Roe Vs Wade appears to be ripe for overturning

[Chuz Life]

The LOGIC is that a state is comprised of and concerned with the wrights of citizens and citizenship begins at birth , such that for equal protection one must be born , else any other would be receiving wrights greater than those provided for a citizen .

A per son is male and countable by census , hence born .

Fetal

HOMICIDE

Laws.

Your futile attempts at an appeal to authority (Stare Decisis) have already been annihilated by he nations (now more than) 30 State and Federal Fetal Homicide laws.

 

[OnePercenter]

You are full of shit

More of the "grab her by the pussy" crap again?

No.

This is not about Biden or the criminal investigation against him.

You post lie after lie. Abortion is between a woman, her Doctor, and her God. Any RATIONAL PERSON knows that.

You poop your pants ( a lot )and you have a really low credit score AND you have a history of animal abuse. This is mistakenly obvious in your posts. Any rational person would have no reason to conclude otherwise.

See?

I can make unsubstantiated baseless allegations too.

Irrational people believe they can instill their beliefs on others.

 

[Chuz Life]

Irrational people believe they can instill their beliefs on others.

Is it only my belief that the Constitution says that "all persons" have a right to the equal protections of our laws?

Or is that not a Constitutional fact?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Little Person Casting Wall Shadows Intimidating None "

* More Drivel Denying State Interest From Birth As A Constitutional Necessity For Equal Protection *

Fetal HOMICIDE Laws.
Your futile attempts at an appeal to authority (Stare Decisis) have already been annihilated by he nations (now more than) 30 State and Federal Fetal Homicide laws.

Homicide is unlawful killing and it is unlawful to kill a fetus of a woman against her will , in that the unlawful killing is a crime against the mother because she has constitutional wrights , whereas the fetus does not have constitutional wrights .

Let us know when you get that capital punishment caveat for killing a fetus ; but we both know that will not happen , because the lawyers wanted to make sure that mindless fools had a non falsifiable platform from which to cast bloviate shadows .

 

[fncceo]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

This is how you make freedom dissolve into tyranny. Soon the U.S. will allow religious cults to shove their "religion" straight up the genitals of Americans who are not members of these cults and have no interest in being so. No more freedom to choose your own religion. The politicians' choice will be forced upon you. Nazism seems to be rearing its ugly head again.

I'm not seeing the connection between abortion and religious freedom. Could you elucidate?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Per Son Homunculus Going Nowhere Fast "

* Non Descript Vernacular *

Is it only my belief that the Constitution says that "all persons" have a right to the equal protections of our laws? Or is that not a Constitutional fact?

A constitutional fact is that a state requires birth to become a citizen and LOGICALLY a state requires birth for equal protection .

Per son is a nebulous term used in liue of individual when political pundits do not want to include women as citizens in decision making - Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia .

Homunculus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A homunculus (UK: /hɒˈmʌŋkjʊləs/ hom-UNK-yuul-əs, US: /hoʊˈ-/ hohm-, Latin: [hɔˈmʊŋkʊlʊs]; "little person") is a representation of a small human being. Popularized in sixteenth-century alchemy and nineteenth-century fiction, it has historically referred to the creation of a miniature, fully formed human. The concept has roots in preformationism as well as earlier folklore and alchemic traditions.

 

[OnePercenter]

Irrational people believe they can instill their beliefs on others.

Is it only my belief that the Constitution says that "all persons" have a right to the equal protections of our laws?

Or is that not a Constitutional fact?

Then make your argument in court.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Hocus Pocus Versus Legitimate Jurisprudence "

* Literal Meaning Of An After Life And Individual Liberty *

I'm not seeing the connection between abortion and religious freedom. Could you elucidate?

There is not a difference between religion and creed and just because the religious reich rants that it is their RITE to demand all accept their dictates of fate once pregnant , that perspective has zero to do with the constitution and state interests , and that perspective has zero to do with the RITE of others to decide a different fate for themselves .

* Religious Hypocrites Wanton For Justifiable Miscarriage Pretending Gawd Decided Fate *

Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The ordeal of the bitter water was a trial by ordeal administered to the wife whose husband suspected her of adultery but who had no witnesses to make a formal case (Numbers 5:11-31).
The account of the ordeal of bitter water given in the Book of Numbers is as follows:
19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;
20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--
21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell;
22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

— Numbers 5, JPS 1917.

 

[fncceo]

There is not a difference between religion and creed and just because the religious reich rants that it is their RITE to demand all accept their dictates of fate once pregnant

The concept of personhood isn't a religious one, although it, like most questions of social morality, has origins in religious thought.

The unlawful taking of the life of a person is immoral in nearly every culture, regardless of religious beliefs.

If a fetus is legal declared to be a person, and there is existing legal precedent to support this, then the right to life of the person/fetus has to take precedence over the medical privacy of the individual.

This is legal distinction, not a religious one.

 

[ding]

There is not a difference between religion and creed and just because the religious reich rants that it is their RITE to demand all accept their dictates of fate once pregnant

The concept of personhood isn't a religious one, although it, like most questions of social morality, has origins in religious thought.

The unlawful taking of the life of a person is immoral in nearly every culture, regardless of religious beliefs.

If a fetus is legal declared to be a person, and there is existing legal precedent to support this, then the right to life of the person/fetus has to take precedence over the medical privacy of the individual.

This is legal distinction, not a religious one.

Yep. This is a science and legal argument.

 

[Chuz Life]

Irrational people believe they can instill their beliefs on others.

Is it only my belief that the Constitution says that "all persons" have a right to the equal protections of our laws?
Or is that not a Constitutional fact?

Then make your argument in court.

We are way ahead of you, on the idea of making the case in court .

What is YOUR answer to the question?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Definition Versus Interpretive Conjecture "

* Citizens Are The State *

The concept of personhood isn't a religious one, although it, like most questions of social morality, has origins in religious thought.
The unlawful taking of the life of a person is immoral in nearly every culture, regardless of religious beliefs.
If a fetus is legal declared to be a person, and there is existing legal precedent to support this, then the right to life of the person/fetus has to take precedence over the medical privacy of the individual.
This is legal distinction, not a religious one.

The issue with rigor in language requires a sufficient definition of terms , else one is reliant upon etymology and interpretation and such a legal declaration that the eponym of " per son " is equivalent with a fetus will not occur .

The us 19th amendment was passed because a scotus challenge that women had a wright to vote under us 14th amendment was rejected ; one would not be errant in interpreting from the court decision that women were not citizens by definition of " persons born or naturalized " as they are not male .

The precept of a state is that it is comprised of citizens and acts on behalf of its citizen members , where membership in a state as a citizen stipulates a requirement of birth , whence birth is requirement for equal protection , which are basic understandings of a state that rely upon logic and legal rigor rather than interpretation or conjecture .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Person Is Useless Layman Vernacular "

* False Equivalence With A Citizen Requirement Of Birth *

[We are way ahead of you, on the idea of making the case in court .What is YOUR answer to the question?

The answer to the question is that a fetus is not countable by census and therefore not congruent with " per " of the term " per son " .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Reality Of Logic Over Fabricated Hubris "

* Law Of Excluded Middle *

Yep. This is a science and legal argument.

The us 14th amendment makes a distinction between those born on us soil and those not born on us soil and the contingency of birth is implicit with the term per son .

None is foolish enough as to exclaim that a fetus of any can be naturalized as a citizen before birth .

 

[ding]

" Reality Of Logic Over Fabricated Hubris "

* Law Of Excluded Middle *

Yep. This is a science and legal argument.

The us 14th amendment makes a distinction between those born on us soil and those not born on us soil and the contingency of birth is implicit with the term per son .

None is foolish enough as to exclaim that a fetus of any can be naturalized as a citizen before birth .

It seems you have fallen into the same trap of misapplying the 14th, ignoring the intentions of the framers of the 14th and ass raping at least one other Amendment and state rights. Brilliant.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" From Per Sons To Peep Poles "

* Non Specific Theory Addressed And Dispatched *

It seems you have fallen into the same trap of misapplying the 14th, ignoring the intentions of the framers of the 14th and ass raping at least one other Amendment and state rights. Brilliant.

As at birth one becomes a citizen of the united states of the state wherein they reside , as well , then birth is required for equal protection within a state .

The only intentions of us 14th amendment are to specify Jus soli - Wikipedia for those subjects of us jurisdiction thereof , while Jus sanguinis - Wikipedia applies to those not subjects of us jurisdiction thereof ; and , the latter applies to children of illegal migrants whom should receive citizenship from the country of their parents .

There are differences between protections such as due process and endowments such as citizenship and illegal migrants are not subjects with a title in the us legal migration system .

To bring a court challenge to for children of illegal migrants to be given the citizenship of their parents , a state needs to refuse to grant citizenship which means that a state would refuse to file a petition for us federal citizenship for the child , rather a state would file a petition for citizenship with the country of origin for the mother .

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

* Fake Anti Federalist Meets An Also Anti Statist For Individualism *

The individual liberties of the peep poles are reserved in us ninth amendment which precede and supercede the authoritarian proclivities of the collective state reserved in us tenth amendment .

The roe v wade decision directed that after the onset of natural viability in the third trimester , states interests could begin and states could proscribe abortion in the third trimester except where it is necessary to save the life of the mother ; in an essence , after an onset of natural viability , a standard of parturition ( live birth ) was relative .

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[3]

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[5]

 

[ding]

" From Per Sons To Peep Poles "

* Non Specific Theory Addressed And Dispatched *

It seems you have fallen into the same trap of misapplying the 14th, ignoring the intentions of the framers of the 14th and ass raping at least one other Amendment and state rights. Brilliant.

As at birth one becomes a citizen of the united states of the state wherein they reside , as well , then birth is required for equal protection within a state .

The only intentions of us 14th amendment are to specify Jus soli - Wikipedia for those subjects of us jurisdiction thereof , while Jus sanguinis - Wikipedia applies to those not subjects of us jurisdiction thereof ; and , the latter applies to children of illegal migrants whom should receive citizenship from the country of their parents .

There are differences between protections such as due process and endowments such as citizenship and illegal migrants are not subjects with a title in the us legal migration system .

To bring a court challenge to for children of illegal migrants to be given the citizenship of their parents , a state needs to refuse to grant citizenship which means that a state would refuse to file a petition for us federal citizenship for the child , rather a state would file a petition for citizenship with the country of origin for the mother .

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

* Fake Anti Federalist Meets An Also Anti Statist For Individualism *

The individual liberties of the peep poles are reserved in us ninth amendment which precede and supercede the authoritarian proclivities of the collective state reserved in us tenth amendment .

The roe v wade decision directed that after the onset of natural viability in the third trimester , states interests could begin and states could proscribe abortion in the third trimester except where it is necessary to save the life of the mother ; in an essence , after an onset of natural viability , a standard of parturition ( live birth ) was relative .

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[3]

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[5]

tl/dr

The 14th was written for a very specific and narrow reason. Democrats were being dicks.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Sample Semple Simple Somple Sumple Symple "

* Too Long Did Not Read Second Revision When Less Errors Affect Readability *

As at birth one becomes a citizen in the united states and in the state wherein they reside , then birth is required for equal protection within a state of us states , just as birth is required for equal protection within the federate of us states .

The roe v wade decision asserted us 9th amendment by relating basic wrights of individuals within a state or a federate - that those not having met a criteria of birth are not entitled to equal protection with a citizen .

The roe v wade decision asserted us 10th amendment by relating basic wrights of states that post viability a state interest increases given a potential for a life with liberty , such that states may proscribe abortion in the third trimester with some exceptions .

It seems you have fallen into the same trap of misapplying the 14th, ignoring the intentions of the framers of the 14th and ass raping at least one other Amendment and state rights. Brilliant.

tl/dr
The 14th was written for a very specific and narrow reason. Democrats were being dicks.

 

[bodecea]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

Right after they indict Hillary Clinton.

 

[ding]

" Sample Semple Simple Somple Sumple Symple "

* Too Long Did Not Read Second Revision When Less Errors Affect Readability *

As at birth one becomes a citizen in the united states and in the state wherein they reside , then birth is required for equal protection within a state of us states , just as birth is required for equal protection within the federate of us states .

The roe v wade decision asserted us 9th amendment by relating basic wrights of individuals within a state or a federate - that those not having met a criteria of birth are not entitled to equal protection with a citizen .

The roe v wade decision asserted us 10th amendment by relating basic wrights of states that post viability a state interest increases given a potential for a life with liberty , such that states may proscribe abortion in the third trimester with some exceptions .

It seems you have fallen into the same trap of misapplying the 14th, ignoring the intentions of the framers of the 14th and ass raping at least one other Amendment and state rights. Brilliant.

tl/dr
The 14th was written for a very specific and narrow reason. Democrats were being dicks.

Human life begins at conception.