0:00
0:00
In an Illegal, inhuman and non binding ruling, US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade, ends constitutional right to abortion
The illegal ruling of the Supreme Court in America is not binding because it transcends the territory in which any court has the power to intervene: the woman's body is outside the jurisdiction of dubious lawyers chosen by politicians to judge. Do not waste your time reading this ruling. Simply throw it in the trash where it belongs, and ignore it. It has no legal validity.
Only a dumb judge would waste his time on the question of whether the woman's DUTY, not just “right”, not to give birth to a child she does not want, and whether forcing a future unwanted baby to be born to a mother, outweighs the “right” of a not-yet-born baby to force the birth on a woman that does not want him or her.
This whole endless legal debate deals with the question that only idiots who have no understanding of human rights will waste their time on.
Human rights are not something that anybody can give or take. they are something that every human is born with and belongs to all of them until they die. Every Pope, Judge or Legislator that think otherwise is the living proof why abortion was so needed 9 months before a birth.
What the woman is allowed to do or not do with her body, is purely the will of the body owner itself. This scenario does not need the permission of anyone, and, in any case no one can revoke the authority that belongs solely to her and not to any person, authority or state.
Instead of rescuing the tens of thousands of children who were raped and sexually harassed by the “Christian God’s envoys” worldwide, the judges impersonate as human rights defenders, humans who have not yet been born, at the expense of abused and harassed women who do not want to give birth. Remember, too, this is also at the expense of unwanted babies, miserable who will be forced to be born to a women who did not want to give birth.
The whole idea that a country has the right to force a woman to do something against her will sounds crazy, even if it was attributed to a country like North Korea. The fact that a country like the United States deals with this issue as if it were a question at all, indicates the bankruptcy of the so-called "American dream" and what, in practice, has become a nightmare for women, blacks, poor and middle class - not a dream.
The Supreme Court is superior only to the inferior courts below it, but it is always lower and below basic human rights.
In a democracy the law is subject to human rights and not human rights being subject to laws.
Human rights are above the law. The opinion of lawyers who got a jobs as judges concerning what woman can or cannot do with her own body, does not obligate anyone.
This is not a ruling against women. This is a ruling that throws in the trash the myth that the court is above human rights, in general, and women’s rights on their own body, in particular.
What is needed is for the judges to be sued for the public money that they have wasted on the ink for writing such primitive and illegal nonsense.
This whole endless legal debate deals with the question that only idiots who have no understanding of human rights will waste their time on.
Human rights are not something that anybody can give or take. they are something that every human is born with and belongs to all of them until they die. Every Pope, Judge or Legislator that think otherwise is the living proof why abortion was so needed 9 months before a birth.
What the woman is allowed to do or not do with her body, is purely the will of the body owner itself. This scenario does not need the permission of anyone, and, in any case no one can revoke the authority that belongs solely to her and not to any person, authority or state.
Instead of rescuing the tens of thousands of children who were raped and sexually harassed by the “Christian God’s envoys” worldwide, the judges impersonate as human rights defenders, humans who have not yet been born, at the expense of abused and harassed women who do not want to give birth. Remember, too, this is also at the expense of unwanted babies, miserable who will be forced to be born to a women who did not want to give birth.
The whole idea that a country has the right to force a woman to do something against her will sounds crazy, even if it was attributed to a country like North Korea. The fact that a country like the United States deals with this issue as if it were a question at all, indicates the bankruptcy of the so-called "American dream" and what, in practice, has become a nightmare for women, blacks, poor and middle class - not a dream.
The Supreme Court is superior only to the inferior courts below it, but it is always lower and below basic human rights.
In a democracy the law is subject to human rights and not human rights being subject to laws.
Human rights are above the law. The opinion of lawyers who got a jobs as judges concerning what woman can or cannot do with her own body, does not obligate anyone.
This is not a ruling against women. This is a ruling that throws in the trash the myth that the court is above human rights, in general, and women’s rights on their own body, in particular.
What is needed is for the judges to be sued for the public money that they have wasted on the ink for writing such primitive and illegal nonsense.
Comments
To Blll 2 year ago
Thank you for taking the time to try to challenge my position.
KBill 2 year ago
I think I've clearly stated my position and supported it. I see nothing to be gained from continuing on. Signing off.
To Blll 2 year ago
Oh, you describe the subject of abortion in a one-dimension, detached from reality.
The decision to have an abortion is a decision of a woman, on her own body, for the future of the woman, who is already alive, vs. the future of a fetus, whom with all due respect to him, is not even born.
This is a situation where a woman has no choice and she must choose, not between good and good but between what is less bad vs what causes more harm for her as well as for an unwanted baby.
Whether the pregnancy is the result of rape, an accident, a broken relationship, poverty or some other medical reason, the sense of justice must always be in the interest of the living woman and not of the unborn fetus.
This is the right thing to do even in enlightened and developed countries, and even more so in third world countries such as the United States, where the value of human life is worth far less than a barrel of oil, a comfort of a pet or a handful of dollars.
(I'm talking only about the zero value of the life’s of the 99% of non-white-blond-rich-blue eyes Americans, obviously).
The very fact that men's decision to force women to give birth to a baby they do not want is controversial - it makes me shudder, shock and sad.
I look forward to next episode of the early-life theory, which sends to life imprisonment men who masturbated, or had sex with a condom and by doing so is found guilty of mass murder of so many potential-lives with such a careless squirt of a sperm ...
The decision to have an abortion is a decision of a woman, on her own body, for the future of the woman, who is already alive, vs. the future of a fetus, whom with all due respect to him, is not even born.
This is a situation where a woman has no choice and she must choose, not between good and good but between what is less bad vs what causes more harm for her as well as for an unwanted baby.
Whether the pregnancy is the result of rape, an accident, a broken relationship, poverty or some other medical reason, the sense of justice must always be in the interest of the living woman and not of the unborn fetus.
This is the right thing to do even in enlightened and developed countries, and even more so in third world countries such as the United States, where the value of human life is worth far less than a barrel of oil, a comfort of a pet or a handful of dollars.
(I'm talking only about the zero value of the life’s of the 99% of non-white-blond-rich-blue eyes Americans, obviously).
The very fact that men's decision to force women to give birth to a baby they do not want is controversial - it makes me shudder, shock and sad.
I look forward to next episode of the early-life theory, which sends to life imprisonment men who masturbated, or had sex with a condom and by doing so is found guilty of mass murder of so many potential-lives with such a careless squirt of a sperm ...
KBill 2 year ago
Your argument equating an abortion to plastic surgery is an apples and oranges comparison if you consider intent. The intent of plastic surgery is to make your body more attractive or to "fix" damage to the body or defect from birth. An abortion results from a willingness to destroy a potential human being with an eternal soul that a man and a woman created and could go on to have a life of similar nature to the one you enjoy. I don't think anybody has the right to do that because they "made a mistake." I'm not addressing rape or incest here, but conception as the result of consensual sex. If you are seriously equating plastic surgery and abortion, there is nothing more to discuss. Your moral compass is off.
The rest of your comment, while something I am passionate about, is off-topic for this article, so I will not be pursuing further discussion on that topic.
The rest of your comment, while something I am passionate about, is off-topic for this article, so I will not be pursuing further discussion on that topic.
To Blll 2 year ago
We do not agree on whether abortion is a criminal murder of a living fetus, as you claim, or just a legitimate killing of living cells as any plastic surgery does. In my view, it is not at all possible to compare a woman's free will to refrain from doing something that would ruin her future and make the life of a potential baby born to a mother who does not want him miserable, to the rights of a fetus whose death is better than his life.
So on this issue we can agree that we do not agree and that is of course fine.
The bigger problem, in my opinion, affects a much broader and more important issue. And this is the sanctity of individual’s liberty, and crossing the sacred boundary between the narrow role of state, law, legislature, and officials, vs. all matters in which belongs exclusively to the people and non of the law/stats business. This is a basic standpoint that has long been totally lost in so many areas, to the extant that turn the United States from a theoretical-democracy to a dictatorship the facto. A Soviet-style bureaucracy (without the wisdom Chinese part).
USA became a third world country in too many parameters. It’s about time to decide if to stand up again and start recovering together all what is broken, or keep fighting with each other and letting the American dream continue to collapse.
If the American people unite around a joint decision to rehabilitate everything that has been totally bankrupt in America, America has a future.
And if the Americans continue the current and ongoing civil war that divides it and tires the lives of its two halves over its two halves, America will end its imperialist episode in poverty and misery just as it did for empires stronger and smarter and richer than it: Yiwu, Turkey, Egypt, and Mongolia.
America is the poorest country in the world and one of the least free countries in the world. Either fix it as long as it is possible (and it is still possible!) Or it is not worth fighting for anything because it is a malignant social cancer whose end is only a matter of time.
China, Russia and North Korea are not enemies of America. America is America's only enemy. America invents external enemies to hide the fact that its only enemy is the cancer that has spread throughout its body: the cancer of bureaucracy and the takeover of everything that was supposed to be individual liberties.
So on this issue we can agree that we do not agree and that is of course fine.
The bigger problem, in my opinion, affects a much broader and more important issue. And this is the sanctity of individual’s liberty, and crossing the sacred boundary between the narrow role of state, law, legislature, and officials, vs. all matters in which belongs exclusively to the people and non of the law/stats business. This is a basic standpoint that has long been totally lost in so many areas, to the extant that turn the United States from a theoretical-democracy to a dictatorship the facto. A Soviet-style bureaucracy (without the wisdom Chinese part).
USA became a third world country in too many parameters. It’s about time to decide if to stand up again and start recovering together all what is broken, or keep fighting with each other and letting the American dream continue to collapse.
If the American people unite around a joint decision to rehabilitate everything that has been totally bankrupt in America, America has a future.
And if the Americans continue the current and ongoing civil war that divides it and tires the lives of its two halves over its two halves, America will end its imperialist episode in poverty and misery just as it did for empires stronger and smarter and richer than it: Yiwu, Turkey, Egypt, and Mongolia.
America is the poorest country in the world and one of the least free countries in the world. Either fix it as long as it is possible (and it is still possible!) Or it is not worth fighting for anything because it is a malignant social cancer whose end is only a matter of time.
China, Russia and North Korea are not enemies of America. America is America's only enemy. America invents external enemies to hide the fact that its only enemy is the cancer that has spread throughout its body: the cancer of bureaucracy and the takeover of everything that was supposed to be individual liberties.
KBill 2 year ago
What the Court did in 1973 was misguided legal activism in response to a hue and cry from a small fraction of society to solve a problem they (society) had brought to a head as the US was wrestling with the sexual revolution of the late 60s, but which had also been a hotly contested issue that started getting more attention in the early half of the 1800s (at least in the US). This was revolutionary because up to that time, abortion had been illegal in a number of states - the Roe v Wade case originally came out of Texas. Again, the Roe v Wade decision was based on a thin legal theory that a woman's right to privacy could be invaded by the investigation of an abortion. What many don't remember is that the Court said that an abortion was legal up to the point of viability which was to be determined by the abortion doctor. One of the issues here is that viability was not something that could be easily determined in 1973, but likely came out of the concept of "quickening" - when a woman could feel the fetus move in her, which was a common legal time limit for having an abortion going back a long way in history. The elephant in the room is that medical science has advanced substantially since 1973 and we now know that life begins at conception and that fetuses do feel pain. I don't know how these facts may have been presented to the Court, but I'm fairly certain they heard the arguments.
While I see your point about the illegitimacy of the Courts decision, merely repealing Roe v Wade would have returned things to the chaos that existed prior to that ruling, which I imagine that the Court was loathe to do and besides, the states would have had to then take up the issue, if nothing else than to protect women from guys like Kermit Gosnell. However, contrary to your line of reasoning, what the Constitution does to a substantially degree is codify the Declaration of Independence including ". . . that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." For me, the whole argument about abortion is not that a woman does not have the right to her own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but she does not have the right to destroy a life within her and the possibility of that life being able to know liberty and to pursue happiness. Hence, what the Court did was to correct the judicial activism manifested in Roe v Wade, and gave the responsibility for making the determination of how abortion is to be handle to the state legislators and ultimately, the people who elect them.
In closing, I agree with you that governments should not be in the business of regulating morality, but reality is that they are and are likely to become more involved due to the moral decay that is now destroying the very roots of societies, including ours in the US.
While I see your point about the illegitimacy of the Courts decision, merely repealing Roe v Wade would have returned things to the chaos that existed prior to that ruling, which I imagine that the Court was loathe to do and besides, the states would have had to then take up the issue, if nothing else than to protect women from guys like Kermit Gosnell. However, contrary to your line of reasoning, what the Constitution does to a substantially degree is codify the Declaration of Independence including ". . . that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." For me, the whole argument about abortion is not that a woman does not have the right to her own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but she does not have the right to destroy a life within her and the possibility of that life being able to know liberty and to pursue happiness. Hence, what the Court did was to correct the judicial activism manifested in Roe v Wade, and gave the responsibility for making the determination of how abortion is to be handle to the state legislators and ultimately, the people who elect them.
In closing, I agree with you that governments should not be in the business of regulating morality, but reality is that they are and are likely to become more involved due to the moral decay that is now destroying the very roots of societies, including ours in the US.
To Blll 2 year ago
Dear blll,
That's exactly the point. the right to an abortion should NOT be stated under the Constitution, for the simple reason that the Constitution has no authority at all to declare matters that are outside its area of authority. And the woman's body is outside the bounds of the constitution and therefore does not need its approval and is not subject to its prohibition.
The role of the constitution and the authority of the constitution are limited only to the relationship between a citizen and the state and not to the relationship between a person and himself. Trying to look for in it what should not be in it at all is absurd. The citizen does not derive his human rights from the constitution, it is the constitution that is subject to them.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court argues that the authority to permit or prohibit abortion is within the jurisdiction of the local laws of any state. And here the Supreme Court has sinned in understanding its role in general and the role of local laws in particular.
The Supreme Court is not empowered to give the local legislature powers that it cannot have.
A woman's right over her body is above the constitution and laws and not subject to it.
The revocation of the Roe v Wade ruling is indeed justified because the Supreme Court did not have the authority to permit (or prohibit) abortion. But the Supreme Court's argument that the authority to prohibit abortion does exist within the framework of local legislation is in itself an illegal act of legislation. The Supreme Court should have dismissed Roe v Wade and declared that this issue is not within the jurisdiction of either the legislature or the Constitution.
By the act in which the Supreme Court delegated to the local legislature an authority that the state’s legislator does not have and cannot have, to expropriate the exclusivity of the woman's right over her body, the Supreme Court has exceeded its authority and therefore its ruling is illegal and non-binding.
The Supreme Court can give the local legislature only the power it has. It cannot give the legislature an authority that does not and cannot have neither the Supreme Court nor a federal or local legislature. A woman's right to her body is exclusive, and therefore is beyond the jurisdiction of the law, and above it.
That's exactly the point. the right to an abortion should NOT be stated under the Constitution, for the simple reason that the Constitution has no authority at all to declare matters that are outside its area of authority. And the woman's body is outside the bounds of the constitution and therefore does not need its approval and is not subject to its prohibition.
The role of the constitution and the authority of the constitution are limited only to the relationship between a citizen and the state and not to the relationship between a person and himself. Trying to look for in it what should not be in it at all is absurd. The citizen does not derive his human rights from the constitution, it is the constitution that is subject to them.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court argues that the authority to permit or prohibit abortion is within the jurisdiction of the local laws of any state. And here the Supreme Court has sinned in understanding its role in general and the role of local laws in particular.
The Supreme Court is not empowered to give the local legislature powers that it cannot have.
A woman's right over her body is above the constitution and laws and not subject to it.
The revocation of the Roe v Wade ruling is indeed justified because the Supreme Court did not have the authority to permit (or prohibit) abortion. But the Supreme Court's argument that the authority to prohibit abortion does exist within the framework of local legislation is in itself an illegal act of legislation. The Supreme Court should have dismissed Roe v Wade and declared that this issue is not within the jurisdiction of either the legislature or the Constitution.
By the act in which the Supreme Court delegated to the local legislature an authority that the state’s legislator does not have and cannot have, to expropriate the exclusivity of the woman's right over her body, the Supreme Court has exceeded its authority and therefore its ruling is illegal and non-binding.
The Supreme Court can give the local legislature only the power it has. It cannot give the legislature an authority that does not and cannot have neither the Supreme Court nor a federal or local legislature. A woman's right to her body is exclusive, and therefore is beyond the jurisdiction of the law, and above it.
KBill 2 year ago
I will make two responses only to the lengthy post. First, you show me where in the Constitution the right to an abortion is stated. Second, please review the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. What the Supreme Court did in its recent decision on Roe v Wade is recognize that the Court does not have authority to pass legislation and to it correctly return the matter to the legislatures of the 50 states for them to make their own determination regarding abortion in complete accordance with the 10th Amendment. These are the salient points of the law. Everything else you wrote is based on little more than your feelings on the matter which, I might add, are irrelevant to the Courts decision.
To KBlll 2 year ago
Dear KBLLL,
What are you talking about? You speak as if you are reciting the nonsense that the American education system is dumping on students.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship is that in a dictatorship everything is forbidden except what the law allows, while in a democracy everything is allowed except what the law forbids. So the constitution should not allow breathing, eating, farting or abortion. As long as it does not explicitly state that it prohibits abortion, this right exists spontaneously and does not require any legislation.
Besides, no American should have his rights enshrined in the Constitution anyway, because this document, to remind you, is a racist, chauvinistic, anti-democratic document that denies human rights to all women, all blacks and all the poor. Even after the very important amendments made to fix some mistakes in this horrible document over a hundred years of stupidity, it is still a document that we should not rely on as a source of basic human rights.
Your argument, which justifies the position of the judges that the Constitution has no right to abortion and therefore is not a binding right, is superficial, and unfounded. The constitution also does not have the right to breathe, eat and fart. And yet it is a right of every citizen and the opinion of Supreme Court justices, or of the legislators, or of the prostitutes in Las Vegas cannot deny those basic rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution.
A constitution does not define all human rights and not even just their principles. That is not the purpose of the Constitution at all.
A constitution is merely a social contract. As a contract, it naturally binds only those who have agreed to be a party to this contract and accept its terms. And abortion is not an issue that belongs at all to this contract and therefore it is not a right that the contract should define at all because it is the exclusive right of the woman over her body.
Judges and legislators who oppose abortion do not have to have an abortion themselves. But their opinions and laws and rulings on such a matter do not bind anyone else. That the right of the state ends where the citizen's nose begins. The jurisdiction of the court and the authority and legislation of legislators ends where the woman's body begins.
Unlike human rights, the constitution is not a sacred document. Human rights are above the law and above the constitution and no permission of any dubious politician-legislator is required to legislate them.
Every woman is the sole owner authorized to decide what to do and not to do with her body, no matter what the opinion of the constitution or the law or the judges in this matter.
What are you talking about? You speak as if you are reciting the nonsense that the American education system is dumping on students.
The main difference between democracy and dictatorship is that in a dictatorship everything is forbidden except what the law allows, while in a democracy everything is allowed except what the law forbids. So the constitution should not allow breathing, eating, farting or abortion. As long as it does not explicitly state that it prohibits abortion, this right exists spontaneously and does not require any legislation.
Besides, no American should have his rights enshrined in the Constitution anyway, because this document, to remind you, is a racist, chauvinistic, anti-democratic document that denies human rights to all women, all blacks and all the poor. Even after the very important amendments made to fix some mistakes in this horrible document over a hundred years of stupidity, it is still a document that we should not rely on as a source of basic human rights.
Your argument, which justifies the position of the judges that the Constitution has no right to abortion and therefore is not a binding right, is superficial, and unfounded. The constitution also does not have the right to breathe, eat and fart. And yet it is a right of every citizen and the opinion of Supreme Court justices, or of the legislators, or of the prostitutes in Las Vegas cannot deny those basic rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution.
A constitution does not define all human rights and not even just their principles. That is not the purpose of the Constitution at all.
A constitution is merely a social contract. As a contract, it naturally binds only those who have agreed to be a party to this contract and accept its terms. And abortion is not an issue that belongs at all to this contract and therefore it is not a right that the contract should define at all because it is the exclusive right of the woman over her body.
Judges and legislators who oppose abortion do not have to have an abortion themselves. But their opinions and laws and rulings on such a matter do not bind anyone else. That the right of the state ends where the citizen's nose begins. The jurisdiction of the court and the authority and legislation of legislators ends where the woman's body begins.
Unlike human rights, the constitution is not a sacred document. Human rights are above the law and above the constitution and no permission of any dubious politician-legislator is required to legislate them.
Every woman is the sole owner authorized to decide what to do and not to do with her body, no matter what the opinion of the constitution or the law or the judges in this matter.
KBIll 2 year ago
There never has been and there is not now a Constitutional right to an abortion. The Roe v Wade decision did not become ensconced in the Constitution. and the Court had to turn cartwheels to squeeze the decision out of the right to privacy.. A Constitutional right to abortion is another lie from the progressive left. Drop this as an argument and come up with something that is true. The previous commenter is right about the article in general.
