RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

[Morley]

I said this earlier, and you objected to it:

To clarity: You think a woman should be have the right to control her own reproductive system. But you also think that the state should be allowed to take away that right.

How is what you said above any different from my clarification?




You're changing the subject.

It is different because I think that a woman's right to do what she wants with her body applies to her elbow and any organs.
It is different because I think the state's are allowed to make their own laws and that rights are issued accordingly.

Your question is not meant to be part of a conversation. It is meant to be some wonky ass gotchya. It is like a futon. You ever had a futon? It is a couch and it is a bed. But, it is a crappy couch and a crappy bed.

If you had a point, you would make it. Instead, you are trying to make this about my points. If you disagree, you would have the guts to say so and say why. But nah, you just want to lob futon questions and play around. I answered your questions as directly as I could.

I am absolutely NOT changing the subject. I am clarifying that I think that a woman's body is hers and she can do with it whatever she wants. I am not making an exception for one thing that fits my agenda. I think it is her body - her choice. And if the state tries to change that.... shame on that state. Shame on that state for telling her what to do with a needle, or stirrups.

My point was made when I said :

I can’t tell if you’re making a serious argument here or if you’re just dicking around.

I'm trying to engage you seriously, but you make it difficult. I make an attempt to clarify. You tell me I'm wrong. I ask how I was wrong. You call it a gotcha. An attempt to clarify is not a gotcha.

If I can't understand your train of thought, or whether or not you're just trolling, it's not worthwhile to engage. And I'm discussing abortion legislation not vaccines, futons, or elbows.



You obviously don't think that a woman's body is hers to do with whatever she wants, since you say that the state should also have the right to curtail that right. A right that can be nullified is not really a right.

[canpakes]

Therefore, Morley’s point stands. You believe that the States are allowed to remove a person’s - or a woman’s - right(s).

Dobbs returned the decision related to abortion to the states. That is confirmed. Do you not believe that this was the effect of the Dobbs decision?

That much is obvious.

That being the case, we now move on to this:

I think that states should be allowed to legislate according their own laws within the confines of federal laws and state constitutions.

Therefore, you’d appear to believe that the States are allowed to remove a person’s - or a woman’s - right(s).

[canpakes]

Morley’s point is valid. You are merely dodging.

If you want to know what I stand for, start with reading the post and thread that you’ve linked to in your own signature. Come back for a quiz, if you need to.
: D

You stand for calling people Nazis if you disagree with them?

You’d have to be either disingenuous or ignorant to claim that. You’re free to clarify which of those two options you’re running with, by quoting freely from that linked post of mine. ; )

Here you go, in case you suddenly get lost on the way to your own signature:

viewtopic.php?p=2780596#p2780596

[Morley]

Binger.

Since you don't seem to understand where I stand, though I've been pretty transparent: I think Roe was decided correctly. Not so much for Dobbs. Which means I think it was protected by the Constitution.


edit

If I said I believe that you have the right to bear arms but that I also think that the states should be able to nullify that right, then you'd probably doubt my commitment to the Second Amendment.

[canpakes]

Essentially, the message is have as many kids as you can, because that's what pleases god (i. e. that's the easiest way to grow an ignorant congregation that keeps giving up their money to the church).

Well, that, and the idea that the Church needed as many bodies available as possible to throw against the invading heathenous hordes, so that the Church was protected against extinction.

Those other babies, though, that were popping out of the heathenous hordes … now, they were a problem.

[Binger]

You obviously don't think that a woman's body is hers to do with whatever she wants, since you say that the state should also have the right to curtail that right. A right that can be nullified is not really a right.

Let me be very very very clear. I have a wife. I have daughters. I believe they should be able to make their own decisions about their bodies. That includes abortion. That includes needles and vaccines.

I have read enough of Dobbs to come to the conclusion that as of the date of that decision, states may make their own laws regarding abortion. I believe that is the case. If in some states that infringes on my previous point about what I believe a woman can do, well, there is the conflict. I do not, however, believe that states may not make their own laws, regardless of my beliefs.

I do not weigh this very seriously, frankly. I am confident that any of my daughters or my wife can get and will get whatever they want. I will never vote in an election that has vote by mail or drop boxes, so it is highly unlikely that my opinion will ever be an obstruction or a help in anyone's choice of legislators that will have a say in the states' decisions.

[Binger]

Binger.

Since you don't seem to understand where I stand, though I've been pretty transparent: I think Roe was decided correctly. Not so much for Dobbs.

Thank you.
I think that Roe may have been decided correctly, and I wish that over the last 49 years that it had been codified into law by the Federal government while Roe was in place. It was not. So, it is now left to the states to do the heavy lifting. I am fine with that. In the meantime, I will watch and see what happens without me.

[Binger]

If I said I believe that you have the right to bear arms but that I also think that the states should be able to nullify that right, then you'd probably doubt my commitment to the Second Amendment.

I missed this edit.

If you said you believe that I have the right to bear arms, I would believe you. If you said you believe that this right is written into an amendment to the constitution, via the bill of rights h/t Res, I would believe you. If you said you think states should be able to nullify that right, I would point to the constitution that would prevent that from happening, regardless of your beliefs or thoughts.

Nothing that you say would lead me to question your commitment to the Second Amendment unless you were running for office on a platform to change the federal constitution. And, even then, I would not really care that much, depending on where you were running for office.

The Second Amendment and Dobbs are not peas in a pod. One right was added to the constitution by amendment. The other was a function of judicial activism, and maybe a series of judicial activist actions, depending on your interpretation. I wish the portion of Roe that made abortion legal in all states had been acted on by the legislatures of Carter, Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Biden. It wasn't. So, to the states it goes. No big deal.

[Morley]

If I said I believe that you have the right to bear arms but that I also think that the states should be able to nullify that right, then you'd probably doubt my commitment to the Second Amendment.

I missed this edit.

If you said you believe that I have the right to bear arms, I would believe you. If you said you believe that this right is written into an amendment to the constitution, via the bill of rights h/t Res, I would believe you. If you said you think states should be able to nullify that right, I would point to the constitution that would prevent that from happening, regardless of your beliefs or thoughts.

Nothing that you say would lead me to question your commitment to the Second Amendment unless you were running for office on a platform to change the federal constitution. And, even then, I would not really care that much, depending on where you were running for office.

The Second Amendment and Dobbs are not peas in a pod. One right was added to the constitution by amendment. The other was a function of judicial activism, and maybe a series of judicial activist actions, depending on your interpretation. I wish the portion of Roe that made abortion legal in all states had been acted on by the legislatures of Carter, Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Biden. It wasn't. So, to the states it goes. No big deal.

If you think (as you have suggested that you indeed do) that Roe was decided correctly, then you believe that the right to abortion is protected by the Constitution, the same as any right that is explicitly endorsed. If I remember correctly, the justices decided that the right to privacy is implied throughout the Constitution, and that this right to privacy suggests the right to control our own bodies.

I think the decision was sound. Others obviously disagree. I'm with you in thinking that it should have been codified into federal law--but, because it was a Supreme Court decision, most thought it pretty unlikely that it was ever going to be seriously challenged. Well, at least until the last five or six years, when folks started to worry.

[Morley]

Nothing that you say would lead me to question your commitment to the Second Amendment unless you were running for office on a platform to change the federal constitution. And, even then, I would not really care that much, depending on where you were running for office.

We don't have to change the Constitution. All it would take is a Supreme Court decision saying that the Second Amendment only applies to state militias. Or, in a quasi-originalist interpretation, that it only applies to muskets.