Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW2207210030

ding220720-#3,739 This is a science and legal rights argument. So glad you agree with me that there is no place for a religious discussion in abortion.
NFBW Why this?

Former religious right leader: I saw our phrases in Alito’s abortion opinion By JOSH GERSTEIN

A former leader of the religious right contends that an effort he helped lead to influence conservative Supreme Court justices through prayer sessions, private dinners and other social events contributed to the stridency of the court’s opinion last month striking down Roe v. Wade.

Former religious right leader: I saw our phrases in Alito’s abortion opinion

Rev. Rob Schenck said on a religion-focused podcast released last week that the behind-the-scenes lobbying effort led by his former group Faith and Action to encourage the conservative justices to “be bolder and far more assertive in their opinions” on social issues like abortion contributed to the sweeping nature of the five-justice majority’s decision to roll back abortion rights.END2207210030

 

[ding]

NFBW: IF religion is banned by you from this discussion then all your pro-life propaganda goes away.

Afraid not. The right to life is not a religious issue. It's a human rights issue. It's no different than the abolitionists - many who were religious - fighting to end slavery. Abolition was not a religious issue. Abolition was a human rights issue. Abolitionists - just like pro-lifers - spoke on the behalf of those who couldn't speak for themselves.

 

[ding]

The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body.

SCOTUS ruled that abortion is not a constitutional right. So it will be up to state or federal legislators to balance the rights of the mother and child (which you so callously refer to as that growth inside her body).

 

[ding]

then we have this secular alternative solution to unwanted pregnancy,

choice If you oppose abortion don’t do it.

Absent Federal laws on abortion, that will be up to each state to decide for itself. So, no, abortion probably won't be an option everywhere.

 

[irosie91]

Absent Federal laws on abortion, that will be up to each state to decide for itself. So, no, abortion probably won't be an option everywhere.

it will be a matter of WHO CAN PAY

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW2207210930
@ding’s (religious right’s confederate fallacy) Meister ChemEngineer BackAgain - There is no DNA science that can prove a human zygot has a separate right to life over and above the actual human being to which “it” is attached for development and future becoming of a separated at birth (first breath) human being same as the mother was when she was born. THERE is precedent for that in American law. We should return to that in all states without delay.

ding220720-#3,739 “This is a science and legal rights argument.

NFBW2207210015-#3,740 IF religion is banned by you from this discussion then all your pro-life propaganda goes away. Then we have this secular alternative solution to unwanted pregnancy,

choice If you oppose abortion don’t do it. And we have this:

The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body. END2207210015

Ding220721-#3,742 “The right to life is not a religious issue. It's a human rights issue.

NFBW: Immediately above is not settled to be true, but this below is ding ‘s argument’s killer and fallacy.

Ding220721-#3,742 It's no different than the abolitionists - many who were religious - fighting to end slavery.

NFBW: There is a huge difference. And ding should already know what it is. @Ding’s defense argument against a woman’s right to choose to terminate the growth inside her body is fatally flawed.

Africans brought to the New World as slaves and property were not considered to be human in the “Christian nation” where many “Christians” were flawed by holding that false belief regarding black subhumans.

The fatal flaw in @ding’s argument right here is that the American Africans that were freed by Lincoln and the abolitionists were at the time all human beings who were fully and unquestionably separated from their mother’s womb. ding ignores an obvious fact in his argument. That is a fatal flaw. He has to deal with the critical “difference”. Let us see what he and his confederate compatriots do. END2207210930

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW2207210930
@ding’s (religious right’s confederate fallacy) Meister ChemEngineer BackAgain - There is no DNA science that can prove a human zygot has a separate right to life over and above the actual human being to which “it” is attached for development and future becoming of a separated at birth (first breath) human being same as the mother was when she was born. THERE is precedent for that in American law. We should return to that in all states without delay.

ding220720-#3,739 “This is a science and legal rights argument.

NFBW2207210015-#3,740 IF religion is banned by you from this discussion then all your pro-life propaganda goes away. Then we have this secular alternative solution to unwanted pregnancy,

choice If you oppose abortion don’t do it. And we have this:

The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body. END2207210015

Ding220721-#3,742 “The right to life is not a religious issue. It's a human rights issue.

NFBW: Immediate above is not settled to be true, but here below is ding ‘s argument’s killer and fallacy.

Ding220721-#3,742 It's no different than the abolitionists - many who were religious - fighting to end slavery.

NFBW: There is a huge difference. And you should already know what it is. @Ding’s defense argument against a woman’s right to choose to terminate the growth inside her body is fatally flawed.

Africans brought to the New World as slaves and property were not considered to be human in the “Christian nation” where many “Christians” were flawed by holding that false belief regarding black subhumans.

The fatal flaw in @ding’s argument right here is that the American Africans that were freed by Lincoln and the abolitionists were at the time all human beings who were fully and unquestionably separated from their mother’s womb. ding ignores an obvious fact in his argument. That is a fatal flaw. He has to deal with the critical “difference”. Let us see what he and his confederate compatriots do. END2207210930

Our Constitution clearly guarantees the right to life, etc.

Science absolutely says that a human zygote is a human life.

Pretty much ending the debate.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW2207210959

BackAgain220721-#3,747 Our Constitution clearly guarantees the right to life, etc.

NFBW wrote: Not for living human zygotes or any other cells and tissue with individual DNA while “it” is existing unborn inside the uterus and womb of an impregnated human being who owns the womb.


BackAgain220721-#3,747 Science absolutely says that a human zygote is a human life.

NFBW: Show the actual science where they say a zygote is a developed complete functional human being if separated from its natural life support system. END2207210959

 

[Meister]

NFBW2207210930
@ding’s (religious right’s confederate fallacy) Meister ChemEngineer BackAgain - There is no DNA science that can prove a human zygot has a separate right to life over and above the actual human being to which “it” is attached for development and future becoming of a separated at birth (first breath) human being same as the mother was when she was born. THERE is precedent for that in American law. We should return to that in all states without delay.

ding220720-#3,739 “This is a science and legal rights argument.

NFBW2207210015-#3,740 IF religion is banned by you from this discussion then all your pro-life propaganda goes away. Then we have this secular alternative solution to unwanted pregnancy,

choice If you oppose abortion don’t do it. And we have this:

The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body. END2207210015

Ding220721-#3,742 “The right to life is not a religious issue. It's a human rights issue.

NFBW: Immediately above is not settled to be true, but this below is ding ‘s argument’s killer and fallacy.

Ding220721-#3,742 It's no different than the abolitionists - many who were religious - fighting to end slavery.

NFBW: There is a huge difference. And ding should already know what it is. @Ding’s defense argument against a woman’s right to choose to terminate the growth inside her body is fatally flawed.

Africans brought to the New World as slaves and property were not considered to be human in the “Christian nation” where many “Christians” were flawed by holding that false belief regarding black subhumans.

The fatal flaw in @ding’s argument right here is that the American Africans that were freed by Lincoln and the abolitionists were at the time all human beings who were fully and unquestionably separated from their mother’s womb. ding ignores an obvious fact in his argument. That is a fatal flaw. He has to deal with the critical “difference”. Let us see what he and his confederate compatriots do. END2207210930

Dude, I just asked if you were in favor of abortions right up to the natural birth.
WTF with all of that drivel?
A simple yes, or no would have sufficed.

You can always tell when a poster is on his/her heals when they try and baffle you with bullshit. (notfooledbyW) 205662595eatshit

 

[Meister]

NFBW2207202247



beagle9220720-#3,731 Your word's - I'm not for abortion at all, but, but, but, but, but...

DBW: If you are going to challenge me you need to be accurate when citing my words. you have failed already.

these are my words

I’m not for abortion at all. I was fixed after my second child. There is no but this or but that. It is firm. END2207202247

You're not for abortion....but, it's okay if a woman has an abortion?
Wow, you do have issues.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW2207211119

Meister220721-#3,750 “You're not for abortion....but, it's okay if a woman has an abortion?”

NFBW: You are not citing something I actually said. Correct?

Please communicate here using actual quotes by me that you wish to discuss like I did with you.

Can you tell me if you accept it as ok/legal if a ten year old rape victim has an abortion? END2207211119

 

[ding]

There is no DNA science that can prove a human zygot has a separate right to life over and above the actual human being to which “it” is attached for development and future becoming of a separated at birth (first breath) human being same as the mother was when she was born. THERE is precedent for that in American law. We should return to that in all states without delay.

It's not the purpose of science/DNA to weigh the rights of the mother and child. The only purpose science/DNA plays is to establish when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. And the seminal moment of the creation of a new genetically distinct human being is after fertilization.

“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.

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

 

[ding]

THERE is precedent for that in American law. We should return to that in all states without delay.

SCOTUS just ruled on that in Dobbs v Ferguson. It was determined that abortion wasn't a constitutional right. So the only way it's going to be like it used to be - absent the passage of a federal law - is on a state by state basis. That is the reality of the situation.

 

[ding]

NFBW2207210015-#3,740 IF religion is banned by you from this discussion then all your pro-life propaganda goes away. Then we have this secular alternative solution to unwanted pregnancy,

choice If you oppose abortion don’t do it. And we have this:

The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body. END2207210015

Again... This isn't a religious issue. The constitution forbids anyone from making a religious argument. No one other than you is trying to make this a religious issue. This is a human rights issue. It's no different than the abolitionists - many who were religious - fighting to end slavery. Abolition was not a religious issue. Abolition was a human rights issue. Abolitionists - just like pro-lifers - spoke on the behalf of those who couldn't speak for themselves.

SCOTUS just ruled that women do not have a constitutional right to abortion. So in America women do not have a natural right of abortion. If you want women to have the right of abortion, I suggest you try to influence your state and federal representatives to have them pass a law to your liking.

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW2207211119

Meister220721-#3,750 “You're not for abortion....but, it's okay if a woman has an abortion?”

NFBW: You are not citing something I actually said. Correct?

Dude. He quoted your post.

 

[ding]

There is a huge difference. And @ding should already know what it is. @Ding’s defense argument against a woman’s right to choose to terminate the growth inside her body is fatally flawed.

It's not my argument. It's a SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS determined that abortion isn't a constitutional right. It's now up to state or federal legislatures to decide which laws to write.

Africans brought to the New World as slaves and property were not considered to be human in the “Christian nation” where many “Christians” were flawed by holding that false belief regarding black subhumans.

According to you a fetus is property too. So it's exactly the same.

The fatal flaw in @ding’s argument right here is that the American Africans that were freed by Lincoln and the abolitionists were at the time all human beings who were fully and unquestionably separated from their mother’s womb. @ding ignores an obvious fact in his argument. That is a fatal flaw. He has to deal with the critical “difference”. Let us see what he and his confederate compatriots do. END2207210930

The abolition movement was in existence at the time the Constitution was ratified. It took over 60 years and a civil war to change the law. You are rehashing a decision that has already been made by SCOTUS. The ship you are wanting to get on has already sailed. You lost. You can bitch about their decision all you want but it won't change anything. If you want to make a change, I suggest you contact your state and federal representatives and try to influence their decision.

 

[Meister]

NFBW2207211119

Meister220721-#3,750 “You're not for abortion....but, it's okay if a woman has an abortion?”

NFBW: You are not citing something I actually said. Correct?

Please communicate here using actual quotes by me that you wish to discuss like I did with you.

Can you tell me if you accept it as ok/legal if a ten year old rape victim has an abortion? END2207211119

A 10 year old rape victim? Yes, I'm in favor an abortion.
A 20 year old rape victim? Yes, I'm in favor of an abortion.
See how clear and precise I am with my answers.....without all the bullshit like you spew?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Biden and Pelosi are Catholics.

I voted for Biden and support Speaker Pelosi because they are good true Anerucsn Catholics. We need more good Catholics in high office who understand that Separation of Church and State is a good thing and should not be aborted.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW2207211227

ding220721-#3,756 “According to you a fetus is property too. So it's exactly the same. “


NFBW: No, that is a lie. I have never used that term to describe the scientific development process that you inappropriately define as a human being while it is taking place inside an impregnated woman’s body following conception.

Do you agree that you decided to lie as part of your argument? END2207211227

 

[BS Filter]

I voted for Biden and support Speaker Pelosi because they are good true Anerucsn Catholics. We need more good Catholics in high office who understand that Separation of Church and State is a good thing and should not be aborted.

Yes, they're doing an excellent job, always have.