Montana Supreme Court Nixes Extremist Anti Abortion laws, Citing onstitutional Privacy Rights

You poopyhead. I win
I understand the psychology of resorting to name-calling in a debate. It is a device used by some when they are losing the debate. It doesn't work. It shows your hand . And it's losing.
 
You obviously don't understand the simple idea of what an individual human being is.
How does science determine the father of a child?

It uses DNA

And how are criminals singled out from the crowd?

By DNA
 
" Arrogance Complacency Ignorance "

* Blame Abortion Choice Leadership For Incompetence *

50 years as a constitutional right thrown down the tubes because of an activist SCOTUS.
I cannot count the number of times abortion choice proponents were contacted and admonished to confront any nominee for scotus to explain blackmun opinion !

Thus the abortion anti-choice are only partly to blame and contempt should be hurled at the imbeciles running the abortion choice movement !

There is no money for lawyers , or political campaigns , or charities with settled law on abortion and it makes me wonder whether the abortion choice leadership actually had any intention otherwise than to lose .

* Collective Groups Reviling The Us Citizen *
So you are not familiar with the 9th amendment and unenumerated rights?
Do you want me to explain it to you or will you do the research yourself?
The abortion choice failed to provide informed consent to us public that live birth is the only non incidental requirement to become a citizen and therefore , by equitable doctrine , a live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen .

A rite to privacy is incidental , it is not principle the basis for legality and public policy for abortion , so keep on promoting its stupidity and continue to fail .

When the abortion choice want to succeed they will follow directions that have been shoved in their face for +25 years !



* Charge Scotus With The Crime *

 
How does science determine the father of a child?

It uses DNA

And how are criminals singled out from the crowd?

By DNA
You are claiming an embryonic stage of a human being is a human being. That is the same as calling a seed a sapling. An egg a chick. It makes no sense.
 
You are claiming an embryonic stage of a human being is a human being. That is the same as calling a seed a sapling. An egg a chick. It makes no sense.
Of course its a human being

Do you think unborn babies are like caterpillars that morph into butterflies?

Our unique DNA does not change from conception to death even 100 years later
 
" Anthropocentric Quackery Of Damned Dirty Apes "

* Moral Relativism Of Nature *

Privacy is more fundamental than life itself?
I dont think so
I am a us citizen with a single non incidental requirement to be born for the instantiation of my constitutional rites and any which has not is not entitled to equal protection with me !

A state is comprised of citizens in whose interests of a state lay .

A citizen and their constitutional rites are instantiated through a live birth requirement .

A constitutional basis for abortion is based on " When do interests of a state begin ? " and not " When does life begin ? " .

There is not a sanctimonious altruism by a state to protect any and all lives !
 
" Conceited Arrogance "

* Anthropocentric Psychosis
*
Of course its a human being
Do you think unborn babies are like caterpillars that morph into butterflies?
Our unique DNA does not change from conception to death even 100 years later
Boo fucking who , do not get down range mofo !
 
" Anthropocentric Quackery Of Damned Dirty Apes "

* Moral Relativism Of Nature *

I am a us citizen with a single non incidental requirement to be born for the instantiation of my constitutional rites and any which has not is not entitled to equal protection with me !


A state is comprised of citizens in whose interests of a state lay .

A citizen and their constitutional rites are instantiated through a live birth requirement .

A constitutional basis for abortion is based on " When do interests of a state begin ? " and not " When does life begin ? " .

There is not a sanctimonious altruism by a state to protect any and all lives !
Thats law, not science

The law might change, but science does not
 
Of course its a human being

Do you think unborn babies are like caterpillars that morph into butterflies?

Our unique DNA does not change from conception to death even 100 years later
The fetus only has that potential.It is only a seed at this point.
 
" Not Concerned With Arrogance of Damned Dirty Apes "

* Non Sequitur *

Thats law, not science
The law might change, but science does not
Damned straight it is law , because nature of nature has not changed !
 
" Arrogance Complacency Ignorance "

* Blame Abortion Choice Leadership For Incompetence *


I cannot count the number of times abortion choice proponents were contacted and admonished to confront any nominee for scotus to explain blackmun opinion !

Thus the abortion anti-choice are only partly to blame and contempt should be hurled at the imbeciles running the abortion choice movement !

There is no money for lawyers , or political campaigns , or charities with settled law on abortion and it makes me wonder whether the abortion choice leadership actually had any intention otherwise than to lose .

* Collective Groups Reviling The Us Citizen *

The abortion choice failed to provide informed consent to us public that live birth is the only non incidental requirement to become a citizen and therefore , by equitable doctrine , a live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen .

A rite to privacy is incidental , it is not principle the basis for legality and public policy for abortion , so keep on promoting its stupidity and continue to fail .

When the abortion choice want to succeed they will follow directions that have been shoved in their face for +25 years !



* Charge Scotus With The Crime *

Sure. Thanks for your opinion and links that support your opinion.

I can do that too but won't waste our time.

This is about facts. Abortion was a constitutional right before Dodd.
 
Sure. Thanks for your opinion and links that support your opinion.

I can do that too but won't waste our time.

This is about facts. Abortion was a constitutional right before Dodd.
Correct , our laws were still based on morals. Fortunately in the modern world we've become aware that morals are not a good foundation for laws as they are variable. Modern laws are properly based on ethics.
 
Not a Constitutional right

Yes it was.

By contrast, in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the Court grounded a constitutional right to abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Ninth.4


It was an unenumerated right.

14th Amendment

Where in the 14th amendment does it say you have a right to travel?


Over the years, the Supreme Court has acknowledged several fundamental rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution - such as the right to privacy and the right to vote. Many of these "unenumerated" rights come from the Ninth Amendment, but some, like the right to travel, come from the Fourteenth Amendment.
Really? Do you need someone to explain it to you, or will you do the research yourself?
No. I understand your attempt to malign me personally just to add credence to your arguement; I simply reject it for what it is.
 
" More On Mealy Mouth Muttering From Incompetents "

* Spelling That Abortion Remains A Constitutional Rite *

Sure. Thanks for your opinion and links that support your opinion.
I can do that too but won't waste our time.
This is about facts. Abortion was a constitutional right before Dodd.
The roe v wade decision is based on a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen .

The roe v wade decision ruled that a state interest could begin post natural viability , in the third trimester , given an ability for a fetus to survive an imminent live birth , which the court referred to as " potential life " .

The actual constitutional basis for roe v wade was not ever presented in dobbs and all eat toe mocked the abortion choice stupidity and bitch slapped them !

https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
" Although the Court acknowledged that States had a legitimate interest in protecting “potential life,” it found that this interest could not justify any restriction on pre-viability abortions. The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning.

Any us citizen has standing to prevail in an equal protection violation suit claiming that states are prohibited from affording equal protections , in particular a rite to life , to anything which has not met a live birth to receive it .

Why would anyone need to explain a " LOGICALLY , OF COURSE " statement to a supreme court justice , or to anyone else for that matter ?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top