Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[koshergrl]

Listen you knucklehead, if you aren't intelligent enough to talk to me without being stupid, then we'll end this ridiculousness now.

Human rights protect all humans. The whole point is to protect vulnerable, weak humans who are unable to protect themselves. The idiotic assertion that human rights don't exist for the dependent, vulnerable and weak is ignorant and just not true.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

they​

murder another human.​

cncrndmrcn.23.10.13 #540 “I DGAF about what she does or if she has sex. She just needs to accept responsibility for the consequences and not murder another human.”​

​

vzvnv.16.10.12 #2 of course abortion is murder, that's the whole point, to kill the baby. why else would they do it?​

​

vnyx.16.10.12 #8 “Abortion is not respecting nature or life. Period.” see #12 #16 #27​

​

vnyx.16.10.13 #28 I never said it was murder.​

​

vnvfvvr.16.19.23 #9 Statistically over 1 million a year just in the United States alone. Now that is genocide.​

​

thvhmnbng.16.10.18 #65 John is thirty years old. One day his mother took a hammer and bashed John's brain in. John is dead. ••••• John is within his mother's womb. John is thirty weeks inside his mother's womb. John's mother aborts John. John is dead. •••• Which is the more dead? John at thirty or John at thirty weeks? I say both are dead. I say in both cases John was made dead by his mother. John's mother murdered John in both instances.​

​

dvng.16.10.28 #126 “Well since Christianity is the dominant religion here it would be odd if Christians were not the majority against ending the selfish taking of a human life. 150 years from now they will look at our society with the same disgust we have for those who condoned slavery.”​

​

Who is “they” Saint ding ?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

another

kshrgrl.11.11.17 #55 “It is not merely about what a person does. It is about what a person does to another person”

When a woman kills a fetus in her body within the first 25 weeks the fetus cannot possibly be another person because without a brain it cannot be a person when there is no possibility of individual consciousness that requires a highly developed human brain to make it possible.

You spiritually believe a newly conceived human living organism has a right to live from that moment on, so do not get pregnant unless you intend to be a parent all in, Please do and thank you very much. No one in America will stop you or convince you to do otherwise.

Myself, I agree with nature which aborts up to half of all of conceptions in the first twenty weeks because the dna coding has gone wrong perhaps and nature provides an exit ramp (with zero moral judgment) before a new original consciousness can set in with the very heart and soul of a fetus transitioning to the newborn infant stage.

For that reason no women is acting immoral in any way when she chooses to apply the truth of nature and abort an unwanted fetus because she wants to avoid the risk of full term pregnancy as a matter of self defense and family planning as a matter of her right to absolute privacy on reproductive life choices.

What I consider my spiritual beliefs on reproductive rights for women involve no government coercion or interference or intervention with a woman’s freedom of conscience.

Your spiritual beliefs on reproductive rights for women involve explicit Republican Party government coercion, government interference and government intervention with a woman’s freedom of conscience.

And for the coercion factor alone ttat makes you suck as an American. And you suck as a woman backing government elimination of your privacy and that intrusion makes you the one supporting the fascism that you run your mouth here 24/7 accusing the left of being like thise fascist Nazis.

nf.23.10.15 #11,484

cc: Saint RetiredGySgt

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Sew Fist Tree Idiom Addict "

* Sum Times Nick Names Her Hymns Nebulous *

Human rights protect all humans.

What is a hue man , and what are hew men ?

" Human rights protect all humans. " is a false statement because " Human rights " is not an entity capable of issuing a retort , or a reprise , for violations of some conjecture for hue man wrights .

Alternatively , " Humans protect all human rights ( sic ) . " is a true statement because hew men are an entity capable of issuing a retort for violations of some conjecture for hue mammon wrights , though it may be false when hew men are not actually capable of " protecting " , that is issuing a retort , for all violations of conjectured hue men wrights .


* Oh Please For Heaven Sake Think Of The Children Melodrama *

The whole point is to protect vulnerable, weak humans who are unable to protect themselves.

Some male dongle is disturbing a fragile menagerie of perfectly , non deformed , baby dolls .


* False Presumptions About Laws of Nature No Will Fully Ignorant Here *

The idiotic assertion that human rights don't exist for the dependent, vulnerable and weak is ignorant and just not true.

The term idiotic alludes to idiom .

An idiom may be understood , however an idiom can be resigned to being inconsistent by contradiction , or including an inability to resolve a paradox , and therefore not be valid for those identifications of language , whereby an idiom might qualify as being idiotic and its implementation an idiocy .

An idiom is a language based on phonetic eponyms , which are composites of morphemes , where morphemes are a smallest inflection of sound with which a meaning is associated with a symbol , such as a consonant or vowel , and where eponyms are created through combinations of morphemes .

The assimilation of idioms might result in idiosyncrasities .

 

[koshergrl]

" Sew Fist Tree Idiom Addict "

* Sum Times Nick Names Her Hymns Nebulous *

What is a hue man , and what are hew men ?

" Human rights protect all humans. " is a false statement because " Human rights " is not an entity capable of issuing a retort , or a reprise , for violations of some conjecture for hue man wrights .

Alternatively , " Humans protect all human rights ( sic ) . " is a true statement because hew men are an entity capable of issuing a retort for violations of some conjecture for hue mammon wrights , though it may be false when hew men are not actually capable of " protecting " , that is issuing a retort , for all violations of conjectured hue men wrights .


* Oh Please For Heaven Sake Think Of The Children Melodrama *

Some male dongle is disturbing a fragile menagerie of perfectly , non deformed , baby dolls .


* False Presumptions About Laws of Nature No Will Fully Ignorant Here *

The term idiotic alludes to idiom .

An idiom may be understood , however an idiom can be resigned to being inconsistent by contradiction , or including an inability to resolve a paradox , and therefore not be valid for those identifications of language , whereby an idiom might qualify as being idiotic and its implementation an idiocy .

An idiom is a language based on phonetic eponyms , which are composites of morphemes , where morphemes are a smallest inflection of sound with which a meaning is associated with a symbol , such as a consonant or vowel , and where eponyms are created through combinations of morphemes .

The assimilation of idioms might result in idiosyncrasities .

Say no to drugs...and acid is a drug.

 

[Delldude]

Human rights protect all humans.

Except the ones the US gov't ignores via mickey mouse 'laws'.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

the patient in front of me.’​

Dr Jerome LeJeune,

dvng.22.07.19 #3,640 Again... not a religious argument. A scientific fact based upon empirical evidence.​

But Saint Ding primarily cites Catholic Scientists who do not see a patient in front of them; they see ONLY Baby Fetus through the doctrine of Humanae Vitae.

dvng.23.20.24 #515
00465 nf.22.10.25 #465

Humanae Vitae On the Regulation of Human Births - Papal Encyclicals

To the Venerable Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See, to Priests.

www.papalencyclicals.net

How a bioethicist and doctor sees abortion​

Following the leak of a draft decision by the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the Medical School's Louise King discusses how the potential ruling might affect providers.
AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Her work touches questions we can answer and questions we can't. But her main focus is elsewhere: ‘the patient in front of me.’​

Alvin PowellHarvard Staff Writer

How a bioethicist and doctor sees abortion — Harvard Gazette

Director of Medical School's Center for Bioethics discusses ethical dimensions of abortion and how a ruling against Roe might affect providers.

news.harvard.edu

Here are four places where different embryologists have claimed individual human life begins. There's fertilization. There's gastrulation. There's the human acquisition of the eeg pattern, and then there's birth itself. So, let's go through a little bit on each of them. fertilization, that's this genetic approach, that you are that you become a person when you get your DNA. And Lejeune, one of the leading geneticists, pediatric geneticists said, "Oh, that takes place at fecundation, at fertilization at conception, because it tells us that the constitution of this person is unique to this person.

Scott Gilbert 220905^aa Nov 13, 2012 | When Does Personhood Begin? The Science and the Rhetoric – Science & Justice Research Center

Okay? So that's one position, life begins at fertilization.

A record number of Americans (71 percent) are opposed to overturning the landmark Supreme Court ruling that recognized abortion as a woman's constitutional right.”

That significant majority of Americans are cognizant that women are under assault and because they are not slaves to the heretical Christian “pro-life” crusade, they support all women’s right to control their own bodies. In spite of religious Republicans and evangelical extremists’ efforts, decent Americans are opposed to the current theocratic crusade to regulate and control women by overturning Roe v. Wade.

Obviously, religious Republicans in thrall of the Vatican could not possibly care less what a significant percentage of the population wants – particularly when controlling women and abridging their constitutional freedoms is at stake and under “their” theocratic purview.

Moreover, a recent Supreme Court ruling in lowly Kansas determined that the religious Republican assault on women’s bodily autonomy is abominable and strictly prohibited under the Constitution. That High Court ruled that women enjoy constitutional freedoms, and protection from religious Republican men, “to control their own bodies as a basic human right” – a right the Vatican has convinced Republicans and their evangelical extremist supporters is an attack on their perceived religious freedom to regulate and control women. (author bold)

The recent spate of Republican states criminalizing women who choose a legal medical procedure is, of course, driven by evangelical extremists bound to obey the 1968 papal encyclical issued from the Vatican to help male religious leaders worldwide “regulate” women’s lives by controlling their bodies.

Many will argue violently that evangelical fanatics hate Catholics in general, and the Vatican in particular, with honest-to-dog religious passion. However, although that may appear to be true, it does nothing to dispute the fact that the so-called “pro-life” movement is a Catholic construct being executed by religious Republican men.



<Humanae Vitae>

nf.23.10.16 #11,488

 

[ding]

the patient in front of me.’​

dvng.22.07.19 #3,640 Again... not a religious argument. A scientific fact based upon empirical evidence.​

But Saint Ding primarily cites Catholic Scientists who do not see a patient in front of them; they see ONLY Baby Fetus through the doctrine of Humanae Vitae.

dvng.23.20.24 #515
00465 nf.22.10.25 #465

Humanae Vitae On the Regulation of Human Births - Papal Encyclicals

To the Venerable Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See, to Priests.

www.papalencyclicals.net

nf.23.10.16 #11,488

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

 

[ding]

Abortion ends human life. When when a woman chooses to end her pregnancy, she kills a human being, no if’s and’s or butts.

100%

 

[whutTHEYsay]

metaphysical contention

choosing to do wrong.

dvng.23.10.16 #674 to nf.23.10.15 #672 “the beginning of each of us as a unique individual . . . . “Keith L. Moore”

nf.23.10.16 #686 to dvng.23.10.16 #674 “Please refer to nf.23.10.16 #11,488“ . . . . . “Meanwhile, I absolutely believe with all my mortal human mental might of brain superiority over every other species on earth including MAGA mammals, that human life begins at fertilization in the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo) and a woman has a right to kill it because full term pregnancy is her risk and not fucking Keith L. Moore’s fucking risk whoever in the name of Jesus he thinks he is. “ nf.23.10.16 #686

dvng.23.10.16 #687 to nf.23.10.16 #686
“Then she is choosing to do wrong.”

If you are in no way related to the “she” what does her wrong have to do with you Saint Ding? That is assuming the unprotected sex and the medical procedure were done in private and neither were performed on the public square. Where is the “harm” or hindrance or restriction to your pursuit of life liberty and pursuit of happiness from a not public act?

nf.23.19.16 #11,491

 

[ding]

dvng.23.10.16 #674 to nf.23.10.15 #672 “the beginning of each of us as a unique individual . . . . “Keith L. Moore”

nf.23.10.16 #686 to dvng.23.10.16 #674 “Please refer to nf.23.10.16 #11,488“ . . . . . “Meanwhile, I absolutely believe with all my mortal human mental might of brain superiority over every other species on earth including MAGA mammals, that human life begins at fertilization in the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo) and a woman has a right to kill it because full term pregnancy is her risk and not fucking Keith L. Moore’s fucking risk whoever in the name of Jesus he thinks he is. “ nf.23.10.16 #686

dvng.23.10.16 #687 to nf.23.10.16 #686
“Then she is choosing to do wrong.”

If you are in no way related to the “she” what does her wrong have to do with you Saint Ding? That is assuming the unprotected sex and the medical procedure were done in private and neither were performed on the public square. Where is the “harm” or hindrance or restriction to your pursuit of life liberty and pursuit of happiness from a not public act?

nf.23.19.16 #11,491

If we start from the position that ending a human life is wrong then there must be a punishment. I think it should be a misdemeanor. With increasing penalties for each additional one. That and they have to acknowledge that they are ending a human life; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. And that of their own accord they are freely choosing to end that life.

That way it is recognized as being wrong, but mercy is granted to the woman because of this unique situation. But she has to admit she is doing wrong. This will satisfy society and the woman without promoting abortion.

Where's the problem with this?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

dvng.21.08.11 #6

6. Christianity has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility.

As a rational theist I prefer multicultural and multiracial public educators of any or no religious faith teach my grandkids reading riting and rithmatic and how to be good citizens without bringing supernatural hocus pocus that must be believed into it.

If you want to teach my grandkids your Christian morality Saint Ding be moral people and attract them by example instead of burning fucking books and spreading homophobic and xenophobic fear and hate and don’t elect president’s that brag about grabbing women by their pussy and lie that he only lost because the election was stolen and try to overturn the loss of that election by mobocracy and fraudulent electors schemes that violated the law and the Constitution.

nf.23.10.16 #11,493

 

[koshergrl]

If we start from the position that ending a human life is wrong then there must be a punishment. I think it should be a misdemeanor. With increasing penalties for each additional one. That and they have to acknowledge that they are ending a human life; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. And that of their own accord they are freely choosing to end that life.

That way it is recognized as being wrong, but mercy is granted to the woman because of this unique situation. But she has to admit she is doing wrong. This will satisfy society and the woman without promoting abortion.

Where's the problem with this?

Unless it's coerced. In which case the abortionists and the other ppl who lie to, abuse, and shame vulnerable women into "chhosing" to kill their children, should be prosecuted

 

[koshergrl]

dvng.21.08.11 #6

As a rational theist I prefer multicultural and multiracial public educators of any or no religious faith teach my grandkids reading riting and rithmatic and how to be good citizens without bringing supernatural hocus pocus that must be believed into it.

If you want to teach my grandkids your Christian morality Saint Ding be moral people and attract them by example instead of burning fucking books and spreading homophobic and xenophobic fear and hate and don’t elect president’s that brag about grabbing wonen by their pussy and lie that he only list because the election was stolen and try to overturn the loss of that ekection by mobocracy and fraudulent electors schemes that violated the law snd constitution.

nf.23.10,16

So you're a bigot.
Btw, By your own explanation, only Christians have morals.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

nf.23.10.16 #11,493 to dvng.21.08.11 #6 “As a rational theist I prefer multicultural and multiracial public educators of any or no religious faith teach my grandkids reading riting and rithmatic and how to be good citizens without bringing supernatural hocus pocus that must be believed into

kshrgrl.23.10.16 #11,495 to nf.23.10.16 #11,493 “So you're a bigot.

If the above paragraph is what you are referencing as being bigoted - what is bigoted by that. I want law abiding citizens of all races, cultures, religions, atheists, agnostics involved in my granddaughters public education, It makes them better moral human beings to be exposed to the melting pot that is supposed to be America.

nf.23.10.16 #11,496

 

[whutTHEYsay]

nf.23.10.16 #686 “a woman has a right to kill it because full term pregnancy is her risk”

dvng.23.10.16 #687 to nf.23.10.16 #686 “Then she is choosing to do wrong.”


Are you, Saint Ding, at her eighth week of pregnancy assuming her risk when you force full term gestation on her body?

nf.23.10.16

 

[ding]

dvng.21.08.11 #6

As a rational theist I prefer multicultural and multiracial public educators of any or no religious faith teach my grandkids reading riting and rithmatic and how to be good citizens without bringing supernatural hocus pocus that must be believed into it.

If you want to teach my grandkids your Christian morality Saint Ding be moral people and attract them by example instead of burning fucking books and spreading homophobic and xenophobic fear and hate and don’t elect president’s that brag about grabbing women by their pussy and lie that he only lost because the election was stolen and try to overturn the loss of that election by mobocracy and fraudulent electors schemes that violated the law and the Constitution.

nf.23.10.16 #11,493

If we start from the position that ending a human life is wrong then there must be a punishment. I think it should be a misdemeanor. With increasing penalties for each additional one. That and they have to acknowledge that they are ending a human life; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. And that of their own accord they are freely choosing to end that life.

That way it is recognized as being wrong, but mercy is granted to the woman because of this unique situation. But she has to admit she is doing wrong. This will satisfy society and the woman without promoting abortion.

Where's the problem with this?

 

[badger2]

If we start from the position that ending a human life is wrong then there must be a punishment. I think it should be a misdemeanor. With increasing penalties for each additional one. That and they have to acknowledge that they are ending a human life; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. And that of their own accord they are freely choosing to end that life.

That way it is recognized as being wrong, but mercy is granted to the woman because of this unique situation. But she has to admit she is doing wrong. This will satisfy society and the woman without promoting abortion.

Where's the problem with this?

Problem's in your head. There is never a time that there is non-existence. Life is always already occurring, existent, in both egg and sperm.

 

[ding]

Problem's in your head. There is never a time that there is non-existence. Life is always already occurring, existent, in both egg and sperm.

sperm and eggs in and of themselves are not genetically distinct NEW human beings.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

dehumanize

humanize

vlvng.23.10.16 #713 I don't "humanize" DNA.”

dvng.23.10.16 #720 “You dehumanize certain human lives and you should be ashamed of yourself.”

What are “certain” humans? Do you mean humans that have never had or used their bodies own brain? Then what is there to be ashamed of when s woman decides to have it removed before a brain can be developed.?

nf.23.10.16 #11,500