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

Science was mentioned in the Constitution but god was deliberately excluded.

 

All existing rights that were not enumerated were covered by the 9th Amendment. Since abortion was LEGAL at that time it was a de facto right. Onus would be entirely on you to prove that women do NOT have the individual right to decide what happens to their own bodies. And you can start by proving that no one has the right to donate blood.

 

.
It didn't do a very good job.....Pro-Choice people don't advocate murder of infants and no where can you find proof they do...your attempt at showing anything FAILED.

It looked like YOU recommended it

A fetus is not legally a person with rights until it's born.

It has protections after 23 weeks , viability.

 

Here's a stupid "anti-Fact" : saying someone has to "admit" that only about 2.5% of abortions are for medical reasons....

Why is that an "admission" ?? Abortions are done for any reason women choose and if you have no issue with abortion you'd know that.

 

That wasn't my point to begin with. I never accused of anyone of wanting to kill born children. My point was to show that the advocating of killing a newborn is just as immoral as advocating for the killing of the unborn.

Again, I was merely pointing out how illogical it is to advocate for abortion, but not the killing of the unborn.

Slaves didn't had protections either. Why on a moral and logical level is it alright to kill an unborn child but not a newborn? Arguing over the legality is irrelevant because (1) the law isn't always right and (2) it's subject to change.

 

First: as you have been told, no one is "advocating" killing anything. Pro-Choice is only advocating that woman keep the SAME rights YOU have.

Second : If you think killing a fetus is immoral, don't have an abortion . YOUR morals are not everyone's and your morals don't rule.

Third: the unborn have no rights. One has to be born to have rights.

You can't give the unborn rights without infringing on the rights of the woman it's in.

See above.

Yes, but it is the law. The Constitution protects ALL born citizens not just men.

Scrap the weak "slave" defense...slaves were born persons deserving rights.

 

I don't have the right to kill someone unless under immediate threat of great bodily harm or death.

the problem is we're not just dealing with the woman. we're dealing with the human being inside.

Irrelevant. Laws change.

What rights are you talking about?

I agree. I just don"t think killing another human being at wanton is one of those rights.

why do you have to be born to have the right to live?

 

Whether you agree or not pregnancy causes women physical harm and damage, your mere opinion just doesn't override science and facts.

YOU have the right to self defense but you don't want pregnant women to have the same right.
AND NOTE: That ONLY applies IF a fetus is deemed a PERSON, it isn't.

ALSO: YOU cannot be forced to use your body to sustain the life of another yet YOU want to force pregnant women to do exactly that.

AGAIN: Second : If you think killing a fetus is immoral, don't have an abortion . YOUR morals are not everyone's and your morals don't rule

Irrelevant , they haven't.

The right to NOT have another use her body to sustain it's life. The second you declare a fetus has rights since it's inside the woman it infringes on her rights.

The Pentagon does it all the time.

And you are welcome to your OPINION.......but you cannot force that opinion on others.

NO one has a "right" to live.

And until you're born if you had rights they would infringe on the woman's.

Juts because you want to destroy women's rights, the same rights YOU enjoy, doesn't mean the law will change to accommodate you.

 

There are people alive today (and in the distant past, even at the founding of America) that believe in the right to life and your statement to the contrary cannot change that.

 

Do people in war have a right to life?

Do convicted murderers have a right to life?


Does someone who is attacking you have a right to life?

Why couldn't you be honest and address the whole post ?

Whether you agree or not pregnancy causes women physical harm and damage, your mere opinion just doesn't override science and facts.
YOU have the right to self defense but you don't want pregnant women to have the same right.
AND NOTE: That ONLY applies IF a fetus is deemed a PERSON, it isn't.
ALSO: YOU cannot be forced to use your body to sustain the life of another yet YOU want to force pregnant women to do exactly that.
AGAIN: Second : If you think killing a fetus is immoral, don't have an abortion . YOUR morals are not everyone's and your morals don't rule
Irrelevant , they haven't.
The right to NOT have another use her body to sustain it's life. The second you declare a fetus has rights since it's inside the woman it infringes on her rights.
The Pentagon does it all the time.
And you are welcome to your OPINION.......but you cannot force that opinion on others.

NO one has a "right" to live.

And until you're born if you had rights they would infringe on the woman's.
Juts because you want to destroy women's rights, the same rights YOU enjoy, doesn't mean the law will change to accommodate you.

 

God was excluded, yes.

Women were excluded.

Uteri were excluded.

And no mention was made of abortion either -- however they did it in 1789.

Little more proof is needed that the Founding Freemasons in the Constitution relegated the abortion issue to the States, as clarified in the 10th Amendment, which was with the Bill Of Rights drawn up later.

It is amusing to me that the enemies of States Rights who are also the proponents of More Rights For Women (even some not included in the Constitution) want even more rights for women -- Hell be damned if need be to get them. It's simply called advocacy. And it is unjustifiable advocacy.

 

Oh stop quibbling over minutia.

 

Does your gibberish intend by you to mean something here ???

Perhaps you can try explaining it further if so.

 

So you just pulled that out of your wazoo then ?!

That's what I thought.

 

Well then there is absolutely NO mention of women in the Constitution or Amendments. Fine by me. Thank you.

 

Again, you are stretching the Constitution so far that like Roe V. Wade you have broken it.

This meaningless rhetoric does not succeed.

And nobody in any state that hates unrestricted abortion believes it.

This is why Roe V. Wade fails -- it is not convincing.

That is also why Roe V. Wade is legislation from the bench.

The only 2 ways to fix Roe V. Wade is (1) with a new Constitutional Amendment or (2) by overruling it.

You can bet DJ Trump will try to stack the SCOTUS (like FDR originally did for his New Deal) to overturn Roe V. Wade.

 

Nothing presented anywhere in this thread has justified Roe V. Wade.

The only thing that the pro-abortionists have accomplished is to repeat the gibberish of the SCOTUS ruling. That accomplishes nothing.

Meanwhile DJ Trump will continue to nominate anti-Roe justices and judges. That is likely for the next 2 years at least, maybe longer depending on the constitution of the Senate, as these partisan games are played in DC.

For those of you cheerleaders in favor of Roe, it seems like the least thing you could do is dress up in tutu's and pompoms and flash you legs and tushies while you dance and cheerlead for us.

At least then your rantings would be mildly entertaining.

To date those rantings are steeped in ignorance and blatant advocacy of a fallacious legislative ruling from the bench.

Call it what it is, be honest, and then put on your tutu's and start dancing !!!

 

I hate lies.

And I hate liars.

 

Yet another theist fallacy!

Denial of women's rights means surrendering your own rights but theists don't understand this fundamental concept.

 

You mean the hard FACTS that don't support your minutia?

 

Not my problem if you have a comprehension problem when it comes to individual constitutional rights as opposed to states rights.

 

Your ignorance regarding the Constitution is duly noted for the record.

 

Ironic!

 

ad hom.

iggy list for you.

goodbye.

 

That's the problem with progressive, secular humanists (lefties). Their moral relativity causes traditional morals and values to be disassembled and defined by progressive legislation. It should be the other way around, law should be defined by traditional morals and values. As usual, progressive libbies have it 'bassackwards.'