No, it's not.'Cause it's slavery, dingus.
Do you have any earthly idea just how powerful Power of Attorney is? Married couples do not actually have that over each other.
Mate, you said the Obergfell decision was rock solid. What other reason for the decision being rock solid still barely making a simple majority would you believe exists?
You are describing reality as it stands. I *already know* the other side doesn't want compromise, THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE
That is irrelevant to the idea that you should force a pregnant person to stay pregnant. You've forgotten your original argument
Then you should fucking figure it out, because fuck if I'm gonna compromise with an undefined number
I already fucking have. The *entire crux* of my argument is that we do not force somebody to be medical equipment against their will, even if that means people die. The age of the person in questions is not relevant. If you're gonna tell me a pregnant person should be forced to risk pregnancy to keep somebody else alive, then you need to tell me why we shouldn't be forcing blood donations or liver transplants
Or you just leave the fucking law out of it. That way you don't need a buffer
INDIANA IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE PUTTING IN NEW LAWS, YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKWIT.
So, what's your opinion on Indiana's new law, now that we have you here? Okay with making child rape victims carry to term if they don't get it done at a hospital in a couple months? Zero chance at a pregnancy if a condom breaks, no matter how soon you find out, unless the pregnancy is just about to permanently cripple you?
And that period should be...?
What, so is personhood just irrelevant for the pregnant person then?
Who the fuck cares? Nobody gives a shit about how polite you pretend to be when you aren't actually saying anything or taking any actual stance.
There's usually no reason not to give your spouse POA. And there's more than just a single POA, you can do just a medical POA if you want. Again, can a hospital not recognized a POA? Yes or no.
The judges added in the economic disadvantages into the decision that the plaintiffs didn't. And calling 5 of the justices religious zealots is pretty ridiculous.
Because of polarization.
No, I didn't. The mother is still using her body to support the child after birth. Just because the child is no longer literally attached changes something?
It is a defined number by someone that knows more than me on what a realistic period would be for said choice to be made.
There's a difference between actively killing someone and not saving them.
There's a reason there's abortion laws all over the world because it's a subject people are passionate about. There's just as much nuance that you can argue for abortion as there is against abortion. And the public opinion on abortion morality greatly alters the longer into the pregnancy it is.
I know Indiana isn't the only place. I don't feel like looking up every state's law and you also literally linked to an article about the Indiana law. What state law actually only allows abortion in a case where it would kill the mother and only that, which is what you claimed?
Again with the surface level arguments that anyone can just play the Uno Reverse card on. So personhood is irrelevant to the baby?
It's not "pretend" dude, it's how I treat anyone unless they don't give me the same respect and politeness. What are you gonna get out of an interaction where you exaggerate their stance and call them a name except for a 'mic drop moment" that has no chance of going anywhere after that? I've made my stance very clear many times already, I'm just not gonna say the other side are idiots and fuckers and act like the only reason for the issue is that they are aforementioned idiots and fuckers.
Funny how a liberal sees themself in a completely different light than a conservative doing literally the exact thing. This is exactly what I've been saying the whole time.
Laws that are very specific, sure, but many other laws are not or have several situations the crop up that aren't clear cut. We still have freedom of speech being argued in court for various situations and that one's pretty simple. A law that's intended to be vague so that everyone is equal will need to be argued for every new situation to make sure it applies....Laws aren't supposed to require someone to argue it in court. The 14th Amendment was not considered to cover same sex marriage when it was written, or for 147 years afterwards. And you're telling me that it's unambiguous.
!?! They literally wrote extensive dissenting opinions.
I condone the protests too. But condonement isn't organisation or direct responsibility.
The Republican Party tacitly condones racists like the Proud Boys. Can I hold them directly responsible for the shit they do?
"Why does the state need to waste money paying people to do things we can force people to do for free?"
Coerced, unpaid labour is slavery.
Did their dissenting opinion touch on the economic inequality argument that probably wasn't even part of the actual case?
Why can't you hold the DNC directly responsible for the shit they do?
So you're for destroying property but against making prisoners clean their rooms, make their food, and all the stuff everyone else has to do for "free"?