Social Question

ragingloli's avatar

What are the contexts under which you would do the following, if your country was invaded?

Asked by ragingloli (50597points) 1 month ago

1. Fight for your country.
2. Stay out of the fighting and remain neutral.
3. Defect to the invaders.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

90 Answers

RayaHope's avatar

My country is already being invaded by many people and groups from within. It is tearing us apart and making wild accusations about fellow citizens that are unfounded at best and downright hateful/deceitful at worse. Unfortunately, I can not do anything about that on any great scale :(

rebbel's avatar

I want to answer but I don’t understand the question.
Can you give an example, @ragingloli?

kritiper's avatar

Fight for my country. As everyone knows, we have lots of guns here so any invader would be foolish to try to invade us.

gorillapaws's avatar

@kritiper ”...we have lots of guns here so any invader would be foolish to try to invade us.”

That’s silly logic. Any nation that could successfully invade the US would not be deterred by Ernie and his AR-15 collection.

Kropotkin's avatar

1. If the invaders threatened my cat’s life.

2. This is pretty likely. I really couldn’t give two shits about this “country” (the UK), which is just some ridiculous construct that’s run by a ruling class and has a facade of a sham democracy.

3. If they were libertarian socialist revolutionaries of some sort.

ragingloli's avatar

@rebbel
1. You are French, and Nazi Germany invades.
2. You are a non-Nazi German in Nazi Germany, and after the utter failure of Barbarossa, the Soviets pour across the border towards Berlin.
3. You are a non-Nazi German in Nazi Germany, and UK rolls across the border after liberating France.

KNOWITALL's avatar

1) If our government officially asked us to bear arms against a foreign invader.
2) Most other situations, like rioting.
3) I see no context for this one.

RayaHope's avatar

@gorillapaws Don’t pick on Ernie. lol! humor :)

hat's avatar

Almost exactly what @Kropotkin said, except that I don’t have a cat and live in the US.

Jaxk's avatar

If it was an armed invasion trying to take the country by force, I would fight.
@gorillapaws – It’s not Ernie and his AR15 but rather 200 million Ernies with AR-15s.

HP's avatar

The answer must depend on who and why. Our cemeteries are chock full of people deceived into believing they were “fighting to defend their country”.

hat's avatar

@Jaxk: “It’s not Ernie and his AR15 but rather 200 million Ernies with AR-15s.”

These people are bootlickers that would do nothing. Half the country just lost federal acknowledgment and protection of bodily autonomy, resulting in immediate threat to their lives and freedom. I have yet to see any of these people do what they said they would do against an oppressive force. Soft boys with toys. If a government reaching its arm up into the uterus of their mothers and daughters didn’t get them to use those guns, then what would?

elbanditoroso's avatar

Who is doing the invading. If it’s the Canadians, I would welcome them and try and serve Poutine.

If it’s Texans invading – I’ll fight.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Jaxk “It’s not Ernie and his AR15 but rather 200 million Ernies with AR-15s.”

Right, you really think that makes much of a difference against HIMARS, artillery, missiles, bombs and armored vehicles?

RayaHope's avatar

@hat “If a government reaching its arm up into the uterus of their mothers and daughters” you are so right and this stated fact sickens me. Not you the government :(

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Jaxk There would 50 million to 100 million killed and wounded from “Friendly Fire” !

Also what is their “chain on command” ?

Who is dong a tactical and Strategic planning . . . it would be just a bunch boys out popping caps at anything that moves.

Jaxk's avatar

The difference is that I love this country. There is no place on earth I would rather live. Take away my country and I might as well be dead.

Zaku's avatar

1. You are French, and Nazi Germany invades.
If I’m young enough or in the army, stay and fight, and/or join Free France, or possibly the resistance, after the fall.

2. You are a non-Nazi German in Nazi Germany, and after the utter failure of Barbarossa, the Soviets pour across the border towards Berlin.
I would have left Germany before that. If somehow I was still there at that point, flee toward the west, north, or south.

3. You are a non-Nazi German in Nazi Germany, and UK rolls across the border after liberating France.
As above, but I’d probably try to avoid the fighting and fall into Allied territory.

HP's avatar

@Jaxk I don’t believe there’s a soul here who does not love this place. But I know full well that it is a sentiment readily exploited toward the emotional suspension of judgement and good sense. And nothing better illustrates this more poignantly than the current eagerness to deploy the flag we all revere toward that exact purpose.

rebbel's avatar

In not any case I would ever take up arms.
Not for my, or anybody else’s, country, anyway.

Thanks for your clarification, @ragingloli.

seawulf575's avatar

Isn’t it funny that any other time the AR-15 is viewed as a military assault weapon and those that own one are wild crazy men that just want to kill things. But when it comes to a question of fighting to protect yourself and/or your country, those same people that are wild crazy men that want to kill things become bootlickers that would fold like cheap lawn chairs? Which is it guys? Are they dangerous or not?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@seawulf575 I was just talking about that myself. They always seem to think we’d be AGAINST our military haha.

rebbel's avatar

I’m sure most of the gun owners would gladly use them.
I’m not so sure though, that most of those are trained in warfare/tactics, to defend from a attacking country (army).

hat's avatar

@seawulf575: “Isn’t it funny that any other time the AR-15 is viewed as a military assault weapon and those that own one are wild crazy men that just want to kill things. But when it comes to a question of fighting to protect yourself and/or your country, those same people that are wild crazy men that want to kill things become bootlickers that would fold like cheap lawn chairs? Which is it guys? Are they dangerous or not?”

I’ll first remind you that I’m not a liberal, so you might be attributing some gun control comments here to me which I have not made. But since you mentioned “bootlickers”, it sounds like you were responding to me.

The urge for the right to have guns is often supported by the argument that we need to be able to carry in order to protect against an oppressive government. But we just had a direct test of that argument, and it turned out that it was complete bullshit. Gun nuts who claimed they’d use their weapons to protect the people ended up sitting home and polishing their toys while fantasizing about an opportunity to shoot some black kid.

So, remember – the repeal of Roe v Wade eliminated that argument forever. It can never be used, and we needn’t entertain it any more. You told us with your inaction that you are completely unwilling to protect against tyranny.

Are guns dangerous? Well, by definition and purpose they are? And that is the point. But the harm you wish to cause with these weapons is not some heroic “fight for the people” campaign. It’s really racist and xenophobic fantasies that are driving your gun lust.

@KNOWITALL: “They always seem to think we’d be AGAINST our military haha.”

Not at all. We just had a real-life experiment where gun nuts showed exactly what they are. Their silence and inaction told us that they welcome the oppression. (hence the “bootlickers”)

So, find everyone who said that their guns were a protection against oppression and remind them that they can never say that again. It’s over.

ragingloli's avatar

The self proclaimed “defenders against tyranny” had their chance to prove themselves when the Bush regime introduced the Patriot Act.
When the DHS was created.
When the TSA started to abuse travellers.
When Gitmo became a torture camp.
When the NSA spying on citizens was revealed.
When the Orangutan started putting children in filthy cages.
When the Orangutan tried to pressure states into discarding votes.
When the insurrectionist mob stormed the Capitol.

But no, they supported each and every one of those things, instead of seeing those as a call to action to depose a tyrant.
At each and every opportunity, they demonstrated that they are for oppression, not against it.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@gorillapaws “Right, you really think that makes much of a difference against HIMARS, artillery, missiles, bombs and armored vehicles?”

Yes, guerrilla warfare is shockingly effective. When invading armies face armed, determined and irregular combatants not only does it make things very hard, they often have their asses handed to them. If the invading army gains ground they may not be able to hold it either. It’s a different story when the locals won’t fight and/or are unarmed. The USA would be nearly impossible to take as is.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 AR-15’s and the like are capable as military assault weapons. Less capable than the fully-auto variant, but still built on the same platform. They excel in giving ordinary people with minimal training the firepower to kill/wound lots of soft targets in a short period of time. It’s perfect for shooting up your local sporting event, concert, movie theatre or school. It’s also good for combat in 0.5 – 1.5km range against soft targets.

The delusion is that anyone’s going to invade the US using anything that would be vulnerable to such weapons. If China decides to invade by simply landing hundreds of millions of people on the shores with rifles and no support, then you’re right, the millions of dudes with assault rifles in their closet would be a relevant factor. If you think that’s at all a realistic scenario we ought to prepare for I really would be at a loss for words.

seawulf575's avatar

@hat Your grasp of the recent RvW ruling is astounding. Astoundingly wrong. You made the claim that “Half the country just lost federal acknowledgment and protection of bodily autonomy, resulting in immediate threat to their lives and freedom.” The point of the ruling is that the federal government should NOT be in charge of your right to an abortion. It should be up to the states specifically because it is easier to control those laws than those of the federal government. And the recent dealings in Kansas has proven that to be a true ruling.

Continuing on, you made the gross assumption that “half the country” lost their rights. That is assuming that all women were adamant abortion supporters. That isn’t even true. Many women are against abortion, believe it or not.

And you somehow conflated RvW with someone wanting to protect themselves (or not) against an invasion. So that opens up many, many questions that I believe you really need to answer. First, are you saying that the SCOTUS is government tyranny? If not, then your claim seems odd. If so, then are you really saying that if the SCOTUS rules in a way I don’t like I should just take up arms against the country to “right the wrong”? That is what you are saying…that people did not revolt because the SCOTUS ruled in a way you don’t like. AND you then further, in your hubris, believe that anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment should think like you or they are just wimpy bootlickers.

Do you really actually believe all this stuff you spew? Or do you just throw out random rhetoric in an effort to incite violence?

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws Yes, AR-15’s are NOT assault weapons and they generally have a relatively limited range of accuracy. But let me ask, if someone invaded our nation and started raping your wife and/or daughter or decided if you didn’t become their slaves they’d just torture you and your loved ones…would you rather be unarmed and just give in or would you fight back any way you could?

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 Or they could just take a school hostage and shoot kids until everyone surrendered their weapons?

Anyone successfully invading the US would do so in a total war scenario. If they were able to penetrate our defenses (which are formidable—obviously), I can assure you that a bunch of guys with small arms are not going to do shit to them.

JLeslie's avatar

If the invasion is a fight of words, I’ll stay and try to fight.

If the invasion is a group of people who are antisemitic, if they are rounding my people up or killing them, I’ll probably try to leave if I can muster the guts to leave. I love living in America, it would be hard to go.

Especially if the “invasion” is from within, or the worst, if our own government is the invader targeting my group, staying to fight carries too much risk in my opinion.

The Jews who fled Europe lived, while so many who stayed behind wound up dead. That’s what always haunts me. I know so many stories of people who stayed one day too long. Actually, the truck is to get out before they are rounding us up. To see the signs when it’s still in a word phase. That’s the really hard part. Will it escalate or not?

Just last week I was thinking about asking a Q about defecting or being willing to become a citizen of an invading country. That’s really tough. I think I would do it if it was the only way to save my life. Like the Jews in Spain during the inquisition. I’m pretty sure in most circumstances I’d prefer to leave the land and start a new life in another country instead. Hoping the invasion was short lived and the invaders don’t succeed.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws tell that to the Ukrainians

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 Help me understand what you mean by that.

Are you arguing that the force that was successful in invading Ukraine would be adequate to invade the USA? Or that small arms are effective in defeating Russia’s strategy of scorched-earth artillery bombardment?

ragingloli's avatar

Yeah, what Ukraine is asking for, and what has been proven to be very effective against, and this has to be stated for context, a disorganised invading force seemingly incapable of combined armed tactics, are hand-held anti tank missiles, drones, and modern precision artillery.
Ukraine is not asking for rifles.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws By that I mean that a strategically inferior force has held off the bigger more heavily armed force quite nicely. Even with the “scorched-earth” artillery bombardment they still fight and fight effectively. So I’ve answered your question, how ‘bout you answering the one I asked? If we were invaded, would you sacrifice yourself and your loved ones to degradation and death to the invaders without a fight?

hat's avatar

@seawulf575 – Christ. Why do I even respond?

@seawulf575: “The point of the ruling is that the federal government should NOT be in charge of your right to an abortion. It should be up to the states specifically because it is easier to control those laws than those of the federal government.”

Yeah. So, a shit country only had protection for 50% of its citizens at the mercy of a Supreme Court decision has that overturned, immediately eliminating that protection. It then became a states’ issue. Man, we’ve gone over this a billion times here. If tomorrow it suddenly became a “states issue” whether men’s organs could be harvested against their will, not a single “conservative” would fold their arms and smugly declare that justice has been done because it was a states issue.

@seawulf575: “That is assuming that all women were adamant abortion supporters. ”

100% of females lost their right to bodily autonomy. It doesn’t matter if you don’t mind losing that right. The fact is, it is gone. If the 2nd amendment was revoked, it doesn’t mean that the right to own guns disappeared only for those who want to have one. Come on man.

@seawulf575: “that people did not revolt because the SCOTUS ruled in a way you don’t like.”

Nope. I’m saying that objectively, you announced to the world, “we never intended to protect against an oppressive government. That was bullshit! We were lying. We actually don’t mind oppression. We just want to have our toys, so let us be.” There is nothing else to discuss here. This was a clean experiment to test out the “protect against oppressive government” claims.

@seawulf575: “you then further, in your hubris, believe that anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment should think like you or they are just wimpy bootlickers.”

I didn’t make that claim. You did. You just did again. And @KNOWITALL confirmed:

“I was just talking about that myself. They always seem to think we’d be AGAINST our military haha.”

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 The reason they’re holding off the Russians to the degree they are has everything to do with MANPADS, Anti-armor rockets, Artillery, Bayraktar/other drone systems and other salvaged weapons being deployed by an organized military, presumably informed by intelligence gathered by NATO forces. And to state the obvious, this is against Russia, which clearly lacks any technology capable of allowing them to launch a successful invasion of the US. The US has the strongest defense of any nation in the history of mankind many times over. So in this hypothetical, whatever is invading the USA would be vastly superior to Russia’s or China’s current capabilities, alien invasion? advanced drone AI?

I don’t see how that at all supports your claims that lots of disorganized dudes would be effective in mounting an effective resistance against a force of that nature.

As to your question, I did answer it. An invader could simply hold kids hostage declare that anytime one of their forces gets killed, then a kid dies in some public, horrific way. The invaders will do sweeps of the local homes, anytime a firearm is found, they will execute a kid in some public, horrific way. You have 12 hours to surrender all weapons in the town square. There is no way to effectively resist that with small arms…

ragingloli's avatar

@gorillapaws
As recent and not-so-recent events have shown, threatening to kill kids is not going to be any source of leverage.

rebbel's avatar

Beslan rings a bell?

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 When there is a federal law it becomes the law for every state, so I don’t see why that is more difficult to enforce? Even with Roe, many states still chipped away at the right to have an abortion as they saw fit. Are you ok with abortion law only being decided by the people of the state by a vote on a ballot? Or, do you think local government should be able to create laws?

Also, if congress puts forth a bill at the federal level to ban abortion, will you speak out against it and say that it should be left at the state level? No matter how you answer, I am sure there are plenty of pro-life people right now talking about state’s rights who will be cheering if the US makes a national law severely limiting abortion or getting rid of the right altogether. They are lying to themselves and to everyone.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie Part of me would be thrilled, but another part of me believes Jesus would have wanted you all to choose for yourself.
I haven’t lied to any of you and have no intention of ever doing so. I don’t appreciate that last comment.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I would never call you a liar. You have been consistent in having understanding or wanting to understand the arguments of pro-choice, pro-women, and your feelings about abortion.

I have another pro-life friend who I would never call a liar and she too said everyone she knows wants it at the state level. I believe that’s what they want at this time. I don’t think they are lying. I think it’s up in the ivory tower the long term plan. Maybe that’s paranoid.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie Thank you. I have tried very hard to listen here to all arguments, as well as clarify my personal opinion, religious and political beliefs openly.

There are plenty of conservative sites that bash liberals we could go to, that’s obviously not our goal since everyone else left.

WhyNow's avatar

Here we go. This question is just a way for some to loudly show how much they
hate the country they live in! Easier to post this than leave.

seawulf575's avatar

@Hat…where in the Constitution is abortion mentioned? When did that become a “right”? Roe v Wade? Did you ever actually read the opinion on that? Or what many of those that voted for it said about it? Even THEY said it would get challenged and wouldn’t hold up since it isn’t based on the Constitution. And the last time I checked, the only “rights” we have that fall under the federal government level are pretty much spelled out. Abortion is not one of them. That is the key.
As for moving them to the state level that actually makes it easier to meet the will of the people. Given your idiotic example, if some state government passed a law that a man’s organ could be harvested against his will, you can be guaranteed that law would be challenged for Constitutionality and any politicians that approved it would be voted out of office. And that is so much easier to do at the state level than at the federal level. And I have already pointed to the Kansas effort to ban abortion as the perfect example of that…an example you dodged entirely to make up some idiotic example.
As for the “oppressive government” and “tyranny”...please explain to me how a federal agency, in this case the Supreme Court of the United States, taking control of something away from the federal government is in any way “oppressive government” or “tyranny”? The last time I checked, oppressive governments and tyrannical governments get that way from taking control of things in your personal life…not giving up that control. And putting things back the way they should have been…with states making the decision…is certainly NOT taking control.

But I have to give it to you…only you could take a discussion about guns and defending yourself in time of invasion and address it as an abortion issue.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws The Ukrainians didn’t have all those things initially. They have gained them over time. In many cases it was armed citizens that helped bolster the ranks of the Ukrainian army…citizens with no real training and that didn’t even own guns. Address the beginning of the invasion, not what is going on 6 months later.

And you keep missing the entire point. People can kill with guns. We know that. And EVERY adversary would eventually attack with things that those guns could impact….soldiers. Again…your arguments of all this high tech weaponry that can kill from far away goes down the drain when you apply Ukraine as an example. How many times has Russia blasted a city from far away with artillery and rockets only to meet resistance when they roll in? Every. Time.

And if your answer to my direct question was the answer about the schools, then you did answer. You would kowtow without a fight, figuring someone might grab kids as hostages. I might have considered that a reason to give up your resistance, but you gave it as the reason for why resistance is useless.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie When was abortion a federal law? It never was. Everyone assumes that a SCOTUS decision is law. It isn’t. Only Congress can write the laws.

As for how it is easier to change a state law than a federal one? That’s simple. There are 252,000,000 people of voting age in the US. Your single vote is only ½52,000,000 and that is if there was ever an actual issue put up for a vote at the federal level…which there isn’t. It is all done with your elected representatives. And as we all know, our elected representatives will vote whichever way benefits them most (for the most part). Not to mention, the number of votes for each state is not the same in Congress. It is based on population of the state. So California gets 53 votes, Wyoming only gets 1. So if 100% of the population of Wyoming feels one way about an issue, it doesn’t really matter if it gets to the federal level.

But now let’s move that to the state level. The population is smaller when it comes to voting. The direct impact on politicians is higher per vote. You still have elected officials proposing and passing laws, but it is far easier, if it is the will of the people of that state, to oppose a law they don’t like. To start with, the elected officials are closer to home. They are easier to protest. And when it comes time to vote, many of them can be voted out much easier.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 You are correct that the Supreme Court does not decide law, but it does decide if a law is constitutional.

As far as voting, I meant at the state level are you ok with the states leaving it to the citizenry? From what I understand regarding the recent Kansas vote that had a lot of attention, Kansas first tried to pass an amendment to their constitution through their legislature a few years ago and it failed. Now, more recently it was a similar move on the ballot.

Some states are very gerrymandered and the representatives don’t really represent the population of a state very accurately. A ballot vote is a better way to get a real feel for the population.

If the US Congress puts forward a bill to limit abortion will you support it? Or, you think it’s better to truly leave it to the states and would never support a national law of any type or any type of US constitutional amendment for abortion.

WhyNow's avatar

@ragingloli ‘When the Orangutan started putting children in filthy cages.’

Too bad we have pictures of Obama keeping children in filthy cages. I wonder
If we don’t have pictures of Biden allowing children in filthy whorehouses,
does anyone care?

HP's avatar

My guess is the kids might care.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie And with Kansas, the Kansans could more readily make their voices heard. How well did it work at the Federal level? Not very well. But each person opposing the proposed amendment has a vote when it comes to the politicians. And each vote counts far more than that same person’s vote counts on a federal level.

Gerrymandering plays really well at the federal level as an excuse, but not at the state level. Representatives are still representatives at the state level but as with the state in relation to the federal, the individual districts to the state are even more impacted by each individual vote.

I would NOT support any abortion bill coming out of the US government. I WOULD support a common sense bill in my own state. I would OPPOSE a strict ban or a free-for-all law on abortion. However the problem for the past 50 years is that the left did not stop with accepting a common sense law. RvW was a common sense ruling. It had to be pushed though and PPvC overrode most of it. And that wasn’t enough…it just kept getting more and more bizarre. I’ve mentioned post birth abortions a number of times. That is what the left was trying to make normal or at least acceptable if you want it. At some point it has to stop being so insane. I value life way more than that and feel that people are not held responsible for their decisions very much in the progressive areas.

The thing that happened with the SCOTUS ruling is that they said the decision for your sex life or even your personal decisions does not rest in the federal government. If people believe there needs to be laws, it has to happen at the state level.

Are you telling me you WANT the government deciding what is right or not? Let’s look at it this way. Let’s say you and the rest on the left got you way and Congress could pass a law on abortion. But then the Uber-right takes over Congress and passes a law that outlaws abortion in the US. Would you then support that law? After all, they passed an abortion law, right? And if you wouldn’t why wouldn’t you?

RayaHope's avatar

@seawulf575 I certainly do NOT agree with this statement: ” and feel that people are not held responsible for their decisions very much in the progressive areas.”

seawulf575's avatar

@RayaHope When the vast majority of abortions are done because the parties involved decided to not have safe sex, that speaks to a lot of lack of responsibility. They run the risk of not only an unwanted pregnancy but also of transmission of STIs. And we already spend $16B each year combating those. A decision to use a condom would eliminate many of those bad side effects and the people would not have to “deal” with them later. THAT is what I mean. As I said, I value life. Having unprotected sex is how life starts. That cannot be denied. Oh you’ll have a bunch of these folks try to dodge this by bringing up cloning or other artificial ways of starting a life. But in the end, they are trying to avoid the concept that when you put a spermatazoa and an ova together, you can start life. In fact that is how the vast majority of people on this planet were conceived.

Unfortunately, in many progressive circles, life doesn’t mean as much. They want to look at the baby that is starting to grow inside the mother the same way as they would a tumor. They don’t want to actually go that step back and ask how it got there. They don’t care. It means nothing.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Where is your (OPINION) source for “Unfortunately, in many progressive circles, life doesn’t mean as much.”

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 I have said many times I was fine with Roe. I was fine with viability as the line, even though viability is a little blurry, I basically agreed that once the fetus can survive on it’s own outside of the mother then it is viable.

Gerrymandering matters most regarding local representation and the US House of Representatives.

Right now, it is a free for all regarding abortion, each state can decide. A state can decide to have zero abortion laws. With Roe, that was not the case. I agree that when you let the central government have control, if you don’t like what they legislate it can be really bad.

My only point is the Republicans constantly talk about state’s rights, but push comes to shove, I think a lot of the people saying it is best to leave it the states, I think a lot of them will be happy to see restrictions at the federal level. I don’t hear Democrats always pushing pushing pushing central government laws on every single issue. Yes, I guess you can point to times we were happy to see things decided in the Supreme Court like gay marriage, and maybe some other issues, but it’s not everything all the time. We want things at a federal level, because it was not being done at the state level. Democrats come right out and say, yes, we want a federal minimum standard when we want it. We say it.

Republicans are saying they don’t want a national standard or minimum regarding abortion, that it should be at the state level, but then I am betting (worried) that pro-life representatives in Congress will propose a law at the federal level. I think that is probably the ultimate goal of the ivory tower people in the pro-life movement. Most of them are very religious, they believe America is blessed by God when we follow God’s laws, and they feel God does not support abortion at any time. These people are God and COUNTRY, not God and state. I am talking about the extremists on the religious right, not the average Christian. I think right now the average Christian who is happy about Roe being overturned truly believes and feels it should be up to the states and isn’t even thinking about it being served up by congress for the president to sign off on, but let’s see what happens if the Republicans get control of Congress and the White House.

Stop saying progressives don’t care about life. Same bullshit as saying Democrats don’t respect our soldiers, or don’t care about America, it’s just blatantly false and mean.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

-“Stop saying progressives don’t care about life. Same bullshit as saying Democrats don’t respect our soldiers, or don’t care about America, it’s just blatantly false and mean.”

Ten QAs

RayaHope's avatar

@seawulf575 OH YOU HAVE PISSED ME OFF FOR REAL NOW!!! How dare you say That?!! GOD, I’m so mad at you. Your last paragraph may be the worst thing I’ve seen here and that’s saying something!!

@Tropical_Willie I could {HUG} you until you pop…

Tropical_Willie's avatar

I’m a great hugger !

Not likely to pop !

JLeslie's avatar

I hope my worry is incorrect. I would love to be wrong. Maybe there won’t be a bill written for a law about abortion at the national level.

We’ll see what happens.

I also hope the pro-life people I know who are so sure women won’t be left to die are right. That when women have serious complications during pregnancy that the priority will be saving the pregnant woman. That there will be doctors available to save the women. All of the pro-life people I know do say they want the woman saved in that situation. I believe them. I think women are in jeopardy and there will be some deaths before people realize why women are in danger. I hope I’m wrong.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie I’m pretty sure we would agree to disagree. Most of what you have stated, to me, is regurgitation of talking points. But you never answered the question I posed to you. You asked me if I would be okay with a federal law about abortion. My answer was no. I then asked you if the Republicans took over congress and passed a law outlawing abortion completely, would you be okay with that? It’s a federal law about abortion.

Your answer will show the fault in all your arguments. If you say you WOULD be okay with it, then your arguments about this entire topic are meaningless. If you say you would NOT be okay with it, then you are showing that progressives are okay to use the federal government to get their agenda passed but don’t want the conservatives to do the same….which supports my argument.

Will there be some churn about abortion in the states initially? Absolutely. Because this is not something they expected and now have to come up with solutions. Some of those solutions are going to be good and some bad. And good/bad will be determined based on your viewpoint. If a state says that abortions should be legal for any reason at any time there will be pro-life people (or even people in the middle) that would think that is bad. But the progressives would be cheering and saying that is great. On the flipside a state might outlaw it altogether and the sides would be reversed. I predict that eventually, after all the dust settles, most states will have some sort of common sense laws concerning abortion.

seawulf575's avatar

@RayaHope I probably have pissed you off. I have that effect. But think about that “worst thing you have seen here” I presented. Think about it and then put it into a comparison to reality. Not the sugar-coated narrative reality that the left wings journalists put forth, but reality. In so many things, the progressives are damaging this country in so many way. Look at the border control. Hundreds of thousands of people are trying to enter this country illegally every day. But it isn’t just good people. It is drugs like fentanyl that kills hundreds of thousands of children every year. It is other drugs that ruin even more lives every year. It is human trafficking of bringing children into this country and making them sex slaves. It is a strain on economy of the entire country, taking resources away from citizens that need them to deal with the tide of people and crimes coming in. We had a president that attempted to stop that. He was a conservative president. Then we got a progressive president who undid everything the previous president had done to deal with the situation and let it degrade into a free-for-all on the border. Now…which policies care more about people?

RayaHope's avatar

@seawulf575 I want to apologize for yelling at you. I know it is wrong to yell at someone, I endured that far too much in my childhood and for me to do that to you was uncalled for. I am a little emotional right now but that is no excuse and I am very sorry. This has bothered me since I posted it. My emotions get the better of me sometimes and I would like to think I can control them better than this. Please be clear, I am not apologizing for the context of what I wrote, though.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 When I moved to TN I was still trying to have a baby. I literally asked my OBGYN if she prioritizes me if anything goes wrong and if there would be a problem at the hospitals, because the hospitals near me were named St. Francis and Baptist. That’s over 15 years ago.

A family member of mine worked at two different Catholic hospitals, and when a woman needed to terminate her pregnant for health reasons they transferred her to another hospital. They diagnosed the need, but still shipped her somewhere else. She worked in large cities with other hospitals not too far away, but that is not always the case in some places.

I was aware of the nun who was excommunicated for approving terminating a pregnancy when it happened years ago. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072 I’ve mentioned that story here over the years. My apprehension or awareness is not a result of a show like Handmaid’s Tale or the turning over of Roe. Women are aware of these stories when they hit a national level or when they are local to us or happen to family members or friends. You likely wouldn’t pay attention or know about the stories.

I was aware Ireland finally made abortion legal not too many years ago following a woman dying because a hospital didn’t complete a miscarriage for her and she went septic.

So, I’m not listening to talking points. You can go back ten years on fluther and I’ve talked about this topic. I could have written the talking points. They are fact. It’s real.

No woman is going to tell a pro-life man about her need to abort, unless maybe it’s your own wife or daughter. On the other hand, all my friends are going to feel comfortable telling me when a pregnancy had problems. Stories about women in the news aren’t going to catch your attention like they would mine, first, you’re a man, second, I was a fertility patient with many failed pregnancies. Luckily, I never needed a “procedure” but I did one time need to end an ectopic pregnancy with medication.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

HP's avatar

So now this question has once again morphed into the topic of abortion. And here is the glaring flaw in the argument that states should be allowed to determine and regulate the procedure. The issue isn’t around whether the state or Feds should call the shots; the issue SHOULD be on whether ANY government is allowed to FORCE a woman to have a child. This states rights business always pops up in matters of civil rights, and it is rather stark how closely the struggle for abortion rights mirrors that of black or gay people toward attainment of those rights, because at bottom you cannot deny that there is no right more fundamental than a woman’s choice as to whether or not to bare a child. And the proposition that a woman is somehow obligated to pregnancy as a punishment for sex or as an object lesson on responsibility is laughable on its face. The proof that abortion is a civil rights issue is rather stark, and you merely have to note the tactics employed toward its elimination, with states rights at the top op the list. All you need do is have a look at the record of emancipated black folks and their constitutionally guaranteed rights to appreciate the realities of this and all other civil rights issues. You name it—gay marriage, voting rights, it doesn’t matter. Just as with emancipated slaves FEDERALLY recognized as entitled to vote, women were granted with Roe the right to determine control of their own bodies. And just as with black would be voters, it is of course the most regressive places that most aggressively resisted and wormed their way around the law of the land. And you will notice that it is ALWAYS the SAME regressive places that throw up that states rights issue in these matters. Only this time, it is a fundamental right denied women.

Jaxk's avatar

Better to have it a fundamental right (the right to life) denied the baby. It’s hard to find middle ground here.

HP's avatar

good point. And if the government might endure bringing that child about minus the enforced hardships and potentially disastrous consequences to a woman, the argument might hold sway. But the argument that the consequences to a POTENTIAL person outweigh those of the one in front of you is a tough one to reason through.

Jaxk's avatar

A couple of points. Only 2 % of abortions are to save the mothers life. I definitely support the right to do those regardless of the gestation period. I’m not aware of any states that would ban that. It seems that all discussion of abortion is ‘all or none’. Pro-life claim that no abortion is justified while While Pro-choice claim that abortion at any time is fine. This won’t change at the state or federal level, but at least, at the state level, it will put the issue in the hands of the voters. When it’s determined by the SCOTUS the voters don’t get a say. SCOTUS merely interprets Constitutionality and legislation, not whats good or bad.

Personally, I would support either state or federal legislation to resolve this. Maybe with a little honest debate and less emotional input we could find that elusive middle ground.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
seawulf575's avatar

@RayaHope No worries. I don’t take offense very easily.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther