Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[whutTHEYsay]

Slaves literally can not be people. This is not up for debate.

Based on what? HERE IS MY SOURCE.

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).

What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery


What is yours?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

^ Learn English, retard.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Learn English, retard.

You can do better than that can’t you? You have no clue how to counter the facts that have been presented to you. The Constitution considered slaves to be other persons. The Constitution does not consider fetuses to be persons whether in the belly of a woman who is free or was being held in slavery.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It is not bad news for Conservatives. It is just bad for the feelings of Trumpers.

It’s bad news for conservatives who appreciate Trump’s only accomplishment which was to rubber stamp Leonard Leo’s groomed Catholic Supreme Court Justices who finally managed to torment women as a states right to torment women by overturning Roe v Wade. Swing state women now know what every Republican President will do to take away their rights.

whvtv.23.06.28 #11
nf.23.06.28 #9,444

 

[White 6]

It’s bad news for conservatives who appreciate Trump’s only accomplishment which was to rubber stamp Leonard Leo’s groomed Catholic Supreme Court Justices who finally managed to torment women as a states right to torment women by overturning Roe v Wade. Swing state women now know what every Republican President will do to take away their rights.

whvtv.23.06.28 #11
nf.23.06.28 #9,444

Well, after 50 years in place, there was nothing conservative about opening that can of worms again, actually a radical change/radical move. Radical is the opposite of conservative. Just because some people that call themselves conservative want a radical change back to the 60s, does not make it conservative to turn back the clock to a time when 2 or 3 generations weren't even born and back room abortions were an unregulated medical practice.

 

[BackAgain]

Well, after 50 years in place, there was nothing conservative about opening that can of worms again, actually a radical change/radical move. Radical is the opposite of conservative. Just because some people that call themselves conservative want a radical change back to the 60s, does not make it conservative to turn back the clock to a time when 2 or 3 generations weren't even born and back room abortions were an unregulated medical practice.

Correcting a mistake is always proper. It’s not radical.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

As people become separated from each other and bow the knee to the wonders of technology, will religion simply disappear?

Only religious people think religion is somehow crucial to society and that it somehow makes people more moral.

Only atheists think that hollow feeling inside has nothing to do with lack of faith & it somehow makes them enlightened.

Show me the part of the Constitution where it guarantees women the right to murder babies. •••• You can't just invent a Constitutional right to infanticide

The demise of Christianity has to be linked to all the white fundamentalists Christians who formed the Saving Baby Fetus Cult and Republican propaganda Machine around the time Paul Weyrich coined the term "moral majority," as the name of the political action group Moral Majority that he co-founded in 1979 with Jerry Falwell.

Most Christians lean left politically but all the upcoming generations of potential new Christians only hear the absurd anti-rational noise from the likes of johngaltshrugged in post #4 (see above). JGS calls the medical procedure that should be kept private, “murder and infanticide” when there is no 2nd person/victim involved if a woman ends an unwanted pregnancy in a fifteen week abortion..

shckdcndn 23.03.21 #1
vccpd.23.03.21 #3
jhngltshrggd.23.03.21 #6 to #3 oat•mte
jhngltshrggd.23.05.03 #4
nf.23.06.28 #9,447

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It’s bad news for conservatives who appreciate Trump’s only accomplishment ••>•• overturning Roe v Wade.

What Well, after 50 years in place, there was nothing conservative about opening that can of worms again, actually a radical change/radical move. Radical is the opposite of conservative. Just because some people that call themselves conservative want a radical change back to the 60s, does not make it conservative to turn back the clock to a time when 2 or 3 generations weren't even born and back room abortions were an unregulated medical practice.

Correcting a mistake is always proper. It’s not radical.

Justice Alito said this with the Dobbs Mistake:

“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​

My second daughter was born about the time Roe v Wade was passed. I got snipped. A woman’s right to control her own child bearing life was appropriate, rational and made sense to me. Nothing immoral about it unless you are Catholic. No one forces Catholics to abort their gifts from God.

Then comes Dobbs. It’s a WTF ruling. When Alito said he does not question the motives of those who oppose laws restricting abortion. it means he knows the Constitution does not give states the right to intervene on behalf of “Baby Fetus” and cause physical and financial harm to any law abiding citizen. Specifically for a medical procedure that is formally
done in private.

Dobbs unleashed chaos.

The only silver lining is taking down the Republican Party with the melee cult of Trump white Christian tribalism.

whvtv.34.06.28 #9,445
nf.23.06.28 #9,444
bckvgn.23.06.28 #9,446
nf.23.06.29 #9,448

 

[beagle9]

Correcting a mistake is always proper. It’s not radical.

Yep, back room abortions was a bad thing, and correcting that problem by making an even bigger one seems to be what government is damned good at doing. So I agree.

 

[beagle9]

Affirmative action - Gone... How about them apples boy ? The race hustle is fading, now what ?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

1

will religion simply disappear? If so, what will be Humankinds guiding light?

2

It’s bad news for conservatives who appreciate Trump’s only accomplishment which was ••>•• overturning Roe v Wade.

3

Correcting a mistake is always proper. It’s not radical.

4

Dobbs unleashed chaos.

5

Yep, back room abortions was a bad thing, and correcting that problem by making an even bigger one seems to be what government is damned good at doing. So I agree.

6

But FAIR is not what the left wants..........They DEMAND ABORTION ON DEMAND in blue States, and then say we WILL ALLOW YOU TO DO 15 WEEKS in your state. LOL
If we lived in a reasonable world the Mississippi law would be made to the entire nation. ENTIRE NATION. But we no longer live in a reasonable world.

7

I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of the Heavens and the Earth. •••• I believe Jesus Christ died for our sins and is the son of God. •••• Anyone that doesn't believe that may quite frankly Go to Hell.

8

I agree with a compromise down to 15 weeks.

Post 6 says a fifteen week limit on legal abortions would be a reasonable compromise between left and right. The thought comes from a serious Jesus Christ believer as Post 7 confirms.

In Post 1 shockedcanadian brings attention to a reasonable concern for those like Eagle14 who are committed to the Christian religion in America. What is causing vanishing Christianity and what will replace the overall dominant religion in America that peaked in the fifties?

Nine out of ten abortions occur before the sixteenth week. We have a Christian agreeing that states have no interest in protecting fetal life from their mother’s until after week fifteen.

In Post 3 we are told that Roe vs Wade provided a way for women to prevent harm to themselves if confronted with an unwanted pregnancy was a mistake, in that context therefore allowing 15 weeks for women to prevent harm to themselves gives them a nine week window where ninety percent of abortions occur. A fifteen week ban has to be a mistake too. And that is not reasonable.

So will Christianity continue to decline? Absolutely because Dobbs brings out the absurd and unreasonable hypocritical face of Christian extremism because they cannot agree among themselves on when pregnant women must be stopped from trying to prevent harm to their bodies and lives.

1 shckdcndn 23.03.21 #1
2 nf.23.06.28 #9,444
3 bckvgn.23.06.28 #9,446
4 nf.23.06.29 #9,448
5 bvvgl.23.06.29 #9,449 to #9,446
6 evgle.22.06.26 #2
7 evgle.14.06.21 #31
8 evgle.23.05.15 #3,399 to #3,398
nf.23.06.29 #9,451

 

[White 6]

Justice Alito said this with the Dobbs Mistake:

“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​

My second daughter was born about the time Roe v Wade was passed. I got snipped. A woman’s right to control her own child bearing life was appropriate, rational and made sense to me. Nothing immoral about it unless you are Catholic. No one forces Catholics to abort their gifts from God.

Then comes Dobbs. It’s a WTF ruling. When Alito said he does not question the motives of those who oppose laws restricting abortion. it means he knows the Constitution does not give states the right to intervene on behalf of “Baby Fetus” and cause physical and financial harm to any law abiding citizen. Specifically for a medical procedure that is formally
done in private.

Dobbs unleashed chaos.

The only silver lining is taking down the Republican Party with the melee cult of Trump white Christian tribalism.

whvtv.34.06.28 #9,445
nf.23.06.28 #9,444
bckvgn.23.06.28 #9,446
nf.23.06.29 #9,448

Not bad. You had something to say and did it well.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Well, after 50 years in place, there was nothing conservative about opening that can of worms again, actually a radical change/radical move.

Correcting a mistake is always proper.

So I agree.

Polling since Dobbs tells us that a third of Republican leaning conservatives agree with the post at the top. We can surmise therefore some of that agreement is based upon the concept of prevention of harm to the women who are confronted with an unplanned pregnancy and do not want to take the risk or pay the cost of giving birth.

The bottom two posters are on record saying that preventing harm due to childbirth to women is a mistake. Deductive logic tells me “Baby Fetus” savers are in favor of harming (punishing) women by forcing full term gestation on women for the “sin” of having unprotected sex. TOUGH GUYS THEY ARE!

whvtv.23.06.28 #9,445
bckvgn.23.06.28 #9,446
bvvgl.23.06.29 #9,449 to #9,446
nf.23.06.29 #9,453

 

[HikerGuy83]

What you do not understand is that your brain has been washed by mostly white Christian and entirely right wing white nationalists anti-abortion political propaganda..

Really ?

Can you support that accusation with facts ?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Deductive logic tells me “Baby Fetus” savers are in favor of harming (punishing) women by forcing full term gestation on women for the “sin” of having unprotected sex. TOUGH GUYS THEY ARE!

Absolute nonsensical rubbish.

Kids aren’t a punishment. Kids aren’t harm.

No one cares about the sex, just don’t kill kids. You’re a brainless retard. Stop wasting oxygen.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Like denying healthcare to women.

I fail to understand the idea that murdering a fetus is actually "healthcare".

What you do not understand is that your brain has been washed by mostly white Christian and entirely right wing white nationalists anti-abortion political propaganda..

Really? Can you support that accusation with facts ?

Have you asked Independentthinker for support of the “Saving Baby Fetus Cult” fifty year propaganda that the medical procedure of abortion is murder/homicide/infanticide committed by the woman and her doctor?

I was explaining it is my opinion that Thinker lacks understanding of women’s because of relentless propaganda against the reproductive freedom that woman to which women are entitled.


tmmytnnt.23.02.09 #3
thnkr.23.02.09 #8
nf.24.06.23 #9,359
hkrgvy.23.06.29 #9,454
nf.23.06.29 #9,456

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Kids aren’t a punishment. Kids aren’t harm.

Never said they are. Forced gestation to full term physically and mentally harms and can kill women. A woman who is unintentionally pregnant is the only person who has a say whether or not if she wants to take the risk to her person and her life of giving birth.

myrpls.23.06.29 #9,455

• 59 minutes ago

• Add bookmark
• #9,457

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Never said they are.

You literally just did, you lying piece of shit, which is why I’m just going to remind you once again how much better off we’d all be if you gave yourself a buckshot facelift.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Deductive logic tells me “Baby Fetus” savers are in favor of harming (punishing) women by forcing full term gestation on women for the “sin” of having unprotected sex.

Kids aren’t a punishment. Kids aren’t harm.

Never said they are.

You literally just did,

No. You are lying. I wrote at the top that it is {“Baby Fetus savers” forcing gestation } on women that causes harm to women. There is no kid involved.

nf.23.06.29 #9,453
myrpls.23.06.29 #9,455
nf.23.06.29 #9,457
myrpls.23.06.29 #9,458
nf.23.06.29 #9,459

 

[whutTHEYsay]

If you want to stop abortions, you need to prevent the “disease" - meaning, unwanted pregnancies. And the only way to do that, is by focusing on men, because: MEN CAUSE 100% OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES. Or. IRRESPONSIBLE EJACULATIONS BY MEN CAUSE 100% OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES

What would that look like? What if there was a real and immediate consequence for men who cause an unwanted pregnancy? What kind of consequence would make sense? Should it be as harsh, painful, nauseating, scarring, expensive, risky, and life-altering…

… as forcing a woman to go through a 9-month unwanted pregnancy?
In my experience, men really like their testicles. If irresponsible ejaculations were putting their balls at risk, they would stop being irresponsible. Does castration seem like a cruel and unusual punishment? Definitely.

But is it worse than forcing 500,000 women a year to puke daily for months, gain 40 pounds, and then rip their bodies apart in childbirth? Is a handful of castrations worse than women dying during forced pregnancy & childbirth?

1. There is no such right (to avoid physical harm).

Then if 500,000 women a year cannot avoid puking daily for months, gaining 40 pounds, and then having their bodies ripped apart in childbirth and maybe be one of the one hundred or so to die, then why can’t society torture the male who was irresponsible with his ejaculation into the woman who did not want to be tortured like that.

If your girl get’s pregnant but doesn’t want to gestate a fetus for nine months why not have the state torrture you equally for nine months. And you get the death penalty if she dies.

synthhlc.23.06.23 #1
hkrgy.23.06.25 #9,217
nf.23.06.29 #9,460