Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

Please address the personhood reason that absolutely denies truth to your argument and logical fallacy that I “created a protected class of citizen persons similar to the way gay married people are and black people should have been when our Constitution and freedom of conscience was being created.

I Therefore cannot create a protected class for non-persons because no one person can.

It would take an Amendment to the Constitution to grant full rights of personhood to a 24 week aged fetus whereas an approximation of natural viability is enshrined in lieu of the original live birth requirement in the Constitution for equal protection of all persons regardless of race creed or country of origin, based on an anticipated but not guaranteed ability to survive an imminent live birth without causing undue harm to it’s mother.

(1) You HeyNorm have not established that human womb-living beings are persons at any week that deserve state protection. Slaves from America’s unjust past and gay married couples and LGBTQ are deserving of equal protections as they are persons capable of life outside the womb.

You have been avoiding (1) there for quite some time

NFBW230118-#6,780 FACTS: Eight months is 34.64 weeks. Roe v Wade set legal abortion at 28 weeks. I agree with a federal abortion ban at 24 weeks except to save the life of the mother and from serious harm to the mother. •••• A fetus has a shot at premature birth survival at 22 weeks. I would be fine banning all abortions at English Common Law at 16 weeks If women only voted that way. There is no way that a sixteen week fetus is functioning and or physically capable of surviving outside the human natural womb. So what is your point about a 34.64 week old human being being similar situated to what?


NFBW: Because the ONLY Constitutional Personhood Amendment that I would support essentially enshrines fifty years of ROE V WADE that actually treated 28 week fetuses as persons but 27 week fetuses as not. Fifty years that upheld equal protection for all persons regardless of sex race religion and sexual orientation including 28 week and older fetuses. Fifty fucking years and HeyNorm says Roe cannot do that.



^^


HeyNorm is dazed and confused by the Trump infested Catholic traitors on the Supreme Court decision to overturn fifty years of precedence to grant a Pyrrhic victory to those holding on to the Olde plantation Confederacy and white Christian nationalism who believe America was created by God for them and only them.

END2302031052
You write all your non-sense, but the reason the constitution didn't consider such things that are going on today, is because at the time people would have had no idea that American's would become so vile, uncivilized, and to top it all off "disrespectful" towards anything considered as human these days.

We are truly an evil people that have lost our way in the world now, and soon the world won't be following us any longer.

I now see a slither of hope in the changing of the guard in the house, but is it too little too late one wonder's ?
 
Before 24 weeks a fetus is legally dead ? You are one special kind of dumb or evil, just depends on what day it is I guess... lol

He keeps granting a 24 week old legal status, yet doesn’t allow it the benefit of the equal protection clause.

The last time, in the history of this country, that sort of legal argument was used was when the constitution granted slaves only 3/5th of a human status.

This guy is racist to his core.
 
He keeps granting a 24 week old legal status, yet doesn’t allow it the benefit of the equal protection clause.

The last time, in the history of this country, that sort of legal argument was used was when the constitution granted slaves only 3/5th of a human status.

This guy is racist to his core.
Yes one can make that argument for sure. He keeps talking until he talks himself into a corner he can't get out of... 😂
 
He keeps talking until he talks himself into a corner he can't get out of.

NFBW: Since it is not possible for any one person to grant personhood to a 24 week fetus, unless by constitutional amendment, granting same to a 24 week fetus, how can it be true when HeyNorm tells me that I as one person have granted legal status to 24 week human organisms living in a woman’s body and that makes me a racist and a homophobe, which character issues in the domain of the adherents to Republican Party and many white right wing Christians?

The way it should be done here at beagle9 if you think I have a boxed myself in a corner regarding the 24 week legal status of fetuses in the womb, you should post a message explaining why a reasonable person like I’m sure you want to be has come to that conclusion, along with heynorm that I actually have created legal status for 24 week aged fetuses.

I have done no such thing nor is it any part of my argument. You are both wrong - easily provably wrong.

END2302031233
 
NFBW: Since it is not possible for any one person to grant personhood to a 24 week fetus, unless by constitutional amendment, granting same to a 24 week fetus, how can it be true when HeyNorm tells me that I as one person have granted legal status to 24 week human organisms living in a woman’s body and that makes me a racist and a homophobe, which character issues in the domain of the adherents to Republican Party and many white right wing Christians?

The way it should be done here at beagle9 if you think I have a boxed myself in a corner regarding the 24 week legal status of fetuses in the womb, you should post a message explaining why a reasonable person like I’m sure you want to be has come to that conclusion, along with heynorm that I actually have created legal status for 24 week aged fetuses.

I have done no such thing nor is it any part of my argument. You are both wrong - easily provably wrong.

END2302031233
Ok in very simple terms, tell us your position on why a fetus is ok to be protected at 24 week's, but not at 23 week's ? Go.
 
Ok in very simple terms, tell us your position on why a fetus is ok to be protected at 24 week's, but not at 23 week's ? Go.
The same way ROE V WADE did for fifty years except that was OK for a 28 week fetus to be protected but a 27 week fetus was not.

NFBW: Why? Because it established a reasonable length of time for every women of any race, political affiliations, religion, or no religion at all, to decide and terminate her own pregnancy in private , safely and legally by medical professionals before state interest is involved. Why? because the decision to abort or not to abort, should be made as early in a pregnancy as possible before a fetus has a fifty fifty chance at the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb”: END2302031250
 
Last edited:
The same way ROE V WADE did for fifty years except that was OK for a 28 week fetus to be protected but a 27 week fetus was not.

NFBW: Why? Because it established a reasonable length of time for every women of any race, political affiliations, religion, or no religion at all, to decide and terminate her own pregnancy in private , safely and legally by medical professionals before state interest is involved. Why? because the decision to abort or not to abort, should be made as early in a pregnancy as possible before a fetus has a fifty fifty chance at the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb”: END2302031250
And so you think that the so called guidelines were being followed to a T, otherwise when it came to abortion being changed by a trend when it came to abortion on demand ? Explain the human loses since your proud RvW ruling you like to tout so much in these conversations.
 
And so you think that the so called guidelines were being followed to a T, otherwise when it came to abortion being changed by a trend when it came to abortion on demand ? Explain the human loses since your proud RvW ruling you like to tout so much in these conversations.

Since Roe v Wade our understanding of equally protected similarly situated beings have been broadened.

That’s why I call this fool Biff, it’s like he’s living in the past.

I should get a custom deloreon and bring him BACK TI THE FUTURE!
 
The same way ROE V WADE did for fifty years except that was OK for a 28 week fetus to be protected but a 27 week fetus was not.

NFBW: Why? Because it established a reasonable length of time for every women of any race, political affiliations, religion, or no religion at all, to decide and terminate her own pregnancy in private , safely and legally by medical professionals before state interest is involved. Why? because the decision to abort or not to abort, should be made as early in a pregnancy as possible before a fetus has a fifty fifty chance at the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb”: END2302031250
And this fetus at 24 or 28 weeks, whatever arbitrary date you wish to place on it is given GOVERNMENTAL PROTECTION!

So, if I find a fetus at 23 weeks gestation with an EQUAL development as the 24 week, EQUAL PROTECTION is awarded to it AS THEY ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED.

To deny this is to deny reality Biff.
 
So, if I find a fetus at 23 weeks gestation with an EQUAL development as the 24 week, EQUAL PROTECTION is awarded to it AS THEY ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED.
HeyNorm230120-#6,808 So 3/5 a person. Is that about right? Sound like the same rights the slave owners gave n***rs. ••••

Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state. The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) •

NFBW: Your racially tinged ignorance of the historical, sociological and Constitutional FACT of the 3/5 Clause Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is on display because you have constructed your absurd “”” “Slave Owner” equates to “Fetus Owner” “”” argument when you ask in the way that you asked it.

So 3/5 a person. Is that about right? See-#6,808
Sound like the same rights the slave owners gave n***rs.

NFBW: The “Slave Owner” = “Fetus Owner” anti-reproductive freedom propaganda theme has not found common usage or any usage among opponents of women’s reproductive freedom and rights because it is an ass-backwards interpretation of the CONSTITUTION and the subject of involuntary servitude.*1

You are wrong HeyNorm because Our Founding Fathers some of whom being Slave Owners , considered their race-based chattel slaves whom they held under involuntary servitude.to be persons and fully human.


Race and the Constitution
Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed all men to be free and equal, race-based chattel slavery would be no more in the United States. David Azerrad, Ph.D. ••••​
Former Director and AWC Family Foundation Fellow •••• David Azerrad studies conservatism, progressivism, identity politics, libertarianism and the American Founding.​

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).
The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870.​
The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.​
Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1). It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).​

NFBW: I can’t coerce you to read the above HeyNorm but it’s submitted as backup for the ongoing destruction of your absurd “”” “Slave Owner” equates to “Fetus Owner” “”” argument laid out in your post 6808

HeyNorm230120-
#6,808 So 3/5 a person. Is that about right? Sound like the same rights the slave owners gave n***rs.

*1 230204ref”b

END2302041044
 
Last edited:
HeyNorm230120-#6,808 So 3/5 a person. Is that about right? Sound like the same rights the slave owners gave n***rs. ••••

Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state. The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787) •

NFBW: Your racially tinged ignorance of the historical, sociological and Constitutional FACT of the 3/5 Clause Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is on display because you have constructed your absurd “”” “Slave Owner” equates to “Fetus Owner” “”” argument when you ask in the way that you asked it.

So 3/5 a person. Is that about right? See-#6,808
Sound like the same rights the slave owners gave n***rs.

NFBW: The “Slave Owner” = “Fetus Owner” anti-reproductive freedom propaganda theme has not found common usage or any usage among opponents of women’s reproductive freedom and rights because it is an ass-backwards interpretation of the CONSTITUTION and the subject of involuntary servitude.*1

You are wrong HeyNorm because Our Founding Fathers some of whom being Slave Owners , considered their race-based chattel slaves whom they held under involuntary servitude.to be persons and fully human.


Race and the Constitution
Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed all men to be free and equal, race-based chattel slavery would be no more in the United States. David Azerrad, Ph.D. ••••​
Former Director and AWC Family Foundation Fellow •••• David Azerrad studies conservatism, progressivism, identity politics, libertarianism and the American Founding.​

The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).
The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870.​
The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.​
Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1). It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).​

NFBW: I can’t coerce you to read the above HeyNorm but it’s submitted as backup for the ongoing destruction of your absurd “”” “Slave Owner” equates to “Fetus Owner” “”” argument laid out in your post 6808

HeyNorm230120-
#6,808 So 3/5 a person. Is that about right? Sound like the same rights the slave owners gave n***rs.

*1 230204ref”b

END2302041044

And you express the same mentality that allowed the enslavement of blacks.

100,000 word essays will not change the fact that YOU awarded 24 week gestated individuals governmental protections, but will not award equal protection to a similarly situated 23 week gestated individual.

You lose again Biff.
 
And you express the same mentality that allowed the enslavement of blacks.

NFBW: That cannot possibly be true. I am opposed to abortion or termination of the ongoing development of any living human organism that results from my DNA being transferred when one of my sperm cells enters the perivitelline space and binds itself to Juno receptors on the oocyte membrane and enters the ovum to penetrate the zona pellucida and fertilizes the egg.

My wife could not take the pill so after our second daughter was born I got snipped so I could enjoy the pleasures of sex and never have my wife I and be confronted with the “private” decision to terminate an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy just for enjoying sex.

How in the fuck HeyNorm do you manage to tie my anti-abortion mentality to involuntary servitude and / or race-based chattel slavery of persons who had experienced live birth prior to being taken as slaves by a societies where power was held by European white males professing to be Catholic Christians?

END2302041311
 
Last edited:
NFBW: That cannot possibly be true. I am opposed to abortion or termination of the ongoing development of any living human organism that results from my DNA being transferred when one of my sperm cells enters the perivitelline space and binds itself to Juno receptors on the oocyte membrane and enters the ovum to penetrate the zona pellucida and fertilizes the egg.

My wife could not take the pill so after our second daughter was born I got snipped so I could enjoy the pleasures of sex and never have my wife I and be confronted with the “private” decision to terminate an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy just for enjoying sex.

How in the fuck HeyNorm do you manage to tie my anti-abortion mentality to involuntary servitude and / or race-based chattel slavery of persons who were have experienced live birth prior to being taken as slaves by a societies where power was held European white males professing to be Catholic Christians?

END2302041311

Because you want legal abortion up to 24 weeks.
 
Because you want legal abortion up to 24 weeks.
How do you tie legal abortion of not viable living human organism to viable persons of color being owned by white slave masters


How in the fuck HeyNorm do you manage to tie my anti-abortion mentality to involuntary servitude and / or race-based chattel slavery of persons who have experienced live birth prior to being taken as slaves by societies where power was held European white males professing to be Catholic Christians?
 
How do you tie legal abortion of not viable living human organism to viable persons of color being owned by white slave masters


How in the fuck HeyNorm do you manage to tie my anti-abortion mentality to involuntary servitude and / or race-based chattel slavery of persons who have experienced live birth prior to being taken as slaves by societies where power was held European white males professing to be Catholic Christians?

Pretty easy. Your denial of equal protection Biff.

It’s what racists do.
 
Pro lifers fall prey to the classic hubris if modern liberalism: the notion that government can, or in any case should try to, solve all problems and address all evils.
 
Pretty easy. Your denial of equal protection Biff.
Where have I denied equal protection of a viable human being or person? if you mean, slaveowners deny equal protection to slaves, you have to accept the reality that slaves are viable human beings. 23 week fetuses are not viable human beings or viable persons persons. They are potentially viable persons while inside a woman’s body.,
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top