Roe V Wade Decision

Beau raises some rather interesting points pertaining to the subject.

a reply to: face23785

I wasn't making a revelation, just an observation. The decision fits the larger agenda in some form or fashion. What is written in the decision is secondary to the impact it has on society.
This post is about the purpose the decision has in the greater agenda. Hence, why the decision is made is the question.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes unless there is a clear life threatening risk involved. No not necessarily murder, but it should carry a charge on its own which recognizes the unjust killing of the unborn.

Obviously homosexuality isn't synonymous with pedophilia or incest. Neither is it synonymous with abortion. That was my point. It IS irrelevant.

Incest is victimless among consenting adult parties the same as homosexuality. Homosexuality is federally codified as a right whereas incest is not. While both are victimless incest is left to the states to decide. FYI incest is not illegal in Rhode Island.

Like pedophilia there are victims involved with abortion, but it is currently interpreted as a right whereas pedophilia is rightfully considered a horrific crime. If Roe V Wade is overturned, then it would liken abortion to incest in terms of it being left up to the states.

Basically this entire reply is to say, don't bring up homosexuality into the abortion debate. It's as relevant and irrelevant as anything else. Its mention in an abortion debate can only be an emotional outburst or an attempt to create an emotional association to the subject of debate.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

So no care or thought for the woman or child that's been raped or the fact that the child inside her would be a product of incest?

No care as to the fact that carrying the child or having it inside her may cause the victim additional mental anguish or even bring about the likes of self harm or suicide?

Your only thoughts and care is for an unborn foetus.

And if the lady or little girl chooses to abort the foetus you wish to see her charged with a criminal act and incarcerated?

What if the child who is a product of incest comes out with two heads, some other major deformity that goes undetected, or other serious mental health issues?

You see i don't imagine people who rape or have incestuous sex with woman or girls are that big on pre-natal care or appointments.

And your correct homosexuality isn't synonymous with "paedophilia" or incest, but as has been already pointed out pregnancy sure as hell is synonymous with incest.

Where do you stand on homosexuality anyroad would you choose to ban or see criminalised once again the act in the same to similar manner you wish to see abortion made illegal?

""Basically"" i will bring up whatever i choose if its relevant to the topic of the discussion.

FYI incest is not illegal in Rhode Island.

Might wanna get that law looked at sharpish, America is broken or at least Rhode Island sure is.

A few states as well where bestiality is only considered to be a misdemeanour!

And then there is the underage marriage issue to consider and contend with!!!

Yuk.

en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=As%20of%20July%202021%2C%20six,child%20marriage%20in%20that%20time.

Seems to me, some of your states are giving a lot of the Muslim nations a run for the monies, with regards to how they treat woman, children, and animals, and/or what rights they have or do not have.

a reply to: andy06shake

You're steady on that irrelevant homosexuality link, aren't you? It's not.

What about the mental anguish people suffer from anything bad that happens to them? You can't fix a broken world by being it further.

Also, I'm not at all in favor of Rhode Island's lack of banning incest. It's a disturbing thing that incest. My point was to use the same logic as your homosexuality bit. It's pretty absurd to connect with abortion isn't it?

Even if you include an exemptions for rape you're talking about maybe less than 1% of abortions. I seriously don't see any state outlawing those cases within a reasonable time frame. 9 month America
Abortions is sickening.

All the same, the issue ought to be left up to the state. Also, rape and incest should not be tied together in an abortion argument. If an incestuous relationship is not explicitly between consenting adults it is some form of rape, so call it rape. Incestuous rape, sure, but rape nonetheless. Otherwise, incest should be on the same level as any normal situation.

Trying to pull a "gotcha" card with that rape and incest bit SMH. You know how rare those abortion cases occur, and tou know very well that no state is going to forbid a 12-year-old rape victim from aborting it even if I think morally they ought to have the baby pending any potential medical complications.

Shameful approach to this kind of debate.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

What about the mental anguish people suffer from anything bad that happens to them?

Thats what counselling and social services are there to deal with, bit of a difference where incest and rape are concerned all the same which is probably going to require going to require psychiatric help and medical attention.

So where do you stand on homosexuality and would you choose to ban or see it criminalised once again?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

See I'm simply trying to get a measure as to who and what i am dealing with here.

As to what's shameful, well that would be rape, incest, and forcing woman and children to carry foetus to term under penalty of criminal charge and jail.

Incestuous rape, sure, but rape nonetheless. Otherwise, incest should be on the same level as any normal situation.

Say what now???

See there is nothing normal about sexual relations with family members, that's what we like to call sick!

I think we can all see what's shameful and by the looks of thinks its the way you wish to treat woman.

They are not cattle or mere breeding machines but people that can decide to do what they please with there own bodies.

And that's all she wrote, or it darn well should be.

a reply to: andy06shake

They are not cattle or mere breeding machines but people that can decide to do what they please with there own bodies.

Exactly. Don't want to carry a baby to term? Take the necessary steps to prevent becoming pregnant. I'll applaud that.

See there is nothing normal about sexual relations with family members, that's what we like to call sick!

Obviously that's sick hence the barf symbol I used while describing my point. The point is incest doesn't equate rape. Therefore, it shouldn't be lumped in with rape when discussing abortion because. Is incest sick? Yes, but unless it is incestuous rape, then it should be treated no different than a regular pregnancy. If it is incestuous rape, then it is rape and should be treated as a rape pregnancy.

Why is that hard to understand?

So where do you stand on homosexuality and would you choose to ban or see it criminalised once again?

Why do you keep trying to bait me with an irrelevant topic? No thanks.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Why do you keep trying to bait me with an irrelevant topic? No thanks.

Simple question that you refuse to answer, one has to ponder the reason as to why?

Are you a religious fellow filthyphilanthropist?

Exactly. Don't want to carry a baby to term? Take the necessary steps to prevent becoming pregnant. I'll applaud that.

Such as the morning after pill for instance, or an abortion, should that be there decision?

Why is that hard to understand?

Do you mean about incest being sick and wrong nothing at all under all circumstance.

originally posted by: Wisenox
The Roe V Wade decision has become a bit of a controversial topic.  At least, the reason for it has.

I'm not familiar with the SCOTUS reasoning.  I no longer consider them trustworthy.  The past 2 years of anti-people decision making causes suspicion over their rulings.  I'm not alone in this feeling.  Here are a couple takes on the ruling:

Do Not be Fooled With Roe V Wade on bitchute presents the opinion that the decision is all about removing the my body my choice freedom that currently exists. 

And, this article, Is this really why the SCOTUS just overturned Roe v Wade?!, at SOTN presents the view that the jab is sterilizing women and the decision is a cover up to hide plummeting abortion rates.

My personal opinion of SCOTUS as anti-people leads me towards the first reason, my body my choice.  I believe there is a higher possibility that they are laying the infrastructure for giving the government the legal authority to decide medical procedures for people.
For example, in a future scamdemic or phony scariant outbreak, inoculations will be forced on the public without pesky laws getting in the way.  They absolutely have to get nanotech into your body for their agenda to work, and they know that they aren't going to get volunteers.

With sterilization, I think that will be realized in the next generation for the majority.  Spontaneous abortions raise alarms.  Its much more probable, to me, that they would pass sterilizing genes through current mothers and fathers and then the offspring would be sterile, but not notice until puberty years later when the population is already under police state.

There are other views than the two I show here.  These are simply examples. 

What are your thoughts on it, hypothetically speaking, of course?

yay1 so now we have women again?! just in time for mothers day.


no more slapping around pregnant men? btw, beer bellies do not make a chump. with child.

a reply to: andy06shake

Simple question that you refuse to answer, one has to ponder the reason as to why?

I refuse to answer because it's bait, and it's not relevant. It's two completely different subjects. Sex vs killing another life. Mojito vs bloody mary. Why would I take the bait? It doesn't matter how I answer. You're aim is to twist it against me in this discussion.

Are you a religious fellow filthyphilanthropist?

More bait. Let's stick to the logic.

If a grown woman wants to have a penis implanted on her, remove her breasts, and take male hormones, then OK. That truly is her body her choice.

When she creates life within her, then it is no longer her body. It becomes their body. Too late. She had her entire life to make that choice prior to creating another life.

As for plan B, no I don't have a problem. There is no abortion. Real conception has not yet occurred thus pregnancy is not being terminated. It's a last ditch effort at contraception, and it is far less effective than conventional methods.

originally posted by: BelleEpoque
a reply to: Wisenox

I have this horrible feeling it is about taking the right of a women's body away from her.

The local news is saying it is about Dems vs Republicans. Dems don't want the change to Roe v Wade, Republicans do. How that construct makes any sense since I don't see any Republican influence these days, there is no limit to their derisiveness. Great fun to go for both.

The horrors of our current abortion environment is a great concern, as many people here have expressed, getting pregnant affects a limited group of the population. Turning our back on those in our population that can easily find their life irreparable damaged by a natural event is as cruel.

what's next?

giant Moloch alters?
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, can't wait.
does anyone think these baby killers care about polar bears or whales? or even the climate?
can they even rationalize the difference?

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

You refuse to answer because your answer is "yes" to both questions, and you know it.

And that says all we need to know about your feelings regarding all sorts.

Good luck trying to tell woman what to do with their bodies son.

That's is if you can ever find one that will entertain your nonsense.

a reply to: andy06shake

Haha, you were determined to twist my answer one way or another. Pathetic.

Twist and manipulate to paint the over the real picture. You're dishonest.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Your silence is deafening filthyphilanthropist.

And its not me that's "dishonest" but your organised religious practice.

Never mind the fact that you cannot think for yourself down to conditioning.

Dont like abortions, don't like gays, when's the rapture coming big fellow?

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes, killing another human life is murder. Does the murder of the unborn baby erase the rape? Seems to me, that would just add to the damage done. Again, maybe giving that baby to a loving family might help to cure the psychological damage of the rape.

a reply to: panoz77

So what about executing prisoners is that murder?

Does there execution erase the crime?

Again letting the woman choose whats grown in her own body is her own concern.

As to your "might's" you ""might"" wanna let people choose what to do with their own bodies instead of forcing them to grow unwanted possibly deformed children that are a product of rape and incest there under penalty of incarceration and criminalisation.

a reply to: Wisenox

I'm not a lawyer, but I've read much about the law and have socialized with lawyers for a long time.

Many have said over years that the Roe decision was poorly thought out and logically tenuous, but that in the end the decision was the correct decision.

My thoughts as a male are that if and when a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy it should be done to the highest medical standards available.

Legally, though the courts don't talk about it, the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that a woman's right to an abortion is protected, just as it makes it clear that a woman's right to take a walk down the beach is also protected.

Neither are mentioned specifically, but an exhaustive listing of the rights of humans is impossible, and that is the message of the Ninth Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be used to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

To my knowledge, the only SCOTUS case to cite the Ninth was Griswold v. Connecticut which affirmed the right to practice birth control, arguably a related subject matter.

a reply to: andy06shake

Is it really just HER choice? Isn't there a second persons DNA a part of that "thing" growing inside her? Why is it only her choice?

Comparing the murder of an unborn baby to a convicted criminal, really? Do you really need a response to that?

originally posted by: panoz77
a reply to: andy06shake

Is it really just HER choice? Isn't there a second persons DNA a part of that "thing" growing inside her? Why is it only her choice?

HE gets to provide his recommendation; SHE can decide how much weight his recommendation holds.

a reply to: panoz77

Is it really just HER choice? Isn't there a second persons DNA a part of that "thing" growing inside her? Why is it only her choice?

It's "HER" decision at the end of the day.

Others can have an opinion, but the final decision should remain the prerogative of the person that is pregnant imho.

Comparing the murder of an unborn baby to a convicted criminal, really? Do you really need a response to that?

I would say the same as to comparing a foetus to a person.

And yet you will require a response there i imagine.