Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[BackAgain]

All encompassed Legal rights come after you have been birthed, ....after you are born.

We are way past that point in the discussion. And there is no substance to your contention. Life is life. The right to life ought to encompass the preborn.

That's just the way it is,

No. It isn’t.

and has to be....

No. It doesn’t have to be that way at all.

in the legal sense...imo.

No support for your opinion.

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: My Answer to BackAgain Question BAQ001 Is as follows 7797 7801 7809 7835

BackAgain230319-#7,801 to: -4 Why shouldn’t a society act upon its own hierarchy of values without concern for any historical so-called “common law” ?

NFBW230319-#7,809 to: -8 We live in a multicultural society where we all have freedom of conscience. There is no ‘hierarchy of values” that each American will use as a moral compass. If it exists please tell me all about

Finally! An answer.

Yes. Our society is multicultural. However, you are misguided. Freedom of conscience doesn’t trump the right to life. If it did, your conscience might tell you that some other person is undeserving of life. If you acted upon that mere whim, you’d be charged with murder. A defense that your freedom of conscience justified your behavior would be shot to shit.

The right to life (the higher value) supersedes your freedom of conscience or freedom of bodily movement.

BackAgain BAQ001 Why shouldn’t a society act upon its own hierarchy of values without concern for any historical so-called “common law” ?

NFBW answer to BAQ001.a.1 Because we live in a multicultural society where we all have individual freedom of conscience.

Nope. See prior response, above.

NFBW answer to BAQ001.b.1 There is no ‘hierarchy of values” that each American will use as a moral compass. If it exists please tell me all about it.

Yes there is and of course it exists. You may choose not to agree that life is the value at the apex, but if you act on it, society will advise you how wrong you are. There is a reason that murder is a major felony and littering isn’t.

NFBW: Please reply to BAQ001.a.1 separately in a single post.

No. Already answered above.

NFBW: Please reply to BAQ001.b.1 separately in a single post. And please follow up on my request for action in Bold format,

No. Already answered above.

Your numbering system is ridiculous.

END2303210810

Stardate21032023.7

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: see post #7,835

I will assign code numbers to each question you ask from here on out so that you cannot use this one of your tricks evermore.

thank you END2303210815

I haven’t used tricks you whining sissy.

I answer a post in discreet segments. Your gibberish is unreadable. Your application is therefore denied.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Freedom of conscience doesn’t trump the right to life.

I am not arguing that it does

 

[BackAgain]

I am not arguing that it does

Actually, you have been doing exactly that. And a pathetic argument it has been.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Actually, you have been doing exactly that

NFBW: My conscience is based upon reason not revelation, therefore I make a distinction between life prior to first breath and after first breath as many law abiding moral Jewish Americans do based on revelation.

So you are a liar because I do not endorse any suggestion or insist or desire that my freedom of conscience trumps the right to life of any human life on the human lifespan continuum from conception until death.

If you think I do - refer to it or quit lying.

END2303211155

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: My conscience is based upon reason not revelation, therefore I make a distinction between life prior to first breath and after first breath

That’s fine. But life remains life regardless of the distinction you draw.

as many law abiding moral Jewish Americans do based on revelation.

Irrelevant.

So you are a liar because I do not endorse any suggestion or insist or desire that my freedom of conscience trumps the right to life of any human life on the human lifespan continuum from conception until death.

Stop lying. You support the so-called “right” of “choice” for a woman to snuff out the life of the preborn human over the right of that preborn life to live. You support abortion.

If you think I do - refer to it or quit lying.

END2303211155

You need to quit lying. Not just to me, but to yourself.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

That’s fine. But life remains life regardless of the distinction you draw.

NFBW: Of course life remains life in two different legal realms according to the Constitution of the United States. There are those like you and I who have taken our first breath. There are those who have not.

When I fathered a child, twice in my life, my wife and I chose to grant the right and give them full life. Then I got fixed and thus have no interest in what other sexual partners do.

So if you are not Catholic but believe Catholic doctrine that abortion is some kind of sin against God or harms civilized society in some way - dont have sex unless you both agree to give a new life the opportunity to go the whole way to first breath. With everyone else you don’t know just mind your business - they do you no harm with any abortion they may get. Lead by example.

END2303211728

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: Of course life remains life in two different legal realms according to the Constitution of the United States.

That’s not “of course.” It isn’t even true.

There are those like you and I who have taken our first breath. There are those who have not.

There are those, like me, who are honest. And then there are those, like you, who are dishonest.

When I fathered a child, twice in my life, my wife and I chose to grant the right and give them full life.

Gee. Weren’t you special? You “granted” them life.

Then I got fixed and thus have no interest in what other sexual partners do.

Nobody gives a shit about your reporsuxtivw abilities or disabilities. Not at all relevant to our discussion.

So if you are not Catholic but believe Catholic doctrine that abortion is some kind of sin against God or harms civilized society in some way - dont have sex unless you both agree to give a new life the opportunity to go the whole way to first breath. With everyone else you don’t know just mind your business - they do you no harm with any abortion they may get. Lead by example.

No. Again, society is perfectly well allowed to try to protect the lives of all.

END2303211728

Stardate:21032023.75

 

[whutTHEYsay]

No. Again, society is perfectly well allowed to try to protect the lives of all.

Allowed by whom?

 

[BackAgain]

Allowed by whom?

By the very same society, obviously.

 

[beagle9]

All encompassed Legal rights come after you have been birthed, ....after you are born. That's just the way it is, and has to be.... in the legal sense...imo.

Doesn't have to be, so what are you saying, otherwise that nothing can revert or be tweaked if a serious problem evolves ??? That's not the America I've known or have been a part of most of my life, otherwise if we develope a problem that most agree is a serious problem, then think God we aren't so rigid that we can't fix a problem, and then we are (at the least), smart enough to solve a problem just as it should be. Nothing is written in stone by us, so we have wiggle room when things go wrong.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

BackAgain220721-#3,747 Our Constitution clearly guarantees the right to life, etc.

NFBW220721-#3,748 • Not for living human zygotes or any other cells and tissue with individual DNA while “it” is existing unborn inside the uterus and womb of an impregnated human being

NFBW: Where in the Constitution BackAgain does it guarantee the right to life to a potential “birthed being” while at the preborn zygote stage of development fully dependent and attached to a separate individual person’s neurological and biological body functions needed to survive?

NFBW230321-#7,848 • Of course life remains life in two different legal realms according to the Constitution of the United States.

BackAgain230321-#7,849 • That’s not “of course.” It isn’t even true.

NFBW: Do you deny BackAgain that the Constitution applies to citizens who are born / not to citizens who are conceived?

NFBW221230-#6,036 Here is the part of the constitution that defines what “the people” are.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

END2303212122

 

[BackAgain]

BackAgain220721-#3,747 Our Constitution clearly guarantees the right to life, etc.

Now, retracing much of our discussion, in his typically verbose and meaningless style, FOOLEDbyLife has nothing new to offer.

It’s what I expected from the pro-abortionist.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Now, retracing much of our discussion,

You are engaged in a monologue with yourself - you avoided another question .

NFBW: Do you deny BackAgain that the Constitution applies to citizens who are born / not to citizens who are conceived?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

BackAgain230321-#7,843 • “Freedom of conscience doesn’t trump the right to life.”

NFBW230321-#7,844 • I am not arguing that it does

BackAgain230321-#7,845 • Actually, you have been doing exactly that.

NFBW: None of my freedom’s, BackAgain including freedom of conscience, trump any conscious living breathing human being’s right to life or any other right all humans have in our law and order society.

END2303220041

 

[BackAgain]

You are engaged in a monologue with yourself - you avoided another question .

NFBW: Do you deny BackAgain that the Constitution applies to citizens who are born / not to citizens who are conceived?

As I keep telling you, your question is irrelevant. I understand that you don’t comprehend that fact.

Sad really. If you’d just accept a grain of truth you could become a good person.

Life is the highest value. If you still can’t admit that to yourself, you may never be honest about anything.

Once you grant that life is the highest value, then you’re going to have to acknowledge that snuffing out the life of the preborn human life can’t be justified by mere inconvenience or the value of “choice.”

Are there instances where the value of life yields? Yes. Sadly, we all recognize that fact too. But as a form of contraception? No.

And the thing is: you probably know it. But you keep lying to yourself.

 

[Care4all]

Doesn't have to be, so what are you saying, otherwise that nothing can revert or be tweaked if a serious problem evolves ??? That's not the America I've known or have been a part of most of my life, otherwise if we develope a problem that most agree is a serious problem, then think God we aren't so rigid that we can't fix a problem, and then we are (at the least), smart enough to solve a problem just as it should be. Nothing is written in stone by us, so we have wiggle room when things go wrong.

Of course, but government controlling women, their body, and their own decisions, is not one of those situations....

You don't trust government for anything, YET you insist the government is smart enough, and wise enough to make this personal and medical decision... for all women, in every circumstance....without knowing all individual circumstance? ....y'all got another thing coming!

 

[beagle9]

Of course, but government controlling women, their body, and their own decisions, is not one of those situations....

You don't trust government for anything, YET you insist the government is smart enough, and wise enough to make this personal and medical decision... for all wonen, in every circumstance....without knowing all individual circumstance, y'all got another thing coming.

Personal and medical decision? Your side tries it's best to clean up your dirty deeds with clean terms like Medical and parenthood etc.... No one is fooled by the bull shite anymore or rather if they ever were fooled by it.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

BackAgain220721-#3,747 • Our Constitution clearly guarantees the right to life, etc.

NFBW220721-#3,748 • Not for living human zygotes or any other cells and tissue with individual DNA while “it” is existing unborn inside the uterus and womb of an impregnated human being

NFBW230321-#7,846 • My conscience is based upon reason not revelation, therefore I make a distinction between life prior to first breath and after first breath

BackAgain230321-#7,847 to: -1 That’s fine. But life remains life regardless of the distinction you draw.

NFBW230321-#7,848 • Of course life remains life in two different legal realms according to the Constitution of the United States.

BackAgain230321-#7,849 • That’s not “of course.” It isn’t even true.

NFBW230321-#7,853 • Where in the Constitution BackAgain does it guarantee the right to life to a potential “birthed being” while at the preborn zygote stage of development fully dependent and attached to a separate individual person’s neurological and biological body functions needed to survive?

NFBW230321-#7,853 • Do you deny BackAgain that the Constitution applies to citizens who are born / not to citizens who are conceived?

BackAgain230322-#7,857 • As I keep telling you, your question is irrelevant.

Brief Summation of the above as follows:

3747 You: Constitution guarantees the right to life,

3748 Me: Not for living human zygotes

7853 Me; Where in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to life to a zygote

7848 Me: life remains life in two different legal realms according to the Constitution of the United States.

7849 You: It isn’t true.

7853 Me: Do you deny BackAgain that the Constitution applies to citizens who are born / not to citizens who are conceived?

7857 You; your question is irrelevant

NFBW230322-#7,860 to: -3 No. It is precise and concise evidence in writing in the form of a question that proves your word means nothing and that is a shitty place to be in the midst of a discussion where facts and truth and integrity of one’s word mean everything •••• You use the ploy of “irrelevant” more than any other poster that has engaged in conversation with me. •••• So concise at your request: You are a liar BackAgain beyond a shadow of a doubt. You cannot prove that of me.

END2303220745