Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Monk-Eye]

" On The Nature Of Nature *

* Self Officiated Perspective For Civility Based On Whim *

Everyone knows about all the written words in our declaration of independence, our constitution etc, but what is being discussed here is the degraded character of those who have dropped beneath the should be moral civilization radar in order to get away with doing uncivilized things. It all has since opened up a brand new can of worms in which is taking a minute to sink in undoubtedly.... Hopefully it will finally ignite the sensibilities of a should be moral people in hopes to stop the uncivilized bull crap going on in this nation.

Clearly civilized to you is a puritanical bent without a supposition for equal protection of negative liberties among those entitled by a live birth requirement to receive them , and neither does civilized to you include a universal standard for exploitation .

* Lunatics Crescent Moon Gawd Syncretism *

Trying to justify uncivilized activities is a sinful thing, but many have fallen now, and it's only getting worse.

Sin (mythology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nanna, Sīn /ˈsiːn/ or Suen (Akkadian: 𒂗𒍪 EN.ZU, pronounced Su'en, Sen, Sîn), and in Aramaic syn, syn’, or even shr 'moon', or Nannar (Sumerian: 𒀭𒋀𒆠 DŠEŠ.KI, DNANNAR) was the god of the moon in the Mesopotamian religions of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia and Aram. He was also associated with cattle, perhaps due to the perceived similarity between bull horns and the crescent moon.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

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

All human beings have human rights.

Read your John Locke or the Declaration of Independence written by this guy named Thomas Jefferson.

Oh right. You can’t read.

How about this

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

viable kid = viable personhood = rights established through Constitution

The Constitution doesn’t give anyone a right to life, dumbfuck. That’s a natural right. The DoI recognizes that all humans have it from the moment of creation, but governments and government documents can’t GIVE any such thing. Nor did the founders think they would need to enumerate the basic natural human rights of life liberty and property into the Constitution.

They were wrong. Dishonest, vile scum like you exist.

The Constitution’s 5th Amendment only says the government can’t restrict these without due process in a court of law.

In any event, no one cares about your surfactant fetish, retard. “Viability” is meaningless - living humans are living humans whether they can currently breathe in Earth’s atmosphere, and living humans have rights.

Either way the not viable unborn human being is not of the protected rights class according to the Constitution

Irrelevant garbage nonsense stupidity. The Constitution defines no such thing you ducking dipshit. This has been explained to you thirty times. Stop being such a waste of the breath that you over-value.

The Constitution says, as amended, that folks born here are automatically citizens. Citizens is not “the protected rights class” as you are trying to claim, or this whole clause would not apply to illegal aliens or even folks just coming to the US on vacation.

You raging dipshit. I’d say back up your claims or shut up, but that would be rhetorical - the plain text of the Constitution does not define a “protected rights class” as you claim, only citizens, and any claim you make to exclude the unborn would also exclude humans you want to have rights, so you have no backup to cite. There is no way to weasel your way out here.

And you have no shame and no dignity to admit you were wrong and correct your error.

So just shut up.

The right to life political movement and propaganda machine for the not viable and never born human beings cannot cite the Constitution

And neither can you, you stupid fuck, for all your bullshit parroting of NARAL talking points - things you don’t even understand and can’t express very well, probably due to your profound mental handicap - you don’t realize that the Constitution is absolutely silent on this topic, and that it has an amendment that says what happens when the Constitution is silent.

Dobbs just happened and affirmed correctly that there is no constitutional right to abortion and never was. Dobbs affirmed that the Constitution says nothing about abortion. The states can make laws as they see fit.

Deal with it. Or die mad. Preferably die mad, and soon.

to deny a fundamental right of at least privacy

Does not exist / could not relate to the abortion issue

and equal treatment to woman

You want inequal treatment of women, retarded bigot fuck.

We want equal treatment of women.

You’re literally insane to claim otherwise.

I am a rational theist

You’re an irrational piece of shit and any god you worship is such a loathesome scumbag he isn’t fit to drink my piss.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

" Sanctimonious Whiny Bitching Punks "

* Political Science Neophytes Bragging About Being Dumbfounded *

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

Yeah I get it that literacy is treason to a dumbfuck like you.

Anyone else can read a plain English document.

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

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 .

Speaking of idiotic blubbering… gods, look at this nonsense you just typed.

The INDIVIDUAL human right to life IS protected by state laws against needless violence like homicides such as abortion.

* Exemplifying Shit For Brains With An Arrogant Loud Mouth *

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 .

Literacy isn’t sedition. Your restrictive personhood standards are no better than those of slavers or Nazis, bigoted filth.

* Perspectives From Childish Retarded Mental Degenerates *

ZEF is

Your dehumanizing slur for those you want dead, as the bigoted irrational hatemonger that you are.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Shit Talking Carnivores "

* Bad Jokes Disillusioned About Reality Of Nature *

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

Prior to entering into the social civil agreement of a constitution , one is subject to the moral relativism within nature , and to improve ones opportunity for survival and quality of life one surrenders natural freedoms for protected wrights .

A wright exits because there is an entity capable of issuing a retort or reprise for a violation of its edicts .

There is no such thing as an inalienable wright to life , as life can be alienated , so perhaps contemporary definition of natural law ( sic ) passes for reason among gullible crowds of apex predators , consumed with the arrogance of their own vanity , but it fails completely in the light of pure reason .

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

A study has revealed that among the mustached tamarins, the mothers can be a deadly menace to their offspring -- and their infanticidal tendencies can provide some insight into human behavior too

content.time.com

The explanation for such pitiless behavior is as cold as it is unavoidable: tamarin mothers are simply very good at balancing their genetic ledgers and know when they're heading for a loss.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW221201-#6,074 it is written:

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

viable kid = viable personhood = rights established through Constitution

Cplus6221201-#6,082 “The Constitution doesn’t give anyone a right to life, dumbfuck. That’s a natural right. The DoI recognizes that all humans have it from the moment of creation, but governments and government documents can’t GIVE any such thing. Nor did the founders think they would need to enumerate the basic natural human rights of life liberty and property into the Constitution. “

NFBW221201-#6,074 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.

Cplus6221201-#6,082 The Constitution says, as amended, that folks born here are automatically citizens. Citizens is not “the protected rights class” as you are trying to claim, or this whole clause would not apply to illegal aliens or even folks just coming to the US on vacation

NFBW221201-#6,074 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 !!!!!!!!

NFBW: When I change my “equations” to your liking CarsomyrPlusSix it changes nothing of my argument. In fact it strengthens it.

Not viable kid = not viable personhood = natural rights created, established derived from and through its mother!

viable kid = viable personhood = natural rights established through and protected by Constitution

viable (not-citizen) on US soil kid = viable (not-citizen) on US soil personhood = natural rights established through and protected by Constitution

Furthermore I agree and it normally goes without saying but this says it well.

the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS" (the federalist #84).​

​

Natural Rights and the Constitution | Encyclopedia.com

NATURAL RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTIONThe Constitution as it came from the Philadelphia convention contained no bill of rights. Indeed, the word right (or rights) appears only once in it, and there only in the context of Congress's power to promote the progress of science and useful arts "by...

www.encyclopedia.com

​

It is a bill of natural rights, not because it contains a compendium of those rights but because it is an expression of the natural right of everyone​

​

NFBW: I MIGHT ADD “who is born”

​

to govern himself and to specify the terms according to which he agrees to give up his natural freedom by submitting to the rules of civil government.​

​

The Constitution emanates from us, "THE PEOPLE of the United States,"​

​

NFBW: I MIGHT ADD “The PEOPLE of the United States who are born”

​

and here in its first sentence, said Publius, "is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government." Natural rights point or lead to government, a government with the power to secure rights, and only secondarily to limitations on governmental power.​

​

NFBW: DOBBS un-secured a natural right that was precedent for fifty years with absolutely no citizen or visitor on US soil being harmed because women get abortions in private and that is why so many states are preserving it in each Constitution. Over time every state will regain a respect for women and all states will ban abortion bans because DOBBS was a Catholic tainted decision to avoid making a decision in the first place.

END2212010940

​

​

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

God, fuck you with a rusty spoon for your godawful formatting style if nothing else, you piece of shit, W's Bitchboy. It's unreadable without fisking it down.

Use normal quotes like a normal person - to hell with your special snowflake garbage. Ugh.

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

viable kid = viable personhood = rights established through Constitution

Objectively false.

Then you quote me, which is just me noting correctly what is in the Constitution.

Then we have this stupid garbage from you:

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.

Irrelevant bullshit. You just type noise that has no relevance, that no one cares about, that has no basis in fact or law.

All the Constitution as amended says is that humans born here are United States citizens.

It doesn't say that personhood requires birth.

It is written in plain English. Sorry about your illiteracy, I know it's incurable on account of your single digit IQ, but a grade schooler should be able to read and comprehend a plain English document.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about "protected rights class" or "stage of humanness" or "viability." Read the document, you dumb fuck. Oh wait, again, impossible.

Instead, how about... shut the fuck up about documents you can't read, which is all of them, you dumb fuck.

Not viable kid = not viable personhood = natural rights created, established derived from and through its mother

Stupid, wrong, objectively false. Humans have rights from the moment of their creation. Birth is not creation.

"Viable personhood" - where do you come up with this stupid garbage?

NFBW: DOBBS un-secured a natural right that was precedent for fifty years

You're a delusional fucking retard.

The right to life is a natural human right, a right by virtue of the inherent properties of humanity, and it has existed as long as humanity has.

The "right to abortion" was a legal fiction, it directly violates an actual human right - the right to life - and it was never a Constitutional right. Blackmun and his 6 peers lied about the contents of the Constitution in Roe.

Dobbs fixed this corruption and stupidity and it's done.

Done. Like you, trash.

You have no "right to abortion" to cite. Get fucked.

 

[HeyNorm]

NFBW221201-#6,074 it is written:

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

viable kid = viable personhood = rights established through Constitution

Cplus6221201-#6,082 “The Constitution doesn’t give anyone a right to life, dumbfuck. That’s a natural right. The DoI recognizes that all humans have it from the moment of creation, but governments and government documents can’t GIVE any such thing. Nor did the founders think they would need to enumerate the basic natural human rights of life liberty and property into the Constitution. “

NFBW221201-#6,074 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.

Cplus6221201-#6,082 The Constitution says, as amended, that folks born here are automatically citizens. Citizens is not “the protected rights class” as you are trying to claim, or this whole clause would not apply to illegal aliens or even folks just coming to the US on vacation

NFBW221201-#6,074 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 !!!!!!!!

NFBW: When I change my “equations” to your liking CarsomyrPlusSix it changes nothing of my argument. In fact it strengthens it.

Not viable kid = not viable personhood = natural rights created, established derived from and through its mother!

viable kid = viable personhood = natural rights established through and protected by Constitution

viable (not-citizen) on US soil kid = viable (not-citizen) on US soil personhood = natural rights established through and protected by Constitution

Furthermore I agree and it normally goes without saying but this says it well.

the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS" (the federalist #84).​

​

Natural Rights and the Constitution | Encyclopedia.com

NATURAL RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTIONThe Constitution as it came from the Philadelphia convention contained no bill of rights. Indeed, the word right (or rights) appears only once in it, and there only in the context of Congress's power to promote the progress of science and useful arts "by...

www.encyclopedia.com

​

It is a bill of natural rights, not because it contains a compendium of those rights but because it is an expression of the natural right of everyone​

​

NFBW: I MIGHT ADD “who is born”

​

to govern himself and to specify the terms according to which he agrees to give up his natural freedom by submitting to the rules of civil government.​

​

The Constitution emanates from us, "THE PEOPLE of the United States,"​

​

NFBW: I MIGHT ADD “The PEOPLE of the United States who are born”

​

and here in its first sentence, said Publius, "is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government." Natural rights point or lead to government, a government with the power to secure rights, and only secondarily to limitations on governmental power.​

​

NFBW: DOBBS un-secured a natural right that was precedent for fifty years with absolutely no citizen or visitor on US soil being harmed because women get abortions in private and that is why so many states are preserving it in each Constitution. Over time every state will regain a respect for women and all states will ban abortion bans because DOBBS was a Catholic tainted decision to avoid making a decision in the first place.

END2212010940

​

​

You’ve tried this tact before. A “child” or a “kid” are protected persons.

Trying to hide your bloodlust by deflection is cleaver, but Ill conceived.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6221201-#6,086 All the Constitution as amended says is that humans born here are United States citizens. It doesn't say that personhood requires birth.

NFBW: It does not say that a not-viable human being who is using the body of a viable human being, who just so happens to be a born citizen, has a right to use her body for nine months of her government protected life if she does not want it there if she believes it is harmful in any way to her natural right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution does not say anything about the natural rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness of a fertilized human egg and it’s nine months of biological developmental growth as a human being using another human being’s heart and lungs etc to live in order to make it to the big day it can breath and at that moment cease being part of another human being and therefore becomes a new citizen of the United States.

The constitution does not say a single word about the fetus having a right to override the natural right decisions and autonomy of its mother which includes termination of her pregnancy, if that is her choice.

Personally, for my entire life, I recognize the value of a human life during pregnancy. I have contributed to the creation of kids and they have created grandkids and a grand kid has created another kid. And we have another on its way from my third daughter. They are the greatest joys in my life next to my wife.

For my entire life, I have never Herschel Walker’ed a woman, and never would because I am personally opposed to abortion. Period.

So you can shove your vile, atheist, obnoxious attitude and vulgar mouth about American citizens, who support a woman’s right to choose right up your ignorant ass because that apparently is the only kind of language that you understand and respond to.

END2212011103

In fact it’s my second daughter’s birthday and I’m gonna call her right now. And then get some work done around the house for the next few days

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Yeah your unreadable godawful posts are going back on ignore after this. You are the worst poster on here by far, too stupid to remember to breathe if you were a real person, so I am again done with your pathetic trolling and blatant dishonesty.

It does not say…

No shit. It doesn’t say a lot of things.

Anything it doesn’t talk about at all, 10th Amendment.

The Constitution does not say anything about

No shit. 10th Amendment.

fertilized human egg

You’re fucking retarded, once again, to refer to human beings as eggs but I’m done with you, so whatever, soak in your own wretched stupidity and be damned.

The constitution does not say a single word about

10th Amendment.

Personally, for my entire life, I recognize the value of a human life during pregnancy.

Irrelevant, you bigoted hatemongering filth, you are as bad as any genocider or slaver.

If you’re “personally pro-choice about slavery,” I.e. you wouldn’t buy a slave but it’s not your place to tell anyone else not to, you’re pro-slavery. Full stop.

And you? You are pro-abort filth.

I have contributed to the creation of kids and they have created grandkids and a grand kid has created another kid.

I hope that isn’t true, that you in fact haven’t infected the gene pool with your poisonous noxious stupidity, and take solace in the fact that it is unlikely any woman would be so similarly stupid and also lacking in good sense and taste as to let you reproduce. And if such an incredibly stupid woman existed, no viable offspring could result.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If you’re “personally pro-choice about slavery,”

I am not.


NFBW: so before you run away CarsomyrPlusSix and hide from truth by ignoring it, could you at least provide your your atheistic analysis of the equations I provided just for you as I have revised them ti your liking.

NFBW6221201-#6,085 When I change my “equations” to your liking CarsomyrPlusSix it changes nothing of my argument. In fact it strengthens it.

Not viable kid = not viable personhood = natural rights created, established derived from and through its mother!

viable kid = viable personhood = natural rights established through and protected by Constitution

viable (not-citizen) on US soil kid = viable (not-citizen) on US soil personhood = natural rights established through and protected by Constitution

END2212011210

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

^
TL;DR

Spoiler

And the worst part? The troll is still just spamming the same nonsense about the Constitution and viability, already asked and answered, already dismissed as nonsensical - it will never learn because it is not intending to learn. It is intentionally wasting your time with it’s stupidity. It is not worth attention.

Personhood is legal and can be set however we want through elected legislators - they can say the unborn are people and they will be so, done. The Constitution as it stands neither demands it nor prohibits it… though I and other moral human beings would certainly support a 13th Amendment style abortion ban.

Setting personhood at birth is arbitrary and stupid. Setting personhood at “viability,” a moving target that will change as technology changes, is exceptionally arbitrary and stupid. Either is just as vile as setting personhood as “not being black” or “not being disabled or gay or Jewish.”

But hey, that’s just me over here being a moral person who believes in human rights and equality.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6221101-#6,091 Personhood is legal and can be set however we want through elected legislators - they can say the unborn are people and they will be so, done. The Constitution as it stands neither demands it nor prohibits

CarsomyrPlusSix has a fallacy that he refuses to consider when he argues using the political ‘we’ when he says “however we want through elected legislators”

The majority of women and younger Americans in general in America want abortion to be reasonable and legal. Most believe as I do, that the mother has autonomy over the unborn inside her and she is the creator and sustainer of the life that is using her body. She and she alone has a natural right to withdraw her biological support for the person that cannot survive without it.

it will be a cold day in the hell for atheists like CarsomyrPlusSix when he and the white Christian nationalists that he runs with will ever get their Catholic wet dream of converting the fertilized eggs in all women to individual persons and people in order to prosecute even miscarriages as homicides and forcing raped women to disrupt their lives to birth the worst memory of their life So that CarsomyrPlusSix can pat himself on the back and claim “just me over here being a moral person” by sticking his nose and his government into places it does not belong

The unborn already have personhood and with it a right to life from the moment of conception, however due to the one of a kind circumstances of the biological realities of human reproduction the unborn depend on the mother to maintain life. The mother has autonomy over the unborn inside her and she is the creator and sustainer of the life that is using her body. She and she alone has a natural right to withdraw her biological support for the person that cannot survive without it.

It is in no way comparable to the injustice of slavery as slavery is an issue where the victims and the Christian inhuman slavers are all “born” human beings. Another key factor that moral giant Cplus6 Chooses to ignore.

END2212012044

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6221101-#6,091 CarsomyrPlusSix Personhood is legal and can be set however we want through elected legislators - they can say the unborn are people and they will be so, done.

NFBW: Unless the pro-choice majority in this country prevail on medical ethics and respect for a pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy, either in a courtroom or at the ballot box.

The medical ethic principle is that which requires that patients with decisional capacity have the right to determine what medical treatments may be administered to them.

Or the lawsuits by pro-choice people of a religious minority being harmed by Cplus6 and the tyranny of a white Christian overreaching majority that say the unborn are people with a right to life and to hell with religious freedom America is a Christian nation.

Three Jewish women in Kentucky are suing over the state's abortion restrictions, arguing they violate the women's religious freedoms.​

​

https://www.newser.com/story/326484...-abortion-laws-violate-religious-freedom.this will​

​

Some members of religions including Judaism and Islam argue that they have a religious right to abortion, and the three women who filed the suit are indeed making the argument that their religious freedom is being infringed upon because the state is forcing a Christian worldview upon all residents, regardless of their religion.​

​

This is the third time since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade that Jewish individuals or organizations have filed lawsuits fighting abortion laws, the Washington Post reports.​

​

Jewish law ('halakha') asked and answered the question of fetal personhood thousands of years ago and rabbis, commentators and Jewish legal scholars have repeatedly confirmed these answers in the intervening millenia," their lawsuit reads, per the Los Angeles Times. "While a fetus is deserving of some level of respect under halakha, the birth giver takes precedence. Jews have never believed that life begins at conception." The suit argues that the state legislature has "imposed sectarian theology" by passing what the women's lawyer describes as a "patchwork" of laws over a two-decade period that are "inconsistent" and "vague." A proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot next month would completely ban abortion in the state.​

END2212020204

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6221025-#400 Human rights are the basis for government and law and our government is violating their human rights with this prejudicial and bigoted standard of allowing them to be murdered without consequence. That is a fact.

NFBW: The Catholic anti/abort fallacy.

How can our government stop the murder of a citizen that no one in the entire universes knows a he or a she fertilized egg exists except Jesus Christ hallowed be thy name.and God the Father unless he is busy all knowing on someone else’s period at that moment.

Mom won’t know or at least suspect for about 30 days or the next full moon when no blood shows up.

How can our government respect the liberty and autonomy of its citizens who by chance of nature are born with eggs?

One of 1,5 million eggs drop down once a month and get flushed down the toilet unless lo and behold - Humanae Vitae - God’s brilliance in creation works - according to ding when a sperm cell hooks up with an egg cell a new genetically distinct human being is created in nature created by god indeed

To protect this personhood of ding ‘s new genetically distinct human being from being murdered by it’s slut:whore of a mother, the government, in order to keep CarsomyrPlusSix happy would have to require every menstruating citizen confirm to the federal agency of human reproductive Control that her period went ok and provide date and time of most recent sexual intercourse.

END2212020539

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

^ TL;DR

The stupidity above in summary:
* Humans lay eggs
* Jews want to be able to kill people and it’s part of their religion and if you don’t let Jews do legal murder it’s anti-Semitic or something.
* So if you worship the Aztec pantheon, the First Amendment says you can attack other groups, imprison your captives, cut out their beating hearts, and kick their bodies down your ziggurat. Don’t oppress the Aztecs, that isn’t murder, that’s just free expression of religion.

In conclusion, W’s Bitchboy is still trolling or too stupid to be able to live. Don’t waste time on the shitbird.

 

[ding]

How can our government stop the murder of a citizen that no one in the entire universes knows a he or a she fertilized egg exists

Who is aborting fertilized eggs?

 

[ding]

according to @ding when a sperm cell hooks up with an egg cell a new genetically distinct human being is created…

It’s not according to me, dummy. It’s according to empirical scientific evidence.

 

[HeyNorm]

It’s not according to me, dummy. It’s according to empirical scientific evidence.

And he argues it’s not?????

 

[ding]

…a new genetically distinct human being is created in nature created by god indeed

Actually the new genetically distinct human being was created by its mother and father, dummy.

 

[ding]

And he argues it’s not?????

He did for a long time until he realized the scientific evidence was overwhelming. Then he switched gears to it is a new genetically distinct human being but until it can live outside of the mother’s womb it’s morally ok to end its life. Even if they have to pull it out limb by limb while it’s alive.