6 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

No, the answer is the pregnant mother has legal rights and it's not the role of the Government to take them away.

it shouldn't be the government's role to fund abortions either. 

8 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Whatever happened with that anyway? The redcaps did win in 2016 afterall.

It was complicated. Who knew?

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

There are numerous legal protections/benefits afforded to to married couples.  Just to name a few:

• The ability to file taxes as a married couple
• The right to inherit your spouse's property upon their death
• The right to receive your spouse's pension, social security benefits, disability, etc...
• Spousal testimony privilege 
• immigration benefits

And I'm sure there's many more.   Banning gay marriage denies a person equal protection under the law as it denies those legal protections/benefits to someone based on their gender/who they are married to. 

The ability (or liability) for extra taxes due to the marriage penalty

The middle three are property rights and evidentiary matters which are state law matters.  The spousal immunity privilege in large part is abrogated.

Immigration benefits for illegals don't apply to U.S. citizens.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

Holy ish you're stupid. Must be nice as a lawyer to invent claims made by the other side and then argue against them.

Not too effective though...

I didn't go to NYU and you don't live in Bel Air.  Admit it, you're a complete fraud.

in this day and age, i cant get why late term abortions are even needed. (beyond a medical issue) 

4 hours ago, vikas83 said:

So after doing a little more research, I think where I come down is as follows:

1. The Court went too far in Roe -- applying the Right to Privacy to the decision to terminate a pregnancy...that seems like a stretch. The Court seemed to want to shy away from simply declaring that a fetus has no rights, and therefore abortion shouldn't be deemed illegal. Instead they waded into the muck by getting into viability. I would have simply focused on whether Constitutional Rights (the right to life) apply to a fetus, which they desperately sought to avoid. It was a cutely crafted opinion to get the outcome they wanted without attacking the fundamental issue. So, I think it was a poor decision.

2. That being said, I don't see the need to overturn precedent that has stood for 5 decades. Overturning precedent should be reserved for truly egregious decisions like Plessey v. Ferguson. I don't see how Roe falls into that category. Roe and Casey set a framework that I see no reason to overturn, even if the original decision was flawed.

3. Passing a federal ban on abortion is way too far and should be overturned by SCOTUS if they have any intellectual credibility. Clearly, they are saying that abortion falls under the 10th amendment. So leave it there. Also, any state law that tries to punish a resident from going to a place where abortion is legal to terminate should be seen as unconstitutional. 

4. There's probably nothing that can change this. Democrats can't get a bill to legalize abortion nationally through the Senate, and it would likely be overturned by this SCOTUS anyway. If they were going to codify this into law, it needed to happen when they had the votes and Roe was precedent. 

Just putting this here so people stop inventing my position in order to argue against views I don't espouse.

the right to marry a same sex individual can absolutely be argued from the point of view of equal treatment under the law. being married comes with significant privileges that cannot be otherwise obtained. therefore an individual should not be limited to who they can marry based on the genitals they were born with. 

it's not that complicated. somebody who claims to have studied law at NYU should know this, even if they don't agree with the argument.

Just now, vikas83 said:

Just putting this here so people stop inventing my position in order to argue against views I don't espouse.

you know that won't bring an end to it, because, cvon. 

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

The ability (or liability) for extra taxes due to the marriage penalty

The middle three are property rights and evidentiary matters which are state law matters.  The spousal immunity privilege in large part is abrogated.

Immigration benefits for illegals don't apply to U.S. citizens.

I didn't go to NYU and you don't live in Bel Air.  Admit it, you're a complete fraud.

Sorry counselor, I live in Bel Air. Have since late 2020. But keep nonsensically thrashing about - it's getting me through the last hour of the market.

3 minutes ago, Procus said:

The ability (or liability) for extra taxes due to the marriage penalty

The middle three are property rights and evidentiary matters which are state law matters.  The spousal immunity privilege in large part is abrogated.

Immigration benefits for illegals don't apply to U.S. citizens.

I didn't go to NYU and you don't live in Bel Air.  Admit it, you're a complete fraud.

NYU should demand their diploma back. 

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

the right to marry a same sex individual can absolutely be argued from the point of view of equal treatment under the law. being married comes with significant privileges that cannot be otherwise obtained. therefore an individual should not be limited to who they can marry based on the genitals they were born with. 

it's not that complicated. somebody who claims to have studied law at NYU should know this, even if they don't agree with the argument.

I hate to derail this thread because arguing against abortion actually has merits. Arguing against gay marriage is about the dumbest, most bigoted position to take. It makes zero sense other than coming from a place of hate.

Never forget what the left wants.

Just look at jsdarkstar. This is what they want. This is why it's so important for states to have rights on this issue.

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

the right to marry a same sex individual can absolutely be argued from the point of view of equal treatment under the law. being married comes with significant privileges that cannot be otherwise obtained. therefore an individual should not be limited to who they can marry based on the genitals they were born with. 

it's not that complicated. somebody who lies about studying law at NYU should know this, so they don't look amazingly stupid with the argument.

FYP

30 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

in this day and age, i cant get why late term abortions are even needed. (beyond a medical issue) 

 

Pretty much the only way you can get one is if they're medically necessary. This is why the "partial-birth abortion" fear mongering is total BS. 99.9% of the time, those abortions are performed to either save the life of the mother or terminate a pregnancy that would result in extreme birth defects where the kid suffer horribly and die in infancy anyway. Think like a kid with organs growing outside of his body, a missing/damaged forebrain, etc.

4 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

in this day and age, i cant get why late term abortions are even needed. (beyond a medical issue) 

In a modern society with medical advances where babies can now survive outside the womb starting at 21 weeks, it’s just barbaric. 

17 minutes ago, TEW said:

But then it wouldn’t be a "right.” 

For all intents and purposes, it would be.  Only in semantics would it not be a right.  There's no constitutional amendment that gives you the "right"  to be stabilized if you are in an emergency medical situation.  But thanks to EMTALA, you essentially do have that right.  If you are having a medical emergency, and if you go to any hospital which accepts medicare, then by law they must give you treatment to stabilize you.   

11 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

NYU should demand their diploma back. 

Did we pay for this guy's education, too?

9 minutes ago, Procus said:

The ability (or liability) for extra taxes due to the marriage penalty

The middle three are property rights and evidentiary matters which are state law matters.  The spousal immunity privilege in large part is abrogated.

Immigration benefits for illegals don't apply to U.S. citizens.

I didn't go to NYU and you don't live in Bel Air.  Admit it, you're a complete fraud.

There really is no such thing as a marriage "penalty".  If you are married, you have the OPTION to file your taxes jointly.  There is no rule that says you MUST file them jointly.  You have the BENEFIT of having the option to file them jointly, and in many cases that saves the couple money.  If you ban gay marriage, then you are denying gay people EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW by taking that benefit away.  

"The middle three are property rights and evidentiary matters which are state law matters. "

Yeaaaaaaaa, maybe you should read the 14th amendment again. It prohibits STATES from denying people equal protection of the laws. 

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"Immigration benefits for illegals don't apply to U.S. citizens."

I'm not talking about illegal immigration, numbnuts.  I'm talking about becoming a US citizen THROUGH MARRIAGE.  If you ban gay marriage, then once again you are denying a person equal protection under the law.

17 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Sorry counselor, I live in Bel Air. Have since late 2020.

Of course you live in Bel Air.  Do you see Bel Air in the room with you right now?

18 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

NYU should demand their diploma back. 

They can have it.  Congress enacted a new tax code right after I graduated.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/where-roe-went-wrong-sweeping-155840119.html

"There was no Republican-Democrat divide on abortion during the 1970s," said Neal Devins, a William & Mary law professor. "In a poll taken shortly before Roe was decided, 68% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats said the decision to have an abortion should be made by a woman and her physician."

Legal scholars and political scientists point to major missteps at the start that left the decision vulnerable.

 

Ginsburg had been the leader of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project in the 1970s, and later an appeals court judge in the 1980s. She gave several speeches criticizing the court's handling of the abortion issue.

Roe vs. Wade "became and remains a storm center," she said at the time, "because the court ventured too far in the change it ordered."

Justice Ginsberg also argued for a different legal rationale, one based on equal rights for women rather than privacy. Laws banning abortion had been written by men and were enforced by men, but their burden fell entirely on women.

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

There really is no such thing as a marriage "penalty".  If you are married, you have the OPTION to file your taxes jointly.  There is no rule that says you MUST file them jointly. 

Best not to comment on things you don't know about.  Any person who is civilly married in the U.S. (assuming minimum income threshold requirements are met) is either required to file a joint return or married filing separate return.  The tax rates for married filing separate are higher than for those filing single.  This is basic knowledge.  This is also why with regard to taxes, the term "marriage penalty" is often used. 

Again, not sure how any of this relates to Roe v Wade

 

7 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Justice Ginsberg also argued for a different legal rationale, one based on equal rights for women rather than privacy. Laws banning abortion had been written by men and were enforced by men, but their burden fell entirely on women.

She could "argue" whatever she wanted - but without the rest of the court joining in - it was just argument and nothing else.  Certainly no legal weight at all.

RBG.

"It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling,” Ginsburg told Senators during her four days of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee. "If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”

Ginsburg said that she believed it would have been easier for the public to understand why the Constitution protected abortion rights if it the matter had been framed as one of equal protection rather than privacy. And in fact, there was a specific case she had in mind as one that should have driven the national conversation, instead of letting Roe carry that weight.

 

She told the Senators that she "first thought long and hard” about abortion rights when, as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), she took on Struck v. Secretary of Defense, a case that was on the Supreme Court’s calendar during the same term that Roe was decided. Susan Struck was an Air Force Captain who got pregnant while serving in Vietnam and sued the Air Force after it said she would have to either get an abortion at the base hospital or leave if she wanted to have the child. She told the Air Force that she didn’t want to get an abortion; she wanted to use the vacation days that she had saved up to give birth and then put the baby up for adoption because abortion violated her Roman Catholic faith.

Here’s how Ginsburg explained her approach — that sex discrimination includes discrimination because of pregnancy — to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

First, that the applicable Air Force regulations — if you are pregnant you are out unless you have an abortion — violated the equal protection principle, for no man was ordered out of service because he had been the partner in a conception, no man was ordered out of service because he was about to become a father.

Next, then we said that the Government is impeding, without cause, a woman’s choice whether to bear or not to bear a child. Birth was Captain Struck’s personal choice, and the interference with it was a violation of her liberty, her freedom to choose, guaranteed by the due process clause.

Finally, we said the Air Force was involved in an unnecessary interference with Captain Struck’s religious belief.

So all three strands were involved in Captain Struck’s case. The main emphasis was on her equality as a woman vis-à-vis a man who was equally responsible for the conception, and on her personal choice, which the Government said she could not have unless she gave up her career in the service.

In that case, all three strands were involved: her equality right, her right to decide for herself whether she was going to bear the child, and her religious belief. So it was never an either/or matter, one rather than the other. It was always recognition that one thing that conspicuously distinguishes women from men is that only women become pregnant; and if you subject a woman to disadvantageous treatment on the basis of her pregnant status, which was what was happening to Captain Struck, you would be denying her equal treatment under the law…

The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.

5 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/where-roe-went-wrong-sweeping-155840119.html

"There was no Republican-Democrat divide on abortion during the 1970s," said Neal Devins, a William & Mary law professor. "In a poll taken shortly before Roe was decided, 68% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats said the decision to have an abortion should be made by a woman and her physician."

Legal scholars and political scientists point to major missteps at the start that left the decision vulnerable.

 

Ginsburg had been the leader of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project in the 1970s, and later an appeals court judge in the 1980s. She gave several speeches criticizing the court's handling of the abortion issue.

Roe vs. Wade "became and remains a storm center," she said at the time, "because the court ventured too far in the change it ordered."

Justice Ginsberg also argued for a different legal rationale, one based on equal rights for women rather than privacy. Laws banning abortion had been written by men and were enforced by men, but their burden fell entirely on women.

Agreed that men are a big part of the problem. Dead beat dads and fatherless homes that lead to children abandoned to the foster care system. And men that brainwash women into going against their biological instincts to protect the child in their womb so that men can have sex without repercussions and consequences. Down with the patriarchy!!

22 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

For all intents and purposes, it would be.  Only in semantics would it not be a right.  There's no constitutional amendment that gives you the "right"  to be stabilized if you are in an emergency medical situation.  But thanks to EMTALA, you essentially do have that right.  If you are having a medical emergency, and if you go to any hospital which accepts medicare, then by law they must give you treatment to stabilize you.   

So, again, it’s not a right. It’s a condition of service. 

Campaign season:

Democrats:  Republicans want the Handmaid's tale, take away all rights of women and minorities and to install Trump as a dictator and destroy democracy forever.

Republicans: Democrats want to murder babies, groom your children to be gay and trans and create a socialist/communist nightmare that will result in mass poverty and death.

Libertarians: We support gay married couples owning guns to protect their marijuana plants and abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve.