Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 10:41 a.m. No.20712251   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2617

>>20712246

I hope the right starts saying that if a woman has an abortion she should be charged with murder. Call women who have abortions out right murderers. Because they are each and every woman who has ever had an abortion has murdered a child.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 10:45 a.m. No.20712261   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2267

>>20712256

it should not be left up to the states that is a lazy answer. The supreme court should just decide if a baby has human rights even if it is inside the womb. Does that unborn child have the protections of the constitution or not. Is it a person, it can not be anything else. Abortion is just a decision that some killing is justified at a certain stage and then you criminalize it at others.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 10:50 a.m. No.20712283   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2286 >>2325

>>20712267

wrong, totally wrong. That is why the SC needs to decide once and for all what and when life begins. If the unborn are deserving of the same protections of the constitution as everyone else. Do they receive legal protection. That is not a state decision. The federal government must answer when does life begin . Fuck the states with that. Does the constitution protect everyone or only once you are born.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 10:52 a.m. No.20712294   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>20712286

that is why the definitions need to be defined so that legal chicanery can not be done by the governments of either the federal or state. The question of when does life begin and if that life deserves protection at every stage be respected.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 11 a.m. No.20712340   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2350 >>2365

>>20712325

Yes it is you fucking retard. Does the constitution protect the unborn. Quit being fucking retarded. It is not a question of the state if an individual is protected or not. The question is an unborn baby a person. That is not a state decision to determine the rights of the individual. If that is what you think you are honestly a fucking clown and stupid beyond reasoning. its just about answering a question of who has rights and who does not based on the constitution.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 11:03 a.m. No.20712360   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2372

>>20712350

yeah its a joke because its been ignored for so long. But if it were still valid the wording in it protects the people of the united states, the question of who and when a person is a person needs to be answered and that should not be left up to the states to decide who has rights and who does not and if and when those rights are deprived.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 11:06 a.m. No.20712376   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2395

>>20712365

That is the point your fucking nigger. The question is who is protected as a person and if an unborn child is a person deserving of the same rights or do rights only exist once you pop out. The question is also extended as a result of late term abortions. You are obviously too fucking stupid to understand this basic premise. They have total authority to say what is covered and not. I will use your language nigger, is a unborn baby a citizen? Does it have the same rights unborn or not. Now since I know you can not answer that as you are a nigger I suggest you fucking shut the fuck up. The weed argument is stupid and conflating the issue. Now again fuck off before I mock you for your small nigger brain more.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 11:12 a.m. No.20712398   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2407

>>20712395

yes they do you fucking god damn faggot of a nigger. The federal government must define the terms of the constitution and if it extends to all people. I understand more than you do niggerbrain.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 11:20 a.m. No.20712427   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2441 >>2465 >>2480

>>20712421

oh the smooth brain nigger is still trying to say murder is ok if the state says so. So california says murder is legal no matter what the age. Guess it is ok. Guess your rights can be stripped away in one state vs another because your smooth brain nigger mouth says so.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 11:29 a.m. No.20712459   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2480 >>2493

>>20712441

uh huh sure niggerbrain. You just fail at your job. The constitution says that people and persons shall not have their rights deprived of them with out a judgement of some sort from a legal sense. Now if you were in a coma and there was a fight about who gets to pull your plug, there is usually a legal preceding to see if that is the right decision. But that person is still being afforded their rights. So the question is about who is considered a person? Again your niggerbrain can not understand this. That definition is to be determined by the federal not the state. So if a woman wished to have an abortion it would need to then go before a court to determine if that was indeed needed. Because the baby born or not should have rights and be protected as such. This helps also get around the late term abortion problem even if the SC said life begins at 5 months because in theory a baby could be delivered that early. So at 5 months you baby has rights and you do not have the right to kill it as it is a person. For further examples for a your nigger brain to contemplate. If a person shoots a pregnant woman why are they charged with a double homicide. Come on nigger brain answer that one.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 11:35 a.m. No.20712487   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>20712480

is that why you have to deflect with that argument one post. Usage of language and words and a lame racist meme to boot. Guess words really do make some sensitive cunt wipes.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 11:41 a.m. No.20712506   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2514

>>20712493

abortion and how it is done then could be up to the state if it is a needed procedure or what have you, but the double standard does exist and to not point that out also does the argument about life a great disservice. All I propose and I understand its controversy as to define person hood. They did it for the blacks, why not the babies. I am against aboortion 100% but a state could still perform them, but if double homicide is a thing, then why is the woman not charged for harming the life inside her at the same time. Slippery slope on many of these ideas, but they should be talked about and the idea that it falls back to the states to interpret the constitution, that is not their duty. That is part of the reason the problems exist as we do now, just look at how NYC has deprived Trump of his rights about the bail issue. By defining the terms which has been done countless times this only helps the states know what they can and can not do.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 11:48 a.m. No.20712531   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2542

>>20712514

ok at what point are you a citizen? use what ever word you want when does the constitution and its protections take effect. Answer that. Because if that is the case the woman is abridging the rights which is life to which it should be entitled. Because if you say you are not a citizen till you are born there is no reason to not have up to birth abortions and then even after, what about those? Are after birth abortions murder, does that baby have citizenship at that point. Or do they have to have their fist dump? Use what ever language you want but the question of when rights begin for the individual matter.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 11:56 a.m. No.20712560   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>20712542

personally I think life begins at conception. I understand that not everyone has that belief and I am not religious at all so my argumentation is not a result of that. This is why the legals courts need to make a determination of this concept as it would extend to the ability to have or not have an abortion. Does life begin at the ability to be self sustaining, that could be as early as 5 months and then as tech increases it could be earlier who knows. The founders did not really have to deal with women murdering their babies and I am not sure if there were punishments for self induced abortion back in the 1700s would need to research that. But the double homicide idea is why I think they have already set a precedent of saying a child is a citizen worthy of rights as by ending it someone elses ( the murderers) are taken away as a result. This is not about more control its about a defining of vague terms, something that the federal government is supposed to do. The state does not define the constitution. This is not even a bout a new law because that would fall to the states, this is about defining a term the federal government uses.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 11:58 a.m. No.20712565   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2576

>>20712559

exactly and the federal judiciary defines the legal terms of what is and is not. That is not up to the states to decide. Because when it does that is usually when you have a law suit going after the state for the taking of rights that are afforded due to the constitution. States are governed by the constitution not the other way around.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 12:03 p.m. No.20712597   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2616

>>20712576

you are failing again, this is not about powers granted or ungranted. It is about defining the terms uses and who is protected by said definitions. The states can still have abortion if they want if it falls under the definition.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 12:07 p.m. No.20712619   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2663

>>20712610

have you been following the dead people trying to vote story out of texas based on the social security databases been posted here a few times. They are already pushing this.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 12:10 p.m. No.20712635   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2644

>>20712626

so it is legal to murder a baby as long as it is still inside? Niggerbrain. Now abortion up to popping out what about after birth abortions? Is that murder of a citizen at that point.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 12:14 p.m. No.20712664   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2675 >>2678

>>20712644

yeah you fucking did. If you consider born being an act of popping out side. Then you are not born inside. Really how are you fucking able to remember how to breath with as stupid as you are. You are fucking ignorant. Because what you just did was say that NO STATE has the right to ban abortion or even have a say in it as it is NOT A CITIZEN. So free abortions now thanks jack ass. You just argued against yourself. Its not even alive till it pops out. Still does not wash away the double homicide problem though. Guess all those people should get time served if they killed a pregnant woman their time should get cut in half.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 12:20 p.m. No.20712691   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2697

>>20712675

and you need to stop being a petulant niggerbrain. Its not even a rights issue because if the thing inside is not a citizen no law then should be used against the woman with out due recourse and legal representation. Its just a medical procedure. It has no rights the woman does however. Just stop. You are obviously stupid. The states can not ban abortion if its just a medical procedure. Its depriving the woman of her rights.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 12:24 p.m. No.20712710   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2720

>>20712697

deflection now. I am proving a point that you are a nigger brain and you can not even debate the crap you think you believe. If its not a citizen and it has no rights then abortion should not be a problem. The only reason it is a problem is people consider it life and as a result believe it has inherent rights that should be protected. That is not a decision for the states and at this point I know what you are and I know I am right. You now think you have truth no you have a fucking faulty opinion on shit. Truth is subjective just like the concept of life apparently. The debate is everything it not my problem you are not intellectually capable of seeing all the sides of the problem.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 12:32 p.m. No.20712741   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2749

>>20712736

I do, sadly you do not. The states do not define the constitution. They can define their own, but not the federal. The federal defines the terms. Not up to interpretation. This is not a new law and it would not infringe on any state. The states would only have to work with the definition but seeing as a baby is not a citizen till it is outside the woman. All abortion up to the point of birth is legal and should be protected 100% any state that goes against that concept is violating the constitution.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 12:39 p.m. No.20712765   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2782

>>20712749

you have no fucking clue. If you can not argue both sides of a problem you do not understand the problem. I am just using your language and your logic. Baby has no rights as it is not a citizen then clearly what ever happens to it is a medical procedure. The states have no fucking say that is correct, because when the what was it the 13th amendment that banned slavery which then helped foster the reasons for the civil war. But because of that black people have rights, so do babies not get those rights or are you going to stick with your citizen argument that I totally destroyed because as a result it would legalize all abortion up to birth.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 12:49 p.m. No.20712812   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2828

>>20712786

the slippery slope problem exists when people are allowed to define things as they do. Why not allow free range murder as long as the state allows it. Since the state can interpret what ever it wants it seems. The hypocrisy can be cleared up with a simple defining of terms. the entire idea of the state having the executive power to determine life or death is an issue unto itself. But now with the complication of abortion unless the terms are defined as to what a citizen is or when life begins none of it matters.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 12:52 p.m. No.20712822   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>20712787

hey faggot

 

you forgot to include the full statementNo State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE LIBERTY OR PROPERTY.

 

IS A BABY ALIVE ?

IS THE STATE DEPRIVING A BABY OF LIFE?

 

come on nigger brain

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 12:56 p.m. No.20712834   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2845

>>20712820

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

 

keep trying niggerbrain

 

unless the pregnant woman goes to court to have an abortion then abortion per the state is illegal. The baby has not had due process. Try again.

Anonymous ID: c0f82f April 11, 2024, 1:02 p.m. No.20712855   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2876

>>20712845

Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases.

 

that does not sound like a state power.

 

keep trying niggerbrain.