Roe v Wade: plaintiff's death highlights weakening of abortion rights in US

"prego b!tch "...but anti-Choicers aren't misogynists...oh noooooo......


No, it isn't the state's place to take away women's rights....American women have rights in ALL of the United States.

 

Depending on how you kill the infant the killing could be an act of mercy.

Severe abnormalities or mental impairment would be 2 examples.

You cannot logically broad-brush infanticide due to some arbitrary criterion of your own.

 

Roe V. Wade is bad law because it was issued by activist judges on the High Court.

Bad law should be overturned legally.

The two legal options would an Amendment (going either way) or a subsequent case on further review before the High Court.

Trump (or Pence if Trump does not last very long in office) will have a chance to nominate at least 2 if not 3 or 4 more SCOTUS justices, and that could lead to an overturn.

 

Well in Roe V. Wade the Burger Court forced their choices on the States.

 

The court that decided RvW was conservative.

What grounds would The Misogynists Club use to overturn RvW ?

 

Link ??

 

Nope, common knowledge that she had to wait so long that she gave birth.....but it doesn't matter whether she had an abortion or not.

 

They obviously had a moment of activism.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about women or about their uteri.

 

People, those of you who have never read the Constitution need to do so.

And don't forget the Amendments as well.

Then you can read Roe V. Wade yourself and see how ridiculous it sounds in light of the actual Constitution itself.

 

I'm way behind in my emails and notifications. I have over 6,000 unread. So forgive me if I go away for a while and ressurect month old threads.

 

How can you see that I'm not? Seriously, do you really think a pro lifer like me, who advocates the protect of the unborn at the moment of conception, would genuinely advocate for infant genocide? Are you that disconnected from your opposition that you think I would do such a 180? Now, answer the question, why is it sick and wrong to kill a newborn but not an unborn?

I never advocated for dying women so I'm not sure on what you're talking about. Unless you're saying you want me to shut up and don't respond.

 

Here you go.

http://www.lifenews.com/2017/02/18/...he-never-had-an-abortion-and-became-pro-life/

 

Thank you.

Great write up.

This old coot once young air-head was a plague on the USA.

Better had she never been born.

Now she is dead, decomposed, and rotted away.

Yet her legacy of stupidity remains.

Just wondering how long she will serve in purgatory for all those murdered unborn babies ?!

 

Ok your sins are forgiven.

Go thy way.

Sin no more.

 

What you said was: """""""""""""Well it wasn't too late after she gave birth. She could've just killed her newborn.""""""

Sounds like a suggestion to me.


As to your question, you know the answer....the fetus has no rights until it's born. After viability, it has some protection but still can be killed if the woman's life is in danger.

DUHHH, no , I'm saying you obviously haven't/can't/won't read the OP......nor even read the title of the thread you're commenting in...Hint: The title ? Read it """plaintiff's death""" Hint, hint dying woman, plaintiff's death !!?? Yoohoo... title has something to do with woman's death....

 

Ya, they did .....

 

Yes, but there's a lot about people having rights, and while you obviously don't think women are humans, they , too, have rights.

ALL kinds of rights and abortion is another one.

Women have abortions all the time, whenever they want and as many as they want and you can do nothing about it .

Those as YOU say, "preggo b!tches", do exactly as they please no matter what you think or do

 

"Life" is not protected. If it was then we'd all be dead because we survive by eating things that were once alive.

The "Person" is protected under the US Constitution, not "life" per se, and the "person" does not exist until birth.

 

You're right.. The author of this piece is an idiot.

 

What grounds would The Misogynists Club use to overturn RvW ?

 

States' Rights -- conflict with the 10th Amendment.

I take it you have not read the Constitution lately -- in a long time -- if ever.

 

Welcome to iggy. From now on you will need to try to read and understand the Constitution on your own. No more free reading comprehension lessons.

 

McCorvey made the same mistake as Steve Jobs -- trying to win fame and fortune while leaving the world a better place.

McCorvey won fame and Jobs won both fame and fortune, but they both left the world worse off than had they never been born.

Now you have the unborn being aborted by the millions in every state just because little Susie's aren't smart enough to do what the Girl Scouts Of America tells them -- bring your own condoms in your purse and use them.

And now you have billions of zombies walking around with their faces glued to their palm devices and I-phone oblivious to the dangers and threats around them, withdrawing into their introversion and hardly speaking to anyone around them.

Has nothing to do with misogyny.

 

Nope, they'll need more than that to take away women's rights...

 

Nothing to do with misogyny? Then in your post : "" little Susie's aren't smart enough to do what the Girl Scouts Of America tells them""

And in your previous (deleted) posts you referred to the woman in the OP as " preggo b!tch"....that's clearly misogyny even if you deny it.
Taking away women's rights is another form of misogyny.....


Then another off the wall and off the topic comment:

""And now you have billions of zombies walking around with their faces glued to their palm devices and I-phone oblivious to the dangers and threats around them, withdrawing into their introversion and hardly speaking to anyone around them."""


But yet you seem to miss the millions more that would've been born....are you getting confused?


...and another silly comment about McCorvey and Jobs....neither one singlehandedly changed the world....silly thing to think....