- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 122,485
- Reaction score
- 19,848
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You would like a source that this has not yet been heard or that the state always has an interest in protecting civil rights? Really?
Sources for this please?
We already know that the state has an interest in protecting the child and the taxpayers....not the party that knowingly risks creating the kid.
No... the words "strict scrutiny" are not an explanation.
You would like a source that this has not yet been heard or that the state always has an interest in protecting civil rights? Really?
You really do not know the three measures of strict scrutiny? Really?
So then you made up it's relevance to this topic.
Noted. And dismissed.
Thanks.
Nope...is there some reason you cant post them?
Otherwise, I'll just speculate you're making them up....and dismiss it.
Let me make sure I understand. You would like me to educate you on what strict scrutiny is?
I asked a question. I am waiting for an answer
Not at all.
You only need to do so if you'd like to attempt to use it to support your arguments on the topic.
Currently, you have nothing.
I posted an answer.
If you would like to use it to support your arguments, go ahead.
If not, I'll just go with you cant do so and you failed again.
*cues Jeopardy theme*
*kicks back and relaxes...perhaps someone with an actual argument will continue to discuss...perhaps not. Otherwise, Opt out fails again.*
Poor poor men...deprived of their civil rights...oh wait! No proof of that at all! :lamo
*yawn*
No reason is required to be given when getting an abortion. To say that finances are not a big part of it is just silly. A woman is making a financial decision every time. A man should also get to make that decision post conception
Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.You don't even try.
Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.You don't even try.
Yes it is a civil rights issueI know, lol....just spamming the same thing over and over...and no ability to prove it at all. Just resorts to square one again :lamo
We were right all along...civil rights issue :roll::lamo
Then you dont know, again, the defintion of the word manipulation, which is hysterical since you posted it for me.
That's the point and I even just wrote it out so that you wouldnt do this ^^ again. :roll:
You have no legal means to stop them, so you want to influence...manipulate...their decision in your favor. You cant stop them but you can hope to convince them. VG has written it clearly many times...he wants to 'incentivize' women to decide not to have the kids.
So you are embarrassing yourself here. This is you implying you want to manipulate women to abort:
Your hope is that if she knows she cant control the man, get his money, trap him in a relationship...whatever dysfunction you're imagining...she'll not have the kid.
That is not compelling interest under the strict scrutiny doctrine.
By your theory the government could mandate people on Medicaid could not smoke or be obese because they represent a burden to the tax payer in increased medical costs.
I'll just speculate .
Please explain it to me...
Oh? Please explain that...
What's your point?
Do you expect your opponent to understand that?
Men deserve a opt out post conception. Not having this is a violation of their civil rights based on the 14th amendment.
We will wait to see this argued before SCOTUS.
Until then...apparently you are still wrong.
Well actually I am not. I have made a very good constitutional case. But SCOTUS makes the call.
So until it is decided by scotus...you are wrong.:2wave:
Good to see this settled.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?