It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gay marriage yes? Then bye bye abortion!

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I made this thread to ask you two simple questions.

1.) Are you pro-gay marriage?

2.) Do you support the federal judges decision that DOMA is unconstitutional?

If you anwsered yes to both of these questions all i have to say is.....thank you. Because of judge taro he just gave the pro-life movement LEGAL ammunition out the whim wang! HOW?

Well first we have to Look at the INTENTION of the ruling that it was unconstitutional. The federal judge ruled DOMA unconstitutional because it violated the 10th ammendment(IE.states rights)where the states decide what the definition of marriage is.

Judge taro made this decision based on the clause in the 10th ammendment.

"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Marriage is no where stated in the constitution. Meaning if you believe in gay marriage this is a great victory for you.

But guess what else is not mentioned in the clause? ABORTION. Thats right. If the they dont repeal this judgement by judge taro......its opening a whole can of worms.

So all you feminists who support this decision and gay marriage? I dont want to here you whining when abortion bans start springing up all across the nation(unless of course this judgement is over turned).

You cant have your cake and eat it too. You have to remain CONSISTANT with your arguments if you are FOR this ruling. If you are for judge taros ruling then you MUST be for the ruling if it is used in the future to impose abortion bans.

The states decide. You cant have it one way and not the other. Dont be a hypocrit.

Somehow i just know that when this idea gets on the feminist radar,the feminists are gonna throw the LGBT community under the bus.

Either way you look at it conservatives when.

If they dont repeal this judgement then it opens up doors to ban abortion and other things.

If they do repeal this ruling then it defines marriage between a man and a woman by federal law. Essentially making it to where the LGBT community could not really challenge DOMA again.

Like i said. You are either for this ruling and states rights all the way....or you are not. You cant pick and choose!

Feminist and 'womens rights' will come in here preaching about 'reproductive rights' and all that jazz. Guess what women! YOU DO HAVE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.

You dont have to open your legs. You can have your partner 'pull out'.You have birth control and condoms. You can go down to your local community center and get FREE condoms and birth control!!!

Oh wait....you gonna use the privacy argument? Yes abortion is under privacy. But guess what....the government has already stated that you have no 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.

Sucks right? but like i said before you cant have your cake and eat it too!

Women have always been the major supporters for gay marriage....i wonder how long that will last when there 'right' to suction there child out with a straw is endangered!




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   
I can't understand why there's still so much debate about gay marriage / abortion in these 3rd world countries.

Let people marry who they love and do with their bodies as they please.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   
I'm pro choice but I am against abortion. I don't see a problem with gays getting married and if a woman wants to have an abortion I feel that is her choice. I guess I'm a huge hypocrite somehow?

I don't see how you're even connecting the two things. You're saying that because a state has a right to make their own laws about things that aren't in the constitution, that somehow I have to support abortion bans? That makes no sense guy.

Sure, I support the right for states to make that decision, but that surely does not mean I have to support any ban on abortion, your logic is flawed. Also, the people do not have to support it if a state does that, they do this thing now a days called voting where people are able to vote others out of office if they come up with laws and such they don't like - you should check it out.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Proudconservative
 


Didn't I just respond to another thread similar to this recently?

Yes, I did.

Enjoy your thread, OP.



Toss in a little thingy. Whatever.


I hope you work out whatever troubles you have. Or just have fun. Ya know?

My best wishes to you., my friend.




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I choose to not care what other people do that involves no other person but themselves and the people in their lives.

Whether it be gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion or any other area of personal life, I feel I have no right to stick my nose into their personal business. I know I wouldn't like it if someone started telling me what I could or could not do when it came to my love life etc.

As long as no-one is getting hurt, who cares?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I am FOR gay marriage. I don't care who you want to love, it's love and if it makes you happy THAT is what matters. I am tired off stupid religious crap getting in the way of peoples right to love someone. I know many gay couples and they just want to get married and live their lives without ridicule. They are good people and have a right to express their love just like everyone else.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
i'm pro-choice, you can do whatever you want to your body. need i remind you that by DAY 21 of a pregnancy (before you miss your period and begin to suspect pregnancy!) the baby has a heartbeat and a closed circulatory system with a blood type that is different than the mother's? it is a seperate human.

i believe it is still a felony to even touch bald eagle eggs, yet the state will help you kill your own offspring.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i'm pro-choice, you can do whatever you want to your body. need i remind you that by DAY 21 of a pregnancy (before you miss your period and begin to suspect pregnancy!) the baby has a heartbeat and a closed circulatory system with a blood type that is different than the mother's? it is a seperate human.

i believe it is still a felony to even touch bald eagle eggs, yet the state will help you kill your own offspring.



That would be because the human race isn't an endangered species, there's another 6.5 billion of us out there. How many bald eagles are left in the world?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by nik1halo

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i'm pro-choice, you can do whatever you want to your body. need i remind you that by DAY 21 of a pregnancy (before you miss your period and begin to suspect pregnancy!) the baby has a heartbeat and a closed circulatory system with a blood type that is different than the mother's? it is a seperate human.

i believe it is still a felony to even touch bald eagle eggs, yet the state will help you kill your own offspring.



That would be because the human race isn't an endangered species, there's another 6.5 billion of us out there. How many bald eagles are left in the world?



Maybe, but there are over 6.5 billion other BIRDS in the world. So if there are 5 pygmies left in the US maybe THEN they won't be allowed to have an abortion? Freaking ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi

Originally posted by nik1halo

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i'm pro-choice, you can do whatever you want to your body. need i remind you that by DAY 21 of a pregnancy (before you miss your period and begin to suspect pregnancy!) the baby has a heartbeat and a closed circulatory system with a blood type that is different than the mother's? it is a seperate human.

i believe it is still a felony to even touch bald eagle eggs, yet the state will help you kill your own offspring.



That would be because the human race isn't an endangered species, there's another 6.5 billion of us out there. How many bald eagles are left in the world?



Maybe, but there are over 6.5 billion other BIRDS in the world. So if there are 5 pygmies left in the US maybe THEN they won't be allowed to have an abortion? Freaking ridiculous.


Hmm, I can see your point, but don't forget the PC brigade won't let us distinguish between races. We're all one species... officially


I was just pointing out that the comparrison was a little silly really.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by nik1halo
 
The PC brigade is ALL about distinguishing between the races!

If we were a truly colorblind society, we wouldn't hear a squeak about race, because it would truly mean nothing!



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by nik1halo
 
The PC brigade is ALL about distinguishing between the races!

If we were a truly colorblind society, we wouldn't hear a squeak about race, because it would truly mean nothing!



Truer words were never said my friend, I was being slightly sarcastic.

If they just left us alone to get on with it, I recon there would be far less racial tension in multicultural societies.

Either way, we are getting off topic a little here.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Proudconservative
Gay marriage yes? Then bye bye abortion!

This thread title was confusing. I was trying to figure out why gays would need to worry about abortion? That part of the law probably doesn't bother them.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Proudconservative
Well first we have to Look at the INTENTION of the ruling that it was unconstitutional. The federal judge ruled DOMA unconstitutional because it violated the 10th ammendment(IE.states rights)where the states decide what the definition of marriage is.

Judge taro made this decision based on the clause in the 10th ammendment.

"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Marriage is no where stated in the constitution. Meaning if you believe in gay marriage this is a great victory for you.

But guess what else is not mentioned in the clause? ABORTION. Thats right. If the they dont repeal this judgement by judge taro......its opening a whole can of worms.


I'm no constitutional scholar, and maybe one will be along to clarify these things. But (as I understand it) the Roe v Wade decision was based on the assertion that there is a constitutional right to privacy which covers abortion, and which is protected from state interference by the 14th amendment.

I don't think your argument holds water.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
the Roe v Wade decision was based on the assertion that there is a constitutional right to privacy

You are correct. Many have pointed to this as the Constitutional reason that government can't force you to carry health insurance. The Supreme Court has already ruled (Roe v Wade) that the government can not force you to make personal health decisions.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
TPTB are trying to define all of us by race. There are about 10 different answers now for race when you fill out the census, work applications etc. On my census form I said Human Race! They are trying to divide and conquer America.

This is my stand on abortion:

Does this make sense? A minor in a public school cannot receive an aspirin without parental consent. A minor cannot get her ears pierced without parental consent. Yet these people (such as Planned Parenthood) can perform an invasive surgical procedure on a minor girl without parental consent!!!! Planned Parenthood receives millions of dollars from the government and how are they allowed to proclaim themselves a .org ( non profit designation)??? Look it up for yourself. Planned Parenthood makes millions of dollars in profit by giving the death sentence to an innocent child. Death because of her place of residence - her mother's womb.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
You guys misunderstand. im saying if you support this decision by the federal judge saying DOMA is unconstitutional BECAUSE it interfers with states rights then abortion should be allowed to be banned.

Im pointing out that the the ones who support Gay marriage the most is feminist and women. But under this ruling is it not possible that abortion could be banned as well? i mean think about it.

all rights not delegated by the constitution goes to the state and the people. Yet as far as i know states cant ban abortion. why is this? states can decide on gay marriage(IE the federal judge saying DOMA is unconstitutional) and yet states cant decide on abortion?

it makes no sense. Im saying those of you whoe SUPPORT this recent ruling by fedeal judge taros must remain consistant.

If you support the states rights to decide for gay marriage then you MUST support the states rights to decide on abortion.

YOU CANT PICK AND CHOOSE. states rights are states rights.

No where in the constitution is abortion even mentioned. So the powers to decide on abortion should be delegated to the states and the people. The feds should not be telling the states what they can and cant ban IF its not mentioned in the constitution.

You are either FOR this ruling 100% of the way...or you are NOT. There is no middle ground on states rights.

This is why it will be overturned. Because the FED dont want the states having to much power. It opens a whole can of worms.





[edit on 14-7-2010 by Proudconservative]

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Proudconservative]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by americandingbat
the Roe v Wade decision was based on the assertion that there is a constitutional right to privacy

You are correct. Many have pointed to this as the Constitutional reason that government can't force you to carry health insurance. The Supreme Court has already ruled (Roe v Wade) that the government can not force you to make personal health decisions.


Abortion is not a health decision unless the mothers life is in danger. Thats why insurance does not cover abortion(at least i dont think it does) its a elective precedure.

The government has also stated that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Furthermore is a fetus not human? is the fetus not alive with a heartbeat? i dont give two craps about conciousness. why? because would you not be charged with murder if you went in and unplugged a person in a coma who cant breath or function by themself?



[edit on 14-7-2010 by Proudconservative]

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Proudconservative]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Proudconservative
all rights not delegated by the constitution goes to the state and the people. Yet as far as i know states cant ban abortion. why is this? states can decide on gay marriage(IE the federal judge saying DOMA is unconstitutional) and yet states cant decide on abortion?


But as I pointed out previously, the Roe v Wade decision considered that the right to privacy (which is protected by the Constitution) covers the right to make personal medical decisions like having an abortion, and therefore cannot be taken away by laws at the state level.

You'd have to show that abortion is not covered in the right to privacy before you could argue that states should be allowed to legislate it away.

That might be possible, but what I'm not seeing is how this Supreme Court decision has anything to do with it. The gay marriage question is not a right to privacy question.

edit to add since you posted again while I was replying: of course abortion is a healthcare decision. I'm not sure where you're going with that argument, are you seriously arguing that elective procedures don't count as healthcare?

edit again since the second post was edited and added to while I was replying again:

I'm not really interested in debating pro-choice or the question of when life begins on this thread, I was just addressing what I saw as a lack of logic in your legal reasoning.

[edit on 7/14/2010 by americandingbat]

[edit on 7/14/2010 by americandingbat]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by Proudconservative
all rights not delegated by the constitution goes to the state and the people. Yet as far as i know states cant ban abortion. why is this? states can decide on gay marriage(IE the federal judge saying DOMA is unconstitutional) and yet states cant decide on abortion?


But as I pointed out previously, the Roe v Wade decision considered that the right to privacy (which is protected by the Constitution) covers the right to make personal medical decisions like having an abortion, and therefore cannot be taken away by laws at the state level.

You'd have to show that abortion is not covered in the right to privacy before you could argue that states should be allowed to legislate it away.

That might be possible, but what I'm not seeing is how this Supreme Court decision has anything to do with it. The gay marriage question is not a right to privacy question.


Does a fetus not have a heartbeat by day 21? does it not have its own closed blood system that differs from the mother? does it not have its own DNA and blue prints for what its face will look like at conception? its its own person according to its genes.

Heartbeat? check!

Different blood system? check!

Different DNA?CHECK!

Know what that sounds like to me? MURDER.

As far as i know murder is unconstitutional as well


You dont have the privacy to murder. Thats one argument to make.

Your rights end as soon as they infringe on some elses right? science supports everything i just said....with a little commen sense thrown in.

But im saying if we used a argument that abortion is not private COULD states decide?

Furthermore like i said the GOV has also said that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.




[edit on 14-7-2010 by Proudconservative]

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Proudconservative]

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Proudconservative]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join