SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade

[Ixian]

You still have to obey the UCMJ if you are married to a soldier.
At least certain ones....
Because guess what, you are apart of that soldiers life.
And no the command can't be bared because you willing let a soldier into your house. Therefore it is not searchable. Less searchable and more they can make sure it is clean.

I am done with this hear for right now

No, civilian spouses are in no way bound by the UCMJ, the military has zero authority over civilians, especially in matters of law.

That being said, it is still possible for the Military to punish a service member for something the civilian spouse has done. A personal example, a Petty Officer I knew was subject to an inspection of his on-base housing, his wife of about a year and a half had hidden a small bag of weed in their bedroom closet, she admitted it, it is legal for civilians to possess and smoke weed in the state.

It didn't matter, he went to Captains Mast, was busted down to an E1, and booted with a dishonorable discharge.

 

[DarthOne]

Wait what?

George Floyd mural crumbles after witnesses say lightning hit it

A mural in remembrance of George Floyd in Toledo was reduced to rubble after a reported lightning strike.

www.foxnews.com

He’s not joking

 

[BlackDragon98]

George Floyd mural crumbles after witnesses say lightning hit it

A mural in remembrance of George Floyd in Toledo was reduced to rubble after a reported lightning strike.

www.foxnews.com

He’s not joking

when I have ever joked about stuff regarding God?

regardless, we have to T-pose when the San Andreas Fault explodes in the shape of a cross

T-pose for Jesus!

 

[Captain X]

Great California Earthquake of 2022

 

[Typhonis]

T-pose for Jesus!

Praise the Son.

 

[strunkenwhite]

California Legislature Passes Constitutional Amendment for Abortions Up to Birth

"prohibits the state from denying or interfering with a person’s right to choose or obtain an abortion before viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the person."

Whoever misconstrued "viability" as "birth" knowingly lied to you. Or, from a different perspective, any abortion ban that makes an exception for the life of the mother equally "allows abortions up to birth".

 

[Bigking321]

They consider depression and finances in the life and health part and they decide if it's necessary or not.

It basically let's anyone get a abortion whenever. It just let's them pretend it would only be in extreme cases but it's defined so broadly that the door is wide open.

 

[strunkenwhite]

They consider depression and finances in the life and health part and they decide if it's necessary or not.

It basically let's anyone get a abortion whenever. It just let's them pretend it would only be in extreme cases but it's defined so broadly that the door is wide open.

Hmm ... I have heard that the European model leans this way, putting the lie to the official time limits.

 

[WolfBear]

California Legislature Passes Constitutional Amendment for Abortions Up to Birth

California Legislature Passes Constitutional Amendment for Abortions Up to Birth - LifeNews.com

Californians will vote in November on a measure to enshrine the so-called “right” to abort an unborn baby for any reason up to birth in their state constitution. On Monday, the state Assembly voted 58-16 in favor of the pro-abortion Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA 10). The amendment passed...

www.lifenews.com

Why stop there? The logic of philosophers like Peter Singer can also be extended to "after-birth abortions" as well, after all:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? | Journal of Medical Ethics

jme.bmj.com

Or we could simply have more reasonable child support laws (allowing parents to unilaterally opt-out of paying child support). But of course that's way too much to ask for, unfortunately!

 

[Vyor]

Hmm ... I have heard that the European model leans this way, putting the lie to the official time limits.

They don't.

 

[Simonbob]

Why stop there? The logic of philosophers like Peter Singer can also be extended to "after-birth abortions" as well, after all:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? | Journal of Medical Ethics

jme.bmj.com

Or we could simply have more reasonable child support laws (allowing parents to unilaterally opt-out of paying child support). But of course that's way too much to ask for, unfortunately!

...... There's a part of me that wants to respond with "So, if you call somebody a big baby, is that a death threat from you?"

 

[WolfBear]

...... There's a part of me that wants to respond with "So, if you call somebody a big baby, is that a death threat from you?"

Depends if they're pro-infanticide lol!

 

[WolfBear]

Why stop there? The logic of philosophers like Peter Singer can also be extended to "after-birth abortions" as well, after all:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? | Journal of Medical Ethics

jme.bmj.com

Or we could simply have more reasonable child support laws (allowing parents to unilaterally opt-out of paying child support). But of course that's way too much to ask for, unfortunately!

Here's Peter Singer on infanticide:

Fact Sheet on Peter Singer | Independent Living Institute

www.independentliving.org

 

[lloyd007]

Here's Peter Singer on infanticide:

Fact Sheet on Peter Singer | Independent Living Institute

www.independentliving.org

It's like he saw the 'Bring out yer dead!' sketch from Monty Python's Holy Grail and decided to build an entire philosophical argument playing it straight...

 

[The Original Sixth]

It's like he saw the 'Bring out yer dead!' sketch from Monty Python's Holy Grail and decided to build an entire philosophical argument playing it straight...

I see what he's aiming for and at least he addresses the issue of infanticide as an issue worth discussing, but he came to the shocking ghoulish conclusion that most people avoid.

 

[Stargazer]

I see what he's aiming for and at least he addresses the issue of infanticide as an issue worth discussing, but he came to the shocking ghoulish conclusion that most people avoid.

But unavoidable if you're intellectually consistent and you accept the presuppositions about either the definition of human life or the value of human life that allowing abortion requires.

 

[Simonbob]

But unavoidable if you're intellectually consistent and you accept the presuppositions about either the definition of human life or the value of human life that allowing abortion requires.

Yup.

Either you work from "Human life is Sacred/Paramount" or you don't. And, if you don't, you have to work out the cost/benefit analysis, and where the point is.


At least he's honest.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Yup.

Either you work from "Human life is Sacred/Paramount" or you don't. And, if you don't, you have to work out the cost/benefit analysis, and where the point is.


At least he's honest.

Or without moral conscience.

 

[Simonbob]

Or without moral conscience.

No, if he had no morals, he'd just lie whenever it was useful.

Being seen as a monster is generally not good. Especialy if you are a monster.

 

[WolfBear]

Yup.

Either you work from "Human life is Sacred/Paramount" or you don't. And, if you don't, you have to work out the cost/benefit analysis, and where the point is.


At least he's honest.

Yep, if one rejects speciecism by arguing that it's similar to racism, sexism, et cetera, then it does seem rather logical for one to advocate treating human infants equally to (or even worse than) non-human animals with equal or greater current mental abilities. If one also argues that human embryos and fetuses lack an interest in life because they lack interests and/or wishes, then a variant of this argument could also be applied to human infants since AFAIK human infants lack a conception of death and thus can't be opposed to dying because they don't actually know and can't actually comprehend what deaths deprives them of.

If one opposes infanticide, then one should do so on the basis of logical arguments rather than feelings of disgust, since feelings of disgust were previously used to oppress interracial and same-sex couples, et cetera. It's certainly not worth going there.