Robo
Verified User
The 1st sentence of Amendment 14. All children are born "babies," Trashmouth! Sane and honest folk know that.
Time to Revisit the Legalized Murder Travesty
- Thread starter Granule
- Start date
The 1st sentence of Amendment 14. All children are born "babies," Trashmouth! Sane and honest folk know that.
And?The 1st sentence of Amendment 14. All children are born "babies," Trashmouth! Sane and honest folk know that.
Look, pussy. Point out where abortion rights was one of the reasons, if not THE reason, that sentence was written.
Last edited:
My gosh it's great to be back! I see Robopussy left a trail of slime before it left, so let's all thank the maker that ol' Granule's here to purge this thread of its filth!
Let's see, where were we? Oh, yeah!
The second problem with Roe is that it is legally, constitutionally mistaken. Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion claimed that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a “right of privacy” that is “broad enough to encompass” a right to abortion. “As a constitutional argument,” notes University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt (who favors legalized abortion), “Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.”
The right alleged in Roe is blatantly contradicted by the history of abortion law in the United States. Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment roughly coincided with enactment of a wave of state laws prohibiting abortion from conception with the primary aim (according to clear and abundant historical evidence) of protecting unborn children. Most of these statutes were already on the books by the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, and many of them remained unchanged until Roe struck them down more than a century later. “To reach its result,” Justice William Rehnquist thus concluded in his dissenting opinion, “the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”
What do you dumbfuck perverts make of this part?
Well, Rehnquist was clearly wrong. The court had found the right to privacy before Roe.
Same question to you, what's your opinion on Griswold v Connecticut.
Hey, thanks Mrs. Alinsky. But wait a sec. If abortion rights were settled in a previous case, then why did Roe v Wade have to take place?
What's your point, Saul? Explain how this connects with abortion.
Robo
Verified User
Irrelevant dear trash-mouth! The 14th amendment serves to point out that historically and to this day only "THE BORN" were and are considered to be viable and complete humans eligible for constitutional protections. That and the 4th amendment, the right to privacy, are all that is necessary in the determination of abortion rights.
Uh-uh. there is nothing in either document that speaks about the "unborn", much less anything that speaks to, or in favor of, abortion rights.
You see, pussy, our government wasn't riddled with the depraved activists that America is plagued with today. They had no idea that perverts like you would be clamoring for abortion rights, and how could they? Times were simpler then. Life, pregnancy & marriage had so much more meaning than they do today, that the notion of allowing self absorbed pervert degenerates to do whatever the fuck they want had to be unthinkable - even absurd. I submit that had the courts of those times been given even a snapshot of what 1973 would look like, you can bet your communist ass that they'd have included language specific to protecting the unborn.
Now, why don't you go fuck yourself?
Last edited:
The right to privacy was established in a previous case. Again Rehnquist was clearly wrong when he said...
“the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”
It was a previous court that found that right.
See above. Now can you answer?
Nope. You didn't answer the question. Why Roe v Wade? Why did it have to take place?
And point out where the drafters of the Amendment had abortion rights on their minds.
I answered both of your questions. I will go over it slowly for you.
Your first question...
If abortion rights were settled in a previous case, then why did Roe v Wade have to take place?
Abortion was not settled in a previous and I did not suggest that it had been. Your question is a strawman. I said...
The court had found the right to privacy before Roe.
Your second question...What's your point, Saul? Explain how this connects with abortion.
It connects because Griswold is the case where the court found the right to privacy. That should have been obvious by now.
Now can you answer the question. What is your opinion on the Griswold case.
Great, then shut the fuck up. This is Roe v Wade, not Hasa Digs himself loves to read his own bullshit in a chat forum.
Great, then shut the fuck up. This is Roe v Wade, not Hasa Digs himself loves to read his own bullshit in a chat forum.
This is you showing your ignorance.
I contradicted Rehnquist. If you don't want to comment on that then just stfu.
It was Griswold not Roe v Wade that established the right to privacy. Roe just extended that.
And this is you filling in blanks.
Griswold established the right to privacy. it did NOT establish the right to murder.
Screaming perverts, just like you, got their filthy claws into the 1973 SCOTUS and forever fucked the most harmless part of humanity on this planet.
Nicely done, murderer.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
So, the moral of the story is we should murder privately?