Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Independent thinker]

" Dictators Without A Clue "

* Sanctimonious Buffoonery Continues To Ignore The Obvious *

Would it be more medically advisable to have an abortion or be subject to the risk of delivery for severe congenital abnormalities ?

Anencephaly

What is anencephaly in children?

www.stlouischildrens.org

Anencephaly is a condition that is present at birth (birth defect). It affects the brain and skull bones. With this condition, the brain is not fully formed. It often lacks part or all of the cerebrum. The cerebrum is the area of the brain used for thinking, seeing, hearing, touch, and movement. There is also no bone on the back of the head. Bones may also be missing on the front and sides of the head. Anencephaly is a type of neural tube defect. It occurs in about 3 of 10,000 pregnancies in the U.S. each year. The exact number is not known because many of these pregnancies end in miscarriages. This condition most often leads to death in days or weeks.

I have no problem with abortions if the fetus has problems or would endanger the life of the mother, and I mean literally endangering the life of the mother, not some bullshit that just having a baby is a danger to the mother's life.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If the fetus is not living in the early stages it is referred to as a miscarriage.

When a fetus dies on its own never to experience consciousness; did a hunsm being die?

 

[Independent thinker]

When a fetus dies on its own never to experience consciousness; did a hunsm being die?

Of course. It had been a living human being. Or, are you trying to say it is OK to purposely kill living human beings who have become brain dead and no longer have consciousness for one reason or another? Is that what you think is OK, killing born human beings who have no consciousness?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

When a fetus dies on its own never to experience consciousness; did a hunsm being die?

I don’t know what a hunsm is, you drooling imbecile, but when a human being dies, yes, a human being dies. At any stage of life, from the beginning at the zygote stage until their natural death, a human being can be killed, and a human being who dies has died.

This question is tautological AND rhetorical, yet somehow you are so stupid you think the obviously correct answer is somehow false.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1. There is no such right (to avoid physical harm).

nf.23.06.15 #9,214 Can state legislatures violate a right to avoid physical consequences such as cause harm to a law abiding individual by restricting her access to a safe medical procedure?

hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,217 “There is no such right (to avoid physical harm).

I asked you in post #9,214 whether or not state legislatures can cause harm to a law abiding individual by restricting her access to a safe medical procedure?

Your response is that such an individual has no protection from an all powerful state government.to harm the out o

Yod reject every achievement toward human liberty going back to the Magna Carta in order to save brainless baby fetuses who exist In law abiding women’s bodies that are no business of yours and are causing absolutely no harm to you when terminating her own pregnancy before 15 weeks. nf23.06.15 #9,225

 

[NotfooledbyW]

are you trying to say it is OK to purposely kill living human beings who have become brain dead and no longer have consciousness for one reason or another?

thnkr on the date 23.06.15 submitted post #9,223 wherein it was stated/asked “are you trying to say it is OK to purposely kill living human beings who have become brain dead and no longer have consciousness for one reason or another?”

Of course not; do not be ridiculous; any human being, who has met a life birth requirement at some point in their human life is by the Constitution and basic human morality protected in their right to life. Of course, I do not support killing someone who has become brain dead, ever. nf.23.06.15 #9,226

 

[Independent thinker]

23.06.15 #9,223 nf.23.06.15 #9,226

More gibberish

 

[HikerGuy83]

nf.23.06.15 #9,214 Can state legislatures violate a right to avoid physical consequences such as cause harm to a law abiding individual by restricting her access to a safe medical procedure?

hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,217 “There is no such right (to avoid physical harm).

I asked you in post #9,214 whether or not state legislatures can cause harm to a law abiding individual by restricting her access to a safe medical procedure?

Your response is that such an individual has no protection from an all powerful state government.to harm the out o

Yod reject every achievement toward human liberty going back to the Magna Carta in order to save brainless baby fetuses who exist In law abiding women’s bodies that are no business of yours and are causing absolutely no harm to you when terminating her own pregnancy before 15 weeks. nf23.06.15 #9,225

Keep making stuff up to argue against.

ALL I have said is that this belongs to the states. I never have defended it.

But keep trying. Sooner or later you'll catch on.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1. There is no such right (to avoid physical harm).

nf on date 23.06.15 write post #9,214 : Can state legislatures violate a right to avoid physical consequences such as cause harm to a law abiding individual by restricting her access to a safe medical procedure?​

​

hkrgy on this date 23.06.15 replied in post #9,217 “There is no such right (to avoid physical harm).​

I asked you in post #9,214 whether or not state legislatures can cause harm to a law abiding individual by restricting her access to a safe medical procedure?

Your response is such that an individual has no protection from an all powerful state government.to harm any law abiding individual not in agreement with the collective conscience of a political religious majority.

You reject every achievement toward human liberty going back to the Magna Carta in order to save brainless baby fetuses who exist thanks only to law abiding women’s bodies that are no business of yours and are causing absolutely no harm to you when terminating her own pregnancy before 15 weeks. nf23.06.15 #9,

 

[HikerGuy83]

nf on date 23.06.15 write post #9,214 : Can state legislatures violate a right to avoid physical consequences such as cause harm to a law abiding individual by restricting her access to a safe medical procedure?​

​

hkrgy on this date 23.06.15 replied in post #9,217 “There is no such right (to avoid physical harm).​

I asked you in post #9,214 whether or not state legislatures can cause harm to a law abiding individual by restricting her access to a safe medical procedure?

Your response is such that an individual has no protection from an all powerful state government.to harm any law abiding individual not in agreement with the collective conscience of a political religious majority.

You reject every achievement toward human liberty going back to the Magna Carta in order to save brainless baby fetuses who exist thanks only to law abiding women’s bodies that are no business of yours and are causing absolutely no harm to you when terminating her own pregnancy before 15 weeks. nf23.06.15 #9,

Keep making stuff up to argue against.

Show where I said I was anit/pro abortion.

I said courts rule based on the law.

End of that discussion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

On this day, 23.06.15 in post #9,214 I asked hkrgy if state legislatures can violate a right to avoid physical consequences such as cause harm to a law abiding individual by restricting her access to a safe medical procedure?

To which came the reply from
hkrgy same dates in post #9,217 That there is no such right (to avoid physical harm).

More gibberish

ALL I have said is that this belongs to the states. I never have defended it.

Show where I said I was anit/pro abortion.

I said courts rule based on the law.

It is a fallacy to declare that the states have a right to force gestation on a woman, causing her physical mental and financial harm by banning her access to an abortion.

 

[Independent thinker]

On this day, 23.06.15 in post #9,214 I asked hkrgy if state legislatures can violate a right to avoid physical consequences such as cause harm to a law abiding individual by restricting her access to a safe medical procedure?

To which came the reply from
hkrgy same dates in post #9,217 That there is no such right (to avoid physical harm).












It is a fallacy to declare that the states have a right to force gestation on a woman, causing her physical mental and financial harm by banning her access to an abortion.

I don't read gibberish. If you think I am reading that gibberish, you are mistaken.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Keep making stuff up to argue against.

Keep making stuff up to argue against.

Show where I said I was anit/pro abortion.

I said courts rule based on the law.

hkrgy23.06.15 #9,229 ALL I have said is that this belongs to the states. I never have defended it.​

I am challenging your argument that women do not have the right to be protected against harm from a state government that enacts and enforces laws that restrict their access to an abortion.

That is an anti-abortion argument that you are making. Perhaps you are too brilliant to be bothered with the 6th grade level of logic that it takes to figure that out. nf.23.06.15 #9,233

 

[NotfooledbyW]

you murder a baby we kill you in exactly the same fashion you murdered the innocent baby, whether that be with a coat hanger, or a powerful vacuum cleaner would be entirely up to you evil fucking animals.

Agree.

Show where I said I was anit/pro abortion.

dthnnj.22.05.22 #4 “It never was a right, that is irrefutable, it was an entirely manufactured right ludicrously predicated upon the right to privacy! If I had my way, and I may well get it in near future, you murder a baby we kill you in exactly the same fashion you murdered the innocent baby, whether that be with a coat hanger, or a powerful vacuum cleaner would be entirely up to you evil fucking animals...​

​

hkrgy.23.05.23 #20 to dthnnj.22.05.22 #4 Agree. The right to privacy is a manufactured construct that is necessary to justify this kind of overreach.​

hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,230 “Show where I said I was anit/pro abortion.”

You agree with an anti/abirtion “kill the fucking animal women” extremist that the freedom to terminate one’s own pregnancy is not a private right. You agree with extremists the need for government interference and restrictions to harm and punish women for practicing unprotected sex.

Where have I misread your history of posting your views on a woman’s right to a private safe legal abortion to her own body. nf.23.06.15 #9,234

 

[HikerGuy83]

On this day, 23.06.15 in post #9,214 I asked hkrgy if state legislatures can violate a right to avoid physical consequences such as cause harm to a law abiding individual by restricting her access to a safe medical procedure?

To which came the reply from
hkrgy same dates in post #9,217 That there is no such right (to avoid physical harm).












It is a fallacy to declare that the states have a right to force gestation on a woman, causing her physical mental and financial harm by banning her access to an abortion.

As you on the left like to say....."The courts don't agree". In this case they rarely don't agree as it looks like the states, for the most part, will keep it legal.

Paint it any color you like, states are exercising that right.

That you don't agree, makes it a fallacy.

No legal argument whatsoever.

 

[HikerGuy83]

dthnnj.22.05.22 #4 “It never was a right, that is irrefutable, it was an entirely manufactured right ludicrously predicated upon the right to privacy! If I had my way, and I may well get it in near future, you murder a baby we kill you in exactly the same fashion you murdered the innocent baby, whether that be with a coat hanger, or a powerful vacuum cleaner would be entirely up to you evil fucking animals...​

​

hkrgy.23.05.23 #20 to dthnnj.22.05.22 #4 Agree. The right to privacy is a manufactured construct that is necessary to justify this kind of overreach.​

hkrgy.23.06.15 #9,230 “Show where I said I was anit/pro abortion.”

You agree with an anti/abirtion “kill the fucking animal women” extremist that the freedom to terminate one’s own pregnancy is not a private right. You agree with extremists the need for government interference and restrictions to harm and punish women for practicing unprotected sex.

Where have I misread your history of posting your views on a woman’s right to a private safe legal abortion to her own body. nf.23.06.15 #9,234

You miss your ADD meds ?

What I said was based on the Constitution.

It is not a private right. It never was and the court set it straight.

Prior to Roe, all states had some form of abortion law. That is their perogative.

What I said....pay attention now....was that I never said I was pro/anti abortion. In other words, I've never commented on the morality of it. I also have never said I wanted the states to be anti-abortion (as you second to last stupid sentence claims).

That's what you've missed.

 

[HikerGuy83]

hkrgy23.06.15 #9,229 ALL I have said is that this belongs to the states. I never have defended it.​

I am challenging your argument that women do not have the right to be protected against harm from a state government that enacts and enforces laws that restrict their access to an abortion.

That is an anti-abortion argument that you are making. Perhaps you are too brilliant to be bothered with the 6th grade level of logic that it takes to figure that out. nf.23.06.15 #9,233

It's not my argument.

It's the way things are.

If you can show me where the Constitution says they have that protection, I'll gladly change my mind (and you can spare me the "right to privacy". That just got flushed).

 

[HikerGuy83]

It is a fallacy to declare that the states have a right to force gestation on a woman, causing her physical mental and financial harm by banning her access to an abortion.

Except it isn't:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now if you look at the amendment prior to that one....I assume you know what this is:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

is somewhat tricky and might be a basis for a so-called "right to privacy".

However, the best way to ensure that right is to enshrine it in the Constitution via Article V.

I have not figured out why that process has not started yet.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Absurdity Of Collective Populism Dictating Deranged Deviations Against Account Ability Through Individualism "

* Statutory Omissions With Presumptive Nonsense *

I have no problem with abortions if the fetus has problems or would endanger the life of the mother, and I mean literally endangering the life of the mother, not some bullshit that just having a baby is a danger to the mother's life.

There is a statistical probability of mortality with any delivery , so in which land of fantasy does such a presumption exist that delivering and anencephalic constitutes endangering the life of the mother , while statistics indicate that maternal health and safety from an abortion are significantly more healthy and safe than would be a delivery ? !

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I am challenging your argument that women do not have the right to be protected against harm from a state government that enacts and enforces laws that restrict their access to an abortion.

If you can show me where the Constitution says they have that protection,

Abortion is a medical procedure that prevents harm to a woman when and if she makes a private decision to terminate the life in her own body. It’s at her discretion and on her conscience to accept that her pregnancy was not planned and is not wanted. The 14th amendment states that "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. No State can guarantee any woman that giving full term birth of an unwanted fetus will not cause physical harm to her body if forced to continue beyond 15 weeks when must medical procedures are performed.

all posts dated 23.06.15 nf #9,233
; hkrgy #9,237 ; nf #9,240