Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm230118-#6,778 An 8 month gestated fetus is often functioning in such a manner that it is almost certainly able to independently sustain life, just as a newborn.

NFBW FACTS: Eight months is 34.64 weeks. Roe v Wade set legal abortion at 28 weeks. I agree with a federal abortion ban at 24 weeks except to save the life of the mother and from serious harm to the mother. ••••

A fetus has a shot at premature birth survival at 22 weeks. I would be fine banning all abortions at English Common Law at 16 weeks if women only voted that way. There is no way that a sixteen week fetus is functioning and or physically capable of surviving outside the human natural womb. So what is your point about a 34.64 week old human being being similar situated to what?

NFBW-2301180757 III • HeyNorm do you aid and abet CarsomyrPlusSix ‘s hate and dehumanization of Jews for being barbarians in belief that life begins at first breath. ???? Will you answer this question this time or keep hiding from it?

HeyNorm230118-#6,778 HeyNorm • But when you are trying to argue such a barbaric act ••••

NFBW: Have you ever told a Jewish person who believes according to their relationship with their version of God that human life begins at first breath which when full term is forty weeks?

END2201181649


.

So the 8 month gestated fetus should therefore, have constitutional protect rights? Yes or No.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So the 8 month gestated fetus should therefore, have constitutional protect rights? Yes or No.

Yes. I would definitely support a Constitutional Amendment that gives personhood rights to a fetus at 24 weeks in order to protect them from being killed in the womb as a matter of convenience. Because most women want to give birth after 24 weeks, the decision during complications at birth must still between the mother and the doctors if something goes wring and both persons cannot be saved .

 

[HeyNorm]

Yes. I would definitely support a Constitutional Amendment that gives personhood rights to a fetus at 24 weeks in order to protect them from being killed in the womb as a matter of convenience. Because most women want to give birth after 24 weeks, the decision during complications at birth must still between the mother and the doctors if something goes wring and both persons cannot be saved .

Cool, so to be clear, civil rights should be granted to a 24 week gestated fetus? Correct?

 

[beagle9]

DanteR230111-#1 Dante Reawakened “Can we find it in the US Constitution? If so where? If not... •••• What Constitutional Rights Apply to an Unborn Fetus”
^
^
jgs230111-#2 johngaltshrugged Every innocent human being, born or unborn, have God given natural rights that are superior to any other rights, including the Constitution.

jgs220503-#4 “Show me the part of the Constitution where it guarantees women the right to murder babies. •••• You can't just invent a Constitutional right to infanticide”

jgs230605-#1 •••• “Christians in particular, are being attacked more frequently by the lefties on this board? •••• It's almost like they want to abolish our right to worship...

ph221206-#126 progressive hunter why people try to use the separation argument is beyond me,,

NFBW: My observation of johngaltshrugged ‘s writing and posters who “like” his writings indicate there is evidence that jgs is a Catholic who believes more in “God-given rights for human fetal organisms prior to viability than he cares about the constitutional right to privacy for pregnant women as well as a woman’s freedom of conscience under the constitutional principles on separation of church and state.

What are “God” given natural rights johngaltshrugged progressive hunter and do you support separation of church and state such as government being stopped from imposing Catholic doctrine on women who want a safe legal abortion in privacy prior to 24 weeks after conception?

END2301170244

Safe abortion ? Not very safe for the unborn child being snuffed out by the mom for vanity reason's is it ??

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW230118-#6,782 Yes. I would definitely support a Constitutional Amendment that gives personhood rights to a fetus at 24 weeks in order to protect them from being killed in the womb as a matter of convenience. Because most women want to give birth after 24 weeks, the decision during complications at birth must still between the mother and the doctors if something goes wrong and both persons cannot be saved .

HeyNorm230118-#6,783 Cool, so to be clear, civil rights should be granted to a 24 week gestated fetus? Correct

NFBW: Whatever you want to call it. The 24 week fetus has a right not to be killed by its mother without extreme cause such as to save the mother from extreme harm and death because there is only one person who can stop its development in the womb before that 24 week moment. That is the person who assumes risk to herself if she decides to deliver her baby to the world.. The woman has a right to privacy the first 24 weeks but after that I agree society has an interest to protect the life prior to natural or premature birth.

It’s common sense that 24 weeks is enough time for a woman to decide if she wants to deliver her baby or not.

END2301182256

 

[HeyNorm]

NFBW230118-#6,782 Yes. I would definitely support a Constitutional Amendment that gives personhood rights to a fetus at 24 weeks in order to protect them from being killed in the womb as a matter of convenience. Because most women want to give birth after 24 weeks, the decision during complications at birth must still between the mother and the doctors if something goes wrong and both persons cannot be saved .

HeyNorm230118-#6,783 Cool, so to be clear, civil rights should be granted to a 24 week gestated fetus? Correct

NFBW: Whatever you want to call it. The 24 week fetus has a right not to be killed by its mother without extreme cause such as to save the mother from extreme harm and death because there is only one person who can stop its development in the womb before that 24 week moment. That is the person who assumes risk to herself if she decides to deliver her baby to the world..

END2301182256

So we’ve established a civil right for 24 week gestated fetus. As is all civil rights, they are granted to persons. And if a 24 week gestated fetus is a person, then what is the reason that a 23 week gestated fetus is not “similarly situated” to it, but not granted the same protection?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Monk-Eye230117-#6,761 Monk-Eye • The dobbs decision by scrotus is sedition against us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments that is supported by traitors to us republic credo of e pluribus unum espouses independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties for those entitled by live birth to receive them . •••• As are babies , children have been born and are entitled to equal protection with a citizen.
•
NFBW230118-#6,777 • There is no similar situation between a fetus having a physical body and brain that has not developed to the moment of viability when successful separation at birth could be possible versus well after the moment of viability when a fetus is very likely to survive when separated from its mother. •••• But even so Monk-Eye is correct constitutionally and you and Flash are wrong:
•
HeyNorm230118-#6,778 • An 8 month gestated fetus is often functioning in such a manner that it is almost certainly able to independently sustain life, just as a newborn.
^
^
NFBW230118-#6,780 FACTS: Eight months is 34.64 weeks. Roe v Wade set legal abortion at 28 weeks. I agree with a federal abortion ban at 24 weeks except to save the life of the mother and from serious harm to the mother. •••• A fetus has a shot at premature birth survival at 22 weeks. I would be fine banning all abortions at English Common Law at 16 weeks if women only voted that way. There is no way that a sixteen week fetus is functioning and or physically capable of surviving outside the human natural womb. So what is your point about a 34.64 week old human being being similar situated to what?
^
^
HeyNorm230118-#6,781 HeyNorm • “So the 8 month gestated fetus should therefore, have constitutional protect rights? Yes or No
^
^
NFBW230118-#6,782 • Yes. I would definitely support a Constitutional Amendment that gives personhood rights to a fetus at 24 weeks in order to protect them from being killed in the womb as a matter of convenience. Because most women want to give birth after 24 weeks, the decision during complications at birth must still be between the mother and the doctors if something goes wrong and both persons cannot be saved
^
^
HeyNorm230118-#6,783 • Cool, so to be clear, civil rights should be granted to a 24 week gestated fetus?
^
^
NFBW230118-#6,785 • Whatever you want to call it. The 24 week fetus has a right not to be killed by its mother without extreme cause such as to save the mother from extreme harm and death because there is only one person who can stop its development in the womb before that 24 week moment. That is the person who assumes risk to herself if she decides to deliver her baby to the world..
^
^
HeyNorm230118-#6,786 • So we’ve established a civil right for 24 week gestated fetus. As is all civil rights, they are granted to persons. And if a 24 week gestated fetus is a person, then what is the reason that a 23 week gestated fetus is not “similarly situated” to it, but not granted the same protection?

NFBW: The 23 week gestated fetus continues to not be protected under the wording of the constitutional amendment I would support and told you about in post -NFBW230118-#6,782 :
•

“I would definitely support a Constitutional Amendment that gives personhood rights to a fetus at 24 weeks in order to protect them from being killed in the womb as a matter of convenience.” NFBW​

•
I would not support a constitutional amendment that fails to protect the natural right of a woman to terminate her own pregnancy before the secular law established gestation week of viability (quick fetus) occurs.
•
In the 24 week scenario that you proposed HeyNorm in your post HeyNorm230118-#6,783 :
•

“civil rights should be granted to a 24 week gestated fetus?” HeyNorm​

•​

The 23 week gestated fetus is not “similarly situated” to the 24 week fetus because it is not constitutionally viable when we are contemplating secular law and it remains under the autonomy of it’s mother who retains the right to terminate the 23 week fetus under the scenario you proposed.
•
END2301190216

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Do Not Eat The Flesh Of An Animal While It Is Alive "

* Rhetorical Questions To Interfere In With Cause Medical Options *

Cool, so to be clear, civil rights should be granted to a 24 week gestated fetus? Correct?

Technically , no .

Fetal protection laws explicitly include that a death penalty cannot be applied as punishment for killing a fetus without maternal consent .

Not stated as to why a death penalty cannot be applied is that , by equitable doctrine , one must remove a wright to life of another to have their own wright to life removed .

A fetus is technically without constitutional protections , for not having met a live birth requirement of a citizen to receive them, therefore a wright to life of a fetus does not exist whereby a death penalty could be applied for it having been removed .

Once a live birth is accomplished equal protections with a citizen apply , to include due process and a wright to life .


* Hew Main Nuances Of Private Prosecution For Civil Infractions *

There are methods specified for euthanasia of some animals , else a charge of animal cruelty could be levied against an offender , which is exercised as a penalty for an act lacking of empathy for suffering ; however , in a technical sense , animal cruelty laws are not understood as constitutional protections of self ownership for the animal , rather restitution for violations of animal cruelty laws are levied against the private property element of a perpetrator , that is against the self determination of an individual .

Medical ethics is concerned with the onset of sentience so as to avoid causing suffering to whatever happens to be aborted ,

On a universal scale of exploitation , an exploitation of the inchoate is not excluded by hue mammon .

On a universal scale of exploitation , an exploitation of the choate is selectively excluded by hue mammon .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Begging A Question To Interfere In ' With Cause ' Best Medical Practices "

* Amended Lexicon Disarming Mayhem *

So we’ve established a civil right for 24 week gestated fetus. As is all civil rights, they are granted to persons. And if a 24 week gestated fetus is a person, then what is the reason that a 23 week gestated fetus is not “similarly situated” to it, but not granted the same protection?

By declaration of independence , all men a created equal , that surreptitiously implies women are not created equal with men .

By etymology , the term person can be dissected into per and son which translate into countable by census ( per ) and male ( male ) .

By us 14th amendment , all persons born may become citizens of us republic , which technically means that women are not citizens of us republic .

The credo of us republic is e pluribus unum which espouses independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties .

Therefore , to correct the vernacular , the term person should be replaced by individual or individuals .


* Scrotus Of Sedition Blatant Ignorance Of Legal Statute *

The scrotus of sedition blatantly ignored the " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest . . not . . prior to live birth . " statement of blackmun that is directly deduced from a live birth requirement for citizenship from us 14th amendment and equitable doctrine .

The scrotus of sedition blatantly ignored the letter of the law from us 14th amendment " nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " , as title 1 , section 8 , of us code defines a person as any homo sapiens sapiens born alive at any stage of development .

The rand paul kept blabbering about changing the definition of a per son in title 1 section 8 to include preborn , however to do so would violate equitable doctrine and violate a equal protection with a citizen .

 

[HeyNorm]

Monk-Eye230117-#6,761 Monk-Eye • The dobbs decision by scrotus is sedition against us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments that is supported by traitors to us republic credo of e pluribus unum espouses independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties for those entitled by live birth to receive them . •••• As are babies , children have been born and are entitled to equal protection with a citizen.
•
NFBW230118-#6,777 • There is no similar situation between a fetus having a physical body and brain that has not developed to the moment of viability when successful separation at birth could be possible versus well after the moment of viability when a fetus is very likely to survive when separated from its mother. •••• But even so Monk-Eye is correct constitutionally and you and Flash are wrong:
•
HeyNorm230118-#6,778 • An 8 month gestated fetus is often functioning in such a manner that it is almost certainly able to independently sustain life, just as a newborn.
^
^
NFBW230118-#6,780 FACTS: Eight months is 34.64 weeks. Roe v Wade set legal abortion at 28 weeks. I agree with a federal abortion ban at 24 weeks except to save the life of the mother and from serious harm to the mother. •••• A fetus has a shot at premature birth survival at 22 weeks. I would be fine banning all abortions at English Common Law at 16 weeks if women only voted that way. There is no way that a sixteen week fetus is functioning and or physically capable of surviving outside the human natural womb. So what is your point about a 34.64 week old human being being similar situated to what?
^
^
HeyNorm230118-#6,781 HeyNorm • “So the 8 month gestated fetus should therefore, have constitutional protect rights? Yes or No
^
^
NFBW230118-#6,782 • Yes. I would definitely support a Constitutional Amendment that gives personhood rights to a fetus at 24 weeks in order to protect them from being killed in the womb as a matter of convenience. Because most women want to give birth after 24 weeks, the decision during complications at birth must still be between the mother and the doctors if something goes wrong and both persons cannot be saved
^
^
HeyNorm230118-#6,783 • Cool, so to be clear, civil rights should be granted to a 24 week gestated fetus?
^
^
NFBW230118-#6,785 • Whatever you want to call it. The 24 week fetus has a right not to be killed by its mother without extreme cause such as to save the mother from extreme harm and death because there is only one person who can stop its development in the womb before that 24 week moment. That is the person who assumes risk to herself if she decides to deliver her baby to the world..
^
^
HeyNorm230118-#6,786 • So we’ve established a civil right for 24 week gestated fetus. As is all civil rights, they are granted to persons. And if a 24 week gestated fetus is a person, then what is the reason that a 23 week gestated fetus is not “similarly situated” to it, but not granted the same protection?

NFBW: The 23 week gestated fetus continues to not be protected under the wording of the constitutional amendment I would support and told you about in post -NFBW230118-#6,782 :
•

“I would definitely support a Constitutional Amendment that gives personhood rights to a fetus at 24 weeks in order to protect them from being killed in the womb as a matter of convenience.” NFBW​

•
I would not support a constitutional amendment that fails to protect the natural right of a woman to terminate her own pregnancy before the secular law established gestation week of viability (quick fetus) occurs.
•
In the 24 week scenario that you proposed HeyNorm in your post HeyNorm230118-#6,783 :
•

“civil rights should be granted to a 24 week gestated fetus?” HeyNorm​

•​

The 23 week gestated fetus is not “similarly situated” to the 24 week fetus because it is not constitutionally viable when we are contemplating secular law and it remains under the autonomy of it’s mother who retains the right to terminate the 23 week fetus under the scenario you proposed.
•
END2301190216

So you would support a constitutional amendment giving constitutional/civil rights to certain “persons”, known as “fetuses” but exclude other “persons” for some reason, even though they are similarly situated.

Interesting, prior to Loving, blacks could marry certain persons, but not other persons, even though those other persons were considered “similarly situated”

So, by your logic, the state can ban interracial marriage and same sex marriage.

I knew we would get to the bottom of this given enough time.

 

[HeyNorm]

" Do Not Eat The Flesh Of An Animal While It Is Alive "

* Rhetorical Questions To Interfere In With Cause Medical Options *

Technically , no .

Fetal protection laws explicitly include that a death penalty cannot be applied as punishment for killing a fetus without maternal consent .

Not stated as to why a death penalty cannot be applied is that , by equitable doctrine , one must remove a wright to life of another to have their own wright to life removed .

A fetus is technically without constitutional protections , for not having met a live birth requirement of a citizen to receive them, therefore a wright to life of a fetus does not exist whereby a death penalty could be applied for it having been removed .

Once a live birth is accomplished equal protections with a citizen apply , to include due process and a wright to life .


* Hew Main Nuances Of Private Prosecution For Civil Infractions *
There are methods specified for euthanasia of some animals , else a charge of animal cruelty could be levied against an offender , which is exercised as a penalty for an act lacking of empathy for suffering ; however , in a technical sense , animal cruelty laws are not understood as constitutional protections of self ownership for the animal , rather restitution for violations of animal cruelty laws are levied against the private property element of a perpetrator , that is against the self determination of an individual .

Medical ethics is concerned with the onset of sentience so as to avoid causing suffering to whatever happens to be aborted ,

On a universal scale of exploitation , an exploitation of the inchoate is not excluded by hue mammon .

On a universal scale of exploitation , an exploitation of the choate is selectively excluded by hue mammon .

Then, by your writing, an abortion, up to the moment the head presents itself during birth, abortion of that fetus should always be legal.

Thanks for stating your opinion. It really is important to know the moral character of one’s opponent.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Self Mockery By Insipid Pricks "

* Propagandists Throwing Out The Kitchen Sink *

Then, by your writing, an abortion, up to the moment the head presents itself during birth, abortion of that fetus should always be legal.

Thanks for stating your opinion. It really is important to know the moral character of one’s opponent.

Demonstrate which " with cause " abortions are not to be medically necessary post 24 weeks of pregnancy , include when .

My presumption is that situations may exist which are not necessary understood or known by myself where an abortion may be necessary at post 24 weeks of pregnancy .

A post 24 weeks abortion , or partial birth abortion , would be performed to avoid the risk of trauma by delivery to the mother for an offspring that is not expected to survive a live birth .

Or what of deformity , or affliction , and quality of life ?

My expectations are that individuals are responsible to themselves for those decisions .

C-sections are designated as high risk procedures prior to 39 weeks .

 

[HeyNorm]

" Self Mockery By Insipid Pricks "

* Propagandists Throwing Out The Kitchen Sink *

Demonstrate which " with cause " abortions are not to be medically necessary post 24 weeks of pregnancy , include when .

My presumption is that situations may exist which are not necessary understood or known by myself where an abortion may be necessary at post 24 weeks of pregnancy .

A post 24 weeks abortion , or partial birth abortion , would be performed to avoid the risk of trauma by delivery to the mother for an offspring that is not expected to survive a live birth .

Or what of deformity , or affliction , and quality of life ?

My expectations are that individuals are responsible to themselves for those decisions .

C-sections are designated as high risk procedures prior to 39 weeks .

You have yet to demonstrate how a 23 week gestated fetus in not similarly situated to a 24 week gestated fetus, and as such, you simply present arguments similar to those in Nazi germany.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Pellinore221008-#8 Pellinore ••there are plenty of reasons for federal office-holders to put abortion front and center.
^
^
Cplus6222028-#9 • No. The only thing they can do is propose a Constitutional Amendment and neither side has 38 states to ban or make it a [blasphemously stupid and paradoxical] “constitutional right
•
Cplus6230108-#44 CarsomyrPlusSix • South Carolina needs to fix any part of their state constitution that could be abused this way and they need to remove any corrupt evil asshole judges who could rule like this. •••• It is up to them to fix it though, though they could certainly join a consensus of states to ban abortion via Constitutional Amendment, and they should..
•
beagle9-#6,655 @beagle9 • Nobody cares about that hillbilly hell hole down there in South Carolina,

NFBW: When a pregnant woman can be given a “right to privacy” at the expense of a fetus’s natural right to life that is based upon a ‘viability moment in gestation weeks’ and in a red state like South Carolina, even the reddest Supreme Court that another Trump “damn the Constitution” presidency could fulfill for the white Christian nationalists in America and around the world, it is politically probable that reproductive privacy rights are here to stay. ••••

And you can bet your sweet bippy HeyNorm all privacy rights created by SCOTUS are not under threat to be taken away as #Cplus6 explains above to #Pellinore ••••

Same Sex and interracial Marriage are here to stay because a viable fetus is not in any way similar situated to a not viable fetus. And English Common Law has legally defined the fetus right to protection starts when it becomes a quick fetus which means viable sufficient to live outside the womb. ••••

When contemplating secular law, life begins at viability stage of development not at the biological stage where and when life begins at conception.

So, by your logic, the state can ban interracial marriage and same sex marriage.

No. It can’t and won’t - see above. You are barking up the wrong tree. English Common Law splits pregnancy between viability and not viability as reasonable justice to the pregnant woman and the unborn human being. Your agenda to abolish judicial and governmental reasonableness is doomed to fail as is white Christian nationalists like Ginny Thomas was doomed to failure on January 6. ••••

Sam Alito said it best with the Dobbs decision

NFBW221224-#6,500 • Sam Alito is an intellectual Catholic and not in any way a hillbilly which is why he uttered these words on Dobbs;
•
“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..
•
Trump’s anti-abortion hillbillies will never get the significance of what Alito is saying right there

Ad as Inspector Jacques Clouseau affirmed “joostice is joostice”

END2301191036

 

[HeyNorm]

Pellinore221008-#8 Pellinore ••there are plenty of reasons for federal office-holders to put abortion front and center.
^
^
Cplus6222028-#9 • No. The only thing they can do is propose a Constitutional Amendment and neither side has 38 states to ban or make it a [blasphemously stupid and paradoxical] “constitutional right
•
Cplus6230108-#44 CarsomyrPlusSix • South Carolina needs to fix any part of their state constitution that could be abused this way and they need to remove any corrupt evil asshole judges who could rule like this. •••• It is up to them to fix it though, though they could certainly join a consensus of states to ban abortion via Constitutional Amendment, and they should..
•
beagle9-#6,655 @beagle9 • Nobody cares about that hillbilly hell hole down there in South Carolina,

NFBW: When a pregnant woman can be given a “right to privacy” at the expense of a fetus’s natural right to life that is based upon a ‘viability moment in gestation weeks’ and in a red state like South Carolina, even the reddest Supreme Court that another Trump “damn the Constitution” presidency could fulfill for the white Christian nationalists in America and around the world, it is politically probable that reproductive privacy rights are here to stay. ••••

And you can bet your sweet bippy HeyNorm all privacy rights created by SCOTUS are not under threat to be taken away as #Cplus6 explains above to #Pellinore ••••

Same Sex and interracial Marriage are here to stay because a viable fetus is not in any way similar situated to a not viable fetus. And English Common Law has legally defined the fetus right to protection starts when it becomes a quick fetus which means viable sufficient to live outside the womb. ••••

When contemplating secular law, life begins at viability stage of development not at the biological stage where and when life begins at conception.


No. It can’t and won’t - see above. You are barking up the wrong tree. English Common Law splits pregnancy between viability and not viability as reasonable Justice to the pregnant woman and the unborn human being. Your agenda to abolish judicial and governmental reasonableness is doomed to fail as is white Christian nationalists like Ginny Thomas was doomed to failure on January 6. ••••

Sam Alito said it best with the Dobbs decision

NFBW221224-#6,500 • Sam Alito is an intellectual Catholic and not in any way a hillbilly which is why he uttered these words on Dobbs;
•
“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..
•
Trump’s anti-abortion hillbillies will never get the significance of what Alito is saying right there

END2301191036

Viable and not viable is only determinable if the fetus is killed and an autopsy is performed.

Word salad and ancient terms such as “quickening” won’t fly. If you would apply traditional thought as your argument, that lost in both the Windsor and Obergfell cases.

Once again, if you grant constitutional/ civil rights to a fetus at 24 weeks, YOU must provide logical reasoning in how a 23 week fetus is not similarly situated to a 24 week fetus. Not my rules, it is legal precedent you are in conflict with.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

“Life begins at quickening” is an archaic notion that science disproved ages ago.

It is beyond appalling to see someone use such rhetoric in the modern day and belies an incredible ignorance, just general contempt for truth and reality, or both.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6230119-#6,796 - “Life begins at quickening” is an archaic notion that science disproved ages ago.

What scientists can you cite who have proven scientifically that common law is archaic and disproved by biological science? •••• Common law is based on reason and legal precedent and it is the system we have used since the era when America came into being. Commin Law remains essential in maintaining the free and self-regulating society that you and I share. You CarsomyrPlusSix must accept people of Jewish faith who are good civilized Americans who happen to believe life and viability occur at first breath. You need not call them barbaric.

END2301192123

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW230119-#6,794 • When contemplating secular law, life begins at viability stage of development not at the biological stage where and when life begins at conception.

HeyNorm239119-#6,795 • Viable and not viable is only determinable if the fetus is killed and an autopsy is performed

NFBW: I cannot make you HeyNorm contemplate secular law and the generally considered scientific and medical consensus on when a fetus becomes viable. You are stuck on biological viability and the idea that protected life begins at Catholic dogma at the same instant biological life begins - at conception. ••••

I will keep trying to explain “contemplation of secular law” to you.

What is fetal viability?
In medicine, it’s the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. It is generally considered to be around 23 or 24 weeks, but there’s no universal consensus

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/12/01/what-is-viability/

NATHAN: The common law holds that abortion is lawful up to the quickening, which the scientists involved in Roe v Wade points to happening just after the first trimester, but prior to that decision was said to be at the halfway mark when the baby is felt kicking, and after the quickening it is considered murder of an unborn child. It’s not a political issue but an issue of lawfulness. The Common Law and How it Pertains to Abortion “Rights”​

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ST. LOUIS — More than a dozen faith leaders filed suit Thursday in St. Louis Circuit Court to overturn Missouri’s abortion ban, arguing state legislators acted based on their personal religious beliefs and violated the separation of church and state protected in Missouri’s Constitution.​

​

Religious leaders sue to overturn Missouri’s abortion ban

ding221121-#5,715 “Abortion is a human rights issue. Not a religious issue”

poor #ding Missouri lawmakers banned abortion after Dobbs and are being sued for violating separation of church and state by preachers and rabbis.

The lawsuit lists several examples in which religious doctrine is mentioned:​

Missouri’s law regulating abortions begins with, “In recognition that Almighty God is the author of life ... it is the intention of the General Assembly to defend the right to life of all humans, born and unborn.”​

​

The lead sponsor of the bill banning abortion, then-Rep. Nick Schroer, a Republican from St. Charles County, argued that “as a Catholic, I do believe life begins at conception, and that is built into our legislative findings.” Schroer is now a member of the Missouri Senate.​

​

Another co-sponsor, Rep. Barry Hovis, R-Cape Girardeau County, stated that “from the Biblical side of it … life does occur at the point of conception.”​

​

Rep. Ben Baker, R-Newton County, said, “From the one-cell stage at the moment of conception, you were already there … you equally share the image of our Creator.”​

​

And then Rep. Holly Thompson Rehder, a Republican from Sikeston, urged passage of the ban by stating: “God doesn’t give us a choice in this area. He is the creator of life. And I, being made in His image and likeness, don’t get to choose to take that away, no matter how that child came to be. To me, life begins at conception, and my God doesn’t give that option.” Thompson Rehder is a state senator now.​

​

Banker says the legislators showed their cards during their arguments.​

​

“It makes Missouri a particularly special place to bring a suit like this,” she said. “It’s just so clear that these abortion bans were religiously motivated. The legislators were unequivocal about it.”​

​

END2301200047

​

​

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Missouri’s law regulating abortions begins with, “In recognition that Almighty God is the author of life ... it is the intention of the General Assembly to defend the right to life of all humans, born and unborn.”

ding221121-#5,715 ding “Abortion is a human rights issue. Not a religious issue”

NFBW: Looks like Christian religion is involved in Missouri’s abortion ban when it start’s with “In recognition that Almighty God is the author of life ... it is the intention of the General Assembly to defend the right to life of all humans, born and unborn.”