People who are pro-choice aren't pro-abortion. People who are pro-choice believe that regardless of what your position on abortion is there are areas of people's lives which the government shouldn't be able to regulate. A justice who will overturn Roe isn't just a judge who is pro-life, he is a judge who is anti-privacy, probably in a lot of areas such as end of life decision making or privacy of medical information. The article wasn't just talking about his position on Roe.

This is a faulty working definition, and probably the Fallacy of Composition and Fallacy of Wrong Direction . . .

False Dilemma, and Fallacy of Consequences . . .


And even taking off my logic hat to ignore your appeals to an anonymous authority, I think we're missing the fact that the Supreme Court is much more than the Abortion Court, and that most pro-life/pro-choice arguments ignore the elements of constitutional law that the Supreme Court must decide - and very few have addressed this aspect for Mr. Roberts.

I think we're overstating his impact on potential Roe decisions - plus we're ignoring the very real possibility that the Court doesn't even desire to rule further upon the matter.

Wish I had a dollar everytime I heard someone complain about the US and how they wanted to move to Canada. If you really feel that way, GTFO. Nobody is forcing you to stay.