Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[whutTHEYsay]

Samofvt230406-#8,146 to: -1 ¥ @Samo ¥ “As far as forcing my ideas on others, no. I am against an outright ban on all abortions.”

NFBW230406-#8,159 to: -13 “As a Christian you have a fundamental connection to Americans of Jewish faith. They vote for pro-choice DEMS and it is an article of many of Jewish religion that life begins at first breath.”

Samofvt230406-#8,160 to: -1 ¥ Samofvt ¥ “And if a State has an overwhelming population of Jewish people that hold the sentiments you describe, then they can enact State laws and constitutional amendments to reflect their beliefs. “

NFBW: Why can’t Jewish people have freedom of conscience in every state. Vermont is a perfect example. Jews do not have to migrate to Vermont and push other religions out to hold their belief that life begins at first breath.

Why do Christians in Alabama dictate to Jews what to believe if they want to live in that state?

Has any Democrat forced you or a woman you know to have an abortion in Vermont?
END2204070051




Vermont votes to protect abortion rights in state constitution
November 9, 202212:23 AM ET


By Mikaela Lefrak
ap22311695214412-d67c7ca23fb87690c1b33e6ffb86f19f31a367b1-s1200-c85.webp
Wilson Ring/AP
BURLINGTON, Vt. — In a statewide referendum on Tuesday, Vermonters passed Article 22, the Reproductive Liberty Amendment, according to a call by The Associated Press. The amendment broadly protects "personal reproductive autonomy unless justified by a compelling State interest."

5 - Provides State Constitutional Right To Reproductive Autonomy - Vermont

OPTION
PERCENT
VOTES
Yes
76.74%
211,157

No
23.26%
63,996

AP estimate: 99% in
Source: AP (as of 3:38 PM on Nov. 30, 2022)

 

[Samofvt]

Samofvt230406-#8,146 to: -1 ¥ @Samo ¥ “As far as forcing my ideas on others, no. I am against an outright ban on all abortions.”

NFBW230406-#8,159 to: -13 “As a Christian you have a fundamental connection to Americans of Jewish faith. They vote for pro-choice DEMS and it is an article of many of Jewish religion that life begins at first breath.”

Samofvt230406-#8,160 to: -1 ¥ Samofvt ¥ “And if a State has an overwhelming population of Jewish people that hold the sentiments you describe, then they can enact State laws and constitutional amendments to reflect their beliefs. “

NFBW: Why can’t Jewish people have freedom of conscience in every state. Vermont is a perfect example. Jews do not have to migrate to Vermont and push other religions out to hold their belief that life begins at first breath.

Why do Christians in Alabama dictate to Jews what to believe if they want to live in that state?

Has any Democrat forced you or a woman you know to have an abortion in Vermont?
END2204070051




Vermont votes to protect abortion rights in state constitution
November 9, 202212:23 AM ET

Apparently, you are not reading my responses: your answers do not address the issues I raise, yet you continue to ask questions leading to some sort of predetermined outcome you wish to achieve.

Not a very intelligent bot design.

Furthermore, your reference to "Vermont votes to protect abortion rights..." is not accurate. What actually happened was that Vermont voted to give up all reproductive rights and let the State bureaucracy decide for them. Vermonters apparently can not read plain English, like where the amendment says "unless the state finds a compelling reason to decide reproductive issues for them". This is the only part that Vermonters didn't have before the amendment passed: otherwise the people had complete autonomy since RvW was overturned. Within 5 years, I predict the State will decide to enact forced sterilization for any woman who has had 1 child already. It's the best way to cut down on CO2 emissions, after all, and this is a compelling reason.

 

[Redfish]

Let's put it on the ballot. That' what you want right?

You want everyone else to make your decisions for you. So tell me where will you draw the line on what you allow people to vote on?

in a democracy we vote of virtually everything, not always directly, sometimes through our elected representatives (that we vote for). Who voted for all the woke crap that is being shoved in our faces every day? not me.

 

[Blues Man]

in a democracy we vote of virtually everything, not always directly, sometimes through our elected representatives (that we vote for). Who voted for all the woke crap that is being shoved in our faces every day? not me.

We do not vote on what a person can or cannot do to his own body.

You have absolutely no authority to usurp a person's sovereignty over his own person.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish230404-#8,106 ¥ Redfish ¥ Its quite obvious from the many posts in this thread that there will never be a concensus on abortion. So lets put it to a national or state by state vote and let the majority view prevail. Isn't that what democracy is all about? When we have a disagreement on something we vote and the majority view is followed by all. •••• Why not?


NFBW: Good Post. Let’s make this thread a conversation based upon rationality and a healthy respect for persons who have met a birth requirement to be a lawful citizen that lives this country just like you and me.

There are many reasons why we must not put it to a national or state by state vote and let the majority view prevail.

My first “why not” is we must never allow the majority elected government in a state or federal government to do harm to a law abiding citizen who has done no harm to any other person. It’s a basic human right to be not harmed by the government In America even if you are a minority of one.

Pregnancy comes with risk to the pregnant person. You must agree with that. The risk you must agree is highest at the final month of pregnancy, and during the process of childbirth. When a woman becomes pregnant, without intent, regardless of the cause, she has a right to recognize that harm could come to her mental and physical existence as well as her financial situation and pursuit of happiness. I say the state should not be given an interest in her personal decision during the first 23 weeks because the fetus has not developed a brain in that amount of time.

So as I see it, when a state forces a woman to assume the risk of full term pregnancy against her will it is an egregious violation of her natural right to live her life according to her own conscience.

You must know that nether the voters who demand full term pregnancy or their government that bans abortion for them, do not assume the risk that a pregnant must take if she carries the baby to a moment of birth.

END2304041230

We elect our presidents and congresspersons by majority vote. We elect our mayors and state reps by majority vote, we pass or reject tax measures by majority vote. Why should moral and ethical issues be settled by dictate instead of majority vote?

 

[Redfish]

We do not vote on what a person can or cannot do to his own body.

You have absolutely no authority to usurp a person's sovereignty over his own person.

actually we do, you must wear a seat belt in your car, you had to wear a mask during the covid fiasco. you cannot go to the grocery store nude. So we do regulate what people can do with their own bodies. You lose.

 

[Blues Man]

actually we do, you must wear a seat belt in your car, you had to wear a mask during the covid fiasco. you cannot go to the grocery store nude. So we do regulate what people can do with their own bodies. You lose.

I do not have to wear a seatbelt if I don't want to. I didn't have to wear a mask if I was outdoors or in my own home or if I didn't patronize any businesses

And if you think any of those things are equivalent to a medical decision on your part then you are delusional.
I suppose you think we should vote on the legality of certain colors or clothes or shoes too right?

Many of those things address public health issues, an abortion is not a public health issue but rather a private matter of an individual.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Samofvt230406-#8,162 to: -1 ¥ @Samo ¥ Apparently, you are not reading my responses: your answers do not address the issues I raise,

NFBW: Here is a list of your issues from post 08146 and 08162. I will address each one as time permits. If you wish to amend or add, please do. I am a human TTT.

01 #8,146 to: -1 “I am on the side of whatever produces the greatest amount of liberty for all.”

02 #8,146 to: -1 In the scenario you bring up, I believe there are many involved: 1) the woman 2) the man who contributed 3) the unborn child (the fetus itself is alive) 4) the families of the woman and the man 5) God

03 #8,146 to: -1 Personally, for myself and anyone I might be able to influence, life is precious and should only be snuffed out after careful consideration of all options.

04 #8,146 to: -1 Today, babies are being taken from the womb at earlier and earlier stages of development and being nursed in incubators to become totally healthy human beings. With modern technology making such large advances, it is conceivable that in the not-so-distant future, any fertilized embryo could be transferred to an incubator and nursed to full development. So, personally, I am against abortion of any type.

05 #8,146 to: -1 As far as forcing my ideas on others, no. I am against an outright ban on all abortions.

06 #8,146 to: -1 These decisions about terminating a pregnancy prematurely need to be made by the individuals (<- PLURAL) involved.

07 8,146 to: -1 The fetus does not have a voice that modern science has discovered a way to hear.

08 #8,146 to: -1 Abortion should not be the first option, it should be the last option. More emphasis and support should be given to other options, including pregnancy resource centers where women can get monetary support for their needs and health care if they can bear the child to term. If the child is unwanted, adoption is a great way to go, and some childless couples will pay HANDSOMELY to a woman who agrees to bear the child for them. This becomes a paid service the woman is providing, not slavery.

09 #8,146 to: -1 It is grotesque to think a woman who becomes selfish and gets "cold feet" in the last month of pregnancy could use abortion as an option. There should be some limits.

10 Samofvt230406-#8,162 to: -1 Furthermore, your reference to "Vermont votes to protect abortion rights..." is not accurate. What actually happened was that Vermont voted to give up all reproductive rights and let the State bureaucracy decide for them. Vermonters apparently can not read plain English, like where the amendment says "unless the state finds a compelling reason to decide reproductive issues for them". This is the only part that Vermonters didn't have before the amendment passed: otherwise the people had complete autonomy since RvW was overturned.

11 #8,162 to: -1 Within 5 years, I predict the State will decide to enact forced sterilization for any woman who has had 1 child already. It's the best way to cut down on CO2 emissions, after all, and this is a compelling reason.

END2304070841

 

[Redfish]

I do not have to wear a seatbelt if I don't want to. I didn't have to wear a mask if I was outdoors or in my own home or if I didn't patronize any businesses

And if you think any of those things are equivalent to a medical decision on your part then you are delusional.
I suppose you think we should vote on the legality of certain colors or clothes or shoes too right?

Many of those things address public health issues, an abortion is not a public health issue but rather a private matter of an individual.

you said we do not vote on what a person can do with their own body, I gave examples proving that statement wrong.

Does the unborn human being get to decide whether it lives or dies? not in your world.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

01 #8,146 to: -1 “I am on the side of whatever produces the greatest amount of liberty for all.” ¥ Samofvt £

NFBW: But Jewish Americans cannot practice liberty of conscience in your vision of America unless they all move to one state and become a religious majority themselves.

I like the way the rational theists set up liberty in 1790 or thereabouts.

END2304070848

 

[Blues Man]

you said we do not vote on what a person can do with their own body, I gave examples proving that statement wrong.

Does the unborn human being get to decide whether it lives or dies? not in your world.

Wearing a seat belt is NOT doing something to your own body in fact it has absolutely ZERO effect on your body and it only applies in a single instance of driving a car.

If you want to get your tonsils out do you want to have to have that voted on by people you don't know?
If you want to get a vasectomy do you want people voting on it and telling you that you can't?
If you want to have an elective surgery that you think will make your life better do you want to have to get the permission of other people?

 

[Redfish]

01 #8,146 to: -1 “I am on the side of whatever produces the greatest amount of liberty for all.”

NFBW: But Jewish Americans cannot practice liberty of conscience in your vision of America unless they all move to one state and become a religious majority themselves.

I like the way the rational theists set up liberty in 1790 or thereabouts.

END2304070848

A lot of people were fooled by W, I was not so we agree on that. The Bush family is part of the DC establishment deep state, all of them.

 

[Redfish]

Wearing a seat belt is NOT doing something to your own body in fact it has absolutely ZERO effect on your body and it only applies in a single instance of driving a car.

If you want to get your tonsils out do you want to have to have that voted on by people you don't know?
If you want to get a vasectomy do you want people voting on it and telling you that you can't?
If you want to have an elective surgery that you think will make your life better do you want to have to get the permission of other people?

If you don't wear your seat belt you will be ticketed and fined, so it is not a personal option

removing tonsils or getting a vasectomy do not result in the death of an unborn human being, invalid analogy attempt.

The issue here is whether the unborn person is a person or not. Why not let the majority opinion prevail on that issue by voting on it? Why do you fear a vote? Could it be because you know that your view is the minority view, or do you agree with Margaret Sanger (founder of PP) that "blacks are human weeds that must be exterminated" ? You do know that the vast majority of abortions are done to black and hispanic children, right?

 

[Blues Man]

If you don't wear your seat belt you will be ticketed and fined, so it is not a personal option

removing tonsils or getting a vasectomy do not result in the death of an unborn human being, invalid analogy attempt.

The issue here is whether the unborn person is a person or not. Why not let the majority opinion prevail on that issue by voting on it? Why do you fear a vote? Could it be because you know that your view is the minority view, or do you agree with Margaret Sanger (founder of PP) that "blacks are human weeds that must be exterminated" ? You do know that the vast majority of abortions are done to black and hispanic children, right?

It is an option. In most cases it is a secondary offense and you cannot be stopped simply because you are not wearing a seatbelt and again the wearing a seatbelt does NOTHING to your person it has ZERO effect on your body.

And a fetus is not a person yet it is only a potential person. Tell me are you for outlawing the freezing of embryos? If you think that embryo is a person then you surely must think freezing it is a crime.

What abort in vitro fertilization? Is that resulting fertilized human ovum in that little glass dish a person? What of one gets accidentally destroyed in a lab ? Is the lab tech guilty of murder?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Redfish230407-#8,173 to: -2 The issue here is whether the unborn person is a person or not. Why not let the majority opinion prevail on that issue by voting on it?

NFBW: The majority cannot have tyranny over the minority on matters of conscience.
If your conscience dictates to you that life has value from the moment of conception, then it is more than available to you in a free society to avoid the pleasures of sex, until you are prepared to make certain as a male sexual partner that no pregnancy can possibly arise from your desire for sexual pleasure. For everybody else, just simply mind your own fucking business. It is all very simple to rational human beings.

END2304071142

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Cplus6230403-#8,101 to: -1
¥ @Carso ¥ “Go fuck yourself, bigoted trash. “ “You advocate harm to others, literally a violent death.”

Me and 2/3 of rational Americans.

I have no doubt that ¥ CarsomyrPlusSix ¥ was on a lib hater roll when abortion bans were merely theoretical. His vile style anti-abortion passion was a great boon to Republicans. But as an atheist his only road to political power over libs was the grass-roots organizing of the religious right. Dobbs inadvertently screwed the religious right into deeper and deeper political oblivion.

It’s over for amoral assholes like Cplus6. Just waiting for him to figure it all out.


END2304071231

 

[beagle9]

No it didn’t, It stood as legal precedent for fifty years / over 90 percent of abortions happen in the first three months

According to data from the CDC, the vast majority, or 91%, of abortions take place during the first trimester of pregnancy. Of the remaining 9% of abortions that happen after the first trimester:

• 7.7% happen between weeks 14 and 20
• 1.2% happen at or after week 21

Second-term abortions require specialized care, and only 16% of abortion providers in the U.S. offer services up until week 24 of pregnancy. There are 43 states with laws that restrict how far into pregnancy an abortion can be provided. The latest point in pregnancy that you can have an abortion in the U.S. is 24 weeks.

Abortions in the third trimester are extremely rare and happen only in extreme circumstances, usually when there are fetal problems that aren’t compatible with life

Abortion or any attempt to justify it (and this regardless of the time lines), goes back to the reasoning behind a woman wanting to end the new developing life within her.

Example: If you have something that is allowed like abortion, and then you begin a campaign that gets the new activity known to all women that might decide to utilize the new procedure, otherwise as an alternative to birth control, then we saw that it just grew and grew from there.

It took on a life that began expanding until it got out of control. Once that happened then came the push back. Hiding the truth by covering it up is a sick thing.

 

[Samofvt]

01 #8,146 to: -1 “I am on the side of whatever produces the greatest amount of liberty for all.” ¥ Samofvt £

NFBW: But Jewish Americans cannot practice liberty of conscience in your vision of America unless they all move to one state and become a religious majority themselves.

I like the way the rational theists set up liberty in 1790 or thereabouts.

END2304070848

Your statement is false: the liberty of the unborn, in my opinion, has equal weight as the woman carrying it. If the "Jewish Americans" are allowed to practice their version of liberty (unrestrained abortion), then in my opinion they are treading on the liberty of the unborn. It is these contradictory opinions that cause the debate. Both opinions can not be put into effect at the same time in the same place.

The only reasonable way to solve the differences is to have different places with different rules of law. It is not a perfect solution, but still provides the greatest liberty to the greatest number of people, assuming the majority of each location is allowed to have their wishes expressed.

I had to look up the definition of "rational theists":

Theistic rationalism
Theistic rationalism is a hybrid of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, in which rationalism is the predominant element. According to Henry Clarence Thiessen, the concept of theistic rationalism first developed during the eighteenth century as a form of English and German Deism. The term "theistic rationalism" occurs as early as 1856, in the English translation of a German work on recent religious history. Some scholars have argued that the term properly describes the beliefs of some of the prominent Founding Fathers of the United States, including George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson.Wikipedia

 

[Samofvt]

Abortion or any attempt to justify it (and this regardless of the time lines), goes back to the reasoning behind a woman wanting to end the new developing life within her.

Example: If you have something that is allowed like abortion, and then you begin a campaign that gets the new activity known to all women that might decide to utilize the new procedure, otherwise as an alternative to birth control, then we saw that it just grew and grew from there.

It took on a life that began expanding until it got out of control. Once that happened then came the push back. Hiding the truth by covering it up is a sick thing.

Spot on. The government is using the resources (tax dollars) of people who do not condone unrestrained abortion to promote the practice of abortion by funding "Planned Parenthood", the largest provider of abortions.

This is a big problem ethically.

If taxpayer resources are allowed to be used to fund Planned Parenthood which promotes termination of life, there can be no reasonable argument against using an equal amount of resources to fund Pregnancy Resource centers that promote life.

 

[beagle9]

Wearing a seat belt is NOT doing something to your own body in fact it has absolutely ZERO effect on your body and it only applies in a single instance of driving a car.

If you want to get your tonsils out do you want to have to have that voted on by people you don't know?
If you want to get a vasectomy do you want people voting on it and telling you that you can't?
If you want to have an elective surgery that you think will make your life better do you want to have to get the permission of other people?

All those things you list above would be ridiculous to have another interfere with, but when it comes to "deplorable thing's", that end up scarring the mind, body, and soul, then yes a civilized SOCIETY wants to have some say upon those deplorable things, otherwise this is in order to limit the damages caused by anyone thinking that they can just do horrible thing's with impunity, and therefore cause terrible problems for themselves and other's when they do them.

Now there are freedom's that truly aren't freedom's at all, otherwise if allowed to just let them be... Why ? It's because if left alone without studying the ill effects of a perceived freedom, and the perceived freedom ends up destroying the mind, body, and soul if it is a specific perceived freedom that is wrongfully allowed, then that is when one may think WHY ? Why was it allowed after so much destruction has been recorded ? Some thing's there is no excuse for.