Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Redfish]

Is it untrue or true that white Republican Christians claim abortion kills a person? What fraud are you referring to?

the laws of every state charge a person who kills a pregnant woman with TWO counts of murder. Case closed.

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: Do you have the intellectual capability to have a discussion about abortion as a matter of conscience?

You, of all people, are a ridiculous one to ask that question.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You, of all people, are a ridiculous one to ask that question.

Does that mean that you are willing to have a conversation here about abortion as a matter of conscience?

 

[BackAgain]

Does that mean that you are willing to have a conversation here about abortion as a matter of conscience?

It means what I said.

Go bleat about abortion opposition being premised on religion somewhere else. Perhaps you can find someone to humor you about that false claim.

Meanwhile, you deny it but your denial is a lie. You are pro-abortion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Go bleat about abortion opposition being premised on religion somewhere else

Why can’t you talk to me about support of women’s choices on abortion as a matter of conscience. I’m not saying anything about religion. It’s a matter of conscience - so we aren’t allowed to talk about conscience either.

 

[BackAgain]

Why can’t you talk to me about support of women’s choices on abortion as a matter of conscience. I’m not saying anything about religion. It’s a matter of conscience - so we aren’t allowed to talk about conscience either.

You don’t listen. You don’t discuss. You make up premises. And you often just post a wall of words.

Your position is properly distilled with the observations already made: you agree that life begins at conception, but you say that a woman with that life inside her uterus has a right of choice (conjoined with her bodily integrity and right to her freedom of movement) that supersedes the right to life of the preborn human being inside her

That’s it.

You simply don’t understand the import of your own “logic” or you don’t care.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

(1) Human Life is sacred and should always be protected from the moment of conception for it is a creation of God as defined by revealed religions found mostly in Western Civilization.
(2) Human life requires consciousness and therefore a human mind. Nature has provided a moral way out for women in a condition of unwanted pregnancy. It takes 22 weeks for a fetus to develop a brain of its own. The choice to self induce an abortion during the first 22 weeks of pregnancy is not a humanistic idealistic decision without consequences, but it must be an acceptable and permitted decision by every humanely ordered and well meaning established society that is grounded in reason, law science, liberty and equal justice for all.

Why in America BackAgain ding CarsomyrPlusSix can a person who chooses to believe in (1) a revealed religion or any traditional belief system of morality such as Hinduism be permitted to tell a believer in (2) that he or she cannot believe in (2) any or similar matter of conscience such as that?

 

[BackAgain]

(1) Human Life is sacred and should always be protected from the moment of conception for it is a creation of God as defined by revealed religions found mostly in Western Civilization.
(2) Human life requires consciousness and therefore a human mind. Nature has provided a moral way out for women in a condition of unwanted pregnancy. It takes 22 weeks for a fetus to develop a brain of its own. The choice to self induce an abortion during the first 22 weeks of pregnancy is not a humanistic idealistic decision without consequences, but it must be an acceptable and permitted decision by every humanely ordered and well meaning established society that is grounded in reason, law science, liberty and equal justice for all.

Why in America BackAgain ding CarsomyrPlusSix can a person who chooses to believe in (1) a revealed religion or any traditional belief system of morality such as Hinduism be permitted to tell a believer in (2) that he or she cannot believe in (2) any or similar matter of conscience such as that?

FooledByLife doesn’t post honestly. It appears that discussion with him is therefore pointless.

 

[Redfish]

FooledByLife doesn’t post honestly. It appears that discussion with him is therefore pointless.

well said and totally true.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

FooledByLife doesn’t post honestly.

NFBW: My conscience and knowledge about human reproduction accepts legal abortion through the first 22 weeks for this reason:

(2) Human life requires consciousness and therefore a human mind. Nature has provided a moral way out for women in a condition of unwanted pregnancy. It takes 22 weeks for a fetus to develop a brain of its own. The choice to self induce an abortion during the first 22 weeks of pregnancy is not a humanistic idealistic decision without consequences for a pregnant person; but it must be an acceptable and permitted decision within the norms and values of every humanely ordered and well meaning established society that is grounded in reason, law science, liberty and equal justice for all.

Why can you dictate the terms of your conscience over mine by use of coercion and force of law by the government according to the will of the majority in certain states?

You too ¥ Redfish ¥!! Why?

END2303291759

 

[NotfooledbyW]

well said and totally true.

¥ BackAgain ¥ has never cited a dishonest presentation of the facts by me. Never. Perhaps you’ve seen something of that sort?

Tell me about it.

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: My conscience and knowledge about human reproduction accepts legal abortion through the first 22 weeks for this reason:

Nobody cares.

(2) Human life requires consciousness

No. It doesn’t.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

the laws of every state charge a person who kills a pregnant woman with TWO counts of murder. Case closed.

NFBW: I answered that. You ignored it earlier this month. Please don’t ignore it again.

Redfish230339-#7,493 to: -1 ¥ Redfish ¥ “hmmm, then why do the laws of every state call for two counts of murder if a pregnant woman is killed?

NFBW230309-#7,494 to: -1 “Because it is a pregnant woman’s body and her decision to terminate her pregnancy because she may not wish to assume the risk to her physical well being that going to full term and giving birth will entail.

An outside party has no right to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy and thus a fetus that can cause no harm to said outside Party.”

NFBW221127-#5,863 “It is murder of two persons because the unborn person using the pregnant woman’s body to be alive is protected from harm through the rights granted to the pregnant woman whether the mother wants the child or not.

miketx221109-#5,462 miketx when a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the killer charged with a double homicide?

NFBW221110-#5,485 “Because it should be murder if two (or more if twins and triplets etc) are murdered. •••• The killer is killing the pregnant woman and the (potential viable human being) that is attached to the living, breathing viable woman who is with child.

END2303292114

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW230329-#8,030 My conscience and knowledge about human reproduction accepts legal abortion through the first 22 weeks for this reason:

BackAgain230329-#8,032 to: -2 ¥ BackAgain ¥ “Nobody cares”

NFBW: Six out of ten voters in the red state of Kansas voted to keep abortion legal for more weeks than I say. Do you speak for them or are you just a liar trying impress dumbassed ¥ Redfish ¥ that you speak for everybody in the entire world.

So why are you for imposing your belief according to your conscience, that civil protection by society must begin at conception on millions of us who have our own consciences on the matter.

I am not telling you or any women in your life what they have to do with their own body. It’s none of my business but if you believe you must protect life starting at conception go right ahead and do not get an abortion.

END2303292236

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW230329-#8,030 My conscience and knowledge about human reproduction accepts legal abortion through the first 22 weeks for this reason:

BackAgain230329-#8,032 to: -2 ¥ BackAgain ¥ “Nobody cares”

NFBW: Six out of ten voters in the red state of Kansas voted to keep abortion legal for more weeks than I say. Do you speak for them or are you just a liar trying impress dumbassed ¥ Redfish ¥ that you speak for everybody in the entire world.

So why are you for imposing your belief according to your conscience, that civil protection by society must begin at conception on millions of us who have our own consciences on the matter.

I am not telling you or any women in your life what they have to do with their own body. It’s none of my business but if you believe you must protect life starting at conception go right ahead and do not get an abortion.

END2303292236

Zzzz.


Zzzzzz zzzz. Zzzzzzzz.










ZzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[San Souci]

NFBW: The right to the integrity of one’s own body you claim yields to a fetus on what authority.? The pregnant woman has authority, The fetus has no authority. You being no part of an abortion and you being not harmed by an abortion have no authority to intervene on behalf a fetus.

ZEND2403280129

Well ,whoring around without BC is irresponsible. Also spreads VD. All tramps who get abortions should also get a Scarlet Latter.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BackAgain230309-#7,495 to: -5 ¥ BackAgain ¥ Logically, the “right” to life begins when life itself begins AT Conception.

NFBW: That would be your logic. My logic says fetal right to life begins when the pregnant woman grants the right to life to her own fetus or when separation occurs.

Why is every pregnant woman obligated to comply with your logic?

What is your authority over them?

END2303300033

 

[BackAgain]

BackAgain230309-#7,495 to: -5 ¥ BackAgain ¥ Logically, the “right” to life begins when life itself begins AT Conception.

NFBW: That would be your logic. My logic says fetal right to life begins when the pregnant woman grants the right to life to her own fetus or when separation occurs.

Why is every pregnant woman obligated to comply with your logic?

What is your authority over them?

END2303300033

Life begins at conception. You’ve already acknowledged that fact.

The right to life isn’t “granted” by the Constitution or by the mother. The right preexisted the Declaration of Independence; and our Constitution only seeks to guarantee it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BackAgain230309-#7,495 to: -5 ¥ BackAgain ¥ Logically, the “right” to life begins when life itself begins AT Conception.

NFBW230329-#8,037 to: -542 “That would be your logic. My logic says fetal right to life begins when the pregnant woman grants the right to life to her own fetus or when separation occurs.”

NFBW230329-#8,037 to: -542 “Why is every pregnant woman obligated to comply with your logic?” •••• “What is your authority over them?”

BackAgain230330-#8,038 to: -1 “Life begins at conception. You’ve already acknowledged that fact. •••• The right to life isn’t “granted” by the Constitution or by the mother. The right preexisted the Declaration of Independence; and our Constitution only seeks to guarantee it.”

NFBW: If the right to life begins at conception and that right preexisted the Declaration of Independence then it would stand to “reason” ¥ ding ¥ that if we went back in time to the summer of 1776 at location in colonial America we would find the common law of society during that era would charge a woman with murder if she kills the human life inside her after she finds that she is pregnant. But they did not have such laws back then because fetuses never had a right to life that started at conception.

END2303300231

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Inbred Semantics Perpetuated By Trifling Trolls "

* Additional Pervasive Public Ignorance At Large *

the laws of every state charge a person who kills a pregnant woman with TWO counts of murder. Case closed.

Without a live birth that is required of a citizen , by equitable doctrine , a zygote , or embryo , or fetus is without constitutional protections and is without a wright to life .

Any conjectural or perceived offenses against a ZEF are in fact offenses against the mother , and as with any other act of violence against the mother , an appropriate penalty may be issued for the offense .

For example , animal cruelty laws do not imbue constitutional wrights on an animal .