Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221125-#5,799 “No. It would be idiotic to have a right’s discussion with someone whose core belief is that there are no rights other than the mother’s rights”

NFBW: A fertilized egg from the moment of conception in the form of a not viable human being that is alive and developing prior to birth is protected by the same constitutional rights of the mother that she has had since she was born on US Soil. According to the Constitution a newly born, human being acquires it’s own individual rights on the day he or she is born just like his or her mother.

Sorry ding it is up to you to define and describe rights you believe apply to a fertilized egg in a secular nation of laws that derive from our Constitution. If you think there are some constitutional rights being violated against a fetus, when a woman chooses in private to terminate her own pregnancy, I will listen .

Since you can’t do that I understand why it would be idiotic to have a rights discussion based on constitutional laws.

I understand that Catholic doctrine teaches that it is a sin to terminate a pregnancy because the fetus is created by God who seeks to have a relationship with each and every human being that he mysteriously creates including those that end in miscarriage to women who are heartbroken by this phenomenon of God’s will and love.

But religious doctrine is no part of the Constitution and specifically Catholic belief has no part because Catholics delegations were not present along with the rational theism that went into its writing.

If you can’t handle the truth that Constitutional rights begin at birth ding as a core belief you might as well be refusing to discuss things with anyone who does not have a core belief that the earth is flat.

What do you fear?

END2211251613

 

[ding]

ding221125-#5,799 “No. It would be idiotic to have a right’s discussion with someone whose core belief is that there are no rights other than the mother’s rights”

NFBW: A fertilized egg from the moment of conception in the form of a not viable human being that is alive and developing prior to birth is protected by the same constitutional rights of the mother that she has had since she was born on US Soil. According to the Constitution a newly born, human being acquires it’s own individual rights on the day he or she is born just like his or her mother.

Sorry ding it is up to you to define and describe rights you believe apply to a fertilized egg in a secular nation of laws that derive from our Constitution. If you think there are some constitutional rights being violated against a fetus, when a woman chooses in private to terminate her own pregnancy, I will listen .

Since you can’t do that I understand why it would be idiotic to have a rights discussion based on constitutional laws.

I understand that Catholic doctrine teaches that it is a sin to terminate a pregnancy because the fetus is created by God who seeks to have a relationship with each and every human being that he mysteriously creates including those that end in miscarriage to women who are heartbroken by this phenomenon of God’s will and love.

But religious doctrine is no part of the Constitution and specifically Catholic belief has no part because Catholics delegations were not present along with the rational theism that went into its writing.

If you can’t handle the truth that Constitutional rights begin at birth ding as a core belief you might as well be refusing to discuss things with anyone who does not have a core belief that the earth is flat.


END2211251613

Again… it would be idiotic to have a rights discussion with some like you. You have already made up your mind that abortion doesn’t end a human life. Your argument is that it’s not a human being so it has no human rights.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221125-#5,802 You have already made up your mind that abortion doesn’t end a human life

NFBW: Nonsense! I explicitly told you ding I believe abortion ends a human life. IT IS A FACT THAT “ abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct not viable human being”

NFBW221125-#5,797 What about discussing that with me who acknowledges that abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct not viable human being if performed prior to up to 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.

ding220812-#4,739 ding “the only correct way to see it is abortion ends a human life.”

NFBW220813-#4,761 Actually ding the scientifically correct way to say it, is abortion ends a not viable human life when the procedure is performed prior to 24 weeks after conception.”

END2211251757

 

[beagle9]

Sounds like you prefer equality through uniformity. And that you really do have a problem with states not deciding the way you want them to decide.

He's the authoritarian, but tries to hide it with his wicked wisdom.

 

[beagle9]

ding221125-#5,792 Doesn’t matter what I believe.

NFBW: I believe abortion is wrong. But if Herschel Walker wants to knock women up and pay to abort their genetically unique babies prior to viability that they create together it’s none of my business and definitely not the business of politicians like Walker when they get elected to positions of authority.

ding181015-#357 “My expectation is that abortion will be seen as wrong. I want it to come to a vote of the people.

We both believe abortion is wrong but the difference is you want unqualified hypocrites like Walker voted into the United States so the Republican Party can gain control and force every American to learn that not only abortion is wrong but it “ends the life of a new genetically distinct human being” and the government has the authority when base on majority rule to ban abortion which would force all impregnated women by law to assume the risk and financial hardship that pregnancy can cause when carried to full term.

END2211251450

Liar

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Liar

Please identify the lie so I can respond. Nothing I said is a lie.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Liar

The gall of this person. Indeed. He doesn't believe abortion is wrong. He doesn't believe abortion victims are human beings.

He won't be honest about one word of what he says. You can literally quote something he just said and he'll pretend he didn't say it. He's absolute scum.

 

[ding]

ding221125-#5,802 You have already made up your mind that abortion doesn’t end a human life

NFBW: Nonsense! I explicitly told you ding I believe abortion ends a human life. IT IS A FACT THAT “ abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct not viable human being”

NFBW221125-#5,797 What about discussing that with me who acknowledges that abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct not viable human being if performed prior to up to 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.

ding220812-#4,739 ding “the only correct way to see it is abortion ends a human life.”

NFBW220813-#4,761 Actually ding the scientifically correct way to say it, is abortion ends a not viable human life when the procedure is performed prior to 24 weeks after conception.”

END2211251757

Viability is your way of denying humanness. You said it’s wrong to end the life of a human being.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Viability is LITERALLY just having an arbitrary amount of surfactant in your lungs which is sufficient for CURRENT Neonatal ICU equipment to help keep you alive.

Imagine science fiction medical equipment that can sustain the life of much, much younger human beings.

Up to and including a science fiction artificial womb environment that will entirely allow for blastocyst implantation and then gestation - unlikely but not impossible.

Since viability is a moving target which CAN move all the way to the beginning of the lifespan anyway... why not just skip to that inevitability and drop the arbitrary standard? We already know that human life begins at fertilization. There is no dispute of this fact.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221125-#5,808 “Viability is your way of denying humanness.”

NFBW: But the truth is I do not deny humanness. I have never denied humanness. I am a rational theist accepting basic ‘earth is spherical’ science (round to the layman) orbiting around the sun. Viability is a physical, identifying and material milestone on the overall lifespan of being human. VIABILITY IS SCIENTIFIC REALITY that cannot be swept away by fits of religious and/or political zealotry when the anti-abortion fanatic’s irrational mind has zig-zagged on so many twists and turns it reaches a dead end.

ding190913-#867 “A religious zealot is someone who goes around saying the beliefs of others are wrong and their beliefs are right.

NFBW220727-#3,944 “per the most widely used textbook on human embryology.”

ding220727-#3,947 “It's just science.”

NFBW220727-#3,949 As a secular humanist agnostic myself, my argument on maternal vs fetal natural law rights however is based on the exact same “science” that was presented by Robert P. George who is a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic who is considered by the most conservative of the rightwing of Christendom to be America’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.

Robert P. George wrote in the NYTimes A Distinct Human OrganismNovember 22, 2005

“the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.

The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete -- though, of course, immature -- human organism.”

NFBW220727-#3,949 I apply RPGeorge’s definition “immature -- human organism” as a fair and scientific definition of the developing human in the womb of every pregnant woman to which I argue the immature human organism, when it depends on receiving oxygenated blood from the living breathing fully developed human being that carries it, may be terminated because the would be mother has a right in good conscience to decide what happens to her health, and pursuit of her mental and economic well being as a citizen of the United States of America under the protection of the Constitution. The immature fetus prior to ability of viable separation from its mother has rights secondary and subordinate to its breathing and nourishment source - The pregnant woman.

NFBW: That is a pregnant woman with a living immature organism that is a human being, a human life inside her, that reaches potential viability at about 22 weeks. I DO NOT DENY ONE IOTA of the being inside a pregnant woman’s body being human ding - You are in fact a liar.

END2211252251

 

[ding]

ding221125-#5,808 “Viability is your way of denying humanness.”

NFBW: But the truth is I do not deny humanness. I have never denied humanness. I am a rational theist accepting basic ‘earth is spherical’ science (round to the layman) orbiting around the sun. Viability is a physical, identifying and material milestone on the overall lifespan of being human. VIABILITY IS SCIENTIFIC REALITY that cannot be swept away by fits of religious and/or political zealotry when the anti-abortion fanatic’s irrational mind has zig-zagged on so many twists and turns it reaches a dead end.

ding190913-#867 “A religious zealot is someone who goes around saying the beliefs of others are wrong and their beliefs are right.

NFBW220727-#3,944 “per the most widely used textbook on human embryology.”

ding220727-#3,947 “It's just science.”

NFBW220727-#3,949 As a secular humanist agnostic myself, my argument on maternal vs fetal natural law rights however is based on the exact same “science” that was presented by Robert P. George who is a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic who is considered by the most conservative of the rightwing of Christendom to be America’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.

Robert P. George wrote in the NYTimes A Distinct Human OrganismNovember 22, 2005

“the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.

The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete -- though, of course, immature -- human organism.”

NFBW220727-#3,949 I apply RPGeorge’s definition “immature -- human organism” as a fair and scientific definition of the developing human in the womb of every pregnant woman to which I argue the immature human organism, when it depends on receiving oxygenated blood from the living breathing fully developed human being that carries it, may be terminated because the would be mother has a right in good conscience to decide what happens to her health, and pursuit of her mental and economic well being as a citizen of the United States of America under the protection of the Constitution. The immature fetus prior to ability of viable separation from its mother has rights secondary and subordinate to its breathing and nourishment source - The pregnant woman.

NFBW: That is a pregnant woman with a living immature organism that is a human being, a human life inside her, that reaches potential viability at about 22 weeks. I DO NOT DENY ONE IOTA of the being inside a pregnant woman’s body being human ding - You are in fact a liar.

END2211252251

You arrive at your conclusions by working backwards. What will it take to allow abortions to continue? The same thing it takes to ease your conscience of ending a human life. Denying it is fully human and undeserving of rights.

You know it’s wrong to end a human life so you concoct a class that is less than a human being to rationalize away your support of ending human lives.

 

[beagle9]

Please identify the lie so I can respond. Nothing I said is a lie.

Easy - You believe abortion is wrong ? Liar...... After who knows how many post you have submitted in the contrary (defending it), that leaves you as a LIAR.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221125-#5,811 “You arrive at your conclusions by working backwards. What will it take to allow abortions to continue? The same thing it takes to ease your conscience of ending a human life. Denying it is fully human and undeserving of rights.

You know it’s wrong to end a human life so you concoct a class that is less than a human being to rationalize away your support of ending human lives.”

NFBW: Are you ding trying to be my therapist, probation officer or priest?

I can assure you I need none of your psycho/spiritual/meddling babble. Give Herschsl Walker a call. I want zero abortions to happen tomorrow. I have never been involved in a relationship that required an abortion. My conscience is clear - just found out last week my youngest of three daughters is pregnant. It will be hers and husbands first, young professionals just married a little over a year ago. They will move back to Virginia from California to have the new human being near her mom and dad. I’m retired now, my wife has some time to go and my role is to be their day care because our daughter wants to continue with her career. I am overjoyed at my role. My three daughters are all pro-choice, I have three grandsons and one grandaughter, don’t know what the new one will be and I can assure you there are no guilty consciences in my family or on me for believing women we know nothing about should have privacy from government intrusion in reproductive matters and freedom to make the decision.

Can you get yourself to a factual and honest discussion ding and bring beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix with you?

END2211260049

 

[NotfooledbyW]

beagle9222126-#5,812 Easy - You believe abortion is wrong ? Liar...... After who knows how many post you have submitted in the contrary (defending it), that leaves you as a LIAR.

NFBW: Do you think a poster who is not a liberal is a liar if he says he is against abortion personally but its up people to decide to do it.

PapaG220820-#104 “I’m against abortion however after educating a woman on the risks both mentally and physically it is up to them but I am not for abortion.. . , “

NFBW: That sums up my position on abortion and freedom of choice to have one.

END2211260138

 

[ding]

ding221125-#5,811 “You arrive at your conclusions by working backwards. What will it take to allow abortions to continue? The same thing it takes to ease your conscience of ending a human life. Denying it is fully human and undeserving of rights.

You know it’s wrong to end a human life so you concoct a class that is less than a human being to rationalize away your support of ending human lives.”

NFBW: Are you ding trying to be my therapist, probation officer or priest?

I can assure you I need none of your psycho/spiritual/meddling babble. Give Herschsl Walker a call. I want zero abortions to happen tomorrow. I have never been involved in a relationship that required an abortion. My conscience is clear - just found out last week my youngest of three daughters is pregnant. It will be hers and husbands first, young professionals just married a little over a year ago. They will move back to Virginia from California to have the new human being near her mom and dad. I’m retired now, my wife has some time to go and my role is to be their day care because our daughter wants to continue with her career. I am overjoyed at my role. My three daughters are all pro-choice, I have three grandsons and one grandaughter, don’t know what the new one will be and I can assure you there are no guilty consciences in my family or on me for believing women we know nothing about should have privacy from government intrusion in reproductive matters and freedom to make the decision.

Can you get yourself to a factual and honest discussion ding and bring beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix with you?

END2211260049

Having a rights discussion with someone who doesn’t recognize their rights because he doesn’t recognize they are human beings would be a waste of time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221126-#5,815 “Having a rights discussion with someone who doesn’t recognize their rights because he doesn’t recognize they are human beings would be a waste of time.”

NFBW: Is that because you ding as a Catholic first and as an American second and a scientist third are divinely privileged to have the only and righteous answer to the critical question: who or what is a constitutional person? who are the “people” in the Constitution?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

NFBW: Do you agree with the following?

The Constitution implicitly recognizes that politics cannot, and should not, attempt to spiritually transform man or turn the world into a terrestrial paradise.​

​

The Truths They Held: The Christian and Natural Law: American Constitution​

​

The more limited goal of politics is to arrange the material circumstances of man's life to mitigate the effects of evil so that he can pursue virtue and, in so doing, achieve the ultimate happiness which lies beyond politics. The primacy of the person, unthinkable without the foundation of Christian truth, defines the very order of the Constitution.​

​

NFBW: Your self imposed waste-of-time calculated excuse to slink away from our discussion has to be based on some kind of divine revelation that you have resolved the Roe v Wade Riddle first by dissolving the scientific aspect of lack of viability in intellectual acid, and then by declaration that the not-viable person trumps the inalienable rights of the viable one when it is between the following two persons.

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?​

NFBW: The Catholic authoritarian in you ding always shows up when you need to walk away from a discussion.

END2211260932

 

[NotfooledbyW]

CPlus6221125-#5,807 CarsomyrPlusSix The gall of this person. Indeed. He doesn't believe abortion is wrong. He doesn't believe abortion victims are human beings.

NFBW: You ding and beagle9 can quit lying about me anytime. I believe abortion is wrong. Just like forcing your beliefs on others causing no harm to you in privacy is wrong.

The unborn not-viable person in the following Roe v Wade Riddle is a human being in my view and should be considered as such pursuant to further discussion.

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

END2211261002

 

[beagle9]

beagle9222126-#5,812 Easy - You believe abortion is wrong ? Liar...... After who knows how many post you have submitted in the contrary (defending it), that leaves you as a LIAR.

NFBW: Do you think a poster who is not a liberal is a liar if he says he is against abortion personally but its up people to decide to do it.

PapaG220820-#104 “I’m against abortion however after educating a woman on the risks both mentally and physically it is up to them but I am not for abortion.. . , “

NFBW: That sums up my position on abortion and freedom of choice to have one.

END2211260138

By your logic, it could be that if one twist and turn hard enough (like you have done here), then not only should there be freedom of choice in killing one's unborn child, but why the speed limits, the drinking rules, the regulation's on anything, why not just live and let live right ?? Garantee if people like you could make the decisions, we would have total chaos and then anarchy at epic levels in people's live's within just a few years. Gotta have filter's in place to make sure that the air doesn't get to dirty. That's called being CIVILIZED.

 

[BackAgain]

By your logic, it could be that if one twist and turn hard enough (like you have done here), then not only should there be freedom of choice in killing one's unborn child, but why the speed limits, the drinking rules, the regulation's on anything, why not just live and let live right ?? Garantee if people like you could make the decisions, we would have total chaos and then anarchy at epic levels in people's live's within just a few years. Gotta have filter's in place to make sure that the air doesn't get to dirty. That's called being CIVILIZED.

It’s worse. By certain twists and turns of alleged logic, some people would seek to justify killing babies after they are born.

And why stop there? Talking care of old people (especially the very sick and infirm) poses a burden on a family, too, as well as on society. So, just label them as “no longer viable” and put them down.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

but why the speed limits, the drinking rules, the regulation's on anything, why not just live and let live right

You are stupid - glad you are a Trumper on @ding’s side

I LL Answer AFTER THE BUCKEYE GAME