• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W:44]

Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

year2late said:
I do not know how many pro-choicers actually believed this.

Hypotheticals were put forth "if this happened" and responses occurred.

Every time it came up, I said the same thing in response to the pro-lifer.

Be careful of what you wish for. If suddenly RVW was overturned and abortion magically became illegal....
Click to expand...

If "suddenly" R v W were overturned, nothing would magically become illegal.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

year2late said:
I do not know how many pro-choicers actually believed this.

Hypotheticals were put forth "if this happened" and responses occurred.

Every time it came up, I said the same thing in response to the pro-lifer.

Be careful of what you wish for. If suddenly RVW was overturned and abortion magically became illegal....you might find the opposite effect. There are already venues for illegal drug to be bought. An underground for the medical abortion would become readily available.Possibly even more accessible that PP ever was. And frankly cheaper as well. Is it safer for the woman....well no. But women who seek abortion are frequently desperate. Being financially strapped - working multiple jobs trying to make rent at the same time as being pregnant is a scary proposition - women can be thrust into homelessness or be forced into the welfare system in a cycle that is easier to break.

If pro-lifers wanted to be pragmatic they would stop trusting in the Holy Grail of overturning RVW and start looking into making the best birth control available and financially acceptable and to look into helping men have better birth control options.
Click to expand...

A woman's life becomes significantly worse when they have an abortion. This is a fact.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

Bucky said:
A woman's life becomes significantly worse when they have an abortion. This is a fact.
Click to expand...

No, that is your opinion. Certainly and emphatically not a fact.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

It was just another lie by Trump. You could telling during the debate how he handled the question with extreme over-acting that he doesn't give a **** about this. Gorsuch even said he would've walked out if Trump pressured him to overturn it

Not that there could even be a party with standing to challenge it to begin with
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

year2late said:
No, that is your opinion. Certainly and emphatically not a fact.
Click to expand...

Either way, who cares? It's still a raw deal for the human being who gets killed.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

JayDubya said:
Either way, who cares? It's still a raw deal for the human being who gets killed.
Click to expand...

I would prefer the unwanted pregnancy be avoided in the first place.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

Scrabaholic said:
Incorrect. The vast majority of women who abort do not regret it.

Hardly Any Women Regret Having an Abortion, a New Study Finds | Time.com
Click to expand...

Unwanted pregnancy is a major stressor.

Even in a wanted pregnancy post partum depression is a major issue. I am curious if abortion patients suffer the same rates of major depressive episodes as those who deliver.

PP depression can range from a little touch of "baby blues" to full on psychiatric issues that left untreated can have tragic effects.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

prometeus said:
Your posts evidence that all the time.
Click to expand...

Please do let me know if you get away with this one, it's a good canary in the coal mine.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

JayDubya said:
Please do let me know if you get away with this one, it's a good canary in the coal mine.
Click to expand...
Truth bites eh?
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

JayDubya said:
Either way, who cares? It's still a raw deal for the human being who gets killed.
Click to expand...
THAT WOULD BE THE MOTHER, WHEN THE PROCEDURE GOES AWRY. The unborn human doesn't count, because it is not a "being" --and you have yet to offer the slightest bit of evidence to support your positive claim that an unborn human qualifies as a being-- any more than a rabbit qualifies as a "being" and should be called a "rabbit being".
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

prometeus said:
Truth bites eh?
Click to expand...

You calling another member a sociopath is not remotely kosher with site rules...

... and no, since I am concerned with the human rights of others and you are not, there is no truth to your words.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

FutureIncoming said:
The unborn human doesn't count, because it is not a "being"
Click to expand...

:yawn:

What species is it then?

Still Homo sapiens? Yeah? Human being then.

Oh, what's that? You still have garbage semantics you want to play? No thank you.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

Scrabaholic said:
*I* am not surprised. However, a lot of anti choicers were banking on RvW being overturned.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is thinking that Trump knew anything about Gorsuch. Gorsuch was chosen for Trump. Trump has no input other than making the announcement of Gorsuch's choice.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

1750Texan said:
I think the problem is thinking that Trump knew anything about Gorsuch. Gorsuch was chosen for Trump. Trump has no input other than making the announcement of Gorsuch's choice.
Click to expand...

Gorsuch was chosen to be a good replacement for Scalia, and this was a factor.

He is anti-euthanasia and anti-abortion and was chosen for this, which is why PP is freaking the **** out.


Seriously, the answers he gave were nothing more than acknowledging that yup, that's a case that happened, and yup, the Supreme Court has revisited and reaffirmed it.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

JayDubya said:
What species is it then?
Click to expand...
AN UNBORN HUMAN AND A HYDATIDIFORM MOLE ARE BOTH MEMBERS OF SPECIES HOMO SAPIENS, PER THEIR DNA.

JayDubya said:
Still Homo sapiens? Yeah? Human being then.
Click to expand...
STUPIDLY FALSE. Just because something is species homo sapiens, that does not automatically also make it a human being. See above for the proof! Membership in species homo sapiens automatically makes an entity "a human", but "a human being" is a significantly different entity, because of its mind. The English language is very consistent here: there are no "rabbit beings" (they lack appropriate minds), but "extraterrestrial beings" are quite possible (they would have appropriate minds), and of course "human beings" are humans that have appropriate minds (with exceptions because to the Law and the Science --not the language-- are inconsistent).

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE ONLY PROVED THE HUMAN-NESS OF THE UNBORN. You still need to prove it qualifies as a "being".
 
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

Moderator's Warning:
This thread is about Gorsuch and what he said about abortion in his appointment hearing. Anything else is considered off topic and will get you thread banned. This includes talking smack against other posters so stop making things personal. Remember the special rule set in place for the abortion forum. Posts before this in-thread are still being reviewed for possible handing out of infractions.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

JayDubya said:
You calling another member a sociopath is not remotely kosher with site rules...
Click to expand...
As much as I hate it I have to agree with you on this. That is why I commented on your posts. Reading comprehension issues?

and no, since I am concerned with the human rights of others
Click to expand...
Yea, your posts are ample evidence of that too.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

Neil Gorsuch is claimed to be an "originalist", such that he supposely likes to interpret the Constitution much like the Founding Fathers. Well, then, perhaps he will notice this little thing....

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution specifies some things about the decennial Census (modified by the 14th Amendment). The key fact is that all persons must be counted (except Indians not taxed). The Founding Fathers were right there in 1790 to create the details regarding carrying out the very first Census, which means that the choices they made give us some insight into what entities the Founding Fathers regarded as qualifying as persons. That in turn brings us to the simple fact that pregnancies have never been counted as persons in any Census --in the era of the Founding Fathers, the unborn were not even considered to be alive until they began to "kick" in the womb (an event called "quickening"). What this means is, we have a Legal Precedent about the unborn and personhood that far precedes the Roe v Wade decision.

Note that the vast majority of abortions are performed long before the unborn human starts to kick in the womb....

(grin)
 
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

prometeus said:
It takes a special douche bag to expect a man to freeze to death because the letter of the law says so.
Click to expand...

It does. Good thing that's not what Gorsuch said. What he said was that the law in question - the one that got Maddin reinstated - actually didn't apply in this case. That's a very different thing.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

Gaius46 said:
It does. Good thing that's not what Gorsuch said. What he said was that the law in question - the one that got Maddin reinstated - actually didn't apply in this case. That's a very different thing.
Click to expand...
And he WAS wrong so my point still stands.
 
Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W:44]

prometeus said:
And he WAS wrong so my point still stands.
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't. You called the man a douche bag for expecting him to trade is job for freezing to death. That is clearly not the case. The opinion implies no such thing.

He simply said the law that was being used to overturn the firing did not apply in this case. His colleagues on the circuit disagreed. The emotionalism of your response is not only unwarranted but it implies something that is factually wrong.
 
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

Gaius46 said:
Actually it doesn't.
Click to expand...
But it clearly does. He was alone in his opinion while the majority said the opposite. That makes him wrong.

You called the man a douche bag for expecting him to trade is job for freezing to death. That is clearly not the case. The opinion implies no such thing.
Click to expand...
Since the opinion WAS wrong, it implies that quite well

He simply said the law that was being used to overturn the firing did not apply in this case.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is that he did side with the corporation over the little guy, as he did in other cases, but in this instance fortunately he was overuled by the majority.

The emotionalism of your response is not only unwarranted but it implies something that is factually wrong.
Click to expand...
No decent and just person would hide behind the letter of the law, as an excuse for injustice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom