To be fair, they don’t do much for pre-natal care either. They don’t care about the fetus either, they just want to make sure that the mother delivers something out of her womb.
EXACTLY!!!
That’s why I have stated before (and again like 3 posts ago) that the failure of SCOTUS has been to not explicitly rule that reproductive rights are protected under the 9th Amendment and instead rely on the right to privacy.
This is one reason I hate what passes for political discourse on this site.
Poster - I believe that a person can legitimately hold controversial political view X.
Next poster - I’m assuming YOU hold view X and will attack you for it.
Poster - I am on record that I don’t hold that view personally.
I guess we’ll see if ‘Next poster’ will ignore that and keep on attacking or let it drop and not admit they made an error.
Well, if we’re being pedantic, they don’t even care about that. They want the fetus to remain intact in the uterus until the birth of the fetus or the death of the mother, whichever comes first.
Glad to hear you understand that. The post I was responding to was worded in such a way as to suggest that you held with the idea that the Second Amendment solely protects a state government’s authority to maintain an armed force.
Oh good Lord, not that old shibboleth again.
I am generally supportive of Right to Choose, but I’ve long thought that Roe vs. Wade was built on sand.
At the time the Constitution was ratified, some things were considered so universally self-evident as to not need exposition; i.e., “historical tradition”. See Robertson v. Baldwin. Self-defense was one of these, a right to reproductive freedom was not.
Meant as a general “you” and no, I don’t investigate a poster’s history. However, you were the one who said it was consistent to support constitutional rights, and I was pointing out that that would mean that it is consistent to support abortion rights up until Dobbs.
Great for you that you did and do, but I am talking about the people that you are talking about, if you are not talking about yourself.
Can the SCOTUS just “state” that, and it never be overturned by a subsequent court? Was Warren Burger just an idiot that it never occurred to him that he could have just done that?
Why do you think that they didn’t rule that way? The right to privacy is what they said was protected under the 9th amendment, and that just got struck down. Why do you think that a right to reproductive freedom ruled to exist under 9A wouldn’t get shot down just as easily?
I mean, your complaint is that people don’t dig enough into your posting history? I don’t remember many positions of most posters on the board, so if someone is advocating for a position, I assume that that is the position they are advocating for. If you want to say you are playing devil’s advocate, then say so, don’t just assume that people know your posting history.
They are only rediculous extremes because we don’t have a political party looking at a municipal law that restricts horses in multi family dwellings and starts shouting from the roof tops “What about ‘ownership of horses SHALL NOT BE RESTRICTED’ don’t you understand?”
The point that I was trying to make is that the clear purpose of the second amendment is based on an archaic societal need which no longer exists, but is being trotted out as a blanket ban on all legislation related to it, even on those entirely unrelated to its constitutionally specified purpose.
The thing to realize is that there aren’t two sides to the abortion debate, but at least six, plus gradations between them. And most Republicans in power aren’t on the pro-life side, but the anti-choice side. The actual pro-life side and anti-abortion side, I think, made a horrible mistake in allying with the anti-choice side, because the anti-choice side is opposed to both sides of the choice: They would be just as happy to mandate abortions as to prohibit them, if that were what was politically feasible.
I do believe that is how it can be interpreted, and how it was intended when written. You did not in any way contradict that.
So, militias were not used for putting down slave revolts and Native American uprisings?
Lasted 50 years though. Personally, I think that the right to privacy is actually a pretty important right, but apparently it doesn’t exist anymore.
I would think that privacy was self evident enough that it wouldn’t need exposition either. But it’s not, so why is self defense?
But I guess you are right that a right to reproductive freedom was not, as women were property without any rights, and a considerable amount of the population had even less. It was really only white men that actually had rights, and that was something considered so universally self-evident as to not need exposition either.
If you want to avoid this in the future you might to post this way, at least for the your first post of each thread.
Poster - I dont personally believe X but I believe that a person can legitimately hold that controversial political view.
Next poster -No they can’t for reasons Y and Z, and continue attacking them. (leaving you out of it).
I’ve several times taken the devil’s advocate position and occasionally been lumped in with them , but usually, even in the pit, they just disagree with the point not the poster.
As far as k9binder’s and my responses to your posts, just replace all instances of “you” with “they”.
Too many people interpret “militia” to mean “state army”. I felt compelled to point out the problem with that interpretation.
Of course they were; but “militia = slave patrol” is a slander that some have tried to paint the Second Amendment debate with.
A right of privacy as it was traditionally understood sure. The controversy over Roe was starting with that and somehow spinning it into making laws against abortion unconstitutional. See below. If you tried hard enough, what couldn’t be considered “private” under a libertarian construction?
That’s overstating things. Women were recognized as human beings (counted in the Census even) who were held responsible under the law, could not legally be summarily murdered or grievously harmed, could own belongings, etc. As a social construct they were considered dependents, but not without rights.
As far as laws against abortion go, they seem to have originally been concerned not with potential human life but with abortion as a form of contraception- something that was considered as enabling censoriously immoral behavior. A woman’s personal right or not to treat pregnancy as a medical condition didn’t figure into it.
Shouldn’t have too. Maybe it is on people here to not assume that the statement “X is a valid position.” is tautological to “I hold position X.”
So its too much effort for you to put a single sentence at the start of your first post in a thread, but it is incumbent on others to review your entire posting history before they respond. 
Look, the vast majority people who make/defend an argument for a specific cause do so because they believe that cause. It is natural to assume that that is true of you unless you set the record straight.
No. It is up to people to read for comprehension.
People like you just want to start online lights so when someone here says “I think it is valid to hold controversial position X”, you choose to read it as, “I hold position X.” just so you can call them stupid, racist, misogynist, whatever.
I only pointed out my posting history to show I do not hold controversial position X and so of course you people want to argue about THAT now.
In other words, YOU are an example of why there no civil political discourse in America now. But I suspect you’ll reply that it’s not your fault for choosing not to think. It’s somebody else’s fault right? Probably (insert your clever nickname for Republicans here) and then blame Trump. But of course not you.
Oh yeah. MY fault that YOU made assumptions that I meant something other than what I said. I don’t know what line of work you do but let’s assume you’ve had a manager before. You know that some coworkers completed an assignment and so you say to your boss, “That rewrite of the procedures is done.” Your manager doesn’t like the rewrites so calls you stupid, and retarded and insults you even more. You protest that YOU didn’t do the rewrites, you were just letting him know it was done and your manager replies, “You told me they were done so I assumed you did it.” At that point what should your manager say? That it was YOUR fault you got insulted and bullied because YOU didn’t make it clear at the beginning that someone else did the rewrites?
A few final comments
First we’re in the pit so expecting complete civility is going to leave on disappointed.
Second despite being in the pit I don’t believe I bullied or insulted you, beyond a snarky emoticon. Please cite otherwise. I was actually trying to be helpful to prevent confusion in the future, its you who declared that I was the downfall of America for assuming that you actually believed the arguments you put forward.
as far as putting things into a buisiness context:
Boss: I think its obvious to everyone that we need to redesign the microwave since it has a tendency to explode when used to cook popcorn, and so that will hurt our bottom line
Employee: Well depending on how good our lawyers are, it still might be more cost effective not to redesign just settle the lawsuits out of court. We could even sell a non-blowup upgrade to the consumer as an extra add on and make a profit.
Boss: Are you crazy, even setting aside the fiscal aspects which are clearly not in our favor, there is the moral issue you’d suggest maiming people for a few lousy bucks.
Employee: I wasn’t saying that I thought that we shouldn’t redesign the microwave I was just saying that some other people might think that it was worth it. How dare you assume I would take such a view. You are whats wrong with humanity.
Ahh, Fox New’s “People are saying” defense!
I was not even referring to the Constitution piece of this. Yes, I’m aware topics grow on their own. My point is that calling yourself “pro-life” and in the same sentence pro second amendment (i.e. everyone has the absolute right to carry a weapon that has no use except to murder other humans in the most gruesome way possible" just doesn’t work for me. They care about forcing women to stay pregnant no matter what. Mom’s gonna’ die? So what? Fetus is unviable/ will suffer unspeakable pain when born and die shortly after? Who cares? This attitude is not pro-life it’s pro death.
I am of the opinion that it is a symptom of systemic misogyny.
Kicking the hornets nest since forever.