Roe V Wade overturned!

Wise Old Man wrote:

44561 wrote:

If men had sex and were the gender that becomes pregnant and has to carry the fetus to term, Abortion would be available at 24hr clinics in every town....

I agree with your core sentiment. The women of the country should decide this issue at the level of the elected legislatures and the courts, with no input from men. If you’re a man, you need to recuse or abstain, basically butt out. Plenty of pro life women out there to argue their case with the female body politic.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

I agree. But when you lie or deliberately misrepresent the facts to push an agenda you're not helping.

I agree. But I didn’t lie. I was taken in by the headline and the source, just as the Atlantic article stated.

I hope, if nothing else, you know that I value an honest discussion.

Harambe wrote:

The fact that everyone here concedes that abortion is OK to protect the life of the mother means that some kind of absolutist sanctity of life argument is BS.

By the logic we've seen here, the mother should be prepared to die with her baby as this is a known risk of having sex and getting pregnant. The fact that everyone concedes a carve-out for the mother's health cracks any absolutist argument and basically ruins the argument of anyone wanting a ban on early-term abortions (at least).

The again, hard-core conservatives wouldn't know about consistency if it slapped them in the face, so I'm sure they're perfectly comfortable letting a completely contradictory logical framework rattle around in their head.

Harambe wrote:

The fact that everyone here concedes that abortion is OK to protect the life of the mother means that some kind of absolutist sanctity of life argument is BS.

By the logic we've seen here, the mother should be prepared to die with her baby as this is a known risk of having sex and getting pregnant. The fact that everyone concedes a carve-out for the mother's health cracks any absolutist argument and basically ruins the argument of anyone wanting a ban on early-term abortions (at least).

The again, hard-core conservatives wouldn't know about consistency if it slapped them in the face, so I'm sure they're perfectly comfortable letting a completely contradictory logical framework rattle around in their head.

Harambe wrote:

The fact that everyone here concedes that abortion is OK to protect the life of the mother means that some kind of absolutist sanctity of life argument is BS.

By the logic we've seen here, the mother should be prepared to die with her baby as this is a known risk of having sex and getting pregnant. The fact that everyone concedes a carve-out for the mother's health cracks any absolutist argument and basically ruins the argument of anyone wanting a ban on early-term abortions (at least).

The again, hard-core conservatives wouldn't know about consistency if it slapped them in the face, so I'm sure they're perfectly comfortable letting a completely contradictory logical framework rattle around in their head.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

joedlrt wrote:

No. The deliberate leak of a preliminary document being drawn up by an underling that is not official is a political act of sabotage.

And everyone with background on the workings of the Supreme Court believes it was an archconservative clerk who leaked it with the goal of locking in the ruling. Now, if Roberts were able to sway Kavanaugh or Gorsuch to his side of letting Roe stand along with the reduced window of 15 weeks, it would be clear that they caved to public reaction.

Yawn^20 wrote:

Harambe wrote:

The fact that everyone here concedes that abortion is OK to protect the life of the mother means that some kind of absolutist sanctity of life argument is BS.

By the logic we've seen here, the mother should be prepared to die with her baby as this is a known risk of having sex and getting pregnant. The fact that everyone concedes a carve-out for the mother's health cracks any absolutist argument and basically ruins the argument of anyone wanting a ban on early-term abortions (at least).

The again, hard-core conservatives wouldn't know about consistency if it slapped them in the face, so I'm sure they're perfectly comfortable letting a completely contradictory logical framework rattle around in their head.

I along with many others concede no such thing. Abortion should be banned outright. There goes your argument.

Let it Rupp wrote:

Harambe wrote:

The fact that everyone here concedes that abortion is OK to protect the life of the mother means that some kind of absolutist sanctity of life argument is BS.

By the logic we've seen here, the mother should be prepared to die with her baby as this is a known risk of having sex and getting pregnant. The fact that everyone concedes a carve-out for the mother's health cracks any absolutist argument and basically ruins the argument of anyone wanting a ban on early-term abortions (at least).

The again, hard-core conservatives wouldn't know about consistency if it slapped them in the face, so I'm sure they're perfectly comfortable letting a completely contradictory logical framework rattle around in their head.

Another classic Harambe false equivalence fallacy!

Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6...

joedlrt wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

And everyone with background on the workings of the Supreme Court believes it was an archconservative clerk who leaked it with the goal of locking in the ruling. Now, if Roberts were able to sway Kavanaugh or Gorsuch to his side of letting Roe stand along with the reduced window of 15 weeks, it would be clear that they caved to public reaction.

Everyone huh?

Link:www.foxnews.com/media/cruz-supreme-cou...

Harambe wrote:

The fact that everyone here concedes that abortion is OK to protect the life of the mother means that some kind of absolutist sanctity of life argument is BS.

Hardloper wrote:

Harambe wrote:

The fact that everyone here concedes that abortion is OK to protect the life of the mother means that some kind of absolutist sanctity of life argument is BS.

No it doesn't. It means you should try to save 1 life instead of 0 lives. That is totally consistent with being pro-life.

joedlrt wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

And everyone with background on the workings of the Supreme Court believes it was an archconservative clerk who leaked it with the goal of locking in the ruling. Now, if Roberts were able to sway Kavanaugh or Gorsuch to his side of letting Roe stand along with the reduced window of 15 weeks, it would be clear that they caved to public reaction.

Everyone huh?

Link:www.foxnews.com/media/cruz-supreme-cou...

Harambe wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

No it doesn't. It means you should try to save 1 life instead of 0 lives. That is totally consistent with being pro-life.

There are people who make the argument that the woman assumes the risk to her life when she gets pregnant. The fetus is innocent! The mother is not! Etc. If you admit that life-of-mother abortions are ok, then you're conceding the above argument. There are other arguments to make, sure, but that one is refutable.

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

joedlrt wrote:

Everyone huh?

Link:www.foxnews.com/media/cruz-supreme-cou...

There were protestors with pre-made signs outside the Supreme court 10 minutes after the story broke. Every liberal news outlet was using the same talking points almost immediately.

Anyone who thinks a conservative leaked this is a fool.