Tyranny

[FakeAndyStuart]

Tyranny - noun - "Cruel and oppressive government or rule."

Maybe like forcing a crime victim to live the rest of their lives with the aftermath of the crime? It seems oppressive to me to force a 14 year old rape victim to carry a baby to term without any financial support from the government or the rapist, and no true moral support either.

"rule by one who has absolute power without legal right"

Does the "filibuster" have any legal bearings, or is it just the method of allowing a small number of people to control everyone else?

"cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control"

Perhaps the application of one rule at the end of one Presidential term and "adjusting it" to suit his purposes at the end of another?

Do we already live under tyrannical rule?

[Deleted User 15783]

There are just too many variables in this great abortion debate.

Do I have a problem with anyone getting an abortion as soon as she finds out she's pregnant? No.
Do I have a problem with anyone being able to abort a baby well past the point that preemies live? Yes.

There are variables to the second question sure.
Is the mothers health in danger?
Have doctors ascertained the kid has medical issues that will ensure it's not going to live long anyway?

But being able to abort a perfectly healthy fetus literally on the due date?
That is so wrong in so many ways, no matter what anyone on this board says.

[bmw]

Yes, we do already live under tyrannical rule. When the government can force you to shut down your livlihood (ie, your business) for an unspecified amount of time in the name of making you safer, then yes, we live under tyrannical rule. When the government can tell you that in the name of saving lives, you can't attend church services - yes, we live under tyrannical rule. If there was ever any doubt about whether we live under tyrannical rule, the government's response to Covid - particularly during the first year - should erase that doubt.

As to your rape example, I don't know why people keep bringing up this red herring. The vast majrity of abortions come as a result of consensual intercourse, and the vast majority of Americans support allowing abortions in the case of rape.

[FakeAndyStuart]

Yes, we do already live under tyrannical rule. When the government can force you to shut down your livlihood (ie, your business) for an unspecified amount of time in the name of making you safer, then yes, we live under tyrannical rule. When the government can tell you that in the name of saving lives, you can't attend church services - yes, we live under tyrannical rule. If there was ever any doubt about whether we live under tyrannical rule, the government's response to Covid - particularly during the first year - should erase that doubt.

It's fascinating that poor decisions made by people under stress from different paths and different positions can be called "cruel, unusual and arbitrary"
I totally agree, many of the decisions about lockdowns, business, school and church closings and the overall approach to dealing with COVID were poorly decided and even more poorly executed. But "tyrannical" - C'mon. Misuse of the word.

[FakeAndyStuart]

As to your rape example, I don't know why people keep bringing up this red herring. The vast majrity of abortions come as a result of consensual intercourse, and the vast majority of Americans support allowing abortions in the case of rape.

Red herring? Guess you don't read the papers..

Ohio lawmaker calls pregnancies from rape an ‘opportunity’ for victims

And it goes WAY back...

Republican Senate Candidate Says Rape Pregnancies Are a 'Gift from God'

Despite your claim, state legislators across the country are deciding this issue without consulting that "vast majority". In fact, the "vast majority" of people wish Roe v Wade would just be left as stands. That husband of the pantheon of leftist badness said it best - "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare."

[audiophile]

We wouldn't take polls on whether murder should be safe, legal and rare, besides this is simply a constitutional question.

The polls are asking the questions in a misleading way to get an answer they want.

If you ask the question "Do you support protection of the unborn after 15 weeks?"

Over 50% said yes. (After 6 mo. 65% support a ban)

This the case the supreme court is deciding on.

[Deleted User 15783]

If you ask the question "Do you support protection of the unborn after 15 weeks?"

Well. A great question to ask fellow Buzzboarders. Let me modify it a bit to say a baby that has no issues, and the mother isn't in any sort of danger due to being pregnant.

I say yes. Even if you were raped, you know within 15 weeks you're pregnant.

Myself I'd love to see everyone carry a kid from conception to birth. But this Great Abortion Pissing Contest needs both sides to grudgingly meet in the middle.

What sayeth everyone else?

[km1125]

I don't know if 15 weeks is the right number, but you could get a significant majority on board with something like that. Of course not everyone is going to be happy with it.

If you didn't want to become pregnant and had "unprotected" sex, then you should have some responsibility to determine if indeed you are pregnant and terminate the pregnancy as early as possible.

[Bryce]

Why doesn't "my body, my choice" begin prior to conception?

[Deleted User 15783]

Why doesn't "my body, my choice" begin prior to conception?

I'm not sure what you are saying.
But like I said in a previous posting, women are having unprotected sex by choice.
They're allowing the guy to talk her into doing it bareback based upon what time of the month it is. Thinking there a certain number of days where it's safe.

I'm telling ya. I have a niece.
Her last THREE kids were exactly that.
"We thought it was safe".
Exact quote.
"He don't like wearing a rubber".
Exact quote.

Shows you just how many Big Dummies Walking are out there.