XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics
XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama
XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,
lt.politics.trump
XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse
XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars
XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,
alt.politics.guns
From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov
On 10/13/22 9:40 AM, edell@post.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 3:53:12 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 10/12/22 13:15, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <10ednfG4vaSkY9v-...@giganews.com>,
>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>> While you have never attempted to support your claim.
>>>
>>> I don't have to. The people collectively made a decision. Since I
>>> live in a republic, I am obligated to obey their laws.
>>
>> The people have not made the decision that an unborn child does not have
>> the right to live.
>
> Poll after poll people have made the choice, and it's been pro-abortion.
unrestricted or restricted, from 74% 10 years ago to 85% this year, the latter
being in May before the SCOTUS decision. It's likely even higher now
post-SCOTUS decision if the
same poll was taken today. And under the question "If the Supreme Court were
to overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision," 32% responded it would be as a
good thing, 63% responded as a bad thing. You'd be hard-pressed to find any
polls or surveys to
the contrary. I guess the majority find it repugnant for the state to intrude
into their medical decision-making, and that majority would likely be composed
mostly of true freedom-loving liberals and independents. Right wingers have
more of a Commie-
bent state control take on it, like you.
>
> https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
>
Being as the Supreme Court enforces the Constitution, NOT Public
Opinion, all that needs to be done is to do what you failed to do for 50
years.
And that was to use ARTICLE 5 in the Constitution to amend the
Constitution. It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an Amendment in the
United States.
Since you didn't do that, the Supreme Court corrected an earlier courts
genocidal error that unconstitutionally caused the eugenics death of
millions of human lives inside the uterus...
If there were 75-80% in agreement with this genocide, they should have
made it a constitutional decision by having it put into the Constitution
where it would be there for all to see for all time.
We would always be able to look back and point to it in the Constitution
as a Democrat policy of baby killing since nothing is ever erased from
the Constitution, which is why Democrats hate the Constittuion, they
can't change the History in the Constitution. They can't rewrite it or
ignore it.
And the description of a person is NOT "qualified" in the Constitution
as being older than 9 months or a human life that completed gestating...
Son's and daughter's of slaves and the slaves themselves were made
persons with the 13th Amendment and became equal with the 14th
Amendment. NOTHING made a human life in the uterus less equal. If you
believe there is a clause with the description of a person that excludes
a human life in the uterus, you should quote the that clause from the
Constitution.
The judges don't make laws and they don't write Amendments to the
Constitution so you need to find where it already exists in the
Constitution that a human life doesn't have a RIGHT to life and DUE
PROCESS before that human life can be legally murdered.
In other words any law that would seek to make murdering by abortion
legal would be violating the U.S. Constitution that protects your RIGHT
to life as well as the human life in the uterus... equally.
Unless of course you can prove that life is dead and won't continue to
mature as we all do. You see it's about equality and we all mature so
killing any one of us to stop that process is NOT abortion it's either
due process or it's murder, one is illegal the other (due process) is
legal... and you can't make laws that target one group like allowing
Black babies to be murdered, or all human lives in a uterus to be
murdered while protecting others that are White or outside a uterus.
It's NOT equal protection of the law if you write a law that only
protects the persons you choose. Which means the Supreme Court made an
error and the U.S. Supreme Court can't accept any abortion law as
Constitutional if it aborts a live baby without due process, which means
that an abortion will only be done for cases of self defense.
Ironically some will happen and they will possibly be sent to the courts
where it's like the recent trial of the Rittenhouse kid. They have to
prove to a jury that they were fearing for their own life.
He too (Rittenhouse) had to protect himself and the legal system in that
State/Town (Democrat AG and Prosecutors) required he be put on trial for
his act of self defense to prove it to the jury. That's due process and
Democrats did it... why would you be upset when Abortion is held to the
same standard?
--
-That's karma-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sean Langille: During questioning from Special Counsel John Durham,
Brian Auten, a supervisory counter intelligence analyst with the FBI,
revealed the FBI offered Christopher Steele one million dollars if he
could corroborate allegations in the Dossier, but that Steele could not
do so. Auten repeatedly admitted under questioning from Durham that the
FBI never got corroboration of the information in the Steele Dossier but
used it in the initial FISA application and in the three subsequent
renewals.
https://twitter.com/SeanLangille/status/1579933058123575297?ref_
rc=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1579933058123575
97%7Ctwgr%5E5c157dc793b56eaed9e71fd30ab6402edec48d95%7Ctwcon%5Es
_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2022%
2F10%2Fkash-patel-calls-dirtbag-chris-wrays-immediate-impeachmen
-following-tuesdays-shocking-news-video%2F
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
