Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[beagle9]

Hmmm, even a born infant uses the body of another to sustain life. So how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?

It retains that right immediately after conception.

It's the mother that is then tasked with nurturing and growing that beautiful child that is developing within her.

She must change her eating habits, watch her medicine intake, control her extracurricular activities by watching her stress levels, straining, and just overall health choices made.

A pregnancy is a joyous event that should make a woman glow with pride and revel in humbleness, otherwise because she has become the bearer of a new soul that will eagerly burst into the world via the miracle of birth.

 

[ding]

NFBW: Abortion ends a human life you can quote me on that anytime now

See?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Universal Scale Of Exploitation From Inchoate To Sapient "

* Begging The Question Rather Than Resolving The Disparities *

Got it. So killing those not born in this country is fine by you because when asked when life is to be protected you stated quite clearly that only those born or naturalized in this country have this right.

You crack me up.

So fetal homicide laws are now unconstitutional? That is, after all, you’re argument, correct?

The fetal homicide law would be unconstitutional if it were to include the death penalty as capital punishment , because a fetus does not have a wright to life by which a perpetrator would lose its own wright to life by equitable doctrine .

The fetal homicide law would be unconstitutional if the mother or any given consent to by the mother were prosecuted for participating in or for performing an abortion .

The fetal homicide law relates the penalty for an injury or death to a fetus based on intent and penalties can be appropriate for the act , and any offenses would in fact be against the mother whom has constitutional protections .

The fetal homicide law does not confer constitutional protections to a fetus any more than constitutional protections are afforded to animals , though one can be prosecuted for an act of animal cruelty based on a capacity for an animal to suffer cruelty , that necessarily presumes sentience as a prerequisite .

The fools claiming that 15 weeks fetus are suffering pain is a lie and abortions post 15 weeks are for fetal or maternal anomalies , and while the fetus is without constitutional protections for not having met a birth requirement , measures to minimize or prevent suffering during abortion procedures remains an ethical concern .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Not Science Just More Dumb Shit From Sanctimonious Carnivores "

* Entitled To Valid Claims Of Mind And Not Preformation Hubris *

It retains that right immediately after conception.

An extraterrestrial as an apex predator willing to exploit hue mammon for food or slave labor would more greatly appreciate a hue mammon which understood a universal scale of exploitation and offered empathy for all that suffer , while understanding that on a universal scale of exploitation an ethical conflict based on suffering does not exist for those incapable of sentience .

The supposition that an inchoate fetus , without a capacity for sentience , is cognizant and capable of issuing conscientious objection is a lie .

An argument for a homunculus is arcane and absurd , in that it presupposes cognizance from the point of conception , as its sin mythology lunatics continue to foster the mundane homunculus assertion with a heartbeat standard .

 

[beagle9]

" Not Science Just More Dumb Shit From Sanctimonious Carnivores "

* Entitled To Valid Claims Of Mind And Not Preformation Hubris *

An extraterrestrial as an apex predator willing to exploit hue mammon for food or slave labor would more greatly appreciate a hue mammon which understood a universal scale of exploitation and offered empathy for all that suffer , while understanding that on a universal scale of exploitation an ethical conflict based on suffering does not exist for those incapable of sentience .

The supposition that an inchoate fetus , without a capacity for sentience , is cognizant and capable of issuing conscientious objection is a lie .

An argument for a homunculus is arcane and absurd , in that it presupposes cognizance from the point of conception , as its sin mythology lunatics continue to foster the mundane homunculus assertion with a heartbeat standard .

The ultrasound challenges your bull crap, because the mother See's her beautiful child in her womb, and it definitely makes her aware that to do anything to harm or kill that beautiful child would be a great and sinful thing. Thank God technology found people like you and your cohort's out for whom attempt to separate child and mother with unholy lies and unholy influences that would somehow convince a woman that she should take her babies life if she just doesn't want it. Shame on you and those who rally for you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

According to your own words ending a human life is murder and abortion ends a human life.

NFBW: No. You are a liar. That is not according to all my words. I make a clear distinction between ending a viable human being which is murder, if not in self defense or in combat while in the service of the country. I told you last August that ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder.

Here are all my words again:

NFBW220811-#4,623 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

Ending the life of a one-celled growth that is attached to a uterus is not murder.

Ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????

NFBW: You are a liar.

END2211292016

 

[ding]

NFBW: No. You are a liar. That is not according to all my words. I make a clear distinction between ending a viable human being which is murder, if not in self defense or in combat while in the service of the country. I told you last August that ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder.

Here are all my words again:

NFBW220811-#4,623 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

Ending the life of a one-celled growth that is attached to a uterus is not murder.

Ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????

NFBW: You are a liar.

END2211292016

They don’t abort one cell organisms. They abort human beings. They don’t even know they are pregnant at that point. And you still can’t bring yourself to admit abortion ends a human life because you think they are aborting cells instead of humans.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

They don’t abort one cell organisms. They abort human beings. They don’t even know they are pregnant at that point. And you still can’t bring yourself to admit abortion ends a human life because you think they are aborting cells instead of humans.

Nevermind that - unless you believe in a soul and are correct in doing so, which is unknowable - humans ARE just cells.

All biological organisms are just cells.

Except for the ones that are unicellular their entirely lifespan - they are just not “cells” because that word is plural.

 

[ding]

NFBW: Abortion ends a human life you can quote me on that anytime now

NFBW220811-#4,623 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

You have quite the dilemma.

 

[ding]

Apparently a human life in the womb isn’t a human being. I guess he believes it’s a monkey or something.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW221128-#5,895 “And do you believe there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay alive?”

ding221128-#5,897 I believe the competing interests are why a rights discussion needs to be held at the federal level. Absent that it will be held at the state level.

NFBW221128-#5,908 Yes Christian religious zealots on one side like beagle9 protestant and Mashmont a Catholic. On the other side Woman who expect freedom and autonomy over their own bodies because of these words in the Constitution.

ding221128-#5,912 So much of what you say here is untrue. But it’s not worth arguing about because it has nothing to do with the competing interests at play that need to be weighed.

NFBW: I told you the competing interests on the anti-abortion side are Christian religious zealots like beagle9 a protestant and Mashmont a Catholic and Nick Fuentes, Trump’s lunchtime guest last week. You say it’s not true. It’s pretty clear who are on the pro-abortion, reproductive freedom side. Do you know who is the competing interest on the anti-abortion side?

And are you certain that there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay alive?

If you continue claiming a pregnant woman and the fetus in her body have equal human rights protected by the Constitution don’t you think you need to show us where the unborn’s right to life is referenced?

END2211292130

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You have quite the dilemma

Yes, what can I do about your lying.

What I write in full has been reposted - yet you continue cutting off my entire point.

 

[ding]

Yes, what can I do about your lying.

What I write in full has been reposted - yet you continue cutting off my entire point.

It’s linked to the post. That’s how the quote feature works.

There are no caveats or exceptions for ending a human life. According to your own words it’s murder.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221129-#5,967 ding “They don’t abort one cell organisms. They abort human beings.

NFBW: So what is your point? This is about the rights of pregnant women. Woman are not demanding a right to terminate a viable human being.

I agree a one cell organism is a human being. So what? It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Oh that’s what you say too.

ding220723-#3,823 “A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being. It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Every stage along the continuum is fully human and has the appropriate human characteristics for that stage of the human life cycle. Learn some science.”

I’m glad you agree with me that all human beings are on a fully human continuum which scientifically means for the first 22 weeks there is no science that says the human being on the continuum can survive without the life support of the mother which means what I explained to beagle9

NFBW221127-#5,841 The problem for Christians such as you beagle9 is the Constitution is specifically written for born human beings.

Do you see the dilemma that Roe v Wade settled fifty years ago: The ROE V Wade riddle?

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?

The pushy Christian answer picks the person who must use another persons body for nine months before such a person can be born. But we do not live under a Christian constitution.

The strict originalist constitutional answer picks the only person it can be - the person with the body needing to be used. The pregnant woman. The person already beyond the stage of being born.

The mothers right to decide in private to give birth and life or not to give to birth and life to the unborn human being, clearly and unequivocally trumps the right to life of the unborn human being in strict interpretation and compliance with the Constitution.

Therefore there is an originalist constitutional case to be made that each of us as a human being has a fundamental duty and responsibility to all other human beings with the exception of human beings prior to their ability to be born. And there is no evil or breakdown in civilization or in religious terms “sin” when we agree the mother’s right to choose in private the life or death of her own unborn child trumps the right to life of the unborn child when we follow the Constitution.

END22113327

 

[ding]

ding221129-#5,967 ding “They don’t abort one cell organisms. They abort human beings.

NFBW: So what is your point? This is about the rights of pregnant women. Woman are not demanding a right to terminate a viable human being.

I agree a one cell organism is a human being. So what? It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Oh that’s what you say too.

ding220723-#3,823 “A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being. It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Every stage along the continuum is fully human and has the appropriate human characteristics for that stage of the human life cycle. Learn some science.”

I’m glad you agree with me that all human beings are on a fully human continuum which scientifically means for the first 22 weeks there is no science that says the human being on the continuum can survive without the life support of the mother which means what I explained to beagle9

NFBW221127-#5,841 The problem for Christians such as you beagle9 is the Constitution is specifically written for born human beings.

Do you see the dilemma that Roe v Wade settled fifty years ago: The ROE V Wade riddle?

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?

The pushy Christian answer picks the person who must use another persons body for nine months before such a person can be born. But we do not live under a Christian constitution.

The strict originalist constitutional answer picks the only person it can be - the person with the body needing to be used. The pregnant woman. The person already beyond the stage of being born.

The mothers right to decide in private to give birth and life or not to give to birth and life to the unborn human being, clearly and unequivocally trumps the right to life of the unborn human being in strict interpretation and compliance with the Constitution.

Therefore there is an originalist constitutional case to be made that each of us as a human being has a fundamental duty and responsibility to all other human beings with the exception of human beings prior to their ability to be born. And there is no evil or breakdown in civilization or in religious terms “sin” when we agree the mother’s right to choose in private the life or death of her own unborn child trumps the right to life of the unborn child when we follow the Constitution.

END22113327

My point is you have been all over the map.

 

[HeyNorm]

NFBW221128-#5,895 “And do you believe there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay alive?”

ding221128-#5,897 I believe the competing interests are why a rights discussion needs to be held at the federal level. Absent that it will be held at the state level.

NFBW221128-#5,908 Yes Christian religious zealots on one side like beagle9 protestant and Mashmont a Catholic. On the other side Woman who expect freedom and autonomy over their own bodies because of these words in the Constitution.

ding221128-#5,912 So much of what you say here is untrue. But it’s not worth arguing about because it has nothing to do with the competing interests at play that need to be weighed.

NFBW: I told you the competing interests on the anti-abortion side are Christian religious zealots like beagle9 a protestant and Mashmont a Catholic and Nick Fuentes, Trump’s lunchtime guest last week. You say it’s not true. It’s pretty clear who are on the pro-abortion, reproductive freedom side. Do you know who is the competing interest on the anti-abortion side?

And are you certain that there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay alive?

If you continue claiming a pregnant woman and the fetus in her body have equal human rights protected by the Constitution don’t you think you need to show us where the unborn’s right to life is referenced?

END2211292130

Another mistake. It is the rare fetus that requires 9 months gestation to survive.

Another oops.

And, even after birth, an infant require outside source(s) to survive.

Oops x 2

 

[HeyNorm]

My point is you have been all over the map.

When you are looking to justify the taking of an innocent life, ya kinda need to be all over the map.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW221128-#5,895 “And do you believe there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay alive?”

HeyNorm221130-#5,976 Another mistake. It is the rare fetus that requires 9 months gestation to survive.

Human gestational length averages 38 weeks (8.74 months) from conception. However, pregnancy is customarily measured from the date of the last menstrual period — about 2 weeks before conception. By this scale, pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, or 9.20 months.

NFBW: Off by 0.26 months and you can’t be bothered to answer the question ding is hiding from?

do you HeyNorm believe there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for 8.74 months in order to stay alive?”

END2211300032

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HeyNorm221129-#5,977 When you are looking to justify the taking of an innocent life, ya kinda need to be all over the map.

NFBW: I am not looking to taking any human being’s life born or unborn and you cannot believe much that comes out of that one’s mouth.

On what basis do you support your
state legislators passing a law that bans abortion after the first 22 weeks of pregnancy of a woman who has no relationship to you whatsoever?

END2211300055

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

When you are looking to justify the taking of an innocent life, ya kinda need to be all over the map.

Correct - homicide of the innocent is utterly indefensible. His task is impossible, so like most pro-aborts he flails and fumbles at a hopeless cause.