Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[beagle9]

NFBW Are you using a pregnant woman’s body, right now as you rant and rage, in order to be alive?

If not where do you and @beagle and ding and HeyNorm get the authority to speak for the unborn individuals who are using a pregnant woman’s body fur nine months to survive? Where hotshot where?

END2211301008

Hell, why aren't you fighting for a woman's right to sell her OWN body ??? It's her body, and she should have total control of it right ? I bet you could come up with many things a woman should be able to do with her OWN body. Let your wicked imagination run wild for her.

 

[ding]

NFBW: A Catholic majority in SCOTUS ruled to end fifty years of precedent but you are a liar that the ruling shows the constitutionally disagree that the interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and coercion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.

Does Dobbs disagree with that ding ?

But you really are lying when you say states disagree with that too. Did you see what happened in Michigan and Kansas to name a few.

END2211301758

You misunderstand. The states agree that it is their job to write laws on abortion. The states agree with the 10th amendment and the states accept SCOTUS’ ruling.

 

[ding]

It is murder to end a human life except in self-defense. I have also said it is not murder to end a not viable human life and there are no or very few states passing laws saying it is murder by the mother. So what is your point. Abortion of a not viable human being when they are in the embryonic stage of development is not murder. Never said it was.

END2211301607

My point is you are all over the map on everything.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

NFBW: But you say nothing about the conflict of rights interests between the unborn not viable human being using a viable human being’s body to exist

There is no conflict. The kid has a right to life. The mom only has responsibility to take care of her kid.

You say the unborn want to live to full term but you cannot tell me how you know that.

Oh. Just. Fuck. Yourself, you rotten piece of shit. If someone shoots you dead, I hope it doesn’t get prosecuted because no one could possibly assume you didn’t want to get shot in your fucktarded drooling imbecilic face. If anything, with the things you say, you clearly invite impromptu buckshot bukkake.

This doesn’t parse as a valid or coherent argument to any rational person, so of course refuse like you would try to sneak by with it anyway.

We don’t need to ask any human being if it is okay to protect their human right to life against attackers. No permission is needed, no communication is needed, and even if someone is angry at having their life saved, they can just go fuck themselves because no one cares, their complaints are irrelevant to this paradigm.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Incidentally, Impromptu Buckshot Bukkake would be an excellent band name.

 

[HeyNorm]

So, the mother puts the bun in the oven then claims she didn’t want it in the first place?

Sex education has been in schools for decades

Birth control is readily available.

The truth is, at no time in history has it been easier to not get pregnant, and here we are.

Smh

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6221130-#6,064 CarsomyrPlusSix There is no conflict. The kid has a right to life.

NFBW: What does the mother have to do with the right to life of a kid if the kid is not part of the woman’s body?

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.”

END2211302125

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Cplus6221130-#6,064 CarsomyrPlusSix There is no conflict. The kid has a right to life.

NFBW: What does the mother have to do with the right to life of a kid if the kid is not part of the woman’s body?

You don't attack and kill other human beings in violation of their right to life, you stupid fuck. Obviously.

Well obvious to everyone who isn't a psycho like you who belongs on a watchlist.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.”

Cplus6221130-#6,064 There is no conflict. The kid has a right to life.

NFBW221130-#6,067 What does the mother have to do with the right to life of a kid if the kid is not part of the woman’s body?

Cplus6221130-#6,068 CarsomyrPlusSix You don't attack and kill other human beings in violation of their right to life, you stupid fuck.

NFBW. You are correct when you say I don’t attack and kill other human beings. But I asked you, what does the mother have to do with the right to life of a kid if the kid is not part of the woman’s body?

The fact that I don’t attack and kill other human beings and the mother has nothing to do with the right to life of the kid. I too have nothing to do with the kid just like the mother. So why do you attack me the way you do? I have nothing to do with both the kid and the mother.

END2211132209

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6221130-#6,064 We don’t need to ask any human being if it is okay to protect their human right to life against attackers.

NFBW: What happens CarsomyrPlusSix when the individual human being who’s human rights you as an individual have “assumed” wants you to protect, is living inside another persons body needing to use that body to sustain it’s life.

IF you had a person living and getting bigger and bigger every day inside your body and you didnt want it there and there is a safe medical procedure available to remove it from your body, would you really want the government telling you you cannot separate that other person from your body?

END2211302307

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You are correct when you say I don’t attack and kill other human beings.

Folks in general shouldn't do this, you stupid ****. This includes mothers, which is obvious.

It's not obvious that you don't do this, you vile piece of shit - you have no integrity and are flagrantly sociopathic and immoral, so you definitely could kill innocent human beings - it seems totally in character for you - and I expect given the chance to do so without the fear of legal penalty caught, you would.

But I asked you, what does the mother have to do with the right to life of a kid if the kid is not part of the woman’s body?

Which is a nonsensical irrelevant question, you stupid ****.

Don't attack your kid and kill them and you won't violate their right to life. Your kid's body is never your body nor part of your body, either, you retarded, pox-infested drippy ****.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

NFBW: What happens CarsomyrPlusSix when the individual human being who’s human rights you as an individual have “assumed” wants you to protect, is living inside another persons body needing to use that body to sustain it’s life.

They're a human being with a right to life. Their location is irrelevant.

What happens is "nothing," you hemorrhoidal rimjob, nothing other than the human being's life being protected. Nothing else you mentioned has relevance, you festering boil.

IF you had a person living and getting bigger and bigger every day inside your body and you didnt want it

Tough shit, it's your kid, take care of your kid. Don't whine about your parental responsibility - if you won't accept responsibility for your actions, don't do the action. If you're such a sociopathic piece of shit you'll literally kill to get out of responsibility, then REALLY don't take any risky action along those lines at all, ever.

there is a safe medical procedure

There isn't, you lying piece of shit **** trash.

Contract killing isn't "medicine," and it sure as shit isn't safe for it's victim.

Now go fuck off and expire.

 

[HeyNorm]

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.”

Cplus6221130-#6,064 There is no conflict. The kid has a right to life.

NFBW221130-#6,067 What does the mother have to do with the right to life of a kid if the kid is not part of the woman’s body?

Cplus6221130-#6,068 CarsomyrPlusSix You don't attack and kill other human beings in violation of their right to life, you stupid fuck.

NFBW. You are correct when you say I don’t attack and kill other human beings. But I asked you, what does the mother have to do with the right to life of a kid if the kid is not part of the woman’s body?

The fact that I don’t attack and kill other human beings and the mother has nothing to do with the right to life of the kid. I too have nothing to do with the kid just like the mother. So why do you attack me the way you do? I have nothing to do with both the kid and the mother.

END2211132209

kid = personhood.

Case closed

The advocation of the kids death makes you complicit.

End of story Adolph.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HeyNorm221130-#6,073 HeyNorm
“kid = personhood.”

NFBW: Piss poor argument let alone not a strong example of what you should credit to yourself HeyNorm as being a great closing argument on the right to life of not viable human beings during the embryonic and pre-viability fetal stage of the human life development continuum. How about this:

Not viable kid = not viable personhood = rights derived from and through mother

viable kid = viable personhood = rights established through Constitution

Either way the not viable unborn human being is not of the protected rights class according to the Constitution by virtue of being in a stage of humanness that is having been never born.

The right to life political movement and propaganda machine for the not viable and never born human beings cannot cite the Constitution as the authoritative go to source to grant any government the power to deny a fundamental right of at least privacy and equal treatment to woman who if they as human beings get pregnant and expect the right to make the decision early on to carry or not carry the new human being developing in her very one and only sacred sovereign body to full term according to her conscience. Pregnant women must NOT ever be subservient to the sickened atheistic conscience of pure unadulterated assholes like CarsomyrPlusSix !!!!!!!!

What authority do you HeyNorm snd CarsomyrPlusSix cite other than your own personal conscience relative to the duty we as human beings have to other like minded peaceful law abiding and orderly human beings in a civil society owe to each other in protecting each other’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Because ding is a Catholic of some sort and beagle9 is a Protestant of some and I am a rational theist as I believe Washington Adam’s Jefferson and Madison were; we all have different beliefs opinions on the matter of conscience as to when and what our civic duty to each other as human beings begin with regard to the unborn.

And I advise we at least all be wary of the dictatorial and authoritarian minded bias against pregnant women and reject the meanness that is exemplified by posters like CarsomyrPlusSix . . . . Be wary and decent if you must in Jesus’ name. I Speak in one of my favorite hunan beings’ bane . . . James Madison of Virginia

(15) Because finally, the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the Declaration of Rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basic and foundation of government, it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. [James Madison, Section 15 of A Memorial and Remonstrance, June 20, 1785, frequently misquoted to imply religion as the basis of gov't]​

​

NFBW: I love living in my beloved Virginia, the birthplace of freedom from religion, and freedom of conscience that pregnant women have here and most important freedom from authoritarian fascistic assholes such as CarsomyrPlusSix who cannot have ten words of civil discourse on the matters being discussed by the rest of us here.

END2211300433

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW: FORtheRECORD Here’s what what went down: ding

NFBW221130-#6,036 The interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and coercion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.

ding221130-#6,047 SCOTUS and the states disagree.

NFBW221130-#6,058 A Catholic majority in SCOTUS ruled to end fifty years of precedent but you are a liar that the ruling shows they constitutionally disagree that the interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and coercion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.

Does Dobbs disagree with that ding ?

But you really are lying when you say states disagree with that too. Did you see what happened in Michigan and Kansas to name a few.

ding221130-#6,062 You misunderstand. The states agree that it is their job to write laws on abortion. The states agree with the 10th amendment and the states accept SCOTUS’ ruling.

NFBW: I wrote a brief summary of my views on the human rights of the conflicting interests ( CarsomyrPlusSix says there are none ) as we have been discussing. Your response was: “SCOTUS and the states disagree”

I have acknowledged that the DOBBS ruling kicked the can to the states but I want to know from you if anything in DOBBS runs counter to what I wrote in Post-#6,036

END2212010548

 

[HeyNorm]

NFBW: FORtheRECORD Here’s what what went down: ding

NFBW221130-#6,036 The interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and coercion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.

ding221130-#6,047 SCOTUS and the states disagree.

NFBW221130-#6,058 A Catholic majority in SCOTUS ruled to end fifty years of precedent but you are a liar that the ruling shows they constitutionally disagree that the interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and coercion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.

Does Dobbs disagree with that ding ?

But you really are lying when you say states disagree with that too. Did you see what happened in Michigan and Kansas to name a few.

ding221130-#6,062 You misunderstand. The states agree that it is their job to write laws on abortion. The states agree with the 10th amendment and the states accept SCOTUS’ ruling.

NFBW: I wrote a brief summary of my views on the human rights of the conflicting interests ( CarsomyrPlusSix says there are none ) as we have been discussing. Your response was: “SCOTUS and the states disagree”

I have acknowledged that the DOBBS ruling kicked the can to the states but I want to know from you if anything in DOBBS runs counter to what I wrote in Post-#6,036

END2212010548

Nope, words have meanings. You just assigned the being personhood and now try to justify killing an innocent person.

Your words betrayed your true self

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You just assigned the being personhood

Where

 

[HeyNorm]

Where

Post 6074.

Non viable kid was your choice of words. You could have used non viable fetus, but YOU chose a word that grants personhood.

So, non viable kids don’t deserve protection under our laws, which is your argument. And viability by your standard is the ability to be self sustaining without another’s assistance. So is a newborn viable? A toddler? A school child? Or is viability established when one can defend one’s self?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Sanctimonious Whiny Bitching Punks "

* Political Science Neophytes Bragging About Being Dumbfounded *

Bullshit. Roe had no basis in the Constitution whatsoever.

That roe has no basis in us constitution would a truth to a traitor to us republic based on individualism and of course to a disingenuous liar .

* Simpleton With Bull Shit From A Traitorous Camp For The Dumb Asses *

I'm extremely individualist - the unborn are individual human beings with human rights, you bigoted fucl

You are putrid collectivist , blubbering about federalism in a ruse to override individualism through a collectivist state , while ignoring that it is the role of both the states and federal government to protection the individual .

* Exemplifying Shit For Brains With An Arrogant Loud Mouth *

Not here in reality on Earth where words have meanings, you stupid fuck.

Dobbs decision is sedition against us constitution and traitors to us republic principles for equal protection of negative liberties among those which have met a live birth requirement to receive them support it .

* Perspectives From Childish Retarded Mental Degenerates *

Hatemongering slur - just more retardation from a known retard.

ZEF is short for zygote , embryo and fetus for the scientifically illiterate and to collectively address whether one is discussing an entity that has not met live birth requirement to receive equal protection with a citizen , as a citizen must be born .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Lies Offered By Traitors "

* Enemies Foreign And Domestic *

That’s up to each state to decide. That is reality.

That is sedition against us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments .