re: Ireland just voted in resounding numbers of allow abortions

Is there any proposed legislation, anywhere, to rescind Obgerfell via Constitutional Amendment?

quote:

---

I would further cite to examples like Republican politicians in multiple states, including Louisiana, once again killing legislation to repeal sodomy laws on the books.

---

Repealing unconstitutional and unenforceable legislation is the ultimate waste of time, but I concede your point.

quote:

---

Is there any proposed legislation, anywhere, to rescind Obgerfell via Constitutional Amendment?

---

Not that I'm aware of, but considering polling data on the subject, I imagine anyone who would be inclined knows it's DOA.

quote:

---

Repealing unconstitutional and unenforceable legislation is the ultimate waste of time, but I concede your point.

---

In light of your concession, I won't argue with your statement, but I'll point out that I'm not simply hanging a lantern on the fact that these statutes still exist; I'm noting that bills are being filed and Republicans are actively voting against them. Hell, there was animosity towards a proposed bestiality law this year because some Republicans believed it would weaken our (already unconstitutional) sodomy law.

quote:

---

Again. What? What “rights” are the right wing trying to take from gays? No one gives a frick if you’re gay. The more gay guys there are, the more girls there are fo

---

uh....

What about Roy Moore saying "Homosexual conduct should be illegal". and calling for a constitutional convention to eliminate gay marriage. Or him saying that "Just because it's done behind closed doors, it can still be prohibited by state law.".

Santorum ran for fricking president and said "the right to privacy doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution", and "sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts which undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family."

So yeah.. sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong.

Funny how men demand to take away women’s rights still. The fifties are over. Once again, fetuses.

You can’t force your religion on others and take awsy women’s rights/

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the animosity was because it was a sloppy bill proffered in lieu of an outright repeal of the sodomy statute. There would still be a guilty party; I just thought it was the proffers instead of the opponents.

---

I initially thought that as well. I was apparently whoa the frick wrong:

quote:

---

In Louisiana, a proposal to strengthen the law against bestiality is facing unexpected opposition from conservative lawmakers who see it as an underhanded move to strike the state's unconstitutional ban on sodomy.

Creating a new, wide-ranging anti-bestiality law would untangle the offense from the ban on sodomy in Louisiana's "crime against nature " statute, prompting some lawmakers to label the measure a sly chess move.

"This bill was written because the far left wants to undermine our other laws that protect family and traditional values that the people of Louisiana hold dear," said Sen. Ryan Gatti, a Republican who was one of 10 senators to vote against the bill.

"That was our concern, that it most likely will be used as a Trojan horse to delete the sodomy law," he said.

---

LINK

quote:

---

mikethesixth

---

No way this isn't an alter troll account

No one could possibly be this stupid

quote:

---

Yet at the same time you guys (in the Republican party) want to ban all abortions, contraception methods and even birth control pills. You want to dial back on civil rights (minorities do not vote Republican), LGBT rights (neither do they). Think climate change is a hoax (cough...cough..oil companies) and think all education is "left wing indoctrination" (biggest head scratcher here).

---

That’s such a stereotype. I never voted democrat in my life and I don’t want or do any of those things. Most people I know don’t either. We just reject socialism and loss of constitutional rights.

quote:

---

Funny how men demand to take away women’s rights still. The fifties are over. Once again, fetuses.

You can’t force your religion on others and take awsy women’s rights/

---

This is embarrassing, man. You sound truly unhinged, which I get is a typical result of festering cognitive dissonance, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor.

Let's review your conclusions:

quote:

---

Funny how men demand to take away women’s rights still

---

This begs the questions being asked, including: (1) do women actually have a right to have someone kill a being (call it what you'd like) that is alive (if it isn't "alive," then you look at a high resolution ultrasound video of a fetus at even 12 weeks and tell me what it is) in her womb? (2) if you claim she does, then does said being have a competing right to remain alive (or whatever you call it when you have brain function, a beating heart, the ability to hear etc)? and (3) from what do you derive this right to kill? Roe? If so, I'd like to see your full analysis of the so-called Constitutional right to privacy and how it applies to the individual states.

That's just a sort of rough sketch of the beginnings of an analysis of your first fallacious statement.

ETA: If I were a woman, I would find your statement about "men" offensive--there are many many pro-life women out there, and prominent ones. Even ones high up in the Democrat party who are too cowardly to come out of the closet.

quote:

---

The fifties are over.

---

Roe was handed down in 1973, so this statement seems odd and out of place. I know you aren't actually attempting to have a point and make it clear, so I'll end there .

quote:

---

Once again, fetuses.

---

another question-begging use of terminology in an attempt to avoid the actual issues. What is a "fetus"? If you define "fetus" as something that doesn't have a right to live, then sure, "once again, fetus." But that's clearly circular "reasoning." What is it about a "fetus" that makes its rights either non-existent or at least inferior to your claimed right of its mother to end its life (again, I'm using life to describe the functions above--if you have a better term for the actions of a genetically distinct developing human being, such as yawning, hearing, thinking, and blood pumping, then feel free to use that term here)?

quote:

---

You can’t force your religion on others and take away women’s rights/

---

I'm not sure this is even clever enough to qualify as a straw man, but it's definitely a red herring. In one sense, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion. There are of course many ontological questions raised, but you can be an atheist, a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. and have a sound basis for believing that a "fetus" has rights superior to those of its mother's right to kill it.

If the thing isn't just another body part (as it has its own unique genetics, it's own brain, it's own heart, it's own fingers, retinae, etc), then we must look beyond the "what a woman can do with her own body" mantra.

And yet in another sense, it is about "religion," if you define religion as a set of principles that guide one's life. In that sense, you are merely attempting to force your own "religion" on others with this post.

quote:

---

The fifties are over.

---

The 50s were literally Hitler