Untitled

Question: Is axing Roe v Wade as if that will ever happen good or bad for us? Abortions a shit and only serve to further the country's degeneracy and moral decline, but on the other hand the vast majority of those who get abortions are spics and niggers, and the few whites who do are commies. Removing abortions means more niglets and with them a larger leftist voter base.

It would just make it state level, no?

Attached: ec81ef9f814018598311d2f75d8f6937bddb32e8778dc2f8a72b527647450cf4.jpg (600x487, 29.77K)

Personally I agree with

The federal government should only have any say on matters occurring between states. Anything that only occurs in one state should be a state issue. Why should a Californian get to have a say on how things will be run within the state of North Dakota? Similarly, the state government should only concern itself with inter-city issues. A person from New York City should not have a say on an issue that only pertains to upstate New York.

On issues such as these, the rule should be: what is the smallest political unit in which the issue is entirely contained? That is the political unit that should make a decision on the issue. Something that never leaves a city should not be decided on by people outside that city in the state, and something that never leaves a state should not be decided on by other states in the country.

The one area where I would allow federal intervention on state or local issues is if a state or locality passes a law which infringes upon a right guaranteed in the Constitution. The Constitution applies to all areas in the union, so the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights must be maintained everywhere. If the Constitution does not explicitly mention (not hurr durr the Interstate Commerce Clause says the government can force you to buy health insurance), it should be either a state or local issue.

Roe V Wade is a red herring, it's the "hand" of the magician that you're supposed to look at, not the hand that's actually doing the trick.

Making everyone who is normal pay for abortions is the real issue, abortions should be legal and niggers should pay out of pocket for their mistakes.

This isn't me btw.

archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Find "abortion".

I agree with all of you wholeheartedly on principle. What I'm asking is, pragmatically speaking, does the theoretical increase in muh freedoms and reducing federal overreach that reversing Roe v Wade imply a greater benefit to us, compared to the detriment of millions of niglets not being born and growing up to be lefty voters?

i think Gorsuch will shape up to be close to scalia level. at least as good as thomas. thomas recuses himself too much for my taste.

Kennedy was shit for a GOP pick, but he still helped with DC v Heller. other than that, one of his best decisions as a justice was to fuck off while we still hold both the white house and the senate.

abortions are pretty much the only reason niggers aren't already a majority. it's pretty much the best way to reduce gun crime

Which is why this is a complicated issue. If you don't agree that life begins at conception, how can you expect to argue on the same plane of understanding as people that think it does? You can say all humans are entitled to life under the Constitution, but abortion advocates say they aren't humans yet. This is one thing I think should be solved at the federal level.

Areas infested with blacks are democrat run anyways, with the possible exception of Georgia. Abortion is going to be 100% legal in the areas where blacks are plentiful.

Attached: kennedyretires.png (450x681, 365.2K)

I don't agree that "life begins at inception" in terms of abortion. I do however think there is a point in development where abortion becomes immoral.

Think of two opposite extremes. On one hand, you've got killing a baby after it's born. Obviously immoral; only the most insane feminist would make the claim that mothers should be able to kill babies after birth because muh body muh choice. On the other hand, you've got the blastocyst immediately after conception. It's nothing more than an undifferentiated clump of cells. It clearly can't think or feel. Sure, it "has the opportunity" to develop, but so did the load you blew on some girl's face.

So at what point does it become immoral to abort a pregnancy? I'd say it's when the fetus is capable of feeling pain. After all, that is the reason why we consider killing, even the killing of animals, to be immoral. If you saw a mat of bacterial slime and dumped acid on it, no one would call you evil. But if you dumped acid on a puppy, they would. So what's the difference between the two? The puppy can think and feel pain. Deliberately inflicting pain upon it is therefore evil. The mat of bacterial slime on the other hand is an unthinking, unfeeling mass of cells.

I don't know exactly when the brain structures responsible for pain response develop in the human fetus, but I seem to recall reading something about it happening during the second trimester. If that's the case, that's where I would personally set the limit on abortion.

I'm willing to deal with this orange nigger if he can at least get rid of all the commies in the Supreme Court, but we know those faggots will hold on and demand their spot not be vacated/they not be taken off life support until after Trump is out even if they have to pull every Jewish trick in the books.

I'm not trying to debate the ethics of abortion here. I'm just trying to say both sides will never argue on the same level because the assumptions that start these arguments are so radically different, and it's such a serious issue that at least one side can't just play it off as lifestyle choices.

You just know they're going to force every liberal issue into the supreme court during his absence though/try to delay getting a new justice explicitly for this purpose.

Accelerationism. Niglets eat up resources but generally don't commit more than vandalism crimes until they're 14 or 15. Niggers will just get underground abortions at the risk of sterilization/death, and the increase in niglets will cause a welfare collapse.

No. If they had to pay they'd just birth the kids then dump em in foster care

Give those on welfare a one time payment in return for sterilization. Solves a lot.

Well, in that case my solution would be to have the federal government state that all abortion past the second trimester is banned, then leave the remaining issue of whether or not to allow first-trimester abortions up to the states. Ideally, the states would then leave the issue up to the counties/municipalities.

I would say the same for all such charged issues. The federal government should take action on regulating any aspects of the issue that may violate Constitutional rights, and leave the rest to the states. If any new issue pops up that the Constitution doesn't mention, the correct way to deal with it is to pass a Constitutional amendment.

Honestly, I think that whatever solution is chosen some women will try to abort their pregnancies. Women have been inducing miscarriages for centuries due to not being financially secure enough to raise a family. That being the case, I think the best solution is to at least ensure that if an abortion is to occur it occurs while the fetus is incapable of feeling pain and in a safe manner, not in a back alley with a coathanger.

Such a solution would be particularly effective, given the fact that many people chronically on welfare have high time preference and would do anything for a short-term shot of cash.

I'm in a similar boat as you in that I'm not sure where the line clearly is, but am open to the idea that it is conception

Neither can people in comas, but I think you'd agree that smothering vegetables with pillows is still murder. What about the extremely retarded, would you be okay killing them just because they aren't sentient?

True, but that load isn't going to do anything on its own unless you scrape it up and fertilize it. A zygote once formed will continue to develop and grow all on its own provided it has sustenance. Also, zygotes are genetically unique and thus clearly distinct from the parents in the way that sperm and eggs are not.

But sedating someone and killing them in their sleep is also completely painless. Also, how exactly do you define "pain"? Some plants have nerve endings and react to certain kinds of contact as if they feel pain. Even very simple organisms that consist only of a few cells and no nerves at all still feel "pain" of a sort, in that they actively avoid any negative stimuli that they sense, such as extreme heat and cold.

Conception does appear extreme, even to me, but it's also the only definition that I've seen that is wholly internally consistent and stands up to scrutiny. It's a rather unambiguous starting point, and it's the first point at which the new life is genetically distinct from the two parents, and thus clearly not a part of one or the other.

We'd be paying the potential "father" less than we'd be giving just one of his spawn every month.

Which is always so strange to think about, that that's about the only time the feds DON'T step in on an issue, if a state passes something blatantly anti-bill of rights. Like it's the norm for states to do that and it's absolutely fine by the feds. Really makes you (((think))).

I would much rather my tax dollars went to culling the nigger herd than endless bombing targets for israel, user.

Considering Assad is still in power and Syria is still in a strong situation, I can forgive Trump for the Zionist ass-kissing and anti-Assad shilling and bombing if he performs well domestically and doesn't escalate further in the Near East. What I cannot forgive Trump for is when he went on the anti-2A diatribe with Feinstein doing le happy merchant face, saying "I like taking the guns first", shilling against bump stocks and all that. It was not just words because multiple states kiked up the gun laws- Washington (red flag law), Florida (age 18-21 second amendment repeal and bump stock ban), Minnesota (extremely harsh gun control), there were more but I don't remember. That was disgusting and he can go fuck himself for that. A President should say the right thing and do the right thing, not say what he thinks is going to make him look good and do what he feels like.

Didn't India do something similar? I recall it being pretty effective. I suggested this years ago, but the issue is all the sterilization methods you could use are technically "reversible" while those you should use would be considered inhumane/would keep people from doing it. I believe vasectomies would be the most efficient as it basically kills your sperm, but it does it slowly over a few years- basically either get yourself fixed within about 5 years or you will be infertile/near-infertile for life. The other obvious issue is how much a program like this would cost, of course.

Look up "evictionism."

I'm familiar with Rothbard's argument and similar ones, as a matter of fact. I think it's a pretty solid piece and largely agree with it, the only real point of is whether or not the mother is under an implicit agreement to care for the child.

Why the hell is this the talking point on everybody's lips? It smells like a diversionary tactic more than anything else.

Except that the load you blasted will, if left alone, slowly die. It's all nothing but cells with your DNA. The fetus has your DNA and her DNA, it's an entirely separate organism. It's not you, like your sperm, or hers, like her eggs - it its own.

I'm roughly with Ron Paul on this one. It's a societal issue. It'd be nice to ban it, but that'll do nothing but cause issues. If we fix society instead, there would be no real need for them in the first place.

But if I had a button in front of me and could press it to prevent all abortions in the future, I probably would do it without even thinking.

Not an argument because spics and nigs still exist.
You should do what your greatest ally and the only democracy in the middle east, priceless Israel does and sterilize all spics and niggers under guise of vaccines.
However american nigs have 15IQ more (85 instead of 70) that africans so they might establish causality between sexual intercourse and pregnancy, so absence of pregnancy might arouse suspicion among the nigs.

Name that point, is it "conception"? (^:
What about T minus 1 hour from your magical arbitrary point?
So are you, in fact much bigger lump of cells, who unlike fetuses of any race, shits up an imageboard I enjoy with retarded shit and scientism. I wish it was legal for me to murder you just for that, preferrably if ammo for my firearm of choice was supplied by the goverment through taxpayers' money.
Should've stopped reading there because you're too retarded to differentiate between haploid cell and a zygote.
Humans eat unfertilized eggs of different species and that's very common, chinks however eat unhatched chicks.
see the difference?
My ideas for abortion compromise are the following

It saves quite a lot. The cost to the taxpayers of a child of someone on welfare almost instantly surpasses the cost of the surgery+incentive.