I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

[ttwtt78640]

It’s not entirely unwritten. There’s is the concept of privacy in the 4th amendment. But it doesn’t matter. No Constitutional right, no matter how clearly it is written in the Constitution, is absolutely (as I know you know).

Nope, that specifically addresses “searches and seizures”.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Unless that claim is that their (imaginary?) “right to privacy” has been unreasonably seized, thus they have no idea what the text of that “right to privacy” was, then it fails to apply to states denying or restricting access to abortions or contraceptives.

 

[wolfsgirl]

It is my opinion that the sun rises in the west. Can you prove me wrong?

There are verifiable ways to determine where the sun rises.

 

[aociswundumho]

That is the problem. If one asserts that there is a Constitutional “right to privacy” which makes abortion on demand a right, the burden of proof is on them to show us the text of this “right to privacy”. Instead they take the sleazy way out and shift the burden to proving that this unwritten, yet claimed, Constitutional “right to privacy” does not exist. Of course, asking to see what they assert this “right to privacy” says is met with crickets.

Arguing for the existence of a "right to privacy" is a loser for the political left anyway, because they want the government up everybody's ass. For example, if there's a right to privacy, that means the IRS gets no access to my private financial information and no leftist wants that.

 

[ChrisIsLeft]

I've been engaging in debates about the Roe decision (though rarely on abortion itself) since I first started participating in online political debate forums in the pre-Internet days (think CompuServe and Hayes modems). From all this experience, and for the most part, I know the arguments the Roe zealots are going to make before they make them. But something has changed this week.

While the same flawed arguments are still being made, at least three times this week I've had Roe defenders say, in so many words, "Fine, I've had enough. I'm leaving," and they do. That almost never happened before. Just now it dawned on me that what I think I'm seeing is an observation I read recently coming true.

For the first time in 50 years, the Roe-crowd is facing the prospect of having to make a cogent, well reasoned argument in favor of abortion rights and persuade others. That's new. Their arguments have not changed. For the most part these folks still can't get past thinking it's all about privacy and continue to blithely ignore the crux of the issue is a still-disputed legal definition of human life. But when these folks hit their inevitable, logical dead ends before this week, they always had the "Well, abortion is a Constitutional right so I win" mentality. Now, they no longer do, they're arguments have to stand on their own with no Roe crutch, and they're simply not up to the task.

It's all rather fascinating.

We knew all along we can't stop the right hating women. What's changed is we can't depend on the government not hating women. The case for abortion rights is simple and clear. The case against them is emotional and nonsensical because, as always, the right don't say what they mean so addressing the point made is a waste of time.

The lights are going out in America. They may be out for our lifetime. It's not just abortion. Next will be gay marriage. Then sex outside marriage. Trans kids are in deep trouble, if i had a trans kid in the USA, I'd apply to Germany for refugee status

 

[ChrisIsLeft]

Arguing for the existence of a "right to privacy" is a loser for the political left anyway, because they want the government up everybody's ass. For example, if there's a right to privacy, that means the IRS gets no access to my private financial information and no leftist wants that.

The right want the government up everyone's ass but only to hurt them. Like banning abortion

Abortion rights were never based on this argument. I am endlessly confused by watching right wing people argue with things they made up

 

[aociswundumho]

What you can’t do with your bodies is harm another.

Do you think it's morally wrong to pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?

 

[humbolt]

Therefore....?

It's just anecdotal, and should indicate that I'm not unfamiliar with with medical practices. In fact, I grew up around doctors and engineers. Given my abject stupidity, just attribute any knowlege I may have to osmosis.

 

[Loulit01]

Do you think it's morally wrong to pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?

Yes I do. We'd lose many people who post here.

 

[ChrisIsLeft]

Yes I do. We'd lose many people who post here.

I was tempted but i got a warning, so ...

 

[Loulit01]

I was tempted but i got a warning, so ...

I never let stuff like that affect the way I post.

 

[Subieguy]

I've been engaging in debates about the Roe decision (though rarely on abortion itself) since I first started participating in online political debate forums in the pre-Internet days (think CompuServe and Hayes modems). From all this experience, and for the most part, I know the arguments the Roe zealots are going to make before they make them. But something has changed this week.

While the same flawed arguments are still being made, at least three times this week I've had Roe defenders say, in so many words, "Fine, I've had enough. I'm leaving," and they do. That almost never happened before. Just now it dawned on me that what I think I'm seeing is an observation I read recently coming true.

For the first time in 50 years, the Roe-crowd is facing the prospect of having to make a cogent, well reasoned argument in favor of abortion rights and persuade others. That's new. Their arguments have not changed. For the most part these folks still can't get past thinking it's all about privacy and continue to blithely ignore the crux of the issue is a still-disputed legal definition of human life. But when these folks hit their inevitable, logical dead ends before this week, they always had the "Well, abortion is a Constitutional right so I win" mentality. Now, they no longer do, they're arguments have to stand on their own with no Roe crutch, and they're simply not up to the task.

It's all rather fascinating.

its all about FREEDOM, surely you understand this? The FREEDOM to choose. Like your side and its FREEDOM to not wear a mask. Surely you can grasp this.

 

[jnug]

There soon will be.

And that’s the point.

You do realize how STUUPID that sounds don't you. There soon will be a need to persuade others that a woman has the right to control her own body.

You are simply acknowledging that the entire anti-aborition argument is for crap. That people should have to persuade others that a woman has the right to control her own body simply tells us the degree to which the anti-choice crowd is completely screwed up and obsessed with obscene notions and willing to go to any ends including lying SC Justices to achieve their obscene notions. Does not tell us any more than that.

The entire anti-abortion argument is not even about unborn babies, fetuses or any of the crap the anti-choice crowd throw up. It is about treating women like property and taking us all back to the stone ages.

Tell me, is there a need to have to persuade others that a man has the right to control his own body? NO I DIDN"T THINK SO.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[iguanaman]

Evidence and logic.

Logic would tell you that if 2/3rds of human embryos die by nature's hand they cannot be considered human beings. It takes more than genetics to make a human being.

 

[jnug]

Logic would tell you that if 2/3rds of human embryos die by nature's hand they cannot be considered human beings. It takes more than genetics to make a human being.

Oh I must have missed that post. Is he arguing that if an embryo dies by human hand its murder???

Aha....aha....ahahahahaha. It would be funny if it were not so stunningly STUUUUUPID!!!!!

 

[ChrisIsLeft]

I never let stuff like that affect the way I post.

I am permanently banned from Facebook and Twitter for being left wing. Keen to make this last

 

[aociswundumho]

Why should your comfort level be binding law?

Should yours?

Abortion is yet another issue where having it decided by the idiotic "democratic process" makes the situation worse.

 

[ChrisIsLeft]

Should yours?

Abortion is yet another issue where having it decided by the idiotic "democratic process" makes the situation worse.

So you prefer dictatorship?

 

[Cameron]

I've been engaging in debates about the Roe decision (though rarely on abortion itself) since I first started participating in online political debate forums in the pre-Internet days (think CompuServe and Hayes modems). From all this experience, and for the most part, I know the arguments the Roe zealots are going to make before they make them. But something has changed this week.

While the same flawed arguments are still being made, at least three times this week I've had Roe defenders say, in so many words, "Fine, I've had enough. I'm leaving," and they do. That almost never happened before. Just now it dawned on me that what I think I'm seeing is an observation I read recently coming true.

For the first time in 50 years, the Roe-crowd is facing the prospect of having to make a cogent, well reasoned argument in favor of abortion rights and persuade others. That's new. Their arguments have not changed. For the most part these folks still can't get past thinking it's all about privacy and continue to blithely ignore the crux of the issue is a still-disputed legal definition of human life. But when these folks hit their inevitable, logical dead ends before this week, they always had the "Well, abortion is a Constitutional right so I win" mentality. Now, they no longer do, they're arguments have to stand on their own with no Roe crutch, and they're simply not up to the task.

It's all rather fascinating.

Can you please point me to any thread, on any issue, in this forum, in which either a conservative or a liberal convinced the other of their point and did not end their discussion "in so many words, 'Fine, I've had enough. I'm leaving'"? I'll wait.

 

[aociswundumho]

The lights are going out in America. They may be out for our lifetime. It's not just abortion. Next will be gay marriage. Then sex outside marriage. Trans kids are in deep trouble, if i had a trans kid in the USA, I'd apply to Germany for refugee status

I'm pretty sure Republicans won't be fighting against that.

So you prefer dictatorship?

I prefer to leave it to the market. In a free market for abortion services, no pro lifer would be able to prevent women from having abortions without committing a real crime.

 

[trouble13]

I've been engaging in debates about the Roe decision (though rarely on abortion itself) since I first started participating in online political debate forums in the pre-Internet days (think CompuServe and Hayes modems). From all this experience, and for the most part, I know the arguments the Roe zealots are going to make before they make them. But something has changed this week.

While the same flawed arguments are still being made, at least three times this week I've had Roe defenders say, in so many words, "Fine, I've had enough. I'm leaving," and they do. That almost never happened before. Just now it dawned on me that what I think I'm seeing is an observation I read recently coming true.

For the first time in 50 years, the Roe-crowd is facing the prospect of having to make a cogent, well reasoned argument in favor of abortion rights and persuade others. That's new. Their arguments have not changed. For the most part these folks still can't get past thinking it's all about privacy and continue to blithely ignore the crux of the issue is a still-disputed legal definition of human life. But when these folks hit their inevitable, logical dead ends before this week, they always had the "Well, abortion is a Constitutional right so I win" mentality. Now, they no longer do, they're arguments have to stand on their own with no Roe crutch, and they're simply not up to the task.

It's all rather fascinating.

I have been a bit sadstic and been making the same type of appeals to authority that they use to make, just to show them how unreasonable of a way it is to argue.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What I've noticed from the pro abortion crowd is that the definition of life changes depending on circumstances.

1. No such thing as “pro abortion crowd”. The term is a childish made up dig by anti-choice assholes.
2. Pro-choice advocates don’t argue the definition of life, they correctly argue that an embryo (roughly the size and weight of a single grain of rice) is not a person.

 

[humbolt]

Oh you can opinion on it but you aren't a woman so you have zero pull in what we do with our bodies. Your comment was silly about Biden and I called you out on it and you got all pissy. Everyone knows Biden is alive and president. Sorry if you aren't dealing with those facts well.

I don't care what you do with your body. You shouldn't mistreat it, but that's up to you.

My comment on Biden was no sillier than the changing definition of human life, and I made it for just that reason. I have no doubt Biden is alive, just like I have no doubt an embryo is alive, and is human.

None of which means I necessarily have an interest in banning abortion.

 

[Fishking]

I've been engaging in debates about the Roe decision (though rarely on abortion itself) since I first started participating in online political debate forums in the pre-Internet days (think CompuServe and Hayes modems). From all this experience, and for the most part, I know the arguments the Roe zealots are going to make before they make them. But something has changed this week.

While the same flawed arguments are still being made, at least three times this week I've had Roe defenders say, in so many words, "Fine, I've had enough. I'm leaving," and they do. That almost never happened before. Just now it dawned on me that what I think I'm seeing is an observation I read recently coming true.

For the first time in 50 years, the Roe-crowd is facing the prospect of having to make a cogent, well reasoned argument in favor of abortion rights and persuade others. That's new. Their arguments have not changed. For the most part these folks still can't get past thinking it's all about privacy and continue to blithely ignore the crux of the issue is a still-disputed legal definition of human life. But when these folks hit their inevitable, logical dead ends before this week, they always had the "Well, abortion is a Constitutional right so I win" mentality. Now, they no longer do, they're arguments have to stand on their own with no Roe crutch, and they're simply not up to the task.

It's all rather fascinating.

Yes...the left likes to dictate from the top and force their beliefs on everyone else. They are phrasing that the overturning of Roe is undemocratic and forcing beliefs on them but it's literally the opposite. The overturning of Roe puts the decision back into the hands of the people to decide with their votes, in each state. They don't want people to have a voice, and that isn't limited to abortion.

The reality is is that their position is undemocratic.

 

[ChrisIsLeft]

Yes...the left likes to dictate from the top and force their beliefs on everyone else. They are phrasing that the overturning of Roe is undemocratic and forcing beliefs on them but it's literally the opposite. The overturning of Roe puts the decision back into the hands of the people to decide with their votes, in each state. They don't want people to have a voice, and that isn't limited to abortion.

The reality is is that their position is undemocratic.

The majority of people want abortion rights in America lol. Undemocratic....

The truth is, things like abortion rights and gay marriage shouldn't be a thing people vote on. Most people supported slavery for example