Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

^
TL;DR

 

[ding]

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

Your posts are eggcelent.

 

[ding]

^
TL;DR

He doesn’t understand the science.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

He doesn’t understand the science.

NFBW: You are circle jerking with someone who says a fertilized human egg, that starts the human being on the lifespan continuum of development until death, was never part of its mother’s body. And you want to say that I do not understand science you’re an idiot.

Cplus6221115-#5,617

Hey Bitch off: We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

Cplus6220919-#5,280 “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”

END2212020231

 

[ding]

NFBW: You are circle jerking with someone who says a fertilized human egg, that starts the human being on the lifespan continuum of development until death, was never part of its mother’s body. And you want to say that I do not understand science you’re an idiot.

Cplus6221115-#5,617

Hey Bitch off: We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

Cplus6220919-#5,280 “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”

END2212020231

You don’t understand science. You made that clear when you argued human life doesn’t begin at conception and reaffirmed it when you said fertilized eggs are being aborted.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You don’t understand science. You made that clear when you argued human life doesn’t begin at conception and reaffirmed it when you said fertilized eggs are being aborted.

This INSANE motherfucker is still pretending that the newly made human being is “part of his or her mother’s body?”

HOW? ON WHAT BASIS?

Where the FUCK did Egg flunk out of elementary school?

There are two organisms in a standard pregnancy (not twins, triplets, etc), mother and offspring, and each have their own body. Neither body is by any metric “part of” the body of the other. That notion is objectively false and terminally stupid.

This is bedrock textbook obvious known and established scientific fact. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed.

LEARN WHAT A PLACENTA IS you DUMB FUCK.

Just lunacy. Completely unhinged.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW: FORtheRECORD I wonder how many of the 2Iron cult of Trumpism agnostic hillbilly pro-abort-byAR15 anti-intelligence goon voters make up the firrreverTuurrrump wing of the Republican Party these ever so glorious ‘Biden won /Trump lost’ (and then really L-O-S-T it ) days.

2Iron220131-#153 “Ya know, I don't give a shit about abortions, yada, yada.... but if it fucks over the left, I just couldn't be more of an advocate of whatever is causing those filthy parasites to lose their shit. Color me religious if it fucks them in the ass. Watching them suffer is pure ecstasy”

2Iron221122-#23 “Abortion is only important to fat, lazy (ironically, mostly unfuckable) sluts. We don't need that vote.... some things are worth walking away from....

credit 2Iron221122-#23 two_iron coathanger cartoon above

ding 220725-3,911 “I don't know how any reasonable person can see it any other way.... Abortion is literally ending the life of a living, genetically distinct human being.”

NFBW: because you are not reasonable, honest or scientific at all ding .

NFBW220726-#3,920 My view is abortion is literally ending the development of a living, genetically distinct human organism beholden to the autonomy of the human being who took part in its creation. The donor of the sperm that created this organism has some say when consent is involved,

ding221202-#6,125 You don’t understand science. You made that clear when you argued human life doesn’t begin at conception and reaffirmed it when you said fertilized eggs are being aborted.

NFBW: But I have never used three words “aborted fertilized eggs” with an intent to diminish the human essence of the unborn. I use them as part and inclusively of the creation of a new human lifespan from conception to death.

You on the other hand ding engage in the foolhardy unscientific act of telling me that as if you know that I have personal responsibility and shame, a guilty conscience for Christ sake, for believing it is not murdershe is not subject to homicide law when a pregnant woman unbeknownst to me kills the unborn human life that she would naturally sustain for a total of nine months if she were to decide not to kill the unborn human being .

Yes, “ KILL the unborn human being” s thousand fucking times I say it , while in an immature embryonic or fetal stage of development as part of the human lifespan continuum from conception to death .

I and the government should have no say in the matter. Nuethet do you. .


NFBW: also FORtheRECORD “immature human organism” such as a fetus that is not separated biologically from its mother is a scientific term to describe an unborn human being as opposed to an immature human adolescent that is breathing air with its own lungs and was separated at birth from his or her mother.

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 Organism November 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 had rights secondary and subordinate to its breathing and nourishment source - The pregnant woman.

See ding -#3,792 3,911 #121


NFBW #3,917 My view is abortion is literally ending the development of a living, genetically distinct human organism beholden to the autonomy of the human being who took part in its creation.”

END2212039403

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

^ TL;DR

Word salad not responding on point to anything.
Incoherent mess.

Not one bit of explanation about how two different bodies - the mother and the kid, two distinct organisms with their own bodies - could EVER be PART of the same body.

Pure deranged magical thinking. No rationality and nothing to debate.

 

[beagle9]

" Sanctimonious Whiny Bitching Punks "

* Political Science Neophytes Bragging About Being Dumbfounded *

That roe has no basis in us constitution would a truth to a traitor to us republic based on individualism and of course to a disingenuous liar .

* Simpleton With Bull Shit From A Traitorous Camp For The Dumb Asses *

You are putrid collectivist , blubbering about federalism in a ruse to override individualism through a collectivist state , while ignoring that it is the role of both the states and federal government to protection the individual .

* Exemplifying Shit For Brains With An Arrogant Loud Mouth *

Dobbs decision is sedition against us constitution and traitors to us republic principles for equal protection of negative liberties among those which have met a live birth requirement to receive them support it .

* Perspectives From Childish Retarded Mental Degenerates *

ZEF is short for zygote , embryo and fetus for the scientifically illiterate and to collectively address whether one is discussing an entity that has not met live birth requirement to receive equal protection with a citizen , as a citizen must be born .

You can't get by the uncivilized fact that a woman going into a "family planning facility" pffft, to then hire a desensitized cold hearted monster who is supposed to take an oath to protect life and not take life, to then perform a horrendous act within her body, and worse it is an act that involves the dismemberment of a viable human being in order to extract it from the woman's body on demand is a pretty sick thing, yet here you are using the wickedest wisdom that you can muster up in order to somehow justify the thing. Pretty amazing really.

 

[beagle9]

" On The Nature Of Nature *

* Self Officiated Perspective For Civility Based On Whim *

Clearly civilized to you is a puritanical bent without a supposition for equal protection of negative liberties among those entitled by a live birth requirement to receive them , and neither does civilized to you include a universal standard for exploitation .

* Lunatics Crescent Moon Gawd Syncretism *

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nanna, Sīn /ˈsiːn/ or Suen (Akkadian: 𒂗𒍪 EN.ZU, pronounced Su'en, Sen, Sîn), and in Aramaic syn, syn’, or even shr 'moon', or Nannar (Sumerian: 𒀭𒋀𒆠 DŠEŠ.KI, DNANNAR) was the god of the moon in the Mesopotamian religions of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia and Aram. He was also associated with cattle, perhaps due to the perceived similarity between bull horns and the crescent moon.

Surely you struggle, but it is entertaining to watch that struggle.

 

[HeyNorm]

You can't get by the uncivilized fact that a woman going into a "family planning facility" pffft, to then hire a desensitized cold hearted monster who is supposed to take an oath to protect life and not take life, to then perform a horrendous act within her body, and worse it is an act that involves the dismemberment of a viable human being in order to extract it from the woman's body on demand is a pretty sick thing, yet here you are using the wickedest wisdom that you can muster up in order to somehow justify the thing. Pretty amazing really.

Interesting thought. If a woman doesn’t want the child, and arranges for an abortion, according to some it’s simply personal property that is being abandoned.

Can’t anyone claim it then as there own? And if the doctor destroys it, can he not be sued for felony destruction if property?

Hmmmm

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

• Eagle14220701-#4,120 eagle1462010 “Others are the problem and you are defending them.”

• BULLDOG221008-#146 BULLDOG Sorry buddy. That says murder. Abortion is not murder.
• CPlus6221008-#148 CarsomyrPlusSix It is premeditated and aggressive homicide, with no justification whatsoever, perpetuated against a known helpless and innocent human being - and in all other cases, that means the most severe category of murder.

NFBW: What is the problem and what is “wrong” and where are the murder charges In Alabama when a woman decides In private to terminate her pregnancy?

I only defend the right to privacy for pregnant woman because they do no harm to any born person. I in no way condone anyone who was ever charged with murder and convicted of murder, specifically anyone killing a bsby,

A women who chooses to abort her own pregnancy is not a murderer. I choose to defend that right as a man and born human being, but never in my personal life would I do a Herschal Walker on a woman for convenience.

For defending women against being reproductive slaves I am called all kinds of uncivil foul irrational hate garbage oincluding butcher and murderer of innocent human life.

All because I don’t vote against working class interests that the white right wing Jesus Party stands for. I don’t vote for the “dollar is a person & fetus is a person” Trump white Christianism Party, so I must be a baby killer.

If I am a baby killing murderer, Herschsl Walker is ten zillion times more baby killer than me. But alas, Herschsl loves the white man’s Jesus/Savioy so he is forgiven vote for an idiot becaus he is the right kind of BLACK CHRISTIAN who kills babies.

There is no criminal or civil liability for women who choose to have an abortion in violation of Alabama state law. Why not if she intentionally kills a human being on the following continuum:

ding180120-#410 “a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p.​

NFBW: If anyone kills an innocent hunan being except in self defense that person is a murderer.

The voters/elected non-scientists in Alabama banned abortion but the woman who directs anti or does it herself to kill a “ zygote or the subsequent stages of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call a foetus - a human being but the woman who intentional kills the human being developing as part of her body, is not charged with murder. How can that be?

NFBW: Alabama is one of the most Christian politically dominated states in the nation All abortions are considered illegal unless it's determined to be necessary to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother. There is no exception for rape or incest.

There is no criminal or civil liability for women who choose to have an abortion in violation of Alabama state law.

Statutory Definition of Legal Abortion In Alabama

All abortions are considered illegal unless it's determined to be necessary to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother. There is no exception for rape or incest.

END2212040354

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding200120-#394 Yes. It is a human. It isn't a potential human. It is a human with potential. But make no mistake, it is fully human. Science says so.

NFBW: a More correct “yes” . . . It is a human. It isn't a potential viable human. It is a human with potential to become viable and much more. But make no mistake, science has no finding or concept whether or not it is fully human. Material science can’t answer that.

Ding220721-#3,742 “The right to life is not a religious issue. It's a human rights issue.

NFBW: The “right” to life of an individual immature human organism with the potential to become viable depends heavily on whether or not the one pondering this question believes as a mature enough human being, and as a matter of conscience or spiritual awakening, whether or not at conception of a new human life comes a new spiritual human being precisely at that moment. Does the zygote have a soul and if not, when exactly ensoulment takes place?

I believe the human being during the embryo and fetal stages on the continuum of life has individuality and a material body with one of a kind DNA. I also believe akin to many in the tradition of the Jewish Religion that a soul joins the body at birth with first breath. I believe philosophically, it is at birth when a baby begins having state of natural law or god given human consciousness and can begin to know and feel the human spiritual concept of love.

ding is absolutely wrong. Abortion is first and foremost a spiritual and or religious issue.

END2212040920

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Example Of Crickets From Forum Sanctimonious Cowards "

* Degrees Of Irrelevance *

You can't get by the uncivilized fact that a woman going into a "family planning facility" pffft, to then hire a desensitized cold hearted monster who is supposed to take an oath to protect life and not take life, to then perform a horrendous act within her body, and worse it is an act that involves the dismemberment of a viable human being in order to extract it from the woman's body on demand is a pretty sick thing, yet here you are using the wickedest wisdom that you can muster up in order to somehow justify the thing. Pretty amazing really.

Explain the difference between the catholic church position versus that of the national right ( sic ) to life which passively condones a death penalty as capital punishment , and relate as to which position is more consistent with christian ethos .

A state is not concerned with when biological life begins , or whether biological life exists at all , rather a state is concerned with whether a wright to life exists .

POST-#5,862

 

[beagle9]

Interesting thought. If a woman doesn’t want the child, and arranges for an abortion, according to some it’s simply personal property that is being abandoned.

Can’t anyone claim it then as there own? And if the doctor destroys it, can he not be sued for felony destruction if property?

Hmmmm

That's where the father or even an adoptee should be able to step in, otherwise in order to make a claim for the child (should be highly illegal to destroy/kill the child period), before sadly it is killed in the current environment.

Yes the mother would then be tasked with carrying the child to term, but she is partly involved in allowing the child to be within her to start with, so she has a responsibility to that developing child within her body.... Of course her responsibility doesn't involve the killing of that child, especially as the horrendous pictures of abortion's show just how evil that act truly is. These things can be worked out, but we've got to get the evilness out of it all.


If no one steps forward during the pregnancy, then she should still be responsible to carry the child to birth, and then the state takes over and places the child up for adoption. It is almost guaranteed that most women 99.9% would keep and raise their child if they carry that child to term, so in reality virtually none of it would end up being a burden on the state as it would be thought that it would be. Just getting the woman to become responsible is the goal (supporting her and her pregnancy with more of a moral option), where as in the end she will thank everyone after she gives birth to her friend for life or even if she allows her child to be adopted by another.

If a woman doesn't want to go through these things, then have some damned control, and use birth control that is so readily available these days. And parent's need to get the power back to control and teach their children about the coming years where they are going to have to have control whether it's the boy's or the girl's being taught the right things to do. The evil trend's of hollyweird culture and styles need to be pushed back hard against by society, because it has destroyed the nation's overall thinking in SOCIETY big time.

Pregnancies being seen by women as having some sort of sickness in SOCIETY is a very evil development in SOCIETY, therefore it is making society more and more uncivilized. The tools of destruction need to be dismantled in a very civilized way now. We must step back from the ledge we now have since found ourselves to be upon. Am I dreaming ?

 

[beagle9]

" Example Of Crickets From Forum Sanctimonious Cowards "

* Degrees Of Irrelevance *

Explain the difference between the catholic church position versus that of the national right ( sic ) to life which passively condones a death penalty as capital punishment , and relate as to which position is more consistent with christian ethos .

A state is not concerned with when biological life begins , or whether biological life exists at all , rather a state is concerned with whether a wright to life exists .

You truly struggle in your wickedness..

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Bright Lights On An Establishment Clause Violation "

* Heresy And Hypocrisy Of Sanctimonious Foolishness *

You truly struggle in your wickedness..

On the contrary , my standard is consistent and clear , while you are compelled to struggle with a standard you claim to promote but are unable to accept or implement .

 

[HeyNorm]

" Bright Lights On An Establishment Clause Violation "

* Heresy And Hypocrisy Of Sanctimonious Foolishness *

On the contrary , my standard is consistent and clear , while you are compelled to struggle with a standard you claim to promote but are unable to accept or implement .

My only question is when this “property”, that is claimed to be that of the “Mother” converts to “human”, how the mother can assert someone else somehow becomes responsible for her property? Is there some contract that allows such conversion?

 

[elektra]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

beagle9221204-#6,137 beagle9 You truly struggle in your wickedness..

NFBW: ding repeatedly insists that the conflict of rights between human unborn beings when they are on the human life continuum following fertilization of an egg, but not viable if separated from its mother versus women of reproductive age, is not about religion.

Please note ding that your cohort in the shameful political activity of depriving women of their reproductive rights is using a religious and extremely emotional biblical religious slur to describe anyone who comes down on the side of women and freedom for them to not be slaves to providing offspring to a civil society.

For the past 50 years with abortions being legal before 28 weeks it was of no business of yours beagle9 or ding to force what either one of you believe about religion on the whole of society.

That is because the woman does no harm to society or to you if she terminates a pregnancy in private.

Wickedness, malignity, evil in thought and purpose is presented by the word poneria:​

​

"But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites?" (Matthew 22:18). Jesus points out the origin of all wrong: "For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed .... wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness .... all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man" (Mark 7:21-23). See Imitation of Christ, xiii, 5. David Roberts Dungan​

​

Copyright Statement These files are public domain. Bibliography Information Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for 'WICKEDNESS'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". 1915.

END2212041315