Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

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!
  • Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,696
    113
    .
    I visited D.C. yesterday for a tour of the Capitol building and the Library of Congress. I walked over to the Supreme Court building to see the protests for myself. The entire street was blocked off for what amounted to one lady with a bullhorn and a handful of others. She was mostly ranting about how they were the doing the work of protesting for our rights while no one else seemed to care. Ironically, she was also complaining about how we are supposed to be a Democracy and the Supreme Court shouldn't be allowed to make laws, not kidding!

    View attachment 208870

    News producers will have to bunch up that crowd and narrow the shot frame to help the narrative.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    They' serve us better by pushing it even farther to January 2023. And spend that time talking to constituents, crafting a well nuanced bill instead of a rushed bill.
    Understanding that Indiana currently has a law in place already that bars elective abortion after 20 weeks, I have less of a sense of urgency than I would if Indiana had no law on the books whatsoever. If a sound, defensible bill to improve on the existing statutes can be written, debated, and passed this summer; then great. If not, and it needs more time, I am okay with that. I don't have a specific timeline in mind; after 50 years, I would rather see Indiana put the right law in place, even if that means taking a few extra weeks or months.

    That said, again: I don't see why it should be such a difficulty to put the right law in place, in a relatively short timeframe.
     
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    2,173
    113
    Bloomington
    Understanding that Indiana currently has a law in place already that bars elective abortion after 20 weeks, I have less of a sense of urgency than I would if Indiana had no law on the books whatsoever. If a sound, defensible bill to improve on the existing statutes can be written, debated, and passed this summer; then great. If not, and it needs more time, I am okay with that. I don't have a specific timeline in mind; after 50 years, I would rather see Indiana put the right law in place, even if that means taking a few extra weeks or months.

    That said, again: I don't see why it should be such a difficulty to put the right law in place, in a relatively short timeframe.
    At 14 weeks an unborn baby has developed every major bodily system, including the nervous system, allowing them to feel pain. At that stage they have fully formed arms and legs, which the abortion procedure involves tearing off of the body before killing them.

    Now, I personally don't think that the nature of abortion as the taking of human life is fundamentally different, or any less of an emergency, based on how far along the child is in development. But if your impression is that abortion is somehow more "humane" before 20 weeks, I'd suggest you look more into how these procedures are done:

     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    At 14 weeks an unborn baby has developed every major bodily system, including the nervous system, allowing them to feel pain. At that stage they have fully formed arms and legs, which the abortion procedure involves tearing off of the body before killing them.

    Now, I personally don't think that the nature of abortion as the taking of human life is fundamentally different, or any less of an emergency, based on how far along the child is in development. But if your impression is that abortion is somehow more "humane" before 20 weeks, I'd suggest you look more into how these procedures are done:

    I understand fully how abortion works, and am fundamentally opposed to elective abortion, at any stage of development.

    Long-term, we may do more harm than good by pushing through rushed legislation, instead of ensuring that we take the time (however much or little that may require) to pass the right legislation. I statute that is held up in legal challenges does no good to further the objective of preventing the death of the unborn through elective abortion.
     
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    2,173
    113
    Bloomington
    I understand fully how abortion works, and am fundamentally opposed to elective abortion, at any stage of development.

    Long-term, we may do more harm than good by pushing through rushed legislation, instead of ensuring that we take the time (however much or little that may require) to pass the right legislation. I statute that is held up in legal challenges does no good to further the objective of preventing the death of the unborn through elective abortion.
    I guess I understand that part; the part I don't understand is how abortions before 20 weeks are less of an emergency? Your post seemed to be implying that with the 20-week limit in place that made the issue less pressing, and I guess I don't quite understand why that would be?
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    I guess I understand that part; the part I don't understand is how abortions before 20 weeks are less of an emergency? Your post seemed to be implying that with the 20-week limit in place that made the issue less pressing, and I guess I don't quite understand why that would be?
    Because Indiana has a limit in place, even if it is not a limit that I would prefer. If Indiana had no limit in place post-Dobbs, I would be very concerned, and the issue would be considerably more urgent.

    I am not referring to pregnancies at a given stage of gestation as being an emergency or otherwise; I am referring to the circumstance in which there is no limit whatsoever on elective abortion, vs the circumstance in which there is a limit, even if that limit should change.
     

    KittySlayer

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 29, 2013
    6,473
    77
    Northeast IN
    This morning I was reading the Book or Faces post by one of my very liberal friends. She was going on about women's rights and how terrible the reversal of Roe was and how many other things like gay marriage would come to an end.

    Interestingly enough though she is a Vegan. Not the annoying kind that tells everyone about it, just a devout vegan because she finds it morally wrong to kill living creatures. This includes carrying spiders outside rather than killing them.

    I resisted the urge to post on social media asking her how her morals are important to her being a vegan but she can condone killing a developing little boy or girl. She is sane enough to discuss in person the next time we hang out for drinks but social media is not the place to poke the beast, particularly with some of her rabid leftist friends online.
     
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    2,173
    113
    Bloomington
    Because Indiana has a limit in place, even if it is not a limit that I would prefer. If Indiana had no limit in place post-Dobbs, I would be very concerned, and the issue would be considerably more urgent.

    I am not referring to pregnancies at a given stage of gestation as being an emergency or otherwise; I am referring to the circumstance in which there is no limit whatsoever on elective abortion, vs the circumstance in which there is a limit, even if that limit should change.
    This is the part that I have trouble understanding, and I think it's because in my mind I don't see how 20 weeks is a fundamental improvement over no limit. Statistically, a 20-week limit is only going to prevent a small percentage of abortions, and it does not preclude the more inhumane abortion procedures.

    Let me use an extreme hypothetical to illustrate what I mean; if we had a 32 week limit, would you say the same thing you're saying now? If not, why?

    To me, while I definitely think a 20-week limit is better than nothing by a long shot, I also recognize that it is not going to affect the vast majority of abortions, so in my mind I don't see how it warrants changing our approach to a significantly less urgent one than if we had no limit.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    This is the part that I have trouble understanding, and I think it's because in my mind I don't see how 20 weeks is a fundamental improvement over no limit. Statistically, a 20-week limit is only going to prevent a small percentage of abortions, and it does not preclude the more inhumane abortion procedures.

    Let me use an extreme hypothetical to illustrate what I mean; if we had a 32 week limit, would you say the same thing you're saying now? If not, why?

    To me, while I definitely think a 20-week limit is better than nothing by a long shot, I also recognize that it is not going to affect the vast majority of abortions, so in my mind I don't see how it warrants changing our approach to a significantly less urgent one than if we had no limit.
    The difference is starting from the basis of having a law in place, versus having no law whatsoever in place. It is similar to the old joke (apocryphally credited to Winston Churchill and others): "A man who asks a girl if she will sleep with him for a million dollars. Of course, she says yes. He then offers her two dollars and she slaps his face, saying, ‘What do you think I am?’ He answers, ‘I know what you are. We are just haggling over the price.’"

    We are starting from a position of merely haggling over the price, which is a much easier starting point than not having established the desired end.

    No, I don't think a 20-week limit is sufficient (or even very meaningful). I've stated my personal views. I also understand that I don't get to enact my personal views by fiat, and that it will likely take some work to address/resolve the hottest hot-button sociopolitical issue of my lifetime.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: KLB

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    No; it is him ensuring that he gets an ideologically consistent replacement for his seat, while he still can. RBG could have done the same, but chose not to.
    Exactly.

    I disagree with Justice Breyer on many things, not all, but he is intelligent, thoughtful and not so full of himself that he would undermine his ideological allies as RBG was.
     
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    2,173
    113
    Bloomington
    The difference is starting from the basis of having a law in place, versus having no law whatsoever in place. It is similar to the old joke (apocryphally credited to Winston Churchill and others): "A man who asks a girl if she will sleep with him for a million dollars. Of course, she says yes. He then offers her two dollars and she slaps his face, saying, ‘What do you think I am?’ He answers, ‘I know what you are. We are just haggling over the price.’"

    We are starting from a position of merely haggling over the price, which is a much easier starting point than not having established the desired end.

    No, I don't think a 20-week limit is sufficient (or even very meaningful). I've stated my personal views. I also understand that I don't get to enact my personal views by fiat, and that it will likely take some work to address/resolve the hottest hot-button sociopolitical issue of my lifetime.
    Maybe I'm dense, but I really don't get it. :dunno:

    It sounds to me like you're saying that getting some limit in place would be the really hard part, but after that changing the limit is the easy part. But if that's the case, wouldn't that make you more inclined to think they could get something good done quickly, and not the other way around?

    Maybe my reading comprehension skills just aren't that good; I feel like I'm missing something it what you're trying to say.
     

    eldirector

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 29, 2009
    14,677
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    This morning I was reading the Book or Faces post by one of my very liberal friends. She was going on about women's rights and how terrible the reversal of Roe was and how many other things like gay marriage would come to an end.

    Interestingly enough though she is a Vegan. Not the annoying kind that tells everyone about it, just a devout vegan because she finds it morally wrong to kill living creatures. This includes carrying spiders outside rather than killing them.

    I resisted the urge to post on social media asking her how her morals are important to her being a vegan but she can condone killing a developing little boy or girl. She is sane enough to discuss in person the next time we hang out for drinks but social media is not the place to poke the beast, particularly with some of her rabid leftist friends online.
    I have several... acquaintances?.... that are both staunchly no-kill animal shelters and staunchly pro-abortion. When pressed, the best they can do is "that's different". The worst they have mustered is a bunch of profanity.

    Reenforces my view that a hallmark of the progressive liberal is hypocrisy.

    Of course, they have pressed my on being both pro-life and a firearm owner. They just can't comprehend my answer: I value life enough I'm willing to protect it.

    We also save spiders around here. Why kill something simply for the sake of killing it, when it can be put outside to die "naturally"? ;)
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    Maybe I'm dense, but I really don't get it. :dunno:

    It sounds to me like you're saying that getting some limit in place would be the really hard part, but after that changing the limit is the easy part. But if that's the case, wouldn't that make you more inclined to think they could get something good done quickly, and not the other way around?

    Maybe my reading comprehension skills just aren't that good; I feel like I'm missing something it what you're trying to say.
    I suspect that we are debating the principle of sacrificing the good for the perfect; at least, it seems that way.

    I do think that enacting "some limit" would be harder than changing an already-enacted limit, yes. And, yes, I do think that it is more feasible to change the limit more quickly than it would be to enact a de novo limit.

    Ultimately, I would like to see Indiana get legislation right; I am less concerned by how long it takes to get to that point (with the presumption that we are talking weeks, or months, rather than years).
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,864
    113
    Merrillville
    No; it is him ensuring that he gets an ideologically consistent replacement for his seat, while he still can. RBG could have done the same, but chose not to.

    She (and MANY others) thought her replacement would be installed by the anointed one (Clinton).
    They could NOT comprehend losing.
     
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    2,173
    113
    Bloomington
    I suspect that we are debating the principle of sacrificing the good for the perfect; at least, it seems that way.
    I'd say that's accurate. I guess I'm in favor of the good here, given the nature of the circumstances. Plus, I honestly feel like the longer this whole thing gets left to stew and be haggled over the worse the legislation will ultimately be, not better.

    Well, I guess we'll see what happens.
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,011
    77
    Porter County
    I'd say that's accurate. I guess I'm in favor of the good here, given the nature of the circumstances. Plus, I honestly feel like the longer this whole thing gets left to stew and be haggled over the worse the legislation will ultimately be, not better.

    Well, I guess we'll see what happens.
    The key is going to be to get something good that will hold up. The last thing you will want is to make it such an issue that things flip and a much worse bill gets pushed through.
     
    Top Bottom