How is it a straw man? Regardless of what your “intended concern” is the result is control over a woman’s body autonomy. How can you not see that reality?
Do you think because I believe the life in a womans belly has inherent value, that I literally want to enslave women?
If you think that, that’s the the exact problem in our politics. You take things to the extremes and don’t actually want to have conversation, you want to dominate and have your way. I understand the argument that women have a right to make choices on behalf of their bodies and what’s best for it. Do you understand my argument?
They can survive outside the womb at 6 months with the right kind of medical care (very high mortality rate, though) and the previous cutoff for abortion was around 5 months, so, yeah I guess someone did say that very thing at some point.
I’m asking you, we don’t need to get into the sticks, just say the day of viability is at the 6 month mark. That’s the exact point you would say “okay, no more killing this being”?
Yeah, unfortunately, I think it’s just bad law. I think it’d be okay legislatively, which is why it’s sooooo incredibly odd that the democrats didn’t codify RvW despite having many many many opportunities. But ultimately, I think it was a terribly ruled case that I think the SC was right to overturn. Fun fact, RBG also shares my belief.
They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
Where are the dozens of times that Democrats have had the majority Senate, House, and the presidency? You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress. Who were all of these presidents?
You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress.
Not necessarily, it could be 10 times over 2 years.
Regardless, I’ve listed at least 12 years that democrats had a president and majorities in senate and congress - yet, not once did they enshrine what you argue is a human right. Either they didn’t think it’s a human right, they didn’t want to codify it, or it’s just not high on their priority list. They’ve had plenty of opportunities, you only got the dems to blame.
No, I don’t understand, because I dont respect your argument. The argument that women have a right to their bodily autonomy, is enough. Show me a problem in the argument before I care about your argument. When you realize the argument is successful, then you will give up on your own argument and become pro-choice. Asking me to consider your argument is exactly how you remain pro-life. To examine your argument is to pause consideration of my own, and to waste my time inspecting yours. You will never accept any flaw in your argument. Asking me to examine it is completely pointless. That is the conservative way, in essence. I can only ever fail, either fail to convince you or fail by erroneously becoming convinced. In the same way that you can walk East-West and never set one foot North-South, examining your argument has nothing to do with my own. If you want to convince me, convince me why I should not be pro-choice. The right to abortion seems like my own right to bodily autonomy. I see no reason why anyone should have any say over whether I choose to give from my body. Demonstrate why I should think it is so.
he argument that women have a right to their bodily autonomy, is enough.
Well sounds like you already decided your argument is right and every other argument is wrong, so we don’t need to discuss any further. I would implore you to explore multiple sides of an argument, so even though you may not agree, much like I disagree with your side, you can understand it, much like I understand your side.
I refuse to consider your argument until you’ve considered mine. There’s no point otherwise. Your invitation to consider your argument, is an invitation to distract and waste my time. You will never accept any flaws in your own position, that’s why you invite me so openly. The only possibility by accepting, is that I lose. You will mistakenly become convinced that you have a strong argument, when your strategy leads yet another pro-choicer to fail to change your mind, because you won’t change your mind.
That’s why, like I said, the only thing I care about, is if you can convince me that *I’m * incorrect. Abortion should be legal because of our right to bodily autonomy. There is no other argument that needs to be considered.
Do you think because I believe the life in a womans belly has inherent value, that I literally want to enslave women?
If you think that, that’s the the exact problem in our politics. You take things to the extremes and don’t actually want to have conversation, you want to dominate and have your way. I understand the argument that women have a right to make choices on behalf of their bodies and what’s best for it. Do you understand my argument?
it’s not alive until it is born and can survive outside the womb. Nice logical leaps though.
You believe that.
Many don’t.
Does that make them enslavers to women?
Say they can survive outside the womb at 6 months. That’s the point that you say ‘okay, no more killing this being’?
They can survive outside the womb at 6 months with the right kind of medical care (very high mortality rate, though) and the previous cutoff for abortion was around 5 months, so, yeah I guess someone did say that very thing at some point.
I’m asking you, we don’t need to get into the sticks, just say the day of viability is at the 6 month mark. That’s the exact point you would say “okay, no more killing this being”?
It should be to doctors to establish viability of fetuses, not to random people on the internet.
it’s a hypothetical, do you know what a hypothetical is?
Which was the point of Roe V Wade. Abortions were cut off at viability.
Yeah, unfortunately, I think it’s just bad law. I think it’d be okay legislatively, which is why it’s sooooo incredibly odd that the democrats didn’t codify RvW despite having many many many opportunities. But ultimately, I think it was a terribly ruled case that I think the SC was right to overturn. Fun fact, RBG also shares my belief.
They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
They had dozens of opportunities…
Yes they did. They didn’t so idiots would keep voting for them and to say that your rights are ‘under attack’
Have you heard of Stockholm syndrome? That’s where you’re at.
Where are the dozens of times that Democrats have had the majority Senate, House, and the presidency? You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress. Who were all of these presidents?
1977-1979 under jimmy carter 1993-1995 under bill clinton 2007-2011 under Obama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
Not necessarily, it could be 10 times over 2 years.
Regardless, I’ve listed at least 12 years that democrats had a president and majorities in senate and congress - yet, not once did they enshrine what you argue is a human right. Either they didn’t think it’s a human right, they didn’t want to codify it, or it’s just not high on their priority list. They’ve had plenty of opportunities, you only got the dems to blame.
No, I don’t understand, because I dont respect your argument. The argument that women have a right to their bodily autonomy, is enough. Show me a problem in the argument before I care about your argument. When you realize the argument is successful, then you will give up on your own argument and become pro-choice. Asking me to consider your argument is exactly how you remain pro-life. To examine your argument is to pause consideration of my own, and to waste my time inspecting yours. You will never accept any flaw in your argument. Asking me to examine it is completely pointless. That is the conservative way, in essence. I can only ever fail, either fail to convince you or fail by erroneously becoming convinced. In the same way that you can walk East-West and never set one foot North-South, examining your argument has nothing to do with my own. If you want to convince me, convince me why I should not be pro-choice. The right to abortion seems like my own right to bodily autonomy. I see no reason why anyone should have any say over whether I choose to give from my body. Demonstrate why I should think it is so.
Well sounds like you already decided your argument is right and every other argument is wrong, so we don’t need to discuss any further. I would implore you to explore multiple sides of an argument, so even though you may not agree, much like I disagree with your side, you can understand it, much like I understand your side.
I refuse to consider your argument until you’ve considered mine. There’s no point otherwise. Your invitation to consider your argument, is an invitation to distract and waste my time. You will never accept any flaws in your own position, that’s why you invite me so openly. The only possibility by accepting, is that I lose. You will mistakenly become convinced that you have a strong argument, when your strategy leads yet another pro-choicer to fail to change your mind, because you won’t change your mind.
That’s why, like I said, the only thing I care about, is if you can convince me that *I’m * incorrect. Abortion should be legal because of our right to bodily autonomy. There is no other argument that needs to be considered.