Traitorous state texASS & Anti-Female Rights': Federal Judge BLOCKS new Texas ABORTION BAN! WHEEEE!

[buttercup]

As I recall, even born babies have few if any rights'.
Just Mom Dad and the courts. A newborn has no say.
Meaning, others choose if IT lives or died.

BTW: Did you know back in the old days, 1776-1905.
Babies were used to fighting off wolfs. So the others
could get away. That's good old, old family value is
somethang back thang.

In a civilized society, the most innocent and vulnerable among us are protected, so why advocate barbarism because people did it in the past? Slavery was also legal at one point, and it was based on the same mentality that some lives are worth less than others.

It's actually better for all of us to recognize the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable ... instead of declaring that some people are less worthy than others. That is the ethical premise of the Declaration of Independence, which says that "all men are created equal."

 

[Natural Citizen]

jillian, dear, you're not cooperating here. If you could be a sport and find Judicial review for us in Article III, then you win. jillian will be Queen.

Ya keep calling me a hack, but at the moment, I'm correct and you're not. The Constitution speaks for itself. Has there been an Amendment that adds Judicial Review to Article III of the Constitution and I just haven't heard about it? If so, then please direct me to the amendment. I like to learn, jillian. I really do.

 

[Natural Citizen]

and you should not have an abortion if you don't want one.

now leave everyone else alone, particularly given you'll never have to make that decision.

Well, wait a minute. We're forced to pay for someone elses personal decision at the barrel of a government gun. We're forced to associate. Whatever happened to the right to freedom of association? We have no choice in the matter. We're forced to have an abortion by the fact that we have to pay for some other Individual's personal decision without the opportunity for withdrawing our consent. Perhaps it might be you all who could leave us alone for a change? It's not very fair that we get strongarmed by the federal government just because someone else refuses to be responsible for themselves and their personal choices.

 

[jillian]

and you should not have an abortion if you don't want one.

now leave everyone else alone, particularly given you'll never have to make that decision.

Well, wait a minute. We're forced to pay for someone elses personal decision at the barrel of a government gun. And we have no choice in the matter. We're forced to have an abortion by the fact that we have to pay for an Individual's personal decision without the opportunity for withdrawing consent. Perhaps it might be you all who could leave us alone for a change?

the federal law prohibits payment for abortion by the federal government.

try again, know-nothing

 

[buttercup]

Well, wait a minute. We're forced to pay for someone elses personal decision at the barrel of a government gun. And we have no choice in the matter. We're forced to have an abortion by the fact that we have to pay for some other Individual's personal decision without the opportunity for withdrawing our consent. Perhaps it might be you all who could leave us alone for a change? It's not very fair that we get strongarmed by the federal government just because someone else refuses to be responsible for themselves and their personal choices.

That is what makes it doubly sick. Not only do some people want to have zero accountability for their own actions, but on top of that they expect others to pay for it. There are layers and layers of blindness surrounding this issue.

 

[jillian]

Well, wait a minute. We're forced to pay for someone elses personal decision at the barrel of a government gun. And we have no choice in the matter. We're forced to have an abortion by the fact that we have to pay for some other Individual's personal decision without the opportunity for withdrawing our consent. Perhaps it might be you all who could leave us alone for a change? It's not very fair that we get strongarmed by the federal government just because someone else refuses to be responsible for themselves and their personal choices.

That is what makes it doubly sick. Not only do some people want to have zero accountability for their own actions, but on top of that they expect others to pay for it. There are layers and layers of blindness surrounding this issue.

again, your preference is irrelevant.

the sole issue is when does the governmental interest surpass that of the individual.

thanks for playing.

 

[buttercup]

again, your preference is irrelevant.

the sole issue is when does the governmental interest surpass that of the individual.

thanks for playing.

I already replied to that earlier. I don't see how what I just said can be denied… There are people who want to have zero accountability and expect others to pay for it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

the federal law prohibits payment for abortion by the federal government.

try again, know-nothing

Fact-Check: Planned Parenthood Can and Does Use Federal Tax Dollars for Abortions

Also - The one about the bear and the hunter.

 

[jillian]

the federal law prohibits payment for abortion by the federal government.

try again, know-nothing

Fact-Check: Planned Parenthood Can and Does Use Federal Tax Dollars for Abortions

Also - The one about the bear and the hunter.

they do not get money for abortions.

they get money for medical care for women, exclusive of abortion.

stop lying, little boy.

again, with whom did you study con law? I'm still waiting?

 

[Natural Citizen]

That is what makes it doubly sick. Not only do some people want to have zero accountability for their own actions, but on top of that they expect others to pay for it. There are layers and layers of blindness surrounding this issue.

Yeah. Agreed. I don't think that engaging with jillian is worth the effort, unfortunately. I think she's just being a little miss smarty pants at this point. She didn't understand the supremacy clause until I showed her its actual intention from the mouths of the founders themselves. She'd understand that all it does is merely beg the question if she actually studied it prior to blurting it. Yet she had previously tried to use it as a defense. I giggled. lol. She couldn't find Judicial Review in Article III of the Constitution. Which she also used as a defense. Of course, we knew she wouldn't because it isn't there. lol. So that's down the tubes for her. Again, I giggled.

buttercup, I think we're dealing with the old football mentality here. Remember the old saying about what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? haha. I see people insert the constitution every day but then they turn right around and publicly demonstrate that they have no understanding of it. It's laughable. Gosh darned amateurs.

In the end, we cannot legislate morality. Society has to resolve itself.

Anyway. Texas should and will likely ignore it. Final word on it from me.

 

[Natural Citizen]

again, with whom did you study con law? I'm still waiting?

From the best.

See ya around jillian. Thanks for the lively debate. Though, you're going to have to be careful in the future. Really make an effort to understand the supremacy clause if you're going to insert it. Because it clearly backfired on you. You're observably prideful but I think you might overcome it in time and really focus yourself. And, of course, Judicial review is not present in Article III of the constitution. Which you know now. So try to keep that in memory. In the end, it's federalism and states rights which protect Individual liberty. The constitution is clear on it.

Alright, jillian. Enjoy your evening.

 

[Baz Ares]

As I recall, even born babies have few if any rights'.
Just Mom Dad and the courts. A newborn has no say.
Meaning, others choose if IT lives or died.

BTW: Did you know back in the old days, 1776-1905.
Babies were used to fighting off wolfs. So the others
could get away. That's good old, old family value is
somethang back thang.

In a civilized society, the most innocent and vulnerable among us are protected, so why advocate barbarism because people did it in the past? Slavery was also legal at one point, and it was based on the same mentality that some lives are worth less than others.

It's actually better for all of us to recognize the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable ... instead of declaring that some people are less worthy than others. That is the ethical premise of the Declaration of Independence, which says that "all men are created equal."

Well right there. When you can find a fetus I can have
a conversation with, I could rule in your favor.
I have only one question any fetus needs to answer.
A simple Yes or No will do. Don't want to stress the molding Goo thang!

Q: Have you been BORN!?
A: Yes, Whee.. you got some rights' little thang. Welcome to the BORN section on the other side.
A: No, Sorry. Game Over. You have no rights'. The Baker rules here. Thanks for trying.
Next time don't hit the baker!

SOOoo! Please find any fetus who can answer just this one simple question above.

 

[flacaltenn]

Closed. OP is trolling baiting his own thread. Don't think he really intended to discuss the Texas ruling.

Deleted 11 posts. Issued a couple warnings. Remember -- the Original Poster has a responsibility to take their topic seriously and respectfully in cases where tensions run high. We're not gonna keep cleaning brawls where the OP is baiting others.