Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[HeyNorm]

Cplus6221130-#6,034 The Constitution’s silence is explicitly why it is a 10th Amendment matter…

NFBW: The Constitution is not silent on the lawful definition of what a “person” who has protected rights including enumerated and unenumerated rights under the constitution in fact are.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

please note a person must be born to be naturalized.

A pregnant woman has (and had the last one for fifty years) the following unenumerated rights as a citizen of the United States

Unenumerated (unwritten) rights include the right to travel, privacy, autonomy, dignity, and the right to have an abortion.

An unborn human living inside another separate person has none of those unenumerated rights granted to them by the Constitution.

END2211301413

……..and neither do illegal aliens. Right?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

So anyway, whatever this retard called “W’s bitchboy” or something just said, the Constitution remains silent on this topic and there is no right to abortion, as a matter of objective fact, the Constitution is written in plain English and you can Google for a full text link in seconds and read it for yourself if you somehow didn’t already know that.

And yeah, if the right to life and personhood only extends to citizens, then keep this insane person away from anyplace with a lot of illegals. I mean, yeah, I think they should be deported, but I don’t think they’re kill on sight like “W’s bitchboy” over here. He’s kind of extreme, this psychopath, but it makes sense given how much he hates the unborn and wants them all dead.

Hopefully he’s on a watchlist for being a danger to others.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

and neither do illegal aliens. Right?

ILLEGAL ALIENS are born - -all basic human rights and laws apply to them - can you stop making absurd arguments?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And yeah, if the right to life and personhood only extends to citizens

It extends to all born human beings Even brain dead ones like you

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

^ He repeatedly asserts the clause about citizenship (currently) requiring birth… and then says that because they’re not citizens under the Constitution it’s okay to kill them… and then has no valid response when noting that illegal aliens are also not citizens.

Nothing in the Constitution says that we cannot have fetal personhood by law.

It just says that anyone born here is automatically a citizen. Citizenship is not the same as personhood.

His logical fallacy is large enough to fly the Spruce Goose through, and he is still repeating the same bullshit.

His civics illiteracy is ABSOLUTE.

His logic is nil. He has no argument. And no sanity.

 

[HeyNorm]

^ He repeatedly asserts the clause about citizenship (currently) requiring birth… and then says that because they’re not citizens under the Constitution it’s okay to kill them… and then has no valid response when noting that illegal aliens are also not citizens.

Nothing in the Constitution says that we cannot have fetal personhood by law.

It just says that anyone born here is automatically a citizen. Citizenship is not the same as personhood.

His logical fallacy is large enough to fly the Spruce Goose through, and he is still repeating the same bullshit.

His civics illiteracy is ABSOLUTE.

His logic is nil. He has no argument. And no sanity.

And I have asked, what the remarkable difference there is from the day before full gestation and the day full gestation is complete and it is born?

Crickets.

 

[ding]

ding221130-#6,033 The 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

NFBW: Here is the part of the constitution defines what “the people” are.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and incursion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.

END2211301343

SCOTUS and the states disagree.

 

[BackAgain]

^
A bunch of incomprehensible gobbledegook, with no legal weight or relevance to the topic at hand

What is?

 

[ding]

And I have asked, what the remarkable difference there is from the day before full gestation and the day full gestation is complete and it is born?

Crickets.

I’ll add that even after birth babies can’t provide for themselves and are not viable without assistance. So I guess it’s ok to snuff them out according to his viability logic.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

What is?

Have to click unignore. May as well temporarily remove it from the list to participate fully in the rhetorical group curbstomp of its stupidity once and for all.

So W’s bitchboy over here says that since all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, then that means:

“The interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and incursion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.”

Now. What does that have to do with a goddamn thing? Nothing. It’s gobbledygook.

There is no “right to autonomy.”
Who even knows what it is blathering about when it says “right to inviobility” - but the human being who is a potential abortion victim certainly has a human right to life.
Harm to public is irrelevant.
Harm to society is irrelevant.

Aggressive violence against individual humans in violation of their natural human right to life is relevant, and that is what every contract killing - every abortion - objectively is.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HeyNorm221130-#6,046 “And I have asked, what the remarkable difference there is from the day before full gestation and the day full gestation is complete and it is born?”

ding220814-#4,811 “Is there a material difference to the fetus whether he is aborted prior to or after your so called viability date? I mean it's a live one minute and dead the next, right?”

NFBW220814-#4,814 RIGHT. What about it, ding ? It dies when a woman decides to quit supplying oxygen to its blood which is her business and none of your business ding up to a time when her fetus can survive outside her womb.

NFBW221113-#4,803 Yes, as a human being It’s none of my business what a woman does with her body prior to 28 weeks after conception., But after that when a fetus is viable sufficient enough to survive outside the womb, it makes common sense to me that the decision to abort should be made prior to viability. So abortion should be legal prior to viability. After viability abortion should not be legal except to save the life of the woman., Fifty years of Roe vs Wade is sufficient precedent of law on just that. the third trimester, after fetal viability—government could regulate and even ban abortion to further its interest in the potentiality of life, but it must safeguard the patient’s life and health.

In other words, Roe firmly established the core constitutional principle that government cannot ban abortion prior to viability, and could only regulate it before viability in ways that help pregnant people.

States can do their murder stuff after viability. I Support that as long as life of the mother cones first and in thise cases should not be regarded as murder any different than self defense.

NFBW: To answer your question HeyNorm - What is the remarkable difference from the day before full gestation and the day full gestation is complete and it is born?”

There is no remarkable or material difference to the fetus whether it is aborted prior to or after the settled arbitrary viability date? A human fetus before and after a viability legal date is a living human being up to and after the fetal stage of development as part of a woman’s body.

It’s a legal milestone for all us born persons and specifically pregnant people and their doctors to decide by a certain time to terminate the pregnancy. As I said earlier a pregnant woman who just simply does not want to go full term certainly should make the decision weeks and weeks prior to an average and safe time that a fetus could survive on its own biological functions when separated CarsomyrPlusSix from being part of its mother.

CHIRP! CHIRP!

END2211301628

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What does that have to do with a goddamn thing?

Why are Christian organizations pushing for a personhood amendment in the constitution? If what I says has nothing to do with a goddamn thing.

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm221130-#6,046 “And I have asked, what the remarkable difference there is from the day before full gestation and the day full gestation is complete and it is born?”

ding220814-#4,811 “Is there a material difference to the fetus whether he is aborted prior to or after your so called viability date? I mean it's a live one minute and dead the next, right?”

NFBW220814-#4,814 RIGHT. What about it, ding ? It dies when a woman decides to quit supplying oxygen to its blood which is her business and none of your business ding up to a time when her fetus can survive outside her womb.

NFBW221113-#4,803 Yes, as a human being It’s none of my business what a woman does with her body prior to 28 weeks after conception., But after that when a fetus is viable sufficient enough to survive outside the womb, it makes common sense to me that the decision to abort should be made prior to viability. So abortion should be legal prior to viability. After viability abortion should not be legal except to save the life of the woman., Fifty years of Roe vs Wade is sufficient precedent of law on just that. the third trimester, after fetal viability—government could regulate and even ban abortion to further its interest in the potentiality of life, but it must safeguard the patient’s life and health.

In other words, Roe firmly established the core constitutional principle that government cannot ban abortion prior to viability, and could only regulate it before viability in ways that help pregnant people.

States can do their murder stuff after viability. I Support that as long as life of the mother cones first and in thise cases should not be regarded as murder any different than self defense.

NFBW: To answer your question HeyNorm - What is the remarkable difference from the day before full gestation and the day full gestation is complete and it is born?”

There is no remarkable or material difference to the fetus whether it is aborted prior to or after the settled arbitrary viability date? A human fetus before and after a viability legal date is a living human being up to and after the fetal stage of development as part of a woman’s body.

It’s a legal milestone for all us born persons and specifically pregnant people and their doctors to decide by a certain time to terminate the pregnancy. As I said earlier a pregnant woman who just simply does not want to go full term certainly should make the decision weeks and weeks prior to an average and safe time that a fetus could survive on its own biological functions when separated CarsomyrPlusSix from being part of its mother.

CHIRP! CHIRP!

END2211301628

Interesting. The remarkable difference at viability is only a decision that the mother makes?

So at one moment the fetus should be allowed to continue, and moments before it is appropriate to kill it?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Why are Christian organizations pushing for a personhood amendment in the constitution?

Because that is the correct and moral thing to do for us to stop having a status quo amenable to hatemongering pieces of filth like you, an ideological cousin to slavers and fascist genociders, you rotten inhuman incomprehensible garbage waste of any and all resources you consume?

Maybe that is why.

Because equality and human rights matter to some people who aren’t refuse like you. That is also why.

If what I says has nothing to do with a goddamn thing.

Nothing you said had any relevance to anything or referenced anything coherent at all. I talked about each thing you said in that post piece by piece. You offer no rebuttal to these points because you have none, and you are too chickenshit to even pretend to try.

 

[BackAgain]

Have to click unignore. May as well temporarily remove it from the list to participate fully in the rhetorical group curbstomp of its stupidity once and for all.

So W’s bitchboy over here says that since all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, then that means:

“The interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and incursion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.”

Now. What does that have to do with a goddamn thing? Nothing. It’s gobbledygook.

There is no “right to autonomy.”
Who even knows what it is blathering about when it says “right to inviobility” - but the human being who is a potential abortion victim certainly has a human right to life.
Harm to public is irrelevant.
Harm to society is irrelevant.

Aggressive violence against individual humans in violation of their natural human right to life is relevant, and that is what every contract killing - every abortion - objectively is.

I saw your use of ^. But I failed to notice the jump in the post number count. You are right. I would have to take someone on “ignore” off of it. And on balance, I have to say I’d rather not.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

but the human being who is a potential abortion victim certainly has a human right to life.

NFBW: But you say nothing about the conflict of rights interests between the unborn not viable human being using a viable human being’s body to exist.

You say the unborn want to live to full term but you cannot tell me how you know that.

Do atheists have super communicative powers to hear from the fetus community telling you that they seek to sue pregnant women for the right to use the pregnant bodies until birth in all cases?

As an atheist you don’t have a higher authority in your life that tells you that unborn life is sacred. I asked you what authority you have to speak for the unborn and you just say you don’t need any.

END2211301734

 

[ding]

NFBW220814-#4,814 RIGHT. What about it, ding ? It dies when a woman decides to quit supplying oxygen to its blood which is her business and none of your business ding up to a time when her fetus can survive outside her womb.

You said it was murder to end a human life.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221130-#6,047 SCOTUS and the states disagree.

NFBW: A Catholic majority in SCOTUS ruled to end fifty years of precedent but you are a liar that the ruling shows the constitutionally disagree that the interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and coercion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.

Does Dobbs disagree with that ding ?

But you really are lying when you say states disagree with that too. Did you see what happened in Michigan and Kansas to name a few.

END2211301758

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You said it was murder to end a human life

It is murder to end a human life except in self-defense. I have also said it is not murder to end a not viable human life and there are no or very few states passing laws saying it is murder by the mother. So what is your point. Abortion of a not viable human being when they are in the embryonic stage of development is not murder. Never said it was.

END2211301607

 

[beagle9]

" Milking Adipose Tissue Becoming Gorge Ass "

* Self Ownership Maternal Private Property *

The supposition in Roe v. Wade getting overturned!! is whether an extraterrestrial , also an apex predator , would decide whether to enslave or eat hue mammon apes based on whether hue mammon apes adopted a universal criteria for exploitation , wherein empathy for sentient beings is made a valid criteria for exclusion from exploitation , wherein empathy for beings without sentience is made an invalid criteria for exclusion from exploitation .

* Absolute Dependence Versus Cooperative Independence *

Self ownership through progeny is the responsibility of the individual and not to be dictated or determined by a collective majority for populism and democracy as tyranny by majority .

This us republic maintains a credo of e pluribus unum which espouses independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties among those entitled by live birth to receive them .

Individualism necessarily precludes the individual .

Everyone knows about all the written words in our declaration of independence, our constitution etc, but what is being discussed here is the degraded character of those who have dropped beneath the should be moral civilization radar in order to get away with doing uncivilized things. It all has since opened up a brand new can of worms in which is taking a minute to sink in undoubtedly.... Hopefully it will finally ignite the sensibilities of a should be moral people in hopes to stop the uncivilized bull crap going on in this nation.

Trying to justify uncivilized activities is a sinful thing, but many have fallen now, and it's only getting worse.