Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[whutTHEYsay]

BluesMan230408-#8,199 ¥ Blues Man ¥ Why do you want a say in the decisions another person makes over their own body?

beagle9230408-#8,204 to: -5 ¥ beagle9 Uhhh their is more than one person involved in a pregnant woman,

NFBW: It is a scientific biological FACT that during the first 23 weeks there is only ONE active working functional brain inside the body of every pregnant woman. It is therefore impossible for there to be a separate person inside a woman’s body during the first 22 weeks of pregnancy when abortions were legal under Roe v Wade.

You are lying for certain about the first twenty weeks. The remaining weeks changes a little because by the 23rd week the fetus has nearly developed a brain that can begin to perform functions needed to be alive outside the womb.

END2304082123

 

[beagle9]

NFBW: Tennessee Republicans this week exposed their unintended exposure that Jim Crow is alive and flying high in red state America and rural areas of blue states because MAGA right wing white grievance politics can’t win the popular vote anymore.

The glue that holds that mess together was and is not Trump, The movement was made for an authoritarian white cultish personality to run on. - it is the white Christian grassroots embrace of unborn brainless fetuses when Roe v Wade was decided. But the real beginning of rightwing Christian nationalism was the marriage of big business to Christian ministers in opposition to the New Deal that followed the collapse of capitalism and faith in free enterprise,

Business leaders were swept aside during the New Deal and they wanted to market their way back to pure free enterprise and little interference from the Federal Government.

So the link of free enterprise to Christianity was marketed and the voices they needed to market it were Christian Preachers with WASP credentials.

KRUSE: That's it exactly. They used these ministers to make the case that Christianity and capitalism were soul mates. This case had been made before, but in the context of the New Deal, it takes on a sharp new political meaning. And essentially, they argue that Christianity and capitalism are both systems in which individuals rise and fall according to their own merits.​

​

How 'One Nation' Didn't Become 'Under God' Until The '50s Religious Revival​

​

And so in Christianity, if you're good, you go to heaven. If you're bad, you go to hell. In capitalism, if you're good, you make a profit and you succeed. If you're bad, you fail.​

​

The New Deal, they argue, violates this natural order. In fact, they argue that the New Deal and the regulatory state violates the Ten Commandments.​

NFBW: It was not intended but, opposition to the New Deal created the original BIG LIE that America was founded as a Christian Nation that threatens the American experiment as kindling for the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen from the anti-New Deal and God’s favorite.

Proof that Trump is God’s choice is his placing three more anti choice judges on the Supreme Court that gave the Christians their reward for licking the wingtips of big business-MEN for nearly a century.

END2305082001

I noticed that everytime you lose the debate or arguments, that's when you revert back to another angle tried earlier on. It's so transparent that you are concerned more about the overall implications you fear of the creep, instead of the abortion issue in singular form itself. Busted.

 

[beagle9]

BluesMan230408-#8,199 ¥ Blues Man ¥ Why do you want a say in the decisions another person makes over their own body?

beagle9230408-#8,204 to: -5 ¥ beagle9 Uhhh their is more than one person involved in a pregnant woman,

NFBW: It is a scientific biological FACT that during the first 23 weeks there is only ONE active working functional brain inside the body of every pregnant woman. It is therefore impossible for there to be a separate person inside a woman’s body during the first 22 weeks of pregnancy when abortions were legal under Roe v Wade.

You are lying for certain about the first twenty weeks. The remaining weeks changes a little because by the 23rd week the fetus has nearly developed a brain that can begin to perform functions needed to be alive outside the womb.

END2304082123

It matters not about brain function or any other such contrived bull shite that you come up with, because the simple fact is that a human being has begun developing in the mother's womb, and yes at that point she becomes a mother, and not some disconnected liberal negative host that shows no empathy or compassion towards the new miracle that has begun growing inside of her. The indoctrination and brainwashing has been unbelievable in this COUNTRY, but that's ok because it's all coming to a reckoning sooner or later.. Stay tuned I guess.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

BluesMan230408-#8,199 ¥ Blues Man ¥ Why do you want a say in the decisions another person makes over their own body?

beagle9230408-#8,204 to: -5 ¥ beagle9 Uhhh there is more than one person involved in a pregnant woman,

NFBW230408-#8,221 to: -17 It is therefore impossible for there to be a separate person inside a woman’s body during the first 22 weeks of pregnancy

Beagle230408-#8,223 to: -2 “the simple fact is that a human being has begun developing in the mother's womb”

NFBW: You have not answered the question in 08199.

It is a fact what you wrote in 08223 but a developing human being before it has a brain is not a person.

Why do you want a say in the decision a pregnant woman with a brainless developing human non/person in her body has an inherent natural right to make?

END2304082334

 

[whutTHEYsay]

08146 Samo-#8,146 to: -1 “ I am against an outright ban on all abortions.”

08159 NFBW-#8,159 to: -13 it is an article of many of Jewish religion that life begins at first breath.”

08160 Samo-#8,160 to: -1 ¥ Samofvt ¥ “And if a State has an overwhelming population of Jewish people … “

08161a NFBW-#8,161 “Why can’t Jewish people have freedom of conscience in every state?

08161b NFBW-#8,161 Has any Democrat forced you or a woman you know to have an abortion in Vermont?


08162 Samofvt-#8,162 to: -1 ““where the amendment says "unless the state {Vermont} finds a compelling reason to decide reproductive issues for {Vermonters} them””

08184 NFBW230408-#8,184 “achieved by the least restrictive means.”

NFBW: Above 08162 is Samo’s altered in order to deceive ‘version’ of Vermont Amendment guaranteeing reproductive freedom. Below is the actual language.

(Article 22) that document reads as follows; •••• That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”​

08186 Samofvt230406-#8,186 to: -2 Yes. And as a good fascist, I'm sure you will agree that the best way, and least restrictive way, to prevent Johnny from eating Sarah's apple is to bind him to a chair.

NFBW: YOUR post 08186 has deadly flaws: (1) Neither Johnny or Sarah are a fetus or a pregnant woman having a conflict over reproductive rights.
(2) the document being discussed is (Article 22) regarding an individual in Vermont being guaranteed a right to personal reproductive autonomy central to their liberty and dignity, being able to determine one’s own life course which shall not be denied or infringed. It is not about rights to an apple being disputed by children.
(3)Johnny has done no harm. Vermont cannot lay a finger on him, make him sit down, let alone bind him to a chair. Every word written beyond that is irrational paranoid fear of government in general.

END2304090129

 

[whutTHEYsay]

noticed that everytime you lose the debate or arguments,

I can’t lose a debate or argument against you because you don’t debate or argue. You preach that proper belief in Jesus will save civilization from commies or Homosexuals and loose women or any the other boogiemen that Team TrumpJesus can dogwhistle about.

Go back to post 08225 and tell me why I am losing this argument by catching Samofvt in a lie?

08162 Samofvt-#8,162 to: -1 ¥ Samofvt ¥ ““where the amendment says "unless the state {Vermont} finds a compelling reason to decide reproductive issues for {Vermonters} them

This is what the Amendent actually says.

Article 22) that document reads as follows; •••• That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”​

Samo has it assbackward. Vermont added language that makes it virtually impossible for Team TrumpJesus to take over the state govt and pass laws that deny the right to an abortion

—In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional.

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The standard is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial reviewand is part of the levels of judicial scrutiny that courts use to determine whether a constitutional right or principle should give way to the government's interest against observance of the principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are applied to statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

 

[Blues Man]

Week 11 ? How do you come about your time line's ? Why are you trying to insert yourself into a woman's affair's, otherwise trying to convince them that abortion is the way to go ? Are you a population worry wart ?

Google is your friend you can find out all kinds of things.

And I'm not trying to dictate women's affairs. I don't tell women that abortion is "the way to go"

I think it's the woman's choice and that I have absolutely no right to force them to do anything.

You on the other hand want to tell them what to do and even force them to do what you want if necessary.

 

[beagle9]

BluesMan230408-#8,199 ¥ Blues Man ¥ Why do you want a say in the decisions another person makes over their own body?

beagle9230408-#8,204 to: -5 ¥ beagle9 Uhhh there is more than one person involved in a pregnant woman,

NFBW230408-#8,221 to: -17 It is therefore impossible for there to be a separate person inside a woman’s body during the first 22 weeks of pregnancy

Beagle230408-#8,223 to: -2 “the simple fact is that a human being has begun developing in the mother's womb”

NFBW: You have not answered the question in 08199.

It is a fact what you wrote in 08223 but a developing human being before it has a brain is not a person.

Why do you want a say in the decision a pregnant woman with a brainless developing human non/person in her body has an inherent natural right to make?

END2304082334

Uhhh the word's "human being" describes the pregnancy as being a new person/baby/fetus now on the way, whether the human being is on the way in developmental stages or rather after the fact of the 9 months being complete where as he or she is finally born.

He or she are always "human beings" from the point of conception onward, so the person thing or talk isn't really necessary one way or the other per any descriptive thinking during the process.

The woman is no longer just a woman/wife, but it is that the title "mother" is immediately added to her title upon finding out that she is with child/pregnant..

 

[beagle9]

Google is your friend you can find out all kinds of things.

And I'm not trying to dictate women's affairs. I don't tell women that abortion is "the way to go"

I think it's the woman's choice and that I have absolutely no right to force them to do anything.

You on the other hand want to tell them what to do and even force them to do what you want if necessary.

No you are wrong about me wanting to tell them what to do, but as is with anyone, if a law is made or shifted around then just abide by it, otherwise if it is a moral and just law.

Consensus has always been the guide behind creating laws and standard's in order to have a civilized SOCIETY. That is what we are striving for always. If something is wrong, then it needs fixin so we fix it..... Simple.

 

[Blues Man]

No you are wrong about me wanting to tell them what to do, but as is with anyone, if a law is made or shifted around then just abide by it, otherwise if it is a moral and just law.

Consensus has always been the guide behind creating laws and standard's in order to have a civilized SOCIETY. That is what we are striving for always. If something is wrong, then it needs fixin so we fix it..... Simple.

Why do you get to vote on what another person chooses to do to his or her own body? You have absolutely no right to do so

Every single poll I have ever seen says that most people want abortions to be legal.

And how has abortion made society less civilized?

You might not know this but there is a correlation between the advent of legal abortion and the precipitous drop in the crime rates of the late 80's and 90's. Fewer unwanted children makes a more civilized society it seems.

 

[beagle9]

Why do you get to vote on what another person chooses to do to his or her own body? You have absolutely no right to do so

Every single poll I have ever seen says that most people want abortions to be legal.

And how has abortion made society less civilized?

You might not know this but there is a correlation between the advent of legal abortion and the precipitous drop in the crime rates of the late 80's and 90's. Fewer unwanted children makes a more civilized society it seems.

Polls are manipulated and most of the time they are wrong, and the other problem is this, why are their so many unwanted children if we are promoting a civilized SOCIETY ?

Answer - It's because of the underlying creep or undermining of that civilized SOCIETY in which just keeps going and going.

Killing the unborn isn't the answer, but going after the underlying disease's or problems definitely is the answer. Now the biggest problem with that is the demonic worshipers who are destroying civilized SOCIETY with impunity, and the good folk's are placing Band-Aids on it instead of fixing it.

 

[Blues Man]

Polls are manipulated and most of the time they are wrong, and the other problem is this, why are their so many unwanted children if we are promoting a civilized SOCIETY ?

Answer - It's because of the underlying creep or undermining of that civilized SOCIETY in which just keeps going and going.

Killing the unborn isn't the answer, but going after the underlying disease's or problems definitely is the answer. Now the biggest problem with that is the demonic worshipers who are destroying civilized SOCIETY with impunity, and the good folk's are placing Band-Aids on it instead of fixing it.

Yeah every single poll for 50 years has been "manipulated"

And all the rest of your post is nothing but opinion.

 

[beagle9]

Yeah every single poll for 50 years has been "manipulated"

And all the rest of your post is nothing but opinion.

No one said anything about 50 year's, but what we are seeing these days is definitely corruption and manipulation.

 

[Blues Man]

No one said anything about 50 year's, but what we are seeing these days is definitely corruption and manipulation.

Then look at older polls and you'll see that the numbers haven't changed that much.

 

[beagle9]

Then look at older polls and you'll see that the numbers haven't changed that much.

Older polls represent different generations from the past. We are no longer the old generation's.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

00326 NFBW-#326 “ When René Descartes was a young fetus inside his momma’s belly he was quoted as saying “I don’t think therefore I am not”” {meaning not here as anything yet}

04831 ding-#4,831 “Human beings begin at conception.”

BluesMan230408-#8,199 ¥ Blues Man ¥ Why do you want a say in the decisions another person makes over their own body?

beagle9230408-#8,204 to: -5 ¥ beagle9 Uhhh there is more than one person involved in a pregnant woman,

NFBW230408-#8,221 to: -17 It is therefore impossible for there to be a separate person inside a woman’s body during the first 22 weeks of pregnancy

Beagle230408-#8,223 to: -2 “the simple fact is that a human being has begun developing in the mother's womb”

NFBW230408-#8,224 to: -1 a developing human being before it has a brain is not a person.

beagle9230409-#8,228 to: -4 Uhhh the word's "human being" describes the pregnancy as being a new person/baby/fetus now on the way,

NFBW: See 08224. A human being “on the way” defines most explicitly in reproductive jargon “a human being who is not here yet”

Thank you for expressing a clarification on how many Jewish people see the “ the living human organism in the womb, (see post 04831) with new DNA and all, as not here yet because there has been no ensoulment -yet.

Why do you ¥ beagle9 ¥ want a say or vote in the decision a pregnant woman makes while she is having an unwanted (a) brainless developing human being, and (b) a human being who is not here yet ”

END2304090842

 

[Blues Man]

Older polls represent different generations from the past. We are no longer the old generation's.

Still the numbers have not changed but maybe you can demonstrate how the polls are "manipulated"?

 

[beagle9]

Still the numbers have not changed but maybe you can demonstrate how the polls are "manipulated"?

All one has to do is review the results in the aftermath... Simple. Trump in 2016 was the ultimate gauge on how skewed the Democrat polls were. After that eye opener, how can you ever trust the polls again ?

 

[Blues Man]

All one has to do is review the results in the aftermath... Simple. Trump in 2016 was the ultimate gauge on how skewed the Democrat polls were. After that eye opener, how can you ever trust the polls again ?

The results of polls do not prove manipulation.

The methodology does.

And we have 50 years worth of polling data on abortion which cannot be compared to a single election's worth of polling data.

So what was different about the polls on abortion 50 years ago compared to today and how do you prove the polls have been manipulated?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

ding330215-#1,066 God is reality and supplies reality to his creation. As such what you consider to be impossible is entirely possible for God. You would think God "breathing" the universe into existence would be enough proof for you.

NFBW: If the universe has value because God "breathed the universe into existence” then it stands as a secondary reality that God “breathes every new human into existence” as well. And that is what gives human life universal value.

So why do Catholics believe the same God of the Jewish people has to breathe life into human beings at a sacred moment of human conception instead of at a sacred moment if first breath roughly 8 or 9 months later?

END2304091116