SCOTUS opinion leaked: Roe v Wade

[Poor Richard Saunders]

They'll riot over this. Death threats against justices will be made, and all of it ignored by the alphabet agencies.

Death threats will be taken seriously. I expect more than one person to be arrested for making such threats.

 

[moon]

Lol the last time I checked nobody is forcing you to get pregnant

Termination refusal is enforced pregnancy. The very notion is barbaric.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What science did they use? Please be specific as to which page of the ruling shows them using science.

the science about pregnancy that hasn't changed..........since the dawn of time i'm guessing

 

[archives]

They'll riot over this. Death threats against justices will be made, and all of it ignored by the alphabet agencies.

Riots, no, protests, and more likely not until the actual ruling is released, and there probably will be death threats, but none comparable nor in number that Fauci received/receives

 

[ExpressLane]

They'll riot over this. Death threats against justices will be made, and all of it ignored by the alphabet agencies.

They will be wearing pink pussy hats.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Termination refusal is enforced pregnancy. The very notion is barbaric.

are you implying that women are so stupid that they don't understand that sex can lead to pregnancy?

 

[Earl]

Biden’s evolution on abortion

1974 “A woman shouldn’t have the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

2012 “ Government doesn’t ’ have a right to tell other people that women, they can’t control their body.”

Slow Joe was against abortion before he was for abortion,

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Biology has nothing to do with legal rulings. In fact Alito specifically throws out biology when he argues that there is no scientific agreement on when life begins so he is not going to rule on that.

so his ruling is based purely upon the Constitution?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Because pro abortion advocates have defined personhood on a basis that has nothing to do with biology.

The Constitution has nothing to do with this as Roe is completely unconstitutional and luckily will now be overturned and the vast majority of states will grant personhood to the unborn, what are you going to do when you can't hide behind semantics to justify your mass infanticide anymore?

The Constitution has everything to do with this. Citizenship is granted at birth. So unless you want to argue that a fetus is an undocumented alien, then personhood is granted at birth as well.

 

[gfm7175]

So you admit you have no proof that it's a person?

So you admit that you condone the killing of living humans who have committed no crime nor have expressed any desire to die?

 

[FreeSpeech1789]

Yes, biology.




It says that gender is a broad spectrum, it is not binary.

So now biological sex is the same thing as gender? Hmmmm.

 

[gfm7175]

They will be wearing pink pussy hats.

Yup... You will quickly see the NPCs switch out their Ukrainian flags for pink pussy hats.

 

[LV426]

So now biological sex is the same thing as gender? Hmmmm.

That is what it is, yes.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

so his ruling is based purely upon the Constitution?

Nope, unless the Constitution was in England in the early 1700's. A lot of the historical context for the ruling is based on common law and English law prior to the US even declaring Independence. So any claim that the ruling is based purely on the Constitution is complete BS.

 

[LV426]

Yup... You will quickly see the NPCs switch out their Ukrainian flags for pink pussy hats.

Wait - so you support Russia?

 

[Earl]

Marist poll Jan. 4-9

Want Some Restrictions on Abortion

All Adults. 71%

Republicans. 93%

Democrats. 49%

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Nope. No need. You condone the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime nor have expressed any desire to die. That's murder. That's morally irreprehensible.

Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.

 

[Legion]

So now biological sex is the same thing as gender? Hmmmm.

 

[FreeSpeech1789]

No, of course not.

Why not?

But you do, though.

You're the one who wants to get rid of WIC, SNAP, and welfare.

I actually don't think women should have children outside of marriage and if they can not financially care for a child they should put it up for adoption.

So you quite literally want to deny children food, water, and oxygen because you want to get rid of those programs.




It's actually way less viable because it still needs the umbilical cord and placenta.

Just like a born child still needs to be provided with food, water, and oxygen because there is no biological difference whatsoever

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Nope, unless the Constitution was in England in the early 1700's. A lot of the historical context for the ruling is based on common law and English law prior to the US even declaring Independence. So any claim that the ruling is based purely on the Constitution is complete BS.

untrue..........maybe you can explain how the court 'found' such a right to privacy in the 9th Amendment.........but reads 'shall not be infringed' as giving the feds the power to 'reasonably regulate'????????