Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[NotfooledbyW]

You support the right to abort a life for mere convenience.

Yes. I support the right to choose to abort a life before a life can develop its own brain. That is no verification that I support the choice to do it for convenience. It’s a private matter that does no harm to a person so a woman is free to do it. There is no impact of harm to society if a woman terminates a life when it is a non-person.

Aborting a life at any stage of development has an impact if you are Catholic. So if you are Catholic do not have sex unless you are married and intend to raise kids for Jesus and the Virgin Mary. But don’t impose your Catholic morality on everyone else.

END2303281058

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BackAgain230318-#7,747 to: -2 ¥ BackAgain ¥ “Brain development is another line.”

NFBW: How many weeks from conception does it take to form a second brain in a woman’s body during pregnancy? The science I’ve read it’s about 22 weeks.

Do you agree with the science?

is it correct to conclude based on science that a fetus at six weeks doesn’t have its own brain?

END2303281206

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: In law there are two legal moments of significance in every human life.

Time of birth And Time of death.

Adult teeth develop after time of birth which is well past the time of pregnancy.

I do support a mother’s right to privacy and respect that she has full bodily autonomy for the first 22 weeks of pregnancy .

I cannot in good conscience insist that our government forces women whom I do not know to continue the development in her body when science tells me that all things going on with her body are operating under the biological function of only one brain.

Because there is only one brain involved, there is only one person involved during the first 22 weeks of pregnancy therefore morally it is not possible for a pregnant woman to be harming a person if she terminates a fetus at 15 weeks.

At fifteen weeks it is certainly a matter of her right to privacy because it involves biologically only her mind in what she chooses to do. I have no legal or moral say in a matter that I cannot know is or was taking place nor does it concern me when only one person is involved in a health decision between a woman and her doctor.

END2303280850

Life begins at conception.

I believe you’ve already agreed to that factual statement.

That human life is involved in any decision made about aborting it.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes. I support the right to choose to abort a life before a life can develop its own brain.

I know. I’ve read your posts before.

That is no verification that I support the choice to do it for convenience. It’s a private matter that does no harm to a person so a woman is free to do it.

Immediate self contradiction doesn’t help you make a point. You support choice over life. And you forget that abortion does irreparable harm to the life of that preborn human.

There is no impact of harm to society if a woman terminates a life when it is a non-person.

Of course there is. Not significantly different than of someone were to murder you.

Aborting a life at any stage of development has an impact if you are Catholic. So if you are Catholic do not have sex unless you are married and intend to raise kids for Jesus and the Virgin Mary. But don’t impose your Catholic morality on everyone else.

Irrelevant. You keep trying to make this about religion. It isn’t.

 

[BackAgain]

BackAgain230318-#7,747 to: -2 ¥ BackAgain ¥ “Brain development is another line.”

NFBW: How many weeks from conception does it take to form a second brain in a woman’s body during pregnancy? The science I’ve read it’s about 22 weeks.

Do you agree with the science?

is it correct to conclude based on science that a fetus at six weeks doesn’t have its own brain?

END2303281206

Irrelevant. It is a human life in a stage of development.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BackAgain230318-#7,747 to: -2 ¥ BackAgain ¥ “Brain development is another line.”

NFBW239328-#7,982 to: -235 “Is it correct to conclude based on science that a fetus at six weeks doesn’t have its own brain?”

BackAgain230328-#7,985 to: -3 ¥ BackAgain ¥ “ It is a human life in a stage of development.”

NFBW: I agree that every pregnant woman at six weeks carries a human life in a fluid and highly complex stage of development.

However, I am trying to establish another fact at six weeks that we should be able to agree upon notwithstanding whether or not you wish to opine on the relevance of the following fact.

Science tells me that a six week old fetus has no brain which means the fetus’s development is dependent upon it’s mothers’s brain.

Do you accept that as a fact.

The relevance applies to the matter of legal personhood because what makes us human beings and individual persons is our unique highly developed human brain. Our brain sets us apart from the animal kingdoms.

You contend that human life exists in a six week old fetus. I agree fully with that fact. I contend based upon scientific fact that fetal life at six weeks gets no obligation from me or the woman carrying it because it has no brain or mind of its own and is therefore not equipped at that point to be a person.

You have not explained your reasoning as to why I cannot rely on the factual brainless existence of a six to fifteen week fetus to distinguish between the value of brainless life and the life of a human being who has capability to be conscious of self at some point during pregnancy.

END2308281445

 

[BackAgain]

BackAgain230318-#7,747 to: -2 ¥ BackAgain ¥ “Brain development is another line.”

NFBW239328-#7,982 to: -235 “Is it correct to conclude based on science that a fetus at six weeks doesn’t have its own brain?”

BackAgain230328-#7,985 to: -3 ¥ BackAgain ¥ “ It is a human life in a stage of development.”

NFBW: I agree that every pregnant woman at six weeks carries a human life in a fluid and highly complex stage of development.

However, I am trying to establish another fact at six weeks that we should be able to agree upon notwithstanding whether or not you wish to opine on the relevance of the following fact.

Science tells me that a six week old fetus has no brain which means the fetus’s development is dependent upon it’s mothers’s brain.

Do you accept that as a fact.

The relevance applies to the matter of legal personhood because what makes us human beings and individual persons is our unique highly developed human brain. Our brain sets us apart from the animal kingdoms.

You contend that human life exists in a six week old fetus. I agree fully with that fact. I cotend based upon scientific fact that fetal life at six weeks gets no obligation from me or the woman carrying it because it had no brain or mind if its own and us therefore not equal equipped at that point to be a person.

You have not explained your reasoning as to why I cannot rely on the factual brainless existence of a six to fifteen week fetus to distinguish between the value of brainless life and the life of a human being who has capability to be conscious of self at some point during pregnancy.

END2308281445

You may or may not recognize that you are simply repeating yourself.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You may or may not recognize that you are simply repeating yourself.

NFBW: I have never written anything similar to this before:

You have not explained your reasoning as to why I cannot rely on the factual brainless existence of a six to fifteen week fetus to distinguish between the value of brainless life and the life of a human being who has capability to be conscious of self at some point during pregnancy.​

​

Why did you insist that the FACT that a six week fetus has no brain is irrelevant?

Please explain.

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: I have never written anything similar to this before:

You have not explained your reasoning as to why I cannot rely on the factual brainless existence of a six to fifteen week fetus to distinguish between the value of brainless life and the life of a human being who has capability to be conscious of self at some point during pregnancy.​

​

Why did you insist that the FACT that a six week fetus has no brain is irrelevant?

Please explain.

Because it’s still a life, albeit in a developing stage.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because it’s still a life, albeit in a developing stage.

But is it a person without a brain?

Nobody is arguing it’s not alive and is human life.

How do you make it a “person” when it does not have a brain? How do you make it as valuable as a person who does have a brain?
When you place a higher value on a brainless human form than the woman that created it, that has to do with a relationship with an authoritarian God who insists life at conception and from then on, has higher value than a woman’s value as a human being Such as it is in Catholicism. That’s just reality.

END2303281819

 

[beagle9]

BigBendTx220518-#480 ¥ Big Bend Texas ¥ “Religion is irrelevant, life is life”

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

BackAgain230321-#7,841 “Life is life. The right to life ought to encompass the preborn.”

NFBW: I’m not ignoring “progression of the abortion system and it’s processes in which were changing big time” . I am trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about. Please explain what you mean by that.

And are the world’s great religions a significant part of human life?
Why does anti-choice team Trump
have a lot of players who insist overturning Roe v Wade had nothing to do with white Christian religion?



NFBW: But ding says.

ding200227-#617 ¥ ding ¥ { It is a } fact that we were founded as a Christian nation based upon Christian values and principles. Not religious dogma per se but the successful behaviors which Western Civilization was built upon.

NFBW: When ding tells the white Christian propaganda lie that America was founded as a Christian Nation he can’t say in the next breath that a Christian Nation is not controlled by dominant white Christian people being in the advantage of that majority religion and its religious culture but they do not write laws based on that dominant religion whenever they can do so unchallenged. ding says the most absurd things of anyone here.

END2303262144

If you can't understand my opinion's, then you aren't worth the time to explain anything to you.

 

[beagle9]

But is it a person without a brain?

Nobody is arguing it’s not alive and is human life.

How do you make it a “person” when it does not have a brain? How do you make it as valuable as a person who does have a brain?
When you place a higher value on a brainless human form than the woman that created it, that has to do with a relationship with an authoritarian God who insists life at conception and from then on, has higher value than a woman’s value as a human being Such as it is in Catholicism. That’s just reality.

END2303281819

Look you, the only thing that caused the shite to hit the fan, was when all the abuse of the program began to take place, and it ultimately morphed into a monster that started bringing it's captures to the devil.

 

[BackAgain]

But is it a person without a brain?

Wrong question. It is a living human being with a brain still undeveloped. But it is alive and it is a human being.

Nobody is arguing it’s not alive and is human life.

So, then you’re saying that the right to the “personal integrity of the mother” supersedes the preborn human being’s right to life. I told you that you were pro abortion.

How do you make it a “person” when it does not have a brain?

How does the stage of its development negate the fact that it is a living human being?

How do you make it as valuable as a person who does have a brain?

Who the fuck are you to imagine you can gauge the value of any human life?

When you place a higher value on a brainless human form than the woman that created it, that has to do with a relationship with an authoritarian God who insists life at conception and from then on, has higher value than a woman’s value as a human being Such as it is in Catholicism. That’s just reality.

Nope. You persistently attempt to insert religion into this discussion. And you remain faulty wrong.

 

[beagle9]

Wrong question. It is a living human being with a brain still undeveloped. But it is alive and it is a human being.

So, then you’re saying that the right to the “personal integrity of the mother” supersedes the preborn human being’s right to life. I told you that you were pro abortion.

How does the stage of its development negate the fact that it is a living human being?

Who the fuck are you to imagine you can gauge the value of any human life?

Nope. You persistently attempt to insert religion into this discussion. And you remain faulty wrong.

Attack using religion, Attack using race. Isn't that the Moti's Operandi of the left ?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Who the fuck are you to imagine you can gauge the value of any human life?

NFBW: If you can do it, without explaining on what authority you do it, why can’t I do it when I do explain to you on what authority that I do it?

I am exercising my freedom of conscience. I do not consider a 22 week or less fetus unrelated to me to be a person because it does not have a brain.

My authorities are the Constitution of the United States of America and centuries of common law.

I oppose abortion as a means of birth control not because white Republican Christians claim abortion kills a person. I oppose it because it’s unequal treatment of women to expect them to be responsible for preventative birth control when I suspect that most unplanned pregnancies occur where the male pressured the female for sex not the other way around.

END2303282041

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It is a living human being with a brain still undeveloped.

Still not a person.

 

[beagle9]

Still not a person.

What's another word for a person ? A human being either developing in the womb or outside the womb.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If you can't understand my opinion's, then you aren't worth the time to explain anything to you

NFBW: What is “progression of the abortion system and it’s processes in which were changing big time”

What's another word for a person ?

A person (pl: people) is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility.[1][2][3][4] The defining features of personhood and, consequently, what makes a person count as a person, differ widely among cultures and contexts.[5][6]

In addition to the question of personhood, of what makes a being count as a person to begin with, there are further questions about personal identity and self: both about what makes any particular person that particular person instead of another, and about what makes a person at one time the same person as they were or will be at another time despite any intervening changes.

The plural form "people" is often used to refer to an entire nation or ethnic group (as in "a people"), and this was the original meaning of the word; it subsequently acquired its use as a plural form of person. The plural form "persons" is often used in philosophical and legal writing.

NFBW: a living human organism cannot be a “person” in the legal sense conscious of self if it dies not have a brain.

END2303282058

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: If you can do it, without explaining on what authority you do it, why can’t I do it when I do explain to you on what authority that I do it?

I have explained my “authority.” So, your premise is false.

I am exercising my freedom of conscience. I do not consider a 22 week or less fetus unrelated to me to be a person because it does not have a brain.

I know. You’ve said so. But, again, you base it on a simple line of demarcation during an entire life full of such lines. Yet, you e already agreed that life had already started.

My authorities are the Constitution of the United States of America and centuries of common law.

No such thing is said in the Constitution.

Further, the common law is being misused on your analysis. Why? Because you miss a point. The common law grew with the times. Given our understanding via the passage of time and growth in the science of human life and development, your claims about “common law” is just a landlocked mistake.

I oppose abortion as a means of birth control not because white Republican Christians claim abortion kills a person. I oppose it because it’s unequal treatment of women to expect them to be responsible for preventative birth control when I suspect that most unplanned pregnancies occur where the male pressured the female for sex not the other way around.

END2303282041

Oh good. Back to your “religion” fraud.

 

[BackAgain]

Still not a person.

It is a human life. I didn’t ask about person. That’s your mistaken notion.