Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Gregory A]

Absolutely and totally wrong.
No one ever questioned the rights of any baby, fetus, ovum, or sperm.
That is totally irrelevant.
The POINT is that the rights of the mother, to her own body, can never be violated by or for anyone.
Not an ovum, fetus, or born baby.
If the born baby wants a liter of blood for a transfusion, the mother legally has a choice and can say no.

What you are saying makes sense if pregnancies were spontaneous occurrences. But it is her that has chosen to compromise the situation by choosing to allow a second party in the form of a male to have access to her body. If she has the right to terminate what then becomes a third party, then why not the second party having that same right. The faith the male might have in her claim she is taking preventions is not considered violated if she chooses to have the baby. It is a risk he takes, but why then a no-risk position for her. If humans laid eggs whose right would it be to break those eggs.

 

[Rigby5]

Ha ha ha.... by law the mother MUST care for the Babys needs such as feeding, medical care and such as pointed out in the link you ignored.

I didn't realize babies have a habit of asking for blood transfusions must be a medical prodigy!

"For instance, children are entitled to a safe environment, good nutrition, healthcare, and education. Although parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, if a child is not safe, the state will remove the children from their home. Parents are required to meet the child's basic needs."

There have been plenty of state actions rescuing children because of parents not taking care of them.

Wrong.
Any woman may at any time put their child up for adoption or give them to someone else.
A woman has no responsibility for a baby once born.
You can't force an adult to do anything in a republic.
Only a dictatorship does that.

 

[Rigby5]

What you are saying makes sense if pregnancies were spontaneous occurrences. But it is her that has chosen to compromise the situation by choosing to allow a second party in the form of a male to have access to her body. If she has the right to terminate what then becomes a third party, then why not the second party having that same right. The faith the male might have in her claim she is taking preventions is not considered violated if she chooses to have the baby. It is a risk he takes, but why then a no-risk position for her. If humans laid eggs whose right would it be to break those eggs.

I disagree.
Sex is a biological need and totally independent of whether or not it results in a pregnancy.
We are not like rabbits any more, that need massive reproduction rates.
We have to reduce reproductive rates, but still have to also satisfy our inherent sexual needs.
So then there is no other way then abortion sometimes.

 

[Gregory A]

I disagree.
Sex is a biological need and totally independent of whether or not it results in a pregnancy.
We are not like rabbits any more, that need massive reproduction rates.
We have to reduce reproductive rates, but still have to also satisfy our inherent sexual needs.
So then there is no other way then abortion sometimes.

Sure, and you make a valid point one that I do accept. But she could still decide to proceed with the pregnancy. Should he have the right to order a termination based on the point you have made. Why should the decision be hers alone. I mean the pregnancy could have been intentional. He would not need to know and is it a risk he takes? Marriage should decide these things which mostly has always been the way.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wrong.
Any woman may at any time put their child up for adoption or give them to someone else.
A woman has no responsibility for a baby once born.
You can't force an adult to do anything in a republic.
Only a dictatorship does that.

Never said anything against adoption and you still ignore the laws I posted showing parent are responsible to caring for the children for the food, medical and physical needs.

Women are expected to care for the child they brought into the world that is so elementary an understanding that it shouldn't be argued I have two daughters according to you it seems I could just take them out into the desert and leave them there because according to you parents have no responsibility for their lives.

You disgust me to the point that I put you on ignore.

Cheers.

 

[eagle1462010]

States are irrelevant.
They have NO rights at all.
Only individuals have rights, and it is illegal for states to violate them.

We beg to differ. We are changing the law........And it very well appears that SCOTUS will not overturn it.

You don't tell us what to do here................Period..........Go back to your Blue Shithole and be you.

 

[Lakhota]

Yes you did!!!!!

 

[Lakhota]

Seriously, is Susan Collins retarded?

 

[yidnar]

View attachment 639671

Amen! That's why I think SCOTUS may have intentionally leaked their draft opinion as a trial balloon. I firmly believe this is good news for Democrats.

it appears Lakhota has found a website to get his idiotic points across for him ..... congrats idiot !

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you prevented those 600,000 abortions a years, the US would be destroyed by poverty within a century.

Teach proper parenting skills, and make college education affordable and entry-level jobs more readily available and accessible, then poverty wouldn't be a problem.

 

[TemplarKormac]

For some unknown reason, you think abortions kill babies. They don’t. Dumbass.

Wait, wut?

 

[Lakhota]

They LIED to us all - while under oath!
​

 

[beagle9]

WRONG!
The Constitution is very clear that there are individual rights limiting what states can legislate at all.
This is just part of the 14th amendment.
{...
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...}
Voters, the majority, or legislators in any state do not get to arbitrarily dictate limits on individual rights.
Any one single individual must remain supreme over the desires of all the rest of the residents of a state, when it comes to inherent individual rights of that one individual.
And whether or not to give birth is an inherent individual choice, not up to legislators or majorities.

Different time we're living in bud, where as no one could have foreseen the future as based upon how the amendments would play out for a citizenry that has since gone rogue, otherwise just like what we've seen play out over the years looking back now, and then of course looking forward. The amendments might have to be revisited, and then made clear on what they were added for, what they covered at the time, and what they never intended to cover going forward from that time. To many constitutional amendments have been misconstrued in order to attempt to usher in terrible things that were not intended to be protected by the amendments added.

Now not all amendments are bad, nor have they been abused, but we definitely have seen abuse going on in the comprehension dept or interpretation dept of these constitutional amendments by devil's with very evil purposes involved.

 

[eagle1462010]

View attachment 641061

They LIED to us all - while under oath!
​

Pot painting kettle black............

Do you know what happens to people who get the shit harassed out of them by LEFTIST LUNATICS????????? They get some payback.

 

[beagle9]

View attachment 641061

They LIED to us all - while under oath!
​

Nope, they spoke the truth, but the people/citizen's who the government is supposed to work for, and are supposed to represent, are basically saying to these rogue politicians (through these fine upstanding justices voices), that enough is enough, otherwise enough on the reinterpretation of the laws and/or on the constitution of these United States of America, where as these rogue race baiting, trouble stirring, troublemaking leftist politician's have been misconstruing and reinterpreting our constitution in order to fit their narratives or agenda's somehow up under their hyped up large umbrella, and this by usage of our own document's against us. It's got to end, and the nation United once again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

View attachment 641027

Yes you did!!!!!

Like LizardBitch, you do NOT speak for "all women", so keep to your lane and speak about your own repulsive self.

 

[yidnar]

For some unknown reason, you think abortions kill babies. They don’t. Dumbass.




You’re truly living up to you name.

is a human being in the womb killed during an abortion ?

 

[BackAgain]

For some unknown reason, you think abortions kill babies. They don’t. Dumbass.

Yeah. They do you moron. I keep telling you imbecile libtards: when the human man’s squiggly little spermatozoa gets into the human female’s little ovum, that’s called conception the start of human life. And the product of that conception will never be anything other than a human being. No giraffe, no rhino, no frog, no bird. A human being.

 

[beagle9]

is a human being in the womb killed during an abortion ?

Exactly... It sure isn't a cat, dog, fish, horse etc. If any of these bodies were laid out for identification purposes, otherwise (side by side), the human being would be identified easily as opposed to the other's when searching for the human being amongst them.

 

[yidnar]

Exactly... It sure isn't a cat, dog, fish, horse etc. If any of these bodies were laid out for identification purposes, otherwise (side by side), the human being would be identified easily as opposed to the other's when searching for the human being amongst them.

no leftist has attempted to answer that question as of yet ... they cant and they know it .