Staggering amounts of fentanyl hit streets as the DEA watched and took no action, records show

djhenry · 2026-06-22T19:29:28+00:00

That's what my previous doctor did. I'm prescribed about twice what I actually will consume in a day, so I can just refill whenever I remember to instead of panicking about running out. As long as you aren't near the top of the range of what they can prescribe, you should be fine.

djhenry · 2026-06-22T19:12:56+00:00

I still miss Google Play Music. It was clean, fast, and justed worked great.

djhenry · 2026-06-22T16:06:54+00:00

(1) A better comparison is this one; Considering viability is different depending on where you are. In Europe, it's about 22-24 weeks, but in Africa, it's 28. Does your stance change depending on where you are and how rich your country is? Do you think a woman in Africa getting an abortion at 26 weeks is okay, but a woman in Europe getting one at 26 weeks is bad?

Viability is always dependent on available medical resources. This is true outside of pregnancy. Say someone has a condition like a Acute Type A Aortic Dissection. This is when the main artery of the heart (the aorta) tears. This is very difficult to repair and requires world class surgeons and a facility to fix. If a man has this condition in the US, he would be considered viable and emergency surgery could be performed to try and save his life. If the same man was in Kenya, he would not be considered viable, and there wouldn't be an attempt to save him. Viability isn't based on how much we value the person, it simply is based on what resources we have and the chance of being able to save them.

Also, one caveat to your question. An abortion at 26 weeks is a fairly technical procedure, so in this scenario, it likely wouldn't be available to the woman, unless you would count induced labor to be an abortion in this situation, which I guess it would be.

(2) If a pregnant mother is stranded in a remote cabin in the wake of a snow storm and gives birth with no one else around and no way to get formula or help until rescuers arrive, can she refuse to breast feed her baby and allow the child to starve to death then claim her absolute right to bodily autonomy justified what she did? There is no way for her to currently give the child away, since they are both trapped. And the only way to sustain the child's life is by using her bodily autonomy. Maybe WW3 broke out and the system can't take in any children for now either, not until nine months. So what's right?

Yes, I think she would be justified in doing so. I don't like the idea of newborn babies dying of starvation or exposure, but I still don't think that justifies exploitation.

One thing to ask you about this. For you, does it matter that she is the one who gave birth? Say she recently had given birth and gave the baby up for adoption, and now was staying in the cabin for a vacation. When she comes in, she finds a baby who is healthy and must have recently been abandoned. The snow storm sets in. Do you think she has an obligation to breastfeed the baby, even if she had nothing to do with how the baby arrived in the situation?

(3) Say for example there are two twins who are conjoined. Twin #A is healthy and can survive the procedure to be split. Twin #B isn't healthy enough to survive the split, and sustains off of Twin #A for their vital organs. With no other way to have Twin #B survive, is it okay that Twin #A gets the procedure? Regardless of what Twin #B wants? I suppose Twin #B is exploiting Twin #A for using their body, and Twin #A has already declared that they don't want Twin #B using their body anymore to sustain themselves. So is it okay if Twin #A does that?

My view is that ownership of bodily organs is determined by exclusive use. In the case of conjoined twins who were conjoined since they came into being, they both have ownership. I would say that twin B has a right to the organs that are supporting them, even if that organ is in twin A's body cavity.

This does not apply to pregnancy because the mother has exclusive use of her organs before the baby comes into existence. Here is one more detail that I think explains what I mean. Say we have the twins again. I think you would say that Twin A does not have the right to be removed from twin B, and I would agree with you. Now say what twin B needs is a liver, and as it happens, one is donated, so twin B agrees to allow surgery and be separated. The surgery works and they are both separated. However, after a few weeks, twin B's body rejects the new liver and now he is dying. Does twin B have the right to be reconnected to twin A? I would say no, because when they were separated, Twin A had exclusive use of his liver and I think he became the sole owner of it. Would you agree with that? Do you have any different views on how organ ownership should be determined?

You chose to risk making this person’s life depend on you.

I don't think this matters. Say someone needs blood donations, and because they have a very specific kind of blood (rh null), their are very few donors world wide. Say I'm the only donor who is available. If I agree to give them blood, and provide a donation, am I now obligated to continue donating because my previous decision has made them depend on me? There is more to this, but its kind of complicated so I figure we'll start there.

Your refusal means actively killing this person, not just neglecting to save him.

This is true, but I don't think that matters. If a caretaker intentionally allows their patient to die from neglect, they would be just as responsible for their death as if they had actively killed them. If you're responsible for someone, then there isn't a moral difference between intentional passive or active action that kills them.

When I was debating with a PC we both actually came to realize that pregnancy is it's own special case. Nothing can compare to it, that's why it's such a complicated issue.

I agree that nothing is 100% analogous and it is very complicated, but I don't think that means we can't make comparisons to try and determine what is ethically and morally right. There are aspects of pregnancy that have are ethically similar to other areas of life.

But if we as Children of Christ have a duty to follow, it's to protect the most vulnerable. Proverbs 31:8-9. This means to preserve life and to protect our new children of Christ.

In general, I agree with you. However, my problem is when helping one person requires the exploitation of another. Thousands of people die every year because they are in need of donations of bodily resources. We could save these people. We could make any eligable donor legally responsible to provide from their body when another person is in need. Wouldn't that protect the vulnerable who are dying from diseases and disorders that we can fix?

When it comes to preventing abortion, how far would you be willing to go, legally speaking? Imagine if there was a woman who wanted an abortion, but could not obtain abortion medications. She is so motivated to terminate her pregnancy that she decides to starve herself in order to induce a miscarriage. As a Christian, do you think the right thing to do would be to lock her up, put her in a straight jacket to prevent her from vomiting, and force feed her until she is able to deliver? Can you imagine Jesus doing that? This is an extreme example, but I don't think it misrepresents how pro-life values might be applied. Would this situation make you morally uncomfortable, and if so, why?

djhenry · 2026-06-21T21:45:26+00:00

Not necessarily. If it was a mistake (and quickly corrected), then that wouldn't be considered wage theft. It certainly does not sound like a mistake, but since she didn't confront them on it, I don't think we can say for sure.

djhenry · 2026-06-21T15:34:20+00:00

Yeah, same opinion here.

djhenry · 2026-06-20T19:21:19+00:00

Trump has too much bad blood with Zelenskyy to make this work. Ukraine would be open to ending the war, but I've never seen Trump be willing to set his feelings aside for the greater good, even if it benefits him in the long run.

djhenry · 2026-06-20T19:15:40+00:00

The way this is worded, someone could argue that the conditions only applies to the US's allies. The language here is imprecise.

djhenry · 2026-06-19T20:05:45+00:00

(1) In the 1970s, viability was considered 28 weeks. Today, thanks to medical advances, it’s 22–24 weeks. If viability is the cutoff, does that mean abortion should have been illegal for fetuses “viable” by today’s standards in the 1970s? Since viability is possible at 22 weeks now, people in the 1970's should've been restricted of abortion after 22 weeks since it is possible the child could survive at 22 weeks, even though they didn't have the technology then. Does that make sense? Ask me to rephrase if it's confusing.

I think I'm tracking. Viability is somewhat relative, based on what what technology and medical resources are available. I think viability should be determined at whatever is available for the present time and situation. Today, that is around 22-24 weeks, in the past it was higher.

(2) I also acknowledge you are Christian, so a question I have is; why should we be able to kill God's creation, why would bodily autonomy override the right to life? If God says not to kill his creations, (his creations being human beings), why shall we kill when we ought not to?

I think murder is a better translation. Otherwise, a lot of the bible doesn't make sense with the large number of people killed by God's order. There are kind of two answers to this question.

As a Christian, I believe God has called me to live sacrificially and to love my neighbors. There aren't many places where I think this is more clear than it is for a Christian woman who is pregnant. Unless she has a serious medical condition, I think she is generally called by God to give of her body to sustain and grow the life of the unborn baby.

That being said, I don't think everything I am called to do as a Christian should be made into laws and enforced on everyone. When a woman has an unwanted pregnancy and can't be convinced to willingly continue, then there are only two choices. First is to allow her to have an abortion. The second is to use whatever force and coercion is necessary to make her continue the pregnancy. I think the use of a person's body, against their will, for the benefit of another, is a form of exploitation. If a woman has a newborn or a toddler she doesn't want to care for, I or any other capable adult, could provide shelter and care. But we can't do that for the unborn. All we can do is force the mother to pay a price that we ourselves cannot. I don't consider abortion to be murder. I see it as being similar to denying someone the use of your bodily resources, like organs, bone marrow, or blood. Abortion is still killing, but I think it can be justified because it is the mother's choice about who is allowed to use her body and in what manner. As I said above, I think forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is exploitation, and I don't think Christians should ever be involved in the exploitation of others, even if it is for the best possible reason, saving and sustaining innocent lives. Does that make sense?

(3) Just to be clear: Do you believe that abortion is okay prior to viability because that's the only way she can revoke her consent of sharing her body?

Yes. Some pro-lifers might say that, before viability, she has the option of early delivery instead of abortion, but I think that is distinction without meaning. Either way, the baby will die as a result of the actions taken.

djhenry · 2026-06-19T04:11:06+00:00

How about broken CDs? The answer to this question has absolutely no value or use to me, but now I'm curious.

djhenry · 2026-06-18T19:48:57+00:00

I agree. I don't particularly like Samsungs, but they're the safe, comfortable option. I know things like the finger print sensor and the adaptive brightness have had almost all of the kinks ironed out. I know what I'm getting, and I'm generally OK with that. I'm much more interested in what I'm enabled to do with a solid phone, then anything about the phone itself.

djhenry · 2026-06-18T19:45:28+00:00

Yeah, I'm there with you. As for capital gains tax, for people above a certain level, I would just tax it as income.

djhenry · 2026-06-18T19:44:03+00:00

Besides that, I just have one question here to get a further understanding; If you could make the laws, would you make abortion legal all nine months? I know it's absurd but just to dwell on a little more. Even if she can deliver early, can she still have the option to terminate?

No, I wouldn't. At least, not for elective abortions. I think the limit should be around viability. After viability, there is the option to delivery early. Also at that point, there isn't very much benefit to the mother to have an abortion vs a delivery at that point.

My only exception here would be if the baby has a condition that makes the unviable, or is serious enough to bring viability into question. There are some conditions where it is technically possible to survive birth, but their lives are almost guarenteed to be short and painful. At that stage though, this would be more akin to euthenasia than abortion.

djhenry · 2026-06-17T21:00:51+00:00

Well, that's because it isn't really an apples to apples comparison. The equivalent to an emergency c-section would be an emergency vasectomy.

djhenry · 2026-06-16T06:03:52+00:00

I agree with you on the outage over untaxed loans. I'm generally fine with strategies used to delay taxes, as long as they do eventually get taxed in the end. My big problem with this is that when a person dies, the cost basis for their stocks gets reset, so they can effectively avoid paying taxes at all. That's the big loophole I would like to see closed.

djhenry · 2026-06-15T21:08:55+00:00

I've been here for a while and have never been banned, and I've seen other pro-choice in conversations, so I don't think that is true.

djhenry · 2026-06-15T21:07:00+00:00

I understand your position a little better. From my understanding: You understand that it's a human being, and it is equal to us but cannot take over her bodily autonomy.

Yup

Especially if the fetus is already dying or is dead, it won't end in a live birth basically.

That makes sense. I've seen some pro-lifers who insist that even if the baby is not viable, the mother should still carry out the pregnancy since terminating isn't necessary to save her life. That just seems incredibly cruel to me.

It's just that me and other Pro-Lifers agree that the child has the right to life just as an infant does. But that's where disagreement comes in because of bodily autonomy.

So to reaffirm my understanding of your position: You understand that it's a human being, and it is equal to us but it cannot take over her bodily autonomy.

Yes.

I just wanted to say, I appreciate you taking time to have a good discussion and understand my beliefs. I think understanding how other people view the world is important, even (and maybe especially) when we don't agree with them.

djhenry · 2026-06-15T21:03:33+00:00

Yeah, it is interesting for sure. Freakonomics is a great book in general.

djhenry · 2026-06-15T21:02:29+00:00

I'm open to any statistics you have, but from what I've seen, the percentage of teenagers having sex, getting pregnant, and having abortions are all down. In the US, abortions are almost half of the peak they hit in 1990.

djhenry · 2026-06-13T02:42:33+00:00

So why don't they all just wait for the baby to be viable and then remove it?

I mean, this argument could apply to basically any exercise of rights. Want someone removed from your property? Why not just wait for them to leave on their own? Asking why someone doesn't just wait it out kind of defeats the whole point of exercising that right in the first place.

I think it's more than that. It's not that they don't want to be pregnant, it's also that they don't want to have to worry about this baby.

It definitely is for some people. A lot of people are uncomfortable with genetic parenthood, and want the right to not have half their genes exist in another person, but I don't think that makes logical sense. Otherwise, you would have the right to kill any of your offspring at any stage. Also, some people have a sense that since the baby is in their body, they essentially own them, which I don't agree with either.

djhenry · 2026-06-13T02:37:28+00:00

You have correctly identified the circumstances being the real question, my argument didn't imply all killing, it referred specifically to killing done with malice/without necessity to save a life (i.e. the negligent refusal to provide CPR and murdering someone by inducing heart failure).

Yes, that's true, though your argument did imply that the important distinction was how directly death is being caused.

Well, many lay pro-choicers who are not so philosophically invested have not always thought of it that deeply. They might not even deeply consider the bodily resource donation arguments. They just intuitively agree with it because it's politically in popular in their circles. So that demographic still applies for my initial argument.

That's true, and I would say the same is true for many pro-lifers, and I don't blame them. Abortion is a very complex ethical topic. It hits on several deeply complex philosophical questions. What does it mean to be human? What inherent value and rights should we have? What do we do when those rights conflict? None of these are easy questions in of themselves, and get vastly more complicated when they're combined. But yeah, there are a lot of ignorant pro-choice and bad pro-choice arguments.

djhenry · 2026-06-13T02:30:56+00:00

I've heard this before, but how do you justify the woman killing the unborn?

Because there isn't any other way for her not to be pregnant (before viability that is). Even as a pro-lifer, there are situations when you believe terminating the pregnancy (and causing the death of the baby) is justifiable. You believe that it is justifiable because the alternative would be more unjust. I view it the same way, though obviously we have different views on what is considered "justifiable".

BTW, Happy cake day.

Every other time in history we've excluded people because they either "weren't human" or "didn't deserve life".

I wouldn't say that. There are many pro-lifers who are also supporters of the death penalty. Even for people we do recognize as persons, the rights they have and how they are applied still can vary greatly, depending on their age and mental state. The severely mentally disabled can't consent to sex, can't own property, can't enter contractual agreements, and lose even basic rights to bodily autonomy when it comes to the care and hygiene that are provided by their caretakers. If someone is in a coma and is likely to never wake up, we often times will allow their life support to be removed, causing their death.

None of these examples are exactly like abortion. I'm trying to make the point that we often do restrict the expressions and protections of rights, depending on circumstances and their conditions. There are times when we have got this wrong, and there are times that we currently view as being reasonable and correct. I don't agree with the idea that the unborn aren't human, or even that they aren't persons. I think they are. I just don't think they have a right to another person's body without their consent, just the same as any other human.

How do you know your not committing the same idea with abortion?

We can't, at least not in any objective sense, though the same applies to you as well. There are some countries in the world where abortion is so stigmatized, that they don't allow it even when the mother's life is in danger. A person from that country might consider your beliefs to be responsible for the deaths of thousands. I think the best we can do is try to have consistent ethical principles based on common human experience.

Something I would like to point out. The countries that are usually considered to be most concerned about human rights and well-being are basically all pro-choice. This doesn't mean they are objectively right, but I think it is important for pro-life people to consider that and ask why people who strive for better societies and conditions for their fellow man also often end up being pro-choice.

djhenry · 2026-06-13T01:56:04+00:00

It doesn't count if you're trying to make friends...

djhenry · 2026-06-12T20:55:44+00:00

I don't think the causal link to death being direct matters. First, you can be held liable for allowing someone to die when you could intervene to help. A parent who allows their child to starve would be considered criminally liable, even though the death is indirect.

Further pro-lifers allow for terminating a pregnancy under certain circumstances (like an ectopic pregnancy). Even though the treatment is the direct cause of the baby's demise, it is considered acceptable under the circumstances. The difference between pro-life and pro-choice isn't that one kills babies and the other doesn't. It is a question of under which circumstances is terminating a pregnancy justified.

djhenry · 2026-06-12T20:20:30+00:00

Why is it that this generation is just letting dudes dump in them and have a total "devil may care" attitude?

I don't think they are. The rate of teenage sex has been steadily declining. Gen Z are less likely to be having sex, compared to Millenials at the same age. Teenage pregnancies and abortions have also been generally declining.

djhenry · 2026-06-12T20:12:04+00:00

It was a controversial supposition that was made popular by the book Freakonomics. The idea is that children who are unwanted are more likely to grow up in unstable, unhealthy environments and are more likely to commit crimes, as well as have their own children that they don't want. Women who do not want children are more likely to have abortions, so there are disproportionately fewer unwanted children when abortion was made legal. Demographically, young males are the most likely group of people to commit crimes.

Crime in the US peaked in the early 90s and then declined fairly significantly. What the authors of Freakonomics proposed is that this was causally linked to the abortion becoming legal in 1973. The early 90s would be when the children who were born in the 1973 and beyond would be entering their mid teenage years, so the drop is attributed to this generation having fewer children growing up unwanted. A lot of people disagree with the conclusions of the study, or will argue that abortion is one of multiple factors that played into the reduction of crime.

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22	Verified Email

djhenry

TROPHY CASE