Read It: Here's the Supreme Court's Basis for Overruling Roe and Casey

The SC of R vs W said there was an expiration on that choice. Now it's a choice of becoming more politically involved or not.

 

Yep their taking away a womans right to choose, we have to prevent that.

 

They can always choose to move somewhere that allows them to kill babies. Do you know of such a place?

 

They can also choose to take their rights back.

 

Some rights are rightfully restricted or outlawed. We live in a civilized Nation where your rights end when they harm others.

 

Its very simple, if the woman doesn't want it inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed even if this results in its death

 

Now you're conceding that it's life inside the woman, but you just don't care. Why doesn't an alive being have rights?

 

The right of the woman to not be pregnant supersedes any rights the fetus has.

 

I'm already aware of your disinterest in the life within the woman. Your concern about rights is selective. Your comments suggest you only care about the rights of certain alive beings.

 

That will now depend on states rights/legislation if the above shall hold true.

 

Correct.
Carry the pregnancy full term or end it depending on their state's law. Of course, they could always travel to out of state if their state denies them their "choice".

 

The sanctity of choice remains intact! Who said choices should be easy?

 

Just like you.

 

Or take back their right in the state they live in.

 

Not really.

 

I'm already aware of your disinterest in the life of the woman. Your concern about rights is selective. Your comments suggest you only care about the rights of certain alive beings.

Where does any "life" have the right to use another's body to sustain their life?

NO one can force you to give them your heart or kidney to sustain their lives....don't you think that's a good thing?

If it's good for you why isn't it good for women?

 

Attacking the poster again I see! So, could you post where @Overitall has expressed disinterest in women's lives, I think that would be something that need be reported..

 

I'm pro-choice. Clearly you don't comprehend my arguments.

 

Are you sure, the reply was very clear,

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
I'm already aware of your disinterest in the life of the woman. Your concern about rights is selective. Your comments suggest you only care about the rights of certain alive beings.

Where does any "life" have the right to use another's body to sustain their life?

NO one can force you to give them your heart or kidney to sustain their lives....don't you think that's a good thing?

If it's good for you why isn't it good for women?

Then why attack another Pro-Choicer with :

""""""""""""I'm already aware of your disinterest in the life within the woman. Your concern about rights is selective. Your comments suggest you only care about the rights of certain alive beings.

Overitall, Yesterday at 3:21 PM""""


Can you answer my questions?

 

I'm pretty sure the poster doesn't understand what I've been arguing. He thinks flipping the mirror on me qualifies as a rebuttal, but it only goes to highlight he doesn't really understand my points.

 

Part of the point of "debate" is to put your own thinking up to the light. If you can't face your own position honestly you have no place on the "debate stage".

 

That's a problem here on PF. People run with their overzealous meaning of suggestions. Or simpler put, imagination..

 

Hmmm. It sounds like you're claiming that's when the state's interest becomes strong enough to preclude abortion.