Anonymous ID: 55cbfb Aug. 10, 2022, 3:22 a.m. No.17332108   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>17330773

"patriots are in control"

why is Q sitting there while kids are murdered by their own parents?

 

seems to be going right along with the enemies depopulation plan.

Anonymous ID: 55cbfb Aug. 10, 2022, 3:25 a.m. No.17332932   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>17331821

>>17330624

>so Jane Roe said she was raped and so she couldn't be forced to deliver the baby, how did this turn into a woman's right to abort her baby for any reason at all?

 

Roe v Wade was about challenging Texas' abortion law. It had nothing to do with "Jane Roe" it had to do with if denial of a woman's ability to have an abortion by the state of Texas was illegal. Two lawyers, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, wanted to challenge the law because, it was something to do, muh women's rights, or it was Tuesday. Who knows, only they know their true motivations for wanting to challenge the law.

 

Anywho, they started looking around for a pregnant woman because they needed someone pregnant to challenge the law. They couldn't just challenge it without having a supposed person who was wanting an abortion. They ended up finding pregnant waitress "Jane Roe" and were like, "Hey, Can you say you want an abortion, so we can make a case?" Roe was like, "sure, if you got five bucks, I'll do anything."

 

So off they went, claiming this woman, who already had two kids, wanted an abortion and the District Attorney of Dallas, Henry Wade, was preventing her from doing it. But the case wasn't about the individuals, per see, but about whether the District Attorney had the right to deny abortions at all. So that's how it became for all women, because it was the ability to deny abortion that was on trial, not Roe's particular abortion, which she never got by the way.