Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Redfish]

I do not believe the unborn are worthless..

The unborn have equal right to life and should be protected by society from harm and abuse when they right is granted by the potential birth mother..

then why doesn't the birth mother have the right to kill her kid at 2 years old if he/she becomes inconvenient or burdensome? your logic falls apart when taken to its logical conclusion.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

so the unborn human was alive before the abortion and now he or she is dead----------------and the abortion did not kill him or her? your 'logic' is flawed.

.

There is no such thing as leftist logic.


.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

There is no such thing as leftist logic.

koshergrl lv. Many Americans defend "choice" by denying that they are "pro-abortion." They assert that they are actually "personally

opposed" to abortion but don't believe they have the right to impose that "choice" on others.

But most people who refuse to. legislate morality on abortion, will rightly outlaw the "choice" to brutalize African Americans. The effort to outlaw abortion, like

the campaign to outlaw racial injustice, isn't merely about personal morality.

It is not merely about what a person does. It is about what a person does to another person.

The government should stay out of people's bedrooms (at least until abortions start being performed there), but government

neutrality on genocide is a myth, whether the victim class is defined in terms of age (as in abortion), race, ethnicity or religion, etc. If the government suddenly withdrew legal protections for African Americans, would the government be "staying out of. race," or would it be taking the side of those who think the lynching of African Americans should be a matter of "personal. choice?"

Such governmental "neutrality" would obviously abandon blacks to renewed genocide (A "Whites Only" Web site asserted on the Internet that John William King, convicted of lynching African American James Bird, Jr. by dragging him to death behind a pickup truck in Jasper, Texas, was guilty only of "animal cruelty," according to Newsweek, March 8, 1999).

Would a person be seizing the moral high ground by saying "I am personally opposed to lynching blacks, I just don't think lynching blacks should be against the law?"

Would the "moderate," progressive position on race be to say "I don' t advocate the lynching of blacks but I do believe in the right to lynch blacks?"

Neither is it "moderate" or progressive to make that argument against unborn children.

Racist "states' rights" advocates, in fact, once embraced the classic "pro-choice" position: They argued that if abolitionists didn't like slavery, their remedy was to not buy blacks.

Like abortion today, the government didn't mandate slavery, it was a. matter of personal "choice."

Unlike abortion today, the government didn't subsidize slavery for whites too poor to buy their own Negroes.

But those who "chose" slavery argued that they had a constitutional right to protect their property.

No "outside agitator" had the right to shove their abolitionist (or integrationist during the "Jim Crow" period) morality down the throats of the planter class or the Ku Klux Klan."

http://www.abortionno.org/pdf/whyabortionisgenocide.pdf

kshrgrl 111117 Spaanz00055.

 

[jc456]

koshergrl lv. Many Americans defend "choice" by denying that they are "pro-abortion." They assert that they are actually "personally

opposed" to abortion but don't believe they have the right to impose that "choice" on others.

But most people who refuse to. legislate morality on abortion, will rightly outlaw the "choice" to brutalize African Americans. The effort to outlaw abortion, like

the campaign to outlaw racial injustice, isn't merely about personal morality.

It is not merely about what a person does. It is about what a person does to another person.

The government should stay out of people's bedrooms (at least until abortions start being performed there), but government

neutrality on genocide is a myth, whether the victim class is defined in terms of age (as in abortion), race, ethnicity or religion, etc. If the government suddenly withdrew legal protections for African Americans, would the government be "staying out of. race," or would it be taking the side of those who think the lynching of African Americans should be a matter of "personal. choice?"

Such governmental "neutrality" would obviously abandon blacks to renewed genocide (A "Whites Only" Web site asserted on the Internet that John William King, convicted of lynching African American James Bird, Jr. by dragging him to death behind a pickup truck in Jasper, Texas, was guilty only of "animal cruelty," according to Newsweek, March 8, 1999).

Would a person be seizing the moral high ground by saying "I am personally opposed to lynching blacks, I just don't think lynching blacks should be against the law?"

Would the "moderate," progressive position on race be to say "I don' t advocate the lynching of blacks but I do believe in the right to lynch blacks?"

Neither is it "moderate" or progressive to make that argument against unborn children.

Racist "states' rights" advocates, in fact, once embraced the classic "pro-choice" position: They argued that if abolitionists didn't like slavery, their remedy was to not buy blacks.

Like abortion today, the government didn't mandate slavery, it was a. matter of personal "choice."

Unlike abortion today, the government didn't subsidize slavery for whites too poor to buy their own Negroes.

But those who "chose" slavery argued that they had a constitutional right to protect their property.

No "outside agitator" had the right to shove their abolitionist (or integrationist during the "Jim Crow" period) morality down the throats of the planter class or the Ku Klux Klan."

http://www.abortionno.org/pdf/whyabortionisgenocide.pdf

kshrgrl 111117 Spaanz00055.

More overly wordy salad!

You are for baby killing. Stop skirting the sentence

 

[whutTHEYsay]

nfbw 241117 Vrvwgo12965.

There is no such thing as leftist logic.

NotfooledbyW mdcli. : When a woman terminates her own pregnancy within a few weeks of learning she is pregnant using the abortion pill in the privacy of her home, how are you harmed? nfbw 241022 Vrftma01651

NotfooledbyW xii,cmdxv. : Do you have logic to explain why you want the government to deprive another person of liberty when that person commits no ctime, no act that harms you or all your fellow citizens in anyway when a woman terminates a pregnancy as stated in Vrftma01651 ??????

nfbw 241117 Vrvwgo12965.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

NotfooledbyW mdcli. : When a woman terminates her own pregnancy within a few weeks of learning she is pregnant using the abortion pill in the privacy of her home, how are you harmed? nfbw 241022 Vrftma01651

Do you have logic to explain why you want the government to deprive another person of liberty when that person commits no ctime, no act that harms you or all your fellow citizens in anyway when a woman terminates a pregnancy?

.




Balsamic vinaigrette on the side, please.








.

 

[daveman]

nfbw 241116 Vrfdwgo12955

i. NotfooledbyW xii.cmxlix to 935: The unborn have equal right to life and should be protected by society from harm and abuse when that right is granted by the potential birthmother. nfbw 241116 Vrvwgo12944

ii. daveman xii,cmxlvi to 944: So you're saying everyone has an equal right to life unless someone wants them dead. dvmn 241116 Srvwgo12946

iii. jc456 xii.cmdiv to 12950: Then you said unless the mother decided differently jcNyz 241116 Srvwgo12954

iv. NotfooledbyW xii,cmlv 12954: Yes. I said “mother” in paragraph i. but to be precise I said “potential birthmother”

In paragraph ii. Saint Daveman changed my “potential mother” to “someone”z

My argumeant is based on the absolute sovereignty of the individual to have the right to privacy and autonomy over what happens to an individual’s god-given body.

The “potential birthmother” is the only individual to have sovereignty over the potential human being inside her body.

Whrn Saint Daveman altered my argument to random someone’s instead of “potential birthmother” he lied.

That’s out of the way.

Can you explain why you want the government to deny sovereignty over their own body to women when they become pregnant?

nfbw 241116 Vrfdwgo12955

Do you or do you not support vaccine mandates?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Do you or do you not support vaccine mandates?

yes.

 

[daveman]

Yes. The state has no interest in protecting the developing fetus from being denied life by its potential mother.

daveman xxvii : It really is simple: If you don't want to have a child, or father a child, don't have sex. If you do, be prepared to handle the consequences. dvmn 110630 Ssabio00028

If the people have sex and are not prepared for the consequences and an abortion is the result in a red state like Ohio where it is their constitutional right, what harm must the government protect all the self controlled good Christian Republicans from being inflicted upon them?

There is no Constitutional right to abortion. That's why Roe was overturned.

What is thirteen years of your Republican Christian anti-abortion zealotry accomplishing besides ending western liberal democracy for strong one pussygrabber rule?

You are a completely normal and sane person.

 

[jc456]

nfbw 241117 Vrvwgo12965.


NotfooledbyW mdcli. : When a woman terminates her own pregnancy within a few weeks of learning she is pregnant using the abortion pill in the privacy of her home, how are you harmed? nfbw 241022 Vrftma01651

Why do they make it public?

NotfooledbyW xii,cmdxv. : Do you have logic to explain why you want the government to deprive another person of liberty when that person commits no ctime, no act that harms you or all your fellow citizens in anyway when a woman terminates a pregnancy as stated in Vrftma01651 ??????

How did the government get involved?

 

[jc456]

yes.

So you aren’t for choice!

Explain to me why anyone would need to mandate anything?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

There is no Constitutional right to abortion. That's why Roe was overturned.

You are a completely normal and sane person.

.

My state, the state with the highest population growth rate, just voted down the so-called " constitutional right to abortion".

It feels good to live someplace clean.


.

 

[jc456]

So you aren’t for choice!

Explain to me why anyone would need to mandate anything?

NotfooledbyW why are the vaccinated so afraid of unvaccinated?

 

[daveman]

all abortions are done for convenience (except for a very tiny % that are medically necessary) Using the logic of the left why not allow "abortion" up to 2 years old if the kid becomes inconvenient or burdensome?

It's been suggested.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

 

[daveman]

yes.

Okay. So you're a hypocrite. You don't actually support bodily autonomy.

You're dismissed. Run along. I'm done with your death cult bullshit.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Explain to me why anyone would need to mandate anything?

to prevent ignorant white fundangelical Christians who wants to die all the time anyway to be with Jesus from spreading their virus laden snot and mucus spray all over the rest of us who need to keep this country going. I don’t want you breathing on the 20 year-old clerk at the grocery store, infecting him with it disease. It may not kill him, but when he goes home and his 81 year-old grandmother lives with him. He kills her, so fuck you people you have no fucking reason to compare protecting public health to a woman who takes a abortion pill in the privacy of her own home and harms absolutely no one. No one. That’s no one.

Should I say it again if a woman terminates her pregnancy in the privacy of her home or her doctors office she harms nobody in the public at large.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Okay. So you're a hypocrite. You don't actually support bodily autonomy.

I support bodily autonomy until your diseased body wants to go out in the public and spread your disease and kill people.

Are you for killing people where they work. shop and play?


What the hell is wrong with you?

If you don’t take the virus, isolate yourself until the pandemic is over. You don’t have a right to kill everybody just because you’re stupid

 

[jc456]

to prevent ignorant white fundangelical Christians who wants to die all the time anyway to be with Jesus from spreading their virus laden snot and mucus spray all over the rest of us who need to keep this country going. I don’t want you breathing on the 20 year-old clerk at the grocery store, infecting him with it disease. It may not kill him, but when he goes home and his 81 year-old grandmother lives with him. He kills her, so fuck you people you have no fucking reason to compare protecting public health to a woman who takes a abortion pill in the privacy of her own home and harms absolutely no one. No one. That’s no one.

Why would a vaxxed need to fear an unvaccinated?

Should I say it again if a woman terminates her pregnancy in the privacy of her home or her doctors office she harms nobody in the public at large.

Again, why do they need to announce that?

 

[daveman]

I support bodily autonomy until your diseased body wants to go out in the public and spread your disease and kill people.

Are you for killing people where they work. shop and play?


What the hell is wrong with you?

If you don’t take the virus, isolate yourself until the pandemic is over. You don’t have a right to kill everybody just because you’re stupid

I got the first two shots, the Moderna.

I've had COVID three times since then.

America was lied to. You supported the lies. You support fascism.

I'm done with you.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I'm done

is it because you can’t figure out a way to say that you are harmed when this happens:

NotfooledbyW mdcli. : When a woman terminates her own pregnancy within a few weeks of learning she is pregnant using the abortion pill in the privacy of her home, how are you harmed? nfbw 241022 Vrftma01651