If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it wouldn’t ban abortion

[homersapien 11,336]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Another moron adding nothing to the discussion. 

Stay in left field.

Irony.

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, what was the semi-point?

That Roe v Wade would’ve been a pertinent discussion at this moment, regardless of which republican candidate won. It wasn’t an uniquely-Trump issue. Whereas other matters, such as a wall, were.

[homersapien 11,336]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I didn’t do it out of the blue. It was in response to an idiotic post.

 

more irony

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Irony.

 

Just now, homersapien said:

more irony

You’re late to the party. Would you like to discuss the original post, or are you going to be commentator of other discussions that took place?

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

12 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Just DM me the talking points next time. ?

I just think we’ve beat the “Trump and evangelicals” horse dead. I didn’t think my post called for another debate on the subject matter. That’s all.

[SaltyTiger 7,754]

37 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

@GiveEmElle In hindsight, I was wrong to belittle you and Loof. 

I do not agree with you on the above Nola

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 minute ago, SaltyTiger said:

I do not agree with you on the above Nola

I see apologies aren’t your thing. 

[homersapien 11,336]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

You’re late to the party. Would you like to discuss the original post, or are you going to be commentator of other discussions that took place?

I am not late to anything.  And I can comment on the OP or any subsequent posts made on this thread as I please.  (I am thoroughly enjoying your hypocrisy though - chastising people for their lack of serious discussion, then turning around and hurling childish insults.  Keep it up. )

As for the OP, I doubt Roe v. Wade will be overturned.  Partly  due to stare decisis  - these are supposedly conservative judges, right?  But more importantly, the political cost to Republicans would be huge.  First, it would spark a huge political backlash and even more importantly, it would deprive them of an invaluable propaganda issue they have ridden for decades.

But, that's not to say it won't happen.  And that's not to say there will be more state-initiated efforts to deny or restrict abortion that the court will approve.  A de-facto repeal, as Dub put it.

Personally, I would just as soon they overturn it explicitly.  I am tired of it being so pivotal of an issue in politics.  And I want the inevitable pendulum swing back to liberal principles - such as not allowing the government to mandate such a personal issue - to be as strong as possible.  (Funny how such personal freedom used to be a conservative issue, huh?  Conservatives seem to have evolved into theocrats.)

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

6 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I do not agree with you on the above Nola

I still maintain my position as to the irrelevancy of the positions that were expressed. It’s just that sometimes “characterizations” keep the derailment alive.

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

42 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I just think we’ve beat the “Trump and evangelicals” horse dead. I didn’t think my post called for another debate on the subject matter. That’s all.

But isn’t the entire point of a message board to discuss varying ideas, thoughts and opinions? When an issue is still relevant to current situations, how is the horse dead? I think the thing that really troubles you is that I’ve pointed out things that create cognitive dissonance for you. It’s uncomfortable so insults become a resort (not beating you over this- you apologized and we are good). 

That said, again I hope you are ? percent correct and Roe is never overturned. But you have to understand this, for me, as a woman it’s greatly troubling to know that my uterus is more regulated than a gun. It’s troublng to see a pro-life party rail against abortion rights but then work against measures than prevent abortion, like access to affordable health care. Republicans tell women we can’t have birth control at affordable costs, if we get pregnant we can’t abort, if she has the child we don’t want to assist you with healthcare or food. It’s a tragedy and a travesty. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

3 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I think the thing that really troubles you is that I’ve pointed out things that create cognitive dissonance for you. It’s uncomfortable so insults become a resort (not beating you over this- you apologized and we are good). 

I apologized for the insults only. What do you think you pointed out that troubles me/makes me feel uncomfortable? That evangelicals voted for Trump? That Trump is “all those names” you call him? I still fully maintain that your contributions lack relevancy to the discussion. You can bash trump and his base but that doesn’t move the needle here.

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

am not late to anything.  And I can comment on the OP or any subsequent posts made on this thread as I please.  (I am thoroughly enjoying your hypocrisy though - chastising people for their lack of serious discussion, then turning around and hurling childish insults.  Keep it up. )

I apologized for the insults. You’ve no room to talk about insults, and you surely never backtrack them after the fact. But here you are, yes “acting like a child,” trying to reignite the fire. Perhaps maturity will arrive late for you, but we’ll see.

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

As for the OP, I doubt Roe v. Wade will be overturned.  Partly  due to stare decisis  - these are supposedly conservative judges, right?  But more importantly, the political cost to Republicans would be huge.  First, it would spark a huge political backlash and even more importantly, it would deprive them of an invaluable propaganda issue they have ridden for decades.

But, that's not to say it won't happen.  And that's not to say there will be more state-initiated efforts to deny or restrict abortion that the court will approve.  A de-facto repeal, as Dub put it.

Personally, I would just as soon they overturn it explicitly.  I am tired of it being so pivotal of an issue in politics.  And I want the inevitable pendulum swing back to liberal principles - such as not allowing the government to mandate such a personal issue - to be as strong as possible.  (Funny how such personal freedom used to be a conservative issue, huh?  Conservatives seem to have evolved into theocrats.)

Stare decisis has nothing to do with conservatism, nor is it favored by on one end of the political spectrum more than the other. I think your understanding of it might be displaced. 

Other than that, understood 

[homersapien 11,336]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Stare decisis has nothing to do with conservatism, nor is it favored by on one end of the political spectrum more than the other. I think your understanding of it might be displaced. 

Other than that, understood 

Speaking generally, is it not commonly assumed that a conservative judge is more likely to respect the concept of  stare decisis than a liberal judge?

Conservative - resists change

Liberal - welcomes change

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

14 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

But you have to understand this, for me, as a woman it’s greatly troubling to know that my uterus is more regulated than a gun. It’s triubking to see a pro-life party rail against abortion rights but then work against measures than prevent abortion, like access to affordable health care. Republicans tell women we can’t have birth control at affordable costs, if we get pregnant we can’t abort, if she has the child we don’t want to assist you with healthcare or food. It’s a tragedy and a travesty. 

Perhaps you have to understand this: pro life advocates aren’t trying to control your uterus. The overriding goal of the pro life movement is to restore the law’s protection of women and children. This includes protection of the lives of unborn children, the protection of women from male coercion of women to abort, protection for women from psychological and physical injury, and protection from profiteering and scrupulous abortionists. Simply put, those who oppose abortion as the killing of unborn children do so on the same basis that Lincoln opposed slavery: there are certain natural rights upon which citizens cannot simply “agree to disagree” and which cannot be violated consistent with a good and just society. The right to life of all human beings-born and unborn-is one of these. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I apologized for the insults only. What do you think you pointed out that troubles me/makes me feel uncomfortable? That evangelicals voted for Trump? That Trump is “all those names” you call him? I still fully maintain that your contributions lack relevancy to the discussion. You can bash trump and his base but that doesn’t move the needle here.

I think it bothers you, assuming you’re an evangelical, that I noted that Trump is a man whose life doesn’t follow the teaching of Christ yet he was chosen by followers of Christ. How does a Christian support someone so morally flawed to the highest position in the land, one that requires a moral compass?  But that’s just my opinion. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Speaking generally, is it not commonly assumed that a conservative judge is more likely to respect the concept of  stare decisis than a liberal judge?

Conservative - resists change

Liberal - welcomes change

The power vested in judicial precedent is not uniquely political. Liberal and conservative justices have always adhered to stare decisis. Justice Breyer would disagree with your assessment, and is he not championed among the liberal community.

I think you’ll agree with this: the willingness to abandon precedent will shift along the political spectrum, depending on the issue at hand. But, it is not favored uniquely by one party or the other. Do you follow what I’m saying by that?

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

4 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I think it bothers you, assuming you’re an evangelical, that I noted that Trump is a man whose life doesn’t follow the teaching of Christ yet he was chosen by followers of Christ. How does a Christian support someone so morally flawed to the highest position in the land, one that requires a moral compass?  But that’s just my opinion. 

It doesn’t bother me. I know you feel that way. That’s not why I hammered on relevancy.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Perhaps you have to understand this: pro life advocates aren’t trying to control your uterus. The overriding goal of the pro life movement is to restore the law’s protection of women and children. This includes protection of the lives of unborn children, the protection of women from male coercion of women to abort, protection for women from psychological and physical injury, and protection from profiteering and scrupulous abortionists. Simply put, those who oppose abortion as the killing of unborn children do so on the same basis that Lincoln opposed slavery: there are certain natural rights upon which citizens cannot simply “agree to disagree” and which cannot be violated consistent with a good and just society. The right to life of all human beings-born and unborn-is one of these. 

Ah, the prolife advocates aren’t. The political party is. Capisce? And how can you have the right to life when affordable healthcare is stripped away? Why is it that life is only worthy of protecting from conception to birth? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

2 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Ah, the prolife advocates aren’t. The political party is. Capisce? And how can you have the right to life when affordable healthcare is stripped away? Why is it that life is only worthy of protecting from conception to birth? 

Again, there are certain natural rights upon which citizens cannot simply “agree to disagree” and which cannot be violated with a good and just society. The right to life of all human beings, including the unborn, is one of these natural rights.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

13 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Ah, the prolife advocates aren’t. The political party is. Capisce? And how can you have the right to life when affordable healthcare is stripped away? Why is it that life is only worthy of protecting from conception to birth? 

I think you’re asking, should pro-lifers support socializing health care. Here:

If you mean, “Shouldn’t they, in general” then that’s entirely a question about the merits of universal healthcare, and the “pro-life” qualifier is irrelevant.

I believe that Boston Red Sox fans should support freedom of speech, but only because I believe everyone should support freedom of speech, and I believe that Democrats should support due process of law, but only because I believe everyone should support due process of law.

---

But if you mean, “Shouldn’t they, because they’re pro-life” then I’d say no—or at least, not unless they see merit in it.

That is to say, there is nothing at all inconsistent about being pro-life and opposing universal healthcare.

First off, there is a difference between actively killing an unborn baby and simply not doing everything possible to prevent the death of some person, born or unborn.

Let’s cut through the BS rhetoric—no one is trying to “take” anyone’s healthcare or “prevent” anyone from obtaining medical care. The debate is over whether I should pay for your healthcare. By declining to pay, I leave you no worse off than if I’d never existed at all—I have harmed you in no way whatsoever.

Second, many people simply disagree about whether universal healthcare is the best way to ensure quality care for the greatest segment of society.

Neither of those debates has anything to do with whether it is OK to actively and deliberately kill an unborn child.

[homersapien 11,336]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The power vested in judicial precedent is not uniquely political. Liberal and conservative justices have always adhered to stare decisis. Justice Breyer would disagree with your assessment, and is he not championed among the liberal community.

I think you’ll agree with this: the willingness to abandon precedent will shift along the political spectrum, depending on the issue at hand. But, it is not favored uniquely by one party or the other. Do you follow what I’m saying by that?

1) I didn't say it was "uniquely favored by one party or the other".

2) I didn't say or imply liberal judges seldom adhered to stare decisis.

3) Finally, it's not true that liberal and/or conservative justices have "always" adhered to stare decisis.  History shows plenty of SCOTUS decisions that were overturned by later courts, thus ignoring stare decisis

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

 

I said what I said, that generally speaking, adhering to stare decisis is more of a conservative trait (resistance to change) than a liberal one (welcoming change).  Period.

It seems to me that you are going out of your way to find a way to disagree with that, even to the extent of misrepresenting my statement to do so.  In the future, please try to focus on what I did say, instead of what you think I meant.  

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Again, there are certain natural rights upon which citizens cannot simply “agree to disagree” and which cannot be violated with a good and just society. The right to life of all human beings, including the unborn, is one of these natural rights.

 

But the born don’t have rights? There are people all over this country who, depending on decisions made by the GOP, could lose healthcare due to pre-existing conditions. Does life not matter outside the womb? 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I think you’re asking, should pro-lifers support socializing health care. Here:

If you mean, “Shouldn’t they, in general” then that’s entirely a question about the merits of universal healthcare, and the “pro-life” qualifier is irrelevant.

I believe that Boston Red Sox fans should support freedom of speech, but only because I believe everyone should support freedom of speech, and I believe that Democrats should support due process of law, but only because I believe everyone should support due process of law.

---

But if you mean, “Shouldn’t they, because they’re pro-life” then I’d say no—or at least, not unless they see merit in it.

That is to say, there is nothing at all inconsistent about being pro-life and opposing universal healthcare.

First off, there is a difference between actively killing an unborn baby and simply not doing everything possible to prevent the death of some person, born or unborn.

Let’s cut through the BS rhetoric—no one is trying to “take” anyone’s healthcare or “prevent” anyone from obtaining medical care. The debate is over whether I should pay for your healthcare. By declining to pay, I leave you no worse off than if I’d never existed at all—I have harmed you in no way whatsoever.

Second, many people simply disagree about whether universal healthcare is the best way to ensure quality care for the greatest segment of society.

Neither of those debates has anything to do with whether it is OK to actively and deliberately kill an unborn child.

Then let’s not call it pro life. It’s pro birth. It’s the hypocrisy I take issue with. 

And yes, this administration wants to remove the law that protects people with pre-existing conditions. So in effect they aren’t protecting life. 

And I’m  amazed at the argument that you don’t want to pay for healthcare for others but never complain about all the corporate welfare handed out through tax cuts for the wealthy. I’d much rather my tax dollars take care of a cancer patient than line the pockets of a wealthy business man. 

[homersapien 11,336]

44 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Perhaps you have to understand this: pro life advocates aren’t trying to control your uterus. The overriding goal of the pro life movement is to restore the law’s protection of women and children. This includes protection of the lives of unborn children, the protection of women from male coercion of women to abort, protection for women from psychological and physical injury, and protection from profiteering and scrupulous abortionists. Simply put, those who oppose abortion as the killing of unborn children do so on the same basis that Lincoln opposed slavery: there are certain natural rights upon which citizens cannot simply “agree to disagree” and which cannot be violated consistent with a good and just society. The right to life of all human beings-born and unborn-is one of these. 

That sounds very noble, but the plain facts are repealing a woman's right to an abortion is a state intervention into her privacy.

I understand all the counter arguments and I understand the moral dilemma between prioritizing the woman's rights over the fetus's.  That's why it's a dilemma.  Simply denying that one half of the dilemma (such as denying the fact the state establishes jurisdiction over the woman's body) does not make that fact - and thus, the dilemma - disappear.

In other words, it doesn't matter how eloquently one defends one side of the argument, it doesn't make the other side irrelevant.