Roe Vs Wade Overturned - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +--- Thread: Roe Vs Wade Overturned (/Thread-Roe-Vs-Wade-Overturned) |
RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - Lucidus - 06-26-2022 (06-26-2022, 03:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't go anywhere, I literally read what you wrote regarding men vs. women. I said nothing about men vs. women in the original post you responded to. You interpreted as such. I'm not responsible for your insertion of gender into a post about biological reproduction. Quote:So, you admit your statement that prompted my response was inaccurate and denied the existence of transgender men. Again, you introduced gender into the conversation, when gender has nothing to do with biological reproduction. Quote:I concur. Except that's not what you said. I understand completely, it's you who appears confused. Yet again, I spoke of biological reproduction and you chose to interpret that as gender related. Quote:What an obvious case of projection. I'll repost your own words, again. The only way to interpret "one" as "men" is to confuse biological reproduction with gender. "One" refers to anyone possessing the ability to become pregnant. They could be men or women. Again, it's not my issue that you chose to assign gender. Perhaps this will help, by making extremely simple: Group A contains all people that possess the biological means to become pregnant. Group B contains all people that don't possess the biological means to become pregnant. Groups A and B are comprised of both men and women, both cis and trans. Group A is more directly [physically, mentally and emotionally] affected than Group B. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-26-2022 (06-26-2022, 04:03 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I said nothing about men vs. women in the original post you responded to. You interpreted as such. I'm not responsible for your insertion of gender into a post about biological reproduction. And with this steamer of a post you've officially entered nonsensical bullshit territory. I would think a person who states they pride themselves on making logic based arguments would simply own their error like an adult and move on instead of trying to worm their way out of it. Thank you for the insight into your true personality. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - Lucidus - 06-26-2022 (06-26-2022, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And with this steamer of a post you've officially entered nonsensical bullshit territory. I would think a person who states they pride themselves on making logic based arguments would simply own their error like an adult and move on instead of trying to worm their way out of it. Thank you for the insight into your true personality. At this point, I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not an honest interlocutor. You have refused to acknowledge that you inserted gender needlessly, then employed the "I'm not saying it, it's just what I read" excuse. I've attempted to reduce it to a level that is extremely easy understand, yet you still pretend to be unaware of the differences between between biological reproduction and gender. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-26-2022 (06-26-2022, 05:04 PM)Lucidus Wrote: At this point, I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not an honest interlocutor. Dude, your entire line of response in this discussion has been the internet equivalent of saying "nuh uh". You are, once again projecting your own inadequacies unto others. I'll leave it to anyone else reading to draw their own conclusions, and I do so with confidence that very few would fall four your particular line of prevarication. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - Lucidus - 06-26-2022 (06-26-2022, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, your entire line of response in this discussion has been the internet equivalent of saying "nuh uh". You are, once again projecting your own inadequacies unto others. I'll leave it to anyone else reading to draw their own conclusions, and I do so with confidence that very few would fall four your particular line of prevarication. You have not been an honest interlocutor in our exchange, which is apparent from the very first accusation of transphobia. I will leave it there and bid you good day. Cheers. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - M.W. - 06-26-2022 (06-24-2022, 04:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Right but he's postulating that people who voted democrat to preserve roe v wade might switch to voting republican now that republicans overturned it against their will. it is insanity. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - M.W. - 06-26-2022 (06-24-2022, 05:23 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It is pretty interesting and it really mocks our feel-good democratic narrative. 100% true! RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - basballguy - 06-27-2022 (06-26-2022, 05:04 PM)Lucidus Wrote: At this point, I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not an honest interlocutor. Insulting someone because you lost an argument. You’re cool. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - PDub80 - 06-27-2022 (06-26-2022, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, Roe was not on firm ground. It was a major stretch trying to cover abortion under the 14th's right to privacy. I am far from the only person here who thinks so. I get not liking the ruling, I don't like the ruling, but if you're trying to be at all objective then Roe being overturned is not judicial overreach or activism. In fact, it's much easier to make both those arguments against the original Roe ruling. I get that people are very emotional right now, but this was not a poorly supported decision. This is 100% correct. In Roe v Wade, the court used Griswold vs Connecticut, which was about right to privacy in one's own home and with their own body in relation to an old, moronic, Connecticut law that said people were NOT allowed to use contraceptives AT ALL... and then the court made a loooooong stretch to tie that into federal abortion via Roe v Wade. However, overturning Roe v Wade has a slippery slope compenent that is already a possibility. Justice Thomas has already come out and said the court will be reviewing other rulings that were based off of Griswold v Connecticut. THAT is NOT good, IMO. I am an empathetic person and try to listen to and understand the great many sides to this topic. It's an incredibly polarizing topic. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - pally - 06-27-2022 It actually isn’t complex. In a country that claims as its hallmark “freedom and liberty for all”. You have neither if you do not have body autonomy. The 9th amendment which has been forgotten by Justice Alito says that the people retain rights not specified in the constitution. Abortion was legal up until quickening or first movement in all 13 states at the time of ratification of the Constitution. But hey, if we are supposed to rule this country based on 18th century beliefs and knowledge then let’s by start only allowing weapons available at the time. And of course, they must be owned by persons who actually participate in a well-regulated militia. It is amazing that these so-called originalists take the most conservative view of the various amendment…except for the 2nd and religion clause of the 1st. With those 2, they are downright making things up as they go. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - BoomerFan - 06-27-2022 (06-27-2022, 02:24 AM)pally Wrote: It actually isn’t complex. In a country that claims as its hallmark “freedom and liberty for all”. You have neither if you do not have body autonomy. I don't support what the SCOTUS has done and think the argument of trying to make better law is undercut by some of Justice Thomas's comments but your argument has two major failings. One, you've created a false dichotomy. There can still be civil liberties despite this ruling even in states that will/have outlawed abortion. And two, the opposition's argument is that there can be neither freedom nor liberty for all if human children are being murdered. Do I personally believe life begins at conception? No I think we're talking about a bunch of cells. It might be difficult to say exactly where the line is that those cells can feel something to the point we have some moral obligation to them but the third trimester makes sense. The problem with the 9th is people will claim that anything is a right. Or you have to resolve issues of two rights at odds with each other. I would say there is a natural right to privacy, but right is limited by others' right to live. States can and do make laws regarding things that might be natural rights if they aren't codified in the constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS. I am with you on your reading of the 2nd though. I will also say, I am disgusted by message boards (specifically parts of reddit) where people are openly endorsing a violent response to this ruling (and the mods do nothing). I mean, it is predictable that this would only inflame the culture war but still it is toxic and childish and of course someone innocent will end up being harmed. That's how it is with all wars. It is also worth noting that this isn't the 1970s anymore. There are a lot of forms of birth control, many less intrusive than at that time. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of abortions (as a percentage of population) is declining anyways. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - pally - 06-27-2022 (06-27-2022, 07:53 AM)BoomerFan Wrote: I don't support what the SCOTUS has done and think the argument of trying to make better law is undercut by some of Justice Thomas's comments but your argument has two major failings. One, you've created a false dichotomy. There can still be civil liberties despite this ruling even in states that will/have outlawed abortion. And two, the opposition's argument is that there can be neither freedom nor liberty for all if human children are being murdered. Do I personally believe life begins at conception? No I think we're talking about a bunch of cells. It might be difficult to say exactly where the line is that those cells can feel something to the point we have some moral obligation to them but the third trimester makes sense. If one does not have autonomy over one's own body then nothing else matters. You are not a free person...your body belongs to somebody else. I keep hearing about the rights of a child but nothing about the rights of the woman. Its like she suddenly doesn't matter once she is pregnant even if that pregnancy is against her will or desire. Abortion rates have fallen steadily since about 1983. They fall faster during Democratic presidencies, probably because the economy has been better during those times. 2 things have big impact on pregnancy rates...comprehensive school-based sex education that goes beyond abstinance and easy access to a variety of birth control methods. Keep in mind that the same right-wing that wanted Roe-v-Wade overturned is going after sex education because they believe parents should do it. Most parents do a lousy job of it. They underestimate the power of teenage hormones. They can teach morality...let educators deal with the facts. They are also going after several forms of birth control including the very effective IUD and the day-after pill. They believe that even preventing the implantation of a zygote is abortion. As I said earlier, abortion will never ever be legislated out of existence. What they are legislated is the elimination of safe abortions for women who don't have the money or ability to travel. 78% of single mothers already live in poverty. That number will grow. The number of children in poverty will grow exponentially. Only 43% of women actually receive child support and even that is often inadequate. Women will be leaving the workforce because of too expensive or unavailable child care. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - BoomerFan - 06-27-2022 (06-27-2022, 09:30 AM)pally Wrote: If one does not have autonomy over one's own body then nothing else matters. You are not a free person...your body belongs to somebody else. I keep hearing about the rights of a child but nothing about the rights of the woman. Repeating a false dichotomy does not make it true. And if you heard nothing about the rights of the woman in what I wrote, then read my post again. Or to save you time I'll restate the position, the issue is potentially two conflicting rights. One would be the woman's and one the unborn child. There is a strong argument that the latter is a non-entity in the first two trimesters so I'm not defending the position. But I'm not going to strawman it either. Your right to liberty ends where someone else's begins. That is the essentials of the argument. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - WeezyBengal - 06-27-2022 (06-25-2022, 07:24 PM)pally Wrote: It is always interesting to see the opinions on abortion from men who will never have to live the actual reality of the impact an unplanned unwanted pregnancy has on a woman. Or the impact of carrying a child who will be born only to quickly die. Or having to give up everything to take care of a profoundly disabled child. Sure there is some impact on the father but they aren't the one whose entire life and health will change because of a pregnancy. As a Christian (and someone who leans pro choice and is against what happened with overturning Roe vs. Wade) this statement frustrates me (and I'm not even sure who the frustration is aimed at, to be honest). Just because someone is pro life doesn't make them Christian and vice versa. Being pro life wasn't written in stone by Christians, its an ideal that Christians believe in but not one that they COMPLETELY own. I guess I am just a little frustrated how some people out there are attacking Christianity over this and looking at Christianity as the singular focus of why this happened. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - pally - 06-27-2022 (06-27-2022, 09:41 AM)BoomerFan Wrote: Repeating a false dichotomy does not make it true. what other rights do the unborn possess? If the mother miscarried there would not even be a death certificate because under most state laws a miscarried pregnancy isn't a person. You can't take out life insurance on a fetus. You can't collect child support on a fetus. A person who kills a fetus while committing a crime will only be charged with its death after viability. I can't get a deduction on my taxes because of a pregnancy. Justice Alito said if a right isn't spelled out in the constitution it isn't a right. Preborn personhood isn't in the constitution nor is it considered a historic norm. So tell me, what rights does this unborn have? RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - GMDino - 06-27-2022 Including some posts for context...wait for it. (06-26-2022, 02:29 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Please explain your response without shifting the blame to something you saw and copied from Reddit. (06-26-2022, 02:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have a hard time understanding how you could be confused. I've been told, numerous times, that men can get pregnant, have periods, etc. (06-26-2022, 04:03 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I said nothing about men vs. women in the original post you responded to. You interpreted as such. I'm not responsible for your insertion of gender into a post about biological reproduction. (06-26-2022, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And with this steamer of a post you've officially entered nonsensical bullshit territory. I would think a person who states they pride themselves on making logic based arguments would simply own their error like an adult and move on instead of trying to worm their way out of it. Thank you for the insight into your true personality. (06-26-2022, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, your entire line of response in this discussion has been the internet equivalent of saying "nuh uh". You are, once again projecting your own inadequacies unto others. I'll leave it to anyone else reading to draw their own conclusions, and I do so with confidence that very few would fall four your particular line of prevarication. So anyway... (06-27-2022, 12:09 AM)basballguy Wrote: Insulting someone because you lost an argument. You’re cool. Yeah but not who you think. Lucidus had his post "refuted" by inserting something he never said and being called a "transphobe". He respectfully tried to figure out how SSF got that and then restated his point to clarify only to be insulted on a personal level. That happens a good bit around here. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - michaelsean - 06-27-2022 (06-27-2022, 09:30 AM)pally Wrote: If one does not have autonomy over one's own body then nothing else matters. You are not a free person...your body belongs to somebody else. I keep hearing about the rights of a child but nothing about the rights of the woman. Its like she suddenly doesn't matter once she is pregnant even if that pregnancy is against her will or desire. Well that autonomy is removed at some point in the pregnancy even under Roe. And I would check that 78% of single mothers live in poverty. That seems pretty high. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-27-2022 (06-27-2022, 10:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: Including some posts for context...wait for it. And here I was being nice and civil to you since your return. But you just couldn't help yourself and had white knight a dude who got caught up in his own wording and refused to own it. I explained his statement numerous times, and all I got was "nuh uh" in response. Odd that you would defend that. On second thought, no it isn't. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-27-2022 (06-27-2022, 01:10 AM)PDub80 Wrote: This is 100% correct. In Roe v Wade, the court used Griswold vs Connecticut, which was about right to privacy in one's own home and with their own body in relation to an old, moronic, Connecticut law that said people were NOT allowed to use contraceptives AT ALL... and then the court made a loooooong stretch to tie that into federal abortion via Roe v Wade. Yeah, I share some of those same concerns. But, as I stated earlier Roe was on much shakier ground than other decisions, such as same sex marriage. I suppose the cases they accept for their next term will tell us something in this regard. RE: Roe Vs Wade Overturned - Nately120 - 06-27-2022 (06-27-2022, 11:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, I share some of those same concerns. But, as I stated earlier Roe was on much shakier ground than other decisions, such as same sex marriage. I suppose the cases they accept for their next term will tell us something in this regard. I hear ya, it's just hard to have much confidence in the strength of any positions now. A president with 3 million fewer votes than his opponent won and appointed 3 SC justices who were instrumental in doing something that has an amount of bipartisan disdain rarely seen in this climate. I'd put on my tinfoil hat and wonder why overturning something both sides have anything close to agreement upon was so damn important. Add in that the Trump justices were blatantly lying about their intentions to do so and, well...hard not to assume we are sliding down a slope. Plus people can be pissed about this, but the GOP can still clean house in the midterms and further show that unlike Dee Snyder, we are gonna take it. |