SCOTUS opinion leaked: Roe v Wade

FreeSpeech1789 said:
So you're saying a woman has the right to deny her 9 month old food, water, and oxygen if it has passed through her vagina as well? If not, then why not?

A 9 month old that hasn't passed through a woman's vagina is no less viable than one who has.
Click to expand...

Viability is the cut off for abortion under Roe and Casey. Your argument is a straw man based on nothing but made up shit that was not in the ruling.
 
Phantasmal said:
Yes, she was the women who claimed to change her mind about Roe vs Wade, who on her death bed confessed she had been paid to state that she no longer supported abortion, but she actually did still support women’s right to choose.

She took money to change her position.
Click to expand...

How do you know Roe was a woman/ Can you define a woman?
 
FreeSpeech1789 said:
Then explain why one can be charged with murder of the child for intentionally killing a pregnant woman?

The laq defines personhood at birth because the law makes no sense and is nor backed by science it is backed by nothing except a desire to keep abortion legal.
Click to expand...

Why does the law have to specify the unborn child as a murder victim if you think they are already covered as a person? Please find me one state that has convicted someone charged murder of an unborn child when there is no law on the books specifying that murder covers an unborn child.

Are you saying the US Constitution makes no sense? Shows how stupid your argument really is.
 
AProudLefty said:
What facts? You haven't presented any.
Click to expand...
You can't read?

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species."
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
One is a person under the law and the other isn't a person under the law. The USSC doesn't make medical decisions, it makes legal decisions. Personhood and citizenship is granted at birth.
Click to expand...

So you admit there is no biological difference and you're just playing semantics as an excuse to legalize mass infanticide. Luckily the law is about to change in the vast majority of states, choke on it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you could have just said that you don't really know.............
Click to expand...

I do know since I read Alito's piece. I see no reason to copy 5 pages here since it is available for you to read on your own. The fact that you don't want to go read it shows your question was specious and you don't want to inform yourself.

Here is the link.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...tion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504

Starts on Page 16 discussing the historical aspects of "quickening."
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Viability is the cut off for abortion under Roe and Casey. Your argument is a straw man based on nothing but made up shit that was not in the ruling.
Click to expand...

Viability gets shorter and shorter every year as medical technology improves as if viability was the cut off point in practice to begin IE late term abortions are routine.
 
Last edited:
Phantasmal said:
Yes, she was the women who claimed to change her mind about Roe vs Wade, who on her death bed confessed she had been paid to state that she no longer supported abortion, but she actually did still support women’s right to choose.

She took money to change her position.
Click to expand...
So she lied. How do you know she wasn't lying on her deathbed?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Why does the law have to specify the unborn child as a murder victim if you think they are already covered as a person? Please find me one state that has convicted someone charged murder of an unborn child when there is no law on the books specifying that murder covers an unborn child.

Are you saying the US Constitution makes no sense? Shows how stupid your argument really is.
Click to expand...

Because pro abortion advocates have defined personhood on a basis that has nothing to do with biology.

The Constitution has nothing to do with this as Roe is completely unconstitutional and luckily will now be overturned and the vast majority of states will grant personhood to the unborn, what are you going to do when you can't hide behind semantics to justify your mass infanticide anymore?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I do know since I read Alito's piece. I see no reason to copy 5 pages here since it is available for you to read on your own. The fact that you don't want to go read it shows your question was specious and you don't want to inform yourself.

Here is the link.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...tion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504

Starts on Page 16 discussing the historical aspects of "quickening."
Click to expand...

so it looks like using history and science, the courts, today, overturned unconstitutional precedent.................right?
 
FreeSpeech1789 said:
That is not a biological difference as a 9 month 1 day old that has passed through a woman's vagina
Click to expand...

So your umbilical cord is still dangling from your bellybutton and attached to the embryotic sack that currently envelops you in your mother's womb?

Weird.
 
dukkha said:
theory is a lib law clerk or one of the few that had access leaked to mobilize the left
for midterms and political pressures
Dems will absolutely destroy our institutions for temporal political advantage
Click to expand...

And I’ve read that it was one on Alito’s team so that the conservative Judges could measure the reaction in order to prepare for a final majority opinion
 
volsrock said:
biology?
Click to expand...

Yes, biology.


What does the biology say when it comes to Lia Thomas being a human man or human woman
Click to expand...

It says that gender is a broad spectrum, it is not binary.


depending on your answer u may need to revisit Jr. High school biology
Click to expand...

You're so fucking stupid, a reality TV show host conned you into toiling his baggage for the rest of your pathetic life, not his.
 
FreeSpeech1789 said:
So you admit there is no biological difference and you're just playing semantics as an excuse to legalize mass infanticide. Luckily the law is about to change in the vast majority of states, choke on it.
Click to expand...

Biology has nothing to do with legal rulings. In fact Alito specifically throws out biology when he argues that there is no scientific agreement on when life begins so he is not going to rule on that.

But even if one takes the view that “personhood” begins when a certain attribute or combination of attributes is acquired, it is very hard to see why viability should mark the point where “personhood” begins.

[snip]

(and our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard pre- natal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests),
Click to expand...
 
They'll riot over this. Death threats against justices will be made, and all of it ignored by the alphabet agencies.
 
FreeSpeech1789 said:
So you're saying a woman has the right to deny her 9 month old food, water, and oxygen if it has passed through her vagina as well?
Click to expand...

No, of course not.

But you do, though.

You're the one who wants to get rid of WIC, SNAP, and welfare.

So you quite literally want to deny children food, water, and oxygen because you want to get rid of those programs.


A 9 month old that hasn't passed through a woman's vagina is no less viable than one who has.
Click to expand...

It's actually way less viable because it still needs the umbilical cord and placenta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top