Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[beagle9]

NFBW2208060822-#4,377 When a pregnant woman privately has a medical procedure to terminate her unwanted pregnancy, what harm is it to you or any part of society what she does with her own body? Define the harm.

beagle9220807-#4,447 “The harm is when they make it societies harm by dragging society along for the ride.”

NFBW: Again I ask: what harm is it to you or any part of society what she does with her own body? Define the harm.

It is mostly harmful in perception only to a minority of Christian extremist church lady society. Why is that?. Most Christian’s, and non-Christian’s see more harm done by extremist church ladies like yourself for stepping on religious freedom and on human rights in the name of Jesus. You are detrimental to a free society church lady. END2308072053

Church lady eh ? So now you want to really get stupid on this site, but all the while trying to act as if you are some sort of scholar or scientific college professor with your attempt at the lay outs of your post in which you hope suggest that you are intelligent and educated, yet when all your bull crap is defeated you begin talking like the degenerate fool that you really are. I'm glad you finally cracked, just so everyone can see what their actually dealing with here, and how not to take someone like you seriously at all.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Church lady eh ?

Are you really not a church lady?

 

[beagle9]

Are you really not a church lady?

Are you really not a human being ? I'd say of course you aren't, because human beings protect their own specie's instead of eradicating them at every opportunity they get. Are you sure you ain't a NAZI ? If you say no, then I'd say you ain't far from one. Just go on and put on the uniform and be done with it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW2208061038-#4,410 “A fetus in the womb is not a human being yet. It is a start. that is what science tells us. One human cell with no brain and no heart and no skin and no lungs is human but not a human being yet, and it is a part of another human being for uo to nine months.

CarsomyrPlusSix220806-#4,418 “You admit our species Homo sapiens, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.”

NFBW: A fetus in the womb is part of the lifespan of individuals of the Homo Sapiens species. A fetus in the womb is part of its mother and therefore is not a separate individual human being,

Are you really not a human being ?

NFBW: No. I have been a human being ever since the day I was born.

END2208072337

 

[beagle9]

NFBW2208061038-#4,410 “A fetus in the womb is not a human being yet. It is a start. that is what science tells us. One human cell with no brain and no heart and no skin and no lungs is human but not a human being yet, and it is a part of another human being for uo to nine months.

CarsomyrPlusSix220806-#4,418 “You admit our species Homo sapiens, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.”

NFBW: A fetus in the womb is part of the lifespan of individuals of the Homo Sapiens species. A fetus in the womb is part of its mother and therefore is not a separate individual human being,



NFBW: No. I have been a human being ever since the day I was born.

END2208072337

You mean since the day you were conceived right ? We know, we know that you have your scientific analogies to throw at us next, but at any stage in the game you are human not a cat, not a dog, a turtle, a snake (debatable), a bird and well you get the picture.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW22080400 The fatally flawed attempt at a purely scientific argument that a one celled “x” individual, during the first few moments of conception is a human being that has capability, just like every human being that breathes the air of life today and has in the past and will in the future; and therefore is guaranteed all “human being rights” the exact same as its potential mother . . . . is patently absurd.

NFBW2208072337-#4,464 “No. I have been a human being ever since the day I was born.

beagle220807-#4,465 You mean since the day you were conceived right?”

NFBW: No. “born” I did not stutter.

NFBW: Are humans created in the image of God beagle9 ding CarsomyrPlusSix ?? . . . to have dominion over a cat, a dog, a turtle, a snake, a bird . . . well you get the picture.????? Please answer the question.

NFBW: In that flash point moment when I was conceived beagle9 ding CarsomyrPlusSix I did not have a brain, a heart, a hand, or a pair of lungs or skin and I was a one celled part of an actual human being who had at least billions celled being, at ten years minimum with advanced experience functioning in life and having the capability to actuate his or her dominion over every other species of life on earth until the day they die.

Do you beagle9 ding CarsomyrPlusSix concur that the paragraph immediately above, can be scientifically established to be true? If you disagree please post an explanation of such a disagreement.
END22080400

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW2208080823

CarsomyrPlusSix220806-#4,418 “You admit our species Homo sapiens, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.”

NFBW: Because you CarsomyrPlusSix along with ding and beagle9 posit that a woman who terminates a growth that is part of her body is the killing of a human being, you are accusing such a woman of murdering a human being, therefore you are making her act a criminal case are you not?

NFBW: In all murder cases there must be a victim so the burden is on you to prove a pregnant woman murders a human being when she has an abortion.

Your argument is that "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization which is a one-celled being and must not be murdered from that point on.

So to prosecute a woman for murdering the one-celled human being that attaches itself to her body you wouid have to prove it was a human being to start with. You would have to use an MRI to do that in court as ding points out that DNA can prove the victim is a human being. But is DNA enough?

ding220513-#247 It's DNA that determines and identifies us as unique, specific human beings. . . . That's why they use DNA and not MRI's of brains in criminal cases as evidence END220513-#247

NFBW: in the criminal cases of every woman who has an abortion of the one-celled growth on her uterus you wouid have to prove the growth inside her body is beyond a shadow of a doubt a human being. The MRi of a one microscopic one living human cell would not show that an abortion victim had a brain.

You are therefore going into court to convince a jury that Jane Roe murdered a human being that did not have a brain at the time of the murder. THAT IS ABSURD, END2208080823

 

[ding]

NFBW22080400 The fatally flawed attempt at a purely scientific argument that a one celled “x” individual, during the first few moments of conception is a human being that has capability, just like every human being that breathes the air of life today and has in the past and will in the future; and therefore is guaranteed all “human being rights” the exact same as its potential mother . . . . is patently absurd.

I don't believe anyone has made that argument.

You believe it's not immoral to end their lives because they aren't human beings. And you believe it's not immoral to not consider their right to life because they aren't human beings.

The discussion of precedence of rights can't begin until you acknowledge abortion ends the life of a human being.

 

[ding]

NFBW2208080823

CarsomyrPlusSix220806-#4,418 “You admit our species Homo sapiens, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.”

NFBW: Because you CarsomyrPlusSix along with ding and beagle9 posit that a woman who terminates a growth that is part of her body is the killing of a human being, you are accusing such a woman of murdering a human being, therefore you are making her act a criminal case are you not?

NFBW: In all murder cases there must be a victim so the burden is on you to prove a pregnant woman murders a human being when she has an abortion.

Your argument is that "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization which is a one-celled being and must not be murdered from that point on.

So to prosecute a woman for murdering the one-celled human being that attaches itself to her body you wouid have to prove it was a human being to start with. You would have to use an MRI to do that in court as ding points out that DNA can prove the victim is a human being. But is DNA enough?

ding220513-#247 It's DNA that determines and identifies us as unique, specific human beings. . . . That's why they use DNA and not MRI's of brains in criminal cases as evidence END220513-#247

NFBW: in the criminal cases of every woman who has an abortion of the one-celled growth on her uterus you wouid have to prove the growth inside her body is beyond a shadow of a doubt a human being. The MRi of a one microscopic one living human cell would not show that an abortion victim had a brain.

You are therefore going into court to convince a jury that Jane Roe murdered a human being that did not have a brain at the time of the murder. THAT IS ABSURD, END2208080823

Again... You believe it's not immoral to end their lives because they aren't human beings. And you believe it's not immoral to not consider their right to life because they aren't human beings.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You believe it's not immoral to end their lives because they aren't human beings.

NFBW: A one-celled existence is not a human being. There is no morality involved because that one celled existence is a private matter between the one-celled existence without a brain and the woman’s body that it attached itself to and feeds off her as a part of her for nine months of her life. It is immoral of you to insert your nose into the uterus of a woman unknown to you. You’re fucking sick. END2208080932

 

[ding]

NFBW: A one-celled existence is not a human being. There is no morality involved because that one celled existence is a private matter between the one-celled existence without a brain and the woman’s body that is attached itself to her and plans to be a part of her for nine months of her life. It is immoral of you To insert your nose into the uterus of a woman unknown to you. You’re fucking sick. END2208080932

Again... You believe it's not immoral to end their lives because you believe they aren't human beings. And you believe it's not immoral to not consider their right to life because you believe they aren't human beings.

Science disagrees with you.

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Again... You believe it's not immoral to end their lives because you believe they aren't human beings.

NFBW: Because they are not human beings and no science says they are. And you’re only argument is that you know what I believe or don’t believe about morality has to be what you say it is, that means you have absolutely no argument in this matter. You only have rote and antiabortion propaganda provided by religious zealots like beagle9 .
END2208080938

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding of course Human beings begin at conception but they are not human beings until birth or can survive outside the womb. Your language skills are pathetic

 

[ding]

NFBW: Because they are not human beings and no science says they are. And you’re only argument is that you know what I believe or don’t believe about morality has to be what you say it is, that means you have absolutely no argument in this matter. You only have rote and antiabortion propaganda provided by religious zealots like beagle9 .
END2208080938

Embryology textbooks teach otherwise.

 

[ding]

ding of course Human beings begin at conception but they are not human beings until birth or can survive outside the womb. Your language skills are pathetic

You are contradicting yourself now.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are contradicting yourself now.

NFBW: Do you understand what scientists mean when they say Human beings begin at conception when referring to a one-celled existing thing. The one-celled existing thing is human of course by virtue of its parents and the human uterus to which it has attached itself and needs to feed off. It means it is not a human being yet. Only an idiot would say that a one-celled existence is a human being which is what you are arguing right now. END2208980954

 

[ding]

NFBW: Do you understand what scientists mean when they say Human beings begin at conception when referring to a one-celled existing thing. The one-celled existing thing is human of course by virtue of its parents and the human uterus to which it has attached itself and needs to feed off. It means it is not a human being yet. Only an idiot would say that a one-celled existence is a human being which is what you are arguing right now. END2208980954

Yes, I do understand what they mean. They mean exactly what they are saying and what empirical evidence proves; that after fertilization a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...."

Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes, I do understand what they mean. They mean exactly what they are saying and what empirical evidence proves; that after fertilization a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

NFBW: Then it is like a one celled frog egg that is dropped into a pond and has all it needs to become a pollywog and swim around on its own until it takes its first breath and becomes a frog. Are human scientists saying that about a human fertilized egg? If they are abortion is not an issue.
And of course a frog egg is not a tadpole and a tadpole is not a frog. But those stages of development are all amphibians and vertebrates of the order Anura.
END2208081019

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

NFBW2208080823

CarsomyrPlusSix220806-#4,418 “You admit our species Homo sapiens, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.”

NFBW: Because you CarsomyrPlusSix along with ding and beagle9 posit that a woman who terminates a growth that is part of her body

No, we have nothing to say about "growths that are part of her body."

This is about pregnancy. None of what you just said applies. Your kid's body is not your body. Your kid is not a "growth." Stop saying dumb and flagrantly incorrect things.

you are accusing such a woman of murdering a human being,

They commit homicide by definition, and this should be criminalized as murder.

therefore you are making her act a criminal case are you not?

NFBW: In all murder cases there must be a victim so the burden is on you to prove a pregnant woman murders a human being when she has an abortion.

If you can perceive reality and read and write English and are not completely ignorant of grade school level biology, you know and can communicate the fact that abortion is the homicide of an innocent human being.

you wouid have to prove it was a human being to start with

I do not need to prove already proven and well-established indisputable scientific fact. Open a textbook and stop being stupid.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

NFBW: The record shows otherwise. You are a liar.

Oh fuck right off. You are just trolling.

Read your own words. "The record" i.e. my quotes of your posts in this exchange shows exactly that. You now directly contradict yourself and lie while projecting.

It is plain that you won't even own your own words, so your posts are just bad faith noise.