View Single Post
Old 05-09-2019, 08:04 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,298
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The "actual issue at hand" is a bunch of misinformation and ignorance being spread by Slate about what the effects of the law. That's what I "prefer to fixate on knocking down": the ignorance of Dopers.
The issue at hand is not your jihad against liberals. The issue at hand is an abortion law, and whether it it good or not. Cherry-picking a couple arguments and pretending that if you disprove one, every other argument that the other side has thrown out is wrong is a chickenshit debate.

You're certainly free to share how you interpret it and if / why you think that interpretation is superior. Others are free to point out when your interpretation is at odds with precedent.
So when I ask whether you will be consistent with how you assess the constitutionality of laws, you are asserting that you will pick and choose how you will answer that question? Just trying to be clear here.

You want a cite for something the law doesn't say? I've already provided a direct link to the law. It does not say that women can be sentenced to death for having an abortion.

ETA: ninja'd by UV, but that Slate article in the OP is still horseshit.
There's millions of lawyers in this country, and I'm sure you can find a reputable expert who explains in some detail that your reading of the law is correct. Instead, we just have you repeating that you read the law, and that Slate is incorrect. You ask others for cites all the time; you should provide cites that your reading is correct. You may be right, who knows? But you have provided no reason whatsoever for anyone to listen to your opinion.