John Stamos’s Appendage, the point is that RNATB is not talking about what she thinks the law should be, she’s talking about what she thinks the law currently is. You seem to be confusing the two.
I can think that Evil Act X is bad, and simultaneously think that it is currently allowed by law. Similarly, I can think that Decent Act B is good, and simultaneously think that is is currently prohibited by law. These are not contradictions.
You seem to be the one living in a fantasy. Reality is not dictated by what you want, or what you think should be the case. Reality and what you want are often separate.
In RNATB’s case, she wants abortion to be legal everywhere. But her opinion of reality is that the Constitution does not guarantee that.
You are apparently upset at her because she does not think reality conforms to what she wants.
EDIT: Or maybe RNATB is a guy, I can’t keep track.
He is advocating a pro choice position, apparently, isn’t he?
One can think that the SOCAS made a mistake in law and that the states, if that mistake was rectified, should not make a second mistake and remove abortion rights even though they would then have the power to do just that.
But to claim to hold those views while simultaneously claiming to be in favor of choice seems silly to me because the world doesn’t work that way.
Incidentally, this is the past post I shall make in this forum, probably. If someone cannot be civil, they’re not worth my time. I was able to disagree without having to take it to a forum where I could come right up to the “don’t be a jerk” line. Reasonable people can disagree. Unreasonable people cannot handle it and start Pit threads, I guess.
Clearly I meant that he was not advocating a reversal of Roe vs Wade.
I respectfully disagree, and thought my analogy showed a much less contraversial example (although interstate rugby league rivalries in Australia tend to be debated much more hotly than abortion law).
Let me tell you what my position is, so maybe you can take this form a clean slate for what it is.
I am absolutely, positively believe that abortion should be legal - that people should have the right to get one.
I absolutely, positively believe that it should be legal in every state.
I absolutely, positively think that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, then states would individually ban abortion - I don’t know how many - but maybe a lot.
I would absolutely, positively hate to see that happen - I think legislating morals on other people is really stupid.
I absolutely, positively think Roe v Wade is shit law. It’s poorly reasoned and based on a relatively flimsy framework. A lot of people disagree, and that’s fine - but the merits of the case really have nothing to do with this argument anyway - my belief is what it is.
Would I like to see Roe overturned?
Basically no - but in a perfect world, yes - I would like to see Roe overturned and replaced with an an actual constitutional right guaranteeing the right reproductive and sexual privacy. Then the right to abortion could be hung on something better than that shoddily written thing. In this imperfect world, I’d just like to see the Amendment so we don’t have to keep having people try to challenge and circumvent Roe - we could skip the whole overturning Roe and admitting that that argument is weak, but whatever.
Since even that is unlikely, however - I sure as hell won’t urge for Roe to be overturned because the effects would suck, but I could never defend it while being intellectually honest, because it’s just poorly reasoned, IMO.
This. I think abortion rights are a hallmark of a modern democratic society. It doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t prefer to have them protected by an explicit constitutional amendment (or amendments to every state constitution, not that that will ever happen) than by judicial fiat.
Wow! This has the potential to be the stupidest post of the week… but it’s only Monday.
I can’t decide whether **JSLE **is a troll or are they really that dense.
I think JSLE has performed a great public service. It is very rare that a pittee comes in and gives a perfected example of why they deserve to be Pitted. Save a lot time following links. I nominate him for the Curlcoat Memorial Pit Award.
ISTM that people are misunderstanding JSLE. He’s not saying that RNATB is being logically inconsistent. He’s just saying that the position being advocated by RNATB is not properly described as “pro-choice”. That’s all.
So all these attempts to explain why RNATB is being logically consistent are missing the point.
Now personally, I think there is close to zero significance in whether RNATB’s position is properly described as “pro-choice” or not. But some people put a lot of stock in these semantic issues. These people are misguided, IMO. But that’s their issue.
But this has embittered his right ear with envy, turning it into a tea-partying, ‘pro-life’ Republican. This leads to great confusion in John_Stamos’_Head.