Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[BackAgain]

" Blind Babbling Out Their Ass "

* Hue Mammon Includes Any Mammal *

The arrogance of the apex predator , hue mammon ape , is amazing .

A per son means male and countable by census , and aside from including females as a back door abuse of its literal meaning , a per son is clarified in title 1 section 8 of us code , though it is little more than a reiteration of the obvious live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen .

Thus , the sanctimonious , anti-choice sycophants , with the pathetic arrogance of damned dirty apes , support the dumbfounded sedition of scoty by its dobbs decision and are nothing more than traitors to us constitution and to its republic .

The liberal versus conservative paradigm is intellectual buffoonery that causes mental retardation in society , and not being an example of a degenerate , political science neophyte would be a good start to correct its stupidity .

Do you type with your butt cheeks? I ask because I know you talk out of your ass, but also because you have several weird notions of spelling.

Your effort to appear erudite fails because you’re a retard and for other reasons.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Got it. So killing those not born in this country is fine by you because when asked when life is to be protected you stated quite clearly that only those born or naturalized in this country have this right.

You crack me up.

So fetal homicide laws are now unconstitutional? That is, after all, you’re argument, correct?

And, don't forget, this means illegal aliens do not have a right to life by this fucking idiot's standards. Because there are no human rights, only citizen privileges, only what is given to you by government. Again, according to this fucking idiot.

... and no one else, because he doesn't understand the topic he is "debating" at all.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HeyNorm222129-#5,940 HeyNorm “Got it. So killing those not born in this country is fine by you.. . . . “

NFBW: No. It is not ‘fine’ by me in my personal life to kill the “unborn” or as you say the “not born in this country” and I have explained it to the religious oppressors of the already born women many times.

Your problem Mr. Norm is that you don’t appear to have the cerebral capacity to keep more than one of my posts in your mind more than one at a time. I have seen that mental condition occur quite often in posts primarily of those who are MAGA and thus aligned politically if not religiously to Christians both Protestant and Catholic who are fully falsely convinced that Jesus’ Father from a place called Heaven is who as the ONE and only true GOD who created America in the 1780s as the new chosen nation. Therefore America was created by white Christian’s, for white European of Western Civilization fame like Nick Fuentes, therefore modern day Christians of all colors have a duty to keep America Christian. We must as Americans thank and please the God White Christian nationalists believe created America in the first place. Keep it a Christian Nation is Christian and American patriotic duty.

Trump energized this Christian Nation fallacy to win the GOP nomination in 2015. Here is an example ding and beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix of the type of Catholic Trump invited to Mar-A-Lago for a luncheon during our American Thanksgiving week a week ago.

JTA220629 TRUMP’s Tday lunch guest at the Trumpism Florida Palace JUNE 2022

JTA) — In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist leader and influential figure among the rightmost flank of the Republican Party, told his followers that “Jews stood in the way” of Catholic Supreme Court Justices who “were put on the court to overturn” the 1973 decision that guaranteed the right to an abortion in the United States.

Fuentes, who founded the America First Political Action Committee and the”groyper army,” a radical fringe group, made the comments on his website’s livestream on Friday, according to Right Wing Watch. He added “we need a government of Christians” and “Jewish people can be here, but they can’t make our laws.”

Nick Fuentes, white nationalist with GOP ties, says ‘Jews stood in the way’ of Roe v. Wade’s end - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

“If Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Jewish woman, didn’t die last year, so that Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic woman, could be appointed to the bench, we would still have Roe v. Wade,” Fuentes said. “Now you tell me that this is a Judeo-Christian country… You tell me that it doesn’t matter that we have a lot of Jewish people in government.”

Extremism trackers like the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center have long classified Fuentes as a hate group leader who advocates antisemitism and Holocaust denial, in addition to racist and nativist ideologies. His YouTube channel was previously banned for hate speech.

Yet several Republican elected officials were featured speakers at Fuentes’ AFPAC conference in February, including sitting members of Congress Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona; Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin; and Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (who was censured by her state Republican party for her appearance at the conference). When they were confronted with Fuentes’ views after their conference appearances, all four declined to condemn Fuentes or his organization. Gosar previously hosted a fundraiser with Fuentes.

Fuentes’ antisemitic comments mirror similar expressions from “traditional Catholic” groups, who generally believe all Jews are enemies of Christianity. Most interpretations of Jewish law permit abortion access in some form.

The seeds of the current conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court were planted when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote on then-President Obama’s Jewish nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016, as a replacement for conservative Catholic Antonin Scalia, instead holding the spot for Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, to fill with conservative Christian Neil Gorsuch (who was raised Catholic but later attended an Episcopal church).

The supermajority was then solidified in fall 2020 when Ginsburg died, opening up a new spot for then-President Trump to fill with the Catholic Barrett in the waning months of his administration. Two members of the current liberal minority on the Court are Jewish; one, Justice Stephen Breyer, is retiring at the conclusion of this term. ENDJTA220629-Fuentes

END221129-0944

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm222129-#5,940 HeyNorm “Got it. So killing those not born in this country is fine by you.. . . . “

NFBW: No. It is not ‘fine’ by me in my personal life to kill the “unborn” or as you say the “not born in this country” and I have explained it to the religious oppressors of the already born women many times.

Your problem Mr. Norm is that you don’t appear to have the cerebral capacity to keep more than one of my posts in your mind more than one at a time. I have seen that mental condition occur quite often in posts primarily of those who are MAGA and thus aligned politically if not religiously to Christians both Protestant and Catholic who are fully falsely convinced that Jesus’ Father from a place called Heaven is who as the ONE and only true GOD who created America in the 1780s as the new chosen nation. Therefore America was created by white Christian’s, for white European of Western Civilization fame like Nick Fuentes, therefore modern day Christians of all colors have a duty to keep America Christian. We must as Americans thank and please the God White Christian nationalists believe created America in the first place. Keep it a Christian Nation is Christian and American patriotic duty.

Trump energized this Christian Nation fallacy to win the GOP nomination in 2015. Here is an example ding and beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix of the type of Catholic Trump invited to Mar-A-Lago for a luncheon during our American Thanksgiving week a week ago.

JTA220629 TRUMP’s Tday lunch guest at the Trumpism Florida Palace JUNE 2022

JTA) — In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist leader and influential figure among the rightmost flank of the Republican Party, told his followers that “Jews stood in the way” of Catholic Supreme Court Justices who “were put on the court to overturn” the 1973 decision that guaranteed the right to an abortion in the United States.

Fuentes, who founded the America First Political Action Committee and the”groyper army,” a radical fringe group, made the comments on his website’s livestream on Friday, according to Right Wing Watch. He added “we need a government of Christians” and “Jewish people can be here, but they can’t make our laws.”

Nick Fuentes, white nationalist with GOP ties, says ‘Jews stood in the way’ of Roe v. Wade’s end - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

“If Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Jewish woman, didn’t die last year, so that Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic woman, could be appointed to the bench, we would still have Roe v. Wade,” Fuentes said. “Now you tell me that this is a Judeo-Christian country… You tell me that it doesn’t matter that we have a lot of Jewish people in government.”

Extremism trackers like the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center have long classified Fuentes as a hate group leader who advocates antisemitism and Holocaust denial, in addition to racist and nativist ideologies. His YouTube channel was previously banned for hate speech.

Yet several Republican elected officials were featured speakers at Fuentes’ AFPAC conference in February, including sitting members of Congress Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona; Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin; and Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (who was censured by her state Republican party for her appearance at the conference). When they were confronted with Fuentes’ views after their conference appearances, all four declined to condemn Fuentes or his organization. Gosar previously hosted a fundraiser with Fuentes.

Fuentes’ antisemitic comments mirror similar expressions from “traditional Catholic” groups, who generally believe all Jews are enemies of Christianity. Most interpretations of Jewish law permit abortion access in some form.

The seeds of the current conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court were planted when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote on then-President Obama’s Jewish nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016, as a replacement for conservative Catholic Antonin Scalia, instead holding the spot for Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, to fill with conservative Christian Neil Gorsuch (who was raised Catholic but later attended an Episcopal church).

The supermajority was then solidified in fall 2020 when Ginsburg died, opening up a new spot for then-President Trump to fill with the Catholic Barrett in the waning months of his administration. Two members of the current liberal minority on the Court are Jewish; one, Justice Stephen Breyer, is retiring at the conclusion of this term. ENDJTA220629-Fuentes

END221129-0944

I spefically asked when a human attained the riight to live, and you replied that only United States citizens and those obtaining citizenship have this right.

You have shown your true colors. Deal with it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HeyNorm221127-#5,861 As such, most states as well as the Federal Government had recognized the fetus as human, regardless if born or not.

NFBW: I am sorry HeyNorm that you misunderstand me. Me, myself, and I recognize the fetus as human regardless, whether or not, it is born, not viable, or unborn from the exact moment that a new human being is conceived until the moment when hopefully a long living human being dies. Are we clear on this?

END2211291052

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm221127-#5,861 As such, most states as well as the Federal Government had recognized the fetus as human, regardless if born or not.

NFBW: I am sorry HeyNorm that you misunderstand me. Me, myself, and I recognize the fetus as human regardless, whether or not, it is born, not viable, or unborn from the exact moment that a new human being is conceived until the moment when hopefully a long living human being dies. Are we clear on this?

END2211291052

Ok, so you recognize the fetus as human life and it requires the same protection as all living Human beings.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW: FORtheRECORD


HeyNorm221127-#5,864 “Who is the child”. A child is a person. A person is protected under state, federal and constitutional law.

NFBW221127-#5,866 “Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

NFBW: Most intentionally pregnant people, like my youngest highly educated pro-choice, young medical professional woman and daughter just informed her mother and me that she is going to have a baby. It’s her first child and pregnancy

Using a loving expression does not grant the brainless heartless zygote embryo fetus she has “invited into her belly” to use her biologically functioning anatomy to sustain its life for the next seven and a half months of her life.

NFBW: FORtheRECORD Here is what went down betwixt you, me and the fencepost, others posters thus far:

TK220511-#2,987 @TemplarKormac “The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning”

NFBW221127-#5,849 Both are human before during and after the medical procedure of abortion.

The ROE V Wade human rights riddle?
If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

HeyNorm221127-#5,861 HeyNorm “Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.”

NFBW221127-#5,863 “It is murder of two persons because the unborn person using the pregnant woman’s body to be alive is protected from harm through the rights granted to the pregnant woman whether the mother wants the child or not.

The killer is killing the pregnant woman and the (potential viable human being) that is attached to the living, breathing viable woman who is with child.

HeyNorm221127-#5,864 “Who is the child”. A child is a person. A person is protected under state, federal and constitutional law.

NFBW221127-#5,866 “Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?

Why would the killer of a mother and child not be charged for murder of two individual human beings when the mother is deprived of her right to life by a killer. And then when she dies, whether she plans to keep it or not, the life support she gives dies with her.

Opponents of abortion generally regard the procedure as a “killing,” but a woman having an abortion can see it as a withdrawal of life support. When you bring in a third person who kills a mother with child, the killer does not just kill a pregnant woman, the killer is causing the withdrawal of support to the separate human being that cannot live without it. The killer kills two even though there is only one born person involved when the killer attacks.

When there is no third party killer involved it is quite simple. It’s about the right of the mother because she has a right to withdraw life support to a human being that is not capable of being born.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

But since the phrase was used in such a manner, then the speaker must believe it to be a person.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 Now you want me to believe that it is a person, but not “person enough” to have protection of our laws.

NFBW: I do not want you to believe anything of the sort. I believe the above ( NFBW221127-#5,849 ) and see no need to get into a semantics or wordology distraction such as that.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 This appears the same justification the white slave owners had as well. “My slave is a human, but property non the less and may be destroyed at my whim”.

NFBW. Jefferson and other founding father slave owners were not women for sure, and not being required by the state to give slaves the use of their bodies for nine months so I fail to see the relevance to this chapter of this discussion except to place an object o the tracks to derail it, For now can we bring it back oto the ROE v Wade Riddle? The Constitutional rights conflict between mother and unborn child with respect to this . . . All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and this

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

Slavery has nothing to do with the rights of the two persons, one recognized and viable and one not and unborn, going through the reproduction process under the multitude of societal processes and challenges and rewards of being human.

I specifically asked when a human attained the right to live, and you replied that only United States citizens and those obtaining citizenship have this right.

NFBW: you must be talking about the following post:

HeyNorm221128-#5,933 HeyNorm Hmmm, even a born infant uses the body of another to sustain life. So how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?

NFBW: This was my answer.

NFBW221128-#5,938 “When they become citizens at birth as it has always been. See this phrase from the Constitution “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” or prior to 24th week of pregnancy when the capability to be born has been developed.

NFBW: So as you can see my answer to your question “how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?” was a LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL ONE which you are unable to refute.

IF you have a private copy of a Catholic US Constitution that says a child has a right to life the moment He or She is conceived and created by Gid, then I missed it somehow and could you please provide a link to it.

END2211291157

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HeyNorm221128-#5,933 HeyNorm Hmmm, even a born infant uses the body of another to sustain life. So how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?

NFBW221128-#5,938 “When they become citizens at birth as it has always been. See this phrase from the Constitution “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” or prior to 24th week of pregnancy when the capability to be born has been developed.

NFBW221129-#5,947 So as you can see my answer to your question “how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?” was a LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL ONE which you are unable to refute.

HeyNorm222129-#5,940 “So fetal homicide laws are now unconstitutional? That is, after all, you’re argument, correct?”

NFBW: That is not correct.

Fetal Homicide Laws are constitutional because the pregnant woman has a right to life and liberty and pursuit to her own happiness and she and her 1.5 million eggs are protected as written in the Constitution by virtue of her and her DNA laden eggs having passed the stage of human development most universally known as being born.

Therefore the right to life passes through her to her newly conceived human being because as a person with ovaries has between 1 and 2 million eggs at the moment she was born. When one of those eggs become fertilized that egg is still part her body CarsomyrPlusSix until roughly nine months later when a developed child is born.

When an egg begets fertilization, known also as conception, and a new pregnancy begins, there becomes two individuals and both are live human beings involved, one is dependent on the body and life of the mother in order to live.

It’s a simple concept HeyNorm , when a third party kills the mother and both the fetus and the mother dies the murderer should be charged with double homicide because two human beings actual die.

I have made this pretty clear before:

NFBW221127-#5,866 “Why would the killer of a mother and child not be charged for murder of two individual human beings when the mother is deprived of her right to life by a killer. And then when she dies, whether she plans to keep it or not, the life support she gives dies with her.

Opponents of abortion generally regard the procedure as a “killing,” but a woman having an abortion can see it as a withdrawal of life support. When you bring in a third person who kills a mother with child, the killer does not just kill a pregnant woman, the killer is causing the withdrawal of support to the separate human being that cannot live without it. The killer kills two even though there is only one born person involved when the killer attacks.

When there is no third party killer involved it is quite simple. It’s about the right of the mother because she has a right to withdraw life support to a human being that is not capable of being born.”

NFBW: That is all easily understood as true if you ever decide to pay attention strictly to the Constitution.

END2211291448

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HeyNorm221129-#5,944 HeyNorm I specifically asked when a human attained the right to live, and you replied that only United States citizens and those obtaining citizenship have this right. “

NFBW: No you specifically asked;

HeyNorm221128-#5,933 HeyNorm Hmmm, even a born infant uses the body of another to sustain life. So how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?

NFBW: Your question was two parts joined with the conjunction “So” in reference to a born infant that uses the body of another to sustain life.

In the United States all humans who are already “born infants” have a right to life at birth. A “born infant” uses the body of its mother normally to sustain life but by virtue of having the zero hour birth date and becoming a US Citizen, if need be, we as society have a duty to protect them and get what they need for survival. A Birth of a new human being is a public event and is recorded publicly and may be celebrated publicly as well since it takes a village.

When you asked me how old must a “child” be before it attains the right to live” I answered by repeating what the Constitution says because prior to separation from its birth mother, it’s right to live passes through her individual autonomous inherent privacy right to give or deny her consent to have her body used by another person for nine month in order to survive and have its own birthday.

END2211291540

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6221129-#5,942 CarsomyrPlusSix So fetal homicide laws are now unconstitutional? That is, after all, your argument, correct?

NFBW: NO. NOT AT ALL.

Fetal Homicide Laws are constitutional because the pregnant woman has a right to life and liberty and pursuit to her own happiness and she and her 1.5 million eggs are protected as written in the Constitution by virtue of her and her DNA laden eggs having passed the stage of human development most universally known as being born.

Therefore the right to life passes through her to her newly conceived human being because as a person with ovaries she has between 1 and 2 million eggs in her body at the moment she was born. When one of those eggs become fertilized that egg is still part her body CarsomyrPlusSix until roughly nine months later when a developed child is born.

When an egg begets fertilization, known also as conception, and a new pregnancy begins, there becomes two individuals and both are live human beings involved, one is dependent on the body and life of the mother in order to live.

It’s a simple concept HeyNorm , when a third party kills the mother and both the fetus and the mother dies the murderer should be charged with double homicide because two human beings actual die.

I have made this pretty clear before:

NFBW221127-#5,866 “Why would the killer of a mother and child not be charged for murder of two individual human beings when the mother is deprived of her right to life by a killer. And then when she dies, whether she plans to keep it or not, the life support she gives dies with her.

Opponents of abortion generally regard the procedure as a “killing,” but a woman having an abortion can see it as a withdrawal of life support. When you bring in a third person who kills a mother with child, the killer does not just kill a pregnant woman, the killer is causing the withdrawal of support to the separate human being that cannot live without it. The killer kills two even though there is only one born person involved when the killer attacks.

When there is no third party killer involved it is quite simple. It’s about the right of the mother because she has a right to withdraw life support to a human being that is not capable of being born.”

NFBW: That is all easily understood as true if you ever decide to pay attention strictly to the Constitution.

END2211291552

 

[ding]

ding221128-#5,936 ding The sentiment that government is a necessary evil and that if men were angels there would be no need of government were widely held beliefs of our founding fathers. It’s a huge leap from that position to extremism of any flavor.

Hillary Clinton wrote: In fact, its extreme case against government, often including intense personal attacks on government officials and political leaders, is designed not just to restrain government but to advance narrow religious, political, and economic agendas.

NFBW: If one is a woman in a Trump Christian state that banned women’s access to an abortion, I’d say based on election results in Kansas Michigan etc where reproductive rights were on the voting machines, most women, younger women are voting against religious extremism in the Republican Party whether they think they will ever need an abortion in their future or not.

But you cannot see it because you have Christian religion bias that does not allow you to see right wing religion as nothing but a positive driver of successful behaviors which Western Civilization was built upon.

ding220127-#617 I don’t see how that changes the fact that we were founded as a Christian nation based upon Christian values and principles. Not religious dogma per se but the successful behaviors which Western Civilization was built upon.

We were not founded as a Christian nation ding in any way shape or form. Extremism and intolerance in the name of God was to our founders one of the most serious threats to their vision for America.

END22110034

Again… abortion isn’t a religious issue. It’s a human rights issue.

 

[ding]

HeyNorm222129-#5,940 HeyNorm “Got it. So killing those not born in this country is fine by you.. . . . “

NFBW: No. It is not ‘fine’ by me in my personal life to kill the “unborn” or as you say the “not born in this country” and I have explained it to the religious oppressors of the already born women many times.

Your problem Mr. Norm is that you don’t appear to have the cerebral capacity to keep more than one of my posts in your mind more than one at a time. I have seen that mental condition occur quite often in posts primarily of those who are MAGA and thus aligned politically if not religiously to Christians both Protestant and Catholic who are fully falsely convinced that Jesus’ Father from a place called Heaven is who as the ONE and only true GOD who created America in the 1780s as the new chosen nation. Therefore America was created by white Christian’s, for white European of Western Civilization fame like Nick Fuentes, therefore modern day Christians of all colors have a duty to keep America Christian. We must as Americans thank and please the God White Christian nationalists believe created America in the first place. Keep it a Christian Nation is Christian and American patriotic duty.

Trump energized this Christian Nation fallacy to win the GOP nomination in 2015. Here is an example ding and beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix of the type of Catholic Trump invited to Mar-A-Lago for a luncheon during our American Thanksgiving week a week ago.

JTA220629 TRUMP’s Tday lunch guest at the Trumpism Florida Palace JUNE 2022

JTA) — In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist leader and influential figure among the rightmost flank of the Republican Party, told his followers that “Jews stood in the way” of Catholic Supreme Court Justices who “were put on the court to overturn” the 1973 decision that guaranteed the right to an abortion in the United States.

Fuentes, who founded the America First Political Action Committee and the”groyper army,” a radical fringe group, made the comments on his website’s livestream on Friday, according to Right Wing Watch. He added “we need a government of Christians” and “Jewish people can be here, but they can’t make our laws.”

Nick Fuentes, white nationalist with GOP ties, says ‘Jews stood in the way’ of Roe v. Wade’s end - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

“If Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Jewish woman, didn’t die last year, so that Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic woman, could be appointed to the bench, we would still have Roe v. Wade,” Fuentes said. “Now you tell me that this is a Judeo-Christian country… You tell me that it doesn’t matter that we have a lot of Jewish people in government.”

Extremism trackers like the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center have long classified Fuentes as a hate group leader who advocates antisemitism and Holocaust denial, in addition to racist and nativist ideologies. His YouTube channel was previously banned for hate speech.

Yet several Republican elected officials were featured speakers at Fuentes’ AFPAC conference in February, including sitting members of Congress Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona; Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin; and Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (who was censured by her state Republican party for her appearance at the conference). When they were confronted with Fuentes’ views after their conference appearances, all four declined to condemn Fuentes or his organization. Gosar previously hosted a fundraiser with Fuentes.

Fuentes’ antisemitic comments mirror similar expressions from “traditional Catholic” groups, who generally believe all Jews are enemies of Christianity. Most interpretations of Jewish law permit abortion access in some form.

The seeds of the current conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court were planted when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote on then-President Obama’s Jewish nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016, as a replacement for conservative Catholic Antonin Scalia, instead holding the spot for Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, to fill with conservative Christian Neil Gorsuch (who was raised Catholic but later attended an Episcopal church).

The supermajority was then solidified in fall 2020 when Ginsburg died, opening up a new spot for then-President Trump to fill with the Catholic Barrett in the waning months of his administration. Two members of the current liberal minority on the Court are Jewish; one, Justice Stephen Breyer, is retiring at the conclusion of this term. ENDJTA220629-Fuentes

END221129-0944

Again… abortion isn’t a religious issue. Abortion is a human rights issue.

 

[ding]

Ok, so you recognize the fetus as human life and it requires the same protection as all living Human beings.

It took a lot of hard work but he did finally change his mind that it’s a human life but not one he would afford any rights too. He believes that human life in the womb can be disposed of at the will of its owner prior to viability. It was hilarious watching him change his beliefs without changing his support for abortion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Again… abortion isn’t a religious issue. It’s a human rights issue.

Are you some kind of supreme Catholic ayatollah sent from god issuing a decree as to what is a religious issue and what is a human rights issue. Who the fuck do you think you are?

Yes, abortion is a human rights issue between unborn human beings on one side seeking the right to use another human beings body for nine months in order to become a born human being vs born women who seek the right to control what happens to their bodies when a pregnancy happens.

The unborn have not petitioned the government to intervene on their behalf so a broad coalition known as the Republican Party has taken up the cause of the unborn and is driven by mostly white religious zealotry such as we see here in posts by Mashmont pushing for Catholic rule and beagle9 pushing from the Protestant side.

 

[ding]

Are you some kind of supreme Catholic ayatollah sent from god issuing a decree as to what is a religious issue and what is a human rights issue. Who the fuck do you think you are?

Yes, abortion is a human rights issue between unborn human beings on one side seeking the right to use another human beings body for nine months in order to become a born human being vs born women who seek the right to control what happens to their bodies when a pregnancy happens.

The unborn have not petitioned the government to intervene on their behalf so a broad coalition known as the Republican Party has taken up the cause of the unborn and is driven by mostly white
religious zealotry such as we see here in posts by Mashmont pushing for Catholic rule and beagle9 pushing from the Protestant side.

No. Abortion isn’t a religious issue. Abortion is a human rights issue. And no matter how hard you try to make this about religion it won’t change the fact that abortion is a human rights issue.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It took a lot of hard work but he did finally change his mind that it’s a human life but not one he would afford any rights too.

I have always said it’s human exactly the same as the scientists you cite, however it is not my duty or obligation to the unborn to force full term pregnancy on a woman I have no relationship with to say she has no right to do what she wants to do in the privacy of her home and her doctors office with her own body if she becomes pregnant.

I am opposed to abortion in my own personal life and you goddamn well know it so you are a liar.

 

[ding]

I have always said it’s human exactly the same as the scientists you cite, however it is not my duty or obligation to the unborn to force full term pregnancy on a woman I have no relationship with to say she has no right to do what she wants to do in the privacy of her home and her doctors office with her own body if she becomes pregnant.

I am opposed to abortion in my own personal life and you goddamn well know it so you are a liar.

Actually you didn’t.

 

[ding]

NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

And then there’s this.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221129-#5,958 ding “And then there’s this.”

NFBW2208102158-#4,614 “Ending the life of a human being is murder.”

NFBW: There is what? Here is my full comment on that which is absolutely consistent with every message I have posted.

NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

ding220810-#4,620 “Which is apparently the only reason you deny that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human has come alive. Abortion is intended to kill that life.”

beagle9-#4,621 “Well yes, but it's more like involuntary unborn baby slaughter”

NFBW220811-#4,623 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

Ending the life of a one-celled growth that is attached to a uterus is not murder.

Ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????

ClaireH

BackAgain airplanemechanic

ding beagle9 BS Filter Meister Lysistrata

San Souci eagle1462010

@ChemicalEngineer

CarsomyrPlusSix

END2211291751

 

[ding]

ding221129-#5,958 ding “And then there’s this.”

NFBW2208102158-#4,614 “Ending the life of a human being is murder.”

NFBW: There is what? Here is my full comment on that which is absolutely consistent with every message I have posted.

NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

ding220810-#4,620 “Which is apparently the only reason you deny that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human has come alive. Abortion is intended to kill that life.”

beagle9-#4,621 “Well yes, but it's more like involuntary unborn baby slaughter”

NFBW220811-#4,623 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

Ending the life of a one-celled growth that is attached to a uterus is not murder.

Ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????

ClaireH

BackAgain airplanemechanic

ding beagle9 BS Filter Meister Lysistrata

San Souci eagle1462010

@ChemicalEngineer

CarsomyrPlusSix

END2211291751

According to your own words ending a human life is murder and abortion ends a human life.