"It's my body, my choice" doesn't count if another life is invovled.

[Vastator]

The preborn are members of the human species from the moment of fertilization. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written to protect every human being, especially the weakest and most marginalized.

Not at the expense of the rights of another.

Then that expense has to be proven unwillingly forfeited...

Nope. You do not forfeit rights to your own body. This is not slavery.

So... Were you to be in the act of say... Holding my hand, or kissing me... I could shoot you in the moment I decided I no longer wanted you invading my body...?

Nope.

I'm an independent life form living independent of your body.

Location, location, location. You can possibly argue a point for killing yourself; thus killing the so called interloper. But instead all steps are taken to preserve the woman's body, and only kill the other person. So it isn't really about your body at that point, since in most cases your body would endure despite the pregnancy. You've failed again...

 

[BS Filter]

It says "created". At conception a unique, new DNA sequence of human is created. Its not rocket science. That's why your kidney, is your kidney. Its your DNA; your "self". And can be proven so. No so much for another person...

It has no reference to rights before birth. Created does not refer to conception.

It never denies rights prior to birth. It only mentions "created". Which happens at conception. You've failed again...

Conception wasn't a recognized event. Birth was. Actually - to be accurate, an independent being was recognized at the drawing of the first breath.

Does a fetus have an SS#?
Can a fetus be claimed as a dependent?
Can a fetus sign contracts?
If a person is declared dead upon cessation of brainwaves...is a fetus dead prior to brainwaves?
Is a fetus be counted in a census?
Why do people always say they have two children and another on the way...why not three?



Can you have two sets of rights in ONE body? Who's takes precedence?

None of your deflections are relevant to the point you thought you were making previously before I smacked you down... The constitution. Try harder...

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

It never denies rights prior to birth. It only mentions "created". Which happens at conception. You've failed again...

Conception wasn't a recognized event. Birth was. Actually - to be accurate, an independent being was recognized at the drawing of the first breath.

Does a fetus have an SS#?
Can a fetus be claimed as a dependent?
Can a fetus sign contracts?
If a person is declared dead upon cessation of brainwaves...is a fetus dead prior to brainwaves?
Is a fetus be counted in a census?
Why do people always say they have two children and another on the way...why not three?



Can you have two sets of rights in ONE body? Who's takes precedence?

None of your deflections are relevant to the point you thought you were making previously before I smacked you down... The constitution. Try harder...

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

The constitution makes no distinction beyond created. You've failed again.

It makes no mention of conception. You going to keep doubling up on fail?

It's a human being, regardless in the womb or not. These word games that regressives play is abhorrent to witness.

 

[Vastator]

It never denies rights prior to birth. It only mentions "created". Which happens at conception. You've failed again...

Conception wasn't a recognized event. Birth was. Actually - to be accurate, an independent being was recognized at the drawing of the first breath.

Does a fetus have an SS#?
Can a fetus be claimed as a dependent?
Can a fetus sign contracts?
If a person is declared dead upon cessation of brainwaves...is a fetus dead prior to brainwaves?
Is a fetus be counted in a census?
Why do people always say they have two children and another on the way...why not three?



Can you have two sets of rights in ONE body? Who's takes precedence?

None of your deflections are relevant to the point you thought you were making previously before I smacked you down... The constitution. Try harder...

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

The constitution makes no distinction beyond created. You've failed again.

It makes no mention of conception. You going to keep doubling up on fail?

I'd have to single down first. The word is "created" You've failed. Again...

 

[BS Filter]

Two totally separate bodies, each with their own circulatory system.

 

[Coyote]

Conception wasn't a recognized event. Birth was. Actually - to be accurate, an independent being was recognized at the drawing of the first breath.

Does a fetus have an SS#?
Can a fetus be claimed as a dependent?
Can a fetus sign contracts?
If a person is declared dead upon cessation of brainwaves...is a fetus dead prior to brainwaves?
Is a fetus be counted in a census?
Why do people always say they have two children and another on the way...why not three?



Can you have two sets of rights in ONE body? Who's takes precedence?

None of your deflections are relevant to the point you thought you were making previously before I smacked you down... The constitution. Try harder...

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

The constitution makes no distinction beyond created. You've failed again.

It makes no mention of conception. You going to keep doubling up on fail?

I'd have to single down first. The word is "created" You've failed. Again...

And if you are going to be literal you would realize only men are....

 

[Coyote]

It has no reference to rights before birth. Created does not refer to conception.

It never denies rights prior to birth. It only mentions "created". Which happens at conception. You've failed again...

Conception wasn't a recognized event. Birth was. Actually - to be accurate, an independent being was recognized at the drawing of the first breath.

Does a fetus have an SS#?
Can a fetus be claimed as a dependent?
Can a fetus sign contracts?
If a person is declared dead upon cessation of brainwaves...is a fetus dead prior to brainwaves?
Is a fetus be counted in a census?
Why do people always say they have two children and another on the way...why not three?



Can you have two sets of rights in ONE body? Who's takes precedence?

None of your deflections are relevant to the point you thought you were making previously before I smacked you down... The constitution. Try harder...

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

Conception wasn't a recognized event. Birth was. Actually - to be accurate, an independent being was recognized at the drawing of the first breath.

Does a fetus have an SS#?
Can a fetus be claimed as a dependent?
Can a fetus sign contracts?
If a person is declared dead upon cessation of brainwaves...is a fetus dead prior to brainwaves?
Is a fetus be counted in a census?
Why do people always say they have two children and another on the way...why not three?



Can you have two sets of rights in ONE body? Who's takes precedence?

None of your deflections are relevant to the point you thought you were making previously before I smacked you down... The constitution. Try harder...

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

The constitution makes no distinction beyond created. You've failed again.

It makes no mention of conception. You going to keep doubling up on fail?

It's a human being, regardless in the womb or not. These word games that regressives play is abhorrent to witness.

I've never said it wasn't a human. You are welcome to adopt, implant and raise to birth any unwanted embryos you desire. It's your body after all.

 

[Vastator]

None of your deflections are relevant to the point you thought you were making previously before I smacked you down... The constitution. Try harder...

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

The constitution makes no distinction beyond created. You've failed again.

It makes no mention of conception. You going to keep doubling up on fail?

I'd have to single down first. The word is "created" You've failed. Again...

And if you are going to be literal you would realize only men are....

Failed. Again...

 

[Coyote]

Two totally separate bodies, each with their own circulatory system.

Then you should have no issue with removing one from the other.

 

[Czernobog]

Jjj

Self begins at birth.

Wrong. DNA evidence proves as much. And is backed up by courts double homicide rulings for the murder of pregnant women. And the constitution; " all men are created equal", people are created at conception. Try again baby killer...

Self begins at birth, nothing to do with DNA. Let’s see how childish you get....

No need to explain further... You have your own opinion to defend at the moment...

Where does the Constitution reference people being created at conception or in fact any rights prior to birth?

The preborn are members of the human species from the moment of fertilization. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written to protect every human being, especially the weakest and most marginalized.

Yeah...nothing in the 14th says anything about "preborn". Nice try. In the meantime, none of you have made any arguments contradicting the precedent of bodily autonomy, other than the logical fallacy of "special pleading".

 

[BS Filter]

It never denies rights prior to birth. It only mentions "created". Which happens at conception. You've failed again...

Conception wasn't a recognized event. Birth was. Actually - to be accurate, an independent being was recognized at the drawing of the first breath.

Does a fetus have an SS#?
Can a fetus be claimed as a dependent?
Can a fetus sign contracts?
If a person is declared dead upon cessation of brainwaves...is a fetus dead prior to brainwaves?
Is a fetus be counted in a census?
Why do people always say they have two children and another on the way...why not three?



Can you have two sets of rights in ONE body? Who's takes precedence?

None of your deflections are relevant to the point you thought you were making previously before I smacked you down... The constitution. Try harder...

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

None of your deflections are relevant to the point you thought you were making previously before I smacked you down... The constitution. Try harder...

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

The constitution makes no distinction beyond created. You've failed again.

It makes no mention of conception. You going to keep doubling up on fail?

It's a human being, regardless in the womb or not. These word games that regressives play is abhorrent to witness.

I've never said it wasn't a human. You are welcome to adopt, implant and raise to birth any unwanted embryos you desire. It's your body after all.

Such disregard for human life is abhorrent to witness.

 

[Czernobog]

Jjj
Self begins at birth, nothing to do with DNA. Let’s see how childish you get....

No need to explain further... You have your own opinion to defend at the moment...

Where does the Constitution reference people being created at conception or in fact any rights prior to birth?

It says "created". At conception a unique, new DNA sequence of human is created. Its not rocket science. That's why your kidney, is your kidney. Its your DNA; your "self". And can be proven so. No so much for another person...

It has no reference to rights before birth. Created does not refer to conception.

It never denies rights prior to birth. It only mentions "created". Which happens at conception. You've failed again...

The Constitution never used the word "created". I believe you are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. The former is, in no way, a governing document of our nation, and never was.

 

[BS Filter]

Two totally separate bodies, each with their own circulatory system.

Then you should have no issue with removing one from the other.

The point is this is a human being in the womb or out of the womb. A person entitled to life.

 

[BS Filter]

No need to explain further... You have your own opinion to defend at the moment...

Where does the Constitution reference people being created at conception or in fact any rights prior to birth?

It says "created". At conception a unique, new DNA sequence of human is created. Its not rocket science. That's why your kidney, is your kidney. Its your DNA; your "self". And can be proven so. No so much for another person...

It has no reference to rights before birth. Created does not refer to conception.

It never denies rights prior to birth. It only mentions "created". Which happens at conception. You've failed again...

The Constitution never used the word "created". I believe you are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. The former is, in no way, a governing document of our nation, and never was.

The Declaration is a legal document in force today.

 

[Czernobog]

Conception wasn't a recognized event. Birth was. Actually - to be accurate, an independent being was recognized at the drawing of the first breath.

Does a fetus have an SS#?
Can a fetus be claimed as a dependent?
Can a fetus sign contracts?
If a person is declared dead upon cessation of brainwaves...is a fetus dead prior to brainwaves?
Is a fetus be counted in a census?
Why do people always say they have two children and another on the way...why not three?



Can you have two sets of rights in ONE body? Who's takes precedence?

None of your deflections are relevant to the point you thought you were making previously before I smacked you down... The constitution. Try harder...

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

The constitution makes no distinction beyond created. You've failed again.

It makes no mention of conception. You going to keep doubling up on fail?

It's a human being, regardless in the womb or not. These word games that regressives play is abhorrent to witness.

I've never said it wasn't a human. You are welcome to adopt, implant and raise to birth any unwanted embryos you desire. It's your body after all.

Such disregard for human life is abhorrent to witness.

I coudln't agree more. It is abhorrent to demand that a woman be relegated to walking incubator just to satisfy your personal opinions.

 

[Czernobog]

Where does the Constitution reference people being created at conception or in fact any rights prior to birth?

It says "created". At conception a unique, new DNA sequence of human is created. Its not rocket science. That's why your kidney, is your kidney. Its your DNA; your "self". And can be proven so. No so much for another person...

It has no reference to rights before birth. Created does not refer to conception.

It never denies rights prior to birth. It only mentions "created". Which happens at conception. You've failed again...

The Constitution never used the word "created". I believe you are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. The former is, in no way, a governing document of our nation, and never was.

The Declaration is a legal document in force today.

No, it's not. It never was. That was why we had the Constitutional Congress. To draft the legal document that would rule this nation.

 

[Coyote]

Conception wasn't a recognized event. Birth was. Actually - to be accurate, an independent being was recognized at the drawing of the first breath.

Does a fetus have an SS#?
Can a fetus be claimed as a dependent?
Can a fetus sign contracts?
If a person is declared dead upon cessation of brainwaves...is a fetus dead prior to brainwaves?
Is a fetus be counted in a census?
Why do people always say they have two children and another on the way...why not three?



Can you have two sets of rights in ONE body? Who's takes precedence?

None of your deflections are relevant to the point you thought you were making previously before I smacked you down... The constitution. Try harder...

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

The constitution makes no distinction beyond created. You've failed again.

It makes no mention of conception. You going to keep doubling up on fail?

It's a human being, regardless in the womb or not. These word games that regressives play is abhorrent to witness.

I've never said it wasn't a human. You are welcome to adopt, implant and raise to birth any unwanted embryos you desire. It's your body after all.

Such disregard for human life is abhorrent to witness.

Not really. Because when you make arguments essentially marginalizing one of the most intimate rights we have - those concerning our own bodies - in one class of people, women - you are showing a blatent disregard for the complexities involved or that there more than the fetus' rights involved.

You don't have the right to make those decisions for another - you are not walking in her shoes. You can educate, persuade, offer to help her make the choice for life - but you can make it for her because you will not be the one bearing the burden of pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood. Parenthood is the most life changing and important choice we can make and it should be a choice.

 

[Vastator]

None of your deflections are relevant to the point you thought you were making previously before I smacked you down... The constitution. Try harder...

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

The constitution makes no distinction beyond created. You've failed again.

It makes no mention of conception. You going to keep doubling up on fail?

It's a human being, regardless in the womb or not. These word games that regressives play is abhorrent to witness.

I've never said it wasn't a human. You are welcome to adopt, implant and raise to birth any unwanted embryos you desire. It's your body after all.

Such disregard for human life is abhorrent to witness.

Not really. Because when you make arguments essentially marginalizing one of the most intimate rights we have - those concerning our own bodies - in one class of people, women - you are showing a blatent disregard for the complexities involved or that there more than the fetus' rights involved.

You don't have the right to make those decisions for another - you are not walking in her shoes. You can educate, persuade, offer to help her make the choice for life - but you can make it for her because you will not be the one bearing the burden of pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood. Parenthood is the most life changing and important choice we can make and it should be a choice.

Appeal to emotion... Denied.

 

[Coyote]

Two totally separate bodies, each with their own circulatory system.

Then you should have no issue with removing one from the other.

The point is this is a human being in the womb or out of the womb. A person entitled to life.

But not entitled to the use of another's body against that person's will.

 

[Coyote]

The Constitution doesn't recognize life prior to birth. No cigar.

It makes no mention of conception. You going to keep doubling up on fail?

It's a human being, regardless in the womb or not. These word games that regressives play is abhorrent to witness.

I've never said it wasn't a human. You are welcome to adopt, implant and raise to birth any unwanted embryos you desire. It's your body after all.

Such disregard for human life is abhorrent to witness.

Not really. Because when you make arguments essentially marginalizing one of the most intimate rights we have - those concerning our own bodies - in one class of people, women - you are showing a blatent disregard for the complexities involved or that there more than the fetus' rights involved.

You don't have the right to make those decisions for another - you are not walking in her shoes. You can educate, persuade, offer to help her make the choice for life - but you can make it for her because you will not be the one bearing the burden of pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood. Parenthood is the most life changing and important choice we can make and it should be a choice.

Appeal to emotion... Denied.

Not emotion. Simple facts.

You can't reason beyond bumper sticker logic?

 

[BS Filter]

It says "created". At conception a unique, new DNA sequence of human is created. Its not rocket science. That's why your kidney, is your kidney. Its your DNA; your "self". And can be proven so. No so much for another person...

It has no reference to rights before birth. Created does not refer to conception.

It never denies rights prior to birth. It only mentions "created". Which happens at conception. You've failed again...

The Constitution never used the word "created". I believe you are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. The former is, in no way, a governing document of our nation, and never was.

The Declaration is a legal document in force today.

No, it's not. It never was. That was why we had the Constitutional Congress. To draft the legal document that would rule this nation.

Wrong. The Constitution is the limits of government. The Declaration established the United States as a sovereign nation.