Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Viability is a meaningless and arbitrary standard that changes as technology changes. Before neonatal ICUs and their machines existed, viability was the kid better be full-term or they’re probably dead.

The fucktard above has never addressed this fact, and it has been pointed out to him countless times. He is a gutless coward and a habitual liar - truth and consistency are deathly allergies to this person.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Cplus6221215-#6,401 Viability is a meaningless and arbitrary standard that changes as technology changes.

NFBW: Fetal viability is not a standard.
Viability is in each fetal individual as one exact DNA programmed point/moment on the lifetime continuum at which there is a reasonable probability that a fetus could survive ex utero with normal life expectancy when provided with realistic care that has become available to medical professionals with the appropriate provision of intensive care.

The fact of viability being an actual moment in the development in the womb, of a fetus, is the point I make. Out of the context of a supernatural anthropomorphic, being in the sky, creating a human being at conception, and by using only the laws of nature and an approximate time when it is known that viability possibly can take place, viability can best be used to settle the point in a civil society at which approximate moment the fetus becomes deserving of the exact same protection as the ‘living being’ that would become its birthmother or adoptive parent.

Therefore in a strictly secular sense and legal framework viability is a relevant consideration in the regulation of abortion, coming to fruition as a form of political compromise that has been said, ‘a plain reality and a non-controversial development stage that any reasonable person would acknowledge’.

The logic being that ‘once the fetus is viable, its status as a full-human being seems to be a self-evident truth. The viable fetus no longer needs to become a full-human being; it is ready to begin to live an independent life’.16 It therefore, seemingly, presents a position based on an exercise of logic, but that also allows pregnant people the chance to access abortion care up to a certain point, after which the fetus is ‘entitled’ to certain protections.​

​

Is ‘viability’ viable? Abortion, conceptual confusion and the law in England and Wales and the United States

Abstract. In this paper, I explore how viability, meaning the ability of the fetus to survive post-delivery, features in the law regulating abortion provis

academic.oup.com

Lavi explains that this is because the concept is often presented as a ‘plain reality and a non-controversial development stage that any reasonable person would acknowledge’.15 The logic being that ‘once the fetus is viable, its status as a full-human being seems to be a self-evident truth. The viable fetus no longer needs to become a full-human being; it is ready to begin to live an independent life’.16 It therefore, seemingly, presents a position based on an exercise of logic, but that also allows pregnant people the chance to access abortion care up to a certain point, after which the fetus is ‘entitled’ to certain protections. Later in this paper, I will review the significant criticism that is deployed against viability as a morally significant moment in fetal development and criticize the extent to which viability can be understood as a compromise in abortion regulation.​

​

NFBW: I understand why some Catholics cannot accept compromise on viability mentioned above. I think I can say it is true that an atheist such as yourself, C+six has to have another agenda for not taking the compromise. That is so you can call your ideological and political enemies, all sorts of vile, and civil indecent, rotten sort of things, even when they’re opposed to abortion personally, but respect the pregnant woman’s right to make her own decision. viability matters and you cannot make viability go away because you openly express so much hate against those who don’t agree with you on everything.

END2212151253

 

[beagle9]

beagle9221215-#6,399 1st thing is, is that you arbitrarily define what YOU THINK is the line between non-viable to being viable, but you really don't know as ding has confronted you on the point successfully many times.

NFBW: The great thing about you beagle9 is as a Christian you are thirsty for material truth. The truth is ding has never confronted me on viability, not once. I can pull the records very easily. #ding has ordered me to not discuss viability as if he and CarsomyrPlusSix have some authority to disallow the most damming reality that reduces #ding’s and #Cplus6’s arguments to a pile of absurdities on top of a fallacy.

For your quest for material truth beagle9 ; there are four major biological and necessary milestones in the full development of the human organism on the lifespan continuum and you must agree with science here. I am but the messenger.

The fourth (death) can occur at any instant following the first and most important milestone (conception) . I hope you agree with me thus far.

Between birth and death there’s (2) viability and (3) first breath, being born , childbirth which during a normal delivery viability and first breath can occur simultaneously with viability potential.

First breath for most souls and especially for long living old souls is generally the most celebrated lifespan event in every human culture. Conception and viability are ignored but we know they are critical points in every human life.

Conception has had no or very little legal standing on the secular jurisprudence side of human civil society since humans began organizing into tribes states nation and empires ever since the First Battle at Olduvai Gorge.

Viability has had precedence in old common law so it has absolutely everything to do with the topic of this thread. It is referred to as quickening and the fetus was referred to as a quickchild.

So why do ding anf CarsomyrPlusSix forbid me from bringing it up here.

END2212150903

As technological advances have come, it has revealed to us the many things not known before now about the pregnancy, so you're going back to bringing up or your usage of old term's or terminology is quite interesting, otherwise seeing that you act as if you are this guru on the issue. Maybe you can quote some medical terms or terminology from the middle or dark ages for us, and just add that to your struggle here.

 

[dblack]

As technological advances have come, it has revealed to us the many things not known before now about the pregnancy, so you're going back to bringing up or your usage of old term's or terminology is quite interesting, otherwise seeing that you act as if you are this guru on the issue. Maybe you can quote some medical terms or terminology from the middle or dark ages for us, and just add that to your struggle here.

The main thing is, government needs to monitor procreation.

Biggest brother ever.

 

[beagle9]

Cplus6221215-#6,401 Viability is a meaningless and arbitrary standard that changes as technology changes.

NFBW: Fetal viability is not a standard.
Viability is in each fetal individual as one exact DNA programmed point/moment on the lifetime continuum at which there is a reasonable probability that a fetus could survive ex utero with normal life expectancy when provided with realistic care that has become available to medical professionals with the appropriate provision of intensive care.

The fact of viability being an actual moment in the development in the womb, of a fetus, is the point I make. Out of the context of a supernatural anthropomorphic, being in the sky, creating a human being at conception, and by using only the laws of nature and an approximate time when it is known that viability possibly can take place, viability can best be used to settle the point in a civil society at which approximate moment the fetus becomes deserving of the exact same protection as the ‘living being’ that would become its birthmother or adoptive parent.

Therefore in a strictly secular sense and legal framework viability is a relevant consideration in the regulation of abortion, coming to fruition as a form of political compromise that has been said, ‘a plain reality and a non-controversial development stage that any reasonable person would acknowledge’.

The logic being that ‘once the fetus is viable, its status as a full-human being seems to be a self-evident truth. The viable fetus no longer needs to become a full-human being; it is ready to begin to live an independent life’.16 It therefore, seemingly, presents a position based on an exercise of logic, but that also allows pregnant people the chance to access abortion care up to a certain point, after which the fetus is ‘entitled’ to certain protections.​

​

Is ‘viability’ viable? Abortion, conceptual confusion and the law in England and Wales and the United States

Abstract. In this paper, I explore how viability, meaning the ability of the fetus to survive post-delivery, features in the law regulating abortion provis

academic.oup.com

Lavi explains that this is because the concept is often presented as a ‘plain reality and a non-controversial development stage that any reasonable person would acknowledge’.15 The logic being that ‘once the fetus is viable, its status as a full-human being seems to be a self-evident truth. The viable fetus no longer needs to become a full-human being; it is ready to begin to live an independent life’.16 It therefore, seemingly, presents a position based on an exercise of logic, but that also allows pregnant people the chance to access abortion care up to a certain point, after which the fetus is ‘entitled’ to certain protections. Later in this paper, I will review the significant criticism that is deployed against viability as a morally significant moment in fetal development and criticize the extent to which viability can be understood as a compromise in abortion regulation.​

​

NFBW: I understand why some Catholics cannot accept compromise on viability mentioned above. I think I can say it is true that an atheist such as yourself, C+six has to have another agenda for not taking the compromise. That is so you can call your ideological and political enemies, all sorts of vile, and civil indecent, rotten sort of things, even when they’re opposed to abortion personally, but respect the pregnant woman’s right to make her own decision. viability matters and you cannot make viability go away because you openly express so much hate against those who don’t agree with you on everything.

END2212151253

Bottom line is why would any mother want to abort her baby ? Yes, it became trendy just like every other dark and disgusting trend has since raised it's ugly head in SOCIETY now, so I'm guessing that female pregnancy was just another target of the demon's to destroy, and they are have been successful at it too. Not only have they destroyed the holiness of pregnancy, but they've brainwashed an army of minion's to defend the act.

Ok, I'm not saying that you are defending abortion, because it seems that in your mind you aren't, but to us when you just give blanket autonomy to the mother in order to abort her baby without proper reasoning, otherwise to be based on her supposed privacy and freedom to do so, and then we see the results of that freedom or privacy to do so, then we become appalled at what we see, and therefore give horrid witness too.

You can't sit there and say that women aren't abusing their freedom and privacy when they choose to do something heinous as aborting her child without proper medical emergency in which certainly would allow for her to do so.

Think about all the clinic's that spring up around this COUNTRY, but abortion isn't a profit driven business ?

 

[beagle9]

The main thing is, government needs to monitor procreation.

Biggest brother ever.

No, just not promote/condone/finance at any level the acts that individual's decide to do with themselves in life, but certainly have laws that regulate the heinous activities of those who are violating themselves based upon lie's and propaganda in which makes them think that it's ok to do bad things to themselves and their unborn children.

It's called being CIVILIZED.

 

[dblack]

No, just not promote/condone/finance at any level the acts that individual's decide to do with themselves in life, but certainly have laws that regulate the heinous activities of those who are violating themselves based upon lie's and propaganda in which makes them think that it's ok to do bad things to themselves and their unborn children.

It's called being CIVILIZED.

The thing that seperates libertarians, from so-called limited government Republicans, is exactly this: we recognize that government and laws can prevent all evil, can't prevent most evil in fact, and in most cases, shouldn't try.

 

[beagle9]

The thing that seperates libertarians, from so-called limited government Republicans, is exactly this: we recognize that government and laws can prevent all evil, can't prevent most evil in fact, and in most cases, shouldn't try.

Shouldn't try ? Hmmmm, if evil shows it face before you, then you do nothing to protect yourself or other's from that evil ?? Otherwise even if you have the power and means to do so ??

If an evil person comes on my property or anywhere for that matter, in which me and my family might be at any given time, and that evil attempt's to physically hurt us, then I probably would be forced to take severe action against that evil, otherwise before it can take action against us after it makes it's move or if it shows it's hand while attempting to make that move.

Now in the case of a woman who has been led to believe that to just dispose of her unborn baby by aborting the pregnancy without good reason, is well a little different than what I described above in the case of self defence...So what has to happen in her case, is a slow but gradual rehabilitation in her thinking in order to stop the attroccius act by helping her to understand that abortion is not the answer to her problems in life, but rather it is that she has been mentally conditioned to think that it is the quick answer to what she thinks is a problem, but it's not.

We have to rehabilitate SOCIETY, and therefore back it back down from the edge of the cliff in which it has been fooled to just hap hazzardly walk out on.

 

[dblack]

Shouldn't try ? Hmmmm, if evil shows it face before you, then you do nothing to protect yourself or other's from that evil ?? Otherwise even if you have the power and means to do so ??

I didn't say nothing could be done. Just that, in most cases, government is not the right tool for the job. We can solve social problems without coercion.

We have to rehabilitate SOCIETY, and therefore back it back down from the edge of the cliff in which it has been fooled to just hap hazzardly walk out on.

This. Exactly this. Government isn't there to shape society. But, sadly, both duopoly parties are all-in on "social engineering". They just have a different plan for society.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

The thing that seperates libertarians, from so-called limited government Republicans, is exactly this: we recognize that government and laws can prevent all evil, can't prevent most evil in fact, and in most cases, shouldn't try.

If you support the legality of aggressive violence against innocent human beings, you aren’t a libertarian.

This is homicide - this isn’t a mere personal vice like drinking or smoking, or an area where the nanny state is protecting you from yourself like making you wear a seatbelt or something.

We’re talking about whether or not the state should prevent or punish needless aggressive violence. Libertarians believe in non-aggression, period.

And if you don’t think the state should do that, then you don’t want any state at all, but even in an anarchocapitalist civilization people would want an entity to prevent or punish violence anyway.

 

[dblack]

If you support the legality of aggressive violence against innocent human beings, you aren’t a libertarian.

If you support government intrusion into another person's body - violating the most fundamental right imaginable - you have no idea what libertarian means.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

If you support government intrusion into another person's body - violating the most fundamental right imaginable - you have no idea what libertarian means.

Yeah, no.

The kid’s body isn’t the mother’s body. Telling a mom not to kill her kid isn’t any kind of “intrusion.” You’re ridiculous.

The most fundamental right is the human right to life.

You support violence against innocent human beings - you support aggression, which is obviously a flagrant violation of the NAP.

I’m a libertarian.

You are a fraud.

 

[dblack]

Yeah, no.

The kid’s body isn’t the mother’s body. Telling a mom not to kill her kid isn’t any kind of “intrusion.” You’re ridiculous.

The most fundamental right is the human right to life.

You support violence against innocent human beings - you support aggression, which is obviously a flagrant violation of the NAP.

I’m a libertarian.

You are a fraud.

You can call yourself anything you want. As long is it's clear that your version of "liberty" has no resemblance to mine. You guys literally want the government up your ass. No thanks.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You can call yourself anything you want. As long is it's clear that your version of "liberty" has no resemblance to mine. You guys literally want the government up your ass. No thanks.

Yeah, you’re kind of whackadoo if you think that laws against doing needless violence to your fellow man is “the government up your ass.”

You want anarchy.

 

[dblack]

You want anarchy.

Nope. Just don't think government has valid jurisdiction, or a compelling interest, when it comes to the contents of my body. No matter what YOU think is in there.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Nope. Just don't think government has valid jurisdiction, or a compelling interest, when it comes to the contents of my body. No matter what YOU think is in there.

Government’s job is to protect human rights against aggression, within their jurisdiction.

If you live in that jurisdiction, say the state, or ideally after Constitutional Amendment the country, it is totally valid for that government to prevent you from attacking other human beings and / or punish you for doing so.

This affirms and protects human rights and provides justice for the victims of that violence.

You don’t even want the minimal nightwatchman state to protect life from attack - that means you are an anarchist.

 

[dblack]

Government’s job is to protect human rights against aggression, within their jurisdiction.

If you live in that jurisdiction, say the state, or ideally after Constitutional Amendment the country, it is totally valid for that government to prevent you from attacking other human beings and / or punish you for doing so.

This affirms and protects human rights and provides justice for the victims of that violence.

You don’t even want the minimal nightwatchman state to protect life from attack - that means you are an anarchist.

You're not listening. I don't give a fuck what you think is in my body - it's just none of your business. Buzz off.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You're not listening. I don't give a fuck what you think is in my body - it's just none of your business. Buzz off.

I’m hearing, I’m listening, but the words you are saying are incoherent noise.

A kid is not his or her mom.
A kid is not the property of his or her mom.

I don’t give a fuck if you think you should be allowed to kill kids and get away with it - you should be stopped from killing kids.

As a human being, protecting the lives of other human beings against violence is very much my business.

 

[beagle9]

I didn't say nothing could be done. Just that, in most cases, government is not the right tool for the job. We can solve social problems without coercion.


This. Exactly this. Government isn't there to shape society. But, sadly, both duopoly parties are all-in on "social engineering". They just have a different plan for society.

Well without government being run by the RIGHT PEOPLE (key), then how would you suggest that we undo the bull crap that government run by the WRONG PEOPLE has screwed up so bad ???

The government structure that has been built by the people, and sports a constitution with all the sides for the people, and drum role please, is being run by the right people (key), can do marvelous fantastic things in regards to it's charter laid out for the benefiting of the nation and it's citizen's.

The problem has come where the wrong people have occupied our government, and it has turned the good people against government because it's power is being misused against the citizen's in the wrongful usage of it.

We must not give up on gaining government back, and then cleaning it up for the good of the nation, but I might be dreaming now.

 

[beagle9]

If you support government intrusion into another person's body - violating the most fundamental right imaginable - you have no idea what libertarian means.

The intrusion only comes because a person is seeking to have a ghoulish doctor of some sorts, to then reach into her body in order to pluck a little unborn child from her womb in what appears to be a terrible process, and all because she decides for some possible unfounded reason that she just don't want the child anymore ?? Regulating the purposes in which qualify a person to receive the medical procedure is absolutely necessary, and it is because of the abuse that is apparently involved in it.

Giving people enough rope to hang themselves is not appropriate, especially if their bad tendencies are being found prevalent in such a thing in which causes them to abuse another (kill their unborn for example)..

Doctor's performing abortions anywhere, best have damned good reasoning for doing so (medical emergency or crippling life threatening deformity that is a positive diagnosis of the child not living beyond the womb if born, otherwise as is determined by a medical professional), or be fined huge fines for aborting healthy children because a woman decides to just throw a human being in the trash because she got scared.