Pregnant Women Lose Civil Rights

[Newby]

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS

I don't see how that decision covers what to do when a mother has a DNR. Are we to believe DNR means women have declared DNR even if pregnant, even if the baby is in the third trimester? How about killing a 2year old child if her mother has a DNR? Why only kill the babies in the womb? Why don't the libs just go from home to home killing all first born, you know you want to.

So this is what you need to say in order to present your argument?

His argument against killing babies? That argument? Pretty sad when our society is having that 'argument'. How did so many women grow up to be full of such self hatred?? Sad.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Secular?? 80% of American's considers themselves Christian, 4% of other religions Only 16% of America calls itself agnostic, atheist or just don't know. Whether you like it or not, our society is mostly of a religious /moral mindset. You are in a major minority.

I am not obfuscating at all. What you are looking for is not something that I ascribe to.

You have a "belief" about fetal rights.

I uphold the Law of the Land ergo no "belief" is required of me.

The law stipulates that States have the right to regulate 3rd trimester abortions in such a way as to provide rights to a 3rd trimester fetus.

I don't have a "belief" that gays have a right to marry because the Law of the Land stipulates that everyone is Equal under the Law.

I don't have a "belief" that I have a right to own a firearm because the Law of the Land provides that right in the 2nd Amendment.

So no, quoting the Law of the Land is not obfuscating. What is obfuscating is trying to impose your religious "beliefs" onto the Law of the Land by denying the rights to abortions and gay marriage.

My position is clear because it is based upon the Law.

Your obfuscation is unclear because it is based upon your religious "beliefs".

Then why try to blow smoke up someone's ass, and simply state that you don't care to state what your personal belief is. What's the point of simply restating what everyone already knows as fact, i.e. law? It's just a waste of everyone's time.

Is your position against murder what it is simply because it is based upon the law? You would be okay with it if it were legal, i.e. you have no moral judgment because you have no religion? Is that how you should be viewed?

I'm against abortion because it is horrific and immoral, it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack thereof. Take your 'religious beliefs' dogma and shove them up your ass, you have no idea why I would or wouldn't support something.

So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.

What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.

Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.

Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".

Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.

The secular Constitution provides freedom FROM religion.

It is freedom OF religion. And, you have every right to not have a religion, but not to remove our right of.

There is no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. Think about it.

 

[RKMBrown]

You are one evil POS. You just can't wait to kill babies can you.

what kind of POS would say THAT ^ to conscientious women concerned about this EVIL political trend...?

Yeah... odd when defending the lives of babies is considered evil. What kind of person does it take to come to the conclusion that a baby's life is not worth saving.

Perhaps a person who thinks an adult American citizen's rights don't end just because she's female....and pregnant.

Yeah but a female baby has no rights, that your point? You have to be outside the birth canal to have rights? Or are you saying babies do not have the right to live and parents can put them down for "financial" reasons?

 

[Newby]

Then why try to blow smoke up someone's ass, and simply state that you don't care to state what your personal belief is. What's the point of simply restating what everyone already knows as fact, i.e. law? It's just a waste of everyone's time.

Is your position against murder what it is simply because it is based upon the law? You would be okay with it if it were legal, i.e. you have no moral judgment because you have no religion? Is that how you should be viewed?

I'm against abortion because it is horrific and immoral, it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack thereof. Take your 'religious beliefs' dogma and shove them up your ass, you have no idea why I would or wouldn't support something.

So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.

What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.

Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.

Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".

Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.

Vulgarities? lol

Where have I stated anything about religious beliefs whatsoever? Are you losing it? Can you not read? You brought up religious beliefs out of thin air in order to derail the topic, I have said nothing about them except to respond to your comments regarding it.

So you admit that you have no morals?

Is it logical and reasonable to terminate an elderly person's life because they are a drain on society and are no long contributing? That's perfectly 'logical and reasonable' to a person without any moral compass such as yourself.

And whose 'logic and reason'? Yours? I should be subject to what you deem is 'logic and reason'?

You're seriously fucked up.

Ironic!

In other words, you have no rebuttal. I didn't think so. lol

That you cannot rise above mindless vulgarities means that there is nothing to rebut. You need to crawl out from your sewer if you want a response from me. I am not going to lower myself to your level no matter what kind of obscenity laden provocation a self confessed "Christian" like you wants to throw at me.

Oh my, are you judging me for my use of foul language?? An anti-authoritarian liberal is passing judgement about foul language??? What a hoot you are!!! lol Along with a major hypocrite and a sad and poor representative of your liberal acquaintances.

And keep on using pathetic excuses and wasted electrons to spout your non answer. It's extremely amusing!

 

[RKMBrown]

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS

I don't see how that decision covers what to do when a mother has a DNR. Are we to believe DNR means women have declared DNR even if pregnant, even if the baby is in the third trimester? How about killing a 2year old child if her mother has a DNR? Why only kill the babies in the womb? Why don't the libs just go from home to home killing all first born, you know you want to.

So this is what you need to say in order to present your argument?

What's the difference between killing an 8month old baby still in the womb and a 8month old baby outside the womb?

 

[Newby]

Secular?? 80% of American's considers themselves Christian, 4% of other religions Only 16% of America calls itself agnostic, atheist or just don't know. Whether you like it or not, our society is mostly of a religious /moral mindset. You are in a major minority.

Then why try to blow smoke up someone's ass, and simply state that you don't care to state what your personal belief is. What's the point of simply restating what everyone already knows as fact, i.e. law? It's just a waste of everyone's time.

Is your position against murder what it is simply because it is based upon the law? You would be okay with it if it were legal, i.e. you have no moral judgment because you have no religion? Is that how you should be viewed?

I'm against abortion because it is horrific and immoral, it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack thereof. Take your 'religious beliefs' dogma and shove them up your ass, you have no idea why I would or wouldn't support something.

So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.

What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.

Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.

Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".

Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.

The secular Constitution provides freedom FROM religion.

It is freedom OF religion. And, you have every right to not have a religion, but not to remove our right of.

There is no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. Think about it.

I think you've fried one to many brain cells with whatever drugs you do, not that I'm judging of course.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I'm leaning towards mandatory abortions for Liberals.

That's why I have rethought my position on government funded birth control. As long as it's liberal women getting the birth control, I'm all for it.

 

[Newby]

I love how these libs pass judgment on others, yet scream bloody murder whenever someone passes judgement that they don't agree with. The hypocrisy is one of my favorite things to highlight, and they give so much material to use that it's difficult to point them all out!

 

[Derideo_Te]

You're against abortions? You had me fooled.

Given what you describe as an "abortion" that is against the law but it doesn't surprise me at all that you are that ignorant.

 

[depotoo]

There is no freedom of religion without religion. Think about it.

Secular?? 80% of American's considers themselves Christian, 4% of other religions Only 16% of America calls itself agnostic, atheist or just don't know. Whether you like it or not, our society is mostly of a religious /moral mindset. You are in a major minority.

Then why try to blow smoke up someone's ass, and simply state that you don't care to state what your personal belief is. What's the point of simply restating what everyone already knows as fact, i.e. law? It's just a waste of everyone's time.

Is your position against murder what it is simply because it is based upon the law? You would be okay with it if it were legal, i.e. you have no moral judgment because you have no religion? Is that how you should be viewed?

I'm against abortion because it is horrific and immoral, it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack thereof. Take your 'religious beliefs' dogma and shove them up your ass, you have no idea why I would or wouldn't support something.

So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.

What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.

Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.

Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".

Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.

The secular Constitution provides freedom FROM religion.

It is freedom OF religion. And, you have every right to not have a religion, but not to remove our right of.

There is no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. Think about it.

 

[depotoo]

You remove morals from society, then anything goes. And the anti-moralists can't claim that not to be true.

 

[Newby]

There is no freedom of religion without religion. Think about it.

Secular?? 80% of American's considers themselves Christian, 4% of other religions Only 16% of America calls itself agnostic, atheist or just don't know. Whether you like it or not, our society is mostly of a religious /moral mindset. You are in a major minority.

So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.

What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.

Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.

Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".

Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.

The secular Constitution provides freedom FROM religion.

It is freedom OF religion. And, you have every right to not have a religion, but not to remove our right of.

There is no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. Think about it.

She's a legend in her own mind, I'm sure that's above her pay grade. lol

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.

What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.

Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.

Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".

Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.

Vulgarities? lol

Where have I stated anything about religious beliefs whatsoever? Are you losing it? Can you not read? You brought up religious beliefs out of thin air in order to derail the topic, I have said nothing about them except to respond to your comments regarding it.

So you admit that you have no morals?

Is it logical and reasonable to terminate an elderly person's life because they are a drain on society and are no long contributing? That's perfectly 'logical and reasonable' to a person without any moral compass such as yourself.

And whose 'logic and reason'? Yours? I should be subject to what you deem is 'logic and reason'?

You're seriously fucked up.

Ironic!

In other words, you have no rebuttal. I didn't think so. lol

That you cannot rise above mindless vulgarities means that there is nothing to rebut. You need to crawl out from your sewer if you want a response from me. I am not going to lower myself to your level no matter what kind of obscenity laden provocation a self confessed "Christian" like you wants to throw at me.

Oh my, are you judging me for my use of foul language?? An anti-authoritarian liberal is passing judgement about foul language??? What a hoot you are!!! lol Along with a major hypocrite and a sad and poor representative of your liberal acquaintances.

And keep on using pathetic excuses and wasted electrons to spout your non answer. It's extremely amusing!

Judging is what religious people like you do.

I just have standards when it comes to posting. Either you meet my standard or you will be treated accordingly.

Your mindless deflection of "authoritarian" is ludicrous.

This is the internet and I have no "authority" over what you spew. All I do have is the choice to react to your abysmal lack of civility. If you persist in being obnoxious I will exercise my right to give you a one way ticket to Cyberia. You won't be missed.

Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is no freedom of religion without religion. Think about it.

Secular?? 80% of American's considers themselves Christian, 4% of other religions Only 16% of America calls itself agnostic, atheist or just don't know. Whether you like it or not, our society is mostly of a religious /moral mindset. You are in a major minority.

So you have resorted to vulgarities because you cannot defend your own religious beliefs that you wish to impose on the Law of the Land.

What I believe is my own personal business and, unlike you and your cultish ilk, I don't try to impose it on others.

Instead I prefer reason and logic to be the basis for making decisions about life and death rather than the emotion laden "morality" that you espouse.

Legislating "morality" has been tried before by religiously motivated "moralists" like yourself. It was an epic failure and resulted in what today we call organized crime. At the time it was called Prohibition. Today we have "moralists" like you trying to ban gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs. We can also thank "moralists" like you for the failed "War on Drugs".

Your way doesn't work in a secular society so I prefer logic and reason over your failed "moralist" dogma.

The secular Constitution provides freedom FROM religion.

It is freedom OF religion. And, you have every right to not have a religion, but not to remove our right of.

There is no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. Think about it.

No one is denying you your religion.

 

[bodecea]

You are one evil POS. You just can't wait to kill babies can you.

what kind of POS would say THAT ^ to conscientious women concerned about this EVIL political trend...?

Yeah... odd when defending the lives of babies is considered evil. What kind of person does it take to come to the conclusion that a baby's life is not worth saving.

Perhaps a person who thinks an adult American citizen's rights don't end just because she's female....and pregnant.

Yeah but a female baby has no rights, that your point? You have to be outside the birth canal to have rights? Or are you saying babies do not have the right to live and parents can put them down for "financial" reasons?

Who said a female baby has no rights?

 

[bodecea]

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS

I don't see how that decision covers what to do when a mother has a DNR. Are we to believe DNR means women have declared DNR even if pregnant, even if the baby is in the third trimester? How about killing a 2year old child if her mother has a DNR? Why only kill the babies in the womb? Why don't the libs just go from home to home killing all first born, you know you want to.

So this is what you need to say in order to present your argument?

What's the difference between killing an 8month old baby still in the womb and a 8month old baby outside the womb?

An 8 month old fetus is within the third trimester, FYI.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You remove morals from society, then anything goes. And the anti-moralists can't claim that not to be true.

Except that it isn't "true". Nations that have side lined religion are no less moral than those that adhere to religion. The Scandanavian nations are the most secular in the world. Prove that they are any less "moral" than the USA.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I love how these libs pass judgment on others, yet scream bloody murder whenever someone passes judgement that they don't agree with. The hypocrisy is one of my favorite things to highlight, and they give so much material to use that it's difficult to point them all out!

Irony squared!

 

[bodecea]

You remove morals from society, then anything goes. And the anti-moralists can't claim that not to be true.

A lack of morals isn't an indication of lack of religion.....it is an indication of a lack of empathy.

 

[mudwhistle]

We have a certain segment of our population who wants to meddle in and control the lives of others. Basic rights, as guaranteed by our Constitution, have no meaning to them.

There is another segment that wants to take away the option to keep the baby as well.

Some people tend to always want to stick their noses into other people's business.

It's normal.

 

[Newby]

Vulgarities? lol

Where have I stated anything about religious beliefs whatsoever? Are you losing it? Can you not read? You brought up religious beliefs out of thin air in order to derail the topic, I have said nothing about them except to respond to your comments regarding it.

So you admit that you have no morals?

Is it logical and reasonable to terminate an elderly person's life because they are a drain on society and are no long contributing? That's perfectly 'logical and reasonable' to a person without any moral compass such as yourself.

And whose 'logic and reason'? Yours? I should be subject to what you deem is 'logic and reason'?

You're seriously fucked up.

Ironic!

In other words, you have no rebuttal. I didn't think so. lol

That you cannot rise above mindless vulgarities means that there is nothing to rebut. You need to crawl out from your sewer if you want a response from me. I am not going to lower myself to your level no matter what kind of obscenity laden provocation a self confessed "Christian" like you wants to throw at me.

Oh my, are you judging me for my use of foul language?? An anti-authoritarian liberal is passing judgement about foul language??? What a hoot you are!!! lol Along with a major hypocrite and a sad and poor representative of your liberal acquaintances.

And keep on using pathetic excuses and wasted electrons to spout your non answer. It's extremely amusing!

Judging is what religious people like you do.

I just have standards when it comes to posting. Either you meet my standard or you will be treated accordingly.

Your mindless deflection of "authoritarian" is ludicrous.

This is the internet and I have no "authority" over what you spew. All I do have is the choice to react to your abysmal lack of civility. If you persist in being obnoxious I will exercise my right to give you a one way ticket to Cyberia. You won't be missed.

Have a nice day.

OMG! Thanks for the laugh!! And what's even funnier is that you're serious!!! lol

If you really believe what you just said, that 'religious' people judge, but you only have 'standards', that you're somehow 'better', then you're so far down the rabbit hole there is no hope for you.

You are, and have become, exactly what the liberal movement started out against, judgmental, authoritarian, 'holier than thou', and yet you don't see yourself as such. Hilarious!

Have a nice day yourself, you just made mine! lol