Roe overturned

[M14 Shooter]

Never said it wasn't human or alive. Why do so many anti-Choice folks refuse to answer the question of when should the single cell, a fertilized egg, be entitled to the rights of of a baby born alive?

Your standard, and the question you attach to it, is meaningless, as the question of abortion revolves around the question of when does a state have a compelling interest in the protection of the life of the unborn.

 

[BlindBoo]

How are people simultaneously pro-choice for abortions, but not pro-choice for jab mandates?

Say, that's a nice squirrel you pointed out there.

I'm pro reducing the stupid gene. So yeah you don't want a covid vaccine? Okay.

 

[flan327]

Once again, your are confused. You tried to use a method of logic that is illogical, If A, then B; If B, then A is FALSE logic. Let me try again. The SCOTUS in 1973 created a new law in which they are not allowed to do. That's Congress's job. The word abortion nor any of it's tenants are not in the Bill of Rights. Even Ruth Ginsberg saw the error and new it would eventually be overturned. But, she didn't have the guts to do it. This was always a States Right's Issue and had two hundred years of precedence. What today's SCOTUS did was unravel the law that the 1973 court was not allowed to do and gave this back to the States who have the rights to do so. Women's rights has nothing to do with this nor the original 1973 debacle. Back then, it was about the rights of the physicians and not get in trouble for doing abortions when necessary. Like Bill Clinton said, abortion should be used sparingly.
Today, it's not 1973 medicine and science that we have. It's 2022 and the medicines and science and transportation abilities will work just fine for you baby killers to still kill millions of babies. Heck, 60% of abortions are done by taking a pill. I'm sure you'll figure out how to get the pills to women so they can kill their babies. Boy, Pharaoh of Egypt and Herod should be happy seeing the deaths of all the children. Your childish fits of rage are getting old. Move to Russia where they love to eliminate people that they believe won't help society.

I’d gladly move to Russia

Because you are a paranoid liar

 

[flan327]

Your standard, and the question you attach to it, is meaningless, as the question of abortion revolves around the question of when does a state have a compelling interest in the protection of the life of the unborn.

Never

 

[badger2]

Never said it wasn't human or alive. Why do so many anti-Choice folks refuse to answer the question of when should the single cell, a fertilized egg, be entitled to the rights of of a baby born alive?

Is it...

1. From the point of conception.

2. When the Bun comes out of the oven or after Birth.

3. Somewhere in between.

You jump ahead to the single cell/egg argument before fully contemplating pre-coital life, which life preemptively trumps any single cell/egg argument, post-conception. SCOTUS arrogantly disregards the truth of pre-coital existence so that it can establish its (now having become illegitimate) argument. This pre-coital truth can't be removed and then proceed with an established argument for "viability", the way SCOTUS has done. This is SCOTUS blaming the scapegoat-victim for the conceptual theft SCOTUS has just accomplished, then authoritatively demanding an audience.

 

[flan327]

Say, that's a nice squirrel you pointed out there.

I'm pro reducing the stupid gene. So yeah you don't want a covid vaccine? Okay.

Blind Boo
Is
Blind

 

[BlindBoo]

Blind Boo
Is
Blind

Nothing gets passed you does it?

 

[Ralph Norton]

You jump ahead to the single cell/egg argument before fully contemplating pre-coital life, which life preemptively trumps any single cell/egg argument, post-conception. SCOTUS arrogantly disregards the truth of pre-coital existence so that it can establish its (now having become illegitimate) argument. This pre-coital truth can't be removed and then proceed with an established argument for "viability", the way SCOTUS has done. This is SCOTUS blaming the scapegoat-victim for the conceptual theft SCOTUS has just accomplished, then authoritatively demanding an audience.

I'm guessing that you think this makes sense?

 

[BlindBoo]

pre-coital life, which life preemptively trumps any single cell/egg argument, post-conception.

How does pre-coital life preemptively trump that, post conception, work exactly?

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance just baffle them with bullshit.

 

[BlindBoo]

Never

Never say never. It all depends on the state of the state. If the state of affairs was that human beings were an endangered species, the state would have a compelling interest.....I think.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance just baffle them with bullshit.

Yes...
Much like you question of when should the single cell, a fertilized egg, be entitled to the rights of of a baby born alive.

 

[badger2]

I'm guessing that you think this makes sense?

Badger guesses that you won't have the courage to take it one word at a time in your mother tongue in front of the others to expose you as an arrogant prick.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes...
Much like you question of when should the single cell, a fertilized egg, be entitled to the rights of of a baby born alive.

Wasn't my question but should that single cell be entitled to the rights of a baby born alive?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wasn't my question but should that single cell be entitled to the rights of a baby born alive?

Your standard, and the question you attach to it, is meaningless, as the question of abortion revolves around the question of when does a state have a compelling interest in the protection of the life of the unborn - not "giving the unborn the rights of a child born alive".
Repeating your question will not change this.

 

[badger2]

Yes...
Much like you question of when should the single cell, a fertilized egg, be entitled to the rights of of a baby born alive.

Like a theologian, SCOTUS is simply playing word games within the space and time between conception and birth. Once it accomplishes the theft of the concept of pre-existent life, everything that follows may make perfectly good sense.

 

[Billo_Really]

Hi Bill - how's it going?

It's going pretty good. It's really nice seeing your posts again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like a theologian, SCOTUS is simply playing word games within the space and time between conception and birth=

The USSC did not address this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's going pretty good. It's really nice seeing your posts again.

Where have you been?

 

[badger2]

Your standard, and the question you attach to it, is meaningless, as the question of abortion revolves around the question of when does a state have a compelling interest in the protection of the life of the unborn - not "giving the unborn the rights of a child born alive".
Repeating your question will not change this.

You gloss over the irresponsibility involved when SCOTUS gives the concern over to the states. All of the states must be consistently represented in the reasoning, not the way it is at this time post-RvW. SCOTUS was arrogantly aware that it was complexifying the pathology by the overturn.

 

[BlindBoo]

Your standard, and the question you attach to it, is meaningless, as the question of abortion revolves around the question of when does a state have a compelling interest in the protection of the life of the unborn - not "giving the unborn the rights of a child born alive".
Repeating your question will not change this.

Take it up with Brother James who taught theology back in 1976 who broke it down to the three answers I laid out from the beginning of the process up till the end, birth.

Some people believe in 1. Most people believe 2. But some believe in 3.