I believe I am now fully Pro-Life.

I beg to differ:

“The researchers found that women in general delayed getting abortions if they are unsure they are pregnant, aren’t sure they want an abortion, and are disagreeing with the baby’s father.”

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/10/study-ids-reasons-for-late-term-abortions/

 

Oh don’t worry. Roe v Wade is about to be overturned and is old news. The new scotus has decided/will decide that there are no constitutional protections for abortion.

See what happens when you just create constitutional protections out of thin air that don’t actually exist? They get struck down. Let that be a lesson.

And if you don’t learn that lesson with Roe v Wade maybe you’ll learn it when we take out Obergfell

 

They explained their ruling, so it was not out of thin air. I don't mind the outcome, but it bothers me that they all lied about their view during the confirmation hearing, and that the ruling seems politically motivated.

In the end its good the issue is finally taken off the table, because it was one of the biggest political wedge issues that ever existed.

Gay marriage? That was ruled only few years ago by conservative SC. Are you saying there is something in the Constitution that limits marriage to man and woman?

Should it be left to the States? I don't know. Should traditional marriage be left to the States (deny or allow)?

 

Oh that’s not going to happen. You do realize that the Dems will not allow this to stand right?

I guarantee you. I’m willing to bet the HOUSE. If the SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, the Dems will not be able to tolerate it. They will expand the court probably to 14 members and they will pack it with 5 Libs.

Watch what I say.

The only thing that MIGHT stop them is Manchin

 

Nowhere in the article did it say anything about up till birth. there was only one example given of a 'late-term' abortion...
"One woman, 28, who got an abortion at 21 weeks, told the researchers, “I couldn’t afford it.”

"The women seeking late-term abortions were more likely to be younger — ages 20-24 — than women who got earlier abortions, and the later-term patients waited far longer to confirm they were pregnant — they were often about 12 weeks gestation vs. five weeks gestation in the early-abortion group."

Most babies are born between 38 and 42 weeks

 

You do realize there are 9 states that allow abortion up until birth right?

 

I don't know.......it was a an extremely valuable tool for GOP, which is why they never tried to overturn it even when they controlled every branch, but now that the SC did, the tool goes from GOP to Dems, and they'll milk every drop out of it. It will be more useful for them to keep the new situation and simply pretend they will flip the ruling again. It will bring them votes.

See, it was never really about abortion itself, it was about using it for political gain. It was the goose laying golden political eggs, and now the SC killed the goose.

So, you are right in saying it will be used as political tool, it simply changes hands from GOP to Dems.

 

Maybe you don’t remember but Obergfell was a 5-4 vote with Roberts siding with the liberals.

Roberts can’t save them now.

 

Only if the fetus is not viable or if the health or life of the mother is at risk. If medical practitioners determine that either of these factors are present, the mother can choose to have an abortion.
That is VERY different than trying to claim women can abort up to birth if they simply change their mind.

 

False

https://www.findlaw.com/state/new-jersey-law/new-jersey-abortion-laws.html

“Partial birth abortion prohibited unless necessary to save life of mother (found unconstitutional 41 F. Supp. 2d 478. aff'd 220 F3d 127 (2000))”

 

You didn't answer the question, but revealed again that the justices are politically motivated.

 

Oh sorry I’ll answer your other questions.

IMO marriage is distinct from government sanctioned recognition of marriage. We have a right to get married. If you want to go have a celebration where you and your husband or wife (including gay people and anyone else) want to go and give rings to each other and say vows in front of your friends and family. You have every right to do so and the government has no right to stop you.

However there is ZERO right to recognition of your marriage by the state and the benefits that come along with it. Certainly no constitutional right.

I believe recognition of marriage should be left up to the state to decide what/whom they want to subsidize because they consider it to be important. If they want only straight couples to have state recognition of marriage fine. If they want gay and straight couples to have state recognition of marriage fine. If they want only gay couples to have state recognition for their marriage that’s fine too.

To take it further. If the state only wants state recognition of white straight couples’ marriage. That’s fine. If the state only wants to recognize marriages between straight black couples. That’s fine. If the state only wants to recognize marriages between a female to male Native American and a ftm Slovakian transgender. That’s fine too. (I’m not sure why they’d do that but whatever just to make my point lol)

 

So, then all tax laws, child custody laws etc for married, or unmarried persons are........unconstitutional?

The government should not recognize marriage......wow.

It has been recognized since the days of Adam and Eve. I guess you don't believe in God given unalienable rights unless the words are spelled out in the Constitution.

 

No I just said you have the right to marriage. What makes you think you have the right to state recognition of your marriage in order for you to get benefits?

Why should a single person have to have his tax money taken from him to subsidize your marriage?

What benefit do you as a married person provide that justifies you getting his tax money through government benefits and subsidies?

 

So I've been told. Hell, there are millions of authoritarian boneheads in this country who will tell you what tyrants have been telling people for thousands of years - that you have no inalienable, inherent natural rights at all. The only rights you have are the scraps of privileges your masters are willing to toss you from their tables.

The people who think that way are pets, not men and women.

 

Because SHE is the one doing it.

 

So, then tax laws regarding married / single / family are unconstitutional? There should be no federal recognition of marriage and/or family? That is what you are saying, isn't it? I am not talking about your precious pennies going to help someone. Its a simple question.

 

It is, now. The Senate bill that bombed would have removed that prohibition.

But, abortion as a form of birth control is absolutely legal and immoral.

 

Funny, I haven't seen a Pro-Choicer say that a fetus isn't alive or human.


I have seen righties CLAIM Pro-Choicers say that but that's because they were confused on things like nouns and adjectives.


A living human fetus is both alive and human..THERE now you can go back to your original position of women having rights.

 

At 8:30 this morning you claimed it was legal in all states to abort up till birth for the reason of "changing one's mind". Now at 10:19 you're saying it's not legal. Did something change in the past few hours???

 

No I didn't. Stop being dishonest.

 

That’s correct. We should have state recognition of marriage. Not federal. And then only what the states want to recognize.

I’ll ask you again. Why should a married person receive ANY benefits or state recognition for their marriage? What benefit are they providing that justifies them receiving said recognition and benefits from the government?

 

Exactly right.

 

See the reason used to be procreation. But y’all ****ed that up with Obergfell.

So I’ll ask again. Why should ANY married couple receive recognition by the state for their marriage and the benefits that accompany it?

 

Wait...are couples no longer allowed to have kids??? When did that happen?