My posts that you initially responded to with "The Constitution doesn’t say that, it does say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" were not about the Constitution. You, in no way, responded to my posts with that irrelevant reply. You've gone off on a tangent of your own with this.

I was speaking about the biological scientific view of when human beings begin, and that a fetus is a human being, and also about the legal definition of an "inherent right" and ultimately what your thoughts, negative or positive, are on aborting a human being and what the ramifications of that are, societal or otherwise.

Quite simply the right of privacy is the basis of all rights
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pure smokescreen.

No one has the right to hurt someone else, even in private.

ALL that matters, literally all that matters, is the status of the baby. Everyone agrees women can do what they want with their bodies, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else

It’s not about women’s rights, or healthcare, or any other dishonest nonsense. It’s about whether or not the baby represents “someone else.”

If you think the baby is a person, then you necessarily think abortion is infanticide. If you think the baby is no more of a person than a mole
or a wart, then you’d have no issue with abortion.

There’s a reason why liberals almost never bring up the only thing that actually matters. Liberals will
do anything to avoid discussing the only part of the debate that actually divides us.

I’ve seen ultrasounds of babies in the womb, and i know exactly what it is that i’m looking at.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Jim the goal was a simple one to intimidate the justices from changing their position and not completely dismantle Roe.

disdain for democracy, seems you still agree with Jan 6th but suggest other wise

their seething hatred for christianity,
Here we go with the victim card and the bogus attacks on Christians
There’s more hate against Catholics from the Christian Right . Then anyone

their willingness to incite. Again spoken like a true cult members

Parents who speak up at school board meetings are domestic terrorists. More lies from your radicalized party


Bidens DOJ is not enforcing the federal law which makes it a crime to protest for the purpose of influencing judges.
More faux outrage shocking the draft was leaked their decision made 99.9 % there’s nothing left to influence.. you are just a right wing parrot speaking nonsense

Of course the rights more upset over protester in front of a judges house then . Those in the capital trying to overturn an election or the text message that show how far your fan boy’s administration was committed to doing it. That’s what cults do

Did you know Alito quoted a medieval times
1250s judge Henry de Bracton ?

Is he mentioned in our constitution?





Alito’s opinion, after mocking the Roe decision for its “discussion of abortion in antiquity,” then provides a discussion of abortion in medieval times: “Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise explained that if a person has ‘struck a pregnant woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused an abortion, if the foetus be already formed and animated … he commits homicide.’ ”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You and the anti abortion need to learn what viability means rather then making up their own science

Let me help

The ability to survive or live successfully.

so at what point in a pregnancy Jim can a baby be removed from the womb and survive on its own. That’s viability

And a sonogram picture isn’t viability
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scotland urged to make at-home abortions permanent

As red states are peddling backwards

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-61392918
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) I know exactly what viability means. I just don't know why that's the barometer for who is a human being, and who isn't. If viability is the test for what's a human being, does that mean you don't think people who are in a coma are human beings? Or people on ventilators who are being tube fed? Using your logic, then they aren't human. Right? They can't be. See? You're not holding ANY cards. None.

(2) how do you define viability in a baby? You're going to say that after, for example, 5 months it's a human being? So please tell me, what happens at the stroke of midnight, on the last day before viability? You think one second it's not human, and then in the next second - POOF - the heart starts beating and the arms and legs pop out? The baby is never any different at any moment, than it was one minute before that.

There are only 2 significant moments where something changes instantly, conception and birth. So any ban in between those points is stupid, arbitrary, completely meaningless, devoid of any logic. And allowing abortion up until birth is so barbaric that most Americans oppose it. So we're left with conception.

A bill to grant security for the families of U.S. Supreme Court justices unanimously passed the Senate Monday.

The Supreme Court Police Parity Act would provide police protection to the immediate families of the nine justices and other officers of the court, if the "Marshal determines such protection is necessary," the legislation says.


What happened to Bidens DOJ is not enforcing the federal law which makes it a crime to protest for the purpose of influencing judges.

Guess that didn’t apply to SJC judges. Or Jenny Thomas would have been in violation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"No Jim the goal was a simple one to intimidate the justices from changing their position and not completely dismantle Roe."

Which is a federal offense. But they won't be charged, because it's OK when liberals commit federal crimes in the name of liberalism.

"disdain for democracy, seems you still agree with Jan 6th but suggest other wise "

I guess you actually have brain damage, because I've said Jan 6 was stupid and they should be prosecuted for crimes they actually committed. Not made-up crimes.

It's you who have no principles, because you're opposed to a protest at a public place (capital) but you're Ok with protests at people's homes.

Fortunately for me, your side is showing it's true colors, and people will remember at midterms.

Please tell us how a newborn baby survives on its own? It can feed itself, keep itself warm?

A newborn needs someone else to do almost everything for him, to keep him alive. It's not remotely able to survive "on its own". So why is a newborn, then, a human being?

It's pathetically easy top destroy every argument you can make. You're just not holding ANY cards. None. I cannot lose this argument, not from a rational, logical perspective.

Your a simpleton..and just playing dumb hard to tell which .

you know exactly what I mean . viability has nothing to do with care after birth .. can’t it breath on its own with out major medical care. Jim.

Not can it make itself dinner .

But you showed me. Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where is it written, that "viability" bestows human status on a baby? Who made that rule? It's literally impossible to know when a baby is viable.

And in any event, the current liberal view is that abortion is OK up until birth, way past viability.

You're OK with bans at the point of viability? Many on the left aren't. And viability always seems to be earlier and earlier...as is the point when we think they feel pain.

You're OK with bans at the point of viability? Many on the left aren't

More parroting right wing talking points. Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if roe is overturned and states can do whatever they want, we will
see what the blue states do. i don’t see CA and IL and CT banning abortion after viability. i hope they do, but I don’t see it. No way in CT. More likely they’d allow abortion until kids are in kindergarten. They’re viewing abortion as a sacrament now. They’re all in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The viability requirement is totally made up, "interpreted," in order to get past the fact that a fetus is a human being. The fetus is absolutely viable for its stage of life. It is perfectly suited to live in the environment that biological reality requires it to live in until birth. A born infant could not survive if it was placed back into the environment from which it flourished as a fetus. Nor could an adult human being survive in a sac of amniotic fluid without some form of help to breath. From conception to birth, a human being is as viable in its given environment as much as born humans are in their environments.

And fetus's do "breath" in the manner available to them while immersed in amniotic fluid. And they prepare for breathing outside of their fluid environment--"By 10–12 weeks of gestation, developing babies begin taking “practice” breaths."

The fetus is not only "viable" in its environment, it continuously makes preparations for its future birth and the new environment by constantly developing its parts and functions. It is actually designed by nature, if not some metaphysical creator, to do so on its own--with the protection and nourishment provided by the mother's body, which also internally develops itself, prepares for, the ability to carry, protect, and nourish developing human beings inside of her.

The processes of pregnancy and fetal development are both biologically self actuating. They are not products of willful human construction. They are ineluctable and can only be stopped by some form of violence, accident, disease, or willful intervention.

Sure boys
You should be the judge of something that can never happen to you.
Because as JD Vance says pregnancy through rape is "inconvenient" for women, but those women should still be forced to carry the pregnancy and if they don't they should be punished criminally.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then follow your own advice and shut up.

BTW, it can happen to boys now. They can be women now. They have control of their own bodies.

that’s a desperate argument from someone who knows he’s losing.

What none of them have done, is said why it’s constitutionally wrong to overturn it. They just say why they want it, which is an argument to make with state legislators if it goes to the states.

Court decisions are not supposed to be decided based on who wants what. Liberal judges tend to do that, but they’re not supposed to. all that matters to the judge, is what the constitution says and means. that’s why Lady Justice is blindfolded.

Many, many people think roe was poorly decided, even Ginsburg said they made mistakes

If an overwhelming majority of americans want abortion, that side has nothing to worry about, they’ll
get it at the state level.

“I want it, so give it to me, or else!” isn’t a legal argument.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here are more Republican ethics and morality on display

, the Michigan state senator, a Democrat, read an email accusing her of "grooming" children. The email was sent by a fellow senator, Republican Lana Theis, who was soliciting funds from her supporters for her reelection campaign.

In that email, Theis wrote that children are "under assault in our schools" by what she called "progressive mobs trying to steal our children's innocence."
She accused me by name of grooming and wanting to sexualize kindergartners,"

On his Fox News program, Tucker Carlson claimed that California teachers are trying to "indoctrinate schoolchildren" about sexual and gender identity. "They're grooming 7-year-olds and talking to 7-year-olds about their sex lives," he said.

On her Fox News show, Laura Ingraham accused the Walt Disney Co. of "pushing a sexual agenda" on children. "This isn't programming. This is propaganda for grooming," she said.

And U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance of Ohio defended the term on Fox News, saying, "If you don't want to be called a groomer, don't try to sexualize 6-, 7-year-old children."

And of course if you’re pro choice you are pro Murder.

Love this one The viability requirement is totally made up,

That’s the conservative answer to anything they disagree with .. but if they agree then they will accept anything that’s made up. See above examples of open the Bible
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a women’s family center in Wisconsin was firebombed this week. mobs are gathering outside theorists homes of scotus justices. And liberals are disrupting catholic masses. the liberal way - give me what him want, or I’ll throw a tantrum.

Viability isn’t a made up concept. What is made up, is suggestingbthatvsokeonebisnt human unless they are viable.

I’ll ask again, how would you define it? no 2 babies are identical, they don’t reach viability at the same time, so how would you define it?? at what point in pregnancy would you ban elective abortions?

i keep asking, you keep
dodging…

a michigan state senator who no one has ever heard of, that’s a great example wayne.

you criticize tucker carlson for going after CA teachers, but you didn’t offer a syllable about why he was wrong. what if he was right?

Oh! and the new press secretary said they trump stole the 2016 election from hilary. so it’s ok when democrats lie about elections being stolen?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim try some reading out side your bubble

Doctors often consider fetal viability the point at which a baby can be resuscitated at delivery and can survive without significant morbidity. Many times this age of viability is about 24 weeks gestation.

But I understand you live in the world of alternative facts

https://www.verywellfamily.com/prema...bility-2371529


Why would I suggest Tucker was right .. how is that even a topic a rational person would entertain

But a cult-member like your self you’re willing to entertain the idea

I would respect people if their stance was just we don’t like the concept of abortion.. but that’s not it the anti Abortion crowd is more about virtue signaling.

Which is just my view of them . I thought I would rationalize it the way Conservatives do.. base it on my feeling ,

the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.

Ya know the thing liberals are accuse of all the time

They care about the unborn until. It’s born than it’s time to support the next unborn child and the cycle continues.. but these morality zealots , have no intention of stopping with abortion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Doctors often consider fetal viability the point at which a baby can be resuscitated at delivery"

OK, I said it twice, and you didn't grasp it. I'll try to use smaller words.

I know what viability means. But who says viability = being a human being?

Is that really going too fast for you?

"Why would I suggest Tucker was right"

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong. Is he wrong for criticizing CA teachers? It's NEVER OK to criticize CA teachers?

"Doctors often consider"--Wow, that's something you can hang your hat on.

I know crazy right. Actually considering they are doctors for a living …. Let me guess their in on it to make money
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But who says viability = being a human being?

Normal people !

But you offered ZERO evidence that he was wrong.

In America Jim not sure if this is new to you but it’s not my responsibility to prove Tucker wrong it’s Tuckers responsibility to prove he’s right . Not just make baseless accusations.. while providing no evidence. And ism sure you believe him so what’s to argue ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"often consider" is not a committed, definitive, statement. It implies that they often don't consider. Not a scientifically conclusive disposition. Nor are most doctors research biologists or embryologists. Doctors practice medicine on the basis of scientific theories, they are not who create the theories. They are trained how to treat natal and pre-natal malfunctions and recommend how to keep those functions healthy. They are not the ones to decide what a human being is. They are the ones who medically treat humans.

Is a fetus viable in the womb? Of course it is. Do doctors treat humans. Yes. Do doctors treat mammals other than humans? No. Do doctors decide what a human being is? No. Do doctors treat fetuses? Yes. Who scientifically decide what or who is human? Biologists, embryologists. Do they consider the fetus to be a human being? Yes.

Is a human being viable on Saturn. No. Does that mean that human beings who travel to other planets on which they are not viable are not human beings there? No. They are still human beings there even though they are not viable without technological help. Fetuses are viable in their mother's womb. Their mother is a human being. They are viable inside of her with the help she was designed to assist them. They are viable when they leave their mother's body and are born. They are viable, as nature designed, from conception to birth and beyond. Throughout the whole process, during all the different stages with their different conditions, they are viable, and they are human beings with a unique genetic human code which they have and keep from conception to death. They belong to the species homo sapiens. They do not ever, from conception till death, belong to any other species. They are human. They are beings. They are human beings.

if it’s normal to say you need to be viable
to be human, explain your view on people in comas.

you can’t win this, because there’s zero logic to your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since you say we should leave abortion rights up to states. I say, why stop there? Why not leave it up to counties, cities, neighborhoods, or—and this would really be fun—individual people?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

explain your view on people in comas.




If that’s the logic I am up against! I surrender .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you said viability is the prerequisite for being a human being, did you not?

Let’s just stick to babies then. How do you know when a unborn baby is viable? is it the same stage for every baby?

it’s something that obviously cannot be determined with any kind of accuracy. It’s an unknown, a mystery. whatever day you’d pick, makes zero sense, because the baby is no different than it was the day before. nothing spectacular happens in any one day.

if it’s “my body my choice” why should that right be forfeited after viability? it’s still a decision regarding the woman’s body.

too late to surrender,, let’s let it play out in november.

Do you realize you’ve never obverse a syllable about why it’s constitutionally incorrect to overturn Roe and let states decide?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun.

Because I'm going by that pesky old document called the constitution.

The constitution lists things that are the jurisdiction of the federal government, and it also says that things not on that list, are up to states to decide.

I didn't just say "leave it up to the states", and make that up out of this air.

Using your "logic", why not leave the choice to rape children, up to individual people?

Not only can you not win this, you can't avoid humiliating yourself.

Many states will decide to leave this choice up to the mom. Other states, where most citizens don't like abortion, will restrict it.

This is a concept you're clearly struggling with and puzzled by, it's called "democracy". In democratic republic, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes others get what they want.

You seem to be under the impression that "democracy" means "always whatever the left wants".

I live in CT, I'm used to not getting what I want and accepting it. CT will not only continue to offer abortion, they'll probably make a tourist industry around it. And I accept that, because I realize that I happen to live in a place where the vast majority of voters are far left. I don't like it, but it's not unfair.

You can't grasp that.

Just announced, Mitch McConnell says protesters of the Supreme Court Justices are not authorized under the 1st Amendment. He also says if Republicans take charge, they will outlaw all abortions in the US, period. Welcome to Sharia Law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it would be the opposite of Sharia Law. It would be law created by the representatives of the people, not created by Mohammad, the representative of God.

And if McConnell meant the Federal House of Representatives could outlaw all abortions, I don't think the SCOTUS would agree with him.

Many people believed the People now on the court when they said Roe was settled law...... and I assume the Catholic Justices believe in the Immaculate Conception, so "If an individual human can get pregnant without the aid or contact with any other humans--that would be fun."

show me where any of them
said they’d never overturn Roe, or any other precedent.

saying “it’s currently settled law and i respect that”, is nowhere near the same thing as saying “i would
never overturn a precedent.”

none of them ever tel you in advance how they’d rule on future hypothetical cases. That started with Ginsburg.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I assume that Catholic Justices believe in only one immaculate conception. All other conceptions are run of the mill, regular, tedious, though often fraught with problems, biological conceptions.

and if facts matter, which i doubt, Gorsuch is Protestant. And Sotomayor is also catholic, but that’s ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Facts matter

Roe infuriated pro-life Americans and made pro-choice Americans complacent. Republican candidates could use the issue to rile up their base without risking an electoral backlash. But if Roe goes down, Americans who want to keep abortion legal will have to vote that way. And those Americans are a political majority.

Polls taken in the last six months paint a clear picture of the coming storm. Few Americans expected Roe to be overturned, and most didn’t want the Court to do it. The numbers vary, but the pattern is consistent: Between half and two-thirds of the public wants to keep Roe, and Roe supporters outnumber Roe opponents by about 2-to-1.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device