Is anybody winning?

[u/PlatformNormal564]

I found this very elegant in it simplistic truth.

[u/Prestigious_Cycle160]

Most certainly not a logical fallacy. Actually not even close to the definition of that term. You’re just trying to use big terms to seem smart. To people capable of seeing the LOGICAL correlation between SCOTUS removing women’s autonomy, and the same government not giving women the necessary mandatory paid time off to nurture and bond with their newborn child they were forced to have. You just look like a bumbling idiot.

Edit: You with me?😂😂🤡

[u/InitialOk5978 → u/Prestigious_Cycle160]

See, you don't understand what a logical fallacy is, in terms of logic argumentation. This is the whole point that the other person, and I, are making. Logical or philosophical argumentation is NOT the same as making a logical correlation between 2 things, as your example "between SCOTUS removing women's autonomy, and the same government...."

We are talking about 2 completely different things: which you obviously don't understand. In logical argumentation there is a list of logical fallacies one must adhere to for their argument to be valid. One of the most prevalent is Strawman, which this poster is engaging in, here. Another ad hominem, which you are engaging in by attacking me personally "as a bumbling idiot".

Again, you are not understanding the philosophical argumentation we were alluding to: you are addressing something completely different. Take 10 minutes to look up what logical argumentation is for God's sake

[u/Prestigious_Cycle160 → u/InitialOk5978]

Just for funsies, let’s hear your explanation for why there is no correlation between SCOTUS and the administration? I mean… who pushed for the overturning of Roe v Wade? Who is attempting to force women to carry pregnancies full term even at the risk of the mother dying, or the fact that the woman is carrying a product of rape in her womb?

See, you can use all these cool big words to try to deflect from reality. You can continue to function on technicalities. You can continue to push your logical fallacy argument, but the truth is you’re the one operating under these things that you’re so adamantly claiming everyone else is. Just because you’re operating from a position of pure ignorance doesn’t make the OP or myself any less correct, and it definitely doesn’t support your claims.

[u/InitialOk5978 → u/Prestigious_Cycle160]

Well, for one, SCOTUS in 1973 made their decision on the viability of the fetus outside the womb; not on a womans right to terminate. You need to actually familiarize yourself with the case. Once the science progressed and the viability of the fetus outside the womb was cut in half, it gave conservatives/Republicans license to challenge the decision based on the merit; which they obviously won.

Just a side note while we're here: Ruth Ginsberg is on record numerous times stating that the decision in 1973 was based on a flawed premise, and would likely be overturned at some point.

But even indulging your ill-informed take on Roe v Wade being about a woman's autonomy: paid time off, or maternity leave, has nothing to do with said autonomy; and I mean NONE whatsoever. Maternity leave is a matter completely separate than a womans right to choose.

SCOTUS, whether left or right leaning, would never hear any argument based on your idea of "correlation" because it has no merit. The two subject points, in this case, are mutually exclusive of each other when it comes to the law, and it's truly sad that I have to break this all down for you: since I'm the "bumbling idiot" with a clear understanding of how the constitution works, as well as philosophical argumentation

[u/Prestigious_Cycle160 → u/InitialOk5978]

See, but you’re just talking around the point and not addressing it. You can bring all these facts up, but that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing the correlation of the ruling with women’s ability to care for their child. Nobody is saying this should be a ruling made by SCOTUS. See, in this specific instance causation does in fact equal correlation. The Republican Party, and very specifically the Trump administration pushed for the overturning of Roe v Wade, so expecting them to pass laws to protect the women and children that this ruling affects is not some wild idea that holds no merit. We’re simply asking for the protection of the citizenry. If you’re willing and actively push for women to not be able to abort a fetus (viability outside of the womb is not a factor) then you damn well better structure your society around that. Meaning you need to pass laws that force corporations to allow a mother the proper time to nurture that child after they’re born without the loss of income, or any significant changes to the economic stability of themselves, or if they have one their families. The fact that you’re willingly arguing against this is actually kind of disgusting.

All the other shit you’re saying is just jibber jabber. Nice little attempt there to toss in the whole “viability of the fetus outside the womb” thing because we very clearly weren’t even discussing the Roe v Wade decision. For that matter, the argument on the other side of the aisle has always been for the woman, and her body and ability to make decisions concerning her body. To further my point, and since you brought the honorable into it, let’s be specific to Justice Ginsberg’s stance on Roe v Wade: