Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[hadit]

00,076 23JAN31 ¥ hadit ¥ #76
Just literally leave it where it is, don't try to kill it, and check back in about 9 months....

00,108 22JUL08 ¥ hadit ¥ #108
“please stop pretending there's something other than a human growing in there.”

24MAY03 NFBW {to: 00,108} #8,629 “perhaps you ¥hadit¥ should always be certain that these little suckers (see insert |c| )are not misplaced during ejaculation into any receptacle other than a vagina of a living human being or restricted in the journey in anyway: NFBW insert 230503^|c|

08,631 23MAY03 ¥ hadit ¥ #8,631
“Why are you hung up on sperm cells? They're not human beings.”

23MAY04 NFBW {to: 08,631} I am asking why you hung up on somebody else’s sperm cells whenever one accidentally and unintentionally impregnates somebody else’s egg cell

I’m not hung up on mine because I made two dna donations resulting in two awesome daughters about a half a century ago and then I got snipped. I don’t have your religious belief that compels you to crusade on behalf of every victorious sperm cell in nature when it’s individual purpose in life is achieved.

Your commandment in post 00,076 (see above tells every woman not to kill the sperm cell’s dna that has merged with an egg cell’s dna to produce a new human being you say that is nine months away from breathing on it’s own,

So why do you have the right to tell the pregnant women you do not know, to just literally leave the fertilized egg where it is, don't try to kill it, and check back in about 9 months but don’t care about the human life that made it happen?

Is a fertilized egg cell a human being?

A fertilized egg is a human being at the very earliest stage of life. Biology makes that clear, whether you value that life or not. The value we place on human life varies depending on how inconvenient that value becomes to us. For example, we happily accept the loss of tens of thousands of lives every year just for the privilege of driving fast.

I will then ask you this. Why do you have the right to tell the mother of a newborn infant that she has to put her entire life on hold and sacrifice her wants to take care of her baby? Why do you care just because the invisible lawyer fairy sprinkled his magic dust and said, "A new human being has just miraculously appeared from nowhere"? After all, you now demand that she has to proactively take care of that child and will put her in prison if the child is harmed or dies because she is neglectful.

 

[BackAgain]

Sorry

That post of mine is on the wrong thread

Been there too. No worries.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

08,633 23MAY02 ¥ @Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,633 {to: 08,624} “That's also what someone who is pro-choice but not guilty of group think [that you pretend you are not a part of] is described as by the rest of the group.

08670-a 23MAY04 NFBW #8,670 {to: 08,633} No. my group’s thinking is backed by our Constitution. (See 230504^a above) We oppose an elected predominantly white anti/choice Trump supporting Christian majority body of lawmakers passing laws that deprive women of their Fourth AMENDMENT Right: (see 08,604 above in bold)

08670-b 23MAY04 NFBW #8,670 {to: 08,633} “It is the right of a woman to be secure in her person from unreasonable government seizure of her body if a sperm cell from a male penetrates an egg cell she was born with in her possession.

08677 23MAY04 ¥ @Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,677 {to: 08,670} That's like saying 2a exempts the taking of a life with a weapon...why don't ya just start referring to surgical tools as arms and come at it from that direction...it makes just as much sense as your interpretation.

08680-a 23MAY04 NFBW #8,680 {to: 08,677} “More irrational absurdity from ¥frnknvstn¥ because 4a does not and cannot exempt a pregnant woman if she were to kill an (out of her body) person(s) that has met a live birth requirement by taking a first breath of life outside the womb.”

08680-b 23MAY04 NFBW #8,680 {to: 08,677} If you do want a second amendment analogy against the fourth amendment, I have explained {a woman would be using self defense to employ a medical professional to perform surgery on her to save her life from the human living organism.that has attached itself to her uterus.}

08680-c 23MAY04 NFBW #8,680 {to: 08,677} Bottom line, Frank it’s still none of your business or my business or the governments business, { or church business except for it’s own parishioners.}

So why are you working so hard to make it your business to cause harm to women, who experience an unwanted pregnancy.?

08682-m 23MAY04 ¥ @Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,682 {to: 08,680} “the constitution spells out the the right to bear arms but there is no provision in our constitution on abortion.”

08686-g 23MAY04 ¥ @Monk-Eye ¥ #8,686 {to: 08,682-m} “A state is comprised of citizens on whose behalf a state interests lay , and a state does not exist without its citizens , and a citizen and its constitutional protections are instantiated with a live birth requirement , by us 14th amendment ; and , therefore , by equitable doctrine , a live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen

08686-h 23MAY04 ¥ @Monk-Eye ¥ #8,686 {to: 08,682-m} “Consequently , states are prohibited from protecting a wright to life of any which has not met a live birth requirement to receive it , that would have included a wright to life , and therefore states are prohibited from prohibiting abortion , which is not an enumerated wright in us constitution , however it is a wright that is retained by the people .”

23MAY05 NFBW -a {to: 08682-m} When you ¥frnknvnstn¥ wrote ““the constitution spells out the the right to bear arms but there is no provision in our constitution on abortion.” (see above) it is an absurd point because as previously explained in
08670-b (see above) “It is the right of a woman to be secure in her person from unreasonable government seizure of her body”

When a government through enforcement of a law the coerces a nine month gestation of a living human organism that has attached itself to a woman’s uterus, thus becoming part of her body, it is the right of a woman to be secure in her person from actual and perceived forthcoming personal harm or death to terminate and severe her relationship and obligations to said organism as an unenumerated right under the general concept and protection of 4A.

I will refer you to what ¥mvnkvyv¥ wrote which you persistently continue to sidestep from 08686-h (see above)

“Consequently , states are prohibited from protecting a wright to life of any which has not met a live birth requirement to receive it , that would have included a wright to life , and therefore states are prohibited from prohibiting abortion , which is not an enumerated wright in us constitution , however it is a wright that is retained by the people .”

Nothing new^ here,^ pro life in no way seizes a womans body, as where the argument can be made that abortion does do just that when a woman waives "her constitutional right to be secure in her person" and allows for someone who actually does physically seize her body, whereas pro life will have none of that...
... and again, nothing of what you posted from the constitution even mentions abortion...
...In fact the right/privilege you cite is proof it has nothing to do with abortion as it also affords that same protection to men, if it didn't it would not be a right but a privilege...
...the fact that you need so much text to explain away my "understanding" evidences that your OPINION on the matter is less explanation than it is excuse.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Non citizens which have been born have equal protection with a citizen , though non citizens are not entitled to equal endowments .

Change "non-citizen" to baby/fetus in the womb and you now have the pro-life stance/interpretation...

* Individualism Versus Collective Dictates By Traitors *
To assume " the people " of us 9th amendment directs a popular vote , not a representative vote , at the federal or state level is nonsense , that is forwarded by traitors to principles of us republic to deprive individual citizens of privileges and immunities through populism by a collective promoting democracy as tyranny by majority .

And that pretty much describes the pro-life argument concerning Roe-V-Wade"

So , by all means , explain not enumerated .

Sure:
In the context of your OPINION it would mean that non-citizens and babies in the womb are afforded the same protections even though not at all addressed in the constitution.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

" A List Of Excuses For Embracing Illusions "

you omitted the big one..."out of compassion for the mother"

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Non citizens which have been born have equal protection with a citizen ,

is a baby/fetus in the womb a citizen or non citizen?

though non citizens are not entitled to equal endowments .

such as life?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The sky is falling ,

For white liberals that is exactly what is happening.

so perhaps go hide under a rock !

If ya don't figure this out quickly ^that^ is rock solid sage advice

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Public Dementia Due To Insufficient Information "

* On Ravings From About Being Associated With Dumbfounded Constitutional Interpretations *

Change "non-citizen" to baby/fetus in the womb and you now have the pro-life stance/interpretation...
And that pretty much describes the pro-life argument concerning Roe-V-Wade"
Sure:
In the context of your OPINION it would mean that non-citizens and babies in the womb are afforded the same protections even though not at all addressed in the constitution.

It is well established understanding among jurisprudence that equitable doctrine and us 14th amendment stipulate that live birth is required to be a citizen , whether within us jurisdiction or not , and therefore live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen , whether a non citizen is a zygote , or an embryo , or a fetus , or an individual .

The literal statements from us 14th amendment and meaning prompted the abortion anti-choice to focus on qualifying a fetus within the category of a per son in us code section 1 title 8 .


* Pay Attention To The History *

Ron Paul: No Constitutional Protection for the Unborn

From time to time, people will ask me what I think about the presidential candidate Ron Paul. There is much that can be said here, but let me focus in on the issue that I believe is the most import…

www.dennyburk.com

* Conclusions About Abortion Anti-Choice *

That expectations for the particular abortion anti-choice conjecture , where a ZEF is synonymous with a non-citizen , are dumbfounded and retarded .

The dobbs court knew well the definition of a per son in title 1 section 8 of us code and knew well that a constitutional amendment was necessary to provide equal protection with a citizen , for those which had not met a live birth requirement to receive it , that would have included a wright to life .

The dobbs decision is sedition that is supported by traitors to us republic , and furthermore the abortion anti-choice are willfully ignorant and posturing on populism for its debase ideology .


* Appendix Of Explanation Of Idiotic Idiocy *

The dobbs court was not ever presented with a sufficient explanation of the actual constitutional basis for abortion or roe v wade , as the abortion choice legal teams and leadership remained complacent , arrogant , dismissive and ignorant of it .

Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade

" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade " * On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism * The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom...

www.usmessageboard.com

No academic of jurisprudence should need to have the " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest .. not .. prior to live birth . " statement by blackmun explained to them , as the roe court ruled that in lieu of a live birth requirement , given an ability to survive an imminent live birth at natural viability , states could proscribe abortion in the third trimester and made reference to a " potential life " .

Imbecilic Comments

 

[Frankeneinstein]

dumbfounded and retarded .

Imbecilic Comments

Explanation Of Idiotic Idiocy *

The above is from just one post in a thread littered with the above genes of Pseudo intellectualism...

as I am having trouble deciphering the bulk of your post [not meant to insult] I will cover the one I did understand and later on tackle the rest of your post.

* Pay Attention To The History *

Ron Paul: No Constitutional Protection for the Unborn

From time to time, people will ask me what I think about the presidential candidate Ron Paul. There is much that can be said here, but let me focus in on the issue that I believe is the most import…

www.dennyburk.com

PAY ATTENTION TO ME; I understand ^that^ in much the way I understand the pro-life view on the same matter.

You offer up an opinion as proof of what? that someone else agrees with you? I am also a fan of Rand Paul and his opinions, as like me he is willing to cross party lines on this matter when and/or where necessary.
I am pro-choice Monk, [and vote democrat across the board] just not the intolerant zealot that characterizes the white liberals as they are the problem.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I'm not sure what point you are making v here v

It is well established understanding among jurisprudence that equitable doctrine and us 14th amendment stipulate that live birth is required to be a citizen , whether within us jurisdiction or not ,

But the reason you can claim that it is "well understood" is because it is not actually in the constitution...does the fact that the pro-life view is understood by this court make it valid?

and therefore live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen , whether a non citizen is a zygote , or an embryo , or a fetus , or an individual .

and clearly not addressed by 14a

The literal statements from us 14th amendment and meaning prompted the abortion anti-choice to focus on qualifying a fetus within the category of a per son in us code section 1 title 8 .

really not sure what this is. [no offense]

 

[Frankeneinstein]

That expectations for the particular abortion anti-choice conjecture , where a ZEF is synonymous with a non-citizen , are dumbfounded and retarded .

And yet far less a stretch than pretending that 14a has anything at all to do with abortion...

where a ZEF is synonymous with a non-citizen , are dumbfounded and retarded .

even as 14a treats them with equal status?

 

[beagle9]

08,633 23MAY02 ¥ Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,633 {to: 08,624} “That's also what someone who is pro-choice but not guilty of group think [that you pretend you are not a part of] is described as by the rest of the group.

08670-a 23MAY04 NFBW #8,670 {to: 08,633} No. my group’s thinking is backed by our Constitution. (See 230504^a above) We oppose an elected predominantly white anti/choice Trump supporting Christian majority body of lawmakers passing laws that deprive women of their Fourth AMENDMENT Right: (see 08,604 above in bold)

08670-b 23MAY04 NFBW #8,670 {to: 08,633} “It is the right of a woman to be secure in her person from unreasonable government seizure of her body if a sperm cell from a male penetrates an egg cell she was born with in her possession.

08677 23MAY04 ¥ Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,677 {to: 08,670} That's like saying 2a exempts the taking of a life with a weapon...why don't ya just start referring to surgical tools as arms and come at it from that direction...it makes just as much sense as your interpretation.

08680-a 23MAY04 NFBW #8,680 {to: 08,677} “More irrational absurdity from ¥frnknvstn¥ because 4a does not and cannot exempt a pregnant woman if she were to kill an (out of her body) person(s) that has met a live birth requirement by taking a first breath of life outside the womb.”

08680-b 23MAY04 NFBW #8,680 {to: 08,677} If you do want a second amendment analogy against the fourth amendment, I have explained {a woman would be using self defense to employ a medical professional to perform surgery on her to save her life from the human living organism.that has attached itself to her uterus.}

08680-c 23MAY04 NFBW #8,680 {to: 08,677} Bottom line, Frank it’s still none of your business or my business or the governments business, { or church business except for it’s own parishioners.}

So why are you working so hard to make it your business to cause harm to women, who experience an unwanted pregnancy.?

08682-m 23MAY04 ¥ Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,682 {to: 08,680} “the constitution spells out the the right to bear arms but there is no provision in our constitution on abortion.”

08686-g 23MAY04 ¥ Monk-Eye ¥ #8,686 {to: 08,682-m} “A state is comprised of citizens on whose behalf a state interests lay , and a state does not exist without its citizens , and a citizen and its constitutional protections are instantiated with a live birth requirement , by us 14th amendment ; and , therefore , by equitable doctrine , a live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen

08686-h 23MAY04 ¥ Monk-Eye ¥ #8,686 {to: 08,682-m} “Consequently , states are prohibited from protecting a wright to life of any which has not met a live birth requirement to receive it , that would have included a wright to life , and therefore states are prohibited from prohibiting abortion , which is not an enumerated wright in us constitution , however it is a wright that is retained by the people .”

23MAY05 NFBW -a {to: 08682-m} When you ¥frnknvnstn¥ wrote ““the constitution spells out the the right to bear arms but there is no provision in our constitution on abortion.” (see above) it is an absurd point because as previously explained in
08670-b (see above) “It is the right of a woman to be secure in her person from unreasonable government seizure of her body”

When a government through enforcement of a law the coerces a nine month gestation of a living human organism that has attached itself to a woman’s uterus, thus becoming part of her body, it is the right of a woman to be secure in her person from actual and perceived forthcoming personal harm or death to terminate and severe her relationship and obligations to said organism as an unenumerated right under the general concept and protection of 4A.

I will refer you to what ¥mvnkvyv¥ wrote which you persistently continue to sidestep from 08686-h (see above)

“Consequently , states are prohibited from protecting a wright to life of any which has not met a live birth requirement to receive it , that would have included a wright to life , and therefore states are prohibited from prohibiting abortion , which is not an enumerated wright in us constitution , however it is a wright that is retained by the people .”​

Hey racist is that you again ??......

I'm betting that you are white, but you just love to stirr the pot... Just call it a sixth sense.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW ref 230596^a value of human life begins at consistent preemie survival when interactions with non-related human beings in a society begins:

The fact that exactly one preemie ever has been saved at 21 weeks doesn't lead many experts to predict that similar feats will become commonplace. It's hard to find any experts who think viability will be pushed down to 20 weeks in the foreseeable future, given the severe immaturity of virtually every organ and piece of tissue in a fetus that young. "There's definitely a kind of biological barrier below about 22 weeks, and it seems to be insurmountable by current technology," says Dr. John Wyatt, a neonatal physician and professor of ethics and perinatology at University College, London.​

​

The Limits of Viability​

​

These efforts require maintaining teams of experts, and the cost of caring for a single very-premature baby typically runs to more than $100,000, with a typical NICU handling 20 or more babies at once. Such advanced NICUs are beyond the reach of most hospitals. The huge variation in survival rates of extreme preemies among hospitals reflects the differences in that investment. The University of Alabama at Birmingham operates a NICU with a staff of 350, while many other hospitals have no NICU at all.​

​

It's no wonder. At 22 weeks, the brain has just barely formed the cortex—the part that confers higher thought—and the brain cells are only beginning to form the first of the 100 trillion connections they would normally make while still safe and comfortable in a quiet, dark womb.​

00,076 22JAN31 ¥hvdvt¥ #76
Just literally leave it where it is, don't try to kill it, and check back in about 9 months....

00,108 22JUL08 ¥hvdvt¥ #108
“please stop pretending there's something other than a human growing in there.”

08,631 23MAY03 ¥hvdvt¥ #8,631
“Why are you hung up on sperm cells? They're not human beings.”

23MAY03 NFBW #8,667 {to: 08,631} “Is a fertilized egg cell a human being?

08,701-a 23MAY03 ¥ hadit ¥ #8,701 {to:
08,667} “A fertilized egg is a human being at the very earliest stage of life. Biology makes that clear, whether you value that life or not. The value we place on human life varies depending on how inconvenient that value becomes to us. For example, we happily accept the loss of tens of thousands of lives every year just for the privilege of driving fast.”

23MAY06 NFBW {to: 08,701-a} Driving on public roads requires interaction between millions of conscious individuals with a birth date recognized by the state on a drivers licence who legally and willingly assume the risk of being harmed or killed enroute from point a to point b. It’s good odds we are gonna make it unharmed so we do it. Mostly because it is a public commerce necessity upon which our elected government has an interest in keeping our odds for avoiding crashes high. It has nothing to do with how the entire public values or devalues human life at all.

The biological physical condition (religion removed) of being pregnant unintentionally is a privater matter that has zero impact or interaction with the general public ‘others’ having no relationship to said pregnant person unless she is driving. The rules of the road apply and the odds of survival are unchanged.

Why are you interested in a pregnant person’s condition physically, morally, ethically financially or religiously ¥hvdvt¥ just because a private matter of egg fertilization has taken place in her physical being?

What impact or harm is it to you even if she is driving her car 9 mph over the speed limit like we all do except maybe Ward Cleaver back in the fifties when June never learned or needed to drive.

I never pretend that a fertilized egg in a human being is not the start of a new human being’s development or that an abortion dies not kills it btw.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Obvious And Self Evident "

* Equitable Doctrine With A Live Birth Requirement *

But the reason you can claim that it is "well understood" is because it is not actually in the constitution...does the fact that the pro-life view is understood by this court make it valid?

Explain the meaning for not enumerated .

In paraphrase to accentuate its gist , in roe v wade , blackmun provided the majority opinion and wrote , " LOGICALLY , OF COURSE , a legitimate state interest ... not ... prior to live birth . " .

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Explain the meaning for not enumerated .

Without context a question like that allows for semantical word play but:
In the context of this discussion it means exactly what I claim, "not mentioned in the constitution."

In paraphrase to accentuate its gist , in roe v wade , blackmun provided the majority opinion and wrote , " LOGICALLY , OF COURSE , a legitimate state interest ... not ... prior to live birth . " .

And what does this court think of that? you cannot cite the court as proof on the issue when you like and then claim the court is now wrong on the same issue simply because you do not agree.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

NFBW ref 230596^a value of human life begins at consistent preemie survival when interactions with non-related human beings in a society begins:

The fact that exactly one preemie ever has been saved at 21 weeks doesn't lead many experts to predict that similar feats will become commonplace. It's hard to find any experts who think viability will be pushed down to 20 weeks in the foreseeable future, given the severe immaturity of virtually every organ and piece of tissue in a fetus that young. "There's definitely a kind of biological barrier below about 22 weeks, and it seems to be insurmountable by current technology," says Dr. John Wyatt, a neonatal physician and professor of ethics and perinatology at University College, London.​

​

The Limits of Viability​

​

These efforts require maintaining teams of experts, and the cost of caring for a single very-premature baby typically runs to more than $100,000, with a typical NICU handling 20 or more babies at once. Such advanced NICUs are beyond the reach of most hospitals. The huge variation in survival rates of extreme preemies among hospitals reflects the differences in that investment. The University of Alabama at Birmingham operates a NICU with a staff of 350, while many other hospitals have no NICU at all.​

​

It's no wonder. At 22 weeks, the brain has just barely formed the cortex—the part that confers higher thought—and the brain cells are only beginning to form the first of the 100 trillion connections they would normally make while still safe and comfortable in a quiet, dark womb.​

00,076 22JAN31 ¥hvdvt¥ #76
Just literally leave it where it is, don't try to kill it, and check back in about 9 months....

00,108 22JUL08 ¥hvdvt¥ #108
“please stop pretending there's something other than a human growing in there.”

08,631 23MAY03 ¥hvdvt¥ #8,631
“Why are you hung up on sperm cells? They're not human beings.”

23MAY03 NFBW #8,667 {to: 08,631} “Is a fertilized egg cell a human being?

08,701-a 23MAY03 ¥ hadit ¥ #8,701 {to:
08,667} “A fertilized egg is a human being at the very earliest stage of life. Biology makes that clear, whether you value that life or not. The value we place on human life varies depending on how inconvenient that value becomes to us. For example, we happily accept the loss of tens of thousands of lives every year just for the privilege of driving fast.”

23MAY06 NFBW {to: 08,701-a} Driving on public roads requires interaction between millions of conscious individuals with a birth date recognized by the state on a drivers licence who legally and willingly assume the risk of being harmed or killed enroute from point a to point b. It’s good odds we are gonna make it unharmed so we do it. Mostly because it is a public commerce necessity upon which our elected government has an interest in keeping our odds for avoiding crashes high. It has nothing to do with how the entire public values or devalues human life at all.

The biological physical condition (religion removed) of being pregnant unintentionally is a privater matter that has zero impact or interaction with the general public ‘others’ having no relationship to said pregnant person unless she is driving. The rules of the road apply and the odds of survival are unchanged.

Why are you interested in a pregnant person’s condition physically, morally, ethically financially or religiously ¥hvdvt¥ just because a private matter of egg fertilization has taken place in her physical being?

What impact or harm is it to you even if she is driving her car 9 mph over the speed limit like we all do except maybe Ward Cleaver back in the fifties when June never learned or needed to drive.

I never pretend that a fertilized egg in a human being is not the start of a new human being’s development or that an abortion dies not kills it btw.

Oh look, another note from NFBW

 

[beagle9]

Oh look, another note from NFBW

Is he trying to bore us to death ? ROTFLMBO

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Demarcations Of Jurisdiction Between Self And A Collective "

* Direct Meaning Usurped By Traitors *

Without context a question like that allows for semantical word play but:
In the context of this discussion it means exactly what I claim, "not mentioned in the constitution."

That there are wrights not mentioned in the constitution is exactly what it means , and those claiming that because a wright is not mentioned in the constitution , that includes abortion , it can therefore be ruled on by the states are traitors to the foundations and principles of us republic are traitors .

A credo for e pluribus unum is a foundation for individualism and us republic , that is based on equal protection of negative liberties , whereby any individual has legal standing to prevail against any other individual , and against all other individuals as a collective state , within the constraints of safety and security .

* Deceit By Twisted Lies *

And what does this court think of that? you cannot cite the court as proof on the issue when you like and then claim the court is now wrong on the same issue simply because you do not agree.

The conclusions of the roe v wade court , or paul , are not cited as proof , rather they are cited as corroboration for self evident conclusions from equitable doctrine , from us 14th amendment , from title 1 section 8 , from basic political science for the relationship between an individual and a state with equal protection of negative liberties as a foundation of its republic .

The traitorous scheme by the abortion anti-choice degenerates is simply to disavow enumerated wrights not mentioned in the constitution , to deprive the people ( individuals ) of privileges and immunitties , by bequeathing public policy for any non enumerated wright to state legislatures .

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The conclusions of the roe v wade court , or paul , are not cited as proof , rather they are cited as corroboration for self evident conclusions from equitable doctrine , from us 14th amendment , from title 1 section 8 , from basic political science for the relationship between an individual and a state with equal protection of negative liberties as a foundation of its republic .

ipse dixit

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Traitors To Us Republic "

* Self Evident *

ipse dixit

ipse dixit