Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[deannalw]

TheDuke230111-#101 The Duke “Name the last truth you knew”

NFBW: here is one of countless truth’s I know that is applicable to this thread:

A fetus is not biologically developed sufficiently to survive outside of the womb prior to 20 weeks after conception.

Isn’t that correct CarsomyrPlusSix ?????

END2301111003

Let me clue you in to a little bit of news- a full term pregnancy newborn cannot survive outside the womb without help either.

Are they disposable as well?

 

[deannalw]

It's funny how you keep sparring with ding, and it appears that he's been done on this subject... ROTFLMBO

That's when he debates his finest- when no one's around.

 

[deannalw]

deannalw200904-#6 Yay! •••• They better thank their lucky stars it wasn't me driving. I'd do dough-nuts on their asses.

NFBW: Your comment tells me @deannalw that you are pro-abortion en masse by motor vehicle if you are driving yours and happened across a Black Lives Matter peaceful protest..?????

No no no. Killing people is murder. (so is abortion, but you don't believe that, do you?) These are people, not unborn children.

And no some more- I would not do dough nuts on protesters. Unless they are hindering my way through and posing a possible threat to me or others.

Protesters do not do that. Thugs and animals do that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW230111-#6,680 “A fetus is not biologically developed sufficiently to survive outside of the womb prior to 20 weeks after conception.”
^
^
deannalw230111-#6,681 a full term pregnancy newborn cannot survive outside the womb without help either.

NFBW: Another truth for you deannalw to accept. A full term newborn is biologically viable having achieved the biological status of viability whereas the brand spanking new brain, lung and heart are ready to perform the biological process of breathing oxygen from the normal environment on earth and can be separated (cut the cord) from his or her mother.

Survivability upon successful birth is a mattter of the environment and social conditions that embrace the newborn. Biological development to the critical point of being able to breathe in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide through lungs. That is the significant of viability.

I endorse all governments banning regulating abortion for convenience after nominal viability status is achieved by every fetal human being at around 20 weeks except when necessary to save the life of the mother or in case if rape that are not adjudicated prior to 20 weeks.

Does that answer your question deannalw or do you have more?????

END2301111119

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW: Since The Duke did not respond to my answer on the “truth” thread except to lie that he knows that I “want to kill babies in the womb” which is absurd. Since there can be no discussion about “truth” with a person who is uselessly indulgent in absurdity, I posted it here on the Roe abortion Dobbs thread at least ForTheRecord. What else can we do with absurdity.

TheDuke230111-#101 The Duke “Name the last truth you knew”
^
^
NFBW230111-#134 Survivability of a new born infant upon successful birth after at least 20 weeks of gestation is no longer contingent upon its physical development. Survival at that stage becomes a matter of the environment and social conditions that embrace the newborn. Biological development to the critical point of being able to breathe in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide through lungs has been acquired. •••• That is the truth and the significance of the TRUTH of viability on the question of reproductive rights being denied to all women by the Republican Party. •• END2301111536
^
^
TheDuke230111-#135 The last truth I knew right now is that you want to kill babies in the womb.”

NFBW: How would you know The Duke that I want to kill babies in the womb. I got the same woman pregnant twice in my twenties and killed neither of my two daughters who are the loves of my life. My third daughter by marriage is an expectant mom at three months and is moving back to the East Coast from the West Coast to be near gandma and grandpa because I am retired and looking forward to helping with our new bundle of joy. My other grandkids have been scattered about the country so this one is going to be a little extra special. Her mom and I are closing on a second home on Friday so the young family have a place to come home to. Her mom and I wanted to eliminate all the stress of changing jobs, finding a place to rent with a dog a cat and moving across the land of opportunity for those who want it, and plus while pregnant. They got married during covid in a four person ceremony on the sidewalk in DC on the steps of the Smithsonian - so buying a modern townhome near ours is the least we can do and glad we can do it.

My opposition to abortion has been made quite clear.

Cplus6221229-#6,585 @CarsomyrPlusSix Freedom of choice has nothing to do with the mass contract killing you encourage and cheerlead for.
^
^
NFBW221230-#6,586 “If all men did what I did after fathering two daughters there would be no more abortions. And that would be a great achievement for mankind. So you can quit your stupid line of bullshit that I encourage and cheerlead for abortions. I don’t. You are a liar.”
^
^
beagle9221230-#6,587 You walk a thin line, but just like a drunkard you stagger across that line quite often. Then just like a drunkard you immediately fall back across it and say I didn't do that, I don't know what you all are talking about..
^
^
NFBW221230-#6,588 Why are you on a discussion forum @beagle9 when you don’t want to hear what anyone outside your tribe has to say about anything. You always do what you did above which is cite what I write and then proclaim that what I said is not what I was saying. I am personally against abortion but you practically eulogize CarsomyrPlusSix ‘s written puke that any Biden voter is pro-abort filth.

END2301111640

 

[NotfooledbyW]

billiejeens221229-#195 Childbirth is not high risk (75 years ago, yeah, maybe)
•••• One is more likely to get dead driving to the abortion than during childbirth

NFBW: There is risk. When a woman dies during childbirth it is no comfort to loved ones that some bedroom big government hillbilly Christian on a message board says tough luck, man up for Jesus.
Let me remind you Billiejeens we are not living in a Christian Nation under Christian laws.

NFBW201130-#135 “ Church Membership In America Percentage of population that belongs to a church: 1776 17% 1850 34 1860 37 1870 35 1890 45 1906 51 1916 53 1926 56 1952 59 1980 62 1995 65* *Estimated. Source: "The Churching of America: 1776-1990" by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark and Gallup Organization data“
^
^
billiejeens201130-#136 We are a Christian Nation •••• We just aren't a Theocracy.

END2301112127

 

[NotfooledbyW]

task0778230111-#15 I voted for Trump because I thought he had policies that were better for Americans than what the democrats wanted to do, even though I do not like his character or personality.

NFBW: After five years of Trump it was obvious during the 2020 campaign that Trump had policies that were not better for all Americans. I guess we could not know at the time exactly that the three Catholics he put on the Supreme Court would throw out Federal reproductive rights for women. But there were signs that race, gender and religious minorities, women and low income people would further suffer under a second Trump term. Losing Abortion rights was a legitimate concern.

You seem to be reasonable task0778 as to why you voted for Trump, but do you denounce what he did and incited after refusing to concede that he had lost.

END2301111422

 

[NotfooledbyW]

task0778221229-#12 How does one look at what's going on in CA, IL, NY, and other democrat-run cities and states and not want something better than that?

NFBW: Just guessing task0778 but it’s probably true that around nine out of ten voters who live in America’s big cities oppose the national abortion ban that your votes for Republicans will impose on them.

What exactly is it that Trump and Republicans are going to offer to make city people live up to your higher standards? Take away abortion rights? Force long lines for voting? Make sure they have plenty of guns being carried around? Do you live in Mayberry RFD?

END2301121813

 

[NotfooledbyW]

nmf2020220112-#1 I can see God being ticked off at egregious sinners like the ones who promote abortion...

NFBW: Sin is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. Trouble is notmyfault2020 America is not a Divine Nation and the Constitution is not Divine Law. States cannot enforce Divine Laws. It matters not what ticks off the Divine Being of Roman Catholicism. There’s this James Madison thing called Separation of Church and State.

Must be why #ding is so adamant about this:

ding221121-#5,715 “Abortion is a human rights issue. Not a religious issue.”

END2301130008

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.

NFBW: The United States is “We the People” so why do you think Dobbs stopped the slaughter of innocent life when Dobbs says “We the People” can vote to slaughter innocent life by majority rule?

Dobbs does nothing to stop the slaughter in the freedom for women most populous states. And since ‘nones’ (no religious affiliation by mostly young people) are on the rise and the guns guts and god hillbilly Trump loving church attendees are in decline, the entire country will eventually recognize Roe v Wade (revised a bit to 22 weeks viability instead of 28) within a decade or two.

END2301131545

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jgs230111-#2 johngaltshrugged “Every innocent human being, born or unborn, have God given natural rights that are superior to any other rights, including the Constitution.”

NFBW: Not before fetal viability according to English Common Law in effect during the 18th & 19th Century when a 1906 court case refers to aquick fetus” as follows:

A.Tang220602 “Appearing before the Oregon Supreme Court, attorneys for the state insisted that “abortion is not a crime” under Oregon law unless it results in the death “of a quick fetus.” Dunn had accordingly broken no law because he performed Kruse’s abortion prior to quickening—the point at which a fetus makes its first noticeable movement, as early as fifteen or sixteen weeks in pregnancy.”​

​

NFBW: Early American murder laws did not assign natural rights to a fetus until it becomes a quick fetus at fifteen or sixteen weeks. There is no person being murdered prior to that.

Why do you say johngaltshrugged that a 12 week fetus has rights superior to any other rights? You have no authority or American legal precedent to declare such a thing. You are not respecting truth.

END2301131617

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HeyNorm230113-#78 HeyNorm “Then those fetal homicide laws are unconstitutional?”

NFBW: Fetal Homicide Laws are absolutely constitutional. I explained it to you already on this thread. please read this time.

HeyNorm222129-#5,940 HeyNorm “So fetal homicide laws are now unconstitutional? That is, after all, your argument, correct?”​

^​

^​

NFBW221129-#5,948 That is not correct. Fetal Homicide Laws are constitutional because the pregnant woman has a right to life and liberty and a pursuit to her own happiness and she and her 1.5 million eggs are protected as written in the Constitution by virtue of her and her DNA laden eggs having passed the stage of human development most universally known as being born. •••• Therefore the right to life passes through her to her newly conceived human being because as a person with ovaries she has between 1 and 2 million eggs at the moment she was born. When one of those eggs become fertilized that egg is still part her body CarsomyrPlusSix until roughly nine months later when a developed child is born. •••• When an egg begets fertilization, known also as conception, and a new pregnancy begins, there becomes two individuals and both are live human beings involved, one is dependent on the body and life of the mother in order to live. •••• It’s a simple concept HeyNorm , when a third party kills the mother and both the fetus and the mother dies the murderer should be charged with double homicide because two human beings actual die. •••• I have made this pretty clear before:​

•​

NFBW221127-#5,866 “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.”​

​

NFBW221129-#5,948 That is all easily understood as true if you ever decide to pay attention strictly to the Constitution.​

​

END2311131720

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm230113-#78 HeyNorm “Then those fetal homicide laws are unconstitutional?”

NFBW: Fetal Homicide Laws are absolutely constitutional. I explained it to you already on this thread. please read this time.

HeyNorm222129-#5,940 HeyNorm “So fetal homicide laws are now unconstitutional? That is, after all, your argument, correct?”​

^​

^​

NFBW221129-#5,948 That is not correct. Fetal Homicide Laws are constitutional because the pregnant woman has a right to life and liberty and a pursuit to her own happiness and she and her 1.5 million eggs are protected as written in the Constitution by virtue of her and her DNA laden eggs having passed the stage of human development most universally known as being born. •••• Therefore the right to life passes through her to her newly conceived human being because as a person with ovaries she has between 1 and 2 million eggs at the moment she was born. When one of those eggs become fertilized that egg is still part her body CarsomyrPlusSix until roughly nine months later when a developed child is born. •••• When an egg begets fertilization, known also as conception, and a new pregnancy begins, there becomes two individuals and both are live human beings involved, one is dependent on the body and life of the mother in order to live. •••• It’s a simple concept HeyNorm , when a third party kills the mother and both the fetus and the mother dies the murderer should be charged with double homicide because two human beings actual die. •••• I have made this pretty clear before:​

•​

NFBW221127-#5,866 “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.”​

​

NFBW221129-#5,948 That is all easily understood as true if you ever decide to pay attention strictly to the Constitution.​

​

END2311131720

And C Sections. The child is not “born” afterall, it is surgically removed. I guess those children are not really children ever, because they are never “born”. Just some subhuman chattel

Damn, it’s fun dehumanizing human beings! Just like the Nazis did!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And C Sections.

NFBW: Birth is birth. I believe every born human being has a date and time of live birth at the moment they take that first breath regardless of method of delivery.

Do you have any truth to your suggestion that live birth babies who are delivered by c-section are not born?

END2301131736

 

[HeyNorm]

NFBW: Birth is birth. I believe every born human being has a date and time of live birth at the moment they take that first breath regardless of method of delivery.

Do you have any truth to your suggestion that live birth babies who are delivered by c-section are not born?

END2301131736

Ok, so a surgical procedure that removed a child from the mother is a “birth” and therefore the child is “born”. So destruction of that child during a c section is not murder? It is simply aborting a clump of cells, right?

How do you sleep at night?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

HeyNorm230113-#6,693 And C Sections. The child is not “born” afterall, it is surgically removed. I guess those children are not really children ever, because they are never “born”. Just some subhuman chattel Damn, it’s fun dehumanizing human beings! Just like the Nazis did!

NFBW: I am on record here that from the moment of conception I agree with @Ding’s science that from the moment of conception there comes into being a new human being that or about the first 22 to 24 weeks is a living human organisms that will continue to develop at the sole discretion of the expectant mother.

I have never attempted to dehumanize a living developing human fetus in my life. You are there for a liar.

NFBW220726-#3,920 My view is abortion is literally ending the development of a living, genetically distinct human organism beholden to the autonomy of the human being who took part in its creation. The donor of the sperm that created this organism has some say when consent is involved, but like that of the mother it’s none of my goddamn business.


END2301131806

 

[HeyNorm]

HeyNorm230113-#6,693 And C Sections. The child is not “born” afterall, it is surgically removed. I guess those children are not really children ever, because they are never “born”. Just some subhuman chattel Damn, it’s fun dehumanizing human beings! Just like the Nazis did!

NFBW: I am on record here that from the moment of conception I agree with @Ding’s science that from the moment of conception there comes into being a new human being that or about the first 22 to 24 weeks is a living human organisms that will continue to develop at the sole discretion of the expectant mother.

I have never attempted to dehumanize a living developing human fetus in my life. You are there for a liar.

NFBW220726-#3,920 My view is abortion is literally ending the development of a living, genetically distinct human organism beholden to the autonomy of the human being who took part in its creation. The donor of the sperm that created this organism has some say when consent is involved, but like that of the mother it’s none of my goddamn business.


END2301131806

But you defend legal abortion or so it appears.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But you defend legal abortion or so it appears.

I defend Secular English Common Law on abortion and oppose the Catholic doctrine of abortion being a sin against a supernatural being being forced upon women when they get pregnant by any government. It is none of my business and if personal moral issues arise if a woman I have no relationship with aborts her child before 22 weeks that is between her and her God or her conscience to work out.

I personally as a man never wanted to put a woman in harms way of getting pregnant and having to make that choice so I got snipped after the birth of my second daughter forty four years ago. That was my choice. Men should respect women more. I don’t Expect the government getting involved in that either. You sick the Governnent on women to impose your morality on them. That is disgusting. I am fine and at peace with God in my pro.choice position along with the majority of Americans who vote.

END2391131945

 

[HeyNorm]

I defend Secular English Common Law on abortion and oppose the Catholic doctrine of abortion being a sin against a supernatural being being forced upon women when they get pregnant by any government. It is none of my business and if personal moral issues arise if a woman I have no relationship with aborts her child before 22 weeks that is between her and her God or her conscience to work out.

I personally as a man never wanted to put a woman in harms way of getting pregnant and having to make that choice so I got snipped after the birth of my second daughter forty four years ago. That was my choice. Men should respect women more. I don’t Expect the government getting involved in that either. You sick the Governnent on women to impose your morality on them. That is disgusting. I am fine and at peace with God in my pro.choice position along with the majority of Americans who vote.

END2391131945

Oh, just another opposed because you think anyone who sees this as the ultimate barbarism, must be doing so because of religion.

Well, meet me!

Defending the killing of the most innocent of the innocent doesn’t make you smart, it makes you villainous.

And this, it’s none of my business crap?

Someone putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger is none of mine as well, but I want our government to hunt the SOB down and put the animal down.

So cut this crap.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

beagle9221124-#5,776 beagle9 It's best to be civilized instead of becoming barbarian's in this life. The left has become barbaric.

NFBW: After 5000 years of Hinduism beagle9 wherein the “fetus is not developing into a person but, rather, is already a person in the moment of conception” (Harold Coward and Tejinder Sidhu, Hindu and Sikh Bioethics). - do you see the parts of the world where Hinduism flourished as producing a greatest civilization than Catholic dominated Europe has produced?????

Abortion rights have no impact for or against civilization.


END2301132033.






A Hindu View On Abortion