A******n And The Constitution (Page 3): Probably not for you.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

PeterS wrote:

Then there is no need for a woman at all is there...

Probably not for you.

American Vet

PeterS wrote:

Then there is no need for a woman at all is there...

Making a ludicrous jump to an incorrect assumption; is that supposed to mean something?

Carol Kelly

woodguru wrote:

Not supported, but not talked about either, people were left to deal with their own dirty laundry

Speaking for your ancestry, of course.

Carol Kelly

JFlorio wrote:

Probably not for you.

Ditto.

Radiance3

Liberty Tree wrote:

There is no Constitutional basis for a******n. It was just contrived by the Justices who created it. It should be a state issue.

===============
SCUTOS had just finalized a civil discourse how to resolve this very sensitive issue that permeates almost every life of women, democrats and conservatives. Decisions will be on Monday, Dec. 6th.

The state versus Joe Biden's political aggrandizement of a******n, the liberty for women, versus the state by allowing to make the people decide. Since 1973, 48 years ago, the Roe vs Wade was approved by SCOTUS 7-2 in favor of a******n for the main reason of women's liberty to choose. From 1973, about 62 million babies were aborted.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/a******ns-since-roe-v-wade

Now, I don't agree with this. I certainly justify Justice Kavanaugh's argument to have the states decide by the people of that state. Therefore the legislative process is needed both state and federal in this case.

Liberty of the women to abort is justified by the left. But I also give rights to the liberty of the fetus under the 14th Amendment. The viable time the left favor was 24 weeks, that means 6 months age of the fetus. That is a fully developed human being, and could survive outside the mother's womb.
Likewise 15 weeks is also a viable period when the fetus is already developed. This is now sought by the state, and therefore the fetus, has the right under the constitution to claim liberty under 14th amendment to survive or live.

There are myriads of problems with this current law of Roe vs Wade, approved in 1973.
1. Though the liberty of the mother is given, but the liberty of the infant is not allowed. That is also a violation of the fetus on its 14th Amendment right.

2. Statistics not been recorded, how many times the same women had obtained a******n. This is an abusive behavior. When a******n has done a number of times, her body medically deteriorates and gets sick. More medical care at taxpayers' expenses. I think when she gets frequent a******n she must be required to pay.

3. There are the pills to take, and women must take advantage of that, if she could not control her immoral behavior.

4. Democrat or liberal women by statistics are the most who frequently go to PP to have their a******n sell and make money of baby parts. In fact with the cooperation of PP, the democrat women make a******n a career. She makes babies and then with the help of PP, they sell fetus parts locally and internationally to make money out of a******n.
It is currently a lucrative business for liberal women in cooperation with PP.

Shame on these democrat-liberals. they have NO MORALS!

I am forced to comment on this a******n issue since it affects the lives or all human being. Now, I yield back. .

PeterS

Ricktloml wrote:

You don't have to be religious to oppose a******n...just civilized.

Civilized? So why are conservatives opposed to a******n?

Radiance3

Radiance3 wrote:

===============
SCUTOS had just finalized a civil discourse how to resolve this very sensitive issue that permeates almost every life of women, democrats and conservatives. Decisions will be on Monday, Dec. 6th.

The state versus Joe Biden's political aggrandizement of a******n, the liberty for women, versus the state by allowing to make the people decide. Since 1973, 48 years ago, the Roe vs Wade was approved by SCOTUS 7-2 in favor of a******n for the main reason of women's liberty to choose. From 1973, about 62 million babies were aborted.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/a******ns-since-roe-v-wade

Now, I don't agree with this. I certainly justify Justice Kavanaugh's argument to have the states decide by the people of that state. Therefore the legislative process is needed both state and federal in this case.

Liberty of the women to abort is justified by the left. But I also give rights to the liberty of the fetus under the 14th Amendment. The viable time the left favor was 24 weeks, that means 6 months age of the fetus. That is a fully developed human being, and could survive outside the mother's womb.
Likewise 15 weeks is also a viable period when the fetus is already developed. This is now sought by the state, and therefore the fetus, has the right under the constitution to claim liberty under 14th amendment to survive or live.

There are myriads of problems with this current law of Roe vs Wade, approved in 1973.
1. Though the liberty of the mother is given, but the liberty of the infant is not allowed. That is also a violation of the fetus on its 14th Amendment right.

2. Statistics not been recorded, how many times the same women had obtained a******n. This is an abusive behavior. When a******n has done a number of times, her body medically deteriorates and gets sick. More medical care at taxpayers' expenses. I think when she gets frequent a******n she must be required to pay.

3. There are the pills to take, and women must take advantage of that, if she could not control her immoral behavior.

4. Democrat or liberal women by statistics are the most who frequently go to PP to have their a******n sell and make money of baby parts. In fact with the cooperation of PP, the democrat women make a******n a career. She makes babies and then with the help of PP, they sell fetus parts locally and internationally to make money out of a******n.
It is currently a lucrative business for liberal women in cooperation with PP.

Shame on these democrat-liberals. they have NO MORALS!

I am forced to comment on this a******n issue since it affects the lives or all human being. Now, I yield back. .

=============== br i SCUTOS had just finalized a... (show quote)

==============
Must be SCOTUS. Typo error. Sorry for my eyes.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

woodguru wrote:

There is no constitutional basis for not having a******n, it's up to each individual and those that are against it are because of religious reasons...they have nothing to do with the constitution.

The only reason we are here is a supreme court packed with blatantly religiously biased people...take the religion out of the issue and we have an a******n legal country

And you are a blatantly biased anti-religious zealot.

The fetus is human life and the Constitution is supposed to protect all human life, even yours.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

PeterS wrote:

Civilized? So why are conservatives opposed to a******n?

It's civilized to protect human life.

PeterS

American Vet wrote:

Making a ludicrous jump to an incorrect assumption; is that supposed to mean something?

I'm just following the logic of your proposition. If a fetus is separate from the mother then it follows that the mother would be separate from the fetus so there should be no consequences if she decides to stop giving the fetus shelter and nutrients. Is that not correct? If not, then explain how, based on the constitution, a fetus would have rights that would exceed the right of the woman to control her own body...

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

PeterS wrote:

I'm just following the logic of your proposition. If a fetus is separate from the mother then it follows that the mother would be separate from the fetus so there should be no consequences if she decides to stop giving the fetus shelter and nutrients. Is that not correct? If not, then explain how, based on the constitution, a fetus would have rights that would exceed the right of the woman to control her own body...

It’s a symbiotic relationship for much of the gestation period. Much like you and the rest of us tax payers.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

As our liberal/progressive/socialist members like to spout about the wonders of other countries, mayhaps, they should read their a******n laws. They would be very disconcerted. Only China and North Korea have a******n laws as liberal as does the US. A majority of countries have a set number of weeks at which a******n is no longer legal with defined exceptions and medical review board requirements. Hmmm, Mississippi’s new law seems to follow that standard.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

PeterS wrote:

I'm just following the logic of your proposition. If a fetus is separate from the mother then it follows that the mother would be separate from the fetus so there should be no consequences if she decides to stop giving the fetus shelter and nutrients. Is that not correct? If not, then explain how, based on the constitution, a fetus would have rights that would exceed the right of the woman to control her own body...

Is avoiding pregnancy included in a woman's right to control her body?

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Blade_Runner wrote:

Is avoiding pregnancy included in a woman's right to control her body?

How dare you suggest a woman (or man) should be responsible for their behaviors. Such belief is absolutely verboten to certain members of OPP.

American Vet

PeterS wrote:

I'm just following the logic of your proposition. If a fetus is separate from the mother then it follows that the mother would be separate from the fetus so there should be no consequences if she decides to stop giving the fetus shelter and nutrients. Is that not correct? .

Incorrect. What would happen if a mother placed a 1 tear old baby in a room and did not provide nutrients? Or placed the 1 year old in the back yard during a storm and did not provide shelter?