Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[NotfooledbyW]

When debating what personhood law SHOULD BE, asserting what it CURRENTLY IS is both unnecessary, as all sides know what it is, and useless, as the debate is specifically about the prospect of CHANGING IT.

My point is until you can change the law and Constitution there is absolutely no reason for any state to be banning or restricting or being involved in the medical procedure of abortion specifically when 98% of all abortions take place within the first trimester. There is only one person involved when she decides to terminate, end the development of the living human organism that is part of her very own life sustaining neurological system and individual consciousness. There is no other person to protect or who is a victim of her decision to abort. You have confirmed that reality. Thank you very much.

myrpls.23.06.22 #9,340
nf.23.06.22

 

[HikerGuy83]

My point is until you can change the law and Constitution there is absolutely no reason for any state to be banning or restricting or being involved in the medical procedure of abortion specifically when 98% of all abortions take place within the first trimester. There is only one person involved when she decides to terminate, end the development of the living human organism that is part of her very own life sustaining neurological system and individual consciousness. There is no other person to protect or who is a victim of her decision to abort. You have confirmed that reality. Thank you very much.

myrpls.23.06.22 #9,340
nf.23.06.22

Your point is meaningless.

And, in fact, has started to sound like a broken record.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

My point is until you can change the law and Constitution

Just the law, idiot.

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about this topic, never has. Learn to read English before mouthing off, which, really just means stop talking forever, you mental invalid.

there is absolutely no reason for any state to be banning or restricting or being involved in the medical procedure

There are no medical procedures being discussed here, retard, just the contract homicides that take place in the conduct of the human rights abuse of legal abortion.

There is only one person involved when she decides to terminate

Which is why we change the personhood law, duh, you bigoted filth.

You have confirmed that reality

Eat your own asshole, literally, chew your rectal sphincter off and then jab a hot pike up in there.

I have stated an opposition to the status quo on personhood laws. You merely state what it is, as though everyone didn’t know what it was, and that moral people who hate it and want it to change do not exist.

Worse, you think asserting a status quo everyone knows is tantamount to a defense of the status quo.

I’ve had enough of your inane faggotry for seven lifetimes. You make me puke.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Per As In Countable By Census And Son As In Male Are More Equal Than The Unborn And Female "

* All Men And Not Women Are Created Equal *

The Declaration of Independence is where the right to life is noted, natural and unalienable, and bestowed upon human beings at their creation.
Birth isn't creation, retard.

The declaration of independence is not law within us constitution .

Any other element to become a citizen is happenstance , except birth which is a necessary requirement to become a citizen ; hence , birth is required for equal protection with a citizen , and any us citizen has legal standing to prohibit as state ability to proscribe abortion , as equal protection with a citizen is being violated .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Sedition Through Support By Super Duper Dumb Shit "

* Delusional Existentialism By Sanctimonious Psychopaths Shopping Fake Meanings For An After Life *

I have stated an opposition to the status quo on personhood laws. You merely state what it is, as though everyone didn’t know what it was, and that moral people who hate it and want it to change do not exist.

And scRotus ignored the definition of a PER SON according to title 1 section 8 , as any BORN ALIVE , and thereby committed SEDITION against us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments , which is supported by TRAITORS to US REPUBLIC .

Conjectures that all men are created equal necessarily excludes any whom are not men .

 

[beagle9]

My point is until you can change the law and Constitution there is absolutely no reason for any state to be banning or restricting or being involved in the medical procedure of abortion specifically when 98% of all abortions take place within the first trimester. There is only one person involved when she decides to terminate, end the development of the living human organism that is part of her very own life sustaining neurological system and individual consciousness. There is no other person to protect or who is a victim of her decision to abort. You have confirmed that reality. Thank you very much.

myrpls.23.06.22 #9,340
nf.23.06.22

Living human organism.... You said it, and you have no qualms about a woman ending it regardless of when she chooses. That has also been established in the back and forth that you have engaged in.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

When debating what personhood law SHOULD BE, asserting what it CURRENTLY IS is both unnecessary, as all sides know what it is, and useless, as the debate is specifically about the prospect of CHANGING IT.

My point is until you can change the law and Constitution there is absolutely no reason for any state to be banning or restricting or being involved in the medical procedure of abortion specifically when 98% of all abortions take place within the first trimester. There is only one person involved when she decides to terminate, end the development of the living human organism that is part of her very own life sustaining neurological system and individual consciousness. There is no other person to protect or who is a victim of her decision to abort. You have confirmed that reality. Thank you very much.

myrpls.23.06.22 #9,340 wdw•oci
nf.23.06.22 #9,341 to wdw•oci

Your point is meaningless.

Please be at least somewhat intelligently capable by duly trying to explain what is so meaningless about it since that is not your privilege to decide. What is meaningful is all the points I’ve made and questions aside from post #9,341 to wdw•oci that you are totally ignoring. Whatever you ignore tells me more about the weakness of your position much more so than your silly collection of discussion enders. Enders, such as your recent complaints that I’m boring or sound like a broken record. Do you have snd facts/reason based discussion enders?

myrpls.23.06.22 #9,340 wdw•oci
nf.23.06.22 #9,341 to wdw•oci
hkrgy.23.06.22 #9,342 ypim
nf.23.06.23 #9,347 to ypim

 

[NotfooledbyW]

When debating what personhood law SHOULD BE, asserting what it CURRENTLY IS is both unnecessary, as all sides know what it is, and useless, as the debate is specifically about the prospect of CHANGING IT. wdw•oci

My point is until you can change the law and Constitution there is absolutely no reason for any state to be banning or restricting or being involved in the medical procedure of abortion specifically when 98% of all abortions take place within the first trimester. There is only one person involved when she decides to terminate, end the development of the living human organism that is part of her very own life sustaining neurological system and individual consciousness. There is no other person to protect or who is a victim of her decision to abort. You have confirmed that reality. Thank you very much.

myrpls.23.06.22 #9,340 wdw•oci
nf.23.06.22 #9,341 to wdw•oci

Living human organism.... You said it, and you have no qualms about a woman ending it regardless of when she chooses. That has also been established in the back and forth that you have engaged in. oho•hei

It’s been established, with many thanks to American Atheist Brave CarsomyrPlusSix that under current law there is only one “person” within the entire physical and biological and neurological scope of an individual body during pregnancy. Do you agree with your vile hate-infested godless pal on that verifiable fact and reality?

myrpls.23.06.22 #9,340 wdw•oci
nf.23.06.22 #9,341 to wdw•oci
bvvgl.23.06.22 #9,346 oho•hei
nf.23.06.23 #9,348 to oho•hei

 

[NotfooledbyW]

“When debating what personhood law SHOULD BE, asserting what it CURRENTLY IS is both unnecessary, as all sides know what it is, and useless, as the debate is specifically about the prospect of CHANGING IT.“ wdw•oci

My point is until you can change the law and Constitution mpi•lac to wdw•oci

“Just the law, ••>•• The Constitution doesn’t say anything about this topic, never has.” jtl•tnh to mpi•lac

According to the Constitution, states cannot pass laws that restrict the liberty of law abiding individual persons. Specifically laws that cause harm including death to law abiding persons. And since you accept the truth that legally there is only one neurologically functioning person within the entire indisputable scope of every pregnant woman’s body, it is impossible for a woman to be killing another person when she has a medical procedure done that causes the fetus in her body to die. It is critical to note that prior to 21 weeks is when 98% of all abortion medical procedures are performed. IF you want a fetus to be recognized as a person under protection of the US Constitution you have to amend it to apply Catholic doctrine to the 14th Amendment to make it read

“all persons conceived or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'​

In the place of:

all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'​

Conception is a private matter.It is not a crime when it happens without intent. Amending the Constitution will never happen,

myrpls.23.06.22 #9,340 wfw•oci
nf.23.06.22 #9,341 mpi•lac to wfw•oci
myrpls.23.06.22 #9,343 jtl•tnh to mpi•lac
nf.24.06.23 #9,347 att•wnh to jtl•tnh

 

[beagle9]

According to the Constitution, states cannot pass laws that restrict the liberty of law abiding individual persons. Specifically laws that cause harm including death to law abiding persons. And since you accept the truth that legally there is only one neurologically functioning person within the entire indisputable scope of every pregnant woman’s body, it is impossible for a woman to be killing another person when she has a medical procedure done that causes the fetus in her body to die. It is critical to note that prior to 21 weeks is when 98% of all abortion medical procedures are performed. IF you want a fetus to be recognized as a person under protection of the US Constitution you have to amend it to apply Catholic doctrine to the 14th Amendment to make it read

“all persons conceived or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'​

In the place of:

all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'​

Conception is a private matter.It is not a crime when it happens without intent. Amending the Constitution will never happen,

myrpls.23.06.22 #9,340 wfw•oci
nf.23.06.22 #9,341 mpi•lac to wfw•oci
myrpls.23.06.22 #9,343 jtl•tnh to mpi•lac
nf.24.06.23 #9,347 att•wnh to jtl•tnh

Ending a pregnancy is no longer a private matter, because it has to involve someone else for that to happen, and if the fetus is healthy, and it has formed beyond it's earliest 1st stages of formation (at whatever point in the cycle that is), then it becomes an uncivilized act to seek or rather to abort a pregnancy for whatever reasoning is being used outside of a few set criteria's to do so.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

“Conception is a private matter.It is not a crime when it happens without intent. Amending the Constitution will never happen,” cia•wnh

“Ending a pregnancy is no longer a private matter, because it has to involve someone else for that to happen” eap•tth to cnn•wnh

Do men have a right to privacy if they intend to hire a doctor to alter their reproductive organ in order to prevent a potential human being from being conceived? dmh•fbc to eap•tth



nf.23 .06.23 #9,349 cnn•wnh
bvvgl.23.06.23 #9,350 eap•tth to cnn•wnh
nf.23.06.23 #9,351 dmh•fbc to eap•tth

 

[NotfooledbyW]

“If the fetus is healthy, and it has formed beyond it's earliest 1st stages of formation (at whatever point in the cycle that is), then it becomes an uncivilized act to seek or rather to abort a pregnancy for whatever reasoning is being used outside of a few set criteria's to do so.” itf•tds

At which week of fetal development by your criteria and gospel, Saint Beagle, does inducing abortion move from being legal civilized behavior to legal uncivilized behavior if not illegal criminal behavior by a woman and her doctor and/or a pharmaceutical manufacturer of specific home remedies to induce abortion? aww•tia to itf•tds


bvvgl.23.06.23 #9,350 itf•tds
nf.23.06.23 #9,352 aww•tia to itf•tds

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

It’s been established, with many thanks to American Atheist Brave CarsomyrPlusSix

Eat shit and die.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

According to the Constitution, states cannot pass laws that restrict the liberty of law abiding individual persons

According to the Constitution, states can pass laws on matters the Constitution is silent about, like abortion, and murderers who kill their own kids and the murderers they hire are not "law-abiding."

Die mad about it, but first eat shit, then die.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

“According to the Constitution, states cannot pass laws that restrict the liberty of law abiding individual person “ att•aip

“According to the Constitution, states can pass laws on matters the Constitution is silent about, like abortion” att•ala to ala•aip

The Constitution says they can’t override unenumerated rights and that means it is absolutely indisputable you are wrong.

The federal government is not only allowed but expected to pass federal laws defending Constitutional rights against anyone, including State legislatures, trying to abridge them. tfg•tat

If the Catholic raised conservative justices wish to be faithful to the Constitution’s original meaning, they should not eliminate the right to privacy on abortion. Instead, they should restore it to the unenumerated rights position that characterized American society throughout our early history, recognizing a unenumerated constitutional right to abortion early in pregnancy as Roe v Wade did.


myrpls.23.06.22 #9,340 wfw•oci
nf.23.06.22 #9,341 mpi•lac to wfw•oci
myrpls.23.06.22 #9,343 jtl•tnh to mpi•lac
nf.23.06.23 #9,347 att•wnh to jtl•tnh
nf.23.06.23 #9,349 att•aip
myrpls.23.06.23 #9,354 att•ala to ala•aip
pllnr.22.11.05 #15 tft•tat

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Reading from the top down, we see that C+six is on record, for one’s actually stating a fact. “personhood begins at live birth”

In the second post, Dante states a fact that it is the woman’s body during pregnancy that is being harmed. 17 out of 100,000 women die as a result of being pregnant in the United States. Something is assaulting them, but it is not a person according to C+six.

In the third post, C+six presents a logical fallacy for all pregnancies prior to the 21st week. We can be informed based on reality if we’d like to be that 98.7 of all abortions occur in the first trimester. Given that no “person” has ever been born alive prior to the 21st week, combined with C+six’s argument that personhood does not happen until live birth there can be “innocent person” being aborted prior to 21 weeks of pregnancy. At 20 weeks the fetus is not a person. The reason a fetus cannot survive delivery prior to 21 weeks is because they are still very much a part of their mothers neurological system. Essentially there is only one person with consciousness involved when a woman is pregnant through 20 weeks. That cannot be disputed.

And in the fourth post Saint CarlinAnnArbor declares that when a woman gets an abortion she is committing assault. Sticking to the data that 98% of all abortions occur in the first trimester when we know for a fact that there are no “fetus persons” in existence capable of being assaulted; so my question for Saint Carlin of Ann Arbor is how can she accuse a woman of committing an assault against a person if no other person exists inside her own body.?

In the fifth post Saint Marty confirms what Brave Atheist C+six Claims at the top by adding the political reality that personhood for living human organisms in the womb is not going to happen thankfully due to Dobbs.

myrpls.22.09.26 #5,393
dvnte.23.04.05 #9
myrpls.23.04.05 #12
crlnaa.23.04.06 #123
mrtybgn.23.05.26 #399
nf.23.06.16 9,252
myrpls.23.06.21 #9,333
nf.23.06.22 #9,337

Dante only posted facts. Not opinions.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

If the Catholic raised conservative justices wish to be faithful to the Constitution’s original meaning, they should not eliminate the right to privacy

Good news, fuckface, there is no constitutional right to privacy in order to eliminate it.

You can’t eliminate nonexistent things.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If the Catholic raised conservative justices wish to be faithful to the Constitution’s original meaning, they should not eliminate the right to privacy on abortion. itc•poa

“there is no constitutional right to privacy in order to eliminate it.” tin•tei to itc•poa

Thirty-one percent of Republicans agree that women have the right to chose to not gestate a fetus as part of their body as covered by an unenumerated right to privacy and bodily autonomy that stood for fifty years until six Catholic justices decided to strike it down

Women have the unenumerated right of personal autonomy not to engage in the (act) of gestating a fetus unto it is capable of surviving live birth,,

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences.​

• The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
• The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
• The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
• The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
• The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. •••• However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing. •••• For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception. “””” The court ruled in 1969 that the right to privacy protected a person's right to possess and view pornography in his own home. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Stanley v. Georgia that, " If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch." •••• The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest. •••• In 2003, the court, in Lawrence v. Texas, overturned an earlier ruling and found that Texas had violated the rights of two gay men when it enforced a law prohibiting sodomy. [Countdown: 10 Milestones in Gay Rights History]​

https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.htmlJustice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."​

And we know that you know that aborting a fetus does not kill a person because want to change existing laws that do not recognize fetuses to be persons.

nf.23.06.23 #9,355 itc•poa
myrpls.23.06.23 #9,357 tin•tei to itc•poa
nf.23.06.23 #9,358 tpo•tbp to tin•tei

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I fail to understand the idea that murdering a fetus is actually "healthcare".

What you do not understand is that your brain has been washed by mostly white Christian and entirely right wing white nationalists anti-abortion political propaganda..

• Record-high 69% think first-trimester abortions should be legal
• Near record-high 34% say abortion should be legal in all cases

Broader Support for Abortion Rights Continues Post-Dobbs

More Americans, and particularly Democrats, support abortion rights and identify as "pro-choice" than they did before the Dobbs leak.

news.gallup.com

and the majority is understanding what you don’t understand.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

^^^
Just absolute garbage from a bigoted, illiterate hatemonger

There is no right to “privacy.”
There is no right to “bodily autonomy.”