"My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by SweetSue92, May 18, 2019.

  1. Monk-Eye
    Offline

    Monk-Eye VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    771
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +160
    " Four Aces And A Wild Joker "


    * Individuals Determine Self Ownership *


    The academic argument was presented in the majority opinion by Blackmun in Roe V. Wade, with the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

    The deduction is direct from us 14th amendment that one must be born to become a citizen and one must be born for equal protection , else a fetus is without constitutional protections and consequently a fetus is the private property of the mother .

    As a chance for eternal life , an after life , being born again , reincarnation , etc . are all metaphors for literally passing on ones genetic identity and self through ones offspring ; hence , the meaning of " My body . My choice " is both figurative and literal .

    Before you go rambling on about fetal protection laws , any offense is against the mother , and that is how the laws are understood and how they should be written , that can include elevated penalties just other special circumstance laws are written , though fetal protection laws are devised with language to placate fools .


    * Respectably Dealing With Ones Own Adversity *

    A claim that abortion is used to reduce the minority population is hubris on par with using the terms " minority population " and failing to consider domestic versus global populations .
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2019
  2. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    8,906
    Thanks Received:
    828
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +1,527
    In 2014, 39 percent of abortion patients were white, 28 percent were black and 25 percent were ... "Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion",
     
  3. Frankeneinstein
    Offline

    Frankeneinstein Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2016
    Messages:
    6,432
    Thanks Received:
    666
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,231
    you really went off the tracks here but ok


    the "academic" argument in question isn't the courts but the one name calling rant you were engaging in, academics never stoop to name calling which is why I suppose you quoted someone else



    the "deduction"? that makes my point, why a deduction? would it be fair to deduce that makes the baby/fetus inside the womb a non citizen? [of course it would be] and subject to all the rights and laws of other non citizens [of course it would]...and all children are the property of the mother
    ...so I'll repeat, nowhere in the constitution does it make the case for abortion, certainly not to the degree it makes directly [without the need for deduduction] concerning congress and the right to beat arms [ie gun control]...which was the point of my earlier post...certainly not what current case law translate...this is why semantic legal arguments [deductions if you like] get overturned, and why one courts incredibly imaginative deduction is another courts WTF!



    It's nothing more than a chant, an incantation of "woe is me"...ohm ohm ohm ohm

    I have no knowledge of fetal laws at all, I do however recognize the "SO HAH" cry of "any offense is against the mother" argument designed to pretend one is now officially in the "victim status" category...
    ...and the "fools" thing...just can't climb that academic ladder high enough can ya?


    Should those considerations extend to the border?
    Not sure that you actually understand that by claiming that there are what you consider to be valid reasons for controlling the minority population is in fact an admission that abortion is a way toward that goal...you have, to this point made no direct claim that abortion does not bring the minority population down, only claims that anyone who dare speak out about it is guilty of chutzpa [sp]...
    ...Lets keep abortion legal, and you stop pretending the constitution addresses the issue in its citizen vs non citizen position...
    ...there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that covers abortion, nothing, cept maybe that no state may deny anyone the right to life...but that is not really a deduction is it? so you may need to use your deductive powers to bring about a different meaning.
     
  4. Frankeneinstein
    Offline

    Frankeneinstein Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2016
    Messages:
    6,432
    Thanks Received:
    666
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,231
    For that reason alone most men [including me] want to keep it legal...but that does not make it constitutional.
     
  5. Monk-Eye
    Offline

    Monk-Eye VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    771
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +160
    " Foundations Of State Limits "

    * Too Simple For Red Herring *

    Any must be born for equal protection with a citizen , else as birth is a requirement for citizenship , any other not having been born would be receiving more wrights than those granted to a citizen .

    It is a straight forward deduction ; and , whether a fetus is referred to as a non citizen , or not , is irrelevant to a completion criteria to be a member of and therefore of concern by a state .


    * Digression Of Fetal Protection Laws *

    Can you infer the foolish language below ?

    In the context of an " eye for an eye " , or equal retribution , an implementation of the death penalty stipulates a double entendre , which is that when one removes a wright to life of another they in fact remove their own wright to life .

    Hence , had the sycophants attempted to impose a death penalty on behalf of a fetus, the debase pretenses that a fetus has constitutional protections would have unraveled .

    Can you further identify the shrouded admission that the crime is in fact against the mother from the phrase " had the injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother " ?

    The farcical language is intended as a conjecture for fools seeking to establish a fetus as a person ( per son - male countable by census ) and a legal victim .

    Again , a fetus is the private property of the mother until birth , though certainly more valued and less replaceable than simple material items , and elevated penalties can be accordingly applied as offenses against the mother .

    Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia
    (2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
    ...
    (D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.


    * Foreign Rules Under Natural Freedoms *

    A wright to life exists for citizens who comprise the foundation of a state .

    Equal protection is afforded to individuals having been born who are under legal protectorates of the state .

    The country of origin is responsible for reprising violations of their citizens who are sojourning abroad without legal permission to do so , and extradition of offenders or prosecution by foreign states may occur by petition or treaty , though a necessity for compliance by a foreign government is not a fundamental necessity .


    * It Is Reality Sew Grow Up And Accept It *

    It is a success criteria of nature , where failure of perpetuity is an allusion to the metaphors of final judgment and eternal damnation .
     
  6. Frankeneinstein
    Offline

    Frankeneinstein Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2016
    Messages:
    6,432
    Thanks Received:
    666
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,231
    *OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB*

    which is what makes the baby/fetus a non citizen




    also not true, but if you insist on pretending that is the case then fine, lets just make sure it is only the same rights they receive

    as is deducing the baby/fetus is a non citizen as the line of reasoning is identical in each case

    for "citizenship" purposes, not the "right to life" which is clearly stated and guaranteed in/by the 14th amendment...your pretzel logic and ignoring of intent is anything but straightforward...
    ...there is absolutely nothing in the constitution claiming abortion is a right, it is just not there...
    btw, see the lefts border argument concerning a "non citizen" and a states concern for them, you will see further evidence of why your claim is anything but straight forward.
    ...one more time, ya wanna claim abortion should be legal? be my guest, but if you want to claim the constitution protects it then you have entered into a lie.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
  7. Monk-Eye
    Offline

    Monk-Eye VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    771
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +160
    " Posers Versus Supreme Court Scholars "

    * Law Of Excluded Middle *
    A baby has been born , and it is either a citizen or entitled to equal protection , that is presuming it is subject to us jurisdiction .

    As for your assertion that a fetus is a non citizen , a cloud , along with a myriad of many inchoate entities , are non citizens and they do not have constitutional protections either , except that they be hue mammon and born .

    * Meet The Birth Requirement *
    Sure , once born , the wrights are the same .

    * Too Easy *
    Blackmun statement begins " LOGICALLY , OF COURSE .." and then proceeds to relate that a STATE INTEREST in protecting a wright to life begins at birth .

    Try reading the us 9th constitutional amendment , because as many , you are confused that abortion has to be enumerated in the constitution for it to be legal .

    Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]
     
  8. Frankeneinstein
    Offline

    Frankeneinstein Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2016
    Messages:
    6,432
    Thanks Received:
    666
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,231

    The Poser pretend they are worthy of making the supreme court scholars argument.


    that's true, because it actually says so in the constitution...no deducing necessary

    and the constitution does not afford them, or those who want to abort a baby it's protection.


    for citizenship.

    EDIT: Not sure what happened here.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2019
  9. Frankeneinstein
    Offline

    Frankeneinstein Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2016
    Messages:
    6,432
    Thanks Received:
    666
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,231
    of course he said that, he had to since the constitution does not

    Now why would you try to get away with this? that is my point, it may be a law but it is not found in the constitution and:
    First: you are admitting that the right to abortion is not a constitutional right guaranteed by the constitution by claiming that it falls under the 9th amendment which pertains to laws that are not in the constitution

    Second: it does not need to be enumerated in the constitution to be legal, it needs to be in the constitution to be called unconstitutional...you seem to be struggling mightily with this simple concept

    This will come handy if, and or when the SCOTUS rules the unborn are a human life entitled to the protections retained for them by the people

    "Posers" pose as being worthy of making supreme court scholar arguments, not because one disagrees with the interpretation of the argument made by the court.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2019
  10. Monk-Eye
    Offline

    Monk-Eye VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    771
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +160
    " Responding To Babbling Bluff "

    * Poser Spinning Wheels Believing To Go Somewhere *

    You are splitting hairs to assert that " it needs to be in the constitution be called unconstitutional " , as " others retained by the people " is a corollary to " certain rights " - constitutional - in the initial clause , as if wrights retained by the people are not intrinsic with the vernacular term of constitutional , which is absurd .

    The logical issue , of course , is that a fetus has zero constitutional protections because they have not been born , which is a stipulation for constitutional protections ; that is also to state , a fetus is also not yet one of " the people " .
     

Share This Page



Search tags for this page

my body my choice uterus magnets