Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[beagle9]

The Conversation March 03, 2023​

Americans’ belief in God hit an all-time low about 6 months ago — here's why •••• According to a 2022 Gallup survey, the percentage of people who believe in God has dropped from 98% in the 1950s to 81% today; among Americans under 30, it is down to an unprecedented 68%. ​

Americans’ belief in God hit an all-time low about 6 months ago — here's why 230303^aa<​

​

NFBW: You are losing the young higher educated adults because Trump’s low educated old farts are not civilized as we saw on January 6 and don’t give a damn about democracy when the losers didn’t get their way.

END2303061802

No one's losing, uhh except for those who are following the left straight to hell with gasoline drawers on...... Check in time is from now to eternity..

 

[beagle9]

I think that notfooledbyW feels like he's some kind of celebrity or wanta be intellectual, but he misses the landing by miles.. lol

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I think that notfooledbyW feels like he's some kind of celebrity or wanta be intellectual, but he misses the landing by miles.. lol

5 Women Denied Lifesaving Abortions Sue Texas Over Its 6-Week Ban​

One plaintiff developed sepsis after being denied an abortion and has suffered permanent damage to her reproductive organs.
By
Lydia O'Connor
Mar 7, 2023, 06:46 PM


ITS ON YOU for voting for Trump and a six Catholic Supreme li Court

One of the most harrowing accounts in the lawsuit comes from 35-year-old Zurawski, an Austin woman who was nearly 18 weeks pregnant last August when her doctor diagnosed her with an “incompetent cervix,” meaning the organ had prematurely dilated and there was no possibility of her pregnancy resulting in a viable baby.​

Amanda Zurawski, one of the plaintiffs, speaks outside the Texas Capitol on Tuesday.
SUZANNE CORDEIRO VIA GETTY IMAGES

Those complications began to make her sick, but because she was still stable and the fetus had a heartbeat, the hospital told her the Texas ban meant there was nothing her doctors could do except wait for her to go into labor. Because there was a possibility she could deliver in the coming hours, doctors told her to stay within 15 minutes of the hospital ― eliminating the option of traveling out of state for an abortion.

On her way home from a check-up with her obstetrician days later, Zurawski “developed chills and started shivering, and by the time she got home, she had a temperature of 101 degrees and was not responding to her husband’s questions — all signs of sepsis,” the lawsuit lays out.
It wasn’t until doctors confirmed she was septic ― a life-threatening reaction in the bloodstream to an infection ― that the hospital agreed to induce labor on a baby that would die shortly after birth.
Her infection persisted, landing her in the intensive care unit and causing severe scar tissue to develop in her uterus and fallopian tubes. One of her fallopian tubes remains closed and non-functional. Because of the damage to her reproductive organs, her doctors have told her she will likely have to attempt in vitro fertilization to become pregnant again ― a process that’s often invasive, expensive and unsuccessful.​

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It's a mistake to live in the past instead of the present.

NFBW: Says the arrogant one trying to spit shine the organized religion brand associated with the violence, terror and oppression of the past to one in the present who is culturally associated with the oppressed victims of white expansionist Christianity to the New World from Europe and it’s divine monarchical Christian system of behavior control for mass humanity.

ding230308-#193 • Really? When did that happen? And who specifically did that?

Hellbilly230308-#199 • I went to Catholic school. They tried to cram god down our throats. Did you know that boarding schools for Indians were in existence until the mid 1970's?

MeriW230308-#195 • It appears you had to go back a couple of centuries to find an example of Christianity being "shoved down our throats".

ding230308-#200 • Who - specifically - has done that to you? And please don't say Christians. I want you to tell me how someone shoved it down your throat because I don't think it actually happened in reality. I think that you are exaggerating.

Hellbilly230308-#201 • Wrong. It happened to me when I was a child

NFBW: It happened to most of us when we were children during the 1950’s But most Catholics back then were not like ding and Meriweather behaving now as evangelizing Republican Party Cultural Warriors instead of just trying to be good Christians. Despite the past white superiority based Protestant English colonization and white Catholic Spanish colonization against the original owners of the vast lands of the New World - there are plenty of good Christians in America. Christians who do not feel the need to force there religion on everyone else by packing the Supreme Court with Catholic Justices and denying pregnant women the right to make the decision with reasonable limitations to assume the risk of giving birth when a pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted.

Hellbilly230308-#204 {see} Post #199

ding230308-#208 • And so now you lump every Christian into that group?

NFBW: Thus, #ding twists it into Christian’s being the victim.

Hellbilly230308-#211 • I see no reason to trust Christians.

ding230308-#208 • That would be like punishing every native American for the bad acts of a few.

NFBW: You have every reason in the world not to trust white culture warrior Christian’s like #ding who think it’s ok to take away human rights that Christians do not approve by putting it to a vote where white Christian majorities happen to prevail.

Hellbilly230308-#211 • Tell me what we did to deserve the wrath of the white man. What crime did we commit to draw a penalty of the attempted elimination of our culture?

NFBW: Eve Committed the crime and you have only one way to atone for it - ding and Meriweather ’s way.

I am not a Christian but I ask you to make a distinction between good Christians and bad ones - more than half of Catholics are good Christians and Joe Biden is one of them. In my opinion the best Christian’s you should be able to look up to are those of the black churches that produced MLK. they are the greatest political opposition to Republican culture war and threats to our democracy because of the history and development of black culture in America - they have a lot in common with Native American culture.

You are not mistaken Hellbilly . It’s a necessary conversation to be had.

END2303081158

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

^

As if Brandon needed anymore reason to be told to Go, there you have it, an endorsement of his piety and goodness from a pile of dogshit masquerading as a human

 

[Redfish]

BluesMan230228-#361 to: -1 • I do not. That unborn fetus is attached to the body of a woman. The woman has the absolute authority to sever that attachment.

Redfish230228-#362 • that is clearly your OPINION. and nothing more, that is what you believe. Not everyone believes as you do, so why not put it to a vote of the citizens of the country in a national referendum or state by state if you prefer? What is the objection to letting the people decide?

NFBW: When I vote I as a human being I consciously have decided to give my consent to be governed because I live in a system where my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is protected as long as i do no harm to other persons right to same. .

That protection of rights prevents the Governnent from causing or committing harm to my body and property without cause.

My freedoms include freedom of conscience which as a rational theist I have decided that I have no right to decide that I can force a woman unbeknownst to me to take the risk of harm to herself by carrying a baby to full term in an unwanted pregnancy.

The idea that every American with overtly biased religious or politically ideological concepts of when a fetus with no brain or consciousness of self has a right
to physically emotionally and painfully harm and perhaps kill the fellow citizen person under a government forced birth situation is already about as absurd and cruel as it gets.,

But to see your suggestion Redfish that voters can decide a matter of conscience that could ultimately be a death sentence to a woman for being born with organs that men don’t have is cruel, gruesome diabolical unjust unfair and absolutely unAmerican.

You shouid be ashamed.

END2303261147

yes, women are different from men, viva la difference! but that has nothing to do with whether abortion should be put to a national or state by state referendum. Why do you fear the vote? you claim that your opinion is the majority opinion, do you have doubts about that?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

yes, women are different from men, viva la difference!

Do you know of any man dying due to giving birth to a baby. Since it’s no, why do you as a man get to vote to force a woman to risk death if she does not want to.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

MeriW230308-#195 • It appears you had to go back a couple of centuries to find an example of Christianity being "shoved down our throats".

NFBW: We only have to go back to yesterday to find an example of extremist white nationalist Christianity being shoved down an American woman’s throat in Texas.

35-year-old {Amanda} Zurawski, an Austin woman who was nearly 18 weeks pregnant last August when her doctor diagnosed her with an “incompetent cervix,” meaning the organ had prematurely dilated and there was no possibility of her pregnancy resulting in a viable baby.​

Amanda Zurawski, one of the plaintiffs, speaks outside the Texas Capitol on Tuesday. SUZANNE CORDEIRO VIA GETTY IMAGES​

~~~~​

Those complications began to make her sick, but because she was still stable and the fetus had a heartbeat, the hospital told her the Texas ban meant there was nothing her doctors could do except wait for her to go into labor. Because there was a possibility she could deliver in the coming hours, doctors told her to stay within 15 minutes of the hospital ― eliminating the option of traveling out of state for an abortion. •••• On her way home from a check-up with her obstetrician days later, Zurawski “developed chills and started shivering, and by the time she got home, she had a temperature of 101 degrees and was not responding to her husband’s questions — all signs of sepsis,” the lawsuit lays out.​

It wasn’t until doctors confirmed she was septic ― a life-threatening reaction in the bloodstream to an infection ― that the hospital agreed to induce labor on a baby that would die shortly after birth. •••• Her infection persisted, landing her in the intensive care unit and causing severe scar tissue to develop in her uterus and fallopian tubes. One of her fallopian tubes remains closed and non-functional. Because of the damage to her reproductive organs, her doctors have told her she will likely have to attempt in vitro fertilization to become pregnant again ― a process that’s often invasive, expensive and unsuccessful.​

​

NFBW: Yes, white extremist Christian’s like Meriweather and ding have caused severe scar tissue to develop in Amanda Zurawski’s uterus and fallopian tubes. Both are aided and abetted by a moral authoritarian atheist CarsomyrPlusSix - none of those three will weigh in on the suffering their political ideology actually causes.

ding will argue Texas legislators were just following science not religion;

ding220725-#3,867 Legislators are free to decide anything they want. I'm just stating the science that is taught in every embryology textbook.​

​

We should all be calling bullshit on that. Science would have saved Amanda’s uterus. White Christian extremism in Texas scarred it.

END2303082224

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NotfooledbyW

Why do you fear the vote?

NFBW: We all should fear mobocracy where the religious mob can decide based on pure emotion and political enmity that they have the answer to when protected life begins and a brainless fetus therefore must subvert the natural right of a pregnant woman to have full autonomy over her own body.

No human being or mob or group thereof can say when a state or society should recognize the existence of life when inside the womb as equal in rights that are established for the mother of that life.

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [410 U.S. 113, 161] the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. 62​

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth.​

​

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. • 230309^​

​

END2303090639

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BackAgain230305-#7,461 Also, the definition of a “person” doesn’t control in a discussion about the right to life. The question which does control is “when does life begin?”

NFBW: The question is when does the right to life of a fetus begin.

230309^b> Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160] FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. • 230309^b<​

NFBW: Why must we accept Catholic doctrine BackAgain that conception is the definitive moment that life begins when those trained in the respective disciplines of science, medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus for thousands of years when protected life begins.

 

[Redfish]

Do you know of any man dying due to giving birth to a baby. Since it’s no, why do you as a man get to vote to force a woman to risk death if she does not want to.

virtually everyone supports abortion to save the life of the mother, that is not on the table of debate.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Mashmont230309-#388 Abortion is first and foremost about taking the life of a living developing human being.

NFBW: That is correct Mashmont when you distinguish that the taking of a developing human being’s life during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy is not murder/homicide because at that early stage of development in the womb the fetus cannot be conscious of self because it does not have brain development sufficient to produce thoughts. So what is your point Mashmont? You really are not making any point at all by stating an obvious reality.

END2303090909

 

[Redfish]

Mashmont230309-#388 Abortion is first and foremost about taking the life of a living developing human being.

NFBW: That is correct Mashmont when you distinguish that the taking of a developing human being’s life during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy is not murder/homicide because at that early stage of development in the womb the fetus cannot be conscious of self because it does not have brain development sufficient to produce thoughts. So what is your point Mashmont? You really are not making any point at all by stating an obvious reality.

END2303090909

hmmm, then why do the laws of every state call for two counts of murder if a pregnant woman is killed? Those laws make no mention of the months that the pregnancy has existed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

hmmm, then why do the laws of every state call for two counts of murder if a pregnant woman is killed? Those laws make no mention of the months that the pregnancy has existed.

NFBW: Because it is a pregnant woman’s body and her decision to terminate her pregnancy because she may not wish to assume the risk to her physical well being that going to full term and giving birth will entail. An outside party has no right to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy and thus a fetus that can cause no harm to said outside Party.


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. •••• 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 if 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.

END2303091124

 

[BackAgain]

BackAgain230305-#7,461 Also, the definition of a “person” doesn’t control in a discussion about the right to life. The question which does control is “when does life begin?”

NFBW: The question is when does the right to life of a fetus begin.

230309^b> Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160] FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. • 230309^b<​

NFBW: Why must we accept Catholic doctrine BackAgain that conception is the definitive moment that life begins when those trained in the respective disciplines of science, medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus for thousands of years when protected life begins.

Your inability to use the quote function impedes the clarity of your posts.

Life begins at conception. This is a scientific fact. Ergo the right to life has to begin then. I’ll even deign to tell you why:

If you (or any advocate of abortion “rights” [sic]) thinks you can draw an arbitrary line about when the “right” to terminate that life can be drawn, then some people say it’s at “birth.” Others say it is at the end of the first trimester. Still others contend that it’s ok to simply elect to put the baby on a table, keep it comfortable after a “failed abortion,” but deny it food or hydration until it naturally dies.

But on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line as you suggest? Why not measure it by some other arbitrary dividing line? Maybe it’s right to life is when it is a FULLY developed human such as Baby Teeth? Puberty? Adult teeth?

Logically, the “right” to life begins when life itself begins AT Conception.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Life begins at conception.

Yes it does - I’ve known that my entire life.

Logically, the “right” to life begins when life itself begins at Conception.

NFBW: That logic does not account for the most important factor. Every woman who has been born, has a right to life do you agree? Has there ever been one occasion where a woman died while giving birth to a child; if yes, proceed to the next tier of logic by asking yourself this very important question. Does a pregnant woman’s right to life supersede the right to life of a living human organism specifically before a time in the development of that said living human organism in which it has not developed a brain?

END2303091159

 

[BackAgain]

Yes it does - I’ve known that my entire life.

NFBW: That logic does not account for the most important factor. Every woman who has been born, has a right to life do you agree? Has there ever been one occasion where a woman died while giving birth to a child; if yes, proceed to the next tier of logic by asking yourself this very important question. Does a pregnant woman’s right to life supersede the right to life of a living human organism specifically before a time in the development of that said living human organism in which it has not developed a brain?

END2303091159

Congrats on using the quote function. It serves well to make your posts more readable. Further, congrats on knowing that life begins at conception. Some people on your side of the discussion can’t quite accept even that much.

Your argument entirely misses the point. Of course the mother has a right to life. And yes, pregnancy and/or giving birth has sometimes causes death to the mother.

Accordingly, in cases where such a risk is present, I don’t dispute that a woman should have the right to have an abortion. Hell, I even acknowledge that other considerations might make an abortion a reasonable option.

But to try to take those exceptions and generalize them into the “rule” whereby any pregnant woman should have a “right” to terminate another life is an absurdity. Abortion ends lives. If we truly believe that there is a right to life, then it is baseless to say that any woman for any reason or for no reason at all should be granted some fictions “right” to terminate a human life.

We’ve been living in a society where the “right” to terminate a life is approved-of merely because pregnancy is an “inconvenience.” It’s difficult to accept any argument which supports that extreme disregard for the right to life.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Your argument entirely misses the point. Of course the mother has a right to life. And yes, pregnancy and/or giving birth has sometimes causes death to the mother.

NFBW: You said right there that a pregnant woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy, has a right to life. And you do realize that she is of the sex that has the reproductive organs required to give birth and that she may die whenever she gets pregnant because of the pregnancy. Then your logic takes you to a point where she doesn’t have a right to life if she chooses not to assume the risk of pregnancy when she does so earlier than a point when a fetus has a brain.

I oppose your fallacies in that you and society, as a whole, has a duty to protect a human being who has never had a brain and a conscious thought. The reality is what separates humans from animals is having a brain capable of self consciousness and exchanging thoughts with other human beings.

You’re cause is not based on science or facts or reason, it is based on emotion, and we humans as a civilized people do not need mass hysteria based on emotion to be justification for depriving any other human being who imposes no harm or threat to others, life, limb , or property, of their life and their rights, freedom and liberty and to live according to the dictates of their on conscience.

You may not be a Catholic yourself, but you are pushing Catholic doctrine on everyone else and trying to claim it is based on science, which is another one of your huge fallacies.

Why do you think you can make the decision for a woman having an unwanted pregnancy if she makes a decision to terminate it prior to 20 weeks gestation? Why do you think you’re qualified and have the authority to impose your morals on someone else when they are absolutely zero harm to you and your property?

END2303091341

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: You said right there that a pregnant woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy, has a right to life.

I know. I was here when I wrote it. And?

And you do realize that she is of the sex that has the reproductive organs required to give birth and that she may die whenever she gets pregnant because of the pregnancy.

I, of course, recognize that it is the female of the species who has the capacity to get pregnant. Yes. I also noted that it is sometimes true that a pregnant woman or a woman in the process of giving birth will die. Why do you persist in telling me what I already said?

Then your logic takes you to a point where she doesn’t have a right to life if she chooses not to assume the risk of pregnancy when she does so earlier than a point when a fetus has a brain.

Not what I said and not what logic leads to.

I oppose your fallacies

I haven’t offered any fallacies.

in that you and society, as a whole, has a duty to protect a human being who has never had a brain and a conscious thought.

You’re allowed to take that position. That you do so doesn’t make it reasonable, accurate or justified.

The reality is what separates humans from animals is having a brain capable of self consciousness and exchanging thoughts with other human beings.

Is that “the reality?” Or is not merely a self serving premise (and an unconfirmed one at that)?

You’re cause is not based on science or facts or reason, it is based on emotion,

False. My position is based on science and logic. If we value the right to life, and we know life begins at conception, then life should be protected (where it doesn’t pose a risk to the life or health of the mother) from that point on.

and we humans as a civilized people do not need mass hysteria based on emotion to be justification for depriving any other human being imposes no harm or threat to others, life, lamb, or property of their rights, freedom and liberty.

Other than the insertion of the inflammatory nonsensical lingo about hysteria, I generally agree with the basic thrust of that assertion. I don’t contend that we should ban abortions universally. I admit if exceptions (even a few which are maybe too flexible to be consistent with pure logic).

You may not be a Catholic yourself, but you are pushing Catholic doctrine on everyone else

False.

and trying to claim it is based on science, which is another one of your huge fallacies.

It is based on science. Science says life begins at conception. And, I have not posted or offered even one fallacy (huge or otherwise).

Why do you think you can make the decision for a woman having an unwanted pregnancy if she makes a decision to terminate it prior to 20 weeks gestation?

Why do you assume that a life doesn’t deserve protection at 20 weeks?

Why do you think you’re qualified and have the authority to impose your morals on someone else

I don’t. And that argument is your fallacy. I don’t impose (or even seek to impose) my morality on a person when I help pass a law or defend a law which prohibits murder (for example). It may impact your freedom of movement. But it defends another person’s life. If you deem that an “imposition,” you’re wrong; but even if you were right, tough luck.

when they are absolutely zero harm to you and your property?

They are a harm to another life.

END2303091341

That little numbered tagline clutters your posts.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BackAgain230309-#7,499 “I also noted in that it is sometimes true that a pregnant woman or a woman in the process of giving birth will die@​

I also noted that it is sometimes true that a pregnant woman or a woman in the process of giving birth will die.

NFBW: You acknowledgment there is potential harm every woman faces when she finds out that she is pregnant. When you have no knowledge of and no relationship with a pregnant woman, is there potential harm to you in any way as a result of her being pregnant? END2303081817