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

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

More misrepresentation. 

I just cannot accept the apparent lack of detailed comprehension coming from a would be law student.   I've gone out of my way to carefully point out the nuances of your misunderstanding what I am saying.

Good luck with your studies.  Sooner or later, some professor is going to cut you a new one.

If I ever encounter a professor that shares your logic, I’ll cut myself a new one. Trust me. 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I answered.

Sticking on topic can really present a dilemma can’t it? We’re not discussing rare medical emergencies where both the woman and the baby’s life is in danger. Such scenario has never been dictated by Roe v Wade, nor would it be should states regulate abortion again. The basis of opposing abortion “as murder” doesn’t extend to this hypothetical. It doesn’t move the needle. Such thoughts on a medical emergency has no bearing on one’s position of the active and deliberate killing of baby inside the woman. 

No you evaded.

And we can set up a hypothetical any way we like.  If you can't handle that one just say so. 

Quit trying to weasel you way around it by arguing such a situation is simply impossible.  Similar scenarios happen all the time in real life situations. 

Again, the doctor tells you, the father, you can either save the mother or the child.  Which is it? 

(Hint: the term "either or" limits your degrees of freedom to two.) 

[homersapien 11,373]

27 minutes ago, Auburn85 said:

Medicare currently doesn't provide free inhalers for people with asthma. Why do people support denying women access to free inhalers. Awesome logic and argument. Checkmate. Then, when someone makes the same argument, just uses different words- it's a terrible argument. And no, I'm not even a hypocrite for making this statement.

[homersapien 11,373]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If I ever encounter a professor that shares your logic, I’ll cut myself a new one. Trust me. 

 

Prepare yourself.

Nothing I have said defies logic.  You just cannot deal with the logic.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No you evaded.

And we can set up a hypothetical and way we like.  If you can't handle that one just say so. 

Quit trying to weasel you way around it by obfuscating by arguing such a situation is simply impossible.  Similar scenarios happen all the time in real life situations. 

Again, the doctor tells you, the father, you can either save the mother or the child.  Which is it? 

(Hint: the term "either or" limits your degrees of freedom to two.) 

Do you want me to answer it as a “law student?”

[homersapien 11,373]

28 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I answered.

Sticking on topic can really present a dilemma can’t it? We’re not discussing rare medical emergencies where both the woman and the baby’s life is in danger. Such scenario has never been dictated by Roe v Wade, nor would it be should states regulate abortion again. The basis of opposing abortion “as murder” doesn’t extend to this hypothetical. It doesn’t move the needle. Such thoughts on a medical emergency has no bearing on one’s position of the active and deliberate killing of baby inside the woman. 

No you avoided the logic of an "either or" scenario one of the most basic scenarios in logic.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

Prepare yourself.

Nothing I have said defies logic.  You just cannot deal with the logic.

Righhht

[homersapien 11,373]

23 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m telling you how absurd your projections of hypocrisy are. Higher education isn’t a prerequisite to see that.

Law students are trained to encounter and address competent arguments. You’ve provided none. 

Philosophical arguments are out of bounds?

There is nothing incompetent about my arguments.  The incompetence lies it your not being able to deal with them.

[homersapien 11,373]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Righhht

Hey, you GOT one!

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No you avoided the logic of an "either or" scenario one of the most basic scenarios in logic.

 

The intent and goal in such a scenario would be saving a life, wouldn’t it? Can you answer that question, please?

[homersapien 11,373]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The intent and goal in such a scenario would be saving a life, wouldn’t it? Can you answer that question, please?

But only one.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Philosophical arguments are out of bounds?

There is nothing incompetent about my arguments.  The incompetence lies it your not being able to deal with them.

The scenario in your hypothetical has a fundamentally different intent at play, namely saving a life, as opposed to solely taking a life.

[homersapien 11,373]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Do you want me to answer it as a “law student?”

Answer it as yourself.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

But only one.

Right but that presents a different dilemma than elective abortion when the mother’s s life is not at risk.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

As if....

I’m playing along, so come on. The intent in such a medical scenario is fundamentally different.

[homersapien 11,373]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The scenario in your hypothetical has a fundamentally different intent at play, namely saving a life, as opposed to solely taking a life.

Well, it effectively "takes the life" of the one you don't choose doesn't it?

[homersapien 11,373]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m playing along, so come on. The intent in such a medical scenario is fundamentally different.

I've got to feed my dogs then myself.

Play with yourself for a while.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, it effectively "takes the life" of the one you don't choose doesn't it?

I would add a crucial distinction that you’re failing to see, between medical treatment (for purposes of your hypo) and elective abortion. While a unborn baby may not survive such treatment for the mother, the intent and goal is to save the mother’s life (or baby’s life, since you said choose one or the other), not to end a life. Such action in these scenarios is never done simply to take the child’s life - the same cannot be said for an elective abortion.

So no, you’re not “taking a life” on the same grounds in your hypothetical. Like I said, you’re not moving the needle any - no pun intended.

Now, do you still want me to contribute this amount of thought to your questions? Can be pretty embarrassing for you, can’t it? But I’m just a whimpy law student

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Still not answering the question, I see. Do the unborn have a natural right to life?

What does Roe v Wade say? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

What does Roe v Wade say? 

I’m asking you if you think they do.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m asking you if you think they do.

And I’m telling you that I hope no woman would be in a position where she feels terminating a pregnancy is the only choice. But women do feel this way and I’d rather see change implemented that reduce the reasons women feel this way.

Now you answer my question. Do you want the government regulating what you do with your penis? 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m asking you if you think they do.

Dang Nola you must be gaining weight. You used to eat homies lunch now you are eating his and elle's dinner as well.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Would you like the government telling you what you can and cannot do with your penis?

Heck yeah if they could get that dude up again

[homersapien 11,373]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I would add a crucial distinction that you’re failing to see, between medical treatment (for purposes of your hypo) and elective abortion. While a unborn baby may not survive such treatment for the mother, the intent and goal is to save the mother’s life (or baby’s life, since you said choose one or the other), not to end a life. Such action in these scenarios is never done simply to take the child’s life - the same cannot be said for an elective abortion.

So no, you’re not “taking a life” on the same grounds in your hypothetical. Like I said, you’re not moving the needle any - no pun intended.

Now, do you still want me to contribute this amount of thought to your questions? Can be pretty embarrassing for you, can’t it? But I’m just a whimpy law student

 

Actually that was a much, much better effort than your typical reply!  Very good! (I suspect the break have have helped). And why would I be "embarrassed??  Hell, I'm delighted!  Carry on. 

Unfortunately, while the roll of "intent" is certainly worthy of discussion, it still avoids the hypothetical question: which do you choose?  Choose, then talk about justification and moral nuances.

[homersapien 11,373]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Heck yeah if they could get that dude up again

You may be covered for that.