BergenGuy Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 59 minutes ago, hntnhole said: Even allowing existing marriages to continue until one of the partners passes, therefore ending the marriage*, and at the same time making new ones illegal - two entirely different answers to an absurdly perverse issue - is completely nuts .... right ??? Not so absurd. That was the situation in California for a while. 1 hour ago, hntnhole said: Since the right for two men to be legally married was established years ago, and thousands upon thousands of men have legally married, exactly what could Clancy take away? Well, besides taking away the right for people of the same sex to get married in the future, the court could also take away the right to have one's marriage in a given state be recognized in another. You seem focused on what happens to existing couples. I'm concerned about people who want to get married in the future, too. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffunguy5 Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 On 6/28/2022 at 5:30 PM, Close2MyBro said: Placing the right to decide the abortion matters back in the hands of the individual states is an incorrect decision? It would seem to me that allowing each individual state and its residents to decide the laws governing their state should be a right that all states and their citizens should want. When you speak of "[p]lacing the right to decide the abortion matters back in the hands of the individual states" do you realize whose hands it was taken from? It was removed from the hands of individual citizens for her to decide. People seem to be ignoring that fact and instead like to pretend that it was taken from the Federal Government. But Roe was decided based on an individual citizen's right to privacy. It does not belong in the hands of the separate states. Why on Earth should a woman's neighbors get a say on what medical procedures she chooses to undergo? The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution (the Reserve Powers Clause) does not just give the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States... to the States respectively." Besides the Federal and state governments there's a third group who also holds power. The last four words of the Tenth are "or to the people." The states restricting abortion is nothing but a power grab by state governments taking power from individual citizens. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 14 hours ago, TotalTop said: Many women do use abortion as or instead of the many various types and combinations of birth control, they have a need to be a cum dump or bred and then are shocked when they become pregnant. I personally know women who have had ten or eleven abortions, they had access to condoms and other contraceptives but made the personal choice not to use any. If abortion is legal it should only be done in the very first trimester, as anything else is infanticide, and akin to how in Asian countries women use abortion as birth control or kill the infant after he or she is born. This also happens in abortion clinics in the USA. Abortion is not safe, the fetus/almost developed baby dies, and many women who had supposedly "safe and legal" abortions have died. I am only for abortion in the cases of rape/incest, or in the super rare condition that the mother's life is in danger and a c section cannot be performed. I'm more than a little sceptical about your contribution. Your statement that "This also happens in abortion clinics in the USA" about women using abortion as birth control or 'infants' being killed after birth is not supported by proof. * If you do have proof, why haven't you called the police but chose to be an accomplice to murder by not doing so? One the one one hand you claim to be against abortions after the first trimester, but you also know several women personally, each of whom had 10 or 11 abortions? * If this is true, I'm wondering how your conversations went with these women you are so intimate with, they told you about their sex-lives and abortions. Are you still friends, and if so: why would you want to be? Your statements about legal abortions not being safe is not supported by any proof you give us, and has earlier in this thread be rebuffed by people who did give facts and numbers. So you leave me no other choice but to conclude you are trolling, for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 5 hours ago, ffunguy5 said: The states restricting abortion is nothing but a power grab by state governments taking power from individual citizens. This ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEDenver Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 14 hours ago, hntnhole said: Getting back to the original post: Since the right for two men to be legally married was established years ago, and thousands upon thousands of men have legally married, exactly what could Clancy take away? These extant marriages were entered into as fully legal marriages (at the time, and to this day). Isn't it legally impossible for the SCOTUS to declare these legally-performed marriages illegal? If worse comes to worse, maybe they could make it illegal for any new gay marriages to take place after X date, but can they touch the extant ones? So what if they were based on privacy rights recognized years ago: they're still legal marriages. Right? The difference between marriages and pregnancies (I mean, for the purposes of this thought-exercise) is that pregnancies end after 9 months at most, and marriages can last life-times. Even allowing existing marriages to continue until one of the partners passes, therefore ending the marriage*, and at the same time making new ones illegal - two entirely different answers to an absurdly perverse issue - is completely nuts .... right ??? Any legal-eagles (and also rawfuckers) here on BZ ? on the other hand, we could claim that although our partner-in-marriage has passed, the union still endures in heaven !!! There's nothing they could say to counter that !!! Think of the chaos that they could cause? The harm and liberal tears? Since that's literally the only thing remaining to the GOP platform, why wouldn't they? It's been 7 years. Roe v Wade was 50 and they obliterated that with an ideological whim. My understanding is that they can't really nullify the marriage, but they can revoke all of the rights and privileges that come along with it. I got married in 2014 in Maryland. Then I came home to Colorado and had to have a separate Civil Union because Colorado didn't recognize the marriage from Maryland. Imagine going on a road trip from Denver to Seattle and being married in Colorado, legal strangers in Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho, and married again when you get into Oregon and Washington. What happens if you get in an accident in one of the intervening states and the hospital righteously denies you hospital visitation or even any information on the status of your husband-in-other-states-but-not-shitty-Republican-states? What happens if they instead call his family for permission for medical procedures because you're not related to him and can't make decisions. They're Republicans. The cruelty is the point. (And Log Cabin Republicans are chumps.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEDenver Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 3 hours ago, BareLover666 said: So you leave me no other choice but to conclude you are trolling, for whatever reason. I don't think he's trolling. I think he's just a Republican. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hntnhole Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 14 hours ago, BergenGuy said: You seem focused on what happens to existing couples. I'm concerned about people who want to get married in the future, too My apologies for being unclear. I am equally, if not more so, focused on guys that want (or will want) to get married at some point in the future. I'm hardly qualified to offer legal opinions - just asking questions, hoping other guys have a lot more to offer than questions. I didn't know , for instance, that recognition could be limited to a single State. But, now I do. Thanks for your reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 17 hours ago, NEDenver said: Abortion is far more safe than pregnancy, especially for poor women. Also, a bunch of fetal abnormalities are not seen until after the first trimester. In those cases bearing and giving birth is harder on the pregnant person and at best leaves an infant to struggle in pain until it inevitably dies. I’m not pro-unnecessary pain and suffering. It should be left to the pregnant person to decide with medical advice from their physician. No abortion is not more safe than pregnancy or giving birth. This is a myth put out by abortion mills and by planned parenthood which was started by the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger who hated blacks, anyone poor, and non-European. Ever wonder why many abortion clinics are in black and run down sections of a city, well now you know. 98% of abortions are done because the woman used her body and made her choice to have unsafe sex and be a cum dump, and not for rape/incest or the woman's life being in danger. Those tests for fetal abnormalities are notoriously inaccurate. A friend's wife tested that their second child would have them, they did not have an abortion and their second son was born perfectly healthy and normal and turned 5. If a woman does not want to become pregnant there are many different types of effective birth control she can use with a man and if the man and woman do not want pregnancy or HIV seroconversion to happen they should be using condoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BergenGuy Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 (edited) 14 minutes ago, TotalTop said: No abortion is not more safe than pregnancy or giving birth. Do you have reputable statistics to support that claim? Because, I have statistics that prove just the opposite. The CDC estimates that the death rate from abortions between 2013 and 2018 was 0.41 per 100,000 abortions. Compare this to the risk from pregnancy, where the maternal death rate was 23.8 per 1000,000 live births in 2020. It is far riskier to be pregnant than to obtain an abortion. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.colorado.edu/today/2021/09/08/study-banning-abortion-would-boost-maternal-mortality-double-digits But, basically, it doesn't matter what you or I think. We're not the ones who are pregnant. The decision to have an abortion should be between the woman and her doctor. Period. Edited July 30, 2022 by BergenGuy 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffunguy5 Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 40 minutes ago, TotalTop said: No abortion is not more safe than pregnancy or giving birth. This is a myth put out by abortion mills and by planned parenthood... Between this demonstrably false statement and your claim that you "personally know women who have had ten or eleven abortions" when you're clearly not someone a woman (much less "women") would confide in I have to conclude that you live under a bridge. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hntnhole Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 3 hours ago, ffunguy5 said: you live under a bridge Not any more, perhaps. Maybe it was one of the many that were washed away yesterday, with that terrible flooding in KY. Or, maybe one a bit further east, which area the storms are heading for in the next couple of days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hntnhole Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 6 hours ago, NEDenver said: What happens if you get in an accident It didn't occur to me that could possibly happen. But then, lots of things don't occur to me, I guess. This is why I asked the question - I get to learn new things (however disappointing they are) from other guys that know more than I do about all of this. 6 hours ago, NEDenver said: (And Log Cabin Republicans are chumps.) Really, NEDenver .... you're being overly polite. Chumphood is something those guys aspire to .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEDenver Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 22 minutes ago, hntnhole said: It didn't occur to me that could possibly happen. But then, lots of things don't occur to me, I guess. This is why I asked the question - I get to learn new things (however disappointing they are) from other guys that know more than I do about all of this. It was reality before 2015, which is really only 7 years ago. One partner would die, even with a will, the family would contest and win, and kick the grieving partner out of their home. Gay parents who had kids in previous marriages were denied custody or even visitation. Republicans are aggrieved because they can't keep doing all that. Just having to not punish people they consider less than them is enough cause. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hntnhole Posted July 30, 2022 Report Share Posted July 30, 2022 (edited) Not always. My life-partner and I made all the end-of-life decisions decades ago, had counsel draft all the legal documents many years before he became ill. And yes, his family did contest the decisions. And no, they did not prevail, since the documents had been created by our counsel in as iron-clad a fashion as possible, and many years before they were needed. I happen to have some dreaded cousins, who I absolutely know will try to cash in when I kick it. In my final arrangements.* I left each of them exactly $1.00 which demonstrates that 25 years ago, being of sound mind, body, blah blah blah, proves they were in my consciousness, my "thoughts & prayers" as well as my anticipations of their grasping greed in the future, and thus reflects my enduring love and disaffection when I'm outta here and cannot do that in-the-flesh. btw - that chess-move was suggested by counsel; I didn't come up with it. *and yes, they are turned out to be not only republikans, they're fukkin clerics !!! Edited July 30, 2022 by hntnhole 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BootmanLA Posted July 31, 2022 Report Share Posted July 31, 2022 8 hours ago, NEDenver said: I don't think he's trolling. I think he's just a Republican. Potato, Potahto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now