D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Justin Kates said:

---

Praying for people's eyes to be opened to the reality of abortion.

---

Me, too. Especially the part about men making decisions for women.

---

So the pain and terror of the aborted person is no problem for you, Waco.


Hellish, your perspective.

---

Of course they are but a woman's decision is not legal concern of yours or mine.

---

That is an empty and foolish argument. The state has claimed an interest in protecting the unborn and, in a government by the people, l'tat, c'est moi, et toi aussi.

---

Please quote the relevant Constitution article or right for me.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Justin Kates said:

---

Praying for people's eyes to be opened to the reality of abortion.

---

Me, too. Especially the part about men making decisions for women.

---

So the pain and terror of the aborted person is no problem for you, Waco.


Hellish, your perspective.

---

Of course they are but a woman's decision is not legal concern of yours or mine.

---

That is an empty and foolish argument. The state has claimed an interest in protecting the unborn and, in a government by the people, l'tat, c'est moi, et toi aussi.

---

Please quote the relevant Constitution article or right for me.

---

The state has claimed an interest in protecting the unborn. Are you so misinformed as to deny this?

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Justin Kates said:

---

Praying for people's eyes to be opened to the reality of abortion.

---

Me, too. Especially the part about men making decisions for women.

---

So the pain and terror of the aborted person is no problem for you, Waco.


Hellish, your perspective.

---

Of course they are but a woman's decision is not legal concern of yours or mine.

---

That is an empty and foolish argument. The state has claimed an interest in protecting the unborn and, in a government by the people, l'tat, c'est moi, et toi aussi.

---

Please quote the relevant Constitution article or right for me.

---

That's the point - there is no constitutional right to murder inconvenient babies.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Dehumanization is always the first step in the justification of genocide

---

And there we go again. No desire to reduce abortions, just to flaunt the team flag. Pathetic.

---

You know when I first glanced at this I thought you were one of the further right folks on here, because what you say is true about the picture on the right above. If it stands alone with no silly Meme quote, it is literally two people with no desire to reduce abortions, just flaunting the team flag.

Then I saw that's not what you meant, but that's exactly what those two are doing.

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

Tim Sharp "The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.
"Limits state interference due to a compelling state interest."

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

Get back to me if/when "Tim Sharp" sits on SCOTUS

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

---

Waco thinks he cited actual facts!!!!!!!

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

---

Waco thinks he cited actual facts!!!!!!!

---

He cited Tim Sharp on Roe and his assessment looks factually accurate to me. Where do you see inaccuracy or opinion in the Sharp cite?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

---

Waco thinks he cited actual facts!!!!!!!

---

He cited Tim Sharp on Roe and his assessment looks factually accurate to me. Where do you see inaccuracy or opinion in the Sharp cite?

---

Tim Sharp is SCOTUS?

No?

Bye, thanks for playing.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

---

Waco thinks he cited actual facts!!!!!!!

---

He cited Tim Sharp on Roe and his assessment looks factually accurate to me. Where do you see inaccuracy or opinion in the Sharp cite?

---

Tim Sharp is SCOTUS?

No?

Bye, thanks for playing.

---

Not scotus? Youatestill onthe hookfor Facts or as you say "Bye, Thank you for playing."

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

---

Waco thinks he cited actual facts!!!!!!!

---

He cited Tim Sharp on Roe and his assessment looks factually accurate to me. Where do you see inaccuracy or opinion in the Sharp cite?

---

Tim Sharp is SCOTUS?

No?

Bye, thanks for playing.

---

Not scotus? Youatestill onthe hookfor Facts or as you say "Bye, Thank you for playing."

---

Ah, Waco, so quick to sputter in anger when foiled

Of course you are right. My apologies
"Not scotus? You are still on the hook for Facts or as you say "Bye, Thank you for playing."

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

---

I've quoted it for you before. It's in Roe v. Wade.

Waco1947 said:

---

Of course you are right. My apologies
"Not scotus? You are still on the hook for Facts or as you say "Bye, Thank you for playing."

---

Flatulent arrogance does not make you right, Waco.

But where abortion is concerned, your emotions certainly rule your mind.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

---

Your Tim Sharp quote is sufficient to prove my point.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

---

Waco thinks he cited actual facts!!!!!!!

---

He cited Tim Sharp on Roe and his assessment looks factually accurate to me. Where do you see inaccuracy or opinion in the Sharp cite?

---

What Tim Sharp has to say about a SCOTUS decisions, is an opinion. It belongs in the oped column.

Is is automatically wrong, of course not. However, it is an opinion.

Forest Bueller said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

---

Waco thinks he cited actual facts!!!!!!!

---

He cited Tim Sharp on Roe and his assessment looks factually accurate to me. Where do you see inaccuracy or opinion in the Sharp cite?

---

What Tim Sharp has to say about a SCOTUS decisions, is an opinion. It belongs in the oped column.

Is is automatically wrong, of course not. However, it is an opinion.

---

That the state has claimed an interest in protecting the rights of the unborn is not a matter of opinion.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

---

Waco thinks he cited actual facts!!!!!!!

---

He cited Tim Sharp on Roe and his assessment looks factually accurate to me. Where do you see inaccuracy or opinion in the Sharp cite?

---

What Tim Sharp has to say about a SCOTUS decisions, is an opinion. It belongs in the oped column.

Is is automatically wrong, of course not. However, it is an opinion.

---

That the state has claimed an interest in protecting the rights of the unborn is not a matter of opinion.

---

True

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

---

I've quoted it for you before. It's in Roe v. Wade.

---

Not following you?

Cite your source.

Waco1947 said:

---

Cite your source.

---

410 US 113.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Cite your source.

---

410 US 113.

---

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Forest Bueller said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

That's not the a Constitutional statement. That's an opinion.

---

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Not all facts are in the Constitution.

---

Then cite your source for "facts" like I did.

---

Waco thinks he cited actual facts!!!!!!!

---

He cited Tim Sharp on Roe and his assessment looks factually accurate to me. Where do you see inaccuracy or opinion in the Sharp cite?

---

What Tim Sharp has to say about a SCOTUS decisions, is an opinion. It belongs in the oped column.

Is is automatically wrong, of course not. However, it is an opinion.

---

He gets the facts of Roe right. Roe is a Supreme Court opinion, would you relegate it to the OpEd page?

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Cite your source.

---

410 US 113.

---

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

---

And the people have an interest in unborn life, according to the leading case on abortion.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Cite your source.

---

410 US 113.

---

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

---

And the people have an interest in unborn life, according to the leading case on abortion.

---

After a certain point.

Waco1947 said:

---

Cite your source.

---

I will just go with your quote from the Tim Sharp fellow. Good enough for you, good enough for me.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Cite your source.

---

410 US 113.

---

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

---

And the people have an interest in unborn life, according to the leading case on abortion.

---

After a certain point.

---

Right. So the blanket statement that abortion is "none of your business" is not a correct statement of the law.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Cite your source.

---

410 US 113.

---

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

---

Does not grant the right to kill inconvenient babies.

No one is going to change the other guys mind so let us abort the topic . Endless well with echo's from the bottom of the barrel.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

No one is going to change the other guys mind so let us abort the topic . Endless well with echo's from the bottom of the barrel.

---

We had a brief moment of looking for middle ground. It ended.

IOW's it was quashed thankfully.