Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[NotfooledbyW]

State governments can prosecute murders,

Can state legislators pass a law legalizing murder for convenience of a human being who has met a live birth requirement and is therefore protected under the Constitution to life and liberty?

myrpls.23.06.30 #9,475
nf.23.07.01 #9,481

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1

The Supreme Court just ruled that a Christian graphic artist was not required to work with same sex couples for a wedding website.

2

Sotomayor wrote the dissent that boils down to the ruling allows people to discriminate against LGBTQX+ etc.

3

Fascism discriminates against minorities.

4

They can still get websites made, it's not like all website designers are Christian.

5

Tell us more about why it's just fine to discriminate. Christianity is as good a reason as any!

6

Tell me why government can force a web designer to either design a website they don't agree with or go out of business.

7

There is no constitutional right to have somebody else design a website for you. Or provide any other product or service for you that would not normally be provided.

8

A Christian bookstore should not be required to stock books and products promoting or affirming the gay lifestyle or anything else that a particular Christian might not condone.

F1

Isn't she the queer on the Court or is it the other dingbat that The Worthless Negro appointed? Hard to tell them apart.

F2

The Libtards are butt hurt over this decision because it doesn't make the damn queers and trannies a protected class.

Boo Hoo!

F3

Great week for America.

1. We taxpayer don't have to pay back any student loans of people that were to sorry to get a good enough education to pay it back themselves.

2. Colleges now can't discriminate on race.

3. We now have the religious freedom to tell the queers to take their sicko filth elsewhere.

F4

He allows me to ridicule sicko queers.

Just like Jesus ridiculed the assholes of his day

F5

In the Old Testament at one time God was so pissed at all Sodomites that he destroyed a couple of their cities.

H1

But I seriously doubt the Saviour of the world who says he loves all equally would use your terminology.

J1

This isn't about denial of service, this is about forcing Christians or other to deny their beliefs

To the Attention of H1. and J1: One year after Dobbs was decided in favor of the Old South’s white Christian Confederacy to do white Republican Christian nationalist’s (moral) bidding - They are at it again. And white Christian Confederate cheerleaders are doing somersaults on the sidelines. They are getting ready to take another shot at January 6 if the man who made the court what it is today for Jesus, is not returned to his rightful throne one year from November.

Just look at Flash. Not seen so much Confederate joy since BackAgain stsrted this thread.

1 fxfyr.23.06.30 #1
2 fxfyr.23.06.30 #2
3 dnldh 23.06.30 #3
4 mrtybgn.23.06.30 #4
5 dnldh 23.06.30 #5
6 mrtybgn.23.06.30 #6
7 fxfyr.23.06.30 #7
8 fxfyr.23.06.30 #7
F1 flvsh..23.06.30 #24
F2 flvsh..23.06.30 #28
F3 flvsh..23.06.30 #249
F4 flvsh..23.06.30 #262
F5 flvsh..23.06.30 #269
H1 hkrgy.23.06.30 #251
J1 jhngltshrggd 23.06.30 #21

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1

The SCOTUS rules on LAW. •••• I don't want the SCOTUS ruling based on morals. That is not their job.

2

Prove a presumption for consciousness , as consciousness must exist in actuality before it can be removed , else no loss of presumptive entitlement to obtain or retain consciousness exists .

3

And Romans 3:23 "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." •••• In the entire history of humankind, only three humans have known what it is like to be without sin. The first two were Adam and Eve, who very briefly were without sin, before they fell. Everyone but one born from then on was born in sin inherited from Adam and Eve, like a virus in a computer program that spread from one generation to the next all the way down. •••• The only way to interrupt that algorithm, that error in programming that originated with Adam and Eve, was to break that connection altogether. And the only way to do that was for a person to be born supernaturally with no mortal father, thereby no mortal connection to Adam and Eve.
Done by Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, God being His father, not man, and born and lived without sin. The new Adam, and a second chance for mankind. Then sacrificed for mankind so that every person can join Him in a new program, a new version of humankind, and one which was the original intention.
All it takes is belief in Him. Then all the prayers and fasting and living a moral life now matters.

4

Since I have no direction from Prophets of God on when the spirit is implanted into our bodies, there should be no abortion because of inconvenience and birth control once it's known that a woman is pregnant.

I think the "Consciousness" excuse is inconsequential to the topic of freedom of conscience. They aren't the same thing or part of the issue. Our "conscience" is the "Light of Christ" that is within all of us to choose the right. Consciousness has nothing to do with choosing the right.

5

Freedom of conscience has nothing to do Consciousness. The reason a mother who aborts because of inconvenience and birth control is robbing the human being in her freedom of conscience isn't because of the time it's being done. Freedom of conscience or the Light of Christ begins when a person reaches the age of accountability which is for most about 8 years of age. The mother is robbing the child of that future opportunity in life.

6

So, both the Father and Son are physically resurrected beings perfect and incorruptible without sin. We are made spiritually and physically in their Image going through out testing of our faith. They have given us prophets and apostles to communicate this information to us throughout the ages. And, we have two things to also help us, The light of Christ (our conscience) and The influence and possible gift of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a spirit still. So, we are made in Father's image and are working to become sinless in the resurrection.

7

Anytime I speak out against abortions, the left quickly descends with their sharp teeth.

8

I am not a fan of Donald's but I voted for him. My vote was justified in three words ..... Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.

Contrary to what Mr.HikerGuy says in post one, the Dobbs ruling grants states the right to ban and restrict abortion to satisfy the majority Christian opinion which is morally driven by each individual’s conscience telling them that Baby Fetus has a right to life that supersedes the fundamental human right of it’s mother. The mother’s life liberty and pursuit of happiness is supposed to be sacred by virtue of being born. Whenever anyone having freedom of conscience takes action that causes no harm to any other living individual person the government has no right to restrict or stop that action. A woman who seeks to avoid the physical conditions of giving birth, under Dobbs loses that freedom and right.

Saving Baby Fetus has been an organized collective movement based on an inner feeling or specific religion’s moral guide to the wrongness/sinfulness of ending an unwanted pregnancy. Opposition to RvW has become the Baby Fetus advocacy industry run by a very specific branchi of right wing caucasian (mostly) Christians who spit on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the US Constitution to favor the presidency of Donald Trump to get the activist Catholicism morally driven court in place to impose the exact Catholic dogma that sacred life begins at conception enforced as a matter of state and federal law.

Confirmation, I believe, of my ‘matter of conscience and lack of Baby Fetus consciousness’ argument in opposition to Dobbs comes in post eight where Mr HikerGuy confessed his votes for Trump was justified to add the Catholic moral activists Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to the three Catholic activists already there Roberts, Thomas and Alito to form the current Catholic activist court that us shitting on liberty and precedent now because they can. They also have a very cozy relationship with conservative billionaires who give them luxury rides on their private use only gravy train.

The irrational contrast between post one and post eight is under scrutiny and being challenged for an explanatory rationale for the discrepancy that they create. .

To that end posts three through seven are presented to define what makes those six Catholic Supremes Catholic. Ii is the moral foundation based on the irrational belief that such a thing as original sin exists and there is only one way out of it; Mr Jay Zepher explains it;

And the only way to do that was for a person to be born supernaturally with no mortal father, thereby no mortal connection to Adam and Eve. •••• Done by Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, God being His father, not man, and born and lived without sin. The new Adam, and a second chance for mankind. Then sacrificed for mankind so that every person can join Him in a new program, a new version of humankind, and one which was the original intention.​

Post two provides the alternative proper use of secular scientific rational thinking on abortion law that upholds the Constitution from every angle.

“Prove a presumption for consciousness , as consciousness must exist in actuality before it can be removed , else no loss of presumptive entitlement to obtain or retain consciousness exists Monk-Eye​

If Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, Thomas and Alito were sticking to law they would accept precedent because prior to the presumption of consciousness in Baby Fetus the state had no interest in protecting Baby Fetus from being terminated by it’s mother. That is the purely a matter of law with no moral judgement as a matter of conscience involved.


1 hkrgy.23.06.13 #9,193
2 mnkvyv.23.04.23 #8,422 pap•rce
3 jzyzphr.23.05.13 #1
4 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,433 to #8,422
5 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,434
6 cgrbr.23.05.18 #6
7 cgrbr.23.05.24 #18
8 hkrgy #62
nf.23.07.02 9,483

 

[beagle9]

Ninety eight percent of fetuses are aborted within the first twenty weeks. There is no kid involved. There is only one conscious person living off of one brain at that time. It’s the mother’s brain. Normally KIds have their own brain. All my kids and their kids and their kid’s kids were born with their own brain.

What about your kids? Or do MAGA have kids that do not have a brain? Is that what leads to your confusion?

nf.23.06.29 #9,453
myrpls.23.06.29 #9,455
nf.23.06.29 #9,457
myrpls.23.06.29 #9,458
nf.23.06.29 #9,459
bvvgl.23.06.30 #9,476
nf.33.06.30 #9,477

They were born with there own brain ? Well where did that come from, and at what stage did it become their own brain ?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Monk-Eye said:
Prove a presumption for consciousness , as consciousness must exist in actuality before it can be removed , else no loss of presumptive entitlement to obtain or retain consciousness exists . Apr 23, 2023 #8,422

They were born with their own brain ? Well where did that come from, and at what stage did it become their own brain ?

Not before 21 weeks because that is the earliest that a preemie has been removed from the woman and survived.

98 percent of abortions occur prior to what Monk-Eye who strongly supports 2nd Amendment before 22 weeks. Therefore there is no consciousness that exists in the “kid fetus” in actuality that is terminated before that time when it is removed from a woman’s body who does not want it there.

bvvgl.23.07.02 #9,484 to #9,477
nf.23.07.02 #9,485 to #9,484

 

[beagle9]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Contrary to what Mr.HikerGuy says in post one, the Dobbs ruling grants states the right to ban and restrict abortion to satisfy the majority Christian opinion which is morally driven by each individual’s conscience telling them that Baby Fetus has a right to life that supersedes the fundamental human right of it’s mother. The mother’s life liberty and pursuit of happiness is supposed to be sacred by virtue of being born. Whenever anyone having freedom of conscience takes action that causes no harm to any other living individual person the government has no right to restrict or stop that action. A woman who seeks to avoid the physical conditions of giving birth, under Dobbs loses that freedom and right.

Saving Baby Fetus has been an organized collective movement based on an inner feeling or specific religion’s moral guide to the wrongness/sinfulness of ending an unwanted pregnancy. Opposition to RvW has become the Baby Fetus advocacy industry run by a very specific branchi of right wing caucasian (mostly) Christians who spit on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the US Constitution to favor the presidency of Donald Trump to get the activist Catholicism morally driven court in place to impose the exact Catholic dogma that sacred life begins at conception enforced as a matter of state and federal law.

Confirmation, I believe, of my ‘matter of conscience and lack of Baby Fetus consciousness’ argument in opposition to Dobbs comes in post eight where Mr HikerGuy confessed his votes for Trump was justified to add the Catholic moral activists Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to the three Catholic activists already there Roberts, Thomas and Alito to form the current Catholic activist court that us shitting on liberty and precedent now because they can. They also have a very cozy relationship with conservative billionaires who give them luxury rides on their private use only gravy train.

The irrational contrast between post one and post eight is under scrutiny and being challenged for an explanatory rationale for the discrepancy that they create. .

To that end posts three through seven are presented to define what makes those six Catholic Supremes Catholic. Ii is the moral foundation based on the irrational belief that such a thing as original sin exists and there is only one way out of it; Mr Jay Zepher explains it;

And the only way to do that was for a person to be born supernaturally with no mortal father, thereby no mortal connection to Adam and Eve. •••• Done by Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, God being His father, not man, and born and lived without sin. The new Adam, and a second chance for mankind. Then sacrificed for mankind so that every person can join Him in a new program, a new version of humankind, and one which was the original intention.​

Post two provides the alternative proper use of secular scientific rational thinking on abortion law that upholds the Constitution from every angle.

“Prove a presumption for consciousness , as consciousness must exist in actuality before it can be removed , else no loss of presumptive entitlement to obtain or retain consciousness exists Monk-Eye​

If Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, Thomas and Alito were sticking to law they would accept precedent because prior to the presumption of consciousness in Baby Fetus the state had no interest in protecting Baby Fetus from being terminated by it’s mother. That is the purely a matter of law with no moral judgement as a matter of conscience involved.


1 hkrgy.23.06.13 #9,193
2 mnkvyv.23.04.23 #8,422 pap•rce
3 jzyzphr.23.05.13 #1
4 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,433 to #8,422
5 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,434
6 cgrbr.23.05.18 #6
7 cgrbr.23.05.24 #18
8 hkrgy #62
nf.23.07.02 9,483

You keep making narratives up, but you are wrong on the issue, but hey you're an activist with a political agenda that goes beyond abortion, so it is what it is.

All any civilized nation wants is rules and standards to follow, but the leftist activist is in their break all the rules and standards mode. When you people are in this mode, you would justify just about anything regardless of the moral failures it imposes.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

wrong on the issue

make your case. And don’t base your case on my being a leftist. I am the conservative defending reproductive freedom based on the Constitution’s simple original fabric. Women who wish to terminate a fetus in her own bidy have a right to do so bacause the matter of fact is that she meets a live birth requirement and her fetus does not. There really is no law based argument to be made but I welcome you to give it a shot.

 

[beagle9]

make your case. And don’t base your case on my being a leftist. I am the conservative defending reproductive freedom based on the Constitution’s simple original fabric. Women who wish to terminate a fetus in her own bidy have a right to do so bacause the matter of fact is that she meets a live birth requirement and her fetus does not. There really is no law based argument to be made but I welcome you to give it a shot.

I just gave it a shot, but you ignored it. It's a question of having a civilized rule based society verses one that is based on having the freedoms to do anything to anyone without following said rules, and without any repercussions.

If we allowed leftist total rule, we would have total chaos and the eventual collapse of a civilized modern day society. Stop working towards helping in that collapse.

 

[Cougarbear]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Contrary to what Mr.HikerGuy says in post one, the Dobbs ruling grants states the right to ban and restrict abortion to satisfy the majority Christian opinion which is morally driven by each individual’s conscience telling them that Baby Fetus has a right to life that supersedes the fundamental human right of it’s mother. The mother’s life liberty and pursuit of happiness is supposed to be sacred by virtue of being born. Whenever anyone having freedom of conscience takes action that causes no harm to any other living individual person the government has no right to restrict or stop that action. A woman who seeks to avoid the physical conditions of giving birth, under Dobbs loses that freedom and right.

Saving Baby Fetus has been an organized collective movement based on an inner feeling or specific religion’s moral guide to the wrongness/sinfulness of ending an unwanted pregnancy. Opposition to RvW has become the Baby Fetus advocacy industry run by a very specific branchi of right wing caucasian (mostly) Christians who spit on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the US Constitution to favor the presidency of Donald Trump to get the activist Catholicism morally driven court in place to impose the exact Catholic dogma that sacred life begins at conception enforced as a matter of state and federal law.

Confirmation, I believe, of my ‘matter of conscience and lack of Baby Fetus consciousness’ argument in opposition to Dobbs comes in post eight where Mr HikerGuy confessed his votes for Trump was justified to add the Catholic moral activists Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to the three Catholic activists already there Roberts, Thomas and Alito to form the current Catholic activist court that us shitting on liberty and precedent now because they can. They also have a very cozy relationship with conservative billionaires who give them luxury rides on their private use only gravy train.

The irrational contrast between post one and post eight is under scrutiny and being challenged for an explanatory rationale for the discrepancy that they create. .

To that end posts three through seven are presented to define what makes those six Catholic Supremes Catholic. Ii is the moral foundation based on the irrational belief that such a thing as original sin exists and there is only one way out of it; Mr Jay Zepher explains it;

And the only way to do that was for a person to be born supernaturally with no mortal father, thereby no mortal connection to Adam and Eve. •••• Done by Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, God being His father, not man, and born and lived without sin. The new Adam, and a second chance for mankind. Then sacrificed for mankind so that every person can join Him in a new program, a new version of humankind, and one which was the original intention.​

Post two provides the alternative proper use of secular scientific rational thinking on abortion law that upholds the Constitution from every angle.

“Prove a presumption for consciousness , as consciousness must exist in actuality before it can be removed , else no loss of presumptive entitlement to obtain or retain consciousness exists Monk-Eye​

If Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, Thomas and Alito were sticking to law they would accept precedent because prior to the presumption of consciousness in Baby Fetus the state had no interest in protecting Baby Fetus from being terminated by it’s mother. That is the purely a matter of law with no moral judgement as a matter of conscience involved.


1 hkrgy.23.06.13 #9,193
2 mnkvyv.23.04.23 #8,422 pap•rce
3 jzyzphr.23.05.13 #1
4 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,433 to #8,422
5 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,434
6 cgrbr.23.05.18 #6
7 cgrbr.23.05.24 #18
8 hkrgy #62
nf.23.07.02 9,483

I’m not Catholic. Wanna try again?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1 hkrgy.23.06.13 #9,193
2 mnkvyv.23.04.23 #8,422 pap•rce
3 jzyzphr.23.05.13 #1
4 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,433 to #8,422
5 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,434
6 cgrbr.23.05.18 #6
7 cgrbr.23.05.24 #18
8 hkrgy #62
nf.23.07.02 9,483

I’m not Catholic. Wanna try again?

As a Christian do you believe the sanctity of life begins at conception and abortion is a sin?

cgrbr.23.07.02 #9,489
nf.23.07.02 #9,490

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

And don’t base your case on my being a leftist.

A deranged leftist.

I am the conservative defending reproductive freedom

Which isn't a thing, let alone to be conserved, just a radical and absurd leftoid notion that mothers own their kids and can kill them, which really tracks well with you Democrats and your history with slaves.

based on the Constitution’s simple original fabric

What an absolute load of horseshit.

Women who wish to terminate a fetus in her own bidy have a right to do so

Absurdity. No such right could ever exist, period, and certainly never existed in the Constitution.

You have no merit to anything you are saying, and no sanity.

 

[BackAgain]

Update on the point of this thread, just for fun.

The SCOTUS did scuttle their own prior mistake. Roe v. Wade is no more.

And the new decision simply returns to the individual states the authority to limit the access (if any) to abortion. What the decision does not do is state a position on a more fundamental issue. That is, whether the Constitutionally protected right to life itself should be extended to those persons not yet born.

As for that, the debate continues.

 

[Cougarbear]

1 hkrgy.23.06.13 #9,193
2 mnkvyv.23.04.23 #8,422 pap•rce
3 jzyzphr.23.05.13 #1
4 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,433 to #8,422
5 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,434
6 cgrbr.23.05.18 #6
7 cgrbr.23.05.24 #18
8 hkrgy #62
nf.23.07.02 9,483



As a Christian do you believe the sanctity of life begins at conception and abortion is a sin?

cgrbr.23.07.02 #9,489
nf.23.07.02 #9,490

Abortion on demand for selfish reasons is a sin. Whether at conception or when our spirit bodies are placed in our bodies a few weeks after conception. I’ll let God decide.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I just gave it a shot, but you ignored it. It's a question of having a civilized rule based society verses one that is based on having the freedoms to do anything to anyone without following said rules, and without any repercussions.

don’t base your case on my being a leftist. I am the conservative defending reproductive freedom based on the Constitution’s simple original fabric.

A deranged leftist.

Which isn't a thing, let alone to be conserved, just a radical and absurd leftoid notion that mothers own their kids and can kill them,

You have not disowned, or kicked the conservative Republicans out of your party for believing the same thing that I do. That being a woman has the right to choose to terminate her own pregnancy and it is none of the government’s business if she does.

It has nothing to do with left or right, it’s only that pro-choice Republicans care more about guns or race or gender culture war issues or treating billionaires as superior beings etc than they do about protecting women and preserving their rights when they get pregnant.


nf.24.07.02 #9,487
myrpls.24.07.02 #9,491
nf.24.07.02 #9,494

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1 hkrgy.23.06.13 #9,193
2 mnkvyv.23.04.23 #8,422 pap•rce
3 jzyzphr.23.05.13 #1
4 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,433 to #8,422
5 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,434
6 cgrbr.23.05.18 #6
7 cgrbr.23.05.24 #18
8 hkrgy #62
nf.23.07.02 9,483

And, we have two things to also help us, The light of Christ (our conscience) and The influence and possible gift of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a spirit still. So, we are made in Father's image and are working to become sinless in the resurrection.

Abortion on demand for selfish reasons is a sin. Whether at conception or when our spirit bodies are placed in our bodies a few weeks after conception. I’ll let God decide.

How about abortion on demand is none of your business when it’s involving people who do not share your religious beliefs.

It’s fine if you think God is going to decide what happens to women who end a pregnancy. If you fear that kind of god, do not abort your fetus. But it is not appropriate when you demand that the government restrict access to abortion because you believe it to be a sin.

We have freedom of conscience to not believe and to rationally reject your interpretations of the supernatural world. I accept the Jewish interpretation of the supernatural world who believe that that God breathes sacred life into human beings during the new infant’s first breath. That appears to be completely more rational than sacred life begins at conception . . . . because 20% of all conceptions end in natural miscarriage. So God does not hold life sacred that early. Why should we?

cgrbr.23.05.18 #6
cgrbr.23.07.02 #9,493
nf.23.07.02 #9,495

 

[Cougarbear]

1 hkrgy.23.06.13 #9,193
2 mnkvyv.23.04.23 #8,422 pap•rce
3 jzyzphr.23.05.13 #1
4 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,433 to #8,422
5 cgrbr.23.04.23 #8,434
6 cgrbr.23.05.18 #6
7 cgrbr.23.05.24 #18
8 hkrgy #62
nf.23.07.02 9,483




How about abortion on demand is none of your business when it’s involving people who do not share your religious beliefs.

It’s fine if you think God is going to decide what happens to women who end a pregnancy. If you fear that kind of god, do not abort your fetus. But it is not appropriate when you demand that the government restrict access to abortion because you believe it to be a sin.

We have freedom of conscience to not believe and to rationally reject your interpretations of the supernatural world. I accept the Jewish interpretation of the supernatural world who believe that that God breathes sacred life into human beings during the new infant’s first breath. That appears to be completely more rational than sacred life begins at conception . . . . because 20% of all conceptions end in natural miscarriage. So God does not hold life sacred that early. Why should we?

cgrbr.23.05.18 #6
cgrbr.23.07.02 #9,493
nf.23.07.02 #9,495

The unborn child has rights to live. It’s none of the government’s business. My tax money is not for butchering children born or unborn. But you degenerates believe in mutilation of born children and killing unborn.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1

The unborn child has rights to live.

2

What the decision does not do is state a position on a more fundamental issue. That is, whether the Constitutionally protected right to life itself should be extended to those persons not yet born.

3

The unborn child has rights to live. It’s none of the government’s business.

When you say in post one “the unborn child has rights to live” that is a sentiment that distorts reality. When repeated over and over again, it is a lie. It is propaganda.

You need not take my word for it. Take a look at post two. Your “Saving Baby Fetus” Cult Fellow BackAgain speaks truth only when he wrote:

“the Constitutionally protected right to life itself” { is not} “extended to those persons not yet born.”​

That is truthful. That is fact. That is reality.

The unborn fetal organism has no protected rights. And never will prior to viability.

Secondly my response to post three is you have the government’s business on the unenumerated right to privacy for every woman carrying a developing nonviable fetus in her womb assbackwards.

When you tie the lie of all lies:

“The unborn child has rights to live.”​

to the assbackward absurdity of all absurdities:

“It’s none of the government’s business.”​

You miss the hard cold reality that RvW was fixated on protecting privacy which exclusively means an unwanted pregnancy is none of the government’s fucking business until a fetus is capable of surviving separation and no longer being a part of it’s mother’s neurological system.

You expose the reality that you Cougarbear are an irrational theist which usually comes from a failure of parental and peer communication of the proper relationship of having healthy supernatural beliefs while working, playing and living In a secular, highly rational and complex technologically advanced, organically humanistic freedom loving society

CarsomyrPlusSix is an irrational atheist with the same mindset as you.

1 cgrbr.23.07.03 #9,496 tuchrtl
2 bckvgn.24.07.02
3 cgrbr.23.07.03 #9,496 tuc•tgb
nf.23.07.03 #9,497

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

^ lol, retarded post per usual, smelly

Yeah so anyway, all human beings have a human right to life, and governments exist to protect these human rights.

When governments violate these rights with horrific rights abuses like tyrannical taxes, or slavery, or abortion, good folks have a duty to fix or destroy that evil government.

Overturning Roe was a great first step, as Roe was objectively an act of tyranny resulting from the seizure of power by 20th century authoritarian ideologues, rest in piss. Dobbs was pure respect for the Constitution and the rule of law - it was chef’s kiss perfect.

But it’s just the first step - we have to ban this human rights abuse everywhere, just like slavery.

 

[Cougarbear]

1

2

3

When you say in post one “the unborn child has rights to live” that is a sentiment that distorts reality. When repeated over and over again, it is a lie. It is propaganda.

You need not take my word for it. Take a look at post two. Your “Saving Baby Fetus” Cult Fellow BackAgain speaks truth only when he wrote:

“the Constitutionally protected right to life itself” { is not} “extended to those persons not yet born.”​

That is truthful. That is fact. That is reality.

The unborn fetal organism has no protected rights. And never will prior to viability.

Secondly my response to post three is you have the government’s business on the unenumerated right to privacy for every woman carrying a developing nonviable fetus in her womb assbackwards.

When you tie the lie of all lies:

“The unborn child has rights to live.”​

to the assbackward absurdity of all absurdities:

“It’s none of the government’s business.”​

You miss the hard cold reality that RvW was fixated on protecting privacy which exclusively means an unwanted pregnancy is none of the government’s fucking business until a fetus is capable of surviving separation and no longer being a part of it’s mother’s neurological system.

You expose the reality that you Cougarbear are an irrational theist which usually comes from a failure of parental and peer communication of the proper relationship of having healthy supernatural beliefs while working, playing and living In a secular, highly rational and complex technologically advanced, organically humanistic freedom loving society

CarsomyrPlusSix is an irrational atheist with the same mindset as you.

1 cgrbr.23.07.03 #9,496 tuchrtl
2 bckvgn.24.07.02
3 cgrbr.23.07.03 #9,496 tuc•tgb
nf.23.07.03 #9,497

You pro killing of human life people like to twist the truth to suit your own twisted minds. The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. The unborn do have rights to live and the selfish women who kill their children don't have the right to decide without restraints. 60 million babies tortured and killed while you same loons saber rattle over guns used in a few mass shootings of children. Women have a choice. A choice to lock their knees until they get married. Once they allow a man to impregnate her, it's too late. The choice was already made.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

cgrbr.23.07.03 #9,496 tuchrtl
bckvgn.24.07.02 #9,492
cgrbr.23.07.03 #9,496 tuc•tgb
nf.23.07.03 #9,497

The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

Didn’t you read what BackAgain wrote in post #9,492

And the new decision simply returns to the individual states the authority to limit the access (if any) to abortion. What the decision does not do is state a position on a more fundamental issue. That is, whether the Constitutionally protected right to life itself should be extended to those persons not yet born. •••• As for that, the debate continues.

I say the unborn do not have a Constitutionally protected right to life.

BackAgain says the unborn do not have a Constitutionally protected right to life.

The USSC says the unborn do not have a Constitutionally protected right to life.

You say the unborn do have a Constitutionally protected right to life.

What in Jesus’ name causes you to believe you are right? It is not possible in any way to be right so I would like you to attempt to explain why you think you are right.

Please give it a try.


cgrbr.23.07.03 #9,499
bckvgn.24.07.02 #9,492
nf.23.07.03 #9,500