sotamayor speaks.

sotamayor speaks on the texas law. link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-s-sotomayor-calls-texas-abortion-case-a-disaster-in-blistering-dissent/ar-AAT0UCO?ocid=msedgntp sure she does. she doesn't care--imo-- about killing babies. if --imo--a female doesn't want to have a child.-----just don't get pregnant!!! there are plenty of ways to do that. but!! -- imo-- once pregnant, then you have to carry it to term.
now you all know my thoughts. what are yours? just interested on others views on this. thanks

 

"""once pregnant, then you have to carry it to term.""""

Why?


BTW, there is an Abortion Forum...

 

She simply does not seem to be very bright.

That will likely have bearing on the Texas law.

The Dobbs challenge strikes at the heart of "to what extent is second tri abortion a constitutional right".
The Texas statute, in one view, presumes that it is and then seeks a novel approach to circumventing it that could be used to infringe on other constitutional rights in question.

 

Let the WOMEN decide their own fate it's not your problem !!!!!!

 

Unless you're willing to relinquish your right to make choices about your life, body and future, you have no right to infringe on anybody else that has the exact same freedom you have to make decisions without somebody shaming you, blaming you and being self-righteous.

Further, for however long you held the idea that you can make that decision for somebody doing something you are not even biologically capable of doing, may I ask how many unwanted children have you adopted and/or fostered?

Granted, that a big investment. How many unwanted children have you mentored (ie. Boy Scouts, Big brother, chess clubs, coaching, tutoring, etc.)?

That's a big investment as well. So, how many unwanted children have you provided clothing, books, school supplies, etc.?

OK. Easier one. How many unwanted children do you even know? Unless you work in some field that gives you a perspective on this, you probably don't know any because group homes and foster homes don't exist in middle and upper class communities. It's nice that way so people don't have to see them and can just drop a dollar in a red kettle around Christmas and say they did their part.

Of course, I could be wrong (but I'm not) about your level of knowledge and exposure to all these kids you think someone you don't even know (and probably don't want to know because she's labeled "loose" and you can't have that at the church socials).

Please stop clutching your pearls and please tell me what you think happens to unwanted babies and children? Think on it a second because the reason behind your position is often the same outcome (with a lot more pain) before most of those kids become adults.

 

Further, why is birth control only the woman's responsibility?



If a woman has sex 100 times in one year, she can only have ONE pregnancy (possibly multiple births, but ONLY 1 pregnancy) to term.

If a man has sex 100 times in one year, he can potentially get 100 women pregnant.


So, who do think contributes the most unwanted children or children born into poverty in our society?

++++++++++++

And, who do you think pays for all those babies and children nobody wants? If you've ever did even a perfunctory look, you would notice the pattern. Typically, the people that can't bear children but want to tell other people what to do with what's happening in their womb are often the same people that complain about the number of single mothers on Public Aid.

That's kind of fun, right? Bully them into having a kid they don't want and have no means to provide for and probably no education beyond high school so employment options aren't the best. A single mother making minimum wage doesn't earn enough to pay for child care while she works.

That's a formula made in heaven that all those kids are going to become responsible, law-abiding and productive members of society when they reach adulthood. <---STATISTICALLY, THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

 

simple answer. now women has now created a new life. in the texas law it can be shown the baby has a beating heart, that means the brain is working. & the child recoils from pain. now it is a human being. there are plenty of ways --not--to get pregnant. the female can use them still have sex, and not form a child. simple as that imo.

 

Writing a dissent means she lost. Meh.

 

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the onus for birth control lies SOLELY with the sexually active woman of child-bearing age?

 

your quote: Further, why is birth control only the woman's responsibility? i never said it was. but she can tell the man to use a crude term rubber, or no sex. simple

your quote: If a woman has sex 100 times in one year, she can only have ONE pregnancy (possibly multiple births, but ONLY 1 pregnancy) to term. and that means what? just asking, no offence ment.

your quote: If a man has sex 100 times in one year, he can potentially get 100 women pregnant. and mother nature made us that way. so do you want to go after mother nature? i don't see how you can change that do you?

your quote: And, who do you think pays for all those babies and children nobody wants? really? have you seen all news stories about the people trying to adopt children?

your quote: Bully them into having a kid they don't want and have no means to provide for and probably no education beyond high school so employment options aren't the best. A single mother making minimum wage doesn't earn enough to pay for child care while she works. simple answer: give it up for adoption!! way too many people looking to adopt. they don't have to kept the (unwanted) babies.

your quote: That's a formula made in heaven that all those kids are going to become responsible, law-abiding and productive members of society when they reach adulthood. <---STATISTICALLY, THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.[/QUOTE] really? can you show me where you got those statistics? that would be interesting reading. thanks.

 

Know what’s missing in sotomayors words? The only thing that matters in regards to her job: constitutionality.


it is not her job to rule on a case based on her personal feelings. Unfortunately she’s an idiot liberal who ignores her job in favor of her personal politics. Far far too many incompetent moron judges like her infecting our judicial system, eagerly put there by moron Democrat politicians backed by their moron voters.

 

No, science doesn't say that at all . Besides it is still a part of the woman's body...it belongs to her, not to the government, not to you.

No, it is human ( adjective) , it is NOT A human being ( noun) as in a legal person.
Is it counted in the census? Have a SSN?

None of which anyone is obligated to use.

"females" can have sex any way they want, anytime they want

What you want is for a fetus to have more rights than born people....and that is a goofy idea...

 

It's clear from your responses that you are just emotionally tied to your (false) belief that all these stockpiled unwanted kids get adopted by Daddy Warbucks and live in mansions with maids and fancy clothes.

The unwanted babies\kids I'm referring to are the one's that don't get that fairy tale life - which is a majority of them.

Here's where I suggest you start if you are sincerely interested in discussing this issue.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/statistics/can/

P.S. I'm tired. I'll find some more information and post links tomorrow or Monday.

P.S.S. I don't mean to be intrusive but do you have some kind of vision problem that leads you to use larger fonts and colors? If so, I'll respect that. If not, could you please consider throttling back on the colors?

 

Isn’t it in the state’s interest that the child is properly taken care of from inception to adulthood?

Then shouldn’t we determine that average cost and immediately place a lien upon the father until that debt is satisfied?

The property in this example would be the father. Meaning he pays the debt over the term or spends the term incarcerated.

I suppose we could work out a labor arrangement and decrease our dependence on foreign labor too. Effectively kill two birds with one stone.

Hey! Let’s go for more. We could simplify the tax code AND keep the accountant’s and preparer's
employed handling the reporting requirements of the fatherhood obligations.

Win/Win/Win.

Men equating sex with six-figure debt and/or labor camp incarceration would also likely be a boon for psycho therapy and also kick off a space race-like development and manufacturing of sex robots.

Win/WinWin.

Jobs/Jobs/Jobs.

I’m certain the state rep’s in Texas will get right on it!

 

I get the sarcasm.....because we know that in Texas men rule and women are just cattle to be bred and produce get.

Texans also like to pay more taxes for the increase in poor kids being born....or do they just throw them into the desert...????

 

First, use the quote system...your posts appear to be "altering posts"

Second, on the tired assinine meme of Anti-Choicers to ADOPT...tell me why some kids actually age out of the system because NO ANT-CHOICERS HAVE ADOPTED THEM. (???)

Next tell me why women are responsible for giving other people children ? HINT: They aren't.

Next are YOU going to pay for the woman's medical bills, her wages when she loses her job or has to take time off work? Are YOU going to pay her for the use of her body and her pain and suffering from the pregnancy and childbirth?

IF you aren't then you have NO case.

 

Because you created human life. It's not an accident it's a child.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑


"""once pregnant, then you have to carry it to term.""""

Why?


BTW, there is an Abortion Forum...

No, it's a ZEF...not a child and there are no rules, no laws, that say you have you have to gestate it.

Why should a ZEF have more rights than anyone born person ????

 

ZEF is a term of dehumanization used by people who wish to play let's pretend rather than deal with a reality they find annoying.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑


"""once pregnant, then you have to carry it to term.""""

Why?


BTW, there is an Abortion Forum...



No, it's a ZEF...not a child and there are no rules, no laws, that say you have you have to gestate it.

Why should a ZEF have more rights than anyone born person ????

LOL, ya, most Anti-choicers hate those frightening scientific ACCURATE words for humans...

Hilarious that you think calling a human ZEF a ZEF is DE-humanizing them...


And why TF would anyone have to pretend they aren't human?

Why do YOU have to pretend they're born people with more rights than anyone else.


Why do you pretend you can't see this question ?
Why should a ZEF have more rights than any born person ???? LOLOLOL....

 

The Supreme Court is doomed...​

 

your quote: No, science doesn't say that at all . Besides it is still a part of the woman's body...it belongs to her, not to the government, not to you. really? so your saying the brain doesn't cause the heart to beat? and can you show me some proof that science says that the brain doesn't do that. and the baby is a living human just feeding off of the mother, then you say it belongs to her? the father helped create that child. so he should have a opinion on that also. right?

your quote:
No, it is human ( adjective) , it is NOT A human being ( noun) as in a legal person.
Is it counted in the census? Have a SSN?
No, it is human ( adjective) , it is NOT A human being ( noun) as in a legal person.
Is it counted in the census? Have a SSN?
yes it is a human, if some one kills a (unborn child) & the mother. that person is charged with---2---murders. the mother & the child. under the law.

yes it is a human. with the advancement of science, babies in the can survive with less and less time before birth.

yes it is a human. many parents take a long time-- sometimes a year or more before getting a ssn for their child.

your quote: What you want is for a fetus to have more rights than born people. more rights? --no! the same rights --yes. if you recall the constitution give all americans the right to----life! now where in the constitution does it give the right of a women to--kill/murder her unborn child. please show me where you think that is in the constitution. that would be interesting to read. thanks.

 

It's clear from your responses that you are just emotionally tied to your (false) belief that all these stockpiled unwanted kids get adopted by Daddy Warbucks and live in mansions with maids and fancy clothes.

The unwanted babies\kids I'm referring to are the one's that don't get that fairy tale life - which is a majority of them.

Here's where I suggest you start if you are sincerely interested in discussing this issue.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/statistics/can/

P.S. I'm tired. I'll find some more information and post links tomorrow or Monday.

P.S.S. I don't mean to be intrusive but do you have some kind of vision problem that leads you to use larger fonts and colors? If so, I'll respect that. If not, could you please consider throttling back on the colors?
[/QUOTE]

your quote: P.S.S. I don't mean to be intrusive but do you have some kind of vision problem that leads you to use larger fonts and colors? If so, I'll respect that. If not, could you please consider throttling back on the colors? no offence taken. i tried to use caps, but that upset the admin. so i got permission to use this. on the colors i want to make sure the admin know what i am posting to other peoples quotes. only trying not to break rules, which i seem to do alot.
your quote: The unwanted babies\kids I'm referring to are the one's that don't get that fairy tale life - which is a majority of them. i can understand your view on that. but, there are millions of unadopted kids that grow up and do great as adults, get jobs, raise families, live a good life. i don't hold with using the very, very few who use not having parents and growing up in a home, for their turning to crime. that to me is just a excuse. and not worth killing/ murdering the millions of unborn children.
your quote: P.S. I'm tired. I'll find some more information and post links tomorrow or Monday. that is fine. i am really enjoying our conversation on this. keep up the good work. thanks.

 

your quote: P.S.S. I don't mean to be intrusive but do you have some kind of vision problem that leads you to use larger fonts and colors? If so, I'll respect that. If not, could you please consider throttling back on the colors? no offence taken. i tried to use caps, but that upset the admin. so i got permission to use this. on the colors i want to make sure the admin know what i am posting to other peoples quotes. only trying not to break rules, which i seem to do alot.
your quote: The unwanted babies\kids I'm referring to are the one's that don't get that fairy tale life - which is a majority of them. i can understand your view on that. but, there are millions of unadopted kids that grow up and do great as adults, get jobs, raise families, live a good life. i don't hold with using the very, very few who use not having parents and growing up in a home, for their turning to crime. that to me is just a excuse. and not worth killing/ murdering the millions of unborn children.
your quote: P.S. I'm tired. I'll find some more information and post links tomorrow or Monday. that is fine. i am really enjoying our conversation on this. keep up the good work. thanks. [/QUOTE]

It's clear from your responses that you are just emotionally tied to your (false) belief that all these stockpiled unwanted kids get adopted by Daddy Warbucks and live in mansions with maids and fancy clothes.

The unwanted babies\kids I'm referring to are the one's that don't get that fairy tale life - which is a majority of them.

Here's where I suggest you start if you are sincerely interested in discussing this issue.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/statistics/can/

P.S. I'm tired. I'll find some more information and post links tomorrow or Monday.

P.S.S. I don't mean to be intrusive but do you have some kind of vision problem that leads you to use larger fonts and colors? If so, I'll respect that. If not, could you please consider throttling back on the colors?
[/QUOTE]

 

No, I SAID : it is still a part of the woman's body...it belongs to her, not to the government, not to you.
Your "interpretation" of it is not an accurate one....was that done purposely ??????

That law is the UVVA (Unborn Victims of Violence Act) and DOES NOT GRANT PERSONHOOD TO A FETUS...it grants protections.

They can survive earlier.. they do NOT grow faster.
A human fetus is human, it is NOT A human as in born legal person.
Are they counted in the census ? Have an SSN?

NO.

AFTER it's BORN.

NAME a right that does NOT interfere in the rights of the woman it's in.

NO Anti-Choicer has ever done that .

Have to be BORN to be an American. Have to be born to have rights.

Not every right is enumerated in the Constitution....but the right to bodily autonomy is a primary right...a right YOU treasure but wish to deny women.




Learn to use the Quote Function!!!! In the tool bar is a little flag CLICK ON IT