Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[ThisIsMe]

thssm.23 08.17
#10,332


Is it possible that God knows Judaism and Jews are ok? Jewish law does not consider a person (Heb. nefesh, lit. “soul”) until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth)

Rabbi Schneur Zalman explains that the Torah’s use of the word “breath” to describe the Neshama, to teach that it comes from the essence of God, and he refers to it as a “part of God.”[15]Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (1934-1983) provides additional insights into this metaphor: [16]

“God's exhaling a soul can be compared to a glassblower forming a vessel. The breath (neshama) first leaves his lips, travels as a wind (ruach) and finally comes to rest (nefesh) in the vessel.

Of these three levels of the soul, neshama is, therefore, the highest and closest to God, while nefesh is that aspect of the soul residing in the body. Ruach stands between the two, binding man to his spiritual Source. It is for this reason that Divine Inspiration is called Ruach HaKodesh in Hebrew.

The Journey of the Soul â Its Mission and the Afterlife​

www.jewsforjudaism.org

The Torah is teaching us that the human soul came directly from God's innermost essence in the same way that a breath issues forth from a person's lungs and chest cavity. The rest of creation, on the other hand, was created with speech,[17] which is a lower level.”

nf.23.08.18 #10,336

Ok, I get it. It has no value until it can breathe on its own. But the left still doesn’t consider it a life until it’s born so…

 

[beagle9]

So you believe it is a life, you just don’t care..




Wait, so you’re suggesting that if you can abort the baby, you should be able to abort the mother too??




Why? According to the left, it’s not a baby, it’s just tissue. Why grieve over that. It also can’t be murder. My point is, from the lefts point of view, if a woman gets hit by a drunk driver and loses the….tissue, she can’t sue for murder of her unborn, because it’s not a baby, it’s nothing more than tissue..a clump of cells.



Sure, she can sue him for personal bodily injury to herself, but that’s it. She can’t sue him for murder…cause ya know, it’s not a baby, it’s just a clump of cells.

She can't even sue for the loss of her baby (not calling it murder), but even involuntary manslaughter can't be qualified after what these leftist want concerning their views upon the unborn.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Anyone else think that “notfolledbyw” is an ai bot? His post structure is strange and it uses a lot of weird syntax. Maybe it’s just me lol

 

[beagle9]

Ok, I get it. It has no value until it can breathe on its own. But the left still doesn’t consider it a life until it’s born so…

The left wants to be uncivilized, just like what we are seeing in their works across this nation.

 

[beagle9]

Anyone else think that “notfolledbyw” is an ai bot? His post structure is strange and it uses a lot of weird syntax. Maybe it’s just me lol

An AI would probably spew him out.. ROTFLMBO

 

[ThisIsMe]

The left wants to be uncivilized, just like what we are seeing in their works across this nation.

Well, I’m just taking their argument to it’s natural conclusion. You see, when they want abortion on demand, they are all about “it’s not a life, it’s just cells and tissue!”, but when they get pregnant they are all like “ooh, i need all this special treatment to care for my “baby”, and if they lose the pregnancy for whatever reason, they want to spend a week at home crying and grieving…so, they need to make up their mind. If it’s not a baby, take some advil and get back to work, and deal with your “tissue issue” on your own time, dont think you’ll be taking any time off work for it…

 

[whutTHEYsay]

thssm.23.08.19
#10,376

you just don’t care.

You are MAGA.

I care that a fetus being gestated is a life. It is a potential human being and if anyone kills it other than the woman gestating it, murder or manslaughter laws should apply if they do not already as in some states.

Why do you accuse me of not caring? It’s a matter of prioritizing rights between a woman with a conscious life and a living fetus with no conscious of life. Gestating a fetus has a maternal mortality rate attached to it.

That means giving birth can kill the birth mother.

I prioritize that women unknown to me have a right to stop gestation in their own bodies because it’s none of my business. But more importantly a eonsn’s right to eliminate the potential risk of harm or death supersedes the right of a brainless potential human to receive full term gestation from her life.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

thssm.23.08.18 #10,386

You see, when they want abortion on demand, they are all about “it’s not a life, it’s just cells and tissue!”,

That is not my argument at all. You have never responded to my argument.

This is what a fetus during gestating is:

Modified slightly by me from original
By Robert P George Arguing the Ethics of Stem Cell Research : The embryonic, fetal, infant, child and adolescent stages are stages of development of a determinate and enduring entity -- a human being -- who comes into existence as a zygote and develops by a gradual and gapless process into adulthood many years later.

{The gestating fetal human being} is a complete and distinct human organism possessing all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth, as well as an active disposition to develop itself using that information. The direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it.

That is not “a clump of cells that is not a life”

.
nf.23.08.19 #10,386

 

[whutTHEYsay]

But the left

Is it possible that God knows Judaism and Jews are ok?

I ask you that question Jewish people believe the sanctity of life begins at first breath or as it can be seen emerging from the womb.

Are you saying Jews are uncivilized for not believing what Catholics believe which is the sanctity of life begins at conception.

 

[beagle9]

thssm.23.08.19
#10,376

You are MAGA.

I care that a fetus being gestated is a life. It is a potential human being and if anyone kills it other than the woman gestating it, murder or manslaughter laws should apply if they do not already as in some states.

Why do you accuse me of not caring? It’s a matter of prioritizing rights between a woman with a conscious life and a living fetus with no conscious of life. Gestating a fetus has a maternal mortality rate attached to it.

That means giving birth can kill the birth mother.

I prioritize that women unknown to me have a right to stop gestation in their own bodies because it’s none of my business. But more importantly a eonsn’s right to eliminate the potential risk of harm or death supersedes the right of a brainless potential human to receive full term gestation from her life.

The easy fix that undoubtedly escapes your leftist thought process, is emphasis on prevention... Otherwise the woman should be taught early on (instead of teaching her that she might not be who she thinks she is within her own body), that in reality pregnancy comes with a huge responsibility. If y'all would focus more on teaching the right things in life, and this to the young, then the potential mother to be later down the line won't be making the mistakes that they keep making later on down the line, but some love it when they make mistakes, then they run quickly from them next....

Heck some things that y'all think are mistakes, aren't really mistakes at all, but yet you all will just stand there and let a woman try to address her thought of mistake in a barbarous type of way, and will even try to aid and abed her disillusions on such matters.

Pathetic !!!!

 

[struth]

strth.23.08.01
#10,032


Dobbs lifted the ban on forcing full term gestation on women who do not want to take the risk of harm and possible death that comes with full term gestation.

So tell us if you agree or disagree a that law that forces full term gestation on women, established by majority rule, can be enforced in a state, based on nothing of legal standing or protection from harm to that majority.

How can you accept a state government enforcing a law that forces full term gestation on women who do not want to be put in harms way by a reproductive process going on in her one and only body? She has a right to protect herself? Does she not?

nf.23.08.19 #10,369

I have already answer that question, you continue to go round and round in circles.

I agree Dodds was correctly decided

I personally would not vote for a ban on all abortions.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Double Think Fools Expecting It Both Ways "

* Terminology Lessons For Consistency Of Language *

Democrat beliefs eh ? Don't know who you are referring to, but I'm know damned Democrat, I'm a conservative all the way through, but you like to play games maybe ? Tell me more about myself lefty, I'm all ears.

A democrat seeks populism by tyranny of majority over principles of individualism , which are the expectations of your beliefs on many civil issues , which you apparently " know " .

The conservative versus liberal paradigm is intellectual and political science buffoonery .

A conservative wants conservation of government authority , which is assuredly consistent with the authoritarian aspirations of theocrats , dictators and communists alike .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Abortion Anti-Choice Demand Others Suffer For None Of Their Business "

* When Without Cause Is Not An Individual Preference *

Well, I’m just taking their argument to it’s natural conclusion. You see, when they want abortion on demand, they are all about “it’s not a life, it’s just cells and tissue!”, but when they get pregnant they are all like “ooh, i need all this special treatment to care for my “baby”, and if they lose the pregnancy for whatever reason, they want to spend a week at home crying and grieving…so, they need to make up their mind. If it’s not a baby, take some advil and get back to work, and deal with your “tissue issue” on your own time, dont think you’ll be taking any time off work for it…

When they say they want abortion on demand , they mean an expectation of dealing with developmental anomalies whenever they might occur during pregnancy .

The lies of the abortion anti-choice trope ignore with cause abortion and pretend that all abortions in the second and third trimesters are without cause ; and , in the second and third trimesters , women faced with developmental anomalies would have preferred to deliver healthy offspring .

The general nature of women is not to seek without cause abortion in the second and third trimester , where with cause abortion is optioned as a result of developmental anomalies that are most often determined through ultrasound between 13 and 20 weeks .

The abortion anti-choice trope is blubbering because 90% of INDIVIDUALS are optioning not to carry trisomy offspring to term .

The abortion anti-choice trope are zealots , delusional about reality of health and wellness , who demand their own delusions of grandeur about the hue mammon ape , and beliefs about their own religion , be dictated .

The clump of cells and tissue are typically references to first trimester development when approximately 93% of abortions occur .

Though the sanctimonious , sacrosanct , abortion anti-choice psychotics want to prevent any abortion , the sick fucks want to control second and third trimester decisions to satisfy and manifest some freak farm pity party .

Notice a similar characteristic of abortion anti-choice and those annoyed by sanctuary cities , the advocates are good with stupid public policy ( ex en mass illegal immigration ) as long as it is the problem of someone else , and it is not their own problem .

 

[whutTHEYsay]

hvdvt 23.05.09
#8,766

Do you, as a lot of democrats and extremists do, support abortion up to the moment of birth and even after? Where do YOU draw the line?

I draw the line at the same point where every single woman who does not consent to using her body for full term gestation for the potential human being who must have that consent in order to remain alive.

Statistically that has proven to be at the 23rd week of pregnancy.

The line is where “without cause abortions” end as noted below by the intellectually fit and highly rational and informed Republican says it is in post #10,393 .

mnkvyv.23.08.20 #10,393

The general nature of women is not to seek without cause abortion in the second and third trimester

Monk-Eye is a rare find on this Message Board who is under-appreciated by the religious zealots and their heathen political Allied Forces who have no respect for women having equal rights to men and subordinate rights to underdeveloped fetuses living in their bodies.

The lies of the abortion anti-choice trope ignore with cause abortion and pretend that all abortions in the second and third trimesters are without cause ; and , in the second and third trimesters , women faced with developmental anomalies would have preferred to deliver healthy offspring .

I respect a woman’s right to stop gestational development of a fetus in her body.

Over 98 percent of abortions in America occur within 22 weeks from conception.

I do not understand why you would ask me if I support abortion up to the moment of birth.

That is a loaded question meant to suggest that the one asking has superior morality to the one being asked.

If a woman suffers a crisis pregnancy at or near the end, I do not accept that you believe that women who makes it to their final three months just to decide giving birth to her baby becomes an inconvenience.

Baby Fetus has driven most white Evangelicals and nearly half of Catholics nuts enough to destroy American democracy

I am trying to lead this Dobbs Constitutional Crisis and rights discussion to shedding light to the pro-authoritarian relationship between the Saving Baby Fetus and anti reproductive rights white Christian Cult linkage to the Trump enthused mob thuggery of white might is right therefore Constitutional law and order and one person one vote be damned if it does not ultimate serve the American religious right’s idea of how a Christian Nation is expected to behave.

Why people of faith are 'crucial' to protecting democracy: op-ed​

Maya Boddie, Alternet August 19, 2023,​

In a recent op-ed published by Religion News Service, Protect Democracy policy advocate Chris Crawford argues that "most religious doctrines do not require an embrace of democracy. But in today's world, authoritarians are attempting to do the opposite — to recruit communities of faith to undermine democracy."​

​

A religious calling to protect democracy

(RNS) — Most religious doctrines do not require an embrace of democracy. But in today’s world, authoritarians are attempting to do the opposite — to recruit communities of faith to undermine democracy.

religionnews.com

nf.23.08.20 #10,394

 

[beagle9]

" Abortion Anti-Choice Demand Others Suffer For None Of Their Business "

* When Without Cause Is Not An Individual Preference *

When they say they want abortion on demand , they mean an expectation of dealing with developmental anomalies whenever they might occur during pregnancy .

The lies of the abortion anti-choice trope ignore with cause abortion and pretend that all abortions in the second and third trimesters are without cause ; and , in the second and third trimesters , women faced with developmental anomalies would have preferred to deliver healthy offspring .

The general nature of women is not to seek without cause abortion in the second and third trimester , where with cause abortion is optioned as a result of developmental anomalies that are most often determined through ultrasound between 13 and 20 weeks .

The abortion anti-choice trope is blubbering because 90% of INDIVIDUALS are optioning not to carry trisomy offspring to term .

The abortion anti-choice trope are zealots , delusional about reality of health and wellness , who demand their own delusions of grandeur about the hue mammon ape , and beliefs about their own religion , be dictated .

The clump of cells and tissue are typically references to first trimester development when approximately 93% of abortions occur .

Though the sanctimonious , sacrosanct , abortion anti-choice psychotics want to prevent any abortion , the sick fucks want to control second and third trimester decisions to satisfy and manifest some freak farm pity party .

Notice a similar characteristic of abortion anti-choice and those annoyed by sanctuary cities , the advocates are good with stupid public policy ( ex en mass illegal immigration ) as long as it is the problem of someone else , and it is not their own problem .

You actually wrote this with what we as Americans know about everything the Democrats have caused and promote in this supposed modern day thinking society ? Spare us your excuse making for the Democrat's, because it makes all your writing look foolish.

 

[beagle9]

hvdvt 23.05.09
#8,766


I draw the line at the same point where every single woman who does not consent to using her body for full term gestation for the potential human being who must have that consent in order to remain alive.

Statistically that has proven to be at the 23rd week of pregnancy.

The line is where “without cause abortions” end as noted below by the intellectually fit and highly rational and informed Republican says it is in post #10,393 .

mnkvyv.23.08.20 #10,393


Monk-Eye is a rare find on this Message Board who is under-appreciated by the religious zealots and their heathen political Allied Forces who have no respect for women having equal rights to men and subordinate rights to underdeveloped fetuses living in their bodies.



I respect a woman’s right to stop gestational development of a fetus in her body.

Over 98 percent of abortions in America occur within 22 weeks from conception.

I do not understand why you would ask me if I support abortion up to the moment of birth.

That is a loaded question meant to suggest that the one asking has superior morality to the one being asked.

If a woman suffers a crisis pregnancy at or near the end, I do not accept that you believe that women who makes it to their final three months just to decide giving birth to her baby becomes an inconvenience.

Baby Fetus has driven most white Evangelicals and nearly half of Catholics nuts enough to destroy American democracy

I am trying to lead this Dobbs Constitutional Crisis and rights discussion to shedding light to the pro-authoritarian relationship between the Saving Baby Fetus and anti reproductive rights white Christian Cult linkage to the Trump enthused mob thuggery of white might is right therefore Constitutional law and order and one person one vote be damned if it does not ultimate serve the American religious right’s idea of how a Christian Nation is expected to behave.

Why people of faith are 'crucial' to protecting democracy: op-ed​

Maya Boddie, Alternet August 19, 2023,​

In a recent op-ed published by Religion News Service, Protect Democracy policy advocate Chris Crawford argues that "most religious doctrines do not require an embrace of democracy. But in today's world, authoritarians are attempting to do the opposite — to recruit communities of faith to undermine democracy."​

​

A religious calling to protect democracy

(RNS) — Most religious doctrines do not require an embrace of democracy. But in today’s world, authoritarians are attempting to do the opposite — to recruit communities of faith to undermine democracy.

religionnews.com

nf.23.08.20 #10,394

You speak as a Natzi would, otherwise diminishing the value of the life within by telling the mother that if she would prefer to end that life for whatever reason (at your supposed made up time periods), then she should be more than welcome to do so. This ends up giving the same messaging that Biden and crew gave to the illegals crossing the border illegally, otherwise a message that ended up causing one of the worst border crisis in American history.

The same has happened with the unborn/abortion situation, where as the messaging has caused one of the most tragic losses of potential life in American history.

How much more destructive outcomes do you all need before realizing your blunders ???

 

[whutTHEYsay]

strth.23.08.20
#10,391

I personally would not vote for a ban on all abortions.

Does that mean you would vote for a Constitutional Amendment in your state guaranteeing every woman the right to choise a medical procedure or pharmaceutical concoction that ends the unplanned gestational developments in her body during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy?

nf.23.08.20

 

[beagle9]

strth.23.08.20
#10,391

Does that mean you would vote for a Constitutional Amendment in your state guaranteeing every woman the right to choise a medical procedure or pharmaceutical concoction that ends the unplanned gestational developments in her body during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy?

nf.23.08.20

Where do you come up with your time periods ? We've all been over this many times, and the time periods are always the sticking points. Just because you think you are right on the time periods doesn't make it so. Infact you are or have been proven wrong on many things concerning this topic, and this is because most of your tripe is about you being butt hurt about the ruling due to it's further reaching implications that you have presumably feared on rulings like this, and not so much about the actual abortion issue in general. Am I wrong ?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You speak as a Natzi

I do not expect the orange antichrist or any of his MAGA, saving baby fetus cult Republican followers were in Chicago this week attending the parliament of the worlds religions as described in the following report.

This gathering would likely be banned from meeting in Florida, because the content of their discussion would hurt the majority of Republican white people’s feelings.

Part I As religious leaders gather this week for the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago, we ought to reflect on the ways that our shared belief in the equality of human beings demands that we defend democracy. We should also understand the pivotal role that people of faith must play to preserve the freedoms — including religious freedom — that democracies protect.​

​

Religious people have a rich history of calling the United States to live up to its founding ideals. In her own time, civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer took on the entrenched white power in Mississippi’s Democratic Party by quoting Scripture and the U.S. Constitution, telling the brutal stories of voter suppression facing Black Americans and ultimately posing the question: “Is this America?”​

​

Khizr Khan, the father of a slain U.S. soldier, embraced his own Muslim faith and defended minority political rights, in the face of political promises to ban Muslims from entering the United States during the 2016 election.​

​

More to follow or read the entire piece here;​

​

A religious calling to protect democracy

(RNS) — Most religious doctrines do not require an embrace of democracy. But in today’s world, authoritarians are attempting to do the opposite — to recruit communities of faith to undermine democracy.

religionnews.com

 

[struth]

strth.23.08.20
#10,391

Does that mean you would vote for a Constitutional Amendment in your state guaranteeing every woman the right to choise a medical procedure or pharmaceutical concoction that ends the unplanned gestational developments in her body during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy?

nf.23.08.20

Not sure I'd support a Constitutional Amendment in my State to do that. Not everything needs to be in a Consitution.....I certainly wouldn't object to making something like that legal though...currently in my state it's legal with some reguations, up until 26 weeks.