Roe v. Wade — Page 4

Pauly3 said: "Highland Guy said: "Pauly3 said: "Highland Guy said: "Pauly3 said: "People who owned slaves had a similar sentiment toward those who disagreed with them."

ENOUGH OF THAT

"

The light shining a little too bright?"



BALDERDASH. Be gone, pretentious troll.

"

This is a discussion board, and I provided my opinions. You are free to ignore my comments. In fact, I believe there is a block function here. Why not use it instead of jumping up and down and screaming like a child?

A bright light AND a mirror, and you will NOT have it?

Rather than jump up and down and scream like a child, why not point out the flaw(s) in the parallel I drew? If what I opined is so ridiculous, wouldn't pointing out the flaw(s) be more effective than jumping up and down and screaming like a child? Or maybe the parallel I drew struck a little too close and with no argument, jumping up and down and screaming like a child was the better option?"



DO NOT ENGAGE THIS TROLL !!

carnzee said: ".I've been trying to do some research into this. Everything involving the law is complicated of course. From what I gather, Congress has the right to pass a law enshrining abortion protections (even after the court struck down Roe) because Congress has a right to regulate commerce. So, had Congress passed a law enshrining abortion, abortion would still be protected even after Roe was struck down. (As we've already discussed, there weren't enough pro choice Democrats to do this in the past. But it's much more likely to pass now if we had filibuster reform so that we'd only need 50 senators to support it.) That's my understanding anyway."

They can use the Commerce Clause, but if there's a law suit regarding it (and there would be) it would end up in the same place. The SCOTUS and as we've established the majority is not acting in a nonpartisan manner and will just make whatever ruling they wish.

Highland Guy said: "kdogg36 said: "However, I regret the harsh comment about Ginsburg that I made early in the thread, and I apologize for that."

And thank you!

"

1. Make a remark that is not popular
2. Be called out for it
3. Fall in line
   -All is well (if you're a member of the same party)
   
   Do not fall in line
   -You are a pariah (regardless of your party)

Diversity is such a wonderful thing, unless it's diversity of thought. Just stunning absurdity!

TheatreFan4 said: "Pauly3 said: "Diversity is such a wonderful thing, unless it's diversity of thought. Just stunning absurdity!"

When it comes to human rights... yeah... reap what you sow, bitch."

Couldn't agree with you more, skidmark. Good luck with that on your end.

carnzee said: "The whole"diversity of thought " line from conservatives is just a distraction.

A pedophile who was advocating against age of consent laws and making child rape legal would draw sharp criticism for their views. They could easily accuse people of being against "diversity of thought." See how absurd that would be?"

The example you point out would indeed make using the "diversity of thought" line absurd. 100% agreed.

The divide in your example is what, 99.x% to .xx%? What's the divide with respect to abortion? This is the type of obvious nuance that goes ignored - and demonstrates the flaw in your argument. You want to simplify things to the point of ridiculousness to attempt revealing - and assigning flawed thinking on my part. Instead, you point out your own flawed thinking.

With respect to the divide on abortion, more Americans support abortion than do not - from what I understand. But more Americans do not support 3rd-trimester abortions than do, also from what I understand. Regardless, the percentage representing each side is significant.

Additionally, my belief the unborn child's life has value - a lot of value, is simply not ridiculous. Disagree with me, fine. Telling me to go away (or to ef-off) or the like, for what is not a set of completely ridiculous opinions, is an example of the lunacy in the some of the responses here - and validates the use of the "diversity of thought" line I used.

Misconstruing and miss-stating what I have said and worse, assigning beliefs to me that I do not have, and then arguing against those incorrect beliefs - and then telling me to ef-off because of the disagreement of the beliefs incorrectly assigned to me is pure garbage.

Re-read anything I have said here. Remove your bias and hatred the Right, for just a moment, and then tell me where my argument is flawed. I will listen. Why is it so effing difficult for you all to have an honest discussion with someone you disagree with?

TheatreFan4 said: "Nobody "supports" third trimester abortions. Nobody gets 7 months into a pregnancy and then decides they don't want a child. They're performed in situations where life of the mother is at stake, the fetus has a fatal defect that will not allow it to survive outside of the womb, or the fetus is straight up not viable so they could save the pregnant person the emotional distress of having to carry what is basically a corpse to term."

Perfectly valid point. See, this isn't so hard, and I'm not so unreasonable (or evil).

TheatreFan4 said: "Pauly3 said: "Perfectly valid point. See, this isn't so hard, and I'm not so unreasonable (or evil)."

What? You were creating strawman arguments that don't even exist? It's not just a "valid point" it's just the truth. Like if you needed that explained to you then your own views on abortion and what it exactly is are severely deficient."

What? What strawman argument? I agreed you made a valid point, you know, a fair point. In other words, I agree with your point. Because there was truth in it. Why must you make this so difficult? Even when we agree?

I could have written more in my response where I said "valid point". Had I, I would have added that I disagree with your specific point nobody supports 3rd-trimester abortion. People certainly argue for the right to abortion at anytime during pregnancy. The gist of your point was valid, so I didn't nitpick it.

There is more clarification required. I ended the paragraph you are addressing with, "Regardless, the percentage representing each side is significant". This is in reference to the abortion debate in its entirety, regardless of when the abortion occurs. None of what I stated was wrong. Adding the part about 3rd-trimester abortions was unnecessary. It was stupid. You pointed it out, and I agreed. I could have omitted that part entirely, and it would not have changed the meaning of my argument in the slightest. So, what strawman argument are you referring to?

I am pro choice and believe that SCOTUS was beyond wrong and then some. There are many who are pro life who would never see themselves in a situation where an abortion can and should be up to the woman (granted it should always be up to the woman of course.) I am not simply talking about the always brought up subject of rape or incest. Like I said and believe strongly, women should never have to justify themselves as to the reasoning for getting an abortion. But, there other situations that the right simply brush off. Say you’re a woman in a low income environment who knows that there is no way in the world they can afford to take care of a child. Or even a young woman who is high school aged and got pregnant.

People on the right tend to jump up and down insisting that they can just put the baby up for adoption, not at all taking into account the physical and mental toll that can occur during a pregnancy.

Interestingly enough, there was an article I saw in The NY Times about a pregnant Texas woman getting a ticket for driving in the HOV lane which was reserved for a car with two or more people in it. She argued that, since she was pregnant, and Texas law states that a fetus is a person, that she should not have gotten a ticket in the first place. I believe she did and is fighting it. I would link the article but I am on my phone and it’s hard to do it as a result. When I get back home. Ill post the link.

Islander Fan, that makes two of us, and I'm a fan of your writings.