RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

[Morley]

I think that a woman should have the right to do what she chooses with her body.
I think that states should be allowed to legislate according their own laws within the confines of federal laws and state constitutions.
Her body, her choice.

I said this earlier, and you objected to it:

To clarity: You think a woman should be have the right to control her own reproductive system. But you also think that the state should be allowed to take away that right.

How is what you said above any different from my clarification?

Since it is topical, I also believe that it is her body and her choice and she should not be coerced or threatened if she makes a choice to not take a vaccine that she believes may affect her reproductive system. Even if she is wrong about the vaccine according to my information or your information or Ron Perlman's information, I believe that a woman should have the right to choose.

You're changing the subject.

[Binger]

I think that a woman should have the right to do what she chooses with her body.
I think that states should be allowed to legislate according their own laws within the confines of federal laws and state constitutions.
Her body, her choice.

I said this earlier, and you objected to it:

To clarity: You think a woman should be have the right to control her own reproductive system. But you also think that the state should be allowed to take away that right.

How is what you said above any different from my clarification?

Since it is topical, I also believe that it is her body and her choice and she should not be coerced or threatened if she makes a choice to not take a vaccine that she believes may affect her reproductive system. Even if she is wrong about the vaccine according to my information or your information or Ron Perlman's information, I believe that a woman should have the right to choose.

You're changing the subject.

It is different because I think that a woman's right to do what she wants with her body applies to her elbow and any organs.
It is different because I think the state's are allowed to make their own laws and that rights are issued accordingly.

Your question is not meant to be part of a conversation. It is meant to be some wonky ass gotchya. It is like a futon. You ever had a futon? It is a couch and it is a bed. But, it is a crappy couch and a crappy bed.

If you had a point, you would make it. Instead, you are trying to make this about my points. If you disagree, you would have the guts to say so and say why. But nah, you just want to lob futon questions and play around. I answered your questions as directly as I could.

I am absolutely NOT changing the subject. I am clarifying that I think that a woman's body is hers and she can do with it whatever she wants. I am not making an exception for one thing that fits my agenda. I think it is her body - her choice. And if the state tries to change that.... shame on that state. Shame on that state for telling her what to do with a needle, or stirrups.

[canpakes]

Perpetual harassment didn't seem to be a problem when it was the "Freedom convoy" doing it, and the target, the residents of Ottawa didn't even cause the problem.

So you don't approve of perpetual harassment? Or you just don't approve of it when the "Freedom Convoy" protested?

Rather, it appears that Gad is pointing out the contrast between your prior vigorous and repeated defense of the Canadian truckers, versus your new shock and disbelief at the behavior of the Kavanaugh protestors.

[canpakes]

It is different because I think that a woman's right to do what she wants with her body applies to her elbow and any organs.
It is different because I think the state's are allowed to make their own laws and that rights are issued accordingly.

Therefore, Morley’s point stands. You believe that the States are allowed to remove a person’s - or a woman’s - right(s).

[Binger]

So you don't approve of perpetual harassment? Or you just don't approve of it when the "Freedom Convoy" protested?

Rather, it appears that Gad is pointing out the contrast between your prior vigorous and repeated defense of the Canadian truckers, versus your new shock and disbelief at the behavior of the Kavanaugh protestors.

Rather, it appears that Gad is pointing out his own positions.

But, as usual, you two are scared to absolute death to actually take a stand and make your own clarifications. It is okay. Stand for something, panny.

[Binger]

It is different because I think that a woman's right to do what she wants with her body applies to her elbow and any organs.
It is different because I think the state's are allowed to make their own laws and that rights are issued accordingly.

Therefore, Morley’s point stands. You believe that the States are allowed to remove a person - or a woman’s - right(s).

Therefore, your point is not an actual point.

I think that the states get to make the laws related to this specific question. If you have come to a different conclusion, say it. Stand for something.

[canpakes]

Rather, it appears that Gad is pointing out the contrast between your prior vigorous and repeated defense of the Canadian truckers, versus your new shock and disbelief at the behavior of the Kavanaugh protestors.

Rather, it appears that Gad is pointing out his own positions.

But, as usual, you two are scared to absolute death to actually take a stand and make your own clarifications. It is okay. Stand for something, panny.

You’re projecting, again. And doing a bit of dodging in the midst of it. It’s your usual behavior when you’re backed into a corner.

I believe that the actions of the protesters in Kavanaugh’s neighborhood are just as asinine as those mounted by the Canadian truckers.

That’s easy to say. For me; maybe not so much for yourself.

[canpakes]

Therefore, Morley’s point stands. You believe that the States are allowed to remove a person - or a woman’s - right(s).

Therefore, your point is not an actual point.

I think that the states get to make the laws related to this specific question. If you have come to a different conclusion, say it. Stand for something.

Morley’s point is valid. You are merely dodging.

If you want to know what I stand for, start with reading the post and thread that you’ve linked to in your own signature. Come back for a quiz, if you need to.
: D

[Binger]

It is different because I think that a woman's right to do what she wants with her body applies to her elbow and any organs.
It is different because I think the state's are allowed to make their own laws and that rights are issued accordingly.

Therefore, Morley’s point stands. You believe that the States are allowed to remove a person - or a woman’s - right(s).

Dobbs returned the decision related to abortion to the states. That is confirmed. Do you not believe that this was the effect of the Dobbs decision?

[Binger]

Therefore, your point is not an actual point.

I think that the states get to make the laws related to this specific question. If you have come to a different conclusion, say it. Stand for something.

Morley’s point is valid. You are merely dodging.

If you want to know what I stand for, start with reading the post and thread that you’ve linked to in your own signature. Come back for a quiz, if you need to.
: D

You stand for calling people Nazis if you disagree with them?