Most Americans (71%) Oppose Transgender Agenda

Is this not allowed in a free country? So what if a minority believes something the majority does not. From my perspective many on both sides want to force their will on all.

I stand against harm and find that the right is good at making claims of how the LGBTQ community causes harm but not so good at proving it. Seems to me that some think sexuality is a choice and can be taught. I have yet to see science that proves that. I don’t worry about it because I know sexually is not a choice thus exposure to the LGBTQ community does not turn people gay, trans, bisexual or a drag queen. I have had plenty of exposure to the LGBTQ community over my life and have never, not even for a moment been tempted. I think that means I am a straight man. Even if I were tempted then I say so what? It’s a free country is it not?

 

I agree we have a valid reason to our point of views, and I’ve never tried to say that your point of view is invalid. I am not attempting to invalidate your opinions. I just don’t think you’re pro-choice the way I am pro-choice. I’m also not saying you’re not allowed to say you’re pro choice. I am, however going to question a person who says they are pro choice and anti Roe.

I don’t know why a pro-choice person would want Roe overturned. I’ve said before, if you think I was Roe was then you should be advocating for Congress to codify or pass something better than Roe. It would also be nice if you cared about the safety of women and states who have no access to abortion, but you don’t even address that. Every time I try to make these points to you you’ve said I am being emotional and I’m trying to pick a fight with you. I’m not trying to pick a fight with you in a disrespectful way, but I don’t think we’re pro-choice in the same way I am. I also don’t think that just because I don’t see things your way means I’m being emotional or invalid.

 

If I was interested in causing drama, you’d be the person mainly supplying it.

 

I’ve never known of him writing he was pro-life either and I never claimed that

 

Who said I wanted Roe overtuned? I specifically said it was a wrong decision by the SC (the one who originally sided with Roe). There's a difference between wanting something and recognizing that something should never have been in the first place. My point of view is the current SC got it finally right by overturning Roe placing it back into the hands of individual States to decide. You can respect the ruling of the Court and still be pro-choice. Don't you understand that?

I'm still waiting for a PM.

 

It doesn’t matter how do you split hairs you support Roe being overturn. Again, you don’t address the fact that anti abortion state laws are putting women’s health and lives at risk. You seem to think that that’s fine because that’s the way it should be. That’s why I’m judging you and questioning your pro choice label. What’s the point of being legally pro-choice, if is not about protecting the lives and safety of women?

 

, the embellishments have to be by design.

 

I'm trying to settle one thing at a time. Unless you concede that you got my pov wrong there's no point in addressing anything else. How can I be sure you won't twist anything I say?

 

You wrote that he isn't Pro-Choice. You were wrong to write this.
You could at least try to keep what you write straight.

My point was to say that if Overitall was Pro-Life, it's his prerogative, and what's it to you anyway.

 

My patience is running thin.

 

To be honest, I am not begging you to debate me or go further, so I don’t really care what you do at this point. I’m not trying to intentionally twist anything you say, but I am questioning things you say, and I’ve made an honest attempt at explaining exactly what why.

 

I didn't say you were intentionally twisting anything I said, but you definitely have unintentionally twisted what I've said. You still won't list five things I requested from you. Why is that?

 

Where did he write that he supports it? He wrote that he supports the Supreme Court's ruling. One can do that while still supporting women's choice. They, the SC, did get it correct even if some don't like Roe overturned.
I do too respect their ruling because of Dobbs, but you'll never believe this when I say I wrote that I wish they had just left it alone. I wrote that. I wish that they could have left it alone.
Put that one in your pipe and smoke it.

If one respects and accepts the SC ruling, they will also respect and accept that this is a states' right issue.
Why don't you understand this? It's only logical that the latter follows the former.

Like many in this country will do, they'll appeal to their congressman and woman asking them to support their view. How do you know that @Overitall hasn't done this? How do you know? Or are you simply tossing more at the wall and hoping it sticks?
You should attempt to read what people write, stop with assuming that what they write isn't on the side of women. You are very wrong to keep assuming this.

 

I literally said that I don’t think he’s pro choice. That’s an opinion, and I further clarified that I don’t think he’s pro-choice the way. I am I’m not sure how pro life is a pejorative.

I also don’t understand why things get so emotional and out of hand. I state one opinion and several people focus on it, and act like I’m victimizing or attacking somebody and owe somebody an apology. Wtf

 

Why don't you address what he wrote and asked you in his last post?

 

It is not an opinion that is correct. You have been proven wrong. So stop saying it's your opinion that he is not prochoice because it's a fact that he is Pro-Choice. He might not feel it in his heart PERSONALLY, but for the country, the right of all women, he is PROCHOICE. So stop with the petulance.

 

I'm not the poster deliberately misrepresenting the views of others. You just don't like the mistruths you write about others being challenged.

 

I tried to explain my reasoning I have not listed it in a bullet point list form though. This is what I’ve said before.


I don’t know why a pro-choice person would want Roe overturned. I understand your opinion. You think tge court got it right, but this is a different court. This is a conservative leaning court, and most people know that this court was 50 years in the making to overturn Roe. I knew Roe was going to be overturned before they even got their first abortion challenge, because that’s the politics of the federalist society. They are Federalist Society judges.

In the case of Dobbs, they overreached. They weren’t even asked to reassess Roe. They up ended 50 years of legal precedent. I realize none of this matters to you, but the fact that you so easily accept it and call yourself pro choice is difficult for me to understand. I try to rationalize it, and I don’t know if it’s because you really respect the court because you’re conservative and you like the Federalist Society, I don’t know, but I can’t rationalize it from the POV of simply just being a pro choice person.

Secondly, if you think I was Roe was bad and deserve to be over turned, then you should be advocating for Congress to codify or pass something better than Roe.

Third, it would also be nice if you cared about the safety of women in states who have no access to abortion, but you don’t even address that. Every time I try to make this points to you, you’ve said I am being emotional and making an emotional appeal, but what’s the point of being legally pro choice if not for the safety of women? Are you even aware of the amount of danger women are facing especially because of heart beat laws? I could post hundreds of articles if you’re not aware of how horrible these laws are two women.

Fourth, do you think states should be allowed to put women at this amount of risk and call yourself pro-choice?

Lastly, I can’t wrap my head around a pro choice person being anti-roe. Women died before Roe. Women have died in pro life Poland, Hungary, and Ireland. It’s not far fetched to think a woman will eventually die in the United States of America. Women died in this country before Roe. But you should know this, right? Why assume things have changed? Why assume this is acceptable? Where is the pro choice reasoning in any of this? I don’t see it.

 

I’m questioning how pro choice he is, and I’m allowed to do that.

 

I don’t know how a legitimate pro-choice person could respect the Dobbs ruling. Anybody who respects what this Court did from an abortion’s right angle, and is willing to still defend the court, must be doing it because they’re a very right wing person. I mean, I get a right wing person is super excited about the political wins at this court is going to bring them. If you are that right wing and further into the right wing echo sphere, listening to Fox News pushing this BS into your ears, then I guess it’s easier for you to accept this than it is me. But if you’re an actual pro-choice person who can see the dangers in what this court is done, you’d be more concerned then you really are.

It’s all so much easier to not care about the safety issues this is posing on women if your post menopausal or a man.

 

He was discussing clumps of cells, and not a zygote.

 

How dare a truly cognizant, (who attempts not to be a partisan) American have the audacity to respect the Supreme Court's ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Maybe some ought to get out of the echo chamber where they pretend the decision was made on partisanship rather than Constitutional legalities. How dare those I mentioned above agree with this? I might not like the strife the decision has caused the country, but to be perfectly honest, the majority got it right.

Too long to quote, but here it is.
19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (06/24/2022) (d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net)

 

The context of the quote in question was killing a fetus, brain activity, and legal standards. I assume you knew this so I don't know where to go from here.

 

You appear not to know a lot of things about the reasoning for overturning Roe. See my last post. Enjoy learning.

Oh, and that's a sexist attempt to marginalize groups of people by shaming older women and men whose opinions obviously disturb you. Tsk, tsk.

 

I posted my opinion, and you’re insulting me. I have also laid out my reasoning why I think the court is wrong, because it’s a danger to women. I don’t respect the fact that red state laws are endangering women and they are.

Lastly, and historically, I disagreed with a lot of the Supreme Court’s decisions. The Dred Scott case set us up for Civil War, and then the Supreme Court upheld racial discrimination and helped create the Jim Crow south. The supreme court has made disastrous decisions in the past that has led to people living lives that are unjust and put at risk of discrimination, murder, and death.

I will never respect a red state government, playing playing doctor, and telling a woman when she needs to have an abortion. It’s dangerous, and it has gotten people killed in America before. There is no reason I think it won’t again.