Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[whutTHEYsay]

If a couple marries, is the combination of assets makes one partner a slave, or parasite to the other? And if the two want to divorce, can the more powerful one of the two kill the other for convenience sake?

Using your very description of how life is valued, you answer must be Yes.

NFBW: a couple that marries is between two consenting adults or some arranged bullshit , both of whom have experienced and survived actual live birth. The relationship between a pregnant woman and her fetus are in no way connected to a marriage between two adults.

END2302051837

 

[whutTHEYsay]

If a couple marries,

NFBW: that was not the question.

do you believe a 20 week fetus should be the master and the mother is the slave and what HeyNorm called a “shared interest” where the pregnant woman has no say in rejecting the fetus’ demand to use her body for nine months of her life.

END 2302052842

 

[HeyNorm]

NFBW: a couple that marries is between two consenting adults or some arranged bullshit , both of whom have experienced and survived actual live birth. The relationship between a pregnant woman and her fetus are in no way connected to a marriage between two adults.

END2302051837

God your a runner. It’s an example of shared resources.

And the child didn’t need to consent, the mother did, and that’s all that’s important.

So now you think an agreived spouse can kill its partner. A homeless person can be killed, blacks can be enslaved and same sex marriage should be illegal.

How the hell do you sleep at night?

 

[HeyNorm]

NFBW: that was not the question.

do you believe a 20 week fetus should be the master and the mother is the slave and what HeyNorm called a “shared interest” where the pregnant woman has no say in rejecting the fetus’ demand to use her body for nine months of her life.

END 2302052842

She offered the service, consented to it, and should be forced, by law, to fulfill the agreement.

Not seeing the problem here.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I’m

She offered the service, consented to it, and should be forced, by law, to fulfill the agreement.

NFBW: How and why exactly does a woman offer her reproduction or birthing services up to a non-existent person that’s not wanted to live inside her body for nine mine with a potential to be the cause of pain harm or even death just to end up giving that potential human being up for adoption with nothing to gain for the entire ordeal?

Once again HeyNorm you posit yet another extreme absurdity of an irrational mind within your global argument that a government must be given authority to subject women to nine months of biological slavery to a fetus master that she never wanted or consents to be produced by the use of her reproductive organs following the experience of having equal pleasures of sexual intercourse with a male of her species who faces no such ordeal as pregnancy, although the male often times is the sole instigator who presses the female to arousal and the uncontrollable desire to have mutually agreed to SEX.

I see in your world of male domination over women it is not surprising that you don’t see women as equals as men so pregnancy must be forced on the women when mutual consent to be pleasured goes awry,

You say you have no religion HeyNorm but somehow your mind has absorbed the male dominance aspect of the HOLY Roman Catholic Church and making women solely responsible for the “sin” and evil of casual or recreational sex between two consenting adults.

END2302060806

 

[Monk-Eye]

" What Ifs With A Dose Of Nonsense "

* Sanctimonious Horror Clown Advocates *

Ok in very simple terms, tell us your position on why a fetus is ok to be protected at 24 week's, but not at 23 week's ? Go.

The 24 week demarcation is based on general conclusions for an onset of a natural ability to survive an imminent live birth , which roe v wade substituted in lieu of a live birth that is required for equal protection with a citizen .

Assuming adequate access to abortion prior to 15 weeks , what difference does it make when abortions occurring post 15 weeks are optioned " with cause " and not " without cause " ?

The establishment clause violators and traitors to us republic want everyone to believe that " without cause " abortions are a normative behavior to justify a demented moral superiority .

The anti-choice imbeciles ignored the obvious wisdom of roe v wade conclusions so they could quibble about red herrings .

 

[beagle9]

So the homeless should be eligible for death for not owning stuff now?

These people are incredible

They'll say anything...

 

[beagle9]

You want to stuff your government up someone else's crotch. Mind your own fucking business.

No you want federal government to supercede local government who is closer to it's cultural society, it's needs, and it's wants than a federal government is or could be. The leftist recognized this weakness or doorway years ago, and they have been exploiting it ever since.

So of course the leftist want an authoritarian action to come from a federal bench, otherwise that is always out of touch with the locals, and just like a large corporate behemoth the federal government is, it is more easier to persuade or confuse than a local government (i.e. smaller business for example), that would be more in tune with it's constituents/customer's needs and local society than an out of touch over reaching federal government or corporation would be.

 

[beagle9]

" What Ifs With A Dose Of Nonsense "

* Sanctimonious Horror Clown Advocates *

The 24 week demarcation is based on general conclusions for an onset of a natural ability to survive an imminent live birth , which roe v wade substituted in lieu of a live birth that is required for equal protection with a citizen .

Assuming adequate access to abortion prior to 15 weeks , what difference does it make when abortions occurring post 15 weeks are optioned " with cause " and not " without cause " ?

The establishment clause violators and traitors to us republic want everyone to believe that " without cause " abortions are a normative behavior to justify a demented moral superiority .

The anti-choice imbeciles ignored the obvious wisdom of roe v wade conclusions so they could quibble about red herrings .

So they went looking for a reason to give to a woman in order to make her concious more clearer about the taking of her unborn babies life, otherwise in order for her to discard or kill her baby with a little less guilt is what you are saying ? Yes that sum's it up quiet nicely I'd say. Still isn't right, but we see how you people think.

 

[HeyNorm]

I’m

NFBW: How and why exactly does a woman offer her reproduction or birthing services up to a non-existent person that’s not wanted to live inside her body for nine mine with a potential to be the cause of pain harm or even death just to end up giving that potential human being up for adoption with nothing to gain for the entire ordeal?

Once again HeyNorm you posit yet another extreme absurdity of an irrational mind within your global argument that a government must be given authority to subject women to nine months of biological slavery to a fetus master that she never wanted or consents to be produced by the use of her reproductive organs following the experience of having equal pleasures of sexual intercourse with a male of her species who faces no such ordeal as pregnancy, although the male often times is the sole instigator who presses the female to arousal and the uncontrollable desire to have mutually agreed to SEX.

I see in your world of male domination over women it is not surprising that you don’t see women as equals as men so pregnancy must be forced on the women when mutual consent to be pleasured goes awry,

You say you have no religion HeyNorm but somehow your mind has absorbed the male dominance aspect of the HOLY Roman Catholic Church and making women solely responsible for the “sin” and evil of casual or recreational sex between two consenting adults.

END2302060806

How long have you thought women were stupid?

 

[HeyNorm]

So they went looking for a reason to give to a woman in order to make her concious more clearer about the taking of her unborn babies life, otherwise in order for her to discard or kill her baby with a little less guilt is what you are saying ? Yes that sum's it up quiet nicely I'd say. Still isn't right, but we see how you people think.

The 24 week demarcation is based on general conclusions for an onset of a natural ability to survive an imminent live birth

Did you see how Monk-Eye violates equal protection of similarly situated groups

It’s based on the general conclusions for an onset of a natural ability to survive an imminent birth.

The demarcation is actually the ability to survive an imminent birth.

Equal protection demands that any other individual (under the 24 week threshold) within a similarly situated group, that can attain this “ability to survive an imminent birth”, must also be protected if it can be proven that any within that group has achieved equal or greater development than a a 24 week old.

To deny this is to accept the premise that abortion is a barbaric act.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

NFBW230123-#6,871 When I look at the objects in the graphic above I reference the most scientific laymen’s language in our highly civilized world to say that I see it as a living human organism. That means I do not dehumanize that living human organism. •••• You beagle9 on the other hand see the object in the graphic as a baby needing to be given autonomy over his or her mother. To me when you religious fanatics say stuff like that I am quite certain that you are a religious authoritarian with an agenda to drive America back to the medieval Christianity and monarchy alliance that Washington Adams Jefferson and Madison abhorred and rejected so you can strut around letting everyone know you are better than them - if they don’t love Jesus’s and consume religious dogma the same way that you do.

NFBW: I will once again introduce you to James Madison beagle9 , the father of our Constitution which is the actual document for the foundations of our civilized society and secular law here in America.
•
The Constitution defines slaves as persons:

•​

Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” •••• The Constitution refers to slaves using three different formulations: “other persons” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), “such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3).​

•
NFBW: And Madison is on record that he believed all persons have a conscience and a conscience is property that each person owns.
•

Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and unalienable right. James Madison​

•
NFBW: fetuses up 24 weeks do not have a physical or material or sell functioning brain and thus are not in possession of a conscience subject to equal protection under the law.

Science can tell us the life of a human organism begins at conception but not when life of a person with a conscience actually begins.

NFBW230205-#7,123 • Do you think the 23 week brainless fetus is the owner of the human body within which it resides?
^^
beagle930205-#7,143 • No it doesn't own anything

NFBW: You and I agree beagle9 that a 23 week fetus and a 24 week fetus do not own a conscience as Madison defined it as property,

Are you in agreement with Madison? If not please explain why not.

End2302060927

 

[HeyNorm]

NFBW: fetuses up 24 weeks do not have a physical or material or sell functioning brain and thus are not in possession of a conscience subject to equal protection under the law.

Some do prior to 24 weeks. Fetuses do not develop at the same rate.

You once again proved the arbitrary nature of your argument and the denial of equal protection to similarly situated groups.

Why do you hate gays?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

beagle930205-#7,143 beagle9 • …….the knowledgeable adult mother that's carrying that fetus should have enough civilized character about herself, otherwise in order to understand that it is her duty as a mother to protect and nurture the new life growing within her womb

NFBW: What duty? To what authority, civil or spiritual, does a woman living in a secular civil society, based upon established constitutional rights and freedom of conscience, have an obligation or responsibility to protect and nurture the new life growing within her womb when she as a free person primarily gives her consent to be governed by a government that guarantees she have freedom of conscience and autonomy over her own body and she does not want to protect and nurture the new life growing within her womb?????

END2302060959

 

[beagle9]

Did you see how Monk-Eye violates equal protection of similarly situated groups

It’s based on the general conclusions for an onset of a natural ability to survive an imminent birth.

The demarcation is actually the ability to survive an imminent birth.

Equal protection demands that any other individual (under the 24 week threshold) within a similarly situated group, that can attain this “ability to survive an imminent birth”, must also be protected if it can be proven that any within that group has achieved equal or greater development than a a 24 week old.

To deny this is to accept the premise that abortion is a barbaric act.

Yep, and it all just comes down to being CIVILIZED, but these days the leftist have blurred those lines for many who are just gullible big time. The fall out has been devastating.

 

[beagle9]

beagle930205-#7,143 beagle9 • …….the knowledgeable adult mother that's carrying that fetus should have enough civilized character about herself, otherwise in order to understand that it is her duty as a mother to protect and nurture the new life growing within her womb

NFBW: What duty? To what authority, civil or spiritual, does a woman living in a secular civil society, based upon established constitutional rights and freedom of conscience, have an obligation or responsibility to protect and nurture the new life growing within her womb when she as a free person primarily gives her consent to be governed by a government that guarantees she have freedom of conscience and autonomy over her own body and she does not want to protect and nurture the new life growing within her womb?????

END2302060959

You try and speak for a woman, and that's hilarious..

 

[whutTHEYsay]

beagle930205-#7,143 • …….the knowledgeable adult mother that's carrying that fetus should have enough civilized character about herself, otherwise in order to understand that it is her duty as a mother to protect and nurture the new life growing within her womb
^^
NFBW230206-#7,174 • What duty? To what authority, civil or spiritual, does a woman living in a secular civil society, based upon established constitutional rights and freedom of conscience, have an obligation or responsibility to protect and nurture the new life growing within her womb when she as a free person primarily gives her consent to be governed by a government that guarantees she have freedom of conscience and autonomy over her own body and she does not want to protect and nurture the new life growing within her womb?????
^^
beagle9230206-#7,176 • You try and speak for a woman, and that's hilarious..

NFBW: Actually you posted 7143 about duty as a mother to protect and nurture the living human organism whenever this

happens to one of her eggs. So I challenged you 7174 to clarify to what authority is a pregnant person is obligated as you claim she must be.

If you are clueless about that just say so and then promise you won’t make that claim ever again.

END2302051027

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Au Natural Stipulations Of Naturalism In Normative Vector Spaces "

* Diction Includes Implied Meanings *

Did you see how Monk-Eye violates equal protection of similarly situated groups
It’s based on the general conclusions for an onset of a natural ability to survive an imminent birth.
The demarcation is actually the ability to survive an imminent birth. Equal protection demands that any other individual (under the 24 week threshold) within a similarly situated group, that can attain this “ability to survive an imminent birth”, must also be protected if it can be proven that any within that group has achieved equal or greater development than a a 24 week old.

The term imminent means capable of occurring within a current moment of time .

* Particulars Of Over Drawn Attempts Clarified *

To deny this is to accept the premise that abortion is a barbaric act.

Most succinctly , 24 weeks is a normative rule for predicting an ability to survive a live birth and is sufficiently near a minimal stage of development for an onset of sentience to be presumed .

A legal victim is required : whether by a live birth requirement for equal protection of law , from a birth requirement to be a citizen and by equitable doctrine ; or , whether by cognitive objection upon which empathy for suffering is proposed as sufficient to represent any other sentient being by proxy .

On a universal scale of exploitation , hue mammon does not maintain exclusion from exploitation for inchoate , non sentient beings , and hue mammon selectively allows exclusion from exploitation of the choate , whether sentient or sapient .

* Sentience Onset Reference *

https://serendipstudio.org/local/scisoc/brownbag/brownbag0506/fetalpain.pdf

 

[whutTHEYsay]

HeyNorm230206-#7,171 • The demarcation is actually the ability to survive an imminent birth.
^^
Monk-Eye230206-#7,178 • The term imminent means capable of occurring within a current moment of time .
~
NFBW: The demarcation in Roe v Wade is 28 weeks. Justice Blackmunn explained what it means for reasonably informed humans to be able comprehend.

The Stupid “Autopsy Argument” revisited:
HeyNorm230128-#376 In all seriousness, how does one determine that, short of an autopsy.
^^
NFBW230128-#6,967 - No autopsies are ever needed because viability is in regards to potential life. Justice Blackmun supremely defined viability back in 1973.
^^^
NFBW230121-#6,815 Nixon appointee to the Supreme Court in 1970…. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing the majority opinion for Roe, defined viability as the point where a fetus “has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb”:
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Blackmunn.​

NFBW: If you take exception HeyNorm to Blackmunn’s explanation of viability demarcation that stood in law for fifty years and remains without violation of any equal protection laws, please put your objections in writing or forever hold your “equal protection violation” bullshit in silence and in peace.

END2302061121

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm230206-#7,171 • The demarcation is actually the ability to survive an imminent birth.
^^
Monk-Eye230206-#7,178 • The term imminent means capable of occurring within a current moment of time .
~
NFBW: The demarcation in Roe v Wade is 28 weeks. Justice Blackmunn explained what it means for reasonably informed humans to be able comprehend.

The Stupid “Autopsy Argument” revisited:
HeyNorm230128-#376 In all seriousness, how does one determine that, short of an autopsy.
^^
NFBW230128-#6,967 - No autopsies are ever needed because viability is in regards to potential life. Justice Blackmun supremely defined viability back in 1973.
^^^
NFBW230121-#6,815 Nixon appointee to the Supreme Court in 1970…. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing the majority opinion for Roe, defined viability as the point where a fetus “has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb”:
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Blackmunn.​

NFBW: If you take exception HeyNorm to Blackmunn’s explanation of viability demarcation that stood in law for fifty years and remains without violation of any equal protection laws, please put your objections in writing or forever hold your “equal protection violation” bullshit in silence and in peace.

END2302061121

It is not required to take exception. What is required, under the legal standing of similarly situated groups being granted equal protection under the law is that you provide evidence that a 23 week gestated fetus cannot have advanced to the point of any fetus that is of 24 weeks gestation.

If the argument is, that a 24 week gestated fetus has reached this stage, then you must prove that NO, 23 week gestated fetus could have.

If you cannot provide such, you concede the argument and therefore you fail.