn children?

Re: Devil hide in details

[waitingman]

My final word on this

At the stage of pregnancy where abortion is viable, what's inside the uterus is NOT a child. It does not think, it has no emotions, no 'higher' brain activity, it has no independence, it has no 'free will' It's basically a misshapen tapeworm, living off its host

Trying to impose 'humanity' on such an organism, is a religious opinion, not secular science. Moreover, it's a religious opinion most likely given by a Man - not a Woman

Once the organism's brain begins to develop in utero & can be said to respond to external stimuli, then sure - it's now an unborn child & can be said to have a 'right' to life. But that was always the case under your laws - Roe vs Wade didn't change that at all. To suggest that it was a license to kill unborn children is hysterical religious propaganda & I will not tolerate it, in the same way as I don't tolerate hypocrisy from anyone, anywhere

If you want to debate this, that's fine, but bring me your supported facts, not ill-considered knee-jerk reactionism, religious bullshit, or groupthink ignorance

Re: Devil hide in details

[paserbyp]

This is not a religious opinion and just make sense to deploy planned parenthood(preventing pregnancy) instead of killing children by abortion. In this case I don’t want to debate this kind of topic, because instead of trying to find solution, someone just labeled killing as simple medical procedure. I don’t accept it at all…

Re: Devil hide in details

[sandypawozbun]

I've been trying to resist replying to this, but I can't not say something.

Basically your position is that instead of providing timely abortion services that people with uteruses need to be on contraception from the time they begin menstruating? In case a man puts his dick in them?

People with uteruses begin menstruating as early as 9, and sometimes earlier than that.

And yes we *do* need contraceptives as well. However contraceptives are generally only taken by women who can afford them, and there are real concerns that access to contraceptives will be restricted in time as well.

I'm sure you're a nice person or you wouldn't be friends with this awesome dude. But man, your opinion is breathtakingly ignorant of the reasons *why* women and people with uteruses get abortions. We don't do it for a lark on a slow day.

Re: Devil hide in details

[paserbyp]

You agreed that we do need contraceptive and of course it should be taken not only by women but by man as well and they should be affordable for all and possible free of charge. Abort should be an emergency and could happens only if contraceptive failed and protection should be so powerful that abortion became rare and don’t needed it anymore. Finally, I’m not a dude and try better to resist replying to something you don’t understand completely by speculating about someone opinion. Please…

Re: Devil hide in details

[sandypawozbun]

Firstly, I never called you a dude. I referred to Waitingman as being a dude. I called you 'a nice person'.

The picture you paint is lovely, and I hope it comes true. However with Griswold v Connecticut the likely next decision to be overturned it's not likely.

And it still doesn't deal with those pesky problems of criminality associated with pregnancy. Rape, incest, lack of access to contraception, lack of access to sexual education are still out there and won't go away.