Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[HeyNorm]

Where have I denied equal protection of a viable human being or person? if you mean, slaveowners deny equal protection to slaves, you have to accept the reality that slaves are viable human beings.

To the 23 weeks similarly situated fetus Biff.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

To the 23 weeks similarly situated fetus Biff.

23 week fetuses are similarly situated to 24 week not viable fetuses - neither are persons that require protection except through the rights of the mother from others.

Setting the limit of weeks that a woman has a right to terminate her own pregnancy does not change the fact that a fetus continuing to use her body for survival is not a person deserving of equal protection.

The 24 week limit of legal rights to obtain an abortion based on potential viability does not make the 24 week fetus viable ir the 23week fetus not viable. therein lies the cause of your confused state of mind.

Equal protection has nothing to do with a woman’s right to terminate her own pregnancy whether it’s at 20 weeks or 28 weeks. Roe versus Wade stood for 50 years based on 28 weeks potential viability but you can’t say one single case were a 27 week fetus was denied equal protection to a 28 week fetus.

You just can’t do it. Your nonsensical argument is not common usage among legal, civil rights and constitutional experts. That should be a reason of concern when you make such an absurd uncommon argument against 50 years of precedent.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

To the 23 weeks similarly situated fetus Biff.

Do you think the 23 week brainless fetus is the owner of the human body within which it resides?

 

[dblack]

Yeah, we tend to look at killing innocent children as evil. And we do expect our government to act against evil.

Right. You think the purpose of government is to 'act against evil".

 

[HeyNorm]

Right. You think the purpose of government is to 'act against evil".

Yes

 

[HeyNorm]

Do you think the 23 week brainless fetus is the owner of the human body within which it resides?

They have a shared interest that the mother initiated.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

skews13230204-#1 Posted from a link: With Bush departing in disgrace after the landslide election of Barack Obama, it was time for another reboot, and another alliteration: "Compassionate conservatism" was out; "constitutional conservatism" was in. But no one was quite sure what that meant. There were at least three broad camps who advanced that terminology around 2009 and 2010: "Burkean" intellectuals, Tea Party insurrectionists and
the conservative movement leaders who produced a manifesto, "The Mount Vernon Statement: Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century." •••• The label also resonated with three other overlapping constituencies who had long been fixated on the Constitution: Christian nationalists,

And we do expect our government to act against evil.

NFBW: You sound just like a Christian Nationalists Republican HeyNorm when you religiously expect the government that was created by God to impose your moralistic demand on a woman that she maintains an unwanted pregnancy which places her in a state of involuntary servitude.

NFBW230204-#7,123 • Do you think the 23 week brainless fetus is the owner of the human body within which it resides?
^^
HeyNorm230204-#7,126 • They have a shared interest that the mother initiated.
^^
NFBW: So do you want the full power of government HeyNorm to force the one with a brain, thoughts, memory and consciousness of self to give up her self-interest to the self interest of a brainless fetus with no consciousness of self.

END2302050148

 

[whutTHEYsay]

NFBW230204-#7,123 • Do you think the 23 week brainless fetus is the owner of the human body within which it resides?
^^
HeyNorm230204-#7,126 • HeyNorm • They have a shared interest that the mother initiated.
^^
NFBW: How does a 23 week brainless fetus, as a separate individual and non-person, acquire any interest at all in another person’s body that has no interest in sharing her interest with a living human organism inside her body.

END2302050205

 

[whutTHEYsay]

NFBW: Laws against abortion HeyNorm are “sex laws” that constitute a form of “class legislation” against American citizens who have reproductive organs.

Pregnant women are similarly situated HeyNorm to an entire class of Americans who have experienced and survived live birth. Certificates of live birth for each individual are on record at federal state and local government offices.

Women who are forced by the government against their will to give up the right of self-determination in childbearing on behalf of a class of “unborn and not-viable children” in order to eventually bear those unborn children, are U.S. citizens who suffer class discrimination as a continuation of man’s inhumanity to women. Women having survived live birth cease to have equal protection by the government HeyNorm when forced into a period of “bodily slavery” for up to nine months under the autonomous domination of a favored class of non-persons that have never experienced the survival of live birth.

Sex laws against abortion prior to the third trimester when imposed on women in a democracy where equal protection under the law for all similarly situated persons is sacred and under which women are “forced by the government to bear children against their will” is a mockery of freedom liberty and Justice for all and an affront to U.S. citizens who have the active child bearing reproductive organs whenever white Christian men as an invasion of privacy, demand a say on how American citizens’ reproductive organs are to be used.

230205ref”a END2302050694

 

[dblack]

Yes

And that's a very dangerous conception of government. "Evil" is entirely subjective. Government is there to protect our rights, not to force your vision of good and evil on everyone else.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

And that's a very dangerous conception of government. "Evil" is entirely subjective. Government is there to protect our rights, not to force your vision of good and evil on everyone else.

So it should protect the right to life against those who would violate it, like abortionists and their clients.

 

[HeyNorm]

Where have I denied equal protection of a viable human being or person? if you mean, slaveowners deny equal protection to slaves, you have to accept the reality that slaves are viable human beings. 23 week fetuses are not viable human beings or viable persons persons. They are potentially viable persons while inside a woman’s body.,

When you give a protection based on arbitrary reasoning, you preclude all 23 week gestated fetuses from protection based on something that I’ve demonstrated is a lie.

Many 23 week gestated fetuses will of attained better growth than many 24 week gestated fetuses.

If so, the 23 week fetus has every bit the right granted the 24 week fetus.

If you disagree, you open the door for the destruction of equal protection if similarly situated individuals.

At this point I must assume that is exactly what you desire, which is both racist and homophobic.

 

[HeyNorm]

And that's a very dangerous conception of government. "Evil" is entirely subjective. Government is there to protect our rights, not to force your vision of good and evil on everyone else.

And the destruction of innocent human life for the sake of convenience is undeniably evil.

 

[dblack]

So it should protect the right to life against those who would violate it, like abortionists and their clients.

Only people have rights. Not un-people. Not the unborn. Not the undead. Nor any other excuse statists come up with. Government has no business regulating procreation.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Only people have rights.

Wrong. Humans have rights. You can deny humans personhood and civilizations absolutely have.

You’re clearly in the camp of the slavers and genociders throughout history who want to deny personhood from those you hate and want exploited or killed.

 

[dblack]

Wrong. Humans have rights. You can deny humans personhood and civilizations absolutely have.

You’re clearly in the camp of the slavers and genociders throughout history who want to deny personhood from those you hate and want exploited or killed.

Nope. You're making shit up. Typical.

Government has no business regulating procreation. Try to contain your desire to control others.

 

[HeyNorm]

Only people have rights. Not un-people. Not the unborn. Not the undead. Nor any other excuse statists come up with. Government has no business regulating procreation.

Some think blacks are human, but not persons. I have a feeling you are one of those.

 

[dblack]

Some think blacks are human, but not persons. I have a feeling you are one of those.

I'm sure you have lots of very special "feelings". But that's all they are.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Nope. You're making shit up. Typical.

Oh. You’re just retarded. Typical for pro-aborts.

Government has no business regulating procreation.

And it doesn’t. If you have conceived offspring, you have already procreated, dumbass.

Now just avoid being a sociopathic violent piece of shit dumbass who kills your own kid for personal benefit, or you make it very much the business of government to lock your psycho ass up.

 

[dblack]

Now just avoid being a sociopathic violent piece of shit dumbass who kills your own kid for personal benefit, or you make it very much the business of government to lock your psycho ass up.

Wow... nothing like self righteous indignation to get authoritarians all worked up! You should sic big daddy government on me.