- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Prior to Roe v Wade being overturned I had no idea that abortions were that common.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:33 pm to CarpeDiem
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:33 pm to CarpeDiem
quote:
Some people can’t empathize unless they are directly affected by the situation.
Similar to how you can’t empathize with the baby?
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:34 pm to CarpeDiem
quote:
Some people can’t empathize unless they are directly affected by the situation.
Wy too many mistake misplaced empathy as emotion.
Most people would feel different about a child that was raped vs a whore using abortion as birth control.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:34 pm to Antoninus
quote:
Not in a Constitutional Republic. That is grade-school level analysis.
Scalia disagreed with you.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:36 pm to Flats
quote:
Scalia disagreed with you.
Yeah, but what does some Supreme Court Justice know compared to Aggie Hank?

Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:37 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
He cannot to save his life offer a personalized opinion.
One of the drawbacks of being a Sociopath.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:38 pm to Flats
I hope you never find yourself in a situation where a loved one is raped or dies due to delayed healthcare.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:39 pm to CarpeDiem
quote:
I hope you never find yourself in a situation where a loved one is raped or dies due to delayed healthcare.
What did I say that was wrong? I get that it’s a difficult situation but you were only presenting one side.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:40 pm to Flats
My point is that you might soften your stance if the unthinkable happens to someone you care about.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:42 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
One of the drawbacks of being a Sociopath.
I once thought Hank was autistic, but I am leaning sociopath. His faux innocent persona hides some serious attempts to manipulate.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:43 pm to CarpeDiem
quote:
My point is that you might soften your stance if the unthinkable happens to someone you care about.
And you might soften your stance if you think life is important and you have no say in whether or not your baby gets aborted.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:43 pm to Antoninus
quote:
I was discussing legislation and regulation, though I did not make that clear.
But legislation and regulation have to conform to constitutional standards, and the constitution is nothing if not protection of minority viewpoints and interests against the tyranny of the majority and the government.
We're discussing abortion, which has seen more than its share of constitutional scrutiny, so it's not like this is irrelevant, even if you're talking about legislation.
And if the constitution "says what it says," one thing we know you must agree with is that there is no "right to have an abortion."
Because that isn't in there. It's not stated and it's not implied and there's nothing that is stated or implied that is related to anything like it.
But back to this majority rule thing you seem to want. Are you a dumbass?
Seems like only dumbasses think that's a good idea. Our founding fathers certainly didn't. Of course, they weren't dumbasses.
So the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an authoritarian act, eh?
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:44 pm to Flats
quote:Intelligent and well-informed people can disagree sometimes. I agreed with him 95% of the time. I can live with that.
Scalia disagreed with you.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:44 pm to Tiger BTT
They used abortions as birth control. Now they know when whoring around, abortion can’t be used as a birth control
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:52 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:No, but you clearly are, if you do not grasp the distinction between Constitutional standards (as to which extant popularity is irrelevant) and oppressive, minority-backed legislation or regulation contrary to majority support.
But back to this majority rule thing you seem to want. Are you a dumbass?
quote:They understood the distinction.
Our founding fathers certainly didn't.
quote:In some ways, yes. It’s goals were in many ways laudable, but it’s Constitutional authority was highly suspect IMO. Not unlike Roe.
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an authoritarian act, eh?
Posted on 11/19/23 at 5:53 pm to Miketheseventh
quote:of course they can. they just have to drive further.
They used abortions as birth control. Now they know when whoring around, abortion can’t be used as a birth control
Posted on 11/19/23 at 6:01 pm to wackatimesthree
Our Founding Fathers also firmly believed in Separation of Church and State. Most of the adamant pro-lifers are using religious reasons for their stance.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 6:06 pm to Antoninus
quote:
Intelligent and well-informed people can disagree sometimes.
I thought it was "grade-school level analysis"? An intelligent and well-informed Scalia would offer up a grade-school level analysis?
It's a double standard because you wanted gay marriage, nobody buys your contortions, everybody knows why the justices ruled the way they did. Scalia described this sort of tyranny perfectly during his confirmation hearing.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 6:07 pm to El Segundo Guy
quote:
Our Founding Fathers also firmly believed in Separation of Church and State. Most of the adamant pro-lifers are using religious reasons for their stance.
This is embarrassing reasoning, and at least one avowed atheist on this forum is adamantly against abortion.
Posted on 11/19/23 at 7:06 pm to Antoninus
quote:
oppressive, minority-backed legislation or regulation
Three problems with that, Hank:
1. How is killing innocent human beings not "oppressive?" I didn't say "murder;" and I didn't say "babies," I chose my words carefully. If you'd like I can post medical definitions of the relevant words. Abortion (assuming the life of the mother is not at risk) by definition kills a human being who wasn't threatening the life or safety of anyone else. How can making it legal to kill those human beings at will not be "oppressive?"
2. You seem to be saying that when the constitution is silent (like we both agree that it is regarding abortion), the majority gets to decide. What if the majority decides on something that is "oppressive?" Is it o.k. then, as long as the majority chose it instead of the minority? Is the problem that it is "oppressive," or that the majority didn't get to choose it? Be careful, now, because you're going to likely negate the distinction you just made a big deal about.
3. The vast majority of this board considers you a dumbass. The question isn't in the constitution, so according to your own logic you need to stop being an authoritarian dick and quit insisting otherwise.
4. Here's a bonus problem with your position. We agree that Roe was bullshite, which means we agree that the question belongs to the states. In the majority of states that have adopted strict limitations on abortions, the majority of the population of the state agrees.
This post was edited on 11/19/23 at 7:09 pm
Posted on 11/19/23 at 7:14 pm to Flats
quote:
and at least one avowed atheist on this forum is adamantly against abortion.
Why would an atheist GAF about abortion?
Back to top
