Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[whutTHEYsay]

or

What

 

[Frankeneinstein]

What

huh

 

[Frankeneinstein]

A woman who aborts her child prior to the child’s potential viability is not committing infanticide. That is a FACT,

I understand that in much the same way I understand the pro-life argument that it is unarguably and undeniably infanticide.... checkmate!

 

[whutTHEYsay]

NFBW #8,483 “A woman who aborts her child prior to the child’s potential viability is not committing infanticide. That is a FACT,

Apr 26, 2023 ¥ Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,503 {to: 08,483 nfbw} I understand that in much the same way I understand the pro-life argument that it is unarguably and undeniably infanticide....

Apr 26, 2023 NFBW: What you obviously do not understand is that what I point out in post 08,483 is a statement of fact.

You haughtily dismiss a fact I use viscerally to defend abortion rights from the liars who are pleading to use the government to favor their religious beliefs to harm women if they get pregnant and want or need to not be.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

What you obviously do not understand is that what I point out in post 08,483 is a statement of fact.

I understand it as fact in much the same way I understand what you posted/reposted in 08,485 is fact:

As believers in Christ, we must take a stand against the killing of babies.​

You haughtily dismiss a fact I use viscerally to defend abortion rights from the liars who are pleading to use the government to favor their religious beliefs to harm women if they get pregnant and want or need to not be.

Roe v Wade set the table, without it this court would not even have heard the case, in fact it would have never been brought before the court, in fact, all else being equal, this court would not even exist in its current form if not for Roe...in fact Roe v Wade is your Pandora's box now.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

(a) termination of a pregnancy by choice of the person who is pregnant is not infanticide or any degree of murder or manslaughter.

(b) termination of a pregnancy by choice of the person who is pregnant is not infanticide or any degree of murder or manslaughter.

which is true? (a) or (b) ???

Thats the test everyone in the obstetrics medical field for the socially educated must take to graduate...if ya fail they ship ya off to pediatrics.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

What you obviously do not understand is that what I point out in post 08,483 is a statement of fact.

You haughtily dismiss a fact I use viscerally to defend abortion rights from the liars who are pleading to use the government to favor their religious beliefs to harm women if they get pregnant and want or need to not be.

Ooooohhhhh you broken record ...

 

[beagle9]

Ooooohhhhh you broken record ...

Here's the kind of people NFBW associates himself with, and Kennedy just outs them like the knucklehead's that they are. It's amazing what we as American's are putting up with these days with these types of people. Flat outright amazing...

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Sep 22, 2022 ¥blind_boo¥ #3 “The rhythmic fluttering of the nerves”

Sep 22, 2022 ¥ Frankeneinstein ¥ #29 ..btw, a "right" is universal and covers everyone, and when it does not it is then by definition a privilege.”

Apr 27. 2023 NFBW; When an ultrasound picks up the rhythmic fluttering of the nerves of the living human organism inside the belly of a woman (a) does the woman have a universal right to kill it or (b) does the living human organism, with its own unique DNA have a universal right to life which includes protection by a government that forces the woman to submit her body to the government until the baby can be delivered and takes his or her first breath? or (c) mind your own fuckjng business. That decision is between the woman and her doctor. I am for (c) and we need to keep it that way.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

we as American's

NFBW: may I refer to you Americans as anti-choice religious MAGA conservatives both Catholic and Protestant?

I have the impression that ¥ Frankeneinstein ¥ is concerned that I do not refer properly and politely to all the predominantly white Americans who are working very hard to make sure the government will force giving birth on every pregnant woman henceforth until the Raoture.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

APRIL 27, 2024 NFBW: anti feminism in America has been personified into the high priest of the Angry White Male Cult.

His name would be Rush Limtrumpweyrich who famously said at the height his political power

​

“grab a feminazi by the pussy for Jesus if you wanna be a real man “​

Why we have six religious MAGA Catholic conservatives on the Supreme Court today started in the Reagan Era with the success of Weyrich Limbaugh and goofy showman Shaman Trump on TV

Weyrich had it all figured out by 1980 it will be Minority white male dominated Christian Rule.

​

"How many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome: good government? They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."[46] The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Campaign. Edited By Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers. Pantheon Books, 1981.​

​

Paul Michael Weyrich (/ˈweɪrɪk/; October 7, 1942 – December 18, 2008)[1][2][3][4] was an American religious conservative political activist and commentator associated with the New Right. He co-founded the conservative think tanks The Heritage Foundation,[5] the Free Congress Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). He coined the term "moral majority," the name of the political action group Moral Majority that he co-founded in 1979 with Jerry Falwell.​

Paul Weyrich

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Dec 14, 2022 ¥rmdlng_m¥ @Remodeling Maidiac #177 Slavery was settled law at one point too. And yet...


Apr 27, 2023 NFBW: You are wrong Slavery was not written in as settled law in the original Constitution. It had a sunset clause giving southern states twenty years to end importation of slaves for labor.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, is one of a handful of provisions in the original Constitution related to slavery, though it does not use the word “slave.” This Clause prohibited the federal government from limiting the importation of “persons” (understood at the time to mean primarily enslaved African persons) where the existing state governments saw fit to allow it, until some twenty years after the Constitution took effect. It was a compromise between Southern states, where slavery was pivotal to the economy, and states where the abolition of slavery had been accomplished or was contemplated.​

​

Interpretation: The Slave Trade Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Slave Trade Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

230427^slavery​

There is a sense in which the Clause is no longer constitutionally relevant since it expired in 1808. At the time the Constitution was adopted, there was no guarantee whether or when the federal Congress would act to prohibit the importation of slaves. So there is a legitimate inquiry about what took place in the political realm over the 20-year period between the adoption of the Constitution and 1808. During that time period, popular support for the abolition of the slave trade and slavery itself increased both in the United States and in other countries. There was more support for restricting the slave trade initially than slavery itself in this time period. In the 1790s, Congress passed statutes regulating the trade in slaves by U.S. ships on the high seas. The United Kingdom and other countries also passed legislation restricting the slave trade, increasing international pressure on the United States to likewise curb the practice.​

​

In December 1806, President Thomas Jefferson’s annual message to Congress anticipated the upcoming expiration of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. His message said, “I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority constitutionally to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country have long been eager to proscribe.” Does it seem odd that a slave owner was supporting this legislation?​

​

In 1807, the U.S. Congress passed a statute prohibiting the importation of slaves as of the first constitutionally-allowable moment of January 1, 1808.​

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Apr 27, 2023 ¥ Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,505 Roe v “Wade set the table, without it this court would not even have heard the case, in fact it would have never been brought before the court, in fact, all else being equal, this court would not even exist in its current form if not for Roe...in fact Roe v Wade is your Pandora's box now”

NFBW: Did you have a better way to defend your pro choice interests 50 years ago? It’s kind of water over the dam now. I don’t see the rationality of condemning Roe or blaming Roe for the rise of extremist white anti-choice Christians moral minority in this country who cause harm to pregnant women as we speak by denying them their fundamental right to privacy”

 

[Frankeneinstein]

When an ultrasound picks up the rhythmic fluttering of the nerves of the living human organism inside the belly of a woman (a) does the woman have a universal right to kill it or (b) does the living human organism, with its own unique DNA have a universal right to life which includes protection by a government that forces the woman to submit her body to the government until the baby can be delivered and takes his or her first breath? or (c) mind your own fuckjng business. That decision is between the woman and her doctor. I am for (c) and we need to keep it that way.

Since Roe v Wade none of that matters, roe v wade made it perfectly clear that it is up to the court, what you or me think matters not where they are concerned, your semantical charade is meaningless because of it. [it's actually meaningless under any/all circumstances.]

 

[whutTHEYsay]

beagle9 It's amazing what we as American's are putting up with these days with these types of people. Flat outright amazing...


NFBW: Flat outright disgusting is bgl9’s “we Americans” include this racist in the name of Jests. Fuckjing deplorable are bgl9’s racist associates

Bgl9 is a liar because I support Roe states where all abortion by choice is restricted after 24 weeks.

FaithinGod
(@faithingod)
Member Registered
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 3456


Topic starter April 26, 2023 3:16 pm
The two mammies (one Indian and one Black American) were the most irritating of course and their refusal to answer the question is an answer, which of course is "yes"!:

AXETRUTH 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.​

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Did you have a better way to defend your pro choice interests 50 years ago?

No, as the public was overwhelmingly against roe v wade [abortion actually] and would have voted it down...but falling back to asking what was better as opposed to what was right spotlights the weakness of your argument...which is really the problem, no way to counter pro-life without a sympathetic court.

It’s kind of water over the dam now. I don’t see the rationality of condemning Roe or blaming Roe for the rise of extremist white anti-choice Christians moral minority in this country who cause harm to pregnant women as we speak by denying them their fundamental right to privacy”

And as always and with every disagreement no matter the subject ^the above^ is the signature response of a social education that continues to betrays its victims.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

may I refer to you Americans as anti-choice religious MAGA conservatives both Catholic and Protestant?

of course, in fact I encourage it as it signals to us the surrender of your argument.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I don’t see the rationality of condemning Roe or blaming Roe for the rise of extremist white anti-choice Christians moral minority in this country

That is because of a social education, so you should then try and refrain from passing judgement until you do see and understand it...
...it's interesting [ not to mention quite telling] that you see the citing of roe as a court case being the basis for these legal matters on the abortion issue as a condemnation of roe.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I have the impression that ¥ @Frankeneinstein ¥ is concerned that I do not refer properly and politely to all the predominantly white Americans who are working very hard to make sure the government will force giving birth on every pregnant woman henceforth until the Raoture.

TRANSLATION: "Much like the rest of my argument the name calling portion is blowing up in my face"

 

[Frankeneinstein]

When an ultrasound picks up the rhythmic fluttering of the nerves of the living human organism inside the belly of a woman (a) does the woman have a universal right to kill it or

That is not a "right" you describe but a "privilege" posited as a "right". "Universal right" means we all possess it not just members of a certain group.
It's only a right if everyone possesses it, it is otherwise, by definition, a privilege...in this case one of which I don't mind or object.