Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[ThisIsMe]

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 a whole and has no detrimental effect on public health and safety.

nf.23,09.14
#10,975

Show me in the constitution that gives the federal government that power. Show me in the constitution that says medical procedures are a right.

The argument you are making is one that leads to a can of worms that shouldn’t be opened. If you give the federal government unlimited power to exceed their cotus authority, then there’s no end to what they can force onto the states. This will lead to decisions you don’t like when the other side is in power.

You argue that scotus and the federal government had the power to grant abortion as a right, but then you get upset when that same government uses the same power to recall that decision.

This is why it’s a stated issue, unless it’s an authority granted, by the cotus, to the federal government

 

[NotfooledbyW]

thssm.23.09.14 #10,981

You argue that scotus and the federal government had the power to grant abortion as a right,

thssm.23.09.14 #10,967

Again, nobody is saying a woman has to go through birth if there is a threat to her life.

You argue that states have a right to ban early abortions if their religious citizens in the state press for banning pre-viability abortions in order to prevent killing the pre-viability fetus.

I argue that Jane Roe had and still has standing in the USSC to prevent harm or potential death to her body from the moment she learns she is pregnant if her state bans abortion prior to fetal viability.

RvW agreed.

In other words the state does not have the authority or standing to force a woman to wait for the end of full term gestation to find out giving birth to her fetus couid kill her.

nf.23.09.14
#10,982

 

[Papageorgio]

ppgrg.23.09.14
#10,975


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

You refuse to answer my questions, why should I answer yours?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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,

One at a time. The Supreme Court absolutely without a doubt must strike down any state law that interferes with individual liberty when their exercising of that liberty does not interfere with the liberty of others or harm public safety in any way.

Engaging a private medical procedure does not interfere with the liberty of others or harm public safety in any way.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ppgrg.23.09.14
#10,974

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?

As far as I know there are no liberal justices on the current Supreme Court bench who take lavish gifts from billionaires and do not disclose them as gifts like every federal employee is supposed to do.

So give me a specific example of a liberal even remotely living the grifter life as Clarence Thomas has been doing apparently his entire tenure.

nf.23.09.14 #10,985

 

[Papageorgio]

ppgrg.23.09.14
#10,974


As far as I know there are no liberal justices on the current Supreme Court bench who take lavish gifts from billionaires and do not disclose them as gifts like every federal employee is supposed to do.

So give me a specific example of a liberal even remotely living the grifter life as Clarence Thomas has been doing apparently his entire tenure.

nf.23.09.14 #10,985

The article I post with my question hit several of them specifically, so quit playing your stupid silly games. You have a choice to be honest or dishonest and you chose dishonesty, says a lot about your convictions and beliefs.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Next up, medical tests for women suspected of having taken abortion pills. We've finally surpassed Handmaids Tale.

Opinion | In Poland, Testing Women for Abortion Drugs Is a Reality. It Could Happen Here.

In rare cases, tests are being used to investigate the outcomes of pregnancies in a country where abortion is effectively banned.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Dogmaphobe]

One at a time. The Supreme Court absolutely without a doubt must strike down any state law that interferes with individual liberty when their exercising of that liberty does not interfere with the liberty of others or harm public safety in any way.

Engaging a private medical procedure does not interfere with the liberty of others or harm public safety in any way.

It sure does infringe on the liberty of the human being aborted, dumb shit.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The article I post with my question hit several of them specifically, so quit playing your stupid silly games.

There are no current Dobbs Court Justices who are liberals on that list.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

dgmphb.23.09.14
#10,988

It sure does infringe on the liberty of the human being aborted, dumb shit.

What liberty does a fetal stage human being have prior to miscarriage have?

nf.23.09.14 #10,990

 

[ThisIsMe]

• Today at 4:49 AM
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #10,968

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

But that doesn’t mean they oppose abortion BECAUSE they are white. I mean, I’ve never heard an argument against abortion based on race. Now, I have heard it based on religion.

I’ve no idea of the statistics on it, but if the anti abortion crowd happens to be majority white…that doesn’t mean their opposition to abortion has anything to do with BEING white.

The left are the ones who interject race into every subject where the race of the person is not a factor…why is that?

 

[Papageorgio]

There are no current Dobbs Court Justices who are liberals on that list.

Like your dance, thanks!

 

[ThisIsMe]

thssm.23.09.14 #10,981



thssm.23.09.14 #10,967



You argue that states have a right to ban early abortions if their religious citizens in the state press for banning pre-viability abortions in order to prevent killing the pre-viability fetus.

I argue that Jane Roe had and still has standing in the USSC to prevent harm or potential death to her body from the moment she learns she is pregnant if her state bans abortion prior to fetal viability.

RvW agreed.

In other words the state does not have the authority or standing to force a woman to wait for the end of full term gestation to find out giving birth to her fetus couid kill her.

nf.23.09.14
#10,982

You argue that states have a right to ban early abortions if their religious citizens in the state press for banning pre-viability abortions in order to prevent killing the pre-viability fetus.

No, YOU are making the argument about “religious” people, I’ve stated numerous times that my argument has nothing to do with religion. I said that the federal government doesn’t have the right, based on the cotus, to force a state to perform abortions. Not based on religion, but based on the cotus.

In other words the state does not have the authority or standing to force a woman to wait for the end of full term gestation to find out giving birth to her fetus couid kill her.

I agree, if a woman finds out, at whatever stage of pregnancy, that having the baby could kill her, then she has a right to terminate the pregnancy, and every state agrees.

You keep making this argument from the perspective of the life of the mother. I’ve explained multiple times that no state requires a woman to make that choice. The argument is about the authority of the federal government vs the states.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

thssm.23.09.14
#10,991

But that doesn’t mean they oppose abortion BECAUSE they are white. I mean, I’ve never heard an argument against abortion based on race. Now, I have heard it based on religion.

I’m not talking about these animals but it exists.

Abortion is seen by white extremists as part of the so-called “white genocide” plot, and in that sense, reproductive rights are a part of their “white extinction anxiety.”​

​

The horrific revelations are a reminder that white supremacy, male supremacy and violent extremism go hand in hand. Minorities and white women are targets of an ideology that both seeks to reduce nonwhite populations and to increase white ones. For this and other white supremacist extremist groups, the mass murder of minorities and the mass rape of white women are twin goals oriented toward maintaining a white majority nation.​

Opposition to abortion as a medical procedure is not any kind of argument against a woman having the right to reasonable access to abortion being regulated for safety of the patient by having state licensed medical professionals do it.

This is morally based opposition to abortion:

bckvgn.22.05.02 #1 Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.

That is not a facts based argument for a legal reason to deprive a pregnant woman of her liberty to deal with the life within her body as she see fitting for her life.

That is a morally based absolute judgement on the moral character of a woman who had unprotected sex as an effort to correct unprotected sexual behavior.

nf.23.09.14
#10,994

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No, YOU are making the argument about “religious” people, I’ve stated numerous times that my argument has nothing to do with religion. I said that the federal government doesn’t have the right, based on the cotus, to force a state to perform abortions. Not based on religion, but based on the cotus.

Your argument has no validity because the Federal Government under RvW did not force a state to perform or sanction abortions. States do not perform abortions.

Your argument does not address the woman’s right according to her conscience to deny the use of her body by a fetus to sustain its development until ready for separation at birth.

The Constitution does not say she cannot.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience as long as one’s conscience does not accept behavior that violates another’s rights and liberties.

So the effect of your state’s rights incomplete argument is to give your consent to the religious extremists obsession with banning abortion not for the sake of an argument, but for the sake of their conscience that was driven into their minds by a religious institution. It is not a rational argument.

 

[Papageorgio]

Your argument has no validity because the Federal Government under RvW did not force a state to perform or sanction abortions. States do not perform abortions.

Your argument does not address the woman’s right according to her conscience to deny the use of her body by a fetus to sustain its development until ready for separation at birth.

The Constitution does not say she cannot.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience as long as one’s conscience does not accept behavior that violates another’s rights and liberties.

So the effect of your state’s rights incomplete argument is to give your consent to the religious extremists obsession with banning abortion not for the sake of an argument, but fir the sake of their conscience driven into the minds by a religious institution.

Roe v Wade was reversed because of Dodd v Jackson, denies states powers like making treaties but does not directly deny the power to restrict abortion. Further Dodd argued that liberty as written in the Fourteenth Amendment only says fundamental rights that are "deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition" it was then argued that abortion is not a fundamental right because at the time of the writing of the Fourteenth Amendment many states had bans on abortion already in place and thus did not consider abortion a fundamental right.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

thssm.23.09.14
#10,993

I agree, if a woman finds out, at whatever stage of pregnancy, that having the baby could kill her, then she has a right to terminate the pregnancy, and every state agrees.

Every pregnancy can cause premature death and there is no advance warning. The way to be certain that a pregnancy cannot kill you over the next nine months is to terminate it early as possible. When a woman wants to have a baby she consents to take the risk. That is a choice only a woman can make because it is her life at stake.

The state cannot guarantee with certainty that pregnancy to full term won’t kill a woman so the Fourteen Amendment has to apply to a woman who becomes pregnant by mistake or birth control failure.

ppgrg.23.08.14
#10,996

Roe v Wade was reversed because of Dodd v Jackson, denies states powers like making treaties but does not directly deny the power to restrict abortion. Further Dodd argued that liberty as written in the Fourteenth Amendment only says fundamental rights that are "deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition" it was then argued that abortion is not a fundamental right because at the time of the writing of the Fourteenth Amendment many states had bans on abortion already in place and thus did not consider abortion a fundamental right.

Can you tell me Saint Thisisme and Saint Papageorgio why a woman’s fundamental right to protect herself from premature death during childbirth has to be deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition in a nation that did not give its female citizens permission to have a say on all abortion laws passed during the first hundred years?

The only answer is to mindlessly surrender to absurdity.

To argue at the USSC level that. . . . ,

“abortion is not a fundamental right because at the time of the writing of the Fourteenth Amendment many states had bans on abortion already in place and thus did not consider abortion a fundamental right”

….. is as male dominant and regressive an application of judicial power over the formerly oppressed gender that has the body parts that can generate future generations as there ever can be.

A woman’s privacy when in a condition of pregnancy has be protected from invasion by white Republican religious extremists who are the only large group of citizens who demand that she loses her right to privacy when she engages in unprotected sex. It’s none of their fucking business and I thought you two would agree.

nf.23.09.14 #10,997

 

[Papageorgio]

thssm.23.09.14
#10,993


Every pregnancy can cause premature death and there is no advance warning. The way to be certain that a pregnancy cannot kill you over the next nine months is to terminate it early as possible. When a woman wants to have a baby she consents to take the risk. That is a choice only a woman can make because it is her life at stake.

The state cannot guarantee with certainty that pregnancy to full term won’t kill a woman so the Fourteen Amendment has to apply to a woman who becomes pregnant by mistake or birth control failure.

ppgrg.23.08.14
#10,996



Can you tell me Saint Thisisme and Saint Papageorgio why a woman’s fundamental right to protect herself from premature death during childbirth has to be deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition in a nation that did not give its female citizens permission to have a say on all abortion laws passed during the first hundred years?

The only answer is to mindlessly surrender to absurdity.

To argue at the USSC level that. . . . ,

“abortion is not a fundamental right because at the time of the writing of the Fourteenth Amendment many states had bans on abortion already in place and thus did not consider abortion a fundamental right”

….. is as male dominant and regressive an application of judicial power over the formerly oppressed gender that has the body parts that can generate future generations as there ever can be.

A woman’s privacy when in a condition of pregnancy has be protected from invasion by white Republican religious extremists who are the only large group of citizens who demand that she loses her right to privacy when she engages in unprotected sex. It’s none of their fucking business and I thought you two would agree.

nf.23.09.14 #10,997

Saint Bitch, I said nothing about life or death. Quit going dramatic on me and read the facts, can you do that without being an emotional racist bigoted nut job?

The Supreme Court interpreted the law, had your damn Democrats done something over the last 50 plus years and took care of women like they claim to, this would be a nonissue but as usual, politicians don’t give a damn otherwise they would have done something instead of not doing a damn fucking thing. What laws have they put forth to reverse Dobbs v Jackson decision?

Biden threatened to do something but has done nothing, know why, they need to use the abortion issue to gets lots of votes. Sorry Saint Bitch, you are being fooled by Democrats.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Roe v Wade was reversed because of Dodd v Jackson,

RvW was reversed because white extremist Christians want it reversed and they have a majority on the USSC that is sympathetic to letting states decide if they want to force full term gestation on women by banning a safe medical procedure based upon tyranny of the majority in control of a state.

I prioritize that women unknown to me have a right to stop gestation in their own bodies because it’s none of my business.

I can understand that, and I agree. It is really none of our business. I also believe that it’s not the federal governments business either.

Do you live in one of the states that make up the United States of America? Why does a state government have a right to
force full term gestation in a woman’s body by banning access to a safe medical procedure where she lives.

But more importantly a woman’s right to eliminate the potential risk of harm or death supersedes the right of a brainless potential human to receive full term gestation from her life.

Do you believe it’s a baby?

When I was told I am going to be a father I believed what made my wife’s belly bigger was a baby.

When my daughters told me they were expecting to have a baby I followed their lead and called it a baby.

I thought you said you agree what a woman does with her body is none of our business; but then you make it your business with the white religious right wanting to know what every woman who gets pregnant calls the living human organism beginning the earliest stages of life in her body.

So, because you, and many lefty’s do not believe it’s a baby, then do you believe that women deserve any special protections or privileges when pregnant?

No. It’s none of our business what goes on inside a woman’s body when we are not involved with them,

Abortion is not a right,

Again, we can’t have multiple definitions of what the woman is carrying, that’s not scientific at all.

No pregnant woman is obligated to refer to a part of her body by sone standard you and the extremist religious right want set. If she wants to have a baby it’s a baby. If she does not want to have a baby it’s a terminated pregnancy or whatever she want’s to call it.

But, constitutionally, it is our business. Scotus can’t create rights and make law, so roe should never have happened, not because people believe abortion is wrong, but because scotus doesn’t have that authority.

USSC can declare a state law unconstitutional when when it needlessly deprives a pregnant of her right to privacy when chiising to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

is it a baby or isn’t it. If it’s not, do we need laws giving pregnant women special privileges?

No, She does no harm when she has an abortion to the public. She was born with the privilege that is having autonomy over her body.

Scotus can’t make laws or grant rights.

It can strike down laws that needlessly restrict individual’s human right.

all these “my body, my choice” advocates…

What about them? You wrote this:

It is really none of our business.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I said nothing about life or death.

exactly! That’s my point.