Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[BackAgain]

nf.23.08.11 #10,204 Human individual rights are either God-given or inalienable natural rights which are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws.) •••• None of us being protected on US soil can expect to forfeit our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by any actions unless we violate someone else's rights.

Do you disagree?


nf.23.08.11 #10,220

What?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What?

bckvgn.23.03.09 #7,495 C But on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line as you suggest?

Birth is the line between dependent life and independent life due to physiological and neurological development sufficient to be separated from its birth mother. •••• The right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness applies to mature independent individuals and every one of their offspring from the exact moment of birth which is complete separation from their birth mother.

nf.23.08.11 #10,222

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

bckvgn.23.03.09 #7,495 C But on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line as you suggest?

Transition from dependent life to independent life at FIRST BREATH and cutting of the cord {note hadit } ends the contest between the woman’s right of bodily control vs the fetus’ right to life. That fact is not possible to dispute.

A dependent being such as a fetus in it’s early stages of gestation does not have a superseding right to significant and lengthy use of an independent being’s body, specifically when that use of another person’s body has potential to deprive her of her right to life on chance of maternal death from complications during childbirth.

bckvgn.23.03.09 #7,495
nf.23.08.12 #10,223

 

[hadit]

bckvgn.23.03.09 #7,495 C But on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line as you suggest?

Transition from dependent life to independent life at FIRST BREATH and cutting of the cord {note hadit } ends the contest between the woman’s right of bodily control vs the fetus’ right to life. That fact is not possible to dispute.

A dependent being such as a fetus in it’s early stages of gestation does not have a superseding right to significant and lengthy use of an independent being’s body, specifically when that use of another person’s body has potential to deprive her of her right to life on chance of maternal death from complications during childbirth.

bckvgn.23.03.09 #7,495
nf.23.08.12 #10,223

Yet if someone kills a baby that has been delivered but before the cord is cut, are they not charged with murder?

 

[BackAgain]

bckvgn.23.03.09 #7,495 C But on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line as you suggest?

Birth is the line between dependent life and independent life due to physiological and neurological development sufficient to be separated from its birth mother. •••• The right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness applies to mature independent individuals and every one of their offspring from the exact moment of birth which is complete separation from their birth mother.

nf.23.08.11 #10,222

Aside from the fact that you’re full of shit, your definition is both faulty and irrational as well as arbitrary. Life begins when life begins. That is conception.

It is easy, but false, to insist that life begins at birth based on the fact that the life is this an independent life. It isn’t even true. That life is still utterly dependent on others.

Life proceeds in a variety of stages. Selecting one of them, like birth, or like a certain “trimester” is arbitrary. But once born, is just one of the stages. Why not when teeth first come in? Why not when puberty comes about? Etc.

None of those developmental landmarks alter the fact (one to which you have previously agreed) that life begins at conception.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yet if someone kills a baby that has been delivered but before the cord is cut, are they not charged with murder?

That’s a case by case question but if the baby is healthy and the mother went through 8 months of hell just to decide to kill the baby at the last hour and have a doctor do it then yes murder charges against the mother and her doctor should be charged with murder absolutely.

The Republican Christian right fiercely believe that the life created at conception overrules most everything else including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the female gender individual who must lend her body to be used in the creation and sustaining of a new life.

Ohio issue one caused $50 million to be spent to defend the rights of the woman from those that believe pregnancy rewires mandatory forfeiture of a right to liberty to chi use protection from harm to her body and loss of her life herself.

Why are you dragging us into an imaginary murderous event in the delivery room, where a woman decides to casually kill her baby when it takes its first breath for no reason.

I have no concerns that stopping fanatical Republicans from forcing full term gestation on innocent women leads to any women or doctors casually killing newborn babies for no reason whatsoever as where your propaganda fantasies have taken you.

Giving women who are in unwanted pregnancies, a 24 week window to get an elective abortion was RvW. Women and Doctors self regulated the past 50 years by getting the vast majority of elective abortions over with well before 16 weeks.

But since Dobbs Then Kansas, Then Wisconsin. Then Ohio the non-fanatical Christian republicans are not standing by. The belief that life created at conception over rules the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of a pregnant woman.

Are you willing to discuss this switch in emphasis of the republican party? That is where you as a citizen of this country are cruel and wrong - voting for them on life.

hvdvt.23.08.12 #10,224

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It is easy, but false, to insist that life begins at birth based on the fact that the life is this an independent life. It isn’t even true. That life is still utterly dependent on others.

That life is not dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra and anus.

I watched our eight week young granddaughter all night last night and not once did she require me hooking up a tube to transfer all those biological and neurological functions to keep her alive.

She took her bottle with some formula and we changed her diapers. She did all that eating and pooping, breathing even smoking independently on her own.

Mom and dad were home catching some well deserved rest.

Most importantly, as I have always said, when a newborn baby takes its first breath, it is no longer a part of its mother’s neurological system, and consciousness.

He or she have their own brain activity in a now closed circuit neurological system, and separate consciousness when all the temporary shunts involved open, close or disappear coinciding with a newborn baby’s very first breath.

bckvgn.23.08.12 #10,225
nf.23.08.12 #10,227

 

[BackAgain]

That life is not dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra and anus.

I watched our eight week young granddaughter all night last night and not once did she require me hooking up a tube to transfer all those biological and neurological functions to keep her alive.

She took her bottle with some formula and we changed her diapers. She did all that eating and pooping, breathing even smoking independently on her own.

Mom and dad were home catching some well deserved rest.

Most importantly, as I have always said, when a newborn baby takes its first breath, it is no longer a part of its mother’s neurological system, and consciousness.

He or she have their own brain activity in a now closed circuit neurological system, and separate consciousness when all the temporary shunts involved open, close or disappear coinciding with a newborn baby’s very first breath.

bckvgn.23.08.12 #10,225
nf.23.08.12 #10,227

You’re still being arbitrary and simply repeating your desired conclusion as premises (and are then pleased with yourself that you can deduce your conclusion).

eieio

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That life is not dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra and anus

You’re still being arbitrary and simply repeating your desired conclusion as premises (and are then pleased with yourself that you can deduce your conclusion).

What are you saying?

Is there a false deduced conclusion that I have derived from an irrefutable set of facts?

I agree with the deduced conclusion from the following facts that the transition from the fetal to neonatal blood circulation enables independent life of every surviving newborn human being.

The Transitional Heart: From Early Embryonic and Fetal Development to Neonatal Life - PubMed 221121^heart​

​

The transition from the fetal to neonatal circulation is considered to be a period of intricate physiological, anatomical, and biochemical changes in the cardiovascular system. With a successful cardiopulmonary transition to the extrauterine environment, the fetal shunts are functionally modified or eliminated, enabling independent life.​

Now if you or any of the “Saving Baby Fetus Cult” BackAgain wish to dispute those facts that lead to a conclusion that the transition from the fetal to neonatal circulation following first breaths of life leads to a new human being’s end of dependence on his/her birth mother to sustain life, please have at it. Make my Day.

bckvgn.23.08.12 #10,228
nf.23.08.12 #10,229

 

[hadit]

That’s a case by case question but if the baby is healthy and the mother went through 8 months of hell just to decide to kill the baby at the last hour and have a doctor do it then yes murder charges against the mother and her doctor should be charged with murder absolutely.

The Republican Christian right fiercely believe that the life created at conception overrules most everything else including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the female gender individual who must lend her body to be used in the creation and sustaining of a new life.

Ohio issue one caused $50 million to be spent to defend the rights of the woman from those that believe pregnancy rewires mandatory forfeiture of a right to liberty to chi use protection from harm to her body and loss of her life herself.

Why are you dragging us into an imaginary murderous event in the delivery room, where a woman decides to casually kill her baby when it takes its first breath for no reason.

I have no concerns that stopping fanatical Republicans from forcing full term gestation on innocent women leads to any women or doctors casually killing newborn babies for no reason whatsoever as where your propaganda fantasies have taken you.

Giving women who are in unwanted pregnancies, a 24 week window to get an elective abortion was RvW. Women and Doctors self regulated the past 50 years by getting the vast majority of elective abortions over with well before 16 weeks.

But since Dobbs Then Kansas, Then Wisconsin. Then Ohio the non-fanatical Christian republicans are not standing by. The belief that life created at conception over rules the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of a pregnant woman.

Are you willing to discuss this switch in emphasis of the republican party? That is where you as a citizen of this country are cruel and wrong - voting for them on life.

hvdvt.23.08.12 #10,224

You do understand, don't you, that current law forces the father to give up his reproductive freedom and the mother can either deny him fatherhood or force him into financial servitude for the next 18 years, right?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

T or F BackAgain : Is an unborn’s life dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra and anus and neurological system with consciousness?

T or F BackAgain : is a newborn’s life dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra and anus and neurological system with consciousness?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You do understand, don't you, that current law forces the father to give up his reproductive freedom and the mother can either deny him fatherhood or force him into financial servitude for the next 18 years, right?

Of course. What is the point.

When a male dies during childbirth Let me know, since we are talking about forfeiture of right to life being mandated by the government when it forces gestation on a female not the male in a consensual sexual relationship matter that has obviously gone awry and the female had no intention to become pregnant.

 

[BackAgain]

What are you saying?

Is there a false deduced conclusion that I have derived from this irrefutable set of facts?

Your conclusion is your premise. It’s kind of hard not to derive your conclusion when it is your own major premise.

T or F BackAgain : Is an unborn’s life dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra and anus and neurological system with consciousness?

To some extent and by diminishing levels at a certain point in its development. Yes.

T or F BackAgain : is a newborn’s life dependent on another person’s brain, heart, lungs, mouth, stomach intestines, kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra and anus and neurological system with consciousness?

Same question. Same answer. And the result is the same. No relevance to the actual discussion. Your point is pointless.

If a preborn human life is to a great extent dependent on its mom, it is still a human life. And the fact that a post birth human life is dependent to a great extent on its mom (and others) is actually proof that the former is irrelevant.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Your conclusion is your premise.

Birth ends the contest!

Regardless! Where Is there a false deduced conclusion that I have derived from this irrefutable set of facts?

The transition from the fetal to neonatal circulation is considered to be a period of intricate physiological, anatomical, and biochemical changes in the cardiovascular system. With a successful cardiopulmonary transition to the extrauterine environment, the fetal shunts are functionally modified or eliminated, enabling independent life.​

​

It’s not a premise. It’s the answer to your question as recorded in the following exchange:

You asked:

bckvgn.23.03.09 #7,495 C But on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line as you suggest?​

I answered:

Transition from dependent life to independent life at FIRST BREATH and cutting off the cord {note hadit } ends the contest between the woman’s right of bodily control vs the fetus’ right to life.​

​

My answer to the specific question on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line about when the “right” to terminate that life can be drawn is because the transition from the fetal to neonatal circulation is a moment that ends the contest between the woman’s right of bodily control vs the fetus’ right to life.

There is no other moment on the human lifespan continuum that once it happens the contest between woman and fetus is over.

bckvgn.23.08.12 #10,233
nf.23.08.12 #10,234

 

[BackAgain]

Birth ends the contest!

Regardless! Where Is there a false deduced conclusion that I have derived from this irrefutable set of facts?

The transition from the fetal to neonatal circulation is considered to be a period of intricate physiological, anatomical, and biochemical changes in the cardiovascular system. With a successful cardiopulmonary transition to the extrauterine environment, the fetal shunts are functionally modified or eliminated, enabling independent life.​

​

It’s not a premise. It’s the answer to your question as recorded in the following exchange:

You asked:

bckvgn.23.03.09 #7,495 C But on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line as you suggest?​

I answered:

Transition from dependent life to independent life at FIRST BREATH and cutting off the cord {note hadit } ends the contest between the woman’s right of bodily control vs the fetus’ right to life.​

​

My answer to the specific question on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line about when the “right” to terminate that life can be drawn is because the transition from the fetal to neonatal circulation is a moment that ends the contest between the woman’s right of bodily control vs the fetus’ right to life.

There is no other moment on the human lifespan continuum that once it happens the contest between woman and fetus is over.

bckvgn.23.08.12 #10,233
nf.23.08.12 #10,234

Once again you posit your conclusion as your major premise.

And you consider yourself clever for then “concluding” your premise.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Once again you posit your conclusion as your major premise.

Explain what you mean in the context of the end of the contest of rights between a fetus and the woman who gave it life at conception. You are avoiding any reference to contest of rights and that is the meat of this Dobbs Republican fiasco discussion as it fits into the Constitution.

bckvgn.23.08.12 #10,236
nf.23.08.12 #10,236

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And you consider yourself clever

Do you assert there is no contest of a right to life between a woman and her fetus?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

bckvgn.23.03.09 #7,495 C But on what basis should “birth” be the dividing line as you suggest?

I answered:

Transition from dependent life to independent life at FIRST BREATH and cutting off the cord {note hadit } ends the contest between the woman’s right of bodily control vs the fetus’ right to life.

What is false or not true about my answer BackAgain ?

Why do you ask questions if you won’t consider or refute the answer?

bckvgn.23.08.12 #7,495
nf.23.08.12 #10,238

 

[beagle9]

kids just called. They’re bringing the baby over to spend the night. Tomorrow we celebrate her second month of birthday. Do you know the day she went from being dependent to independent.

Isn’t it amazing this newly born independent little girl can spend the night at grandma and grandpa’s house and let mom and dad have a little piece and quiet. Got a run for now.

Just be glad that your daughter wasn't a promiscuous woman that ended up aborting the child because she just figured that she couldn't or wouldn't own up to her responsibilities in concerns of the consequences of her actions.

Making it a little bit more difficult in order to slow down the trends going on today, otherwise within the abortion pregnancies out of wedlock stages, ummmmm is really a good thing. You should stand down.

Enjoy your time with your grandchild.

 

[beagle9]

Aside from the fact that you’re full of shit, your definition is both faulty and irrational as well as arbitrary. Life begins when life begins. That is conception.

It is easy, but false, to insist that life begins at birth based on the fact that the life is this an independent life. It isn’t even true. That life is still utterly dependent on others.

Life proceeds in a variety of stages. Selecting one of them, like birth, or like a certain “trimester” is arbitrary. But once born, is just one of the stages. Why not when teeth first come in? Why not when puberty comes about? Etc.

None of those developmental landmarks alter the fact (one to which you have previously agreed) that life begins at conception.

In the past that unborn baby could be disposed of because it's out of sight to other's, but then ultrasound comes along and probably saved thousands of would be aborted babies when that technology came along ...... It showed a baby at a certain stage with fingers and toes etc, otherwise it showed a precious baby in the womb kicking and teaming with life........Think about all the crimes committed under cover of darkness, and just add this one in as well until the light was shined upon it.