Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[NotfooledbyW]

So, life begins at conception. Then? Terminating that life is the taking of life. A unique and helpless and innocent life.

Yes, a dependent life begins at conception.

Yes, Terminating that life is the taking of a dependent life.

Yes, A fetus is a unique and helpless and innocent dependent life.

By “dependent” life I mean a living human organism that is dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra, anus, reproductive physiology and neurological system and brain activity of a pregnant woman keeping it all going until separation is completed and that unique and special dependency ends.

Full term separation during birth In 2020 resulted in 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births which means a woman takes a risk if she decides to allow use of her body to a “dependent life” for a full term pregnancy.

So if a woman who becomes pregnant unplanned, early on, looks at the real risk to her life as a prioritized reason to protect her life first, decides to take the life of her fetus by the tenth to fifteenth week such as ninety two percent of women seeking abortions do, who are you BackAgain to force that risk on her? You have no risk. You have no harm to you. You have no restriction to your life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

If a woman is forced to do full term gestation and actually dies during or following separation at birth, you go on with your life. Why must you care about her. Maybe she leaves other kids behind because FDA approved contraceptives failed. SHE’s dead - you are alive. That is not right:,

IF you don’t believe in abortion don’t get one.

bvkvgn.23.07.20 #9,872
nf.23.08.12 #10,241

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Why not when teeth first come in?

The conflict of rights between the woman and her fetus ceased to exist long before a baby’s first teeth come in.

The following happened during separation of the the fetus from its mother;

the transition from the fetal to neonatal blood circulation enables independent life of every surviving newborn human being.​

​

​

The Transitional Heart: From Early Embryonic and Fetal Development to Neonatal Life - PubMed 221121^heart​

​

The transition from the fetal to neonatal circulation is considered to be a period of intricate physiological, anatomical, and biochemical changes in the cardiovascular system. With a successful cardiopulmonary transition to the extrauterine environment, the fetal shunts are functionally modified or eliminated, enabling independent life.​

 

[BackAgain]

Explain what you mean in the context of the end of the contest of rights between a fetus and the woman who gave it life at conception. You are avoiding any reference to contest of rights and that is the meat of this Dobbs Republican fiasco discussion as it fits into the Constitution.

bckvgn.23.08.12 #10,236
nf.23.08.12 #10,236

I notice you change the subject a lot.

 

[BackAgain]

Do you assert there is no contest of a right to life between a woman and her fetus?

I believe we already discussed this.

There are always competing rights.

Try to stay focused.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

22.07.25
#3,868

I believe abortion is a human rights issue and anyone who weighs the rights of the mother and child must acknowledge that abortion is ending a human life. Anything less does not properly weigh the rights.

23.08.12
#10,237

Do you assert there is no contest of a right to life between a woman and her fetus?

23.08.12
#10,244

I believe we already discussed this.
There are always competing rights.

No, I’ve never had this conversation with you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bckvgn.23.03.09 #7,495 “But on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line as you suggest”

nf.23.08.12 #10,238 Transition from dependent life to independent life at FIRST BREATH and cutting off the cord {note hadit } ends the contest between the woman’s right of bodily control vs the fetus’ right to life.

nf.23.08.12 #10,231 T or F BackAgain : Is an unborn’s life dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra and anus and neurological system with consciousness?

bckvcg.23.08.12 #10,233 “To some extent and by diminishing levels at a certain point in its development. Yes.”

To some extent

So that is “yes to some extent” an unborn’s life is dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra and anus and neurological system with consciousness?i

Please extend and clarify exactly what you mean with specificity when you say an unborn’s life is to some extent dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra and anus and neurological system with consciousness?

Also do you concur that the earliest surviving preemies known to mankind have never been able to survive in any extent prior to being dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra and anus and neurological system with consciousness before 21 weeks of pregnancy?

nf.23.08.13 #10,246

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Aside from the fact that you’re full of shit, your definition is both faulty and irrational as well as arbitrary. Life begins when life begins. That is conception.

My argument is as valid, competent and wise as yours because I argue with zero exceptions that life in mammals begins when life begins and that beginning is at conception.

Also for the first twenty weeks as a minimum duration of gestation, a human fetus is dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra, anus and neurological system with consciousness?

So where am I “full of shit” by your grossly inept observation?

bckvgn.23.08.12 #10,225
nf.23.08.13 #10,247

 

[NotfooledbyW]

dividing line

bckvgn.23.03.09 #7,495 “But on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line as you suggest”

When does the competing rights or the actual conflict over of a right to life between a potential birth mother and one of her eggs that becomes fertilized unintentionally, begin?

Where does the conflict that begins at unplanned conception end? You say the conflict of rights so stated dies not end at the first breath of air a fetus takes, so when is the conflict over that starts at unplanned conception?

bckvgn.23.03 #7,668
nf.23.08.13 #10,248

 

[BackAgain]

22.07.25
#3,868


23.08.12
#10,237


23.08.12
#10,244


No, I’ve never had this conversation with you.

Yes. I have. But I’ll tell you again.

There are often conflicts between rights and between individuals.

For example, as I’ve maintained all along, the life of the mother (or even a genuine risk of significant health issues) supersedes the embryo’s right to live. Logic supports that. If she dies, the kid dies along with her, anyway, in most instances.

You have a right to live. But if you point a loaded gun at me and are close enough to shooting me, but I manage to shoot you first, I’ve thereby saved my own life. My right supersedes your right to life because we recognize the right of self defense.

I have previously conceded my own lack of consistency in my logic. For example, the life of the zygote produced as a result of a rape is still a perfectly innocent human being in its own right. Nevertheless, I have conceded that it would be unconscionable (in my own estimation) to force any woman to take the child to term. Also, in cases of incest or if the mother to be happens to be a minor, same result. Or if the child inside the mother has no chance of viability after birth, I guess it would be pointless and heartless to compel the mother to go full term.

In any event, the point remains. There are logical and even moral exceptions to the general rule precisely because we have the ability to discern the differences in our rights and the various bases for those competing rights.

 

[beagle9]

Yes. I have. But I’ll tell you again.

There are often conflicts between rights and between individuals.

For example, as I’ve maintained all along, the life of the mother (or even a genuine risk of significant health issues) supersedes the embryo’s right to live. Logic supports that. If she dies, the kid dies along with her, anyway, in most instances.

You have a right to live. But if you point a loaded gun at me and are close enough to shooting me, but I manage to shoot you first, I’ve thereby saved my own life. My right supersedes your right to life because we recognize the right of self defense.

I have previously conceded my own lack of consistency in my logic. For example, the life of the zygote produced as a result of a rape is still a perfectly innocent human being in its own right. Nevertheless, I have conceded that it would be unconscionable (in my own estimation) to force any woman to take the child to term. Also, in cases of incest or if the mother to be happens to be a minor, same result. Or if the child inside the mother has no chance of viability after birth, I guess it would be pointless and heartless to compel the mother to go full term.

In any event, the point remains. There are logical and even moral exceptions to the general rule precisely because we have the ability to discern the differences in our rights and the various bases for those competing rights.

Yes, and the exceptions should be rules based as well. Otherwise if a rape occurs, then it should be reported and the potential pregnancy aborted before it gets up and going. She don't have to report it to law enforcement if fear retaliation by the rapist who could still be at large, but she should be able to report it to her doctor in secrecy, and the pregnancy aborted before it gets off the ground and running. It best she report it to law enforcement immediately, but it would be understandable if her fear stops her from doing so if the rapist has intimidated her so much so that her fear prohibits her from doing so. It should be up to the adult victim to call the situation as she feels safe with, unless she is a minor, then hopefully justice is swift in apprehending the perp in such a case.

Wouldn't be thinking in these ways if law enforcement were better about apprehending the rapist quickly as is needed. The women have to protect themselves in the ways that they think is best.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bckvgn.23.08.13 #10,249

I’ve maintained all along, the life of the mother (or even a genuine risk of significant health issues) supersedes the embryo’s right to live.

That is nice of you but I am asking you about the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness guaranteed by society to the potential birth mother being in conflict with the same three rights being guaranteed to the potential human being that is created at conception.

This conflict of rights starts at conception not when a potential birth mother is in the throes of death when the potential human being is ready to pop our?

These competing rights begins at conception but the practical start is when the women finds out she is pregnant but does not intend to assume the risk and responsibilities of continued gestation until birth for physical separation from her problem.

Can you share your thoughts on the competing rights thus defined?

If you can’t - just say so.

I know why you can’t.

nf.23.07.13 #10,251

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bckvgn.23.08.13
#10,249

In any event, the point remains. There are logical and even moral exceptions to the general rule precisely because we have the ability to discern the differences in our rights and the various bases for those competing rights.

So you grant me the ability to discern the differences in our rights and the various bases for those competing rights when I decide that a woman and her doctor have a right to terminate her own pregnancy let’s say during the first 20 weeks which is earlier than a fetus can survive outside the womb?

Thank you if your word means anything.

bckvgn.23.08.13 #10,249
nf.23.08.13 #10,252

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bckvgn.23.08.13
#10,249

But if you point a loaded gun at me and are close enough to shooting me, but I manage to shoot you first, I’ve thereby saved my own life. My right supersedes your right to life because we recognize the right of self defense.

If one individual is pointing a gun at another individual with access to a gun it is impossible in my experience with pregnant women for an individual with a gun to be inside her womb , let alone having a Saturday night version of “Gunsmoke” playing out inside her body .

Your logic is invalid and illogical to present that analogy as an analogy applicable to the conversation we are

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I notice you change the subject a lot.

Unfounded complaints are somewhat a change of subject. But I understand you are stuck.

 

[hadit]

Of course. What is the point.

When a male dies during childbirth Let me know, since we are talking about forfeiture of right to life being mandated by the government when it forces gestation on a female not the male in a consensual sexual relationship matter that has obviously gone awry and the female had no intention to become pregnant.

According to current dogma, men can become pregnant, so there you go. Regardless, men lose their reproductive freedom.

 

[BackAgain]

bckvgn.23.08.13
#10,249


If one individual is pointing a gun at another individual with access to a gun it is impossible in my experience with pregnant women for an individual with a gun to be inside her womb ,

You’re truly retarded.

 

[BackAgain]

Unfounded complaints are somewhat a change of subject. But I understand you are stuck.

You must be arc, by that logic. Since you’re the sole who changed the subject.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You’re truly retarded.

You checked out. Recoup - get some rest - come back in a few weeks. Absence is your best argument at this point.

Thank you for granting me the ability to discern the differences in our rights and the various bases for those competing rights when I decide that a woman and her doctor have a right to terminate her own pregnancy let’s say during the first 20 weeks which is earlier than a fetus can survive outside the womb?

Thanks again.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

men lose their reproductive freedom.

Do you have a point? No man has ever died giving birth to a child.

 

[BackAgain]

You checked out. Recoup - get some rest - come back in a few weeks. Absence is your best argument at this point.

Thank you for granting me the ability to discern the differences in our rights and the various bases for those competing rights when I decide that a woman and her doctor have a right to terminate her own pregnancy let’s say during the first 20 weeks which is earlier than a fetus can survive outside the womb?

Thanks again.

You gave up. I get it. And, good. It was your only logical move.

I love it when I get you morons so stirred up that you basically surrender.