Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

TK220511-#2,987 TemplarKormac The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning.

NFBW: Both are human before during and after the medical procedure of abortion. ding has a similar boilerplate word game.

The ROE V Wade human rights riddle?

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

END2211270706

Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.

As such, most states as well as the Federal Government had recognized the fetus as human, regardless if born or not.
 
" Reflections Of Uniform Fetish Hypocrisy Grandeur "

* With Held Judgement Set Aside Missed Fortune By Example *

Christians overwhelmingly oppose abortion on demand, for any reason.
Our wise Founding Fathers were Christians. They would be appalled at today's murderous Democrats.

“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.” – Daniel Webster

IF WE AND OUR POSTERITY SHALL BE TRUE TO THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, IF WE AND THEY SHALL LIVE ALWAYS IN THE FEAR OF GOD AND SHALL RESPECT HIS COMMANDMENTS, IF WE AND THEY SHALL MAINTAIN JUST MORAL SENTIMENTS AND SUCH CONSCIENTIOUS CONVICTIONS OF DUTY AS SHALL CONTROL THE HEART AND LIFE, WE MAY HAVE THE HIGHEST HOPES OF THE FUTURE FORTUNES OF OUR COUNTRY. OUR COUNTRY WILL GO ON PROSPERING. – Daniel Webster

“Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” – William Penn


“Our Constitution was made only for a religious people. It is wholly inappropriate for the government of any other.” - John Adams

“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.” – Alexis de Toqueville [Not a Founding Father, though he spoke like one]

“No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty, apart from the moral precepts of the Christian religion applied and accepted by all the classes. Should our republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed.” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Founding Father

“The Christian religion, in its purity is the basis and the source of all genuine freedom in government.” – Noah Webster

“[The adoption of the Constitution] will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs.” – George Washington

“The Christian religion is above all… the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.” – John Adams

“The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young gentlemen could unite …the general principles of Christianity.” – John Adams
The national right ( sic ) to life does not provide a public position about life as it regards the death penalty as capital punishment , even as its website pledges to support life from the point of conception to the end of natural life .

Apparently the national right ( sic ) to life declines to weigh in on whether its organization perceives capital punishment as a natural death .

Alternatively , the catholic church maintains a position opposing both abortion and the death penalty as capital punishment .

Explain the difference between the catholic position and that of the national right ( sic ) to life on a death penalty as capital punishment , and relate as to which position is more consistent with christian ethos for forgiveness and antinomianism .

* Reflexive Games *

The principles of antinomianism include paradox by a tenet of antinomian creed , which is a claim that " by no name will a law be made " that presupposes absolution occurs when all laws are removed and conformance with all laws occurs through an intrinsic quality of personal volition .

* Reiteration Fore The Seine *

A legitimate state interest is not concerned with when biological life exists , or whether biological life exists at all , rather a legitimate state interest is in whether a wright to life exists .

A zef has not met a live birth requirement , that is required to become a citizen , and a zef is therefore not entitled to receive equal protection , that would include a wright to life ; and , any sentenced to death as capital punishment has had its wright to life removed , albeit by due process , albeit with a necessary contingency on a double meaning that by removing a wright to life of another one removes their own wright to life .
 
Last edited:
HeyNorm221127-#5,861 HeyNorm Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.

NFBW: It is murder of two persons because the unborn person using the pregnant woman’s body to be alive is protected from harm through the rights granted to the pregnant woman whether the mother wants the child or not.

It has been explained already.

miketx221109-#5,462 miketx when a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the killer charged with a double homicide?

NFBW221110-#5,485 “Because it should be murder if two or more with twins and triplets etc are murdered.

The killer is killing the pregnant woman and the (potential viable human being) that is attached to the living, breathing viable woman who is with child.

END2211272020
 
HeyNorm221127-#5,861 HeyNorm Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.

NFBW: It is murder of two persons because the unborn person using the pregnant woman’s body to be alive is protected from harm through the rights granted to the pregnant woman whether the mother wants the child or not.

It has been explained already.

miketx221109-#5,462 miketx when a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the killer charged with a double homicide?

NFBW221110-#5,485 “Because it should be murder if two or more with twins and triplets etc are murdered.

The killer is killing the pregnant woman and the (potential viable human being) that is attached to the living, breathing viable woman who is with child.

END2211272020

“Who is the child”. A child is a person. A person is protected under state, federal and constitutional law.
 
Beagle9-#5,850 Due process of the law should have been afforded the unborn child in a pre-birth "hearing" that should have been required to have taken place,

The court has no constitutional authority to give due process of the law to an unborn child. Judges cannot create a second person that does not exist in the Constitution. But if they did create the second person during a pregnancy, there is a conflict of rights that has to go to the mother. That is why and what ROE V Wade settled.

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

END2211270820
OMG dude, are you really this stupid ?? The courts certainly can figure out a way to give due process (just like they do with anything else they choose to reside over), and it can do so due to a very unique situation that has arisen in which has left most American's just stupified over, and it can do this in order to ascertain whether or not the reasoning behind an unborn child about to be killed is going to be a rational decision or possibly not one in the concerns of a child/tiny human being that is about to be destroyed or killed because a woman might be using the aborting process as a form of birth control.

In order to remain civilized, we must look at these matters in a very eye opening way, just like we've done over the year's looking back on many other unique surprise's that we've had to just jump up out of no where within the culture's, and that which had also challenged every part of our concious through out time as we've known it as well.

Don't ever say never, because you'll end up eating those words.
 
HeyNorm221127-#5,864 HeyNorm “Who is the child”. A child is a person.

NFBW: Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?

HeyNorm221127-#5,861 Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.

Why would the killer of a mother and child not be charged for murder of two individual human beings when the mother is deprived of her right to life by a killer. And then when she dies, whether she plans to keep it or not, the life support she gives dies with her.
Opponents of abortion generally regard the procedure as a “killing,” but a woman having an abortion can see it as a withdrawal of life support. When you bring in a third person who kills a mother with child, the killer does not just kill a pregnant woman, the killer is causing the withdrawal of support to the separate human being that cannot live without it. The killer kills two even though there is only one born person involved when the killer attacks.

When there is no third party killer involved it is quite simple. It’s about the right of the mother because she has a right to withdraw life support to a human being that is not capable of being born.

The Roe v Wade Riddle​
If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?​

End2211271106
 
Last edited:
HeyNorm221127-#5,864 HeyNorm “Who is the child”. A child is a person.

NFBW: Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?

HeyNorm221127-#5,861 Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.

Why would the killer of a mother and child not be charged for murder of two individual human beings when the mother is deprived of her right to life by a killer. And then when she dies, whether she plans to keep it or not, the life support she gives dies with her.
Opponents of abortion generally regard the procedure as a “killing,” but a woman having an abortion can see it as a withdrawal of life support. When you bring in a third person who kills a mother with child, the killer does not just kill a pregnant woman, the killer is causing the withdrawal of support to the separate human being that cannot live without it. The killer kills two even though tgere is only one born person the killer attacks.

When there is no third party killer involved it is quite simple. It’s about the right of the mother because she has a right to withdraw life support to a human being that is not capable of being born.

The Roe v Wade Riddle​
If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?​

End2211271106

Your posts are incredibly difficult to read.

Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

But since the phrase was used in such a manner, then the speaker must believe it to be a person.

Now you want me to believe that it is a person, but not “person enough” to have protection of our laws.

This appears the same justification the white slave owners had as well. “My slave is a human, but property non the less and may be destroyed at my whim”.

Not a good look to say the least.
 
HeyNorm221127-#5,864 HeyNorm “Who is the child”. A child is a person.

NFBW: Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?

HeyNorm221127-#5,861 Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.

Why would the killer of a mother and child not be charged for murder of two individual human beings when the mother is deprived of her right to life by a killer. And then when she dies, whether she plans to keep it or not, the life support she gives dies with her.
Opponents of abortion generally regard the procedure as a “killing,” but a woman having an abortion can see it as a withdrawal of life support. When you bring in a third person who kills a mother with child, the killer does not just kill a pregnant woman, the killer is causing the withdrawal of support to the separate human being that cannot live without it. The killer kills two even though there is only one born person involved when the killer attacks.

When there is no third party killer involved it is quite simple. It’s about the right of the mother because she has a right to withdraw life support to a human being that is not capable of being born.

The Roe v Wade Riddle​
If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?​

End2211271106
Withdrawals life support to a human being that's "not capable of being born" ??? How many abortion's do you think falls into your column of said unborn babies being removed because they weren't capable of being born ????
 
Your posts are incredibly difficult to read.

Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

But since the phrase was used in such a manner, then the speaker must believe it to be a person.

Now you want me to believe that it is a person, but not “person enough” to have protection of our laws.

This appears the same justification the white slave owners had as well. “My slave is a human, but property non the less and may be destroyed at my whim”.

Not a good look to say the least.
Difficult to read because he's full of it.
 
HeyNorm221128-#5,867 Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

NFBW: Most intentionally pregnant people, like my youngest highly educated pro-choice, young medical professional woman and daughter just informed her mother and me that she is going to have a baby. It’s her first child and pregnancy

Using a loving expression does not grant the brainless heartless zygote embryo fetus she has “invited into her belly” to use her biologically functioning anatomy to sustain its life for the next seven and a half months of her life.

NFBW: FORtheRECORD Here is what went down betwixt you, me and the fencepost, others posters thus far:

TK220511-#2,987 TemplarKormac “The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning”

NFBW221127-#5,849 Both are human before during and after the medical procedure of abortion.

The ROE V Wade human rights riddle?
If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

HeyNorm221127-#5,861 HeyNorm “Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.”

NFBW221127-#5,863 “It is murder of two persons because the unborn person using the pregnant woman’s body to be alive is protected from harm through the rights granted to the pregnant woman whether the mother wants the child or not.

The killer is killing the pregnant woman and the (potential viable human being) that is attached to the living, breathing viable woman who is with child.

HeyNorm221127-#5,864 “Who is the child”. A child is a person. A person is protected under state, federal and constitutional law.

NFBW221127-#5,866 “Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?

Why would the killer of a mother and child not be charged for murder of two individual human beings when the mother is deprived of her right to life by a killer. And then when she dies, whether she plans to keep it or not, the life support she gives dies with her.

Opponents of abortion generally regard the procedure as a “killing,” but a woman having an abortion can see it as a withdrawal of life support. When you bring in a third person who kills a mother with child, the killer does not just kill a pregnant woman, the killer is causing the withdrawal of support to the separate human being that cannot live without it. The killer kills two even though there is only one born person involved when the killer attacks.

When there is no third party killer involved it is quite simple. It’s about the right of the mother because she has a right to withdraw life support to a human being that is not capable of being born.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

But since the phrase was used in such a manner, then the speaker must believe it to be a person.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 Now you want me to believe that it is a person, but not “person enough” to have protection of our laws.

NFBW: I do not want you to believe anything of the sort. I believe the above ( NFBW221127-#5,849 ) and see no need to get into a semantics or wordology distraction such as that.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 This appears the same justification the white slave owners had as well. “My slave is a human, but property non the less and may be destroyed at my whim”.

NFBW. Jefferson and other founding father slave owners were not women for sure, and not being required by the state to give slaves the use of their bodies for nine months so I fail to see the relevance to this chapter of this discussion except to place an object o the tracks to derail it, For now can we bring it back oto the ROE v Wade Riddle? The Constitutional rights conflict between mother and unborn child with respect to this . . . All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and this

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

Slavery has nothing to do with the rights of the two persons, one recognized and viable and one not and unborn, going through the reproduction process under the multitude of societal processes and challenges and rewards of being human.

END2211280315
 
Last edited:
HeyNorm221128-#5,867 Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

NFBW: Most intentionally pregnant people, like my youngest highly educated pro-choice, young medical professional woman and daughter just informed her mother and me that she is going to have a baby. It’s her first child and pregnancy

Using a loving expression does not grant the brainless heartless zygote embryo fetus she has “invited into her belly” to use her biologically functioning anatomy to sustain its life for the next seven and a half months of her life.

NFBW: FORtheRECORD Here is what went down betwixt you, me and the fencepost, others posters thus far:

TK220511-#2,987 TemplarKormac “The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning”

NFBW221127-#5,849 Both are human before during and after the medical procedure of abortion.

The ROE V Wade human rights riddle?
If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

HeyNorm221127-#5,861 HeyNorm “Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.”

NFBW221127-#5,863 “It is murder of two persons because the unborn person using the pregnant woman’s body to be alive is protected from harm through the rights granted to the pregnant woman whether the mother wants the child or not.

The killer is killing the pregnant woman and the (potential viable human being) that is attached to the living, breathing viable woman who is with child.

HeyNorm221127-#5,864 “Who is the child”. A child is a person. A person is protected under state, federal and constitutional law.

NFBW221127-#5,866 “Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?

Why would the killer of a mother and child not be charged for murder of two individual human beings when the mother is deprived of her right to life by a killer. And then when she dies, whether she plans to keep it or not, the life support she gives dies with her.

Opponents of abortion generally regard the procedure as a “killing,” but a woman having an abortion can see it as a withdrawal of life support. When you bring in a third person who kills a mother with child, the killer does not just kill a pregnant woman, the killer is causing the withdrawal of support to the separate human being that cannot live without it. The killer kills two even though there is only one born person involved when the killer attacks.

When there is no third party killer involved it is quite simple. It’s about the right of the mother because she has a right to withdraw life support to a human being that is not capable of being born.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

But since the phrase was used in such a manner, then the speaker must believe it to be a person.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 Now you want me to believe that it is a person, but not “person enough” to have protection of our laws.

NFBW: I do not want you to believe anything if the sort. I believe the above ( NFBW221127-#5,849 )and see no needs to get into a semantics or wordology distraction such as that.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 This appears the same justification the white slave owners had as well. “My slave is a human, but property non the less and may be destroyed at my whim”.

NFBW. Jefferson and other founding father shave owners were not women for sure, and not being required by the state to give slaves the use of their bodies for nine months so I fail to see the relevance to this pagade of this discussion except to olacevsobb nb etching in the tracks to derail it, FIr now can we bring it back to the ROE v Wade Ruddle? The Constitutional rights conflict between mother and child with respect to this . . . All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof and this

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

Slavery has nothing to do with the rights of the two persons, one recognized and viable and one not and unborn, going through the reproduction process under the multitude of societal processes and challenges and rewards of being human.

END2211280315
Nothing but wicked goobly goop you constantly spew in hopes to win your argument.... Good grief.
 
Nothing but wicked goobly goop you constantly spew in hopes to win your argument.... Good grief.
This asshole is brainless and heartless and his ability to consume oxygen is not in question but the utility of the oxygen use is not only nil, but negative. So is that still “viable?” Hard to say, but I lean no.

Comparing the withdrawal of futile life support to the braindead to what is objectively hiring a contract killer to kill your own kid is beyond demented and obviously wrong on its face. Denying that literally hiring a contract killer is not killing and that a contract killer is not a killer is beyond retarded, it is insane.
 
This asshole is brainless and heartless and his ability to consume oxygen is not in question but the utility of the oxygen use is not only nil, but negative. So is that still “viable?” Hard to say, but I lean no.

Comparing the withdrawal of futile life support to the braindead to what is objectively hiring a contract killer to kill your own kid is beyond demented and obviously wrong on its face. Denying that literally hiring a contract killer is not killing and that a contract killer is not a killer is beyond retarded, it is insane.

My favorite part of his rant was when I brought up the fact that his/her mindset was the same as slave owners to their slaves.

It’s response? That slave owners were males! I guess I need to expect such nonsense.

But it is the same mindset as the Nazi’s used to kill Jews and other groups they felt were Human, but not human enough to be allowed life. And, the fact is, there were indeed female Nazi’s. 🤦‍♂️
 
HeyNorm221127-#5,861 HeyNorm Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.

NFBW: It is murder of two persons because the unborn person using the pregnant woman’s body to be alive is protected from harm through the rights granted to the pregnant woman whether the mother wants the child or not.

It has been explained already.

miketx221109-#5,462 miketx when a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the killer charged with a double homicide?

NFBW221110-#5,485 “Because it should be murder if two or more with twins and triplets etc are murdered.

The killer is killing the pregnant woman and the (potential viable human being) that is attached to the living, breathing viable woman who is with child.

END2211272020
Butcher.
 
" Addressing The Missed Perceptions "

* Red Herring That Make No Sense *

My favorite part of his rant was when I brought up the fact that his/her mindset was the same as slave owners to their slaves.

It’s response? That slave owners were males! I guess I need to expect such nonsense.

But it is the same mindset as the Nazi’s used to kill Jews and other groups they felt were Human, but not human enough to be allowed life. And, the fact is, there were indeed female Nazi’s. 🤦‍♂️
Due process is entitled to have the life support removed of any whom has completed a live birth to receive equal protection that would include a wright to life .

Sentience is a minimal requirement for conscientious objection and empathy for suffering as a valid basis to represent an other by proxy , and yet those seeking to outlaw abortion propose to do so long before sentience is possible , and abortions that occur when sentience would be possible occur for fetal or maternal anomalies , which is completely ignored by the sanctimonious anti-choice sycophant .

An association of abortion with slavery is ridiculous because a slave has been born and moreover a slave is sentience and capable of suffering that represents a valid basis for empathy and representation by legal proxy .

By principles of individualism , one cannot exchange self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) to pay a debt incurred by self determination ( private property , willful intents by contract ) , such that slavery is not allowed .
 
CarsomyrPlusSix220808-#241 “In case it wasn't yet clear, the FBI are now the enemies of the United States. The entire bureau needs to go”

NFBW: We know simply from this that CarsomyrPlusSix is not a rational human being.

Cplus6221115-#5,617 “Hey BitchofW: We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

Cplus6220919-#5,280 “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”

NFBW: We know from the two above and the next one below that Cplus6 is not only irrational but also an easily recognizable liar.

CPlus6221128-#5,872 Comparing the withdrawal of futile life support to the braindead to what is objectively hiring a contract killer to kill your own kid is beyond demented and obviously wrong on its face.

NFBW: The confirmation that Cplus6 is an irrational liar comes from the obvious irrationality of concluding that the entire FBI must go because a former president who plotted to anoint himself president after losing an attempt to win reelection - then steals top secret document from the people to keep as souvenirs along with the love letters from the murderous dictator he fell in love with while in office.

I realize the power of true love can make anyone irrational but stealing government property is stealing and the DOJ has every right to take stolen materials back and prosecuted if need be.

The lies in Cplus6’s opinion are just as easily proven because Cplus6 knows full well that he is lying every time he says “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” .

And then he complains if a mother decides in private to end the use of her body as life support to another person by having a medical procedure to have it removed. Cplus6 supports states blocking a pregnant woman from having the unborn person removed but tells us the unborn is never a part of another persons body. IT IS A LIE. Cplus6 is an irrational liar.

Furthermore pursuant to this discussion, When two persons, both being alive human beings ding are contesting the use of one fully developed person’s body, the one person’s right to continue developing into full human life while being a part of another person’s body has no constitutional rights to automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly “use” of the other persons “body” for necessary valuable life support.

The life support a mother gives during pregnancy to a developing human being is not comparable to the futile technological man-made life support given to a brain dead person and subsequent withdrawn.

It is not surprising that Cplus6 used the futile life support system as an equal and fair comparison to the biologically beneficial life support that keep a fetus alive during a pregnancy and causes death when the fetus is no longer part of its mother’s anatomy.

But Cplus6 has been proven to be an irrational liar who supports government regulation over the reproductive organs of women’s bodies so that figures.

END2211280813
 
Last edited:
" Addressing The Missed Perceptions "

* Red Herring That Make No Sense *


Due process is entitled to have the life support removed of any whom has completed a live birth to receive equal protection that would include a wright to life .

Sentience is a minimal requirement for conscientious objection and empathy for suffering as a valid basis to represent an other by proxy , and yet those seeking to outlaw abortion propose to do so long before sentience is possible , and abortions that occur when sentience would be possible occur for fetal or maternal anomalies , which is completely ignored by the sanctimonious anti-choice sycophant .

An association of abortion with slavery is ridiculous because a slave has been born and moreover a slave is sentience and capable of suffering that represents a valid basis for empathy and representation by legal proxy .

By principles of individualism , one cannot exchange self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) to pay a debt incurred by self determination ( private property , willful intents by contract ) , such that slavery is not allowed .

The association with slavery might indeed be ridiculous, I would absolutely agree if that were the comparison. It was the mindset of those arguing that a fetus can be destroyed because they are less “human”, then they, was the comparison. As was also the case of the Nazi German. And please don’t forget, I was addressing a poster who made a statement assigning personhood to the child pre birth.
 
An association of abortion with slavery is ridiculous because a slave has been born
NFBW: NUFF said right there, Jesus H Christ this message board is crawling with the most ignorant human beings alive all of whom think they can elect a government to be moral and medically smart enough to force their sustained ignorance and lies into the private health decisions of pregnant women nationwide.

END2211280921
 
It was the mindset of those arguing that a fetus can be destroyed because they are less “human”, then they, was the comparison.

NFBW: Being less human is not part of my argument so Why did you pull up your boilerplate to challenge me?

HERE IS what formed your reply:

The Roe v Wade Riddle

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

MAYBE YOU AND CarsomyrPlusSix were high-fiving and premature ejaculating all over each other a bit too early

So do you want to have an informed intelligent discussion with me or just circle jerk with the dingbats who vote for anti-abortion anti-women Republicans and losers like Trump.

END2211280936
 
NFBW: Being less human is not part of my argument so Why did you pull up your boilerplate to challenge me?

HERE IS what formed your reply:

The Roe v Wade Riddle

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

MAYBE YOU AND CarsomyrPlusSix were high-fiving and premature ejaculating all over each other a bit too early

So do you want to have an informed intelligent discussion with me or just circle jerk with the dingbats who vote for anti-abortion anti-women Republicans and losers like Trump.

END2211280936

Oh, I absolutely do. And use of a court ruling that has been overturned seems a bit silly, especially considering that one of the justices that voted in favor of it considered it poorly conceived.

Now, be specific as to how these two individuals are somehow battling for the use of a body when one consented to the use? Did the other one commit a fraud to get the mother to agree?
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top