Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Exactly, but they love to say "it doesn't end with the anti-abortionist", but I say that it never ends with them. They are the one's constantly pushing their agenda on the unsuspecting people who end up being appalled at their bull crap once they see it and know it, but they wickedly put in place their demon's to fight like hell for their ground gained.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.
What should be done with parts of a fetus which had been miscarried or of lost fortune ?THIS is NOT "a woman's body." It is the body of an innocent baby, with a father who has no rights according to murdering abortionists, unless the "mother" chooses to have it then he pays child support for 18 years.
Meanwhile men languish in prison for murdering unborn babies but no woman does.
View attachment 729534
Listen you, don't you ever cut my post up like that again, otherwise to make it look like I'm starting out with me saying or advocating for freedom in the choice for a woman to get an abortion. If you do, then you are reported, and hopefully censured by the mods.beagle9-#5,818 “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 ??
NFBW: speeding laws have nothing to do with one person using another person’s body for nine months.
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?
What is your answer @beagle ?
END2211261434
All your fancy smancy word salad's won't work on anyone with a smidgen of intelligence. Good luck on continuing to make a fool of yourself." Naturalism Wagering Public Behavior Is Not In Need Of Ascetic Sycophants "
* More Bid Autonomic Response Mind Less Propaganda Pictures *
What should be done with parts of a fetus which had been miscarried or of lost fortune ?
The images refer to 19 weeks and 24 weeks , has a medical report been provided for the purpose of the abortion , as were genetic or physical anomalies or cause for abortion of the fetus provided ?
Given abortion prior to 15 weeks without cause , abortion post 15 weeks with cause for quality of life in the pursuit of life , liberty and happiness , is dismissed without address by disingenuous , dishonest , disreputable , traitorous , purveyors of illegitimate aggression against the principles of individualism upon which this republic is founded .
NFBW: The link to your post is right there. Anyone with half a brain would know I’m taking your stupid point down and stomping all over it.Listen you, don't you ever cut my post up like that again,
If some would be father disagrees that his private property , his gametes ( game meets ) , or his semen ( sea men ) , were provided without his informed consent , then at the time of the incident the would be father must file sexual assault charges , which could be used for relief from child support .THIS is NOT "a woman's body." It is the body of an innocent baby, with a father who has no rights according to murdering abortionists, unless the "mother" chooses to have it then he pays child support for 18 years.
By definition , murder is unlawful killing , which means that it is false for any to claim that abortion is murder when it is not unlawful killing .Meanwhile men languish in prison for murdering unborn babies but no woman does.
Expectations would be that any success occurring in a person hood movement is a consequence from continued public ignorance of a live birth requirement for citizenship and equitable doctrine .Monk-Eye221126-#5,827 “And yet there are zealous pundits proposing aggressive measures to amend the definition of a person to somehow include a zygote , or embryo , or fetus ; such are traitors promoting sedition of us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments”
NFBW: Do you support a personhood amendment in the Constitution beagle9 so wicked liberals could not kill unborn babies in all states and territories?
END2211261717
Both contesting the one body ? ROTFLMBONFBW: The link to your post is right there. Anyone with half a brain would know I’m taking your stupid point down and stomping all over it.
MY logic for support for freedom of choice is ironclad and it does not mean I’m in favor of not having any laws for anything leading to the collapse of civilization.
READ ding ‘s posts - he does have half a brain at times. You are stupid. It’s why you cannot respond to this:
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?
What other laws are out there were on one person wanting to live inside another persons body and have a constitutional right to do so for nine months.
END2211261656
See what I mean about you being stupid.Both contesting the one body ? ROTFLMBO
NFBW: The unborn baby is not contesting the body you moron.So tell me ole wicked wiseman, why would the unborn baby be contesting the body it is using to survive in ???
If the unborn child “person” has a constitutional right to life but has to “use” another “persons” body to be alive does the used body “person” have the right to refuse the other person’s “use” of her body?And why would the woman think that there is some sort of contest between the two ??
Contesting as if the baby is equal in that contest... ROTFLMBOSee what I mean about you being stupid.
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?
they are contesting the use of one person’s body,
Both are not contesting the one body you idiot.
END2211261931
Answer such an idiotic question ? I think not.NFBW: The unborn baby is not contesting the body you moron.
The question is If two persons are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy use of the other persons body?
What is your answer to the question?
END2211262016
No it means that they aren't struggling for the same body, otherwise as if the mother is on some type of high risk adventure where if she gets scared then she'll just call on a Hitman to take that risk away and maybe for a few dollars extra that would next fall into Play.beagle9-#5,835 “Contesting as if the baby is equal in that contest... “
NFBW: Does that mean the unborn person is not equal to the born person who has the body that the unborn person uses to survive?
END2211262217
Irrelevant to the issue, otherwise I believe that women shouldn't be killing their unborn period, and it's all because they are being brainwashed by leftist dogma or propaganda that encourages them to just do so by leftist ideology. Not good.
