Roe v Wade is on deck

[TomC]

Neither your religious views nor your sexual orientation make you a target, at least not here.

I know.
It's religious views falsely attributed to me, despite all my posts, that makes me a target. But my orientation doesn't help. I'm not just male, I'm a gay male. Easy to dismiss my opinions, whether you're an Evangelical Christian or a Wokester.

I'm not entirely certain who the 'we're both from big Catholic families' is but in case you mean me, I'm not Catholic or ex-Catholic.

No.
I was talking about Judy and me.
I didn't realize that you'd find that hard to understand.
But, obviously you do.
Tom

I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.

if regressive conservatives don't make their arguments ambiguous and poorly worded, how else are they supposed to backtrack and act all offended that you just didn't understand them after their position is thoroughly destroyed by even the barest glimmer of intellectual scrutiny?

it's not an accident. it's a tactic.

I was talking specifically about Judy and me nearly 40 years ago.

You and Toni, at least, find that "ambiguous".

I'm calling bullshit.


Not that it will matter on this forum. It's the kind of bullshit it's designed for.
Tom

 

[prideandfall]

I was talking specifically about Judy and me nearly 40 years ago.

oh i don't know or care about the details of this specific time that you went off on some incomprehensible word-salad and then blamed everyone else for the fact that you make no sense, beyond the curio that it's apparently some anecdotal BS that you'll use to justify your oppressive views on abortion at some point.

You and Toni, at least, find that "ambiguous".

i don't find it ambiguous at all

I'm calling bullshit.


Not that it will matter on this forum. It's the kind of bullshit it's designed for.
Tom

so, like before, you're using yourself as the example of the thing you're calling shitty?
as before i applaud you for your boldness.

 

[TomC]

i don't find it ambiguous at all

Tell me then.
Which two people do you think I meant by the word "we".

Toni thought it might be the two of us. She found that ambiguous.

I called bullshit.
Feel free to explain why you think I was being clear, and Toni was being...
Well...

Less clear.

Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

i don't find it ambiguous at all

Tell me then.
Which two people do you think I meant by the word "we".

Toni thought it might be the two of us. She found that ambiguous.

I called bullshit.
Feel free to explain why you think I was being clear, and Toni was being...
Well...

Less clear.

Tom

*sigh*

Part of what makes me so hot under the collar here is this. We're both from big Catholic families. We know a pregnancy when we see one.

I knew the initial context I was getting was wrong and had to back track a few times to dig through the sloppy grammar and get to the context (and when I'm bitching about grammar, there are problems).

We're is "we are" (not "we were"), which is present tense. We know, know again present tense. So with all the present tense, it creates the link to Toni, not Judy. What you should have written was:

We were both from big Catholic families. We knew a pregnancy when we see one.

No ambiguity. You shouldn't make the reader have to work for what you meant. Also, being in big Catholic families doesn't mean super-pregger detection powers. Could have miscarried, could have been late.

 

[Elixir]

"We were both from big Catholic families. We knew a pregnancy when we see one."

Mixed tenses. s/b "we knew a pregnancy when we done seen 'em."

being in big Catholic families doesn't mean super-pregger detection powers.

I think super-pregger detection is only one of several superpowers that people from large Catholic families think they have. Mrs Elixir, for example, is convinced that St Anthony helps her find stuff. She wouldn't play ball when I suggested there was probably some equal and opposite Saint who helps her lose stuff...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"We were both from big Catholic families. We knew a pregnancy when we see one."

Mixed tenses. s/b "we knew a pregnancy when we done seen 'em."

Damn it!

I mean, fuck you.

 

[Toni]

I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.

While discussing my girlfriend and my pregnancy, around 1980, I used the word "we".

You thought that was ambiguous. Maybe I meant you in that "we". Perhaps I meant you and me, not Judy and me?

Seriously?

Dayum!

Tom

You were never pregnant. Your girlfriend might have been but you were not.

 

[TomC]

I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.

While discussing my girlfriend and my pregnancy, around 1980, I used the word "we".

You thought that was ambiguous. Maybe I meant you in that "we". Perhaps I meant you and me, not Judy and me?

Seriously?

Dayum!

Tom

You were never pregnant. Your girlfriend might have been but you were not.

What a gender bigot.

Believe it or not, I considered myself every bit as much a parent, every bit as much responsible for our child as Judy.

Every bit as much.

You don't think I got judgemental about parents after this happened.

Believe me when I say, I got way more judgemental. Way more.

Not so much women. Mostly I got judgemental about men.

"Women go through the pregnancy. At least step up and take care of her while she's dealing with that pregnancy asshole!
Then you owe a shit ton of child support, at the bare minimum. You really owe that child a daddy as well as support.

If you can't do the daddy part, keep your fucking dick in your pants!"

Really, I'm even more judgemental about dudes than chicks.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.

While discussing my girlfriend and my pregnancy, around 1980, I used the word "we".

You thought that was ambiguous. Maybe I meant you in that "we". Perhaps I meant you and me, not Judy and me?

Seriously?

Dayum!

Tom

You were never pregnant. Your girlfriend might have been but you were not.

What a gender bigot.

Believe it or not, I considered myself every bit as much a parent, every bit as much responsible for our child as Judy.

That's make you expecting. Not pregnant.

You don't think I got judgemental about parents after this happened.

Believe me when I say, I got way more judgemental. Way more.

Not so much women. Mostly I got judgemental about men.

"Women go through the pregnancy. At least step up and take care of her while she's dealing with that pregnancy asshole!
Then you owe a shit ton of child support, at the bare minimum. You really owe that child a daddy as well as support.

If you can't do the daddy part, keep your fucking dick in your pants!"

Really, I'm even more judgemental about dudes than chicks.

But you were still "expecting", not pregnant.

 

[TomC]

But you were still "expecting", not pregnant.

How religious.
You can build a whole moral world view out of the difference between "expecting" and "pregnant".

Yeah.
Bless Your Heart.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Meanwhile in Isreal.
Israel loosens abortion law restrictions after Roe v. Wade decision

Isn't that the same country American evangelicals (who mostly vote republican) have an undying loyalty to? I wonder if they'll retract that support or be ok with abortion in Isreal as long as it is not in the USA.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But you were still "expecting", not pregnant.

How religious.
You can build a whole moral world view out of the difference between "expecting" and "pregnant".

Well, one indicates you could be a mother or father of an expectant child while the other says there is a fetus inside of you. I'm sorry you are offended by the dictionary.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile in Isreal.
Israel loosens abortion law restrictions after Roe v. Wade decision

Isn't that the same country American evangelicals (who mostly vote republican) have an undying loyalty to? I wonder if they'llll retract that support or be ok with abortion in Isreal as long as it is not in the USA.

They don't give a damn about Israel, that is just their doomsday cult hometown.

 

[Toni]

I'm not certain why you don't recognize that what you write is sometimes ambiguous--and maybe do some editing.

While discussing my girlfriend and my pregnancy, around 1980, I used the word "we".

You thought that was ambiguous. Maybe I meant you in that "we". Perhaps I meant you and me, not Judy and me?

Seriously?

Dayum!

Tom

You were never pregnant. Your girlfriend might have been but you were not.

What a gender bigot.

Believe it or not, I considered myself every bit as much a parent, every bit as much responsible for our child as Judy.

Every bit as much.

You don't think I got judgemental about parents after this happened.

Believe me when I say, I got way more judgemental. Way more.

Not so much women. Mostly I got judgemental about men.

"Women go through the pregnancy. At least step up and take care of her while she's dealing with that pregnancy asshole!
Then you owe a shit ton of child support, at the bare minimum. You really owe that child a daddy as well as support.

If you can't do the daddy part, keep your fucking dick in your pants!"

Really, I'm even more judgemental about dudes than chicks.
Tom

Unless I am mistaken about you being a cis male, you do not and never have had a uterus or ovaries, both requisite for becoming pregnant in the biological sense.

preg·nant
of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus.
"she was heavily pregnant with her second child

I realize there is a social construct to refer to expectant couples as 'we are pregnant' but only one of them has an embryo/fetus growing inside of them. Only one will have their breasts swell, their ankles swell, their belly swell. Only one will have their blood volume increase by about 50% to support the pregnancy. Only one is risking their life and health to carry the pregnancy. Only one of you will feel labor pains or push a 7 lb baby out of one of your orifices. Or be cut open and have a baby yanked out of you, then stitched or stapled back up. Only one of you will have your breasts grow heavy with milk.

Only one of you will experience a downturn in your education or career or prospects of either.

That would be the mother.


The other, statistically speaking, will get a nice career boost. That would be the father.

This is not to suggest that both mother and father are not essential to the child or that one is the better parent or more important--after pregnancy.

I'm also not suggesting that you did not experience a genuine loss when that pregnancy did not continue.

 

[ZiprHead]

Meanwhile in Isreal.
Israel loosens abortion law restrictions after Roe v. Wade decision

Isn't that the same country American evangelicals (who mostly vote republican) have an undying loyalty to? I wonder if they'll retract that support or be ok with abortion in Isreal as long as it is not in the USA.

And the government pays for 'em too. So when the evangelicals insist we send money to Israel we are paying for abortions.

 

[ZiprHead]

Marist Poll: Americans Swing To Democratic Party 48 To 41 After Roe Decision

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

crooksandliars.com

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.

And voters choose Roe v Wade by a 56-40 margin.


NPR writes, "Surveys have for years shown consistently that most Americans wanted to keep Roe in place and to see restrictions on when abortions could take place. What the court did is clearly outside the mainstream of public opinion, and that is reflected again in the NPR poll."

On the Supreme Court docket for next year is a case where conservative legislators want to change how electors are picked in their states even if it is against state constitutions.

Elections have consequences, people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Too bad most of the seats in the House aren't up for an actual election.

 

[ZiprHead]

Too bad most of the seats in the House aren't up for an actual election.

Well, there are those "second amendment solutions" righties are so fond of.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you think they lied? If so, which sentences did they utter that were lies?

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...

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.

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.

You don't rule something is or is not 'stare decisis'. You overrule it if you think the original decisio

Gorsuch said he accepted Roe as ‘The law of the land.’

I can only repeat myself, even though you are quoting the post where I've already addressed this.

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.

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.

No: the trouble is people who want the question to have been "Will you overturn Roe v Wade if you have the chance" but nobody asked that question. They want revenge for a decision they don't like. The revenge won't change the decision.

 

[Metaphor]

You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

If they consider it settled law they shouldn't be changing it.

I've dealt with this about a dozen times now.

"Settled law" has no single meaning, and even if you said something was "settled law" that does not mean you promised not to change it. It just does not.