Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[beagle9]

That is because “saving baby fetus movement” agitators like Saint CarsomyrPlusSix have given the demand that we regard the beginning of life, sanctity of life, at conception. I personally believe it begins at first breath as it’s found in Judaism, but that’s not science. Therefore I believe we human beings as a secular society have an interest in protecting life in the womb as a matter of science. Science can tell us when a fetus has an individual capability to be conscious. That does not change the fact that the constitution has a live birth requirement for the right to life to begin for each and everyone of us.

You personally believe it begins at first breath you say, so you have basically said what independent thinker is saying you have said, and that is that you really think that a woman should have the right to choose at any given time in her pregnancy, otherwise to abort along the development chain if she so chooses. He actually tricked or tripped you up into admitting it.

 

[beagle9]

" Traitors For Sedition "

* Disingenuous Buffoonery *

You keep it inside you !

You carry it term !

You keep it for life !

Photoshopped. And if it isn't photoshopped how do you know that what we are seeing in that picture can't grow out of that situation, and become a very gifted individual that will teach other's how to be empathetic, compassionate, and loving caring individuals in their live's, otherwise instead of these narcissistic, greed loving sick human beings who now think that debauchery is something normal to celebrate instead of life itself.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Even fair-minded and intelligent juries can still make mistakes.

This is living undeniable example of the fact that the “Saving Baby Fetus Movement” is the gateway drug that leads to absolute abandonment of every democratic institution and judicial system for the protection of individual liberty based upon rational and positive American values and norms. The Trump Cult.

IF a jury finds Trump guilty of anything,
every Trump cult member is programmed and therefore has to conclude that every jurist was picked and bought off and became a creature of the “deep state” swamp.

Because as Dear Leader explains the only reality that is truth ; TRUMP is “the only one who can save this nation.” Now surpassing Jesus Christ Almighty himself. The only one deserving credit for overturning Roe v Wade

The US is a "nation in serious decline," Trump continued. "If the communists get away with this, it won't stop there - [the] persecution of Christians, pro-life parents, future Republican candidates."​

"I will totally obliterate the deep state, we know who they are.​

​

"I am the only one who can save this nation.​

Donald Trump: Former president lashes out at opponents in angry speech hours after Miami court appearance

He attacked a range of prominent public figures in the speech including Bill and Hillary Clinton, President Joe Biden and his family, and the prosecutor in the Miami legal case.

news.sky.com

"Justice will be done, we will take back our country," he finished.​

bckvgn.23.06.17 #102
nf.23.06.18 #9,303

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You personally believe it begins at first breath you say,

Yes. I hit the SCIENCE CONSTITUTION RELIGION trifecta:

nf.22.07.31 #4,082 Science teaches that what we humans refer to as human life is scientifically and biologically contingent upon a pre-born person being physically formed sufficiently to make a once in a lifetime, spark of life switch at a moment when the individual persons’ time in the natural universe comes into being and the switch is pulled. It comes with first breath as in Jewish spiritual belief for thousands of years when the fetal shunts are functionally modified or eliminated, enabling independent life. •••• Science describes the physiological flip of the switch:​

Formation of the human heart involves complex biological signals, interactions, specification of myocardial progenitor cells, and heart tube looping. To facilitate survival in the hypoxemic intrauterine environment, the fetus possesses structural, physiological, and functional cardiovascular adaptations that are fundamentally different from the neonate. •••• The Transitional Heart: From Early Embryonic and Fetal Development to Neonatal Life - PubMed ••••​

At birth, upon separation from the placental circulation, the neonatal cardiovascular system takes over responsibility of vital processes for survival. The transition from the fetal to neonatal circulation is considered to be a period of intricate physiological, anatomical, and biochemical changes in the cardiovascular system. With a successful cardiopulmonary transition to the extrauterine environment, the fetal shunts are functionally modified or eliminated, enabling independent life.​

​

bgl.23.06.18 #9,301​

nf.23.06.18 #9,304​

​

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Pathetic Incompetent Negligent Disgraceful Sedition "

* Abortion Anti-Choice Fee Press Propaganda Photoshopped Us Constitution *

Photoshopped. And if it isn't photoshopped how do you know that what we are seeing in that picture can't grow out of that situation, and become a very gifted individual that will teach other's how to be empathetic, compassionate, and loving caring individuals in their live's, otherwise instead of these narcissistic, greed loving sick human beings who now think that debauchery is something normal to celebrate instead of life itself.

The alito is not gifted on this issue , as the fee press , jurisprudence at large , abortion choice , abortion anti-choice and political pundits , he is pathetically , disgracefully , ignorant , if not purposely deceitful of us constitution !

The dobbs decision is dumbfounded and sedition against us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments that is supported by traitors to us republic !

The image is not photoshoppped , it is my copy for other social mediums !

See page 10 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was reg-
ulated differently, but the most critical line was drawn at
roughly the end of the second trimester, which, at the time,
corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought to
achieve “viability,” i.e., the ability to survive outside the
womb. Although the Court acknowledged that States had
a legitimate interest in protecting “potential life,”1 it found
that this interest could not justify any restriction on pre-
viability abortions. The Court did not explain the basis for
this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard
to defend Roe’s reasoning. One prominent constitutional
scholar wrote that he “would vote for a statute very much
like the one the Court end[ed] up drafting” if he were “a
legislator,” but his assessment of Roe was memorable and
brutal: Roe was “not constitutional law” at all and gave “al-
most no sense of an obligation to try to be.”2

None should need to explain a " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest ... not ... prior to live birth . " statement of blackmun to a supreme court justice , however every nomination for us supreme court justice should be required to explain it , and every supreme court justice currently on the bench should be expected to be able to explain it !

Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade

" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade " * On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism * The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[HikerGuy83]

Just a bunch of disgraceful pathetic embarrassments that need to be humiliated for their negligence and incompetence in not providing sufficient informed consent to the public at large !

Go get'em tiger.

Good luck.

 

[HikerGuy83]

No! The state has the right to regulate what I do on public streets and highways to protect me from harm.

A woman who decides to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, does so in private as matters of health are intended to be.

If I was worried about my skull, being crushed in a rollover, I can wear a helmet. I have that freedom of choice. A woman who lives in a republican red state, who is worried about the risk of harm pain and potential death from her unwanted pregnancy going full term, has lost that freedom of choice.

She can't go somewhere else and get an abortion ?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Amazing how such a complex issue can be viewed in only one way by both sides.

This thread and all the back-and-and forth (looking very much like a lite-beer commercial) with nobody listening (just screaming) is a true testament to the arrogant component of human nature.

I am going to report the thread and request it be put in the B.S. forum.

It is certainly no discussion about the constitution.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It is a fallacy to declare that the states have a right to force gestation on a woman, causing her physical mental and financial harm by banning her access to an abortion.

I know you mean to include backup for your assertion that this is a fallacy or that such a condition exists in general.

But somehow it didn't upload.

Can you please include it. This would be the argument you are making and the supporting documentation.

 

[beagle9]

Amazing how such a complex issue can be viewed in only one way by both sides.

This thread and all the back-and-and forth (looking very much like a lite-beer commercial) with nobody listening (just screaming) is a true testament to the arrogant component of human nature.

I am going to report the thread and request it be put in the B.S. forum.

It is certainly no discussion about the constitution.

You watching lite beer commercials ?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

"Logically" a person's Constitutional rights should begin when their fucking life does and not just when the Government or Society can not justify the denial of their basic human rights any longer.

I am a Jeffersonian rational theist. I am a father of three daughters. Grandfather of seven. The latest is almost one week since birth.

I believe my rights of personhood began at first breath. My first breath like most who survive birth came within that brief period of intricate physiological, anatomical, and biochemical changes in our cardiovascular system. My body made the successful transition from the fetal to the neonatal circulation biological process of my own. The fetal shunts in my heart automatically were functionally modified or eliminated enabling what was to become my independent life.

My Constitutional right to life with a state interest in protecting me began when I was born.

It’s not negotiable that my daughters, my wife and I be forced to believe or give up available medical treatment based on Catholic doctrine demanding the state has an interest in fetal life from the moment of conception until death.

Our belief that the value of life begins at first breath harms no person; it is a matter of conscience for ourselves, The unborn have no right to life except concurrent with the right to life of the mother who intends to give birth to her baby.

Our right to our belief is protected by the Constitution. The right to life of the unborn as a separate individual does not exist in the Constitution. Constitutional jurisdiction apply specifically to those of us who were born.

This is entirely a discussion about the Constitution - a reminder to HikerGuy83

chzlf.20.08.21 #2
nf.23.06.18 #9,311
*Dobbs.pg47

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It is certainly no discussion about the constitution.

See post #9,311

I know you mean to include backup for your assertion that this is a fallacy or that such a condition exists in general.

It’s the live birth requirement and the 14th Amendment where a state cannot abridge the privilege of avoiding harm and potential death by carrying a fetus full term.

The 14th amendment states that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

In that equal protection with a citizen requires live birth , states are prohibited from protecting a wright to life of any which has not met a live birth requirement to receive it , and states are therefore prohibited from proscribing abortion

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It is a fallacy to declare that the states have a right to force gestation on a woman, causing her physical mental and financial harm by banning her access to an abortion.

I know you mean to include backup for your assertion that this is a fallacy or that such a condition exists in general. ••>•• Can you please include it. This would be the argument you are making and the supporting documentation.

It’s the live birth requirement and the 14th Amendment where a state cannot abridge the privilege of avoiding harm and potential death by carrying a fetus full term.

This anti-abort respectfully disagrees.
I am just starting to dissect the leaked document, myself. So far, the gist of it is that the SCOTUS intends to overturn Roe and to do so in such a way to leave it up to each State Lawmakers to independently decide the legality of abortion in their State. ••••
That is but a tiny step in the right direction.
What the SCOTUS could have done and SHOULD have done it Deal with the issue of "personhood" and when personhood begins, Head on and then explicitly tie their decision to the 14th Amendment where it clearly says that "all persons (regardless of age or stage of development" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

Tell me beagle9 @HikerGuy CarsomyrPlusSix that the Constitution does not have a live birth stipulation that individuals living under it’s jurisdiction have rights from the moment they are born. It says nothing about individuals having a right to life at the moment of conception,
You are expressing a fallacy with the contention that the 14th Anendment says what Chuz Life fabricated in post #3 where hec imagines that it says "all persons (regardless of age or stage of development" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

THE CONSTITUTION I READ SAYS “BORN”

We are not BORN in nature until we have a functional individual brain and birth happens nine months or so after conception.

Can Chuz Life rewrite the Constitution because he thinks he’s a Saint who is Saving Baby Fetus,

nf.23.06.15 #9,231
hkrgy.23.06.18 #9,309
nf.23.06.18 #9,312
chzlf.22.05.16 #3
nf.23.06.18 #9,313

 

[whutTHEYsay]

democrats are desperate for legal abortion to hold down the black population the welfare roles are taking money needed for the war in ukraine

Or perhaps 15 week brainless fetuses are not members of the universal personhood of human beings with brains who can read the US Constitution and see that the word “born ” is used with no mention that life is protected prior to birth.

thmrrrthf.23.06.18 #503
nf.23.06.19 #9,314

 

[beagle9]

Tell me beagle9 @HikerGuy CarsomyrPlusSix that the Constitution does not have a live birth stipulation that individuals living under it’s jurisdiction have rights from the moment they are born. It says nothing about individuals having a right to life at the moment of conception,
You are expressing a fallacy with the contention that the 14th Anendment says what Chuz Life fabricated in post #3 where hec imagines that it says "all persons (regardless of age or stage of development" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

THE CONSTITUTION I READ SAYS “BORN”

We are not BORN in nature until we have a functional individual brain and birth happens nine months or so after conception.

Can Chuz Life rewrite the Constitution because he thinks he’s a Saint who is Saving Baby Fetus,

nf.23.06.15 #9,231
hkrgy.23.06.18 #9,309
nf.23.06.18 #9,312
chzlf.22.05.16 #3
nf.23.06.18 #9,313

Life is life regardless of what stage of development it is in boy. When you do certain things to stop a life be it after birth or within the developmental stages, then you are stopping a life cycle from existing whether it is within a womb or without.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Life is life regardless of what stage of development it is in boy. When you do certain things to stop a life be it after birth or within the developmental stages, then you are stopping a life cycle from existing whether it is within a womb or without.

This discussion is in the Constitution forum
as HikerGuy83 was so kind to point out. So life is not life according to the Constitution. Life is distinguishable between “unborn” life and “born” life with only the latter being Constitutionally jurisdictional protected.

White extremist love for the “risen from the dead” and “born of a virgin” Jesus Christ is driving your obsession to save Baby Fetus. which is also driving you to your unconstitutional and anti-American and anti-secular behavior.

As a Christian aren’t you supposed to submit to government as spelled out in Romans 13?

13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will [a]bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to executewrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore youmust be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.​

If it existed in Paul’s time, The US Constitution as written and amended Is not a terror to good works; rather it is a terror to evil. You need to render unti the US Constitutional Secular AUTHORITY that Baby Fetus does not have individual person privileges with protected life status except as protected through the rights of its mother. That is if you believe everything that is written in the Holy Bible. including rendering unto Ceasar guided your Christian MAFA life.

bvvgl.22.06.19 #9,315
nf.23.06.19 #9,316

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Tell me beagle9 @HikerGuy CarsomyrPlusSix that the Constitution does not have a live birth stipulation that individuals living under it’s jurisdiction have rights from the moment they are born

The Constitution does not have any such text. You're an insane and evil liar.

It says nothing about individuals having a right to life at the moment of conception

It says nothing about a right to life at all other than by implication in the 5th.

The Declaration of Independence is where the right to life is noted, natural and unalienable, and bestowed upon human beings at their creation.

Birth isn't creation, retard.


You are so obnoxious and so wrong and so boring. You calling anyone brainless as a disparagement is a joke, you braindead shit.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Tell me beagle9 @HikerGuy CarsomyrPlusSix that the Constitution does not have a live birth stipulation that individuals living under it’s jurisdiction have rights from the moment they are born. It says nothing about individuals having a right to life at the moment of conception,
You are expressing a fallacy with the contention that the 14th Anendment says what Chuz Life fabricated in post #3 where hec imagines that it says "all persons (regardless of age or stage of development" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

THE CONSTITUTION I READ SAYS “BORN”

We are not BORN in nature until we have a functional individual brain and birth happens nine months or so after conception.

Can Chuz Life rewrite the Constitution because he thinks he’s a Saint who is Saving Baby Fetus,

nf.23.06.15 #9,231
hkrgy.23.06.18 #9,309
nf.23.06.18 #9,312
chzlf.22.05.16 #3
nf.23.06.18 #9,313

I asked you to support your claim about women being forced to suffer.

This has nothing to do with that.

Second, your claims about being born in nature, do nothing to address the constitution.

The fact is that the SCOTUS dumped abortion back to the states.

Where you can make all the silly arguments you want.

 

[HikerGuy83]

o life is not life according to the Constitution.

What are you talking about ?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It says nothing about individuals having a right to life at the moment of conception,

The Declaration of Independence is where the right to life is noted, natural and unalienable, and bestowed upon human beings at their creation.

You must be referring to this;

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”​

Can you prove that the CREATOR i.e.“Natures God” of human beings i.e.“MEN” must be interpreted to mean that the creation of human beings in Jefferson’s day occurs at conception as opposed to live birth?

They knew about miscarriage in Colonial America so you cannot convince without proof the fine readers on this glorious thread that Jefferson regarded the discharge of an aborted fetus to be a “man” or a “woman” to be a human being with the same inalienable rights of ”man or woman” who has met a live birth requirement in the natural world that Jefferson studiously became one of the most knowledgeable thinkers of that era.

nf.23.06.18 #9,313
myrpls.23.06.19 #9,317
nf.23.06.19