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

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

I understand the way you see it. But currently the law doesn’t support your view. What I’ve said and you chose to ridicule me for is that the SCOTUS appointees were a factor for evangelicals to support Trump. They want abortion rights banned. Whether or not that’s what they’ll get remains to be seen. 

 

And I’m sorry but sex being illegal with a minor isn’t regulating your penis. That’s like saying laws against murder are regulating guns. ?

 

I believe a woman has the right to have an abortion. I hope she doesn’t chose this. You can continue to ask the question my answer will remain the same. 

 Slavery? False equivalency much?

Understood.

As for slavery, I oppose abortion on the same grounds becuase I do see an equivalency, as I’m sure you’d disagree with. That’s ok.

Thanks for the discussion.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 hours ago, AUDub said:

It would put a lot of folks, particularly in the urban areas most likely to opt for abortion, on an island. And as the world pre Roe v Wade, not to mention things like the drug war, have shown us, a black market would spring up.

I mean, sure, if you can find reliable statistics from that era. Most I’ve seen deal almost exclusively with legal abortion rates. Illegal behaviors, are, by nature, hard to get a handle on. 

But let’s delve into this one. My curiosity is piqued. 

I didn’t mean I disagree with your predictions, I would probably argue against them (if that makes sense), as you can guess. But either way, it would be speculation so I Just didn’t know if there were reliable statistics out there.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 hours ago, AUDub said:

It would put a lot of folks, particularly in the urban areas most likely to opt for abortion, on an island. And as the world pre Roe v Wade, not to mention things like the drug war, have shown us, a black market would spring up.

I provided a federalism argument/opinion. Do you have any thoughts in that context?

[homersapien 11,373]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

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

Yes it does.  But I am not comparing the two.

[homersapien 11,373]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m asking you if you think they do.

Irony

[homersapien 11,373]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It doesn’t avoid the hypothetical. It’s the most important feature. The principle is the same for each choice in the hypothetical you have presented. The distinction from elective abortion remains. 

If I was the father, I would seek a second opinion and then speak with my wife, hear her out, and prayerfully make the decision together. —I’m sure you have a snarky remark for this.

 

However, the premise of the hypothetical is that you alone must make the decision. So assume your wife is unconscious.  You cannot share or pass the responsibility to decide.  (I thought I inferred if not stated that, sorry if it wasn't clear.)

So, which do you choose? 

 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Why are you avoiding the question?

more irony

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

You may be covered for that.

The one downside to socialized medicine. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

38 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Understood.

As for slavery, I oppose abortion on the same grounds becuase I do see an equivalency, as I’m sure you’d disagree with. That’s ok.

Thanks for the discussion.

I understand from a religious perspective how you’d be against abortion. But call yourself anti abortion rather that pro-life if you don’t believe children should be cared for outside the womb with programs that help them remain fed, healthy, and educated. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

53 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

However, the premise of the hypothetical is that you alone must make the decision. So assume your wife is unconscious.  You cannot share or pass the responsibility to decide.  (I thought I inferred if not stated that, sorry if it wasn't clear.)

So, which do you choose? 

 

 

The premise is not equivalent. That’s the entire flaw of your hypothetical, as I’ve pointed out. What larger point do you seek to advance in relation to the discussion over state vs federal regulated abortion in light of Roe v Wade? 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

49 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I understand from a religious perspective how you’d be against abortion. But call yourself anti abortion rather that pro-life if you don’t believe children should be cared for outside the womb with programs that help them remain fed, healthy, and educated. 

I’m not arguing from a religious perspective. I could, but I’m not. I’m arguing on the same basis people opposed slavery, which didn’t necessitate a religious appeal. Furthermore, I’ve not said I don’t believe children should be cared for outside the womb with programs that help them remain fed, healthy, and educated. That’s patently false. I said I don’t have to support any ol government run healthcare program that’s shoved in my face. To argue such an absurdity is elementary and illogical. In fact, I’ve supported programs that do care for children outside of the womb in the exact way you describe. Yet, you maintain your assertions of hypocrisy in the face of being provided with sufficient, contrary information.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

more irony

It’s not irony. You picked a clearly distinguishable hypothetical and I called it out. Yet you insist on sticking with it.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m not arguing from a religious perspective. I could, but I’m not. I’m arguing on the same basis people opposed slavery, which didn’t necessitate a religious appeal. Furthermore, I’ve not said I don’t believe children should be cared for outside the womb with programs that help them remain fed, healthy, and educated. That’s patently false. I said I don’t have to support any ol government run healthcare program that’s shoved in my face. To argue such an absurdity is elementary and illogical. In fact, I’ve supported programs that do care for children outside of the womb in the exact way you describe. Yet, you maintain your assertions of hypocrisy in the face of being provided with sufficient, contrary information.

It’s hard for me to swallow your concern for life outside the womb when you align yourself with a political party that does not enact policies that sustain life but rather works to destroy them. Just in the limited time I’ve interacted with you, I’ve seen you excuse jailing immigrant children and I’ve seen you rail against programs that help children such as socialized medicine. I applaud any charity work youdo for children but your political views don’t line up with a pro-life message. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, GiveEmElle said:

It’s hard for me to swallow your concern for life outsidecthe womb when you align yourself with a political party that does not. Just in the limited time I’ve interacted with you, I’ve seen you excuse jailing immigrant children and I’ve seen you rail against programs that help children such as socialized medicine. I applaud any charity work youdo for children but your political views don’t line up with a pro-life message. 

I know.

So every pro life republican is a hypocrite to you, or at least the ones who don’t, by default, necessarily supports socialized health care. Got it. I think that’s illogical.

I’m for immigration reform. I’m for detaining illegal immigrant majors. Illegal immigrant children aren’t thrown in jail. They’re seperated when their parents bring them with them, becuase we detain majors who cross our border illegally. I’ve already preached on the 9th circuit’s decision that extends Flores to minors who cross border with family. That’s why they are separated. That’s the foundation of the law.

Here’s what you’re ultimately saying,” if you oppose abortion yet support republicans [and support the detaining of illegal immigrants as well as opposing socialized health care], you’re a hypocrite.” I’m not going to change your mind. I think your position is an illogical one and clearly absurd. You probably would say the same about mine. That’s fine.

At this point I don’t have much else to say. 

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I know.

So every pro life republican is a hypocrite to you, or at least the ones who don’t, by default, necessarily supports socialized health care. Got it. I think that’s illogical.

I’m for immigration reform. I’m for detaining illegal immigrant majors. Illegal immigrant children aren’t thrown in jail. They’re seperated when their parents bring them with them, becuase we detain majors who cross our border illegally. I’ve already preached on the 9th circuit’s decision that extends Flores to minors who cross border with family. That’s why they are separated. That’s the foundation of the law.

Here’s what you’re ultimately saying,” if you oppose abortion yet support republicans [and support the detaining of illegal immigrants as well as opposing socialized health care], you’re a hypocrite.” I’m not going to change your mind. I think your position is an illogical one and clearly absurd. You probably would say the same about mine. That’s fine.

At this point I don’t have much else to say. 

 

Every republican that claims to be pro life but defends putting children in jail, defends defunding PP, defends defunding CHIP, defends not increasing minimum wage so that parents can provide for childrenis a hypocrite. You currently support a president whose administration is  working to eliminate coverage for people with pre existing conditions and I’m supposed to believe you are pro-life? The only stance I’ve seen you take in protecting life through your political views is in regards to abortion. So no, you aren’t pro-life. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Every republican that claims to be pro life but defends putting children in jail, defends defunding PP, defends defunding CHIP, defends not increasing minimum wage so that parents can provide for childrenis a hypocrite. You currently support a president whose administration is  working to eliminate coverage for people with pre existing conditions and I’m supposed to believe you are pro-life? The only stance I’ve seen you take in protecting life through your political is in regards to abortion. So no, you aren’t pro-life. 

Now you’re repeating yourself. I know you think supporting the detention of illegal immigrants means I support throwing children in jail (even though children aren’t being “thrown in jail.”). I know you don’t understand what happens to the value of the dollar when minimum wage goes up. I know you don’t believe in one’s calculation of a healthcare policy before jumping on board. I know you don’t believe that planned parenthood should be defunded. I got it. You’re wrong, but I got it.

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Now you’re repeating yourself. I know you think supporting the detention of illegal immigrants means I support throwing children in jail (even though children aren’t being “thrown in jail.”). I know you don’t understand what happens to the value of the dollar when minimum wage goes up. I know you don’t believe in one’s calculation of a healthcare policy before jumping on board. I know you don’t believe that planned parenthood should be defunded. I got it. You’re wrong, but I got it.

 

Ok. I’ll be the bad guy. You happy now? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

40 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Ok. I’ll be the bad guy. You happy now? 

I didn’t mean it like that. But hey, I do know there’s one thing we do agree on Elle. Can you guess?

[bigbird 60,529]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Irony

Telephone

[augolf1716 21,155]

On 7/15/2018 at 3:55 PM, bigbird said:

Telephone

Zip Code

[bigbird 60,529]

25 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

Zip Code

Numbers

[aubearcat 2,137]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

Numbers

Area code 

[bigbird 60,529]

3 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

Area code 

Phone number

[augolf1716 21,155]

Interstate 95

[aubearcat 2,137]

12 hours ago, bigbird said:

Phone number

867-5309