U.S. Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe vs. Wade

[blackpepper]

I’ve been calling out these Luciferians for a while. They are not righteous and will meet the fate of the adversary when this society collapses. The pro-white is not part of my nation of people and it will be a day of celebration when they are finally removed

@Tito_Jackson seriously, what part of this are you co-signing?

 

[Supersav]

 

[playahaitian]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/06/indiana-abortion-ban-roe-holcomb/

 

[darth frosty]

 

[silverhawk]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/06/indiana-abortion-ban-roe-holcomb/

The bill replaces the state's current 22-week abortion ban with a near-total ban on abortion. There are exceptions if the woman's life is in danger and in cases of rape or incest up until 10 weeks' gestation.

 

[Camille]

 

[xfactor]

Wait a minute, are you telling me that the Democrats rig elections and participate in voter suppression too?

 

[Camille]

 

[darth frosty]

 

[Dark19]

 

[Camille]

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

 

[Tito_Jackson]

Daily Kos

Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...

m.dailykos.com

So, they want the "right" to kill babies past 4 months??
Cmon man, where the f do yall draw the line?? At some point you have to acknowledge this is some sick ish. At 15 weeks, this far from "a clump of tissue and cells ."

 

[Camille]

So, they want the "right" to kill babies past 4 months??
Cmon man, where the f do yall draw the line?? At some point you have to acknowledge this is some sick ish. At 15 weeks, this far from "a clump of tissue and cells ."

No one is wanting to eliminate healthy full term pregnancies. It's already been posted that doctors are not wanting to do it and people are not going to pay 10-30K for a late term abortion if it is not medically necessary. Stop acting like hood chicks are waiting until their 7 or 8th month and deciding they want an abortion for some silly reason.

 

[Tito_Jackson]

No one is wanting to eliminate healthy full term pregnancies. It's already been posted that doctors are not wanting to do it and people are not going to pay 10-30K for a late term abortion if it is not medically necessary. Stop acting like hood chicks are waiting until their 7 or 8th month and deciding they want an abortion for some silly reason.

FYI, those are photos of babies at 15 week gestation.

Did you read the article? Currently the cut off is 15 weeks. But, they that's not enough. They want no limits. You love to say noone wants late term abortions, yet people are fighting for late term abortions..


Make it make sense.

 

[Camille]

FYI, those are photos of babies at 15 week gestation.

Did you read the article? Currently the cut off is 15 weeks. But, they that's not enough. They want no limits. You love to say noone wants late term abortions, yet people are fighting for late term abortions.

Make it make sense.

Roe considered the cut off 21 or 23 weeks, whenever the fetus was viable outside of the womb, which is basically what everyone is trying to get back to. Regardless, I'm sure you consider the number of late terms abortion to be statistically insignificant. They happen at the same rate or less than that of abortions due to rape or incest, which you have previously stated was statistically insignificant.

 

[Tito_Jackson]

Roe considered the cut off 21 or 23 weeks, whenever the fetus was viable outside of the womb, which is basically what everyone is trying to get back to. Regardless, I'm sure you consider the number of late terms abortion to be statistically insignificant. They happen at the same rate or less than that of abortions due to rape or incest, which you have previously stated was statistically insignificant.

Roe considered the cut off 21 or 23 weeks, whenever the fetus was viable outside of the womb, which is basically what everyone is trying to get back to.

OK, I'm going to appeal to your logic

Do you know when Roe v Wade happened? 1973

Ask yourself, what did science and technology look like in 1973?

This is the Wang 2200 which debuted in 1973.

Roe v Wade argued based upon 1970's technology that viability was feasible at the third trimester, which begins at 27 weeks, not 23 as you suggested.

Viability is largely dependent upon a woman's access to Healthcare, a woman's overall health, a woman's financial status, and the technology available at that time.

They happen at the same rate or less than that of abortions due to rape or incest, which you have previously stated was statistically insignificant.

So, why not make them illegal except in cases of emergencies?

No one is wanting to eliminate healthy full term pregnancies.

But 6 months is ok?

This is Kelly Rowland at 6 months.


How about 5 months. Is that ok?

This is Allyson Felix at 5 months. 6.2% of all abortions are performed between 3 and 5 months gestation. Roughly 39,000.

What about 4 months?

Ciara at 4 months.

 

[Camille]

OK, I'm going to appeal to your logic

Do you know when Roe v Wade happened? 1973

Ask yourself, what did science and technology look like in 1973?

This is the Wang 2200 which debuted in 1973.

Roe v Wade argued based upon 1970's technology that viability was feasible at the third trimester, which begins at 27 weeks, not 23 as you suggested.

Viability is largely dependent upon a woman's access to Healthcare, a woman's overall health, a woman's financial status, and the technology available at that time.


So, why not make them illegal except in cases of emergencies?


But 6 months is ok?

This is Kelly Rowland at 6 months.


How about 5 months. Is that ok?

This is Allyson Felix at 5 months. 6.2% of all abortions are performed between 3 and 5 months gestation. Roughly 39,000.

What about 4 months?

Ciara at 4 months.

Anything after 21 weeks is generally considered a late term abortion by most people in 2022. No one is advocating late term abortions that are not medically necessary. The longer you are along in a pregnancy, the more expensive the procedure is also, so people are not trying to wait unnecessarily, either. Many of the abortion bans, if not total, are as early as 6 weeks or before most women know they are pregnant. Lawsuits like the one I posted are intended to advance through the court system in an attempt to get back to the "norm".

 

[Tito_Jackson]

Anything after 21 weeks is generally considered a late term abortion by most people in 2022. No one is advocating late term abortions that are not medically necessary. The longer you are along in a pregnancy, the more expensive the procedure is also, so people are not trying to wait unnecessarily, either. Many of the abortion bans, if not total, are as early as 6 weeks or before most women know they are pregnant. Lawsuits like the one I posted are intended to advance through the court system in an attempt to get back to the "norm".

an attempt to get back to the "norm".

That "norm" you are referring to is 27 weeks, just shy of 7 months.

You continue to contradict yourself. You say that noone is advocating for abortions after 21 weeks, yet you keep referring to roe v wade which advocates for abortions up to 27 weeks, regardless of the reason.

No one is advocating late term abortions......

This is such a false statement. The argument being posed isn't about limits. If it was, we would be so much further along.

One side wants to completely ban all abortions with no consideration. And the other want to legalize all abortions with no consideration.

 

[playahaitian]

 

[Camille]

That "norm" you are referring to is 27 weeks, just shy of 7 months.

You continue to contradict yourself. You say that noone is advocating for abortions after 21 weeks, yet you keep referring to roe v wade which advocates for abortions up to 27 weeks, regardless of the reason.


This is such a false statement. The argument being posed isn't about limits. If it was, we would be so much further along.

One side wants to completely ban all abortions with no consideration. And the other want to legalize all abortions with no consideration.

Lmaooooooo @ leaving off the part about being medically necessary. You are a straight clown. Stop quoting me.

 

[playahaitian]

​

 

[silverhawk]

That "norm" you are referring to is 27 weeks, just shy of 7 months.

You continue to contradict yourself. You say that noone is advocating for abortions after 21 weeks, yet you keep referring to roe v wade which advocates for abortions up to 27 weeks, regardless of the reason.


This is such a false statement. The argument being posed isn't about limits. If it was, we would be so much further along.

One side wants to completely ban all abortions with no consideration. And the other want to legalize all abortions with no consideration.

"
I wanna see blood, whether it's period blood
Or bustin' your fuckin' face, some blood!!"

-ODB & BGOL

 

[Tito_Jackson]

Lmaooooooo @ leaving off the part about being medically necessary. You are a straight clown. Stop quoting me.

And ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. When you have a BS argument or cannot support your position, out comes the S.I.G.N. language.

Like most individuals who are ignorant about a topic, but choose to blindly repeat rhetoric without full understanding what they are saying, you make up things, which in turn makes you are a liar. Roe v Wade says nothing about "medically necessary." People love to create their own narrative. I left it off because it is not there.

You do not realize how ridiculous you and others sound by saying that Healthcare policy based upon 1970's technology should be the norm in 2022.

Let's revisit 1973 shall we.......

Ma'am, you and anyone trying to convince rational people that technology of 1973 is still valid in 2022 are the true clowns.

 

[Camille]

And ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. When you have a BS argument or cannot support your position, put comes the S.I.G.N. language.

Like most individuals who are ignorant about a topic, but choose to blindly repeat rhetoric without full understanding what they are saying, you make up things, which in turn makes you are a liar. Roe v Wade says nothing about "medically necessary." People love to create their own narrative. I left it off because it is not there.

You do not realize how ridiculous you and others sound by saying that Healthcare policy based upon 1970's technology should be the norm in 2022.

Let's revisit 1973 shall we.......

Ma'am, you and anyone trying to convince rational people that technology of 1973 is still valid in 2022 are the true clowns.

There are/were only a few places in the country where you can even get the procedure done late term.

An explainer so I don't have to:

Before judging 'late-term abortion,' understand what it means, doctors say | CNN

Between the Virginia governor's support for a measure to loosen restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy, New York's new law and now President Trump's call for new legislation, the phrase "late-term abortion" keeps popping up. But what does this language mean?

www.cnn.com

 

[Tito_Jackson]

There are/were only a few places in the country where you can even get the procedure done late term.

An explainer so I don't have to:

Before judging 'late-term abortion,' understand what it means, doctors say | CNN

Between the Virginia governor's support for a measure to loosen restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy, New York's new law and now President Trump's call for new legislation, the phrase "late-term abortion" keeps popping up. But what does this language mean?

www.cnn.com

And conversely there are only a few places where abortions are completely banned. Sounds like an even trade.

 

[Camille]

And conversely there are only a few places where abortions are completely banned. Sounds like an even trade.

That's because they are just getting started. Women shouldn't be denied potential life saving procedures based on zip code. The places trying their best to outlaw abortion have the highest mortality rates as it is. I don't wish it upon anyone, but some of y'all not going to learn until someone you care about dies behind it tho.

 

[Tito_Jackson]

That's because they are just getting started. Women shouldn't be denied potential life saving procedures based on zip code. The places trying their best to outlaw abortion have the highest mortality rates as it is. I don't wish it upon anyone, but some of y'all not going to learn until someone you care about dies behind it tho.

Again, you are conflating facts to support your position.

How many states have a complete abortions ban??

Zero.

Every state allows "medically necessary" abortions in an effort to save the life of the mother.

But, of course this doesn't fit the narrative. So, this fact is drowned out and covered up.

 

[gutsdabeast]

Lmaooooooo @ leaving off the part about being medically necessary. You are a straight clown. Stop quoting me.

The fact that you talked to him about this issue for so long is a testament to your patience. He does not debate in good faith. He only has the opinion he has because he would never be in this situation. He's adopted zero children. Just like the gop, he doesn't give a shit about the child after they're born.

 

[Da Backshot Champ]

That made my day seeing some weak ass christians feeling uncomfortable.

 

[Tito_Jackson]

The fact that you talked to him about this issue for so long is a testament to your patience. He does not debate in good faith. He only has the opinion he has because he would never be in this situation. He's adopted zero children. Just like the gop, he doesn't give a shit about the child after they're born.

Why do yall have to lie and make assumptions about people. I am on record stating that there needs to be more assistance for children, mothers and fathers before during and after a child is born. Again, someone lyng to support a weak argument.

Regarding adopting, that's an illogical argument.

You do not have to take a specific action in order to have the right to form an opinion on a topic. This idea doesn’t hold up anywhere else. You don’t have to be an African-American to believe that slavery was wrong. You can believe that human trafficking is wrong without donating to Polaris or another anti-trafficking organization. Your beliefs should motivate your actions, but actions are not pre-requisites to belief.

To be clear, I left off the "medically necessary: part of her statement because "medically necessary" was not a consideration. It was simply all pregnancies up to viability which was said to be the third trimester which is 27 - 28 weeks.

Lastly, what almost all so-called pro-choice people get wrong is that in the US, there are no states that prohibit "medically necessary" abortions that jeopardize the life of the mother.

But this doesn't matter. Because just like the LGBTQ, they want all or nothing.

 

[gutsdabeast]

Why do yall have to lie and make assumptions about people. I am on record stating that there needs to be more assistance for children, mothers and fathers before during and after a child is born. Again, someone lyng to support a weak argument.

Regarding adopting, that's an illogical argument.

You do not have to take a specific action in order to have the right to form an opinion on a topic. This idea doesn’t hold up anywhere else. You don’t have to be an African-American to believe that slavery was wrong. You can believe that human trafficking is wrong without donating to Polaris or another anti-trafficking organization. Your beliefs should motivate your actions, but actions are not pre-requisites to belief.

To be clear, I left off the "medically necessary: part of her statement because "medically necessary" was not a consideration. It was simply all pregnancies up to viability which was said to be the third trimester which is 27 - 28 weeks.

Lastly, what almost all so-called pro-choice people get wrong is that in the US, there are no states that prohibit "medically necessary" abortions that jeopardize the life of the mother.

But this doesn't matter. Because just like the LGBTQ, they want all or nothing.

What's interesting is that most women are saying that the father is not responsible for the other kids. He offered to take his kid to eat and bring him back, but the mother said no. So, as a good father to HIS child, he brought food for HIS child. The mother chose to have the other three children. Those other three children have fathers.

By some BGOL standards he should buy food for all the children. What is stopping him from paying child support for all of the children? It is essentially the same principle.

If a man moves in our marries a woman with children from other men, he is accepting responsibility for those children.

This is not the case.

I always advise blackmen, be very careful dating women with children. It's way more complicated than it's worth. Resources for your child will be reduced by fractions do to providing for another man's children.

So, why not have him pay child support for all the kids? Where do you draw the line? Does he have to buy shoes for all kids? There are examples of this being a problem. Does he have to buy all the kids clothes? There are examples of this being a problem. Does he have to take all the kids to the amusement park? There are examples of this being a problem.

He shouldn't have to pay for that woman's decisions. Nor should his resources intended for his son be split and used for another man's children.

This you?

 

[Tito_Jackson]

This you?

It sure is.

A man shouldn't be obligated to feed another man's kids, particularly if he is not married to that woman or in a relationship with the woman. I stand by this. That woman need to find the father of those other kids and get them to pay. A man should be able to provide for his child without interference from a disgruntled mother.

 

[blackbull1970]

When Trump Found Out Marla Was Pregnant With Tiffany, He Said, 'Oh, Great'

Yeah, it's worse than that.

When Donald Trump learned that then-girlfriend Marla Maples was pregnant with Tiffany, Trump said, "Excuse me, what happened?" and "Oh, great"—the latest bombshell revelation contained in 15 hours of tapes from The Howard Stern Show released this week to Newsweekand Factba.se.

Trump Said, 'Excuse Me?' About Tiffany Pregnancy

In newly released Howard Stern show tapes, President Trump dished about his disappointment with Marla Maples's unplanned pregnancy.

www.newsweek.com

 

[sharkbait28]

Lol I see y'all still going back and forth @Tito_Jackson one of the dumbest, most self-impresed and completely delusional posters ever to type on this bitch

... and @silverhawk who is essentially a chat-bot loosed from Yahoo forums that has nothing interesting or substantive to say beyond conservative buzzwords.

 

[silverhawk]

Lol I see y'all still going back and forth @Tito_Jackson one of the dumbest, most self-impresed and completely delusional posters ever to type on this bitch

... and @silverhawk who is essentially a chat-bot loosed from Yahoo forums that has nothing interesting or substantive to say beyond conservative buzzwords.

Shartbait, whattup!?