Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Delldude]

That the federal government equally protects the negative liberties of individuals from illegitimate aggression by the states is not federalism , it is individualism

That is what states rights are under the 10th amendment.

 

[Meriweather]

NFBW: But you do contradict yourself @Meriweather unless you can tell me that every given state government is not at all a government. Think about that and get back to me.

You are off in some kind of la-la land probably due to your own misunderstanding of what you think I said or meant. No, I don't follow this thread or what you are saying to people. It is not that interesting. You seemed to want to know my thought process. I tried my best to explain in; you did your best to make turn it into something convoluted to serve your point...introducing the "Meriweather in NotfooledbyW head", which is not even close to my own reality.

In short, you have no interest in me and my position; your interest is in some character of your own imagination. And that's fine, but it is not a party I care to be a part of. It is why I am not following the thread or what you say to anyone else. I suspect you do to them what you do to me, and I would rather meet the real them in another thread, having no interest in your imaginary characterization of them.

Moving on... (Or, as you would have your imaginary character say, "Running away and hiding." )

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW221226-#6,520 But you do contradict yourself Meriweather unless you can tell me that every given state government is not at all a government. Think about that and get back to me.
^
^
MeriW221226-#6,522 You are off in some kind of la-la land probably due to your own misunderstanding of what you think I said or meant.

NFBW: I am going by exactly what you write and meant. You contradict yourself in the very same sentence. You say you are opposed to government dictating abortion policy and then turn around and say you vote for politicians who will dictate abortion policy if enough of them get elected into public office. Tell me where I am misrepresenting what you have eternalized in writing.

END2212261526

 

[NotfooledbyW]

MeriW221226-#6,522 No, I don't follow this thread or what you are saying to people. It is not that interesting.

NFBW: I could care less if you don’t follow this thread. The contradictions and errors in your argument render you useless to the intellectual, rational and openly honest discussion that needs to be had from both sides.

END2212261620

 

[Meriweather]

NFBW: I am going by exactly what you write and meant. You contradict yourself in the very same sentence. You say you are opposed to government dictating abortion policy and then turn around and say you vote for politicians who will dictate abortion policy if enough of them get elected into public office. Tell me where I am misrepresenting what you have eternalized in writing.

Sweetheart, it is not that difficult.

1. I am opposed to government having to do with abortion. They NEVER should have gotten into in the first place.

Do you understand the above? Is it clear?

2. However, government IS and HAS BEEN involved in abortion rulings.

Do you understand point 2? Is it clear? Are you able to understand that the two do not contradict each other? Point 1 tells you that I wish government had nothing to do with abortion. Point 2 tells you that I acknowledge government has assumed authority over abortion decisions?

This is not contradictory. What I wish were the case IS NOT the case. Can you understand that noting what I wish and compare it to the reality is not contradictory?

Are unable to understand this? If you cannot, I will try one more example. It is like saying, "I wish it were sunny today, but it is raining." That statement is not contradictory. It is wishing for something while acknowledging the reality.
3. The reality is that elected government officials rule on abortions decisions. I wish that were not the case. As it is the case, the reality, my vote goes to those who rule against abortion/euthanasia and protect life.

Do you understand Point 3 is not contradictory? It is like me saying, "I wish it were sunny today, but it is raining. Therefore I will take an umbrella with me when I go for a walk outside. I am not contradicting the facts. I wish one thing, but the opposite is true.

Can't make it any plainer. If you still see it as contradictory, you need to discuss such high matters with someone on your own level as clearly I am not in your league.

 

[Meriweather]

NFBW: I could care less i

Are you saying you care a lot, but it is possible for you to care less than you do? Sweet!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

MeriW221226-#6,525 Meriweather 1. I am opposed to government having to do with abortion. They NEVER should have gotten into in the first place.

NFBW: One at a time. Government is not in the abortion business - Elected officials in Congress at the Federal level of Government had no say in the Row v Wade decision. That was decided by a bipartisan Supreme Court as it was a woman’s rights issue that gave all Americans fifty years of precedent that abortion should be legal in all fifty states. The justices on the Sumpreme are not elected officials.

So you are wrong right out of the box, therefore your self-contradiction still stands.

END2212261957

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Advocates For Traitors Against Us Republic Barking Up An Empty Tree "

* Us 9th Amendment Rigorous Dispatch Of Tyranny By Majority Against Individualism Through Us 10th Amendment Conjectures *

That is what states rights are under the 10th amendment.

By principles of non violence and individualism , the normative rites of a state under us 10th amendment are to equally protect the negative liberties of individuals entitled by live birth to receive them and limited to safety and or security by eisegesis of us 9th amendment .

When one or more individuals is are violating the negative liberties of one or more other individuals and the violations are against safety and or security , a state interest exists and is not prohibited under us 10th amendment ,

The roe v wade decision ruled that in the first trimester abortion was between a doctor and a patient , as the procedures complied with safety and security constraints , whereas in the second trimester states could prescribe laws to ensure that abortion procedures were safe - from which trap laws arose , while in the third trimester post natural viability was substituted in lieu of a live birth requirement for equal protection - given an ability to survive an imminent live birth , the roe v wade court made reference to a " potential life " and ruled that a state interest could begin and that states could proscribe abortion in the third trimester except to protect the life of the mother .

Clearly the roe v wade decision is an application of state rites to provision safety and or security for equal protection of negative liberties among individuals entitled by live birth to receive them as prescribed by us 9th , 10th and 14th amendments .

The us 9th amendment stipulates equal protection of negative liberty constraints upon state interests in us 10th amendment , which protects the individual from populism of democracy as tyranny by majority , whether at a federal or at a state level , and such is the basis of this us republic from its credo of e pluribus unum that includes principles of non violence and individualism .

 

[NotfooledbyW]

MeriW221226-#6,525 1. I am opposed to government having to do with abortion. They NEVER should have gotten into in the first place.

NFBW: No. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. You tried to dictate the terms of this discussion whereas only you can be right. You asked me a loaded question and then walked away without waiting for my response.

If you want to keep all the toys to yourself because you fashion yourself as something special then I don't want to play with you. You can play by yourself or only with Republicans, I really do not care at all.,

Your last post was good though - I am responding to all your points as time permits whether or not you are interested - As I can do it for the record.

END2212262049

 

[NotfooledbyW]

which protects the individual from populism of democracy as tyranny by majority

NFBW: That is exactly what all the celebrants of the Dobbs decision are for - the tyranny of the majority over pregnant women - it is simply a matter of that fact.
END2212262053

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

NFBW: That is exactly what all the celebrants of the Dobbs decision are for - the tyranny of the majority over pregnant women - it is simply a matter of that fact.
END2212262053

“Tyranny of the majority?”

The human right to life shouldn’t be up to a vote. Abortion should just be banned.

Freedom isn’t tyranny - you sick fuck adherent of some unspeakable putrid shit demon.

 

[Delldude]

" Advocates For Traitors Against Us Republic Barking Up An Empty Tree "

* Us 9th Amendment Rigorous Dispatch Of Tyranny By Majority Against Individualism Through Us 10th Amendment Conjectures *

By principles of non violence and individualism , the normative rites of a state under us 10th amendment are to equally protect the negative liberties of individuals entitled by live birth to receive them and limited to safety and or security by eisegesis of us 9th amendment .

When one or more individuals is are violating the negative liberties of one or more other individuals and the violations are against safety and or security , a state interest exists and is not prohibited under us 10th amendment ,

The roe v wade decision ruled that in the first trimester abortion was between a doctor and a patient , as the procedures complied with safety and security constraints , whereas in the second trimester states could prescribe laws to ensure that abortion procedures were safe - from which trap laws arose , while in the third trimester post natural viability was substituted in lieu of a live birth requirement for equal protection - given an ability to survive an imminent live birth , the roe v wade court made reference to a " potential life " and ruled that a state interest could begin and that states could proscribe abortion in the third trimester except to protect the life of the mother .

Clearly the roe v wade decision is an application of state rites to provision safety and or security for equal protection of negative liberties among individuals entitled by live birth to receive them as prescribed by us 9th , 10th and 14th amendments .

The us 9th amendment stipulates equal protection of negative liberty constraints upon state interests in us 10th amendment , which protects the individual from populism of democracy as tyranny by majority , whether at a federal or at a state level , and such is the basis of this us republic from its credo of e pluribus unum that includes principles of non violence and individualism .

Blah blah blah....10th says its up to the individual states to create law regarding abortion...........supported by SCOTUS.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW221226-#6,530 “That is exactly what all the celebrants of the Dobbs decision are for - the tyranny of the majority over pregnant women - it is simply a matter of that fact”
^
^
Cplus6221226-#6,531 “Tyranny of the majority?” •••• The human right to life shouldn’t be up to a vote. Abortion should just be banned.

NFBW: The human right to life following birth is already enshrined in civil society. There is no not-viable human right to life except in the minds of hate infested atheist goons such as yourself CarsomyrPlusSix and white evangelical Protestant Christian
zealots like beagle9 and theocratic white Christian Catholic nationalists like Mashmont .

So you are correct CarsomyrPlusSix to state, when you state it correctly, that a not viable human right to life shouldn’t be up to a vote because it violates the right
of the pregnant woman to decide that a full term pregnancy interferes with her life plan and whether a full term pregnancy would be harmful to her health and mental well-being.

END2212262336

 

[NotfooledbyW]

MeriW221226-#6,525 @Meriweather 1. I am opposed to government having to do with abortion. They NEVER should have gotten into in the first place.

NFBW: Roe v Wade made choice possible. The Federal Government has been steadfastly neutral. Nowhere has the Federal Government pressured pregnant women to have an abortion. To the Federal Government all matters of pregnancy are necessarily to be decided primarily between a pregnant woman and her doctor. Nowhere does the federal government intervene, impede or demand a certain outcome other than a safe facility be available when a woman decides on her own what to do about an unwanted pregnancy because it’s nobody’s business what is going on in a woman’s castle - her body.

END2212252257

 

[NotfooledbyW]

MeriW221226-#6,525 2. However, government IS and HAS BEEN involved in abortion rulings.

NFBW: What rulings? ROE V Wade began when a private citizen who was pregnant sued the state of Texas and won when it made it to the Supreme Court.

On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texas law banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court declared that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment.​

​

The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.​

​

Roe v. Wade: Decision, Summary & Background

Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States.

www.history.com

​

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.​

​

NFBW: If you truly wanted government out of making abortion decisions you would not advocate for Roe vs Wade to be overturned after fifty years of keeping governments, like the one in Texas, from sticking their nose into a woman’s uterus. Texas is your villain Meriweather if you truly want the government out of it, as you say it:

MeriW221226-#6,525 1. I am opposed to government having to do with abortion. They NEVER should have gotten into abortion in the first place.

NFBW: If you are capable of being rational you wouid realize that you are saying that Texas should not have been “having to do” with abortion in the first place so Jane Roe didn’t have to fly to Hawaii to get
A safe and legal abortion and since she could not afford that she sued
Texas.

Being irrational in writing is a bad idea..

END2212262353

 

[NotfooledbyW]

MeriW221226-#6,525 3. The reality is that elected government officials rule on abortions decisions. I wish that were not the case. As it is the case, the reality, my vote goes to those who rule against abortion/euthanasia and protect life.

NFBW There are no elected officials who pass laws requiring women to abort a pregnancy before it reaches full term. •••• There are only elected officials who pass laws that require a woman to carry a pregnancy full term unless she can travel to a state where no such coercive laws exist.

You are erroneously refuting your contradiction by fabricating your own fake reality opposite ia world where there was no government involvement regarding abortion so a woman simply decided with her doctor if she decides to abort her child. It was her choice to make based on natural law and having autonomy over her health and family planning.

You Meriweather oppose that privacy and freedom of choice so you for some strange reason try to claim that you oppose it because elected officials voted to make abortion legal and safe. •••• Your fabricated and erroneous blanket blame it all on elected officials for making the first move to legalize abortion is a fatal flaw in your opinion. •••• It was the Supreme Court that made abortion legal nationwide. You are wrong to try to make excuses for voting only for Republican politicians who seek to ban abortions and take away freedom of choice from women and having government force all pregnancies to go full term.

You are irrational and contradictory with those thoughts. WHY DO IT?????

I oppose government coercion and you support government coercion.
that is the truth.

END2212270552

 

[NotfooledbyW]

MeriW170305-#100 Meriweather “Women do have choices, but why should taking a life be one of those choices?”

NFBW: When you vote for pro-life candidates do you think it pleases your Catholic version of God and Vatican interpretation of “Thou Shalt not kill”’ when those politicians pass laws authorizing the government to take the choice away from pregnant women and authorize the government to force women to give birth against their will?

END2212270700

 

[NotfooledbyW]

MeriW170305-#115 Upon conception, there are two bodies involved.

NFBW: Early on in every pregnancy, the one body that is viable is oxygenating blood for the one body that will not be viable during at least the first 24 weeks after conception.

Do you accept that the above biological and scientific fact should be denied to be relevant in a secular society dedicated to freedom of conscience just because the Catholic religion requires its believers such as yourself Meriweather to see life as a gift from God regardless of the critical dinstiction between viable life and not-viable life?

END2212270741

 

[Meriweather]

NFBW: What rulings? ROE V Wade began when a private citizen who was pregnant sued the state of Texas and won when it made it to the Supreme Court.

You do recognize this as government involvement? Government making the decision? My position is that the government should not care about abortion one way or another. I have said this ad nauseum.

 

[Meriweather]

There are only elected officials who pass laws that require a woman to carry a pregnancy full term unless

You may finally have it! Government should not care one way or the other! It should not be in their purview AT ALL. It is not government business or interest the government at all, any more than it is government business to decide what color I paint my bathroom.

IT.SHOULD.NOT.GOVERNMENT.BUSINESS.

Why can't you understand me on this point???!!