Roe vs Wade struck down……..

[GaryG]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You know who admired Sanger? The Nazis.

Thus, Planned Parenthood is a white supremacist / Nazi organization.

She was heavily into eugenics, which was brand new in the 1880s, although Plato was interested in selective breeding.
https://www.frc.org/op-eds/margaret-...extraordinaire

[mostpost]

There is only one issue here. Does a woman have the right to decide what happens to her own body. Without interference from the government. Without interference from the church. Without interference from male relatives.
Everything else is bullshit.

Margaret Sanger is BS.
EUGENICS IS BS.
ALL OF IT IS BS.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost

There is only one issue here. Does a woman have the right to decide what happens to her own body. Without interference from the government. Without interference from the church. Without interference from male relatives.
Everything else is bullshit.

Margaret Sanger is BS.
EUGENICS IS BS.
ALL OF IT IS BS.

Hey doofus, this decision was not about abortion.
READ it.

It was about the seperation of powers, and what constituion SPECIFICALLY allow the fe to do and what is state's rights, exactly what the 2nd amenment decision the day before was about.

Whether a woman has that right is NOT up to the feds or the court, per the constitution. If you want it changed, you have the legal means to do that....AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. Then it would be a right, just like carrying a csnnon around is.

That, Cliffy, is what Thomas was writting about in his landmark opinion, not anything about abortion or gay marriage, or contraception, all about the scope of federal powers, which is the very essence of our country.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Think McFly

Ad hominem.

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Do you actually believe a state is going to outlaw abortion AND contraceptives? What are "good ol' boys" gonna do for fun? You think they'd shoot themselves in the foot like that?

In November of 2016 I would not have believed that SCOTUS would reverse Roe v. Wade, but it happened. And in 1965 Connecticut did have a law which outlawed "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." And the language the court used in deciding Griswold v. Connecticut is counter to the language they dismissed in reversing Roe v. Wade.

So yes, history does seem to indicate that the "good ol' boys" might indeed shoot themselves in the foot like that.

[xtb]

Originally Posted by mostpost

There is only one issue here. Does a woman have the right to decide what happens to her own body. Without interference from the government. Without interference from the church. Without interference from male relatives.
Everything else is bullshit.

Margaret Sanger is BS.
EUGENICS IS BS.
ALL OF IT IS BS.

You can't handle the truth.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by xtb

You can't handle the truth.

A lot of people are having a hard time with the current happenings.

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by Tom

Hey doofus, this decision was not about abortion.
READ it.

It was about the seperation of powers, and what constituion SPECIFICALLY allow the fe to do and what is state's rights, exactly what the 2nd amenment decision the day before was about.

Whether a woman has that right is NOT up to the feds or the court, per the constitution. If you want it changed, you have the legal means to do that....AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. Then it would be a right, just like carrying a csnnon around is.

That, Cliffy, is what Thomas was writting about in his landmark opinion, not anything about abortion or gay marriage, or contraception, all about the scope of federal powers, which is the very essence of our country.

Spot on Tom, they will nvever ever get enough of the country to amend the Constution. The country is devided, amending anything is completely out of their reach. The only way they could do anything would be unconstutional at best. When we are all gone it is very likely the divison in our country will be the same.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You know who admired Sanger? The Nazis.

Doubtful. Margaret Sanger was married to a Jew.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Doubtful. Margaret Sanger was married to a Jew.

Sorry...my bad...she was a peach:

As George Grant points out in his history of Planned Parenthood, Grand Illusions (1988), Sanger devoted the entire April 1933 issue of Birth Control Review to eugenics. One of the articles, "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need," was written by Ernst Rudin, Hitler's director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. While Sanger's early campaign was aimed primarily at east Europeans, in 1939 she began to target blacks by creating the "Negro Project," to promote birth control and sterilization specifically within the black community.

https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/use..._eugenics.html

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by mostpost

There is only one issue here. Does a woman have the right to decide what happens to her own body. Without interference from the government.

I think the majority of pro-life would agree to some extent with you but the real question is how long does a woman have an unequivocal right to decide? 2 weeks? 15 weeks? 20 weeks? 40 weeks? There is a point in time during pregnancy when the woman is no longer the sole owner of the decision, and since fetuses are not able to speak for themselves, society must set boundaries on the woman's rights. It's a reasonable position and one that men certainly can weigh in on.

You and your sidekicks on here and elsewhere vomited endlessly that we needed to.follow the science on Covid. Why can't we follow the science here? A fetus can survive at 20 weeks. That makes it a person with his/her own set of rights.

[Bustin Stones]

The viability argument is another arbitrary hurdle.
When does a person have cancer? One cell dividing? A billion cells dividing? When an organ fails? Any degree of cancer is deadly.
A cell with human dna that is dividing is human. Which is another arbitrary way of defining humanity.
The act of destroying humanity is a criminal act. You don't have the right to choose to do criminal things even if it effects one's body. It isn't a crime against oneself. It's a crime against the unborn. That we haven't codified this crime doesn't make it legal in the universal sense. Only in the local sense because laws are only an approximation of our beliefs.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by mostpost

That is the stupidest statement in history. In the first place Margaret Sanger did not found Planned Parenthood. She founded an organization that was a predecessor and she was many who later organized Planned Parenthood. Secondly, and most importantly m Sanger never advocated for involuntary sterilization or mandatory abortion. Third Sanger has been dead since the 1980s and has not been involved with Planned Parenthood since 1962.


This is not about racism. This is about the rights of women, of all races, all creeds, all Americans. And all non citizens living in this country.

No, it's never been about the "rights of women" or the "health of women"-- all stupid, liberal euphemisms. It's really about the inalienable rights of the defenseless, vulnerable and innocent unborn to preserve their life, liberty and happiness while in the womb. With the rare exception of when a woman would risk death if she were to give birth, the rights of a woman stop at the point of conception which is when the rights of the unborn human being begin. A woman has no more right to murder the life within her womb than she would have to murder a life after birth.

The 5th commandment reads: Thou shall not murder.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by tucker6

I think the majority of pro-life would agree to some extent with you but the real question is how long does a woman have an unequivocal right to decide? 2 weeks? 15 weeks? 20 weeks? 40 weeks? There is a point in time during pregnancy when the woman is no longer the sole owner of the decision, and since fetuses are not able to speak for themselves, society must set boundaries on the woman's rights. It's a reasonable position and one that men certainly can weigh in on.

You and your sidekicks on here and elsewhere vomited endlessly that we needed to.follow the science on Covid. Why can't we follow the science here? A fetus can survive at 20 weeks. That makes it a person with his/her own set of rights.

Ultra sound technology has determined that a a fetus has a heartbeat at 6 weeks! That means that that heartbeat isn't emanating from chopped liver!

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Ultra sound technology has determined that a a fetus has a heartbeat at 6 weeks! That means that that heartbeat isn't emanating from chopped liver!

We agree, and since my wife also agrees, that makes us correct.

[davew]

Originally Posted by mostpost

There is only one issue here. Does a woman have the right to decide what happens to her own body. Without interference from the government. Without interference from the church. Without interference from male relatives.
Everything else is bullshit.

Margaret Sanger is BS.
EUGENICS IS BS.
ALL OF IT IS BS.

Does the same thing apply to getting an experimental vaccine with mRNA?