Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[whutTHEYsay]

TRANSLATION: "we understand your argument in much the same way we understand their argument"..

You are not making an argument here. You have made an announcement. You expect the government of the land of the free to limit freedom when women get pregnant, forcing them to assume the risk of harm or death delivering a new child to the world.

 

[beagle9]

" Anthropocentric Egoism Of Punk Bitch Arguments From Wanna Be Goons "

* Damned Dirty Ape Grunts *

Let the academic community know when the ilk of you two ewes is ready to stop queering off on each other and are ready to nut up .

Neither of you two ewes is capable of justifying absolution for implementing asceticism of the sacrosanct , that is based in arrogant dogmatic conjectures of a gawd separate of nature - literally separate from itself , from whence the literal meaning of an afterlife , as perpetuity of introspection , clearly proven from obvious evidence as the nature of nature , is ignored for hyperbole of a superlative metaphor for transmutation of soles .

As long as the abortion anti-choice trope continues not to practice its antinomian creed , its auspices will be confronted with the unadulterated version for the meaning of an afterlife .

* Unable To Challenge And Sew Is Ignored As Illusion *

Triggered.... LOL

It's great causing you wanna be so called edumacated enlightened knucklehead's to lose your shite.... ROTFLMBO

Best ease up on your triggered bull shite though (not good for your blood pressure), otherwise just because you are losing a debate ain't no reason for you to start going stupid......lol....

Some of your extra, extra happy good buddies around here might turn on you and your friend, well unless you're telling them that you're just doing everything for them eh ???.. ROTFLMBO

ROTFLMBO

 

[beagle9]

You are not making an argument here. You have made an announcement. You expect the government of the land of the free to limit freedom when women get pregnant, forcing them to assume the risk of harm or death delivering a new child to the world.

Harm or death delivering a child eh ? So what then, just avoid the harm or death, and otherwise feel free to toss that baby right up to the slim time before it is birthed ?????

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You are not making an argument here.

that's right, I am not... I am posting the definition of a quote you posted that makes and proves my case...are you upset because I didn't thank you?

You have made an announcement.

what was it? would you mind quoting and pasting that announcement?

You expect the government of the land of the free to limit freedom when women get pregnant, forcing them to assume the risk of harm or death delivering a new child to the world.

Your problem just may be a lack of prunes which is creating the confusion in your mind.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

would you mind quoting and pasting that announcement?

Apr 28, 2023 NFBW #8,556 “Why do you support the imposition of harm on American citizens when they get pregnant, or ”

Apr 28, 2023 ¥ Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,558 {to: 08,556} “cuz i'm pro-choice”

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Apr 28, 2023 NFBW #8,556 “Why do you support the imposition of harm on American citizens when they get pregnant, or ”

Apr 28, 2023 ¥ @Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,558 {to: 08,556} “cuz i'm pro-choice”

That's a response not an announcement or an argument [why would that^ be an argument?]...[shudda put a "?" to head off the nonsense]
...and this v is the post of mine you referenced not that ^ one:

TRANSLATION: "we understand your argument in much the same way we understand their argument"...[Frank takes his bows]

...and your response was:

You are not making an argument here. You have made an announcement.

As you can plainly see the Alito quote clearly makes my point of understanding your chosen beliefs in the same manner of understanding as the pro-life beliefs.

“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..

You chose your [^ that] quote wisely [as it applies to me] and from someone you obviously see as very wise.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

That's a response not an announcement​

23APR30 0542 NFBW; It was a response that announced that you “admit’ that you ‘know” that the Dobbs ruling allows states to either “cause harm” or “do no harm” depending essentially on majority opinion in each state. The latter is the only constitutional decision a judge can make.

The “pro-choice” in your clownish vernacular is not the rational common usage of the term pertinent to this discussion.

It is the fact that you announced it, that gave me the realization that I am dealing with a clown, not someone who argues in support for a woman having the “choice” to have a medical procedure that will prevent physical and financial harm to her body including the finality harm of death

Your response was in the affirmative as follows:

Apr 28, 2023 NFBW #8,556 “Why do you support the imposition of harm on American citizens when they get pregnant, … “​

Apr 28, 2023 ¥ Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,558 {to: 08,556} “cuz i'm pro-choice”​

If you do not support the imposition of harm {by state government’s that ban the medical procedure that terminated a pregnancy) to every American citizen when they get pregnant but did not intend to say that, You are free, still, to reply In the negative and explain that you were just clowning around in {#8,558 to: 08,556} .

As of this moment, I accept your announcement that “pro-choice”
means in your usage of words that you are pro-harming women through force of law when they get pregnant. Let me know If you are not.

 

[beagle9]

23APR30 0542 NFBW; It was a response that announced that you “admit’ that you ‘know” that the Dobbs ruling allows states to either “cause harm” or “do no harm” depending essentially on majority opinion in each state. The latter is the only constitutional decision a judge can make.

The “pro-choice” in your clownish vernacular is not the rational common usage of the term pertinent to this discussion.

It is the fact that you announced it, that gave me the realization that I am dealing with a clown, not someone who argues in support for a woman having the “choice” to have a medical procedure that will prevent physical and financial harm to her body including the finality harm of death

Your response was in the affirmative as follows:

Apr 28, 2023 NFBW #8,556 “Why do you support the imposition of harm on American citizens when they get pregnant, … “​

Apr 28, 2023 ¥ Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,558 {to: 08,556} “cuz i'm pro-choice”​

If you do not support the imposition of harm {by state government’s that ban the medical procedure that terminated a pregnancy) to every American citizen when they get pregnant but did not intend to say that, You are free, still, to reply In the negative and explain that you were just clowning around in {#8,558 to: 08,556} .

As of this moment, I accept your announcement that “pro-choice”
means in your usage of words that you are pro-harming women through force of law when they get pregnant. Let me know If you are not.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... LOL... All your bull crap, and you still support a woman ending her pregnancy without good reason, and then what you want is state or fed approval and/or sponsorship through that approval in order to keep her actions legitimized without question (her body, her choice). Well we see where that has led this nation over time, and that isn't just beholding to the abortion issue only. A miriad of state or federally supported issue's were, and still are wrong headed. I mean all one has to do is look at the results of it all, and pay attention to the stats or the bad fall out.

Lying and hiding the failure's through falsehoods and bull crap isn't working anymore, so the nation's citizen's through their representatives are taking a stand on those issue's (always good in order to lighten the heavy load's).

This is why you are on this political message board fighting for the bull crap to just keep on going without being tweaked, otherwise it needs to be tweaked in order to get rid of the bad part's, but your fear is that the nation might just clean house (make a lot of stuff illegal), otherwise when trying to get rid of the bad parts found within the issue's.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Dealing With The Detached From Syntactical Reality "

* Terminology Of Patriarchy And Not Individualism *

The new Supreme Court Justice and the other liberal Justices are unable to define what a woman is, let alone what "person" means.

The etymology is clear - per means countable by census and son means male , in fact , as a person may become a citizen , as per us 14th amendment , women are not formal citizens of the us republic and see us 19th amendment for proof .

Homunculus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Popularized in sixteenth-century alchemy and nineteenth-century fiction, it has historically referred to the creation of a miniature, fully formed human. The concept has roots in preformationism as well as earlier folklore and alchemic traditions.

Preformationism is the formerly popular theory that animals developed from miniature versions of themselves. Sperm were believed to contain complete preformed individuals called "animalcules". Development was therefore a matter of enlarging this into a fully formed being. The term homunculus was later used in the discussion of conception and birth.


* Ridiculous Claims To Support Liberty While Despising The Root Meaning Of The Term *

The codes are not part of the Constitution but liberal interpretations of words used in the Constitution. Thus, the meaning of what a person is can be debated and changed from time to time. Originally, an unborn baby is human and a person. Thus, the term "unborn" baby or person. And, therefore protected by the Constitution with rights. Nowhere in the constitution does it say "Live" person. It says "individual" or "person." To the sane and loving person, that includes the unborn person or individual.
It's ironic also that you post references suggesting that if the unborn has anomalies that the "Mother" can choose to end or kill her baby. That she has the right over the baby. Yet today, the States are denying parental rights to decide for a child whether or not to hack off protruding parts of their body in the name of gender affirming care or transgender crapola. So, what do you believe in? Mother's rights or not?

The liberal versus conservative paradigm is intellectual buffoonery , it is it not based in valid political science or civics principles or accurate terminology .

Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments

" Elaborating Subtle Nuances Of Absurdity " * Signature Problem Hilarity * In America, there should be no "negative liberties". Unfortunately, after 2001 there have been some, and there should not be. Also that "Brady bill" thing, too.Again , negative wrights establish negative liberties with...

www.usmessageboard.com

" Political Science For The Brain Washed "

* People Living In A Fog *

Some idiot corrupts political science and basic terminology , by promoting that " liberal " is not restricted to negative liberty but that it also includes positive liberty as well , and the bandwagon of fools willfully adopts the orwellian double speak and vehemently defends that others surrender to it .

Classical Liberal - Conservapedia
Classical liberalism (also called laissez-faire liberalism) is a term used to describe the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill as well as its revival in the 20th century by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, among others. This contemporary restatement of classical liberalism is sometimes called "new liberalism" or "neo-liberalism"

This political philosophy supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, and views the state as an entity which exists to protect those inherent rights. This can be ensured by a constitution or other such framework which protects individual autonomy and property from other individuals and governmental power (including economic power). The normative core of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire governance, a natural order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges which satisfies human goals and desires.

The qualification "classical" has been applied in retrospect to distinguish the early 19th century laissez-faire form of liberalism from modern interventionist social liberalism. The terminology is most applicable in the United States, because modern American liberalism is closer identified with social democracy.

In the United States, the term "liberal" has changed meaning since the 1930s following policies enacted by Democratic leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt. Since that time Classical Liberalism is more in line with conservative or libertarian politics and philosophy. In other parts of the world, particularly continental Europe and Japan, this view is still referred to as liberalism.

A classical liberal is someone who is liberal in the original sense of the word: namely, advocating personal freedom over the divine right of the state.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Challenging Subjective Ideals With An Altruism "

* Metaphors Versus Literal Meanings Of Eternal Life *

Triggered.... LOL
It's great causing you wanna be so called edumacated enlightened knucklehead's to lose your shite.... ROTFLMBO
Best ease up on your triggered bull shite though (not good for your blood pressure), otherwise just because you are losing a debate ain't no reason for you to start going stupid......lol....
Some of your extra, extra happy good buddies around here might turn on you and your friend, well unless you're telling them that you're just doing everything for them eh ???.. ROTFLMBO
ROTFLMBO

Will you be prepared to explain disparities between an anthropocentric altruism for perpetuity of hue mammon introspection , as a will by a personified gawd , and a realism of limitations as included in the nature of nature , as evident as a success criteria of nature for survival of introspection without a requirement that the introspection of all persist , when deciding public policy for abortion ?

* Living With A Dream *

Wow , all that without reiterating or including a banter for your position , thus it seems that you were triggered for being called on and being associated with queering off , by not sticking to the issue .

* One Won Hour Two A Mend *

A queer is a rudiment for query , implying a divergence , overtly unusual interests . possibly perverse .

 

[Frankeneinstein]

23APR30 0542 NFBW; It was a response that announced that you “admit’ that you ‘know” that the Dobbs ruling allows states to either “cause harm” or “do no harm” depending essentially on majority opinion in each state. The latter is the only constitutional decision a judge can make.

The “pro-choice” in your clownish vernacular is not the rational common usage of the term pertinent to this discussion.

It is the fact that you announced it, that gave me the realization that I am dealing with a clown, not someone who argues in support for a woman having the “choice” to have a medical procedure that will prevent physical and financial harm to her body including the finality harm of death

Your response was in the affirmative as follows:

Apr 28, 2023 NFBW #8,556 “Why do you support the imposition of harm on American citizens when they get pregnant, … “Apr 28, 2023 ¥ @Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,558 {to: 08,556} “cuz i'm pro-choice”
If you do not support the imposition of harm {by state government’s that ban the medical procedure that terminated a pregnancy) to every American citizen when they get pregnant but did not intend to say that, You are free, still, to reply In the negative and explain that you were just clowning around in {#8,558 to: 08,556} .

As of this moment, I accept your announcement that “pro-choice”
means in your usage of words that you are pro-harming women through force of law when they get pregnant. Let me know If you are not.

Your posts all read like IKEA instructions.

 

[beagle9]

" Challenging Subjective Ideals With An Altruism "

* Metaphors Versus Literal Meanings Of Eternal Life *

Will you be prepared to explain disparities between an anthropocentric altruism for perpetuity of hue mammon introspection , as a will by a personified gawd , and a realism of limitations as included in the nature of nature , as evident as a success criteria of nature for survival of introspection without a requirement that the introspection of all persist , when deciding public policy for abortion ?

* Living With A Dream *

Wow , all that without reiterating or including a banter for your position , thus it seems that you were triggered for being called on and being associated with queering off , by not sticking to the issue .

* One Won Hour Two A Mend *

A queer is a rudiment for query , implying a divergence , overtly unusual interests . possibly perverse .

Oh so now you want to go all queer on the issue eh ? ROTFLMBO

Don't live your fantasies through this political message board boi. Either stay on topic/subject or go to hell with the rest of your good buddies around here. Take heed USMB, a poster is losing on the issue regardless of how many big words he tries to use, so he tries to change the subject to something that isn't on topic in the thread. Stay on topic or go find you a topic that strokes your ego along the lines of what you have in your heart.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Your posts all read like IKEA instructions.

Be that as it may. However, sticking to the discussion:

23APR30 NFBW: Do you think state governments like Texas are respecting the constitutional rights of women in a condition of unwanted pregnancy which can kill the

Why are you in favor of causing all women who get pregnant harm by giving states the power to deny them statewide medical services for an abortion prior to 24 weeks if that is what they choose to do?

Where in the constitution do states get the right to cause harm to law-abiding citizens?

 

[beagle9]

Be that as it may. However, sticking to the discussion:

23APR30 NFBW: Do you think state governments like Texas are respecting the constitutional rights of women in a condition of unwanted pregnancy which can kill the

Why are you in favor of causing all women who get pregnant harm by giving states the power to deny them statewide medical services for an abortion prior to 24 weeks if that is what they choose to do?

Where in the constitution do states get the right to cause harm to law-abiding citizens?

What makes you think States are causing or will be causing harm to women over the issue ? The woman and the man are the one's causing the pregnancy, and not the State.

Some state's just don't want to support or be involved in a person's personal choice or idea of not wanting the baby after the fact... Nothing wrong with that..... What you advocate is that a citizen should (somewhere down the line or after the fact), always "seek" the support of the state through the state then supporting and allowing abortion clinics to exist within the state, IOW's by the state giving permits, receiving taxes, and other perks for the clinic's doing business in said state or state's, for whom may see it all in your way, and therefore keeping abortion legal in those states.

Isn't that what's happening now ??

Some state's are still highly religious in nature, and they by the majority in the state, don't want the state to go woke even if pockets of wokeness exist within the state. Yes, abortions have become a kin to woke ideology in many ways.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

23APR30 NFBW: Do you think state governments like Texas are respecting the constitutional rights of women in a condition of unwanted pregnancy which can kill the

The way the question is worded I cannot say for sure that is even a thing, can you cite the specific wording in the constitution? verbatim if ya don't mind.

Why are you in favor of causing all women who get pregnant harm by giving states the power to deny them statewide medical services for an abortion prior to 24 weeks if that is what they choose to do?

cuz I'm pro-choice?

Where in the constitution do states get the right to cause harm to law-abiding citizens?

I have never seen it, and not just for citizens but for non citizens and babies in the womb also... it just isn't there... but then the constitution doesn't cover voluntarily induced harm of any kind...[time to rework that question again ]

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Be that as it may. However, sticking to the discussion:

I already took care of that...I'm just watching you spin your wheels now.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Quite Easily Done "

* Exposing The Soft Underbelly Of Simpleton Trolls *

Oh so now you want to go all queer on the issue eh ? ROTFLMBO
Don't live your fantasies through this political message board boi. Either stay on topic/subject or go to hell with the rest of your good buddies around here. Take heed USMB, a poster is losing on the issue regardless of how many big words he tries to use, so he tries to change the subject to something that isn't on topic in the thread. Stay on topic or go find you a topic that strokes your ego along the lines of what you have in your heart.

There is an altruism of hue mammon kind that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , yet by nature of nature , and therefore the will of personified gawd , the perpetuity of introspection by hue mammon kind throughout eternity does not require that the introspection of every instance by hue mammon kind exist in perpetuity throughout eternity .

As there is not a requirement the every instance of hue mammon kind ti exist in perpetuity throughout eternity to satisfy an altruism - that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , claims by the abortion anti-choice pundit that abortion should be illegal because all instances of hue mammon introspection are necessary for the perpetuity of hue mammon kind introspection throughout eternity is debased .

There is even less value to the claim by abortion anti-choice for its position where the onset of introspection is not sufficient to exist .

 

[Frankeneinstein]

There is an altruism of hue mammon kind that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , yet by nature of nature , and therefore the will of personified gawd , the perpetuity of introspection by hue mammon kind throughout eternity does not require that the introspection of every instance by hue mammon kind exist in perpetuity throughout eternity .

As there is not a requirement the every instance of hue mammon kind ti exist in perpetuity throughout eternity to satisfy an altruism - that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , claims by the abortion anti-choice pundit that abortion should be illegal because all instances of hue mammon introspection are necessary for the perpetuity of hue mammon kind introspection throughout eternity is debased .

There is even less value to the claim by abortion anti-choice for its position where the onset of introspection is not sufficient to exist

You're doing yoga right now aren't you? tantric buddhist yoga from a tantra chair, right? I can tell, I'll give you your zen privacy.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

There is an altruism of hue mammon kind that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , yet by nature of nature , and therefore the will of personified gawd , the perpetuity of introspection by hue mammon kind throughout eternity does not require that the introspection of every instance by hue mammon kind exist in perpetuity throughout eternity .

As there is not a requirement the every instance of hue mammon kind ti exist in perpetuity throughout eternity to satisfy an altruism - that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , claims by the abortion anti-choice pundit that abortion should be illegal because all instances of hue mammon introspection are necessary for the perpetuity of hue mammon kind introspection throughout eternity is debased .

There is even less value to the claim by abortion anti-choice for its position where the onset of introspection is not sufficient to exist .

calm your monkey

Focusing on the mantra will help you take your mind off the chaos and calm your monkey mind.

" Quite Easily Done "

* Exposing The Soft Underbelly Of Simpleton Trolls *

There is an altruism of hue mammon kind that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , yet by nature of nature , and therefore the will of personified gawd , the perpetuity of introspection by hue mammon kind throughout eternity does not require that the introspection of every instance by hue mammon kind exist in perpetuity throughout eternity .

As there is not a requirement the every instance of hue mammon kind ti exist in perpetuity throughout eternity to satisfy an altruism - that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , claims by the abortion anti-choice pundit that abortion should be illegal because all instances of hue mammon introspection are necessary for the perpetuity of hue mammon kind introspection throughout eternity is debased .

There is even less value to the claim by abortion anti-choice for its position where the onset of introspection is not sufficient to exist .

Focusing on the mantra will help you take your mind off the chaos and calm your monkey mind.

calm your monkey mind by mantra

 

[whutTHEYsay]

What makes you think States are causing or will be causing harm to women over the issue ? The woman and the man are the one's causing the pregnancy, and not the State.

22JUL25 ¥ ding ¥ #3,867 Legislators are free to decide anything they want. I'm just stating the science that is taught in every embryology textbook.


23MAR08 ¥ Meriweather ¥ #195 • It appears you had to go back a couple of centuries to find an example of Christianity being "shoved down our throats".

23MAR08 NFBW #7,488 “We only have to go back to yesterday to find an example of extremist white nationalist Christianity being shoved down an American woman’s throat in Texas.

35-year-old {Amanda} Zurawski, an Austin woman who was nearly 18 weeks pregnant last August when her doctor diagnosed her with an “incompetent cervix,” meaning the organ had prematurely dilated and there was no possibility of her pregnancy resulting in a viable baby.

Amanda Zurawski, one of the plaintiffs, speaks outside the Texas Capitol on Tuesday. SUZANNE CORDEIRO VIA GETTY IMAGES
~~~~
Those complications began to make her sick, but because she was still stable and the fetus had a heartbeat, the hospital told her the Texas ban meant there was nothing her doctors could do except wait for her to go into labor. Because there was a possibility she could deliver in the coming hours, doctors told her to stay within 15 minutes of the hospital ― eliminating the option of traveling out of state for an abortion. •••• On her way home from a check-up with her obstetrician days later, Zurawski “developed chills and started shivering, and by the time she got home, she had a temperature of 101 degrees and was not responding to her husband’s questions — all signs of sepsis,” the lawsuit lays out.
It wasn’t until doctors confirmed she was septic ― a life-threatening reaction in the bloodstream to an infection ― that the hospital agreed to induce labor on a baby that would die shortly after birth. •••• Her infection persisted, landing her in the intensive care unit and causing severe scar tissue to develop in her uterus and fallopian tubes. One of her fallopian tubes remains closed and non-functional. Because of the damage to her reproductive organs, her doctors have told her she will likely have to attempt in vitro fertilization to become pregnant again ― a process that’s often invasive, expensive and unsuccessful.

Yes, white extremist Christian’s like Meriweather and ding have caused severe scar tissue to develop in Amanda Zurawski’s uterus and fallopian tubes. Both are aided and abetted by a moral authoritarian atheist CarsomyrPlusSix - none of those three will weigh in on the suffering their political ideology actually causes.
¥ ding ¥ will argue Texas legislators were just following science not religion; {see 03,867 above}

We should all be calling bullshit on that. Science would have saved Amanda’s uterus. White Christian extremism in Texas scarred it.

23SEP26 ¥ beagle9 ¥ #7,937 {to: 07,930} Maybe the Doctor was a leftist that got in on setting the state up by not rendering the proper treatment for this alleged incompetent cervix, and all because he knew what the results would be by not rendering the care she needed ??

23SEP26 NFBW #7,941 {to: 07,837} The “incompetent cervix” diagnosis is not a crime or something that can be faked. •••• Amanda’s fetus was healthy throughout this complication and in Texas every fetus with a heartbeat has the protection of state interest that “forced” Amanda’s doctor to keep the fetus alive until Amanda actually became on the verge of death before her life could be saved by killing a perfectly healthy fetus. •••• It’s what happens when white Republican Trump Christians vote for lawmakers who pass laws since Dobbs that force doctors to make legal decisions instead of medical decisions when the fetus does not have a brain but is alive and healthy. That forces harm, mental and financial cruelty on women whether they want to be pregnant or not. •••• You beagle9 are a white Christian proponent of harming pregnant women through state force. You are not civilized at all. {you have evil in your heart?}