Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[whutTHEYsay]

HeyNorm230114-#6,706 The absurdity is you taking the example of “not being my business” and warping it in such a bizarre fashion.

NFBW: Your example justifying why a private decision between every pregnant woman in the world and her doctor are your business fails because your example is when actual murder exists whenever a human individual person kills a completely separate individual person that has one point successfully separated from his or her mother.

END2301141635

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm230114-#6,706 The absurdity is you taking the example of “not being my business” and warping it in such a bizarre fashion.

NFBW: Your example justifying why a private decision between every pregnant woman in the world and her doctor are your business fails because your example is when actual murder exists whenever a human individual person kills a completely separate individual person that has one point successfully separated from his or her mother.

END2301141635

Nice dodge, but nobody’s buying it.

And the act includes a third human, the fetus.

And why is it the woman’s decision as to when a man becomes a father or not.

And lastly, learn to use the damn quote feature.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

HeyNorm230114-#6,717 Your whole argument is that viability depends on one’s ability to care for self.

NFBW: My argument is not that and never was that. My point about viability is this:

NFBW230108-#6,667 Yes, viability is the meaningful word that defines when life begins for human beings in contemplation of secular law.

In accordance with English Common Law it is morally and legally acceptable to distinguish between biologically defined life and life in contemplation of secular law.

The ethics of making the above distinction has nothing to do with a fetus being able to take care of itself. It is based on the scientific reality of what is developing in the womb and when society has a duty and obligation as human beings to protect it..

When viability is reasonably ascertained by society to occur at 24 weeks it is my argument and consistent with English Common Law that a woman and only the woman who is pregnant with child has an implied and explicit natural right to terminate her pregnancy even for her convenience prior to the marker when society contemplates legal life begins. After that marker society has an interest in blocking abortion on demand because it is reasonable to insist that the decision to terminate be made at least a couple of weeks prior to a societal set point of 24 weeks.

END2301141818

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm230114-#6,717 Your whole argument is that viability depends on one’s ability to care for self.

NFBW: My argument is not that and never was that. My point about viability is this:

NFBW230108-#6,667 Yes, viability is the meaningful word that defines when life begins for human beings in contemplation of secular law.

In accordance with English Common Law it is morally and legally acceptable to distinguish between biologically defined life and life in contemplation of secular law.

The ethics of making the above distinction has nothing to do with a fetus being able to take care of itself. It is based on the scientific reality of what is developing in the womb and when society has a duty and obligation as human beings to protect it..

When viability is reasonably ascertained by society to occur at 24 weeks it is my argument and consistent with English Common Law that a woman and only the woman who is pregnant with child has an implied and explicit natural right to terminate her pregnancy even for her convenience prior to the marker when society contemplates legal life begins. After that marker society has an interest in blocking abortion on demand because it is reasonable to insist that the decision to terminate be made at least a couple of weeks prior to a societal set point of 24 weeks.

END2301141818

And they are no more viable when put on life support. We all know that’s where you blood thirsty types are headed

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Fielding Them Out Of The Redundant Would Work "

* Too Obvious Missing Links *

And they are no more viable when put on life support. We all know that’s where you blood thirsty types are headed

Those on life support have been born and by virtue of equal protection with a citizen are to be removed from life support by following due process procedures .

 

[whutTHEYsay]

NFBW: This exchange is evidence that you HeyNorm cannot keep track of your own logic, facts and reasoning:

HeyNorm230113-#6,699 Someone putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger is none of mine as well, but I want our government to hunt the SOB down and put the animal down
^
^
NFBW239114-#6,702 For a proper analogy to abortion prior to viability at 16 weeks, it would have to be a woman, the trigger would have to be pulled by that person while I am completely inside her body and she is using her brain, heart and lungs to keep me alive, and if she used a gun she’d probably kill herself too.
^
^
HeyNorm230114-#6,706 The absurdity is you taking the example of “not being my business” and warping it in such a bizarre fashion.
^
^
NFBW230114-#6,721 your example is when actual murder exists whenever a human individual person kills a completely separate individual person that has at one point successfully separated from his or her mother.
^
^
HeyNorm230114-#6,722 Nice dodge, but nobody’s buying it. •••• And the act includes a third human, the fetus.

NFBW: You set an example in post -#6,699 that involved two persons and two persons only., Person #1 (Someone) putting a gun to Person #2 (my head) and pulling the trigger. it is clear in your example there is no third person involved. Then in post-#6,722 you tell me “nice dodge” and the act incudes a third human, the fetus. Where is the fetus I your original example?

END2301141909

 

[HeyNorm]

" Fielding Them Out Of The Redundant Would Work "

* Too Obvious Missing Links *

Those on life support have been born and by virtue of equal protection with a citizen are to be removed from life support by following due process procedures .

I’m not making conditions in regards to when human life is valuable enough to garner government protection. You have.

And that is the ability to sustain life on one’s own.

Quit being cowards and stand by your argument.

Many children were taken before natural birth took place, and survived.

And toddlers cannot survive on their own.

Are those that can be delivered at such a time survival is certain less human than those that have beef delivered?

 

[HeyNorm]

" Fielding Them Out Of The Redundant Would Work "

* Too Obvious Missing Links *

Those on life support have been born and by virtue of equal protection with a citizen are to be removed from life support by following due process procedures .

So you believe in miracles. Funny I didn’t take you as the religious type.

 

[HeyNorm]

NFBW: This exchange is evidence that you HeyNorm cannot keep track of your own logic, facts and reasoning:

HeyNorm230113-#6,699 Someone putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger is none of mine as well, but I want our government to hunt the SOB down and put the animal down
^
^
NFBW239114-#6,702 For a proper analogy to abortion prior to viability at 16 weeks, it would have to be a woman, the trigger would have to be pulled by that person while I am completely inside her body and she is using her brain, heart and lungs to keep me alive, and if she used a gun she’d probably kill herself too.
^
^
HeyNorm230114-#6,706 The absurdity is you taking the example of “not being my business” and warping it in such a bizarre fashion.
^
^
NFBW230114-#6,721 your example is when actual murder exists whenever a human individual person kills a completely separate individual person that has at one point successfully separated from his or her mother.
^
^
HeyNorm230114-#6,722 Nice dodge, but nobody’s buying it. •••• And the act includes a third human, the fetus.

NFBW: You set an example in post -#6,699 that involved two persons and two persons only., Person #1 (Someone) putting a gun to Person #2 (my head) and pulling the trigger. it is clear in your example there is no third person involved. Then in post-#6,722 you tell me “nice dodge” and the act incudes a third human, the fetus. Where is the fetus I your original example?

END2301141909

And again you dodge your original argument which was. If it doesn’t matter to you, why should the government get involved.

So sad really.

And you look like a child posting in the way you do. Fact.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

HeyNorm230114-#6,724 And they are no more viable when put on life support.

NFBW: it is my foundational belief that every human being who has taken a first breath of life when becoming physically separated from his or her mother is entitled to society’s protection against injury, confinement and death by enforcement of law.

You need a fresh talking point HeyNorm - humans on life support after live birth should have protections too.

END2301141943

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm230114-#6,724 And they are no more viable when put on life support.

NFBW: it is my foundational belief that every human being who has taken a first breath of life when becoming physically separated from his or her mother is entitled to society’s protection against injury, confinement and death by enforcement of law.

You need a fresh talking point HeyNorm - humans on life support after live birth should have protections too.

END2301141943

You never answered the question Einstein. What makes one human, reliant on an outside source to sustain live, less important to society than the other?

 

[beagle9]

" Dishing Out Abuse Tables Turned 180 Degrees "

* Breath Thing *


* Own Up To To Horn Dog Keeping It Zipped *

Is a would be male providing its private property haploid gametes with or without willful consent and with or without legal protection ?

Where is a valid private civil contract of disclaimer by the male , with agreement by the female in concurrence with the disclaimer , where valid contracts require informed consent , that the private property haploid gametes of the specified male for procreation is forbidden ?

Where is a valid private civil contract specifying that consent to have intercourse includes consent to conceive should conception occur ?


* Individualism Self Ownership Of Genetic Perpetuity *

By us 14th amendment , any " per son " born may become a citizen , and any " per son " is entitled to equal protection , while tile 1 section 8 of us code defines a person to be any which is born alive at any point in development , whereby equal protection with a citizen requires live birth , which is the basis of the roe v wade decision .

As the zygote , or embryo , or fetus , is without constitutional protections , a fetus is private property of the mother , and by principles of individualism , individuals and not collectives are responsible for and entitled to self ownership through progeny .


* Gratuity Of Fore Thought *

By non violence principles , violence is illegitimate aggression , where self defense against illegitimate aggression is legitimate aggression .

By principles of individualism , violence are acts of illegitimate aggression that by force deprive an individual of self ownership and or self determination , where self ownership includes free roam , free association and progeny , where self determination includes ownership of private property and willful intents through contracts made valid through informed consent .

Prior to entering into a social civil agreement according to a constitution , individuals are subject to relativism in nature , which is why there is no such thing as an inalienable rite .

To improve odds of survival and quality of life , individuals exchange natural freedoms for equal protection of negative liberties that are enforced through retort by a greater state of individuals .

A republic with a credo of e pluribus unum espouses independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties .

Negative liberties represent protections , independence and individualism .

Positive liberties represent endowments , dependence and collectivism .

Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments

" Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments " * Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises * Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ? Does...

usmessageboard.com

Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion

" Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is Under Sedition By States As A Result Of US Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion " * Constitutional Originalism Versus Judicial Activism * Blackmun wrote this - ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on...

www.usmessageboard.com

Interesting... Maybe there should be papers to sign before sex between a man and a woman occurs. Lawmaker's, uhhh get busy... LOL.

Make sex a document legal act that requires a contract that reads both parties will be responsible for their actions, and no abortions will be allowed if a pregnancy occurs due to the act. Sign on the dotted lines. This ought to make all sex addict's pause before they become in violation of the law without having a signed contract between male and their female partner's in the situation.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

HeyNorm230125-#6,729 And again you dodge your original argument which was. If it doesn’t matter to you, why should the government get involved.

NFBW: That is not my argument and never was and never will be.

1. When a law abiding woman gets pregnant and decides to terminate early on there is no harm to society or civilization or to any other person living outside of her own autonomous body. 2. When a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy prior to quickening consistent with English common law and because she is doing no harm, it is nobody’s business but hers and whomever she chooses to share her private news. 3 No government and white nationalist Christian movement have a right or authority to force her to take the risk of giving childbirth against her will as long as the termination is complete prior to fetal viability at 24 weeks.

So the next time HeyNorm you need to tell me what my argument is please cite 1,2,3 in bold and italics above. No need for you to make things up.

END2301142037

 

[whutTHEYsay]

HeyNorm230114-#6,731 HeyNorm You never answered the question Einstein. What makes one human, reliant on an outside source to sustain live, less important to society than the other?

NFBW: It is not reliance on an outside source to sustain life that makes a living fetal organism in a womb less important than any human being who can use their own brain heart and body to basically oxygenate their own lungs to stay alive.

It is the scientific facts of biological physical development in the aftermath of conception that it takes a certain number of months, weeks and days for a fetus to become physically capable to use it’s new lungs to oxygenate it’s own blood plus all the other functions needed to live outside a womb., That science coincides with English Common Law that makes a quick fetus have protection from society when a fetus prior to that lives or dies under the autonomy of the woman it lives inside.

END2301142102

 

[whutTHEYsay]

HeyNorm230114-#6,720 So, the day before birth it was be fine with you to destroy the child?

NFBW: Never have I said that except to save the life of the mother.

I’m at 24 weeks being last chance a woman can make her choice to terminate her pregnancy.

I am on the record and very clear. You can quit telling me what my record is at anytime. See below:


beagle9221212-#6,368 beagle9 Two separate live's no matter how you cut it once the life developmental stages begin
^
^
NFBW221213-#6,374 I have always maintained that as of the moment of conception there are at least two separate lives involved. Both are human lives. One is viable during the first 24 weeks, one is not viable until after 24 weeks and has a right to life the same as the mother, except to save the life of the mother.

END2301142250

 

[HeyNorm]

Interesting... Maybe there should be papers to sign before sex between a man and a woman occurs. Lawmaker's, uhhh get busy... LOL.

Make sex a document legal act that requires a contract that reads both parties will be responsible for their actions, and no abortions will be allowed if a pregnancy occurs due to the act. Sign on the dotted lines. This ought to make all sex addict's pause before they become in violation of the law without having a signed contract between male and their female partner's in the situation.

Nah, the answer to this is simple.

If the State has no right to force a pregnant woman to become a Mother, Equal treatment under the law demands that the State cannot force a Man to become a father.

Change that one dynamic and this subject resolves itself.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

nmf2020221207-#1 notmyfault2020 I say that yes, God is punishing us, and the punishment is going to get worse if we do not turn from our sins.

NFBW: When a woman terminates her pregnancy in America. is she committing a sin for which God will punish the whole nation?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Precarious Implications Of Infinitude For Being And Becoming Through Some Transition "

* Conjectural Innocence Is Not Sentience *

Nice dodge, but nobody’s buying it.
And the act includes a third human, the fetus.

An accurate and succinct annotation is hue mammon , while damned dirty ape sometimes suffices given its veracity of carnal knowledge as evidence in canine denture .

On a universal scale of exploitation with a range of inchoate to sapient , exceptions from exploitation by apex predator hue mammon for the inchoate is presumed irrelevant , except for extinction , as empathy requires suffering that requires sentience .

The timeline for onset of sentience is well beyond 15 weeks after which purposes for abortion relate to fetal abnormalities or maternal anomalies with potential to significantly affect quality of life , and individuals determine those outcomes for themselves that is not to be dictated with arrogant indifference and situational ignorance by a collective .

A sophisticated physical state is required for sentience , sapience and introspection and the success criteria of nature to survive , that occurs through procreation , has not changed .

An after life , a chance for eternal life , the life to come , reincarnation , transmutation of soles , etc . a metaphors for passing on ones genetic identity , where failure to do so in perpetuity is ascribe the metaphors of final judgement or eternal damnation .

As an inference from nature , from the perspective of hue mammon , it is an altruism that hue mammon should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , however not every instance of hue mammon is required to live forever for the altruism to be satisfied .


* Puffy Nipples Personal Rejection Of Stockholm Syndrome *

And why is it the woman’s decision as to when a man becomes a father or not.
And lastly, learn to use the damn quote feature.

It is the woman's decision perhaps because a numb skull male willfully transferred its private property semen to a female , and as they say possession is nine tenths of the law and a fetus is private property of the mother whom may disposition its eventuality as a privilege of self ownership .

Are you complaining about child support , or rejection of sequester and compelled long term involvement that significantly impacts quality of life and genetic perpetuity of others ?

 

[beagle9]

Nah, the answer to this is simple.

If the State has no right to force a pregnant woman to become a Mother, Equal treatment under the law demands that the State cannot force a Man to become a father.

Change that one dynamic and this subject resolves itself.

Otherwise you are referring to paying child support if abandon her correct ?? If so then is it that you figure that a woman would be far more critical in her thinking when it comes to choosing her mate before she has unprotected sex if no support is available for her if a pregnancy occurs ????

Otherwise the theory would be that she would think more critically before laying down and bearing the full responsibility of the pregnancy when and if it occurs ??

Problem:

The leftist got an out for her, it's called abortion therefore making it easy for her to escape her responsibility for being reckless in her life, otherwise allowing a pregnancy to occur with a partner that was just there for the quick unprotected sex (however, both can contribute to the protection by using a form of birth control), and so they are equally trashing the most sacred act that is and should be a gift unto two people in love when that act knowingly creates a pregnancy if knowingly have unprotected sex that results in the trauma of an abortion.

 

[HeyNorm]

Otherwise you are referring to paying child support if abandon her correct ?? If so then is it that you figure that a woman would be far more critical in her thinking when it comes to choosing her mate before she has unprotected sex if no support is available for her if a pregnancy occurs ????

Otherwise the theory would be that she would think more critically before laying down and bearing the full responsibility of the pregnancy when and if it occurs ??

Problem:

The leftist got an out for her, it's called abortion therefore making it easy for her to escape her responsibility for being reckless in her life, otherwise allowing a pregnancy to occur with a partner that was just there for the quick unprotected sex (however, both can contribute to the protection by using a form of birth control), and so they are equally trashing the most sacred act that is and should be a gift unto two people in love when that act knowingly creates a pregnancy if knowingly have unprotected sex that results in the trauma of an abortion.

Hey, it’s all about equal Justice under the law.

And male reparations for being forced to support children the law forced men to support all these years