SCOTUS Declines To Hear Case Granting Fetal Personhood Rights

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

No. What is disgusting is the sheer arrogance of people like you who do not walk in her shoes making decisions for her

I don't have to walk in anyone's shoes to know they shouldn't attack and kill other innocent human beings. This isn't a subjective matter. Nothing will justify aggressive violence against innocent humans. The women who do this are inhuman scum. Men who do anything like it, which is all other criminal homicides with premeditation, are ALSO inhuman scum.

Then add to that the pretense of being “pro-life” when the reality is anything but.

We want to protect the right to life against violence. Anything beyond that is not fucking understanding what we're about, which I believe is certainly not just ignorance, but malicious and intentional ignorance - we have been quite clear and remain so.

Red states, your bastion, have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, mothers and children in poverty, and little mandated sex education.

Price of tea in China?

The right to life entitles you to no tax dollars for healthcare. The right to life entitles you to no welfare payouts because you are poor. The right to life entitles you to no education of any type. Stop being stupid?

You are the states that chose not not to expand Medicare

End Medicare.

Has nothing to do with the topic of abortion though.

And now you are racing to out do each other in the “who can pass the most draconian abortion laws”

Draco of Athens would execute someone for jaywalking.

I want to execute murderous scum for murder.

That is not "draconian."

biz, no longer even allowing exceptions for rape or incest

We've already determined you give zero fucks about rape or incest.

(you support forced gestation).

No, I support taking care of your kids that you created, deadbeat.

Please sterilize yourself before anyone else has to suffer death for your selfishness.

 

[Stann]

The justices turned away an appeal by a Catholic group and two women of a lower court’s ruling holding that fetuses lacked the proper legal standing to challenge a 2019 state law codifying the right to abortion in line with the Roe precedent. The two women, pregnant at the time when the case was first filed, sued on behalf of their fetuses and later gave birth.

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs fetal personhood appeal — Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to decide whether fetuses are entitled to constitutional rights in light of its June ruling overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide, steering clear for now of another front in America's culture...

apple.news

Sorry, a fetus can never meet the requirements of personhood. Every person I know has a birth date.

 

[Here and there]

The justices turned away an appeal by a Catholic group and two women of a lower court’s ruling holding that fetuses lacked the proper legal standing to challenge a 2019 state law codifying the right to abortion in line with the Roe precedent. The two women, pregnant at the time when the case was first filed, sued on behalf of their fetuses and later gave birth.

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs fetal personhood appeal — Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to decide whether fetuses are entitled to constitutional rights in light of its June ruling overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide, steering clear for now of another front in America's culture...

apple.news

Only in America.

 

[Stann]

The Court doesn't want to deal with the mess it created.

The correct answer is for the courts to say they made a mistake all along abortion should not be a court or government matter it must be the woman's right to decide period.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Sorry, a fetus can never meet the requirements of personhood. Every person I know has a birth date.

Legally set "person" to "living human being."
Congratulations, all humans from zygote to death are now people. Done in one step.

There went "never."

Legal personhood is whatever the law says it is. Laws are voted on, laws are political - laws change.

If you said, "Sorry negroes can never meet the requirements of personhood, every person I know is white" many years ago, you would have been right. And what you just said is just as awful and stupid and bigoted as a person who would have said that to justify slavery.

 

[Moonglow]

Sorry skippy. The second you morons made us pay for it us taxpayers have plenty of say.

Haven’t you fools learned yet, leftism always generates the opposite of its stated intent.

You have yet to prove you pay federal taxes.

 

[Stann]

You have yet to prove you pay federal taxes.

Legally set "person" to "living human being."
Congratulations, all humans from zygote to death are now people. Done in one step.

There went "never."

Legal personhood is whatever the law says it is. Laws are voted on, laws are political - laws change.

If you said, "Sorry negroes can never meet the requirements of personhood, every person I know is white" many years ago, you would have been right. And what you just said is just as awful and stupid and bigoted as a person who would have said that to justify slavery.

They did that in the past, I think there was a time when negroes were considered one third or one 2/3 of a person. Whoever figured that one out was really crazy. And I forget which Indian chief took it to the supreme Court. In his statement he said I am a man. Fortunately they agreed with him, unfortunately it was after much genocide of their race. But a fetus is another story all together. In terms of what a person is by the US government and how it's defined it, it simply cannot make a requirements. The best you can do is in a civil court you can claim it as property. And that brings us to another point if a fetus is simply property why are there laws about what a woman does with it. It doesn't make sense. Best to just say it's a potential person. And leave it at that. Most pregnancies these days do not lead to a person.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

You have yet to prove you pay federal taxes.

Ok Harry Reid.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

They did that in the past, I think there was a time when negroes were considered one third or one 2/3 of a person.

Yes. That's my point.

Welcome to my point. You have restated why your position is bad and why I am right.

But a fetus is another story all together.

No. Personhood can include unborn human beings - moreover it should. Much like how it should never have excluded abducted Africans or their descendants.

In terms of what a person is by the US government and how it's defined it, it simply cannot make a requirements.

Well, the U.S. government can do some re-writing then. Sucks to suck, don't be evil next time and you won't have to redo so much previous bad work.

The best you can do is in a civil court you can claim it as property.

And we're back to slavery again. No, your kid is not your property.

 

[Stann]

Yes. That's my point.

Welcome to my point. You have restated why your position is bad and why I am right.


No. Personhood can include unborn human beings - moreover it should. Much like how it should never have excluded abducted Africans or their descendants.


Well, the U.S. government can do some re-writing then. Sucks to suck, don't be evil next time and you won't have to redo so much previous bad work.


And we're back to slavery again. No, your kid is not your property.

I agree totally once a child is born, they belong to themselves and hopefully the parents are there to help them get started in life. But the government has to work on by reason not emotion. Definition of a person cannot change, it is what it is.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

I agree totally once a child is born, they belong to themselves and hopefully the parents are there to help them get started in life.

But you believe that those you hate and want dead for arbitrary reasons are mere property. Your hate is nothing new or special.

But the government has to work on by reason not emotion.

Indeed. Extending personhood to all humans equally is reasonable. Let us not be emotional or bigoted and unreasonable, like yourself.

Definition of a person cannot change, it is what it is.

And yet by definition it can with some votes and the stroke of a pen. It's quite simple.

 

[Coyote]

But you believe that those you hate and want dead for arbitrary reasons are mere property. Your hate is nothing new or special.


Indeed. Extending personhood to all humans equally is reasonable. Let us not be emotional or bigoted and unreasonable, like yourself.


And yet by definition it can with some votes and the stroke of a pen. It's quite simple.

True. But in this case, the only way to extend that right is at the expense of another group’s rights.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

True. But in this case, the only way to extend that right is at the expense of another group’s rights.

Not at all.

Banning abortion only affirms human rights; such a ban violates no one's rights and comes at the expense of no one.

No one has ever had the right to attack and kill innocent human beings and no one ever will. So no such nonexistent, illegitimate, self-evidently contradictory "rights" could ever be lost.

 

[Coyote]

Not at all.

Banning abortion only affirms human rights; such a ban violates no one's rights and comes at the expense of no one.

Untrue. Those rights can only come about with the loss of the pregnant woman’s rights.

No one has ever had the right to attack and kill innocent human beings and no one ever will. So no such nonexistent, illegitimate, self-evidently contradictory "rights" could ever be lost.

No one has ever had the right to inhabit another person’s body against their will….can you think of any time?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Untrue. Those rights can only come about with the loss of the pregnant woman’s rights.

What rights are violated by NOT killing someone else for your own selfish benefit... like a monster? I am unaware of any such rights. Quite certain they don't exist.

No one has ever had the right to inhabit another person’s body against their will….can you think of any time?

I mean, "will" is only relevant here when noting that these killings are intentional and premeditated - that is why these scum should die in prison for what they did.

 

[Stann]

But you believe that those you hate and want dead for arbitrary reasons are mere property. Your hate is nothing new or special.


Indeed. Extending personhood to all humans equally is reasonable. Let us not be emotional or bigoted and unreasonable, like yourself.


And yet by definition it can with some votes and the stroke of a pen. It's quite simple.

You know what they say when you assume things. I do not hate any fetus, I understand the potential that is there. You don't seem to understand is that potential is not always wanted or needed. There is only one reason to bring a child into this world, there are thousands if not millions of reasons not to. You only see what you want to see that is the problem and you're very emotional about the situation. A situation that isn't even yours, you made your choice but you refuse to allow other women to make their choice. That is unconscionable to me.

 

[Coyote]

What rights are violated by NOT killing someone else for your own selfish benefit... like a monster? I am unaware of any such rights. Quite certain they don't exist.

Now you are just throwing emotion into it all. I am quite certain no one has a right to inhabit another’s body against their will. If a blastocyst, embryo or fetus has more rights to her body than she does, those rights are at the expense of hers. That is the only way it can happen.

I mean, "will" is only relevant here when noting that these killings are intentional and premeditated - that is why these scum should die in prison for what they did.

I thought we were talking about rights.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You know what they say when you assume things. I do not hate any fetus

Blatant lie.

You think of them as less than human, to be disposed of on a whim.

You have more hate for them than a Klansman does for black folks.

I understand the potential that is there.

"Potential" is irrelevant. They are living human beings. If you don't die today you will potentially age a day by tomorrow and you will change from that process, gradually, until you die.

You don't seem to understand is that potential is not always wanted or needed.

A human doesn't have to be "wanted" to have intrinsic value. Your arbitrary bigotry is disgusting. I surely don't "want" people like you, and the world doesn't "need" you.

There is only one reason to bring a child into this world, there are thousands if not millions of reasons not to.

Disgusting. Malthusians never want to die for their own cause, just have others do it for them.

You only see what you want to see that is the problem and you're very emotional about the situation.

On point criticism and statements of cold hard face aren't "emotion," pro-abort.

A situation that isn't even yours, you made your choice but you refuse to allow other women to make their choice. That is unconscionable to me.

Everyone who isn't insane who attacks others makes a "choice" to do so of their own free will - that choice is why they are scum who belong in prison. There is no reason to respect all choices as though all actions are acceptable. The very idea is insane, pro-abort. You won't apply it universally, so why lie and pretend it is a relevant concept here?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Now you are just throwing emotion into it all.

Nah.

It is sociopathic to kill another human being in cold blood for your own selfish benefit. That isn't an emotional assertion - that's just fact.

You people don't give a damn about the lives and rights of others, and that's just more undeniable fact. Made even worse and more irrefutable when noting how often you people are also far leftists with as little respect for the property of others as you have for their lives or liberties.

I am quite certain no one has a right to inhabit another’s body against their will.

Will is irrelevant here, other than as part of criminal theory - intent.

Furthermore, we're back to that factual reality where a statistically irrelevant fraction of a percent of pregnancies aren't a matter of consensual sex where a man and a woman have sex knowing full well they could create a kid, thus consenting to parental responsibilities. And we've already determined that you actually don't give a shit about those cases where that isn't the case, so why belabor that blip?

If a blastocyst, embryo or fetus has more rights to her body than she does, those rights are at the expense of hers. That is the only way it can happen.

Parents have an obligation to provide for the wellbeing of their kids. This includes food and shelter. They further have an obligation to refrain from neglect, abuse, and certainly just malicious, intentional violence like a premeditated homicide.

 

[Stann]

Blatant lie.

You think of them as less than human, to be disposed of on a whim.

You have more hate for them than a Klansman does for black folks.


"Potential" is irrelevant. They are living human beings. If you don't die today you will potentially age a day by tomorrow and you will change from that process, gradually, until you die.


A human doesn't have to be "wanted" to have intrinsic value. Your arbitrary bigotry is disgusting. I surely don't "want" people like you, and the world doesn't "need" you.


Disgusting. Malthusians never want to die for their own cause, just have others do it for them.


On point criticism and statements of cold hard face aren't "emotion," pro-abort.


Everyone who isn't insane who attacks others makes a "choice" to do so of their own free will - that choice is why they are scum who belong in prison. There is no reason to respect all choices as though all actions are acceptable. The very idea is insane, pro-abort. You won't apply it universally, so why lie and pretend it is a relevant concept here?

When a marriage pregnant woman finds out on her 20-week checkup that the fetus she is caring is terribly deformed and probably won't live very long if it survives until birth. I believe she has a perfect right to abort that fetus rather than bring more hardship into the world. I would also say that such a person who would choose to bring a child like that into the world is very selfish and not a good mother. That's just one case. There are thousands of other cases. No one abortion case is like the other they are all unique. Yet you have this picture in your mind that it's going to be a perfect baby and it's wanted it's loved well that's not always the case and the good part is you don't have to live with it. If you can overreach that much that their decisions affect you this badly something is wrong with you. Please get help.