Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

At some point two fetus, develops to a certain physical characteristic, one is granted the States protection, the other not.
Tell us how the Federal government under RvW for fifty YEARS was protecting unwanted fetuses from being killed, murdered, slaughtered or whatever hyperbolic lies in your MAGA propaganda regime can muster?

Think about it. If Roe v. Wade protected unwanted fetuses prior to the third trimester from being slaughtered by their mothers and abortion doctors we would not have this women’s right versus feet is right to life divide between the two major political parties and religious institutions in this country right now.
 
Tell us how the Federal government under RvW for fifty YEARS was protecting unwanted fetuses from being killed, murdered, slaughtered or whatever hyperbolic lies in your MAGA propaganda regime can muster?

Think about it. If Roe v. Wade protected unwanted fetuses prior to the third trimester from being slaughtered by their mothers and abortion doctors we would not have this women’s right versus feet is right to life divide between the two major political parties and religious institutions in this country right now.

Your ignoring the basic premise which is getting boring Biff.

That being, you are willing to kill one being that has reached YOUR threshold of development, but gives being number two protection by some unknown arbitrary reason.

It’s the same arbitrary thought process that allowed blacks into bondage, kept women from voting and denied interracial and same sex marriage.

We know why you do this, it’s simply to garner votes by the blood of similarly situated beings.

Proud of yourself Biff?
 
NFBW: Since the landmark 1973 decision HeyNorm of the Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade abortion has been legal in the US free from excessive government restriction up until fetal viability.


The main thing that the Dobbs decision changed was allowing government restrictions up to the states as to when a woman can obtain a legal abortion in her state. No estate that I have heard of thus far for bids a woman to get an abortion in another state, and then come home and live her life as she sees fit under no penalty of breaking the law or committing murder.

So, for that reason has it now stands today there is no state in the country that protects a fetus who is conceived by a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy, regardless of what state she lives in.

Since no fetus is protected in the United States from being terminated in the womb, there is no victim in a five week fetus is young age of unequal treatment under the law being similarly situated to a six week fetus she has Texas protection of making a abortion facility unavailable to Texas women.

But even Texas excessive abortion restrictions HeyNorm do not protect any fetus from being aborted either through the mail, pharmaceuticals, or a woman moving to another state
 
You’re ignoring the basic premise which is getting boring Biff.
NFBW: I am certain that I have not ignored your basic premise, but if you have one, cut and paste your basic premise right here again, and I will make sure that I do not ignore it.

Your premise is fatally flawed simply on the grounds that fetuses under the constitution are not persons at any age and do not become persons in that the government restricts abortion based on a presumption of survivability outside the womb at an approximate point based on the data of successful premature births among other factors.

The earliest premature birth survival is 21 weeks. I want that newborn survive. She acquires right to life protection on her own individualism based on the US Constitution.

Your premise is fatally flawed, because you have not tested it yourself. One test would be is to ask. Yourself is my connection to slavery due to an equal protection of similarly situated persons, because of age of gestation has ever made it into a court of law where my premise could be tested.

Have you tested your premise for viability? HeyNorm ??????

Your misuse of the 3/5 clause in the US Constitution is not a good sign for the viability of your argument connecting abortion rights to slavery

END2302071240
 
NFBW: I am certain that I have not ignored your basic premise, but if you have one, cut and paste your basic premise right here again, and I will make sure that I do not ignore it.

Your premise is fatally flawed simply on the grounds that fetuses under the constitution are not persons at any age and do not become persons in that the government restricts abortion based on a presumption of survivability outside the womb at an approximate point based on the data of successful premature births among other factors.

The earliest premature birth survival is 21 weeks. I want that newborn survive. She acquires right to life protection on her own individualism based on the US Constitution.

Your premise is fatally flawed, because you have not tested it yourself. One test would be is to ask. Yourself is my connection to slavery due to an equal protection of similarly situated persons, because of age of gestation has ever made it into a court of law where my premise could be tested.

Have you tested your premise for viability? HeyNorm ??????

Your misuse of the 3/5 clause in the US Constitution is not a good sign for the viability of your argument connecting abortion rights to slavery

END2302071240

Sorry dude, tired of you running from your own qualifications as to why one human being is granted governmental protection but the next, having reached the same viability standard is put to death.

Gas chambers in Germany come to mind Biff.

Enjoy the votes, just like the southern slave owners did.
 
Sorry dude, tired of you running from your own qualifications as to why one human being is granted governmental protection but the next, having reached the same viability standard is put to death.
I do not have any qualifications as to why, one human being is granted government protection, but not the next. UNDER the constitution a fetus is not a human being, who deserves protection until live birth. So just because they’ve established generally that live birth is presumed possible by the third trimester it doesn’t mean they are discriminating between fetuses in the second and first trimester in favor of the third trimester. Abortions of choice do not occur during the third trimester unless it’s to save the life of the woman you cannot refute this argument, so I see you are preparing to actually run , but you know what I’m not running from anything I’ll still be here
 
I do not have any qualifications as to why, one human being is granted government protection, but not the next. UNDER the constitution a fetus is not a human being, who deserves protection until live birth. So just because they’ve established generally that live birth is presumed possible by the third trimester it doesn’t mean they are discriminating between fetuses in the second and first trimester in favor of the third trimester. Abortions of choice do not occur during the third trimester unless it’s to save the life of the woman you cannot refute this argument, so I see you are preparing to actually run , but you know what I’m not running from anything I’ll still be here

Do you know of any laws in this great country that protects property (which is what you consider the fetus) for a set time period?

Thanks so much Biff. I get so much enjoyment from your deflections?
 
Your ignoring the basic premise which is getting boring Biff.
Before you run HeyNorm Tell us how the Federal government under RvW for fifty YEARS was protecting unwanted fetuses from being killed, murdered, slaughtered or whatever hyperbolic lies in your MAGA propaganda regime can muster?
 
Do you know of any laws in this great country that protects property (which is what you consider the fetus) for a set time period?
You are a liar. I have never hinted, suggested, maintained or argued that a fetus is anything other than a living human organism inside the womb a woman’s body. It is not her property.
 
You are a liar. I have never hinted, suggested, maintained or argued that a fetus is anything other than a living human organism inside the womb a woman’s body. It is not her property.

Then defend your position that two similar situated human beings are not treated equally or get back to your plantation. 🌴
 
Then defend your position that two similar situated human beings are not treated equally or get back to your plantation.


My position is that I am personally opposed to an abortion involving one of my sperm cells, which is my personal decision based on my conscience. However, my personal choice in life on the matters of abortion are not to be imposed on people, law-abiding people, whom of which I have no personal relationship.

On the matter that you keep bringing up about the unequal treatment based upon age of gestation of a fetus my, position is it essentially is that there is no unequal treatment based on the age of gestation of fetuses whether in or not in a similar situation to each other.

My position is you are an idiot for bringing such nonsense into the debate about reproductive rights and it is likely because you have no other way to make your thoughts and desire to oppress law abiding pregnant women in ways that are reasonable and relevant to this discussion.
 
My position is that I am personally opposed to an abortion involving one of my sperm cells, which is my personal decision based on my conscience. However, my personal choice in life on the matters of abortion are not to be imposed on people, law-abiding people, whom of which I have no personal relationship.

On the matter that you keep bringing up about the unequal treatment based upon age of gestation of a fetus my, position is it essentially is that there is no unequal treatment based on the age of gestation of fetuses whether in or not in a similar situation to each other.

My position is you are an idiot for bringing such nonsense into the debate about reproductive rights and it is likely because you have no other way to make your thoughts and desire to oppress law abiding pregnant women in ways that are reasonable and relevant to this discussion.

Yes, killing innocent human beings is reasonable and relevant to you cause of the political expediency.

🤦‍♂️
 
Yes, killing innocent human beings is reasonable and relevant to you cause of the political expediency.
This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with killing human beings as I understand that you and I are human beings having survived at live birth.

Pregnant women are human beings, and I am not talking about personally killing any human living organism that I would be responsible for. But when the human living organism is inside of woman’s body unbeknownst to me, I choose not to have the government force her to do with her own body what she does not want to do. And since the law has been for 50 years, basically that termination of a pregnancy is killing a living human organism that does not have a brain when most legal abortions occur at around 15 weeks or sooner, it is not the same thing as killing a newborn human being, an adolescent human being, a teenage human being, a young adult, human being, a middle-age human being, or an elderly human being because they have enough brain at birth to survive snd begin a human being’s life journey.

That is why no state charges women who
kill the living human organism that is using her brain and body to survive with murder.

If it is not murder of a human being in any state in the country, who are you to go around saying that it is . 20 percent of Republicans agree with me it’s none of your business what happens in uteruses that have nothing to do with you.

You are a liar and a propaganda master when you run around, saying that I am in favor of killing human beings, which is not the case. It is why you choose your words the way you do. Your limited vocabulary is apparently limited to just basic Catholic Church dogma on reproduction. And you say you’re not religious but you’re lined up with Catholic church propagandist and the white evangelical protestants for absolutely no good reason to the women in our country and to the country itself. If you don’t respect women’s rights you don’t respect anybody’s rights .
 
Last edited:
This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with killing human beings as I understand that you and I are human beings having survived at live birth.

Pregnant women are human beings, and I am not talking about personally killing any human living organism that I would be responsible for. But when the human living organism is inside of woman’s body unbeknownst to me, I choose not to have the government force her to do with her own body what she does not want to do. And since the law has been for 50 years, basically that termination of a pregnancy is killing a living human organism that does not have a brain when most legal abortions occur at around 15 weeks or sooner, it is not the same thing as killing a newborn human being, an adolescent human being, a teenage human being, a young adult, human being, a middle-age human being, or an elderly human being because they have enough brain at birth to survive snd begin a human being’s life journey.

That is why no state charges women who
kill the living human organism that is using her brain and body to survive with murder.

If it is not murder of a human being in any state in the country, who are you to go around saying that it is . 20 percent of Republicans agree with me it’s none of your business what happens in uteruses that have nothing to do with you.

You are a liar and a propaganda master when you run around, saying that I am in favor of killing human beings, which is not the case. It is why you choose your words the way you do. Your limited vocabulary is apparently limited to just basic Catholic Church dogma on reproduction. And you say you’re not religious but you’re lined up with Catholic church propagandist and the white evangelical protestants for absolutely no good reason to the women in our country and to the country itself. If you don’t respect women’s rights you don’t respect anybody’s rights .
Biff, Biff, Biff, Biff, Biff

Do you think being called a liar by the supporter of the destruction of innocent human life is all that upsetting?

And yet notfooledbyBiff has yet to explained how he could possibly support the destruction of a 23 week fetus, that has advanced to the equal threshold of his imaginary 24 week gestated fetus that gets governments protection.

Good Job Biff.
 
NFBW230207-#7,214 “This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with killing human beings as I understand that you and I are human beings having survived at live birth.”
^^
HeyNorm230207-#7,215 • {NFBW} has yet to explained how he could possibly support the destruction of a 23 week fetus, that has advanced to the equal threshold of his imaginary 24 week gestated fetus that gets governments protection.

NFBW: Now that you have benched your propagandistic lie in post #7,213 • that I argue that “killing innocent human beings is reasonable” you have come back to alleging I support destroying a 23 week fetus but not a 24 week fetus which in your post 7214.

Have you found a woman HeyNorm that I do not know who is telling you that I am the father and that I forced her to abort a fetus at 23 weeks that she wanted give birth for 22 weeks?

If you have not found such a person telling you that HeyNorm, then you fabricated a lie about me. I DO NOT support aborting a 23 week fetus if I am the father.

It is none of my business or responsibility if a woman decides to abort her fetus at 23 weeks in the privacy of her fsmily and doctor and under the autonomy of her body and conscience.

END2302081208
 
Last edited:
similarly situated refers to one class of persons being alike in all relevant ways to another class for purposes of a particular decision or issue.

NFBW: Fetuses are not recognized as persons by the US constitution. Slaves were considered persons by virtue of being born.

You have no argument based on that alone HeyNorm but that reality goes from bad to worse even if you got past the personhood hurdle.

HeyNorm230206-#7,180 • What is required, under the legal standing of similarly situated groups being granted equal protection under the law is that you provide evidence that a 23 week gestated fetus cannot have advanced to the point of any fetus that is of 24 weeks gestation.

NFBW: No evidence needs to be produced because all fetuses under RvW were in the same situation at 23 weeks gestation. The starting point and subsequent duration are exactly the same for all unwanted fetuses. Their mothers have 23 weeks to abort them.

HeyNorm230206-#7,180 • If the argument is, that a 24 week gestated fetus has reached this stage, then you must prove that NO, 23 week gestated fetus could have.

NFBW: No. All fetuses are inside mothers. Under RvW No mother of an unwanted fetus is required by the government to prove the fetus she intends to abort has not reached a stage of development where it couid survive outside the womb, All unwanted fetuses are treated the same.,

HeyNorm230402-#7,113 • 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.

NFBW: No. I agree with RvW to limit a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy prior to the third trimester. Government protection during the third trimester is not necessary because all fetuses are inside women who intend to deliver them taking the risk of giving birt.,

HeyNorm230117-#6,762 A 8 month gestated fetus is similarly situated to a newborn, as such, deserves the same rights under our laws.

NFBW: when a fetus remains inside its mother it is not recognized to possess a separate individual right to life RvW did not create personhood for a viable fetus during the third trimester. You are self-delusional in that reality.

HeyNorm230202-#7,079 Didn’t forget that at all. It’s how equal protection work •••• And your back to justifying slavery. •••• If a 24 week gestated fetus is due protection, a 23 week gestated fetus that is similarly situated, deserves same


NFBW: Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” •••• 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).


HeyNorm230202-#7,060 A slow developing 24 week fetus has no better chance of living outside the womb, as a quickly developing 23 week gestated fetus. Therefore the 23 week gestated fetus, by the similarly situated legal standard, must be afforded equal protections under the law.


NFBW: all fetus are inside mothers. All mothers had the right to privacy until the start of the third trimester..Some mothers keep a developing fetus with the intent of giving birth. Other mothers abort their fetuses when it’s legal . There are no abortions for convenience during the third trimester., Therefore no fetus needs or get’s protection of a right to life. They already have it


HeyNorm230130-#6,995 • So, if a 23 week gestated fetus can be found that is more advanced than a 24 week, it is similarly situated and must be provided equal protection. •••• Your use of a calendar date is arbitrary as it does not provide equal protection for similarly situated individuals


HeyNorm230119-#322 • If an 8 month gestated fetus is to be granted a right, then YOU must prove that a 7.5 month gestated fetus is not similarly situated to it. •••• If you can’t, the 7.5 month fetus must be granted the same right.


HeyNorm230129-#6,987 • Unless you can assertion viability, which is impossible using calendar dates, it is arbitrary and still subject to the similarly situated legal precedent


HeyNorm230127-#6,929 So, the newborn gains rights at birth, but is similarly situated to the newborn pre birth, thus extending rights pre birth.
HeyNorm230120-#249 • To say abortion can be limited at any point, prior to birth, bestows these rights to the fetus in the first place. If you say the state can limit abortion to at 24 weeks, then the question is, why a 23 week fetus is not similarly situated to a 24 week fetus.

END2302070408
 
Last edited:
similarly situated refers to one class of persons being alike in all relevant ways to another class for purposes of a particular decision or issue.

NFBW: Fetuses are not recognized as persons by the US constitution. Slaves were considered persons by virtue of being born.

You have no argument based on that alone HeyNorm but that reality goes from bad to worse even if you got past the personhood hurdle.

HeyNorm230206-#7,180 • What is required, under the legal standing of similarly situated groups being granted equal protection under the law is that you provide evidence that a 23 week gestated fetus cannot have advanced to the point of any fetus that is of 24 weeks gestation.

NFBW: No evidence needs to be produced because all fetuses under RvW were in the same situation at 23 weeks gestation. The starting point and subsequent duration are exactly the same for all unwanted fetuses. Their mothers have 23 weeks to abort them.

HeyNorm230206-#7,180 • If the argument is, that a 24 week gestated fetus has reached this stage, then you must prove that NO, 23 week gestated fetus could have.

NFBW: No. All fetuses are inside mothers. Under RvW No mother of an unwanted fetus is required by the government to prove the fetus she intends to abort has not reached a stage of development where it couid survive outside the womb, All unwanted fetuses are treated the same.,

HeyNorm230402-#7,113 • 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.

NFBW: No. I agree with RvW to limit a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy prior to the third trimester. Government protection during the third trimester is not necessary because all fetuses are inside women who intend to deliver them taking the risk of giving birt.,

HeyNorm230117-#6,762 A 8 month gestated fetus is similarly situated to a newborn, as such, deserves the same rights under our laws.

NFBW: when a fetus remains inside its mother it is not recognized to possess a separate individual right to life RvW did not create personhood for a viable fetus during the third trimester. You are self-delusional in that reality.

HeyNorm230202-#7,079 Didn’t forget that at all. It’s how equal protection work •••• And your back to justifying slavery. •••• If a 24 week gestated fetus is due protection, a 23 week gestated fetus that is similarly situated, deserves same


NFBW: Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” •••• 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).


HeyNorm230202-#7,060 A slow developing 24 week fetus has no better chance of living outside the womb, as a quickly developing 23 week gestated fetus. Therefore the 23 week gestated fetus, by the similarly situated legal standard, must be afforded equal protections under the law.


NFBW: all fetus are inside mothers. All mothers had the right to privacy until the start of the third trimester..Some mothers keep a developing fetus with the intent of giving birth. Other mothers abort their fetuses when it’s legal . There are no abortions for convenience during the third trimester., Therefore no fetus needs or get’s protection of a right to life. They already have it


HeyNorm230130-#6,995 • So, if a 23 week gestated fetus can be found that is more advanced than a 24 week, it is similarly situated and must be provided equal protection. •••• Your use of a calendar date is arbitrary as it does not provide equal protection for similarly situated individuals


HeyNorm230119-#322 • If an 8 month gestated fetus is to be granted a right, then YOU must prove that a 7.5 month gestated fetus is not similarly situated to it. •••• If you can’t, the 7.5 month fetus must be granted the same right.


HeyNorm230129-#6,987 • Unless you can assertion viability, which is impossible using calendar dates, it is arbitrary and still subject to the similarly situated legal precedent


HeyNorm230127-#6,929 So, the newborn gains rights at birth, but is similarly situated to the newborn pre birth, thus extending rights pre birth.
HeyNorm230120-#249 • To say abortion can be limited at any point, prior to birth, bestows these rights to the fetus in the first place. If you say the state can limit abortion to at 24 weeks, then the question is, why a 23 week fetus is not similarly situated to a 24 week fetus.

END2302070408

Poor Biff, still beating this dead horse.

Have you yet to come up with a logical, non arbitrary reason you support the government protecting a 24 week gestated fetus, and not a 23 week gestated fetus that attained all the attributes of a 24 week gestated fetus.

A 10,000 word salad doesn’t change the fact that many 23 week gestated fetuses have attained, and are equal to, many many 24 week gestated fetuses.

Your support of the killing of one, and the government’s protection of the other is illogical and barbaric Biff.

And by the way, I asked for two coats of wax on my car!
 
" By Gawd Claims Of Domestic Terrorists "

* Institutions of Freak Farms Prescribed By Religious Fanatics *

Did you see how Monk-Eye violates equal protection of similarly situated groups
It’s based on the general conclusions for an onset of a natural ability to survive an imminent birth.
The demarcation is actually the ability to survive an imminent birth.
Equal protection demands that any other individual (under the 24 week threshold) within a similarly situated group, that can attain this “ability to survive an imminent birth”, must also be protected if it can be proven that any within that group has achieved equal or greater development than a a 24 week old.
To deny this is to accept the premise that abortion is a barbaric act.
The only similarly situated groups are those pregnancies which encounter developmental abnormalities that begin to be detected with ultrasound or amniocentesis between 13 and +20 weeks .

That individuals seeking abortion even post 15 weeks do so because of an intrinsic fiendish or negligent nature or motivation is absolute fiction .

The anti-choice never mention developmental abnormalities and offer rhetorical arguments to exercise its traitorous endeavors against us republic and its principles of individualism .

The shadow puppets of the sanctimonious horror clown psychopaths trying to justify proscription of abortion to quell its anxiety of inevitable mortality , while proliferating special needs and dictating quality of life decisions , are relegated to a historical trash heap of all other lies and retarded mental considerations .
 
Last edited:
" Applying Principles Of Non Violence And Individualism "

* Naturalism Mockery Of Contemporary Natural Law Lexicon *

Do you realize that your are defending the leftist on these board's, but then again you might be a leftist. In that case my bad. 😂.
Were you at the Grammys? I heard it was a bit heated in a Hell sort of way.
I am a republican for a us republic with a credo e pluribus unums the expects independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties among those entitled by live birth to receive them .

The ignorance of principles for non violence and individualism by damned dirty apes who wield an over inflated sense of self worth is more indicative of a sinistral analogy .
 

Forum List

Back
Top