Roe v. Wade was wrong and so is the SCOTUS.

One mans opinion doesn't mean much of shit.

You my cyber opponent are a... :bye1:

1630723787879.png
 
Women's right to abortion is necessitated by our right to consent, not by our right to privacy. Our right to privacy just means they don't have to give anyone an explanation. The way consent works is that it only applies to the person you give it to, it cannot automatically transfer to other people, and it can be withdrawn at any time. The consent that a woman gives to a man for sex only applies to him and for sex. It does not apply to other members of his family or his friends or to a pregnancy with a baby who doesn't even exist yet.

Unborn babies have the same rights and obligations as the rest of us. That includes a right to life and an obligation to obtain consent. Without consent, a pregnancy becomes an assault, just as sex becomes rape ,and it's irrelevant how or why it happens, whether by accident or intent. We all have a right to defend ourselves from assault and the government is obligated to support us in that endeavor. Since abortion is the only means of stopping a non-consensual pregnancy, the government is obligated to ensure that women always have access to it.

The purpose of abortion is to end a non-consensual pregnancy, not to kill the baby. The baby still has a right to life and abortionists should make every effort to save the baby without injury when possible while performing an abortion or face murder charges. If our goal is to save babies lives then we should only ban abortion until most babies can survive and to ban all methods of abortion that involve harming the baby- poisoning, exsanguination, dismemberment etc. Banning abortion after the heartbeat is not about saving babies, it's about persecuting women under religious doctrine. There is no way to ban abortion without establishing a precedent that women have no right to self defense and therefore no right to consent.
What the fuck have you been drinking?
 
Yeah you and your one guy is supposed to make you right. :laugh:

The thesis of this essay, however, is that, contrary to the commentators' claims, Madison argued that the clause was a substantive grant of power for the generally stated end and that the primary purpose of the ensuing enumeration was to define more particularly the ends alluded to by the phrase “general welfare.” Hence, the meaning of the general constitutional government in the American federal system is a government oriented to a limited number of limited ends.


You do know who James Madison is right? I am going to borrow a theme from a song you might know...

'If believing James Madison is wrong, I don't want to be right'...

You are such a waste of time I don't even know why I am bothering with you...
 
Prove it by carrying the child to term. If you're not going to do that you're just full of shit.


I carried all my kids to term.

I don't have to carry another woman's baby to know it's wrong to kill him or her.
 
I wonder how the fuck you missed that I never said it was a law?
Your post #14 kind of implies that, otherwise why did you post what you did? The Supreme Court does not base any of their decisions on the Preamble to the Constitution. It does not have the force of law. Or maybe you have an example of any Supreme Court ruling where the Preamble is used as a basis.
 

Forum List

Back
Top