Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[NotfooledbyW]

beagle9-221208 #6,198 Human beings regardless of what stage they are in while making their way forward, are still to be held above all creation that reside within the womb or upon the earth, otherwise because they are human plain and simple.

NFBW: And if I don’t beagle9 what law or moral code am I violating? As a human being myself I have a sense of duty and moral obligation to honor the right to life of all human beings from the moment they have a natural or medically assisted birth until hopefully a long and full life comes to a natural death.

END2212082049

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6221208-#6,200 CarsomyrPlusSix Despite the stereotype, the stereotype they push, it is always the pro-aborts trying to bring up their thoughts about religion into these discussions about law.

NFBW: What law is being discussed that says a suddenly and recently conceived unborn human organism has a right to use another person’s body for nine months against the will of the other person.

Let me remind you what Catholic Justice Alito says about the law I guess you think exists.

“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​

​

How do you take that CarsomyrPlusSix ?????

​

And then there’s Alito’s fraud in Dobbs v Jackson re: - "Leges Henrici Primi" (or "Laws of Henry I"), which dates to around 1115 A.D..

See para E and K to catch the drift if Alito’s fraud.

A. Alito's opinion sneaks in a 12th-century religious penalty for abortion — not a criminal statute — citing it in a section meant to support the history of criminal punishment, and with its ecclesiastical origins neatly excised. Those who are outraged by this are now free to mock Alito, unless they'd rather have him impeached — along with the whole Dobbs majority, perhaps — for deceiving America and violating the separation of church and state.

B. Page 17 of the Dobbs slip opinion, in footnote 25, cites the legal treatise "Leges Henrici Primi" (or "Laws of Henry I"), which dates to around 1115 A.D.:

C. Even before Bracton's time, English law imposed punishment for the killing of a fetus. See Leges Henrici Primi 222–223 (L. Downer ed. 1972) (imposing penalty for any abortion and treating a woman who aborted a "quick" child "as if she were a murderess").

D. Legal historian Leslie John Downer's translation of the original 12th-century Latin text, however, reads, "f she does this [intentionally destroys her embryo] after it is quick [animate], she shall do penance for seven years as if she were a murderess." Alito carefully clipped out the words "she shall do penance for seven years" from the quotation, between "quick" and "as."

E. Why hide those words? Unless he was sleepwalking, Alito understood perfectly well that he was committing a gross material omission, obscuring the fact that the "penalty" in this medieval text was merely religious and penitential, not civil or criminal. Religious "crimes" are not crimes at all, by our modern legal standards. (The Leges Henrici, at pages 222-223, mentions paying "wergeld" and "manbot," or reparations, including compensation for loss of a pregnancy, if a pregnant woman is slain by any means. But that's not "punishment for abortion," which is merely penance in the Leges.)

F. To say this is "just a footnote" is no excuse. If footnote 25 had used undisclosed material that was atheist, Islamist or Satanist in origin, people would be outraged; given the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which bans any state religion, they may be equally outraged by the court's deliberate concealment of the Christian prehistory to Dobbs. The court's majority has no right to inflict state religion on Americans, in even the slightest dose.

G. But wait, there's more. On pages 16 and 17, the Dobbs opinion bookends footnote 25 with, "We begin with the common law, under which abortion was a crime at least after 'quickening'," before moving on to common-law sources like Henry de Bracton and the statement, "English cases dating all the way back to the 13th century corroborate the treatises' statements that abortion was a crime." This all misleadingly implies that the Leges, which is certainly a treatise, criminalizes abortion under common law.

H. Then Alito crosses the Rubicon, proclaiming on page 25 that "an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973." This is fraudulent, by any analysis. If the Leges Henrici is common law, as Alito presents it, mixed in with common-law sources like Bracton, it's dishonest to say that common law has always criminalized abortion. But if Alito then wishes to backpedal and claim that the Leges, with its penance-penalty, is really canon law (i.e., church law), not common law, then two things follow: Alito falsified his argument by categorizing the Leges with common law, and he more flagrantly snuck Christian state religion into the Dobbs decision. Falsehood, either way.

I. Finally, English common law is normally understood to begin after 1066 (with the Norman Conquest) and no later than the 12th century, since King Henry II (1133-1189) is often called "Father of the Common Law." But Bracton, Alito's earliest legitimate citation for criminalizing abortion, wasn't born until around the year 1210. In short, Alito provides doctored evidence, or none at all, for his conclusory statement that the "earliest days of the common law" criminalized abortion, and creates a kind of fake history — the fiction of an ancient, continuous Anglo-American pedigree of criminalizing abortion — which supposedly supports overturning Roe.

J. Was this an unintentional mistake? That's unlikely, especially since the present author told the court, in a brief filed May 21, after the Dobbs draft leak, that the opinion failed to explain that the penalty in Leges was purely ecclesiastical. The justices paid no attention, and the error was repeated in the final June opinion.

K. Alito creates a kind of fake history — the fiction of an ancient, continuous Anglo-American pedigree of criminalizing abortion — which supposedly supports overturning Roe.

L. Oddly, the three dissenters in Dobbs failed to catch the Leges problem, and even committed a minor error on page 13 of the dissent: "Of course, the majority opinion refers [to] earlier history[;] it goes back as far as the 13th (the 13th!) century." In fact, the Leges is even older, from early in the 12th century. Their anger, perhaps, made them "miss the trees for the forest": Hyper-focused on the big-picture loss of Roe, the liberal justices missed crucial details about the Leges and state religion. Whether one is "pro-choice" or "pro-life," the truth is important.



Supreme deceit: How Alito snuck medieval state Christianity into the Dobbs opinion

David Boyle, Salon
October 13, 2022

END2212082158

 

[NotfooledbyW]

He doesn’t understand the science.

 

[beagle9]

beagle9-221208 #6,198 Human beings regardless of what stage they are in while making their way forward, are still to be held above all creation that reside within the womb or upon the earth, otherwise because they are human plain and simple.

NFBW: And if I don’t beagle9 what law or moral code am I violating? As a human being myself I have a sense of duty and moral obligation to honor the right to life of all human beings from the moment they have a natural or medically assisted birth until hopefully a long and full life comes to a natural death.

END2212082049

You are a contradicting sort of fella, otherwise regardless of the human being being either born or still in the womb developing, it is still a human being, and it should be honored as such and protected as such. Period.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

^ Dobbs is affirming the 10th Amendment and the silence of the Constitution on the topic of abortion.

Everything else Egg said about the Dobbs decision is insane and fucking irrelevant.
Egg's continued obsession with religion is fucking irrelevant and immaterial.

 

[beagle9]

^ Dobbs is affirming the 10th Amendment and the silence of the Constitution on the topic of abortion.

Everything else Egg said about the Dobbs decision is insane and fucking irrelevant.
Egg's continued obsession with religion is fucking irrelevant and immaterial.

It's his go too when losing. Don't see how it helps him really, but I can see easily what he's trying to do when he attempt's to go after it. It's called desperation and a lack of respect for religion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

AATC060117 A doctor, a lawyer, and a priest are on a ship when it hits a rock and begins to sink. 'What about the women and children?' the doctor worries as the three pile into the only lifeboat. 'Screw the women and children,' the lawyer replies. 'Do you think we have time?' asks the priest.

NFBW: Alito is a highly educated Catholic on the Supreme Court. Alito said along with the Dobbs decision the following quote:

“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​

​

Alito sums up why I a secular humanist and Jeffersonian rational theist and FranklinRoosevelt_FTW are mostly correct and openly honest and factual on abortion versus ding , a Catholic on the right ; @beagle , a Protestant ; CarsomyrPlusSix , an atheist who sleeps on Sunday’s just like God; are mostly wrong .

Here is what caught my attention written by FDR:

FDR220512-#3,093 FranklinRoosevelt_FTW “And we should also hear out what women who are both for abortion and against it have to say without calling them names. Really is all about being polite everybody can hear each other out on this one.

NFBW: That is not a popular sentiment around here and I will be spending the day or two putting up CHRISTmas decorations, so in the meantime, I’m asking all to read this post, and in the spirit Christmas and politeness, to read the following piece from 2006 when Dubya nominated Alito to the Supreme Court.

I realize I can’t make anyone read anything but if interested in giving understanding and politeness a try in a search for truth in a rational way please give peace a chance at least for month - by reading this:

Alito And The Catholics BY BOOTIE COSGROVE-MATHER JANUARY 17, 2006 / 12:14 PM / WEEKLY STANDARD
This column was written by Joseph Bottom.

Alito And The Catholics

AATC060117.a “Since its founding, the United States has always had a source of moral vocabulary and feeling that stands at least a little apart from the marketplace and the polling booth — from both the economics of capitalism and the politics of democracy that otherwise dominate the nation.”

END2212092017

 

[ding]

AATC060117 A doctor, a lawyer, and a priest are on a ship when it hits a rock and begins to sink. 'What about the women and children?' the doctor worries as the three pile into the only lifeboat. 'Screw the women and children,' the lawyer replies. 'Do you think we have time?' asks the priest.

NFBW: Alito is a highly educated Catholic on the Supreme Court. Alito said along with the Dobbs decision the following quote:

“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​

​

Alito sums up why I a secular humanist and Jeffersonian rational theist and FranklinRoosevelt_FTW are mostly correct and openly honest and factual on abortion versus ding , a Catholic on the right ; @beagle , a Protestant ; CarsomyrPlusSix , an atheist who sleeps on Sunday’s just like God; are mostly wrong .

Here is what caught my attention written by FDR:

FDR220512-#3,093 FranklinRoosevelt_FTW “And we should also hear out what women who are both for abortion and against it have to say without calling them names. Really is all about being polite everybody can hear each other out on this one.

NFBW: That is not a popular sentiment around here and I will be spending the day or two putting up CHRISTmas decorations, so in the meantime, I’m asking all to read this post, and in the spirit Christmas and politeness, to read the following piece from 2006 when Dubya nominated Alito to the Supreme Court.

I realize I can’t make anyone read anything but if interested in giving understanding and politeness a try in a search for truth in a rational way please give peace a chance at least for month - by reading this:

Alito And The Catholics BY BOOTIE COSGROVE-MATHER JANUARY 17, 2006 / 12:14 PM / WEEKLY STANDARD
This column was written by Joseph Bottom.

Alito And The Catholics

AATC060117.a “Since its founding, the United States has always had a source of moral vocabulary and feeling that stands at least a little apart from the marketplace and the polling booth — from both the economics of capitalism and the politics of democracy that otherwise dominate the nation.”

END2212092017

You don’t know what my position on abortion is. I never told you. I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge that abortion ends a human life without justifying the ending of a human life due to the ridiculous and arbitrary viability argument.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Puffed Up And Full Of Its Self "

* Excluding Violations Of Religious Establishment Clause *

^ Just shut up about religion.
Despite the stereotype, the stereotype they push, it is always the pro-aborts trying to bring up their thoughts about religion into these discussions about law.

There is not a difference between a religion and a creed , and the first amendment of us republic assures its citizens that government may not prevent the free expression of edicts or tenets of a creed as a religion , and there is not an exception in us first amendment for a religion with a creed of edicts or tenets to violation the equal protection of negative liberties among those entitled by a live birth requirement to receive them .

* Summations Of Demented Hue Mammon Psyche And Group Think *

If you believe the sun god needs the sacrifices of your enemies’ still-beating hearts in order to keep rising in the morning, then your freedom of religion extends only to saying that it is moral and good to cut out the hearts of the people you kidnap. Decent, moral people will use their freedom of speech to condemn your vile, barbaric religion, of course, and should you actually try to murder folks for your murder cult, you would be thrown in prison.

Of course those fantastical allusions to proverbial hue man concepts do not have a relationship with individual liberty for abortion , except that killing of the deviant continues to occur , not based on standards of illegitimate aggression against the equal protection of negative liberties among individuals entitled by live birth requirement to receive them , rather based on sectarian supremacy by sanctimonious sin mythology lunar ticks .

* Selling After Life To The Gullible Ignorant Of Euphemism And Metaphor *

That is how I feel about anyone who claims that “life begins at the first breath” and tries to use this erroneous, factually incorrect, delusional belief to justify harming innocent human beings. Barbaric filth.

Is the life of a caterpillar and the life of a butterfly the same ?

The term neonatal implies new ( neo ) from the sea ( natal - nautical ) .

While a first breath perspective does not include an onset of sentience , or of cognitive objection , or or of mind , it does include an arcane realism that live birth is a trial where not all survive to become individual members of society that breathes air .

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221209-#6,208 ding “You don’t know what my position on abortion is. I never told you. I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge that abortion ends a human life without justifying the ending of a human life due to the ridiculous and arbitrary viability argument.”

ding200118-#444 To argue that abortion shouldn't be illegal because women would be punished has no bearing on the immorality of abortion or the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

ding180120-#443 At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

ding: Dr William Reville180120-#443 "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.

ding: Dr. William Reville180120-#443 The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death.

ding180129-#442 Nothing has has really changed in the last 150 years. Republicans believe that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights. That we are all created equal and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the basis for the opposition of slavery and that is the basis for the opposition to abortion. Democrats believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. That was their basis for justifying slavery and that is their basis for justifying abortion.


ding180129-#424 And if you make performing abortions illegal, the vast majority of abortions would end. Of course, that would be up to each state to decide, amirite?


180129-#418 What I am curious about is how many false arguments are you guys going to come up with before you accept the scientific fact that a new genetically distinct human being is created at conception?

NFBW: I know you are wrong in 180129-#418 and the millions of times you restate it for the past four years.

The scientists you cite say new a genetically distinct human “organism” is created at conception and “individual human life begins at conception” and conception is “the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death.”

NFBW: What am I missing ding . It is a scientific FACT that the ‘human being’ on the biological continuum as described above is not viable sufficiently enough to survive without the life support of another person’s biological functions of a body and female reproductive organs , that has already been past the stage of birth and is a fellow American citizen having that most significant milestone. I respect her rights as an absolute truth.

END2212090905

 

[ding]

ding221209-#6,208 ding “You don’t know what my position on abortion is. I never told you. I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge that abortion ends a human life without justifying the ending of a human life due to the ridiculous and arbitrary viability argument.”

ding200118-#444 To argue that abortion shouldn't be illegal because women would be punished has no bearing on the immorality of abortion or the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

ding180120-#443 At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

dingr. William Reville180120-#443 "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.

ding: Dr. William Reville180120-#443 The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death.

ding180129-#442 Nothing has has really changed in the last 150 years. Republicans believe that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights. That we are all created equal and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the basis for the opposition of slavery and that is the basis for the opposition to abortion. Democrats believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. That was their basis for justifying slavery and that is their basis for justifying abortion.


ding180129-#424 And if you make performing abortions illegal, the vast majority of abortions would end. Of course, that would be up to each state to decide, amirite?


180129-#418 What I am curious about is how many false arguments are you guys going to come up with before you accept the scientific fact that a new genetically distinct human being is created at conception?

NFBW: I know you are wrong in 180129-#418 and the millions of times you restate it for the past four years.

The scientists you cite say new a genetically distinct human “organism” is created at conception and “individual human life begins at conception” and conception is “the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death.”

NFBW: What am I missing ding . It is a scientific FACT that the ‘human being’ on the biological continuum as described above is not viable sufficiently enough to survive without the life support of another person’s biological functions of a body and female reproductive organs , that has already been past the stage of birth and is a fellow American citizen having that most significant milestone. I respect her rights as an absolute truth.

END2212090905

Again… you don’t know my position on abortion because I haven’t told you my position on abortion and I won’t until you unconditionally admit abortion ends a human life.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Again… you don’t know my position on abortion because I haven’t told you my position on abortion and I won’t until you unconditionally admit abortion ends a human life.

NFBW: Human life begins at conception exactly as the Catholic Doctrine Humanae Vitae decrees. I have always agreed with that Biblical and biological scientific concept. So run away again if you don’t believe me.

END2212090938

 

[ding]

NFBW: Human life begins at conception exactly as the Catholic Doctrine Humanae Vitae decrees. I have always agreed with that Biblical and biological scientific concept. So run away again if you don’t believe me.
END2212090938

Until you unconditionally state abortion ends a human life, we have nothing to discuss.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Until you unconditionally state abortion ends a human life, we have nothing to discuss.

Given what an absolute weasel Egg is, then yeah, make Egg be explicit.

Because even though words have meanings and Egg said the same thing already, Egg will lie to your face and say Egg never said any such thing and try to draw a meaningless distinction.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Just to expand on that…
We have a poster here who will state “human life begins at fertilization” which is scientifically true, while simultaneously denying that abortion victims are living humans.

So they are alive. And human. But they are not living humans. Because… bullshit.

Because an endless stream of bullshit, insults, and ranting nonsense.

It’s just all so tiring. Makes you think - how could this blatant dishonesty not be malicious trolling? How far up your own ass would you have to be to mindlessly parrot and actually believe the propaganda of others even when it directly contradicts factual reality, scientific knowledge, and itself.

How can you believe two diametrically opposed things at the same time? Has to be trolling, right? Or are they that far gone having drunk that deeply of the koolaid? Like something out of 1984…

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We have a poster here who will state “human life begins at fertilization” which is scientifically true, while simultaneously denying that abortion victims are living humans.

NFBW: You are a liar CarsomyrPlusSix I have already stated that abortion terminates what you unscientifically refer to as a baby in the womb and kills it - it dies and therefore it is dead. And it’s unique human DNA will never exist in the universe again in the human condition of being alive.

ding 220718-#2,403 As for the legality of abortion... that's up to each state to decide. I don't have a problem with this.

ding220813-#4,798 @NotfooledbyW if you want to discuss killing them, let's discuss killing them.

NFBW220814-#4,806 what’s to discuss? You have no opinion on the legality of killing a human organism by abortion. In ding-#2,403 you are ok with abortion being legal, so killing whatever you want to call it ding is ok with you..

ding 220812-#4,726 “Do you believe that abortion ends a human life?”

NFBW2208130841-#4,767 You are a liar ding I have already stated that abortion terminates what you unscientifically refers to as a baby in the womb and kills it - it dies and therefore it is dead. And its unique human DNA will never exist in the universe again in the human condition of being alive. n the universe again.
NFBW2208140049-#4,806


ding220813-#4,798 @NotfooledbyW if you want to discuss killing them, let's discuss killing them.

NFBW220814-#4,806 what’s to discuss? You have no opinion on the legality of killing a human organism by abortion. In ding-#2,403 you are ok with abortion being legal, so killing whatever you want to call it ding is ok with you.

I on the other hand want a federal law that says killing whatever you want to call it after 28 weeks should not be legal. States must ban abortion after 28 weeks..

END2212091028

 

[ding]

NFBW: You are a liar CarsomyrPlusSix I have already stated that abortion terminates what you unscientifically refer to as a baby in the womb and kills it - it dies and therefore it is dead. And it’s unique human DNA will never exist in the universe again in the human condition of being alive.

ding 220718-#2,403 As for the legality of abortion... that's up to each state to decide. I don't have a problem with this.

ding220813-#4,798 @NotfooledbyW if you want to discuss killing them, let's discuss killing them.

NFBW220814-#4,806 what’s to discuss? You have no opinion on the legality of killing a human organism by abortion. In ding-#2,403 you are ok with abortion being legal, so killing whatever you want to call it ding is ok with you..

ding 220812-#4,726 “Do you believe that abortion ends a human life?”

NFBW2208130841-#4,767 You are a liar ding I have already stated that abortion terminates what you unscientifically refers to as a baby in the womb and kills it - it dies and therefore it is dead. And its unique human DNA will never exist in the universe again in the human condition of being alive. n the universe again.
NFBW2208140049-#4,806


ding220813-#4,798 @NotfooledbyW if you want to discuss killing them, let's discuss killing them.

NFBW220814-#4,806 what’s to discuss? You have no opinion on the legality of killing a human organism by abortion. In ding-#2,403 you are ok with abortion being legal, so killing whatever you want to call it ding is ok with you.

I on the other hand want a federal law that says killing whatever you want to call it after 28 weeks should not be legal. States must ban abortion after 28 weeks..

END2212091028

tl/dr

Until you unconditionally state abortion ends a human life, we have nothing to discuss.

 

[ding]

Given what an absolute weasel Egg is, then yeah, make Egg be explicit.

Because even though words have meanings and Egg said the same thing already, Egg will lie to your face and say Egg never said any such thing and try to draw a meaningless distinction.

He’s very slippery.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Until you unconditionally state abortion ends a human life, we have nothing to discuss.

I, NotfooledbyW , being of sound mind and body, repeat and attest for possibly the millionth time, that I unconditionally state that abortion ends a human life.

I have never not believed or stated that abortion does not end a human life.

I also believe a woman kills a human baby when she has an abortion.

NFBW220813-#4,767 You are a liar ding I have already stated that abortion terminates what you unscientifically refers to as a baby in the womb and kills it - it dies and therefore it is dead. And its unique human DNA will never exist in the universe again in the human condition of being alive. n the universe again.
NFBW2208140049-#4,806



END2212081115

 

[ding]

I, NotfooledbyW , being of sound mind and body, repeat and attest for possibly the millionth time, that I unconditionally state that abortion ends a human life.

I have never not believed or stated that abortion does not end a human life.

I also believe a woman kills a human baby when she has an abortion.

Ok. Now that that has been settled… what do you want to know about my position?