No, you missed the quote when she says that it would be impossible to craft a bill that would contain enough exceptions. So basically, she admitted that the bill she'd actually support is a legislative IMPOSSIBILITY. I didn't know we had entered the metaphysical realm when bills can exist solely in theory.

"Sit and spin" is a political term, honey. If you followed, you might have heard it repeatedly, but I digress.

I've provided copious evidence. I've also asked you to demonstrate how the logical fallacy you've presented can ever possibly work. Listen, I get that the Texas Board of Ed fucks with your textbooks, but I didn't know it was that bad. I'd say I feel bad about your impending Greg Abbott governorship, but frankly, if…

Since I'll take that as conceding your loss, please refer back to the original butthurt form. I'd do that before you return to your regularly scheduled fapping to your Wendy Davis poster, honey ;)

Do you really believe that a politician would give a direct, decisive quote that could be later used against her? If you do, you've never met a politician! Are you suggesting that Davis objected to the ban not based upon any argument or reason, but merely because they were set at 20-weeks? So is your argument…

No proof it was all about abortions? That's funny - when she decided to filibuster SB5, a bill that dealt with copious amounts of abortion restrictions and nothing else, and the transcript shows she only talked about abortions, you think it's weird to assume the filibuster wasn't all about abortions? Can you point to…

Also, this might be of interest to you: your girl flips again:

Your argument is foolish because you presume that the absence of an affirmative quote is evidence that Davis is okay with the bill. Your argument is premised upon the belief that there are some other grounds that Davis WOULD support a 20-week ban under. However, the falls about when you do a basic Google search for…

I never wrote an interpretation. I quoted it, if you note. What I noted was that Davis's argument was not an argument for exception. It was an argument for non-application.

Hey now, all you need to do is turn on the View. They've got Sherri Shepard, who claims she "doesn't know" if the Earth is flat or not and says decisively she does not believe in evolution. They've also got Jenny McCarthy, whose lunacy is fairly well-documented. Is these people are our public figures, what chance does…

Only if you can concede that your grasping at straws. You're arguing that nothing in the transcript supports the belief that she opposed the ban in general. However, you never answered my actual question posed above - why, if she supports the general proposition of a ban and only wants more exceptions, then WHY does…

Ask and ye shall receive:

I'm not disputing what she says now. I pointed out that what she says now is at odds with what she said during the filibuster. Her position during the filibuster was that a 20 week ban - any 20 week ban - would be bad because it largely is based upon junk science. And that was totally correct. If we are to assume she…

If you watched the filibuster all the way through, or even read the transcript, you'd know that Davis argued against the ban not on the basis of it not having enough exceptions, but on the basis of it being bad science. She never says "I oppose this because it doesn't have enough exceptions." She argued against a ban…

No, I'm not. But I actually do care about the ways abortion politics go in this nation. Because they impact all of us. I also care about how politicians who have a national stage and attention talk and act about reproductive rights, because others around the nation will follow suit. You seem amazed that people can…

How do you presume I want Abbott to win? I'm pro-choice - I'd hate to see him win. But I wish an actual pro-choice candidate was running. Frankly, I think it's nearly impossible for a democratic governorship candidate to win TX in the current climate. The best strategy would be to shore up the legislature to try to…

Oh Lord. This is why we so desperately need real, thorough theological education. So many Christians are so, so dumb when it comes to matters of the Bible and sexuality.

If you actually said anything else, I'm not seeing it. Maybe you should focus a bit more on your argument skills and less on your political theories. You might do a bit better.

I haven't ignored your points. They were, as follows:

The problem with your argument is that, again, you base the entire thing on the presumption that pro-life and pro-choice are a dichotomy. However, that falls apart when you consider that there is no "middle ground" that fully respects the rights of all women. If one is, say, 90% in favor of the pro-choice positions…