Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Actually the new genetically distinct human being was created by its mother and father, dummy.

Indeed.

If there is a god who created the universe and / or supervises and controls it still, or not, I do not know, and it doesn’t matter.

A new human being is created at fertilization, and regardless of any divine, there are two human beings responsible for that event, they created life, and they will be held responsible by law in any just civilization.

Of course, W’s Bitchboy and his ilk hate justice, hate civilization, and hate equality.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6221202-#6,095 The stupidity above in summary: Humans lay eggs

NFBW: I have never said “humans lay eggs” CarsomyrPlusSix has no reputable argument even in hiding so he lies about mine.

I agree with one of your anti-human rights co-conspirators to put Catholics on SCOTUS appointed by Trump to remove a natural human right all women have to make medical decisions regarding their own body in the privacy of their own lives in order to pursue happiness as she sees fit when it causes zero zilch nada HARM to any other born person in the universe we born people all share together.

Resnic220626-#58 Resnic As soon as the sperm fertizes the egg it's a person.

Resnic220626-#58 “If you have an abortion it's killing a child. “

NFBW: and here’s ding another fertilized egg in the alleged adult human continuum stage of life who like me and CarsomyrPlusSix was blessed with a mother who did not kill us before we were born.

ding220513-#309 That the fertilized egg is a human being. And not just any human being but one that has never existed before and will never exist


NFBW221202-#6,094 How can our government stop the murder of a citizen that no one in the entire universes knows a he or a she fertilized egg exists except Jesus Christ hallowed be thy name.and God the Father unless he is busy all knowing on someone else’s period at that moment.

Cleveland Clinic: The female reproductive system provides several functions. The ovaries produce the egg cells, called the ova or oocytes. The oocytes are then transported to the fallopian tube where fertilization by a sperm may occur. The fertilized egg then moves to the uterus, where the uterine lining has thickened in response to the normal hormones of the reproductive cycle. Once in the uterus, the fertilized egg can implant into thickened outerine lining and continue to develop. If implantation does not take place, the uterine lining is shed as menstrual flow. In addition, the female reproductive system producesfemale sex hormones that maintain the reproductive cycle.​

See full list on my.clevelandclinic.org

You are full of shit according to Britannica;

• Zygote, fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete ( sperm ). zygote | Definition, Development, Example, & Facts | Britannica www.britannica.com/science/zygote

END2212020950

 

[ding]

Cplus6221202-#6,095 The stupidity above in summary: Humans lay eggs

NFBW: I have never said “humans lay eggs” CarsomyrPlusSix has no reputable argument even in hiding so he lies about mine.

I agree with one of your anti-human rights co-conspirators to put Catholics on SCOTUS appointed by Trump to remove a natural human right all women have to make medical decisions regarding their own body in the privacy of their own lives in order to pursue happiness as she sees fit when it causes zero zilch nada HARM to any other born person in the universe we born people all share together.

Resnic220626-#58 Resnic As soon as the sperm fertizes the egg it's a person.

Resnic220626-#58 “If you have an abortion it's killing a child. “

NFBW: and here’s ding another fertilized egg in the alleged adult human continuum stage of life who like me and CarsomyrPlusSix was blessed with a mother who did not kill us before we were born.

ding220513-#309 That the fertilized egg is a human being. And not just any human being but one that has never existed before and will never exist


NFBW221202-#6,094 How can our government stop the murder of a citizen that no one in the entire universes knows a he or a she fertilized egg exists except Jesus Christ hallowed be thy name.and God the Father unless he is busy all knowing on someone else’s period at that moment.

Cleveland Clinic: The female reproductive system provides several functions. The ovaries produce the egg cells, called the ova or oocytes. The oocytes are then transported to the fallopian tube where fertilization by a sperm may occur. The fertilized egg then moves to the uterus, where the uterine lining has thickened in response to the normal hormones of the reproductive cycle. Once in the uterus, the fertilized egg can implant into thickened outerine lining and continue to develop. If implantation does not take place, the uterine lining is shed as menstrual flow. In addition, the female reproductive system producesfemale sex hormones that maintain the reproductive cycle.​

See full list on my.clevelandclinic.org


END2212020950

Who is aborting fertilized eggs?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Who is aborting fertilized eggs?

You literally can’t “abort fertilized eggs.”

If you have a structure called an egg post fertilization, you don’t have a pregnancy, you have a species that laid an egg. The egg cell is gone as is the sperm cell after fertilization, and the egg cell corresponds to a structure called the “marginal disc” in oviparous embryology.

You can hit that egg with a hammer, I suppose, killing the young chicken or whatever inside it, but not quite the same thing - also we know of no egg-laying species with rights, so, morally irrelevant.

Even if I were to be charitable to the cheap seats uneducated laymen who want to call human zygotes “eggs,” despite this being incredibly stupid and indicating a failure in their education, pregnancy hasn’t even begun at that point.

And then some of these absolute morons continue on to call human blastocysts “eggs,” and again, implantation hasn’t happened, no pregnancy, not yet. The life of their son or daughter has already begun though.

And at that point if some moron is willing to call human blastocyst “eggs,” they may as well call human adults “eggs.” It would make as much sense. The raging fucktards.


So anyway, it’s absolutely clear that W’s Bitchboy insists that humans lay eggs, which is all you need to know about him.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Quite simply, the time of origination and the time of birth are two different points in time.



The answer is both. You are free to think that, but you are naive or ill informed by doing so.

We know all forms of life by what they are and by what they are not. For example, we know a whale is not a fish because it cannot extract oxygen from the water in which it swims and because it's tail bones are horizontally oriented in relation to the rest of its skeleton. We know the whale is a mammal because it has all of the defining characteristics of mammals.



Quite frankly, for the sake of discussing the matter at hand, I don't care what the law says. Laws have said plenty that's been found to be inaccurately rationalized and concluded upon before. What the law says on the matter of personhood is as far as I'm concerned irrational on the matter of personhood, not just with regard to human personhood, but also with regard to corporate personhood.


Other:

What you failed to realize through all of that is that I have my own definition of what is and is not a person. I do not accept the definitions and lines of argument you've presented because I find them unacceptable. I don't care whether one or a million scientists think a fetus is also a human being. I don't and that's in part what drives my views on the matter.

Can you find credible scientist who'll assert that personhood begins before birth? Of course you can. The fact of the matter is that there are multiple positions within science on when life begins:

• Metabolic View:
  The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.
  
  
• Genetic View:
  The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.
  
  
• Embryological View:
  In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government. The implications of a belief in this view include giving support to controversial forms of contraception including the "morning after" pill and contra-gestational agents as long as they are administered during the first two weeks of pregnancy.
  
  
• Neurological View:
  Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.
  
  
• Ecological View:
  Advocates of the neurological view contend that human life begins when a developing fetus acquires humanness, a point designated by brain activity that can be described as characteristically human. But if this developing fetus is separated from its mother at an early stage, regardless of the state of neural development, the fetus will be unable to sustain life on its own. The total dependence of the developing fetus for the majority of gestation catalyzed the formation of another view of when human life begins. The ecological/technological view of when human life begins designates this point when an individual can exist separately from the environment in which it was dependent for development (i.e., its mother's womb).
  
  
• Philosopher's Conundrum:
  There are philosophers, although not very many, who would dare to make the stance that a fetus nor an infant is a human being because it does not possess a consciousness of itself. This of course means that neither a zygote nor an embryo is a person either. Michael Tooley is one of these philosophers who describes his perspective in the article "Abortion and Infanticide." Essentially he argues that abortion and infanticide are really no different, if you support one, then you must support the other. His argument is that in order to claim that an adult has the right to live and an embryo or a fetus does not, one must be able to identify some moment where the moral status of the organism in question changes. There is nothing inherent about birth that it should automatically be hailed as this defining moment. A more justified moment, Tooley argues, is the moment at which the human child gains consciousness. At this moment, not at birth, should the child be considered a full fledged person, entitled to all the rights, particularly the right to life, that human adults are entitled to.
  
  The main problem that most people find with this position on when human life begins is that it condones infanticide, arguing that infants do not have the same right to life as adult humans do. Must people reject this view of when life begins, finding it impossible to support a view that logically leads to the conclusion that infanticide is acceptable. Tooley, however, argues that this rejection of his perspective is based on a purely emotional response to the idea of infanticide and not on logic or reasoning.

Historically, the question of when human life begins was answered by a progression that was initiated by edicts on abortion which were governed by the popular notions of moral acceptability. These popular notions were decrees put forth by God, delivered to the populous through religious texts. Modern technological innovations of the twentieth century have reversed the order of this progression; contemporary scholars often address the question of when human life begins by first evaluating scientific data. The conclusions reached via the scientific method become the tools used to create popular standards of moral acceptability. These contemporary notions of moral acceptability then provide the framework for the modern abortion debate.

The temporal divergence between the progressions of thought leading to answers of when human life begins reveals a shift in the source of knowledge that is used to answer one of humanity's most puzzling questions. Prior to the twentieth century, God was humanity's source of absolute knowledge. In recent years, however, scholars have terminated the utility of God's omniscience and in its place have raised science and technology as their source of absolute knowledge. This shift is evidence for, perhaps, the most determinant factor of any argument for when human life begins. The reasons governing the variation in both historical and modern views of when life begins is largely due to a variation in moral standards.

However, understanding the basis for societal moral standards appears to be the key to discerning how to approach the question of when human life begins. Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question. One opinion is that the acquisition of humanness is a gradual phenomenon, rather than one that occurs at any particular moment. If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science.

Parting thoughts:
The thing I find noteworthy in this discussion with you is that the question you asked is when personhood begins and I happen to think that personhood and life are not the same things. Life clearly can and does exist without that life being a person. A human fetus is no exception. It is not a human being; it is a human fetus or embryo. Is it alive enough to call it so? Probably yes, but alive or not, it is yet a proto-human, not a human; thus it is also not a person.

Most importantly, however, that there are talented and learned folks on both sides of this issue informs me that more likely the matter isn't one well or best decided by science until such time as science agrees on a single "truth" about the matter. You see you and and scientists you cited are arguing based on whether an embryo/fetus is alive. In contrast my answer derives from what I think is a person/human being, which is what you asked about.

The simple fact is that I have no issue with person electing to terminate the existence of proto-person provided the proto-person belongs to the person who makes that decision. I have no need to encourage one from doing so, but neither have I a need to discourage one from doing so. I don't have to live with their choice. I have enough worries of my own without having to add to them the welfare of a proto-human for which I had zero role in effecting it on the path toward becoming a person.

NFBW: the above has been bumped by me for my convenience and future reference please if interested, please have a read

Who is aborting fertilized eggs?

Every terminated pregnancy is aborting a fertilized (a human only spiritual creation of life spark event) human egg (matter) at various stages of development on one inseparable human life continuum from conception to physical death.

Physical death, prior to the “first breath” stage of human life occurs naturally in 10 to 15 percent of pregnancies and in 100 percent of pregnancies when the pregnant persons decide to kill it in an early stage of the human continuum development at times to save the life of the mother or because a woman or girl was raped or for mental health and family planning reasons.

From the bumped post:

The simple fact is that I have no issue with person electing to terminate the existence of proto-person provided the proto-person belongs to the person who makes that decision. I have no need to encourage one from doing so, but neither have I a need to discourage one from doing so. I don't have to live with their choice.​

END2212021037 our pregnant kids are coming back to our area to be with us and our strong family values (opposite Herschel Walker Trumpism Christian values ) so I have to get one of our bourgeois properties painted up a finished give them a nice place to live when our daughter brings a new human being into our world and yours.

 

[ding]

NFBW: the above has been bumped by me for my convenience and future reference please if interested, please have a read



Every terminated pregnancy is aborting a fertilized (a human only spiritual creation of life spark event) human egg (matter) at various stages of development on one inseparable human life continuum from conception to physical death.

Physical death, prior to the “first breath” stage of human life occurs naturally in 10 to 15 percent of pregnancies and in 100 percent of pregnancies when the pregnant persons decide to kill it in an early stage of the human continuum development at times to save the life of the mother or because a woman or girl was raped or for mental health and family planning reasons.

From the bumped post:

The simple fact is that I have no issue with person electing to terminate the existence of proto-person provided the proto-person belongs to the person who makes that decision. I have no need to encourage one from doing so, but neither have I a need to discourage one from doing so. I don't have to live with their choice.​

END2212021037 our pregnant kids are coming back to our area to be with us and our strong family values (opposite Herschel Walker Trumpism Christian values ) so I have to get one of our bourgeois properties painted up a finished give them a nice place to live when our daughter brings a new human being into our world and yours.

You really need to learn some science because your argument that every person aborted was a fertilized egg is ridiculous.

Be honest. The only reason you use the phrase fertilized egg is to dehumanize human life in the womb so it’s easier for you to kill.

 

[BackAgain]

You really need to learn some science because your argument that every person aborted was a fertilized egg is ridiculous.

Be honest. The only reason you use the phrase fertilized egg is to dehumanize human life in the womb so it’s easier for you to kill.

Every full born human who has ever been murdered was also once a “fertilized egg.”

I think the pro death folks have no logically consistent argument to make. This is obviously why they try so hard and so often to deny basic biology and facts and logic.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Who is aborting fertilized eggs?

NFBW: here is what I asked:

NFBW221202-#6,094 How can our government stop the murder of a citizen that no one in the entire universes knows a he or a she fertilized egg exists except Jesus Christ hallowed be thy name.and God the Father unless he is busy all knowing on someone else’s period at that moment.​

​

NFBW: Until a human being who is born with an average of about 1.5 million eggs in her newborn body misses a period she has absolutely no reason to know that she is pregnant other than some uncomfortable physical discomfort.

Since pregnancy happens when one of her monthly eggs is fertilized, there is nothing wrong with the way I asked my question.

How can our government stop the murder of a citizen that no one in the entire universes knows a he or a she fertilized egg exists except Jesus Christ?

So ding CarsomyrPlusSix so how can our government stop the murder or prevent harm to a citizen that our government has no way of knowing exists?

END2211021207

 

[ding]

Every full born human who has ever been murdered was also once a “fertilized egg.”

I think the pro death folks have no logically consistent argument to make. This is obviously why they try so hard and so often to deny basic biology and facts and logic.

Correct.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You really need to learn some science because your argument that every person aborted was a fertilized egg is ridiculous.

He actually said that? Wow. Just amazing.

So an 8 or 9 month gestational age kid, the mom lives in some shithole like New York or California or exploited the way Kansas law used to be with an evil hack like George Tiller (Rest In Piss), and the mom says, “oh, doctor*, if I give birth, it will impact my emotional health, I will have the big sads!” and then they kill the kid for “medical necessity,” cough, cough…

[* only filth like one of their would be clients would call these scum “doctor”]

That kid killed at 36, 37 weeks gestational age - that kid was an “egg.”

Well that settles it then. That stupid fucking asshole “NotFooledByW” considers eggself to be an egg.

Please refer to egg by egg’s preferred pronouns, do not misspecies egg or hurt egg’s self-image of eggself.

 

[ding]

NFBW: here is what I asked:

NFBW221202-#6,094 How can our government stop the murder of a citizen that no one in the entire universes knows a he or a she fertilized egg exists except Jesus Christ hallowed be thy name.and God the Father unless he is busy all knowing on someone else’s period at that moment.​

​

NFBW: Until a human being who is born with an average of about 1.5 million eggs in her newborn body misses a period she has absolutely no reason to know that she is pregnant other than some uncomfortable physical discomfort.

Since pregnancy happens when one of her monthly eggs is fertilized, there is nothing wrong with the way I asked my question.

How can our government stop the murder of a citizen that no one in the entire universes knows a he or a she fertilized egg exists except Jesus Christ?

So ding CarsomyrPlusSix so how can our government stop the murder or prevent harm to a citizen that our government has no way of knowing exists?

END2211021207

The same exact way that states who allow abortions restrict abortions to a specific term; Through legislation and laws which have consequences if they are broken.

 

[ding]

^


He actually said that, did he?

So an 8 or 9 month gestational age kid, the mom lives in some shithole like New York or California or exploited the way Kansas law used to be with an evil hack like George Tiller (Rest In Piss), and the mom says, “oh, doctor*, if I give birth, it will impact my emotional health, I will have the big sads!” and then they kill the kid for “medical necessity,” cough, cough…

That kid was an “egg.”

Well that settles it then. That stupid fucking asshole “NotFooledByW” considers himself to be an egg.

Please refer to egg by egg’s preferred pronouns, do not misspecies egg or hurt egg’s self-image of eggself.

It does appear that is his new tactic to avoid acknowledging that abortion ends the life of a specific human being.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

It does appear that is his new tactic to avoid acknowledging that abortion ends the life of a specific human being.

Well yeah.

Egg also claimed that egg believes all abortion victims were human beings, but it’s clear that egg was lying about that, because that is all egg ever does.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You really need to learn some science because your argument that every person aborted was a fertilized egg is ridiculous.

NFBW: when you try to shame me, it is based on your religious beliefs or philosophy, and it does not work mostly because you don’t read everything I write you pick out a little snippets

I am merely using your scientific language when I mention continuum. There is no continuum, unless an egg is fertilized, so in that sense every abortion is killing the continuum of a being created when a woman’s egg is fertilized.

That is the Roman catholic teaching that life begins at conception. When I say, abortion kills a fertilized egg it also means abortion kills what was created at conception, but you can quit your shame game because it just shows the weakness of your argument. Whatever the hell that argument is.

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.”

NFBW: The Catholic anti/abort fallacy.



NFBW221202-#6,094 How can our government stop the murder of a citizen that no one in the entire universes knows a he or a she fertilized egg exists except Jesus Christ hallowed be thy name.and God the Father unless he is busy all knowing on someone else’s period at that moment.

END2212022216

 

[ding]

NFBW: when you try to shame me, it is based on your religious beliefs or philosophy, and it does not work mostly because you don’t read everything I write you pick out a little snippets

I am merely using your scientific language when I mention continuum. There is no continuum, unless an egg is fertilized, so in that sense every abortion is killing the continuum of a being created when a woman’s egg is fertilized.

That is the Roman catholic teaching that life begins at conception. When I say, abortion kills a fertilized egg it also means abortion kills what was created at conception, but you can quit your shame game because it just shows the weakness of your argument. Whatever the hell that argument is.

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.”

NFBW: The Catholic anti/abort fallacy.



NFBW221202-#6,094 How can our government stop the murder of a citizen that no one in the entire universes knows a he or a she fertilized egg exists except Jesus Christ hallowed be thy name.and God the Father unless he is busy all knowing on someone else’s period at that moment.

END2212022216

You are using it very poorly if you have concluded that women are aborting fertilized eggs.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You are using it very poorly if you have concluded that women are aborting fertilized eggs.

Egg thinks that we are all eggs and in order to live our best egg and not have an eggstenstial crisis, some eggs have to crack and make a few omelettes out of other eggs, but that’s okay, it’s not eggicide if egg says so, when egg says so.

Life begins at fertilization, fact.
The sperm cell and egg cell are consumed in the combination process to create the new living organism, fact.
The new organism is the same species as its parents (barring some extreme mutation speciation event), again, fact.

Ergo, post-fertilization you have a living member of the species Homo sapiens, organisms called “human beings,” not an egg, whatever this dipshit says. And the only process they still need to go through is called LIFE and AGING, which we all do until we fucking die.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It does appear that is his new tactic to avoid acknowledging that abortion ends the life of a specific human being.

NFBW: Really. Ny words say otherwise:

Physical death, prior to the “first breath” stage of human life occurs naturally in 10 to 15 percent of pregnancies and in 100 percent of pregnancies when the pregnant persons decide to kill it in an early stage of the human continuum development at times to save the life of the mother or because a woman or girl was raped or for mental health and family planning reasons.

Every terminated pregnancy is aborting a fertilized(a human only spiritual creation of life spark event)human egg (matter) at various stages of development on one inseparable human life continuum from conception to physical death.

I wonder if lying assholes can reply to that and answer this question that they must be avoiding with their liars club Circle jerk.

NFBW: The Catholic anti/abort fallacy.



NFBW221202-#6,094 How can our government stop the murder of a citizen that no one in the entire universes knows a he or a she fertilized egg exists except Jesus Christ hallowed be thy name.and God the Father unless he is busy all knowing on someone else’s period at that moment.

NFBW: its why @beagle holds on opinion opposed to abortion, but does not think a woman who kills the human being in her belly after one of her millions of eggs has been fertilized and the human being continuum and I agree fully with all of that

END2212021233

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are using it very poorly if you have concluded that women are aborting fertilized eggs.

My statement is much longer than “concluded that women are aborting fertilized eggs” so you are a liar and a filthy one at that using it to take away the autonomy of all the women in this country for your religious political beliefs

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

^
I don’t think Egg is even trying to type in English anymore.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I don’t think Egg is even trying to type in English anymore.

answer this question

NFBW: The Catholic anti/abort fallacy.

You too ding

NFBW221202-#6,094 How can our government stop the murder of a citizen that no one in the entire universes knows a he or a she fertilized egg exists except Jesus Christ hallowed be thy name.and God the Father unless he is busy all knowing on someone else’s period at that moment.