Comments by "" (@NinjaKittyBonks) on "The End Of Roe V. Wade?" video.
-
72
-
12
-
@TheJustice35 ... RE: @Brad Miles that's a nice way to say the government.... : While this comment not directed toward myself, specifically... I will throw in my $.02 :)
.
I really wish people would stop the following: conflating, straw-manning and intentionally misinterpreting someone, seemingly in order to "score points" or "win" a discussion. I cannot speak for all, but I engage in these discussions, in order to understand not only WHAT another person thinks, but WHY they think it. Sometimes I change peoples minds and sometimes I just seek to give them more to think about, but intellectual honesty and understanding is my PRIMARY goal.
.
The feds have FUNDAMENTAL requirement to follow Constitutional law. Written into that Constitution is to ensure that people have the right to "Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness". Since this is foundational law, it supercedes state laws that would othewise restrict those "natural rights". The "medical procedure" you are referring to as a right, is in DIRECT opposition to the rights of another. Therefore, under the Constitution, one person cannot be granted a right that eliminates another's fundamental or "natural" rights.
.
There are exceptions to every rule and one of them relates to capital punishment. This comes back to a person(s) malicious taking of another persons rights and is in all cases that I am aware, the taking of a life. Whether one agrees with Capitol Punishment or not, this is a penalty for violation of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
.
It is not only a serous leap, but one in bad faith, to equate the concern of taking the life of the unborn, to supporting mask mandates or vaccines. One can argue, and I would make such an argument, that forcing a mask or vaccine DOES violate the principle of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness". This is an entirely different topic, but another that I am deeply passionate about. We'll leave that for another time :)
4
-
3
-
Some thoughts on a VERY relative topic that has not come up, but if you will indulge me for a moment... will make a very valid connection :)
.
The issue of Regressives and Democratic party pushing or supporting the sexualization of VERY young children. Obviously.... not all Democrats are in favor of this and would argue that it is a VERY small sub-set of them, but the Democratic party AS A WHOLE will not denounce such behavior. This is a VERY extreme position, to argue that is appropriate to discuss gender, trans and human sexuality with K~3rd, which is the law so many idiots oppose.
.
While we will NEVER all agree on abortion, it is objectively TRUE, that the younger a person is, the more likely they will engage in behavior that has ramifications WAY beyond their understanding to comprehend. Since pregnancy, and the possibility is well off the radar of consideration far too often, how would this be improved by younger and younger children being exposed to sexuality? Answer....? It will NOT!
.
One more example of how the leftist is seeking direct and full destruction of ALL societies in the Western World and just how malicious these people happen to be!
2
-
1
-
@TheJustice35 ... RE: You're fundamentally flawed.... : I too appreciate your good faith as well :)
.
No, my argument is not that you MUST abide by my principles, it is that we need to not be forced to live by EITHER yours or mine. This is why a federally enforced legalization of what many believe to be murder or homicide, is so divisive. By shifting the burden to the states, it allows the best compromise possible, because there is literally ZERO hope of consensus on this issue.
.
As it stands currently, the feds are forcing those that see conception as the beginning of human life, and I fall into this camp, to allow only ONE of the two people involved in creation of that life, to have SOLE discretion on how to handle it. The idea that the female is IMMENSELY more impacted than the male, is not lost on me, but it took two to tango, and currently he has ZERO to say about this.
.
To bring this full circle, and I am still awaiting an answer from another on THESE specific questions, but I will throw them to you:
SCENARIO 1: Woman gets pregnant and decides to carry to term. Does the father have a LEGAL obligation to support that child... YES, he absolutely does.. PERIOD!
SCENARIO 2: Same circumstances, but she wants to abort. He offers to cover 100% of ALL financial expenses and she is allowed to sign a release of any / all obligations for the end of time, as he will care for the child forever. She was a willing participant and KNEW the risks and became pregnant. The law as currently written still gives her 100% control over a mutually agreed upon risk, if you want to call it that. She could NOT have become pregnant, were it not for the voluntary act of her being with him, yet, she is the sole decision maker to the fate of that being they created.
.
Again... I am NOT dismissing the role she needs to play, but what of being responsible for actions? He must support if she keeps by her decision and he must stand by if she opts to flush it. There are many ways to greatly reduce the chance of pregnancy, but short of surgical intervention... NONE are guaranteed.
.
By kicking this back to the states, we don't by federal point of a gun FORCE one way or the other. In THIS respect... I am pro-choice :)
1