America's Christian Heritage

[whutTHEYsay]

i. theHawk OP i. : The Justice also wrote in the opinion that if personhood could be attributed to the fetus, then the 14th amendment would protect the right to life of the fetus. thhwk 241122 Sttsor00001

ii. BackAgain xi,dclv: “Do we or do we not place actual stock in our long cherished national commitment to the right to life?” bckgn 231027 rvwgo11655

iii. NotfooledbyW dccxxxviii to rvwgo11655: Question for all church is state - state is church Republicans; How is there a long established national commitment to the right of life of a fetus as expressed in paragraph ii. when the right to life of a fetus was never established in the original constitution or any of its amendments ever since he has expressed in paragraph i. ? nfbw 241204 Vachyz00738

iv. theHawk OP i. : if personhood could be attributed to the fetus,” thhwk 241122 Sttsor00001

v. ding dccxxxix to ttsor Op i. see para iv. : You mean like how DNA is used as evidence to PROVE which person it belongs to in courts of law? dvng 241204 Sachyz00739

vi. NotfooledbyW dccxli. to 739 : Yes. Sire Ding; Now please answer. the question:

How is there such a reality of a long established national commitment to the right of life a fetus when the right to life of a fetus was never established in the original US constitution or any of its amendments since the United secular States of America was itself born?

Dobbs has made it ever so clear that Baby Fetus has no right to life unless that right passes through on the right to life of its potential birthmother. nfbw 241204 Vachyz00741.

 

[ding]

is dna suppose to be living tissue for a christian ... cancer cells have dna, hair also - do christians never get a haircut.

No, it's evidence of person-hood that is accepted in courts as proof of person.

 

[ding]

i. theHawk OP i. : The Justice also wrote in the opinion that if personhood could be attributed to the fetus, then the 14th amendment would protect the right to life of the fetus. thhwk 241122 Sttsor00001

ii. BackAgain xi,dclv: “Do we or do we not place actual stock in our long cherished national commitment to the right to life?” bckgn 231027 rvwgo11655

iii. NotfooledbyW dccxxxviii to rvwgo11655: Question for all church is state - state is church Republicans; How is there a long established national commitment to the right of life of a fetus as expressed in paragraph ii. when the right to life of a fetus was never established in the original constitution or any of its amendments ever since he has expressed in paragraph i. ? nfbw 241204 Vachyz00738

iv. theHawk OP i. : if personhood could be attributed to the fetus,” thhwk 241122 Sttsor00001

v. ding dccxxxix to ttsor Op i. see para iv. : You mean like how DNA is used as evidence to PROVE which person it belongs to in courts of law? dvng 241204 Sachyz00739

vi. NotfooledbyW dccxli. to 739 : Yes. Sire Ding; Now please answer. the question:

How is there such a reality of a long established national commitment to the right of life a fetus when the right to life of a fetus was never established in the original US constitution or any of its amendments since the United secular States of America was itself born?

Dobbs has made it ever so clear that Baby Fetus has no right to life unless that right passes through on the right to life of its potential birthmother. nfbw 241204 Vachyz00741.

Was there supposed to be something for me to respond to in this post. Cause tl/dr.

 

[ding]

i. theHawk OP i. : The Justice also wrote in the opinion that if personhood could be attributed to the fetus, then the 14th amendment would protect the right to life of the fetus. thhwk 241122 Sttsor00001

ii. BackAgain xi,dclv: “Do we or do we not place actual stock in our long cherished national commitment to the right to life?” bckgn 231027 rvwgo11655

iii. NotfooledbyW dccxxxviii to rvwgo11655: Question for all church is state - state is church Republicans; How is there a long established national commitment to the right of life of a fetus as expressed in paragraph ii. when the right to life of a fetus was never established in the original constitution or any of its amendments ever since he has expressed in paragraph i. ? nfbw 241204 Vachyz00738

iv. theHawk OP i. : if personhood could be attributed to the fetus,” thhwk 241122 Sttsor00001

v. ding dccxxxix to ttsor Op i. see para iv. : You mean like how DNA is used as evidence to PROVE which person it belongs to in courts of law? dvng 241204 Sachyz00739

vi. NotfooledbyW dccxli. to 739 : Yes. Sire Ding; Now please answer. the question:

How is there such a reality of a long established national commitment to the right of life a fetus when the right to life of a fetus was never established in the original US constitution or any of its amendments since the United secular States of America was itself born?

Dobbs has made it ever so clear that Baby Fetus has no right to life unless that right passes through on the right to life of its potential birthmother. nfbw 241204 Vachyz00741.

Did you ever figure out that you don't really believe in a moralistic and providential creator?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Was there supposed to be something for me to respond to in this post. Cause tl/dr.

How is there such a reality of a long established national commitment to the right of life a fetus when the right to life of a fetus was never established in the original US constitution or any of its amendments since the United secular States of America was itself born?

Do you agree with Saint Backagain but there is a reality of a long established national commitment to the rate of life of a fetus in the United States of America.

 

[ding]

How is there such a reality of a long established national commitment to the right of life a fetus when the right to life of a fetus was never established in the original US constitution or any of its amendments since the United secular States of America was itself born?

Probably because it was left to the states like everything else that wasn't included.

 

[ding]

Do you agree with Saint Backagain but there is a reality of a long established national commitment to the rate of life of a fetus in the United States of America.

I don't know that poster.

 

[BreezeWood]

No, it's evidence of person-hood that is accepted in courts as proof of person.

deceiver, there are no people living inside someones body, no different than their hair or skin to do with as they please.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Did you ever figure out that you don't really believe in a moralistic and providential creator

it’s not about belief. It’s about knowledge..inate knowledge independent of a need to believe in supernatural or miraculous unnatural events found in history over 2000 years ago in a tiny part of the world.

 

[ding]

deceiver, there are no people living inside someones body, no different than their hair or skin to do with as they please.

Maybe learn some science?

 

[ding]

it’s not about belief. It’s about knowledge..inate knowledge independent of a need to believe in supernatural or miraculous unnatural events found in history over 2000 years ago in a tiny part of the world.

So that's a yes, you now know you don't believe in a moralistic and providential creator?

 

[BreezeWood]

Maybe learn some science?

deceiver, there are no people living inside someones body, no different than their hair or skin to do with as they please.

no maybe about it ... you are as phony as your phony desert religion.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

No, it's evidence of person-hood that is accepted in courts as proof of person.

The unborn do not have personhood under the US Constitution thus their right to life is at the sole discretion of their mother.

in a court of law, if by chance a DNA test was required because a fetus committed a crime unbeknownst to the birth mother. I am not sure what relevance it would have except to wait until live birth was successful and right after it comes out, you could slap the handcuffs on the newborn and place him or her under arrest. i’m not sure they could confidently respond when you read them their rights though.

If you want to say a DNA test on a zygote determines personhood legally and constitutionally speaking, I would say it would be more accurate to say it determines potential personhood pending, live birth.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

achyz00754

​

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” – tJefferson letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, August 10, 1787​

i. ding dccxliv to 741. : Did you ever figure out that you don't really believe in a moralistic and providential creator? nfbw 241204 Sachyz00744

ii. NotfooledbyW dccliv to 744. : I know a moralistic and providential creator through rational theist through as you say in post Natcn00048 shown paragraph iii. below “the natural light of human reason” nfbw 241204 Vachyz00754

iii. ding xlviii. to 43: God can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. dvng 200722 SNatcn00048

nfbw 241204 Vachyz00754

 

[ding]

no maybe about it ... you are as phony as your phony desert religion.

Despite repeatedly being asked, you have never said which religion you follow and you think I'm the phony?

 

[ding]

The unborn do not have personhood under the US Constitution thus their right to life is at the sole discretion of their mother.

The constitution is silent on that subject. So it goes to the states.

 

[ding]

in a court of law, if by chance a DNA test was required because a fetus committed a crime unbeknownst to the birth mother. I am not sure what relevance it would have except to wait until live birth was successful and right after it comes out, you could slap the handcuffs on the newborn and place him or her under arrest. i’m not sure they could confidently respond when you read them their rights though.

DNA is evidence used to distinguish persons.

 

[ding]

If you want to say a DNA test on a zygote determines personhood legally and constitutionally speaking, I would say it would be more accurate to say it determines potential personhood pending, live birth.

This may be hard for you to grasp but at conception a new very specific person comes into existence.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

This may be hard for you to grasp but at conception a new very specific person comes into existence.

You are a liar. See paragraph ii. I refer to every human conception as a new unique human being.

i. ding mxxxix. : “I am not a creationist. But I do believe this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.” dvng 231028 Saqfpc01039

ii. NotfooledbyW xi,dccxlv. to aafpc1039: Have you solved the mystery Saint Ding of at which moment the “presence of mind” transforms each new and unique in utero human matter into a new unique human being with capability and spiritual energy to think as a self. nfbw 231039 Vrvwgo11745

iii. ding m,lv. : “It's not the job of science to determine if society morally is obligated to considerate it alive. It's only the job of science to inform society when it is scientifically alive and genetically distinct. Society's job (typically done through legislation) is to determine if and/or when that life may be terminated. “ dvng 220730 Srvwgo04060

Western civilization was built upon not punishing a woman who kills the human life inside her body early in the pregnancy. That is reality you cannot deny Sire Ding.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The constitution is silent on that subject. So it goes to the states.

States cannot grant personhood to the unborn without a constitutional amendment.