So, you DO NOT believe that the states have the authority to keep abortion legal?
Would you support a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe in which the Court declares the unborn to be persons who are entitled to constitutional rights?
Amazing to me that someone directly arguing that the decisions that struck down anti-contraception laws is somehow in no way shape or form an endorsement that the law should be changed
Nevertheless, no such argument has been made.
yet I point out the reality that if Roe were struck down the decision would be up to the States - and suddenly I am endorsing a that States continue to allow abortion!
All I was doing was pointing out your conflicting statements.
Cognitive dissonance much?
Are you directing this question at yourself or are you making it personal?
I support a Constitutional amendment for the right to life.
The argument was made that the decisions striking down laws against contraception were wrong WAS made - and yet it was somehow a bridge to far for me to conclude that this was also an argument that the law should be changed.
Yet nobody wanted to say that it was logically consistent to argue that the law was wrong, yet should remain unchanged. The preservation of incorrect law stance isn't one anyone was willing to claim.
And yet I point out the REALITY that if Roe were overturned it would be up to the States, and suddenly you want to make me out to be Pro-Choice and supporting States keeping abortion legal?
But again, good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in their bedroom is “evil”, and that the government has a compelling interest in regulation of such and that such regulation would not be in violation of their natural rights, and is consistent with advocation of a small government of limited and enumerated powers!
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.