JOE vs WADE law.

[Dave Man 88]

I am sorry to all women in America today. Even though I am from the U.K.

I have never sided with anyone over politics, rules, laws or even rights. I am talking about Human rights.

It might be every mans dream to start a family, it could be every woman's dream to start a family as well.

Life is a gift, life is a choice as well. And that choice is a human right, not some courts.

Its the woman that carries that child not some rich supreme court judge.

That judge is taking away the human right of that woman and her choice. 

A right to abort a child is in the hand of the woman that carries that child unborn. Not state or state.

Its the woman's choice.

I hope all you women cause a civil war with this decision. Cos I agree with you all.

I side with you on this one.

Your body, your choice....

Simple as that.

[pi3141]

Yeah I'm very surprised at this.

 

Googling Supreme Court Justice's, turns out 6 are Catholics, 2 Protestants and a Jew.

 

I thought the American constitution divorced Religion from Politics. If thats the case, why have so many reilgious people sitting in the highest court?

 

Thats not representive of the American people nor the natural choice for someone supposedly holding a secular position.

 

They framed the decision on the Constitution but I suspect at the very least they were happy to overturn the decision given their personal belief systems.

 

Then at least one of them has expressed a desire to ban Gay marriage and contraception. I imagine the others agree, or at least most of them.

 

They would be doing the bidding of the Catholic Church, given that 6 of them ARE Catholic, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?

 

See thats why the Fathers seperated church and state.

 

 

First they ban abortion, then make it illegal to travel to another state, restricting the freedoms of their citizens to free choice, then ban contraception, because again, it is against the Catholic Church teachings - again, what happened to seperation of church and state.

 

Rome is a false religion, if the Americans are controlled, or rather their laws directed by, Catholics loyal to the Roman Church, thats kind of a Coup. 

[JCP]

What if you a pregnant woman in a banned state that intends on bringing the baby to term, but has a miscarriage due to unfortunate circumstances (or the jab)? Will you be investigated or charged for murder? Opens many cans of worms. 

 

 “The amount of tyranny you get, is the exact amount you put up with.” ~ TJ

[itsnotallrightjack]

9 hours ago, Dave Man 88 said:

I am sorry to all women in America today. Even though I am from the U.K.

I have never sided with anyone over politics, rules, laws or even rights. I am talking about Human rights.

It might be every mans dream to start a family, it could be every woman's dream to start a family as well.

Life is a gift, life is a choice as well. And that choice is a human right, not some courts.

Its the woman that carries that child not some rich supreme court judge.

That judge is taking away the human right of that woman and her choice. 

A right to abort a child is in the hand of the woman that carries that child unborn. Not state or state.

Its the woman's choice.

I hope all you women cause a civil war with this decision. Cos I agree with you all.

I side with you on this one.

Your body, your choice....

Simple as that.

 

I agree with you. This sends women back to life threatening back street abortions.  Poor abused girls forced to bear their abuser's baby. Women forced to give birth to a deformed baby which dies a few hours later.  Abortion was legalised to prevent these traumas. 

[itsnotallrightjack]

56 minutes ago, pi3141 said:

Yeah I'm very surprised at this.

 

Googling Supreme Court Justice's, turns out 6 are Catholics, 2 Protestants and a Jew.

 

I thought the American constitution divorced Religion from Politics. If thats the case, why have so many reilgious people sitting in the highest court?

 

Thats not representive of the American people nor the natural choice for someone supposedly holding a secular position.

 

They framed the decision on the Constitution but I suspect at the very least they were happy to overturn the decision given their personal belief systems.

 

Then at least one of them has expressed a desire to ban Gay marriage and contraception. I imagine the others agree, or at least most of them.

 

They would be doing the bidding of the Catholic Church, given that 6 of them ARE Catholic, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?

 

See thats why the Fathers seperated church and state.

 

 

First they ban abortion, then make it illegal to travel to another state, restricting the freedoms of their citizens to free choice, then ban contraception, because again, it is against the Catholic Church teachings - again, what happened to seperation of church and state.

 

Rome is a false religion, if the Americans are controlled, or rather their laws directed by, Catholics loyal to the Roman Church, thats kind of a Coup. 

 

 

Dreadful regression. So backward for an alleged modern country! The Taliban would approve!

[Augustus]

On 6/24/2022 at 5:10 PM, Dave Man 88 said:

I am sorry to all women in America today. Even though I am from the U.K.

I have never sided with anyone over politics, rules, laws or even rights. I am talking about Human rights.

It might be every mans dream to start a family, it could be every woman's dream to start a family as well.

Life is a gift, life is a choice as well. And that choice is a human right, not some courts.

Its the woman that carries that child not some rich supreme court judge.

That judge is taking away the human right of that woman and her choice. 

A right to abort a child is in the hand of the woman that carries that child unborn. Not state or state.

Its the woman's choice.

I hope all you women cause a civil war with this decision. Cos I agree with you all.

I side with you on this one.

Your body, your choice....

Simple as that.

 

It's a complete nonsense for you to refer to human rights, but then ignore the human rights of the unborn child.

 

You also seem to have swallowed the propaganda from pro-abortionists in the reasons given for abortions, when in the majority of cases, many women use abortion as a lethal form of birth control, as they don't feel ready to have a child at that time.

 

People who are upset at the Supreme Court ruling, also seem to be unaware, that this decision takes the responsibility for abortion away from the Federal level, and gives back the power to individual states, thus strengthening local democracy.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Augustus

[Augustus]

19 hours ago, pi3141 said:

Yeah I'm very surprised at this.

 

Googling Supreme Court Justice's, turns out 6 are Catholics, 2 Protestants and a Jew.

 

I thought the American constitution divorced Religion from Politics. If thats the case, why have so many reilgious people sitting in the highest court?

 

Thats not representive of the American people nor the natural choice for someone supposedly holding a secular position.

 

They framed the decision on the Constitution but I suspect at the very least they were happy to overturn the decision given their personal belief systems.

 

Then at least one of them has expressed a desire to ban Gay marriage and contraception. I imagine the others agree, or at least most of them.

 

They would be doing the bidding of the Catholic Church, given that 6 of them ARE Catholic, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?

 

See thats why the Fathers seperated church and state.

 

 

First they ban abortion, then make it illegal to travel to another state, restricting the freedoms of their citizens to free choice, then ban contraception, because again, it is against the Catholic Church teachings - again, what happened to seperation of church and state.

 

Rome is a false religion, if the Americans are controlled, or rather their laws directed by, Catholics loyal to the Roman Church, thats kind of a Coup. 

 

I've no idea what being Catholic has to do with this decision, especially as the first Catholic elected to the Supreme Court was in 1836.

 

One of the Catholics also voted against the decision, so I'm not sure where that leaves your theory.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Augustus

[pi3141]

46 minutes ago, Augustus said:

One of the Catholics also voted against the decision, so I'm not sure where that leaves your theory.

 

Doesn't that mean all the other Catholics did vote for it?

 

It was 5-4 right, 6 Catholics, 1 voted against. So....

 

I guess I don't know enough about how the case was originally won for the Justices to overturn on constitutional grounds, however I do know that Catholics are against abortion and 6 Supreme Justces are Catholic.

 

So its not hard to wonder how much their decision was influenced by their beliefs.

 

I've been told 80% of Americans are against the decision so to go against the populations will there must be very strong legal case to overturn the original decision.

 

If they had tempered their decision by calling for restraint and for the states to continue to enact their discrection with their policies then fair enough. 

 

But instead they come out and say they want to ban contraception next!

 

Well at that point we know they are acting as Catholics and not impartial judges.

[Augustus]

On 6/25/2022 at 9:40 PM, pi3141 said:

 

Doesn't that mean all the other Catholics did vote for it?

 

It was 5-4 right, 6 Catholics, 1 voted against. So....

 

I guess I don't know enough about how the case was originally won for the Justices to overturn on constitutional grounds, however I do know that Catholics are against abortion and 6 Supreme Justces are Catholic.

 

So its not hard to wonder how much their decision was influenced by their beliefs.

 

I've been told 80% of Americans are against the decision so to go against the populations will there must be very strong legal case to overturn the original decision.

 

If they had tempered their decision by calling for restraint and for the states to continue to enact their discrection with their policies then fair enough. 

 

But instead they come out and say they want to ban contraception next!

 

Well at that point we know they are acting as Catholics and not impartial judges.

 

I think it was actually a 5 - 1 - 3 decision, but technically it was 5 -4, with actually four Catholics, and one Protestant voting to overturn Roe V Wade, and two Jewish and one Catholic voting to uphold the ruling. The other Catholic, John Roberts, was in the middle ground of supporting a more measured course, as he would have upheld Mississippi's 15 week abortion ban, but would have stopped short of overturning Roe V Wade.

 

There was nowhere near being around 80% of Americans against the decision.

 

On this Pew Research poll, it was more like 57% opposing the ruling, and 41% in support of the ruling, with variations ranging from 81% of Conservative Republicans supporting the ruling, and 91% of Liberal Democrats being against the ruling. Politics seems to have determined the amount of support or opposition to the ruling, rather than religion.

 

On a worldwide basis, around 1 baby is aborted every second, which is just a tragic state of affairs, so it's only right that at least some action, however small, is taken, to try to alleviate the situation.

 

I'm not sure the Supreme Court will be able to get enough support to rule against Contraception, but at least there is some will to correct the errors of the past, rather than just compounding them, as has been the case.

[Truthblast]

I am glad that I wasn't aborted as a foetus.

 

So I'll defend to the death the right of other foetuses to be born, to learn, to live, to grow up, to love and to bear children of their own.

 

"Thou Shalt Not Kill"

[pi3141]

15 hours ago, Augustus said:

 

I think it was actually a 5 - 1 - 3 decision, but technically it was 5 -4, with actually four Catholics, and one Protestant voting to overturn Roe V Wade, and two Jewish and one Catholic voting to uphold the ruling. The other Catholic, John Roberts, was in the middle ground of supporting a more measured course, as he would have upheld Mississippi's 15 week abortion ban, but would have stopped short of overturning Roe V Wade.

 

There was nowhere near being around 80% of Americans against the decision.

 

On this Pew Research poll, it was more like 57% opposing the ruling, and 41% in support of the ruling, with variations ranging from 81% of Conservative Republicans supporting the ruling, and 91% of Liberal Democrats being against the ruling. Politics seems to have determined the amount of support or opposition to the ruling, rather than religion.

 

On a worldwide basis, around 1 baby is aborted every second, which is just a tragic state of affairs, so it's only right that at least some action, however small, is taken, to try to alleviate the situation.

 

I'm not sure the Supreme Court will be able to get enough support to rule against Contraception, but at least there is some will to correct the errors of the past, rather than just compounding them, as has been the case.

 

Ok. And getting my head round it, all that's actually happened is the decision has been passed back to the state, which actually is decentralisation of power so maybe not a bad thing. As long as there still is choice for the woman - like the state doesn't forcibly refuse women exit to another state where the procedure is legal. Then it's not such a big deal but a shame to see government support removed.

[pi3141]

8 hours ago, Truthblast said:

I am glad that I wasn't aborted as a foetus.

 

So I'll defend to the death the right of other foetuses to be born, to learn, to live, to grow up, to love and to bear children of their own.

 

"Thou Shalt Not Kill"

 

Yes I'm glad to but its not always so straight forward. I won't bother getting into this argument. Your views and another's are allowed to be different. Thats all I'll say.

[Augustus]

On 3/7/2023 at 8:15 PM, pi3141 said:

 

Ok. And getting my head round it, all that's actually happened is the decision has been passed back to the state, which actually is decentralisation of power so maybe not a bad thing. As long as there still is choice for the woman - like the state doesn't forcibly refuse women exit to another state where the procedure is legal. Then it's not such a big deal but a shame to see government support removed.

 

 

Part of what has happened is that instead of abortion being allowed on a nationwide basis, regardless of the wishes of individual states, now the states have the power to decide whether to allow abortion within their own borders. Roe V Wade took democratic power away from individual states, and just told them they had to either like abortion or lump it.

 

Abortion was banned in the US, up until Colorado decriminalised it in 1967, the same year as the UK introduced the Abortion Act. Prior to Roe V Wade, most US states continued to ban all forms of abortion, some states allowed it with some restrictions, some allowed it for residents only, and only a very few states allowed it with only a few restrictions.

 

Roe V Wade took away the right of states to decide their own laws on abortion, that's why it was so unfair, as without a federal law on abortion, then it's very unlikely that abortion would have been decriminalised in a lot of US states.

 

Roe V Wade was all part of the long game played as part of the globalist agenda to take away power from the individual, and centralise it on a national, and international level, where agendas can then be imposed on the individual, or local area, without them having the necessary power to resist them.

 

The first country to legalise abortion on request was the Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin in 1920. It was not for no reason at all, that in later years, similar legislation, then spread like wildfire through many Western nations. It was a very similar spread to that other more recent part of the globalist agenda, with the changes in the law in a number of different nations, mostly around about the same time, in regard to same sex marriage.

Edited March 10 by Augustus

[Augustus]

On 6/25/2022 at 8:32 PM, Augustus said:

 

It's a complete nonsense for you to refer to human rights, but then ignore the human rights of the unborn child.

 

You also seem to have swallowed the propaganda from pro-abortionists in the reasons given for abortions, when in the majority of cases, many women use abortion as a lethal form of birth control, as they don't feel ready to have a child at that time.

 

People who are upset at the Supreme Court ruling, also seem to be unaware, that this decision takes the responsibility for abortion away from the Federal level, and gives back the power to individual states, thus strengthening local democracy.

 

I noticed a snowflake reacted to this post from me, with a "sad" smiley!

 

It seems that criticising abortion on a forum is sad, but unborn children being murdered isn't sad, according to snowflakes.

 

So, they demand safe spaces for themselves, but they won't extend that privilege to unborn children, who aren't even safe in their mother's wombs.

 

That's the real sadness.

Edited March 24 by Augustus