DK Firearms

Bye, Bye Roe V Wade

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,864
    96
    Spring
    There’s another very similar thread - shouldn’t they be merged?
    I'm aware of the other thread. In my judgement, when Axxe says...
    IMO. they are similar, but the other thread deals more with how it effects Texas politics in particular.
    ...he's right.
    Guns International
     

    BillM

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 8, 2021
    1,478
    96
    TX
    1656329623373.png
     

    BillM

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 8, 2021
    1,478
    96
    TX
    They say not being able to abort the child takes away a woman's rights. Well, here's where they confuse me.

    They can't stop to think long enough to realize that if the baby they murder would have been a girl, then it would have grown into a woman. By killing the baby they violate it's civil rights by taking it's right to life. These people are nothing more than ghoulish monsters. Stealing all it's rights before they began! A woman's rights! How twisted and evil they must be!
     

    General Zod

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 29, 2012
    26,462
    96
    Kaufman County
    They say not being able to abort the child takes away a woman's rights. Well, here's where they confuse me.

    They can't stop to think long enough to realize that if the baby they murder would have been a girl, then it would have grown into a woman. By killing the baby they violate it's civil rights by taking it's right to life. These people are nothing more than ghoulish monsters. Stealing all it's rights before they began! A woman's rights! How twisted and evil they must be!

    The "party of science" does not recognize that unborn baby as a human being until it's actually in the hands of a pediatrician post-birth. They'll refer to a 9 month developed unborn baby as a "lump of cells" or if they're feeling charitable a "fetus" but they will not in any way admit that it is a living human being.
     

    BillM

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 8, 2021
    1,478
    96
    TX
    The "party of science" does not recognize that unborn baby as a human being until it's actually in the hands of a pediatrician post-birth. They'll refer to a 9 month developed unborn baby as a "lump of cells" or if they're feeling charitable a "fetus" but they will not in any way admit that it is a living human being.
    And in that light I can't understand why they are so upset with the courts decision. After all it's just a lump of words.
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,472
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    They say not being able to abort the child takes away a woman's rights. Well, here's where they confuse me.

    They can't stop to think long enough to realize that if the baby they murder would have been a girl, then it would have grown into a woman. By killing the baby they violate it's civil rights by taking it's right to life. These people are nothing more than ghoulish monsters. Stealing all it's rights before they began! A woman's rights! How twisted and evil they must be!
    I agree with your assessment, but IMO the right to life is more a fundamental right, not open to a law given through a civil right.
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,009
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    I agree with your assessment, but IMO the right to life is more a fundamental right, not open to a law given through a civil right.
    But it brings up the larger question. What is life and when does it began, and who is protected by those rights? The mother, or the child? And who's rights are superior?

    During an abortion, and all the proponents of abortion, it seems the womans rights preempt the rights of the unborn child in every case.

    As much a philisophical, medical, religious and legal question arises during that discussion.

    And nope, I'm not going down that rabbit hole!
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,472
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    But it brings up the larger question. What is life and when does it began, and who is protected by those rights? The mother, or the child? And who's rights are superior?

    During an abortion, and all the proponents of abortion, it seems the womans rights preempt the rights of the unborn child in every case.

    As much a philisophical, medical, religious and legal question arises during that discussion.

    And nope, I'm not going down that rabbit hole!
    IMO, it should come down to what is wanted and what is needed. I can't take a life just because I want it, but I can if it is needed to save my life. Yet I hope I can avoid killing to save my life.

    If a baby is avoided from forming into a living being (i.e. day after pill), I don't have that much problem. If it's formed into a living being, then I have a problem. Certainly a pregnancy can be an inconvenience, but I can't take a life out of inconvenience.

    To be fair, when Roe v. Wade came out, I didn't have much thought on it. But I do remember that it was said it would be "Safe, legal and rare", and it certainly has gone beyond "rare". To me that implied it wouldn't be used as a contraceptive, but when it became a thing to be celebrated, that's when it went well beyond rare.
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,009
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    IMO, it should come down to what is wanted and what is needed. I can't take a life just because I want it, but I can if it is needed to save my life. Yet I hope I can avoid killing to save my life.

    If a baby is avoided from forming into a living being (i.e. day after pill), I don't have that much problem. If it's formed into a living being, then I have a problem. Certainly a pregnancy can be an inconvenience, but I can't take a life out of inconvenience.

    To be fair, when Roe v. Wade came out, I didn't have much thought on it. But I do remember that it was said it would be "Safe, legal and rare", and it certainly has gone beyond "rare". To me that implied it wouldn't be used as a contraceptive, but when it became a thing to be celebrated, that's when it went well beyond rare.
    That was some of my biggest issues with abortions, that too many were using it as means of birth control, to ignore any personal responsibility or accountability for their poor choices in life, at the expense of murdering an unborn child. And in many cases, with tax-payers footing the bills.

    Abortions used as birth control are nothing short of whole scale murder and should be treated as such. Every person involved should be charged with murder.

    There are too many ways not to get pregnant in the first place, that make abortion an option for poor choices. Condoms, birth control pills, diaphrams, and my favorite, absitinance.

    I do think there are cases when abortion might be the option to use in rare cases, such as medical emergencies, rape or incest.
     

    Sasquatch

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 20, 2020
    6,546
    96
    Magnolia
    Life begins at conception, period. Two living cells combine, bringing together elements from the parents to form a new, unique life. Any other interpretation of when life begins is mental gymnastics to justify the killing of an innocent unborn being. "Just a clump of cells" is the typical argument - these same assholes would jizz themselves 10X over if they found ONE fucking living cell on Mars, because "Its life!" - never mind that the "clump of cells" continues to rapidly grow and looks like the human it is in short order.

    When you engage in sexual intercourse, unless we're talking about young children being involved, all parties know the risk of pregnancy. If they cannot be bothered to use a fifty cent condom or take birthcontrol measures, they should be ready to become parents, or at least birth the child and give it up for adoption. Your "uterine rights" as I've heard it described get superceded by the new, unique life inside you, because that person (yes, I'm going to say it, that "clump of cells" is a person) has just as much right to life as you do. You didn't take appropriate measures to prevent the pregnancy, you don't get to kill someone out of convenience. If killing out of convenience is acceptable, the fucking traffic would be far, far, far less on our roads than it is now, I gaurantee.

    Life begins at conception, period.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,259
    96
    Boerne
    But it brings up the larger question. What is life and when does it began, and who is protected by those rights? The mother, or the child? And who's rights are superior?…

    That was what the court tried to address in Roe and created a complicated mulit-prong test to determine. Even then, Rehnquist argued in his opinion the court was creating a legal framework for a moral question, something best left to the voters in the fifty states.
     

    skfullgun

    Dances With Snakes
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Oct 14, 2017
    5,420
    96
    In the woods...
    Life begins at conception, period. Two living cells combine, bringing together elements from the parents to form a new, unique life. Any other interpretation of when life begins is mental gymnastics to justify the killing of an innocent unborn being. "Just a clump of cells" is the typical argument - these same assholes would jizz themselves 10X over if they found ONE fucking living cell on Mars, because "Its life!" - never mind that the "clump of cells" continues to rapidly grow and looks like the human it is in short order.

    When you engage in sexual intercourse, unless we're talking about young children being involved, all parties know the risk of pregnancy. If they cannot be bothered to use a fifty cent condom or take birthcontrol measures, they should be ready to become parents, or at least birth the child and give it up for adoption. Your "uterine rights" as I've heard it described get superceded by the new, unique life inside you, because that person (yes, I'm going to say it, that "clump of cells" is a person) has just as much right to life as you do. You didn't take appropriate measures to prevent the pregnancy, you don't get to kill someone out of convenience. If killing out of convenience is acceptable, the fucking traffic would be far, far, far less on our roads than it is now, I gaurantee.

    Life begins at conception, period.
    Well, Squatch, I agree with you.

    The problem is the left has conveniently labeled that (our) view as "religious" extremism.
    I was once heavily involved in volunteering for various pet-rescue organizations

    Most, not all, of those folks lean toward the liberal side of things. I always found it ironic, even troubling, they would cry over an abandoned dog losing it's pups during a "routine" sterilization and then loudly proclaim "my uterus, my choice"!

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at an aborted fetus, and know that's a human being!
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,009
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    I think @oldag brought up an interesting point some days ago. What is the difference between aborting a child at 7 months, or a premature birth at 7 months?

    None IMO. But in some states, an abortion at 7 months would be legal, but if you smothered a premature at 7 months that would be murder!

    That is just how sick and perverted the proponents for abortion are.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,737
    96
    Austin, Texas
    Life begins at conception, period. Two living cells combine, bringing together elements from the parents to form a new, unique life. Any other interpretation of when life begins is mental gymnastics to justify the killing of an innocent unborn being. "Just a clump of cells" is the typical argument - these same assholes would jizz themselves 10X over if they found ONE fucking living cell on Mars, because "Its life!" - never mind that the "clump of cells" continues to rapidly grow and looks like the human it is in short order.

    When you engage in sexual intercourse, unless we're talking about young children being involved, all parties know the risk of pregnancy. If they cannot be bothered to use a fifty cent condom or take birthcontrol measures, they should be ready to become parents, or at least birth the child and give it up for adoption. Your "uterine rights" as I've heard it described get superceded by the new, unique life inside you, because that person (yes, I'm going to say it, that "clump of cells" is a person) has just as much right to life as you do. You didn't take appropriate measures to prevent the pregnancy, you don't get to kill someone out of convenience. If killing out of convenience is acceptable, the fucking traffic would be far, far, far less on our roads than it is now, I gaurantee.

    Life begins at conception, period.
    Fifty cent makes condoms now?

    Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk
     
    Top Bottom