Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[beagle9]

What exactly have I failed? I vote with the Christians who elected Joe Biden against the Christians who voted for Trump mostly because he put three more MAGA Catholics on the Supreme Court who in turn made a mess of reproductive rights for women in this country and now dark money elites who feed Republican Party coffers are losing their minds because the deplorable’s want three time loser and insurrectionist leader, Trump to run again.

I’m just trying to document it all here as a Constitutionally issue..

What Christian's are voting or voted for Biden ? They don't exist. So you are making up stuff again.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What Christian's are voting or voted for Biden ? They don't exist. So you are making up stuff again.

Evangelicals seem ready to cast their ballots in the 2020 election. Nine in 10 evangelicals by belief are registered to vote, and few are undecided about their presidential choice.​

​

A new survey from Nashville-based LifeWay Research conducted September 9–23 finds President Donald Trump with a sizable lead over Democratic nominee Joe Biden among likely voters with evangelical beliefs. Deep divides, however, persist among evangelicals across ethnic lines.​

​

Overall, 61 percent of evangelicals by belief plan to vote for Trump and 29 percent for Biden. Other candidates garner around 2 percent combined. Fewer than 1 in 10 (8%) are undecided.​

​

Evangelicals by belief are also twice as likely to identify as a Republican (51%) than a Democrat (23%). One in five (20%) say they are independent.​

Presidential preferences​

Evangelical Vote Once Again Split on Ethnic Lines

And far fewer plan to vote third-party in 2020, LifeWay finds.

www.christianitytoday.com

President Trump’s advantage among evangelicals, however, comes primarily from white evangelicals, among whom he leads Biden 73 percent to 18 percent.​

African Americans with evangelical beliefs overwhelmingly plan to vote for Biden (69% to 19%). Among American evangelicals of other ethnicities, however, Trump has a 58 percent to 32 percent lead.​

Latest Survey: Most Evangelicals Are Not Voting Trump​

Individuals with evangelical beliefs who identify with the two largest political parties plan to be loyal to their party’s candidate. Among Republicans with evangelical beliefs, 91 percent say they are voting for Trump. Eight in ten Democrats with evangelical beliefs (81%) support Biden.​

​

Among likely voters who identify as Christian and attend church at least once a month, support for Trump and Biden is evenly split (46% to 45%). As with evangelicals, ethnic divides are also present among churchgoers.​

White churchgoers back Trump 59 percent to 30 percent, while African American churchgoers are solidly behind Biden (86% to 9%). The former vice president also has a sizeable—though smaller—lead among Hispanic churchgoers (58% to 36%) and churchgoers of other ethnicities (49% to 36%).​

​

Based on an online survey of 1,200 Americans was conducted Sept. 9-23, 2020, using a national pre-recruited panel.​

23MAY29 NFBW: The majority of Jews and Catholics also voted for Biden , but you claim to know that the only real Christian born or naturalized on American “secular” soil is a Christian such as yourself and Saint Chemvngnr

Christians overwhelmingly oppose abortion on demand, for any reason.
Our wise Founding Fathers were Christians. They would be appalled at today's murderous Democrats.

You better watch out beagl9 - you might end down In a very hot place if you run around ‘judging’ who is a Christian and who ain’t a Christian. You won’t be going where I am pretty sure MLK is going. You’ll be down there with foul mouthed atheists like ¥@CarsomyrPlusSix ¥

Judge not, that ye be not judged.​

​

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.​

​

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?​

​

Just sayin’

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Just ask Jesus.

{ tshrmp #47 } In reality none of us are "Good". Just ask Jesus ••••• I don't have to be good, but am still forgiven. But I do my best as commanded, but admit I fall short at times.

{ ckvgn #7,823 } Every life is our business.

{ NFBW to tshrmp #47 } Many Christian voters in Kansas rejected protecting unborn life. The heavily pro-Trump/ religious right “value of protecting unborn life” has been rejected at the voting booth in a politically conservative, and highly religious rural red state.

As a Christian based on “doing your best as commanded by Jesus” How do you explain the following *see suppsn #1 Ksnsvs

{ suppsn #1 } Excerpted from:
What Kansas Abortion Vote Means for Democrats, Republicans in the Midterms (newsweek.com)

… In the first electoral test since the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 ruling giving women a federal right to an abortion in June, more than 59 percent of people in Kansas backed upholding the state's constitutional right for women to access the procedure. … In May, electoral analysis firm Split Ticket said banning abortion "is extremely unpopular among voters" and that “Republicans have far more pro-choice voters than Democrats have pro-life ones." . ///// Republicans far outnumbered Democrats in the Kansas primary and 59% of all those Kansas voters voted against amending Kansas's laws which currently uphold a woman's' right to seek an abortion, This indicates Even in the reddest of states, Democrats would be foolish not to make “a woman's right to choose" to be among their major election issues. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because a man should have zero to say regarding the life he created right?

Zincwarrior said: Yes everyone has the right to comment. It’s just fun watching the menfolk mansplain to women about abortion. It’s the perfect example of the issue.

{ 00020 tlftst #20 } “Because a man should have zero to say regarding the life he created”

{ NFBW #9,064 to tlftst #20 } isn’t it true that every white religious right Christian man as head of the family has the proper discussion about family planning with his good Christian wife meaning there is no possibility she would want to have an abortion. Isn’t there nothing to talk about from white conservative Christian men regarding pro-choice women’s rights to bodily autonomy and freedom of choice on abortion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Do you believe the baby in the womb is a HUMAN LIFE?

1srelluc said: Abortion is gonna sink the gop like the Titanic in '24.....Abortion....The gop's iceberg and the gift that keeps on giving for the dems

{Carlinannrbr #9 } Do you believe the baby in the womb is a HUMAN LIFE?

{ NFBW #9,065 to nnrbr #9 } yes, I absolutely believe the baby in the womb is a human life. from the moment of conception, it is a unique human life with its own DNA.

And I believe the anti-choice conservative Christianity voter base is going to sink the GOP if they do not back off the tyranny of the majority crusade for the states.

Do you have a follow up now that I have answered your very important question that we can discuss

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The law used to say a black person was 3/5ths a person.

{ Martybgn #441 } “The law used to say a black person was 3/5ths a person.”

{NFBW #9,066 to tybgn #441 } The United States Constitution does not say that. What law are you talking about? And can you provide the language.

 

[martybegan]

{ Martybgn #441 } “The law used to say a black person was 3/5ths a person.”

{NFBW #9,066 to tybgn #441 } The United States Constitution does not say that. What law are you talking about? And can you provide the language.

The 3/5ths clause when figuring out apportionment.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The 3/5ths clause

{ martybgn #441 } “The law used to say a black person was 3/5ths a person.”

{NFBW #9,066 to tybgn #441 } The United States Constitution does not say that. What law are you talking about? And can you provide the language.

{ martybgn #9,067 to nf #9,066 } The 3/5ths clause when figuring out apportionment.

{NFBW #9,068 to tybgn #9,067 } Apportionment refers to counting slaves who were considered to be indivudual
full persons That means the Constitution considered slaves full persons, They were referred to as “other persons” with reference to their involuntary servitude”

​

The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870. •••• The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.​

​

What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery​

 

[martybegan]

{ martybgn #441 } “The law used to say a black person was 3/5ths a person.”

{NFBW #9,066 to tybgn #441 } The United States Constitution does not say that. What law are you talking about? And can you provide the language.

{ martybgn #9,067 to nf #9,066 } The 3/5ths clause when figuring out apportionment.

{NFBW #9,068 to tybgn #9,067 } Apportionment refers to counting slaves who were considered to be indivudual
full persons That means the Constitution considered slaves full persons, They were referred to as “other persons” with reference to their involuntary servitude”

​

The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870. •••• The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.​

​

What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery​

No, they counted them as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of representation in the house and electoral votes.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No, they counted them as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of representation in the house and electoral votes.

{martybgn #9,069 } No, they counted them as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of representation in the house and electoral votes.

{NFBW to tybgn #9,069 } No. They are full persons but were counted as 3/5 of a citizen of the United States or counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.

(Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state. The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) •​

​

Further proof that you are absolutely incorrect and just repeating into anti choice propaganda is that there were 60,000 freed slaves in the north who were black but they were counted as equals to the whites.

The constitution never was a law that referred to Black people as 3/5 human or as 3/5ths of a person.

 

[martybegan]

No. They are full persons but were counted as 3/5 of a citizen of the United States or counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.

(Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state. The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) •​

​

Further proof that you are absolutely incorrect I’m just repeating into Chinese propaganda that they were 60,000 freed slaves in the north who were black but they were counted as equals to the whites.

The constitution never was a law that referred to Black people as 3/5 human or as 3/5ths of a person.

counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation.

Stop quibbling about semantics you aspie OCD dipshit.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Slaves weren’t people.

It’s beyond absurd this needs to be pointed out to anyone.

If someone needs this explained, then they don’t know the definition of the word “slave” or the word “people.”

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Stop quibbling about semantics you aspie OCD dipshit

Stop lying about what the Constitution actually says when you cite it as part of your lib hate propaganda for saving baby fetus.

 

[martybegan]

Stop lying about what the Constitution actually says when you cite it as part of your lib hate propaganda for saving baby fetus.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

you lied. This is what you originally said.

{ martybgn #441 } “The law used to say a black person was 3/5ths a person.”

That is not true because freed slaves were of course black persons and the law never was what you said it was for your culture war bullshit

Freed slaves were 100 percent black and 100 percent persons.

You are a pathetic liar.

 

[martybegan]

you lied. This is what you originally said.

{ martybgn #441 } “The law used to say a black person was 3/5ths a person.”

That is not true because freed slaves were of course black persons and the law never was what you said it was for your culture war bullshit

Freed slaves were 100 percent black and 100 percent persons.

You are a pathetic liar.

The constitution is the law, and it said for representation slaves were 3/5 of a person. at the time all slaves were black, and most blacks were slaves. That is not a lie.

You are trying to make word games into lying, which just shows you are being an obtuse asshole.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Needlessly, willfully killing an innocent child is wrong, and it is evil, and there is no place for it in any sane society. It is one of the most fucked-up things about our current culture, that we allow this.

0584 { blylck #583 to nf #562 } One does not have to be directly affected by an evil act, to recognize that it is evil, and to wish for that act to be prohibited, and that there be justice for the victim of that act. ••••

{NFBW #9,077 to blylck #583 } Do you agree with the concept that the Congress of the United States of America shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of the Jewish religion? What do you want done to Jewish Rabbis who lead a religion that is the foundation of Christianity wherein the ancient laws going back to Moses do not agree with you edict that there must be justice for the victim of an abortion.

And there is no victim in the womb in the ancient Jewish faith, because it is believed sanctification of life by God begins at first breath.

Have you gone to the mountain and received a new law from the burning bush? Is it carved in stone, the 11th commandment, “thou seeded woman shalt not kill thy baby fetus?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

When we say that 45 states will still offer abortion, they tell us we are trying to deny a womans right to choose!

The Left isn't fooling ANYBODY, and as time goes by towards the elections, it is going to be proven, and that will be the end of the far Left-) Not just here, but in the media-)

00012 imawhsr #12 18y7m Why overturn Roe V Wade? 2 reasons--------->
1. It is bad law, period. Even most Liberal lawyers will tell you so.
2. Because it will return the power to the states. I have no doubt that if Roe V Wade was overturned, 40 to 45 states would still allow abortion, just with restrictions for partial birth. •••• Why would the Left have any kind of problem with that? •••• Lets see if I get this straight, and maybe some CONSERVATIVES could jump in here---------> •••• When the LEFT tries to put MORE regulations on gun owners, they tell everyone they are NOT trying to restrict guns in any manner. •••• When we say that 45 states will still offer abortion, they tell us we are trying to deny a womans right to choose! •••• So you see folks, as we ALL already knew, the far Left is all phony-e-baloney, mixed with a little mac and cheese. They need judges to help them do their thing, cause nobody in their right minds is going to vote for higher taxes, forced government education, open borders, and transfer of wealth. •••• The Left isn't fooling ANYBODY, and as time goes by towards the elections, it is going to be proven, and that will be the end of the far Left-) Not just here, but in the media-)

{ NFBW #9,078 to imawhsr #12 } How did that 2020 election; J6 insurrection and Dobbs and Kansas go for ya?

On abortion, do you think 60 percent of the nations voters are baby killers and and in favor of infanticide?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Something generated those electrical signals.

{ bluesmvn #652 } Are electrical signals a heart?

{ bobblylck #657 } Something generated those electrical signals

{ NFBW #9,079 to blylck #657 } You did not answer the question from #652 .
The electrical signals prior to 24 weeks are not produced by baby fetuses heart pumping baby fetuses blood to and from bsby fetuses lungs. It would take a brain and billions and billions of neurons and neurological connections for there to be an actual blood pumping heart

The six week heart beat impulse is a developing function where the heart will eventually form.

It is the mother’s brain that generates the six week heartbeat sound.

There is no separate person/individusl
with a heart lungs or brain to murder in an abortion before 22 weeks.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The constitution is the law, and it said for representation slaves were 3/5 of a person. at the time all slaves were black, and most blacks were slaves. That is not a lie.

{ 09076 martybgn #9,076 } The constitution is the law, and it said for representation slaves were 3/5 of a person. at the time all slaves were black, and most blacks were slaves. That is not a lie.

Three-fifths Clause ARTICLE I, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 3​

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.​

​

Erik M. Jensen Schott-van den Eynden Professor, Case Western Reserve University Law School​

​

​

The LAW; Representation •••• shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, •••••• three fifths of {the whole number} to all other Persons.

{ NFBW #9,080 to tybgn #9,076 } You are a liar that you defense of semantics cannot cover.

Under the Three-fifths Clause (see actual wording above) black persons who were slaves were to be counted as “other persons” at the time of the census ¥ CarsomyrPlusSix ¥ . Therefore every single “other person who is black” is considered by the Constitution to be a whole person; a 100% person to be counted as such to establish a whole number of “other persons” which would be reduced by 2/5 for purposes of establishing representation for the various state.

The fucking slave states that are currently run by the current Republican Party wanted each of their slaves “other persons” to be counted as a 100 percent person. YOU SHOUKD RUN WITH THAT But that wouid be telling the truth.