Just wanted to get some insight since I'm not really all that knowledgeable in the debate and such but I'm open and willing to learn.

1. IF (since the leak was just a draft) this gets overturned, it's not that abortion as a whole is banned but it's simply not a constitutional rights anymore and goes back to the individual states to decide on how to handle the matter right? Oversimplifying it, it would go from federal to state level right?

2. Seems like with abortion issues, it narrows down to if life starts at conception or not. Because on one hand, IF life starts at conception, then the moral implication would be that it's murder. But IF life doesn't start at conception but at a set determined weeks (heartbeat, brain activity, going through the birth canal, and etc) then there is no moral conundrum and it's just a simple medical procedure. (Please feel free to correct and add on to this because I'm here to learn). So with that said, shouldn't biologists who study the science of these things be the lead speakers on the matter? Or is there no consensus even in the biologist community? And if there isn't a consensus, what is preventing the conclusive statement?

You got him.

camps with comfortable beds and free food for 10 days of quarantine, along with round the clock medical care.

totally the same as making someone be a parent for 18 years financially and life for everything else.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 6 2022 09:10am

If this goes through it doesn’t outright ban abortions nation-wide, it makes it a individual state-issue, ie smaller government

Camps for not masking. You might want to dig that up.

During Covid I was fine with having quarantine hotels with free food for people travelling back to Nunavut because we don't have hospitals or any healthcare facilities in most communities and thus every single person has to get medevacd at over 35K per charter, with some reaching 70K per, places like Grise Fiord, Resolute, etc. Not to mention the average household has three generations in it because of the largest per capita housing shortage in Canada by a vast margin. There's no ability to isolate at home.

I don't think you remotely have a grasp on Nunavuts infrastructure or lack of I should say not to mention the vastly weaker immune system that residents have because of lack of exposure that Europeans have had through the years. TB outbreaks continually knock this territory on its ass. 50 years ago most of my co-workers still lived in igloos on the land.

This post was edited by SBD on May 6 2022 09:32am

I guess it depends on if these measures aimed at helping people quarantine better are voluntary or not. If they are, then yes they can be called quarantine hotels. If they aren't, then they are camps. Just very nice camps.

Very nice camps are still camps.

u seem really concerned about the word camps, likely due to some silly notion that this is in any way analogous to concentration camps or camps made to house native populations in the US or Canada.

10 days in a hotel is now basically Hitler? did they put gas in the hotel showers? lol. the involuntary camps were also reserved for those who were proven to have broken the law and ignored quarantine. when u break the law you face consequences, personal responsibility is important. dont break the law.

Camps don't have to be as bad as concentration camps in order to qualify as camps.



Maybe these laws aren't just.

camp david is a camp, if i go out to the woods with a tent i camp.

why is the word camp important, and why is it bad?