Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[beagle9]

" Unprincipled Arrogance Of Reservation By Apex Predators "

* Well Beyond Not Being Concerned With The Only Legal Interests That Matter *

As a fetus is without constitutional protections , it is private property of the mother , by virtue of self ownership through progeny from principles of individualism .

Any act of illegitimate aggression , whether unintentional or intentional , which causes injury or death to a fetus is an offense against the mother and a punishment for the act can be the same as if the injury or death had happened to the mother .

A clear distinction between legitimate versus illegitimate aggression is informed consent , and because the mother provides consent for an abortion an act of abortion is legitimate , whether or not an abortion is perceived as aggression .

Can't get beyond the life of the fetus being a human life also can you ?? Your attributing the act of murder of a mother and her baby therefore being an offense against the mother mainly is simply ridiculous...... Over the many year's that cases have been settled on the issue, the mother and child within her are seen as two separate live's that were slaughtered, so the charges are appropriate in the person being charged with both the mother and child having lost their lives in the event...... Period............its not just the mother who was with child being somehow by the courts interpreted as one losing just her life in the event, but it is always interpreted as two live's being lost in the event. The courts didn't say "hey let's just go ahead and charge the perp with two live's anyway, although we see it as one life being lost. See how ridiculous you sound ?

 

[beagle9]

" Shit Talkers Making Sure To Censure The Actual Constitutional Basis For Abortion "

* Traitors To Us Constitution And E Pluribus Unum Us Republic Credo *

So says you as a traitor to self ownership which is entitled to individuals per principles of individualism .

* Dumb Shit Not Worth A Reply *


* Non Aggression Principles Acronym Indicative Of Taking A Nap In Reason *

That is another idiotic assumption , as by principles of non violence , by definition violence is illegitimate aggression , while self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

To presume that all aggression is illegitimate is blathering stupidity .

" Go fuck yourself ! " , how is that for legitimate aggression ?

Does Non Violence Principles Correct Non Aggression Principles Lexicon ?

"Does Non Violence Principles Correct Non Aggression Principles Lexicon ? " * Definition Buy Explanation * Social systems include allowable limits of aggression ; thus , by definition , violence is illegitimate aggression . This is a call to correctly annotate an understanding for terms . A...

www.usmessageboard.com

* Drivel Of Neophytes Perpetrating Ignorance Of Nature *

Your wicked wisdom won't prevail over those who have Godly wisdom. Fact.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221119-#5,672 “No religious argument was made in overturning Roe v Wade.”

NFBW: I make no case that a religious argument was made in the courtroom to overturn Roe v Wade. Of course the case was decided in Dobbs as a states rights issue to stick with the Constitution.

ding221118-#5,653 That will be up to each state to decide for itself.

NFBW: What I said was as follows, to which you have not responded.

NFBW221118-#5,656 I am saying that the argument against reproductive rights for all women no matter where they live, is coming directly from the political right (Trumpism) in this country which is exclusively driven by and financed by mostly white Christians, both Catholic and Protestant.​

​

NFBW: I will wait to see if you are able and willing to respond specifically to the above. Do you refute that which is underlined above?

END2211191003 Laguna Beach

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Non Nomian Final Valuation Of Hue Mammon Kind By No Name Will One Make A Law "

* Absolved And Not Worried About Pompous Pretenses *

Your wicked wisdom won't prevail over those who have Godly wisdom. Fact.

So says you , an antinomian heretic .

Surah 47:4
So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if God had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of God - never will He waste their deeds.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Ad Nausea Definitely Not Ridiculous "

* Live Birth Requirement For Equal Protection Is Perfect Constitutional Originalism *

Can't get beyond the life of the fetus being a human life also can you ?? Your attributing the act of murder of a mother and her baby therefore being an offense against the mother mainly is simply ridiculous...... Over the many year's that cases have been settled on the issue, the mother and child within her are seen as two separate live's that were slaughtered, so the charges are appropriate in the person being charged with both the mother and child having lost their lives in the event...... Period............its not just the mother who was with child being somehow by the courts interpreted as one losing just her life in the event, but it is always interpreted as two live's being lost in the event. The courts didn't say "hey let's just go ahead and charge the perp with two live's anyway, although we see it as one life being lost. See how ridiculous you sound ?

Get beyond it ?

I am far beyond it as anyone can tell .

 

[beautress]

Calling the SCOTUS decision to turn this matter over to the state and not the feds shows that individual states should have been given the power over abortions in their states, and not the federal government. Whether or not people can get an abortion is intensely a state issue and not a fed issue. The SCOTUS simply turned over the power not to the federal government, but to the local states. It's just that simple. It was not abolished at all, unless the state says so, not the feds. It is and always should have been a state's right of governance. If the issue makes you wild eyed, you need to take to the state legislature if you have a petition or can show the majority of the people in your state are pro-abortion, and not pro-life. Now, the federal courts do not have to take on a state's rights issue, where it should have been placed by the former court who misplaced states rights decision-making issues. For years, pro-lifers have had to pay through the nose for what they feel is unfair, which is the taking of human life from someone in the initial stages of life which is borne out in the womb. It is a state's right to decide the whats and wherefores of abortion, not the federal government. It's just that simple. The current SCOTUS merely corrected the maelstrom about who pays for what in abortion as a local resolution.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No religious argument was made in overturning Roe v Wade. Read the decision.

DudleySmith220529-#3,586 “Some keep babbling about 'states' rights' here; it's still murder just because the Fed is out of the game. It's a distinction without a difference.”

ding220719-#3,592 Is it a distinction without a difference? I can see how one might view it that way but each branch of government has a different job to do. SCOTUS did their job by kicking it back to the states to decide how to handle abortion. It remains to be seen if the federal legislature will enact federal legislation. But SCOTUS was correct in telling the state and federal legislatures to do your job. It's not the court's job to write laws. So for me it is not a distinction without a difference. It's a wake up.

NFBW: Perhaps you can explain ding how the DOBBS decision settled a human rights issue when it eradicated a right of viable humans (depending on gender and where they live) in order to allow states to ban a medical procedure that religious cultural Christian proponents consi der to be murder of a person as yet not born but having the same human rights as all of us who are born?

By ditching human rights of pregnant women to give states authority to decide by election whether a fetus has a right to life, the Dobbs decision essentially is condoning murder of a fetus if the voters in a state are like Papageorgio and most Americans similar to his reasoning:

PapaG221024-#397 “I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, I have stated it many times and I am against abortion, it is a wrong decision and women should be told tne mental and physical aspects so they can make an informed decision, but I can’t decide what other people do with their lives, that is between them and their god. ”​

​

END2211191247

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221119-#5,672 “No religious argument was made in overturning Roe v Wade.”

NFBW: Why does very faithful Christian ( beautress ) bless the Dobbs decision as a conscientious objector to abortion related taxes issue based on religious principles then?

beautress221119-#5,686 For years, pro-lifers have had to pay through the nose for what they feel is unfair, which is the taking of human life from someone in the initial stages of life which is borne out in the womb.

END2211191304

 

[ding]

DudleySmith220529-#3,586 “Some keep babbling about 'states' rights' here; it's still murder just because the Fed is out of the game. It's a distinction without a difference.”

ding220719-#3,592 Is it a distinction without a difference? I can see how one might view it that way but each branch of government has a different job to do. SCOTUS did their job by kicking it back to the states to decide how to handle abortion. It remains to be seen if the federal legislature will enact federal legislation. But SCOTUS was correct in telling the state and federal legislatures to do your job. It's not the court's job to write laws. So for me it is not a distinction without a difference. It's a wake up.

NFBW: Perhaps you can explain ding how the DOBBS decision settled a human rights issue when it eradicated a right of viable humans (depending on gender and where they live) in order to allow states to ban a medical procedure that religious cultural Christian proponents consi der to be murder of a person as yet not born but having the same human rights as all of us who are born?

By ditching human rights of pregnant women to give states authority to decide by election whether a fetus has a right to life, the Dobbs decision essentially is condoning murder of a fetus if the voters in a state are like Papageorgio and most Americans similar to his reasoning:

PapaG221024-#397 “I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, I have stated it many times and I am against abortion, it is a wrong decision and women should be told tne mental and physical aspects so they can make an informed decision, but I can’t decide what other people do with their lives, that is between them and their god. ”​

​

END2211191247

If you couldn’t understand the explanation of roles and responsibilities - that were listed in the post you responded too - I’m not certain you would understand it if I told them to you again.

 

[BackAgain]

The dobbs ruling is blathering , dumbfounded , idiocy and overt sedition against 1st , 9th and 14th us amendments .

No. It isn’t.

Monkey shouldn’t talk about all the many many things it absolutely doesn’t understand. At all.

 

[Papageorgio]

DudleySmith220529-#3,586 “Some keep babbling about 'states' rights' here; it's still murder just because the Fed is out of the game. It's a distinction without a difference.”

ding220719-#3,592 Is it a distinction without a difference? I can see how one might view it that way but each branch of government has a different job to do. SCOTUS did their job by kicking it back to the states to decide how to handle abortion. It remains to be seen if the federal legislature will enact federal legislation. But SCOTUS was correct in telling the state and federal legislatures to do your job. It's not the court's job to write laws. So for me it is not a distinction without a difference. It's a wake up.

NFBW: Perhaps you can explain ding how the DOBBS decision settled a human rights issue when it eradicated a right of viable humans (depending on gender and where they live) in order to allow states to ban a medical procedure that religious cultural Christian proponents consi der to be murder of a person as yet not born but having the same human rights as all of us who are born?

By ditching human rights of pregnant women to give states authority to decide by election whether a fetus has a right to life, the Dobbs decision essentially is condoning murder of a fetus if the voters in a state are like Papageorgio and most Americans similar to his reasoning:

PapaG221024-#397 “I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, I have stated it many times and I am against abortion, it is a wrong decision and women should be told tne mental and physical aspects so they can make an informed decision, but I can’t decide what other people do with their lives, that is between them and their god. ”​

​

END2211191247

And ding has the right to believe the way he does, and I support his view 100%.

 

[San Souci]

For whom. Not for women who depend on these rights.

This will be the end of Republicans. Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.

Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected? This will be puppy shit in comparison. Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.

Baby murder is not a right. Only Feminazis believe that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

beautress221129-#5,671 DNA is very technical proof that the baby is a separate person from its mother from the time it is an embryo to the time that it is born.

NFBW: I agree the DNA codes discovered in fertilized human eggs confirms a separate individual potential person exists that will die when the mother chooses to terminate her pregnancy. And I agree with what you said here:

Beautress221118-#5,660 DNA proves that a life like no other is on the way, even if it is a part of the mother's body.​

NFBW: You and I agree that a fetus is a part of the mothers body which causes CarsomyrPlusSix to react as follows:

Cplus6221115-#5,617 Hey BitchofW: We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”​

​

Cplus6220919-#5,280 “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”beautress​

NFBW: The potential new human being at conception has separate and unique DNA while up to its first normal nine months of development until birth it is part of its mother’s body. Do you agree with that statement beautress ?

END2211191946

 

[beagle9]

" Non Nomian Final Valuation Of Hue Mammon Kind By No Name Will One Make A Law "

* Absolved And Not Worried About Pompous Pretenses *

So says you , an antinomian heretic .

Surah 47:4
So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if God had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of God - never will He waste their deeds.

You make claims that have no merit, but I'll give you a chance - Give me an example that I am this heretic you so charge me with above. I'll be waiting.

 

[beagle9]

Baby murder is not a right. Only Feminazis believe that.

Agree, because no matter what the circumstances are that pro-abortionist consider, the fact is that everything is exploited, so what they haven't been able to control is the fact that abortion's are being performed for disgusting reasoning, and yes developed humans at certain stages have been killed by abortion doctor's, otherwise who do such things because they are under some sort of belief that just because abortion was made legal, that all abortion's were made legal. It has become one of the most egregious abused allowances that has ever been allowed in this country, and the numbers of aborted babies scream to us that we have done very wrong in a big way.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221118-#5,689 If you couldn’t understand the explanation of roles and responsibilities - that were listed in the post you responded too - I’m not certain you would understand it if I told them to you again.

NFBW: This is the post I responded to:

ding220719-#3,592 each branch of government has a different job to do. SCOTUS did their job by kicking it back to the states to decide how to handle abortion. It remains to be seen if the federal legislature will enact federal legislation. But SCOTUS was correct in telling the state and federal legislatures to do your job. It's not the court's job to write laws.

NFBW: The roles and responsibilities of the branches of government are not what you were asked to explain.

You were asked to explain this: you can start with what is in bold.

NFBW221118-#5,687 Perhaps you can explain @ding how the DOBBS decision settled a human rights issue when it eradicated a right of viable humans (depending on gender and where they live) in order to allow states to ban a medical procedure that religious cultural Christian proponents consider to be murder of a person as yet not born but having the same human rights as all of us who are born?​

​

By ditching human rights of pregnant women to give states authority to decide by election whether a fetus has a right to life, the Dobbs decision essentially is condoning murder of a fetus if the voters in a state are like Papageorgio and most Americans similar to his reasoning:​

​

PapaG221024-#397 “I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, I have stated it many times and I am against abortion, it is a wrong decision and women should be told tne mental and physical aspects so they can make an informed decision, but I can’t decide what other people do with their lives, that is between them and their god. ”​

​

NFBW: The Dobbs decision does not protect the human rights of a fertilized human egg and any developing being from that time of conception until it is fit to leave the womb at birth, does it ding?

Why do you say it is a human rights issue for the court when all they did was take a right to have a medical procedure away from pregnant women because white Christian political activists have an opinion on the street behaving like a lynch mob going after Mike Pence, It was not a decision that the abortion procedure is murder or it is not murder of the unborn according to the whims of the voters in each state. But the unborn have no right above the rights of the mother which makes the Dobbs decision absurd.

END2211192347 Santa Ana

 

[ding]

ding221118-#5,689 If you couldn’t understand the explanation of roles and responsibilities - that were listed in the post you responded too - I’m not certain you would understand it if I told them to you again.

NFBW: This is the post I responded to:

ding220719-#3,592 each branch of government has a different job to do. SCOTUS did their job by kicking it back to the states to decide how to handle abortion. It remains to be seen if the federal legislature will enact federal legislation. But SCOTUS was correct in telling the state and federal legislatures to do your job. It's not the court's job to write laws.

NFBW: The roles and responsibilities of the branches of government are not what you were asked to explain.

You were asked to explain this: you can start with what is in bold.

NFBW221118-#5,687 Perhaps you can explain @ding how the DOBBS decision settled a human rights issue when it eradicated a right of viable humans (depending on gender and where they live) in order to allow states to ban a medical procedure that religious cultural Christian proponents consider to be murder of a person as yet not born but having the same human rights as all of us who are born?​

​

By ditching human rights of pregnant women to give states authority to decide by election whether a fetus has a right to life, the Dobbs decision essentially is condoning murder of a fetus if the voters in a state are like Papageorgio and most Americans similar to his reasoning:​

​

PapaG221024-#397 “I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, I have stated it many times and I am against abortion, it is a wrong decision and women should be told tne mental and physical aspects so they can make an informed decision, but I can’t decide what other people do with their lives, that is between them and their god. ”​

​

NFBW: The Dobbs decision does not protect the human rights of a fertilized human egg and any developing being from that time of conception until it is fit to leave the womb at birth, does it ding?

Why do you say it is a human rights issue for the court when all they did was take a right to have a medical procedure away from pregnant women because white Christian political activists have an opinion on the street behaving like a lynch mob going after Mike Pence, It was not a decision that the abortion procedure is murder or it is not murder of the unborn according to the whims of the voters in each state. But the unborn have no right above the rights of the mother which makes the Dobbs decision absurd.

END2211192347 Santa Ana

It settled it by their doing their. It’s now the job of legislators to write laws.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Baby murder is not a right. Only Feminazis believe that.

When Herschel Walker needs that right he certainly believes in killing the sport fucking unwanted babies he made. But you would not vote for the candidate who never paid to murder a baby he fathered? You would vote for an actual loose sex baby murderer to represent you in the United States Senate. Why is that?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221120-#5,697 It settled it by their doing their. It’s now the job of legislators to write laws.

NFBW: You must mean the Catholic dominated Trump Reagan Bush judges on the SCOTUS rather “unsettled IT” big time. And It has exposed the glass jaw of the Republican Party by causing the big time losses for the white anti-abortion Christian nationalists (cult of Trumpism) that control the direction that the anti-government, anti-freedom, anti-democracy Republican Party is headed. The glass jaw was very effectively cracked by the vote in Kansas and the midterms where Trumpism and white Christian anti-woman choice nationalism lost.

If you had accepted reality, the human rights issue was settled in the Supreme Court with fifty years of precedence behind it. What was not settled was equal human rights for a fertilized egg and approximately 24 weeks of biological prenatal growth attached to a pregnant woman’s uterus as the perceived human beings that white Christian anti-abortion nationalists have been agitating for over the past five decades.

Now that at least five Catholics own the Supreme Court thanks to Trump you say with absolute absurdity that Congress now must settle a human rights issue for the unborn that the Supreme Court allegedly settled.

And that is not absurd enough, you want reality to become that if Democrats were to make baby murder the law of the land that the white Christian anti-democracy , rule of law nationalists, are going to quit agitating to their only un-democratic place - The Trump Catholic Supreme Court. Or they won’t double down on Jan6 insurrection because they are religious fanatics who have to have their way to please their God and save America from baby murdering liberal ruin.

Nothing is settled ding , you are being absurd and your party is broken over demanding human rights for a fertilized egg.

END2211200707 Huntington Beach

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Representatives Of Opinions Orchestrated By Traitors And Clowns "

* Johnny Come Lately To Quibble And Start Again *

No. It isn’t.

Monkey shouldn’t talk about all the many many things it absolutely doesn’t understand. At all.

So states the trifling assertions from the " damned dirty apes " .