U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[Lacius]

Well a new CNN conducted poll release and it seems the majority of people are in favor of overturning this

Could you provide a link? Every poll I've ever seen shows a solid majority of Americans supporting Roe.\

Edit: I think you read the poll wrong (this poll was conducted in January)

CNN Poll: As Supreme Court ruling on Roe looms, most Americans oppose overturning it​

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/21/politics/cnn-poll-abortion-roe-v-wade/index.html

Edit x2: The May poll isn't much different.
(it's a PDF) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21903171/abortion-politics.pdf

 

[Valwinz]

Could you provide a link? Every poll I've ever seen shows a solid majority of Americans supporting Roe.

 

[Lacius]

View attachment 309312

This isn't a question about Roe.

In the same poll you're referencing, 66% of Americans oppose overturning Roe.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21903171/abortion-politics.pdf

 

[Valwinz]

This isn't a question about Roe.

In the same poll you're referencing, 66% of Americans oppose overturning Roe.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21903171/abortion-politics.pdf

did you even read it ? literally the last question

Row was bad law to begin with. Should always remain a States issue, and the decision to federalize it was bad its clear the majority of people lookt at it like that

 

[Lacius]

did you even read it ? literally the last question

You seem to be having trouble finding it, so here.

 

[tabzer]

You are muddying the subject.

The issue was about whether or not your tax dollars should have to go to abortion (they currently don't). You seem to think that you shouldn't have to legally pay taxes towards anything you're morally opposed to. My point was that if everybody could just pick and choose the things their tax dollars pay for, on the basis of what they find moral, nothing would get funded. In other words, that'd be a terrible system.

Did I get everything right?

Well, that does look pretty muddy, but I am not the one doing that. My response was succinct. If you, an American, are paying money for the war, I am still going to blame you for the war. But I do understand that you have a tyrannical government, so I can empathize a little. However, be the change. Maybe you should be sanctioned for some extra motivation in your anticipated rebellion.

I don't agree with the conclusion that "nothing would get funded" and "that it would be a terrible system". It's irrational to assume and does not account for people who are happy to pay taxes and approve of their government.

My comment was actually doing nothing of the sort

My conflict was about government involvement in abortions by being institutionalized and funded by tax dollars. Even though they are largely not, sharing the same failure in understanding, you responded with "it's a healthcare issue, stupid". Not only was that an admission that "yes, the government does institutionalize abortion and fund it with tax dollars" (even though that's inaccurate), you suggested that it was ridiculous to be a concern, avoiding direct confrontation with the fact that you are contradicting yourself. If you get moody every time someone points out an err in your rationale, then maybe you should stay off the internet until the thought police can finish installing all of the guardrails.

I don't think I've ever needed to quote him to make my own points.

Seeing as your point was stupid, maybe we'd all have been better off if you had let him do the talking. If you are disappointed because I quoted Foxi but not in disagreement with the material of the quote, then I am okay with that. When solving for x, I would hope that we can arrive to the same conclusion. If you want to forfeit accuracy just to "make your own original point", then good for you--but we all lose.

 

[Lacius]

Well, that does look pretty muddy, but I am not the one doing that. My response was succinct. If you, an American, are paying money for the war, I am still going to blame you for the war. But I do understand that you have a tyrannical government, so I can empathize a little. However, be the change. Maybe you should be sanctioned for some extra motivation in your anticipated rebellion.

I don't agree with the conclusion that "nothing would get funded" and "that it would be a terrible system". It's irrational to assume and does not account for people who are happy to pay taxes and approve of their government.

Jesus Christ. Do you think a person should, personally and without legal consequence, be able to withhold tax dollars from expenses they have moral objections with? You seemed to suggest they should be able to when you said a person shouldn't have to have their tax dollars go towards subsidized abortions (they already don't).

If your answer is yes, then the funding for virtually everything (my example was the military) would be slashed. If the answer is no, then I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Nobody asked if you thought the American government was tyrannical, lol.

 

[tabzer]

Jesus Christ. Do you think a person should, personally and without legal consequence, be able to withhold tax dollars from expenses they have moral objections with? You seemed to suggest they should be able to.

If your answer is yes, then the funding for virtually everything would be slashed. If the answer is no, then I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Nobody asked if you thought the American government was tyrannical, lol.

Define "should". You don't need me to answer something so loaded.

 

[Lacius]

Define "should". You don't need me to answer.

If you don't want to answer the question, you can just refrain from responding. You don't have to muddy the waters more.

 

[tabzer]

If you don't want to answer the question, you can just refrain from responding. You don't have to muddy the waters more.

But I want to help you with your moral crisis of paying for your country's military complex. The point is that it's not for me to decide whether or not you "should" do something. That's for you to decide. You seem to think it's not optional, and I disagreed.

I'll still blame you, as an American, for what your country does wrong, because that's just what we do.

 

[Lacius]

But I want to help you with your moral crisis of paying for your country's military complex.

You missed the point of my post entirely if you think I'm actually in moral crisis. It was a hypothetical situation. The point was that people don't to get to pick and choose which taxes they pay based on moral objections, and anyone "having a moral objection" to something isn't grounds for something to not be subsidized by taxes. Those decisions, generally, are made by their elected officials. The say of the individual is at the ballot box.

Edit: If your point is that anyone can pay whatever taxes they want/don't want to pay, then what's your problem with subsidized abortions? You seem inconsistent.

it's not for me to decide whether or not you "should" do something. That's for you to decide. You seem to think it's not optional, and I disagreed.

You mean like a woman deciding whether or not to have an abortion?

 

[tabzer]

You missed the point of my post entirely if you think I'm actually in moral crisis. It was a hypothetical situation. The point was that people don't to get to pick and choose which taxes they pay.

Not... yet. As for now, they can only choose if they pay taxes and how much, or demonstrate in some other manner.

You mean like a woman deciding whether or not to have an abortion?

Exactly. Did you think I have the capacity to make her decision for her or something?

 

[Lacius]

Exactly. Did you think I have the capacity to make her decision for her or something?

I'm just making sure we agree that a woman should have legal access to abortion. I'm glad we agree.

 

[tabzer]

I'm just making sure we agree that a woman should have legal access to abortion. I'm glad we agree.

That's not what we are agreeing on. I am not assessing what "should be legal". I am assessing facts.

 

[Lacius]

That's not what we are agreeing on. I am not assessing what "should be legal". I am assessing facts.

If you think it's for a woman to decide whether or not she should get an abortion, then you agree with me that abortion should be legal.

 

[tabzer]

If you think it's for a woman to decide whether or not she should get an abortion, then you agree with me that abortion should be legal.

I think it is a woman's decision, even in the case it is illegal.

 

[The Catboy]

I think it is a woman's decision, even in the case it is illegal.

Then it should be legal. If they are allowed to decide then there shouldn’t be a government to stop them. If the government does stop them, then it’s not their decision. The simple logic is that you support their right to decide and that right should be legal. Otherwise, your support is pointless.

 

[Lacius]

Then it should be legal. If they are allowed to decide then there shouldn’t be a government to stop them. If the government does stop them, then it’s not their decision. The simple logic is that you support their right to decide and that right should be legal. Otherwise, your support is pointless.

He doesn't understand that he has either a.) made a statement in support of legal abortion, or b.) is stating the obvious about how free will works in an effort to muddy the waters and avoid the topic.

 

[tabzer]

It seems people here don't understand about how free will works. You assess that it is obvious, but even after I spell it out, people like yourself and catboy can't decipher it.

 

[The Catboy]

He doesn't understand that he has either a.) made a statement in support of legal abortion, or b.) is stating the obvious about how free will works in an effort to muddy the waters and avoid the topic.

Most of this thread has literally been nonsense and false claims from “Pro-Lifers.” I am starting to believe that muddy water, attempting to control the conversation, and mental gymnastics is all they have