Comments by "" (@NinjaKittyBonks) on "Ana Kasparian's Nuclear Meltdown" video.

It would be nice if people ACTUALLY understood how badly written Roe vs. Wade is and, if overturned... does NOT outlaw abortion! This is best left to the states, so let's hope this opinion stands.
156
@SnakeWasRight ... Because abortion does not appear in the Constitution and Roe vs Wade was "interpreted" as a right to privacy issue in the 14th amendment. This should have NEVER been addressed on the federal level and is best left to the states. . We will see what happens, but hopefully this ruling will stand. This is much more respectful of those who are pro-life and those peoples tax dollars will not go to support abortion via Planned Parenthood.
27
@toddshockley ... RE: What else should be left to the states, Confederate boy? : What is this supposed to mean and to whom are you referring and why?
2
@jamesmiller5331 ... RE: I read a comment written by a someone... : Ya, that's a great argument to support abortion. If you are unwilling to make a genuine philosophically sound argument one way or the other, please don't bother to chime in with "you're never going to change their sexual behavior.." soulless position. Being flippant about pregnancy and treating the unborn as if they will probably just be an ahole, is not a convincing anyone of anything. . Of course, have you applied that stance on everyone you know?
2
@SnakeWasRight ... RE: If by religious you mean does morality come from God... : COMPLETE SIDE, but have you see any discussions between JBP and Sam Harris, for example, on this topic? Jordan makes the case that there MUST be some "higher source" for morality, while Sam is an atheist and says similar to what you did. Fascinating discussions... check them out, if you get the chance.
2
@lainiwakura1776 ... RE: If you think it's a person... : While it is true, that currently there is no "legal" obligation to donate an organ, in this case a uterus, but those who are pro-life and indeed our creator, most certainly feels there is a "moral" obligation. . I say moral obligation, because the human species cannot exist, were it not for the male and female combining forces, so to speak, and propagate ourselves. Since even that "clump of cells" REQUIRES that uterus as a means to grow as it is destined to do, then by literal definition, there is a moral obligation to donate it for said purpose. . Now, before anyone gets triggered into thinking I am saying there can be no case made for abortion, there most certainly is, but I happen to believe that FAR, FAR to often, the excuse to terminate is only the seeking of and excuse to avoid responsibility for such intimate contact. . On a side note, this can only get worse, as we are seeing many, many examples of "educators", and a LOT of their supporters, who seek to provide sex education to younger and younger children. The last thing a child of sub-7 or 8 yo, is an even earlier than normal exposure to human reproductive means. This will inevitably lead to additional very young girls getting pregnant, as the younger a person is, the less likely they grasp long-term repercussions, so teen pregnancy is likely to go on the rise in coming years :(
2
@SnakeWasRight ... The problem is that the Constitution takes NO stand on abortion. If you want to see this as fundamental rights... OK, what about the baby and his / her rights? This "clump of cells" WILL become a human being, if left to take the course of nature. 100% of the DNA is present, for this to take place, it need only nourishment. However, this IS an economic thing, as Planned Parenthood is federally funded, so some of those tax dollars DO go to fund abortions. Since we cannot agree on when life begins, pro-choice people use "heartbeat" or some recognizable feature to determine a "baby". Got news for you.... it was ALWAYS a baby, it is just under-developed for a period of time. That "clump of cells" has everything it needs, aside from nourishment from the mother. The mother does not eat a "heart" or "toes" that attach themselves to the fetus, they grow from the DNA that existed from conception. . Since this nation will NEVER agree on one way or the other, to have a federal law that supports what many believe to be murder, it is best left to the states. There will ALWAYS be states that will approve abortions, so let's have 50 different interpretations of how to address this issue, rather than the feds saying the abortion way or the highway.
1
@SnakeWasRight ... RE: no, they will not... : I am as secular as anyone you will ever meet and I think abortion is horrendous. I don't claim they will go to hell for supporting it or have to answer to some higher power, I just think that too many people want absolution of responsibility. . I am frustrated that abortion is considered a "woman's rights" issue, and the rights of the father and the baby, zygote, clump of cells... whatever one wants to call conception, have to deal with what ever she wants to do. If a female becomes pregnant, she has 100% every right to DEMAND financial support, at the very least, from the father, should she decide to carry to term and until 18, if she decides to raise. However, if she wants to abort and he is willing to support or take over any / all support for baby until the end of time, she can say take BOTH rights away. . Now, in the end... this last scenario "may" currently be 100% on him, because he probably did not plan for such a contingency. I don't want ANYONE forced to do something they don't want to do, but BOTH people made a deal to be have an experience that created a life and right now....? that life is spoken of as if it should be seen as merely inconvenient.
1
@SnakeWasRight ... RE: That's not an anti-abortion stance... : It is true that I believe the number is around 67% feel that abortion should have SOME limitations, but that if that is what all of those screaming think, they are doing an exceedingly poor job of understanding what this draft would mean, should it be finalized in this form. . This should NEVER have been twisted into being a Constitutional issue, as it clearly is not. The whole idea of having states, is to be a "test tube" for different values about EVERYTHING, not explicitly protected / enforced under the Constitution / Bill of rights. Let the states handle this individually. Some, undoubtedly will ban abortion in conceivably all situations, but I think that is extremely unlikely. When r*** , in** or GENUINE physical health of mother is in serious consideration, the back lash of forcing a carry to term is not going to go over well at all! . Besides, a mother is ultimately responsible for proper care of this new life and if she is determined NOT to carry to term... she will find a way not to do so.
1
@SnakeWasRight ... RE: then you have bought the religious BS... : No, snake THIS take is sad! Is it really so hard to believe that WAY more than a small percentage of people don't want to see the created life seen as nothing more than an unplanned trip to Planned Parenthood? . I get that some, and even most, are against a federal law that would make an abortion illegal.. fine. What of those of us who think responsibility be the order of the day and not pay our tax dollars to pay for a made up Constitutional right to avoid taking that responsibility? . Sending this back to the states is FAR AND AWAY the best solution, as it is simply impossible to come to any agreement on a nationwide level.
1
@lainiwakura1776 ... RE: If you think it's a person... : Ummmm... BOTH participants voluntarily accepted the responsibility for "legal right to a uterus" when they partook in such activity that made it necessary. . I think it is all the more sad, because probably far less than 1% of people actually discuss or are willing to accept responsibility for the outcome they are given. At the end of the day, fair or not, women have ALWAYS been the gate keepers to responsible sexual behavior, but that all went out the window when The Pill was created. . Contrary to popular belief that it "freed" women, it did not. It afforded them to make very adult decisions and be as slutty as men. Prior to The Pill, the males HAD to be chivalrous, responsible and prove their willingness to be a good man, as pregnancy was taken MUCH more serious than it is today! . PS> Regarding my very first line. I did not include r*** and in*** as these are far less common than we are led to believe and the overwhelming vast majority of people will make an exception for such circumstances, so let's leave this off the table for now.
1
@deadzoneternity .. RE For someone that says no on has an argument... : Very well said :) There are two reasons why we will NEVER come to a consensus about this topic: 1. Why would a person be pro-life, if not to "control" women in some way? 2. When does life begin? . The answer to 1, has a number of reasons, but is NOT the real problem here... it is 2! One of the best arguments I have heard is if we discovered a single-celled growing item on Mars... scientists WOULD call it the discovery of unique "life". In order for pro-choice people to acknowledge conception as "life", they cannot escape a valid charge of murder or intentional homicide, if one prefers such terminology, because that "clump of cells" is a unique life that took an outside force (no pun intended, I swear... lol) to make that life possible. . This is the blinders that most, use to alleviate the guilt they ABSOLUTELY feel, to justify abortion and, if they are honest with themselves.. feel after an abortion is performed. The act of abortion is EXTREMELY violent and invasive to a woman's "personal space" as any you can name. . However... those literally screaming for abortion rights, will not likely acknowledge any of this :(
1
@jamesmiller5331 ... RE: yeah man I"m totally unwilling... : Doing more than your fair share of projection here, so I will clean it up for you :) . I did not, nor have I been emotional at any point in this thread, I just happen to think that particular comment was flippant and ridiculous. To suggest, and let's be clear.. you are suggesting this... abortion should be used to reduce the number of "mouth breathers" on the planet. I will 100% grant to you that parents have ABSOLUTELY failed their children, as they have put focus on 10 foot high security wall, over a white picket fence. They have decided that a summer home in the Hampton's and daycare, is preferable to asking their children what they learned in school that day and actually listening to the answer. . One thing is clear... while Joseph McCarthy was an EVIL PoS, in how he addressed the "communist threat" in the 50's... he was 100% correct about it! More or less children is not the solution to avoid socialism, it is as you suggested, it is an issue of truly parenting their children and making sure they understand not only history, but how and why The Constitution & Bill of Rights were created. . Maybe you have not read all of my comments, but in one of them, I addressed the issue of my religious motivations..... I have none. I just happen to think that abortion is the taking of a human life, under the guise of a "woman's right to choose".
1
@deadzoneternity .... RE: The idea that you or any individual... : Either you have misspoke in your first few words or have not been paying attention to what I have / been saying.... I happen to think it is the former :) . I understand many of the reasons I hear one say they are pro-choice, I just happen to think the overwhelming number of them are excuses for lack of responsibility OR the false belief that men simply want to control women because patriarchy BS. . Your middle paragraph is spot on and I am in 100% agreement and have said as much, if not in THIS thread, but one or two others on the same subject of other videos :) . Little lol on your last paragraph, as it seems you completely misunderstood the meaning of 1 & 2. I was not listing them as in number or importance or even in ORDER of importance, as they could have been in either order. They are simply 2 things that MUST be understood, before a pro-choice person can understand probably 98% of pro-life people's motivations. . I think that you just read my response(s) too quickly, and I'm not applying malice to you in this regard, then wrote this reply. No harm no foul and as I always say, I appreciate those that make arguments or critique mine in good faith and you have done so :) Peace, TSM! . PS> I do appreciate your separation of paragraphs. Not only easier to digest changes of topic, but just easier to read in general. I have seen comments that surpass my own in length, but are one single paragraph and often lack proper punctuation so that much harder to understand... lol
1
@deadzoneternity ... RE: Initially I read your reply... : Yes, the "you" did strike me funny, so I figured there was something missing from your line... lol :) . As for the order in which to understand each other, and in the interest of breaking it down a bit further, I do not necessarily think we can even agree that abortion is wrong first thing, as that lies on moral ramifications and will probably halt any progress before any is even made. My personal approach, would be to first ask a pro-choice person to tell me why they think a pro-life person is opposed to abortion. From most, if not all of those screaming in the streets, what I have seen is they skip directly past WHY abortion is opposed and directly to the "woman's rights" to her body or decisions. . By establishing that control is NOT the motivation, I think this will lower the guard for a more civil dialog. Of course, it STILL is not likely to get that far, as the opposition is so entrenched with a "fight" mentality, that those screamers are not going to stop screaming long enough to get a baseline understanding of even why there is an opposing view. . Such is the nature of discourse on the abortion debate, but made all the worse by the "holier than thou, morally superior" leftist, who believes the heckler's veto is free speech :( . PS> In regards to our missing each other's meanings in this thread. I love when a conversation comes together and understanding is found :)
1
@deadzoneternity ... RE: The reason I think people... : Ya, it was a bit hard to read. You were rambling a little... lol :) I really like your line of ..."it should be a procedure that isn't allowed, but with exceptions to allow it". This speaks to the camp of "Safe, legal and rare" which is something ONLY the most hardcore pro-life would say is not enough. . I think that it is foolish for anyone, you and I included, to think that abortion will ever be universally seen as evil, because it is not easy to judge oneself that harshly. I also think that, because the Western World values tilt VERY strongly toward the preservation / saving of human lives, the pro-choice crowd is just not going to be sold on a zygote or "clump of cells" being a human life. Some can be persuaded, as I myself was pro-choice most of my life. This was because I never really gave it the deep consideration it really deserves and saw it as a "woman's right". . At the end of the day, I would like to see as many laws written for the State level, rather than federal. The Constitution, it's amendments and The Bill of Rights, are the ONLY things that should be concerned with and the rest left to states. This will / would no doubt lead to some states going pretty far off-script, but would greatly reduce these impossibly polarizing issues, because if we hated something so much... we could move. Sure, that is inconvenient, but the alternative is federal over-reach which is EXACTLY what happened with Roe vs. Wade. . I support ANY legislation, aside from those mentioned just above, that falls out of the hands of fed and into the states! . Peace, TSM
1