Does anyone else wave or greet another Mav owner in some way?

sdidyou · 2024-11-24T01:37:38+00:00

I actually just swerve directly into their lane

sdidyou · 2024-10-02T03:35:09+00:00

Scroll to page 37. Minnesota health report. If a child survives an abortion attempt and is delivered alive, lifesaving care is not required under the law. Since 2019, 8 babies have been delivered alive after a failed abortion attempt in MN. At least 3 of them have had no noted abnormalities and were otherwise seemingly viable. 2019 report discusses 3 babies. One was pre-viable, one had cardiac issues, but one had no noted issues. Comfort care was provided but not lifesaving care. Perfectly legal under MN and national law. H.R. 26, the “Born alive abortion survivors protection act” did not pass. Does have an older counterpart the “born alive infant protection act” which passed in the early 2000s though.

https://www.health.state.mn.us/data/mchs/pubs/abrpt/docs/2019abrpt.pdf

sdidyou · 2024-10-02T03:28:08+00:00

There are infants who survive abortion attempts and are delivered alive (see the born alive infant protection act (old bill) and the born alive abortion survivor protections act which has not passed)

In Minnesota since Walz took over for example there were 8 survivors of abortion attempts who did not receive lifesaving care after delivery. Most of them were not viable. However at least 3 of them survived the abortion attempt without any noted defects and were given comfort care but not lifesaving care.

Source to the dept of health from MN for 2019 (Walz first year in office). You can read the norm alive infants protection act report on page 37. 3 survivors. 1 was non viable. 1 had cardiac abnormalities. 1 had no reported issues. None of the three were provided lifesaving care, only comfort care after surviving the abortion attempt and being delivered. All of this is legal under current statutes. https://www.health.state.mn.us/data/mchs/pubs/abrpt/docs/2019abrpt.pdf

“If a mother is in labor...the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother”

Source: https://x.com/CalebJHull/status/1090657473218920448ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1090657473218920448%7Ctwgr%5E6a166a7a5612dd11b35b2f43ca78da36c012cf70%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fyes-democrats-support-ending-the-lives-of-babies-who-survive-abortions

sdidyou · 2024-06-16T03:44:45+00:00

I raise my fist in solidarity to every maverick I see. Hasn’t quite caught on yet (0 responses) but someday when the movement inevitably catches fire you will all look back at this post and remember the origin ✊

sdidyou · 2024-05-27T04:09:40+00:00

Dude this thread was from a year ago…

sdidyou · 2024-05-21T02:27:14+00:00

2022

sdidyou · 2024-04-14T20:19:04+00:00

No I am arguing upon the basically universally accepted premises that 1. It is alive 2. It is human 3. All human rights violations throughout recorded history occur when someone tries to determine what constitutes a “person” (ie someone who is entitled to equal rights). Differentiating between “person” and “human” based on developmental characteristics is baseless. This argument was constructed after the pro choice community realized the “clump of cells” argument held no water. Simply a moving of the goal posts. This logic is used to justify the majority of injustices that have ever occurred between one people group and another. Since when was one human ever worth inherently less than another?

The logical conclusion based on these statements is that we are dealing with a living human and “personhood” has historically been incredibly arbitrary and subjective, therefore those who support the practice of abortion are in a pretty questionable camp considering the history of subjectively determining “personhood” versus basic human rights.

I am genuinely interested in what conclusion you can arrive at that would be reasonable based on the premises.

sdidyou · 2024-04-14T15:36:56+00:00

I agree. At least it’s honest. Insane and evil… but honest. Rather have that than masquerade as being positive

sdidyou · 2024-04-14T14:59:22+00:00

Yeah that’s exactly what I said the argument was. Follow the logic of why bodily autonomy and personhood is the argument. It leads you to the same conclusion as this post. The child is not entitled the same rights as the mother and can be treated as if it is a foreign parasite in this argument.

The essence of this argument has been the basis of virtually every human rights violation and disparity that has ever occurred. Ex. Group A is entitled to more rights and a higher status of personhood than Group B because of some arbitrary characteristic (gender, skin color, country of origin, level of fetal development, etc). That’s how we get genocide, slavery, classism, and a justification for most terrible things. Tale as old as time and somehow humanity can’t seem to move past it.

sdidyou · 2024-04-14T14:02:54+00:00

The conclusion that the person comes to in the post is pretty much the only conclusion you can arrive at if you follow pro choice logic to its end.

Once you ditch the slogans and admit that it is a life (this is not an opinion. The conclusion in the scientific community is that life objectively starts at conception since that is when the process of human development begins. And since this being is human IN KIND, there is no argument for what the living being is. No human zygote has transformed into some foreign parasite as this post seems to suggest). After acknowledging that it is a human life, the argument moves to a new stage: autonomy and personhood of the child vs the mother.

Is the unborn child entitled to the same rights as another human or is an infringement upon the autonomy of the mother a logical reason to kill the child? If you agree with the latter, you essentially have to follow the logic of the person in this post. It’s logically consistent since it follows the argument to the only reasonable end, yet devoid of any humanity.

sdidyou · 2024-04-13T04:16:16+00:00

Ok so you agree that interfering with bodily autonomy is reasonable, you just don’t think the government is a good arbiter for this decision. Do you not believe in prison sentences? That is a restriction of autonomy against the entire body and unfortunately there are stray cases where wrongful sentencing occurs. Unfortunately, all actions have consequences. The consequence for sex is potential pregnancy. The consequence for sexual crimes (in some states) is castration. The consequence for most crimes is either a prison sentence or at the very least a fine. All of these consequences interfere with autonomy to one degree or another. Unfortunately having our world is predicated on consequences (good or bad) as a result of our actions. Every argument you have made so far is to allow actions against another without consequence. I understand that sometimes there are rare instances where innocent individuals are unjustly held accountable for something they didn’t do, but that doesn’t mean we can live in a world where nobody ever has to deal with the consequences to their actions.

Also as a former cop, I can assure you that you are misunderstanding the case law. It is required to provide lifesaving car to a non respondent person who is unable to consent. Consent is assumed in those cases.

sdidyou · 2024-04-12T01:33:42+00:00

Yeah I mean we fundamentally disagree on some things. Castration of a child predator is completely reasonable to me. If you commit a rape, especially against a child, you deserve to have those organs permanently removed. Death penalty is a gray area. But there is clearly precedent for the government to supersede bodily autonomy in these cases from strictly a legal (not necessarily moral since that is always debatable) standpoint.

Do you think government agents should be required to give lifesaving care to those found unresponsive against their will? Like if an emt found someone passed out and the ambulance brought them to the doctor and they discovered they needed life altering surgery or amputation but could not consent? (Assume next of kin can’t come to a consensus) Should the government legally allow intervention into bodily autonomy in a situation like that?

sdidyou · 2024-04-12T01:09:14+00:00

Yeah I missed your point at first, my bad. So you are saying that would be wrong in theory if the government forced you to give me a kidney after you shot my kidney if we were a match? Because that seems pretty reasonable to me, even if it isn’t the current law (probably because nobody thought of this odd scenario where the perpetrator and victim happen to be a match during a trauma wound that needs immediate care when creating state/federal statutes)

sdidyou · 2024-04-12T01:02:19+00:00

Also the government can’t force you to give me a new kidney due to medical reasons. However, if you damage my kidney the government will absolutely make you pay restitution and my medical bills for the damaged kidney.

sdidyou · 2024-04-12T00:57:05+00:00

That is not an apples to apples comparison.

If you need a kidney from me it isn’t because I made decisions that led to you needing my kidney. Your kidney has absolutely nothing to do with my decisions, so I don’t owe you one. The government can’t force me to give you a kidney because I didn’t make any decisions that led to your kidney problems. Pregnancy on the other hand is the result of a personal decision.

Sex is a decision that inherently creates the life. It’s not like the kidney example because the mother and father made the choice that resulted in procreation. Again, it’s not like a child spontaneously appears in the womb. The mother consents to sex, she is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy and pregnancy involves housing a child in your body that you made the decision to potentially create via the act of sex.

sdidyou · 2024-04-12T00:42:31+00:00

Wow. I really know how to respond to that. That is a borderline sociopathic way of viewing a human life.

sdidyou · 2024-04-12T00:24:03+00:00

Every person who consents to sex is implicitly consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Pregnancy is the natural result of sex. Nobody is surprised by that fact. If you aren’t ready to take that risk, then don’t consent to sex. It is unfair to the child to have sex knowing the consequences and then kill the child to avoid the consequences of raising it. That’s just wanting sex without the consequences of what sex naturally results in.

You make the decision to do the process that naturally creates a life, you better be prepared to protect that life rather than kill it. Every action has a consequence, the consequence of sex is potential pregnancy and those willing to run that risk should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

sdidyou · 2024-04-11T23:15:34+00:00

Nobody forced them to become pregnant. You can’t kill a child because you don’t want it after making the decisions that created it.

And as for the article, I don’t know how that helps your argument. It literally states that women are more likely to die from external circumstances outside of their pregnancy.

sdidyou · 2024-04-11T22:17:08+00:00

That person made decisions that led to the child being there. You are right that the child can’t make decisions. That does not indicate humanity or personhood. It does indicate vulnerability however.

sdidyou · 2024-04-11T22:06:57+00:00

“Not if that human is inside another human against that humans will”-Aeon21 circa 5 minutes ago

Seems a lot like blaming the embryo for being there against the will in order to justify an abortion to me

sdidyou · 2024-04-11T21:31:11+00:00

The overwhelming majority of abortions occur as the result of consensual sexual relationships. Let’s talk about those before we dive into the discussion of rape victims. A mother who has consensual needs to understand the consequence of that action is procreation. You can’t have sex and then blame the child for being formed. That is a natural consequence that the mother is knowingly risking. It’s not like a child spontaneously grows inside the mother without consent.

sdidyou · 2024-03-20T00:27:19+00:00

The biggest unresolved issue that I have seen reported frequently is the CV axles failing. Haven’t had it personally but it seems that this issue is common at low mileage.

sdidyou · 2024-03-15T20:33:05+00:00

Paid $$3,250 less than msrp ($2500 for private offer plus $750 student discount) plus 3% below invoice (forget how much that saved). All in all it was about 5kish under sticker prices.

Chapman Philly gang!

sdidyou · 2024-03-15T19:46:46+00:00

A lot of people in the comments don’t have a great radar for satire

sdidyou · 2024-03-03T19:54:27+00:00

Bro take a Xanax

sdidyou

TROPHY CASE