Republican's Latest Monumental Faux Pas

Your ongoing FAILURE to substantiate your BOGUS strawman allegations is only harming your own credibility.

However that is entirely YOUR problem, not mine.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
UH, people who believe that women have a right to their own bodies are "fanatics" ???

Really...? No, they believe women have rights just like you do and that does NOT make them fanatics.

His point is valid.

The right ceases to care about that "precious life" the second it's born, they continually attempt to cut funding to entities that support children, like Welfare, SANAP, WIC, even healthy school lunches!!!

Of course not , that 's not logical.

Anyone who wants to pass laws denying women their right to their own bodies ( banning abortion) are all about controlling women, that's obvious.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
UH, people who believe that women have a right to their own bodies are "fanatics" ???

Really...? No, they believe women have rights just like you do and that does NOT make them fanatics.

...

And Anti-Choicers believe the rights of one group , fetuses, trump the rights of another group, women...so they, according to you, are fanatics.


They are so fanatic that they don't know fetuses have NO rights.



I never said women and men were the same...WTF are you talking about?

 

See this is why I always win debates with you. It's not that I'm more intelligent or more clever or more informed although those things do help. It's that I have no agenda other than seeking truth while you hold fanatically to what you believe to be true based on emotion and that's why you always end up frustrated and lashing out by this point in every debate. I can't lose debates because my agenda is truth and knowledge and if someone gives me information I didn't previously have that alters my position I alter my position so I'm no longer arguing a fallacy. Learn and grow.

 

Because it's true. The very fact that this topic is here and being discussed at all is proof positive of that.

No one, not even myself, is saying that any woman should ever be made to HAVE an abortion. Nor is anyone suggesting for an equal minute that any non-coercive means of moral suasion should ever be prohibited to those who think abortion is wrong. ALL we are asking is that women, once they have heard your arguments, are given the CHOICE as whether they have the procedure or not.

The anti-choicers, in contrast, are indeed seeking to control the woman primarily. The welfare of the fetus is a peripheral concern at best since a fetus's overall survival is by no means assured even if the mother never even considers an abortion. Mind, this is ignoring totally any considerations about whether anyone will help the child once it is born. Not all pregnancies, even to healthy women who do everything they can to secure a robust delivery and child, are successful by a long shot, that is undisputed fact.

Again, no one is saying any mother must have an abortion, but you anti-choicers ARE trying to say she may not; and that is a matter of control, not of benefit to anyone.

 

Of course we are. Because we believe that abortion destroys life. Innocent, helpless life at that.

 

Self serving attempt to cover up your own FAILURES to substantiate any of your BOGUS allegations duly noted for the record.

Anyone can peruse the posts in this thread and make a determination that I was the only who was providing substantiation for my well defined positions backed by credible sources compared to your flailing attempts at throwing bovine excrement around in desperation hoping that some of it might stick.



That you are now trying to PRETEND that you "won" is TYPICAL of those who FAIL to support their vacuous positions. It is probably one of the LEAST EFFECTIVE ploys on the internet and it is astounding that anyone would still any try to get away with it.

But don't let the FACTS stand in the way of your BELIEVING that you "won the internets"!

 

Oh, I just caught on to why you said women and men were different!

because you believe men have rights that women don't , or shouldn't, have??? Is that it??

 

So does war and I never met a good Republican who didn't like a good war....

 

It's like Trump saying, "I'm a stable genius"......

 

Another emotional outburst which validates my previous post.

 

Something we finally agree upon!

Yes, laughter is an emotional outburst so I must thank you for your own ongoing amusement factor for my benefit.

 

In solidly Republican states, voter supression is common and voter turnout is low. In Democratic states, voting is wildly encouraged and voter turnout is high. Then there is the matter of right wing media, which corrupts the minds if its listeners.

And remember, when I speak of Republicans, I am talking of the party and the right wingers who control it. Right wingers being those who think the wealthy should have all the power and wealth. I consider most conservatives, who vote Republican, to be as much victims of right wing shenanigans as everyone else.

 

I didn’t say Roe was a bad decision. I said it was weak. And that’s what most legal experts say.

 

Well, this is quite demonstrably false. You’ve been given numerous data sets which show your position on many issues is entirely incorrect. Your ideology prevents you from accepting the data because it conflicts with your beliefs.

 

If it's weak then why is it still standing after 50 years?

 

Dread Scot was around for a decade and a half Plessey vs Ferguson nearly eighty. It seems to me that whether a decision is good or bad is all but completely disconnect from whether it is good or bad.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
If it's weak then why is it still standing after 50 years?

That doesn't answer my question:
If it's weak then why is it still standing after 50 years?

And RvW was a good ruling that has protected women's rights for 50 years...no, it shouldn't have been needed at all but there were those who insisted "women have no rights and must be controlled"

 

You said, 1 of the worst decision ever made. That to mean means, BAD. Not WEAK.
And you have yet to offer 1 person who you agree with. Surely you have some legal expert you are backing you position on. Give the name and this person's reason they think it's one of the WORST decisions EVER mad.

 

I’m not a lawyer, but I believe the pro-lifers need to have a perfect case to have it overturned. Perfect cases are rare. They don’t want to get to the SCOTUS and lose because that would solidify Roe even more.

Also, I don’t think the court would overturn Roe with a 5-4 vote. That would be too divisive. It has to be 6-3, or preferably 7-2. The libs would have to lose two more seats to make that happen.

It won’t be easy.

 

Nor should it be.

Taking away American citizens right to their own bodies should be impossible.

 

Conservative scholars say it was a bad ruling which accomplished a political goal without any constitutional basis. That’s my personal opinion, too.

But if we’re going to be realistic about the chances of Roe surviving indefinitely (and NOT my personal opinion of the law, which doesn’t matter), I’ll put my money on what more moderate scholars say. They generally call it weak or vulnerable. Not many of them say it’s bad or horrible law.

I apologize for not being more precise.

 

There is no such thing as a right to murder at your convenience. It wasn't about controlling women that is bogus. It is about not killing without due process.

 

Republicans are such hypocrites. They don't want to ban guns because "criminals don't follow laws," yet they want to ban abortions because they think doing so will stop abortions.

 

not always.