Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Papageorgio]

That is a moral argument pressed on the courts by white Christian extremists in some states just like ownership of black humans by white Christian humans used to be a state’s rights issue.

Now you say states have a right to own women’s reproductive organs when conception happens - reproductive slaves to please a Biblical God.

Again, Congress knew this could happen and didn’t write a federal law, ask your congressman why they didn’t handle this for the last 50 years or why they didn’t work on a bill after Roe v Wade was overturned. Congress used abortias a wedge issue and didn‘t care about women’s rights, they screwed women over and yet you blame others. You voted for them and you got what you voted for on this issue, you should be happy with your Democratic Party for selling out women.

Love how you skipped over our racist President and his terrible conduct with people of color and yet you attack white Christians, seems you have been fooledbyBiden, but you go ahead and vote for a white racist who along with other Democrats sold women out to get votes. You have been fooledbybiden. They played you for the fool.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ppgrg.23.09.14
#10,961

Love how you skipped over our racist President and his terrible conduct with people of color and yet you attack white Christians,

I choose to follow the lead of non-white great Americans who vote for determining which political party has the healthiest for democracy positioning on race relations - past present and future.

You should try reality based rational assessments of living in the greatest and most bountiful nation there ever was. And thank the rational theists of the founding generation for every freedom and opportunity we have living in a multicultural America.

We need more Adams Jefferson Madison rational theism in this country to make America greater above and beyond what she already is.

nf.23.9&.14 #10,962

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ppgrg.23.08.14
#10,961

You voted for them

I did not vote for irrational Saint Patriot Trump. Trump is the highest saintly priest of the Saving Baby Fetus Cult who let everybody know he is the only one who made it possible to overturn RvW by adding three more Catholics to the USSC to the three Catholics who are already there.

nf.34.08.14 #10,963

 

[ThisIsMe]

The USSC has a duty to protect the individual’s right to protect their life from harm during childbirth by getting a pre-viability abortion as an unenumerated right.

I disagree. The scotus is there to interpret the constitution to ensure equal justice under the law by making sure that cases brought to them are upheld to the principles of the cotus.

This does not give them the right to create laws, only to make sure that existing or proposed laws are constitutional in nature.

 

[Papageorgio]

ppgrg.23.08.14
#10,961

I did not vote for irrational Saint Patriot Trump. Trump is the highest saintly priest of the Saving Baby Fetus Cult who let everybody know he is the only one who made it possible to overturn RvW by adding three more Catholics to the USSC to the three Catholics who are already there.

nf.34.08.14 #10,963

You voted for the racist Joe Biden, one of the good ole white rich boys. I was smart enough not to vote for either. Again, I don’t believe in saints, never have a never will, I see you are obsessed with them for some unknown reason.

 

[Papageorgio]

ppgrg.23.09.14
#10,961


I choose to follow the lead of non-white great Americans who vote for determining which political party has the healthiest for democracy positioning on race relations - past present and future.

You should try reality based rational assessments of living in the greatest and most bountiful nation there ever was. And thank the rational theists of the founding generation for every freedom and opportunity we have living in a multicultural America.

We need more Adams Jefferson Madison rational theism in this country to make America greater above and beyond what she already is.

nf.23.9&.14 #10,962

Another skip over, you ask questions on me , I answer, you do not pass the same kindness on, the evidence of your post are that you are a race baiter and a dishonest and disingenuous person who was fooledbybiden, the racist.

I presented several racist comments Biden made through his life as a “public servant” yet you ignore his racism, why is that? My assessments are rational, why is it that you believe only your opinions are rational and anyone that disagrees with you is not rational? That doesn’t seem rational at all. In fact, that is narrow minded bigotry and I am grounded in reality no matter how much you try to degrade me.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Screw that person. That person suffers no harm when another person has an abortion. No harm to them whatsoever. They have the right to ban abortion in their personal life just like I did for my whole life. But I do not legislate my morality on anyone else.

My bigger issue is that there is a maternal death rate that you can’t get past. How can that saint who wants to ban abortions for everybody justify blocking a woman from getting an abortion and then she dies due to childbirth complications. I am talking about the right to life is an abortion issue the woman’s life.

My daughter, three months ago, went into the delivery room three weeks early because of a rare condition upon a complication that knew she had. She may be alive today because she lives within five minutes of a large maternity hospital in northern Virginia. When she got there at 4 AM in the morning, another woman came at the same time, apparently, with a much more grave condition, and they had to tend to her first, but my daughter’s condition was endangering both lives.

They had to scramble a second team to take care of both mothers appropriately at the same time.

Had she lived in a rural setting with maybe half an hour to get to a hospital. She may not have made it with our beautiful three month old grand daughter, that I’m spending my days with every day except the weekends.

Screw that person.

But I thought we were talking about the “pursuit of happiness” here? This is an example of how the federal government can’t make decisions based on the pursuit of happiness, because happiness is such a specific thing to each person. That’s my point.

My bigger issue is that there is a maternal death rate that you can’t get past. How can that saint who wants to ban abortions for everybody justify blocking a woman from getting an abortion and then she dies due to childbirth complications. I am talking about the right to life is an abortion issue the woman’s life.

Again, nobody is saying a woman has to go through birth if there is a threat to her life. Every state has an exception for this. You seem to want to say that pregnancy is this super dangerous thing that could kill the mother at any point.

how common is it to have a woman die, spontaneously, DURING childbirth? I would expect that signs would present themselves before that point and a decision could be made to terminate the pregnancy.

Also. As I’ve explained several times, I’m not talking about those abortions, I’m talking about the abortions that were purely elective in nature.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I thought we were having a conversation. You say it’s not a moral issue. But how can it be states only ban abortions because it’s a moral issue to it’s mostly white Christian Republican extremist constituents.

As I said in the part you cut off..you’ll need to ask those states.

Also, once again, you being race into something that has nothing to do with race. Why?

 

[Papageorgio]

As I said in the part you cut off..you’ll need to ask those states.

Also, once again, you being race into something that has nothing to do with race. Why?

She has a habit to try to post you out of context, it is dishonest but that is how she is.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I am an earth person and a rational theist.

You are a saint.

There we go again with the names. I’ve told you before, I’m no saint, never claimed to be one…I’ve also stayed numerous times that my arguments do not come from a religious perspective, and that religion shouldn’t be a factor in the abortion debate. So, I don’t know where you come up with that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

thssm.23.08.22
#10,460


RvW dealt with a privacy issue that had nor has no impact on public safety. Public safety is an issue that states can regulate according to the will of the people in the state.

When a government bans a medical procedure that eliminates a choice a woman wants to make with her doctor there is no public safety issue that the ban eliminates.

The state has a public safety issue related to political will on regulating firearms per societal conditions such as big cities versus rural communities.

Abortion by pill or surgery has no impact on your right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Does it?

Proliferation of firearms being carried on public streets has an effect on public safety so I should be able to vote my preference on the manner of how firearms shall be regulated. Regulation hiwever may not interfere with a Constitutional right.

Abortion does not interfere with any public individual’s rights whatsoever. There is no state interest to protect the public from a private matter of a woman making a personal health decision.

nf.23.08.05 #10,725

Proliferation of firearms being carried on public streets has an effect on public safety so I should be able to vote my preference on the manner of how firearms shall be regulated. Regulation hiwever may not interfere with a Constitutional right.

Ok, my point here is that you are cue that the federal government and the Supreme Court have the right to dictate what the states may do, so if that’s the case, then the same authority that gives the federal government the right to say abortion is legal nationwide is also the authority that would force national reciprocity nationwide, correct?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

thssm.23.08.14
#10,970

I’ve also stayed numerous times that my arguments do not come from a religious perspective, and that religion shouldn’t be a factor in the abortion debate.

And I have concluded tha you argue firc states to have the authority to ban a medical procedure based solely on a certain religious moral obligation to save baby fetus from being sacrificed by it’s potential birth mother.

Right here: nf.23,08.13
#10,953


nf.23,09.14 #10,972

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ppgrg.23.09.14
#10,961

Congress knew this could happen a

Congress cannot know RvW would be overturned because Trump would get to put three Catholics on the USSC after they each lied to the Senate that they respect precedence and then blatantly decide with the three Catholics already there that precedence can go fuck itself because we ain’t keeping none of that on the Trump High Court.

..but the precedent of taking lavish vacations from right wing billionaires stays.

nf.23.09.14 #10,973

 

[Papageorgio]

ppgrg.23.09.14
#10,961

Congress cannot know RvW would be overturned because Trump would get to put three Catholics on the USSC after they each lied to the Senate that they respect precedence and then blatantly decide with the three Catholics already there that precedence can go fuck itself because we ain’t keeping none of that on the Trump High Court.

..but the precedent of taking lavish vacations from right wing billionaires stays.

nf.23.09.14

They left it sit for 50 years, they could have passed a law that would have been permanent and yes they knew there was potential to over turn it, they were right. Also Supreme Court Justices on both sides of the aisle take lavish vacations from billionaires, why don’t you criticize both sides and not just one side? Combined 1,309 trips, not left or right, but all! You seem to be fooledbysupremecourt.

Do you think liberal judges should be held accountable like you want conservativ judges to be held accountable? If so, why did you only point to one side? Is that a rational theist thought?

U.S. Supreme Court justices take lavish gifts — then raise the bar for bribery prosecutions • Ohio Capital Journal

U.S. Supreme Court justices haven't been shy about taking fancy freebies from rich people — many of them with an interest in the actions of the court. In 2016, those same justices unanimously voted to make it a lot harder to prosecute public officials for accepting bribes.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

FTA:
Late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2018 took a trip to Israel compliments of billionaire Morris Kahn, who had business before the court just a year earlier.

Late Justice Antonin Scalia took at least 258 subsidized trips while he was on the court and he was on one when he suddenly died in 2016.

Scalia’s more-liberal colleague, retired Justice Stephen Breyer, took at least 225 subsidized trips between 2004 and 2016. They include a 2013 trip to the exclusive island of Nantucket compliments of private-equity billionaire David Rubenstein, Gabe Roth, executive director of the group Fix the Court, reported.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

thssm.23.08.14
#10,971

Ok, my point here is that you are cue that the federal government and the Supreme Court have the right to dictate what the states may do, so if that’s the case, then the same authority that gives the federal government the right to say abortion is legal nationwide is also the authority that would force national reciprocity nationwide, correct?

The federal government and the Supreme Court have the right to dictate that the states may not pass laws that violate a woman’s right to a private medical procedure when that procedure causes no harm to any individual or the public as a whole and has no detrimental effect on public health and safety.

nf.23,09.14
#10,975

 

[Papageorgio]

thssm.23.08.14
#10,971


The federal government and the Supreme Court have the right to dictate that the states may not pass laws that violate a woman’s right to a private medical procedure when that procedure causes no harm to any individual or the public as s shone, and has no detrimental effect on public health and safety.

nf.23,09.14

No they don’t, the legislative branch can make laws, the judicial branch rule if the laws follow the constitution. If Congress in the last 50 years created a law that made abortion legal, we would not be debating it now. Congress won’t tackle the issue and it is their fault for not doing what we elect them to do. There Is no right in the Constitution to an abortion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ppgrg.23.09.14
#10,975

No they don’t, the legislative branch can make laws, the judicial branch rule if the laws follow the constitution.

As I understand it Jane Roe had standing that she would be harmed by a state law banning her right to access an abortion?

Are you telling me she didn’t. On what grounds if not?

Are you Saying 50 years of demonizing women with unwanted pregnancy by right wing religious extremists was justifiable to remove her standing when only extremist Catholics objected to it?

nf.23.09.14 #10,977

 

[ThisIsMe]

thssm.23.08.14
#10,970

And I have concluded tha you argue firc states to have the authority to ban a medical procedure based solely on a certain religious moral obligation to save baby fetus from being sacrificed by it’s potential birth mother.

Right here: nf.23,08.13
#10,953


nf.23,09.14 #10,972

And you would be wrong. I’ve never argued that states be allowed to ban abortion for religious reasons.

 

[ThisIsMe]

ppgrg.23.09.14
#10,961

Congress cannot know RvW would be overturned because Trump would get to put three Catholics on the USSC after they each lied to the Senate that they respect precedence and then blatantly decide with the three Catholics already there that precedence can go fuck itself because we ain’t keeping none of that on the Trump High Court.

..but the precedent of taking lavish vacations from right wing billionaires stays.

nf.23.09.14 #10,973

Again, show me in any of the decisions where the scotus cited their faith as the reason for their decision on dobbs.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

thssm.23.09.14 #10,968

Also, once again, you being race into something that has nothing to do with race. Why?

The constitutional opposition to Roe versus Wade comes from one segment of the Christian religious community that is indisputably white.

nf.23.09.14 #10,981