# Why the whining about men voting to overturn Roe v. Wade?



## Dayton3 (May 7, 2022)

If the rumors about the voting lineup in the Supreme Court is to be believed a 5-4 majority is set to overturn Roe V. Wade.

Apparently this voting bloc consists of Barrett and three white male justices and Clarence Thomas.   I've heard lots of complaints about a "group of men" voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.

But.

It was a group of men (7) who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade in the first place.   So aren't complaints about the group intending to vote against Roe today a bit hypocritical?


----------



## Thinker101 (May 7, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> If the rumors about the voting lineup in the Supreme Court is to be believed a 5-4 majority is set to overturn Roe V. Wade.
> 
> Apparently this voting bloc consists of Barrett and three white male justices and Clarence Thomas.   I've heard lots of complaints about a "group of men" voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
> 
> ...


But Libs thrive on their hypocrisy.


----------



## Mr Natural (May 7, 2022)

We guys should just butt out of the abortion issue. It’s none of our business.


----------



## Anomalism (May 7, 2022)

The reality of the matter is that men can and do influence these things. Telling men to butt out just isn't productive.


----------



## DukeU (May 7, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> We guys should just butt out of the abortion issue. It’s none of our business.



Saving innocent lives is everyone's business.


----------



## elektra (May 7, 2022)

Abortion is good for men. Men don't always need the burden of being a father. It is nice to be able to convince a young woman to abort and not bother the man


----------



## ColonelAngus (May 7, 2022)

Its a legal issue and a state issue ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION.

The cult wants to violate the Constitution over emotion.

They just always want their way or they tantrum out like fucking babies.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (May 7, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> We guys should just butt out of the abortion issue. It’s none of our business.


That's because males are never aborted, right?


----------



## eagle1462010 (May 7, 2022)

::Issues4Life Foundation | Judgment At Nuremberg
					

The Issues4Life Foundation is dedicated to addressing the issues surrounding the inviolability or sanctity of human life in the African-American community.




					www.issues4life.org
				




On Monday, January 22nd, 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 and simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton regarding the issue of abortion. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy "somewhere" under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two (2) legitimate interests in regulating abortions and protecting women's health and ultimately the protection the potentiality of human life. Importantly, the United States Supreme Court never declared abortion itself to be a constitutional right. Rather, the Supreme Court said: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins … the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Then, in the very text of the Roe v. Wade decision, the High Court made a key admission:

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."1

In my opinion, the United States Supreme Court needed to "resolve the difficult question of when life begins … " before rendering judgment on the death of the only product of a human male and a human female, that is a human being. Below are clips from the 1961 movie Judgment at Nuremburg. In light of the fact that not one (1) of the seven (7) Supreme Court justices that made up the majority for 1973 Roe v. Wade decision are alive today, you can be the judge. Top


----------



## Darkwind (May 7, 2022)

If you want abortion to be a Federal law or a Right as set forth by the US Consitution, then you simply need to pass an Amendment to the US Constitiution.

It then becomes a moot point until and unless there are enough votes and will to create an Amendment rescinding the Abortion Amendment.


----------



## konradv (May 7, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> If you want abortion to be a Federal law or a Right as set forth by the US Consitution, then you simply need to pass an Amendment to the US Constitiution.
> 
> It then becomes a moot point until and unless there are enough votes and will to create an Amendment rescinding the Abortion Amendment.





ColonelAngus said:


> Its a legal issue and a state issue ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION.
> 
> The cult wants to violate the Constitution over emotion.
> 
> They just always want their way or they tantrum out like fucking babies.


If men had babies, abortion would be in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Darkwind (May 7, 2022)

konradv said:


> If men had babies, abortion would be in the Bill of Rights.


No, it would not.

However, it can be.  Just elect people who think that killing should be codified in the Constitution.

A simple concept that can be grasped even by the left.


----------



## dudmuck (May 7, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> ::Issues4Life Foundation | Judgment At Nuremberg
> 
> 
> The Issues4Life Foundation is dedicated to addressing the issues surrounding the inviolability or sanctity of human life in the African-American community.
> ...


----------



## Mr Natural (May 7, 2022)

konradv said:


> If men had babies, abortion would be in the Bill of Rights.


It would be as easy as getting a haircut.


----------



## Unkotare (May 7, 2022)

konradv said:


> If men had babies, abortion would be in the Bill of Rights.


Don't be ridiculous. If men had the babies, humans would have gone extinct millennia ago.


----------



## Dayton3 (May 7, 2022)

dudmuck said:


>



If it would get you people to shut up I would be for all of those.


----------



## eagle1462010 (May 7, 2022)

dudmuck said:


>


lol

Trolling when you have no answers.

How many laws in New York will be thrown out if Roe Versus Wade is overturned?


----------



## Slade3200 (May 7, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> If the rumors about the voting lineup in the Supreme Court is to be believed a 5-4 majority is set to overturn Roe V. Wade.
> 
> Apparently this voting bloc consists of Barrett and three white male justices and Clarence Thomas.   I've heard lots of complaints about a "group of men" voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
> 
> ...


The primary focus of RvW supporters is “Womens Rights” so it’s not a mystery why complaints about men making decisions/votes are part of their talking points


----------



## Paleman (May 7, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> The reality of the matter is that men can and do influence these things. Telling men to butt out just isn't productive.


Based on Mr Cleans warped viewpoint, we need not bother to call 911 if we see him being mugged----not our business, not our problem.


Anomalism said:


> The reality of the matter is that men can and do influence these things. Telling men to butt out just isn't productive.


----------



## Hellbilly (May 7, 2022)

dudmuck said:


>


DNA testing to identify the father. *Force* all men to support the child they helped create.


----------



## konradv (May 7, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Don't be ridiculous. If men had the babies, humans would have gone extinct millennia ago.


Can’t take the pain?


----------



## Unkotare (May 7, 2022)

konradv said:


> Can’t take the pain?


Pretty much.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (May 7, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> If the rumors about the voting lineup in the Supreme Court is to be believed a 5-4 majority is set to overturn Roe V. Wade.
> 
> Apparently this voting bloc consists of Barrett and three white male justices and Clarence Thomas.   I've heard lots of complaints about a "group of men" voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.


It's a lazy attack because at the end of the day they can't attack the central argument at hand.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS (May 7, 2022)

konradv said:


> If men had babies, abortion would be in the Bill of Rights.



Feeeeeelllllinnngsssss
Nothing more than feeeeellllinnngggsss


----------



## Stann (Jun 28, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> If the rumors about the voting lineup in the Supreme Court is to be believed a 5-4 majority is set to overturn Roe V. Wade.
> 
> Apparently this voting bloc consists of Barrett and three white male justices and Clarence Thomas.   I've heard lots of complaints about a "group of men" voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
> 
> ...


The three justices appointed by trump ( the biggest liar on the planet) all lied, they said that Roe versus Wade was settled precedent, which is defined as such; " in a legal context, this means that Court should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters. " It's stood all kinds of attacks for almost 50 years, and now all of a sudden it's unconstitutional. I don't think so the only thing that has changed is the court it is now prejudiced and biased against abortion. That is something a court in a free Nation cannot be. I am not asking, I am demanding these three step down. Liars cannot be supreme Court justices, maybe in Russia but not in the United States.


Dayton3 said:


> If the rumors about the voting lineup in the Supreme Court is to be believed a 5-4 majority is set to overturn Roe V. Wade.
> 
> Apparently this voting bloc consists of Barrett and three white male justices and Clarence Thomas.   I've heard lots of complaints about a "group of men" voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dayton3 (Jun 28, 2022)

Big deal.   They changed their minds about precedent.


----------



## Stann (Jun 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> The three justices appointed by trump ( the biggest liar on the planet) all lied, they said that Roe versus Wade was settled precedent, which is defined as such; " in a legal context, this means that Court should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters. " It's stood all kinds of attacks for almost 50 years, and now all of a sudden it's unconstitutional. I don't think so the only thing that has changed is the court it is now prejudiced and biased against abortion. That is something a court in a free Nation cannot be. I am not asking, I am demanding these three step down. Liars cannot be supreme Court justices, maybe in Russia but not in the United States.


And we should reopen the sexual assault case against Brett kavanaugh. It was pushed through by Trump and wasn't thoroughly investigated. The rich little fat boy and his frat buddies most likely use the date rape drug which was very popular among unscrupulous young men in the college crowd at that time. The main victim and another victim described exactly what a person who is given the date rape drug feels. In the case of the main woman, the guys jumped on her too early, the drug hadn't taken full effect and she was aware of what they were trying to do. Her foggy memories of things after that point further point to the use of the date rape drug. I'm certain he would be found guilty if he was just given a lie detector test.


----------



## Stann (Jun 28, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> Big deal.   They changed their minds about precedent.


It's something they're not supposed to do in the first place, if they intended to do it all along that is grounds for dismissal.


----------



## Stann (Jun 28, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> Big deal.   They changed their minds about precedent.


They were under oath at the time. If you lie under oath you commit perjury. No supreme Court Justice can be kept on the bench if they commit perjury.


----------



## Dayton3 (Jun 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> They were under oath at the time. If you lie under oath you commit perjury. No supreme Court Justice can be kept on the bench if they commit perjury.



And that is in the constitution where??


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 28, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> We guys should just butt out of the abortion issue. It’s none of our business.


Murder of innocents is the business of every American citizen.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> They were under oath at the time. If you lie under oath you commit perjury. No supreme Court Justice can be kept on the bench if they commit perjury.


Link to any justice who ever said they would vote for OR against RvW.  Stating that it is "settled law" is not perjury.


----------



## Stann (Jun 28, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> And that is in the constitution where??


Perjury is a class 3 felony. I don't think they allow felons on the supreme Court, at least they shouldn't. If they do, we're in big trouble.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> I am not asking, I am demanding these three step down.


You don't get to demand--go throw your temper tantrum somewhere else.


----------



## Dayton3 (Jun 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> Perjury is a class 3 felony. I don't think they allow felons on the supreme Court, at least they shouldn't. If they do, we're in big trouble.



Actually they do as there is NONE,  that is NADA,  NO,   NONE,   qualifications for the U.S. Supreme Court.   No law degree.   Not even have to be a citizen of the United States.


----------



## Stann (Jun 28, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> Actually they do as there is NONE,  that is NADA,  NO,   NONE,   qualifications for the U.S. Supreme Court.   No law degree.   Not even have to be a citizen of the United States.


Why did you ask the fucking question then. You keep on here are all fucked. Having criminals on the supreme Court isn't a good idea. A judge is the one person you should be able to trust with the truth. Right now our supreme Court means nothing. I actually believe people have gone insane in the far right. When you do unhanded wrongful things to achieve your goal what you think is right which is actually debatable then you've given up everything. And not to be trusted.


----------



## Stann (Jun 28, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> Actually they do as there is NONE,  that is NADA,  NO,   NONE,   qualifications for the U.S. Supreme Court.   No law degree.   Not even have to be a citizen of the United States.


I couldn't believe that was true. And it isn't. Although there are no formal qualifications to be appointed a supreme Court judge. The confirmation hearings are based on informal qualifications and above all honesty that's why they take it both to tell the truth. Other than being truthful they have to have a knowledge of the legal system and otherwise be qualified to fill the post. So in essence if a supreme Court judge commits perjury he can't be trusted about telling the truth so he should be dismissed.


----------



## Stann (Jun 28, 2022)

Stann said:


> I couldn't believe that was true. And it isn't. Although there are no formal qualifications to be appointed a supreme Court judge. The confirmation hearings are based on informal qualifications and above all honesty that's why they take it both to tell the truth. Other than being truthful they have to have a knowledge of the legal system and otherwise be qualified to fill the post. So in essence if a supreme Court judge commits perjury he can't be trusted about telling the truth so he should be dismissed.


Or is it impeached, I think I read somewhere that they get impeached.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> I couldn't believe that was true. And it isn't. Although there are no formal qualifications to be appointed a supreme Court judge. The confirmation hearings are based on informal qualifications and above all honesty that's why they take it both to tell the truth. Other than being truthful they have to have a knowledge of the legal system and otherwise be qualified to fill the post. So in essence if a supreme Court judge commits perjury he can't be trusted about telling the truth so he should be dismissed.


Yeah, a SCOTUS justice should be able to determine the difference between a man and a woman or be dismissed as unqualified.  BTW, a democrat controlled congress confirmed those three justices.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Yeah, a SCOTUS justice should be able to determine the difference between a man and a woman or be dismissed as unqualified.  BTW, a democrat controlled congress confirmed those three justices.


At least they weren't liars and they're trying to keep up with modern society.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Murder of innocents is the business of every American citizen.


Actually no, it's the business of sick minded, hateful nosy bodies.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Yeah, a SCOTUS justice should be able to determine the difference between a man and a woman or be dismissed as unqualified.  BTW, a democrat controlled congress confirmed those three justices.


Historiography / transgender issues - Transgender people are known to have existed since ancient times. A wide range of societies had traditional 3rd gender roles, or otherwise accepted trans people in some form. Often becoming an integral part of the society or culture. India is just one example of that tradition. India was the first nation to recognize the third gender officially / legally. India has a population of over a million transgender people. They are integral part of that society. 10 Nations around the world recognize transgender rights. 10 cultures around the world recognize transgender rights. Belgium was very specific when they enacted their transgender protection laws, they said they did not want to repeat the same mistake they did with homosexuals. The United States is wise to do this when they did, before the Advent of the age of lies and conspiracies arose that are destroying the fabric of American Life.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> At least they weren't liars and they're trying to keep up with modern society.


Regardless of whether or not your "modern society" is following the constitution.  Thank you for pointing out that they are not.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> Actually no, it's the business of sick minded, hateful nosy bodies.


So now you are advocating for murder?  Because anyone who takes an interest is a busybody?  I sure am glad you were so supportive of all of those BLM "busybodies" that burned, looted and MURDERED in support of George Floyd two years ago.


----------



## hadit (Jun 29, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> We guys should just butt out of the abortion issue. It’s none of our business.


Oh, but it is if you want to be a father and the woman you impregnate wants to deny you fatherhood. She holds your reproductive freedom in her hands.


----------



## initforme (Jun 29, 2022)

Ensure contraception is used and ensure a lower birth rate.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> Historiography / transgender issues - Transgender people are known to have existed since ancient times. A wide range of societies had traditional 3rd gender roles, or otherwise accepted trans people in some form. Often becoming an integral part of the society or culture. India is just one example of that tradition. India was the first nation to recognize the third gender officially / legally. India has a population of over a million transgender people. They are integral part of that society. 10 Nations around the world recognize transgender rights. 10 cultures around the world recognize transgender rights. Belgium was very specific when they enacted their transgender protection laws, they said they did not want to repeat the same mistake they did with homosexuals. The United States is wise to do this when they did, before the Advent of the age of lies and conspiracies arose that are destroying the fabric of American Life.


Nice try--all irrelevant, and inept, but nice.  Now "DEFINE WOMAN."


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 29, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> We guys should just butt out of the abortion issue. It’s none of our business.



So you're supportive of the overturning of Roe?


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> We guys should just butt out of the abortion issue. It’s none of our business.


Correct, this is nothing more than a power grabbing issue by  callous, cold-hearted people who neither care for, know or even understand why some women need abortions.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

initforme said:


> Ensure contraception is used and ensure a lower birth rate.


That helps, and ours should be a first choice. But conditions are not ours ideal to go with one's first choices.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> So you're supportive of the overturning of Roe?


And you're an idiot if you really think that, why are you pricks so vindictive.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> Correct, this is nothing more than a power grabbing issue by  callous, cold-hearted people who neither care for, know or even understand why some women need abortions.


Abortions have not been banned moron.  The issue has been returned to the states.  I don't know of any state that has banned abortions necessitated by medical conditions.  Inconvenience and "Uh oh, I got drunk and fucked the wrong guy last night." are not reason for murder of innocents.


----------



## Hellbilly (Jun 29, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Abortions have not been banned


Yet.


----------



## Pellinore (Jun 29, 2022)

konradv said:


> Can’t take the pain?


Correct.


----------



## Pellinore (Jun 29, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> Big deal.   They changed their minds about precedent.


And that's the problem, of course.  If any criminal charges were to come of their testimony, the prosecution would have to prove that they didn't simply change their minds.

Impeachment, on the other hand, is a political function rather than a legal one, but it would require a hay-uge swing in popular opinion.


----------



## hadit (Jun 29, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> If the rumors about the voting lineup in the Supreme Court is to be believed a 5-4 majority is set to overturn Roe V. Wade.
> 
> Apparently this voting bloc consists of Barrett and three white male justices and Clarence Thomas.   I've heard lots of complaints about a "group of men" voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
> 
> ...


Men are allowed only one opinion on abortion.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> And that's the problem, of course.  If any criminal charges were to come of their testimony, the prosecution would have to prove that they didn't simply change their minds.
> 
> Impeachment, on the other hand, is a political function rather than a legal one, but it would require a hay-uge swing in popular opinion.


When I looked up the information on removing a supreme Court Justice, they are removed by impeachment.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

hadit said:


> Men are allowed only one opinion on abortion.


People on the supreme Court are supposed to have no biases or prejudices one way or another on an issue if they do they're not supposed to vote on the issue. In essence, the courts should not be able to rule on abortion, and by their omissions in their abortion laws, States should not be able to pass  blankets legislation that address is abortion. Either all abortions are illegal or they are not. That's why I contend it's always been a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. Government and Court interference is not welcome, wanted or needed. I just wish the supreme Court would have done the right thing and outlaw all abortion laws years ago. That would have solved this perceived problem and restore some legitimacy to the supreme Court.


----------



## Pellinore (Jun 29, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> And that is in the constitution where??


Article III, Section 1, Clause b.  "The Judges ... shall hold their offices during good behaviour ..."

The Justices in this case could be subject to impeachment, not trial, meaning no proof of a crime is required.  All they'd need is 218 Representatives to impeach, and 67 Senators to remove.


----------



## skye (Jun 29, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> We guys should just butt out of the abortion issue. It’s none of our business.




But I though the lunatic Left said men can get pregnant!

So what is it!


----------



## Pellinore (Jun 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> When I looked up the information on removing a supreme Court Justice, they are removed by impeachment.


Removed, yes, but there are cases where a Federal Judge or Justice could be simply arrested.  This probably isn't one of those cases, but who knows what someone could successfully argue.

Amusingly, if a Justice were hypothetically arrested, found guilty, and sentenced, they wouldn't necessarily lose their position.  They could keep doing their job from their prison cell.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Article III, Section 1, Clause b.  "The Judges ... shall hold their offices during good behaviour ..."
> 
> The Justices in this case could be subject to impeachment, not trial, meaning no proof of a crime is required.  All they'd need is 218 Representatives to impeach, and 67 Senators to remove.


In other words it's not going to happen no matter how atrocious the situation becomes because of their agenda.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Removed, yes, but there are cases where a Federal Judge or Justice could be simply arrested.  This probably isn't one of those cases, but who knows what someone could successfully argue.
> 
> Amusingly, if a Justice were hypothetically arrested, found guilty, and sentenced, they wouldn't necessarily lose their position.  They could keep doing their job from their prison cell.


So we see the weaknesses in the Constitution now. It's not a perfect document, it was written by men after all,  just like the Bible. Too bad the Bible didn't have amendments. In order to form less judgment on it's followers and the insinuation that non followers must follow these rules.


----------



## Pellinore (Jun 29, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Abortions have not been banned moron.  The issue has been returned to the states.  I don't know of any state that has banned abortions necessitated by medical conditions.  Inconvenience and "Uh oh, I got drunk and fucked the wrong guy last night." are not reason for murder of innocents.


Numerous states have had trigger bans already take effect, and more will be in effect soon.  Many (if not most) of those have exceptions only if the life of the mother is in danger, but pay no attention to cases of rape or incest, or if the pregnancy threatens the mother's health.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> So we see the weaknesses in the Constitution now. It's not a perfect document, it was written by men after all,  just like the Bible. Too bad the Bible didn't have amendments. In order to form less judgment on it's followers and the insinuation that non followers must follow these rules.


So far the Constitution has been amended 27 times. That's a lot of corrections in a so-called perfect document. Today 80% of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose. 60% of Americans wanted Roe versus Wade to stay in place and continue protecting that right. One of the most serious decisions a woman has to make in her lifetime.


----------



## Pellinore (Jun 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> So we see the weaknesses in the Constitution now. It's not a perfect document, it was written by men after all,  just like the Bible. Too bad the Bible didn't have amendments. In order to form less judgment on it's followers and the insinuation that non followers must follow these rules.


As a country, we kind of have the habit of not figuring out what happens in every specific situation, until they actually happen.  This is in contrast to institutions like the Catholic Church or the British Royal Family, who have archives full of what-if contingencies, 99.99% of which will never come to pass.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Numerous states have had trigger bans already take effect, and more will be in effect soon.  Many (if not most) of those have exceptions only if the life of the mother is in danger, but pay no attention to cases of rape or incest, or if the pregnancy threatens the mother's health.


All abortions have not been banned, that is correct. But the abortion bands now being put in place are worse than the abortion bands that were in place by the States before 1973. That is the whole reason Roe versus Wade came into existence in the first place, to codify abortion laws on a national level, and eliminate the horrible laws which were causing women to lose their lives. Thanks to technology this time around it won't be as deadly hopefully , but at the same time it doesn't help the situation.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> As a country, we kind of have the habit of not figuring out what happens in every specific situation, until they actually happen.  This is in contrast to institutions like the Catholic Church or the British Royal Family, who have archives full of what-if contingencies, 99.99% of which will never come to pass.


Churches don't affect everyone just their members. Unfortunately, they have an indirect effect of affecting everyone else. I think the founding fathers figured that out and that's why they put that clause in there about religion. Our public government is supposed to be secular to avoid that contamination of biases and prejudices.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 29, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> *Many (if not most) of those have exceptions only if the life of the mother is in danger*, but pay no attention to cases of rape or incest, or if the pregnancy* threatens the mother's health.*


Do you always contradict yourself in the same sentence? ^^^^  Come back when you get a researched and thought out response.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> That is the whole reason Roe versus Wade came into existence in the first place, to codify abortion laws on a national level


Courts can only rule on existing law.  They don't make laws.  Congress dropped the ball at half court by not legislating a national abortion law.  Blame them--not the court.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> And you're an idiot if you really think that, why are you pricks so vindictive.



He said men need to stay out of it because it's none of our business, so him approving of the overturning of Roe seems to be the logical conclusion.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> He said men need to stay out of it because it's none of our business, so him approving of the overturning of Roe seems to be the logical conclusion.


If you were alive back then, if you know the whole story you'll understand. The men back then were right and what they did because the states had enacted such egregious abortion laws that women were killing themselves left and right. These men and the one woman got on to the supreme Court with a set agenda in mind. Not only that, they lied while under oath during the Congressional hearings committing perjury. None of them deserve to be on the supreme Court.


----------



## Stann (Jun 29, 2022)

Stann said:


> If you were alive back then, if you know the whole story you'll understand. The men back then were right and what they did because the states had enacted such egregious abortion laws that women were killing themselves left and right. These men and the one woman got on to the supreme Court with a set agenda in mind. Not only that, they lied while under oath during the Congressional hearings committing perjury. None of them deserve to be on the supreme Court.


The states are enacting abortion laws which are even more egregious today. The Federal government is going to have no other choice but to step back in again and set things right, to protect its citizens.
.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 30, 2022)

Stann said:


> The states are enacting abortion laws which are even more egregious today. The Federal government is going to have no other choice but to step back in again and set things right, to protect its citizens.
> .


They are protecting an innocent life who has no voice.


----------



## Pellinore (Jun 30, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Do you always contradict yourself in the same sentence? ^^^^  Come back when you get a researched and thought out response.


Health and life are two different things.  

If a pregnancy shatters a woman's health, requiring considerable (and massively expensive) care during her stay or leading to long-term complications, many states don't count that as a good enough reason.


----------



## konradv (Jun 30, 2022)

skye said:


> But I though the lunatic Left said men can get pregnant!
> 
> So what is it!


The Lunatic Right says women should know their place.  Agree?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 30, 2022)

konradv said:


> The Lunatic Right says women should know their place.  Agree?


But they do already.  They actually know they are women.  It is your side that seems confused there.


----------



## Stryder50 (Jun 30, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> We guys should just butt out of the abortion issue. It’s none of our business.


If the child is born and you are the proven genetic father, you are on the hook for child support for at least the next 18 years.

So yes, it is "our" business.

Also if the child is born we would have a claim for custody, so again "our" business.

Which would suggest/imply we should have a voice/say on whether the child(fetus) is aborted or not.

Of course, one aspect would be we guys if we want to see the child born, should pony up on paying support to the carrying/pregnant mother through the birth, and maybe also the recovery.

In a case where the father is unknown and/or can't be found, the "state"/citizens would be obligated to the support of a future citizen.


----------



## Dayton3 (Jun 30, 2022)

elektra said:


> Abortion is good for men. Men don't always need the burden of being a father. It is nice to be able to convince a young woman to abort and not bother the man


That is monumentally stupid.  Any "man" that would want such a thing isn't worth being called a man. 

He (I say that loosely) deserves to be castrated.


----------



## Stann (Jun 30, 2022)

eagle1462010 said:


> But they do already.  They actually know they are women.  It is your side that seems confused there.


This is a free Nation. Women are supposed to be equal to men under the law. Would a man ever let the government do something this invasive to their bodies.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 30, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> We guys should just butt out of the abortion issue. It’s none of our business.


Men can have babies now, so it is very much our business..


----------



## Stann (Jun 30, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Men can have babies now, so it is very much our business..


Not in the case of biologically unaltered men, which makes your point moot.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 30, 2022)

dudmuck said:


>


Typical leftist law "professor".  Dumber than an empty box of Raisin Bran.


----------



## Stann (Jun 30, 2022)

dudmuck said:


>


The entire abortion crowd is only going to get dumber from here on in, it's all about control, and they don't care what means they used to get to it.


----------



## Stann (Jun 30, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Typical leftist law "professor".  Dumber than an empty box of Raisin Bran.


No I think you guys win that prize because of your hypocritical stance.


----------



## dudmuck (Jun 30, 2022)

Stann said:


> The entire abortion crowd is only going to get dumber from here on in, it's all about control, and they don't care what means they used to get to it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 30, 2022)

dudmuck said:


>


Tell me you are ignorant of all the relevant laws w/o telling me you are ignorant of all the relevant laws.


----------



## Stann (Jun 30, 2022)

dudmuck said:


>


The real case that will be the deal breaker is when a happily married woman with several children finds out in her 20th week checkup that she's carrying a child that is non-viable because of horrible genetic defects which are a threat to the mother also and the state forces her to bear that child anyway. They will be able to sue the state for a billion dollars if the mother dies because of it. Those cases will add up quickly and the state will go bankrupt. Abortion laws have no place in free Nations, and they are not good policy in the first place.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 30, 2022)

Stann said:


> No I think you guys win that prize because of your hypocritical stance.


I can't wait until this Supreme Court clarifies the mistaken idea that people born here to non-citizens are automatically citizens.


----------



## Stann (Jun 30, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> I can't wait until this Supreme Court clarifies the mistaken idea that people born here to non-citizens are automatically citizens.


There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution. The only amendment that was repealed was prohibition, the 21st amendment repealed the 18th. It's very rare, very difficult and next to impossible to repeal an amendment, plus you have to have really good reasons to even attempt it. The 14th amendment which covers this issue states, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "  I don't see how they could legally or  constitutionally change that.


----------



## Pellinore (Jun 30, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> I can't wait until this Supreme Court clarifies the mistaken idea that people born here to non-citizens are automatically citizens.


Yeah, it's called "birthright citizenship" and it is expressly granted in the 14th Amendment.  Don't expect that to go anywhere.


----------



## Stann (Jun 30, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Yeah, it's called "birthright citizenship" and it is expressly granted in the 14th Amendment.  Don't expect that to go anywhere.


She / he doesn't seem to understand that would disenfranchise all native Americans and most current US citizens by proxy.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 30, 2022)

Stann said:


> There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution. The only amendment that was repealed was prohibition, the 21st amendment repealed the 18th. It's very rare, very difficult and next to impossible to repeal an amendment, plus you have to have really good reasons to even attempt it. The 14th amendment which covers this issue states, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "  I don't see how they could legally or  constitutionally change that.


What was the purpose of the 14th Amendment giving citizenship rights to people born here?


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 30, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Yeah, it's called "birthright citizenship" and it is expressly granted in the 14th Amendment.  Don't expect that to go anywhere.


Descendants of ex slaves.  Not to children of people here illegally.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 30, 2022)

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
					

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...




					www.heritage.org


----------



## Stann (Jun 30, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> What was the purpose of the 14th Amendment giving citizenship rights to people born here?


Most people prior to that time did not have citizenship papers. This was to make sure no one was deported unlawfully. The native Americans did not have papers giving them citizenship, nor did the original colonists, like the pilgrims, etc.... By proxy all of their descendants were not be here legally either, the 14th amendment didn't come about until after the civil war when southern states were trying to limit the rights of former slaves. They didn't have papers either; their former owners had papers attested to the fact that they were bought. I guess these Southern States considered blacks their property still.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 30, 2022)

Stann said:


> Most people prior to that time did not have citizenship papers. This was to make sure no one was deported unlawfully. The native Americans did not have papers giving them citizenship, nor did the original colonists, like the pilgrims, etc.... By proxy all of their descendants were not be here legally either, the 14th amendment didn't come about until after the civil war when southern states were trying to limit the rights of former slaves. They didn't have papers either; their former owners had papers attested to the fact that they were bought. I guess these Southern States considered blacks their property still.


Wrong.  The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure full citizenship to slaves and their descendants.


----------



## BothWings (Jun 30, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> It would be as easy as getting a haircut.



I don't believe abortion should be 100% illegal anywhere...however this statement is a testimony to the emerging ugliness of the jaded modern human being. When abortion become too easy, human beings lose respect for nature and lose sight of the real reasons we are born with reproductive capabilities. If you don't want children, quit being such a fucking hedonistic slut ---> (GUYS THIS MEANS YOU TOO). That is what happens when humans ignore the sacred implications of nature and begin to think it's all just put there for their pleasure and recreation. The sacred act of procreation gets lowered to the level of a fast food drive-thru.


----------



## Stann (Jun 30, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Wrong.  The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure full citizenship to slaves and their descendants.


You are a fool, yes the legislation protected former slaves and their descendants but it also protected everyone else here that did not have documentation of citizenship. Believe it or not that would be most Americans.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 30, 2022)

Stann said:


> You are a fool, yes the legislation protected former slaves and their descendants but it also protected everyone else here that did not have documentation of citizenship. Believe it or not that would be most Americans.


Go fuck yourself.  Read the link I provided and call that guy a fool.  Idiot.


----------



## Stann (Jun 30, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Go fuck yourself.  Read the link I provided and call that guy a fool.  Idiot.


You obviously didn't read all of my post. I agree I said it came into being to protect former slaves in Southern States. However, also protected native Americans and most people who came here as immigrants. The only official document that proves most people here are US citizens are their birth certificates. You try to have a good day, I plan on it and I'm out of here I had my say and you can go fuck yourself. Hope it's enough to make your day.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 30, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> many states don't count that as a good enough reason.


Linkie


----------



## Pellinore (Jul 1, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Linkie


Sure.









						Tracking where abortion laws stand in every state
					

In more than half the states, abortion is now banned or under serious threat




					www.theguardian.com
				




Follow the Source links for each state.  A few examples: 
Arkansas: "... bans abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother."
Idaho: "The law only makes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the pregnant person’s life."
Mississippi: "The trigger law includes exceptions for some women seeking abortions, including for rape and for the life of the mother."
Oklahoma: "All abortions are now banned in Oklahoma, except to save a mother’s life, rape or incest."
South Dakota: "unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female,"


----------



## Pellinore (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Go fuck yourself.  Read the link I provided and call that guy a fool.  Idiot.


I've seen that article before.  I don't think he's a fool; I think he's got an agenda, because he's misrepresenting the ideas of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction in a legal sense means that the person in question is in a physical space where the laws of the given political body reach.  That means that if you are within a place where you can be arrested by United States officers, you are within our jurisdiction.  There are only a few exceptions: If you are a representative of a foreign embassy and therefore enjoy diplomatic immunity; if you are on board a ship docked in a US base; or if the US has been invaded and you are behind enemy lines.  (It also used to apply to some Indian lands, but no longer.)  The 14th makes no distinction for _why _someone was in the US; the fact that they are on US soil means they enjoy full Constitutional rights, including birthright citizenship if they are born here. 

There will always be those who think _Wong _should be reversed and the meaning of the Citizenship Clause changed but, as I said, don't hold your breath.


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Health and life are two different things.
> 
> If a pregnancy shatters a woman's health, requiring considerable (and massively expensive) care during her stay or leading to long-term complications, many states don't count that as a good enough reason.


I forget which state, maybe Michigan, Port limitations on what constitutes a threat to the mother's life. When I saw that,  I said to myself, they are asking for a lawsuit. They are saying their opinion is more important than the doctors. If the woman dies they could be sued for millions and rightly so.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> I've seen that article before.  I don't think he's a fool; I think he's got an agenda, because he's misrepresenting the ideas of jurisdiction.
> 
> Jurisdiction in a legal sense means that the person in question is in a physical space where the laws of the given political body reach.  That means that if you are within a place where you can be arrested by United States officers, you are within our jurisdiction.  There are only a few exceptions: If you are a representative of a foreign embassy and therefore enjoy diplomatic immunity; if you are on board a ship docked in a US base; or if the US has been invaded and you are behind enemy lines.  (It also used to apply to some Indian lands, but no longer.)  The 14th makes no distinction for _why _someone was in the US; the fact that they are on US soil means they enjoy full Constitutional rights, including birthright citizenship if they are born here.
> 
> There will always be those who think _Wong _should be reversed and the meaning of the Citizenship Clause changed but, as I said, don't hold your breath.


The 14th Amendment is addressing ex-slaves and their descendants.


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> The 14th Amendment is addressing ex-slaves and their descendants.


Like other amendments,  it addresses a lot more than just that.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> Like other amendments,  it addresses a lot more than just that.


Notice the part highlighted in purple.




__





						History of Law: The Fourteenth Amendment
					

Learn the History of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it shaped The United States of America. Read more from Tulane University here.




					online.law.tulane.edu


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Notice the part highlighted in purple.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I read the whole thing initially. The Indian rights law order came about without it. And as it says it protects all people born in the United States. It's designed to protect all our citizens.


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> I read the whole thing initially. The Indian rights law order came about without it. And as it says it protects all people born in the United States. It's designed to protect all our citizens.


The Indian rights law wouldn't have came along without it.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> I read the whole thing initially. The Indian rights law order came about without it. And as it says it protects all people born in the United States. It's designed to protect all our citizens.


No, that is not what it was designed for.  The purpose was to ensure full citizenship rights to slaves and their descendants.  That was the intent.  It has been USED to ensure citizenship to people born here to illegals.  That's what the article states.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> No, that is not what it was designed for.  The purpose was to ensure full citizenship rights to slaves and their descendants.  That was the intent.  It has been USED to ensure citizenship to people born here to illegals.


Hopefully this will go to SCOTUS too to end that it allows birth right citizenship.    It was done specifically to allow slaves to be citizens.  Then abused forever.


----------



## Pellinore (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> The 14th Amendment is addressing ex-slaves and their descendants.


Okay, so now you're just repeating.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that ex-slaves and immigrants are mutually exclusive.  Just because it was written primarily to address ex-slaves and their descendants, that does not mean that it doesn't apply just as strongly to immigrants, which weren't as pressing an issue at the time.

After all, if they had desired it to affect only ex-slaves and their descendants, they could have added a clause that said "... for ex-slaves and their descendants."


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Okay, so now you're just repeating.
> 
> You seem to be stuck on the idea that ex-slaves and immigrants are mutually exclusive.  Just because it was written primarily to address ex-slaves and their descendants, that does not mean that it doesn't apply just as strongly to immigrants, which weren't as pressing an issue at the time.
> 
> After all, if they had desired it to affect only ex-slaves and their descendants, they could have added a clause that said "... for ex-slaves and their descendants."


And they also could have said "This applies to the children born here to people that crossed the border illegally", but it doesn't, does it.

A Supreme Court Justice should understand the intent of the Amendment instead of twisting it to cover their agenda.


----------



## Paleman (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> Perjury is a class 3 felony. I don't think they allow felons on the supreme Court, at least they shouldn't. If they do, we're in big trouble.


Another far left jerk spouting----Guilty until proven innocent. By the way, when were they tried and convicted?


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> So far the Constitution has been amended 27 times. That's a lot of corrections in a so-called perfect document. Today 80% of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose. 60% of Americans wanted Roe versus Wade to stay in place and continue protecting that right. One of the most serious decisions a woman has to make in her lifetime.


The Constitution isn't interpreted by polling the American people's opinions.  Your kind of thinking is exactly the problem in this country.


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 1, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Arkansas: "... bans abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother."


Your post said that was excluded.  Contradicted yourself again.


Pellinore said:


> Mississippi: "The trigger law includes exceptions for some women seeking abortions, including for rape and for the life of the mother."


This also contradicts your post.


Pellinore said:


> Oklahoma: "All abortions are now banned in Oklahoma, except to save a mother’s life, rape or incest."


Again.  Wow, every one of your examples specifically state exceptions where abortion is allowed.  Exactly what you were complaining would not be addressed.  Murder for convenience is not allowed.


----------



## Pellinore (Jul 1, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Your post said that was excluded.  Contradicted yourself again.
> 
> This also contradicts your post.
> 
> Again.  Wow, every one of your examples specifically state exceptions where abortion is allowed.  Exactly what you were complaining would not be addressed.  Murder for convenience is not allowed.


Okay, we've got crossed wires here. 

I'm pretty sure that all states with anti-abortion laws make exceptions when the mother's *life *is in danger; that is, when there is a good chance that's she is going to actually die from the procedure.  I think we can agree on that.

I was pointing out that many states with anti-abortion laws do not make an exception for when her *health *is in danger.  That is, when she will probably survive the process of having the baby, but it is going to leave her with serious and long-lasting *health *issues.  That's not the same as her *life.*

The links I posted show examples of states that specify that they only make exceptions for when her *life *is in danger, but allow no such exception for her *health.*

See?


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 1, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> I was pointing out that many states with anti-abortion laws do not make an exception for when her *health *is in danger.


Again, you are making a gross speculation at best.  Please provide links.


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> No, that is not what it was designed for.  The purpose was to ensure full citizenship rights to slaves and their descendants.  That was the intent.  It has been USED to ensure citizenship to people born here to illegals.  That's what the article states.


Like I said, amendments that bring about freedoms can be expanded to include all Americans as it says so in the amendment itself. All people born in America are protected by this act. That birth certificate proves you are an American. Do you have your certificate from your grandparents or great grandparents whoever migrated here in your family line. My sister has a copy of it. But we do not have the original paper. Thank God we are all born here and being born here proves that we're Americans.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> Like I said, amendments that bring about freedoms can be expanded to include all Americans as it says so in the amendment itself. All people born in America are protected by this act. That birth certificate proves you are an American. Do you have your certificate from your grandparents or great grandparents whoever migrated here in your family line. My sister has a copy of it. But we do not have the original paper. Thank God we are all born here and being born here proves that we're Americans.


Cuckoo.....cuckoo.... You're ignoring the facts.  Bye.


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Cuckoo.....cuckoo.... You're ignoring the facts.  Bye.


You certainly are cuckoo. It's right there in the amendment.


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> You certainly are cuckoo. It's right there in the amendment.


About four lines below the part you highlighted, did you do that too draw attention to that and that only ignoring the rest of the article. Looks like that's what you attempted to do.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> You certainly are cuckoo. It's right there in the amendment.


Did you read the opinion I linked to?


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Did you read the opinion I linked to?


Yes, If you're talking about the one from Tulane University that's the only one I remember. You should read the amendment itself.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> Yes, If you're talking about the one from Tulane University that's the only one I remember. You should read the amendment itself.


I have.  So you support giving full citizenship to a child born here even if the parents are both here illegally.  Right?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> I can't wait until this Supreme Court clarifies the mistaken idea that people born here to non-citizens are automatically citizens.


That is already clear.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> I have.  So you support giving full citizenship to a child born here even if the parents are both here illegally.  Right?


That's the only reason YOU are a citizen.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> That's the only reason YOU are a citizen.


How do you figure?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> How do you figure?


Because it's true.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Because it's true.


My family didn't come here illegally.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> My family didn't come here illegally.


Doesn't matter. The only reason you are a citizen is because  you were born here.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Doesn't matter. The only reason you are a citizen is because  you were born here.


Yes, it does matter.  Why should people who are here illegally simply get to stay because their kid is born here?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Yes, it does matter.  Why should people who are here illegally simply get to stay because their kid is born here?


They don't.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> They don't.


What happens to them?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> What happens to them?


They are deported.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> They are deported.


What happens to their American citizen child?


----------



## Pellinore (Jul 1, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Again, you are making a gross speculation at best.  Please provide links.


I did.  The quotes from the link I provided use terms such as "all cases" and "only makes exceptions."  

Since you are now arguing in circles, I'm going to let this go.  Have a good weekend.


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> I have.  So you support giving full citizenship to a child born here even if the parents are both here illegally.  Right?


That's what US law says. I have no problem with immigrants, that's what built our country. We are all immigrants here, even the so-called native Americans migrated into the Americas during the ice ages.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> That's what US law says. I have no problem with immigrants, that's what built our country. We are all immigrants here, even the so-called native Americans migrated into the Americas during the ice ages.


No, that isn't what it says.  Show me.


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> No, that isn't what it says.  Show me.


It's called birthright citizenship, " all persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. "You can twist that however you want, it still comes out the same way.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> It's called birthright citizenship, " all persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. "You can twist that however you want, it still comes out the same way.


What does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean?


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> What does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean?


The laws of our country. I see where you're going with this. You people are good at your silly little traps. Now you have to look at your immigration laws. It is not illegal to cross the US border at any point when seeking asylum. The citizenship cause of the 14th amendment covers the birthright citizenship clause. Birthright citizenship in the United States is acquired by a person automatically by operation of the law this takes place in two situations by virtue of the person's birth within the United States territory or because one or both of the parents is or was a US citizen. That says it all.. end of story I'm not doing this discuss this any further cuz you're trying to play games.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> What happens to their American citizen child?


The child goes with them, or the child stays in the US and they get deported. Are you really not aware of all this?


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> The child goes with them, or the child stays in the US and they get deported. Are you really not aware of all this?


He's playing games, try to make his sad point.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> The child goes with them, or the child stays in the US and they get deported. Are you really not aware of all this?


Why would they leave their child?  Do you have some examples to show me?


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> The laws of our country. I see where you're going with this. You people are good at your silly little traps. Now you have to look at your immigration laws. It is not illegal to cross the US border at any point when seeking asylum. The citizenship cause of the 14th amendment covers the birthright citizenship clause. Birthright citizenship in the United States is acquired by a person automatically by operation of the law this takes place in two situations by virtue of the person's birth within the United States territory or because one or both of the parents is or was a US citizen. That says it all.. end of story I'm not doing this discuss this any further cuz you're trying to play games.


Wrong.  It is illegal to cross the border for any reason without going through the border checkpoint.  If you are seeking asylum, you go to the American consulate in your country.  Why do you support illegal immigration?


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Why would they leave their child?  Do you have some examples to show me?


Ignore.


----------



## Stann (Jul 1, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Wrong.  It is illegal to cross the border for any reason without going through the border checkpoint.  If you are seeking asylum, you go to the American consulate in your country.  Why do you support illegal immigration?


Welcome to LII>text  8 USCode-asylum-legalinformation any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States ( whether or not at a designated port of arrival )....


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 1, 2022)

Stann said:


> Ignore.


Why do you support illegal immigration?


Stann said:


> Welcome to LII>text  8 USCode-asylum-legalinformation any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States ( whether or not at a designated port of arrival )....


Your link is bogus.  Nothing there but an index of Cornel Law School.  Past your bedtime, kid.


----------



## Stann (Jul 2, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Why do you support illegal immigration?
> 
> Your link is bogus.  Nothing there but an index of Cornel Law School.  Past your bedtime, kid.


Just as there is no such thing as a illegal alien there is no such thing as illegal immigration not according to the immigration board of the United States. Keep dreaming. Ideally I would prefer that all immigrants come through immigration checkpoints, however until those checkpoints become developed enough to handle all that are coming to America there seems like little choice for the immigrants. Even despite all his efforts during Obama's term as president when he left immigration was 3 months behind. Trump getting addressed at all and put it 12 to 15 months behind, Biden has his work cut out for him getting all the immigration courts back up to speed so that we can get rid of this backlog.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 2, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Why would they leave their child? ....


If one of the parents has a relative legally residing in the US, they sometimes choose to leave the child in the US when they are deported. It happens not infrequently.


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 2, 2022)

Stann said:


> Just as there is no such thing as a illegal alien there is no such thing as illegal immigration not according to the immigration board of the United States. Keep dreaming. Ideally I would prefer that all immigrants come through immigration checkpoints, however until those checkpoints become developed enough to handle all that are coming to America there seems like little choice for the immigrants. Even despite all his efforts during Obama's term as president when he left immigration was 3 months behind. Trump getting addressed at all and put it 12 to 15 months behind, Biden has his work cut out for him getting all the immigration courts back up to speed so that we can get rid of this backlog.


So there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Cuckoo


----------



## BS Filter (Jul 2, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> If one of the parents has a relative legally residing in the US, they sometimes choose to leave the child in the US when they are deported. It happens not infrequently.


How many illegal immigrants do you estimate live in the USA?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 2, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> How many illegal immigrants do you estimate live in the USA?


I don't know.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jul 3, 2022)

Mr Clean said:


> We guys should just butt out of the abortion issue. It’s none of our business.


What a fucking load of horse shit.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 3, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> The reality of the matter is that men can and do influence these things. Telling men to butt out just isn't productive.



I doubt men help at all when they "do influence these things" that they know nothing at all about.
Since men tend to support invasions, murders, imprisonment, etc., then they do not deny abortion over compassion, but due to evil attempts to enslave, produce soldiers, control, manipulate, prevent equality, etc.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 3, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> How many illegal immigrants do you estimate live in the USA?



Depends on how you count.
Almost all the people the US government calls "illegal immigrants" are actually natives, while almost all those the US government calls "citizens" are illegal immigrants from Europe.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 3, 2022)

Remodeling Maidiac said:


> What a fucking load of horse shit.



What do men know about the difficulties of pregnancy, raising families, etc.?
Most men do not care or know.
But men should know about things like over population, pollution, energy shortages, dwindling resources, etc., and yet we do not seem to care about those essential facts?
So it seems the motives of men can not be trusted?


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 3, 2022)

Stann said:


> Just as there is no such thing as a illegal alien there is no such thing as illegal immigration not according to the immigration board of the United States. Keep dreaming. Ideally I would prefer that all immigrants come through immigration checkpoints, however until those checkpoints become developed enough to handle all that are coming to America there seems like little choice for the immigrants. Even despite all his efforts during Obama's term as president when he left immigration was 3 months behind. Trump getting addressed at all and put it 12 to 15 months behind, Biden has his work cut out for him getting all the immigration courts back up to speed so that we can get rid of this backlog.



Just like with ancient Rome, immigration happens because people naturally and rightfully follow the money.
Stop stealing resources from all over the world, and people will stop emigrating to the US.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 3, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Wrong.  It is illegal to cross the border for any reason without going through the border checkpoint.  If you are seeking asylum, you go to the American consulate in your country.  Why do you support illegal immigration?



If you check the treaties between the US and Mexico when the US bought Mexican territories, it says natives can cross as they please.
There is no legal basis for check points.

As for asylum, it is impossible to apply at a US consulate in the dictatorship.
There likely is not one, you would be killed if you tried, and the US consulate would take months if it would even bother at all.
Remember that the US creates all the South and Central American military dictatorships.

Remember that all South and Central American natives came from Asia, and their ancestors lived in the US at one time.


----------



## Anomalism (Sep 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> I doubt men help at all when they "do influence these things" that they know nothing at all about.
> Since men tend to support invasions, murders, imprisonment, etc., then they do not deny abortion over compassion, but due to evil attempts to enslave, produce soldiers, control, manipulate, prevent equality, etc.


Oh yeah men are just the worst. *eyeroll*


----------



## Stann (Sep 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> I doubt men help at all when they "do influence these things" that they know nothing at all about.
> Since men tend to support invasions, murders, imprisonment, etc., then they do not deny abortion over compassion, but due to evil attempts to enslave, produce soldiers, control, manipulate, prevent equality, etc.


If women with only unite together they could eliminate all of these abortion laws forever. That is the key; such laws are an absolute overreach by government and the courts if there ever was one.


----------

