Question for liberals...

StoneByStone said:
So how come that isn't the law in New York or California?
Click to expand...
it is.....from the Guttmacher Institute.....
RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION
In California, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of May 1, 2018:

California does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions—such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions—often found in other states.
Click to expand...
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-california
 
StoneByStone said:
At one point, same-sex marriage wasn't recognized by state governments. Their marriages were acknowledged, but not accepted. You understand this. The reason you got mad and name-called is because you know I'm right.
And no, homos aren't denied any rights in the Bill of Rights. However, they were still being treated as second class citizens. So obviously, they had to organize and petition for their rights.
Click to expand...

According to the 10th Amendment, that was up to the State. The reason you got your feelings hurt is because you hate the Constitution.

If you claim they aren't being denied their rights, why do they have to petition for something that isn't a right. You're mad because you know marriage isn't a right.
 
CFM said:
According to the 10th Amendment, that was up to the State. The reason you got your feelings hurt is because you hate the Constitution.

If you claim they aren't being denied their rights, why do they have to petition for something that isn't a right. You're mad because you know marriage isn't a right.
Click to expand...

When did I say I got my feelings hurt? Are you still angry from before?
I know marriage isn't a right, but it's something that was denied to them. Like I said, they were being treated like second class citizens.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it is.....from the Guttmacher Institute.....

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-california
Click to expand...

"The Court has held that a state cannot ban abortion before viability (the point at which a fetus can survive outside the uterus), and that any restriction on abortion after viability must contain exceptions to protect the life and health of the woman. Furthermore, any previability abortion restriction cannot create an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion. This “undue burden” standard was established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 and clarified in the 2016 decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The latter held that scientific evidence must be considered when evaluating the constitutionality of abortion restrictions."
 
StoneByStone said:
When did I say I got my feelings hurt? Are you still angry from before?
I know marriage isn't a right, but it's something that was denied to them. Like I said, they were being treated like second class citizens.
Click to expand...

You didn't have to say it. It's obvious.

If it isn't a right, there shouldn't be a problem if it's denied to them. A five year old can't get a driver's license. It's not a right. Are they being treated like 2nd class citizens because they're being denied?
 
StoneByStone said:
"The Court has held that a state cannot ban abortion before viability (the point at which a fetus can survive outside the uterus), and that any restriction on abortion after viability must contain exceptions to protect the life and health of the woman. Furthermore, any previability abortion restriction cannot create an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion. This “undue burden” standard was established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 and clarified in the 2016 decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The latter held that scientific evidence must be considered when evaluating the constitutionality of abortion restrictions."
Click to expand...
so why did you even bother denying you want no restrictions on a right to kill unborn children?.......by the way did you hear the news?........this week a baby born last August at 9.45 ounces (24 weeks) in Japan was released to go home.......healthy......that's what happens when people DON'T want to kill their children......I personally know of a pair of twins who survived birth at 21 weeks......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so why did you even bother denying you want no restrictions on a right to kill unborn children?.......by the way did you hear the news?........this week a baby born last August at 9.45 ounces (24 weeks) in Japan was released to go home.......healthy......that's what happens when people DON'T want to kill their children......I personally know of a pair of twins who survived birth at 21 weeks......
Click to expand...

Isn't it true that the pro abortion crowd support abortion after those two time periods?
 
Grugore said:
Suppose there was a way to tell if a baby would be born gay. Not that any sane person believes it's genetic, but assuming it's was true, would you be OK with someone aborting it because it was gay? If you answer no, then you're being dishonest. You're the ones who want a woman to be allowed to abort their child for any reason, up to and even after birth. So if you say you have a problem with aborting gay babies, then you are a hypocrite. After all, it's HER BODY. Are you going to tell her she can't do it?
Click to expand...
Straw man argument. Supporters of abortion are saying it’s none of your fucking business what a woman decides.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so why did you even bother denying you want no restrictions on a right to kill unborn children?.......by the way did you hear the news?........this week a baby born last August at 9.45 ounces (24 weeks) in Japan was released to go home.......healthy......that's what happens when people DON'T want to kill their children......I personally know of a pair of twins who survived birth at 21 weeks......
Click to expand...

This shows that there are restrictions even in California. And as I said before, there are also restrictions in New York.
 
CFM said:
If it isn't a right, there shouldn't be a problem if it's denied to them. A five year old can't get a driver's license. It's not a right. Are they being treated like 2nd class citizens because they're being denied?
Click to expand...

You can make the argument that children are second class citizens because of how many things they're not allowed to do, but there is good reason for the restriction we place on them. The same thing can be said for blind people not being allowed to drive.
However, there is no reason to not recognized same-sex marriage. It's a restriction that only existed because some people had an irrational hatred of gays.
 
StoneByStone said:
You can make the argument that children are second class citizens because of how many things they're not allowed to do, but there is good reason for the restriction we place on them. The same thing can be said for blind people not being allowed to drive.
However, there is no reason to not recognized same-sex marriage. It's a restriction that only existed because some people had an irrational hatred of gays.
Click to expand...

I didn't make the argument that kids are 2nd class citizens. You did. You said someone being denied something that isn't a right means they are a 2nd class citizen.

The restriction on same sex marriage is completely legitimate since the authority to regulate marriage belongs to the States based on the Constitution and it isn't a right being denied. Hypocrite.
 
CFM said:
I didn't make the argument that kids are 2nd class citizens. You did. You said someone being denied something that isn't a right means they are a 2nd class citizen.
Click to expand...

I know, I'm saying that it's a reasonable thing for people to believe. Not that you, specifically, were saying this.

The restriction on same sex marriage is completely legitimate since the authority to regulate marriage belongs to the States based on the Constitution and it isn't a right being denied. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Yes, but by states choosing to deny recognition of same-sex marriage, that is discriminating against gays.
How is this hypocritical on my part? Are you just saying words?
 
StoneByStone said:
I know, I'm saying that it's a reasonable thing for people to believe. Not that you, specifically, were saying this.



Yes, but by states choosing to deny recognition of same-sex marriage, that is discriminating against gays.
How is this hypocritical on my part? Are you just saying words?
Click to expand...

Your argument is that kids are 2nd class citizens.

It's not discrimination when someone doesn't have a right to do something. It's a choice that a State has the Constitutional authority to make.

No, just correctly applying them to you, hypocrite.
 
I Love America said:
Well the state can always change its mind then right?
Click to expand...

Yes, they can even eliminate all marriages. that what you want? You can find the latent gays in these threads. Secure people do not care about others so much. Those unsure of their sexuality want to have the doors closed so they will not act on who they really are. State please stop me from being gay.,
 
StoneByStone said:
This shows that there are restrictions even in California. And as I said before, there are also restrictions in New York.
Click to expand...

a federal court ruling says nothing at all about California law........as Planned Parenthood stated, California has no restrictions......must suck to be wrong and a proven liar.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top