Thanks, but, I have merely stated that I understand and accept Schmo's provided analogy. I am unaware of any riots that align with my analogy since, ya know, I did not offer one.
I will count this as one.
Thanks, but, I have merely stated that I understand and accept Schmo's provided analogy. I am unaware of any riots that align with my analogy since, ya know, I did not offer one.
Had you read the post and played the ball and not the man, you would see very clearly that I did not provide an analogy.canpakes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:15 pm
No worries. Just quoting you.
viewtopic.php?p=2789048#p2789048
This is a great example of how this topic is treated. You are arguing against something I did not say or did not do and basing it on wild unsubstantiated assumptions. This is typical of heated topics, particularly with legal opinions. Often, people respond based on a tribal allegiance without having read the opinions and without understanding all the ramifications.Binger wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:58 pmTo put it in terms we understand, you are likening a fetus to an invader and you a likening a mother to a defenseless victim of an invasion.Some Schmo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:57 pmTo put it in terms you can understand, it's like the fetus is a home invader, and you're trying to take away my right to self-defense.
Make no mistake here, we understand your analogy exactly as you say it and as you mean it. We accept that this is your analogy and that you believe it. Nobody is arguing with you or against you.
Feel free to act shocked when the consequences of a national level campaign, riots and other reactions that align with you and your analogy are not what you want.
Earlier Binger:Binger wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:27 pmHad you read the post and played the ball and not the man, you would see very clearly that I did not provide an analogy.canpakes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:15 pm
No worries. Just quoting you.
viewtopic.php?p=2789048#p2789048
This is a great example of how this topic is treated. You are arguing against something I did not say or did not do and basing it on wild unsubstantiated assumptions. This is typical of heated topics, particularly with legal opinions. Often, people respond based on a tribal allegiance without having read the opinions and without understanding all the ramifications.Binger wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:58 pmTo put it in terms we understand, you are likening a fetus to an invader and you a likening a mother to a defenseless victim of an invasion.
Make no mistake here, we understand your analogy exactly as you say it and as you mean it. We accept that this is your analogy and that you believe it. Nobody is arguing with you or against you.
Feel free to act shocked when the consequences of a national level campaign, riots and other reactions that align with you and your analogy are not what you want.
I responded to to Schmo's analogy and said specifically that I was not arguing against it. I did not offer my own analogy.
Binger wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:58 pmTo put it in terms we understand, you are likening a fetus to an invader and you a likening a mother to a defenseless victim of an invasion.Some Schmo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:57 pmIf you are pro birth (and I know that's your only real concern... that the baby actually pops out. After that, it's on its own), it's clear you are pro-quantity of life, not pro-quality of life. You are emotionally attached to the ideal of a baby without regard for the reality of babies.
In other words, you haven't really thought it through.
To put it in terms you can understand, it's like the fetus is a home invader, and you're trying to take away my right to self-defense.
Make no mistake here, we understand your analogy exactly as you say it and as you mean it. We accept that this is your analogy and that you believe it. Nobody is arguing with you or against you.
Feel free to act shocked when the consequences of a national level campaign, riots and other reactions that align with you and your analogy are not what you want.
Help us all understand your point and logic. What words am I arguing against? I have no idea what you are talking about.canpakes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:45 pmEarlier Binger:Binger wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:27 pm
Had you read the post and played the ball and not the man, you would see very clearly that I did not provide an analogy.
This is a great example of how this topic is treated. You are arguing against something I did not say or did not do and basing it on wild unsubstantiated assumptions. This is typical of heated topics, particularly with legal opinions. Often, people respond based on a tribal allegiance without having read the opinions and without understanding all the ramifications.
I responded to to Schmo's analogy and said specifically that I was not arguing against it. I did not offer my own analogy.
Binger wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:58 pm
To put it in terms we understand, you are likening a fetus to an invader and you a likening a mother to a defenseless victim of an invasion.
Make no mistake here, we understand your analogy exactly as you say it and as you mean it. We accept that this is your analogy and that you believe it. Nobody is arguing with you or against you.
Feel free to act shocked when the consequences of a national level campaign, riots and other reactions that align with you and your analogy are not what you want.
Feel free to argue against your own words.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
what do you mean, "wrong"?msnobody wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:18 pmIt is still wrong.canpakes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:18 pm
This is obviously a wonderful outcome. But, it’s not always as easy a decision, considering all circumstances.
As example, here’s a slightly different situation, presented via the following link:
https://apple.news/AT_eDc-UNTciJlHJgdNblWg
Jersey Girl wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:11 amCNN has a thing for the ruling. It looks like it is 213 pages long. It's going to take me a while to get through it. Basically I think it returns the matter of abortion rights to the states. Okay fine for now. I can't comment until I really read it.
I do think I can simply restate my position in general.
I believe that life begins at conception. It's okay with me if the sister sitting next to me in the doctor's office does not.
And THAT is the point of all of this for me.
I do not believe that I have a right to dictate my beliefs to another person. Period. End of story.
I have a decades long history of family and child advocacy under my belt that says I do care about children, their families, and their well being. I talk the talk AND walk the walk and have done so for most of my adult life. No one can claim that I only care about a woman or child when pregnancy is involved or that I want to control a situation or steer it toward a self satisfying outcome.
People are different. They have different experiences, beliefs, needs, and preferences. And reasons for all of those things.
Sometimes people share their private stuff with me. In real life and even on this board. I am comfortable with my ability to be accepting of every circumstance, hear a person out, and maintain confidentiality. I am comfortable that know when it's time to be involved, remain involved, and when support no longer needed.
If a woman came to me who was struggling with this issue, I would offer myself up as a friend to her. Regardless of what she ultimately chose to do. If she needed someone to accompany her to a doctor, attorney, therapist, clergy appointment...I would go with her. Listen to her talk out her thoughts. I would pray for her and with her if she wanted me to.
Once her choice was made I would stay alongside her regardless of what choice she made so long as she wanted me to. I know that any of the choices--carrying a baby to term, mother or single parent her child, adopt her child to someone else, or terminate her pregnancy would be a life changing decision. I would stay with her for as long as she needed me. Listen to her express herself, take her places, help her sort out resources, stay with her during recovery and feed her, anything I could do for her in terms of support until she was ready for me to leave. If it were a case of a medically necessary procedure, nothing in my response would change.
That is where I stand.
This is one of the biggest lies to come out of this. Justice Thomas was saying that rights to contraception and same sex marriage are not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore it is not the Supreme Court's role to decide such issues. The responsibility for such decisions belongs to the states and the legislatures. It has nothing to do with whether he anyone else believes using a condom should be legal or not.canpakes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:55 pmDoctor Steuss wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:35 pm
Isn't this one just about married couples having the right to choose to use birth control without government meddling?
Is Thomas really suggesting that we need to revisit whether a married couple can be arrested for using a condom?
That’s correct.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
Brought to you by the party of ‘limited government’, who are now paving the way towards watching what contraception you can use - if any - and possibly using period tracker data to make sure that pregnant women stay pregnant … or else.