Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Honestly, it's concerning. I thought Roe v Wade was settled law. Don't want to see the amazing advances for gay rights during my lifetime unwound.[/quote] The Supreme Court does not make laws. They interpret them. That was exactly the issue with this case - there’s nothing in the constitution to say that you should always have the right to kill a baby growing inside you no matter what age it is. If you want laws, that needs to be done through congress. And that would involve agreeing on term limits etc, which democrats have generally refused to even discuss. If we could discuss limits then I think there would be more than enough votes to support it. Most republicans support first term abortion. Gay marriage or interracial marriage is different because it doesn’t involve a third party. Something like gay adoption might be different since that does involve a third party.[/quote] There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that corporations are citizens and should have unfettered free speech rights. Corporations barely existed as a concept at the time of the founding. And yet the right wing found that “right”. There’s nothing that says an individual may own a million guns outside the context of a regulated militia, and yet the court found that right. There’s no language about homeschooling at all, yet the court found that right too. In fact, the entire concept of judicial review was invented out of whole cloth by Marshall. So what now?[/quote] Also, the constitution bans involuntary servitude, which forced birth is. [/quote] Only for the duration of the pregnancy to preserve the life of the baby. Then you can give it up for adoption to a good home like Amy Coney Barrett’s. [/quote] So what I hear you saying is involuntary servitude of limited duration is ok. What about limited duration torture, which L&D is?[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics