Rachel Maddow Predicts 'Fetal Personhood' SCOTUS Case Will End Abortion Nationwide.

[Chuz Life]

"An alarmed Rachel Maddow is convinced Republicans will now angle to bring a “fetal personhood” case before the Supreme Court in a bid to totally shut down abortion nationwide."

link; Rachel Maddow Predicts 'Fetal Personhood' SCOTUS Case Will End Abortion Nationwide

Now, where have I heard this agenda expressed before? It seems so familiar to me. Like an echo or something.

"Such a case would aim to define a fetus as a human being, and an abortion as murder. Maddow warned the extremist fight is a long game, decades in the making, often enforced with violence, and that Republicans aren’t about to ease off now that the court has overturned Roe v. Wade."

Wow, that would be so crazy! Recognizing "human beings in the first days of their life as actual "human beings?" Next, we will be blurring the lines that demark the biological differences between men and women.

I wonder if this Maddow guy that wrote this piece has thought about that?

EDIT: I also wonder if THEY read my Signature

 

[Meister]

The SCOTUS got it right with this ruling.
I think anything beyond this ruling is just election year fuel.

 

[White 6]

"An alarmed Rachel Maddow is convinced Republicans will now angle to bring a “fetal personhood” case before the Supreme Court in a bid to totally shut down abortion nationwide."

link; Rachel Maddow Predicts 'Fetal Personhood' SCOTUS Case Will End Abortion Nationwide

Now, where have I heard this agenda expressed before? It seems so familiar to me. Like an echo or something.

"Such a case would aim to define a fetus as a human being, and an abortion as murder. Maddow warned the extremist fight is a long game, decades in the making, often enforced with violence, and that Republicans aren’t about to ease off now that the court has overturned Roe v. Wade."

Wow, that would be so crazy! Recognizing "human beings in the first days of their life as actual "human beings?" Next, we will be blurring the lines that demark the biological differences between men and women.

I wonder if Maddow guy that wrote this piece has thought about that?

Gee, are they going to give them the vote?

 

[Chuz Life]

Gee, are they going to give them the vote?

Because. . . all human beings have the right to vote? Even three-year-olds, infants, and 13-year-olds?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Rachel Maddow has zero chance of every becoming pregnant

 

[Chuz Life]

Rachel Maddow has zero chance of every becoming pregnant

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

 

[Chuz Life]

The SCOTUS got it right with this ruling.
I think anything beyond this ruling is just election year fuel.

Got it right, you say. . .

Bizzare.

Care to expound on that?

 

[Meister]

Got it right, you say. . .

Bizzare.

Care to expound on that?

Yeah, a simple one.....abortion should never have been a constitutional issue.
It was always a state issue until the Court overstepped it's authority.
Even Ginsburg thought it was flawed.....Ginsburg.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Got it right, you say. . .

Bizzare.

Care to expound on that?

People who understand how our federal system works, don't need to ask that question.
Someone asked me "oh... so you would be against a federal mandate banning abortion then?"
I said... yes. For the exact reason I said RvW was always wrong.

 

[Calypso Jones]

The way the left wants to get a jump on killing the unborn you'd think these little ones come out fully armed with semi automatic weaponry.

 

[1srelluc]

So this is the "Mass Hysteria" Bill Murray was referring to now that the human sacrifice part has been beat back a bit.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yeah, a simple one.....abortion should never have been a constitutional issue.
It was always a state issue until the Court overstepped it's authority.
Even Ginsburg thought it was flawed.....Ginsburg.

Wow.

So many layers to this. I'm trying to decide where to begin with a response.

Your comment "abortion should never have been a constitutional issue" tells me that you do not consider a child in the womb to be a human being/ person.

Is that correct?

 

[Coyote]

"An alarmed Rachel Maddow is convinced Republicans will now angle to bring a “fetal personhood” case before the Supreme Court in a bid to totally shut down abortion nationwide."

link; Rachel Maddow Predicts 'Fetal Personhood' SCOTUS Case Will End Abortion Nationwide

Now, where have I heard this agenda expressed before? It seems so familiar to me. Like an echo or something.

"Such a case would aim to define a fetus as a human being, and an abortion as murder. Maddow warned the extremist fight is a long game, decades in the making, often enforced with violence, and that Republicans aren’t about to ease off now that the court has overturned Roe v. Wade."

Wow, that would be so crazy! Recognizing "human beings in the first days of their life as actual "human beings?" Next, we will be blurring the lines that demark the biological differences between men and women.

I wonder if this Maddow guy that wrote this piece has thought about that?

EDIT: I also wonder if THEY read my Signature

And a further loss of a woman's rights. She is little more than an incubater where what is inside has more rights to her body than she herself.

 

[Chuz Life]

People who understand how our federal system works, don't need to ask that question.
Someone asked me "oh... so you would be against a federal mandate banning abortion then?"
I said... yes. For the exact reason I said RvW was always wrong.

And that reason is?

 

[Chuz Life]

And a further loss of a woman's rights. She is little more than an incubater where what is inside has more rights to her body than she herself.

What rights were lost?

Also, you have not provided anything to support your claim that "what is inside has more rights to her body than she herself."

You talking about her kidneys? Appendix? Pinworms?

 

[1srelluc]

And a further loss of a woman's rights. She is little more than an incubater where what is inside has more rights to her body than she herself.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And that reason is?

Two fold.
1) The SCOTUS's purpose is not to write law. Abortion is not in the constitution, and there is no federal laws on the books.
Thus why RvW was wrong. The SCOTUS decision effectively meant they created law.
They can't do that. And the very people out screaming yesterday/today - KNOW THIS. And have known it for every single one of the 19 years they had a majority rule. But did nothing to write abortion law, except on 2 occasions, one last year that Schumer/Pelosi wrote knowing it was symbolic and had exactly 0 chance to pass.
2) America is the most diverse nation on earth. On every level. Racial, ethnicity, cultural and religion. People living in Denver Colorado are actually VERY different than people who live in Chattanooga, TN. If you have been to both - you know just how very different they are. What they value, believe in and live their lives.
It is not right that the federal government creates a nationwide law where people have such WIIIIDE differences in opinions. And that is why it is better at a state level. People in Denver, CO or wherever can enforce abortion rights because most people there believe in it. And people in Chattanooga, TN can enforce abortion restrictions/bans because that is what the majority of people there believe.

 

[Hellbilly]

What rights were lost?

In cases of ectopic pregnancies, the right to life, as abortion is the cure for these kinds of conditions.

 

[Chuz Life]

Two fold.
1) The SCOTUS's purpose is not to write law. Abortion is not in the constitution, and there is no federal laws on the books.
Thus why RvW was wrong. The SCOTUS decision effectively meant they created law.
They can't do that. And the very people out screaming yesterday/today - KNOW THIS. And have known it for every single one of the 19 years they had a majority rule. But did nothing to write abortion law, except on 2 occasions, one last year that Schumer/Pelosi wrote knowing it was symbolic and had exactly 0 chance to pass.
2) America is the most diverse nation on earth. On every level. Racial, ethnicity, cultural and religion. People living in Denver Colorado are actually VERY different than people who live in Chattanooga, TN. If you have been to both - you know just how very different they are. What they value, believe in and live their lives.
It is not right that the federal government creates a nationwide law where people have such WIIIIDE differences in opinions. And that is why it is better at a state level. People in Denver, CO or wherever can enforce abortion rights because most people there believe in it. And people in Chattanooga, TN can enforce abortion restrictions/bans because that is what the majority of people there believe.

You first said that you opposed Roe and would oppose a Nationwide Ban for "the same reason."

I asked what that reason is and here you are giving TWO reasons for why you do not support those TWO laws.

I was hoping you actually had ONE (same) reason in mind, when you first posted that you did.

As for your take on diversity? The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

True or False?