Oklahoma’s abortion law means that college softball needs a new home

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,921
21,095
1,743
#61
Life itself is not being protected in a decision that changes gay marriage. This is a major flaw in your argument. Painting all people who are gay as pro choice is also incorrect. It’s like saying all blacks are democrats or all women are pro choice. In fact most of the women I know are not pro choice, except for in certain exception cases. Pigeonhole politics are really dishonest as are slippery slope arguments.
You don't even understand what my argument is, but thanks.

I didn't argue whether or not overturning RvW is a good idea.

I didn't paint all people who are anything as anything.

I didn't pigeonhole or slippery slope anything or anybody.

Rx made a snarky comment about a particular person, who happens to be gay, commenting or being concerned about RvW being overturned. I pointed out why she rightfully and unironically could have concerns despite being unlikely to have an unplanned pregnancy herself.

And you jumped in with your ridiculous strawmen.

Thanks for playing.
 

RxCowboy

I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,263
41,787
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
#62
Take your silly Socratic method attempts somewhere else.

Similar to the way the RvW cases have come about. You really think it’s beyond the pale for certain southern states fresh off of killing RvW to pass test laws to challenge gay marriage? Birth control for unmarried persons? I don’t.

For you to suggest a gay married couple have no real interest or game in protecting reproductive rights is pretty simple minded..
Yeah, I think it's beyond the pale. Obergfell was decided on due process and equal protection. Any further law any southern state may pass is going to likewise violate due process and equal protection and such laws would never get past lower court reviews. So, my "silly Socratic method attempts" stand, how exactly would that come about? You've said yourself that Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that RvW was wrongly decided, that it should have been decided also on due process and equal protection rather than on a medical schema. So this court appears to be striking down the medical schema of both RvW and PPPvCasey. Why should that cause any hand wringing over Obergfell?
 
Dec 9, 2013
1,861
642
743
52
#63
You don't even understand what my argument is, but thanks.

I didn't argue whether or not overturning RvW is a good idea.

I didn't paint all people who are anything as anything.

I didn't pigeonhole or slippery slope anything or anybody.

Rx made a snarky comment about a particular person, who happens to be gay, commenting or being concerned about RvW being overturned. I pointed out why she rightfully and unironically could have concerns despite being unlikely to have an unplanned pregnancy herself.

And you jumped in with your ridiculous strawmen.

Thanks for playing.
Maybe it’s not as simple as I think it is but doesn’t it take 1 state like OK passing a law that says it won’t recognize same sex marriages or won’t issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. A gay couple applies and is denied. They sue and it makes it to SCOTUS. SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision upholds the Oklahoma statute basically saying the issuance of marriage licenses is a states right issue and then you get a wave of red states passing similar laws.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
#64
You don't even understand what my argument is, but thanks.

I didn't argue whether or not overturning RvW is a good idea.

I didn't paint all people who are anything as anything.

I didn't pigeonhole or slippery slope anything or anybody.

Rx made a snarky comment about a particular person, who happens to be gay, commenting or being concerned about RvW being overturned. I pointed out why she rightfully and unironically could have concerns despite being unlikely to have an unplanned pregnancy herself.

And you jumped in with your ridiculous strawmen.

Thanks for playing.
Your comment about gay married couples having something to be worried about was "simple minded" and pigeonholed gays as pro choice. Your comments in the past about "women's" rights being violated also pigeonholed women as pro choice. Yet...
Authentic Feminism is Pro-Life. Just Ask Susan B. Anthony | Opinion (newsweek.com)
Why More Americans Are Pro-Life—and Pro Gay Marriage | Op-Ed | US News
40 Gays for Life - Home | Facebook
 

RxCowboy

I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,263
41,787
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
#65

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,921
21,095
1,743
#66
Yeah, I think it's beyond the pale. Obergfell was decided on due process and equal protection. Any further law any southern state may pass is going to likewise violate due process and equal protection and such laws would never get past lower court reviews. So, my "silly Socratic method attempts" stand, how exactly would that come about? You've said yourself that Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that RvW was wrongly decided, that it should have been decided also on due process and equal protection rather than on a medical schema. So this court appears to be striking down the medical schema of both RvW and PPPvCasey. Why should that cause any hand wringing over Obergfell?
The reasoning in the leaked Mississippi abortion decision could easily and quickly be applied to Obergfell. Furthermore, they are going further that just "striking down the medical schema". They are explicitly finding that no individual right to an abortion exists to provide equal protection to.

The Justices joining that opinion are mostly "originalists" that very well could look at whether or not there was an existing right to abortion gay marriage at the time the 14th Amendment was passed....and could easily decide that there is no right to gay marriage to protect and that therefore prohibiting it doesn't violate equal protection.

What you view as "hand wringing", I view as a valid concern. I'm not predicting it WILL happen, but I don't view concerns by married gay couples about the possibility of it happening as "hand wringing".

So we disagree.

Good to know.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,921
21,095
1,743
#67
Your comment about gay married couples having something to be worried about was "simple minded" and pigeonholed gays as pro choice. Your comments in the past about "women's" rights being violated also pigeonholed women as pro choice. Yet...
Authentic Feminism is Pro-Life. Just Ask Susan B. Anthony | Opinion (newsweek.com)
Why More Americans Are Pro-Life—and Pro Gay Marriage | Op-Ed | US News
40 Gays for Life - Home | Facebook
No it doesn't, you dope.

First of all, RX and I are discussing a particular person who is already on the record saying she is worried and is pro-choice. I've have never claimed or pigeon-holed any group as universally for or against anythiing.

Secondly, discussion of the law and legal theories about women's rights is in absolutely no way pigeonholing all women as anything...much less pro-choice.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,921
21,095
1,743
#68
Maybe it’s not as simple as I think it is but doesn’t it take 1 state like OK passing a law that says it won’t recognize same sex marriages or won’t issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. A gay couple applies and is denied. They sue and it makes it to SCOTUS. SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision upholds the Oklahoma statute basically saying the issuance of marriage licenses is a states right issue and then you get a wave of red states passing similar laws.
Pretty much.

Or they sue, win in trial or appellate court, and the State takes it up to SCOTUS.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
#69
No it doesn't, you dope.

First of all, RX and I are discussing a particular person who is already on the record saying she is worried and is pro-choice. I've have never claimed or pigeon-holed any group as universally for or against anythiing.

Secondly, discussion of the law and legal theories about women's rights is in absolutely no way pigeonholing all women as anything...much less pro-choice.
Take a humility pill man. You seem to have very little on this or any other subject. Btw stop calling people names, it’s unbecoming.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,921
21,095
1,743
#70
Take a humility pill man. You seem to have very little on this or any other subject. Btw stop calling people names, it’s unbecoming.
Stop being a dope, and I'll stop calling you a dope.

Your comment about gay married couples having something to be worried about was "simple minded" and pigeonholed gays as pro choice. Your comments in the past about "women's" rights being violated also pigeonholed women as pro choice. Yet...
Authentic Feminism is Pro-Life. Just Ask Susan B. Anthony | Opinion (newsweek.com)
Why More Americans Are Pro-Life—and Pro Gay Marriage | Op-Ed | US News
40 Gays for Life - Home | Facebook
Was wholly non-sensical and dopey.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
#71
Stop being a dope, and I'll stop calling you a dope.



Was wholly non-sensical and dopey.
You called me both "simple minded" and "dopey," for my belief that life should be protected and my belief that one side of this argument pigeonholes entire groups who don't necessarily high step in their jackboots to the same tune of abortion on demand. AND, that by your comments you affirm that type of stereotyping.

It's not "dopey" nor "simple minded" to think that abortion is actually anti-woman and anti-gay any more that it is to think it's pro-woman or pro gay...Abortion kills just as many future women and future men as well as gay and trans people. It does not discriminated...it takes life no matter the gender, future, or station of the person it kills. Unborn women/men/gay/trans/or otherwise can't demand their own right to live, they rely on those who are already born to not be "non-sensical and dopey," in their "choices" and law and deny them the very first and foremost of all rights (to exist). Limiting (but not totally eliminating) that "right to exist" FROM basically open season on babies, is in all our best interest especially those future people still in the womb. It's neither dopey or simple minded, it's a clear moral high ground...
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,921
21,095
1,743
#72
You called me both "simple minded" and "dopey," for my belief that life should be protected and my belief that one side of this argument pigeonholes entire groups who don't necessarily high step in their jackboots to the same tune of abortion on demand.

It's not "dopey" nor "simple minded" to think that abortion is actually anti-woman and anti-gay any more that it is to think it's pro-woman or pro gay...Abortion kills just as many future women and future men as well as gay and trans people. It does not discriminated...it takes life no matter the gender, future, or station of the person it kills. Unborn women/men/gay/trans/or otherwise can't demand their own right to live, they rely on those who are already born to not be "non-sensical and dopey," in their "choices" and deny them the very first and foremost right (to exist). Limiting (but not totally eliminating) that "right to exist" FROM basically open season on babies, is in all our best interest especially those future people still in the womb. It's neither dopey or simple minded, it's a clear moral high ground...
Nope.

That's not why I called you simple minded and dopey.

Feel free to rant away with your "open season on babies" and "high step in their jackboots" mischaracterizations of people who might disagree with you though. For someone that whines about being called horrible names like "dopey" and "simple-minded" you readily engage in calling people that disagree with your position even worse.

You feel better after declaring you are more moral than others?

Hope so.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
#73
Nope.

That's not why I called you simple minded and dopey.

Feel free to rant away though with your "open season on babies" and "high step in their jackboots" mischaracterizations of people who might disagree with you though. For someone that whines about being called horrible names like "dopey" and "simple-minded" you readily engage in calling people that disagree with your position even worse.

You feel better after declaring you are more moral than others?

Hope so.
Nope I said pro life is clearly the moral high ground (not my stance on it, which is pro life with some exceptions, in a perfect world no exceptions would be necessary). It's the first of all our rights and it's been stripped away from those aborted...that's just a fact. What I do mind, is not people who disagree with me, but people who lump others together and make statements that seem to make you think they believe in group politics and thereby discount others beliefs in those groupings. That's prejudice in it's purest form...and, yes, abortion on demand is "open season on babies," as is thinking that everyone in certain groups believes exactly the same way is like marching in jackboots (which is abortion on demand without restrictions) and assuming all women or all gays should have that mindset due to some imagined slippery slope.

It also seems that you, personally, undervalue those who disagree with you on this board more than most others do. I see this mostly in some of the older very talented and book smart physicians I work with daily. IMHO, you seem (maybe you aren't but you seem )often quite arrogant and take yourself as superior to others, this based on some facts of your expertise and schooling. It's how I perceive you from your postings and your username... I sincerely hope I'm wrong in that perception, I do need forgiveness daily so it's possible I'm incorrect. If I'm not, I do hope humility comes to you as that is how wisdom also comes...not through arguments on a message boards and trying to prove our superior legal or moral knowledge, but through hardship that brings us empathy for our fellow human. I'm still working on mine and hope to get better. Forgive me...I thank God for my hardships, but clearly I need more empathy.

I was indeed, simple minded and dopey to even respond to you. sorry and carry on.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
#75
I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that if life isn't protected first (except in extreme cases)...it's bad for everyone....not just straights, but LGBTQ+ and everyone else. I'm not talking about suicide rates, that's another discussion after someone actually is allowed to live. As a society I think it's time we made a statement together of all types that abortion isn't acceptable except in extreme cases. Incest, rape, life of the mother, or after a certain point.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,026
33,268
1,743
oklahoma city
#76
I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that if life isn't protected first (except in extreme cases)...it's bad for everyone....not just straights, but LGBTQ+ and everyone else. I'm not talking about suicide rates, that's another discussion after someone actually is allowed to live. As a society I think it's time we made a statement together of all types that abortion isn't acceptable except in extreme cases. Incest, rape, life of the mother, or after a certain point.
No, you misunderstood my point. You said that gay marriage laws do not protect life. I disagree because the evidence shows they do.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
#78
No, you misunderstood my point. You said that gay marriage laws do not protect life. I disagree because the evidence shows they do.
I must have misstated what I meant, wouldn't be the first time. Gay marriage IMHO has nothing to do with Abortion. If abortion is not reduced it reduces the amount of people, gays, straights, bi, all people. That isn't good for gay marriage or straight marriage or any marriages. My opinion is that linking the two in a slippery slope idea that if abortion is mostly banned it opens up some imaginary door for gay marriage to also be banned, is, frankly, political BS.

Btw, I actually believe that the law you stated does protect lives as well. I'm for all life, gay, straight, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheists', humanist, black, white, brown, climate alarmist, climate deniers, animal rights advocates, hunters... heck everyone on the planet has a right to live...this is what the pro life movement is truly about.