• Accuses me of "Not being able to express {my} viewpoint coherently"

• Instead of expressing viewpoint coherently, spends the remaining several paragraphs of his argument insisting that it's because my mother is a prostitute

You're adorable. See previous comment, I believe there's a rather eloquent line that will help you with understanding your position... It goes something like "hypocritical fucking cunt".

But! Fair enough, sometimes I spend too much time being a sarcastic asshole and not enough time articulating my opinions... Though in my defense, if leftists had the attention span to read and comprehend an alternate opinions, then they wouldn't be leftists. Therefore I can rarely expect much to come of rational discussion of policy (we can't even expect that in Washington, much less on the internet at large, much less in a backwater cesspool of societal rejects like CreateDebate). To summarize: yes, I believe with limits in a woman's right to choose. No, I don't think that takes priority over state's rights to legislate over issues which are not specifically given to federal authority. If the Democrats wanted to give themselves constitutional authority to protect abortions, they could have amended the constitution sometime over 50 fucking years and multiple periods of supermajorities. Fuck, they're still in control of the capital, they may still be able to pull it off, it might be the only political win for the Democrats since Biden took office. (And yeah, you should be worried about gay marriage. That's no more constitutionally recognized than abortion, and could have been overturned just as easily. Get a fucking amendment passed.) That said, there's a reason I'm not sharing anything about my opinion beyond "believe within limits in a woman's right to choose": my opinion doesn't matter. I'm certainly not going to get into the drama orgy that is the direct debate between pro life and pro choice. If you don't see a fetus as a living individual, you think the issue is a matter of women's rights. If you do see a fetus as a living individual, you think the issue is a matter of murder. On and on the bickering will rage, neither side realizing that they're speaking a different fucking language. All of these opinions definitely take a backseat to the issue of limiting federal authority within the confines clearly stated in our founding documents, and if you wanted to expand the Fed's reach to protect abortions you've had your chance. Frankly I hope this is the first domino to fall of many. I hope that with these "new" precedents plaintiff's printers are catching fire right now printing up lawsuits to sue the federal government down to the size that it should be, because we've been letting these assholes run roughshod over ever industry they goddamn well please since the FDR administration, may that insufferable despotic commie rot in hell.

And all of this talk of state's rights gets your head spinning with impotent rage, let me take you on a trip down memory lane to the previous outrage all of 24 hours before Roe v. Wade was overturned. NYSRPA v. Bruen, opinion writen by Clarence Thomas and released on the 24th of this month. A decision that not only has put the kibosh on may-issue permitting schemes for concealed carry of handguns (which, open secret, is directly used as a means for bribery) but more importantly has called out lower courts' two-step verification process of means-end as "one step too far". In other words, in one fell swoop, Clarence Thomas has just removed the legal structure propping up assault weapons bans, handgun rosters, magazine limits, everything that California and New York have been trying to get away with four 20 years. Aaaaaand you can fucking bet that the plaintiff's printers at the NRA, GOA, SAF, etc are definitely on fire. I'm gonna need popcorn and a cigarette for the upcoming legislation. But why do I bring this up? Because not 25 hours before Roe v. Wade was dropped like the illegal turd that it was, Cori Booker, AOC, Feinstain, and Uncle Joe were up in arms about how the supreme court was infringing on state's rights to infringe on constitutionally protected individual rights... Only to reverse course the moment the court upheld state's rights over something not constitutionally protected. It almost hurts to even look at that whiplash. And it's why, when a leftist comes at me whining and complaining that their imaginary rights are being violated, I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK.

I see you've altered your argument in the time that I was writing mine. I'm not Nom, genius. Nom was anti-gun beyond the point of mental illness, if you recall.