Roe v Wade
Jul 10, 2018 10:41:23 #
allow me to interject...no man or woman has the right to tell another woman what to do with her body. While I have my family, what happens to the women who are just beginning to think about having a child or not? This is so personal it should not have ever become a conversation in the first place.
Jul 10, 2018 10:59:50 #
ron vrooman wrote:
When a private female upon the land decides she does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term, who, what, where, how does anyone in Our Constitutional Republic form of government have jurisdiction over her decision??
Can we keep this to lawful and without conjecture, emotion, this is a private being making a decision none can gainsay her.
when I private member of we the people decides to eliminate from their body that is it.
Can we keep this to lawful and without conjecture, emotion, this is a private being making a decision none can gainsay her.
when I private member of we the people decides to eliminate from their body that is it.
As I see it:
There have been instances where the mother has died, and a 30 week old fetus was deemed a human separate from the dead mother, and was delivered successfully...
There have been times when the mother has developed complications and a fetus in its 22 week has been delivered successfully...
If a woman carries a fetus past the 21st week, there are cases to show the fetus is a human independent of the mother... Prior to the 22nd week, the woman can be shown to be carrying something that is hers... Past the 21st week, the fetus should be deemed a separate human under the mother's care...
Jul 10, 2018 12:32:59 #
ron vrooman wrote:
When a private female upon the land decides she does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term, who, what, where, how does anyone in Our Constitutional Republic form of government have jurisdiction over her decision??
Can we keep this to lawful and without conjecture, emotion, this is a private being making a decision none can gainsay her.
when I private member of we the people decides to eliminate from their body that is it.
Can we keep this to lawful and without conjecture, emotion, this is a private being making a decision none can gainsay her.
when I private member of we the people decides to eliminate from their body that is it.
She may be a "private being", but she is making a decision for two "private beings." And that second one does not yet have a voice.
I suppose in your mind, if he does not have a voice, he is not really a person.
Go sit in the corner with Barbara Boxer, who actually claims a "private being" is not a person, until he is taken home from the hospital.
Where are you going to draw the line, Ronnie?
Jul 10, 2018 13:15:05 #
bmac32 wrote:
No a******n should ever be used as birth control, ever!
That and worse is happening.
Jul 10, 2018 13:21:57 #
Carol Kelly wrote:
That and worse is happening.
Do you think Ginsburg should retire, as well as Kennedy? Or drop dead. She's older than dirt.
Jul 10, 2018 13:28:04 #
Carol Kelly wrote:
That and worse is happening.
Late term a******ns should be banned carrying a murder charge!! If the women can not decide within the time frame allocated, carry to term and put up for adoption......
Jul 10, 2018 13:32:52 #
donald41
Loc: puyallup Wa
Kevyn wrote:
This statement makes more sense than any of your posts. Men should have no influence over a woman’s reproductive choices it is hers and hers alone.
So it is her right to commit murder?
Jul 10, 2018 13:34:17 #
donald41 wrote:
So it is her right to commit murder?
Apparently men also believe they have no choice in even "her" right to sexual intercourse. Just spread your seed and get away. No responsibilities, just fugitives of sex.
Jul 10, 2018 13:34:49 #
Marsinah wrote:
Do you think Ginsburg should retire, as well as Kennedy? Or drop dead. She's older than dirt.
She is longer impartial or objective, she should retire or be put out..
She does have health issues, I believe cancer ?? Was talking about retiring but when T***p w*n, she said she’ll die before giving him another opportunity to appoint...
Jul 10, 2018 13:37:12 #
Marsinah wrote:
Apparently men also believe they have no choice in even "her" right to sexual intercourse. Just spread your seed and get away. No responsibilities, just fugitives of sex.
Nor do they have a right to force a woman to keep the baby even if he wants it..
I believe that should be a consideration yet it is not.
Jul 10, 2018 13:38:02 #
lindajoy wrote:
She is longer impartial or objective, she should retire or be put out..
She does have health issues, I believe cancer ?? Was talking about retiring but when T***p w*n, she said she’ll die before giving him another opportunity to appoint...
She does have health issues, I believe cancer ?? Was talking about retiring but when T***p w*n, she said she’ll die before giving him another opportunity to appoint...
A real weirdo. And gave America an opportunity, more than any war, to the devastation of vast amounts of intellect and creativity.
And birth defects. I am of the opinion that because some v***ses hide in human semen, there is a colossal amount of "defects" due to the colossal amount of sexual activity released by Roe v. Wade.
Jul 10, 2018 13:38:52 #
lindajoy wrote:
Not do they have a right to force a woman to keep the baby even if he wants it..
I believe that should be a consideration yet it is not.
I believe that should be a consideration yet it is not.
You are absolutely right, lj. Hadn't thought about that before. It DOES take two, you know!!
Jul 10, 2018 13:44:01 #
ron vrooman wrote:
Are you serious? Please point out which of our unalienable rights are immoral. the conversation is about unalienable right in our Constitutional Republic. Not your interpretation of murder, right, correct , moral. all that is not germane in a Constitutional Republic.
It isn't about good or bad, correct or incorrect, moral or immoral, It is about lawful and unlawful in our Constitutional Republic.
Unalienable rights are just that! for people on the land. People have standing and are defined. Usurpation is unlawful and challenged in USCIT.
It isn't about good or bad, correct or incorrect, moral or immoral, It is about lawful and unlawful in our Constitutional Republic.
Unalienable rights are just that! for people on the land. People have standing and are defined. Usurpation is unlawful and challenged in USCIT.
Please explain why "usurpation"of our unalienable rights are challenged in the US Court of International Trade.
FYI: Roe v Wade is neither an unalienable right nor is it a constitutional statute. It is a SCOTUS ruling, nothing more.
If you think that our laws do not have a moral basis, you need to go back to first grade and start over.
Murder is not wrong because it is illegal, murder is illegal because it is wrong.
Jul 10, 2018 13:49:09 #
lindajoy wrote:
Partial birth a******ns were banned in 2003 when Congress passed a bill that prohibited the practice. President George W. Bush signed it. It was challenged immediately, but the Supreme Court upheld the law in 2007. Doctors who perform a partial birth a******n can be fined and imprisoned for up to 2 years if found guilty of the practice.Late term a******ns should be banned carrying a murder charge!! If the women can not decide within the time frame allocated, carry to term and put up for adoption......
Jul 10, 2018 13:53:42 #
nwtk2007 wrote:
Not the Fed gov doesna't have any jurisdiction over her decision. But the state might.
Not the state either, choosing the right's over a women's body, over her own, is denying her, her unalienable rights as written in our constitution. What a person does with their body does not fall under a governmental right.
What next forced vasectomies and prison for the men who produce illegitimate children?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.