It is currently Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:18 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:59 pm 
Offline
Wrong within normal parameters
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 5075
Location: The other side of Michigan
That was certainly the outcome of Roe v Wade, but I still believe a person can be pro choice and yet believe that particular decision was wrong on technical grounds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:04 pm 
Offline
Meanwhile...
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 16500
Location: Out on the banks
River wrote:
So I looked it up.

Quote:
The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Justices Burger, Douglas, and Stewart filed concurring opinions, and Justice White filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Rehnquist joined. Burger's, Douglas's, and White's opinions were issued along with the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade). The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.[37]


Emphasis mine. Just to cut through the noise a little.
It didn't work the first five times I pointed it out but maybe you'll have better luck.

*pouts*
*But not at River*

_________________
Image

“I am not so blind that I can't see darkness.”
Dangerous Beans
Terry Pratchett, The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:35 pm 
Offline
I miss Prim ...
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 14697
Location: Florida
It didn't "work" because what the court did say is not particularly relevant to one's views on what they should have said. I'm sure there are other court decisions you could find that you would disagree with, for example.

_________________
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:47 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 36515
Dave_LF wrote:
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
As for pro-choice, the term is generally accepted in the U.S. to mean believing that a woman has a right, implied in and therefore guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, to make her own choices about reproductive rights.

Huh. I've always interpreted "pro-choice" to mean a belief that women should be (for the most part) permitted to terminate their pregnancies at will; not specifically that the US Constitution guarantees this as a fundamental right. Obviously if you believe that, it becomes tautological that the matter shouldn't be left to the states, but wouldn't that imply you can't meaningfully be "pro-choice" anywhere but in the US? For my part, I see no logical problem with a hypothetical American being in favor of abortion rights as a matter of principle but also believing that the Constitution is effectively silent on the matter.


Of course someone outside the US can be pro-choice. Anyone who believes that a woman has a fundamental right to make her own reproductive choices about her own body is pro-choice. If you believe that the government, whether a national government, state government, provincial government, or local government, should have the ability to take away that fundamental right, you are not pro-choice.

No matter how many times you say you are.



Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:18 pm 
Offline
Wrong within normal parameters
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 5075
Location: The other side of Michigan
For the record, I consider myself pro-choice, but I don't feel qualified to render an opinion on whether Roe v Wade was the correct decision from a Constitutional standpoint. But yes, in some sense, I don't think any governmental entity "should" forbid abortion under ordinary circumstances. That said, as in all things, I recognize that democratic governments will sometimes (often) make decisions I disagree with, and that they have the right to do this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:01 pm
Posts: 1076
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
Dave_LF wrote:
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
As for pro-choice, the term is generally accepted in the U.S. to mean believing that a woman has a right, implied in and therefore guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, to make her own choices about reproductive rights.

Huh. I've always interpreted "pro-choice" to mean a belief that women should be (for the most part) permitted to terminate their pregnancies at will; not specifically that the US Constitution guarantees this as a fundamental right. Obviously if you believe that, it becomes tautological that the matter shouldn't be left to the states, but wouldn't that imply you can't meaningfully be "pro-choice" anywhere but in the US? For my part, I see no logical problem with a hypothetical American being in favor of abortion rights as a matter of principle but also believing that the Constitution is effectively silent on the matter.


Of course someone outside the US can be pro-choice. Anyone who believes that a woman has a fundamental right to make her own reproductive choices about her own body is pro-choice. If you believe that the government, whether a national government, state government, provincial government, or local government, should have the ability to take away that fundamental right, you are not pro-choice.

No matter how many times you say you are.


Hey Yovi, remember when you doubt my statement about those whose commitment is to keeping it a federal issue? That they would gladly risk the possibility of a federal pro-life ruling rather than have it go to the state's?

If you think there are technical issues with Roe and see the constitution as dictating that it should go back to the states, you "can't" be pro-choice.I

By the way Dave, your interpretation of V's words was spot on. Anyone in the world can believe that the US constitution protects the right of abortion in the US, so therefore anyone in the world might meet V's requirements of being pro-choice. Actually being pro-choice isn't enough, you have to believe it is in the constitution already. That is why V thinks I'm pro-life and Ted Cruz isn't.

_________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:40 pm 
Offline
2018 Fitbit Balrog*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 13127
Legality aside, I am confused about how one can describe oneself as “pro-choice” but think it’s okay for states to take away that choice?

_________________
*title copyright: Teremia

'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:45 pm 
Offline
Wrong within normal parameters
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 5075
Location: The other side of Michigan
Because my support for the democratic process supersedes my personal opinions on almost any individual issue.

It's not that I believe it's "ok" for governments to behave in this way or that, just that I believe they're allowed to, according to rules I support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:04 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 36515
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
That is why V thinks I'm pro-life and Ted Cruz isn't.


C_G, you are welcome to post your own views here, so long as you follow our rules of civility. However, you may not mis-state what others have said, whether it is me or anyone else. If it happens again, your posting rights will be restricted

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:15 pm 
Offline
2018 Fitbit Balrog*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 13127
Governments all over the world do things, that is lawful within their legal framework, but absolutely awful from a humanitarian perspective. And you support that because it is “legal”. That’s the position Yov and you are going on about?

(Took me a while to get it..)

_________________
*title copyright: Teremia

'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:36 pm 
Offline
Wrong within normal parameters
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 5075
Location: The other side of Michigan
There is a place for "I disagree with what you're doing but I support your right to do it." Not for, say, concentration camps, but maybe here. I don't know exactly where I stand on that myself, but I certainly believe it's possible for some logically-consistent person to be personally pro-choice and still support the right of democratic governments to pass laws restricting it if that's where the process arrives.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:24 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 36515
But that is not "pro-choice." That is "ideally I'd like women to have a choice but if not oh well."

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:54 pm 
Offline
Wrong within normal parameters
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 5075
Location: The other side of Michigan
No, it's "I believe women should have a choice, and if the state restricts that, I'll lobby my Congressperson, write letters to the editor, attend rallies, whine on Facebook, etc." As opposed to "I believe women should have a choice, and if any state attempts to restrict that, the people responsible should be punished."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:59 pm
Posts: 2335
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
But that is not "pro-choice." That is "ideally I'd like women to have a choice but if not oh well."


Oh. Oh oh oh. Wow. You just mis-characterized another poster's position!

*points accusingly*

You know what you have to do, Voronwë.

You have to threaten to restrict your own posting status if you do it again. ( And you have to use the scary red letters too. )

Fair is fair.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:00 pm 
Offline
Wrong within normal parameters
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 5075
Location: The other side of Michigan
Technically, if anything, he's only mischaracterized the position of my hypothetical person, whose rights are hypothetical too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:59 pm
Posts: 2335
Technically misunderstandings are best hashed out with conversation, not threats. Goodness knows I found Voronwë and CG's positions confusing enough to not be sure that CG *was* mischaracterizing Voronwë. It's amazing the kind of light conversation can shed.

For what it's worth I think arguing about abortion on a messageboard is a wicked wicked sin. You're all going to HTML. Heck, I could be risk of going to HTML just by being here!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:01 pm
Posts: 1076
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
That is why V thinks I'm pro-life and Ted Cruz isn't.


C_G, you are welcome to post your own views here, so long as you follow our rules of civility. However, you may not mis-state what others have said, whether it is me or anyone else. If it happens again, your posting rights will be restricted


You said I am not pro-choice. Abide your own rules please.

_________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:28 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 36515
I'm sorry, Faramond, that you can't tell the difference between expressing an opinion about what others have said and stating that some said the opposite of what they actually said (e.g., I specifically stated that Ted Cruz was pro-life and C_G said that I said the opposite, and I never stated that I thought that he was pro-life). If you have any further problems, please feel free to either PM me or take it up in the Henneth Annûn forum. At this point, this thread is going to be locked.

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group