Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[struth]

Do you agree that a fetus has no right to life according to the Constitution now that RvW has been overturned until separation from its birth mother and the first breaths of individual life have been taken?

strth.23.07.06 #10,139
nf.23.08.07 #10,140

Roe v Wade has nothing to do with my opinions on the issue. The issue with the Constitution is what it can allow the Govt to do to protect a fetus. Nothing in the Constitution forbids a Govt from acting and creating laws to protect a fetus. Such as, child abuse laws, that criminalize a woman that decides to abuse drugs while caring a child, or the ability of a Court to appoint a Guardian ad Litem to represent the interest of the unborn child, or for the State to provide healthcare coverage for the unborn child.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says the State has no interest in unborn child and can not act to protect it, just like anyone else.

only a sick twisted person thinks a woman can sit around 7 months preg shooting meth in her arm and nobody can act to help the unborn child.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

struth

Do you agree that a fetus has no right to life according to the Constitution now that RvW has been overturned until separation from its birth mother and the first breaths of individual life have been taken?

Nothing in the Constitution forbids a Govt from acting and creating laws to protect a fetus

Nothing in the Constitution forbids a healthy law abiding woman from ending the gestation of a fetus that is part of her body to avoid physical and financial harm to her body.

Constitutional silence does not sanction the government’s involvement in a pregnancy of a law abiding woman simply because a specific moral majority seeks its politicians to become involved to save the life of the fetus by disregarding the autonomy a wonsn has on her body.

nf.23.08.07 #10,140
strth.23.08.07 #10,141
nf.23.08.07 #10,142

 

[struth]

struth



Nothing in the Constitution forbids a healthy law abiding woman from ending the gestation of a fetus that is part of her body to avoid physical and financial harm to her body.

Constitutional silence does not sanction the government’s involvement in a pregnancy of a law abiding woman simply because a specific moral majority seeks it’s politicians to be one involved.

nf.23.08.07 #10,140
strth.23.08.07 #10,141
nf.23.08.07 #10,142

I don't disagree, if the law allows it, it's up to the Govt to regulate that.

Of course if the Constitution is silent on it, ie doesn't forbid it, it allows the State to act.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The percentage of woman dying from child birth is very low when calculated at 100,000 live births. But it can happen. Still you got to love men talking about giving birth when it is something that they will never have to experience it.

Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2020

National Center for Health Statistics

www.cdc.gov

Of course if the Constitution is silent on it, doesn't forbid it, it allows the State to act.

I have seen no explanation as to why forcing full term gestation on law abiding women is not a government action that will sentence a certain statistical number of women to death for getting pregnant without planning to give birth to a child which is not a crime.

How can a government intervene in the private life of a woman in a way that can cause her and her family to suffer premature death?

 

[struth]

I have seen no explanation as to why forcing full term gestation on law abiding women is not a government action that will sentence a certain statistical number of women to death for getting pregnant without planning to give birth to a child which is not a crime.

How can a government intervene in the private life of a woman in a way that can cause her and her family to suffer premature death?

a lot of verbage.....but at the end your question is simply how can the govt intervene in the private life of a citizen? Really? The Govt does all the time...they make all sorts of laws, some even criminal, dealing with people's private lives...from speeding, to seat belt laws, to drug laws, to laws regulating booze, to laws regulating the manunfacting of birth control, even the production of sex toys....

what a silly question

 

[NotfooledbyW]

from speeding, to seat belt laws, to drug laws, to laws regulating booze, to laws regulating the manunfacting of birth control, even the production of sex toys....

Seat belts prevent harm when using public roads Public ain’t Private.

Drug Laws prevent harm from criminal trafficking which is a public enterprise attempting to profit off of selling addictive products

Booze is a public commodity It is not banned it is regulated

Birth Control is a public commodity tested for safety prior to use.

None of that involves private activity such as gestating a fetus inside one’s body or terminating gestation of a fetus by a Medical Procedure. - surgical or pharmaceutical.

Early induced Abortion is indistinguishable from miscarriage.

Miscarriages and conception are not public matters

Banning a medical procedure that prevents risk of deadly harm to a patient when it is banned doesn’t make sense to me at all. Increasing risk of harm to an individual appears to be something a government should not be allowed to do,

 

[struth]

Seat belts prevent harm when using public roads Public ain’t Private.

Drug Laws prevent harm from criminal trafficking which is a public enterprise attempting to profit off of selling addictive products

Booze is a public commodity It is not banned it is regulated

Birth Control is a public commodity tested for safety prior to use.

None of that involves private activity such as gestating a fetus inside one’s body or terminating gestation of a fetus by a Medical Procedure. - surgical or pharmaceutical.

Early induced Abortion is indistinguishable from miscarriage.

Miscarriages and conception are not public matters

Banning a medical procedure that prevents risk of deadly harm to a patient when it is banned doesn’t make sense to me at all. Increasing risk of harm to an individual appears to be something a government should not be allowed to do,

Yes, all these things are regulated and impact people's private lives.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

lot of verbage.....but at the end your question is simply how can the govt intervene in the private life of a citizen?

That is not the question at all.

 

[struth]

That is not the question at all.

Yes it is. Heck the govt regulates who and who can’t practice medicine, they regulate how you educate your own kids, they regulate marriage! so of course they regulate what one does in their personal lives

Your argument is underlying stupid

 

[beagle9]

You made a reference to US cluster bombs being used on Russia That is a lie. Are you a Putin agent?

You see and interpret the way you think, but you know damned good and well that I was referring to the munitions killing Russians on Ukrainian soil, and not literally being used against the Russian territory or nation dipstick. And before you go any farther, now you'll try to say that I'm supporting Russia's invasion - NO YOU'D BE WRONG ON THAT ONE ALSO - ........... I support neither side in the conflict, and what's bad was Biden's son and him being involved in Ukraine in an alleged corrupt way... That has turned me against supporting Ukraine due to the corruption that allegedly went on there.

Like I said, quit cutting post up, and then trying to create some sort of lie's in hopes to spin your bull shite clean.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

None of that involves private activity such as gestating a fetus inside one’s body or terminating gestation of a fetus by a Medical Procedure. - surgical or pharmaceutical.

Banning a medical procedure that prevents risk of deadly harm to a patient when it is banned doesn’t make sense to me at all. I

Yes it is. Heck the govt regulates who and who can’t practice medicine, they regulate how you educate your own kids, they regulate marriage! so of course they regulate what one does in their personal lives​

• The government regulates to prevent harm.
• The government bans to prevent harm.
• The abortion procedure, either surgical or pharmaceutical, is selected by women to prevent probability of harm and to avoid personal risk of harm.
  • Physical harm including death
  • Emotional harm
  • Financial Barm

You are telling me that the Government has authority to ban a safe medical procedure that women want to prevent harm which results in the fact that banning the procedure actually in reality causes harm to a law abiding individual.

nf.23.08.07 #10,146
nf.23.08.07 #10,146
strth.23.08.07 #10,149
nf.23.08.07 #10,150

 

[beagle9]

I didn’t say anything about a fetus prior to 24 weeks have constitutional rights

Try again

24 weeks is a long time, and an abortion after 5 week's could constitute disgust barbaric act's that violate the civility of a civilized society.

Yes it is. Heck the govt regulates who and who can’t practice medicine, they regulate how you educate your own kids, they regulate marriage! so of course they regulate what one does in their personal lives

Your argument is underlying stupid

No, his true argument is that he really wants government doing these things, but he wants the feds involved.. Why ? ..
He wants to make sure that the feds are also involved in the abortion issue at the federal level, and this is in hopes that while the feds are over run with liberal leftist government types, then not only does the government get stronger (superceding the state's), but it becomes more forceful for those who use it to control other's that the liberal leftist want to control with it.

 

[struth]

24 weeks is a long time, and an abortion after 5 week's could constitute disgust barbaric act's that violate the civility of a civilized society.

No, his true argument is that he really wants government doing these things, but he wants the feds involved.. Why ? ..
He wants to make sure that the feds are also involved in the abortion issue at the federal level, and this is in hopes that while the feds are over run with liberal leftist government types, then not only does the government get stronger (superceding the state's), but it becomes more forceful for those who use it to control other's that the liberal leftist want to control with it.

1) Ok…
2) ok. The feds can if they want.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

My support or lack thereof for Roe, had nothing to do with how I feel about abortion...it had to do with the opinion being legally incorrect.

I oppose state abortion bans because I consider a law abiding woman who has a safe legal abortion prior to the 21st week of her pregnancy causes zero harm to herself, zero harm to another individual person, and zero harm to civil society as a whole if she aborts a pre-viable fetus. •••• Do you @struth have a problem with that?

I wouldn't vote for one. I already made that clear.

The questions are fairly straightforward. It appears. MAGA MAGA strth has decided to start pleading the fifth. •••• When a woman gets an abortion in privacy, there is no harm to civil society, herself, or to any other individuals, life, liberty property, and pursuit of happiness when she does it. Legally, speaking, that is.

o you consider a woman who has a safe legal abortion prior to the 21st week of her pregnancy causes zero harm to herself, another individual person, and two civil society as a whole.?

When a woman privately six to have the medical procedure of induced abortion, does it cause any harm to you, your life, liberty, or to your property?

That’s because the record shows I said that a national abortion ban will kill women, according to statistical probability on the maternal death rate, which is around 20 women, who die as a result of giving birth out of 100,000 births •••• That is a fact that you have not been able to respond to.

at the end your question is simply how can the govt intervene in the private life of a citizen?

No! HARM. My question contains the word “harm” Harm HARM


how can the govt constitutionally justify intervening in the life decisions of a law abiding pregnant woman by banning a medical procedure that will end the risk of harm to her body, life, livelihood and mental health if she does it early in the pregnancy?




strth.23.08.01 #10,037
nf.23.08.01 #10,044
strth.23.08.01 #10,046
nf.23.08.07 #10,043
nf.23.08.01 #10,040
strth.23.08.01 10,061
strth.23.08.07 #10,145

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The reasonable "Mississippi Compromise" is a good place to be on pro-choice side.

I'm glad it was leaked. That will give the dems time to wail and rend their garments, then forget about it over the Summer before November.

Anti-abortion policies force people to continue their pregnancy, while the same politicians simultaneously shred the social safety net.

The Serious Threat of a 'Mississippi Compromise' on Abortion

"There is simply no way to pull one thread without risk of unraveling the entire tapestry."

time.com

Taken together, these attacks will send more people into the trap of debt and poverty, while limiting women’s ability to direct their own lives.

nstllc.22.05.03 #8
nstllc.22.05.02 #252

 

[struth]

No! HARM. My question contains the word “harm” Harm HARM


how can the govt constitutionally justify intervening in the life decisions of a law abiding pregnant woman by banning a medical procedure that will end the risk of harm to her body, life, livelihood and mental health if she does it early in the pregnancy?




strth.23.08.01 #10,037
nf.23.08.01 #10,044
strth.23.08.01 #10,046
nf.23.08.07 #10,043
nf.23.08.01 #10,040
strth.23.08.01 10,061
strth.23.08.07 #10,145

How? Because they can and do all the time. We have a democratic representative form of govt, so the people elect folks, and when they have the majority they can make law

Others disagree with your views, it’s really not that hard a concept to grasp, if you aren’t a close minded tyrant.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because they can and do all the time.

When does the government ban a medical procedure that is proven to prevent harm, including potential premature death, to an individual? Tell me when struth . When does the government ban anything that would keep a person from dying.

WTF is the government in Ohio today doing with the intent to ban abortion in the future? Why did Ohio’s Christian Conservative lawmakers push an August special election on voters to make it harder for pro-choice voters to amend the Constitution to save women from dying during forced full term gestation?

Why should Ohio’s Constitution be used by the Republican Party to permanently force full term gestation on women which will some day cause some Ohio women to die when it could have been prevented?

You cannot say it can you? You cannot say it with the word “harm” in it.

“Because Governments can and do purposely cause physical financial and emotional harm to law abiding individuals all the time.”​

If the foo shits wear it.

strth.23.08.08 #10,156
nf.23.08.08 #10,157

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Everything that's happening now will get worse, and the Republican Party and the evangelical church will go along with it.

MSNBC's Charlie Sykes said the Republican Party is on a downward slide, and he said conservatives were willing to follow Donald Trump all the way to rock bottom.

'Everything will get worse': Former Republican predicts dire future for GOP

MSNBC's Charlie Sykes said the Republican Party is on a downward slide, and he said conservatives were willing to follow Donald Trump all the way to rock bottom.The former Republican said party leaders were unprepared for Trump in 2016 and still haven't figured out how to stop him from further...

www.rawstory.com

I hope the Orange Evangelicals of the Republican Party’s Saving Baby Fetus Cult and the out of state billionaires backing them get their pious self righteous asses handed to them by the end of this glorious day.

nf.23.08.08 #10,158 dog days of summer election will shoot politics of god in the foot

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The people who are pro-life (like me) want to help these woman who have been lied to and butchered...both physically and mentally.

You are pro-life just like every law abiding American is pro-life. You are nothing special.

You are pro-forced full term gestation and your forced full term gestation lost political bite tonight not just in Ohio but nationwide as well.

It’s time you recognize the link between opposition in Ohio to forced full term gestation and Trump being on the top of the GOP ticket in 2024.

Trump will be campaigning on his greatest accomplishment of his one term failed presidency. He appointed the three Catholic judges to the USSC who made it possible for the three Catholics already there to please Evangelical Christianity’s dream of state’s rights to force full term gestation on women who are unlucky to be living in a religious extremist controlled state by Republicans.

Trump forcing full term gestation on women will be a serious political loser in a state that put Obama/Biden in the White House for eight years and they will put Biden/Harris in the White House in 2024.

God’s Evangelical Chosen are cursed to be backing a loser who has been an abomination unto the Lord.

New King James Version
Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD,

thvnk.23.03.14 #5
nf.23.08.09 #10,159

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The only plan I want to hear about is RETRIBUTION!

This way? Must we all burn in hell if we don’t save baby fetus the way you and Messiah Trump expect us to?

Revelation 15: The inexorable culmination of divine retribution approaches​

By Mark Creech, Op-ed Contributor | Tuesday, August 08, 2023

thvnk .23.06.11 #4
nf.23.08.09 #10,160