Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

beagle9221127-#5,838 “No it means that they aren't struggling for the same body, otherwise as if the mother is on some type of high risk adventure where if she gets scared then she'll just call on a Hitman to take that risk away and maybe for a few dollars extra that would next fall into Play.”

NFBW: They are not struggling for the same body beagle9 . ROE v Wade had to be based upon the Constitution in some way. Christians object that ROE v Wade illegitimately made it legal to kill unborn persons in the name of Reproductive freedom. Christians dread that ROE v Wade abrogates a necessary religious restraint against evil that each of us as a human being has a fundamental duty and responsibility to all other human beings. And God demands that duty applies to unborn human beings as it does to born human beings.

The problem for Christians such as you beagle9 is the Constitution is specifically is written for born human beings.

Do you see the dilemma that Roe v Wade settled fifty years ago: The ROE V Wade riddle?

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

The pushy Christian answer picks the person who must use another persons body for nine months before such a person can be born. But we do not live under a Christian constitution.

The strict originalist constitutional answer picks the only person it can be - the person with the body needing to be used. The pregnant woman. The person already beyond the stage of being born.

The mothers right to decide in private to give birth and life or not to give to birth and life to the unborn human being, clearly and unequivocally trumps the right to life of the unborn human being in strict interpretation and compliance with the Constitution.

Therefore there is an originalist constitutional case to be made that each of us as a human being has a fundamental duty and responsibility to all other human beings with the exception of human beings prior to their ability to be born. And there is no evil or breakdown in civilization or in religious terms “sin” when we agree the mother’s right to choose in private the life or death of her own unborn child trumps the right to life of the unborn child when we follow the Constitution.

END2211270007
 
Last edited:
Answer such an idiotic question ? I think not.
by all your posts in support of white Christian civilization nationalism your answer is yes as I see it. If you disagree let me know.

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body,does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?
 
by all your posts in support of white Christian civilization nationalism your answer is yes as I see it. If you disagree let me know.

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body,does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?
Your new twist gets more and more bizarre, and it makes one wonder to what radical links will you go to in order to try and justify the act of an unborn human being getting murdered for the most lame excuses given ?
 
beagle9221127-#5,843 Your new twist gets more and more bizarre, and it makes one wonder to what radical links will you go to in order to try and justify the act of an unborn human being getting murdered for the most lame excuses given ?

NFBW: Where has it been established that
even if a fetus is a person recognized by the Constitution, which it is not, does a woman necessarily have a legal duty to keep it in her body when she finds out that other person has been there for almost six weeks?

If one state Constitution resolves the matter that a pregnant woman does not have a legal duty to keep the unborn human being in her body prior to that human being living in her body for 22 weeks it is not murder in that state to have or perform the medical procedure of abortion.

ding221125-#5,783 ding “I’m fine with each deciding for itself.”

NFBW: I am not justifying murder when I say “I’m fine with each state deciding for itself that a pregnant woman does not have a legal duty to keep the unborn human being in her body when she finds out that other person has been there for almost six weeks and wants to stay for seven and a half months before leaving.

Niether ding or myself is required to justify as you say beagle9 the “act of an unborn human being getting murdered” in a state where no murder of an unborn human being is being committed. There is no murder in need of justification.

So WTF are you accusing ding and me of justifying something that only exists inside your white Christian nationalist head?

End2211270453
 
Votto221005-#36 The issue is natural rights.

NFBW: On all issues do you agree Votto the Constitution is specifically written to protect natural rights for born human beings? The constitution does not protect any rights for the unborn as a person, except being protected through the rights of the mother.

Where do you stand on the ROE V WADE riddle?

Do you see the dilemma that Roe v Wade settled fifty years ago: The ROE V Wade riddle?

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

END2211270609
 
Last edited:
NFBW: Do you agree beagle9 the Constitution is specifically written for born human beings?

END2211270217
The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.

Cannot "DEPRIVE" (means) "ANY" person of "LIFE" (and once here), of their liberty or of their "pursuit of happiness".

An unborn child is a human being regardless of it being unborn yet, and therefore it is a "person" in it's pre-birthed stages, especially as the little one is notably developing into being none other than a person/human being as detected by the modernization of our medical technology (ultra-sounds), and etc, otherwise where the gender of the human being is discovered along with other important health information about the little person while developing inside the mother.

So why are there no hearings that determine if a woman is justified to abort a perfectly healthy developing person/human being (with a doctor summoned as a witness), before they destroy the Life of a perfectly healthy developing person/human being in the womb ? Is the child being denied "due process of law", before the mother decided to use abortion as her form of birth control after the fact or down the line during the various developmental stages ??
 
Last edited:
TK220511-#2,987 TemplarKormac The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning.

NFBW: Both are human before during and after the medical procedure of abortion. ding has a similar boilerplate word game.

The ROE V Wade human rights riddle?

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

END2211270706
 
Votto221005-#36 The issue is natural rights.

NFBW: On all issues do you agree Votto the Constitution is specifically written to protect natural rights for born human beings? The constitution does not protect any rights for the unborn as a person, except being protected through the rights of the mother.

Where do you stand on the ROE V WADE riddle?

Do you see the dilemma that Roe v Wade settled fifty years ago: The ROE V Wade riddle?

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

END2211270609
Roe-V-Wade wasn't settled correctly or it never would have been overturned, otherwise after years of abuse that took place (after it was supposedly settled by the imperfect judges), that didn't understand at the time that their rulling left way to many doors unlocked for the evilness of the generations to just boastfully and arrogantly walk through.

Otherwise it was a bad ruling that was evident after year's of death to the unborn that posed absolutely no threat to the mother's health or her life, yet the child was destroyed out of convenience.

Due process of the law should have been afforded the unborn child in a pre-birth "hearing" that should have been required to have taken place, otherwise that would determine the validity of the claim of an abortion request in which is to then require evidence that the pregnancy had to be aborted, even though it was at various stages where a request is then made....

The evidence must include a physician's determination that the child is a danger to the mother's health, and therefore should be aborted before placing the mother in jeopardy of possibly losing her life or giving birth to a severely deformed child that would not be able to survive outside the womb.

An ultrasound should also be added into evidence that establishes the child's heartbeat, it's features, and other such important information concerning the developmental stages prior to the determination or ruling granted or not granted..
 
Last edited:
Beagle9-#5,850 Due process of the law should have been afforded the unborn child in a pre-birth "hearing" that should have been required to have taken place,

The court has no constitutional authority to give due process of the law to an unborn child. Judges cannot create a second person that does not exist in the Constitution. But if they did create the second person during a pregnancy, there is a conflict of rights that has to go to the mother. That is why and what ROE V Wade settled.

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

END2211270820
 
Last edited:
beagle9221127-#5,848 beagle9 “The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.”

NFBW: The very same document you cite in the paragraph above defines explicitly how every reference to “persons and people” within the sacred humanist document must be interpreted to mean:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”​

NFBW: And in the same post beagle9 you explain to the readers and of course ding why the states are not supposed to write laws that deprive pregnant women ( I assume you consider them persons) of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if they are doing no harm to the life liberty and pursuit of happiness to any other person as recognized in the Constitution per the above.

beagle9221127-#5,848 Cannot "DEPRIVE" (means) "ANY" person of "LIFE" (and once here), of their liberty or of their "pursuit of happiness".

NFBW: Thank you.

END2211271059
 
Last edited:
Votto220727-#1 Votto “Apparently, Justice Roberts was actively campaigning amongst the conservative justices to allow Roe vs. Wade to stand, but all that ended as democrats leaked the story that SCOTUS was about to overturn it.”

NFBW: maybe not ehh?

END2211271119
 
beagle9221127-#5,843 Your new twist gets more and more bizarre, and it makes one wonder to what radical links will you go to in order to try and justify the act of an unborn human being getting murdered for the most lame excuses given ?

NFBW: Where has it been established that
even if a fetus is a person recognized by the Constitution, which it is not, does a woman necessarily have a legal duty to keep it in her body when she finds out that other person has been there for almost six weeks?

If one state Constitution resolves the matter that a pregnant woman does not have a legal duty to keep the unborn human being in her body prior to that human being living in her body for 22 weeks it is not murder in that state to have or perform the medical procedure of abortion.

ding221125-#5,783 ding “I’m fine with each deciding for itself.”

NFBW: I am not justifying murder when I say “I’m fine with each state deciding for itself that a pregnant woman does not have a legal duty to keep the unborn human being in her body when she finds out that other person has been there for almost six weeks and wants to stay for seven and a half months before leaving.

Niether ding or myself is required to justify as you say beagle9 the “act of an unborn human being getting murdered” in a state where no murder of an unborn human being is being committed. There is no murder in need of justification.

So WTF are you accusing ding and me of justifying something that only exists inside your white Christian nationalist head?

End2211270453
Please stop speaking on my behalf. It’s rude.
 
NFBW: The link to your post is right there. Anyone with half a brain would know I’m taking your stupid point down and stomping all over it.

MY logic for support for freedom of choice is ironclad and it does not mean I’m in favor of not having any laws for anything leading to the collapse of civilization.

READ ding ‘s posts - he does have half a brain at times. You are stupid. It’s why you cannot respond to this:

The unborn not-viable person in the following Roe v Wade Riddle is a human being in my view and should be considered as such pursuant to further discussion.

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

What other laws are out there were on one person wanting to live inside another persons body and have a constitutional right to do so for nine months.


END2211261656
Textbook example of the dunning effect.
 
Textbook example of the dunning effect.
NFBW: Did you say this ding ?

ding221125-#5,783 ding “I’m fine with each deciding for itself.”

NFBW: Plenty of states are legalizing every woman’s right to kill unborn human beings when that unborn human being needs to use a woman’s body for eight to nine months in order to survive.

You say ( ding221125-#5,783 ) you are fine with each state making killing unborn human beings legal which means you are fine with pregnant women deciding to kill the unborn human being that is alive and trying to survive while attached to her uterus. You never describe the alleged misrepresentation so maybe you will make an attempt somehow soon.

END2211271325
 
" American School Of Economics Aristocrats And Globalism Foreign Policy Nuisance Nuance "

* Citizenship For Granted Immigration Repatriation Debacle Closed Windows *

I stand by the decision. If that meant sacrificing any hope of winning the Senate, so be it.
As a republican for a republic with a credo of e pluribus unum that espouses independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties among individuals entitled by live birth to receive them , the dobbs decision by scotus surmounts to sedition for its directive that states may issue force against implementation of us law - that law being us 14th , 9th , 1st and 10th us constitutional amendments .

The dobbs decision of sedition by scotus is supported by traitors , whether with ignorance , or whether with malice .
 
Christians overwhelmingly oppose abortion on demand, for any reason.
Our wise Founding Fathers were Christians. They would be appalled at today's murderous Democrats.

“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.” – Daniel Webster

IF WE AND OUR POSTERITY SHALL BE TRUE TO THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, IF WE AND THEY SHALL LIVE ALWAYS IN THE FEAR OF GOD AND SHALL RESPECT HIS COMMANDMENTS, IF WE AND THEY SHALL MAINTAIN JUST MORAL SENTIMENTS AND SUCH CONSCIENTIOUS CONVICTIONS OF DUTY AS SHALL CONTROL THE HEART AND LIFE, WE MAY HAVE THE HIGHEST HOPES OF THE FUTURE FORTUNES OF OUR COUNTRY. OUR COUNTRY WILL GO ON PROSPERING. – Daniel Webster

“Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” – William Penn


“Our Constitution was made only for a religious people. It is wholly inappropriate for the government of any other.” - John Adams

“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.” – Alexis de Toqueville [Not a Founding Father, though he spoke like one]

“No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty, apart from the moral precepts of the Christian religion applied and accepted by all the classes. Should our republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed.” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Founding Father

“The Christian religion, in its purity is the basis and the source of all genuine freedom in government.” – Noah Webster

“[The adoption of the Constitution] will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs.” – George Washington

“The Christian religion is above all… the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.” – John Adams

“The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young gentlemen could unite …the general principles of Christianity.” – John Adams
 
TK221127-#5,857 TemplarKormac I stand by the decision. If that meant sacrificing any hope of winning the Senate, so be it.

NFBW: Not taking the Senate is the least of it. You have a white Christian nationalism voter base that turns off a lot of women, and they (Christian Right) are who are in control of the Republican Party primaries. They are picking embarrassing candidates like Herschel Walker.

That Trump loyal voter base is comprised of (A) not quite half of all American Catholics that are not attracting younger pro-life believers. (B) Bible Belt and rural areas mostly white evangelical Protestant Christians who are devout and loyal Republican voters no matter what. Black Christian evangelicals are 90% Dem voters who would not be caught dead voting with their white Christian brothers and sisters who voted for Trump.

So the Dobbs Decision has diminished the Republican Party’s financial, corporate elites ability to win elections as the Christian coalition of large numbers of middle class paycheck to paycheck voters cannot be lured to vote for Republican pro-life candidates as easily for a wedge issue for Jesus as it was in the past.

END2211272806
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top