Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[whutTHEYsay]

NOPE

Why not?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

once the egg is fertilized dna transfer has taken place. That is now part of two people

nf.23.08.11 #736 God breathes a soul into a newborn at first breath which is when sanctity of human life begins in Judeo-Christianity

frnknstn.23.08.11 #739 Wrong God says he knows you before he forms you in the womb!

Do you believe dna transfer at conception negates ensoulment from God at a newborn’s first breath?

frnknstn.23.01.24 #459
nf.23.08.11 #10,202

 

[BackAgain]

I make a point that no hierarchy of life exists in the United States that includes the unborn at the top and you tell me to fuck off.

That reply means you cannot show a hierarchy of life exists that includes the unborn.

It is that simple.

It primarily exists for the Catholic Church and sone white evangelical Protestants who are absolutely free and entitled to practice their beliefs and never abort a baby fetus when one comes into their lives.

bckvgn.23.08.10 #10,192
nf.23.08.11 #10,195

You didn’t make a point. You made a mere assertion. Consider my response to be a demand that you prove it. You can’t.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#268
22.05.20

It matters massively that preborn babies are people. Their right to life is the top priority on any sane and morally defensible hierarchy of values. The law must recognize that right as superseding your quibbling and illogical objection.

#7,460
23.03.05

The Constitution recognizes persons held to service or labor. It does not recognize a fetus in the womb as a person

#7,461
23.03.05

Also, the definition of a “person” doesn’t control in a discussion about the right to life. The question which does control is “when does life begin?”

#7,490 A
23.03.09

The question is when does the right to life of a fetus begin.

#7,490 B
23.03.09

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160] FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Translation of the above: we don’t know in Texas, so mostly white Christian males have decided to deprive women of liberty just to not offend a paternalistic God and Relugion.

#7,490 C
23.03.09

NFBW: Why must we accept Catholic doctrine @BackAgain that conception is the definitive moment that life begins when those trained in the respective disciplines of science, medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus for thousands of years when protected life begins.

#7,495 A
23.03.09

Life begins at conception. This is a scientific fact. Ergo the right to life has to begin then.

#7,495 B
23.03.09

If you (or any advocate of abortion “rights” [sic]) thinks you can draw an arbitrary line about when the “right” to terminate that life can be drawn, then some people say it’s at “birth.”

#7,495 C
23.03.09

But on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line as you suggest?

I will answer your question #7,495 C first because it proves the right to life of unborn babies is NOT the top priority on any sane and morally defensible hierarchy of values.

Human individual rights are either God-given or inalienable natural rights which are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws.)

None of us being protected on US soil can expect to forfeit our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by any actions unless we violate someone else's rights.

Natural law is the law of natural rights and protection of inalienable rights on an equal basis of every “independent” human being is rightfully at the top of any hierarchy of values no matter who constructs it.

Patrick Henry said “give me liberty, or give me death” but those in the five decades long political/religious crusade have given up on liberty as a top value for adults when they petition the government to deprive a woman of liberty if she becomes pregnant. Forcing full term gestation to achieve physical separation of baby and mother is oppression and deprivation of free choice regarding health and wealth.

Which brings me to answer BackAgain ‘s question #7,495 C (see above)

Birth is the monumental split second when the umbilical cord is pinched and then cut that hadit saw happen with the birth of a son who made the transition from dependent life to independent life.

Right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness cannot be taken from the mature human being if her pursuit of happiness doesn’t include taking the risk of giving birth to a new human being at a certain point of her life.

The decision is always hers if you respect liberty.

nf.23.08.11 #10,204

 

[BackAgain]

#268
22.05.20


#7,460
23.03.05


#7,461
23.03.05


#7,490 A
23.03.09


#7,490 B
23.03.09


Translation of the above: we don’t know in Texas, so mostly white Christian males have decided to deprive women of liberty just to not offend a paternalistic God and Relugion.

#7,490 C
23.03.09


#7,495 A
23.03.09


#7,495 B
23.03.09


#7,495 C
23.03.09


I will answer your question #7,495 C first because it proves the right to life of unborn babies is NOT the top priority on any sane and morally defensible hierarchy of values.

Human individual rights are either God-given or inalienable natural rights which are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws.)

None of us being protected on US soil can expect to forfeit our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by any actions unless we violate someone else's rights.

Natural law is the law of natural rights and protection of inalienable rights on an equal basis of every “independent” human being is rightfully at the top of any hierarchy of values no matter who constructs it.

Patrick Henry said “give me liberty, or give me death” but those in the five decades religious crusade have given up on liberty as a top value for adults when they petition the government to deprive a woman of liberty if she becomes pregnant by forcing full term gestation to achieve physical separation of baby and mother..

Which brings me to answer BackAgain question #7,495 C (see above)

Birth is the monumental split second when the umbilical cord is pinched and then cut that hadit saw happen with the birth of a son who made the transition from dependent life to independent life.

Right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness cannot be taken from the mature human being if her pursuit of happiness doesn’t include taking the risk of giving birth to a new human being at a certain point of her life.

The decision is always hers if you respect liberty.

nf.23.08.11 #10,204

Tl:dr.

But I’m sure you’re just vacantly repeating yourself pointlessly.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

But I’m sure you’re just vacantly repeating yourself pointlessly.

You asked for proof. it’s there, so you should be afraid to read it.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

But I’m sure you’re just vacantly repeating yourself pointlessly.

No. I have never cited Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” before it’s a first.

 

[BackAgain]

You asked for proof. it’s there, so you should be afraid to read it.

You’ve never in your life offered proof.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You asked for proof. it’s there, so you should be afraid to read it.

Evidence of intellectual cowardice on the part of the full term forced gestation movement if the saving baby fetus cult is the most I can hope for here. So thank you for complying.

 

[beagle9]

Joe is a freedom of conscience and separation of church and state champion who gained the most politically from Dobbs.

Dobbs was a culmination of USSC rulings improperly leaning favorably to uniting church and state by taking away a very secular and private right from women.

This one really pissed women and men who respect them off. They will teach Republicans a lesson in 2

The actual votes in Ohio Kansas and Wisconsin show Dobbs is nationally shifting America blue.

Thanks though. FYI I did a little more research and found that clamping the umbilical cord is not what ‘triggers’ the ventilation of a newborn’s lungs and first breaths of independent life

There is a signaling system within the brainstem that activates almost immediately at birth to support early breathing.

The lungs are cleared of amniotic fluid during this practiced breathing instinct while momentarily in a matter of minutes the oxygen flow continues to the newborn’s body and brain supplied through the umbilical cord.

When the umbilical cord is clamped it initiates transfer of the baby’s own blood supply in a closed system to flow to the lungs to be oxygenated by the lungs the very first time. The baby is now breathing oxygenating and circulating blood throughout the body living life independently on its own. With independent mature enough humans caring for it for about 13 to 18 years.

A team of researchers led by UVA's Dr. Yingtang Shi, Patrice Guyenet and Douglas A. Bayliss have discovered a signaling system within the brainstem that activates almost immediately at birth to support early breathing. That first gasp that every parent cherishes appears to trigger this support system.​

How baby's first breath triggers life-saving changes in the brain

There are few moments in life as precious, as critical and as celebrated as a baby's first breath. New research from the University of Virginia School of Medicine sheds light on the lifelong changes in breathing systems that occur precisely with that first breath—and may offer important insights...

medicalxpress.com

"Birth is traumatic for the newborn, as the baby has to independently take control over various important body functions, including breathing," said Bayliss, who chairs UVA's Department of Pharmacology. "We think that activation of this support system at birth provides an extra safety factor for this critical period."​

hvdvt.23.05.16 #8,889
hvdvt.23.05.16 #8,898
nf.23.08.11 #10,185

Hanging your hat on ole Joe just shows how desperate your ace is.... Keep talking, it's irritating yet entertaining.. lol

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You’ve never in your life offered proof.

How would you know.

 

[beagle9]

nf.23.08.11 #736 God breathes a soul into a newborn at first breath which is when sanctity of human life begins in Judeo-Christianity

frnknstn.23.08.11 #739 Wrong God says he knows you before he forms you in the womb!

Do you believe dna transfer at conception negates ensoulment from God at a newborn’s first breath?

frnknstn.23.01.24 #459
nf.23.08.11 #10,202

DNA and spirit are two separate things.

 

[BackAgain]

How would you know.

I’ve read our exchanges. You never bring anything.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The highest value on a hierarchy of values has to be life, itself. That includes those already born and those not yet born.

kids just called. They’re bringing the baby over to spend the night. Tomorrow we celebrate her second month of birthday. Do you know the day she went from being dependent to independent.

Isn’t it amazing this newly born independent little girl can spend the night at grandma and grandpa’s house and let mom and dad have a little piece and quiet. Got a run for now.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I’ve read our exchanges. You never bring anything.

You asked for proof this morning which usually means you want to see it. So I guess you’re just lying again.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

DNA and spirit are two separate things.

My point exactly. I’m glad you understand that.


There was a question there. Are you going to comment?

Original Judeo Christian belief was that God breathed the soul into the newborn infant during first breath. Does discovery of DNA take away the legitimacy of the ancient Jewish beliefs?

 

[BackAgain]

You asked for proof this morning which usually means you want to see it. So I guess you’re just lying again.

You don’t provide proof. Ever.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You don’t provide proof. Ever.

Don’t Worry. nf.23.08.11 #10,204 is plenty but I have much more!

 

[BackAgain]

Don’t Worry. nf.23.08.11 #10,204 is plenty but I have much more!

Still waiting.

By the way, I realize you don’t grasp this: but brevity could be your pal.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Still waiting.

nf.23.08.11 #10,204 Human individual rights are either God-given or inalienable natural rights which are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws.) •••• None of us being protected on US soil can expect to forfeit our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by any actions unless we violate someone else's rights.

Do you disagree?


nf.23.08.11 #10,220