Remember! SCOTUS has ruled that ALL laws repugnant to the Constitution are automatically NULL AND VOID! Make this go viral!
(media.patriots.win)
W W G 1 W G A
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (32)
sorted by:
Thank you for posting this. With Crazy Bernie and other Dems running around parroting “codify Roe” there are people who might believe it is possible. A law that codifies Roe is just as repugnant to the Constitution as Roe.
Whatever codify Roe actually means. I don't know what that might be.
Well, cod roe (mentaiko) is used in many Japanese recipes, including some rather delicious Japanese-style pasta sauces. I'm all for cod roe. Codifying Roe, however, sounds like commie word salad.
Roe is already partly codified in the 10th amendment. The monstrosity the SCOTUS made is ..... repugnant.
5th Amendment protects the life of all innocent persons, including the unborn. The 14th Amendment incorporated this right against states passing/enforcing any law that aimed to deny said right. In accordance with the provision in the 14th for Congress to make law necessary for its enforcement, federal statute (Unborn Victims of Violence Act 2003) codified the protection of the unborn. The abortion exemption of section (c) will be voided once SCOTUS overturns the Roe Court claim that abortion is a "constitutional right", as the exemption only exists on the basis of the wrongly allegedly constitutional right of abortion.
Bye bye baby killers.
Let me preface this by a couple of remarks:
5th amendment is about criminal procedure where a capital punishment is meted out, and protects against double jeopardy ( state and federal)
Your reasoning would entail a prohibition on waging war for whatever reason, including a revolutionary war to abolish a government that has become detrimental to the rights of the people. Would you be on the receiving end of the abolishment?
I am sure you did not intend to argue such, yet that is where your warping of the reasoning comes down to.
And that's where you lost me. But alas, I'll respond to the subsequent drivel anyway...
There is no "care" involved to preserve the health of the unborn living, developing baby. An abortion procedure does the exact opposite. It terminates a life. This would be like calling "euthanasia" (assisted suicide) "healthcare."
Doctors told my mother she should have "terminated" me because of expected birth complications. Aside from being born extremely early and spending my first 2 weeks out of the womb hooked up to machines, I turned out just fine. As a survivor of a coerced abortion attempt, I'd have very much liked to have had my opinion on the value of MY life. Luckily my mother told my wannabe murderer to go fuck himself. Notice how the baby is never asked for their judgment on the decision whether or not they should be murdered. As to this general line of reasoning, it's utterly fallacious. So if you've never experienced _____ then you can't make a judgement on _____? I've never murdered nor have been murdered, so I can't make a judgement about murder? Haven't had kids yet, so that means I can't make a judgement about whether or not raping your daughter is ok? I've not gone sky diving before, so that means I cannot make a judgement that it's incredibly risky? I've not eaten crayons before like you apparently have, so I can't make a judgement that crayons aren't intended to be consumed? Get that clown "logic" outta here...
Liberty is the freedom to do good, as differentiated from licentiousness, which is unrestrained, self-indulgence. For instance, you do not have the freedom or liberty to murder me, nor I you. Nor does any woman have the liberty to murder or give permission to murder her unborn baby.
Law literally exists for this purpose. Hence why for instance, theft and murder are outlawed. Why? Because they are immoral actions. Or should I be permitted to rob you, rape your wife and burn your house down with both of you still in it?
Says the guy who conflates liberty with licentiousness... I suggest you take your own advice.
It's about the protection of the rights of the accused. The taking of one's life against their will is only permissible in the instance of being duly tried and convicted for a capital crime. Abortion is a death sentence for an unborn child who is accused of the crime of merely existing.
Who, waging war against whom, and for what purpose? How does this reasoning that unborn persons are innocent persons, that their natural rights to life of are protected by the Constitution, require that war is never permissible? Non sequitur argument is fallacious.
The American Revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people and completely bloodless. The War of Independence was defense of the liberties of a free people. There's no such thing as a "revolutionary war." Abolish a government? No. Our form of government isn't the problem. Those wielding political power to undermine our government for evil, is the problem. I support any and all means of ethical resistance against tyrannical abuses, within the doctrine of the lesser magistrate framework.
Killing unborn babies is murder. If you support such crimes, you are complicit in evil and it would do your soul well to repent.