Elections have Consequences

[Syriusly]

Everything but the subject, eh?

It doesn't matter what men want, that's the point. It only matters what the woman wants. Because the law is based on gender.

Nope, based on pregnancy. How many times does that need to be pointed out to you?

It's his as much as is it hers. You've long since lost this debate.

You will survive being bested.

What did I lose? Any pregnant person can get an abortion within the legal guidelines.

You lost the debate.

If women have reproductive rights that men do not, dat's unequal protection right dere.

I just showed you a photo of a pregnant man. Science is changing the parameters you're stuck in. Again, a pregnant person can get an abortion. To show how ignorant you are, age is also a protected class. According to you, abortion laws are illegal because folks over 70 can't have an abortion.

They are all just pissed off because a woman gets to control her own body- and that some man doesn't get to tell her what to do.

 

[Syriusly]

Now you're trying to change what you said. You said men didn't want their children. I asked you for whom do you speak, and you said it was being discussed here for the last few pages. I can only conclude by your failed attempt to change what you said, you acknowledge that you were full of shit.

It doesn't matter what men want, that's the point. It only matters what the woman wants. Because the law is based on gender.

I'm running out of ways to say the same thing over and over.

You ran out long ago because you're not making any sense. Now you think you speak for men who aren't even posting here.

Everything but the subject, eh?

It doesn't matter what men want, that's the point. It only matters what the woman wants. Because the law is based on gender.

Nope, based on pregnancy. How many times does that need to be pointed out to you?

It's his as much as is it hers. You've long since lost this debate.

You will survive being bested.

 

[EverCurious]

... Things like this thread make me second guess my decision to not treat this board as little more than a trolling zone, rather than a legitimate place for actual debate. JS

Nothing prevents you from sticking to premise I presented in the OP.

I would welcome further discussion on the consequences of the election and the Supreme Court.

Sure. There is almost no evidence that Trump's latest nomination would vote to overturn Roe v Wade even /IF/ a case even made it to SCOTUS.

EDIT: Addition: Even /if/ Kava did so, it /still/ wouldn't ban abortion, it would just return the decision to the states - who would more likely vote on banning or legalizing it as the folks in that area wished.

AKA - you're a fear monger.

 

[Syriusly]

... Things like this thread make me second guess my decision to not treat this board as little more than a trolling zone, rather than a legitimate place for actual debate. JS

Nothing prevents you from sticking to premise I presented in the OP.

I would welcome further discussion on the consequences of the election and the Supreme Court.

Sure. There is almost no evidence that Trump's latest nomination would vote to overturn Roe v Wade even /IF/ a case even made it to SCOTUS.

EDIT: Addition: Even /if/ Kava did so, it /still/ wouldn't ban abortion, it would just return the decision to the states - who would more likely vote on banning or legalizing it as the folks in that area wished.

AKA - you're a fear monger.

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

 

[EverCurious]

... Things like this thread make me second guess my decision to not treat this board as little more than a trolling zone, rather than a legitimate place for actual debate. JS

Nothing prevents you from sticking to premise I presented in the OP.

I would welcome further discussion on the consequences of the election and the Supreme Court.

Sure. There is almost no evidence that Trump's latest nomination would vote to overturn Roe v Wade even /IF/ a case even made it to SCOTUS.

EDIT: Addition: Even /if/ Kava did so, it /still/ wouldn't ban abortion, it would just return the decision to the states - who would more likely vote on banning or legalizing it as the folks in that area wished.

AKA - you're a fear monger.

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

You literally argue against the idea of leaving the decision up to the mother and father. You argue against leaving it up to the city, up to the state, and instead, with complete disregard for the protected religious beliefs of individual American's, would prefer that the government make that personal, private, decision to kill what they deeply believe is a human being.

Your "moral opinion" on this matter is flat out not acceptable to me. I'm pro choice but I do not believe that the personal beliefs of others should be forced down the throat of others. The main reason that I'm not a republican is because they wanted to use the government to force their religious beliefs down others throats. The lefts position on the abortion thing is the exact same concept/idea and it is just as wrong/unAmerican to me.

 

[Faun]

... Things like this thread make me second guess my decision to not treat this board as little more than a trolling zone, rather than a legitimate place for actual debate. JS

Nothing prevents you from sticking to premise I presented in the OP.

I would welcome further discussion on the consequences of the election and the Supreme Court.

Sure. There is almost no evidence that Trump's latest nomination would vote to overturn Roe v Wade even /IF/ a case even made it to SCOTUS.

EDIT: Addition: Even /if/ Kava did so, it /still/ wouldn't ban abortion, it would just return the decision to the states - who would more likely vote on banning or legalizing it as the folks in that area wished.

AKA - you're a fear monger.

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

You literally argue against the idea of leaving the decision up to the mother and father. You argue against leaving it up to the city, up to the state, and instead, with complete disregard for the protected religious beliefs of individual American's, would prefer that the government make that personal, private, decision to kill what they deeply believe is a human being.

Your "moral opinion" on this matter is flat out not acceptable to me. I'm pro choice but I do not believe that the personal beliefs of others should be forced down the throat of others. The main reason that I'm not a republican is because they wanted to use the government to force their religious beliefs down others throats. The lefts position on the abortion thing is the exact same concept/idea and it is just as wrong/unAmerican to me.

No one’s religious beliefs are infringed by the government. The government is not forcing anyone that having an abortion. If abortion violates someone’s religious beliefs, the choice is simple — don’t have one.

 

[EverCurious]

... Things like this thread make me second guess my decision to not treat this board as little more than a trolling zone, rather than a legitimate place for actual debate. JS

Nothing prevents you from sticking to premise I presented in the OP.

I would welcome further discussion on the consequences of the election and the Supreme Court.

Sure. There is almost no evidence that Trump's latest nomination would vote to overturn Roe v Wade even /IF/ a case even made it to SCOTUS.

EDIT: Addition: Even /if/ Kava did so, it /still/ wouldn't ban abortion, it would just return the decision to the states - who would more likely vote on banning or legalizing it as the folks in that area wished.

AKA - you're a fear monger.

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

You literally argue against the idea of leaving the decision up to the mother and father. You argue against leaving it up to the city, up to the state, and instead, with complete disregard for the protected religious beliefs of individual American's, would prefer that the government make that personal, private, decision to kill what they deeply believe is a human being.

Your "moral opinion" on this matter is flat out not acceptable to me. I'm pro choice but I do not believe that the personal beliefs of others should be forced down the throat of others. The main reason that I'm not a republican is because they wanted to use the government to force their religious beliefs down others throats. The lefts position on the abortion thing is the exact same concept/idea and it is just as wrong/unAmerican to me.

No one’s religious beliefs are infringed by the government. The government is not forcing anyone that having an abortion. If abortion violates someone’s religious beliefs, the choice is simple — don’t have one.

The government, specifically partisan judges, made a defacto law that directly infringes upon the religious beliefs of millions, instead of leaving it up to the individual people, communities, states, etc. It should have been left to the vote of the people in those communities.

 

[Syriusly]

... Things like this thread make me second guess my decision to not treat this board as little more than a trolling zone, rather than a legitimate place for actual debate. JS

Nothing prevents you from sticking to premise I presented in the OP.

I would welcome further discussion on the consequences of the election and the Supreme Court.

Sure. There is almost no evidence that Trump's latest nomination would vote to overturn Roe v Wade even /IF/ a case even made it to SCOTUS.

EDIT: Addition: Even /if/ Kava did so, it /still/ wouldn't ban abortion, it would just return the decision to the states - who would more likely vote on banning or legalizing it as the folks in that area wished.

AKA - you're a fear monger.

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

You literally argue against the idea of leaving the decision up to the mother and father. You argue against leaving it up to the city, up to the state, and instead, with complete disregard for the protected religious beliefs of individual American's, would prefer that the government make that personal, private, decision to kill what they deeply believe is a human being. .

Presuming you are speaking of pregnancy- I am completely in favor of leaving the decision of pregnancy up to the the woman who is pregnant- not the man who is not- or the state.

I don't know where you think I am arguing that the State in any of its ramifications should decide- I think that the woman should decide- not the man- and not the State.

I really don't get where you think that the government would be deciding anything other than not to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

I have no idea where you think you are going with your religious arguments- because again- I am fine with the woman following her own religious beliefs as far as how to handle her pregnancy.

 

[Syriusly]

... Things like this thread make me second guess my decision to not treat this board as little more than a trolling zone, rather than a legitimate place for actual debate. JS

Nothing prevents you from sticking to premise I presented in the OP.

I would welcome further discussion on the consequences of the election and the Supreme Court.

Sure. There is almost no evidence that Trump's latest nomination would vote to overturn Roe v Wade even /IF/ a case even made it to SCOTUS.

EDIT: Addition: Even /if/ Kava did so, it /still/ wouldn't ban abortion, it would just return the decision to the states - who would more likely vote on banning or legalizing it as the folks in that area wished.

AKA - you're a fear monger.

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

Your "moral opinion" on this matter is flat out not acceptable to me. I'm pro choice but I do not believe that the personal beliefs of others should be forced down the throat of others. The main reason that I'm not a republican is because they wanted to use the government to force their religious beliefs down others throats. The lefts position on the abortion thing is the exact same concept/idea and it is just as wrong/unAmerican to me.

Okay we are both 'pro-choice' which means a woman makes the deeply personal choice of whether to be pregnant or not.

What is the 'lefts' position on abortion? I am not in favor of forcing anyone to have an abortion.

I guess you are arguing that by 'pro-choice' you mean that the woman is not allowed to make that deeply personal choice by herself- but that the man must consent? Agree?

 

[EverCurious]

... Things like this thread make me second guess my decision to not treat this board as little more than a trolling zone, rather than a legitimate place for actual debate. JS

Nothing prevents you from sticking to premise I presented in the OP.

I would welcome further discussion on the consequences of the election and the Supreme Court.

Sure. There is almost no evidence that Trump's latest nomination would vote to overturn Roe v Wade even /IF/ a case even made it to SCOTUS.

EDIT: Addition: Even /if/ Kava did so, it /still/ wouldn't ban abortion, it would just return the decision to the states - who would more likely vote on banning or legalizing it as the folks in that area wished.

AKA - you're a fear monger.

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

You literally argue against the idea of leaving the decision up to the mother and father. You argue against leaving it up to the city, up to the state, and instead, with complete disregard for the protected religious beliefs of individual American's, would prefer that the government make that personal, private, decision to kill what they deeply believe is a human being. .

Presuming you are speaking of pregnancy- I am completely in favor of leaving the decision of pregnancy up to the the woman who is pregnant- not the man who is not- or the state.

I don't know where you think I am arguing that the State in any of its ramifications should decide- I think that the woman should decide- not the man- and not the State.

I really don't get where you think that the government would be deciding anything other than not to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

I have no idea where you think you are going with your religious arguments- because again- I am fine with the woman following her own religious beliefs as far as how to handle her pregnancy.

I believe that the father has some say, and as I noted, I don't know where the hell to draw that line in a fair and just way. I said that it should be a local issue, not a fed issue. I said that religious beliefs being forced on others is why I'm not a republican, how you get I have a religion out of that is beyond me.

You're clearly not interested in actually discussing your own topic when you're playing such stupid games. Have a nice day troll.

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing prevents you from sticking to premise I presented in the OP.

I would welcome further discussion on the consequences of the election and the Supreme Court.

Sure. There is almost no evidence that Trump's latest nomination would vote to overturn Roe v Wade even /IF/ a case even made it to SCOTUS.

EDIT: Addition: Even /if/ Kava did so, it /still/ wouldn't ban abortion, it would just return the decision to the states - who would more likely vote on banning or legalizing it as the folks in that area wished.

AKA - you're a fear monger.

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

You literally argue against the idea of leaving the decision up to the mother and father. You argue against leaving it up to the city, up to the state, and instead, with complete disregard for the protected religious beliefs of individual American's, would prefer that the government make that personal, private, decision to kill what they deeply believe is a human being.

Your "moral opinion" on this matter is flat out not acceptable to me. I'm pro choice but I do not believe that the personal beliefs of others should be forced down the throat of others. The main reason that I'm not a republican is because they wanted to use the government to force their religious beliefs down others throats. The lefts position on the abortion thing is the exact same concept/idea and it is just as wrong/unAmerican to me.

No one’s religious beliefs are infringed by the government. The government is not forcing anyone that having an abortion. If abortion violates someone’s religious beliefs, the choice is simple — don’t have one.

The government, specifically partisan judges, made a defacto law that directly infringes upon the religious beliefs of millions, instead of leaving it up to the individual people, communities, states, etc. It should have been left to the vote of the people in those communities.

The courts ruling does leave it up to the individual people- the women- who are pregnant.

How does it infringe upon the religious beliefs of anyone? Whose religious beliefs are infringed on when a Catholic woman decides to have an abortion?

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing prevents you from sticking to premise I presented in the OP.

I would welcome further discussion on the consequences of the election and the Supreme Court.

Sure. There is almost no evidence that Trump's latest nomination would vote to overturn Roe v Wade even /IF/ a case even made it to SCOTUS.

EDIT: Addition: Even /if/ Kava did so, it /still/ wouldn't ban abortion, it would just return the decision to the states - who would more likely vote on banning or legalizing it as the folks in that area wished.

AKA - you're a fear monger.

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

You literally argue against the idea of leaving the decision up to the mother and father. You argue against leaving it up to the city, up to the state, and instead, with complete disregard for the protected religious beliefs of individual American's, would prefer that the government make that personal, private, decision to kill what they deeply believe is a human being. .

Presuming you are speaking of pregnancy- I am completely in favor of leaving the decision of pregnancy up to the the woman who is pregnant- not the man who is not- or the state.

I don't know where you think I am arguing that the State in any of its ramifications should decide- I think that the woman should decide- not the man- and not the State.

I really don't get where you think that the government would be deciding anything other than not to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

I have no idea where you think you are going with your religious arguments- because again- I am fine with the woman following her own religious beliefs as far as how to handle her pregnancy.

I believe that the father has some say, and as I noted, I don't know where the hell to draw that line in a fair and just way. I said that it should be a local issue, not a fed issue. I said that religious beliefs being forced on others is why I'm not a republican, how you get I have a religion out of that is beyond me.

You're clearly not interested in actually discussing your own topic when you're playing such stupid games. Have a nice day troll.

I am clearly am interested in discussing my own topic since I am discussing it- but run away if that is too much of a challenge for you.

 

[EverCurious]

Sure. There is almost no evidence that Trump's latest nomination would vote to overturn Roe v Wade even /IF/ a case even made it to SCOTUS.

EDIT: Addition: Even /if/ Kava did so, it /still/ wouldn't ban abortion, it would just return the decision to the states - who would more likely vote on banning or legalizing it as the folks in that area wished.

AKA - you're a fear monger.

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

You literally argue against the idea of leaving the decision up to the mother and father. You argue against leaving it up to the city, up to the state, and instead, with complete disregard for the protected religious beliefs of individual American's, would prefer that the government make that personal, private, decision to kill what they deeply believe is a human being. .

Presuming you are speaking of pregnancy- I am completely in favor of leaving the decision of pregnancy up to the the woman who is pregnant- not the man who is not- or the state.

I don't know where you think I am arguing that the State in any of its ramifications should decide- I think that the woman should decide- not the man- and not the State.

I really don't get where you think that the government would be deciding anything other than not to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

I have no idea where you think you are going with your religious arguments- because again- I am fine with the woman following her own religious beliefs as far as how to handle her pregnancy.

I believe that the father has some say, and as I noted, I don't know where the hell to draw that line in a fair and just way. I said that it should be a local issue, not a fed issue. I said that religious beliefs being forced on others is why I'm not a republican, how you get I have a religion out of that is beyond me.

You're clearly not interested in actually discussing your own topic when you're playing such stupid games. Have a nice day troll.

I am clearly am interested in discussing my own topic since I am discussing it- but run away if that is too much of a challenge for you.

No, just like your insistence that Roe v Wade be kept to force everyone to bow to your personal beliefs, you are only interested in forcing /me/ to agree with you on the father having zero rights when it comes to the life or death of his unborn child. Enjoy your bullshit with someone else; I'm not going to play.

 

[jillian]

Elections do have Consequences.

One of the primary reasons I voted against Trump and for Clinton was because of the Supreme Court.

I have heard so many people who are otherwise pro-choice and pro-union vote for Trump just because they wanted to 'drain the swamp' and just take a hammer to the establishment.

Well this is what we get. And I am not bitching about Trump's selection- if anything I am impressed that he is such a solid jurist- unlike some of Trump's lower court picks. This pick was the outcome of the last Presidential election. And he is going to be confirmed to the Court unless by some bizarre circumstance he announces he will vote against Roe v. Wade before the confirmation vote.

Elections do have Consequences.

I just hope that those how believe in woman's right to chose remember that come the next election.

We voted for the proper president last time. Funny how we still had “consequences”

 

[Syriusly]

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

You literally argue against the idea of leaving the decision up to the mother and father. You argue against leaving it up to the city, up to the state, and instead, with complete disregard for the protected religious beliefs of individual American's, would prefer that the government make that personal, private, decision to kill what they deeply believe is a human being. .

Presuming you are speaking of pregnancy- I am completely in favor of leaving the decision of pregnancy up to the the woman who is pregnant- not the man who is not- or the state.

I don't know where you think I am arguing that the State in any of its ramifications should decide- I think that the woman should decide- not the man- and not the State.

I really don't get where you think that the government would be deciding anything other than not to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

I have no idea where you think you are going with your religious arguments- because again- I am fine with the woman following her own religious beliefs as far as how to handle her pregnancy.

I believe that the father has some say, and as I noted, I don't know where the hell to draw that line in a fair and just way. I said that it should be a local issue, not a fed issue. I said that religious beliefs being forced on others is why I'm not a republican, how you get I have a religion out of that is beyond me.

You're clearly not interested in actually discussing your own topic when you're playing such stupid games. Have a nice day troll.

I am clearly am interested in discussing my own topic since I am discussing it- but run away if that is too much of a challenge for you.

No, just like your insistence that Roe v Wade be kept to force everyone to bow to your personal beliefs, you are only interested in forcing /me/ to agree with you on the father having zero rights when it comes to the life or death of his unborn child. Enjoy your bullshit with someone else; I'm not going to play.

Run away if you will.

Roe v. Wade does not force anyone to 'bow to my personal beliefs'- nor does it force anyone's religious beliefs on anyone.

What Roe v. Wade does is ensure that every woman has the legal right to choose for herself whether to get an abortion in the United States.

Overturning Roe v. Wade will not change the issue of what rights a father has- just as now both the mother and father will be equally responsible for their living child.

And just as before- the father will not be able to tell a woman whether she can have an abortion- or that she cannot have an abortion.

But the State sure will be able to. The State will be able to decide that no woman- whether or not the man agrees or doesn't agree- can have an abortion.

 

[Faun]

Nothing prevents you from sticking to premise I presented in the OP.

I would welcome further discussion on the consequences of the election and the Supreme Court.

Sure. There is almost no evidence that Trump's latest nomination would vote to overturn Roe v Wade even /IF/ a case even made it to SCOTUS.

EDIT: Addition: Even /if/ Kava did so, it /still/ wouldn't ban abortion, it would just return the decision to the states - who would more likely vote on banning or legalizing it as the folks in that area wished.

AKA - you're a fear monger.

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

You literally argue against the idea of leaving the decision up to the mother and father. You argue against leaving it up to the city, up to the state, and instead, with complete disregard for the protected religious beliefs of individual American's, would prefer that the government make that personal, private, decision to kill what they deeply believe is a human being.

Your "moral opinion" on this matter is flat out not acceptable to me. I'm pro choice but I do not believe that the personal beliefs of others should be forced down the throat of others. The main reason that I'm not a republican is because they wanted to use the government to force their religious beliefs down others throats. The lefts position on the abortion thing is the exact same concept/idea and it is just as wrong/unAmerican to me.

No one’s religious beliefs are infringed by the government. The government is not forcing anyone that having an abortion. If abortion violates someone’s religious beliefs, the choice is simple — don’t have one.

The government, specifically partisan judges, made a defacto law that directly infringes upon the religious beliefs of millions, instead of leaving it up to the individual people, communities, states, etc. It should have been left to the vote of the people in those communities.

It is left up to individuals.

 

[Faun]

Donald Trump pledged during his campaign to nominate Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

President Trump also made a rather different promise to voters in 2016 in his third televised debate with Hillary Clinton. He said Roe would be overturned if he got to change the balance on the court:


"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

While I would agree that Donald Trump is a prolific liar and very well could have been lying when he said he would appoint only pro-life justices- we can only take him at face value. In my opinion Trump is only nominating justices that he believes will be solidly anti-abortion.

It isn't fear mongering to discuss are the likely ramifications of Trump's Supreme Court nominations- it is actually the opposite of that. If you want a substantive discussion- this is a topic that can be discussed substantively- as opposed to the usual abortion dreck- which I normally prefer not to engage in because the positions are too far apart for a rational discussion here at USMB.

As far as overturning Roe v. Wade would leave it to the states- of course it would. Poor pregnant women in Texas would have no access to safe, legal abortion, but rich pregnant women in Texas could go wherever to get an abortion.

I am opposed to Roe v. Wade being overturned- but I am also a realist- I don't believe the efforts to prevent this justice from being confirmed will succeed- and that the new court will be primed to whittle away at Roe, and eventually overturn it.

As I said- elections have consequences- I have known too many people who are otherwise pro-choice who voted for Don the Con just as a big **** you to the establishment- this will be the consequence of their votes.

You literally argue against the idea of leaving the decision up to the mother and father. You argue against leaving it up to the city, up to the state, and instead, with complete disregard for the protected religious beliefs of individual American's, would prefer that the government make that personal, private, decision to kill what they deeply believe is a human being. .

Presuming you are speaking of pregnancy- I am completely in favor of leaving the decision of pregnancy up to the the woman who is pregnant- not the man who is not- or the state.

I don't know where you think I am arguing that the State in any of its ramifications should decide- I think that the woman should decide- not the man- and not the State.

I really don't get where you think that the government would be deciding anything other than not to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

I have no idea where you think you are going with your religious arguments- because again- I am fine with the woman following her own religious beliefs as far as how to handle her pregnancy.

I believe that the father has some say, and as I noted, I don't know where the hell to draw that line in a fair and just way. I said that it should be a local issue, not a fed issue. I said that religious beliefs being forced on others is why I'm not a republican, how you get I have a religion out of that is beyond me.

You're clearly not interested in actually discussing your own topic when you're playing such stupid games. Have a nice day troll.

I am clearly am interested in discussing my own topic since I am discussing it- but run away if that is too much of a challenge for you.

No, just like your insistence that Roe v Wade be kept to force everyone to bow to your personal beliefs, you are only interested in forcing /me/ to agree with you on the father having zero rights when it comes to the life or death of his unborn child. Enjoy your bullshit with someone else; I'm not going to play.

WTF?

No one’s personal beliefs are being infringed. No one is being forced to have an abortion against their will.

 

[EverCurious]

You literally argue against the idea of leaving the decision up to the mother and father. You argue against leaving it up to the city, up to the state, and instead, with complete disregard for the protected religious beliefs of individual American's, would prefer that the government make that personal, private, decision to kill what they deeply believe is a human being. .

Presuming you are speaking of pregnancy- I am completely in favor of leaving the decision of pregnancy up to the the woman who is pregnant- not the man who is not- or the state.

I don't know where you think I am arguing that the State in any of its ramifications should decide- I think that the woman should decide- not the man- and not the State.

I really don't get where you think that the government would be deciding anything other than not to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

I have no idea where you think you are going with your religious arguments- because again- I am fine with the woman following her own religious beliefs as far as how to handle her pregnancy.

I believe that the father has some say, and as I noted, I don't know where the hell to draw that line in a fair and just way. I said that it should be a local issue, not a fed issue. I said that religious beliefs being forced on others is why I'm not a republican, how you get I have a religion out of that is beyond me.

You're clearly not interested in actually discussing your own topic when you're playing such stupid games. Have a nice day troll.

I am clearly am interested in discussing my own topic since I am discussing it- but run away if that is too much of a challenge for you.

No, just like your insistence that Roe v Wade be kept to force everyone to bow to your personal beliefs, you are only interested in forcing /me/ to agree with you on the father having zero rights when it comes to the life or death of his unborn child. Enjoy your bullshit with someone else; I'm not going to play.

WTF?

No one’s personal beliefs are being infringed. No one is being forced to have an abortion against their will.

Except the father and the unborn child themselves you mean...

 

[Faun]

Presuming you are speaking of pregnancy- I am completely in favor of leaving the decision of pregnancy up to the the woman who is pregnant- not the man who is not- or the state.

I don't know where you think I am arguing that the State in any of its ramifications should decide- I think that the woman should decide- not the man- and not the State.

I really don't get where you think that the government would be deciding anything other than not to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

I have no idea where you think you are going with your religious arguments- because again- I am fine with the woman following her own religious beliefs as far as how to handle her pregnancy.

I believe that the father has some say, and as I noted, I don't know where the hell to draw that line in a fair and just way. I said that it should be a local issue, not a fed issue. I said that religious beliefs being forced on others is why I'm not a republican, how you get I have a religion out of that is beyond me.

You're clearly not interested in actually discussing your own topic when you're playing such stupid games. Have a nice day troll.

I am clearly am interested in discussing my own topic since I am discussing it- but run away if that is too much of a challenge for you.

No, just like your insistence that Roe v Wade be kept to force everyone to bow to your personal beliefs, you are only interested in forcing /me/ to agree with you on the father having zero rights when it comes to the life or death of his unborn child. Enjoy your bullshit with someone else; I'm not going to play.

WTF?

No one’s personal beliefs are being infringed. No one is being forced to have an abortion against their will.

Except the father and the unborn child themselves you mean...

It’s not the father’s body and an unborn child has no religious beliefs.

 

[EverCurious]

I believe that the father has some say, and as I noted, I don't know where the hell to draw that line in a fair and just way. I said that it should be a local issue, not a fed issue. I said that religious beliefs being forced on others is why I'm not a republican, how you get I have a religion out of that is beyond me.

You're clearly not interested in actually discussing your own topic when you're playing such stupid games. Have a nice day troll.

I am clearly am interested in discussing my own topic since I am discussing it- but run away if that is too much of a challenge for you.

No, just like your insistence that Roe v Wade be kept to force everyone to bow to your personal beliefs, you are only interested in forcing /me/ to agree with you on the father having zero rights when it comes to the life or death of his unborn child. Enjoy your bullshit with someone else; I'm not going to play.

WTF?

No one’s personal beliefs are being infringed. No one is being forced to have an abortion against their will.

Except the father and the unborn child themselves you mean...

It’s not the father’s body and an unborn child has no religious beliefs.

Moving goal posts.