Justice Roberts Hints He Could Overturn Roe

[Chuz Life]

Uh-huh. That's a nice mealy mouthed sentiment but I do notice that you make no effort to hold the man responsible. And we both know it takes two to tango.

Just further proof that this isn't about precious pink little babies to you people. It's about punishing women for taking part in what, to men in our society, amounts to sport to exhibit manhood.

Such generalities,....

How about it's neither of those two choices (pink babies or punishing women?)

For some of us, it's about the biological facts and the Constitution.

 

[jallman]

An unborn child begins as a zygote. Every pathetic liberal was a zygote once.

And every overbearing, blowhard, dickless conservative was a zygote once, too. When an abortion occurs, there's at least a 50/50 chance of keeping the world from having it's collective IQ being dragged down just a little by preventing the birth of one.


(See? Hyperpartisan attacks that add no value to the debate really are FUN!!!! And I do it better than you.) :2wave:

 

[jallman]

Such generalities,....

How about it's neither of those two choices (pink babies or punishing women?)

For some of us, it's about the biological facts and the Constitution.

What biological fact? That a fetus is to a baby as an acorn is to a tree?

What Constitutional issues? That only a person born has personhood and therefore protection under the law?

Good, we're in agreement.

Nice to see you again.:2wave:

 

[jallman]

I wish you or someone else would start a new thread along this line,.... instead of using the aspect to derail one that is already in progress.

Why would you want him to go somewhere else with his question? It is certainly relevant to the discussion and speaks to the lack of consistency in the prolife stance. I'm sorry you find that inconvenient but, yes, I would love an answer to that question, too.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why would you want him to go somewhere else with his question? It is certainly relevant to the discussion and speaks to the lack of consistency in the prolife stance. I'm sorry you find that inconvenient but, yes, I would love an answer to that question, too.

If I thought it inconvienient, I would have said so.

It's a topic worthy of it's own thread. Too lengthy and complicated to address here.

My 2 cents.

 

[Chuz Life]

What biological fact? That a fetus is to a baby as an acorn is to a tree?

What Constitutional issues? That only a person born has personhood and therefore protection under the law?

Good, we're in agreement.

Nice to see you again.:2wave:

(nominal) [........../] (tilt) Sarcas-o-meter

Who am I to argue with such wisdom gleened from no less than 30,000 posts in a political forum on the internets,.... and with over 8,000 thank you-s?

I can't believe I wasted 20 years fighting for the rights of prebrth children,... and did not come to the same conclusions that you have.

Amazing.

 

[jallman]

Who am I to argue with such wisdom gleened from no less than 30,000 posts in a political forum on the internets,.... and with over 8,000 thank you-s?

I can't believe I wasted 20 years fighting for the rights of prebrth children,... and did not come to the same conclusions that you have.

Amazing.

It amazes me, too, but that's not the issue here. Let's not get emotional about it, mkay?

 

[jallman]

If I thought it inconvienient, I would have said so.

It's a topic worthy of it's own thread. Too lengthy and complicated to address here.

My 2 cents.

So then...no answer to the question. Just a dismissal as worthy of it's own thread as a means to deflect from exposing inconsistency in the prolife stance.

Exactly as I thought that would play out.

 

[Chuz Life]

It amazes me, too, but that's not the issue here. Let's not get emotional about it, mkay?

You say that like there's anything to get emotional about.

Which is funny,.. because I don't think there is.

 

[Chuz Life]

So then...no answer to the question. Just a dismissal as worthy of it's own thread as a means to deflect from exposing inconsistency in the prolife stance.

Exactly as I thought that would play out.

How about a link to a thread where I debated it ad nauseum with members of the ACLU forums (including at least one lawyer) several years ago?

 

[jallman]

You say that like there's anything to get emotional about.

Which is funny,.. because I don't think there is.

Your sarcasm betrayed angst, which is clearly an emotional response.

I am just trying to help you keep to the issues and not sarcastic little quips that demean your positions.

 

[jallman]

How about a link to a thread where I debated it ad nauseum with members of the ACLU forums (including at least one lawyer) several years ago?

Let's just keep it all nice and neatly packaged right here. Just give me the cliff's notes version.

 

[Chuz Life]

Your sarcasm betrayed angst, which is clearly an emotional response.

I am just trying to help you keep to the issues and not sarcastic little quips that demean your positions.

[..............] (Sarcas-o-meter inoperative,... needle broke) mgmt.

Yeah,... Thanks, Jallman,.....

Everyone knows how much trouble I have "keeping to the issues."

That's me all right....

 

[jallman]

[..............] (Sarcas-o-meter inoperative,... needle broke) mgmt.

Yeah,... Thanks, Jallman,.....

Everyone knows how much trouble I have "keeping to the issues."

That's me all right....

LOL

At least you try to keep a sense of humor.:rofl

 

[Zyphlin]

Uh-huh. That's a nice mealy mouthed sentiment but I do notice that you make no effort to hold the man responsible. And we both know it takes two to tango.

Just further proof that this isn't about precious pink little babies to you people. It's about punishing women for taking part in what, to men in our society, amounts to sport to exhibit manhood.

And your just transfering the frustration of your peers since everyone knows that no group exhibits the "sport" of sex better than the gay community that just go around ****ing each other whenever and where ever without any concern for saftey or consequences.

See! I can make generalized non-sensical generalizations based in only an ounce of reality and filled with tons of hyperbole to try and insult the other side and create an emotional resposne too.

 

[jallman]

And your just transfering the frustration of your peers since everyone knows that no group exhibits the "sport" of sex better than the gay community that just go around ****ing each other whenever and where ever without any concern for saftey or consequences.

See! I can make generalized non-sensical generalizations based in only an ounce of reality and filled with tons of hyperbole to try and insult the other side and create an emotional resposne too.

Except that my statement was one hundred percent grounded in fact and you were just making an attempt at being a smarmy ass. Further, you did nothing but bolster my statement that MEN are encouraged to express their sexuality. Unless, of course, your intent is to make yourself into an even bigger clown by asserting that gays are somehow different than men.

In western culture, masculinity is tied, predominantly, to sexual prowess. If you want to make an argument against this rather than pull in irrelevancies meant to directly insult your opponent out of convenience, that would be AWESOME!!! :thumbs:

But I've seen this mood from you before so I won't be holding my breath today.

 

[Dav]

Except that my statement was one hundred percent grounded in fact

If you really believe that I don't know what to think. I thought you were above that level of ignorant hackery.

 

[jallman]

If you really believe that I don't know what to think. I thought you were above that level of ignorant hackery.

Then perhaps you would like to make an attempt at disproving the fact that our society encourages men to express their sexuality rather than making asinine statements about the supposed hackery of others while you simply run around popping in one line quips that could have been written by American.

Or you could just continue cheerleading Zyph with the thanks button and remain silent, letting everyone simply think you a fool rather than posting crap like this and dispelling all doubts.

 

[iangb]

If women kept their legs shut and men treated them with respect the problem would be mitigated significantly.

I can't help but see this as an ironic statement. "We should respect women more - and they should shut their legs, the hussies!"

Most sexually active women who don't want a child use contraceptives of various forms. 'Respect' would be not condeming them for their actions because said birth control is not 100% effective.

Every pathetic liberal was a zygote once.

And a sperm/egg, and a twinkle in their mothers eye...
If you're going to push the line backwards, why stop at a zygote?

 

[Dav]

Then perhaps you would like to make an attempt at disproving the fact that our society encourages men to express their sexuality rather than making asinine statements about the supposed hackery of others while you simply run around popping in one line quips that could have been written by American.

Or you could just continue cheerleading Zyph with the thanks button and remain silent, letting everyone simply think you a fool rather than posting crap like this and dispelling all doubts.

You're completely missing the point. Yes, to some extent, society looks positively on men who have lots of sex, while negatively on women who do the same.

The hackery comes from saying that you presumably can read the minds of pro-lifers and thus know that they actually are all lying when they say they care about saving fetuses, and they only care about punishing women.

 

[Zyphlin]

Except that my statement was one hundred percent grounded in fact and you were just making an attempt at being a smarmy ass. Further, you did nothing but bolster my statement that MEN are encouraged to express their sexuality. Unless, of course, your intent is to make yourself into an even bigger clown by asserting that gays are somehow different than men.

In western culture, masculinity is tied, predominantly, to their sexual prowess. If you want to make an argument against this rather than pull in irrelevancies meant to directly insult your opponent out of convenience, that would be AWESOME!!! :thumbs:

But I've seen this mood from you before so I won't be holding my breath today.

Your comments:

Uh-huh. That's a nice mealy mouthed sentiment but I do notice that you make no effort to hold the man responsible. And we both know it takes two to tango.

Just further proof that this isn't about precious pink little babies to you people. It's about punishing women for taking part in what, to men in our society, amounts to sport to exhibit manhood.

You have zero PROOF for this. Its your OPINION, based simply on your prejudices and and desire to snipe at people sprinkled with a bit of sociological fact that you even make in a broadscale way making it less reliable (the claim that "men" as a whole equate getting women pregnant as a port to exhibit their manhood).

Nice for attempint a strawman Jall but you're FAR smarter than that and I'm not falling for your "act dumb and think you're talking about something else" routine you so frequently do to cache the conversation in line with what you want.

My comment was also had questioanble "facts" sprinkled throughout to justify and extremely hyperbole filled OPINION.

Will I deny for SOME men sex is nothing but a sport? No.

Will I deny for SOME men that it may be about punishing the women? No.

Do I think its retarded of you and frankly pathetic, but very typical of your debate style, that you broadly try to make those claims about ALL men and ALL pro-Lifers?

No.

Because when you get YOUR mood to act superior about not being emotional, which for you in and of itself is laughable, you enjoy to bait people with arguments specifically to invoke emotion because they're so laughably idotic and broadly insulting.

Suggesting that everyone whose prolife is really intersted in it not for the children or any other reason but to punish the woman is like saying those that are pro-choice do it because they don't give a **** about the sanctity of life. Its an idiotic notion shared by possibly a small minority but is hardly applicable as the main reason for either sides support of their view.

But you know, taking a moderated and reasonable approach to it wouldn't bait out the emotional responses you need to play your little games you're playing in this thread.

 

[Dav]

Pro-choicers don't care about reproductive rights, they just want to punish fetuses.

 

[jallman]

You're completely missing the point. Yes, to some extent, society looks positively on men who have lots of sex, while negatively on women who do the same.

The hackery comes from saying that you can read the minds of pro-lifers and thus know that they actually are lying when they say they care about saving fetuses, and they only care about punishing women.

I only commented on what was exhibited and how it was inconsistent with any conclusion but the one I came to.

The movement is inconsistent on so many fronts; but one key theme continues throughout: the little slut should have 'kept her legs shut'.

The desire to punish women is dripping in every discussion of the topic. I'm not saying that it is a conscious or determined stance that is being taken. I'm simply stating that it is inherent in the pro-life stance because it is an idea that is ingrained in western thought.

 

[jallman]

Pro-choicers don't care about reproductive rights, they just want to punish fetuses.

So maybe you wanna back that up somehow...with something like...I dunno, evidence?

Perhaps maybe a quote from a prochoicer that indicates a disdain for the fetus or a culpability being placed on the fetus?

Or is a little critical thought too much to ask these days?

 

[jallman]

Your comments:



You have zero PROOF for this. Its your OPINION, based simply on your prejudices and and desire to snipe at people sprinkled with a bit of sociological fact that you even make in a broadscale way making it less reliable (the claim that "men" as a whole equate getting women pregnant as a port to exhibit their manhood).

First, your hyperemotional hysteria caused you to fail in comprehension. I never said "getting women pregnant was sport". I said engaging in sex was.

So let's start with correcting that notion of yours and then move on to see if the rest of your rant had anything resembling relevance.