• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,311
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Thank you to everyone who replied about my mother's position on abortion so far. Needless to say, she's an extremely important person in my life and my respect for her is immeasurable. The reason I asked for opinions here is that I don't have access to people who'd be as articulate on the subject in real life as I've seen on this forum. I also value member opinions (not all of you of course :p). It was just to get more perspectives since I have an obvious bias.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
By your own words, your and your girlfriend were going to obtain an abortion. So how is Toni’s post a lie?
It's so far back in the thread, I don't even care anymore.

I said "We were looking for an abortion".

Toni changed that to "You were enthusiastically looking for an abortion for your girlfriend.", or something similar.
You did look for an abortion for your girlfriend. The fact she looked as well does not change that you did look. That means Toni’s statement is not a lie.
TomC said:
I don't even care what lies she tells anymore. I just expect them. I barely read them.

I understand her very well.
From what I tell from your posts, you do not understand what a lie is or Toni at all.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
You didn’t write both of those things.
Yes I did.
You may just assume that as a male I must be lying, but I did.

I said that "we" had come to the decision of abortion. It was a difficult decision for both of us.

You mischaracterized that as
, you were enthusiastically looking for an abortion fir the girl.

That's what I mean by lying and mischaracterization.
Tom
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
That's the closest I've seen you two getting to apologizing to each other. :ROFLMAO:
Because you don't have access to our PM.
I've apologized before, being...
Ya know...
Tom
I’m calling bullshit.
I don't have access to your PM.

But one of my first PMs on this forum was apologizing to you for something I said.

You can say, "No, that's bullshit" all you want. It's the sort of thing I expect from you now. But it happened.
Tom
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Do you think they lied? If so, which sentences did they utter that were lies?
Jesus Christ pal. Watch the fucking video. If you think these people weren't misleading, say so and say why. I think they they fucking lied lied because any sane reasonable person would look at the statements they made and assume they wouldn't take Roe v Wade to the chopping block. You seem to disagree, and I am quite interested in your reason as to why.

And then after that, you can explain to me, and just me personally, as to why no one should believe [two US Senators who stated they were misled by these Supreme Court Justices with regards to Roe V Wade.

And just so we are clear, I am not an insufferable pedant. I find the discrepancy between "misled" and "lied" in this context to be a distinction without meaning.
Be prepared for disappointment unless Metaphor has something other than abstract alternative “explanations” without a shred empirical corroboration.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
That's the closest I've seen you two getting to apologizing to each other. :ROFLMAO:
Because you don't have access to our PM.
I've apologized before, being...
Ya know...
Tom
I’m calling bullshit.
I don't have access to your PM.

But one of my first PMs on this forum was apologizing to you for something I said.

You can say, "No, that's bullshit" all you want. It's the sort of thing I expect from you now. But it happened.
Tom
You have access to any PM you sent and did not delete.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
You didn’t write both of those things.
Yes I did.
You may just assume that as a male I must be lying, but I did.

I said that "we" had come to the decision of abortion. It was a difficult decision for both of us.

You mischaracterized that as
, you were enthusiastically looking for an abortion fir the girl.

That's what I mean by lying and mischaracterization.
Tom
No: you are again not understanding me: you did not write that you loved your sister and wanted to support her. You only wrote that you didn’t want her to go with her stupid friends. You only wrote one of them and wanted me to assume the other—which I would have done if you hadn’t talked about her stupid friends.

My ‘You’ included both of you. Not just you. I did not imply or mean to imply that YOU, Tom C, were the only or primary person seeking an abortion. My use of the word enthusiastic might have been incorrect but you could have simply said that there was nothing enthusiastic about it. You could have made a correction instead of accusing me of lying.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
That's the closest I've seen you two getting to apologizing to each other. :ROFLMAO:
Because you don't have access to our PM.
I've apologized before, being...
Ya know...
Tom
I’m calling bullshit.
It took awhile for me to find, given my poor skills.


"I shouldn't have referred to you in another thread. Where I got shitty about "passive aggression".

My bad, I apologize."

I sent you that April 18, 2021.

F you

Tom
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
That's the closest I've seen you two getting to apologizing to each other. :ROFLMAO:
Because you don't have access to our PM.
I've apologized before, being...
Ya know...
Tom
I’m calling bullshit.
I don't have access to your PM.

But one of my first PMs on this forum was apologizing to you for something I said.

You can say, "No, that's bullshit" all you want. It's the sort of thing I expect from you now. But it happened.
Tom
I apologize—I went back through my pms and yes, once you did apologize for your snipping at me.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
That's the closest I've seen you two getting to apologizing to each other. :ROFLMAO:
Because you don't have access to our PM.
I've apologized before, being...
Ya know...
Tom
I’m calling bullshit.
It took awhile for me to find, given my poor skills.


"I shouldn't have referred to you in another thread. Where I got shitty about "passive aggression".

My bad, I apologize."

I sent you that April 18, 2021.

F you

Tom
What, no poop emoji?!
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
That's the closest I've seen you two getting to apologizing to each other. :ROFLMAO:
Because you don't have access to our PM.
I've apologized before, being...
Ya know...
Tom
I’m calling bullshit.
It took awhile for me to find, given my poor skills.


"I shouldn't have referred to you in another thread. Where I got shitty about "passive aggression".

My bad, I apologize."

I sent you that April 18, 2021.

F you

Tom
What, no poop emoji?!
This is the sort of brilliant reparte I've come to expect from your ilk.
Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Well, we can't all be be held to the lofty standard of accusing other posters of lying and telling them to fuck off. So we make due with what we can. :diablotin:
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,311
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
TomC at least they're being consistent. When I said fuck all yall (which is worse than fuck you IMO) not a single fuck was bestowed upon me.

Edit: In fact, I think that happened earlier on in this thread. :p
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,684
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
My mother raised me to never put my penis in a woman unless I was prepared for the possibility of pregnancy and all the responsibilities that come along with it. Yesterday I asked her (because I never honestly thought to before) what her thoughts are on abortion. Her answer was predictable to me (being that I was raised by her) she said (paraphrasing) that a woman has full control over her body when deciding whether or not to have sex & if she gets pregnant she should accept the outcome of that choice. She also said a pregnant woman has 50% control over her body when pregnant. She also mentioned that a complete ban on abortion would be a bad idea (again paraphrasing) because it should be available for cases of rape & unviable pregnancies (medical reasons) as at that point the woman should retain 100% control of her body.

I tried asking her when she believes life starts and she refused to answer (literally sucked her teeth in that Jamaican way) and said (paraphrasing) if you don't want a baby don't have sex until you're ready for one.

I'm sharing this convo because I'm genuinely interested in opinions on my momma's position.
While it is decent advice to talk about not getting pregnant as a way to avoid accidental pregnancies, the truth is, people in mature relationships have accidents too. And ultimately, we need to step away from the Just Say No argument. There are unwanted pregnancies before Roe, during Roe, and now tragically after Roe. Abortion isn't the cause of unwanted pregnancies. Human nature is. And much like in an ideal world we wouldn't have car accidents, accidental pregnancy among a large group of people, despite precautions is a guarantee.

So the see no evil, hear no evil approach is effectively naïve. We need to address the problem, not pretend we can prevent it all the time.

And we are seeing with some GOP'ers and Justice Thomas, the target is well well beyond abortion. They are aiming at birth control (hence they aren't seeking to eliminate accidental pregnancies) and basic gay rights.
Yeah, saying that we shouldn’t allow abortion because people could just abstain from sex if they don’t want to cause pregnancies, is as sensible as saying that we shouldn’t allow first responders to save people from wrecked cars, because people could just abstain from driving if they don’t want to die slowly and in agony while trapped in mangled wreckage.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Speaking of fuck, where the fuck were we? Oh, TomC will like this one, the Texas AG says he'll defend any new anti-sodomy law in front of SCOTUS. Man, the elimination of legal abortion was supposed to the tragedy, but it seems like this SCOTUS wants to make it the tip of the iceberg.

Then we have this... Das Internetz interwebbingz could betray women online.
article said:
An investigation by Lockdown Privacy, the maker of an app that blocks online tracking, found that Planned Parenthood’s web scheduler can share information with a variety of third parties, including Google, Facebook, TikTok and Hotjar, a tracking tool that says it helps companies understand how customers behave. These outside companies receive data including IP addresses, approximate Zip codes and service selections, which privacy experts worry could be valuable to state governments looking to prosecute abortions.
So, now a decision on abortion is pulling third party tech companies into the web.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Well, we can't all be be held to the lofty standard of accusing other posters of lying and telling them to fuck off. So we make due with what we can. :diablotin:
No.
But we can quote them. I don't find that difficult.

They may suddenly be unaware of the multiple uses of the word "you".

But "I'm calling bullshit." wasn't hard to understand. That's just one.
Tom
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,311
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Yeah, saying that we shouldn’t allow abortion because people could just abstain from sex if they don’t want to cause pregnancies, is as sensible as saying that we shouldn’t allow first responders to save people from wrecked cars, because people could just abstain from driving if they don’t want to die slowly and in agony while trapped in mangled wreckage.

While I wouldn't equate sex with driving because one is an interaction with a person and the other is a motor vehicle I still get the point. You're saying that while sex is a privilege like driving it is also a necessity and human error (just like driving) is at play. As a society, we ought to deal with those errors (like EMS responding to car accidents) rather than bury our heads in the sand?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So clearly the solution here is for doctors to run abortion pill mills. They can claim ignorance and stupidity like the pain killer docs! Granted, it won't have as many pills to sell, seeing they aren't addictive.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Yeah, saying that we shouldn’t allow abortion because people could just abstain from sex if they don’t want to cause pregnancies, is as sensible as saying that we shouldn’t allow first responders to save people from wrecked cars, because people could just abstain from driving if they don’t want to die slowly and in agony while trapped in mangled wreckage.

While I wouldn't equate sex with driving because one is an interaction with a person and the other is a motor vehicle I still get the point. You're saying that while sex is a privilege like driving it is also a necessity and human error (just like driving) is at play. As a society, we ought to deal with those errors (like EMS responding to car accidents) rather than bury our heads in the sand?
Fundamentally, this is about statistics. X number of people doing an activity that carries any particular level of risk. That risk can be mitigated, but it can not be eliminated. There are people bad at driving, there are people bad at safe sex (and of course, there are dumb states that mandate ineffective sex education!). There are people good at driving and still can get into an accident. There are people using reasonable precautions and pregnancy still happens.

Because of statistics. Saying people should just avoid sex to not get pregnant in a nation of 330 million people is really much like saying if you don't want to get into a car accident, don't drive.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,344
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
My mother raised me to never put my penis in a woman unless I was prepared for the possibility of pregnancy and all the responsibilities that come along with it. Yesterday I asked her (because I never honestly thought to before) what her thoughts are on abortion. Her answer was predictable to me (being that I was raised by her) she said (paraphrasing) that a woman has full control over her body when deciding whether or not to have sex & if she gets pregnant she should accept the outcome of that choice. She also said a pregnant woman has 50% control over her body when pregnant. She also mentioned that a complete ban on abortion would be a bad idea (again paraphrasing) because it should be available for cases of rape & unviable pregnancies (medical reasons) as at that point the woman should retain 100% control of her body.

I tried asking her when she believes life starts and she refused to answer (literally sucked her teeth in that Jamaican way) and said (paraphrasing) if you don't want a baby don't have sex until you're ready for one.

I'm sharing this convo because I'm genuinely interested in opinions on my momma's position.

I love my momma so yall better go easy on her

In my opinion your mother is saying something that I would bet she does not believe:
Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.

I would guess that your mother loves her family and respects her children as people and considers them a joy, a gift and a treasure.

But then she says they are the “outcome” of a choice that must “be accepted.”



When I see loving people say that, I can only stare at them, unable to reconcile the contradiction between honoring children and then also speaking in ways that tell unplanned children that they are merely an outcome that must be accepted. I honestly do not know how to look at them when they declare that children merely a consequence of risky behavior that must be accepted. It is difficult to still see the love part upon hearing that.

Full disclosure. I was an unplanned child, I was the third unplanned child, I was told that I was an unplanned child, and a self-righteous mother let me know how wonderful she was for doing her duty.

Your mother - has just told me the same thing. I do not thank your mother for that, I’m afraid.

In my opinion children should be wanted. Unplanned children should be wanted. And they should never, IMHO, be used as pawns to convey to women that they have failed at responsibility. They should never be pointed to as evidence of duty. Every person who claims that children are a consequence of irresponsible behavior is speaking directly to all of the children who were unplanned, and particularly to those whose families had difficulty thinking of them as anything else, and whose families continue to repeat the same belief that children are just an unwanted thing that happens to you when you’re bad - a punishment.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Speaking of fuck, where the fuck were we? Oh, TomC will like this one, the Texas AG says he'll defend any new anti-sodomy law in front of SCOTUS. Man, the elimination of legal abortion was supposed to the tragedy, but it seems like this SCOTUS wants to make it the tip of the iceberg.

Then we have this... Das Internetz interwebbingz could betray women online.
article said:
An investigation by Lockdown Privacy, the maker of an app that blocks online tracking, found that Planned Parenthood’s web scheduler can share information with a variety of third parties, including Google, Facebook, TikTok and Hotjar, a tracking tool that says it helps companies understand how customers behave. These outside companies receive data including IP addresses, approximate Zip codes and service selections, which privacy experts worry could be valuable to state governments looking to prosecute abortions.
So, now a decision on abortion is pulling third party tech companies into the web.
Women are already being warned to delete any period trackers from their devices.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,561
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.
Why would you misrepresent Gospel's momma that way?

According to him, she did not say that children are a punishment for anyone. Much less women in particular. You're making up this crap and attributing it to someone else.

Tom
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
946
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.

I would just say it’s not Jesus’s America. So far as I know Jesus said nothing about abortion.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.
Surely you realize that women are not considered ‘just fine’ if they gave an unwanted pregnancy. They may be forgiven for that sin, but they are definitely marked.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Do you think they lied? If so, which sentences did they utter that were lies?
Nominee Kavanaugh said:
I said that it’s settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis, and one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years.
link

On stare decisis...
legal mumbo jumbo said:
Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.

Gorsuch hearings said:
Durbin: There is a statement which you made in that book, which has been often quoted, and I want to make sure that I quote it accurately here today. … And I quote, “The intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” …

How could you square that statement with legal abortion?

Gorsuch: Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment, and the book explains that.

Durbin: Do you accept that?

Gorsuch: That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.
link
To say you accept something is "the law of the land" does not mean you think it is correct, nor that you would not change it if you could. I accept that this board has some specific rules for its forums, but I do not think those rules are helpful. Decisions by upper courts is something that must bind lower courts (unless they distinguish a case on the facts), but the highest court is not bound by its own previous decisions, no matter how many times they've been affirmed.

If Durbin had asked "Is there any possibility you would overrule Roe v Wade in any future judgment" and Gorsuch said 'no', then I can see that he gave a counterfactual statement.

But the above? There is nothing there.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.
Why would you misrepresent Gospel's momma that way?

According to him, she did not say that children are a punishment for anyone. Much less women in particular. You're making up this crap and attributing it to someone else.

Tom
It is blatantly obvious from the context
Rhea’s post is that part of Gospel’s Momma’s message could be interpreted as something she did not believe.

I suggest you stop digging because the hole you are currently in is pretty deep.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.

Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.
Surely you realize that women are not considered ‘just fine’ if they gave an unwanted pregnancy. They may be forgiven for that sin, but they are definitely marked.
I guess the point is that the legal justification is that there is an "alternative" way to not be a parent, but that "alternative" is to sell your child to one of a legally cloaked group of organizations that each have long histories of connection to child trafficking, and even in the best of cases is nearly indistinguishable from industrial-scale human sale.

Assuming the pregnancy doesn't just outright kill you
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,311
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.
Why would you misrepresent Gospel's momma that way?

According to him, she did not say that children are a punishment for anyone. Much less women in particular. You're making up this crap and attributing it to someone else.

Tom
It is blatantly obvious from the context
Rhea’s post is that part of Gospel’s Momma’s message could be interpreted as something she did not believe.

I suggest you stop digging because the hole you are currently in is pretty deep.

I couldn't possibly convey the entirety of what kind of woman my mother is. I'll just simply say there was no shortage of love and leave it at that.

Edit: I don't care about the misrepresentation. My mother will be just fine. I focus only on the point Rhea was trying to make.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Do you think they lied? If so, which sentences did they utter that were lies?
Jesus Christ pal. Watch the fucking video.
I accept that my opinions are generally minority ones on this board, but what I will not accept is different behaviour required of me than would be required of the majority. Generally, when people post a video without summarising anything in the video, people will not take that as evidence of anything.

First, if you are asserting something (the judges lied), the burden is on you to produce evidence of your position.

Second, if I start responding to the video, I will have to make assumptions, and like all the assumptions I make on this board, they will be interpreted in the worst possible way. If I do not respond to every single utterance because I judged one of them did not even approach the form of a lie, I will be accused of skipping out some of the most damning evidence. If I respond to every utterance, I will be accused of purposely responding to things I know are not lies and it is stupid and disingenuous of me to respond to such and such a line.

If you think these people weren't misleading, say so and say why.
The burden is not on me to disprove something, but on the person who claims a positive statement.

But, I've already said why statements were not misleading. I've already spoken about 'settled law' multiple times, and linked to an academic treatment of the phrase 'settled law', which nobody has read.

I can't know why you think something is misleading until you tell me what specific sentence is misleading you.

I think they they fucking lied lied because any sane reasonable person would look at the statements they made and assume they wouldn't take Roe v Wade to the chopping block. You seem to disagree, and I am quite interested in your reason as to why.
I need to know what statements appear to be lies. But, I will do some of the work. Here is my response to the video:

Klobuchar asks ACB if Roe is a 'super precedent'(?!).

ACB says if she is being asked about it, it probably isn't. If ACB had been accused of lying, I would enter this into evidence to exonerate her.

I have dealt with Kavanaugh's response earlier, but the video does not contain the question he was asked to respond the way he did.

Gorsuch says he accepts that 'a fetus is not a person according to Roe v Wade' and he 'accepts this as the law of the land'.

I see nothing in that sentence that is contradicted by Gorsuch overruling Roe v Wade. The law of the land can be changed.

If anything, it seems to me the Senators asking the questions are being evasive and misleading here. What they want to know: "Do you have any intention whatsoever of overturning Roe v Wade if you get the opportunity" or "Do you think Roe v Wade was rightly decided". What they ask: "is Roe v Wade settled law", which is a stupid question, because I could tell you at the time of those hearings, the answer was "yes", whether or not you agree with it or you think it should be overturned.

For Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, I can see how their answers, if you somehow had evidence that they knew their answers would mislead, even though in fact they did not utter anything counterfactual, might lead some people to think they 'lied' or 'misled'. Their answers, again stressing they said nothing counterfactual, might have been a "politician's answer", which is a carefully crafted yet formless void of an answer.

The idea that ACB said anything misleading cannot be seriously entertained. Every single clip I've seen I would have chosen as evidence to exonerate her. ACB is clearly a woman who brooks no nonsense.

And then after that, you can explain to me, and just me personally, as to why no one should believe [two US Senators who stated they were misled by these Supreme Court Justices with regards to Roe V Wade.

And just so we are clear, I am not an insufferable pedant. I find the discrepancy between "misled" and "lied" in this context to be a distinction without meaning.
I find the distinction to be quite important, in particular because AOC and others want to get revenge on the judges for 'lying under oath', not 'misleading under oath'.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.

I would just say it’s not Jesus’s America. So far as I know Jesus said nothing about abortion.
I'm well aware of that. These Christian theocrats who have taken over the Court are every bit as much traitors to their faith as to their country.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Really, it's the child that's being punished, not the mother. The conservative solution is to sell the kid into the foster system, at least according to the letter of the ruling itself. The woman is just fine, or at least, the entire legal theory of why this judgement was legal hinged on her being just fine, unaffected by this ruling because "equivalents exist". The kid is the one being pimped into the sex industry by their government as punishment for their parents' sins.

Welcome to Jesus's America.
Surely you realize that women are not considered ‘just fine’ if they gave an unwanted pregnancy. They may be forgiven for that sin, but they are definitely marked.
That is, however dishonest and illogical, the legal argument that they have made.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.
Why would you misrepresent Gospel's momma that way?

According to him, she did not say that children are a punishment for anyone. Much less women in particular. You're making up this crap and attributing it to someone else.

Tom
Why do you misrepresent Rhea like that? She began her post:
In my opinion your mother is saying something that I would bet she does not believe:
Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.


I would guess that your mother loves her family and respects her children as people and considers them a joy, a gift and a treasure.

But then she says they are the “outcome” of a choice that must “be accepted.”
(My bold). Rhea offered her opinion of what Gospel’s mother meant.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,344
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
(My bold). Rhea offered her opinion of what Gospel’s mother meant.
No.

Rhea offered her experience of how the words spoken by Mrs. Gospel feel to the people she is talking about.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
(My bold). Rhea offered her opinion of what Gospel’s mother meant.
No.

Rhea offered her experience of how the words spoken by Mrs. Gospel feel to the people she is talking about.
Ah, I stand corrected.

In reality, I understood that completely. I just did a poor job of conveying what I meant.
 

Playball40

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
1,984
Location
Gallifrey
Basic Beliefs
Non-religious
..we are still left with people who think the State has the right to intervene on the internal biology of a woman.

That's something I failed to ask my mother about. I presume from her approach to many things in life, that she believes she only has power over her own actions. I'll ask her and share later.

Edit: Ok that was fast. Didn't think I'd get her on the phone at this time of day (usually out in the garden away from the phone), She (paraphrasing) says her beliefs only applied to us (my siblings and myself) during the time we were her responsibility. Now that we are adults we can believe whatever we want; she did her best. I guess that means she doesn't believe she has the power over the biology of women.

Edit: I Forgot, to mention her response to the state question specifically (which came before the reply above). She (again paraphrasing) doesn't argue about laws & people decide for themselves what they believe is right or wrong. She's a Jehovah's witness so it's obvious to me that not arguing about laws thing is influenced by that.
She's a Jehovah's Witness? I would think bodily autonomy would be important to her. Ask her to imagine the 'state' telling her she MUST have a blood transfusion.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I get crazy moms. My mom would, i'm sure, be just the same as yours, Gospel. Back in the day her SIL through my father's brother got an abortion and my parents... Well, let's just say they spoke that way about them in private or that's what I caught even as an oblivious autistic brat.

I caught enough, even so, that I was judgemental when my own sister got knocked up.

Though to be fair that was more about me thinking she should have kept up with school at the time, and being utterly baffled at how she fell in love with an angry idiot who ended up just as terrible a father as I expected.

It was still a little about her sexual freedom though.

At this point, all the judgement has shifted into the fact that she is and always has been as terrible a mother as the person who owned the womb I came out of.

But that's another story.

I would much rather not see more people get fucked up like my brother was, and like my sister kind-of was.

Or worse.

Adoption is an option... To subject a human being to sale or exploitation or both, in any order.

I forgive my parents for finding and adopting in desperation, and laud whoever hid me until they wanted my older siblings.

But it was a deal with a devil they made.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
3,060
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
Or worse.

Adoption is an option... To subject a human being to sale or exploitation or both, in any order.
Maybe its the way you do adoptions in the US but what do you mean by adoption being a human for sale or exploitation?

My brother is adopted.

He was not sold to my parents nor was he nor my parents exploited.
I forgive my parents for finding and adopting in desperation, and laud whoever hid me until they wanted my older siblings.

But it was a deal with a devil they made.
I do not understand the paragraph above at all.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,190
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

In a new poll just released, 48% of Americans said they will vote for Democrats, as opposed to 41% for Republicans.


The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade on Friday is having a strong negative impact on Republican poll numbers. Americans are now saying they will definitely vote now with a 24% gain for Democrats over Republicans.


According to the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll we are seeing a big swing in voter preferences.

Democrats have regained the favor of voters to control Congress, with 48% saying they are more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate in the fall and 41% more likely to vote for a Republican. In April, Republicans led on that question in the poll 47% to 44%, which was within the margin of error.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,311
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
My mother raised me to never put my penis in a woman unless I was prepared for the possibility of pregnancy and all the responsibilities that come along with it. Yesterday I asked her (because I never honestly thought to before) what her thoughts are on abortion. Her answer was predictable to me (being that I was raised by her) she said (paraphrasing) that a woman has full control over her body when deciding whether or not to have sex & if she gets pregnant she should accept the outcome of that choice. She also said a pregnant woman has 50% control over her body when pregnant. She also mentioned that a complete ban on abortion would be a bad idea (again paraphrasing) because it should be available for cases of rape & unviable pregnancies (medical reasons) as at that point the woman should retain 100% control of her body.

I tried asking her when she believes life starts and she refused to answer (literally sucked her teeth in that Jamaican way) and said (paraphrasing) if you don't want a baby don't have sex until you're ready for one.

I'm sharing this convo because I'm genuinely interested in opinions on my momma's position.

I love my momma so yall better go easy on her

In my opinion your mother is saying something that I would bet she does not believe:
Specifically, that children are a consequence and a punishment for irresponsible actions by a woman.

I would guess that your mother loves her family and respects her children as people and considers them a joy, a gift and a treasure.

But then she says they are the “outcome” of a choice that must “be accepted.”



When I see loving people say that, I can only stare at them, unable to reconcile the contradiction between honoring children and then also speaking in ways that tell unplanned children that they are merely an outcome that must be accepted. I honestly do not know how to look at them when they declare that children merely a consequence of risky behavior that must be accepted. It is difficult to still see the love part upon hearing that.

Full disclosure. I was an unplanned child, I was the third unplanned child, I was told that I was an unplanned child, and a self-righteous mother let me know how wonderful she was for doing her duty.

Your mother - has just told me the same thing. I do not thank your mother for that, I’m afraid.

In my opinion children should be wanted. Unplanned children should be wanted. And they should never, IMHO, be used as pawns to convey to women that they have failed at responsibility. They should never be pointed to as evidence of duty. Every person who claims that children are a consequence of irresponsible behavior is speaking directly to all of the children who were unplanned, and particularly to those whose families had difficulty thinking of them as anything else, and whose families continue to repeat the same belief that children are just an unwanted thing that happens to you when you’re bad - a punishment.

I appreciate this Rhea. I'm going to actually talk about my views on abortion in relation to my mother's opinion (in the form of sharing my thoughts on her statements) and a response to your welcomed input on her opinion if that makes sense.

My mother is a simple yet complex woman so don't take the info I share as absolute, as it's just a small glimps that I am able to type up. She was a single mom raising 4 children. My father (Max Romeo) left to chase his music carrier after trying to balance working to support us and chasing the "American Dream" reached a breaking point. Simply put, it wasn't easy for them since arriving from Jamacia in 1976** (to my recollection I changed schools around 8 different times from all the moving to escape violence from black, white & spanish people as well as financial reasons. She worked her bones off for us after his exit and made it a thing to raise independent adults that are capable of navigating this system and avoiding a criminal record (all four of her children succeeded in that btw). She's also a registered Democrat who voted for everyone on the ticket since being in this country except Hillary & Biden. I'll have to ask her to remind me specifically but from what I recall it has to do with things both of them said sometime in their carriers (before I reached the age of giving a shit about politics) about young black people.

Anyhow, my opinion on her opinions on abortion is that I believe her personal experience raising us as a single parent & seeing the fruits of her labor (black adults with no criminal record ALL FOUR OF US - yes I'm shocked) influences her opinion. I don't believe (and she clearly stated that early today) that she wishes (or ever wished) to force her experiences and way of life on others. I just think her life experienced is the how and why she is the way she is on abortion (if that makes sense).

Now, before I get into what I think about your opinion on abortion I think it's fear that I share my opinions on it first. Lots of nuances. It may piss some people off. I believe women should have 100% control over their bodies. The federal and state governments should not have any say or use force against women's bodies. I also believe that the state and federal governments should not play any role in abortions either. Like not funding organza tons like planned parenthood for example. I can't go into detailed why. Because I'm typing on my phone. But in short since tax payer money is out of it public opinion should loose it's power. They just need to answer to the regulations in place for the medical industry. Give abortion the same status as the freedom of religion and keep it separate from the state.

That's all I am able to type into this pixel 6 pro right now. Police are asking me to move (another story).

**I was only 3 years old at that time with my older sister & second oldest sister. My brother (fourth child) was born in America.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Or worse.

Adoption is an option... To subject a human being to sale or exploitation or both, in any order.
Maybe its the way you do adoptions in the US but what do you mean by adoption being a human for sale or exploitation?

My brother is adopted.

He was not sold to my parents nor was he nor my parents exploited.
I forgive my parents for finding and adopting in desperation, and laud whoever hid me until they wanted my older siblings.

But it was a deal with a devil they made.
I do not understand the paragraph above at all.
How old was your brother when they adopted him?

And if you want to continue this, there's a thread for that.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
3,060
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
Or worse.

Adoption is an option... To subject a human being to sale or exploitation or both, in any order.
Maybe its the way you do adoptions in the US but what do you mean by adoption being a human for sale or exploitation?

My brother is adopted.

He was not sold to my parents nor was he nor my parents exploited.
I forgive my parents for finding and adopting in desperation, and laud whoever hid me until they wanted my older siblings.

But it was a deal with a devil they made.
I do not understand the paragraph above at all.
How old was your brother when they adopted him?
5-6months
And if you want to continue this, there's a thread for that.
Where is this thread? I must be overlooking it.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Or worse.

Adoption is an option... To subject a human being to sale or exploitation or both, in any order.
Maybe its the way you do adoptions in the US but what do you mean by adoption being a human for sale or exploitation?

My brother is adopted.

He was not sold to my parents nor was he nor my parents exploited.
I forgive my parents for finding and adopting in desperation, and laud whoever hid me until they wanted my older siblings.

But it was a deal with a devil they made.
I do not understand the paragraph above at all.
How old was your brother when they adopted him?
5-6months
And if you want to continue this, there's a thread for that.
Where is this thread? I must be overlooking it.
It's like, right next to the abortion thread in M&P.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Do you think they lied? If so, which sentences did they utter that were lies?
Nominee Kavanaugh said:
I said that it’s settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis, and one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years.
link

On stare decisis...
legal mumbo jumbo said:
Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.

Gorsuch hearings said:
Durbin: There is a statement which you made in that book, which has been often quoted, and I want to make sure that I quote it accurately here today. … And I quote, “The intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” …

How could you square that statement with legal abortion?

Gorsuch: Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment, and the book explains that.

Durbin: Do you accept that?

Gorsuch: That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.
link
To say you accept something is "the law of the land" does not mean you think it is correct, nor that you would not change it if you could. I accept that this board has some specific rules for its forums, but I do not think those rules are helpful. Decisions by upper courts is something that must bind lower courts (unless they distinguish a case on the facts), but the highest court is not bound by its own previous decisions, no matter how many times they've been affirmed.

If Durbin had asked "Is there any possibility you would overrule Roe v Wade in any future judgment" and Gorsuch said 'no', then I can see that he gave a counterfactual statement.

But the above? There is nothing there.
Kavanaugh said it was Stare Decisis, then ruled it wasn’t Stare Decisis. Gorsuch said he accepted Roe as ‘The law of the land.’

Your remark is akin to saying W didn’t say “Hussein caused 9/11”. If you can’t see the trouble above, that is a failure on your part.
 
Top Bottom