Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[NotfooledbyW]

HeyNorm230402-#7,113 • 100,000 word essays will not change the fact that YOU awarded 24 week gestated individuals governmental protections, but will not award equal protection to a similarly situated 23 week gestated individual.
~~
NFBW230206-#7,179 If you take exception HeyNorm to Blackmunn’s explanation of viability demarcation that stood in law for fifty years and remains without violation of any equal protection laws, please put your objections in writing or forever hold your “equal protection violation” bullshit in silence and in peace.
^^
HeyNorm230206-#7,180 • If the argument is, that a 24 week gestated fetus has reached this stage …..
^^
NFBW: You were asked in post 7179 whether or not you take exception to Blackmunn’s explanation of viability demarcation in Roe v Wade not If the argument is this or if it is that.
Do you challenge anything about what Justice Blackmunn writes specifically with regard to state’s interest in the matter of abortion ?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Blackmunn​

​

NFBW: More precisely then HeyNorm if that’s too many words for you to comprehend; are you saying that the state’s important and legitimate interest in potential life at the “compelling” point of viability in RvW violates the equal rights protection of similarly situated 23 week gestated individuals that are developed sufficiently to survive outside the womb by virtue of a right to life given to a 28 week gestated individual who is granted a right to life by the state on the same basis?
~~
Monk-Eye230206-#7,178 • Most succinctly , 24 weeks is a normative rule for predicting an ability to survive a live birth and is sufficiently near a minimal stage of development for an onset of sentience to be presumed . •••• A legal victim is required : whether by a live birth requirement for equal protection of law , from a birth requirement to be a citizen and by equitable doctrine ; or , whether by cognitive objection upon which empathy for suffering is proposed as sufficient to represent any other sentient being by proxy .

NFBW: Your argument in post 7113 fails based on the cornerstone foundation that what Monk-Eye says is true in post 7178 A legal victim must have a live birth for equal protection of law

END2302061242

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm230402-#7,113 • 100,000 word essays will not change the fact that YOU awarded 24 week gestated individuals governmental protections, but will not award equal protection to a similarly situated 23 week gestated individual.
~~
NFBW230206-#7,179 If you take exception HeyNorm to Blackmunn’s explanation of viability demarcation that stood in law for fifty years and remains without violation of any equal protection laws, please put your objections in writing or forever hold your “equal protection violation” bullshit in silence and in peace.
^^
HeyNorm230206-#7,180 • If the argument is, that a 24 week gestated fetus has reached this stage …..
^^
NFBW: You were asked in post 7179 whether or not you take exception to Blackmunn’s explanation of viability demarcation in Roe v Wade not If the argument is this or if it is that.
Do you challenge anything about what Justice Blackmunn writes specifically with regard to state’s interest in the matter of abortion ?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Blackmunn​

​

NFBW: More precisely then HeyNorm if that’s too many words for you to comprehend; are you saying that the state’s important and legitimate interest in potential life at the “compelling” point of viability in RvW violates the equal rights protection of similarly situated 23 week gestated individuals that are developed sufficiently to survive outside the womb by virtue of a right to life given to a 28 week gestated individual who is granted a right to life by the state on the same basis?
~~
Monk-Eye230206-#7,178 • Most succinctly , 24 weeks is a normative rule for predicting an ability to survive a live birth and is sufficiently near a minimal stage of development for an onset of sentience to be presumed . •••• A legal victim is required : whether by a live birth requirement for equal protection of law , from a birth requirement to be a citizen and by equitable doctrine ; or , whether by cognitive objection upon which empathy for suffering is proposed as sufficient to represent any other sentient being by proxy .

NFBW: Your argument in post 7113 fails based on the cornerstone foundation that what Monk-Eye says is true in post 7178 A legal victim must have a live birth for equal protection of law

END2302061242

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability.

And if 24 weeks is that “compelling point” then you can prove that no 23 week fetus has ever reached this viability quicker than a 24 week gestated fetus has.

Please proceed or concede. It’s up to you Biff.

 

[beagle9]

beagle930205-#7,143 • …….the knowledgeable adult mother that's carrying that fetus should have enough civilized character about herself, otherwise in order to understand that it is her duty as a mother to protect and nurture the new life growing within her womb
^^
NFBW230206-#7,174 • What duty? To what authority, civil or spiritual, does a woman living in a secular civil society, based upon established constitutional rights and freedom of conscience, have an obligation or responsibility to protect and nurture the new life growing within her womb when she as a free person primarily gives her consent to be governed by a government that guarantees she have freedom of conscience and autonomy over her own body and she does not want to protect and nurture the new life growing within her womb?????
^^
beagle9230206-#7,176 • You try and speak for a woman, and that's hilarious..

NFBW: Actually you posted 7143 about duty as a mother to protect and nurture the living human organism whenever this
View attachment 754465
happens to one of her eggs. So I challenged you 7174 to clarify to what authority is a pregnant person is obligated as you claim she must be.

If you are clueless about that just say so and then promise you won’t make that claim ever again.

END2302051027

What is a woman boy ? Give us a simple answer.

 

[HeyNorm]

What is a woman boy ? Give us a simple answer.

You notice above that they state that the government has a compelling state interest in protecting the fetus at 24 weeks. That’s important as the Supreme Court made that judgement. Not me.

That compelling state interest is based on the probability of viability.

Yet, we know that this minimum standard of probable viability does not rest on a time table, but on the development of the fetus as probably viable.

Arbitrary in its very nature as there are, in all likelihood, and that is all that is required when dealing with arbitrary law, that a 23 week fetus can be found that equals or exceeds the development of many 24 week gestated fetuses.

To deny protection of an equally advanced fetus is cowardice at its finest and takes us back to the day that, although a black man is very similarly situated to a white man, they are different enough not to be allowed freedom.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW230206-#7,181
• With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability.
^^
HeyNorm230206-#7,182 • And if 24 weeks is that “compelling point” then you can prove that no 23 week fetus has ever reached this viability quicker than a 24 week gestated fetus has.

NFBW: read Blackmunn again @HeyNirm
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. Stated regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Blackmunn
NFBW: Because of the truth that SCOTUS can “presume” the capability of meaningful life outside the womb as a moment during I can “presume” in exactly the same way.

I can suppose just like the 1973 court that potential viability based on modern medical knowledge is at 24 weeks on the basis of probability and earliest surviving fetus know was at 21 weeks.
I do not have to prove to you HeyNorm that no 23 week fetus has ever reached this viability quicker than a 24 week fetus because RvW is based on probability not an exact moment following each an every conception.

There is no denial of protection to an equally advanced fetus because individual advancement per fetus is not the law. 23 weeks and 24 weeks fetuses are subjected to the same probability when state interests are imposed on a woman restricting her option for abortion.

And RvW did not create personhood for 28 week fetuses but not for 27 week fetuses, so how does equal protection solely here as well???

END2302062256

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm230206-#7,182 • With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability.
^^
HeyNorm230206-#7,182 • And if 24 weeks is that “compelling point” then you can prove that no 23 week fetus has ever reached this viability quicker than a 24 week gestated fetus has.


NFBW: read Blackmunn again @HeyNirm
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. Stated regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Blackmunn
NFBW: Because of the truth that SCOTUS can “presume” the capability of meaningful life outside the womb as a moment during I can “presume” in exactly the same way.

I can suppose just like the 1973 court that potential viability based on modern medical knowledge is at 24 weeks on the basis of probability and earliest surviving fetus know was at 21 weeks.
I do not have to prove to you HeyNorm that no 23 week fetus has ever reached this viability quicker than a 24 week fetus because RvW is based on probability not an exact moment following each an every conception.

There is no denial of protection to an equally advanced fetus because individual advancement per fetus is not the law. 23 weeks and 24 weeks fetuses are subjected to the same probability when state interests are imposed on a woman restricting her option for abortion.

And RvW did not create personhood for 28 week fetuses but not for 27 week fetuses, so how does equal protection solely here as well???

END2302062256

Another 10,000 word essay and not a single sentence that says a 23 week fetus can’t reach the development threshold of any given 24 week gestated fetus.

So if the Government has “a compelling reason” to protect a 24 week old, due to its stage of development, then that “compelling reason” is based on the development of the fetus, not an arbitrary calendar date.

Oops, you lost again.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Immutable Live Birth Requirement For Equal Protection With A Citizen "

* Abortion Public Policy Hysteria Of Establishment Clause Lunacy *

It is not required to take exception. What is required, under the legal standing of similarly situated groups being granted equal protection under the law is that you provide evidence that a 23 week gestated fetus cannot have advanced to the point of any fetus that is of 24 weeks gestation.
If the argument is, that a 24 week gestated fetus has reached this stage, then you must prove that NO, 23 week gestated fetus could have.
If you cannot provide such, you concede the argument and therefore you fail.

@notfooledbyw.49934/
A 26 weeks of gestation is 24 weeks of development , with the end of 26 weeks of gestation being the beginning of the third trimester ; the actual references are usually ambiguous and denoted simply as weeks .

The debate over onset of natural viability is made trivial because abortion " without cause " does not naturally occur when " with cause " abortions are diagnosed and mitigated , and the anti-choice are simply trying to introduce more stringent timelines without justification to harangue the public and to exercise traitorous acts against individual liberty .

HeyNorm is not forwarding a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen , as that constitutional originalism is the premise of Monk-Eye , as it has been for +25 years , as the " Logically of course , a legitimate state interest on this issue .. not ..prior to live birth . " was explained and is maintained in copyright , and it is puzzling that someone other is being held to account for it .

The scotus decision of sedition by dobbs stated that the roe v wade court did not explain " potential life " and did not have any intention of trying to do so , which is a dumbfounded lie of ignorance and deceit by an all eat toe traitor to us republic , and it is far below respectability that anyone should need to explain the " Logically , of course " statement to supposedly learned academics of jurisprudence .


* Maintaining Privileges Of Citizenship *

Because abortion " without cause " does not naturally occur when " with cause " abortions are diagnosed and mitigated , the only necessary conclusion as a patriot for a republic with a credo of e pluribus unum is to maintain independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties among those which have met a live birth requirement to receive them .

 

[beagle9]

" Immutable Live Birth Requirement For Equal Protection With A Citizen "

* Abortion Public Policy Hysteria Of Establishment Clause Lunacy *

@notfooledbyw.49934/
A 26 weeks of gestation is 24 weeks of development , with the end of 26 weeks of gestation being the beginning of the third trimester ; the actual references are usually ambiguous and denoted simply as weeks .

The debate over onset of natural viability is made trivial because abortion " without cause " does not naturally occur when " with cause " abortions are diagnosed and mitigated , and the anti-choice are simply trying to introduce more stringent timelines without justification to harangue the public and to exercise traitorous acts against individual liberty .

HeyNorm is not forwarding a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen , as that constitutional originalism is the premise of Monk-Eye , as it has been for +25 years , as the " Logically of course , a legitimate state interest on this issue .. not ..prior to live birth . " was explained and is maintained in copyright , and it is puzzling that someone other is being held to account for it .

The scotus decision of sedition by dobbs stated that the roe v wade court did not explain " potential life " and did not have any intention of trying to do so , which is a dumbfounded lie of ignorance and deceit by an all eat toe traitor to us republic , and it is far below respectability that anyone should need to explain the " Logically , of course " statement to supposedly learned academics of jurisprudence .


* Maintaining Privileges Of Citizenship *

Because abortion " without cause " does not naturally occur when " with cause " abortions are diagnosed and mitigated , the only necessary conclusion as a patriot for a republic with a credo of e pluribus unum is to maintain independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties among those which have met a live birth requirement to receive them .

Do you realize that your are defending the leftist on these board's, but then again you might be a leftist. In that case my bad. .

Were you at the Grammys? I heard it was a bit heated in a Hell sort of way.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Another 10,000 word essay and not a single sentence that says a 23 week fetus can’t reach the development threshold of any given 24 week gestated fetus.

NFBW: The developmental threshold is as you know “presumed potential life” , not actual. read Blackmunn again HeyNorm

“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb.

Blackmunn is referring to presumed life outside the womb. Blackmun is not referring to actual confirmed viability while inside the womb.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HeyNorm230207-#7,186 • not a single sentence that says a 23 week fetus can’t reach the development threshold of any given 24 week gestated fetus

NFBW: That is because no fetus HeyNorm at 23 weeks or 24 weeks or 26 weeks or 28 weeks becomes a person with a right to life above and beyond a right to life through it’s mother in a wanted pregnancy, including after the passage of Dobbs.

The scotus decision of sedition by dobbs stated that the roe v wade court did not explain " potential life

NFBW: That is because no post-viability-in-the-womb human being like all of us here, with a functioning brain and knowing of self ID and if others ID and in possession of the protected property of a conscience in the spiritual philosophy of James Madison as the Father of our Constitution said (see quote below) can tell us when a human life begins in possession of the sacred property if a conscience.

NFBW230206-#7,172 And Madison is on record that he believed all persons have a conscience and a conscience is property that each person owns.
•

Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and unalienable right. James Madison​

•
NFBW230206-#7,172 fetuses up to 24 weeks do not have a physical or material or self functioning brain and thus are not in possession of a conscience subject to equal protection under the law. •••• Science can tell us when the life of a human organism begins at conception but not when life of a person with a conscience actually begins.

When a woman is around 22 weeks pregnant there are in fact two living bodies involved but not two persons each with a conscience. There is only one conscience involved - that if the mother. It is her sacred American property (her conscience) and a person’s conscience must never be infringed.

MeriW170305-#115 Upon conception, there are two bodies involved.

NFBW221227-#6,538 Early on in every pregnancy, the one body that is viable is oxygenating blood for the one body that will not be viable during at least the first 24 weeks after conception. •••• Do you accept that the above biological and scientific fact should be denied to be relevant in a secular society dedicated to freedom of conscience just because the Catholic religion requires its believers such as yourself Meriweather to see life as a gift from God regardless of the critical distinction between viable life and not-viable life?

END2302070349i

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm230207-#7,186 • not a single sentence that says a 23 week fetus can’t reach the development threshold of any given 24 week gestated fetus

NFBW: That is because no fetus HeyNorm at 23 weeks or 24 weeks or 26 weeks or 28 weeks becomes a person with a right to life above and beyond a right to life through it’s mother in a wanted pregnancy, including after the passage of Dobbs.



NFBW: That is because no post-viability-in-the-womb human being like all of us here, with a functioning brain and knowing of self ID and if others ID and in possession of the protected property of a conscience in the spiritual philosophy of James Madison as the Father of our Constitution said (see quote below) can tell us when a human life begins in possession of the sacred property if a conscience.

NFBW230206-#7,172 And Madison is on record that he believed all persons have a conscience and a conscience is property that each person owns.
•

Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and unalienable right. James Madison​

•
NFBW230206-#7,172 fetuses up to 24 weeks do not have a physical or material or self functioning brain and thus are not in possession of a conscience subject to equal protection under the law. •••• Science can tell us when the life of a human organism begins at conception but not when life of a person with a conscience actually begins.

When a woman is around 22 weeks pregnant there are in fact two living bodies involved but not two persons each with a conscience. There is only one conscience involved - that if the mother. It is her sacred American property (her conscience) and a person’s conscience must never be infringed.

MeriW170305-#115 Upon conception, there are two bodies involved.

NFBW221227-#6,538 Early on in every pregnancy, the one body that is viable is oxygenating blood for the one body that will not be viable during at least the first 24 weeks after conception. •••• Do you accept that the above biological and scientific fact should be denied to be relevant in a secular society dedicated to freedom of conscience just because the Catholic religion requires its believers such as yourself Meriweather to see life as a gift from God regardless of the critical distinction between viable life and not-viable life?

END2302070349i

You, and a Supreme Court justice made claims that a 24 week gestated fetus can not be destroyed. You and he additionally claimed a compelling reason that the state had such authority.

Now you must, non arbitrarily, make an argument that a 23 week fetus, similarly situated, should not garner the same protection.

What is States compelling reason that one group deserves the states protection, and the similarly situated second group does not?

Amazing.

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm230207-#7,186 • not a single sentence that says a 23 week fetus can’t reach the development threshold of any given 24 week gestated fetus

NFBW: That is because no fetus HeyNorm at 23 weeks or 24 weeks or 26 weeks or 28 weeks becomes a person with a right to life above and beyond a right to life through it’s mother in a wanted pregnancy, including after the passage of Dobbs.



NFBW: That is because no post-viability-in-the-womb human being like all of us here, with a functioning brain and knowing of self ID and if others ID and in possession of the protected property of a conscience in the spiritual philosophy of James Madison as the Father of our Constitution said (see quote below) can tell us when a human life begins in possession of the sacred property if a conscience.

NFBW230206-#7,172 And Madison is on record that he believed all persons have a conscience and a conscience is property that each person owns.
•

Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and unalienable right. James Madison​

•
NFBW230206-#7,172 fetuses up to 24 weeks do not have a physical or material or self functioning brain and thus are not in possession of a conscience subject to equal protection under the law. •••• Science can tell us when the life of a human organism begins at conception but not when life of a person with a conscience actually begins.

When a woman is around 22 weeks pregnant there are in fact two living bodies involved but not two persons each with a conscience. There is only one conscience involved - that if the mother. It is her sacred American property (her conscience) and a person’s conscience must never be infringed.

MeriW170305-#115 Upon conception, there are two bodies involved.

NFBW221227-#6,538 Early on in every pregnancy, the one body that is viable is oxygenating blood for the one body that will not be viable during at least the first 24 weeks after conception. •••• Do you accept that the above biological and scientific fact should be denied to be relevant in a secular society dedicated to freedom of conscience just because the Catholic religion requires its believers such as yourself Meriweather to see life as a gift from God regardless of the critical distinction between viable life and not-viable life?

END2302070349i

And no Black would ever attain personhood great enough under your theory, until Abraham Lincoln freed them and we established equal protection for similarly situated groups.

And no, no matter how much more you blather about, we will never go back to those days.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And no Black would ever attain personhood great enough under your theory

you are saying adult black slaves are similar to an unborn fetus as if they were not viable human beings and had no conscience until Lincoln made them viable and gave the a conscience.

And you deliberately ignore the truth that the original US Constitution recognized African black people brought to the New World by white European beagle9 Christian beagle9 CIVILIZATION beagle9 who had experienced live birth exactly the same as white human beings.

You HeyNorm are by default with your nonsense ignorantly and unwittingly agreeing with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution.
David Azerrad, Ph.D will explain to you why you are the racist with the racist argument if you can read and consult what god in nature gave you - your unused conscience. Only IF!

What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery​

By David Azerrad​

It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).​

​

Slavery and the Constitution​

​

Not only does the Constitution not mention blacks or whites, but it also doesn’t mention slaves or slavery. Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”​

​

The Constitution refers to slaves using three different formulations: “other persons” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), “such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3).​

​

Although these circumlocutions may not have done much to improve the lot of slaves, they are important, as they denied constitutional legitimacy to the institution of slavery. The practice remained legal, but slaveholders could not invoke the supreme law of the land to defend its legitimacy. These formulations make clear that slavery is a state institution that is tolerated—but not sanctioned—by the national government and the Constitution.​

​

Reading the original Constitution, a visitor from a foreign land would simply have no way of knowing that race-based slavery existed in America. As Abraham Lincoln would later explain:​

​

Thus, the thing is hid away, in the Constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death.​

​

One could go even further and argue, as Frederick Douglass did in the lead-up to the Civil War, that none of the clauses of the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued.​

​

Because the Constitution does not explicitly recognize slavery and does not therefore admit that slaves were property, all the protections it affords to persons could be applied to slaves. “Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed up by a right moral sentiment, would put an end to slavery in America,” Douglass concluded.​

​

Those who want to see what a racist and pro-slavery Constitution would look like should turn to the Confederate Constitution of 1861. Though it largely mimics the Constitution, it is replete with references to “the institution of negro slavery,” “negroes of the African race,” and “negro slaves.” It specifically forbids the Confederate Congress from passing any “law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.”​

​

Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote.​

​

One can readily imagine any number of clauses that could have been added to our Constitution to enshrine slavery. The manumission of slaves could have been prohibited. A national right to bring one’s slaves to any state could have been recognized. Congress could have been barred from interfering in any way with the transatlantic slave trade.​

​

It is true that the Constitution of 1787 failed to abolish slavery. The constitutional convention was convened not to free the slaves, but to amend the Articles of Confederation. The slave-holding states would have never consented to a new Constitution that struck a blow at their peculiar institution. The Constitution did, however, empower Congress to prevent its spread and set it on a course of extinction, while leaving the states free to abolish it within their own territory at any time.​

​

Regrettably, early Congresses did not pursue a consistent anti-slavery policy. This, however, is not an indictment of the Constitution itself. As Frederick Douglass explained: “A chart is one thing, the course of a vessel is another. The Constitution may be right, the government wrong.”​

​

Congress and the Slave Trade​

​

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the African slave trade an “execrable commerce” and an affront “against human nature itself.” Because of a concession to slave-holding interests, the Constitution stipulates that it may not be abolished “prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1).​

​

In the meantime, Congress could discourage the importation of slaves from abroad by imposing a duty “not exceeding 10 dollars on each person” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). Although early Congresses considered such measures, they were never enacted.​

​

Early Congresses did, however, regulate the transatlantic slave trade, pursuant to their power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). In 1794, 1800, and 1803, statutes were passed that severely restricted American participation in it. No American shipyard could be used to build ships that would engage in the slave trade, nor could any ship sailing from an American port traffic in slaves abroad. Americans were also prohibited from investing in the slave trade.​

​

Finally, on the very first day on which it was constitutionally permissible to do so—Jan. 1, 1808—the slave trade was abolished by law.​

​

The law, which President Thomas Jefferson signed, stipulated stiff penalties for any American convicted of participating in the slave trade: up to $10,000 in fines and five to 10 years in prison. In 1823, a new law was passed that punished slave-trading with death.​

​

Congress and the Expansion of Slavery​

​

Banning the importation of slaves would not by itself put an end to slavery in the United States. Slavery would grow naturally even if no new slaves were brought into the country.​

​

Although Congress could not prevent this, it could prevent slavery from spreading geographically to the territories from which new states would eventually be created.​

​

Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States” (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), to forbid the migration of slaves into the new territories (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and to stipulate conditions for statehood (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2).​

​

In no way could the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery.​

​

Regrettably, early Congresses did not prevent the spread of slavery. Between 1798 and 1822, Congress enacted 10 territorial acts. Only half excluded slavery.​

​

As a result, seven slaveholding states and five free states were admitted into the union. The seeds of what Abraham Lincoln would later call the crisis of the house divided were sown.​

​

Slavery in the Existing States​

​

As for the existing slaveholding states that had ratified the Constitution, what could Congress do to restrict the growth of slavery within their borders? Here Congress had more limited options. After 1808, “the migration” of slaves across state lines could have been prohibited (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). This was never done.​

​

In principle, slavery could have been taxed out of existence. However, the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states made it impossible to exclusively target slaveholders. A capitation or head tax, for example, even though it would have been more costly for Southerners, would also impose a heavy burden on Northerners.​

​

While one could perhaps have circumvented the apportionment requirement by calling for an indirect tax on slaves—as Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., would later do during the Civil War—such arguments were not made in the early republic.​

​

There was one clause in the original Constitution that required cooperation with slaveholders and protected the institution of slavery. Slaves who escaped to freedom were to “be delivered up” to their masters (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3). The motion to include a fugitive slave clause at the constitutional convention passed unanimously and without debate. This would seem to indicate that all knew it would be futile to try to oppose such a measure.​

​

The debate instead focused on the wording. Whereas the original draft had referred to a “person legally held to service or labor in one state,” the final version instead refers to a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof.” This change, Madison explains in his notes, was to comply “with the wish of some who thought the term legal equivocal,” as it gave the impression “that slavery was legal in a moral view,” rather than merely permissible under the law.​

​

This remark by Madison captures the Constitution’s stance vis-à-vis slavery: permissible, but not moral. Legal, but not legitimate.​

​

In no way can the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery. And it contains within it several provisions that could have been and were at times used to prevent the spread of slavery.​

​

This may not make it an anti-slavery Constitution. But even before the 13th Amendment, it was a Constitution that, if placed in the right hands, could be made to serve the cause of freedom.​

​

NFBW: If you did not read this HeyNorm , and refuse to discuss the fatal flaws in your argument we have to conclude and be current that you are a disgusting and deluded and dishonest and dangerously ignorant racist with no conscience.​

END2303070857

 

[HeyNorm]

you are saying adult black slaves are similar to an unborn fetus as if they were not viable human beings and had no conscience until Lincoln made them viable and gave the a conscience.

And you deliberately ignore the truth that the original US Constitution recognized African black people brought to the New World by white European beagle9 Christian beagle9 CIVILIZATION beagle9 who had experienced live birth exactly the same as white human beings.

You HeyNorm are by default with your nonsense ignorantly and unwittingly agreeing with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution.
David Azerrad, Ph.D will explain to you why you are the racist with the racist argument if you can read and consult what god in nature gave you - your unused conscience. Only IF!

What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery​

By David Azerrad​

It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).​

​

Slavery and the Constitution​

​

Not only does the Constitution not mention blacks or whites, but it also doesn’t mention slaves or slavery. Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”​

​

The Constitution refers to slaves using three different formulations: “other persons” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), “such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3).​

​

Although these circumlocutions may not have done much to improve the lot of slaves, they are important, as they denied constitutional legitimacy to the institution of slavery. The practice remained legal, but slaveholders could not invoke the supreme law of the land to defend its legitimacy. These formulations make clear that slavery is a state institution that is tolerated—but not sanctioned—by the national government and the Constitution.​

​

Reading the original Constitution, a visitor from a foreign land would simply have no way of knowing that race-based slavery existed in America. As Abraham Lincoln would later explain:​

​

Thus, the thing is hid away, in the Constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death.​

​

One could go even further and argue, as Frederick Douglass did in the lead-up to the Civil War, that none of the clauses of the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued.​

​

Because the Constitution does not explicitly recognize slavery and does not therefore admit that slaves were property, all the protections it affords to persons could be applied to slaves. “Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed up by a right moral sentiment, would put an end to slavery in America,” Douglass concluded.​

​

Those who want to see what a racist and pro-slavery Constitution would look like should turn to the Confederate Constitution of 1861. Though it largely mimics the Constitution, it is replete with references to “the institution of negro slavery,” “negroes of the African race,” and “negro slaves.” It specifically forbids the Confederate Congress from passing any “law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.”​

​

Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote.​

​

One can readily imagine any number of clauses that could have been added to our Constitution to enshrine slavery. The manumission of slaves could have been prohibited. A national right to bring one’s slaves to any state could have been recognized. Congress could have been barred from interfering in any way with the transatlantic slave trade.​

​

It is true that the Constitution of 1787 failed to abolish slavery. The constitutional convention was convened not to free the slaves, but to amend the Articles of Confederation. The slave-holding states would have never consented to a new Constitution that struck a blow at their peculiar institution. The Constitution did, however, empower Congress to prevent its spread and set it on a course of extinction, while leaving the states free to abolish it within their own territory at any time.​

​

Regrettably, early Congresses did not pursue a consistent anti-slavery policy. This, however, is not an indictment of the Constitution itself. As Frederick Douglass explained: “A chart is one thing, the course of a vessel is another. The Constitution may be right, the government wrong.”​

​

Congress and the Slave Trade​

​

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the African slave trade an “execrable commerce” and an affront “against human nature itself.” Because of a concession to slave-holding interests, the Constitution stipulates that it may not be abolished “prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1).​

​

In the meantime, Congress could discourage the importation of slaves from abroad by imposing a duty “not exceeding 10 dollars on each person” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). Although early Congresses considered such measures, they were never enacted.​

​

Early Congresses did, however, regulate the transatlantic slave trade, pursuant to their power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). In 1794, 1800, and 1803, statutes were passed that severely restricted American participation in it. No American shipyard could be used to build ships that would engage in the slave trade, nor could any ship sailing from an American port traffic in slaves abroad. Americans were also prohibited from investing in the slave trade.​

​

Finally, on the very first day on which it was constitutionally permissible to do so—Jan. 1, 1808—the slave trade was abolished by law.​

​

The law, which President Thomas Jefferson signed, stipulated stiff penalties for any American convicted of participating in the slave trade: up to $10,000 in fines and five to 10 years in prison. In 1823, a new law was passed that punished slave-trading with death.​

​

Congress and the Expansion of Slavery​

​

Banning the importation of slaves would not by itself put an end to slavery in the United States. Slavery would grow naturally even if no new slaves were brought into the country.​

​

Although Congress could not prevent this, it could prevent slavery from spreading geographically to the territories from which new states would eventually be created.​

​

Congress has the power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States” (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), to forbid the migration of slaves into the new territories (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and to stipulate conditions for statehood (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2).​

​

In no way could the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery.​

​

Regrettably, early Congresses did not prevent the spread of slavery. Between 1798 and 1822, Congress enacted 10 territorial acts. Only half excluded slavery.​

​

As a result, seven slaveholding states and five free states were admitted into the union. The seeds of what Abraham Lincoln would later call the crisis of the house divided were sown.​

​

Slavery in the Existing States​

​

As for the existing slaveholding states that had ratified the Constitution, what could Congress do to restrict the growth of slavery within their borders? Here Congress had more limited options. After 1808, “the migration” of slaves across state lines could have been prohibited (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1). This was never done.​

​

In principle, slavery could have been taxed out of existence. However, the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states made it impossible to exclusively target slaveholders. A capitation or head tax, for example, even though it would have been more costly for Southerners, would also impose a heavy burden on Northerners.​

​

While one could perhaps have circumvented the apportionment requirement by calling for an indirect tax on slaves—as Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., would later do during the Civil War—such arguments were not made in the early republic.​

​

There was one clause in the original Constitution that required cooperation with slaveholders and protected the institution of slavery. Slaves who escaped to freedom were to “be delivered up” to their masters (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3). The motion to include a fugitive slave clause at the constitutional convention passed unanimously and without debate. This would seem to indicate that all knew it would be futile to try to oppose such a measure.​

​

The debate instead focused on the wording. Whereas the original draft had referred to a “person legally held to service or labor in one state,” the final version instead refers to a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof.” This change, Madison explains in his notes, was to comply “with the wish of some who thought the term legal equivocal,” as it gave the impression “that slavery was legal in a moral view,” rather than merely permissible under the law.​

​

This remark by Madison captures the Constitution’s stance vis-à-vis slavery: permissible, but not moral. Legal, but not legitimate.​

​

In no way can the Constitution be said to be pro-slavery. The principles of natural right undergirding it are resolutely anti-slavery. Its language conveys disapproval of slavery. And it contains within it several provisions that could have been and were at times used to prevent the spread of slavery.​

​

This may not make it an anti-slavery Constitution. But even before the 13th Amendment, it was a Constitution that, if placed in the right hands, could be made to serve the cause of freedom.​

​

NFBW: If you did not read this HeyNorm , and refuse to discuss the fatal flaws in your argument we have to conclude and be current that you are a disgusting and deluded and dishonest and dangerously ignorant racist with no conscience.​

END2303070857

Wow, you outdone yourself with this! Bravo Biff, Bravo.

Now why would a Supreme Court Justice make a statement saying that at xxx weeks gestation a fetus has the right to survival, because it attained a certain level of development, and not have that judgement open to scrutiny when it is scientific fact that fetus number two, who is less gestated had reached a level equal to, or greater than, xxx weeks gestated fetus.

Slave owners tried the same argument you are making. And, history is not on their side. And it won’t be on yours either.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Slave owners tried the same argument you are making.

NFBW: WHERE? Provide the argument of which you speak / who when and where?

I have never heard of a slave owner who defended or opposed a woman’s right to abort a presumed non-viable fetus - ever HeyNorm - I suspect you believe you are entitled to fabricate history to your seemingly racist Make America Great Again liking by subjecting women to a status of slave to a fetus when they become pregnant and do not want to be.

While you are searching for what you should’ve had close at hand Take a moment out of your race based promotion of the Confederacy that Lincoln opposed to read exhibit 230207ref”a

​

Lincoln Peoria Speech, October 16, 1854​

​

I object to it because the fathers of the republic eschewed, and rejected it. The argument of "Necessity" was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. They found the institution existing among us, which they could not help; and they cast blame upon the British King for having permitted its introduction. ​

Peoria Speech, October 16, 1854 - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)​

​

BEFORE the constitution, they prohibited its introduction into the north-western Territory---the only country we owned, then free from it. AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word "slave" or "slavery" in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a "PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR." In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit," &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.​

​

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade---that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.​

​

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory---this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.​

​

In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries---as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.​

​

In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.​

​

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808---the very first day the constitution would permit---prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.​

​

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.​

​

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY.​

​

•••••••••••••• Mr. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and otherwise a chief actor in the revolution; then a delegate in Congress; afterwards twice President; who was, is, and perhaps will continue to be, the most distinguished politician of our history; a Virginian by birth and continued residence, and withal, a slave-holder; conceived the idea of taking that occasion, to prevent slavery ever going into the north-western territory. He prevailed on the Virginia Legislature to adopt his views, and to cede the territory, making the prohibition of slavery therein, a condition of the deed. Congress accepted the cession, with the condition; and in the first Ordinance (which the acts of Congress were then called) for the government of the territory, provided that slavery should never be permitted therein. This is the famed ordinance of '87 so often spoken of. Thenceforward, for sixty-one years, and until in 1848, the last scrap of this territory came into the Union as the State of Wisconsin, all parties acted in quiet obedience to this ordinance. It is now what Jefferson foresaw and intended---the happy home of teeming millions of free, white, prosperous people, and no slave amongst them.​

​

Thus, with the author of the Declaration of Independence, the policy of prohibiting slavery in new territory originated. Thus, away back of the constitution, in the pure fresh, free breath of the revolution, the State of Virginia, and the National congress put that policy in practice. Thus through sixty odd of the best years of the republic did that policy steadily work to its great and beneficent end. And thus, in those five states, and five millions of free, enterprising people, we have before us the rich fruits of this policy.​

​

END2302070947

​

 

[HeyNorm]

NFBW: WHERE? Provide the argument of which you speak / who when and where?

I have never heard of a slave owner who defended or opposed a woman’s right to abort a presumed non-viable fetus - ever HeyNorm - I suspect you believe you are entitled to fabricate history to your seemingly racist Make America Great Again liking by subjecting women to a status of slave to a fetus when they become pregnant and do not want to be.

While you are searching for what you should’ve had close at hand Take a moment out of your race based promotion of the Confederacy that Lincoln opposed to read exhibit 230207ref”a

​

Lincoln Peoria Speech, October 16, 1854​

​

I object to it because the fathers of the republic eschewed, and rejected it. The argument of "Necessity" was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. They found the institution existing among us, which they could not help; and they cast blame upon the British King for having permitted its introduction. ​

Peoria Speech, October 16, 1854 - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)​

​

BEFORE the constitution, they prohibited its introduction into the north-western Territory---the only country we owned, then free from it. AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word "slave" or "slavery" in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a "PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR." In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit," &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.​

​

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade---that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.​

​

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory---this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.​

​

In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries---as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.​

​

In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.​

​

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808---the very first day the constitution would permit---prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.​

​

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.​

​

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY.​

Provide your argument? Read your posts?

What is the compelling state interest in the government allowing one fetus protection and another, equally developed fetus none?

Jesus Biff, just answer a question.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

just answer a question.

I will answer that one in detail again that no fetus is a person until actual live birth according to the Constitution whereas the very same document as originally written regarded black people as persons who were successful at live birth but their fetuses prior to live birth were not persons exactly as black fetuses and white fetuses were similarly situated and treated equally as not persons in the Constitution in 1782 and now in 2023. SO you have a serious problem which is why I must assume is why you refuse to answer this request for back up;

NFBW: WHERE? Provide the argument of which you speak / who when and where? •••• I have never heard of a slave owner who defended or opposed a woman’s right to abort a presumed non-viable fetus - ever HeyNorm -

Where is it?

END2302071008

 

[HeyNorm]

I will answer that one in detail again that no fetus is a person until actual live birth according to the Constitution whereas the very same document as originally written regarded black people as persons who were successful at live birth but their fetuses prior to live birth were not persons exactly as black fetuses and white fetuses were similarly situated and treated equally as not persons in the Constitution in 1782 and now in 2023. SO you have a serious problem which is why I must assume is why you refuse to answer this request for back up;

NFBW: WHERE? Provide the argument of which you speak / who when and where? •••• I have never heard of a slave owner who defended or opposed a woman’s right to abort a presumed non-viable fetus - ever HeyNorm -

Where is it?

END2302071008

When you fail to answer on your own, and in your own words, your qualification as to when the fetus demands protection, and when they don’t. Just like slaves.

At some point two fetus, develops to a certain physical characteristic, one is granted the States protection, the other not.

At some point you have to give a compelling reason that one can be destroyed, and the other cannot.

You have failed each and every time Biff.

Why?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What is the compelling state interest in the government allowing one fetus protection and another, equally developed fetus none?

NFBW: No government or law does that in any real life or death situation for any fetus of any age by setting a limit allowing states to preserve a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy up to a reasonable duration of gestation., The limit is not protection of “wanted” fetuses therefore both classes of fetuses, wanted and unwanted are eligible for protection or no protection not according to the government’s decision but according to the pregnant person’s decision regarding all (equally regarded the same) non-person fetuses as all fetuses are until live successfully accomplished birth. Then a separate right to life begins as no fetus was treated unequally by the government at any time under RvW .

Unequal treatment of fetuses begins at around six weeks of gestation when women become aware that they are pregnant.

No government anywhere along the line during a pregnancy decides the fate of any fetus in this country.

THE decision that you feel HeyNorm is unequal treatment of fetuses, rests solely with the pregnant woman, and the pregnant woman alone and under the advisement of her doctors. IT is you that wants the government involved in deciding the fate of fetuses thus treating pregnant women, unequal by depriving them of the right of autonomy over their own body, and the right of privacy and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. You are a tyrant HeyNorm .

END2302971935

 

[NotfooledbyW]

When you fail to answer on your own, and in your own words, your qualification as to when the fetus demands protection, and when they don’t. Just like slaves.

Fetuses are non-persons according to the constitution, as they have not experienced live birth so they cannot demand protection. It’s up to whether the mother wants them to make it to live birth, or not make it to live birth.

It is not the government responsibility or decision to make.

Slaves were as I have pointed out to you, that you refuse to acknowledge, were and always are regarded in the constitution as persons. Like white people, black people, are regarded as persons in the constitution.

Your arguments are the ramblings same as the retarded MAGA racists of the Confederacy which Lincoln put asunder and Trump has revived