US - Abortion Law Overturned

[FancyMancy]

According to what I heard on TV, this part of the Constitution has been changed. I thought the Constitution was unchangeable and inalienable, meaning it cannot be rejected by any person nor can it be taken away from any person.

On a similar note - those who are crying that it's great and is a victory and are voicing very much, e.g. "Abortion is murder!", all that needs to be said to them is something like, "Well, aborted Babies will reincarnate" which will thrown them off-guard and make them pause, and scramble for an argument in stuttering. They might reply, "I don't believe in reincarnation", but belief is irrelevant.

Also I don't understand how the President is not higher than the Supreme Court. Is this just a way to make sure no one individual or body has too much power; therefore, cannot be overly corrupt or tyrannical?

I also saw a politician. I don't know her name, but from what I think I saw, it was about that Women should be able to have their own judgements and think for themselves.

Of course, some laws were 'triggered' automatically by this ruling. The news said it is expected that half of the states will do so to make abortion illegal or preventing it somehow.

A nurse or Female doctor said - "I'm sorry that your boyfriend beat you everyday and raped you ... you're gunna have to find somewhere else to go."

A Male doctor also said about illnesses which happen only to pregnant Women. Also he mentioned about mortality.

This "law" which has been signed by that female-looking thing, also does not mention anything about rape nor incest. It merely is to "protect" Women, allegedly.

On the news just this moment (10:12 pm today), it mentioned that this is "progressive".

 

[Flowers of Adonis]

If you didn't know: the keyword in the name of the country is "United." United States.

Think of it like how in Europe there are different countries. Italy is a state, Germany is a state, Ireland is a state, Portugal is a state, and so on.

In America, each state is essentially its own country. Kentucky is a state, Washington is a state, Nevada is a state, Minnesota is a state, Florida is a state, and so on.

The argument over Roe v. Wade is about states rights. Each state in the United States of America is supposed to be allowed to govern itself with its own individual state laws.

Roe v. Wade made waves because it was decided at the federal level which governs all states across the board. This violated states rights and state sovereignty. It naturally angered a lot of people who believe in the constitution.

It's essentially an enshrined rule that the federal government can't overstep the limits of its power to tread on state sovereignty. It's considered the biggest slippery slope, and it makes people really nervous.

The people advocating for Roe v. Wade all this time have been hiding behind the controversy of what it is, and using the power of the controversy to silence and shame opposition even though it has nothing to do with a person's opinions about abortion. It's about state sovereignty.

We may be united as states, but that doesn't mean the federal power uniting us can put us all on a leash. The system was designed to prevent that in the first place.

If someone wants an abortion then they can still head out on the interstate and travel to a different part of America where it's legal.

On a personal level I think it's wrong to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, but if someone chose to live in a state where such tyrannical laws exist then they have to deal with the authorities.

America isn't perfect, but it could be a lot worse.

 

[Flowers of Adonis]

" post_id=369088 time=1656105667 user_id=21286]

...

To me, this is just a swing of the pendulum back to the Christian side.

It only appears that way because a lot of them are coming out of the woodwork after hiding for so long due to feeling politically silenced. Now they suddenly feel they have a voice again which they will try to abuse as much as possible.

In reality, they haven't gained any power as a religious organization. It's the opposite in fact.

The political left mirrors ancient christianity in Rome far more than even the self proclaimed christians. It was always the same message of universal acceptance, and tolerance and propagation of the lowest aspects of people.

The religious right is following their unconscious programming of "less abortions = more slaves in the system for the masters." However, they are not the most saturated group compared to the liberal left which always shouts their same message in uniformity.

The political right is a "mixed multitude" (to borrow a term) of opinions and views, and far more diverse in ideology. In other words, you are more likely to be able to pick some decently sane individuals from a crowd of the political right than you are from a crowd of the political left. Most who got wedged out from the in group departed towards the political right while remaining somewhat centrist, and that makes for a huge mix of different perspectives and beliefs.

When one side loses power, they feign acceptance until they reach a waxing point again to be able to afford pushing conformity on their followers. At the moment, the left losing power here is a big loss for true christianity. At the same time, those religious fanatics of the far right who believe they are going to gain power are going to be disappointed.

You could think of it like this: the religious "right" uses prayer and influence to give rise to the monster that is the political "left." They act like they hate it and oppose it, but it is the manifestation of what they were putting their energies towards. The radical liberals are the magick spawn of the religious conservatives.

Put your energy into Torah spells of the bible 24/7 and that's what you get. It's conservatives AKA Torah bots versus communist products of said Torah bots. If the communist products have lost power politically and lost favor socially, and if we are reversing the Torah which is the whole point of the Torah bots, then what do they have left? They failed to fully mandate the vaccine, they failed to disarm the public, they failed to start a world war, and they have generally failed in nearly every aspect of their long agenda.

Worry not. As long as we continue with the Spiritual Cleansing Rituals then the downfall of these odious religions seems imminent to me. They're barking right now, but it won't last long.

 

[Soaring Eagle 666]

Both sides are stupid.

The liberals are right for the wrong reasons. Yes, abortion should be legal, but not because of "muh feels" or "women's rights". The problem is that the baby is also a person and therefore has rights too. They try to pretend the baby is not yet a person and they draw these arbitrary lines during pregnancy for when it "becomes" a person. Which is just nonsense. The right reason for legalizing abortion is simply the truth about souls and reincarnation.

In contrast, the xians are wrong but for valid reasons. Unlike the liberals, their conclusion is actually based on sound logic and science (but assumes that the bible is true). Biology shows that life begins at conception. The bible says that dead unborn babies will be in heaven, so therefore abortion is murder. The logic is 100% valid, but it's based on the false premise that the bible is true, so the conclusion is also false. :roll:

 

[SleepingWolf]

On a similar note - those who are crying that it's great and is a victory and are voicing very much, e.g. "Abortion is murder!", all that needs to be said to them is something like, "Well, aborted Babies will reincarnate" which will thrown them off-guard and make them pause, and scramble for an argument in stuttering. They might reply, "I don't believe in reincarnation", but belief is irrelevant.

This goes both ways however. Until we can scientifically prove what we all spiritually understand, they will just as easily say that reincarnation is our belief, and therefore irrelevant. This isn't a sound argument against the fools who are anti abortion but in either case, Roe V Wade was only ever a case of the right result happening for the wrong reason. The president does not hold the power to just be on the top and their word be law, and thank goodness for that, or else we'd have the current puppet in charge be even worse by all standards.

The Supreme Courts job is to ensure the constitution is not infringed, and by current standards, abortion is not a right enshrined in the constitution. Roe V Wade overstepped their legal powers when they interpreted the 14th amendment to mean something it's not supposed to encompass, which in effect, legalized abortion, but in the worst way possible from a civics standpoint.

It should be a right protected, but it's something that must be done, ideally, the right way, by properly amending it to the constitution, or simply the states legalizing it, which half do anyway.

This is still an issue overall, the wrong results will occur, but hopefully for the right reasons and means later, they can be reversed.

 

[Ol argedco luciftias]

There is no constitutional right to kill a baby. Abortion was not written in the constitution, and it has nothing to do with it.

Roe was an illegal and extremely far over-reach of power that there was no justifiable or legal foundation for. This is a State's Rights issue, not something that can be forced through as a federal mandate. The Supreme Court is technically allowed to say whatever they want, which is what happened in the original Roe case. But really this is illegal to just say anything, because there is supposed to be an existing strong and solid legal foundation for every ruling that they make. The Supreme Court does not have any authority or right to create any law, instead they are there only to say a clarification on the meaning of already existing laws. And there is no existing law, or any existing right for the creation of any law, that would force all states to allow an extremely loose and unregulated enormous amount of abortions, which 99% of the time are for no good reason.

We have Federalism in this country. Balance of rights between what laws each state government can make, and what laws are forced onto all states by the federal government. And there is no legal justification for taking away the right from the states to each decide what they want to do with this. States like California will allow the killing of all babies at any time, for any reason or most often for no reason, and even including babies that have already been born. And states like Texas will allow abortion only for specific and very serious reasons and circumstances, like rape or serious medical risks. And this is what the actual law is, and what is actually enforced and ruled by the constitution, that these states do have the right to create their own rules and regulations in the way that they choose to do.


If anybody is going to say anything about the American government, balance of powers, or how laws are formed, or even any mention of the word "constitution". It would be a great idea to first learn an understanding on what the structure of this system actually is. Especially things like Federalism and Balance of Powers which are the highest importance. Instead of just saying nonsense and looking like a clown. Even most of our own citizens do not know or do not care what the structure of this system is.

 

[The Outlaw Torn]

Just because you type things with bold letters doesn’t make it true

 

[SleepingWolf]

So again - if I am not misunderstanding - this 50-year-old law actually was unconstitutional, then?

In essence, it was never a law. Only congress has the power to pass laws, not the Supreme Court. The Court interpreted a law on the books which was the 14th amendment, an amendment whose main purpose was to grant citizenship to freed slaves, and has been very abused by the powers that be for a while now, as it's also the reason that birth citizenship is a thing, when it shouldn't be.

The wording in question was "no 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."

Their argument at the time was that this somehow meant that abortion should be legal because anti abortion laws violated the womans privacy. In other words the court made a leap in logic with shaky legal groundwork, to in essence, legislate law from the bench, something that is very much against the balance of powers set up with the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch that makes up the federal government.

No abortion "law" was overturned, as it was never a law codified by congress in the first place, but I doubt it'd be very hard for a congress to try and pass such a law in the future the right way. Hopefully soon.

The order of events in which this should've happened, is they should've codified it in law at any point during the 50 years they had the chance, but it was seen then as a non issue, when they already had what they wanted. They should've known this could one day happened and planned ahead but never did.

 

[Ol argedco luciftias]

Just because you type things with bold letters doesn’t make it true

So take a class about AP US Government. Learn about Federalism, learn about Balance of Powers.

Supreme Court does not make laws. They have no right to make a law. To create a law as far reaching as the original Roe ruling was, that would need to be done by Congress.

But I know you have spent nearly all of your time here as nothing but a troll. You do not have good intentions, and you are not honest. You are one person I have no respect for.

 

[FancyMancy]

This goes both ways however. Until we can scientifically prove what we all spiritually understand, they will just as easily say that reincarnation is our belief, and therefore irrelevant.

Yes, I realise that. The difference, though, is that christians cry "faith!" above all else, and use Science only when it suits them; we, on the other hand, make claims based on actual evidence (maybe not actual proof yet - and I say yet) and reasoning. One example is a Scottish Boy who I think is named James, remembering a past-life of his from either WW1 or WW2. Others have mentioned others, as well - one I've heard of was of an Indian Boy. Either this same Indian Boy, or another Indian Boy, or another Boy altogether, knew where he was murdered and took people to his previous-life Body somewhere; only he (and the murderer/s) knew where the Body was; he was classed as missing until he took people to his previous-life Body.

All that which is christians' "proof" is a book full of holes and contradictions and faith, the stories within which were stolen, twisted, perverted and corrupted from previously much-older Pagan stories and allegories; and also giving money repeatedly to be told the same things repeatedly. All christianity is is a snake-oil-selling scheme/scam for Humans' Souls. We can test our claims and peer-review them; christians are not "allowed" to test theirs. (Maybe that's why they always come out of the woodwork in droves when Science or Legality, etc., cause things to happen.) Our arguments are far stronger. So even though we cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (if you will) as of yet directly ("directly" because anyone could actually do meditations and workings to find this proof - the proof of the pudding is in the meditating and working), we are still in a much stronger position than them. This schism - our position getting stronger and stronger, and christians' position getting weaker and weaker - will not stop until christians are either lost at sea or they save themselves in Spiritual Satanism (or only possibly, and hopefully, reincarnate into Zevism society).

The Beast in the skies has risen; in time it would come, the lands have begun their schism - all bow to the Fallen One

 

[patrioticgentile_666]

If you didn't know: the keyword in the name of the country is "United." United States.

Think of it like how in Europe there are different countries. Italy is a state, Germany is a state, Ireland is a state, Portugal is a state, and so on.

In America, each state is essentially its own country. Kentucky is a state, Washington is a state, Nevada is a state, Minnesota is a state, Florida is a state, and so on.

The argument over Roe v. Wade is about states rights. Each state in the United States of America is supposed to be allowed to govern itself with its own individual state laws.

Roe v. Wade made waves because it was decided at the federal level which governs all states across the board. This violated states rights and state sovereignty. It naturally angered a lot of people who believe in the constitution.

It's essentially an enshrined rule that the federal government can't overstep the limits of its power to tread on state sovereignty. It's considered the biggest slippery slope, and it makes people really nervous.

The people advocating for Roe v. Wade all this time have been hiding behind the controversy of what it is, and using the power of the controversy to silence and shame opposition even though it has nothing to do with a person's opinions about abortion. It's about state sovereignty.

We may be united as states, but that doesn't mean the federal power uniting us can put us all on a leash. The system was designed to prevent that in the first place.

If someone wants an abortion then they can still head out on the interstate and travel to a different part of America where it's legal.

On a personal level I think it's wrong to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, but if someone chose to live in a state where such tyrannical laws exist then they have to deal with the authorities.

America isn't perfect, but it could be a lot worse.

Exactly what I was thinking, the United States simply works better when States and their people govern what is best for themselves, reflecting the will of the People, and works together with the other States as a tight-knit confederation with a common currency, the idea of "nation" gets very vague and cliche.

Both the "Right" and "Left" can argue about "fixing this country" all they want. But the reality of the situation is that there will never be such thing as a "100% of the population" who prefers to live a rural gun-owning life and drive everywhere, or vice versa - a big-city/high-end life and bus/train/walk everywhere. In this case, we apply this to abortion, gay marriage, gun control, public taxes and just about every single issue there is. Irregardless of where one stands, States' rights is the key here and the United States will never "co-exist peacefully" unless people recognize this.

It's how all great empires thrived, every state/province/oblast/xyz administrative unit managed their own, in unison with other states/provinces/oblasts/xyz administrative units.

On the flip-side, doing the opposite is how they fell, normally when their governments try to "tyrannically nationalize" everything......nothing good comes out of it, other than the seeds to downfall, first within the quality of life, to the complete and actual disintegrating of the borders. Most of the time, if isn't pure ego (and this has happened), it's of course......when
" :roll: god's chosen race :roll: " and his dumbass angel/aliens start to get involved and get themselves into positions of government and religion. The Founding Fathers knew this.

One by one......the King/Queen, the Khan, the Emperor/Empress, the Ceasar, the Tsar, the Kaiser, the 1930s figure, the Huángdì, the Tennō, the President, all of them - out of emphatic hearts and trust, spared and/or allowed
" :roll: god's chosen race :roll: " and/or any of their deluded and deranged ideologies, and paid the ultimate price for it.

Even Chosen Ones of Satan can fall to their own errors.

So as long as both sides continue to try to exert their ideology "on the Nation", this'll lead into more discord and on the contrary, it'll do anything BUT "unite the Nation" and plunge it into civil war.

Can't claim to wanna "fix the country" when your State has so many issues, not that I support ultra-tribalism, or keeping people trapped within their States, for I STILL supported a UNITED States to where if someone doesn't feel content living in their State, they can freely move to the neighboring one.

 

[Flowers of Adonis]

.

despite (if I am not mistaken) this new ruling is a returning back to constitutional law which was violated 50 years ago?

Yes, that is correct.

The federal government has been acting presumptuously with too much authority for a long time since. They have violated states rights in many ways, and generally made a mockery of the constitution.

For instance, states haven't been allowed to employ their own education programs in schools for a long time now. The education program was instead mandated across the board from the federal level.

States should be allowed to decide their own education program as long as it honors the separation of church and state and remains secular. What happened was that Marxism was forced on everyone as the universal education program by the federal government.

That's one example of overstepping their bounds.

I have often heard rhetoric that the constitution is outdated and needs to be revised. Fortunately, those who espouse such opinions never gain much support save for the fervent brainwashed ideologues of the left who preach pathological acceptance and a killing of the survival instinct.

Not much different from christians in their essence. Strip them of the religious theme, and you have the same people. As we all know, communism is the atheistic version of christianity.

Love thy neighbor, love thy muslim invader.

 

[Mavoch]

According to what I heard on TV, this part of the Constitution has been changed. I thought the Constitution was unchangeable and inalienable, meaning it cannot be rejected by any person nor can it be taken away from any person.

On a similar note - those who are crying that it's great and is a victory and are voicing very much, e.g. "Abortion is murder!", all that needs to be said to them is something like, "Well, aborted Babies will reincarnate" which will thrown them off-guard and make them pause, and scramble for an argument in stuttering. They might reply, "I don't believe in reincarnation", but belief is irrelevant.

Also I don't understand how the President is not higher than the Supreme Court. Is this just a way to make sure no one individual or body has too much power; therefore, cannot be overly corrupt or tyrannical?

I also saw a politician. I don't know her name, but from what I think I saw, it was about that Women should be able to have their own judgements and think for themselves.

Of course, some laws were 'triggered' automatically by this ruling. The news said it is expected that half of the states will do so to make abortion illegal or preventing it somehow.

A nurse or Female doctor said - "I'm sorry that your boyfriend beat you everyday and raped you ... you're gunna have to find somewhere else to go."

A Male doctor also said about illnesses which happen only to pregnant Women. Also he mentioned about mortality.

This "law" which has been signed by that female-looking thing, also does not mention anything about rape nor incest. It merely is to "protect" Women, allegedly.

On the news just this moment (10:12 pm today), it mentioned that this is "progressive".

You don't seem to understand how things work.

1 The constitution was not changed, abortion is not constitutional, abortion was only allowed because the Supreme Court had previously circumvented the constitution to create abortion rights.

2 Aborted babies will reincarnate, and in the meantime they will have less and less energy until they can get to the point of having the second death, this argument makes no sense.

 

[Voice of Enki [SG]]

It has been said a few times already about abortion. It does literally no harm to any unborn soul in any way if the abortion takes place before the 3rd month of pregnancy.

The soul only begins to attach to an unborn fetus around the 14 weeks or so. Therefore you can anything before 12 weeks is entirely harmless to any souls, as there is nothing definitive yet and no soul is attached or even determined to be incarnated yet from this.

It is really quite simple. Before 12 weeks, completely harmless and absolutely fine, also a necessary right in the modern world, especially in a country as mixed as America.

After 12 weeks, best to never allow it, as the unborn soul does get involved in this after that point.

There can be more nuance to this with individual cases or with deeper knowledge, but as a baseline that is the most applicable way to look at this.

The reason there is much confusion about this, especially among the masses, is because nobody knows how reincarnation works, or how and when souls incarnate, and what happens when a child miscarries or when a pregnancy gets aborted.

With understanding on those subjects, it becomes exceedingly easy to judge this objectively and it can be understood there is absolutely no harm in having a right to abort a pregnancy by medical means in the modern age we live in today.

It should stay that way. A turn away from this is clearly a regression towards outdated, odious and outrageous xian ideals.

Hail Satan!

 

[Desdemona_666]

"According to what I heard on TV, this part of the Constitution has been changed. I thought the Constitution was unchangeable and inalienable, meaning it cannot be rejected by any person nor can it be taken away from any person."

Absolutely untrue, in fact the opposite, for once the Constitution of the USA has been taken seriously.

Meaning, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees you right to an abortion on federal level. What the Supreme Court said is "we have no right to tell the states how they will decide upon this question (abortion), the decision is upon the individual states to decide".

 

[Ol argedco luciftias]

Now that is is outlawed

Who said that abortion is outlawed anyway? This is another misunderstanding.

The Supreme Court did not outlaw abortion. All they did is say the truth that each state is allowed to make their own decisions on exactly what they will or will not allow. But the Supreme Court absolutely did not ban abortions or anything like that.

 

[Lucius Invictus [NG]]

Now that is is outlawed

Who said that abortion is outlawed anyway? This is another misunderstanding.

The Supreme Court did not outlaw abortion. All they did is say the truth that each state is allowed to make their own decisions on exactly what they will or will not allow. But the Supreme Court absolutely did not ban abortions or anything like that.

Oh I didn't know that. So why didn't any of those states do that before? I'm unfamiliar with US law, I thought the supreme court overturned Roe vs Wade. What is their function?

 

[Desdemona_666]

Now that is is outlawed

Who said that abortion is outlawed anyway? This is another misunderstanding.

The Supreme Court did not outlaw abortion. All they did is say the truth that each state is allowed to make their own decisions on exactly what they will or will not allow. But the Supreme Court absolutely did not ban abortions or anything like that.

Oh I didn't know that. So why didn't any of those states do that before? I'm unfamiliar with US law, I thought the supreme court overturned Roe vs Wade. What is their function?

Because Roe v. Wade case gave the power to the federal government to tell other states what they must do on this question.

They couldn't outlaw the abortion because that would have been against the federal law. Now it isn't anymore.

 

[Lucius Invictus [NG]]

Who said that abortion is outlawed anyway? This is another misunderstanding.

The Supreme Court did not outlaw abortion. All they did is say the truth that each state is allowed to make their own decisions on exactly what they will or will not allow. But the Supreme Court absolutely did not ban abortions or anything like that.

Oh I didn't know that. So why didn't any of those states do that before? I'm unfamiliar with US law, I thought the supreme court overturned Roe vs Wade. What is their function?

Because Roe v. Wade case gave the power to the federal government to tell other states what they must do on this question.

They couldn't outlaw the abortion because that would have been against the federal law. Now it isn't anymore.

Ah I see. Thank-you for the clarification. Like I said though, abortion can be necessary for eugenic hygiene, such a shame. I suppose the women in those specific states will just have to go places like California.

 

[High Priestess Lydia Coventina]

Is it safe for a woman to take such herbs everytime she is pregnant? And are there herbs that can prevent to get pregnant in the first place?

If you mean, take the herbs while pregnant and wanting to stay pregnant, no it is not safe. For example, there is a Yogi tea (brand) that should have a warning label on it, as it contains juniper berries which causes miscarriage. It's called "Women's Tea". But maybe it's in such a small amount that it's fine, but I would personally avoid if if pregnant or trying to conceive.

I would think that women are told to watch their vitamin C levels while pregnant. But these things can be found online and consulted with a doctor, most pregnant (or trying to conceive) women do at least some research as to what can increase fertility or what can be dangerous to the baby.

As for herbs to prevent pregnancy, yes there are, but I am not well-versed on the subject.

If you meant, herbs to take to cause an abortion multiple times. Yes to me knowledge they are safe, but the better choice is to be careful to avoid pregnancy in the first place.

I'm more on the pro-life side myself and would never have an abortion, but I do understand that many women get in a bad position, and the man won't stick around or help out and neither will the parents.

 

[Aquarius]

" post_id=369995 time=1656413638 user_id=57]
If you meant, herbs to take to cause an abortion multiple times. Yes to me knowledge they are safe, but the better choice is to be careful to avoid pregnancy in the first place

I meant this, thank you