# Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!



## BackAgain

Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Sean Hannity is reporting the same thing. 

Thank God. Nowhere in the constitution does it make abortion legal. This should be up to the states.


----------



## Nostra

Can't wait to watch heads explode (and not babies) if this comes to fruition.









						Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
					

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.




					www.politico.com


----------



## TemplarKormac

Crap,  beat me to it. 

Abortion can be strictly regulated by the states now. Perfect.


----------



## TemplarKormac

airplanemechanic said:


> Sean Hannity is reporting the same thing.
> 
> Thank God. Nowhere in the constitution does it make abortion legal. This should be up to the states.


Refer to the 10th Amendment.


----------



## hjmick

Thus welcoming in the era of Abortion Vacations...


----------



## task0778

IMHO, the original Row v Wade was judicial activism in the 1st place, and I suppose until Congress passes abortion legislation of some kind it will primarily be up to the states to set their own laws.


----------



## Flash

That is great news if true.


----------



## TemplarKormac

It is clear that the constitution doesn't enumerate any power of the government to regulate abortion. 

Very accurate reading of the constitution.


----------



## Oddball

When lifer lefty lawyer Alan Dersh sez Roe is bad law, it's really bad law.


----------



## Dragonlady

Flash said:


> That is great news if true.



For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.  

This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.  

Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


----------



## Nostra

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


For some unknown reason you think all women support killing babies.  They don't , Dumbass.


----------



## night_son

Nostra said:


> Can't wait to watch heads explode (and not babies) if this comes to fruition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
> 
> 
> “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com



Good news, however, proponents of mass child sacrifice will do anything to maintain status quo. If this looks certain to pass expect political terrorism of the degree we've never before witnessed domestically. Further, if 'armies' of pro-death abortion fanatics choose this as their hill to fight and die on I say we accommodate them.


----------



## eagle7-31

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


Hey genius. Abortion will not be banned, just a matter for states, but left wing liars will  act like its the end of the world.


----------



## night_son

Nostra said:


> For some unknown reason you think all women support killing babies.  They don't , Dumbass.



Normal (and I mean that in every sense of the word) human beings do not condone the mass murder of unborn children. However, moments of extreme selfishness and permissive laws have unfortunately allowed otherwise normal would-be mothers to take a one-way ride on the child sacrifice train.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.



   How about you mind your own business?
As far as who benefits goes, that you have to ask is morbid to the extreme.


----------



## ColonelAngus

The fact that blue state assholes in NY and CA give a shit about what other states do with their laws shows what absolute Nazis they are.

You blue state fascists can suck it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Beware,  this is not an official opinion.  This is a first draft. It is not indicative of an opinion one way or another.  

Reference John Roberts and his decision on Obamacare


----------



## Clipper

Nostra said:


> For some unknown reason you think all women support killing babies.  They don't , Dumbass.


The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.

And millions of them vote.


----------



## night_son

ColonelAngus said:


> The fact that blue state assholes in NY and CA give a shit about what other states do with their laws shows what absolute Nazis they are.
> 
> You blue state fascists can suck it.



Seems like pro-abortion fuckers have daily and annual quotas of babies to murder, so yeah—it matters to them what other states do and do not allow; got to get them dead baby numbers up . . .


----------



## eagle7-31

Clipper said:


> The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.
> 
> And millions of them vote.


And nothing is changing if this report is true. Its just going to the states, but left wing liars won't tell the truth.


----------



## Nostra

Clipper said:


> The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.
> 
> And millions of them vote.


How does your post negate mine, Dipshit?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Minds can change too. Prepare yourselves for potential disappointment.


----------



## night_son

Clipper said:


> The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.
> 
> And millions of them vote.



A developing child is not *their body*, jackass.


----------



## task0778

Dragonlady said:


> This will be the end of Republicans. Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected? This will be puppy shit in comparison. Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.



It's going to be an election issue alright, I don't think the democrats have anything else to run on.  I suspect that the women who will be incensed about this (if it happens) will be the same women who were going to vote for the democrats anyway.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Nostra said:


> Can't wait to watch heads explode (and not babies) if this comes to fruition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
> 
> 
> “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com


I'll wait. Some libturd is probably starting shit from CNN

This will be a state issue if it happens


----------



## BackAgain

TemplarKormac said:


> Beware,  this is not an official opinion.  This is a first draft. It is not indicative of an opinion one way or another.
> 
> Reference John Roberts and his decision on Obamacare


Absolutely correct.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

eagle7-31 said:


> And nothing is changing if this report is true. Its just going to the states, but left wing liars won't tell the truth.


What if they don't get the jab you slimey hypocrite maximus


----------



## night_son

task0778 said:


> It's going to be an election issue alright, I don't think the democrats have anything else to run on.  I suspect that the women who will be incensed about this (if it happens) will be the same women who were going to vote for the democrats anyway.



Yes, indeed—and those would be your run of the mill tarts, hoochie mamas and babushka-like single celled organisms and such, collectively.


----------



## Alan Stallion

Aborting the Roe decision, make it so.


----------



## Clipper

night_son said:


> A developing child is not *their body*, jackass.


i happen to be against abortion. I merely pointed out that millions of women support a women's right to choose. 

And they vote. Ya follow me, retard?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Clipper said:


> The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.
> 
> And millions of them vote.



   Except that it's not just their own bodies...it's about those who cant speak up in their own defense.
As in an unborn child.
   What do you think they'd have to say in the matter? 
 Seems to me we should be able to shoot mexicans at will if they cant speak english.


----------



## night_son

Clipper said:


> i happen to be against abortion. I merely pointed out that millions of women support a women's right to choose.
> 
> And they vote. Ya follow me, retard?



No. You can go over that cliff solo.


----------



## MAGA Macho Man

Here's the leaked order!


----------



## Lakhota

*SUPREME SHOCK LEAK: ‘DRAFT OPINION’ GUTS ROE*

Sad news...for women!


----------



## MAGA Macho Man

Update! 

They know the libs are about to go insane!


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dersh says it's a leak. Quite possible.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> *SUPREME SHOCK LEAK: ‘DRAFT OPINION’ GUTS ROE*
> 
> Sad news...for women!


For you perhaps.


----------



## two_iron

I'm completely agnostic on this issue. Literally, couldn't give a shit.

BUT anything that thins out the herd of these filthy fucking animals becomes my lifelong commitment. I see screeching karens slurping LiquidPlummr, en masse, after this decision, and then my only problem is how do I get rid of this 4-hour boner?


----------



## BackAgain

Lakhota said:


> *SUPREME SHOCK LEAK: ‘DRAFT OPINION’ GUTS ROE*
> 
> Sad news...for women!


Excellent news for all people.


----------



## Lakhota

This may likely be good news for Democrats in forthcoming elections - because most people support legal abortions.


----------



## BackAgain

Lakhota said:


> This may likely be good news for Democrats in forthcoming elections - because most people support legal abortions.


Babies may live. You Dems may see an electoral silver lining.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Nostra said:


> Can't wait to watch heads explode (and not babies) if this comes to fruition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
> 
> 
> “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com


Someone's ass is grass for pulling this shat...This never happens.......It is a libturd scam to drum up attention for desperation it reeks like..........................Look the whole fucking media now is running in circles.

Election yr libturd scam


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

MAGA Macho Man said:


> Update!
> 
> They know the libs are about to go insane!


Someone should be shot for fucking doing this...........................GD libturds are doing this


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> This may likely be good news for Democrats in forthcoming elections - because most people support legal abortions.


It will energize both parties actually. And energize an already energized Republican Party.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Dupe thread





__





						Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!
					

Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Peace

Lakhota said:


> This may likely be good news for Democrats in forthcoming elections - because most people support legal abortions.


It can still be legal if your state allows it…


----------



## JGalt

Hang on Sloopy said:


> Someone's ass is grass for pulling this shat...This never happens.......It is a libturd scam to drum up attention for desperation it reeks like..........................Look the whole fucking media now is running in circles.
> 
> Election yr libturd scam



Dershowitz just said that on FOX. He thinks it was leaked to Politico by some liberal hack law clerk that works for the SC, in order to stir up some shit among the left and cause them to protest.


----------



## two_iron

Barricades just went up around SCOTUS. That's not enough. We need a marine battalion with tanks and weapons-grade ordnance. Any attempt to breach the building should be met with lethal force.


----------



## eagle7-31

airplanemechanic said:


> Dupe thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!
> 
> 
> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com


We don't know yet if it is really going to be overturned, its a draft opinion.


----------



## yidnar

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


there are more women against abortion on demand than you think there are !


----------



## Muhammed

Way back when R v W was decided, we really did not have the scientific knowledge to know when a person's lifespan begins. Now, via modern science, we know with 100% certainty that a human being's lifespan begins at conception.


----------



## yidnar

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


maybe they will pack their bags and move to Can'tada .


----------



## whitehall

Pretty convenient rally point for democrats this close to the election. Imagine leaking supreme court internal discussions. lefties must be desperate.


----------



## SavannahMann

Nostra said:


> For some unknown reason you think all women support killing babies.  They don't , Dumbass.



Most Americans oppose overturning it. Polling has consistently shown that. So how do you win elections when most people oppose your signature position or in this case accomplishment?


----------



## Delldude

Lakhota said:


> *SUPREME SHOCK LEAK: ‘DRAFT OPINION’ GUTS ROE*
> 
> Sad news...for women!


Good news for the unborn.

We now need a definitive ruling on when life starts.


----------



## yidnar

whitehall said:


> Pretty convenient rally point for democrats this close to the election. Imagine leaking supreme court internal discussions. lefties must be desperate.


it is an attack on the rule of law by putting  outside political pressure on the justices of the SC ! a real insurrection against the judicial process by the leftist that leaked the draft .


----------



## Delldude

whitehall said:


> Pretty convenient rally point for democrats this close to the election. Imagine leaking supreme court internal discussions. lefties must be desperate.


First Twitter, now possibly this.
Not to forget the up and coming TV spectacular over the J6 committee hearings. Student loan debt......SPR to lower gas prices.....after November, see how quickly everything turns back.


----------



## eagle7-31

Lakhota said:


> This may likely be good news for Democrats in forthcoming elections - because most people support legal abortions.


LIAR. It goes back to the states, if this report is true it does not ban abortion.


----------



## yidnar

night_son said:


> That is the ultimate question for the pro-death crowd, now isn't it? I hope they choke on it trying to puzzle it out.


democrats dont have a gag reflex .


----------



## BackAgain

eagle7-31 said:


> LIAR. It goes back to the states, if this report is true it does not ban abortion.


Yes. It does suggest that the States decide, if this is part of the final opinion.


----------



## eagle7-31

BackAgain said:


> Yes. It does suggest that the States decide, if this is part of the final opinion.


This may have been a deliberate leak, its NOT an official ruling by the court.


----------



## Delldude

yidnar said:


> democrats dont have a gag reflex .


True, they will swallow anything.


----------



## BackAgain

eagle7-31 said:


> This may have been a deliberate leak, its NOT an official ruling by the court.


I don’t know if it’s a leak approved of by anyone on the SCOTUS bench.  But who knows?  Anything is possible these days.


----------



## MisterBeale

I have, most of my life. . . dreamed about this happening.  I have wanted this.  I have always wanted the STATES and the people to be able to control the law.

. . . but?  AFTER the medical martial law we all just experienced?  Now?  I am always suspicious of when the global elites give the people what they want, and how making things illegal, and having the STATE control you, can be used to their advantage.

I will wait to see the wording on this ruing.

What is transhumanism and how does it affect you?​








						What is transhumanism and how does it affect you?
					

As technology evolves, genetic and artificial enhancements are moving closer to reality.




					www.weforum.org
				












						One Health - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The "Wellcome Leap" into Transhumanism - Whitney Webb on The Corbett Report​Interview 1650 - Whitney Webb Dissects the Wellcome Leap into Transhumanism​ Corbett • 07/08/2021








						Interview 1650 - Whitney Webb Dissects the Wellcome Leap into Transhumanism - The Corbett Report
					

https://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/2021-07-07_Whitney_Webb.mp3Whitney Webb of UnlimitedHangout.com joins us once again, this time to discuss her latest article, "A “Leap” toward Humanity’s Destruction." Even if you're familiar with the transhumanist agenda, what the ex-DARPA, ex-Silicon Valley...




					www.corbettreport.com
				




"Whitney Webb of UnlimitedHangout.com joins us once again, this time to discuss her latest article, "A “Leap” toward Humanity’s Destruction." Even if you're familiar with the transhumanist agenda, what the ex-DARPA, ex-Silicon Valley old hands at the newly created Wellcome Leap are planning to do in their quest to transform the human species in the coming decade will blow your mind."

A “Leap” toward Humanity’s Destruction​The world’s richest medical research foundation, the Wellcome Trust, has teamed up with a pair of former DARPA directors who built Silicon Valley’s skunkworks to usher in an age of nightmarish surveillance, including for babies as young as three months old. Their agenda can only advance if we allow it.




A “Leap” toward Humanity’s Destruction

Palantir’s Tiberius, Race, and the Public Health Panopticon​                   The controversial data mining firm, whose history and rise has long been inextricably linked with the CIA and the national security state, will now use its software to identify and prioritize the same minority groups that it has long oppressed on behalf of the US military and US intelligence.  












						Palantir’s Tiberius, Race, and the Public Health Panopticon
					

The controversial data mining firm, whose history and rise has long been inextricably linked with the CIA and the national security state, will now use its software to identify and prioritize the same minority groups that it has long oppressed on behalf of the US military and US intelligence.




					unlimitedhangout.com


----------



## yidnar

Lakhota said:


> *SUPREME SHOCK LEAK: ‘DRAFT OPINION’ GUTS ROE*
> 
> Sad news...for women!


good news for  baby girls in the womb !


----------



## PinktheFloyd88

Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!​

nah, nothing will happen.


----------



## eagle7-31

BackAgain said:


> I don’t know if it’s a leak approved of by anyone on the SCOTUS bench.  But who knows?  Anything is possible these days.


That is for sure. I don't recall something like this happening before with the USSC.


----------



## Delldude

BackAgain said:


> I don’t know if it’s a leak approved of by anyone on the SCOTUS bench.  But who knows?  Anything is possible these days.


I'd bet some clerk......with prodding by some MSM wonk....$$

Could be BS too.


----------



## task0778

_In the draft opinion, Alito writes that Roe "must be overruled."

"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Alito wrote. He said that Roe was "egregiously wrong from the start" and that its reasoning was "exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences."

He added, "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's representatives."_









						Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade published by Politico
					

In a stunning breach of Supreme Court confidentiality and secrecy, Politico has obtained what it calls a draft of a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that would strike down Roe v. Wade.




					www.cnn.com
				





This is also my opinion. it oughta be a state issue.


----------



## eagle7-31

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!​
> 
> nah, nothing will happen.


Its not an official ruling just a draft opinion.


----------



## candycorn

Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.  

This is what happens when you don’t vote.  Serious loss for the good guys.  If it holds.


----------



## Ringtone

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States is — about to end.


If this be true. . . .


----------



## TemplarKormac

MAGA Macho Man said:


> Update!
> 
> They know the libs are about to go insane!


I'm pretty sure the Justices don't like being threatened or having their safety put in danger.


----------



## yidnar

Lakhota said:


> This may likely be good news for Democrats in forthcoming elections - because most people support legal abortions.


bull ! what it will be is an excuse for leftist terrorists like antifa to riot and burn ...again !


----------



## Delldude

candycorn said:


> Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
> 
> This is what happens when you don’t vote.  Serious loss for the good guys.  If it holds.


How would it be a loss for the Republicans?


----------



## eagle7-31

candycorn said:


> Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
> 
> This is what happens when you don’t vote.  Serious loss for the good guys.  If it holds.


First its a draft not an official ruling, secondly the liberals will lie their asses  off about this if it is true, it does not ban abortion it goes back to the states.


----------



## yidnar

BackAgain said:


> Babies may live. You Dems may see an electoral silver lining.


no they wont ..... the country will get a 1st hand look at how evil and depraved the far leftists are when they try every dirty trick to fight the ruling ! including leftwing riots .... Again !


----------



## BackAgain

Delldude said:


> I'd bet some clerk......with prodding by some MSM wonk....$$
> 
> Could be BS too.


Could be BS.

Could be a clerk with a political axe to grind.

Could be a runaway SCOTUS jurist trying to stir up political discord before the decision is finalized in the hope of getting some other judge to waver.


----------



## Delldude

eagle7-31 said:


> First its a draft not an official ruling, secondly the liberals will lie their asses  off about this if it is true, it does not ban abortion it goes back to the states.


Politico says:
"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes *in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.*


----------



## TemplarKormac

If this leak theory is true, this is an act of insurrection. No two ways about it.


----------



## Osiris-ODS

It may not seem like it at times, but when you start tallying the score in the last few rounds of the ongoing culture war in this country, the left has suffered a series of absolutely staggering blows one after another, such that if this were a boxing match, the referee would step in to invoke a standing 8-count. And the most satisfying thing about that is the fact that it's happening despite the left fighting these last few rounds with rolls of quarters in their fists and taking cheap shots at every opportunity. 

When this news makes its way to all the leftists in California and NYC, their collective reaction will make this person seem calm, cool and collected by comparison.


----------



## Stormy Daniels

This is going to tip the scales for the Democrats on court packing.


----------



## yidnar

JGalt said:


> Dershowitz just said that on FOX. He thinks it was leaked to Politico by some liberal hack law clerk that works for the SC, in order to stir up some shit among the left and cause them to protest.


more riots and insurrections by left on the way .....again !


----------



## Hossfly

candycorn said:


> Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
> 
> This is what happens when you don’t vote.  Serious loss for the good guys.  If it holds.


Voting has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.


----------



## Meister

Lakhota said:


> This may likely be good news for Democrats in forthcoming elections - because most people support legal abortions.


I'm sure that the Court will just state that it's up to the individual states as to the law.
So you can calm down.  Blue states will still have the baby killing clinics, and red states not so much.
There, feel better already, I bet.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Also,  for anyone yelling "my body my choice" I will simply direct them to their support of forced COVID vaccinations for unwilling  Americans in exchange for keeping their jobs.


----------



## Meister

SavannahMann said:


> Most Americans oppose overturning it. Polling has consistently shown that. So how do you win elections when most people oppose your signature position or in this case accomplishment?


Well, abortions isn't on top of most peoples list when it comes to voting.  Right?


----------



## MisterBeale

If the Federal Government, at some point, uses such a ruling in the "ONE HEALTH," global bio-health security state, to justify creating "licenses," to even have children?


----------



## yidnar

candycorn said:


> Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
> 
> This is what happens when you don’t vote.  Serious loss for the good guys.  If it holds.


the left will riot and stage massive insurrections against the rule of law when they start burning looting and rioting again !


----------



## candycorn

eagle7-31 said:


> First its a draft not an official ruling, secondly the liberals will lie their asses  off about this if it is true, it does not ban abortion it goes back to the states.


It defacto bans abortion for anyone who doesn't have the means to travel to a state where a woman's right to privacy will still be the law of the land.  Get ready for more generational poverty Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina etc...


----------



## Delldude

Meister said:


> I'm sure that the Court will just state that it's up to the individual states as to the law.
> So you can calm down.  Blue states will still have the baby killing clinics, and red states not so much.
> There, feel better already, I bet.


I believe California is already set to lead the industry.


----------



## candycorn

yidnar said:


> the left will riot and stage massive insurrections against the rule of law when they start burning looting and rioting again !


If they do...Its responsible political discourse...or so I'm told.


----------



## Delldude

candycorn said:


> It defacto bans abortion for anyone who doesn't have the means to travel to a state where a woman's right to privacy will still be the law of the land.  Get ready for more generational poverty Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina etc...


Naw, there'll be a subsidy for travel.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Whoever leaked this is going to be criminally prosecuted.  They will find out who did it.  That person's life, as they know it, is over.  Disbarment is the least of their problems.    It might not be a clerk.  It might well be Kiddie Porn Katanji.


----------



## eagle7-31

candycorn said:


> If they do...Its responsible political discourse...or so I'm told.


Still living on another planet eh? BTW whoever leaked this should be  disbarred.


----------



## candycorn

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> go fuck yourself


This is a direct result of democrats staying home in MI, WI, and PA during the 2016 election. That doesn't happen, Hillary wins, and Roe will still be ensured.  

Those are facts.


----------



## Delldude

candycorn said:


> If they do...Its responsible political discourse...or so I'm told.



You have to consider the DOJ and FBI......

On second thought, you're probably right.


----------



## Meister

candycorn said:


> It defacto bans abortion for anyone who doesn't have the means to travel to a state where a woman's right to privacy will still be the law of the land.  Get ready for more generational poverty Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina etc...


  Remember, there is still personal responsibility that can be used.


----------



## BlueGin

Clipper said:


> The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.
> 
> And millions of them vote.


You mean birthing people.


----------



## candycorn

Meister said:


> Remember, there is still personal responsibility that can be used.


You should study history. But I'm sure the Red States will be there to support all of the unwed mothers, fatherless children, tens of thousands of unwanted pregnancies, etc... because, as we all know, the Red States are at the fore front of sex education


----------



## eagle7-31

candycorn said:


> The GOP called insurrection and rioting that happened on 1/6/21 "legitimate political discourse".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.O.P. Declares Jan. 6 Attack ‘Legitimate Political Discourse’
> 
> 
> The Republican National Committee voted to censure Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for participating in the inquiry into the deadly riot at the Capitol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com


There was no insurrection a protest yes, some tress passing yes. Then again the left has been lying like a rug on this.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States is — about to end.


This was a deliberate libturd act against the GD court


----------



## Hossfly

In most states (including California), when a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is charged with a double murder. However, when a woman wants to kill her baby by abortion, it's just a blob of flesh.  Something doesn't smell right here.


----------



## eagle7-31

candycorn said:


> Meanwhile back in reality...one of the insurrectionists was convicted today of assaulting a police officer.


You would not know reality if it bit you in the face. BTW is about the Roe leak, not your left wing Jan 6 2021 fantasy.


----------



## Meister

candycorn said:


> You should study history. But I'm sure the Red States will be there to support all of the unwed mothers, fatherless children, tens of thousands of unwanted pregnancies, etc... because, as we all know, the Red States are at the fore front of sex education


Better start the personal responsibilities in those states, huh?
Those blue states have all those tent cities, might want to hand out pamphlets
in your spare time, candy.


----------



## Man of Ethics

Dragonlady said:


> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


Only time will tell.  Making no predictions now.

Sadly, some men do vote for Democrats who view us as oppressors and want to take away our Presumption of Innocence and Free Speech.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


This was a deliberate fucking act by you GD low lifes,


----------



## MisterBeale




----------



## MisterBeale




----------



## rippy38

All this will do is prevent the Federal Govt from interfering in State law regarding the procedure.

If a State passes legislation outlawing the procedure, then the Feds can't do a thing about it... same as if a State wants to allow the procedure up until the moment of birth.

It basically will take the Federal Govt out of the fight... for now anyway.


----------



## 1srelluc

I'm torn on this one. I'm right-leaning but pro-choice to a point. 

That said RvW was shit decision by a shit court who was on the wrong side of everything, it should never had been heard and left to the states.

BUT......*I see this as a HUGE landmine for the gop's chances going forward.* The best thing the gop can do is STFU about it instead of the incessant crowing I'm already hearing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

BackAgain said:


> Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!


And the neo-fascist, authoritarian right couldn’t be happier – more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty.


----------



## Delldude

EvilCat Breath said:


> Whoever leaked this is going to be criminally prosecuted.  They will find out who did it.  That person's life, as they know it, is over.  Disbarment is the least of their problems.    It might not be a clerk.  It might well be Kiddie Porn Katanji.


My, that's an interesting thought.


----------



## BackAgain

Hang on Sloopy said:


> This was a deliberate libturd act against the GD court


It might have been. It kind of seems most likely. It is hard to fathom any conservative having any motive to leak it.


----------



## yidnar

candycorn said:


> It defacto bans abortion for anyone who doesn't have the means to travel to a state where a woman's right to privacy will still be the law of the land.  Get ready for more generational poverty Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina etc...


aint no armies of people shitting in the streets in those states !


----------



## Clipper

Hang on Sloopy said:


> This was a deliberate libturd act against the GD court


You don't know that. But however it was leaked, tough shit.

The majority still has plenty of time to rally their stooges in the right wing media to ramp up a good PR campaign on their behalf. Thomas' old lady has plenty of lackeys on Fox News etc.


----------



## Meister

*Some on here are going off topic, It's not about Jan. 6
Stay on topic going forward, thanks.*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Lakhota said:


> *SUPREME SHOCK LEAK: ‘DRAFT OPINION’ GUTS ROE*
> 
> Sad news...for women!


Sad news for all Americans as the rights of the people are further stripped away to the benefit of intrusive government authoritarianism.


----------



## lantern2814

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


So you think all women should think like you do. Typical Dem scum. You don’t have the support of HALF the women in the country with your up to the moment of birth abortion. Enjoy that Republican landslide in the midterms. And keep your idiocy in your own country.


----------



## Foolardi

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States is — about to end.


This is a grave abuse of clerkship.A Scotus law clerk 
  LEAKED a Febuary Draft Opinion from our Supreme
   Court.
   This has to be addressed Immediately.Find out who pulled
   this stunt.The last bastion of Protection  is guarding our
   Supreme court.
   OR ... will this Leaker be celebrated as a Honorable
   Whistleblower.
   If this passes muster ... The End of the SCOTUS is
  imminent.


----------



## Winco

eagle7-31 said:


> Hey genius. Abortion will not be banned, just a matter for states, but left wing liars will  act like its the end of the world.


And Conservative women will still get Abortions, all while applauding this decision.
You see, Conservatives are hypocrites.
Do as I say, NOT as I do........... Conservative Motto.


----------



## eagle7-31

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Sad news for all Americans as the rights of the people are further stripped away to the benefit of intrusive government authoritarianism.


Spoken true left wing dirtbags.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

candycorn said:


> Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
> 
> This is what happens when you don’t vote.  Serious loss for the good guys.  If it holds.


And Democrats will repeat the same mistake this November.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Read Article 3 of the Constitution folks.


----------



## 1srelluc

I guess there will be a pussy hat "insurrection" in DC soon.....I wonder if Pelosi will call out the NG over that?


----------



## lantern2814

Clipper said:


> The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.
> 
> And millions of them vote.


Hey dumbfuck, the vast majority of women do NOT support abortions on demand. Or up to the moment of birth like you retards support. Millions of THEM vote too dummy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

candycorn said:


> It defacto bans abortion for anyone who doesn't have the means to travel to a state where a woman's right to privacy will still be the law of the land.  Get ready for more generational poverty Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina etc...


Correct.

And women of means in red states will still have access to abortion services.


----------



## TemplarKormac

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> And women of means in red states will still have access to abortion services.


So,  why are you complaining? 

Egads, you are inconsistent.


----------



## Clipper

Delldude said:


> My, that's an interesting thought.


And it could be Thomas on behalf of lardass Ginnie who's life is devoted to owning the libs.

I hope so.


----------



## eagle7-31

Clipper said:


> And it could be Thomas on behalf of lardass Ginnie who's life is devoted to owning the libs.
> 
> I hope so.


LOL.


----------



## Ropey

> This is why they leaked:
> "Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading…The court’s holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months." (Politico) https://t.co/9k0JfLfYZd
> — Andrew Kolvet (@AndrewKsay) May 3, 2022





> It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.
> — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) May 3, 2022





> “No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term.” https://t.co/2os0uJWyUr
> — Eamon Javers (@EamonJavers) May 3, 2022


----------



## Clipper

lantern2814 said:


> So you think all women should think like you do. Typical Dem scum. You don’t have the support of HALF the women in the country with your up to the moment of birth abortion. Enjoy that Republican landslide in the midterms. And keep your idiocy in your own country.


Don't be too sure on that one, Ace.

But feel free to jizz all over yourself in anticipation until November rolls around.


----------



## Dragonlady

Nostra said:


> For some unknown reason you think all women support killing babies.  They don't , Dumbass.



For some unknown reason you think all women who favour choice would choose abortion.  I chose to carry all of my pregnancies to term. 

This isn't Constitutional, or even moral.  This shows the Republicans complete lack of respect for the rights of women.


----------



## Man of Ethics

I am making no predictions.  We will see polls in about a month, when the leaked information becomes common knowledge.  We will know the results in November  only.


----------



## AMart

Hopefully a bunch of leftists go on an abortion spree!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Winco said:


> And Conservative women will still get Abortions, all while applauding this decision.
> You see, Conservatives are hypocrites.
> Do as I say, NOT as I do........... Conservative Motto.


Spot on.

And no one believes conservatives’ “states’ rights’/let the people decide” lie – overturning _Roe_ is about compelling conformity, punishing dissent, and compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law.

If conservatives weren’t such hypocrites, if they were consistent with their “states’ rights” rhetoric, then they’d respect the will of the people in blue states concerning firearm regulatory measures.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States is — about to end.


A few things:

1) First time I ve ever seen something like this leaked.

2) This will lose votes for the GOP. It’s stupid.

3) Yankees suck


----------



## candycorn

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And Democrats will repeat the same mistake this November.


Truth.  Politically, this may save one or two senate seats.  Maybe.  It might make others competitive and drain resources from some.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Delldude said:


> My, that's an interesting thought.


She hasn't been seated yet.  She might still get briefs on active cases.


----------



## Clipper

lantern2814 said:


> Hey dumbfuck, the vast majority of women do NOT support abortions on demand. Or up to the moment of birth like you retards support. Millions of THEM vote too dummy.


Think only Dems get abortions, stroker?


----------



## candycorn

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> And women of means in red states will still have access to abortion services.


True as well.


----------



## PinktheFloyd88

candycorn said:


> This is a direct result of democrats staying home in MI, WI, and PA during the 2016 election. That doesn't happen, Hillary wins, and Roe will still be ensured.
> 
> Those are facts.



Oh, those are facts?

How about this fucking fact: 50% of the Senate does not do anything. You are blaming the good guys for not being "more good". Instead of blaming the party that is responsible.


----------



## eagle7-31

Dragonlady said:


> For some unknown reason you think all women who favour choice would choose abortion.  I chose to carry all of my pregnancies to term.
> 
> This isn't Constitutional, or even moral.  This shows the Republicans complete lack of respect for the rights of women.


IF this opinion turns out to be the court decision (a  big IF) it does not take anything from women or anyone else, just turns the issue over to the states can always count on  the left/demrats to lie like rugs.


----------



## Nostra

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Spot on.
> 
> And no one believes conservatives’ “states’ rights’/let the people decide” lie – overturning _Roe_ is about compelling conformity, punishing dissent, and compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law.
> 
> If conservatives weren’t such hypocrites, if they were consistent with their “states’ rights” rhetoric, then they’d respect the will of the people in blue states concerning firearm regulatory measures.


Um, blue state shitholes with huge gun regulations exist..................with high crime rates.

State's rights!


----------



## scruffy

Just happened. No link yet. Stay tuned.

(Alito's name is on the draft).


----------



## lantern2814

Clipper said:


> Don't be too sure on that one, Ace.
> 
> But feel free to jizz all over yourself in anticipation until November rolls around.


Keep your homosexual fantasies (or are that just what you do because you won’t ever see a real woman) to yourself moron. Enjoy the Republican landslide. Abortion doesn’t rank on important issues. Sky high inflation, sky  high gas prices, and a dementia sufferer squatting in the White House are bigger issues. I know not all women agree with your abortion on demand rantings. You think all women should just follow the Dim party line.


----------



## Foolardi

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> And women of means in red states will still have access to abortion services.


How so.If Red States Ban the practice of Abortions,then 
  Doctors are performing Abortions at the risk of either jail or
   loss of their medical license.
    Meaning Women will be forced to flee those Red States
    to Blue states that allow abortions.
   The way Abortion should have been handled .
  Leaving it up to the states.
  Like State taxes or a State Income tax.


----------



## candycorn

Dragonlady said:


> For some unknown reason you think all women who favour choice would choose abortion.  I chose to carry all of my pregnancies to term.
> 
> This isn't Constitutional, or even moral.  This shows the Republicans complete lack of respect for the rights of women.



Affirm.  

Telling people they can't do something they normally wouldn't want to do anyway is a sure way to draw the ire of those people.  Of course for Democrats that means that there may be a .1 to .5% turn out increase in some places.


----------



## BackAgain

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And the neo-fascist, authoritarian right couldn’t be happier – more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty.


Yeah. Imagine the nerve of those conservative  folk being _happy_ about *not* slaughtering helpless innocents. It’s an outrage.


----------



## Clipper

EvilCat Breath said:


> She hasn't been seated yet.  She might still get briefs on active cases.


Please let it be Thomas after the land whale whispered in his ear.


----------



## Delldude

Clipper said:


> And it could be Thomas on behalf of lardass Ginnie who's life is devoted to owning the libs.
> 
> I hope so.


Funny a newbie to the bench and suddenly this happens.
I'm not sure but I don't think I've seen this happen before.


----------



## healthmyths

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States is — about to end.


I think that the liberal/progressives may have ADDED to the GOP landslide in the 2022 election.
Mistakenly the leaker (if it was a liberal???) has if found out will be disbarred minimally according to the 
experts I've seen tonight.
BUT the most grievous mistake though is feeding the pro-abortion group to think they now must protest.
What will happen is it is the last straw.  Millions of people that may have been neutral in the decision NOW
will have a reason to vote against the dems as the Dems if (they did the leaking) have done something extremely
egregious, i.e. something akin to an insurrection!


----------



## Delldude

EvilCat Breath said:


> She hasn't been seated yet.  She might still get briefs on active cases.


Anyone check on Breyer?  LOL


----------



## eagle7-31

Clipper said:


> Please let it be Thomas after the land whale whispered in his ear.


Thomas is married Ginny, not that nit wit lard ass Stacy Abrams.


----------



## Dragonlady

lantern2814 said:


> So you think all women should think like you do. Typical Dem scum. You don’t have the support of HALF the women in the country with your up to the moment of birth abortion. Enjoy that Republican landslide in the midterms. And keep your idiocy in your own country.



Here's the thing A$$hat.  If you believe that abortion is wrong, you don't have to get an abortion.  That's what CHOICE means.  

It's a really simple concept whereby you act in accordance with your personal beliefs, religion and morality.  If you believe abortion is a sin, then don't commit the sin.  But you don't get to tell me, or anyone else what we can do based on YOUR beliefs.

I live in a country where abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor.  There are no abortion laws at all.  Furthermore, the government pays for your abortion, so it's free.  Free abortions for any woman who wants one.  And we have half the number of abortions in Canada, than American have, on a per capita basis.

You're not preventing abortions by banning them.  You're harming women, and you're harming their children.









						When women are denied an abortion, their children fare worse than peers
					

Women who are denied abortions face diminished opportunities to achieve other life goals, gain secure financial footing, and have a child or children she can support and cherish.




					www.statnews.com


----------



## EvilCat Breath

TemplarKormac said:


> Read Article 3 of the Constitution folks.


It's a crime because there are laws protecting the integrity of the High Court.  Not every law is in the Constitution.   Every clerk takes an oath of confidentiality.  This is indeed a very big deal.


----------



## Dragonlady

EvilCat Breath said:


> She hasn't been seated yet.  She might still get briefs on active cases.



Breyer is hearing this case.


----------



## scruffy

Here:









						Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade published by Politico
					

In a stunning breach of Supreme Court confidentiality and secrecy, Politico has obtained what it calls a draft of a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that would strike down Roe v. Wade.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## White 6

Wow.  Surprising they are actually doing.
Never heard of Supreme Court Decision leaked before.
Welcome back to the days of backroom abortions and the ever expanding underground economy
Looks like if a woman or little girl doesn't think fast on her back, she better think fast on her feet, or she's just fkd.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED 8.53-0.18 (-2.07%)​.


----------



## lantern2814

Clipper said:


> Think only Dems get abortions, stroker?


You were told to keep  your fag fantasies to yourself. All women don’t walk in lockstep with what assholes like you demand they think. And that makes people like you, who demand total obedience to party orthodoxy, get all upset.


----------



## excalibur

This is an outrageous breach of trust. The first time such a leak ever preceded a SCOTUS decision. 

Whoever did it needs to be disbarred; likely some scummy leftoid clerk. 

But did the Justice that clerk works for nod their head in approval of the leak? Then that Justice would need to resign or face impeachment. (Breyer? As he is retiring?) (Roberts? Because he is compromised?).

This too.


----------



## Foolardi

Delldude said:


> Funny a newbie to the bench and suddenly this happens.
> I'm not sure but I don't think I've seen this happen before.


 I can't but help to think this surely is no coincidence.
   I think that we will obvioulsy get some idea'r by weeks
  end.This is Not going away.
   Like what the left managed with the deplorable Afghan
   withdrawal.


----------



## Winco

Nostra said:


> Um, ...........


There's Nostra, the one in the Red Hat.  LOOLLOLLLOOOLOOLLLL


----------



## Dragonlady

lantern2814 said:


> You were told to keep  your fag fantasies to yourself. All women don’t walk in lockstep with what assholes like you demand they think. And that makes people like you, who demand total obedience to party orthodoxy, get all upset.



Evangelical right wing Christians get 100,000 abortions every year.  Just as many right wing women get abortions as left wing women.









						Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008
					

Background Abortion is common in the United States and is a critical component of comprehensive reproductive health care.1 However, information about individuals who have abortions is limited.




					www.guttmacher.org
				







> In 2014, the majority of abortion patients (60%) were in their 20s, and the second-largest age-group was in their 30s (25%).
> 
> • The proportion of abortion patients who were adolescents declined 32% between 2008 and 2014.
> 
> • No racial or ethnic group made up the majority of abortion patients: Thirty-nine percent were white, 28% were black, 25% were Hispanic, 6% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 3% were of some other race or ethnicity.
> 
> • Fifty-nine percent of abortion patients in 2014 had had at least one previous birth.
> 
> • In 2014, three-fourths of abortion patients were low income—49% living at less than the federal poverty level, and 26% living at 100–199% of the poverty level.
> 
> • The vast majority of abortion patients (94%) identified as straight or heterosexual. Four percent identified as bisexual; fewer than 1% as lesbian, gay or homosexual; and 1% as something other than straight, gay or bisexual.
> 
> • Many abortion patients reported a religious affiliation—24% were Catholic, 17% were mainline Protestant, 13% were evangelical Protestant and 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients had no religious affiliation.
> 
> • Abortion patients were less likely to have no health insurance coverage in 2014 than in 2008 (28% vs. 34%), likely because of the Affordable Care Act. Thirty-five percent of patients had Medicaid coverage, 31% had private insurance and 3% each had either insurance through HealthCare.gov or a different type of insurance.
> 
> • The majority of patients (53%) paid for their abortion out of pocket; Medicaid was the second-most-common method of payment, used by 24% of patients.


----------



## TemplarKormac

EvilCat Breath said:


> It's a crime because there are laws protecting the integrity of the High Court.  Not every law is in the Constitution.   Every clerk takes an oath of confidentiality.  This is indeed a very big deal.


Exactly


----------



## Clipper

Delldude said:


> Funny a newbie to the bench and suddenly this happens.
> I'm not sure but I don't think I've seen this happen before.


They'll blame it on some clerk to protect their Fifedom.

Nothing will happen because they think they're "Gods". In reality they're nothing but a bunch of Primma Donnas.


----------



## candycorn

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> Oh, those are facts?


Yep.


PinktheFloyd88 said:


> How about this fucking fact: 50% of the Senate does not do anything.


True.


PinktheFloyd88 said:


> You are blaming the good guys for not being "more good".


Explain to me how a "good guy" didn't vote for HRC or voted for Trump over HRC.  The floor is yours.


PinktheFloyd88 said:


> Instead of blaming the party that is responsible.


"_When the signals are down and the lights are all flashing and the whistle is screaming in vain, and you lay on the tracks ignoring the facts....you can't blame the wreck on the train_."  

I blame the people who gave the GOP the opportunity to do it.  The Democrats in WI, MI, and PA.  That was the election in 2016.  The GOP's war on women has been going for over a generation. Everyone--even a political neophyte--knew that with the Presidency and an aging roster of judges...they would put people on there who would overtrun Roe. 

Blaming the GOP for doing this is like blaming the train.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Dragonlady said:


> Breyer is hearing this case.


I doubt he leaked this draft.  If newly appointed but not seated justices get drafts of pending opinions, Kiddie Porn Ketanji would be a prime suspect leaker.  Finding this person will be the investigation of the century.


----------



## Delldude

Reports leaked by lefty clerk.No other info.




> *No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending*. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> Evangelical right wing Christians get 100,000 abortions every year.  Just as many right wing women get abortions as left wing women.


For legitimate reasons. Health, miscarriages, fatal deformities. Not for the mere act of looking cool to their political cliques.

Not as cut and dry as you think, is it?


----------



## lantern2814

Dragonlady said:


> Here's the thing A$$hat.  If you believe that abortion is wrong, you don't have to get an abortion.  That's what CHOICE means.
> 
> It's a really simple concept whereby you act in accordance with your personal beliefs, religion and morality.  If you believe abortion is a sin, then don't commit the sin.  But you don't get to tell me, or anyone else what we can do based on YOUR beliefs.
> 
> I live in a country where abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor.  There are no abortion laws at all.  Furthermore, the government pays for your abortion, so it's free.  Free abortions for any woman who wants one.  And we have half the number of abortions in Canada, than American have, on a per capita basis.
> 
> You're not preventing abortions by banning them.  You're harming women, and you're harming their children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When women are denied an abortion, their children fare worse than peers
> 
> 
> Women who are denied abortions face diminished opportunities to achieve other life goals, gain secure financial footing, and have a child or children she can support and cherish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.statnews.com


You fucking idiot. I’m a male. Despite what you retards believe, men can’t get pregnant. So abortion isn’t a concern for me. Harming children by preventing sadistic psychos like you from murdering them. Congratulations. You are a total asshole. Since you support a dictator who freezes the bank accounts of people who disagree with him, you have ZERO credibility. Overturning Roe doesn’t ban abortion. It leaves it up to the states. But you just have to keep lying. So fuck off.


----------



## Delldude




----------



## Clipper

lantern2814 said:


> You were told to keep  your fag fantasies to yourself. All women don’t walk in lockstep with what assholes like you demand they think. And that makes people like you, who demand total obedience to party orthodoxy, get all upset.


Still jizzing away, stroker? Have your fun till November when the Trump Party gets their asses handed back to them over this.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

scruffy said:


> Just happened. No link yet. Stay tuned.
> 
> (Alito's name is on the draft).


One of the worst things to ever happen. I see Kagan and that other fat stupid fucking mongoloid bitch doing this. We have removed 1 justice in our history I believe


----------



## TemplarKormac

White 6 said:


> Wow.  Surprising they are actually doing.
> Never heard of Supreme Court Decision leaked before.
> Welcome back to the days of backroom abortions and the ever expanding underground economy
> Looks like if a woman or little girl doesn't think fast on her back, she better think fast on her feet, or she's just fkd.
> TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED 8.53-0.18 (-2.07%)​.


Look!  It's the zombie of Senator Ted Kennedy from the Bork hearings back from the dead!


----------



## Foolardi

White 6 said:


> Wow.  Surprising they are actually doing.
> Never heard of Supreme Court Decision leaked before.
> Welcome back to the days of backroom abortions and the ever expanding underground economy
> Looks like if a woman or little girl doesn't think fast on her back, she better think fast on her feet, or she's just fkd.
> TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED 8.53-0.18 (-2.07%)​.


  Obnoxious use of a False dichotomy.In the 50's and
  60's Society was well served by not relying on the absurd
  notion of today's impregnated culture.That Abortion ON DEMAND is a Good thing.I cite Mother Teresa.
   She never proselytized about Faith.Trying to convert
  flocks into her Catholic Faith.But the Last confirmed Saint
   in the world { Mother Teresa } seldom missed an opportunity
  to lecture { rail } about the evils of Abortion.
  All one needs or cares to know as far as context.
  Concerning Abortion and Abortions.


----------



## lantern2814

EvilCat Breath said:


> It's a crime because there are laws protecting the integrity of the High Court.  Not every law is in the Constitution.   Every clerk takes an oath of confidentiality.  This is indeed a very big deal.


Prison time, disbarment, the end of any career in law. Wonder if this leaker will think it was worth it when he/she is asking if you want fries with that?


----------



## Delldude




----------



## AMart

Has there ever a SCOTUS leak like this before?


----------



## Concerned American

excalibur said:


> This is an outrageous breach of trust. The first time such a leak ever preceded a SCOTUS decision.
> 
> Whoever did it needs to be disbarred; likely some scummy leftoid clerk.
> 
> But did the Justice that clerk works for nod their head in approval of the leak? Then that Justice would need to resign or face impeachment. (Breyer? As he is retiring?) (Roberts? Because he is compromised?).
> 
> This too.


Sotomayor is an activist justice of the worst kind.  Wouldn't surprise me if it was her.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

excalibur said:


> This is an outrageous breach of trust. The first time such a leak ever preceded a SCOTUS decision.
> 
> Whoever did it needs to be disbarred; likely some scummy leftoid clerk.
> 
> But did the Justice that clerk works for nod their head in approval of the leak? Then that Justice would need to resign or face impeachment. (Breyer? As he is retiring?) (Roberts? Because he is compromised?).
> 
> This too.


I think this goes in to criminal territory. This was all planned by these people. They are really going to pay

BTW...I was kiddin about the coat hanger.......If its in Badlands, I put it there with a specific purpose...lol


----------



## eagle7-31

AMart said:


> Has there ever a SCOTUS leak like this before?


No I don't believe so. And the leaker should be disbarred.


----------



## Foolardi

TemplarKormac said:


> Look!  It's the zombie of Senator Ted Kennedy from the Bork hearings back from the dead!


 Of maybe the real life Joe Biden { zombie Potus }
   or Pat " the cyclops " Leahy.
   Take yer pick.
  hint { there is no good pick }.


----------



## lantern2814

Dragonlady said:


> Evangelical right wing Christians get 100,000 abortions every year.  Just as many right wing women get abortions as left wing women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008
> 
> 
> Background Abortion is common in the United States and is a critical component of comprehensive reproductive health care.1 However, information about individuals who have abortions is limited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guttmacher.org


As you were told, due to health reasons (for mother or child) or other legitimate medical concerns. Not because they were too lazy to tell their broke ass boyfriend to put on a condom. Or because it’s “cool”. Personal responsibility is lost on people like you.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Concerned American said:


> Sotomayor is an activist justice of the worst kind.  Wouldn't surprise me if it was her.


Did you hear her Covid questions. She is a retard and such a stupid one

This is going to be fun now

That pussy Roberts should be on TV explaining this. But he's part of the Epstein gang


----------



## Clipper

lantern2814 said:


> Keep your homosexual fantasies (or are that just what you do because you won’t ever see a real woman) to yourself moron. Enjoy the Republican landslide. Abortion doesn’t rank on important issues. Sky high inflation, sky  high gas prices, and a dementia sufferer squatting in the White House are bigger issues. I know not all women agree with your abortion on demand rantings. You think all women should just follow the Dim party line.


If abortion doesn't rank why are you ranting about it?

Sore hand? Come November, you'll have something else to cry about.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Concerned American said:


> Sotomayor is an activist justice of the worst kind.  Wouldn't surprise me if it was her.


We ain't seen nothing yet with that new pedo loving kook


----------



## lantern2814

Clipper said:


> Still jizzing away, stroker? Have your fun till November when the Trump Party gets their asses handed back to them over this.


More faggot fantasies. Keep them to yourself fag boy. This won’t cost Republicans anything. Sky high gas prices, inflation, and a dementia suffering Dem as “leader” are of greater concern.


----------



## Delldude

Latest:



> The reporter who broke the story about a majority draft opinion signaling the Supreme Court is ready to overturn abortion rights enshrined in this country ever since the landmark _Roe v Wade_ case appeared within minutes on TV to discuss the unprecedented leak Monday night.
> 
> Josh Gerstein, a senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, said he was confident in his sourcing and the authenticity of the document for the report he shared a byline with national security reporter Alexander Ward.
> 
> "We’re very confident in the authenticity of this draft majority opinion, both in the way that we obtained, it and other information that we got that supports its authenticity, and makes us believe it is genuine," Gerstein told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "It is not a final opinion, it was a draft opinion, circulated in the court as a first draft by Justice Alito."
> 
> *The draft opinion says it was circulated on Feb. 10. *The report noted "it is possible there has been changes since then, but it is our best understanding of where the court stood at that time, which is about two and a half months after arguments in this pivotal Mississippi abortion case."


WATCH: Reporter speaks about breaking story on Supreme Court leak on abortion rights


----------



## lantern2814

Clipper said:


> If abortion doesn't rank why are you ranting about it?
> 
> Sore hand? Come November, you'll have something else to cry about.


Fuck off limp wrist. You’ll be crying in November. By the way retard, YOU’RE the one crying about a decision getting overturned. Like the bitch you are. Women don’t march in lockstep with you. Cry harder.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Speculation leaker is Sotomayor which might be impeachable.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

If this had a scintilla of helping democrats that is being destroyed as we jot down our opinions.  The crowds of violent protesters are growing right now.  Bet the Supreme Court is set ablaze before morning.


----------



## PinktheFloyd88

candycorn said:


> Yep.
> 
> True.
> 
> Explain to me how a "good guy" didn't vote for HRC or voted for Trump over HRC.  The floor is yours.
> 
> "_When the signals are down and the lights are all flashing and the whistle is screaming in vain, and you lay on the tracks ignoring the facts....you can't blame the wreck on the train_."
> 
> I blame the people who gave the GOP the opportunity to do it.  The Democrats in WI, MI, and PA.  That was the election in 2016.  The GOP's war on women has been going for over a generation. Everyone--even a political neophyte--knew that with the Presidency and an aging roster of judges...they would put people on there who would overtrun Roe.
> 
> Blaming the GOP for doing this is like blaming the train.


lol


----------



## Dayton3

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.



Why are you people so hell bent on believing that most women are that eager to have a right to kill babies?


----------



## Clipper

lantern2814 said:


> More faggot fantasies. Keep them to yourself fag boy. This won’t cost Republicans anything. Sky high gas prices, inflation, and a dementia suffering Dem as “leader” are of greater concern.


You're right. There's plenty of right wing Gomers like yourself who don't give a shit about abortion.

And they won't go out & vote if there's a good game on or Married With Children reruns are running on cable.are

Come November, you'll be crying in your beer.


----------



## TemplarKormac

lantern2814 said:


> You fucking idiot. I’m a male. Despite what you retards believe, men can’t get pregnant


Damn.


----------



## Lakhota

yidnar said:


> the left will riot and stage massive insurrections against the rule of law when they start burning looting and rioting again !



Which were instigated by Trump goons.

Ex-Defense Secretary: Trump Told Pentagon To Shoot George Floyd Protesters​


----------



## yidnar

White 6 said:


> Wow.  Surprising they are actually doing.
> Never heard of Supreme Court Decision leaked before.
> Welcome back to the days of backroom abortions and the ever expanding underground economy
> Looks like if a woman or little girl doesn't think fast on her back, she better think fast on her feet, or she's just fkd.
> TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED 8.53-0.18 (-2.07%)​.


no surprise on which side you stand with mr so called independent .


----------



## Clipper

lantern2814 said:


> Fuck off limp wrist. You’ll be crying in November. By the way retard, YOU’RE the one crying about a decision getting overturned. Like the bitch you are. Women don’t march in lockstep with you. Cry harder.


I'm not crying, halfwit. I'm against aborton. 

Now go dilly dally yourself because you think the Trump party is going to clean up over this.


----------



## Lakhota

I bet Susan Collins is shocked.  Shocked, I tell you, that her darling little Brett Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v Wade.  Shocked.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.



You are saying women get "_emotional_" I thought that was an urban legend......?

Majority of women oppose abortion republicans libertarians and most who support it are democrats thus not many change in the vote will happen.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> Which were instigated by Trump goons.
> 
> Ex-Defense Secretary: Trump Told Pentagon To Shoot George Floyd Protesters​


Your deflections will be ignored.  Goodbye Lakhota. This issue is magnitudes bigger than you


----------



## Sunsettommy

Lakhota said:


> Which were instigated by Trump goons.
> 
> Ex-Defense Secretary: Trump Told Pentagon To Shoot George Floyd Protesters​



LOL

Hearsay is all this is.


----------



## Foolardi

AMart said:


> Has there ever a SCOTUS leak like this before?


 " Has there ever { WHAT } a SCOTUS leak like this
  before. "
   Has there ever been a Potus like Biden before.
   A Presidential Campaign like the one Biden used.?
   An Economy like Bidens. ?
   A withdrawal like Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal.?
   An Open Border like Biden's Open border policy. ?
   A stumbling,bumbling persistent dithering idiot like
   Joe Biden as Potus before.!


----------



## White 6

Foolardi said:


> Obnoxious use of a False dichotomy.In the 50's and
> 60's Society was well served by not relying on the absurd
> notion of today's impregnated culture.That Abortion ON DEMAND is a Good thing.I cite Mother Teresa.
> She never proselytized about Faith.Trying to convert
> flocks into her Catholic Faith.But the Last confirmed Saint
> in the world { Mother Teresa } seldom missed an opportunity
> to lecture { rail } about the evils of Abortion.
> All one needs or cares to know as far as context.
> Concerning Abortion and Abortions.


So what is your point?
You think if women want it, they will not find somebody to meet the demand, even on the underground economy?
They made liquor illegal, but illegal outlets abounded and there are still moonshiners and bootleggers today.  They made drugs illegal.  Still sold every day to meet the demand.
Surely you didn't think they stopped it or will stop it when the decision actually comes out.
Watch that stock price.  It might move on expectation of higher profits on increased product demand.
I gave no opinion anybody could object to, just stating the facts of the new legal situation.


----------



## Lakhota

*SUPREME SHOCK LEAK: ‘DRAFT OPINION’ GUTS ROE*

SCOTUS is a NaziCon clusterfuck!  So sorry for women!


----------



## White 6

yidnar said:


> no surprise on which side you stand with mr so called independent .


What side is that, Yid?


----------



## Ridgerunner

The leaker (whoever it might be) will follow the same path as the shooter on the grassy knoll... Never to be seen or heard from ever again...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

candycorn said:


> Truth.  Politically, this may save one or two senate seats.  Maybe.  It might make others competitive and drain resources from some.


True.

This may also impact state and local elections.

With the right to privacy no longer entitled to Constitutional protections, defenders of the right will turn to the political process to restore those protections with legislative measures and state constitutional amendments.


----------



## yidnar

EvilCat Breath said:


> If this had a scintilla of helping democrats that is being destroyed as we jot down our opinions.  The crowds of violent protesters are growing right now.  Bet the Supreme Court is set ablaze before morning.


the left always resorts to violent insurrections against the rule of law when they are angered ! they did it in 2014 2016 and the summer of 2020 .


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Nostra said:


> Um, blue state shitholes with huge gun regulations exist..................with high crime rates.
> 
> State's rights!


Republicans’ assault on citizens’ rights and protected liberties has just begun.

*Republicans won’t be satisfied with overturning Roe*

“Republican senators are giving us a glimpse of the culture war clashes to come. There are already warning signs — including the Texas directive that prohibits parents from legally providing gender-affirming treatment and therapies to their children, as well as various state officials’ questioning whether the Constitution sanctions contraceptive use. Indeed, some Republican senators have gestured toward these future conflicts. In his questions to Jackson, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) repeatedly sought her views of _Obergefell v. Hodges_, the court’s 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage, pressing her as to whether the decision was properly decided. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) took her turn at the microphone to criticize _Griswold v. Connecticut_, the 1965 case that legalized contraception use. It’s not a stretch to imagine this revisionism extending to _Loving v. Virginia_, the ruling that legalized interracial marriage. A Republican senator recently said he was open to overturning that ruling. He later walked back his comments.

All this underscores that abortion was never the conservatives’ endgame. It is merely a way station on the path to rolling back a wide range of rights — the rights that scaffold the most intimate aspects of our lives and protect the liberty and equality of marginalized groups.”



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/25/ketanji-brown-jackson-roe/


----------



## yidnar

White 6 said:


> What side is that, Yid?


the side that supports the right to kill an innocent  little one like this


----------



## Dekster

scruffy said:


> Just happened. No link yet. Stay tuned.
> 
> (Alito's name is on the draft).



Well Team Trump on the SCOTUS probably just cost the GOP a lot of swing districts.  My only ever voted for 1 democrat republican sister is livid right now about this.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

lantern2814 said:


> Keep your homosexual fantasies (or are that just what you do because you won’t ever see a real woman) to yourself moron. Enjoy the Republican landslide. Abortion doesn’t rank on important issues. Sky high inflation, sky  high gas prices, and a dementia sufferer squatting in the White House are bigger issues. I know not all women agree with your abortion on demand rantings. You think all women should just follow the Dim party line.


That ‘banning’ abortion will do little to end the practice is further proof that for the authoritarian right it’s about more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty; for the authoritarian right it’s about compelling conformity and punishing dissent; and for the authoritarian right it’s about destroying the entire edifice of 14th Amendment jurisprudence defending the rights and protected liberties of the people from assault by the states.


----------



## White 6

yidnar said:


> the side that supports the right to kill an innocent  little one like this
> 
> View attachment 639628


----------



## BS Filter

The demons are going to scream and cry like passengers in a doomed airplane.


----------



## BS Filter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That ‘banning’ abortion will do little to end the practice is further proof that for the authoritarian right it’s about more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty; for the authoritarian right it’s about compelling conformity and punishing dissent; and for the authoritarian right it’s about destroying the entire edifice of 14th Amendment jurisprudence defending the rights and protected liberties of the people from assault by the states.


The 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.  What a fucking idiot.


----------



## Foolardi

BackAgain said:


> Yeah. Imagine the nerve of those conservative  folk being _happy_ about *not* slaughtering helpless innocents. It’s an outrage.


    Or the fact that over 13 Million Black abortions since
  1973 out of 50 Million in total since ' 73.
    Black Females having 5 times the number of abortions than
   White Females.
    Does this equate to " being happy ".
   Like listening to Black Hip hop.


----------



## Foolardi

BS Filter said:


> The 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.  What a fucking idiot.


Some could make the case that Abortions have nothing to
  do with Abortion.Like Getting more than one Tattoo.
  before ya know it ... 20 Tattoo may not seem enough.


----------



## Sunsettommy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> True.
> 
> This may also impact state and local elections.
> 
> With the right to privacy no longer entitled to Constitutional protections, defenders of the right will turn to the political process to restore those protections with legislative measures and state constitutional amendments.



You are being foolish since the blue states will make abortion legal in the next year or two after SCOTUS does indeed strike it down.


----------



## basquebromance

Elect more women.


----------



## basquebromance

Ok. Now we fight.

2022 midterms!


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## AMart

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639626
> 
> *SUPREME SHOCK LEAK: ‘DRAFT OPINION’ GUTS ROE*
> 
> SCOTUS is a NaziCon clusterfuck!  So sorry for women!


Saving lives is Nazi stuff??


----------



## basquebromance

Why is it such a bad thing for the states to be the one to make the ruling?


----------



## candycorn

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> True.
> 
> This may also impact state and local elections.
> 
> With the right to privacy no longer entitled to Constitutional protections, defenders of the right will turn to the political process to restore those protections with legislative measures and state constitutional amendments.


Gay marriage and inter-racial marriage are now gone too.  Just a matter of time.  Outlawing divorce is probably a bridge too far but I don't doubt that some on the right see that as the ultimate prize.  Theocracy.


----------



## basquebromance

Register everyone you know to vote. And then make sure they vote.

Gay marriage is next. Vote accordingly...they're messing with fire


----------



## candycorn

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> lol


Well put.


----------



## basquebromance

(CNN) — Roberts does NOT want to completely overturn Roe v Wade, meaning he apparently would be dissenting from Alito's draft opinion, likely w the court's 3 liberals, sources tell CNN.

Roberts is willing, however, to uphold MS law banning abortion at 15 weeks, CNN learned


----------



## AMart

basquebromance said:


> Why is it such a bad thing for the states to be the one to make the ruling?


It isn't


----------



## task0778

Sunsettommy said:


> You are being foolish since the blue states will make abortion legal in the next year or two after SCOTUS does indeed strike it down.



I haven't actually seen the purported document, but I doubt the SCOTUS will make abortions illegal at the national level.  But IMHO they will say that the Constitution does not say that anyone has a right to an abortion either.  I think they will punt the issue down to the states for them to decide how to handle it for their citizens.  Will the SCOTUS allow a state to make abortions illegal?  Don't know, we'll see what the ruling is at some point.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## two_iron

I like the idea of bunching the fucking animals together in marxist shitholes where they can use coathangers and spaghetti spoons (and the occasional hammer) on each other. Keep that shit in delaware NOT in Texas.


----------



## basquebromance

They'll be going after birth control next,
if you don't think so,
you're naive AF.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## basquebromance




----------



## Foolardi

Dayton3 said:


> Why are you people so hell bent on believing that most women are that eager to have a right to kill babies?


  because it's learned.being taught in even grade school.
  Before long it will be more popular than Beer and 
  potato chips.If if the notion of Man as Rational Animal
    is mere editorializing.


----------



## AMart

candycorn said:


> Gay marriage and inter-racial marriage are now gone too.  Just a matter of time.  Outlawing divorce is probably a bridge too far but I don't doubt that some on the right see that as the ultimate prize.  Theocracy.


Those were all state controlled matters not federal. Why is government involved in marriage. Nobody will ever try to outlaw divorce you moonbat.


----------



## PinktheFloyd88

candycorn said:


> Well put.


I'm too disappointed with you to say anything.


----------



## candycorn

AMart said:


> Nobody will ever to to outlast marriage you moonbat


What?


----------



## White 6

What does that have to do with me?
Did I say something to offend?
What I said are just facts.  I didn't know it even happened until I logged into the board.  I was happily watching 911 and 911 Lonestar.  They were good tonight.
Surely you are aware, I am a 67 year old retired guy, that never had, one and undoubtably never will.
Why would you be surprised or offended?
Been a surprising night.
Both the shows I watch were better than usual.
The decision coming out was unexpected and leaked, at that, which my happen all the time, but I can't remember ever hearing of it.
To top it off,  I just saw my Brother in law and Sister in law on TV at the ballpark, both the Colonel and the Chief were looking good.


----------



## basquebromance

A special fuck you to Susan Collins today

Do you think Susan Collins is a blatant LIAR or just incredibly GULLIBLE?


----------



## SavannahMann

Meister said:


> Well, abortions isn't on top of most peoples list when it comes to voting.  Right?



No. But let’s be honest. In a vast majority of races, the two candidates are steaming piles of shit. So anything you do to drop a little more fecal matter on one pile, means that more people will decide that steaming pile of shit is a little less stinky.

That is what happened in 2020. More people decided they could stomach the steaming pile of shit that was Biden over the steaming pile of shit that was Trump.

Also you really don’t want to make your opponents predictions come true. Since I was a boy the Democrats have argued that Republicans wanted to take away Womens rights. Now I’ve argued in the past that these doom and gloom predictions were laughable because nothing has ever happened. Now you have gone and made it true.


----------



## two_iron

basquebromance said:


>


That's exactly what was supposed to have happened, according to Darwin.

It's a settled science.


----------



## Dragonlady

Sunsettommy said:


> You are saying women get "_emotional_" I thought that was an urban legend......?
> 
> Majority of women oppose abortion republicans libertarians and most who support it are democrats thus not many change in the vote will happen.



80% of women support abortion.  Even those of us who have never had and would never have an abortion believe it's the woman's decision.

The USA will now join a list of 127 countries which have banned abortion, and that list is entire made up of shithole countries, a group that the American right wingers are anxious to join.





__





						Countries Where Abortion Is Illegal 2022
					





					worldpopulationreview.com
				





eagle7-31 said:


> IF this opinion turns out to be the court decision (a  big IF) it does not take anything from women or anyone else, just turns the issue over to the states can always count on  the left/demrats to lie like rugs.



13 states have trigger laws which will ban abortion the moment Roe is overturned.  

The majority of women who are getting abortions are living at or below the poverty line, and 60% of them already have children.  They can't afford to travel, take time off work, and go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal.  Rich women will get abortions because they can afford the travel.  Poor women will have babies, or illegal abortions.

Your country continues to go backwards.  Modern, forward thinking countries are legalizing abortion.  The USA is in the toilet with the waters swirling, and you're taking rights away from women.

Yet another reason not to invest in the USA.


----------



## 1srelluc

two_iron said:


> I like the idea of bunching the fucking animals together in marxist shitholes where they can use coathangers and spaghetti spoons on each other. Keep that shit in delaware NOT in Texas.


How about Harris County?


----------



## candycorn

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> I'm too disappointed with you to say anything.



Well, you started with profanity...and can't explain how "good guys" stayed home on election day....  

Perhaps just an "lol" is your best move.

When Dems vote, Dems win.  When Dems don't vote...this is the result.  You get invasions of nations that didn't attack us (Iraq in 2003), an absentee president during a pandemic, an insurrection attempt, and now, justices that believe is something called "super precedents" and now, a woman losing the right to privacy.  

Gay and interracial marriage will be next on the menu of "non-precedents" and "let the state decide"...  

You can blame the GOP all you want and you have fertile ground to do that.  But I'd hope that you'd see that the Democrats allowed this to happen.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## AMart

candycorn said:


> What?


I edited it divorce


----------



## AMart

basquebromance said:


>


What is a woman?


----------



## 1srelluc

I'm glad it was leaked. That will give the dems time to wail and rend their garments, then forget about it over the Summer before November.


----------



## basquebromance

Misogyny is at the reptilian brain stem of white nationalism. It is not a bug. It is a feature.


----------



## AMart

Dragonlady said:


> 80% of women support abortion.  Even those of us who have never had and would never have an abortion believe it's the woman's decision.
> 
> The USA will now join a list of 127 countries which have banned abortion, and that list is entire made up of shithole countries, a group that the American right wingers are anxious to join.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Countries Where Abortion Is Illegal 2022
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> worldpopulationreview.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13 states have trigger laws which will ban abortion the moment Roe is overturned.
> 
> The majority of women who are getting abortions are living at or below the poverty line, and 60% of them already have children.  They can't afford to travel, take time off work, and go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal.  Rich women will get abortions because they can afford the travel.  Poor women will have babies, or illegal abortions.
> 
> Your country continues to go backwards.  Modern, forward thinking countries are legalizing abortion.  The USA is in the toilet with the waters swirling, and you're taking rights away from women.
> 
> Yet another reason not to invest in the USA.


Fuck you satan


----------



## basquebromance

Tomorrow would be a good day to expand the Supreme Court


----------



## BackAgain

AzogtheDefiler said:


> A few things:
> 
> 1) First time I ve ever seen something like this leaked.
> 
> 2) This will lose votes for the GOP. It’s stupid.
> 
> 3) Yankees suck


I never heard of a SCOTUS leak before

it could hurt the GOP. But then again, it might not.

The Yankees have the best record in baseball and a 10 game winning streak.  If that sucks, it must really blow to be you.


----------



## HenryBHough

So what's next?

Will the left temporarily repressing their drive to murder children and switch to old geezeres in black robes?

But....."for the children.........."

And they'll think there's logic in that!


----------



## AMart

basquebromance said:


> Misogyny is at the reptilian brain stem of white nationalism. It is not a bug. It is a feature.


Oh please women are treated better than men in the west. The rest of the world it is the opposite. Take your meds.


----------



## BackAgain

basquebromance said:


> Tomorrow would be a good day to expand the Supreme Court


 Never gonna happen. 😎


----------



## two_iron

hillury should lead by example and conduct a very late term abortion on herself using a chainsaw.... send a powerful message that this isn't political theater.... this shit's real.


----------



## White 6

task0778 said:


> I haven't actually seen the purported document, but I doubt the SCOTUS will make abortions illegal at the national level.  But IMHO they will say that the Constitution does not say that anyone has a right to an abortion either.  I think they will punt the issue down to the states for them to decide how to handle it for their citizens.  Will the SCOTUS allow a state to make abortions illegal?  Don't know, we'll see what the ruling is at some point.


I have.  They are just removing the precedent of Roe vs Wade and Casey vs Planned parenthood and saying it is up to the states.  No national decision made.  
National politics, ain't where it's at.  State politics is where it's at.


----------



## candycorn

AMart said:


> Those were all state controlled matters not federal. Why is government involved in marriage. Nobody will ever try to outlaw divorce you moonbat.


Yeah, a few years ago, some of you guys were saying that Roe is safe too.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Dragonlady said:


> 80% of women support abortion.  Even those of us who have never had and would never have an abortion believe it's the woman's decision.
> 
> The USA will now join a list of 127 countries which have banned abortion, and that list is entire made up of shithole countries, a group that the American right wingers are anxious to join.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Countries Where Abortion Is Illegal 2022
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> worldpopulationreview.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13 states have trigger laws which will ban abortion the moment Roe is overturned.
> 
> The majority of women who are getting abortions are living at or below the poverty line, and 60% of them already have children.  They can't afford to travel, take time off work, and go to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal.  Rich women will get abortions because they can afford the travel.  Poor women will have babies, or illegal abortions.
> 
> Your country continues to go backwards.  Modern, forward thinking countries are legalizing abortion.  The USA is in the toilet with the waters swirling, and you're taking rights away from women.
> 
> Yet another reason not to invest in the USA.



It was never constitutional in the first place since it was not based on case LAW thus was never going to last.

Now many states will pass abortion law and other states will outlaw them.

My position is that up to end of the first FIRST Trimester abortions should be 100% legal in all states while 2nd 3rd Trimester with exceptions and partial birth abortions be illegal partial birth abortions be automatically ruled as MURDER one.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Obstructing a government proceeding: 18 U.S. Code § 1505 -  Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Obstruction of justice: 18 U.S. Code § 1503 -  Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally

Potential for 15 years in prison. 

Put the perp away.


----------



## Zincwarrior

BackAgain said:


> Babies may live. You Dems may see an electoral silver lining.


But fuck giving them prenatal healthcare, pay for the birth, post birth healthcare, nutrition, shelter, good educations. Mom should have kept her legs closed!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dekster said:


> Well Team Trump on the SCOTUS probably just cost the GOP a lot of swing districts.  My only ever voted for 1 democrat republican sister is livid right now about this.



You do realize that your sister is not "all women", or even "most women", right?

What, exactly, does your "Republican" sister think is going to happen if _Roe _is overturned, anyway?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Concerned American said:


> Sotomayor is an activist justice of the worst kind.  Wouldn't surprise me if it was her.


She will be removed if it's her.  Immediately.


----------



## basquebromance

Here's Where Abortion Will Likely Be Illegal If SCOTUS Overturns Roe

Twenty-two states already have laws or constitutional amendments in place that would allow them to ban abortion as soon as the Supreme Court makes it possible. The latest state to join those ranks is Wyoming, which passed such a law in March.

Those 22 states include:

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

Georgia

Idaho

Iowa

Kentucky

Louisiana

Michigan

Mississippi

Missouri

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

four other states are likely to ban abortion in the event that Roe falls, citing their current political climates and recent actions by state lawmakers.

Those states include:

Florida

Indiana

Montana

Nebraska


----------



## task0778

Dragonlady said:


> The USA will now join a list of 127 countries which have banned abortion, and that list is entire made up of shithole countries, a group that the American right wingers are anxious to join.



I highly doubt that.  I do not believe that the Supreme Court will ban abortions at the national level, they'll just rule that no one has a right to an abortion and that ain't the same thing.  I suspect they'll leave open the question of whether a state can ban abortions, but I can't see the justification for saying a doctor can't legally do abortions.  Will they allow a state to permit civil lawsuits against it like Texas has (at least for now)?  Don't know.


----------



## BackAgain

Zincwarrior said:


> But fuck giving them prenatal healthcare, pay for the birth, post birth healthcare, nutrition, shelter, good educations. Mom should have kept her legs closed!


You have many stale old bullshit talking pointlesses. Congrats on your ability to keep going to them. Your memory is better than Brandon’s. But your babbling is the same.


----------



## AMart

candycorn said:


> Yeah, a few years ago, some of you guys were saying that Roe is safe too.


Welp people kept bringing legal challenges to stuff like 15 weeks in this case. Maybe leftists should have left it alone.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Cecilie1200 said:


> You do realize that your sister is not "all women", or even "most women", right?
> 
> What, exactly, does your "Republican" sister think is going to happen if _Roe _is overturned, anyway?


Why would your sister think this had anything to do with Republicans?


----------



## Foolardi

TemplarKormac said:


> Your deflections will be ignored.  Goodbye Lakhota. This issue is magnitudes bigger than you


 BTW ... just for clarity ... What in tarnation is a " Lakhota "
  Some Hawaiian Crab/Oyster dip that looks like Guacamole
   but tastes more like melted silly putty.
   Like sane people would know what melted silly putty
  tastes like.Like Kids in kintergarten know what boogers 
  taste like.Or why else would they persist in eating their
  boogers.
   Because they In Lakhota Land.
   Land of the unbelievable made believable.
   Like Dr. Frankenstein  with ...
It's Alive 
It's Alive 
It's Alive 
It's ... well who cares


----------



## White 6

1srelluc said:


> I'm glad it was leaked. That will give the dems time to wail and rend their garments, then forget about it over the Summer before November.


I like your style.  Pure white trash, but with a sense of humor and style.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Foolardi said:


> BTW ... just for clarity ... What in tarnation is a " Lakhota "


The name itself is drawn from a tribe of Native American Indians

IE The Lakota Sioux and etc.


----------



## AZrailwhale

EvilCat Breath said:


> She will be removed if it's her.  Immediately.


I doubt it, with the Democrats controlling both the executive and legislative branches.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

BackAgain said:


> I never heard of a SCOTUS leak before
> 
> it could hurt the GOP. But then again, it might not.
> 
> The Yankees have the best record in baseball and a 10 game winning streak.  If that sucks, it must really blow to be you.


It will hurt the GOP. If you’re going to do this wait til Dec 22. Yankees will choke like they did in 2004. Biggest choke in baseball history.


----------



## Ridgerunner

Foolardi said:


> This is a grave abuse of clerkship.A Scotus law clerk
> LEAKED a Febuary Draft Opinion from our Supreme
> Court.
> This has to be addressed Immediately.Find out who pulled
> this stunt.The last bastion of Protection  is guarding our
> Supreme court.
> OR ... will this Leaker be celebrated as a Honorable
> Whistleblower.
> If this passes muster ... The End of the SCOTUS is
> imminent.



IMHO the leaker, will be exposed at the very same time that the Shooter on the grassy knoll steps out in the sunshine...


----------



## White 6

basquebromance said:


> Here's Where Abortion Will Likely Be Illegal If SCOTUS Overturns Roe
> 
> Twenty-two states already have laws or constitutional amendments in place that would allow them to ban abortion as soon as the Supreme Court makes it possible. The latest state to join those ranks is Wyoming, which passed such a law in March.
> 
> Those 22 states include:
> 
> Alabama
> 
> Arizona
> 
> Arkansas
> 
> Georgia
> 
> Idaho
> 
> Iowa
> 
> Kentucky
> 
> Louisiana
> 
> Michigan
> 
> Mississippi
> 
> Missouri
> 
> North Dakota
> 
> Ohio
> 
> Oklahoma
> 
> South Carolina
> 
> South Dakota
> 
> Tennessee
> 
> Texas
> 
> Utah
> 
> West Virginia
> 
> Wisconsin
> 
> Wyoming
> 
> four other states are likely to ban abortion in the event that Roe falls, citing their current political climates and recent actions by state lawmakers.
> 
> Those states include:
> 
> Florida
> 
> Indiana
> 
> Montana
> 
> Nebraska


Hmmm.  A pro-population growth law.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Foolardi said:


> BTW ... just for clarity ... What in tarnation is a " Lakhota "
> Some Hawaiian Crab/Oyster dip that looks like Guacamole
> but tastes more like melted silly putty.
> Like sane people would know what melted silly putty
> tastes like.Like Kids in kintergarten know what boogers
> taste like.Or why else would they persist in eating their
> boogers.
> Because they In Lakhota Land.
> Land of the unbelievable made believable.
> Like Dr. Frankenstein  with ...
> It's Alive
> It's Alive
> It's Alive
> It's ... well who cares



It is an Indian tribe in South Dakota


----------



## BackAgain

There is another bombshell report coming:

Sources close to the SCOTUS suggest that the landmark case known as *Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) *might not have precedential value either.

Hey. Sometimes shit-ass decisions just need to get scuttled.


----------



## BackAgain

Dragonlady said:


> Here's the thing A$$hat.  If you believe that abortion is wrong, you don't have to get an abortion.  That's what CHOICE means.
> 
> It's a really simple concept whereby you act in accordance with your personal beliefs, religion and morality.  If you believe abortion is a sin, then don't commit the sin.  But you don't get to tell me, or anyone else what we can do based on YOUR beliefs.
> 
> I live in a country where abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor.  There are no abortion laws at all.  Furthermore, the government pays for your abortion, so it's free.  Free abortions for any woman who wants one.  And we have half the number of abortions in Canada, than American have, on a per capita basis.
> 
> You're not preventing abortions by banning them.  You're harming women, and you're harming their children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When women are denied an abortion, their children fare worse than peers
> 
> 
> Women who are denied abortions face diminished opportunities to achieve other life goals, gain secure financial footing, and have a child or children she can support and cherish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.statnews.com


The babies don’t get a choice, stupid.


----------



## Foolardi

TemplarKormac said:


> The name itself is drawn from a tribe of Native American Indians
> 
> IE The Lakota Sioux and etc.


  I was under the impression that Tribe is some kind
   of legal eagle nutbag.Like listening to Lawrence Tribe today
   is like undertaking a course monitored by Karl Popper.
   Who said ... " It is impossible to speak in such a way that
  you cannot be misunderstood. "
   I guess that Explains the introduction of Bidens new
   and Improved Ministry of Truth.
    So as Not to confuse todays high school freshman
   when undertaking George Orwell's ... - Animal Farm -.  
    That it ain't no Zoo.


----------



## BackAgain

AzogtheDefiler said:


> It will hurt the GOP. If you’re going to do this wait til Dec 22. Yankees will choke like they did in 2004. Biggest choke in baseball history.


It might help the GOP. BUT, I would assume that the leaker is a libtard who assumes it will hurt the GOP.  SO, of course they didn’t wait.

And the Yankees (if they stay healthy) will do just fine as they have so many times in the past.  Suck on it.


----------



## Zincwarrior

BackAgain said:


> Yes. It does suggest that the States decide, if this is part of the final opinion.


It's up to the women now. This could get interesting.


----------



## Zincwarrior

BackAgain said:


> You have many stale old bullshit talking pointlesses. Congrats on your ability to keep going to them. Your memory is better than Brandon’s. But your babbling is the same.


You're not disagreeing though.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

BackAgain said:


> It might help the GOP. BUT, I would assume that the leaker is a libtard who assumes it will hurt the GOP.  SO, of course they didn’t wait.
> 
> And the Yankees (if they stay healthy) will do just fine as they have so many times in the past.  Suck on it.


Why not wait til Dec 22?! Of course idiot Biden will go over the top and forgive college debt. The idiocy in the WH is unprecedented. Almost as dumb was giving all that money to ARod and Ellsbury.


----------



## BackAgain

Zincwarrior said:


> It's up to the women now. This could get interesting.


Wrong again. It may be up to the State, soon. I am sorry to report that infanticide of the preborn will probably still be legal in many deep blue shithole states.


----------



## BackAgain

Zincwarrior said:


> You're not disagreeing though.


Of course I’m disagreeing, you imbecile.


----------



## White 6

BackAgain said:


> It might help the GOP. BUT, I would assume that the leaker is a libtard who assumes it will hurt the GOP.  SO, of course they didn’t wait.
> 
> And the Yankees (if they stay healthy) will do just fine as they have so many times in the past.  Suck on it.


You think?  I figure it was somebody working for the conservative side, knowing conservatives would be tickled sh#tless to hear it, like Christmas in May.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

AZrailwhale said:


> I doubt it, with the Democrats controlling both the executive and legislative branches.


You do not have any concept of how the Court guards it's integrity.  Justice Roberts would have her tit and the wringer.


----------



## Foolardi

White 6 said:


> What does that have to do with me?
> Did I say something to offend?
> What I said are just facts.  I didn't know it even happened until I logged into the board.  I was happily watching 911 and 911 Lonestar.  They were good tonight.
> Surely you are aware, I am a 67 year old retired guy, that never had, one and undoubtably never will.
> Why would you be surprised or offended?
> Been a surprising night.
> Both the shows I watch were better than usual.
> The decision coming out was unexpected and leaked, at that, which my happen all the time, but I can't remember ever hearing of it.
> To top it off,  I just saw my Brother in law and Sister in law on TV at the ballpark, both the Colonel and the Chief were looking good.


  Let me take a wild stab here.   
   Yer buckin' for some kind of promotion.
    Pay raise.New cubicle and coffee maker.
   Maybe by fall yer own junior executive washroom key.


----------



## BackAgain

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Why not wait til Dec 22?! Of course idiot Biden will go over the top and forgive college debt. The idiocy in the WH is unprecedented. Almost as dumb was giving all that money to ARod and Ellsbury.


How weak is your weak sauce?  It’s like diluted buttermilk. Brandon is an idiot. The Yankees are terrific.


White 6 said:


> You think?  I figure it was somebody working for the conservative side, knowing conservatives would be tickled sh#tless to hear it, like Christmas in May.


Doubtful. The decision is expected in June. Christmas in June is good enough.  So, no. I think some liberal released it to generate liberal cacophony ahead of the official decision. Maybe persuade a conservative to get all weak in the knees.

It’s bad enough that CJ Roberts is such a total wussy. .


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## Michael1985

As I've said elsewhere, I disagree with this. The case was settled fifty years ago, and I see it as a matter of stare decisis.


----------



## BackAgain

Michael1985 said:


> As I've said elsewhere, I disagree with this. The case was settled fifty years ago, and I see it as a matter of stare decisis.


How dare any court reconsider Dred Scott!


----------



## White 6

Foolardi said:


> Let me take a wild stab here.
> Yer buckin' for some kind of promotion.
> Pay raise.New cubicle and coffee maker.
> Maybe by fall yer own junior executive washroom key.


Been retired for 7 years, I just aged well from living right.  Mostly been bucking to get the pool open and lawnmower repaired.  Pool's good, only needed 10 lb of Alkalinity Increaser and some more stabilizer for the sock in the skimmer, temp up to 72 and climbing.  The friggin USPS lost the pulleys and drive belt, I ordered for the mower, but I'm dealing with it and thinking of getting the kayak wet next weekend as expecting rain this week.  Just look at that smiling face and guess how much this is actually effecting.


----------



## BackAgain

Left Panics That Millions Of Babies Might Live
					

U.S.—Unconsolable wailing was heard across the country today as the left learned that there is a chance Roe v. Wade could be overturned, which would "lead to more babies being allowed to live."




					babylonbee.com
				




😎


----------



## White 6

BackAgain said:


> How weak is your weak sauce?  It’s like diluted buttermilk. Brandon is an idiot. The Yankees are terrific.
> 
> Doubtful. The decision is expected in June. Christmas in June is good enough.  So, no. I think some library releases it to generate liberal cacophony ahead of the official decision. Maybe persuade a conservative to get all weak in the knees.
> 
> It’s bad enough that CJ Roberts is such a total wussy. .


That's a good point, about early release before official to exert pressure before it become official.  That's the Supremes problem as it came out of their chambers.  Politically speaking, the primaries around here are tomorrow morning, so it won't effect that.  I don't think it will affect the general here in August, but of course, I am in TN.


----------



## Ridgerunner

Dragonlady said:


> 80% of women support abortion.


How do you sleep at night after spewing such nonsense...? Can you provide facts to back this statement up, or do you want to be known as an ignoramus?


----------



## basquebromance

"I’m a miracle baby. Doctors told my mom to abort me because she risked dying. She risk led her life for mine. Still, that was her decision to make & hers alone. Before she died that her body, her choice. No woman should be told what to do with their bodies." - Jeremy Salas


----------



## basquebromance

50 senators could preempt this decision tomorrow by ending the filibuster and enacting the Women's Health Protection Act.

“Abortion” isn’t in the constitution, but neither is “filibuster.”


----------



## basquebromance

Rights you don't have: speech, guns, federalism, keeping your earnings, declining crummy insurance

Right you do: aborting a baby


----------



## basquebromance

The Right to Choose isn't just on the ballot - it's the whole ballgame this November.


----------



## basquebromance

Foot race between SCOTUS overturning Roe and Putin declaring a nuclear war


----------



## TemplarKormac

What gets me here is this particular argument that, and I quote: "the fetus is a clump of cells dependent on the nutrients of mother for survival and is therefore a part of her body."

Gee what about the newborn outside of the womb? You gonna kill them when they're outside her womb and NOT a part of her body too, ya ghoul? If you drop a newborn in a desert and leave it there, they will not go looking for food or water, they will die of starvation and thirst.

Just as dependent outside the womb as they are inside. THIS is where that argument falls completely apart.

I'll be waiting for rebuttals here.


----------



## basquebromance

Roe v. Wade was just a clump of words and now it has been aborted.


----------



## Foolardi

basquebromance said:


>


I smell a rat.And I don't smell rats for a, living.
  Just politically.Something isn't right about all this.
   The timing.The way Protestors are johnny on the spot.
    How many are Paid Protestors.Like BLM and Antifa.
    Is this some kooky version of things to come.


----------



## BackAgain

basquebromance said:


> Rights you don't have: speech, guns, federalism, keeping your earnings, declining crummy insurance
> 
> Right you do: aborting a baby


There is zero constitutional right to abort a baby.  And the horrendous Roe v. Wade decision seems likely to get overturned.

By contrast, the Constitution DOES guarantee our right to freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. It does provide for federalism. And except for a crappy SCOTUS decision, it does say the government can’t tell us which fucking insurance we have to buy.

So, your prior post earns five out of a possible four Pinnochios. 🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥


----------



## BackAgain

basquebromance said:


> Roe v. Wade was just a clump of words and now it has been aborted.


It was always an abortion of a decision.


----------



## BackAgain

Ridgerunner said:


> How do you sleep at night after spewing such nonsense...? Can you provide facts to back this statement up, *or do you want to be known as an ignoramus?*



It’s not like she has a choice in that.


----------



## basquebromance

Just checking in with all those folks who thought it wasn’t that important to vote for Hillary. How are you doing tonight?


----------



## TemplarKormac

basquebromance said:


> Roe v. Wade was just a clump of words and now it has been aborted.


Clever. 

Credit.


----------



## BackAgain

basquebromance said:


> *Just checking in with all those folks who thought it wasn’t that important to vote for Hillary. How are you doing tonight?*


*I knew* it was important to vote *against* Shrillary. I’m fine tonight. Thanks for asking.


----------



## Ridgerunner




----------



## task0778

basquebromance said:


> 50 senators could preempt this decision tomorrow by ending the filibuster and enacting the Women's Health Protection Act.
> 
> “Abortion” isn’t in the constitution, but neither is “filibuster.”



I do not believe the Women's Health Protection Act can pass in the Senate with only 50 votes.  Reconciliation is only for budgets, spending and revenue.  Sorry, you're gonna need 60.


----------



## Foolardi

TemplarKormac said:


> What gets me here is this particular argument "the fetus is a clump of cells dependent on the nutrients of mother for survival and therefore is a part of her body."
> 
> Gee what about the newborn outside of the womb? You gonna kill them when they're outside her womb and NOT a part of her body too, ya ghoul? If you drop a newborn in a desert and leave it there, they will not go looking for food or water, they will die of starvation and thirst.
> 
> Just as dependent outside the womb as they are inside. THIS is where that argument falls completely apart.
> 
> I'll be waiting for rebuttals here.


I wouldn't waste time.It's like arguing with an
  Idiot Savant { genius in campaigning } about how
  well-deserved Biden's 2020 Election.
   When most Americans know udderwise.
   Where Trump won 2,497 counties.
    Biden winning 477 counties.
    Trump winning 18 of 19 Battle ground bellwether
  counties.
   No President in over 150 years had  lost a Re-election
  when they Increased their lead.
   Trump had over 3 million more votes in 2020.
   Plus a Baby is a Human Life.A Fetus is a tiny baby inside
  another human life.
    Why degrade humanity past the point of
   insatiable lunacy.Think of your Grandparents and
     and what they would have thought.Or Great Grandparents.
      Today's leftist Democrat has done nothing but ruined
  this Country.In nearly all aspects.
   Name one area where leftists Democrats have helped
    preservedthe Dignity of the Greatest Nation on Earth.
    The Left Know nothing But how to destroy Americana
   and usher in chaos.Psychologically that translates into
  their own hatred of themselves.left with nothing but
  Projecting their own loathing of self onto We the People.
    Throughout History this is the Madness of Tyrants.


----------



## Lakhota

*Amen!*


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639645
> 
> *Amen!*


Bring it on, Cherokee princess.


----------



## BackAgain

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639645
> 
> *Amen!*


Bwahahahahaa.   Chief Shitting Bull is quoting Pocahontas. And all to protect a bullshit “right” to slaughter helpless innocent preborn human life.


----------



## Lakhota

*Amen!*


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639648
> 
> *Amen!*


See that's the thing, no rights are being taken away by this potential ruling. This allows individual states to make that determination.

Simple, move to a state that chooses to maintain that right. Not hard, unless you're you.


----------



## Lakhota

*Amen!*


----------



## BackAgain

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639650
> 
> *Amen!*


    
And the babies shall live.
amen.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639650
> 
> *Amen!*


Lol SCOTUS wasn't 'illegitimate' when it ruled in favor of Obamacare and gay marriage, was it?


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639658



And when he became president:


----------



## BackAgain

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639658


And if the new SCOTUS decision goes as per the leak, it will once again be a State issue. In many ways, that’s a shame. But at least the U.S. government won’t be putting its official imprimatur on the horror of abortion as an alleged “right.”  

So what the hell are you crying about?  Some babies might survive now?  Oh, poor you!


----------



## Lakhota

*Amen!*


----------



## BackAgain

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639663
> 
> *Amen!*


And now babies may live!  Amen and amen.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639658


Note that the NYT in 1967 said that he was reluctant to sign the law.









						Reagan Reluctantly Signs Bill Easing Abortions; California Becomes 3d State to Liberalize Curbs-- Law's Effect Delayed (Published 1967)
					

law has no residence requirement




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639663
> 
> *Amen!*


One nun among tens of thousands. She does not speak for them all. 

Please, keep posting these ridiculous memes of yours.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639666


The advancements in modern medicine these days precludes that from happening, with or without abortion providers. We call them C-sections.


----------



## BackAgain

TemplarKormac said:


> One nun among tens of thousands. She does not speak for them all.
> 
> Please, keep posting these ridiculous memes of yours.


He will. He can’t think for himself.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639667



Actually, it should start upon the moment pregnancy is discovered, or terminate in case of miscarriage, necessary abortion, incest, or rape. Not a bad idea, lady.


----------



## TemplarKormac

BackAgain said:


> He will. He can’t think for himself.


That is very much obvious, my friend.


----------



## Lakhota

Amen!  That's why I think SCOTUS may have intentionally leaked their draft opinion as a trial balloon.  I firmly believe this is good news for Democrats.


----------



## BackAgain

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639671
> 
> Amen!  That's why I think SCOTUS may have intentionally leaked their draft opinion as a trial balloon.  I firmly believe this is good news for Democrats.


Hold on to that thought. Savor it. Suck on it like an old lifesaver.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## EvilCat Breath

It might well mobilize all voters not just liberal voters.    All liberals have to do is pass a state law legalizing abortion.   Overturning Roe will not make abortion illegal.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639671
> 
> Amen!  That's why I think SCOTUS may have intentionally leaked their draft opinion as a trial balloon.  I firmly believe this is good news for Democrats.



You're deluding yourself. 

And forgetting the women who already have children who are struggling to support them with this atrocious economy.

I can keep this up all night.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## EvilCat Breath

TemplarKormac said:


> You're deluding yourself.
> 
> And forgetting the women who already have children who are struggling to support them with this atrocious economy.
> 
> I can keep this up all night.


As if men aren't struggling in this atrocious economy.    Liberals are acting like there are never any women in pro life marches and protests.  The Supreme Court must be independent.


----------



## TemplarKormac

EvilCat Breath said:


> As if men aren't struggling in this atrocious economy.    Liberals are acting like there are never any women in pro life marches and protests.  The Supreme Court must be independent.


That's true. Very true. Many fathers suffer because they watch as their children are aborted on a whim, on top of their economic struggles.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## Lakhota

These religious psychos must be purged from SCOTUS.


----------



## BackAgain

Lakhota said:


> These religious psychos must be purged from SCOTUS.


Absolutely. Let’s repeal that nasty First Amendment Freedom of Religion clause. What were we thinking?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> These religious psychos must be purged from SCOTUS.


"Religious psychos"

Says the liberal psycho who religiously insists on women having the right to arbitrarily sacrifice their born and unborn children to the abortion gods.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Nostra said:


> Can't wait to watch heads explode (and not babies) if this comes to fruition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
> 
> 
> “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com


Why do republicans play the abortion games and right before elections that they should be winning a bunch of seats.  This is a stupid political move----you wanna make a bunch of women remember why they hate republicans right before an election---going after abortion is the way to do it.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639671
> 
> Amen!  That's why I think SCOTUS may have intentionally leaked their draft opinion as a trial balloon.  I firmly believe this is good news for Democrats.


I hate to admit that she/he/it is right here.


----------



## BackAgain

Turtlesoup said:


> I hate to admit that she/he/it is right here.


Not a chance.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Turtlesoup said:


> Why do republicans play the abortion games and right before elections that they should be winning a bunch of seats.


I don't think that's what happened here.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## SweetSue92

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639671
> 
> Amen!  That's why I think SCOTUS may have intentionally leaked their draft opinion as a trial balloon.  I firmly believe this is good news for Democrats.



The killing of babies is the only good news you can muster. Your party is over.


----------



## SweetSue92

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639650
> 
> *Amen!*



Welp a few hours in and the Dems are already showing their a$$es. This is what they will do; they can't help themselves. The protests, the hyperbole will be so off-putting to mainstream Americans--in the name of ABORTION--that the Dems will end up losing it all anyway.

Mark my words and this post.


----------



## Ridgerunner

Turtlesoup said:


> I hate to admit that she/he/it is right here.


I hate to be a disagreeable fellar, but this is a big NFW...


----------



## San Souci

airplanemechanic said:


> Sean Hannity is reporting the same thing.
> 
> Thank God. Nowhere in the constitution does it make abortion legal. This should be up to the states.


And the punk who LEAKED this is a real insurrectionist. I bet the filthy Lefties attack the Court.


----------



## Muhammed

Lakhota said:


> This may likely be good news for Democrats in forthcoming elections - because most people support legal abortions.


----------



## SweetSue92

Turtlesoup said:


> Why do republicans play the abortion games and right before elections that they should be winning a bunch of seats.  This is a stupid political move----you wanna make a bunch of women remember why they hate republicans right before an election---going after abortion is the way to do it.



Roe v Wade is a terrible decision. Judicially speaking. And it always has been. It has FINALLY been challenged and been found empty as it should have been all along. Now the decisions go back to the states. 

Women have always voted stupidly as a block and this might be no exception. But I also expect the Democrats to way, way overplay their political hand on this. They will go too far and it will be repugnant to most people. Most people who even say they're pro-choice don't really love abortion. Once these mentally ill Leftists let their freak flags fly we'll see what's what. This is far from over.


----------



## SweetSue92

Lakhota said:


> These religious psychos must be purged from SCOTUS.



And so the overplaying of their hand begins.

And this does not even begin to touch the LARPing we're gonna see. These freaks have been inculcated that abortion is their High Sacrament. Wait til you see the passion plays they put on in front of the SC this week.  Prepare your souls normal folks. A portal from Hell is about to open.


----------



## Muhammed

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639645
> 
> *Amen!*


You're quoting Pocahontas? Seriously?  

You're one clueless fucking idiot.


----------



## Muhammed

SweetSue92 said:


> Roe v Wade is a terrible decision. Judicially speaking. And it always has been. It has FINALLY been challenged and been found empty as it should have been all along. Now the decisions go back to the states.
> 
> Women have always voted stupidly as a block and this might be no exception. But I also expect the Democrats to way, way overplay their political hand on this. They will go too far and it will be repugnant to most people. Most people who even say they're pro-choice don't really love abortion. Once these mentally ill Leftists let their freak flags fly we'll see what's what. This is far from over.


Logic does not sway those types. Nearly all of them have...

A: Had an abortion.

And/or

B: Been pressured by some stinky scumbag sporting a wifebeater shirt into getting an abortion.

Logical arguments will never change their minds regarding this issue. That's why we need to implement the death penalty for murdering babies.


----------



## lantern2814

Clipper said:


> You're right. There's plenty of right wing Gomers like yourself who don't give a shit about abortion.
> 
> And they won't go out & vote if there's a good game on or Married With Children reruns are running on cable.are
> 
> Come November, you'll be crying in your beer.


Massive projection here. Seek professional help. Uneducated sheep like you won’t move the needle. You morons were going to vote Dem anyway.


----------



## Quasar44

Anyone who supports  killing white babies is 100
Percent evil 👿


----------



## Quasar44

Muhammed said:


> Logic does not sway those types. Nearly all of them have...
> 
> A: Had an abortion.
> 
> And/or
> 
> B: Been pressured by some stinky scumbag sporting a wifebeater shirt into getting an abortion.
> 
> Logical arguments will never change their minds regarding this issue. That's why we need to implement the death penalty for murdering babies.


The Nazis used to love killing Jewish babies


----------



## SweetSue92

Quasar44 said:


> Anyone who supports  killing white babies is 100
> Percent evil 👿



Any babies. Any race.


----------



## Quasar44

SweetSue92 said:


> Any babies. Any race.


What ?? Yes I am 100 percent against killing nice white babies 
 It’s repulsive and evil


----------



## Muhammed

Quasar44 said:


> The Nazis used to love killing Jewish babies


...and they also loved killing Polack babies, and Russian babies, and black babies, and basically just babies in general. Kind of like Democrats.


----------



## SweetSue92

Quasar44 said:


> What ?? Yes I am 100 percent against killing nice white babies
> It’s repulsive and evil



You know what I meant. Killing any babies of any race is evil. Not just white. Any


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## Muhammed

Democrats: Death penalty for tiny innocent little babies, unlimited mercy for murderers.


----------



## 2aguy

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.




A leftist, bernie sanders, elizabeth warren supporter, democrat party voter tried to murder the entire Repbulican baseball team over obamacare.......whoever released this draft isn't stupid......they know what the brown shirts of the democrat party are capable of.  The democrat party used their blm/antifa brownshirts to burn, loot, and murder in black neighborhoods to attack Trump's election chances.........whoever released this draft knows that the conservative justices are now targets for murder..........

The left is insane, and will do absolutely anything for power.


----------



## Peace

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


I will mark this thread because if the GOP win in November just remember how you proclaimed they wouldn’t and how all women would not stand for this…

This isn’t the 1970’s and it is about time to start using birth control!


----------



## Weatherman2020




----------



## Peace

Clipper said:


> The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.
> 
> And millions of them vote.


Meh, they vote as the husband tells them…


----------



## Peace

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639671
> 
> Amen!  That's why I think SCOTUS may have intentionally leaked their draft opinion as a trial balloon.  I firmly believe this is good news for Democrats.


Translation : Please let this be the one subject that will Save Biden, Pelosi and Schumer because they truly suck at running the Government!


----------



## Peace

Lakhota said:


> These religious psychos must be purged from SCOTUS.


How will you do that?

Will you attempt to abort them?


----------



## Death Angel

Lakhota said:


> These religious psychos must be purged from SCOTUS.


Has nothing to do with religion but the CONSTITUTION.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


What’s the best part about your fetish to murder babies? Ripping off their limbs to murder them or cutting their spine?


----------



## SweetSue92

Weatherman2020 said:


> What’s the best part about your fetish to murder babies? Ripping off their limbs to murder them or cutting their spine?



Do any of these yahoos realize it just returns the decision back to the states?

No one "outlawed" abortions. My goodness. THE DRAMA


----------



## Weatherman2020

Lakhota said:


> These religious psychos must be purged from SCOTUS.


You run on ripping limbs off of babies to murder them this November, psycho.


----------



## Weatherman2020

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> And women of means in red states will still have access to abortion services.


What’s a woman?


----------



## Penelope

airplanemechanic said:


> Sean Hannity is reporting the same thing.
> 
> Thank God. Nowhere in the constitution does it make abortion legal. This should be up to the states.


The women are treated like 2nd class citizens by the republicans.


----------



## Penelope

any men should be allowed to say.


----------



## Penelope

BackAgain said:


> Absolutely. Let’s repeal that nasty First Amendment Freedom of Religion clause. What were we thinking?


She said religious *psychos.*


----------



## 1srelluc

White 6 said:


> I like your style.  Pure *white trash*, but with a sense of humor and style.


White Trash?.....How dare you!.....I don't live in a trailer park or even own a Bro-Dozer.


----------



## White 6

1srelluc said:


> White Trash?.....How dare you!.....I don't live in a trailer park or even own a Bro-Dozer.


I don't either, but that Bro-Dozer might be fun!


----------



## Flash

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


If you depend upon RvW to kill your children then you are a murderer.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Great news if this happens.  Its way past due.


----------



## MAGA Macho Man

Here's the alleged leaker. He's a foreign born radical non-natural born Citizen clerk for Justice Sotomayer.

This is why the allowance of third worlders into our nation is dangerous. 





This guy just upended the trust between justices and their clerks within the Supreme Court.


Who Is Amit Jain? Supreme Court Clerk Who Allegedly Exposed Abortion Draft​Supreme Court: Who Is Amit Jain? Clerk Wikipedia Twitter & Family Background


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Just breaking


----------



## Flash

Killing children for the purpose of birth control ain't cool.  In fact it is despicable.


----------



## Flash

If the Court's decision is that the States can decide what they want to do then that is a great thing for the Red states.  That means all the Moon Bats will move out of the Red States and relocate in the Commie states so they can kill their children.  A big win for the Red states.


----------



## Flash

Bruce_Almighty said:


> I will mark this thread because if the GOP win in November just remember how you proclaimed they wouldn’t and how all women would not stand for this…
> 
> This isn’t the 1970’s and it is about time to start using birth control!




Absolutely!

Killing your children for the purpose of birth control is murder.


----------



## Flash

Penelope said:


> any men should be allowed to say.


Every woman that I know in family and friends are against abortion.


----------



## martybegan

MAGA Macho Man said:


> Here's the alleged leaker. He's a foreign born radical non-natural born Citizen clerk for Justice Sotomayer.
> 
> This is why the allowance of third worlders into our nation is dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy just upended the trust between justices and their clerks within the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> Who Is Amit Jain? Supreme Court Clerk Who Allegedly Exposed Abortion Draft​Supreme Court: Who Is Amit Jain? Clerk Wikipedia Twitter & Family Background



He needs to have the everloving shit prosecuted out of him if he is the putz that did this.


----------



## Dragonlady

Bruce_Almighty said:


> I will mark this thread because if the GOP win in November just remember how you proclaimed they wouldn’t and how all women would not stand for this…
> 
> This isn’t the 1970’s and it is about time to start using birth control!



One in four women in the USA have abortions before the age of 40.  Women will continue to have abortions, but instead of medically safe abortions, you're going back to women bleeding out in emergency rooms from botched attempts.

Those of us who remember what it was like before abortion was legal, will not go back to these days.  There is simply no excuse for this.  I'm grateful I live in a country where women's rights are respected.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Remodeling Maidiac said:


> Just breaking


Yeah, you know how the progressives are all for "women's rights".  While the left pushes their agenda of their war on women by allowing men with tits to be in women's bathrooms and steal competition awards from the women.  You just cant make this shit up on the stupidity of the left to think they care for women.


----------



## easyt65

Democrats are about strict control of every aspect of your life, dictating rather than giving freedom of choice. Killing viable babies was always only half their goal - stripping you of your own choice has been the other.


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> One in four women in the USA have abortions before the age of 40.  Women will continue to have abortions, but instead of medically safe abortions, you're going back to women bleeding out in emergency rooms from botched attempts.
> 
> Those of us who remember what it was like before abortion was legal, will not go back to these days.  There is simply no excuse for this.  I'm grateful I live in a country where women's rights are respected.



These days there are pills that will do it if taken early enough, and as our failed war on drugs has shown, getting pills out and about is crazy easy. 

The States that want abortions will keep abortions, the States that want to restrict abortions will restrict abortions, and the States that want to ban abortions will ban abortions. 

If Abortion rights people want to, they can ship ADULTS to States that allow it, to me any State law that tries to prevent that in ADULTS or for Minors with parental permission is unconstitutional,


----------



## Blues Man

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


States can still pass laws to make it legal and most will


----------



## Dragonlady

Flash said:


> Every woman that I know in family and friends are against abortion.



Everyone is against abortion.  No one ever wants to have one.  But they are often, the only choice.  If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.  It's that simple.

Every woman you know is against abortion, but ask how many of them have had abortions, and you'd be surprised at how many of them will say yes.  One in four women have abortions before age 40.  They will continue to have abortions, and they will die because of it.


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> Everyone is against abortion.  No one ever wants to have one.  But they are often, the only choice.  If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.  It's that simple.
> 
> Every woman you know is against abortion, but ask how many of them have had abortions, and you'd be surprised at how many of them will say yes.  One in four women have abortions before age 40.  They will continue to have abortions, and they will die because of it.



Bullshit. 

ShoutYourAbortion - Wikipedia

It started out as "safe, legal, and rare" It turned into a sacrament of the hard left.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> One in four women in the USA have abortions before the age of 40.  Women will continue to have abortions, but instead of medically safe abortions, you're going back to women bleeding out in emergency rooms from botched attempts.
> 
> Those of us who remember what it was like before abortion was legal, will not go back to these days.  There is simply no excuse for this.  I'm grateful I live in a country where women's rights are respected.


----------



## Zincwarrior

BackAgain said:


> Wrong again. It may be up to the State, soon. I am sorry to report that infanticide of the preborn will probably still be legal in many deep blue shithole states.


Women will decide what "the state" does in the next elections. They are the majority and both sides will be energized.


----------



## Dragonlady

martybegan said:


> These days there are pills that will do it if taken early enough, and as our failed war on drugs has shown, getting pills out and about is crazy easy.
> 
> The States that want abortions will keep abortions, the States that want to restrict abortions will restrict abortions, and the States that want to ban abortions will ban abortions.
> 
> If Abortion rights people want to, they can ship ADULTS to States that allow it, to me any State law that tries to prevent that in ADULTS or for Minors with parental permission is unconstitutional,



That's always the argument - go to a state where it's legal.  And that's what women did.  But the poorest women don't have the resources to travel.  They have children and jobs and don't have the money to travel, and can't take the time off work to go to another jurisdiction, go through the waiting periods and the unneccesary tests required by law, and have the operation.  

Rich women have always had access to abortion.  When I was younger they went to Japan or Sweden.  But poor women - the ones who are not in an emotional or financial position to raise another child, the women who can't afford to travel, will either seek a back alley abortion, or they'll have a child they are ill prepared to raise.


----------



## Delldude

*Sotomayor has the most radical Leftist staff.*


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> That's always the argument - go to a state where it's legal.  And that's what women did.  But the poorest women don't have the resources to travel.  They have children and jobs and don't have the money to travel, and can't take the time off work to go to another jurisdiction, go through the waiting periods and the unneccesary tests required by law, and have the operation.
> 
> Rich women have always had access to abortion.  When I was younger they went to Japan or Sweden.  But poor women - the ones who are not in an emotional or financial position to raise another child, the women who can't afford to travel, will either seek a back alley abortion, or they'll have a child they are ill prepared to raise.



Well PP and NARAL have tons of funding and can make it happen now that they won't be spending all that money on defending Roe. 

Considering they are poor, paying for a babysitter and covering their salary, or even paying off their employer would be pretty inexpensive. They can even make big busses with ABORTION RIDE plastered on the side of them.


----------



## Dragonlady

TemplarKormac said:


>



All of those things are currently happening. 

Gay marriage is next on the extreme right agenda.  The leaked decision laws the groundwork for overturning gay rights as well.  There are a lot of privacy related laws which are tied to Roe, beyond abortion.  Trump's Supreme Court is poised to wipe out civil rights the American people have fought for 50 years to obtain.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## Delldude

Dragonlady said:


> That's always the argument - go to a state where it's legal.  And that's what women did.  But the poorest women don't have the resources to travel.


I'd expect a new subsidy from the gov't.


----------



## Delldude

TemplarKormac said:


>


Yeah but....yeah but.....


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> All of those things are currently happening.


No they aren't. Gay marriage is legal, the first amendment exists, birth control is readily available and gay kids are freely able to obtain an education here in America, and you are free to vote for pro abortion policies with no restrictions whatsoever. That's if you're an American citizen. Which you are not. 

Please show me the opposite.


----------



## DBA

They think they can pressure a judge, like Roberts,  to change his vote due to pressure. He did the same with Obamacare. The other possibility is they are trying stir up their nutty base to help them in the mid-terms.

Which Democratic justice leaked these notes? That is a HUGE no no and just goes to show you how crooked they really are.


----------



## surada

night_son said:


> Seems like pro-abortion fuckers have daily and annual quotas of babies to murder, so yeah—it matters to them what other states do and do not allow; got to get them dead baby numbers up . . .


Abortion rates have been declining for 40 years.


----------



## AMart

Even Suzy Wang here knows this is evil,


----------



## Oddball

They're working ovdertime to gin up some "mostly peaceful" protests.


----------



## Oddball

DBA said:


> They think they can pressure a judge, like Roberts,  to change his vote due to pressure. He did the same with Obamacare. The other possibility is they are trying stir up their nutty base to help them in the mid-terms.
> 
> Which Democratic justice leaked these notes? That is a HUGE no no and just goes to show you how crooked they really are.


I hear it told that he's on Epstein's "tourist" roster.


----------



## Blues Man

AMart said:


> Even Suzy Wang here knows this is evil,


I always said there should be some limit on abortions.

I don't think anything up until the point of viability outside the womb should be illegal, after that if the life of the mother in in jeopardy or some genetic defect in the fetus is discovered would be the only 2 exceptions


----------



## alang1216

DBA said:


> They think they can pressure a judge, like Roberts,  to change his vote due to pressure. He did the same with Obamacare. The other possibility is they are trying stir up their nutty base to help them in the mid-terms.
> 
> Which Democratic justice leaked these notes? That is a HUGE no no and just goes to show you how crooked they really are.


Could also be a conservative justice running it up the flagpole to see the reactions.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Oddball said:


> They're working ovdertime to gin up some "mostly peaceful" protests.


AKA an insurection?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

alang1216 said:


> Could also be a conservative justice running it up the flagpole to see the reactions.


It's a democrat clerk...GUARANTEED


----------



## DBA

alang1216 said:


> Could also be a conservative justice running it up the flagpole to see the reactions.



That is far less likely IMO.


----------



## JustAGuy1

DBA said:


> They think they can pressure a judge, like Roberts,  to change his vote due to pressure. He did the same with Obamacare. The other possibility is they are trying stir up their nutty base to help them in the mid-terms.
> 
> Which Democratic justice leaked these notes? That is a HUGE no no and just goes to show you how crooked they really are.



This is my take too, it's a Hail Mary for the mid terms.


----------



## easyt65

The leak is a criminal ploy to pressure the outcome, to prevent the reversal.

No liberal / Democrat will be held accountable.

The reversal is either Constitutional or not. It being leaked in advance has no bearing on Constitutionality, thus the leak should have no bearing on the final decision.


----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


The authoritarians will only seize control in regressive states.

The ideologues' overthrow of precedent will be divisive for the nation, as maximal statists further arrogate to politicians and bureaucrats the control of Americans' wombs.

Rather than the individual American making a personal, informed decision in consultation with loved ones and trusted medical and spiritual advisers, an impersonal, blanket edict will be issued from on high by politicians and bureaucrats as rabid Statism usurps such personal freedom.

The consequence will be that more advanced, better educated states will re-enforce liberty, consistent with the progress that has been made in developed nations throughout the world, while the repressive, retrogressive jurisdictions will impose draconian government control upon the populace.

*Americans Still Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade*

*Most Americans favor keeping Roe v. Wade: polling*

*Majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade being upheld*

*Poll: Roe v. Wade ruling remains broadly popular*

*Majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade: poll*​
A vast number of freedom-loving Americans will oppose the Statist seizure of personal.private prerogatives that will abolish the established rights of Americans that have been respected for half-a-century.


----------



## Hellokitty

DBA said:


> They think they can pressure a judge, like Roberts,  to change his vote due to pressure. He did the same with Obamacare. The other possibility is they are trying stir up their nutty base to help them in the mid-terms.
> 
> Which Democratic justice leaked these notes? That is a HUGE no no and just goes to show you how crooked they really are.



Even if Roberts, who is listed as undecided, sided with the 3 liberals it would be 5/4. Democrats know they have lost many voters due to FJB's failed policies, so they want to use this as a wedge issue to gin up support before the midterms, along with a way of intimidating the conservative Justices to change their vote.


----------



## Clipper

2aguy said:


> A leftist, bernie sanders, elizabeth warren supporter, democrat party voter tried to murder the entire Repbulican baseball team over obamacare.......whoever released this draft isn't stupid......they know what the brown shirts of the democrat party are capable of.  The democrat party used their blm/antifa brownshirts to burn, loot, and murder in black neighborhoods to attack Trump's election chances.........whoever released this draft knows that the conservative justices are now targets for murder..........
> 
> The left is insane, and will do absolutely anything for power.


The door is now wide open for the SCOTUS to be expanded, mouth breather.

You Trump asseaters just stepped on your own dicks.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

schmidlap said:


> The authoritarians will only seize control in regressive states.
> 
> The ideologues' overthrow of precedent will be divisive for the nation, as maximal statists further arrogate to politicians and bureaucrats the control of Americans' wombs.
> 
> Rather than the individual American making a personal, informed decision in consultation with loved ones and trusted medical and spiritual advisers, an impersonal, blanket edict will be issued from on high by politicians and bureaucrats as rabid Statism usurps such personal freedom.
> 
> The consequence will be that more advanced, better educated states will re-enforce liberty, consistent with the progress that has been made in developed nations throughout the world, while the repressive, retrogressive jurisdictions will impose draconian government control upon the populace.
> 
> *Americans Still Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade*
> 
> *Most Americans favor keeping Roe v. Wade: polling*
> 
> *Majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade being upheld*
> 
> *Poll: Roe v. Wade ruling remains broadly popular*
> 
> *Majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade: poll*​
> A vast number of freedom-loving Americans will oppose the Statist seizure of personal.private prerogatives that will abolish the established rights of Americans that have been respected for half-a-century.


Ohhhhsss Noooos fat ass. What are you going to eat for lunch now?


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Clipper said:


> The door is now wide open for the SCOTUS to be expanded, mouth breather.
> 
> You Trump asseaters just steppen on your own dicks.


Whoever the fucked leaked this is in serious ass trouble. Kagan or that mongoloid have a lodda splainin to do you. You were what abortion was intended for


----------



## Viktor

easyt65 said:


> The leak is a criminal ploy to pressure the outcome, to prevent the reversal.
> 
> No liberal / Democrat will be held accountable.
> 
> The reversal is either Constitutional or not. It being leaked in advance has no bearing on Constitutionality, thus the leak should have no bearing on the final decision.


The original ruling was a joke. The Constitution gives the federal govt no authority over medical matters and the const does not even mention abortion.


----------



## Clipper

Hang on Sloopy said:


> Whoever the fucked leaked this is in serious ass trouble. Kagan or that mongoloid have a lodda splainin to do you. You were what abortion was intended for


If the decision is such a wonderful thing why are you right wing Trump asseaters hysterical over the leak?

I didn't know that you were pro abortion, mouth breather.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Clipper said:


> If the decision is such a wonderful thing why are you right wing Trump asseaters hysterical over the leak?
> 
> I didn't know that you were pro abortion, mouth breather.


This was a deliberate attempt to change one opinion. This ruined the SC

I hope a violent insurrection happens...a real one


----------



## Dragonlady

TemplarKormac said:


> No they aren't. Gay marriage is legal, the first amendment exists, birth control is readily available and gay kids are freely able to obtain an education here in America, and you are free to vote for pro abortion policies with no restrictions whatsoever. That's if you're an American citizen. Which you are not.
> 
> Please show me the opposite.



You haven't really seen what's going on because you're not looking.  The extreme right has just spent 50 years working to overturn Roe, including subverting the Supreme Court selection process to pack the court with extreme right wing factions.  70% of Americans are in favour of abortion rights for women.

Democrats have won the popular vote for president in every election since 1992, except 2006, and yet the Republicans have denied Democrats appointments a hearing, and rammed through an unqualified fringe candidate days before the 2020 election.  The SC does not reflect the will of the American people.

The Senators who confirmed ACB to the court, represented 1.5 million fewer voters, than the Senators who voted against her confirmation.

Gay marriage is legal, for now, but the same people who are overturning abortion, are laying the groundwork in the abortion decision, to overturn gay marriage as well.  They're coming for your rights next, little gay boy.

Right wingers are already saying the access to birth control is bad for women - leading to promiscuous and dangerous behaviour.


----------



## skews13

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


Are you psyched? Just remember, the 4 justices that may vote to do that, swore under oath Roe was settled law at their confirmation hearings.

That’s the first thing I want you to remember, because that’s going to come back to bite conservatives in the ass hard.

The next thing I want you to remember, is now the court that has a majority, chosen by Presidents that did not win the popular vote, is now an illegitimate court, and the majority of the country now sees it exactly that way.

So much for the rule of law.

Now anything is possible as far as individual rights go. Any future court can now make any ruling, on any right, any way, as settled law no longer applies.

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## 22lcidw

Hellokitty said:


> Even if Roberts, who is listed as undecided, sided with the 3 liberals it would be 5/4. Democrats know they have lost many voters due to FJB's failed policies, so they want to use this as a wedge issue to gin up support before the midterms, along with a way of intimidating the conservative Justices to change their vote.


Roberts has cost taxpayers a lot of money. We all know that Progs put judges in that give them near unanimous agreed decisions. Not the Repubs though. We are to the point that everyday citizens can be branded terrorists for an offense a government entity wants to charge them with.


----------



## Blues Man

Dragonlady said:


> You haven't really seen what's going on because you're not looking.  The extreme right has just spent 50 years working to overturn Roe, including subverting the Supreme Court selection process to pack the court with extreme right wing factions.  70% of Americans are in favour of abortion rights for women.
> 
> Democrats have won the popular vote for president in every election since 1992, except 2006, and yet the Republicans have denied Democrats appointments a hearing, and rammed through an unqualified fringe candidate days before the 2020 election.  The SC does not reflect the will of the American people.
> 
> The Senators who confirmed ACB to the court, represented 1.5 million fewer voters, than the Senators who voted against her confirmation.
> 
> Gay marriage is legal, for now, but the same people who are overturning abortion, are laying the groundwork in the abortion decision, to overturn gay marriage as well.  They're coming for your rights next, little gay boy.
> 
> Right wingers are already saying the access to birth control is bad for women - leading to promiscuous and dangerous behaviour.


No one has 
packed the court"

No administration knows exactly when a Justice will die or retire so the timing of which president who gets to nominate a justice is unpredictable.


----------



## bodecea

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


What a wonderful way to fire up the Left.


----------



## schmidlap

Hang on Sloopy said:


> Ohhhhsss Noooos fat ass. What are you going to eat for lunch now?


Your inability to engage in rational discussion is unfortunate.


----------



## jknowgood

Clipper said:


> The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.
> 
> And millions of them vote.


Not really some gave up that right when they wanted to force everyone to get a vaccine.


----------



## jknowgood

bodecea said:


> What a wonderful way to fire up the Left.


You're still going to lose in November.


----------



## jknowgood

Lakhota said:


> This may likely be good news for Democrats in forthcoming elections - because most people support legal abortions.


Actually the new generation doesn't really care and other Americans are turning against it because of late term abortions.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

schmidlap said:


> Your inability to engage in rational discussion is unfortunate.


Dude or mam, whatever you prefer, I am so happy this happened. Every Real American should be concerned

You are only looking at an election. C'mon you are a time card puncher, you are as dumb as you look


----------



## Darkwind

The real story here is that some clerk leaked a draft opinion.


That person should be barred from the legal profession for life.


----------



## Whodatsaywhodat.

night_son said:


> Good news, however, proponents of mass child sacrifice will do anything to maintain status quo. If this looks certain to pass expect political terrorism of the degree we've never before witnessed domestically. Further, if 'armies' of pro-death abortion fanatics choose this as their hill to fight and die on I say we accommodate them.


I agree that lefty will attack like never before. They are great at violence .


----------



## schmidlap

Hang on Sloopy said:


> Dude or mam, whatever you prefer, I am so happy this happened. Every Real American should be concerned
> 
> You are only looking at an election. C'mon you are a time card puncher, you are as dumb as you look


I don't know what election you are looking to.

As I noted, the consequence of rabid authoritarianism in reproductive matters will be more advanced, better educated states re-enforcing personal liberty, consistent with the progress that has been made in developed nations throughout the world, while the repressive, retrogressive jurisdictions will impose additional draconian government controls upon the populace.


----------



## Nostra

Countdown to the calls from the left to pack the court..................


----------



## aaronleland

HereWeGoAgain said:


> So how many abortions are you up to now?
> Two dozen?


I fuck without condoms just so I can pay for abortions. It's a hobby of mine.


----------



## bodecea

hjmick said:


> Thus welcoming in the era of Abortion Vacations...


I remember quickie divorce vacations.....only for the rich.


----------



## SavannahMann

DBA said:


> They think they can pressure a judge, like Roberts,  to change his vote due to pressure. He did the same with Obamacare. The other possibility is they are trying stir up their nutty base to help them in the mid-terms.
> 
> Which Democratic justice leaked these notes? That is a HUGE no no and just goes to show you how crooked they really are.



Ok. When you pull your panties out of your crack and calm down you might start thinking. Probably not. But might.

The numbers we are hearing is 5-3. Now by my math that means that there is one Justice who hasn’t voted. You may need to break out a calculator 

As for who released it. The best guess is ACB since she is proving to Trump she did what she was told.


----------



## JLW

alang1216 said:


> Could also be a conservative justice running it up the flagpole to see the reactions.


Unlike the OP who pulled the Democrats leaked the document from his ass, I am somewhat inclined to agree with you.  The draft opinion is a draft and may or may not become the final opinion of SCOTUS. Given the ramifications of this decision they may have purposefully leaked it.  I wouldn't be surprised either way. Be that as it may, SCOTUS opinions go through many variations as they are circulated among the justices. It is not uncommon for a justice to change their vote. I'll wait for the final opinion.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

schmidlap said:


> I don't know what election you are looking to.
> 
> As I noted, the consequence of rabid authoritarianism in reproductive matters will be more advanced, better educated states re-enforcing personal liberty, consistent with the progress that has been made in developed nations throughout the world, while the repressive, retrogressive jurisdictions will impose additional draconian government controls upon the populace.


Simply put. Anyone who views abortion as some sort of sacred ritual, I wish they would have been terminated. Hopefully, half out and a forecep head crushing, or a real botched one that sterilized your whore who dropped you on your fucking head

Now get the fuck away from me you pile a shat


Damed I read this twice. Can anyone make suggestions to make this more brutal, or is that impossible?


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

bodecea said:


> I remember quickie divorce vacations.....only for the rich.


Hey dude what's up?  Who do you know who had a quickie besides your boyfriend up your rectum?

Pssstttt.....Report me now


----------



## bodecea

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


male


----------



## Ralph Norton

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## Peace

Dragonlady said:


> One in four women in the USA have abortions before the age of 40.  Women will continue to have abortions, but instead of medically safe abortions, you're going back to women bleeding out in emergency rooms from botched attempts.
> 
> Those of us who remember what it was like before abortion was legal, will not go back to these days.  There is simply no excuse for this.  I'm grateful I live in a country where women's rights are respected.


You are lying as usual because the USSC did not outlaw abortions across the nation, so you need to shut the fuck up and stop lying!

All the ruling will do is put it back into the hands of the States to regulate which fucking mean each State will have to decide if they want to allow those like you to abort your child after you give birth or not allow it at all!

Also you are not American and I truly doubt you are Canadian and you are most likely some Chinese bot spreading disinformation as usual!

So again, the USSC ruling put it back in the States hands and allow States to make the choice on abortion but you will proclaim all Women will lose this right when that is untrue and you damn well know it!


----------



## bodecea

airplanemechanic said:


> Sean Hannity is reporting the same thing.
> 
> Thank God. Nowhere in the constitution does it make abortion legal. This should be up to the states.


Probably male.


----------



## bodecea

Nostra said:


> Can't wait to watch heads explode (and not babies) if this comes to fruition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
> 
> 
> “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com


Probably male.


----------



## Ralph Norton

Clipper said:


> If the decision is such a wonderful thing why are you right wing Trump asseaters hysterical over the leak?
> 
> I didn't know that you were pro abortion, mouth breather.


The leak and the ruling are two separate issues jackass.


----------



## bodecea

TemplarKormac said:


> Crap,  beat me to it.
> 
> Abortion can be strictly regulated by the states now. Perfect.


Male.


----------



## justoffal

TemplarKormac said:


> Crap,  beat me to it.
> 
> Abortion can be strictly regulated by the states now. Perfect.


Well yeah..this actually gives the left MORE LEVERAGE NOT LESS.


----------



## justoffal

Ralph Norton said:


> The leak and the ruling are two separate issues jackass.


Prolly kiddie porn Kentanji.


----------



## Moonglow

Like I should care one way or the other.


----------



## martybegan

Darkwind said:


> The real story here is that some clerk leaked a draft opinion.
> 
> 
> That person should be barred from the legal profession for life.



At least that. If this leads to protests with fatalities, they should be charged with depraved indifference.


----------



## bodecea

Flash said:


> That is great news if true.


Male.


----------



## bodecea

night_son said:


> Good news, however, proponents of mass child sacrifice will do anything to maintain status quo. If this looks certain to pass expect political terrorism of the degree we've never before witnessed domestically. Further, if 'armies' of pro-death abortion fanatics choose this as their hill to fight and die on I say we accommodate them.


Probably male.


----------



## Dragonlady

Blues Man said:


> No one has
> packed the court"
> 
> No administration knows exactly when a Justice will die or retire so the timing of which president who gets to nominate a justice is unpredictable.



Yes they have.  Trump was gifted with 3 appointments by virtue of Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider Merrick Garland, and by ramming through the ACB appointment days before the election.  That gave a twice impeached criminal President, who failed to ever win the popular vote, three SC picks.

That's the very definition of "packing the court".


----------



## bodecea

HereWeGoAgain said:


> So how many abortions are you up to now?
> Two dozen?


Male.


----------



## 22lcidw

JLW said:


> Unlike the OP who pulled the Democrats leaked the document from his ass, I am somewhat inclined to agree with you.  The draft opinion is a draft and may or may not become the final opinion of SCOTUS. Given the ramifications of this decision they may have purposefully leaked it.  I wouldn't be surprised either way. Be that as it may, SCOTUS opinions go through many variations as they are circulated among the justices. It is not uncommon for a justice to change their vote. I'll wait for the final opinion.


Supposedly this broke a rule that none of this is supposed to happen as the Supreme Court justices talk about it for a period of time. It is being speculated that this is just another planned deconstruction of the Constitution by the Progs.


----------



## bodecea

ColonelAngus said:


> The fact that blue state assholes in NY and CA give a shit about what other states do with their laws shows what absolute Nazis they are.
> 
> You blue state fascists can suck it.


Male. (angry male)


----------



## bodecea

Hang on Sloopy said:


> Simply put. Anyone who views abortion as some sort of sacred ritual, I wish they would have been terminated. Hopefully, half out and a forecep head crushing, or a real botched one that sterilized your whore who dropped you on your fucking head
> 
> Now get the fuck away from me you pile a shat
> 
> 
> Damed I read this twice. Can anyone make suggestions to make this more brutal, or is that impossible?


Probably Male.


----------



## Stormy Daniels

DBA said:


> They think they can pressure a judge, like Roberts,  to change his vote due to pressure. He did the same with Obamacare.



Fail. According to the leaked information Roberts is already voting with the liberal cohort.


----------



## bodecea

jknowgood said:


> You're still going to lose in November.


We may ALL lose in November while you pro-putin/trump con-servatives destroy America.


----------



## Stormy Daniels

martybegan said:


> At least that. If this leads to protests with fatalities, they should be charged with depraved indifference.



The Jan 6 insurrection thread is over there. *points*


----------



## Dragonlady

Hang on Sloopy said:


> Simply put. Anyone who views abortion as some sort of sacred ritual, I wish they would have been terminated. Hopefully, half out and a forecep head crushing, or a real botched one that sterilized your whore who dropped you on your fucking head
> 
> Now get the fuck away from me you pile a shat
> 
> 
> Damed I read this twice. Can anyone make suggestions to make this more brutal, or is that impossible?



Brutality against women is a hallmark of the anti-abortionists.  Your hatred of women is duly noted.  You were obviously dropped on YOUR head numerous times.  This movement is grounded is misogyny and a desire to control and harm poor women and their families.  

You're a disgrace to humanity.


----------



## Blues Man

Dragonlady said:


> Yes they have.  Trump was gifted with 3 appointments by virtue of Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider Merrick Garland, and by ramming through the ACB appointment days before the election.  That gave a twice impeached criminal President, who failed to ever win the popular vote, three SC picks.
> 
> That's the very definition of "packing the court".


There was no " gift"

It was unpredictable timing that is all it was.  The rest was political as usual and a Democrat president with a majority in the senate would have done the exact same thing

This can happen in any administration FDR nominated 8 in his terms as president.  If anything you should be whining about this because we actually suspended the Constitution for FDR


----------



## Desperado

One thing is for sure with the leak on Abortion we can see who are the real Christians and the Christians in name only


----------



## skews13

Bruce_Almighty said:


> You are lying as usual because the USSC did not outlaw abortions across the nation, so you need to shut the fuck up and stop lying!
> 
> All the ruling will do is put it back into the hands of the States to regulate which fucking mean each State will have to decide if they want to allow those like you to abort your child after you give birth or not allow it at all!
> 
> Also you are not American and I truly doubt you are Canadian and you are most likely some Chinese bot spreading disinformation as usual!
> 
> So again, the USSC ruling put it back in the States hands and allow States to make the choice on abortion but you will proclaim all Women will lose this right when that is untrue and you damn well know it!



The main issue here is the justices all committed perjury, if they vote to overturn Roe. That is the precedent that has been set.

All future confirmation hearings will be based upon that fact now. It also opens the door to reinterpret an present amendments of the Constitution, and that includes the second.

Like I said earlier, this is going to come back to bite conservatives in the ass hard.

On a lot of rights, near and dear to their hearts.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

bodecea said:


> Probably Male.


What dude?......Why do some of the real women here call you a dude?


----------



## skews13

Desperado said:


> One thing is for sure with the leak on Abortion we can see who are the real Christians and the Christians in name only



Interesting reply. According to the Christian bible, the woman’s life is protected.

So there is no “real” Christian that’s for overturning wade. Just Christians in name only.


----------



## Blues Man

skews13 said:


> The main issue here is the justices all committed perjury, if they vote to overturn Roe. That is the precedent that has been set.
> 
> All future confirmation hearings will be based upon that fact now. It also opens the door to reinterpret an present amendments of the Constitution, and that includes the second.
> 
> Like I said earlier, this is going to come back to bite conservatives in the ass hard.
> 
> On a lot of rights, near and dear to their hearts.


Abortion was never part of a Constitutional amendment so the procedures for reversing the ruling are different than they are for repealing an amendment.






						What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? | Constitution Center
					

A current public debate started by a retired Supreme Court Justice has people talking about possibly repealing one of the Constitution’s original 10 amendments. In reality, the odds of such an act happening are extremely long.



					constitutioncenter.org


----------



## Flash

bodecea said:


> Male.


My wife and daughters in laws and every female I know feels the same way.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Bruce_Almighty said:


> You are lying as usual because the USSC did not outlaw abortions across the nation, so you need to shut the fuck up and stop lying!
> 
> All the ruling will do is put it back into the hands of the States to regulate which fucking mean each State will have to decide if they want to allow those like you to abort your child after you give birth or not allow it at all!
> 
> Also you are not American and I truly doubt you are Canadian and you are most likely some Chinese bot spreading disinformation as usual!
> 
> So again, the USSC ruling put it back in the States hands and allow States to make the choice on abortion but you will proclaim all Women will lose this right when that is untrue and you damn well know it!


He's a dude just like Boaddicklicker


----------



## task0778

Turtlesoup said:


> Why do republicans play the abortion games and right before elections that they should be winning a bunch of seats.  This is a stupid political move----you wanna make a bunch of women remember why they hate republicans right before an election---going after abortion is the way to do it.



???  Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court should make rulings or time their rulings based on politics?  

That ain't their job, they are supposed to decide what is constitutional under existing law and let the chips fall where they may.  It's up to Congress to legislate correctly, the bench isn't supposed to do that for them.  Neither is the President.


----------



## BackAgain

Penelope said:


> She said religious *psychos.*


A meaningless term.  It meant in the context in which it was used “people with religious beliefs.”  Show me I’m wrong, Penelplop.


----------



## Peace

skews13 said:


> The main issue here is the justices all committed perjury, if they vote to overturn Roe. That is the precedent that has been set.
> 
> All future confirmation hearings will be based upon that fact now. It also opens the door to reinterpret an present amendments of the Constitution, and that includes the second.
> 
> Like I said earlier, this is going to come back to bite conservatives in the ass hard.
> 
> On a lot of rights, near and dear to their hearts.


There is no amendment for abortion, so you are truly reaching as usual by trying to equate Abortion to Guns…


----------



## jknowgood

bodecea said:


> We may ALL lose in November while you pro-putin/trump con-servatives destroy America.


Lol, who is in control now, with the destruction going on. Before the pandemic we were doing the best we ever had. Even with you loons losing your little minds daily.


----------



## BackAgain

Blues Man said:


> States can still pass laws to make it legal and most will


The thrust of the draft decision does seem to hold that abortion law will be a state law matter. This has been said earlier.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

TemplarKormac said:


> That's true. Very true. Many fathers suffer because they watch as their children are aborted on a whim, on top of their economic struggles.


Young people turn against abortion because those are brothers and sisters.  They hear from their peers that escaped abortion like Tim Tebow and Justin Biever.  It doesn't look good to them.  

This is not the slam dunk that the left imagines.


----------



## martybegan

task0778 said:


> ???  Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court should make rulings or time their rulings based on politics?
> 
> That ain't their job, they are supposed to decide what is constitutional under existing law and let the chips fall where they may.  It's up to Congress to legislate correctly, the bench isn't supposed to do that for them.  Neither is the President.



This is the cumulation of decades of progressive effort to end run around legislation.  Now they are getting called on it and they are ready to explode over the results.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> The authoritarians will only seize control in regressive states.
> 
> The ideologues' overthrow of precedent will be divisive for the nation, as maximal statists further arrogate to politicians and bureaucrats the control of Americans' wombs.
> 
> Rather than the individual American making a personal, informed decision in consultation with loved ones and trusted medical and spiritual advisers, an impersonal, blanket edict will be issued from on high by politicians and bureaucrats as rabid Statism usurps such personal freedom.
> 
> The consequence will be that more advanced, better educated states will re-enforce liberty, consistent with the progress that has been made in developed nations throughout the world, while the repressive, retrogressive jurisdictions will impose draconian government control upon the populace.
> 
> *Americans Still Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade*
> 
> *Most Americans favor keeping Roe v. Wade: polling*
> 
> *Majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade being upheld*
> 
> *Poll: Roe v. Wade ruling remains broadly popular*
> 
> *Majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade: poll*​
> A vast number of freedom-loving Americans will oppose the Statist seizure of personal.private prerogatives that will abolish the established rights of Americans that have been respected for half-a-century.


I realize you regret it, but the states you falsely accuse of simply being “authoritarian” will err on the side of life. I know how that must hurt a person of your natural moral infirmities.


----------



## martybegan

BackAgain said:


> The thrust of the draft decision does seem to hold that abortion law will be a state le matter. This has been said earlier.



And unlike the doomsayer progressives think, most people against Roe will be willing to stop at that. the number who want a national ban isn't nearly as high as the number who detest Roe, or just want to be able to ban it at the State level, and let the "blue state heathens" reap what they sow.


----------



## bodecea

skews13 said:


> Interesting reply. According to the Christian bible, the woman’s life is protected.
> 
> So there is no “real” Christian that’s for overturning wade. Just Christians in name only.


It was all about deflecting from white flight from public schools.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Clipper said:


> The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.
> 
> And millions of them vote.



However, more women are against abortion than men.


----------



## BackAgain

skews13 said:


> Are you psyched? Just remember, the 4 justices that may vote to do that, swore under oath Roe was settled law at their confirmation hearings.
> 
> That’s the first thing I want you to remember, because that’s going to come back to bite conservatives in the ass hard.
> 
> The next thing I want you to remember, is now the court that has a majority, chosen by Presidents that did not win the popular vote, is now an illegitimate court, and the majority of the country now sees it exactly that way.
> 
> So much for the rule of law.
> 
> Now anything is possible as far as individual rights go. Any future court can now make any ruling, on any right, any way, as settled law no longer applies.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for.


It _was_ settled. That doesn’t mean it can’t be reconsidered. Dred Scott was settled too. So was Plessy v. Ferguson. And the settled law in the case of Roe v. Wade was horribly decided and was very much overdue for the trash pile of judicial history.


----------



## bodecea

Flash said:


> My wife and daughters in laws and every female I know feels the same way.


Because you told them, right?


----------



## BackAgain

bodecea said:


> What a wonderful way to fire up the Left.


Glad you and the other blood-sucking cretins are happy about that. Seek your solace where you can.


----------



## martybegan

BackAgain said:


> It _was_ settled. That doesn’t mean it can’t be reconsidered. Dred Scott was settled too. So was Plessy v. Ferguson. And the settled last in the case of Roe v. Wade was horribly decided and was very much overdue for the trash pile of judicial history.



All three were egregious over-reaches by the court. 

Next they can fix 2nd amendment end runs, Chevron deference, and the idiotic concept of qualified immunity.


----------



## BackAgain

bodecea said:


> male


Another ^ in a long line of posts establishing just what a complete useless hack you are.


----------



## bodecea

DigitalDrifter said:


> However, more women are against abortion than men.


Your link to that is missing.


----------



## bodecea

BackAgain said:


> Another ^ in a long line of posts establishing just what a complete useless hack you are.


Males telling women what to do with their bodies.


----------



## bodecea

BackAgain said:


> It _was_ settled. That doesn’t mean it can’t be reconsidered. Dred Scott was settled too. So was Plessy v. Ferguson. And the settled last in the case of Roe v. Wade was horribly decided and was very much overdue for the trash pile of judicial history.


Alito is the new Roger Taney.


----------



## Peace

bodecea said:


> Males telling women what to do with their bodies.


Petition your State to keep abortion legal and if you fail then you did not get enough women to support it…


----------



## Flash

bodecea said:


> Because you told them, right?


Because they are women that can't think for themselves and don't think killing children should be a method of birth control.


----------



## BackAgain

bodecea said:


> Males telling women what to do with their bodies.


The law deciding that murder is wrong.


----------



## BackAgain

bodecea said:


> Alito is the new Roger Taney.


Actually, he finally stepped-up and established that it’s ok for the SCOTUS to confess that a prior decision was baseless and wrong. Almost worthy of a new chapter in JFK’s Profiles in Courage.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Unfortunately, the news is covering this more as a crime of the leak itself than what the leak says. 

We all know it was a democrat that leaked it so dems in congress could push packing the courts to save RVW. Here we go. Be prepared for endless hearings and speeches.


----------



## Couchpotato

bodecea said:


> Males telling women what to do with their bodies.


What does someone's genitalia have to do with whether killing an unborn baby is murder or not?


----------



## Turtlesoup

TemplarKormac said:


> I don't think that's what happened here.


Perhaps---McConnel just gave his little speech talking about CRIMINALLY going after whoever ( a clerk is what the dems are claiming) leaked the dicussions?

Did McConnel do something intelligent for once?  Did he set a trap for our idiotic (Gainsburg was intelligent--two of the three other dem justices are just stupid stupid people) Supreme Court Justices?   Did one of them, Jackson (I am not naming names), leak secret information putting the other justices in DANGER as McConnel put it-----A CRIME that would have even our corrupt Justice removed from office?


----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:


> I realize you regret it, but the states you falsely accuse of simply being “authoritarian” will err on the side of life. I know how that must hurt a person of your natural moral infirmities.


Authoritarians alway contrive excuses for suppressing personal freedom and ramming their statism down the throats of everyone else.

The practical impact of legislating from the bench an unpopular ruling  will be that the authoritarians will only seize control in regressive states.


----------



## Couchpotato

Dragonlady said:


> Yes they have.  Trump was gifted with 3 appointments by virtue of Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider Merrick Garland, and by ramming through the ACB appointment days before the election.  That gave a twice impeached criminal President, who failed to ever win the popular vote, three SC picks.
> 
> That's the very definition of "packing the court".


Only if you change the actual accepted definition of packing the court.    You're definition of "guy I dont like getting to appoint justices I also dont like" isnt packing the court.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> Authoritarians alway contrive excuses for suppressing personal freedom and ramming their statism down the throats of everyone else.
> 
> The practical impact of legislating from the bench an unpopular ruling  will be that the authoritarians will only seize control in regressive states.


Yeah. You “enlightened” progressive types always find a way to dismiss defending human life of the innocent preborn. 

SCOTUS did legislate from the bench in 1973 and it took almost 50 years to repair that horrific mistake.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Penelope said:


> The women are treated like 2nd class citizens by the republicans.


Suddenly all of you Leftards are biologists.


----------



## Weatherman2020

These is a moment of intersectionality opportunity. Do not allow the left the luxury of the word “woman” in the context of this nearly erupted debate wherever it arises. Correct them at every turn. Remind them they are not biologists. Shove their preferred pronouns back down their throats until they gag.


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> Authoritarians alway contrive excuses for suppressing personal freedom and ramming their statism down the throats of everyone else.
> 
> The practical impact of legislating from the bench an unpopular ruling  will be that the authoritarians will only seize control in regressive states.


So in your head it's less authoritarian for the SCOTUS dictate to the states whether abortion is murder than individual state electorates deciding that for themselves?     Regardless of your stance on abortion or any other issue for that matter I dont see how state legislatures which are infinitely more answerable to constituencies than Federal ones and certainly the USSC could be seen as more authoritarian.      They just dont have the power to be certainly not for any lengthy period of time unlike at the Federal level.


----------



## Weatherman2020

schmidlap said:


> Authoritarians alway contrive excuses for suppressing personal freedom and ramming their statism down the throats of everyone else.
> 
> The practical impact of legislating from the bench an unpopular ruling  will be that the authoritarians will only seize control in regressive states.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


You mean those on the Left vetoed it? Everyone? Don’t think so !


----------



## iceberg

Dragonlady said:


> Yes they have.  Trump was gifted with 3 appointments by virtue of Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider Merrick Garland, and by ramming through the ACB appointment days before the election.  That gave a twice impeached criminal President, who failed to ever win the popular vote, three SC picks.
> 
> That's the very definition of "packing the court".


then tell your side to stop changing the rules on the fly.

"president in their lame duck year cannot appoint a SCOTUS" was the democrat mantra. well, until it didn't serve them, then they never said it.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Dragonlady said:


> Yes they have.  Trump was gifted with 3 appointments by virtue of Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider Merrick Garland, and by ramming through the ACB appointment days before the election.  That gave a twice impeached criminal President, who failed to ever win the popular vote, three SC picks.
> 
> That's the very definition of "packing the court".


As a famous community organizer once said - elections have consequences.


----------



## iceberg

BREAKING: Biden demands Americans elect more pro-choice senators, slams SCOTUS for draft ruling
					

“We do not know whether this draft is genuine, or whether it reflects the final decision of the Court,” wrote Biden in his statement released on Tuesday morning.




					thepostmillennial.com
				




they are simply remanding the issue back to the states to determine.

now, as for biden trying to make this a law - check me if im wrong, but if the SCOTUS *does* in fact rule in this manner, wouldn't the law then be unconstitutional?

once again biden seems to overstep authority to do what he wants. it seems this is getting worse with every admin abusing executive privilege and simply going around our processes of checks and balances to do what they want in the name of a "crisis".


----------



## Peace

Dragonlady said:


> Yes they have.  Trump was gifted with 3 appointments by virtue of Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider Merrick Garland, and by ramming through the ACB appointment days before the election.  That gave a twice impeached criminal President, who failed to ever win the popular vote, three SC picks.
> 
> That's the very definition of "packing the court".


Oh well…


----------



## BackAgain

*My Body. No Choice.*​


----------



## Esdraelon

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


I'd be curious to know WHICH of the Dem-appointed Justices leaked the draft.  There certainly can be no doubt that the Left want to fully politicize the court and bring pressure through politics to its decisions.  They seem unaware that the other members of SCOTUS are mature enough to KNOW the firestorm it would cause, so the pressure is just coming a few weeks sooner than expected.

I think it will cost the Rs the Senate but the House is too far gone for the Ds to save, even with this kind of media frenzy.


----------



## Esdraelon

Nostra said:


> Can't wait to watch heads explode (and not babies) if this comes to fruition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
> 
> 
> “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com


With this group, it may be more than heads exploding.  We're about to see full-scale viciousness on display.


----------



## Dragonlady

BackAgain said:


> View attachment 639859
> *My Body. No Choice.*​



This is not what abortion looks like.  This is yet another Republican lie.  This is a fully term fetus ready for birth, not a zygote or first trimester fetus which is when the vast majority of abortions take place.

Just more of the lies Republicans tell you.


----------



## Turtlesoup

BackAgain said:


> View attachment 639859
> *My Body. No Choice.*​


Somehow I don't think this picture is an accurate depiction of what is aborted.


----------



## Esdraelon

hjmick said:


> Thus welcoming in the era of Abortion Vacations...


So be it.  Just be sure it's Planned Parenthood doing the subsidizing.


----------



## bodecea

BackAgain said:


> View attachment 639859
> *My Body. No Choice.*​


Funny how no state does abortion at that stage unless the fetus is not viable.


----------



## Dragonlady

Nostra said:


> Can't wait to watch heads explode (and not babies) if this comes to fruition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
> 
> 
> “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com



Heads will not be exploding.  The Republican Party will be destroyed if this comes to pass.  

One in four American women has an abortion before age 40.  8 million more women voters than men.  Even Susan Collins is upset that Kavenaugh and Gorsuch lied to her about "settled precedent".


----------



## bodecea

bodecea said:


> Funny how no state does abortion at that stage unless the fetus is not viable.





Dragonlady said:


> Heads will not be exploding.  The Republican Party will be destroyed if this comes to pass.
> 
> One in four American women has an abortion before age 40.  8 million more women voters than men.  Even Susan Collins is upset that Kavenaugh and Gorsuch lied to her about "settled precedent".


trump even paid for seven abortions for his mistresses.


----------



## Esdraelon

ColonelAngus said:


> The fact that blue state assholes in NY and CA give a shit about what other states do with their laws shows what absolute Nazis they are.
> 
> You blue state fascists can suck it.


I recall a standing ovation being given in the NY statehouse when they passed what was effectively a right to retroactive abortion.  While they continue to cheer their progressive thinking, let them help fund travel and lodging for those they want to help to have the right to "choose".


----------



## schmidlap

Weatherman2020 said:


> View attachment 639856


I differ from big intrusive government, authoritarian statists in that I regard a woman's superior knowledge of herself, her beliefs, her circumstances, and her emotional concerns to allow her to make the best, informed decisions for herself in such a personal matter, in consultation with her loved ones and spiritual and medical advisers whom she trusts, rather be dictated to by faceless bureaucrats and politicians with faces like this:


----------



## BackAgain

Dragonlady said:


> This is not what abortion looks like.  This is yet another Republican lie.  This is a fully term fetus ready for birth, not a zygote or first trimester fetus which is when the vast majority of abortions take place.
> 
> Just more of the lies Republicans tell you.


Damn, but you are a robotic mindless dishonest shill.

Yes, you imbecile, that’s a nearly full term baby. And if you scrape out a zygote or an embryo or dismember a fetus, the human being that is getting killed is the same.

Furthermore, you worthless hack, the pro-death demands of you fucking abortion “rights” zealots includes the right to slaughter the baby whose picture I posted just as much as a less developed embryo or zygote. Stop lying you rancid idiot.


----------



## BackAgain

Turtlesoup said:


> Somehow I don't think this picture is an accurate depiction of what is aborted.


It’s not. Actual abortions of nearly full term babies are much more horrendous.


----------



## Esdraelon

Dragonlady said:


> Heads will not be exploding. The Republican Party will be destroyed if this comes to pass.


You're kidding yourself.  The Left is going to go absolutely insane over this if it holds and is announced as a ruling.  In fact, it will probably begin long before then.  That was the intention of one of the Leftist Justices who leaked the draft.  You are partially correct about damage to the Republican cause.  This issue will turn out the ghoulish base in higher numbers and probably cost the Republicans, control of the Senate, but even that isn't guaranteed.  Americans are about fed-up with the chaos, looting, arson, and such barbarism that surrounds Leftist "protests".  If your Party coordinates such madness in response to this ruling then even the political advantage may be lessened or lost.  So, by all means - raise hell, loot, burn, and destroy in support of the right to murder babies.


----------



## Dragonlady

Esdraelon said:


> I recall a standing ovation being given in the NY statehouse when they passed what was effectively a right to retroactive abortion.  While they continue to cheer their progressive thinking, let them help fund travel and lodging for those they want to help to have the right to "choose".



You're recalling Republican lies, not what really happened.  Gullible, stupid and Republican is no way to go through life.


----------



## Esdraelon

TemplarKormac said:


> Beware,  this is not an official opinion.  This is a first draft. It is not indicative of an opinion one way or another.
> 
> Reference John Roberts and his decision on Obamacare


Possibly, but if it isn't the likely outcome, why would anyone leak it?  Let's face it, a Dem-appointed Justice leaked this.  No conservative would have started such chaos any sooner than was necessary.


----------



## BackAgain

bodecea said:


> Funny how no state does abortion at that stage unless the fetus is not viable.


Bullshit. Some laws have even allowed partial birth abortions where one of the last acts is to puncture the baby’s skull at the base of the neck before the child is fully delivered. I don’t know who the fuck you imagine your dishonesty convinces.

For that matter, if the image had been one of a less developed fetus or of an embryo or even a zygote, how does that change the fact that it’s a human life that’s getting snuffed out?


----------



## Lakhota

Susan Collins Dismayed Supreme Court Justices Misled Her On Abortion​
Is she lying - or is she just stupid?  I suspect both...


----------



## Dragonlady

Esdraelon said:


> You're kidding yourself.  The Left is going to go absolutely insane over this if it holds and is announced as a ruling.  In fact, it will probably begin long before then.  That was the intention of one of the Leftist Justices who leaked the draft.  You are partially correct about damage to the Republican cause.  This issue will turn out the ghoulish base in higher numbers and probably cost the Republicans, control of the Senate, but even that isn't guaranteed.  Americans are about fed-up with the chaos, looting, arson, and such barbarism that surrounds Leftist "protests".  If your Party coordinates such madness in response to this ruling then even the political advantage may be lessened or lost.  So, by all means - raise hell, loot, burn, and destroy in support of the right to murder babies.



You language is laughable.  You don't give rat's ass about these babies at all, once they're born.  They can die, get shot going to school, or be sexually abused by their Catholic priests and you stand by and do NOTHING and say NOTHING.

Why aren't you trying to save the lives of babies who are dying before they're a year old????  The USA has the highest rate of infant mortality in the free world, but no universal health care, poor education opportunities, and the highest rate of maternal death in childbirth in the free world.

You only care about babies until they draw their first breath and then you abandon this life you consider so precious.


----------



## Esdraelon

Dragonlady said:


> You're recalling Republican lies, not what really happened.  Gullible, stupid and Republican is no way to go through life.


And I disagree. That aside, what do you think of the idea to have PP or other such private organizations subsidize travel, lodging, and medical care for women who choose abortion?


----------



## Cecilie1200

EvilCat Breath said:


> She will be removed if it's her.  Immediately.



If they can prove she was involved, she'll be legally prosecuted.  The current makeup of Congress won't do anything about it - which is not going to help them in the midterms - but if Republicans take seats like they're expected to, anyone involved in this leak is headed for the slammer.


----------



## Dragonlady

BackAgain said:


> Bullshit. Some laws have even allowed partial birth abortions where one of the last acts is to puncture the baby’s skull at the base of the neck before the child is fully delivered. I don’t know who the fuck you imagine your dishonesty convinces.
> 
> For that matter, if the image had been one of a less developed fetus or of an embryo or even a zygote, how does that change the fact that it’s a human life that’s getting snuffed out?



*No matter how many times you try to sell these lies, we know they're lies.  YOU HAVEN'T THE FIRST CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

LATE TERM ABORTIONS ARE NOT VIABLE BABIES.  YOUR PHOTO WAS A COMPLETE LIE.*


----------



## Dragonlady

Esdraelon said:


> And I disagree. That aside, what do you think of the idea to have PP or other such private organizations subsidize travel, lodging, and medical care for women who choose abortion?



What a fucking waste of money and resources - both of which are in short supply, for these families.

What about the right of the woman to manage her own care?  To get help from her medical personnel, in a setting where she is at home and comfortable.  

Travel for an abortion involves a lot more than just going to another state.  What about her job, her family at home?  Why are women having to go to another state for medical care which should be available to them at home.


----------



## 2aguy

Clipper said:


> The door is now wide open for the SCOTUS to be expanded, mouth breather.
> 
> You Trump asseaters just stepped on your own dicks.




Moron......if you increase the court, we will increase the court....and you are too fucking stupid to understand why that is a bad thing.


----------



## Esdraelon

Dragonlady said:


> You only care about babies until they draw their first breath and then you abandon this life you consider so precious.


You know nothing of who I am, personally.  Most of those situations are tragic but they come from a system put in place by YOUR PARTY over decades.  It's as though you people are unaware that contraception even exists as an option.  You are quite willing to use Abortion as contraception.  

Finally, why am I or any other American faced with being responsible for the care from womb to tomb of children that others chose to create?  You aren't even capable of understanding that, are you?  You've believed the lie that government is responsible to provide everything for free, and anyone who isn't willing to give it, and more, is evil.  Go watch a couple of abortions and get back to me about which of us is evil...


----------



## Meister

SavannahMann said:


> No. But let’s be honest. In a vast majority of races, the two candidates are steaming piles of shit. So anything you do to drop a little more fecal matter on one pile, means that more people will decide that steaming pile of shit is a little less stinky.
> 
> That is what happened in 2020. More people decided they could stomach the steaming pile of shit that was Biden over the steaming pile of shit that was Trump.
> 
> Also you really don’t want to make your opponents predictions come true. Since I was a boy the Democrats have argued that Republicans wanted to take away Womens rights. Now I’ve argued in the past that these doom and gloom predictions were laughable because nothing has ever happened. Now you have gone and made it true.


They are sending it back down to the states where it should have always been.  The Court is not outlawing abortions.
Seems the left is running with this because they don't have any policies that is palatable to real America.
It's not going to fly, because Brandon really is that bad.


----------



## BackAgain

Dragonlady said:


> *No matter how many times you try to sell these lies, we know they're lies.  YOU HAVEN'T THE FIRST CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
> 
> LATE TERM ABORTIONS ARE NOT VIABLE BABIES.  YOUR PHOTO WAS A COMPLETE LIE.*


No matter what font you use, your lies remain transparent, DraggingTurd.

And again, you stupid bitch, you studiously miss the point anyway. If my prior post image of a nearly full term fetus had instead been one of a less developed fetus or of an embryo or of a zygote, the conclusion is the same. It is a discreet human life that gets snuffed out. And that life, that person, gets *no* choice.


----------



## Esdraelon

Dragonlady said:


> What a fucking waste of money and resources - both of which are in short supply, for these families.


We agree.  That's where CONTRACEPTION enters the picture.


----------



## BackAgain

Just out from Wall Street Journal.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Zincwarrior said:


> But fuck giving them prenatal healthcare, pay for the birth, post birth healthcare, nutrition, shelter, good educations. Mom should have kept her legs closed!



"You don't support government spending that I like, so you CAN'T oppose abortion!"

Uh huh.


----------



## Esdraelon

Clipper said:


> The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.
> 
> And millions of them vote.


Yes, but how many of them would have voted for a Republican but now will change their mind?  How many Republican women will be energized to go to the polls where they otherwise wouldn't?  Finally, if your crowd handle this issue as they did Saint George di Fentanyl, burned out city centers are apt to turn even the Democrat ladies against your cause.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639645
> 
> *Amen!*



The woman is full of shit because the decision wasn't based over a law it was a CREATED right by the Justices to justify their idiotic decision.

Now that enough rational justices with likely strike it down we can get back to the states making laws over this as it should be.


----------



## skews13

schmidlap said:


> Authoritarians alway contrive excuses for suppressing personal freedom and ramming their statism down the throats of everyone else.
> 
> The practical impact of legislating from the bench an unpopular ruling  will be that the authoritarians will only seize control in regressive states.



Hundreds of thousands of women are now going to die needlessly, forced into C sections, and forced into homelessness.

Who’s going to pay for this?

What will this do to everyone else’s healthcare costs, and premiums.

With the closures of hospitals in rural areas because Republican governors and legislatures refused to accept Medicaid funding. How will these states deal with hospitals being overwhelmed, that are already stretched thin now?

What will happen now is the call for abortion rights to be codified into law.


----------



## task0778

BackAgain said:


> View attachment 639872
> Just out from Wall Street Journal.



I do not know if the leak is an illegal act, but it sure as hell is an unethical one and the person will probably be fired and disbarred.


----------



## Esdraelon

schmidlap said:


> rather be dictated to by faceless bureaucrats and politicians with faces like this:


Only he didn't impregnate her nor did he choose for her the refusal to use contraception.  Most abortions have feck-all to do with health of the mother.  They are about CONVENIENCE and as such, they are an abomination.


----------



## Esdraelon

skews13 said:


> What will happen now is the call for abortion rights to be codified into law.


Which is what should have happened long ago.  It's kind of how our Republic works, after all.  If the majority support it, let it become law.


----------



## Esdraelon

BackAgain said:


> It’s not. Actual abortions of nearly full term babies are much more horrendous.


If even the most rabid abortion supporters were forced to watch late term "procedures", they'd never advocate for them again - IF they have any humanity left at all.


----------



## Blues Man

BackAgain said:


> The law deciding that murder is wrong.


You have to first decide if a fetus is a person with constitutional rights.


----------



## Jets

Not exactly shocked it’s getting overturned. It was only a matter of when…


----------



## Sunsettommy

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639658



Which is fine since that was done at the STATE level where it should be, but it was a limited abortion law at the time which you didn't know.


----------



## ColonelAngus

It should never have been a federal issue. Its a state issue.

You blue staters hate the red states anyways, so dont pretend you care about abortion being legal in Mississippi.

You do you, leave the other states the fuck alone.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Zincwarrior said:


> It's up to the women now. This could get interesting.



Actually, if the Supreme Court actually decides to overturn _Roe v. Wade_, it's going to be up to the states.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Why not wait til Dec 22?! Of course idiot Biden will go over the top and forgive college debt. The idiocy in the WH is unprecedented. Almost as dumb was giving all that money to ARod and Ellsbury.



Because Supreme Court decisions on cases they've heard are released at a specific time, I believe.


----------



## BackAgain

Blues Man said:


> You have to first decide if a fetus is a person with constitutional rights.


Which is a determination which this new decision (if actually the one that is handed down) returns to the States.


----------



## Cecilie1200

White 6 said:


> You think?  I figure it was somebody working for the conservative side, knowing conservatives would be tickled sh#tless to hear it, like Christmas in May.



How could leaking a copy of that draft early possibly benefit conservatives?


----------



## Cecilie1200

EvilCat Breath said:


> You do not have any concept of how the Court guards it's integrity.  Justice Roberts would have her tit and the wringer.



The legal profession in general, even the sleazy ambulance chaser types, are shocked by this breach of ethics.


----------



## Blues Man

Esdraelon said:


> If even the most rabid abortion supporters were forced to watch late term "procedures", they'd never advocate for them again - IF they have any humanity left at all.


Less than 1% of abortions take place after 21 weeks

Most abortions actually take place in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy 99% take place by week 20


----------



## Blues Man

BackAgain said:


> Which is a determination which this new decision (if actually the one that is handed down) returns to the States.


Does it?

I don;t think it specifically says that nor should it.


----------



## Lakhota

Chief Justice John Roberts Confirms Leaked Draft Opinion On Abortion Is Authentic​
Confirmed.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639648
> 
> *Amen!*



Cool meme bro! Yet republicans have had control of all 3 branches of government and everything in you’re silly little meme is still funded. Yet another leftist lie easily  destroyed with facts.


----------



## task0778

Blues Man said:


> Does it?
> 
> I don;t think it specifically says that nor should it.



Why not?  Why shouldn't each state make it's own determination according to the will of it's citizens?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Michael1985 said:


> As I've said elsewhere, I disagree with this. The case was settled fifty years ago, and I see it as a matter of stare decisis.



Sorry, Sparkles, but NO law is "settled" in the sense of "You can't ever, EVER change it."  _Stare decisis_ is mostly fictional garbage.  The entire point of a free and democratic nation is that the people ALWAYS have the right to decide what kind of nation and society they want to live in.

I notice that there are lots of precedents the fans of _stare decisis_ in the case of abortion don't mind overturning.


----------



## Blues Man

task0778 said:


> Why not?  Why shouldn't each state make it's own determination according to the will of it's citizens?


So you are saying that a state can decide if a fetus has protection under the Constitution of the United States?

The only thing this ruling does is to allow states to decide if they will allow abortions within their borders.  If a woman from a state that bans abortions has one in another state there will be no legal repercussions for her when she returns home.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Blues Man said:


> Does it?
> 
> I don;t think it specifically says that nor should it.



Yes, it absolutely will be.

It was a bad ruling from the jump.

This is a state issue, the Fed needs to fuck all the way off.


----------



## Blues Man

ColonelAngus said:


> Yes, it absolutely will be.
> 
> It was a bad ruling from the jump.
> 
> This is a state issue, the Fed needs to fuck all the way off.


I don;t think it will.

As I said this ruling only allows states to decide if abortions will be allowed within their borders.  There will be no legal repercussions for any woman getting an abortion in another state


----------



## Cecilie1200

ColonelAngus said:


> It should never have been a federal issue. Its a state issue.
> 
> You blue staters hate the red states anyways, so dont pretend you care about abortion being legal in Mississippi.
> 
> You do you, leave the other states the fuck alone.



It's interesting how the pro-aborts LOVE to say, "If you don't like abortion, don't have one."  But they're incapable of applying the same standard, "If you don't like abortion restrictions, don't pass one", to the states.


----------



## HaShev




----------



## White 6

Cecilie1200 said:


> How could leaking a copy of that draft early possibly benefit conservatives?


Actual benefit, none.  Still something all the right wing conservatives, especially on the Christian right, have been hoping for.  Someone leaking something they like for a change, would make the leaker almost a legend of the right.  Had to be either clerk or Justice.  If Justice, doubt we will ever know whol.  If clerk, their high powered future is over, but if liked by powerful on the right for giving them the news, of their hopes and dreams coming true, there will undoubtably be a decent legal position somewhere in the country.  Fame is important to some people.


----------



## schmidlap

Esdraelon said:


> Only he didn't impregnate her nor did he choose for her the refusal to use contraception.  Most abortions have feck-all to do with health of the mother.  They are about CONVENIENCE and as such, they are an abomination.


Impregnation can occur inadvertently, even by rape and incest. Rather than someone presuming to sit in judgment and dictate, the law of the land for the past half century that recognizes the rights of women is supported by most Americans. Authoritarians seizing control will only divide the advanced states from the retrogressive ones.


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's interesting how the pro-aborts LOVE to say, "If you don't like abortion, don't have one."  But they're incapable of applying the same standard, "If you don't like abortion restrictions, don't pass one", to the states.


Women who want an abortion will still be able to get one in another state so this isn't really going to do anything to stop abortions


----------



## Delldude

Dragonlady said:


> You haven't really seen what's going on because you're not looking.  The extreme right has just spent 50 years working to overturn Roe, including subverting the Supreme Court selection process to pack the court with extreme right wing factions.  70% of Americans are in favour of abortion rights for women.
> 
> Democrats have won the popular vote for president in every election since 1992, except 2006, and yet the Republicans have denied Democrats appointments a hearing, and rammed through an unqualified fringe candidate days before the 2020 election.  The SC does not reflect the will of the American people.
> 
> The Senators who confirmed ACB to the court, represented 1.5 million fewer voters, than the Senators who voted against her confirmation.
> 
> Gay marriage is legal, for now, but the same people who are overturning abortion, are laying the groundwork in the abortion decision, to overturn gay marriage as well.  They're coming for your rights next, little gay boy.
> 
> Right wingers are already saying the access to birth control is bad for women - leading to promiscuous and dangerous behaviour.



It's not an issue to be decided at the federal level. Now you know what states rights is all about.


----------



## basquebromance

Is Amy Coney Barrett a traitor to all women or just a greedy sell out?


----------



## basquebromance

First, it’s Roe, and then they’ll go after Obergefell.

Vote like your rights depend on it because they do.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Dragonlady said:


> All of those things are currently happening.
> 
> Gay marriage is next on the extreme right agenda.  The leaked decision laws the groundwork for overturning gay rights as well.  There are a lot of privacy related laws which are tied to Roe, beyond abortion.  Trump's Supreme Court is poised to wipe out civil rights the American people have fought for 50 years to obtain.



It was a leftist clerk who leaked the draft to which Chief Justice Roberts is pursuing an investigation to catch the lawbreaker for it.

Gay Marriage has been done through the legislature in various states thus not a subject of SCOTUS oversight since it has long been accepted as valid law.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639650
> 
> *Amen!*



Basically, all I'm hearing from you is, "Who needs thought?!  I have MEMES!!!  I must be right!!!"


----------



## basquebromance

Kill the filibuster before SCOTUS decisions kill women


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639658



A life lesson for your idiot leftist friends:  Who cares?


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Next up. Court needs to overturn gay marriage.


----------



## schmidlap

Amid reports of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, an ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that majorities of Americans support upholding Roe, say abortion should be legal in all or most cases and -- by a wide margin -- see abortion as a decision to be made by a woman and her doctor,_ not_ by lawmakers.​


Blues Man said:


> Women who want an abortion will still be able to get one in another state so this isn't really going to do anything to stop abortions


Americans for fifty years have had their liberties respected in the states in which they reside.

The authoritarianism in regressive states will further divide the nation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639667



Is anyone else noticing a huge increase in the amount of useless thread pollution in here?  It's like the written version of LA smog.


----------



## basquebromance

In the US abortions will be illegal but coups go unpunished.


----------



## schmidlap

LordBrownTrout said:


> Next up. Court needs to overturn gay marriage.


Then, child labor laws, women's suffrage, and emancipation. The authoritarians are on a retrogressive roll!


----------



## Ms. Turquoise

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


Legal abortion may end for poor women. Wealthy women will continue to have access to safe, medically supervised abortions just like they always have. 
Abortion has always been available to wealthy women. Republicans know this. They are using abortion as a divisive wedge issue---not because they care about women or about the babies once they are born.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> The advancements in modern medicine these days precludes that from happening, with or without abortion providers. We call them C-sections.



Actually, the biggest advance in medicine that reduced the maternal mortality rate was the widespread use of penicillin.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

schmidlap said:


> Then, child labor laws, women's suffrage, and emancipation. The authoritarians are on a retrogressive roll!



No, you're deceived.  America corrected it's wrongs with the emancipation proclamation and will do the same when it overturns abortion.....a practice that kills innocent unborn lives.  Same with gay marriage.  You need to adjust your moral compass 180 degrees.


----------



## basquebromance

Move over War on Drugs and War on Guns, here comes the War on Abortion.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Cecilie1200 said:


> Is anyone else noticing a huge increase in the amount of useless thread pollution in here?  It's like the written version of LA smog.



eeeyep.

Probably a dozen unmerged threads on the same topic, too.

A thinkin feller might wonder if the reason for leaving it all so fragmented that is to quickly bury discussion with regard to all of the other failures of the administration. The economy. Inflation. All of the crime. The Biden administration's efforts to work in synergy with the cartels to bring all of the illegals and drugs into the country, etc...

If it were anything else, it'd probably be the old line about we're plum tarda mergin threads around here....


----------



## schmidlap

LordBrownTrout said:


> No, you're deceived.  America corrected it's wrongs with the emancipation proclamation and will do the same when it overturns abortion.....a practice that kills innocent unborn lives.  Same with gay marriage.


Your support of authoritarianism dictating_ your _personal opinions to everyone is noted.


----------



## basquebromance

someone's losin' it


----------



## LordBrownTrout

schmidlap said:


> Your support of authoritarianism dictating_ your _personal opinions to everyone is noted.



Nope, those are natural laws. You misunderstand. The fed state has no business approving murder of the unborn. Ill always stand against this abhorrent practice. Always. Authoritarianism embraces such abominations as abortion, gay marriage, slavery etc.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

basquebromance said:


> someone's losin' it



That's funny stuff.


----------



## task0778

Blues Man said:


> So you are saying that a state can decide if a fetus has protection under the Constitution of the United States?



What I am saying is that IMHO the US Constitution does not have any basis for making that determination, and neither does any federal statute.  Therefore, it ought to be up to the individual states to make that call but it has to be under that state's Constitution or laws.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> That's true. Very true. Many fathers suffer because they watch as their children are aborted on a whim, on top of their economic struggles.



When I discuss sex with either of my sons, right after I say, "You make a baby, you WILL take responsibility and be a father", I say, "And remember that once you have sex, you're giving control of your child to the woman you had sex with, so don't stick your dick in crazy OR evil."


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> These religious psychos must be purged from SCOTUS.



I just heard, "No one should be allowed to speak except those who agree with me!!!  WE NEED TYRANNY NOW!!!"

And then I dismissed you as the ignorant, evil piece of crap I already knew you to be.


----------



## BackAgain

Blues Man said:


> Does it?
> 
> I don;t think it specifically says that nor should it.


It isn’t an official decision yet. But yes. That is very much what it says.


----------



## yidnar

White 6 said:


> So what is your point?
> You think if women want it, they will not find somebody to meet the demand, even on the underground economy?
> They made liquor illegal, but illegal outlets abounded and there are still moonshiners and bootleggers today.  They made drugs illegal.  Still sold every day to meet the demand.
> Surely you didn't think they stopped it or will stop it when the decision actually comes out.
> Watch that stock price.  It might move on expectation of higher profits on increased product demand.
> I gave no opinion anybody could object to, just stating the facts of the new legal situation.





basquebromance said:


> The Right to Choose isn't just on the ballot - it's the whole ballgame this November.


you seem to have great confidence that living conditions for average Americans arent going to be worse in nov ...
war , inflation, skyrocketing fuel prices and crime  and maybe a recession are what Americans are facing !


----------



## Cecilie1200

Turtlesoup said:


> Why do republicans play the abortion games and right before elections that they should be winning a bunch of seats.  This is a stupid political move----you wanna make a bunch of women remember why they hate republicans right before an election---going after abortion is the way to do it.



Why do squishes insist on believing that any issue other than, "Let's cut taxes" MUST automatically be a loser for Republicans?

Sack up, dude.

Also, as a woman, may I just say, "Fuck you" for your assumption that women are all fanatically in favor of killing our children?


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## BackAgain

I share with all my pals here on this board an image from Truth which was provided by my old friend, the infamous Catturd:







To be clear; I doubt thatCatturd actually knows of my existence. But I don’t care. I consider him a friend all the same.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SweetSue92 said:


> Do any of these yahoos realize it just returns the decision back to the states?
> 
> No one "outlawed" abortions. My goodness. THE DRAMA



I think a lot of them DO realize that, and that's actually what they're freaked out about.  Leftists are not in favor of democracy, no matter how much they gas about it.


----------



## Lakhota

Cecilie1200 said:


> I just heard, "No one should be allowed to speak except those who agree with me!!!  WE NEED TYRANNY NOW!!!"
> 
> And then I dismissed you as the ignorant, evil piece of crap I already knew you to be.



What's next - burning witches at the stake...again?


----------



## basquebromance

the rights of 100 million women are on the ballot. look for a blue tsunami in November


----------



## iceberg

basquebromance said:


> the rights of 100 million women are on the ballot. look for a blue tsunami in November


why? its a state issue. let their state deal with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> One in four women in the USA have abortions before the age of 40.  Women will continue to have abortions, but instead of medically safe abortions, you're going back to women bleeding out in emergency rooms from botched attempts.
> 
> Those of us who remember what it was like before abortion was legal, will not go back to these days.  There is simply no excuse for this.  I'm grateful I live in a country where women's rights are respected.



"Look at all these talking points I insist you believe!  So THERE!"

Whatever, LizardBitch.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> What's next - burning witches at the stake...again?



If you must indulge in hysterical hyperbole, could you at least attempt to make it vaguely coherent?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## BackAgain

Ms. Turquoise said:


> Legal abortion may end for poor women. Wealthy women will continue to have access to safe, medically supervised abortions just like they always have.
> Abortion has always been available to wealthy women. Republicans know this. They are using abortion as a divisive wedge issue---not because they care about women or about the babies once they are born.


So the “right” to slaughter the innocent preborn comes down to a income inequality analysis?


----------



## Zincwarrior

iceberg said:


> why? its a state issue. let their state deal with it.


He's saying they are going to elect persons who insure it's dealt with as they desire.

I am not so sure but its a definite potential election game changer.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Dragonlady said:


> Yes they have.  Trump was gifted with 3 appointments by virtue of Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider Merrick Garland, and by ramming through the ACB appointment days before the election.  That gave a twice impeached criminal President, who failed to ever win the popular vote, three SC picks.
> 
> That's the very definition of "packing the court".



None of the actions are illegal and has been done by democrats before.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Everyone is against abortion.  No one ever wants to have one.  But they are often, the only choice.  If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.  It's that simple.
> 
> Every woman you know is against abortion, but ask how many of them have had abortions, and you'd be surprised at how many of them will say yes.  One in four women have abortions before age 40.  They will continue to have abortions, and they will die because of it.



It's amazing how you can assert something, have it proved utterly wrong, and then sashay off to another thread and assert it again as though nothing happened.

It's almost like "knowing" things has nothing to do with facts for you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Zincwarrior said:


> Women will decide what "the state" does in the next elections. They are the majority and both sides will be energized.



Then too bad for the pro-abortionists that all women aren't in favor of abortion, huh?


----------



## Orangecat

Why do libs have such cognitive dissonance regarding this?
On one hand, they say the people overwhelmingly support abortion privileges.
On the other, they say the SCOTUS is ending abortion privileges.
The SCOTUS, though, is only saying it'll be up to the states.
The dissonance is the fact that individual states will each be able to vote on this (you know, that precious "democracy" thing they constantly mewl about).
If they are correct about the support levels, then the supporters will just make it legal on an individual state basis.


----------



## GHook20

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


It is going to happen. But you are wrong abortion will be legal (including late term), rather regulating it will be left to the states… states like CA and NY will move to abortion without restriction up until (and maybe after) the baby is born.

Then you will have red states like TX, OK and MS that will make all abortion illegal unless the mother’s life is in danger!

My guess is 10 states move further left, 10 states move further right and 30 states don’t change any of their current laws.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> That's always the argument - go to a state where it's legal.  And that's what women did.  But the poorest women don't have the resources to travel.  They have children and jobs and don't have the money to travel, and can't take the time off work to go to another jurisdiction, go through the waiting periods and the unneccesary tests required by law, and have the operation.
> 
> Rich women have always had access to abortion.  When I was younger they went to Japan or Sweden.  But poor women - the ones who are not in an emotional or financial position to raise another child, the women who can't afford to travel, will either seek a back alley abortion, or they'll have a child they are ill prepared to raise.



That's always YOUR argument when it's something you like.  "Go somewhere else; build your own; if you don't like it, don't have one."  Why is that never acceptable when it's directed at you?  Is it because "choice" is just a word you use to cover, "I want this, so everyone has to accept it!!"?


----------



## LibertyKid

I try to understand the entire debate here.
I see legitimacy for those women that are raped or the life of the mother is a very large risk. Near term post birth deaths for the infant due to unavoidable issues I feel is legit. 
I'm still on the fence for health issues, mental issues, and malformaties where the baby and long term disabilities is unavoidable. 

But, abortion as a tool of convenient birth control because of the right to "choose", while removing or negating all the other available choices prior to sex is socially irresponsible. We can't have the perspective that pregnancy should be treated as a disease that one had no control over like cancer or some other STD. And the responsibility, shouldn't only rest on the woman either. The father should have some type of culpability.

As humans, we can do better. We can respect our ability to create intelligent, meaningful life better than we do. The narrative as presented by so many pro-choicers (and I know it's not all of you) is that abortion should be easy, emotionless, meaningless, as if we were taking penicillin to get rid of an infection. We can do better and we can be better. However, IMO, it doesn't start with abortion laws. It starts with sex education, strong family values, moral, ethics. It starts with being better human beings that look at sex differently. Yes, sex is great, fun, and meaningful. But browse Social Media, TV, Sex is everywhere, sex is EVERYTHING. But there is a consequence to sex that wants to be eliminated by the same devices that promote illicit sexual encounters.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> All of those things are currently happening.
> 
> Gay marriage is next on the extreme right agenda.  The leaked decision laws the groundwork for overturning gay rights as well.  There are a lot of privacy related laws which are tied to Roe, beyond abortion.  Trump's Supreme Court is poised to wipe out civil rights the American people have fought for 50 years to obtain.



All those things are NOT happening now, but thank you for the unneeded proof that you're a fucking moron who believes whatever her masters tell her to.


----------



## BackAgain

GHook20 said:


> It is going to happen. But you are wrong abortion will be legal (including late term), rather regulating it will be left to the states… states like CA and NY will move to abortion without restriction up until (and maybe after) the baby is born.
> 
> Then you will have red states like TX, OK and MS that will make all abortion illegal unless the mother’s life is in danger!
> 
> My guess is 10 states move further left, 10 states move further right and 30 states don’t change any of their current laws.


That doesn’t make me “wrong,” since I didn’t say otherwise.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sunsettommy said:


> None of the actions are illegal and has been done by democrats before.



What can you expect from a dumbass sitting in a nothing country, desperately trying to deal herself into the affairs of a country that matters and wouldn't allow her to visit let alone live here?


----------



## Oddball




----------



## Darkwind

Stormy Daniels said:


> The Jan 6 insurrection thread is over there. *points*


There are more significant ways to destroy our Republic than a few idiots getting out of control in a protest.

This is one of them.  No clerk should be allowed to practice law or even be associated with the law (except for some jail time) for releasing a draft of a SCOTUS document before authorized.  It is beyond insurrection.


----------



## LaDairis

This is likely from the Kenyan Cocksucker's latest pick...


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> All those things are NOT happening now, but thank you for the unneeded proof that you're a fucking moron who believes whatever her masters tell her to.



They are so true.  Why would we believe any of the lies Republicans have told us about our rights.  You even have Republicans talking about taking the right to vote away from women.  Now they want a federal statute banning abortion everywhere, with no exceptions for rape and incest.









						Why Does the Religious Right Hate Your Birth Control?
					

Hatred of sin? Political calculation?




					www.psychologytoday.com
				












						The Anti–Birth Control Movement Is the New Anti-Abortion Movement
					

Republicans are “conflating medications that prevent pregnancy—birth control and emergency contraception—with medications that end pregnancy,” says the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.




					www.vogue.com
				












						What Do Religions Say About Birth Control?
					

When religious positions on birth control are discussed, we usually hear how contraceptives are forbidden. But is this always the case?




					www.learnreligions.com
				




Campaign Life your name's a lie.  You don't care if women die.


----------



## LaDairis

Stormy Daniels said:


> Fail. According to the leaked information Roberts is already voting with the liberal cohort.




Thanks W!!!!!!

Sincerely

The Democrat Party
Everyone who hates America
All Zionist 911 W "Biden Republicans"


----------



## HenryBHough

I detect a whiff of hoax in the air.

But, hey, Summer Riot Season is just around the corner.

Can't have a good riot without a cause - real, imagined or invented!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> You haven't really seen what's going on because you're not looking.  The extreme right has just spent 50 years working to overturn Roe, including subverting the Supreme Court selection process to pack the court with extreme right wing factions.  70% of Americans are in favour of abortion rights for women.
> 
> Democrats have won the popular vote for president in every election since 1992, except 2006, and yet the Republicans have denied Democrats appointments a hearing, and rammed through an unqualified fringe candidate days before the 2020 election.  The SC does not reflect the will of the American people.
> 
> The Senators who confirmed ACB to the court, represented 1.5 million fewer voters, than the Senators who voted against her confirmation.
> 
> Gay marriage is legal, for now, but the same people who are overturning abortion, are laying the groundwork in the abortion decision, to overturn gay marriage as well.  They're coming for your rights next, little gay boy.
> 
> Right wingers are already saying the access to birth control is bad for women - leading to promiscuous and dangerous behaviour.



"You don't understand what's really happening in your country!  Here, let me explain it from my couch in another country according to what I've been told to 'know' about it!"


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Dragonlady said:


> They are so true.  Why would we believe any of the lies Republicans have told us about our rights.  You even have Republicans talking about taking the right to vote away from women.  Now they want a federal statute banning abortion everywhere, with no exceptions for rape and incest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Does the Religious Right Hate Your Birth Control?
> 
> 
> Hatred of sin? Political calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Anti–Birth Control Movement Is the New Anti-Abortion Movement
> 
> 
> Republicans are “conflating medications that prevent pregnancy—birth control and emergency contraception—with medications that end pregnancy,” says the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vogue.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Do Religions Say About Birth Control?
> 
> 
> When religious positions on birth control are discussed, we usually hear how contraceptives are forbidden. But is this always the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.learnreligions.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campaign Life your name's a lie.  You don't care if women die.



Its simple.  Quit screwing around.  The problem is that the left doesn't want to be held accountable for their actions so they just kill the baby that they created.  That is on the woman AND the man.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> They are so true.  Why would we believe any of the lies Republicans have told us about our rights.  You even have Republicans talking about taking the right to vote away from women.  Now they want a federal statute banning abortion everywhere, with no exceptions for rape and incest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Does the Religious Right Hate Your Birth Control?
> 
> 
> Hatred of sin? Political calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Anti–Birth Control Movement Is the New Anti-Abortion Movement
> 
> 
> Republicans are “conflating medications that prevent pregnancy—birth control and emergency contraception—with medications that end pregnancy,” says the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vogue.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Do Religions Say About Birth Control?
> 
> 
> When religious positions on birth control are discussed, we usually hear how contraceptives are forbidden. But is this always the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.learnreligions.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campaign Life your name's a lie.  You don't care if women die.



"They MUST be true!  Look at all my talking points telling me they are!!"

See if you can find enough of a brain to wrap around what I'm saying, LizardBitch:

If I want to hear an opinion from an ignorant sheep, I'll go visit a farm.  

The instant I see your name, I assume that everything in the post is an ignorant lie, and most likely incoherent on any standard applied by humans.

Don't waste my fucking time presenting links to leftist websites like they prove anything other than my original premise that you're a gullible dimwit.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

HenryBHough said:


> I detect a whiff of hoax in the air.
> 
> But, hey, Summer Riot Season is just around the corner.
> 
> Can't have a good riot without a cause - real, imagined or invented!



Yeah, with loony roberts on the court, lots of stupid things happen.


----------



## Cecilie1200

justoffal said:


> Well yeah..this actually gives the left MORE LEVERAGE NOT LESS.



I'm okay with leaving the issue up to the people of the states to debate and decide for themselves.  The left, manifestly, hates the whole idea of the people controlling anything.


----------



## Stormy Daniels

Darkwind said:


> There are more significant ways to destroy our Republic than a few idiots getting out of control in a protest.
> 
> This is one of them.  No clerk should be allowed to practice law or even be associated with the law (except for some jail time) for releasing a draft of a SCOTUS document before authorized.  It is beyond insurrection.


----------



## Thunderbird

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


Great news for small helpless humans everywhere.


----------



## ColonelAngus

This is a real blind spot for the cult.

This is not A federal issue.

Why do you want the fed to butt out of Marijuana laws, but butt into Abortion laws?

As always, you fools contradict yourselves at every turn.

I think BOTH WEED AND ABORTION SHOULD BE STATE BY STATE ISSUES.

See how my stance is CONSISTENT?


----------



## LordBrownTrout

OTOH, you have a blood lust governor in california who will stop at nothing fighting for your rights to kill innocent life.  There will be a reckoning for anyone who murders innocent life................


----------



## M14 Shooter

1st Draft, Feb 2020.
What's the actual ruling?


----------



## Cecilie1200

justoffal said:


> Prolly kiddie porn Kentanji.



Judge Jackson isn't on the Supreme Court yet.


----------



## Cecilie1200

skews13 said:


> The main issue here is the justices all committed perjury, if they vote to overturn Roe. That is the precedent that has been set.
> 
> All future confirmation hearings will be based upon that fact now. It also opens the door to reinterpret an present amendments of the Constitution, and that includes the second.
> 
> Like I said earlier, this is going to come back to bite conservatives in the ass hard.
> 
> On a lot of rights, near and dear to their hearts.



No, your "I have a right to expect people to do what I want!" whining is NOT the main point here.  It's not a point at all, in fact.


----------



## Cecilie1200

skews13 said:


> Interesting reply. According to the Christian bible, the woman’s life is protected.
> 
> So there is no “real” Christian that’s for overturning wade. Just Christians in name only.



Interesting that you think anyone cares about your opinion on the subject.


----------



## Blues Man

task0778 said:


> What I am saying is that IMHO the US Constitution does not have any basis for making that determination, and neither does any federal statute.  Therefore, it ought to be up to the individual states to make that call but it has to be under that state's Constitution or laws.


So then if a state decides that a fetus has the full compliment of Constitutional rights then you realize that the state can then impose it's will on every pregnant woman who the government deems isn't caring properly for the unborn child she carries don't you?

For example a state could prohibit every single pregnant woman from leaving that state to travel to another state that allows abortion.

Are you willing to allow any state government that kind of power?


----------



## Blues Man

BackAgain said:


> It isn’t an official decision yet. But yes. That is very much what it says.


No that is not what it says.

Any woman in any state that bans abortion can still travel to another state to get one.  If this ruling gave full constitutional rights to a fetus then any state government could force its will on any pregnant woman and force her to stay within state borders until the fetus was born.

This is not going to happen and it should never be allowed to happen


----------



## Leo123

The dirty Democrats did it again.   Whenever their ideology is threatened they will do anything including breaking the law.    This leak is just another example of their typical underhanded tactics to retain political power.   They are all guilty, IMO.  Today the elite D.C. Democrats were wailing about the leaked deliberation not the fact that it was illegally leaked.   It's pretty obvious Democrats don't care about the law.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> This is not what abortion looks like.  This is yet another Republican lie.  This is a fully term fetus ready for birth, not a zygote or first trimester fetus which is when the vast majority of abortions take place.
> 
> Just more of the lies Republicans tell you.



Who said that was what abortion looks like, lackwit?  This is what you get when you think with your glands because Nature forgot to give you a brain.


----------



## M14 Shooter

basquebromance said:


>


Uh huh.   So?


----------



## Lastamender




----------



## BackAgain

Blues Man said:


> No that is not what it says.
> 
> Any woman in any state that bans abortion can still travel to another state to get one.  If this ruling gave full constitutional rights to a fetus then any state government could force its will on any pregnant woman and force her to stay within state borders until the fetus was born.
> 
> This is not going to happen and it should never be allowed to happen


It still leaves it up to the states. Don’t change your contention in the middle of a discussion.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Turtlesoup said:


> Somehow I don't think this picture is an accurate depiction of what is aborted.



In terms of positioning inside the womb, no.  In terms of development, depends on when the abortion is done.


----------



## Oddball

Dragonlady said:


> They are so true.  Why would we believe any of the lies Republicans have told us about our rights.  You even have Republicans talking about taking the right to vote away from women.  Now they want a federal statute banning abortion everywhere, with no exceptions for rape and incest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Does the Religious Right Hate Your Birth Control?
> 
> 
> Hatred of sin? Political calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Anti–Birth Control Movement Is the New Anti-Abortion Movement
> 
> 
> Republicans are “conflating medications that prevent pregnancy—birth control and emergency contraception—with medications that end pregnancy,” says the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vogue.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Do Religions Say About Birth Control?
> 
> 
> When religious positions on birth control are discussed, we usually hear how contraceptives are forbidden. But is this always the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.learnreligions.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campaign Life your name's a lie.  You don't care if women die.


Nobody hates birth control, fool.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Heads will not be exploding.  The Republican Party will be destroyed if this comes to pass.
> 
> One in four American women has an abortion before age 40.  8 million more women voters than men.  Even Susan Collins is upset that Kavenaugh and Gorsuch lied to her about "settled precedent".



"I'm just SURE that the politics of the country I desperately wish I was part of will be changed by that country not doing what I demand from my couch in my nothing country!"

Fuck off and go parrot your talking points at someone who was as gullible as you were to swallow them.


----------



## Blues Man

Leo123 said:


> The dirty Democrats did it again.   Whenever their ideology is threatened they will do anything including breaking the law.    This leak is just another example of their typical underhanded tactics to retain political power.   They are all guilty, IMO.  Today the elite D.C. Democrats were wailing about the leaked deliberation not the fact that it was illegally leaked.   It's pretty obvious Democrats don't care about the law.





BackAgain said:


> It still leaves it up to the states. Don’t change your contention in the middle of a discussion.


I haven't changed anything.

I said this law does not give a fetus full constitutional rights and it doesn't.

All it does is allow a state to decide if abortions can be performed within its borders.

No state government will be able to stop any woman from leaving that state to get an abortion in another state.


----------



## task0778

Blues Man said:


> So then if a state decides that a fetus has the full compliment of Constitutional rights then you realize that the state can then impose it's will on every pregnant women who the government deems isn't caring properly for the unborn child she carries don't you?
> 
> Are you willing to allow any state government that kind of power?



YES.  It's the same thing as children after birth and the elderly or infirm at any age.  If the state determines that the parents or guardians on any person are not properly caring for someone under their care then the state can and will impose their will, generally by removing the applicable person(s) to some kind of state institution.  

That said, I don't think a state could force an abortion against the mother's wishes, if that's what you meant.  But that's not what we're talking about here, what we're discussing here is whether a mother can choose to have an abortion of a child she doesn't want.  I think the state should have the power to say no you can't, not in this state.  Or the state can say not after a certain point in the pregnancy.  So, mama then has the choice to carry the baby to term or find a way to travel to a state where abortion is legal.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lastamender said:


> View attachment 639941


43 states have some sort of ban on abortion.
Including CA NY IL and MD


----------



## Blues Man

task0778 said:


> YES.  It's the same thing as children after birth and the elderly or infirm at any age.  If the state determines that the parents or guardians on any person are not properly caring for someone under their care then the state can and will impose their will, generally by removing the applicable person(s) to some kind of state institution.
> 
> That said, I don't think a state could force an abortion against the mother's wishes, if that's what you meant.  But that's not what we're talking about here, what we're discussing here is whether a mother can choose to have an abortion of a child she doesn't want.  I think the state should have the power to say no you can't, not in this state.  Or the state can say not after a certain point in the pregnancy.  So, mama then has the choice to carry the baby to term or find a way to travel to a state where abortion is legal.


This ruling does not do anything like that.  And If you think I meant that a state could force an abortion you better go back and reread what I wrote.

I said this ruling does not prevent any women from getting an abortion and that this ruling in no way grants any Constitutional protection to any fetus 

No state government will be allowed to prevent any woman from leaving the state to get an abortion.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> You're recalling Republican lies, not what really happened.  Gullible, stupid and Republican is no way to go through life.



Gosh, I'm sure we're all put in our place by the stupidest cow to ever chew a cud insulting us.

Whatever does or doesn't happen, one thing is for certain:  It's none of YOUR fucking business.


----------



## Darkwind

Stormy Daniels said:


>


Yes, you are nuts.


----------



## basquebromance

Funny how all the “pro-life” people don’t care if Americans can’t afford life-saving insulin.


----------



## Cecilie1200

skews13 said:


> Hundreds of thousands of women are now going to die needlessly, forced into C sections, and forced into homelessness.
> 
> Who’s going to pay for this?
> 
> What will this do to everyone else’s healthcare costs, and premiums.
> 
> With the closures of hospitals in rural areas because Republican governors and legislatures refused to accept Medicaid funding. How will these states deal with hospitals being overwhelmed, that are already stretched thin now?
> 
> What will happen now is the call for abortion rights to be codified into law.



Hundreds of thousands?  Based on what?  The nightmare you had last night after pulling your pud with one hand while eating anchovy pizza with the other?

Go bother people who are stupid enough to think you have something to say.


----------



## basquebromance

Dear God


----------



## Lakhota

Fundamental LGBTQ Rights Also Under Attack In Leaked Supreme Court Draft​
Wow, it just gets worse!


----------



## BackAgain

Blues Man said:


> I haven't changed anything.
> 
> I said this law does not give a fetus full constitutional rights and it doesn't.
> 
> All it does is allow a state to decide if abortions can be performed within its borders.
> 
> No state government will be able to stop any woman from leaving that state to get an abortion in another state.


I didn’t claim that it gave any preborn child any such thing. And I already acknowledged that it seems to allow the respective states to make their own laws. And I also didn’t suggest that a state could stop anybody from leaving that state to seek an abortion legal in another state.


----------



## Blues Man

BackAgain said:


> I didn’t claim that it gave any preborn child any such thing. And I already acknowledged that it seems to allow the respective states to make their own laws. And I also didn’t suggest that a state could stop anybody from leaving that state to seek an abortion legal in another state.


Yes you did.


----------



## Cecilie1200

White 6 said:


> Actual benefit, none.  Still something all the right wing conservatives, especially on the Christian right, have been hoping for.  Someone leaking something they like for a change, would make the leaker almost a legend of the right.  Had to be either clerk or Justice.  If Justice, doubt we will ever know whol.  If clerk, their high powered future is over, but if liked by powerful on the right for giving them the news, of their hopes and dreams coming true, there will undoubtably be a decent legal position somewhere in the country.  Fame is important to some people.



Bullshit.  All the way around.

Conservatives have no reason to illegally leak a draft document that could endanger the decision.  And anyone who really thinks that leftists actually have the morals and ethics to allow the leaker to suffer the consequences of this act, instead of cheering him as a hero because he served their purposes, is insane and naive.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Fundamental LGBTQ Rights Also Under Attack In Leaked Supreme Court Draft​
> Wow, it just gets worse!



You really need to start choosing your news sources on the basis of fact, rather than, "Who's going to help me throw a tantrum and make a fool of myself?"


----------



## BackAgain

Blues Man said:


> Yes you did.


Bullshit.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Dragonlady said:


> That's always the argument - go to a state where it's legal.  And that's what women did.  But the poorest women don't have the resources to travel.  They have children and jobs and don't have the money to travel, and can't take the time off work to go to another jurisdiction, go through the waiting periods and the unneccesary tests required by law, and have the operation.
> 
> Rich women have always had access to abortion.  When I was younger they went to Japan or Sweden.  But poor women - the ones who are not in an emotional or financial position to raise another child, the women who can't afford to travel, will either seek a back alley abortion, or they'll have a child they are ill prepared to raise.



Or they can walk to the corner drug store and get the morning after pill.  Hysterical leftists are a joke.


----------



## Blues Man

BackAgain said:


> Bullshit.


No it was some other person.  You all sound the same to me

Do you think that a state should have the power to incarcerate any pregnant woman if the state deems that she is not caring for the unborn child in her womb properly?  Do you think a state government should be allowed to forcibly prevent any pregnant woman from traveling to any state where abortion is legal?

Because that is the result of giving any fetus the full compliment of Constitutional rights.  Which this ruling does not do nor does it give any state the power to do.  ALL this ruling does is allow a state government to decide if abortions can be performed in that state.


----------



## Cecilie1200

M14 Shooter said:


> 1st Draft, Feb 2020.
> What's the actual ruling?



They haven't made one yet.


----------



## skews13

ColonelAngus said:


> It should never have been a federal issue. Its a state issue.
> 
> You blue staters hate the red states anyways, so dont pretend you care about abortion being legal in Mississippi.
> 
> You do you, leave the other states the fuck alone.



You actually believe the women in your state agree with you?

Wait until you actually start hurting them. Let’s see how that works out for you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Cecilie1200 said:


> They haven't made one yet.


And so, there's much ado over nothing.
Well, except the left's propoensity to do everything they can to advance their agenda.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## skews13

Delldude said:


> It's not an issue to be decided at the federal level. Now you know what states rights is all about.



It’s not an issue to be decided at the state level. Now you know what individual rights are all about.

FTFY


----------



## Blues Man

Cecilie1200 said:


> They haven't made one yet.


So all this so called leaked ruling might be is a rough draft based on the prediction that Roe would be overturned.


----------



## basquebromance

I hope all these constitutional law scholars now recognize that the Supreme Court just makes stuff up.


----------



## BackAgain

Blues Man said:


> No it was some other person.  You all sound the same to me
> 
> Do you think that a state should have the power to incarcerate any pregnant woman if the state deems that she is not caring for the unborn child in her womb properly?  Do you think a state government should be allowed to forcibly prevent any pregnant woman from traveling to any state where abortion is legal?
> 
> Because that is the result of giving any fetus the full compliment of Constitutional rights.  Which this ruling does not do nor does it give any state the power to do.  ALL this ruling does is allow a state government to decide if abortions can be performed in that state.


Let’s simplify. Any decision of this magnitude may have other related issues arise because of it. As Ted Kennedy might say, “we erah erah will drive off that bridge when we get to it.”


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Dragonlady said:


> You haven't really seen what's going on because you're not looking.  The extreme right has just spent 50 years working to overturn Roe, including subverting the Supreme Court selection process to pack the court with extreme right wing factions.  70% of Americans are in favour of abortion rights for women.
> 
> Democrats have won the popular vote for president in every election since 1992, except 2006, and yet the Republicans have denied Democrats appointments a hearing, and rammed through an unqualified fringe candidate days before the 2020 election.  The SC does not reflect the will of the American people.
> 
> The Senators who confirmed ACB to the court, represented 1.5 million fewer voters, than the Senators who voted against her confirmation.
> 
> Gay marriage is legal, for now, but the same people who are overturning abortion, are laying the groundwork in the abortion decision, to overturn gay marriage as well.  They're coming for your rights next, little gay boy.
> 
> Right wingers are already saying the access to birth control is bad for women - leading to promiscuous and dangerous behaviour.



You need a fainting couch!


----------



## task0778

Blues Man said:


> This ruling does not do anything like that.  And If you think I meant that a state could force an abortion you better go back and reread what I wrote.
> 
> I said this ruling does not prevent any women from getting an abortion and that this ruling in no way grants any Constitutional protection to any fetus
> 
> No state government will be allowed to prevent any woman from leaving the state to get an abortion.



So what's the problem?  

IMHO, the real issue here is that the Supreme Court created a Right that has no basis in the Constitution or in any federal statute.  This new ruling corrects that mistake.


----------



## BackAgain

basquebromance said:


> I hope all these constitutional law scholars now recognize that the Supreme Court just makes stuff up.


It did in Roe v. Wade.


----------



## LibertyKid

Dragonlady said:


> They are so true.  Why would we believe any of the lies Republicans have told us about our rights.  You even have Republicans talking about taking the right to vote away from women.  Now they want a federal statute banning abortion everywhere, with no exceptions for rape and incest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Does the Religious Right Hate Your Birth Control?
> 
> 
> Hatred of sin? Political calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Anti–Birth Control Movement Is the New Anti-Abortion Movement
> 
> 
> Republicans are “conflating medications that prevent pregnancy—birth control and emergency contraception—with medications that end pregnancy,” says the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vogue.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Do Religions Say About Birth Control?
> 
> 
> When religious positions on birth control are discussed, we usually hear how contraceptives are forbidden. But is this always the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.learnreligions.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campaign Life your name's a lie.  You don't care if women die.


If you honestly think that taking the voting rights away from women could ever be a thing in this country (outside of some militaristic take over) you are drinking way to much of the kool-aid.


----------



## easyt65

BTW, as I thought, leaking the draft is beng declared by experts as 'NOT A CRIME'.

Robert's has every right to call in help to conduct an internal investigation to find out what liberal dirtbag aide or employee leaked the brief; however, no criminal punishment can be given.

I doubt the culprit will even get fired. They are a leftist extremists hero.


----------



## LibertyKid

Blues Man said:


> So then if a state decides that a fetus has the full compliment of Constitutional rights then you realize that the state can then impose it's will on every pregnant woman who the government deems isn't caring properly for the unborn child she carries don't you?
> 
> For example a state could prohibit every single pregnant woman from leaving that state to travel to another state that allows abortion.
> 
> Are you willing to allow any state government that kind of power?


Slippery slope fallacy. Lots of presuppositions here. If given to the state, the voters in that state should have the right to vote and decide. If that doesn't happen, then remove the politicians from their elected office. Until then, nothing changes until it changes.


----------



## BackAgain

task0778 said:


> So what's the problem?
> 
> IMHO, the real issue here is that the Supreme Court created a Right that has no basis in the Constitution or in any federal statute.  This new ruling corrects that mistake.


Yes. And it does so unflinchingly. Imagine that. A branch of government admitting a past mistake and proactively agreeing to correct it.

This kind of thing could catch on!


----------



## PinktheFloyd88

Democrats leak Supreme Court documents on Roe V Wade​
They don’t know who leaked it, and as such your topic title is untrue. This belongs in the Rubber Room.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## LibertyKid

basquebromance said:


> Funny how all the “pro-life” people don’t care if Americans can’t afford life-saving insulin.


Red herring. Stick to the topic or not at all.


----------



## Viktor

easyt65 said:


> BTW, as I thought, leaking the draft is beng declared by experts as 'NOT A CRIME'.
> 
> Robert's has every right to call in help to conduct an internal investigation to find out what liberal dirtbag aide or employee leaked the brief; however, no criminal punishment can be given.
> 
> I doubt the culprit will even get fired. They are a leftist extremists hero.


It may not be a crime, but it is a violation of SC rules. They will be fired and possibly disbarred.


----------



## easyt65

Viktor said:


> It may not be a crime, but it is a violation of SC rules. They will be fired and possibly disbarred.


We can only hope...


----------



## basquebromance

“Abortion” isn’t in the constitution, but neither is “9 justices on the Supreme Court” and “filibuster”.


----------



## Cecilie1200

skews13 said:


> You actually believe the women in your state agree with you?
> 
> Wait until you actually start hurting them. Let’s see how that works out for you.



I always enjoy the smallest dick in the room trying to mansplain to me what's in the best interests of women and what women really want.

Go find something else to explain your love of baby-killing and stop trying to hide it behind my skirts.


----------



## Cecilie1200

M14 Shooter said:


> And so, there's much ado over nothing.
> Well, except the left's propoensity to do everything they can to advance their agenda.



Oh, there's definitely something for the ado to be over.  But the decision isn't set in stone until the Court officially releases it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

skews13 said:


> It’s not an issue to be decided at the state level. Now you know what individual rights are all about.
> 
> FTFY



It's not a right just because you've decided it is.  Now you know what reality is all about.


----------



## Cecilie1200

LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:


> You need a fainting couch!



She can faint on the couch she spends every day on, if she moves the Cheetos out of the way first.


----------



## schmidlap

LordBrownTrout said:


> Nope, those are natural laws. You misunderstand. The fed state has no business approving murder of the unborn. Ill always stand against this abhorrent practice. Always. Authoritarianism embraces such abominations as abortion, gay marriage, slavery etc.



Your denying an impregnated American all her rights and dictating to her is repugnant to liberty.

Politicians and bureaucrats should neither arrogate the power to prescribe nor to proscribe abortion. Until viability, it is a private, personal matter, and no one should be allowed to dictate either to anyone else through State coercion.


----------



## iceberg

Dragonlady said:


> They are so true.  Why would we believe any of the lies Republicans have told us about our rights.  You even have Republicans talking about taking the right to vote away from women.  Now they want a federal statute banning abortion everywhere, with no exceptions for rape and incest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Does the Religious Right Hate Your Birth Control?
> 
> 
> Hatred of sin? Political calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.psychologytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Anti–Birth Control Movement Is the New Anti-Abortion Movement
> 
> 
> Republicans are “conflating medications that prevent pregnancy—birth control and emergency contraception—with medications that end pregnancy,” says the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vogue.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Do Religions Say About Birth Control?
> 
> 
> When religious positions on birth control are discussed, we usually hear how contraceptives are forbidden. But is this always the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.learnreligions.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campaign Life your name's a lie.  You don't care if women die.


doosh


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


You would have to be really, really stupid to think that this will end abortion. What it will do is end safe and affordable abortion:

Women who have the means to travel, and take time away from jobs will just go to another state where it is still available

Women who can't go elsewhere will seek out illegal abortions that will put their lives at risk

Those illegal abortions are likely to include late term abortions that you so called pro lifers  hate so much

In other case, women and families will have the child although  ill equipped to care for him/her. That will lead to increased poverty, cases of abuse and neglect, and  an increase in the number of children becoming wards of the state.

 No doubt some states that outlaw abortion will not make exceptions  for  for rape or incest leading to mental health crisis for some

This is a sexist, racist and classist ruling. It makes no sense! Your pro-life stance is pure bullshit because most of you do not give a shit about the child after being born. You oppose health insurance, nutritional programs, housing assistance, free day care and early childhood education, A tax policy that favors the working and middle class, a humane social safety net ,  and a minimum wage.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


Lol 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤣 😆😆🤣🤣😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣 oh my those who are whining about having a right to abortion were never going to vote for a repubuolcan in the first place. Biden has fucked up so badly no one in concerned about loosing votes


----------



## bigrebnc1775

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You would have to be really, really stupid to think that this will end abortion. What it will do is end safe and affordable abortion:
> 
> Women who have the means to travel, and take time away from jobs will just go to another state where it is still available
> 
> Women who can't go elsewhere will seek out illegal abortions that will put their lives at risk
> 
> Those illegal abortions are likely to include late term abortions that you idiots hate so much
> 
> This is a sexist, racist and classist ruling. It makes no sense!


Sure thing ☺️


----------



## Dragonlady

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lol 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤣 😆😆🤣🤣😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣 oh my those who are whining about having a right to abortion were never going to vote for a repubuolcan in the first place. Biden has fucked up so badly no one in concerned about loosing votes



That's not what Lindsay Graham, and Mitch McConnell were saying this morning.  They were saying that this would galvanize Democratic voters just like 2018.  Some other Republican talking head said that in the past 4 years Republicans have lost the White House, the House and the Senate, and now, as they're on the verge of retaking the House, this will be disastrous.  Just like 2018.  

Many women believed that this would never happen so it was safe to vote Republican.  Won't get fooled again!


----------



## ColonelAngus

skews13 said:


> You actually believe the women in your state agree with you?
> 
> Wait until you actually start hurting them. Let’s see how that works out for you.


10th ammendment.  Then every state can make their own rules.

People should contact their state reps and make their opinions clear on the matter.

I AM PRO CHOICE, BUT I AM PRO CONSTITUTION MORE.


----------



## Porthos

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


When R vs W is overturned. It will not stop abortions.
Just make them impossible for the poor minorities and who cares if the female dies from one reason or another. Right?
Last time I looked the USA Individual states make up the USA.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dragonlady said:


> That's not what Lindsay Graham, and Mitch McConnell were saying this morning.  They were saying that this would galvanize Democratic voters just like 2018.  Some other Republican talking head said that in the past 4 years Republicans have lost the White House, the House and the Senate, and now, as they're on the verge of retaking the House, this will be disastrous.  Just like 2018.
> 
> Many women believed that this would never happen so it was safe to vote Republican.  Won't get fooled again!


😆 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Again more women want there gun rights protected than they want an abortion. No one gives a shit how upset you leftists get over loosing the abortion fight.


----------



## Porthos

night_son said:


> Seems like pro-abortion fuckers have daily and annual quotas of babies to murder, so yeah—it matters to them what other states do and do not allow; got to get them dead baby numbers up . . .


Nice language, no threats this time?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lol 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤣 😆😆🤣🤣😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣 oh my those who are whining about having a right to abortion were never going to vote for a repubuolcan in the first place. Biden has fucked up so badly no one in concerned about loosing votes


See post 677 and then tell us who it is that fucked up.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Porthos said:


> When R vs W is overturned. It will not stop abortions.
> Just make them impossible for the poor minorities and who cares if the female dies from one reason or another. Right?
> Last time I looked the USA Individual states make up the USA.



Did you have something relevant to say other than, "I'm just SURE that poor people should kill their children"?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 😆 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Again more women want there gun rights protected than they want an abortion. No one gives a shit how upset you leftists get over loosing the abortion fight.


See post 677. How stupid are you people anyway?


----------



## schmidlap

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You would have to be really, really stupid to think that this will end abortion. What it will do is end safe and affordable abortion:
> 
> Women who have the means to travel, and take time away from jobs will just go to another state where it is still available
> 
> Women who can't go elsewhere will seek out illegal abortions that will put their lives at risk
> 
> Those illegal abortions are likely to include late term abortions that you so called pro lifers  hate so much
> 
> In other case, women and families will have the child although  ill equipped to care for him/her. That will lead to increased poverty, cases of abuse and neglect, and  an increase in the number of children becoming wards of the state.
> 
> No doubt some states that outlaw abortion will not make exceptions  for  for rape or incest leading to mental health crisis for some
> 
> This is a sexist, racist and classist ruling. It makes no sense! Your pro-life stance is pure bullshit because most of you do not give a shit about the child after being born. You oppose health insurance, nutritional programs, housing assistance, free day care and early childhood education, A tax policy that favors the working and middle class, a humane social safety net ,  and a minimum wage.


Authoritarians in retrogressive states are hellbent upon joining the nations in red below where politicians and bureaucrats arrogate control of wombs:



As a practical matter, many American women will have a method of avoiding the State tyranny: Pharmaceuticals can now be used to end pregnancies in the first trimester, when more than 90 percent of legal abortions occur. (Almost 99 percent of abortions occur within the first 20 weeks.)


----------



## bigrebnc1775

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 677. How stupid are you people anyway?


And you can shove 677 up your ass. Jo has fucked up so badly no one gives a shit. More women want their right to a firearm protected than have an abortion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

schmidlap said:


> Authoritarians in retrogressive states are hellbent upon joining the nations in red below where politicians and bureaucrats arrogate control of wombs:
> View attachment 639967​
> As a practical matter, many American women will have a method of avoiding the State tyranny: Pharmaceuticals can now be used to end pregnancies in the first trimester, when more than 90 percent of legal abortions occur. (Almost 99 percent of abortions occur within the first 20 weeks.)


Second amendment where do democrats fall on the second amendment right.


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You would have to be really, really stupid to think that this will end abortion. What it will do is end safe and affordable abortion:
> 
> Women who have the means to travel, and take time away from jobs will just go to another state where it is still available
> 
> Women who can't go elsewhere will seek out illegal abortions that will put their lives at risk
> 
> Those illegal abortions are likely to include late term abortions that you so called pro lifers  hate so much
> 
> In other case, women and families will have the child although  ill equipped to care for him/her. That will lead to increased poverty, cases of abuse and neglect, and  an increase in the number of children becoming wards of the state.
> 
> No doubt some states that outlaw abortion will not make exceptions  for  for rape or incest leading to mental health crisis for some
> 
> This is a sexist, racist and classist ruling. It makes no sense! Your pro-life stance is pure bullshit because most of you do not give a shit about the child after being born. You oppose health insurance, nutritional programs, housing assistance, free day care and early childhood education, A tax policy that favors the working and middle class, a humane social safety net ,  and a minimum wage.


You’d have to be truly stupid to interpret anything I said as “it would end abortion.”


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, the biggest advance in medicine that reduced the maternal mortality rate was the widespread use of penicillin.


That's unexpected.  Never pegged that to be a leading reason.


----------



## Mac-7

schmidlap said:


> Authoritarians in retrogressive states are hellbent upon joining the nations in red below where politicians and bureaucrats arrogate control of wombs:
> View attachment 639967​
> As a practical matter, many American women will have a method of avoiding the State tyranny: Pharmaceuticals can now be used to end pregnancies in the first trimester, when more than 90 percent of legal abortions occur. (Almost 99 percent of abortions occur within the first 20 weeks.)


I expect at least 15-20 states will make abortion legal in one form or another


----------



## LordBrownTrout

schmidlap said:


> Your denying an impregnated American all her rights and dictating to her is repugnant to liberty.
> 
> Politicians and bureaucrats should neither arrogate the power to prescribe nor to proscribe abortion. Until viability, it is a private, personal matter, and no one should be allowed to dictate either to anyone else through State coercion.
> 
> View attachment 639962



If they do overturn it, the state will be saying that it will not be sanctioning abortions and will be kicked to the individual states.


----------



## BackAgain

Porthos said:


> When R vs W is overturned. It will not stop abortions.
> Just make them impossible for the poor minorities and who cares if the female dies from one reason or another. Right?
> Last time I looked the USA Individual states make up the USA.


This case I’d decided as per the draft opinion will NOT end abortions. I believe I’ve already acknowledged that.  Several times.

It is  FALSE to claim that it will work only to make it impossible for poorer women to get abortions. And, in any event, the abortion debate doesn’t boil down to one of income inequality.  Life isn’t perfect. It isn’t always fair. Disparities exist. And?  Do any of those truisms justify slaughtering perfectly innocent and helpless preborn human life?  It’s not a trick question. The answer is “no.”

Your last sentence is a self contained non sequitur.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> Did you have something relevant to say other than, "I'm just SURE that poor people should kill their children"?


See post 677 and try saying something relevant about that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

night_son said:


> Seems like pro-abortion fuckers have daily and annual quotas of babies to murder, so yeah—it matters to them what other states do and do not allow; got to get them dead baby numbers up . . .


That is beyond stupid! See post 677


----------



## LordBrownTrout

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You would have to be really, really stupid to think that this will end abortion. What it will do is end safe and affordable abortion:
> 
> Women who have the means to travel, and take time away from jobs will just go to another state where it is still available
> 
> Women who can't go elsewhere will seek out illegal abortions that will put their lives at risk
> 
> Those illegal abortions are likely to include late term abortions that you so called pro lifers  hate so much
> 
> In other case, women and families will have the child although  ill equipped to care for him/her. That will lead to increased poverty, cases of abuse and neglect, and  an increase in the number of children becoming wards of the state.
> 
> No doubt some states that outlaw abortion will not make exceptions  for  for rape or incest leading to mental health crisis for some
> 
> This is a sexist, racist and classist ruling. It makes no sense! Your pro-life stance is pure bullshit because most of you do not give a shit about the child after being born. You oppose health insurance, nutritional programs, housing assistance, free day care and early childhood education, A tax policy that favors the working and middle class, a humane social safety net ,  and a minimum wage.


Why should I be responsible?  Why don't you hold the two who had the baby responsible. Never wanting to be held accountable. Despicable.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> This case I’d decided as per the draft opinion will NOT end abortions. I believe I’ve already acknowledged that.  Several times.
> 
> It is  FALSE to claim that it will work only to make it impossible for poorer women to get abortions. And, in any event, the abortion debate doesn’t boil down to one of income inequality.  Life isn’t perfect. It isn’t always fair. Disparities exist. And?  Do any of those truisms justify slaughtering perfectly innocent and helpless preborn human life?  It’s not a trick question. The answer is “no.”
> 
> Your last sentence is a self contained non sequitur.


See post 677


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> You’d have to be truly stupid to interpret anything I said as “it would end abortion.”


That is the intent. If not what is it?


----------



## progressive hunter




----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> I always enjoy the smallest dick in the room trying to mansplain to me what's in the best interests of women and what women really want.
> 
> Go find something else to explain your love of baby-killing and stop trying to hide it behind my skirts.


Didn't you mean 'under'? I mean that's literally where this entire issue resides.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You would have to be really, really stupid to think that this will end abortion. What it will do is end safe and affordable abortion:


It won't.

What it will do is confer an actual choice on the matter to state legislatures. 

Oh wait, there's that word again: CHOICE.

That is what you ghouls want, right?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Porthos said:


> When R vs W is overturned. It will not stop abortions.


See previous post. 

Also note the rhetoric coming from your side, consisting mainly of:

"This will take away a woman's right to choose."

So if it won't stop abortions, then it literally won't take away a woman's right to choose.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

LordBrownTrout said:


> Why should I be responsible?  Why don't you hold the two who had the baby responsible. Never wanting to be held accountable. Despicable.


That is a miserable and dishonest cope out. I did not say that you as an individual should be responsible . WE as a nation and as a society should be responsible. That is unless you reject the concept of community and shared responsibility in favor of a primitive and brutal, every man for himself- fuck you, I have mine -sort of society. But that you for admitting that you are not pro life.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is a miserable and dishonest cope out. I did not say that you as an individual should be responsible . WE as a nation and as a society should be responsible. That is unless you reject the concept of community and shared responsibility in favor of a primitive and brutal, every man for himself- fuck you, I have mine -sort of society. But that you for admitting that you are not pro life.


Feel free to support the child.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> They were saying that this would galvanize Democratic voters just like 2018.



Their strategists are lying to them. A lot.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> See previous post.
> 
> Also note the rhetoric coming from your side, consisting mainly of:
> 
> "This will take away a woman's right to choose."
> 
> So if it won't stop abortions, then it literally won't take away a woman's right to choose.


see post 677


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 677


Why? Post 677 was baseless gibberish. It proudly proclaims you have an opinion. And?  It isn’t a well thought out opinion. And it’s not really of any significance to the debate. But ok. It’s an opinion.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> What's next - burning witches at the stake...again?



Forget witches, the left burns entire cities to the ground, either by riot or by legislative policy.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> see post 677



I did read it. But the first line superseded the rest. My point stands.


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is the intent. If not what is it?


That is what’s intent?  “It” is an indefinite pronoun. To what exactly are you referring?


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Women who can't go elsewhere will seek out illegal abortions that will put their lives at risk



This is nothing but slippery slope Borkian nonsense.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> Heads will not be exploding.


If you had your way, the unborn babies' heads will.


----------



## schmidlap

LordBrownTrout said:


> If they do overturn it, the state will be saying that it will not be sanctioning abortions and will be kicked to the individual states.


The less educated, poorer, more regressive states will kowtow to the authoritarians. Liberty will be protected in the more advanced states, further dividing the nation.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Those illegal abortions are likely to include late term abortions that you so called pro lifers hate so much



Nah, you seem to forget the states that passed laws allowing abortion right up until or immediately after birth.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> The less educated, poorer, more regressive states will kowtow to the authoritarians. Liberty will be protected in the more advanced states, further dividing the nation.


Blah blah blah. You keep saying that pablum puke as if your words has any actual meaning. They don’t.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> This is a sexist, racist and classist ruling.


I can practically see the purple dye in your hair.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> Why? Post 677 was baseless gibberish. It proudly proclaims you have an opinion. And?  It isn’t a well thought out opinion. And it’s not really of any significance to the debate. But ok. It’s an opinion.


Bullshit! It is reality. If you don't think so, please explain. These are the things that we saw before Roe, and there is no reason to think that we will not see it again now.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is the intent. If not what is it?



It's not the 'intent' if it allows states to choose on an individual basis whether or not to ban or allow it.

You people simply don't grasp the concept of 'choice', whether it be state's rights or bodily autonomy (e.g. Covid vaccines, abortion)


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> I can practically see the purple dye in your hair.


What the fuck does that mean?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> It's not the 'intent' if it allows states to choose on an individual basis whether or not to ban or allow it.
> 
> You people simply don't grasp the concept of 'choice'
> 
> Whether it be state's rights or bodily autonomy (e.g. Covid vaccines, abortion)


See post 677. It takes away the choice for some people. Your claim that the ruling is pro choice is pure bullshit . States can chose but individuals may not be able to.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What the fuck does that mean?


Precisely what it's supposed to. 

"Racist, sexist, classist."

What Ivy League college safe space did you crawl out of?

I mean, you ignore any woman who opposes abortion, and hoist the minority of women who support such blatant slaughter above them, claiming, wrongly, that they speak for them all. 

Like I said, I can see the purple dye in your hair.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> Blah blah blah. You keep saying that pablum puke as if your words has any actual meaning. They don’t.


Those words have plenty of meaning. You are either to dishonest to admit it, or to stupid to understand it. Which is it?


----------



## Ms. Turquoise

BackAgain said:


> So the “right” to slaughter the innocent preborn comes down to a income inequality analysis?


No. It comes down to wealthy people having more privledges, which has always been the case.
When I was in nursing school many years ago, I had a teacher who told us about the unmarried daughters of wealthy people who would come to a certain hospital to get abortions.
This was in the 1960s before abortion was LEGAL for poor women.
This is exactly what we will be going back to if Roe vs Wade is overturned.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> States can chose but individuals may not be able to.



You obviously don't know how this democracy functions do you?

The people can launch petitions to get this issue (for or against) added to their state's constitution.

The people can vote on those petitions.

The people can vote for _other _people who are for or against this issue.

The people can do _both_ at the same time.

The illusion that people have no choice is simply a fantasy you created to incite fear in the unwitting. Which is your goal, it seems.

There are plenty of choices, there for the taking.


----------



## basquebromance

There is no justice in a system that’s run by greedy old men who want to control our lives.

Solidarity with all in streets demanding safe and free access to abortion care. 

Fuck the Supreme Court, religious extremism and the misogyny it protects.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit! It is reality. If you don't think so, please explain. These are the things that we saw before Roe, and there is no reason to think that we will not see it again now.


*Bullshit!*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Precisely what it's supposed to.
> 
> "Racist, sexist, classist."
> 
> What Ivy League college safe space did you crawl out of?
> 
> I mean, you ignore any woman who opposes abortion, and hoist the minority of women who support such blatant slaughter above them, claiming, wrongly, that they speak for them all.
> 
> Like I said, I can see the purple dye in your hair.


There are women who oppose abortion, There are also women who oppose the right  to vote, hold office, work outside the home, disobey husbands, and own property. The fact is that most women support reproductive rights, but that is beside the point. That point being that outlawing abortion, even in 23 states, is detrimental to the well being of women and families


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What the fuck does that mean?


You're a perverted fag who can't tolerate any opinion but your own.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> There are women who oppose abortion, There are also women who oppose the right  to vote, hold office, work outside the home, disobey husbands, and own property. The fact is that most women support reproductive rights, but that is beside the point. That point being that outlawing abortion, even in 23 states, is detrimental to the well being of women and families


Most men and women also don't make it to college.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> There are women who oppose abortion, There are also women who oppose the right  to vote, hold office, work outside the home, disobey husbands, and own property. The fact is that most women support reproductive rights, but that is beside the point. That point being that outlawing abortion, even in 23 states, is detrimental to the well being of women and families



Spare me your talking points.


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit! It is reality. If you don't think so, please explain. These are the things that we saw before Roe, and there is no reason to think that we will not see it again now.


No. It’s bullshit. You are comparing apples with rocks. Only one is a fruit. That there may be other ramifications that follow as a result of this ruling (if it comes down this way) isn’t disputed.

But nothing you point to has a damn thing to do with the actual legal principle.


----------



## TemplarKormac

basquebromance said:


> There is no justice in a system that’s run by greedy old men who want to control our lives.
> 
> Solidarity with all in streets demanding safe and free access to abortion care.
> 
> Fuck the Supreme Court, religious extremism and the misogyny it protects.


Our resident shock trooper is at it again!


----------



## Indeependent

basquebromance said:


> There is no justice in a system that’s run by greedy old men who want to control our lives.
> 
> Solidarity with all in streets demanding safe and free access to abortion care.
> 
> Fuck the Supreme Court, religious extremism and the misogyny it protects.


There are plenty of greedy *young* men and women who want to control our lives.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> You obviously don't know how this democracy functions do you?
> 
> The people can launch petitions to get this issue (for or against) added to their state's constitution.
> 
> The people can vote for people who are for or against this issue.
> 
> The people can do both at the same time.
> 
> The illusion that people have no choice is simply a fantasy you created to incite fear in the unwitting. Which is your goal, it seems.
> 
> There are plenty of choices, there for the taking.


I most certainly understand how out representative democracy and constitutional republic works. 

I also understand the concept of a tyranny of the majority, and in some cases a tyranny   of a minority. In either case, voters and politicians should not be deciding on issues of civil rights and privacy of individuals 

You are the one who is trying to create the illusion that people are not being robbed of their choice.


----------



## Indeependent

BackAgain said:


> No. It’s bullshit. You are comparing apples with rocks. Only one is a fruit. That there may be other ramifications that follow as a result of this ruling (if it comes down this way) isn’t disputed.
> 
> But nothing you point to has a damn thing to do with the actual legal principle.


*Feelings*.  Nothing more than...*Feelings.*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> No. It’s bullshit. You are comparing apples with rocks. Only one is a fruit. That there may be other ramifications that follow as a result of this ruling (if it comes down this way) isn’t disputed.
> 
> But nothing you point to has a damn thing to do with the actual legal principle.


Thank you for confirming that you can't explain how I am wrong.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I most certainly understand how out representative democracy and constitutional republic works.
> 
> I also understand the concept of a tyranny of the majority, and in some cases a tyranny   of a minority. In either case, voters and politicians should not be deciding on issues of civil rights and privacy of individuals
> 
> You are the one who is trying to create the illusion that people are not being robbed of their choice.


You don't need a passport to travel to another state.
Keep your legs together.
I'm guessing your grand kids are sluts.


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for confirming that you can't explain how I am wrong.


Thank you for confirming that you’re too simple-minded to have followed along.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Nah, you seem to forget the states that passed laws allowing abortion right up until or immediately after birth.


Really? What states are those? Please provide the text of those laws.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? What states are those? Please provide the text of those laws.


NYS for one.


----------



## Couchpotato

Dragonlady said:


> This is not what abortion looks like.  This is yet another Republican lie.  This is a fully term fetus ready for birth, not a zygote or first trimester fetus which is when the vast majority of abortions take place.
> 
> Just more of the lies Republicans tell you.


Ok so where is the line?    When does a fetus become a life and we can’t kill it via abortion?   Assuming fetus is viable and mothers health isn’t a concern how many weeks until it’s murder?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> This is nothing but slippery slope Borkian nonsense.


Really? Please explain. What do YOU think will happen?


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for confirming that you can't explain how I am wrong.



You're wrong in your presumption, through the slew of reasons you listed earlier, in your reasoning that women are incapable of self-restraint. Abstention. Forethought. 

Simply put, a female can avoid this entire process by demanding the man wear a condom. She can take the initiative and get contraceptives to take right before any sexual encounter. Spermicides. 

Women are two things, emotional and extremely smart. And progressives like you play on the emotion and bank on the emotions overruling the intelligence and better judgment.


----------



## Indeependent

TemplarKormac said:


> You're wrong in your presumption, through the slew of reasons you listed earlier, in your reasoning that women are incapable of self-restraint. Abstention. Forethought.
> 
> Simply put, a female can avoid this entire process by demanding the man wear a condom. She can take the initiative and get contraceptives to take right before any sexual encounter. Spermicides.
> 
> Women are two things, emotional and extremely smart. And progressives like you play on the emotion and bank on the emotions overruling the intelligence and better judgment.


Maybe the RegressivePerverts grandchild is 100% emotion.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? Please explain. What do YOU think will happen?



Nothing of that sort. Contraceptives are readily available. Condoms, spermicides, IUDs... 

All you have to do is educate women on the options they have instead of trying to instill fear.


----------



## Leo123

Maybe this decision, if decided in favor of States handling abortion, will send a message to women that, outside of rape, there should never be unwanted children.   Nature has seen fit to place the responsibility of bearing children on the female of the species.   IMO, that means that the woman decides who she has sex with and who she deems adequate to be inseminated by.  One would think that women would be more chaste which would make men be more chaste.    Outside of rape (a heinous crime) there is no reason for 'unwanted' pregnancies.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> You're wrong in your presumption, through the slew of reasons you listed earlier, in your reasoning *that women are incapable of self-restraint. Abstention. Forethought.*


Holy fucking shit! I never said or implied anything like that! Thank you for confirming the fact the YOU are a misogynist who blames women for abortion.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I most certainly understand how out representative democracy and constitutional republic works.


Then why this 'no choice' garbage? Why this need to instill fear if not for the goal of gaining votes and power from a specific voting bloc only to simply discard them when that power is attained?

You do realize I've caught on to the deception, right?

You don't care about women.

Not when you allow men to supersede them in their own sports.

When you claim that men can get pregnant.

Or when you claim there is no gender/more than two.


----------



## Leo123

TemplarKormac said:


> Nothing of that sort. Contraceptives are readily available. Condoms, spermicides, IUDs...
> 
> All you have to do is educate women on the options they have instead of trying to instill fear.


Contraceptives have been around for a while and most women know all about them.   One wonders why there are so many 'unwanted' pregnancies.   Women can't be that stupid and lazy.....


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? What states are those? Please provide the text of those laws.


Not too long ago, former Governor blackface of Virginia described how a then proposed bill would permit a post-birth abortion:






						Virginia Governor Describes How Post-Birth Abortion Would Proceed
					

.




					cnsnews.com
				




I don’t think it became law. But Dumbocraps seem perfectly ok with this kind of thinking.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy fucking shit! I never said or implied anything like that! Thank you for confirming the fact the YOU are a misogynist who blames women for abortion.


Bullshit!  That is *exactly* what you are inferring.
Now tell your grandchildren to behave like adults and use contraceptives.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy fucking shit! I never said or implied anything like that! Thank you for confirming the fact the YOU are a misogynist who blames women for abortion.



Not explicitly. The amalgamation of your positions said that. The entire pro-choice platform says that. Your support of that platform in turn says that.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TemplarKormac said:


> What gets me here is this particular argument that, and I quote: "the fetus is a clump of cells dependent on the nutrients of mother for survival and is therefore a part of her body."
> 
> Gee what about the newborn outside of the womb? You gonna kill them when they're outside her womb and NOT a part of her body too, ya ghoul? If you drop a newborn in a desert and leave it there, they will not go looking for food or water, they will die of starvation and thirst.
> 
> Just as dependent outside the womb as they are inside. THIS is where that argument falls completely apart.
> 
> I'll be waiting for rebuttals here.


Still waiting for takers on this one.


----------



## ChemEngineer

*If it's not a human being, then why are you harvesting organs from it? - Dr. Ben Carson, Former Surgeon General

If Democrats can't tell men from women, and think men have periods and can bear children, then how can Democrats talk about "women's (sic) rights"?

Humans have the right to life.

Fathers have the right love and raise their children, which "Feminists"(sick) completely ignore.*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Simply put, a female can avoid this entire process by demanding the man wear a condom. She can take the initiative and get contraceptives to take right before any sexual encounter. Spermicides.
> 
> Women are two things, emotional and extremely smart. And progressives like you play on the emotion and bank on the emotions overruling the intelligence and better judgment.


You have a very simplest view of the issue. Contraception is not always available or affordable and there are states that want to limit or outlaw it altogether. Then there is the issue of rape and incest which some states will not make an exception for . Stop blaming women!


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Contraception is not always available or affordable



What was that?

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Female-Birth-Control-Products/zgbs/hpc/3762431&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You have a very simplest view of the issue.



I'm pretty sure my view is far more factual, realistic, and complex than yours.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> What gets me here is this particular argument that, and I quote: "the fetus is a clump of cells dependent on the nutrients of mother for survival and is therefore a part of her body."
> 
> *Gee what about the newborn outside of the womb? You gonna kill them when they're outside her womb and NOT a part of her body too, ya ghoul? *If you drop a newborn in a desert and leave it there, they will not go looking for food or water, they will die of starvation and thirst.
> 
> Just as dependent outside the womb as they are inside. THIS is where that argument falls completely apart.
> 
> I'll be waiting for rebuttals here.


You are out of your fucking mind or just a shameless liar. NO ONE is in  favor of anything like that!


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> and there are states that want to limit or outlaw it altogether



That's not true. You know that and yet you still posted it. 

California, New York, Washington State, Maryland, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Colorado....

I could go on. But it's safe to say you are lying wilfully now.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

basquebromance said:


> There is no justice in a system that’s run by greedy old men who want to control our lives.
> 
> Solidarity with all in streets demanding safe and free access to abortion care.
> 
> Fuck the Supreme Court, religious extremism and the misogyny it protects.



Awwwwwww, are you upset?


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are out of your fucking mind or just a shameless liar. NO ONE is in  favor of anything like that!


No one?  Really?  Virginia Governor Describes How Post-Birth Abortion Would Proceed


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are out of your fucking mind or just a shameless liar. NO ONE is in favor of anything like that!


Actually, your hostile NUH-UH reaction says something entirely different.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? What states are those? Please provide the text of those laws.


See post #764


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? What states are those? Please provide the text of those laws.


Also this:





__





						What States Allow Late Term Abortion 2022
					





					worldpopulationreview.com


----------



## rightnow909

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


such great news!

only problem is... who knows about Roberts... sigh


----------



## rightnow909

airplanemechanic said:


> Sean Hannity is reporting the same thing.
> 
> Thank God. Nowhere in the constitution does it make abortion legal. This should be up to the states.


states should not make murder legal

of course CA and such places are likely hopeless....


----------



## rightnow909

Nostra said:


> For some unknown reason you think all women support killing babies.  They don't , Dumbass.


good point.. amazing how lefties just ASSUME (and you know how assuming goes)  that all women are pro abortion... 

in fact somewhere I heard more women are pro life than are men


----------



## Clipper

BackAgain said:


> Glad you and the other blood-sucking cretins are happy about that. Seek your solace where you can.


What are Republican goons going to do when their side piece needs an abortion & it's outlawed in their State?


----------



## Clipper

Ralph Norton said:


> The leak and the ruling are two separate issues jackass.


It was mentioned in this thread, ass wipe.


----------



## skews13

rightnow909 said:


> good point.. amazing how lefties just ASSUME (and you know how assuming goes)  that all women are pro abortion...
> 
> in fact somewhere I heard more women are pro life than are men



70% of all Americans support a womans right to choose.

This is going to be costly for Republicans in state legislatures now. Not only nationally. The church, that is already in steep decline, is also going to take a big hit.


----------



## Clipper

skews13 said:


> Are you psyched? Just remember, the 4 justices that may vote to do that, swore under oath Roe was settled law at their confirmation hearings.
> 
> That’s the first thing I want you to remember, because that’s going to come back to bite conservatives in the ass hard.
> 
> The next thing I want you to remember, is now the court that has a majority, chosen by Presidents that did not win the popular vote, is now an illegitimate court, and the majority of the country now sees it exactly that way.
> 
> So much for the rule of law.
> 
> Now anything is possible as far as individual rights go. Any future court can now make any ruling, on any right, any way, as settled law no longer applies.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for.


But right wing turds don't know that because a good majority of them are too obsessed with owning the left.

The same strategy can be used to curtail gun rights.

How's that grab ya, Trump's asseaters?

Now go apeshit.


----------



## Lakhota

My 11-Year-Old Patient Was Pregnant. Here’s What I Want You To Know About Being ‘Pro-Life.’​
So sad.


----------



## Indeependent

Lakhota said:


> My 11-Year-Old Patient Was Pregnant. Here’s What I Want You To Know About Being ‘Pro-Life.’​
> So sad.


She was awkward but not too awkward to spread her legs.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Elections have consequences.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> My 11-Year-Old Patient Was Pregnant. Here’s What I Want You To Know About Being ‘Pro-Life.’​
> So sad.



Bad parenting all the way around. Time to teach the kid how to raise kids. This is what I mean by real-life, adult consequences.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## basquebromance




----------



## BackAgain

Clipper said:


> What are Republican goons going to do when their side piece needs an abortion & it's outlawed in their State?


Please spend several sleepless nights worrying about that.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## basquebromance




----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:


> Blah blah blah. You keep saying that pablum puke as if your words has any actual meaning. They don’t.


You are upset because I point out that statist authoritarianism has consequences. The freedom-loving majority will not take this lying down.

The womb grabbers, in trashing the conservative judicial principle of _stare decisis_, defying the popular will, and taking the nation in a retrograde direction antithetical to all advanced democracies, will be seizing their supremacy over reproductive rights at a very high cost.


----------



## Delldude

skews13 said:


> It’s not an issue to be decided at the state level. Now you know what individual rights are all about.
> 
> FTFY


Why then, is it an issue that has to be decided by the judicial branch and not a law created by the legislature?
Roe V wade was a decision, not law.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## Clipper

skews13 said:


> The main issue here is the justices all committed perjury, if they vote to overturn Roe. That is the precedent that has been set.
> 
> All future confirmation hearings will be based upon that fact now. It also opens the door to reinterpret an present amendments of the Constitution, and that includes the second.
> 
> Like I said earlier, this is going to come back to bite conservatives in the ass hard.
> 
> On a lot of rights, near and dear to their hearts.


Trump's asseater's who he appointed to the court all said at their hearings that abortion was settled law.

Now those assholes are clutching at their their pearls including Roberts over the leak. Awwwww. Their Primma Donna laden little Ivory Tower was besmirched with a leak but no mention about the lies those priveledged little blue nosed icewater in the veins aristocrats bleated at their hearings? 

Throw the lies they told right back at 'em.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> You are upset because I point out that statist authoritarianism has consequences. The freedom-loving majority will not take this lying down.
> 
> The womb grabbers, in trashing the conservative judicial principle of _stare decisis_, defying the popular will, and taking the nation in a retrograde direction antithetical to all advanced democracies, will be seizing their supremacy over reproductive rights at a very high cost.


Nothing you say is remotely upsetting. I discount everything you say now that I’ve seen your particular biases. You are a very limited little drip.

_Stare decisis_ does not mean what simpletons like you seem to think it means. 🤣


----------



## Delldude

basquebromance said:


>


Can you explain their claim that this is a constitutional right?


----------



## Stormy Daniels

Darkwind said:


> Yes, you are nuts.



You are what you eat, baby.


----------



## basquebromance

Delldude said:


> Can you explain their claim that this is a constitutional right?


no

it is regardless of what the voters believe, the voters don't think it's is constitutional


----------



## basquebromance

GOP is all about the unborn.
Once you are born, you can fuck right off, unless of course, you are wealthy


----------



## basquebromance

What did you think was going to happen when these people had a COVID party on top of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s grave?


----------



## basquebromance

The NRA does not sell arms—Planned Parenthood does.


----------



## skews13

Delldude said:


> Why then, is it an issue that has to be decided by the judicial branch and not a law created by the legislature?
> Roe V wade was a decision, not law.



That was one of many mistakes by Congress to assume because the court handed down the decision, there was no need to pass related legislation.

This decision is going to force Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer to hold votes, which could hurt members of their own party, but it is also going to prevent Republicans in swing districts, and Senators up for reelection, from hiding behind not having to vote, something Mitch McConnell protected them from their entire terms. 

It also will put House Republicans that were fairly safe, in a less safe position, because many of them live in districts that are prochoice.


----------



## BS Filter

basquebromance said:


> They'll be going after birth control next,
> if you don't think so,
> you're naive AF.


I heard they're gonna force women wear chastity belts if they aren't married. Scary, huh.


----------



## skye

God! the sheeple are so predictable.....easily being led from one thing to the next!


----------



## White 6

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bullshit.  All the way around.
> 
> Conservatives have no reason to illegally leak a draft document that could endanger the decision.  And anyone who really thinks that leftists actually have the morals and ethics to allow the leaker to suffer the consequences of this act, instead of cheering him as a hero because he served their purposes, is insane and naive.


Guess we will have to wait and see who is put out as the leaker.  Not that important to me, though pretty cheesy move in my book.  These things always come out.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Clipper said:


> Trump's asseater's who he appointed to the court all said at their hearings that abortion was settled law.
> 
> Now those assholes are clutching at their their pearls including Roberts over the leak. Awwwww. Their Primma Donna laden little Ivory Tower was besmirched with a leak but no mention about the lies those priveledged little blue nosed icewater in the veins aristocrats bleated at their hearings?
> 
> Throw the lies they told right back at 'em.


Do you have any proof as to how any of the justices feel?  Aside from Alito, there are no concurring or dissenting opinions.


----------



## eagle1462010

Clipper said:


> Trump's asseater's who he appointed to the court all said at their hearings that abortion was settled law.
> 
> Now those assholes are clutching at their their pearls including Roberts over the leak. Awwwww. Their Primma Donna laden little Ivory Tower was besmirched with a leak but no mention about the lies those priveledged little blue nosed icewater in the veins aristocrats bleated at their hearings?
> 
> Throw the lies they told right back at 'em.


aka ..........the left leaked the possible decision so you can go postal and threaten them and their families so they may change their minds....

Yeah that sounds like your party.

A party going bat shit crazy over the right to KILL BABIES...............sucks to be you huh.

Oh but on jabs.............do it or we will destroy you.................UP YOURS LEFTIST.


----------



## eagle1462010

Riot season is coming folks........................They will RIOT OVER THE RIGHT TO KILL.


----------



## Darkwind

Stormy Daniels said:


> You are what you eat, baby.


Beautiful women?  Naw.   But you know, if you're offering, I know a guy who is into crazy.


----------



## Couchpotato

White 6 said:


> Guess we will have to wait and see who is put out as the leaker.  Not that important to me, though pretty cheesy move in my book.  These things always come out.


When’s the last time a SCOTUS decision was leaked?


----------



## TemplarKormac

basquebromance said:


> The NRA does not sell arms—Planned Parenthood does.


Ouch.


----------



## eagle1462010

Couchpotato said:


> When’s the last time a SCOTUS decision was leaked?


I can't remember one off hand


----------



## Couchpotato

eagle1462010 said:


> I can't remember one off hand


My point.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

basquebromance said:


> The NRA does not sell arms—Planned Parenthood does.


Arms and legs, livers and the occasional brain.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

easyt65 said:


> The leak is a criminal ploy to pressure the outcome, to prevent the reversal.
> 
> No liberal / Democrat will be held accountable.
> 
> The reversal is either Constitutional or not. It being leaked in advance has no bearing on Constitutionality, thus the leak should have no bearing on the final decision.


^^^ This kind of crap is the hilarity of this joint.

Notice how magaturds just skip over the fact that there was an unfinished *SCOTUS ruling* leaked to the press. Let's forget *that's never happened before*. No. Let's not dwell on that. Let's fast forward to *which political tribe is to blame!*

This must be like fishing in a barrel to magaturds.


----------



## White 6

Couchpotato said:


> When’s the last time a SCOTUS decision was leaked?


Never heard of it before the decision was published, only leaks of the wrangling or changes leading up to the a decision after one came out, but I'm no legal scholar.


----------



## SLAX

On THE VIEW Whoopi Goldberg in all her fat-headed unfairness during her Pro-Abortion rantings criticized a Republican senator  for being caught reading a porn novel by Sugar Kane -- the aptly titled MEN ARE GODS.  But just two hours later, TWO DEMOCRATS (Mark Kelly and Al Franken) were outed for having a copy of the same porn book!  I don't know why we can't discuss issues without making everything about one's political party and acting like one is worse or better than the other!  Heck, I even sampled some chapters from the book myself and it's way too graphic for me. But nothing that I think is off limits as male entertainment for crying out loud!


----------



## easyt65

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> ^^^ This kind of crap is the hilarity of this joint.
> 
> Notice how magaturds just skip over the fact that there was an unfinished *SCOTUS ruling* leaked to the press. Let's forget *that's never happened before*. No. Let's not dwell on that. Let's fast forward to *which political tribe is to blame!*
> 
> This must be like fishing in a barrel to magaturds.


The obvious presumed reason for leaking is to intimidate and pressure the justices....this according to liberals talking about the leak.

So you fein outrage over a non-criminal leak, attempt tpputnlame on conservatives, and the only thing liberals are really pissed about or regret is that they presumably are not getting their preferred decision in the end...while calling for violence and insurrections for not getting your way.

Bwuhahahahaha.....

You guys are hilarious.


----------



## eagle1462010

White 6 said:


> Never heard of it before the decision was published, only leaks of the wrangling or changes leading up to the a decision after one came out, but I'm no legal scholar.


Leaked to start the yelling to try and scare the vote to what they want.

Kinda normal for the lunatic left.......

So will this be the start of their new RIOT SEASON...........everything getting expensive they need to make some Loot Runs.


----------



## SLAX

night_son said:


> Seems like pro-abortion fuckers have daily and annual quotas of babies to murder, so yeah—it matters to them what other states do and do not allow; got to get them dead baby numbers up . . .


As a guy, I just wonder who is going to pay for all these babies? I don't see dudes offering to marry young women so much nowadays, so why is this such a big deal when we know the women are going to find ways to get rid of these unwanted pregnancies no matter what laws you make?  Seems like we're risking a lot of huge losses by waking up the demographic and making them Anti-Republican like this.


----------



## easyt65

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> ^^^ This kind of crap is the hilarity of this joint.
> 
> Notice how magaturds just skip over the fact that there was an unfinished *SCOTUS ruling* leaked to the press. Let's forget *that's never happened before*. No. Let's not dwell on that. Let's fast forward to *which political tribe is to blame!*
> 
> This must be like fishing in a barrel to magaturds.


So you want to avoid the ugly probable conclusion that some pathetic POS liberal extremist is the one responsible for the unprecedented leak?!



I love how snowflakes always want to skip the part where they are responsible for corruptions, scandals, leaks, and lies....

LOL


----------



## SLAX

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


I have a feeling you're right.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.


Who "depends" on the right to an abortion?
If that's your main source of birth control, you should be sewn shut.


Dragonlady said:


> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


Hold your breath.


----------



## eagle1462010

SLAX said:


> I have a feeling you're right.


Pretty hypocritical after the shit they did during covid............take the jab or else.........My body my choice went out the window..........62 million abortions since Roe Versus Wade.........

Should I CLAP............

Complaints taken in the 4th port o let on the right basement section.


----------



## Couchpotato

SLAX said:


> As a guy, I just wonder who is going to pay for all these babies? I don't see dudes offering to marry young women so much nowadays, so why is this such a big deal when we know the women are going to find ways to get rid of these unwanted pregnancies no matter what laws you make?  Seems like we're risking a lot of huge losses by waking up the demographic and making them Anti-Republican like this.


By this logic we should be killing the homeless at the cyclic rate.  I mean who’s gonna pay for all these people?


----------



## SLAX

eagle1462010 said:


> Pretty hypocritical after the shit they did during covid............take the jab or else.........My body my choice went out the window..........62 million abortions since Roe Versus Wade.........
> 
> Should I CLAP............
> 
> Complaints taken in the 4th port o let on the right basement section.


HEY -- I can't deny you've got a lot of good points.  It does seem hypocritical and I fear it's going to cause a lot of losses for Republicans in November.


----------



## SLAX

Couchpotato said:


> By this logic we should be killing the homeless at the cyclic rate.  I mean who’s gonna pay for all these people?


You didn't read my comment.
I am saying it's wrong to overturn abortion.  The Republicans are not going to pay for these children's lifelong care.
So this overturning makes no sense. That was my point.


----------



## White 6

eagle1462010 said:


> Leaked to start the yelling to try and scare the vote to what they want.
> 
> Kinda normal for the lunatic left.......
> 
> So will this be the start of their new RIOT SEASON...........everything getting expensive they need to make some Loot Runs.


If it does, cities and governor should do their duty and put it down, hard if necessary.


----------



## eagle1462010

SLAX said:


> HEY -- I can't deny you've got a lot of good points.  It does seem hypocritical and I fear it's going to cause a lot of losses for Republicans in November.


Babies have no voice..........State's will decide.......Abortion should not have been the accepted birth control.........Most states give months to decide on abortions already.  

Accountability.........time for them to be responsible for their actions..........62 million is INSANITY.


----------



## eagle1462010

White 6 said:


> If it does, cities and governor should do their duty and put it down, hard if necessary.


Hope so............but they have a trend of laying down.


----------



## Couchpotato

SLAX said:


> You didn't read my comment.
> I am saying it's wrong to overturn abortion.  The Republicans are not going to pay for these children's lifelong care.
> So this overturning makes no sense. That was my point.


Right we should definitely kill the babies since like who’s gonna pay for them.     Same with the indigent.   Who’s going to pay for them?


----------



## Flash

Clipper said:


> Trump's asseater's who he appointed to the court all said at their hearings that abortion was settled law.
> 
> Now those assholes are clutching at their their pearls including Roberts over the leak. Awwwww. Their Primma Donna laden little Ivory Tower was besmirched with a leak but no mention about the lies those priveledged little blue nosed icewater in the veins aristocrats bleated at their hearings?
> 
> Throw the lies they told right back at 'em.


It evidentially wasn't that settled.

Roe V Wade was one of the worst decisions ever rendered by the Court.  I (along with tens of millions Americans and countless number children that didn't want to die) are damn glad.


----------



## Clipper

eagle1462010 said:


> aka ..........the left leaked the possible decision so you can go postal and threaten them and their families so they may change their minds....
> 
> Yeah that sounds like your party.
> 
> A party going bat shit crazy over the right to KILL BABIES...............sucks to be you huh.
> 
> Oh but on jabs.............do it or we will destroy you.................UP YOURS LEFTIST.


Oh you mean bringing up the lies spewed by Kavanaugh, Gorusch & Barrett is a threat, snowflake? 

How dare anyone question those Primma Donnas, right genius?


----------



## easyt65

Draft leak results in Democrats self-identifying as too stupid to serve in government as Representatives:









						Rep. Jayapal claims Supreme Court justices 'do not have the right' to overturn Roe v. Wade
					

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., condemned the decision made in the leaked Supreme Court document to overturn Roe v. Wade.




					www.foxnews.com
				




Rep Jayapal goes as far as claiming USSC Justices do not have the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of laws and legislation.

Add this to the list of Democrat ignorance:

Democrats believe biological males can become pregnant and give birth.

Democrats believe biological gender is based on liberal FEELINGS.

Democrats have no idea what a 'woman' is.

Democrats have no clue what authority the USSC has or what it's role is....

....and these idiots believe all of this makes them the smartest people to rule the nation...



People who admit not knowing what a woman is claims to know more about abortion Constitutionality than actual intelligent USSC Justices.....now THAT is funny.


----------



## Clipper

eagle1462010 said:


> Riot season is coming folks........................They will RIOT OVER THE RIGHT TO KILL.


Kinda like like what Trump & his goon squad did on 1/6, mouth breather?


----------



## Flash

basquebromance said:


> There is no justice in a system that’s run by greedy old men who want to control our lives.
> 
> Solidarity with all in streets demanding safe and free access to abortion care.
> 
> Fuck the Supreme Court, religious extremism and the misogyny it protects.


Fuck those vile peices of shit that justify using the murder of a child for a method of birth control.


----------



## eagle1462010

Clipper said:


> Oh you mean bringing up the lies spewed by Kavanaugh, Gorusch & Barrett is a threat, snowflake?
> 
> How dare anyone question those Primma Donnas, right genius?


I could care less............Your side has no moral ground to stand on.......except you try on a mountain of dead babies..............

Now this goes to the States to decide as your side burns and loots again.........kinda normal for you guys before elections.


----------



## Cecilie1200

EvilCat Breath said:


> Do you have any proof as to how any of the justices feel?  Aside from Alito, there are no concurring or dissenting opinions.



I don't know a lot about the internal workings of the Supreme Court - I doubt anyone who doesn't actually work there does - but I don't think Alito would have written up the draft opinion unless there was a reasonable idea of how the vote was going to go.

From what I can understand from people who are lawyers (as I am not), the draft was written to circulate to the other Justices to allow them to see what he had in mind, discuss and debate it, and possibly even change their votes before the whole thing becomes official.  For him to be writing it at all, they had to have taken a vote with him in the majority.  However, the votes remain fluid until the decision is officially handed down, and the majority opinion can go through multiple drafts.


----------



## SLAX

At the end of the day....


WOMEN should be the ones to decide what happens with their bodies. If they don't want to carry a baby to term, that should be their decision and no one else's. 70% of Americans agree with me. #Shrugs to those who don't.


----------



## eagle1462010

Clipper said:


> Kinda like like what Trump & his goon squad did on 1/6, mouth breather?


1/6 was a kindy garden insurrection.............Do you still have nightmares over the Viking.........poor thing.


----------



## Clipper

easyt65 said:


> Draft leak results in Democrats self-identifying as too stupid to serve in government as Representatives:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rep. Jayapal claims Supreme Court justices 'do not have the right' to overturn Roe v. Wade
> 
> 
> Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., condemned the decision made in the leaked Supreme Court document to overturn Roe v. Wade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rep Jayapal goes as far as claiming USSC Justices do not have the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of laws and legislation.
> 
> Add this to the list of Democrat ignorance:
> 
> Democrats believe biological males can become pregnant and give birth.
> 
> Democrats believe biological gender is based on liberal FEELINGS.
> 
> Democrats have no idea what a 'woman' is.
> 
> Democrats have no clue what authority the USSC has or what it's role is....
> 
> ....and these idiots believe all of this makes them the smartest people to rule the nation...


Oh look, a Trumptard gets hysterical over one person's opinion.


----------



## eagle1462010

SLAX said:


> At the end of the day....
> 
> 
> WOMEN should be the ones to decide what happens with their bodies. If they don't want to carry a baby to term, that should be their decision and no one else's. 70% of Americans agree with me. #Shrugs to those who don't.


So.........you agree to late term abortions......even at birth.......

BLM.............BABIES LIVES MATTER.............HUH


----------



## easyt65

Clipper said:


> Kinda like like what Trump & his goon squad did on 1/6, mouth breather?


...someone needs a hug and an emotional time out after not getting their way on killing babies dictated by Democrats....


----------



## eagle1462010

easyt65 said:


> ...someone needs a hug and an emotional time out after not getting their way on killing babies dictated by Democrats....


Shit ..........gonna have to have a raffle to see who gets stuck with that shit duty.


----------



## Cecilie1200

White 6 said:


> Guess we will have to wait and see who is put out as the leaker.  Not that important to me, though pretty cheesy move in my book.  These things always come out.



Subverting our system of government, breaking the law, and undermining our fundamental institutions isn't important to you?


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## easyt65

Clipper said:


> Oh look, a Trumptard gets hysterical over one person's opinion.


'OPINION'?

No, self-identified ignorance.  

Dems need to educate themselves or either think before they say seriously stupid things.


----------



## Clipper

eagle1462010 said:


> 1/6 was a kindy garden insurrection.............Do you still have nightmares over the Viking.........poor thing.


False flag, right mouth breather?


----------



## eagle1462010

Clipper said:


> False flag, right mouth breather?


Overblown set up ..........Lynching going on now...........but 200 cities ........Burn and loot NO PROBLEM with your side.

Why we just ignore your asses..............fitting symbol of the DNC...........anymore.


----------



## Clipper

easyt65 said:


> 'OPINION'?
> 
> No, self-identified ignorance.
> 
> Dems need to educate themselves or either think before they say seriously stupid things.


Which "Dems" made that claim?


----------



## ChemEngineer

SLAX said:


> You didn't read my comment.
> I am saying it's wrong to overturn abortion.  The Republicans are not going to pay for these children's lifelong care.
> So this overturning makes no sense. That was my point.



You have no point to make.  NONE.
1.  Overturning murder is as "wrong" as ending slavery.
2.  Parents are responsible for their children's welfare.  Always have been.
LBJ inserted the government to pay off women whose lovers desert them and their children.
Thus began the decline of blacks everywhere, into poverty, crime and fatherless homes.
3.  There are also four grandparents who could support their grandchildren.

You should be ashamed of yourself, but you repeat the garbage talking points of the Evil Left without thinking one whit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SLAX said:


> As a guy, I just wonder who is going to pay for all these babies? I don't see dudes offering to marry young women so much nowadays, so why is this such a big deal when we know the women are going to find ways to get rid of these unwanted pregnancies no matter what laws you make?  Seems like we're risking a lot of huge losses by waking up the demographic and making them Anti-Republican like this.



All these babies?  How many babies do you think there are going to be, and why?  What makes you think women are stupid enough to continue to slut around while casually dismissing the use of contraceptives if they don't have the option of sashaying into Planned Parenthood?


----------



## easyt65

Clipper said:


> Which "Dems" made that claim?


Read the f*ing article / link.


----------



## toobfreak

Cecilie1200 said:


> I don't know a lot about the internal workings of the Supreme Court - I doubt anyone who doesn't actually work there does - but I don't think Alito would have written up the draft opinion unless there was a reasonable idea of how the vote was going to go.
> 
> From what I can understand from people who are lawyers (as I am not), the draft was written to circulate to the other Justices to allow them to see what he had in mind, discuss and debate it, and possibly even change their votes before the whole thing becomes official.  For him to be writing it at all, they had to have taken a vote with him in the majority.  However, the votes remain fluid until the decision is officially handed down, and the majority opinion can go through multiple drafts.



Yes but you're missing the point.  The real reason this opinion was leaked to the public when it was, was to put abortion on the front page of every paper and discussion so that when the 2000 Mules movie came out the following day, all attention once again would be elsewhere.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SLAX said:


> HEY -- I can't deny you've got a lot of good points.  It does seem hypocritical and I fear it's going to cause a lot of losses for Republicans in November.



Why?  What makes you so sure that the majority of American love abortion so much that they'll break their legs rushing out to the polls to vote on that issue?  In fact, pro-lifers are more likely to be "vote or die" on the subject of abortion than pro-aborts are.

And I really doubt that the majority of Americans are screaming with their hair on fire over the "horrible" prospect of individual states making their own decisions on abortion.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Clipper said:


> *TRUMP- "I LOVE THE POORLY EDUCATED"*
> 
> How dare anyone question those Primma (sic) Donnas, right genius?



You love genius Unbomber, and Marxist professors, right genius?
The word is "prima" and with "donna" it is not a proper noun, "genius."


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Cecilie1200 said:


> I don't know a lot about the internal workings of the Supreme Court - I doubt anyone who doesn't actually work there does - but I don't think Alito would have written up the draft opinion unless there was a reasonable idea of how the vote was going to go.
> 
> From what I can understand from people who are lawyers (as I am not), the draft was written to circulate to the other Justices to allow them to see what he had in mind, discuss and debate it, and possibly even change their votes before the whole thing becomes official.  For him to be writing it at all, they had to have taken a vote with him in the majority.  However, the votes remain fluid until the decision is officially handed down, and the majority opinion can go through multiple drafts.


When a case comes before the Supreme Court the basis of the case comes up for discussion among the justices.  They decide whether to accept it or reject the case.  Once a case has been accepted the Chief Justice assigns it to an associate justice to write an opinion.  The draft opinion is circulated among the justices and gets returned with comments from justices and their clerks.  The draft opinion gets rewritten.  It might go through this process several times.  Every justice may write either a concurring or dissenting opinion.  Sometimes dissenting opinions get cited more than the majority opinion.  I don't understand where you think a vote comes in.


----------



## ChemEngineer

SLAX said:


> At the end of the day....
> 
> 
> WOMEN should be the ones to decide what happens with their bodies. If they don't want to carry a baby to term, that should be their decision and no one else's. 70% of Americans agree with me. #Shrugs to those who don't.



1.  A growing baby is NOT "their body."  Stop your malicious lying.
2.  Fathers have no rights according to your Left Wing Dogma.  Then why can they be ordered to pay child support for 18 years when "her body" is born?
3.  Most people throughout history had no problem with slavery either.  You approve of that do you?


----------



## White 6

eagle1462010 said:


> Hope so............but they have a trend of laying down.


Like dogs.  Lazy, worthless cur dogs


----------



## Cecilie1200

SLAX said:


> You didn't read my comment.
> I am saying it's wrong to overturn abortion.  The Republicans are not going to pay for these children's lifelong care.
> So this overturning makes no sense. That was my point.



I think you're ASSuming he didn't read your comment because you don't like hearing what you actually said.

First of all, your apparent idea that people's behavior is in no way affected or changed by changing circumstances is naive.  So "these children" will be a smaller number than you're expecting.  Second, we're not obligated to "pay for lifelong care" in order to oppose killing someone.  That's nonsensical.  Third, unwanted children have always been taken care of, and will continue to be.  Fourth, pro-lifers already put out money, time, and effort to help mothers and children, thank you very much.


----------



## BackAgain

ChemEngineer said:


> 1.  A growing baby is NOT "their body."  Stop your malicious lying.
> 2.  Fathers have no rights according to your Left Wing Dogma.  Then why can they be ordered to pay child support for 18 years when "her body" is born?
> 3.  Most people throughout history had no problem with slavery either.  You approve of that do you?View attachment 640196


Interesting post and a nice Ben Carson quote.


----------



## Cecilie1200

toobfreak said:


> Yes but you're missing the point.  The real reason this opinion was leaked to the public when it was, was to put abortion on the front page of every paper and discussion so that when the 2000 Mules movie came out the following day, all attention once again would be elsewhere.



I'm not "missing" any point, thank you.  I answered the question asked, so please don't try to make it about "missing the point" because I didn't talk about what YOU wanted to talk about.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 677 and then tell us who it is that fucked up.



  See post 315.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SLAX said:


> At the end of the day....
> 
> 
> WOMEN should be the ones to decide what happens with their bodies. If they don't want to carry a baby to term, that should be their decision and no one else's. 70% of Americans agree with me. #Shrugs to those who don't.



At the end of the day, women should decide what happens with their bodies while it's still just their bodies, and not involving separate bodies of other people.  If they don't want to carry the baby to term, that should be their decision BEFORE THEY MAKE A BABY.  70% of Americans do NOT agree with you, as can be seen by the way you want to impose your worldview on people without letting them have a say.  If you really believed that everyone thinks your position is great, you'd put it on the ballot.


----------



## skye




----------



## toobfreak

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm not "missing" any point, thank you.  I answered the question asked, so please don't try to make it about "missing the point" because I didn't talk about what YOU wanted to talk about.



Geez, what a crab, and still missing the point.  Get your head out of your ass and try to realize I wasn't talking about YOUR point but was making an entirely NEW ONE about the real reason why this decision was leaked and now!

Not that you'd care anything about that, right?


----------



## lantern2814

Dragonlady said:


> All of those things are currently happening.
> 
> Gay marriage is next on the extreme right agenda.  The leaked decision laws the groundwork for overturning gay rights as well.  There are a lot of privacy related laws which are tied to Roe, beyond abortion.  Trump's Supreme Court is poised to wipe out civil rights the American people have fought for 50 years to obtain.


Are you ever not a stupid dumbfuck? In this leaked opinion (an illegal act in itself) it specifically states that this applies to abortion only. As in you don’t have a constitutional right to one. So take your dictator loving lying ass and hit the bricks.


----------



## lantern2814

Clipper said:


> The door is now wide open for the SCOTUS to be expanded, mouth breather.
> 
> You Trump asseaters just stepped on your own dicks.


Won’t happen asshole. Manchin and Sinema have a message for you....


----------



## SLAX

eagle1462010 said:


> So.........you agree to late term abortions......even at birth.......
> 
> BLM.............BABIES LIVES MATTER.............HUH


NO. I do not agree with late term abortions. But in the normal reasonable time that women have traditionally had abortions I think it is their business. And I (BEING A GUY) don't want to have a baby with every chick that has an accident.  It happens & sometimes I would rather not bring a child in the world that neither of us wants.  Just being honest with you.


----------



## eagle1462010

SLAX said:


> NO. I do not agree with late term abortions. But in the normal reasonable time that women have traditionally had abortions I think it is their business. And I (BEING A GUY) don't want to have a baby with every chick that has an accident.  It happens & sometimes I would rather not bring a child in the world that neither of us wants.  Just being honest with you.


Too drunk for the rubber huh............Most states allow abortion into a few months...........If she can't figure out by then she is an idiot.

Why Should California be able to allow their views in Alabama.................They are down with late term..........which is barbarism..........I do not live there and can flip them off from afar.......but we don't allow that shit here....

State's rights.


----------



## SLAX

ChemEngineer said:


> 1.  A growing baby is NOT "their body."  Stop your malicious lying.
> 2.  Fathers have no rights according to your Left Wing Dogma.  Then why can they be ordered to pay child support for 18 years when "her body" is born?
> 3.  Most people throughout history had no problem with slavery either.  You approve of that do you?View attachment 640196




I'm a WHITE JEWISH GUY here. So I don't know why you keep bringing up Black issues.

A lot of these babies are better off if they stay in heaven.

ABORTION IS NOT MURDER -- the fetus is not a fully human being right away. 

We have enough unwanted children on this planet that nobody takes care of. Nobody wants to pay taxes for.

Children should be planned & wanted.  Let these WOMEN decide what they will do with their bodies.


----------



## Cecilie1200

EvilCat Breath said:


> When a case comes before the Supreme Court the basis of the case comes up for discussion among the justices.  They decide whether to accept it or reject the case.  Once a case has been accepted the Chief Justice assigns it to an associate justice to write an opinion.  The draft opinion is circulated among the justices and gets returned with comments from justices and their clerks.  The draft opinion gets rewritten.  It might go through this process several times.  Every justice may write either a concurring or dissenting opinion.  Sometimes dissenting opinions get cited more than the majority opinion.  I don't understand where you think a vote comes in.



I don't think they write an "Opinion of the Court" prior to the vote.  Only the Justice assigned to write the majority opinion does that.

Here's how it works, so far as I can determine.  The Justices read the briefs submitted by the attorneys and hear oral arguments.  After the oral arguments, the Justices meet and hold a preliminary vote.  The opinion of the court is then assigned to a member of the majority in that vote to write; the senior Justice of the minority, if there is one, assigns the dissenting opinion to one of the group to write.  The other judges can write out their own individual opinions to clarify their own positions, and they can change their minds about their votes up to the point that the official decision is handed down.  But those opinions aren't marked "Opinion of the Court".

We know Chief Justice Roberts assigned Alito to write what he wrote, which means that at least five of the Justices voted in accordance with Alito in that preliminary vote.


----------



## lantern2814

Dragonlady said:


> Yes they have.  Trump was gifted with 3 appointments by virtue of Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider Merrick Garland, and by ramming through the ACB appointment days before the election.  That gave a twice impeached criminal President, who failed to ever win the popular vote, three SC picks.
> 
> That's the very definition of "packing the court".


Legal appointments you stupid piece of shit. Nothing illegal about it and not “packing the court”. Now STFU about this country you Nazi loving asshole.


----------



## eagle1462010

SLAX said:


> I'm a WHITE JEWISH GUY here. So I don't know why you keep bringing up Black issues.
> 
> A lot of these babies are better off if they stay in heaven.
> 
> ABORTION IS NOT MURDER -- the fetus is not a fully human being right away.
> 
> We have enough unwanted children on this planet that nobody takes care of. Nobody wants to pay taxes for.
> 
> Children should be planned & wanted.  Let these WOMEN decide what they will do with their bodies.


So in the 3rd trimester it's ok to MURDER THEM OVER MONEY..

pffft..........by then they are forming......Do they have a soul yet...............do you know.

How about the women make up their damn mind early on..........And there are plenty of great people who grew up in foster homes .


----------



## Clipper

easyt65 said:


> ...someone needs a hug and an emotional time out after not getting their way on killing babies dictated by Democrats....


Someone is too full of shit to answer a question.


----------



## skye

The  Rats  today, dusting away...


----------



## lantern2814

Dragonlady said:


> You're recalling Republican lies, not what really happened.  Gullible, stupid and Republican is no way to go through life.


It happened you stupid fuck.









						Disgusting: New York not only legalized late-term abortions, but also celebrated like it won the Super Bowl
					

On Tuesday, coincidentally the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the New York State Senate passed the Reproductive Health Act, and it was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The law, which is likely the most expansive abortion bill in the country, allows late-term abortion until the…




					www.washingtonexaminer.com
				












						USA TODAY: Most Americans don't want a standing ovation for abortions until birth. But Democrats do. - The Catholic Association
					

By Ashley McGuire A standing ovation for abortion? That’s what New York’s Reproductive Health Act got in the Senate chamber when it passed last week. Lawmakers and bystanders stood and applauded a law that legalizes abortion all the way up until birth, for any reason. The left may be...




					thecatholicassociation.org


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## Clipper

lantern2814 said:


> Won’t happen asshole. Manchin and Sinema have a message for you....


Guess what, ass bleeder? Murkowsi & Collins ain't too happy with The Supremes right now.


----------



## iceberg

skews13 said:


> Hundreds of thousands of women are now going to die needlessly, forced into C sections, and forced into homelessness.
> 
> Who’s going to pay for this?
> 
> What will this do to everyone else’s healthcare costs, and premiums.
> 
> With the closures of hospitals in rural areas because Republican governors and legislatures refused to accept Medicaid funding. How will these states deal with hospitals being overwhelmed, that are already stretched thin now?
> 
> What will happen now is the call for abortion rights to be codified into law.


he is the drama queen, trolling hard on the message board...


----------



## Cecilie1200

toobfreak said:


> Geez, what a crab, and still missing the point.  Get your head out of your ass and try to realize I wasn't talking about YOUR point but was making an entirely NEW ONE about the real reason why this decision was leaked and now!
> 
> Not that you'd care anything about that, right?



Geez, what a blinkered dipwad.  Still not "missing the point" in a discussion that had nothing to do with whatever fucking point you want to hobby-horse around on.  Just say whatever the fuck it is you want to say, and quit trying to demand that every conversation MUST be about it.

And fuck off with your "If you're not talking about what I want to talk about, that means I get to ASSume what you do and don't think about it."  You want to know what I think about something, you fucking ASK me.  

Not that you have the privilege of asking me jack shit now that you ASSumed.


----------



## lantern2814

Clipper said:


> Guess what, ass bleeder? Murkowsi & Collins ain't too happy with The Supremes right now.


Guess what you raging homo? Not shit they can do about it. Also those two morons don’t understand (much like you) that “settled law” can get revisited upon a new appeal. So take your finger and insert it into your boyfriend’s ass as you cry when’s Republicans roll in the midterms anyway,


----------



## Cecilie1200

lantern2814 said:


> Are you ever not a stupid dumbfuck? In this leaked opinion (an illegal act in itself) it specifically states that this applies to abortion only. As in you don’t have a constitutional right to one. So take your dictator loving lying ass and hit the bricks.



SHE doesn't have any Constitutional rights at all, because she doesn't live in this country.  She's a foreigner desperately trying to deal herself into what goes on in a country that wouldn't deign to spit on her.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SLAX said:


> NO. I do not agree with late term abortions. But in the normal reasonable time that women have traditionally had abortions I think it is their business. And I (BEING A GUY) don't want to have a baby with every chick that has an accident.  It happens & sometimes I would rather not bring a child in the world that neither of us wants.  Just being honest with you.



I, being a female, don't want to hear about _faux _concern for women based mostly in some man's desire to take advantage of them.

Thanks for being honest that you really just like abortion so that you can get your rocks off and jet.  Now stop trying to dress it up in "I'm really just trying to do women a favor by letting them release me from my responsibilities".


----------



## Cecilie1200

SLAX said:


> I'm a WHITE JEWISH GUY here. So I don't know why you keep bringing up Black issues.
> 
> A lot of these babies are better off if they stay in heaven.
> 
> ABORTION IS NOT MURDER -- the fetus is not a fully human being right away.
> 
> We have enough unwanted children on this planet that nobody takes care of. Nobody wants to pay taxes for.
> 
> Children should be planned & wanted.  Let these WOMEN decide what they will do with their bodies.



"Black issues"?  What are you telling us?  You're so incapable of taking a moral position that you think only black people can know that slavery was evil?


----------



## toobfreak

Cecilie1200 said:


> Geez, what a blinkered dipwad.  Still not "missing the point" in a discussion that had nothing to do with whatever fucking point you want to hobby-horse around on.  Just say whatever the fuck it is you want to say, and quit trying to demand that every conversation MUST be about it.
> 
> And fuck off with your "If you're not talking about what I want to talk about, that means I get to ASSume what you do and don't think about it."  You want to know what I think about something, you fucking ASK me.
> 
> Not that you have the privilege of asking me jack shit now that you ASSumed.



Damn, someone sure got you out of the wrong side of bed today!!!


----------



## basquebromance

Ovaries shouldn’t be more regulated than Assault Weapons


----------



## Stormy Daniels

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> Notice how magaturds just skip over the fact that there was an unfinished *SCOTUS ruling* leaked to the press. Let's forget *that's never happened before*.



Okay. But so what? What bearing does that have on the validity of the final outcome of the case?


----------



## BackAgain

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> ^^^ This kind of crap is the hilarity of this joint.
> 
> Notice how magaturds just skip over the fact that there was an unfinished *SCOTUS ruling* leaked to the press. Let's forget *that's never happened before*. No. Let's not dwell on that. Let's fast forward to *which political tribe is to blame!*
> 
> This must be like fishing in a barrel to magaturds.


You are so vastly stupid, it’s satisfying to watch you nibbke your own toes. The libtard who leaked it obviously hopes the ensuing uproar would get a conservative Justice to back away. 

Of course it has only rarely happened. It should never have happened. But it did. The right is stuck with that insidious and possibly criminal behavior. But the focus is still on what might be the ultimate decision: overruling Roe v. Wade.  Even an odious imbecile like you should be able to figure out that the decision is more important than the leak.


----------



## BackAgain

basquebromance said:


> Ovaries shouldn’t be more regulated than Assault Weapons


They aren’t. But lives should be protected. Period.


----------



## basquebromance

I can’t believe how gullible Susan Collins is. But Susan Collins can.


----------



## BackAgain

basquebromance said:


> I can’t believe how gullible Susan Collins is. But Susan Collins can.


I can’t believe that you believe Susan’s blithering bullshit.


----------



## SavannahMann

Meister said:


> They are sending it back down to the states where it should have always been.  The Court is not outlawing abortions.
> Seems the left is running with this because they don't have any policies that is palatable to real America.
> It's not going to fly, because Brandon really is that bad.



Well a majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe. So who is not with Americans again?


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

BackAgain said:


> You are so vastly stupid, it’s satisfying to watch you nibbke your own toes. The libtard who leaked it obviously hopes the ensuing uproar would get a conservative Justice to back away.
> 
> Of course it has only rarely happened. It should never have happened. But it did. The right is stuck with that insidious and possibly criminal behavior. But the focus is still on what might be the ultimate decision: overruling Roe v. Wade.  Even an odious imbecile like you should be able to figure out that the decision is more important than the leak.


I know *exactly* what it's about. I don't think you do, however.


----------



## ThisIsMe

candycorn said:


> It defacto bans abortion for anyone who doesn't have the means to travel to a state where a woman's right to privacy will still be the law of the land.  Get ready for more generational poverty Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina etc...


No, there will always be ways of getting an abortion, and there will be leftist groups who set up funds for people who want to travel for an abortion.

Heck, California is contemplating setting up a state fund for help with out of state people wanting an abortion:









						California Positions Itself as a ‘Refuge’ of Abortion Rights
					

A new legislative proposal includes the recommendation to fund the procedure for low-income women who come to California for abortion services.




					www.nytimes.com
				




California senate bill 1142


----------



## basquebromance

Alito stole ideas from Bork


----------



## San Souci

Muhammed said:


> You're quoting Pocahontas? Seriously?
> 
> You're one clueless fucking idiot.


All Lefties are clueless fuckin' idiots. And Abortion is Murder. Wearing Condoms and using birth control pills are about 95% effective.


----------



## Muhammed

San Souci said:


> All Lefties are clueless fuckin' idiots. And Abortion is Murder. Wearing Condoms and using birth control pills are about 95% effective.


Don't fuck a girl and you won't get her pregnant. It's not rocket science. Abstinence is a 100% effective method of birth control.


----------



## Dragonlady

eagle1462010 said:


> Babies have no voice..........State's will decide.......Abortion should not have been the accepted birth control.........Most states give months to decide on abortions already.
> 
> Accountability.........time for them to be responsible for their actions..........62 million is INSANITY.



This will do little to stop abortions.  Everyone predicted that the birth rate would go down when abortions were legalized but it did not.  The birth rate stayed the same.  What did go down were the number of women dying from illegal botched abortions.  That stopped overnight.

Abortions were always widely available.  But they were illegal and dangerous and a lot of women died. This article is from 2003, but it has death figures for women through the years. 





__





						Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?
					

With an administration deeply opposed to abortion, a Congress poised to pass legislation aimed at weakening the principles underlying Roe v. Wade and a Supreme Court whose composition is considered likely to change in the near future, it is instructive to look back at the choices available—and...




					www.guttmacher.org
				




You won't stop abortions if Roe is overturned.  But women have already started dying because of the Texas laws, and other attempts to make abortion difficult.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is a miserable and dishonest cope out. I did not say that you as an individual should be responsible . WE as a nation and as a society should be responsible. That is unless you reject the concept of community and shared responsibility in favor of a primitive and brutal, every man for himself- fuck you, I have mine -sort of society. But that you for admitting that you are not pro life.



No, its being held accountable for your own actions.


----------



## Dragonlady

San Souci said:


> All Lefties are clueless fuckin' idiots. And Abortion is Murder. Wearing Condoms and using birth control pills are about 95% effective.



Abortion is not murder.  Lefties are not clueless fucking idiots, but you definitely qualify.  You know nothing about birth control.

Condoms have an 18% failure rate.  CBP's have a 9% failure rate, so no none of your birth control methods are 95% effective.  Even sterilization isn't foolproof.









						Birth Control Failure Rate Percentages
					

Birth Control Failure is more common than most people think. Our birth control chart shows the failure percentages for each birth control method.




					americanpregnancy.org


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## SweetSue92

Dragonlady said:


> Abortion is not murder.  Lefties are not clueless fucking idiots, but you definitely qualify.  You know nothing about birth control.
> 
> Condoms have an 18% failure rate.  CBP's have a 9% failure rate, so no none of your birth control methods are 95% effective.  Even sterilization isn't foolproof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Birth Control Failure Rate Percentages
> 
> 
> Birth Control Failure is more common than most people think. Our birth control chart shows the failure percentages for each birth control method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanpregnancy.org



Like DL here the Democrats and Lefties, as I predicted, are in full scale meltdown which is not pretty.

What normal people know that they do not:

Abortion is not like fighting cancer, or human trafficking. It will always be the destruction of a developing baby no matter what these ghouls say. The more they try to couch it in platitudes and then lose their minds the worse they look.

Abortion has only "worked" because it's a seamy underside, kept out of view. Now these ghouls are unleashed. Good. Let's have this out. Let's see them explain why we need, say, late-term abortions. Just as one example.

Lefties are letting it all hang out and America will not like what they see. As ever.


----------



## Penelope

Flash said:


> Killing children for the purpose of birth control ain't cool.  In fact it is despicable.


There's laws against killing children and they are laws for child abuse. Get a clue, were talking fetuses here, and most of done in the first trimester and the women have kids,


----------



## basquebromance

Amy Klobuchar tonight on Trevor Noah, "I am mad, I am p*ssed off."
 Even Midwesterner nice has its limits.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## basquebromance

Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn’t want to fu*k in the first place?


----------



## basquebromance

Conservatives are obsessed with the fetus, after that they don’t want to know about you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine; if you’re pre-school you’re fu*ked


----------



## basquebromance

Kavanaugh would not have been confirmed if he'd told the truth about his plans for Roe. 

Gorsuch would not have been confirmed if he'd told the truth about his plans for Roe.

Barrett would not have been confirmed if she'd told the truth about her plans for Roe.


----------



## basquebromance

MURKOWKSI on if she felt that SCOTUS nominees misled her during the confirmation process: "My confidence in the court has been rocked. "


----------



## Death Angel

IT'S A TRAP!

This was leaked because the Democrat Party is imploding thanks to Mr Potatohead.





Your browser is not able to display this video.



They need something to motivate their base who is already has no motivation to vote in the  November election


----------



## SweetSue92

For those who were sure the Roe v Wade was going to fix the midterms for the Dems: the only topic on this trending on Twitter is at no 23. Dave Chappelle is no 3.

Once people realize the decision simply goes back to the people and the states--that's it. For most, outrage over.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## TemplarKormac

basquebromance said:


> Conservatives are obsessed with the fetus, after that they don’t want to know about you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine; if you’re pre-school you’re fu*ked



All of that costs money, guy. And if we run out of money for those programs because we failed to address the national debt, it won't matter where the child is in their development. If there is no money, there can be no programs.

They will have nobody to blame except both parties for failing to act.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> This will do little to stop abortions.


It was never about "stopping" abortions. True, that might be the case in states where the people voted to ban it, but the overall goal here is to let the states decide. 

(Gee, how many times must I repeat myself?)


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> But women have already started dying because of the Texas laws, and other attempts to make abortion difficult.



If you have any data to back that claim up, now's the time to post it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Muhammed said:


> Don't fuck a girl and you won't get her pregnant. It's not rocket science. Abstinence is a 100% effective method of birth control.


And since both genders have brains, ergo the ability to exercise better judgment, that applies to women also.


----------



## Clipper

lantern2814 said:


> Guess what you raging homo? Not shit they can do about it. Also those two morons don’t understand (much like you) that “settled law” can get revisited upon a new appeal. So take your finger and insert it into your boyfriend’s ass as you cry when’s Republicans roll in the midterms anyway,


Hey ass wipe, Kavanaugh, Barrett, & Gorusch didn't know that when they were asked that question, shit for brains? 

Now, go apeshit.


----------



## Blues Man

task0778 said:


> So what's the problem?
> 
> IMHO, the real issue here is that the Supreme Court created a Right that has no basis in the Constitution or in any federal statute.  This new ruling corrects that mistake.


The issue is whether this ruling ( which has not yet been made BTW) can be construed to grant full Constitutional rights to a fetus.

All this argument is over a decision that has not even been made yet




			https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article261022222.html
		

“Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dragonlady said:


> This will do little to stop abortions.  Everyone predicted that the birth rate would go down when abortions were legalized but it did not.  The birth rate stayed the same.  What did go down were the number of women dying from illegal botched abortions.  That stopped overnight.
> 
> Abortions were always widely available.  But they were illegal and dangerous and a lot of women died. This article is from 2003, but it has death figures for women through the years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?
> 
> 
> With an administration deeply opposed to abortion, a Congress poised to pass legislation aimed at weakening the principles underlying Roe v. Wade and a Supreme Court whose composition is considered likely to change in the near future, it is instructive to look back at the choices available—and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guttmacher.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't stop abortions if Roe is overturned.  But women have already started dying because of the Texas laws, and other attempts to make abortion difficult.


Some states will not allow the slaughter to continue.   Some like Mexifornia will.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TemplarKormac said:


> Obstructing a government proceeding: 18 U.S. Code § 1505 -  Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
> 
> Obstruction of justice: 18 U.S. Code § 1503 -  Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
> 
> Potential for 15 years in prison.
> 
> Put the perp away.


Add 18 USC  641 and 1905 to that.


----------



## Flash

Penelope said:


> There's laws against killing children and they are laws for child abuse. Get a clue, were talking fetuses here, and most of done in the first trimester and the women have kids,


You stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't jackshit about Biology, do you?

Not only can you not tell the difference between the male and female genders but you have no understanding of a living child.

Of course you are ignorant in Economics, History, Climate Science, Ethics and the Constitution so it is understandable you don't know anything about Biology.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## basquebromance

"The day after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, Democratic donors poured more than $30 million into Democratic campaigns and groups through ActBlue.

In the 23 hours after the draft SCOTUS opinion, ActBlue took in just $9 million."


----------



## basquebromance

So what we’ve learned from the Roe decision is the next time a scotus seat comes up, it’s ok for the nominee to lie about what they’ll protect, including your gun rights, MAGAs.


----------



## Blues Man

basquebromance said:


> So what we’ve learned from the Roe decision is the next time a scotus seat comes up, it’s ok for the nominee to lie about what they’ll protect, including your gun rights, MAGAs.


Technically the decision has not been made yet


----------



## deplorable1

Nostra said:


> Can't wait to watch heads explode (and not babies) if this comes to fruition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
> 
> 
> “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com


Since creepy Joe has his head so far up the big pharmas ass, wouldn't it make sense to have free contraceptives for those who can't control their urges to reproduce. Don't people realize that Planned Parenthood was a Democratic ploy to eliminate blacks in America. Another thing, you see all these women screaming for their rights as women, why then are they not screaming about allowing biological men (lea Thompson) to compete against them at swim meets!
Lastly Finish the wall, Ban abortion and what's left is legal citizens that if not wanted ,can be adopted!


----------



## TemplarKormac

The moment that a 'fetus' starts to resemble anything like a human being,  a woman should be forbidden from aborting the child, except in circumstances involving rape or incest, or in situations where the mother or the child would not survive the duration of the pregnancy.


----------



## Flash




----------



## beautress

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


I am so grateful that the Supreme Court of May, 2022, has ended the evil rule of abortion against the souls of 40 million young women who were lured by irresponsible boyfriends and sick-brained socialists to kill their own babies. Roe v. Wade ruling thought it was helping save womens' lives, but it wound up destroying women's souls into thinking that killing the product of their shameful rape was okay. Taking a life of a person in another stage of human development is wrong. Why would the taking of the life of a person in its first stages of human development, from which ultrasound images show the baby inside trying to escape from many an abortionist "doctor" (actually WITCH DOCTOR) profiteering from their puerile view of not knowing the taking of a human life is murder. It's not only murder, it is bullying the helpless who can't punch somebody back in the nose for killing itself.

I pray to the Lord my gratitude for hearing my prayers to stop the killing of unborn American citizens. May we return God's kindness with strength against evildoing. And may he forgive those too young to understand that killing a small human that God has graced with life because it would save them a little embarrassment or give them revenge to a partner who abused and left a young woman to fend for herself and the child he put inside her like a coward of the worst ilk because he listened to Satan's voice through alleged friends who had no stake in the evil done to a young woman by a flake who didn't think there was an obligation to the living to protect the product of his out-of-control sexual misbehavior. Young women who fall in love with their predator do not realize how unprotected they are from the wrath of their parents who thought they raised her right but failed to realize children make mistakes because they were sneaky and disobedient at the same time. Somehow they do not understand that disobedience can have consequences, and that choosing somebody else's "elimination" before birth is a bad if not horrible decision which wreaks of (1) cowardice, (2) immorality against a life, (3) rampant ignorance, (4) Mental health issues such as depression and lifelong guilt for murder whether anyone else knows it or not.  Abortion does not fix stupidity of science that tells us the zygote is not the same person as either its mother or its father, even if family traits are assured when the development of human life becomes known to the outside world one way or the other.

I'm sorry the truth is so grim about abortion and every evil thing it puts on the people who agree to it, but the truth is, life is precious, and that little guy inside will try to survive an abortionist's knife used to scrape his brains out to his forceps to remove the dismembered human being from the victim/perpetrator's womb.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

beautress said:


> I am so grateful that the Supreme Court of May, 2022, has ended the evil rule of abortion against the souls of 40 million young women who were lured by irresponsible boyfriends and sick-brained socialists to kill their own babies. Roe v. Wade ruling thought it was helping save womens' lives, but it wound up destroying women's souls into thinking that killing the product of their shameful rape was okay. Taking a life of a person in another stage of human development is wrong. Why would the taking of the life of a person in its first stages of human development, from which ultrasound images show the baby inside trying to escape from many an abortionist "doctor" (actually WITCH DOCTOR) profiteering from their puerile view of not knowing the taking of a human life is murder. It's not only murder, it is bullying the helpless who can't punch somebody back in the nose for killing itself.
> 
> I pray to the Lord my gratitude for hearing my prayers to stop the killing of unborn American citizens. May we return God's kindness with strength against evildoing. And may he forgive those too young to understand that killing a small human that God has graced with life because it would save them a little embarrassment or give them revenge to a partner who abused and left a young woman to fend for herself and the child he put inside her like a coward of the worst ilk because he listened to Satan's voice through alleged friends who had no stake in the evil done to a young woman by a flake who didn't think there was an obligation to the living to protect the product of his out-of-control sexual misbehavior. Young women who fall in love with their predator do not realize how unprotected they are from the wrath of their parents who thought they raised her right but failed to realize children make mistakes because they were sneaky and disobedient at the same time. Somehow they do not understand that disobedience can have consequences, and that choosing somebody else's "elimination" before birth is a bad if not horrible decision which wreaks of (1) cowardice, (2) immorality against a life, (3) rampant ignorance, (4) Mental health issues such as depression and lifelong guilt for murder whether anyone else knows it or not.  Abortion does not fix stupidity of science that tells us the zygote is not the same person as either its mother or its father, even if family traits are assured when the development of human life becomes known to the outside world one way or the other.
> 
> I'm sorry the truth is so grim about abortion and every evil thing it puts on the people who agree to it, but the truth is, life is precious, and that little guy inside will try to survive an abortionist's knife used to scrape his brains out to his forceps to remove the dismembered human being from the victim/perpetrator's womb.


Ms. B abortion hasn't gone away all the supreme Court did was put it back in the hands of the states.


----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:


> Nothing you say is remotely upsetting. I discount everything you say now that I’ve seen your particular biases. You are a very limited little drip.
> 
> _Stare decisis_ does not mean what simpletons like you seem to think it means. 🤣


Your inadequacy in substantive discourse is acknowledged.


----------



## beautress

TemplarKormac said:


> The moment that a 'fetus' starts to resemble anything like a human being,  a woman should be forbidden from aborting the child, except in circumstances involving rape or incest, or in situations where the mother or the child would not survive the duration of the pregnancy.


Mr. Templar, there is a course in higher universities called "Human development." Once that zygote of 2 human cells is formed, it is not the same person as its host mother or its progenitor father. It is a being. We call it a human being. Should we tolerate human extinction just because it is to little to notice? If you read the Psalms, ever, I hope you run into King David's words that tell us that we are wonderfully made inside our mothers, and that before she even knows the baby is there that God knows that little human being is there. God loves his creation, man, and people with or without faith in God must not allow another human being to be killed by people thousands of times bigger than themselves. Extinguishing a fetus is not just a buncha cells. It is a being. We call it a human being, because at full term of the woman's pregnancy her product is human, not a cow for slaughter.


----------



## konradv

TemplarKormac said:


> It is clear that the constitution doesn't enumerate any power of the government to regulate abortion.


IMO, if men had babies, abortion would be in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## beautress

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ms. B abortion hasn't gone away all the supreme Court did was put it back in the hands of the states.


Then only the Highly moral states who determine that a zygote in side its human mother is a human being. That is a fact of science, not my fantasy as some here would like to push down believers' craw. Abortion is as evil as murder because it has a human being for a victim, and that human being deserves better than extinction from having a life of (1) life, (2)liberty, and (3) pursuit of happiness. Funny how that promise in the Constitution has been ignored since the Roe v. Wade decision was the end of at least a hundred million human beings' lives in this country and in many other nonchristian lands where Biblical knowledge and warnings are snubbed egregiously by the community that pushes perfection to include anti-life activities to put education in the hands of murderers and bullies who deigned it fine to kill a little guy. Sorry. The truth is not pretty when it gets rolled over by ignorance. And because the zygote is a being, and its DNA shows that it is a human being formed, it is therefore a human being, and no law, no shoving of the facts aside can take away that little human being's rights to life, just like ours, liberty when it gets older, and its pursuit of happiness when it is freed from a certain death that abortion brings about.


----------



## schmidlap

beautress said:


> ... the Supreme Court of May, 2022, has ended the evil rule of abortion against the souls of 40 million young women


Pretending that 40 million young women are morons whom the Supreme Court has emancipated is delusional. Most young women, like most Americans, support reproductive freedom by a wide margin.

Statists will inflict their authoritarian laws upon women in regressive states.

Advanced states will affirm the personal freedom of women, and insure that they are empowered to retrain control of their bodies, not surrender it to dried up old bureaucrats and geezer politicians.

The burden of the government intrusion into personal matters will be inflicted on poor women in the backward states, but women control their own bodies, not the State, and will assert their liberty by whatever measures are necessary.


----------



## beautress

konradv said:


> IMO, if men had babies, abortion would be in the Bill of Rights.


Sorry, konradv, but it would be if EVIL men could choose to murder a fetus made dainty by a bad law that would stain the integrity of the Bill of Rights. The little 2-cell critter IS A HUMAN BEING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And its being deserves respect inside and outside of the womb.   I pity the march of those at St. Peter's gate after their life on earth is over and their sorry sight of one hundred million small angels frowning on them because they were aborted and denied the right to life. Arrrrrrgh!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

beautress said:


> Then only the Highly moral states who determine that a zygote in side its human mother is a human being. That is a fact of science, not my fantasy as some here would like to push down believers' craw. Abortion is as evil as murder because it has a human being for a victim, and that human being deserves better than extinction from having a life of (1) life, (2)liberty, and (3) pursuit of happiness. Funny how that promise in the Constitution has been ignored since the Roe v. Wade decision was the end of at least a hundred million human beings' lives in this country and in many other nonchristian lands where Biblical knowledge and warnings are snubbed egregiously by the community that pushes perfection to include anti-life activities to put education in the hands of murderers and bullies who deigned it fine to kill a little guy. Sorry. The truth is not pretty when it gets rolled over by ignorance. And because the zygote is a being, and its DNA shows that it is a human being formed, it is therefore a human being, and no law, no shoving of the facts aside can take away that little human being's rights to life, just like ours, liberty when it gets older, and its pursuit of happiness when it is freed from a certain death that abortion brings about.


Not disagreeing with you just making an observation.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

schmidlap said:


> Pretending that 40 million young women are morons whom the Supreme Court has emancipated is delusional. Most young women, like most Americans, support reproductive freedom by a wide margin.
> 
> Statists will inflict their authoritarian laws upon women in regressive states.
> 
> Advanced states will affirm the personal freedom of women, and insure that they are empowered to retrain control of their bodies, not surrender it to dried up old bureaucrats and geezer politicians.
> 
> The burden of the government intrusion into personal matters will be inflicted on poor women in the backward states, but women control their own bodies, not the State, and will assert their liberty by whatever measures are necessary.


Pretending abortion is gone?


----------



## beautress

schmidlap said:


> Pretending that 40 million young women are morons whom the Supreme Court has emancipated is delusional. Most young women, like most Americans, support reproductive freedom by a wide margin.
> 
> Statists will inflict their authoritarian laws upon women in regressive states.
> 
> Advanced states will affirm the personal freedom of women, and insure that they are empowered to retrain control of their bodies, not surrender it to dried up old bureaucrats and geezer politicians.
> 
> The burden of the government intrusion into personal matters will be inflicted on poor women in the backward states, but women control their own bodies, not the State, and assert their liberty by whatever measures are necessary.


You're mentally ill if you think everyone will clink beer glasses in a bar and praise murdering tiny little human beings who can't punch them in the nose to save themselves from the evilest, most cowardly act anybody can do to a helpless human being. The FACT is that little person inside his mommy is NOT his mommy, and he is NOT his daddy, He is a separate being than they, and since at full term he would have been a human being, he IS a human being in its earliest STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. Another stage of development happens rather early in the breathing life on earth of human beings when they UNDERSTAND THAT screwing out of wedlock is VERY BAD, AND the female partner has been raped if she is under the age of understanding she has a 50-50 chance of becoming with a little human being inside of her after such an act which the law considers rape in order to discourage young or old males from taking advantage of a little girl who may not understand what responsibility for another life entails..


----------



## konradv

beautress said:


> Sorry, konradv, but it would be if EVIL men could choose to murder a fetus made dainty by a bad law that would stain the integrity of the Bill of Rights. The little 2-cell critter IS A HUMAN BEING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And its being deserves respect inside and outside of the womb.   I pity the march of those at St. Peter's gate after their life on earth is over and their sorry sight of one hundred million small angels frowning on them because they were aborted and denied the right to life. Arrrrrrgh!


You women are so emotional!  Now I see why laws are necessary to let you know what you’re allowed to do.  Thanks to your fathers and husbands for their guidance.   /sarc


----------



## eagle1462010

Mississippi and 15 week rule started this.  If you cant decide in almost 4 months you must be a Moonbat.

Over all the left will continue their barbarism in blue holes.  Really changes nothing but gives the left a talking point for their brigades to yell about.


----------



## TemplarKormac

konradv said:


> IMO, if men had babies, abortion would be in the Bill of Rights.


Well,  according to you and your scientifically misguided party, they already do.


----------



## schmidlap

beautress said:


> ... everyone will clink beer glasses in a bar and praise murdering tiny little human beings ...


Lurid visions fester in your noggin, but I expect that authoritarians will not succeed in seizing control of the bodies of women, even in the most repressive states. 

Most Americans support freedom:
Poll Finds Most Americans Support Access to Abortion​
Will the repressive states pass updated versions of fugitive slave laws and pursue women fleeing to free states?

We'll see.


----------



## TemplarKormac

beautress said:


> Mr. Templar, there is a course in higher universities called "Human development." Once that zygote of 2 human cells is formed, it is not the same person as its host mother or its progenitor father. It is a being. We call it a human being. Should we tolerate human extinction just because it is to little to notice? If you read the Psalms, ever, I hope you run into King David's words that tell us that we are wonderfully made inside our mothers, and that before she even knows the baby is there that God knows that little human being is there. God loves his creation, man, and people with or without faith in God must not allow another human being to be killed by people thousands of times bigger than themselves. Extinguishing a fetus is not just a buncha cells. It is a being. We call it a human being, because at full term of the woman's pregnancy her product is human, not a cow for slaughter.


I agree with the bulk of this post. But given that the majority of Americans agree with allowing abortions in the early 1st Trimester, the best you can ask for is what I just stated.

The very definition of humanity begins at the moment the two sets of genes combine to form one unique set, wholly different from the mother's or father's. But good luck convincing anyone else of that.


----------



## beautress

schmidlap said:


> Lurid visions fester in your noggin, but I expect that authoritarians will not succeed in seizing control of the bodies of women, even in the most repressive states.
> 
> Most Americans support freedom:
> Poll Finds Most Americans Support Access to Abortion​
> Will the repressive states pass updated versions of fugitive slave laws and pursue women fleeing to free states?
> 
> We'll see.


Right and wrong of baby killing are not a political knowing, and the high court that approved abortion as just fine had no idea women in the millions would be using abortion, the killing of their own baby, until 100,000,000 American citizens were denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..

Once more, let me repeat this to you.

*Cowardice,* *Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, 

Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, 

Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, 

Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, 

Ad nauseum. One hundred million goddamn times.*


----------



## TemplarKormac

schmidlap said:


> Pretending that 40 million young women are morons whom the Supreme Court has emancipated is delusional. Most young women, like most Americans, support reproductive freedom by a wide margin


"Reproductive freedom" is not purely constrained to abortion. 

Hate to break that to you, pal.


----------



## beautress

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Not disagreeing with you just making an observation.


Not to worry, but I have been denied my first amendment rights, because somebody with clout disagrees with my opinion and removed my post, will probably remove my other post as well. I have no clout here, but the truth does. I do know what the truth is, and quite a few people did not know that I know precisely what the truth is and what God and man knows is the truth. Killing another human being is verboten.

Abortion is born of *Cowardice,* *Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice,  Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice, Cowardice.*


----------



## LibertyKid

Science can find possible evidence for microbes and call it "life".
Yet, for some reason, on our own planet, we have to debate what is "Life".









						Life on Mars?
					

It's hard enough to identify fossilized microbes on Earth. How would we ever recognize them on Mars?




					www.smithsonianmag.com
				




It is a shame that in our country we will bend the rules of science to accommodate almost any agenda; personal, social, political, and religious.


----------



## schmidlap

beautress said:


> Right and wrong of baby killing are not a political knowing, and the high court that approved abortion as just fine had no idea women in the millions would be using abortion, the killing of their own baby, until 100,000,000 American citizens were denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..


Most Americans, and the people of most advanced nations, respect the right of a woman to make her own, personal reproductive decisions with the advice of her loved ones and medical and spiritual advisers rather than impersonal, authoritarian politicians and bureaucrats arrogating her personal freedom and dictating to her.

Whether it is China forcing abortions or Iraq denying them all, don't surrender the power over wombs to_ any_ State.

Whereas some nations are hellbent upon surrendering freedom in reproductive matters to politicians, Canada keeps its politicians out of the womb:
​Canada is the only nation with absolutely no legal restrictions at the federal level to access abortion services. Nevertheless few providers in Canada offer abortion care beyond 23 weeks and 6 days without a medical reason as outlined by provincial regulatory authorities for physicians.​


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> It was never about "stopping" abortions. True, that might be the case in states where the people voted to ban it, but the overall goal here is to let the states decide.
> 
> (Gee, how many times must I repeat myself?)


It should be the women who decide


----------



## BackAgain

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> I know *exactly* what it's about. I don't think you do, however.


Nobody cares what an imbecile like you allegedly “thinks.”


----------



## schmidlap

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It should be the women who decide


The saying _“possession is nine points of the law”_ is a common law precept that means one who has physical control or possession over the property is clearly at an advantage or is in a better possession than a person who has no possession over the property.

As a practical matter, women have possession of their _own_ bodies,_ not_ the authoritarians who would attempt to seize control of them.

Unless they apprehend and incarcerate all pregnant women, the authoritarians won't be able to control all those wombs.

The increasing preference of pharmaceutical abortion - especially during the first 20 weeks when 90% of abortions occur - will strain the maximal statists' capacity to control women, even if they revive fugitive slave laws to deal with those seeking freedom in advanced states.


----------



## beautress

I must've pissed off the barracudas this morning. My apologies to the barracuda who kicked me off not only this thread whom I offended, but off the internet as well. Knowledge has final power, and I was judged harshly by someone who has the power to knock another person off the internet. 

Abortion has no regard for the life it takes away from this earth. And it doesn't uplift the coward who uses abortion to not have to face the responsibility of one's situation. Bless the mothers who refuse to abort their own child. I'm one of them, and it resulted in a very unpleasant divorce from a cowardly husband who wanted me to abort my second child with him. He demanded parental rights of visitation that ended when he brought the older child home with 5 stitches over his eye that resulted from drunk driving. The judge didn't think very much about that incident and granted the protection of my children to me, and I brought up the two most beautiful, bright kids on the planet who are now productive beings in their fifties.  

And I weep for the orphans who were murdered in Kiev's territory by the Russians who will have to bear the responsibility for 50 young lives they ended through vaporization and stupidity of weapons they are unfit to use on other people they decide they want to screw out of their natural resources, nation, and displeasing the atheist Russians who have zero caring for little kids, because they cowardly bullies who can't pull dirty tricks on other human beings forever. Now they're threatening to nuke any nation who helps the Ukrainians.

And what does Biden do? He goes and soothes himself in the basement with ice cream.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> Your inadequacy in substantive discourse is acknowledged.


A lame come back from a tool who can’t say more than “authoritarian” at any given time. Shitlap, you’re a total fail and I enjoy the absolute futility of your infantile posting  efforts.


----------



## beautress

schmidlap said:


> Most Americans, and the people of most advanced nations, respect the right of a woman to make her own, personal reproductive decisions with the advice of her loved ones and medical and spiritual advisers rather than impersonal, authoritarian politicians and bureaucrats arrogating her personal freedom and dictating to her.
> 
> Whether it is China forcing abortions or Iraq denying them all, don't surrender the power over wombs to_ any_ State.
> 
> Whereas some nations are hellbent upon surrendering freedom in reproductive matters to politicians, Canada keeps its politicians out of the womb:
> ​Canada is the only nation with absolutely no legal restrictions at the federal level to access abortion services. Nevertheless few providers in Canada offer abortion care beyond 23 weeks and 6 days without a medical reason as outlined by provincial regulatory authorities for physicians.​


How convenient politics has wormed itself into erasing the laws of uncountable human nations who know what human life is and respected it until some hollywood idiots put vanity ahead of human life and wouldn't hire pregnant actresses to play a role in a movie.


----------



## konradv

TemplarKormac said:


> Well,  according to you and your scientifically misguided party, they already do.


Unresponsive and frankly, I’m embarrassed for you.


----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:


> A lame come back from a tool who can’t say more than “authoritarian” at any given time. Shitlap, you’re a total fail and I enjoy the absolute futility of your infantile posting  efforts.


The preference of Americans for freedom from State coercion in such a personal matter is undeniable.

Poll: Majority of voters want Supreme Court to protect abortion rights​
The authoritarians' capacity to seize control of wombs is limited as a practical matter.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> The preference of Americans for freedom from State coercion in such a personal matter is undeniable.
> 
> Poll: Majority of voters want Supreme Court to protect abortion rights​
> The authoritarians' capacity to seize control of wombs is limited as a practical matter.


This isn’t a polling matter, you retard. But congratulations on finding another excuse to misuse the word “authoritarian.”


----------



## Death Angel

TemplarKormac said:


> View attachment 640281


Right and wrong depends on gender?  Are all women pro-death?  And how do we know they were men? You're not a trained biologist


----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:


> This isn’t a polling matter, you retard. But congratulations on finding another excuse to misuse the word “authoritarian.”


You may be upset by my noting most freedom-loving American's support for Roe v Wade, but it is that opposition to authoritarianism that will safeguard a woman's freedom throughout the advanced, enlightened states.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> You may be upset by my noting most freedom-loving American's support for Roe v Wade, but it is that opposition to authoritarianism that will safeguard a woman's freedom throughout the advanced, enlightened states.


I’m not upset by any of the mindless nonsense you drool out. I find you absolutely worthless but amusing. You’re an imbecile hoping to someday be an idiot. 

And by the way, your efforts to make the word “authoritarian” a contender for word of the month is going only so so. Maybe try a hashtag?


----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:
			
		

> I’m not upset...


You appeared to be very surly.

Trashing the right to privacy recognized for the past half century - after ideologues Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett stated under oath that Roe v Wade was _"settled law", could open the _floodgates to statism running amok.

A retrogressive agenda could befoul the nation for years, further dividing advanced states from repressive one.


----------



## beautress

schmidlap said:


> Lurid visions fester in your noggin, but I expect that authoritarians will not succeed in seizing control of the bodies of women, even in the most repressive states.
> 
> Most Americans support freedom:
> Poll Finds Most Americans Support Access to Abortion​
> Will the repressive states pass updated versions of fugitive slave laws and pursue women fleeing to free states?
> 
> We'll see.


Nobody has the "freedom" to kill another human being. That brings us to science as follows:

Is a fetus a being? (Correct and accurately, yes, a fetus is a being because it is a life that is in its early stages of human development).

Is a fetus inside a human mother who had sex with a human man a human? (Correctly anbd accurately, yes, human beings can only produce human ovums and human sperms, so again yes).  Enough for your doh, who me, what me, am I a human being? Doh, I do wonder!


----------



## beautress

schmidlap said:


> You appeared to be very surly.
> 
> Trashing the right to privacy recognized for the past half century - after ideologues Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett stated under oath that Roe v Wade was _"settled law", could open the _floodgates to statism running amok.
> 
> A retrogressive agenda could befoul the nation for years, further dividing advanced states from repressive one.


The right to privacy is superceded by the right to live, doll.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> You appeared to be very surly.
> 
> Trashing the right to privacy recognized for the past half century - after ideologues Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett stated under oath that Roe v Wade was _"settled law", could open the _floodgates to statism running amok.
> 
> A retrogressive agenda could befoul the nation for years, further dividing advanced states from repressive one.


Oh nozies!  Shitlap is upset that I appear “surly.”  Whatever shall I do?     

Listen, you imbecile. “Settled” law isn’t impervious to being corrected. Do you remember “separate but equal?”  You clod. That gibberish was “settled law.”  And it (Plessy v. Ferguson) was also a terrible decision — and tragically stupid, exactly like you.  And guess what, you bombastic ignorant twat?  Yes. That’s right. It got OVERRULED.  

Do you lament the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas decision? I don’t.


----------



## task0778

Blues Man said:


> The issue is whether this ruling ( which has not yet been made BTW) can be construed to grant full Constitutional rights to a fetus.



I'm sure some states will quickly write and pass new laws that ban all abortions based on the implied rights of a fetus whether the Supreme Court explicitly says that or not.  And we'll have another Supreme Court case and go through all this pandemonium all over again.  IMHO, saying that the Constitution cannot be interpreted as granting the right to an abortion is not the same thing as granting full Constitutional rights to an unborn baby.  And if that is the case, then could the SCOTUS rule that an abortion ban has no basis in law at the federal level?  If so, then it falls to each state to make their own decisions about that.  Politically, there are more people that don't like a total ban over people that want abortions restricted to a certain time frame, say the first trimester or whatever.  IOW, let the people in each state decide.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

schmidlap said:


> Most Americans, and the people of most advanced nations, respect the right of a woman to make her own, personal reproductive decisions with the advice of her loved ones and medical and spiritual advisers rather than impersonal, authoritarian politicians and bureaucrats arrogating her personal freedom and dictating to her.
> 
> Whether it is China forcing abortions or Iraq denying them all, don't surrender the power over wombs to_ any_ State.
> 
> Whereas some nations are hellbent upon surrendering freedom in reproductive matters to politicians, Canada keeps its politicians out of the womb:
> ​Canada is the only nation with absolutely no legal restrictions at the federal level to access abortion services. Nevertheless few providers in Canada offer abortion care beyond 23 weeks and 6 days without a medical reason as outlined by provincial regulatory authorities for physicians.​


How about the right of the woman to choose what firearm she wants to carry?. Your hypocrisy is well documented.


----------



## schmidlap

beautress said:


> Nobody has the "freedom" to kill another human being.


Some extremist crackpots try to claim that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a _"human being,"_ and demand that their politicians seize control of wombs wherever one exists. Most decent American oppose such fanaticism.

Were freedom-loving Republicans like Murkowski and Collins lied to under oath by Goresuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett before they trashed the conservative judicial principle of _stare decisis_, respect for settled law?


----------



## schmidlap

task0778 said:


> I'm sure some states will quickly write and pass new laws that ban all abortions based on the implied rights of a fetus whether the Supreme Court explicitly says that or not.  And we'll have another Supreme Court case and go through all this pandemonium all over again.  IMHO, saying that the Constitution cannot be interpreted as granting the right to an abortion is not the same thing as granting full Constitutional rights to an unborn baby.  And if that is the case, then could the SCOTUS rule that an abortion ban has no basis in law at the federal level?  If so, then it falls to each state to make their own decisions about that.  Politically, there are more people that don't like a total ban over people that want abortions restricted to a certain time frame, say the first trimester or whatever.  IOW, let the people in each state decide.


If women seek refuge in states where their rights are respected, will the repressive states  resurrect a version of the fugitive slave law to prevent their accessing the medical services they seek?


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> Some extremist crackpots try to claim that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a _"human being,"_ and demand that their politicians seize control of wombs wherever one exists. Most decent American oppose such fanaticism.
> 
> Were freedom-loving Republicans like Murkowski and Collins lied to under oath by Goresuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett before they trashed the conservative judicial principle of _stare decisis_, respect for settled law?


The draft ruling that was released said that R v W was not as "settled" as you Moon Bats claim it to be. In fact it said that the Justices thought it was one of the worst decisions ever made by the Court.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> Some extremist crackpots try to claim that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a _"human being,"_ and demand that their politicians seize control of wombs wherever one exists. Most decent American oppose such fanaticism.
> 
> Were freedom-loving Republicans like Murkowski and Collins lied to under oath by Goresuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett before they trashed the conservative judicial principle of _stare decisis_, respect for settled law?


Again, you evasive coward: 

Plessy was “settled law.”  I have no “respect” for Plessy.. Nor should I. Nobody should.  Not even an imbecile like you.


----------



## beautress

Blues Man said:


> The issue is whether this ruling ( which has not yet been made BTW) can be construed to grant full Constitutional rights to a fetus.
> 
> All this argument is over a decision that has not even been made yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article261022222.html
> 
> 
> “Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement.


You are 100% right. We have to credit our gutless wonders of Congress who were too confused to rule that a fetus in a human mother IS A HUMAN BEING. That bullshit about breathing air is just that bullshit! The truth is that the baby inside that morther WAS BREATHING, only its mother was by nature that you cannot legislate, putting oxygen and nutrients to that human being through the means of her unbilical cord inside the placenta that functions both for eating and breathing. /wah-wah trumpet to the exponential degree.


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> The preference of Americans for freedom from State coercion in such a personal matter is undeniable.
> 
> Poll: Majority of voters want Supreme Court to protect abortion rights​
> The authoritarians' capacity to seize control of wombs is limited as a practical matter.



That stupid article doesn't say jackshit on how the poll was conducted or who participated.  Probably on purpose because it wouldn't pass any scrutiny.  Mostly likely a stupid internet poll on some idiot Left Wing site.

What else you got Moon Bat?


----------



## Canon Shooter

night_son said:


> Seems like pro-abortion fuckers have daily and annual quotas of babies to murder, so yeah—it matters to them what other states do and do not allow; got to get them dead baby numbers up . . .



What exactly is "pro-abortion"?

See, if "pro-life" is the belief that every pregnancy should be carried to term, then "pro-abortion" would be the belief that every pregnancy should be terminated.

No one is advocating for that...


----------



## Canon Shooter

Flash said:


> That stupid article doesn't say jackshit on how the poll was conducted or who participated. Probably on purpose because it wouldn't pass any scrutiny. Mostly likely a stupid internet poll on some idiot Left Wing site.



Yeah, but what if it's not?


----------



## schmidlap

Flash said:


> The draft ruling that was released said that R v W was not as "settled" as you Moon Bats claim it to be. I


I can't comment on those _"Moon Bats"_ that fester in tour noggin, presumably you reference most Americans who support Roe v Wade.

Do you believe that Senators Murkowsky and Collins were deceived by Goresuch and Kavanaugh in light of their judicial activism?

Murkowski: _*"If the decision is going the way that the draft that has been revealed is actually the case, it was not — it was not the direction that I believed that the court would take based on statements that have been made about Roe being settled and being precedent."*_

_*"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,"* _Collins said in a statement released by her office.


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> The preference of Americans for freedom from State coercion in such a personal matter is undeniable.
> 
> Poll: Majority of voters want Supreme Court to protect abortion rights​
> The authoritarians' capacity to seize control of wombs is limited as a practical matter.


If the majority of Americans wanted there to be a total ban on abortion should the USSC make that decision or should the legislatures, do it?    That's the problem.  Roe V Wade was a shortcut around actually doing the hard work of legislating and was thus a bad decision from a legal perspective.    It's the same with the issue on the border, student debt, etc etc.    The Legislature doesn't want to do its job and is advocating for the other branches of government to do it for them.       If this were truly an issue the left wanted closed, why wasn't it codified in the law decades ago?     Certainly, the Democrats have had control of Congress, and the Presidency at least once since Roe was decided.     If Congress had passed a law this would no longer be an issue.     Oh and if 70% of people want abortion then how is giving the power to decide this issue to the people a bad idea?


----------



## Blues Man

task0778 said:


> I'm sure some states will quickly write and pass new laws that ban all abortions based on the implied rights of a fetus whether the Supreme Court explicitly says that or not.  And we'll have another Supreme Court case and go through all this pandemonium all over again.  IMHO, saying that the Constitution cannot be interpreted as granting the right to an abortion is not the same thing as granting full Constitutional rights to an unborn baby.  And if that is the case, then could the SCOTUS rule that an abortion ban has no basis in law at the federal level?  If so, then it falls to each state to make their own decisions about that.  Politically, there are more people that don't like a total ban over people that want abortions restricted to a certain time frame, say the first trimester or whatever.  IOW, let the people in each state decide.


All that does in prohibit an abortion in that state.

The consequences of any state stating that a fetus has the full compliment of Constitutional rights as an adult will be something out of a Orwellian horror story.


----------



## schmidlap

Couchpotato said:


> If the majority of Americans wanted there to be a total ban on abortion should the USSC make that decision or should the legislatures, do it?    That's the problem.  Roe V Wade was a shortcut around actually doing the hard work of legislating and was thus a bad decision from a legal perspective.    It's the same with the issue on the border, student debt, etc etc.    The Legislature doesn't want to do its job and is advocating for the other branches of government to do it for them.       If this were truly an issue the left wanted closed, why wasn't it codified in the law decades ago?     Certainly, the Democrats have had control of Congress, and the Presidency at least once since Roe was decided.     If Congress had passed a law this would no longer be an issue.     Oh and if 70% of people want abortion then how is giving the power to decide this issue to the people a bad idea?


Judicial activists, despite statements made under oath in support of established precedents, overturning popular laws that arrogate personal rights to the State are antithetical to freedom.

Will advanced states continue to support and defend those personal rights? Indeed, they will.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> Judicial activists, despite statements made under oath in support of established precedents, overturning popular laws that arrogate personal rights to the State are antithetical to freedom.
> 
> Will advanced states continue to support and defend those personal rights? Indeed, they will.


States authorizing infanticide aren’t “advanced.”  Shitlap is misusing words again.


----------



## Couchpotato

Blues Man said:


> All that does in prohibit an abortion in that state.
> 
> The consequences of any state stating that a fetus has the full compliment of Constitutional rights as an adult will be something out of a Orwellian horror story.


Why would granting an unborn child the right to life be an Orwellian horror story exactly?


----------



## Blues Man

beautress said:


> You are 100% right. We have to credit our gutless wonders of Congress who were too confused to rule that a fetus in a human mother IS A HUMAN BEING. That bullshit about breathing air is just that bullshit! The truth is that the baby inside that morther WAS BREATHING, only its mother was by nature that you cannot legislate, putting oxygen and nutrients to that human being through the means of her unbilical cord inside the placenta that functions both for eating and breathing. /wah-wah trumpet to the exponential degree.


Be careful what you wish for.

If you get that wish that a fetus has all the rights of any adult then you open all women up to the possibility that the government can deem any pregnant woman is "abusing" a fetus and then can forcibly impose its will over all pregnant women.

If you get that wish then any state government will have the right to ball all pregnant women from travel to any state where abortion is still legal.


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> Judicial activists, despite statements made under oath in support of established precedents, overturning popular laws that arrogate personal rights to the State are antithetical to freedom.
> 
> Will advanced states continue to support and defend those personal rights? Indeed, they will.


Great job not actually answering the question.   

There is no ROE V WADE law dip shit which is the fucking problem with the decision and the reasoning behind overturning it stated in the draft opinion which you obviously haven't bothered to read.


----------



## Blues Man

Couchpotato said:


> Why would granting an unborn child the right to life be an Orwellian horror story exactly?


Because you then allow the government to impose its will on any pregnant woman who the state deems is not properly tending to her pregnancy.  You give state government the right to forcibly keep a pregnant woman from traveling to another state where abortion is still legal.

Is this what you want?


----------



## Esdraelon

Cecilie1200 said:


> How could leaking a copy of that draft early possibly benefit conservatives?


They couldn't.  It was just another sign that the Left is working diligently to tear down our traditions and stable institutions.  ALL of them, as quickly as possible.  I'd bet large that this was done by Sotomayor, herself.  If a law clerk did this, they should be permanently disbarred at the federal level.  If it was a sitting Justice, they should be impeached, whether it's possible to remove them or not.


----------



## task0778

Couchpotato said:


> If the majority of Americans wanted there to be a total ban on abortion should the USSC make that decision or should the legislatures, do it



Only Congress has the power and authority to legislate.  The SCOTUS is confined to interpret the Constitution with respect to any legislation and determine if the law is constitutional.  They are not supposed to "legislate from the bench", which is precisely what the Supreme Court did in 1973 when they rule as they did in Roe v Wade.  There's a right way and a bunch of wrong ways to deal with abortion or any other issue; in this case it appears that the Constitution does not cover the right to an abortion, so either Congress passes some kind of abortion legislation or the issue goes to the states for them to handle it as each state sees fit.

If a state determines that it's citizens want full abortion rights, so be it.  If a state decides that all abortions should be banned, so be it.  Or anything in between.  The citizens in each state can vote into office the politicians who can and will change the law if the people want it changed, it's as simple as that.  That's how it should be, concerning any issue that the Supreme Court says is not in the US Constitution.  The rule of law, people.  Either we respect the law or we don't, and right now there's a lot of disrespect going on.  Laws and even the Constitution can be changed, but it's gotta be done the right way.


----------



## Sunsettommy

basquebromance said:


> someone's losin' it



Mary has long been the BLUE sheep of the family she is a whack job since Abortions are not illegal even when Roe vs. Wade is dropped.


----------



## Couchpotato

Blues Man said:


> Because you then allow the government to impose its will on any pregnant woman who the state deems is not properly tending to her pregnancy.  You give state government the right to forcibly keep a pregnant woman from traveling to another state where abortion is still legal.
> 
> Is this what you want?


I want the state to protect the life of children, yes I do.   How fucked up is a culture/society who doesn't protect its most vulnerable members.  

So when do protections against bodily harm and death kick in for an unborn baby in your mind?    How many weeks after conception does it take for fetus to get rights?


----------



## Couchpotato

task0778 said:


> Only Congress has the power and authority to legislate.  The SCOTUS is confined to interpret the Constitution with respect to any legislation and determine if the law is constitutional.  They are not supposed to "legislate from the bench", which is precisely what the Supreme Court did in 1973 when they rule as they did in Roe v Wade.  There's a right way and a bunch of wrong ways to deal with abortion or any other issue; in this case it appears that the Constitution does not cover the right to an abortion, so either Congress passes some kind of abortion legislation or the issue goes to the states for them to handle it as each state sees fit.
> 
> If a state determines that it's citizens want full abortion rights, so be it.  If a state decides that all abortions should be banned, so be it.  Or anything in between.  The citizens in each state can vote into office the politicians who can and will change the law if the people want it changed, it's as simple as that.  That's how it should be, concerning any issue that the Supreme Court says is not in the US Constitution.  The rule of law, people.  Either we respect the law or we don't, and right now there's a lot of disrespect going on.  Laws and even the Constitution can be changed, but it's gotta be done the right way.


Thanks for reiterating what I said.


----------



## Esdraelon

Blues Man said:


> If a woman from a state that bans abortions has one in another state there will be no legal repercussions for her when she returns home.


Yes, and that's as it should be.  Perhaps you could spread the word to those who are hyperventilating over this.  They realize that this issue, once fully explained, will stop being quite as politically beneficial, so they're already putting media pieces out warning that the bad old Republicans are forming ranks to pass a Federal statute that basically outlaws abortion in all 50 states.


----------



## task0778

Blues Man said:


> The consequences of any state stating that a fetus has the full compliment of Constitutional rights as an adult will be something out of a Orwellian horror story.



You are entitled to that opinion.  Not everyone agrees though.  

Do you support the idea that the Supreme Court can and should legislate from the bench, creating civil rights out of thin air that have no root in our Constitution?

Do you support the idea that the Supreme Court can determine at a later date that an earlier ruling was in error and rectify it?


----------



## Blues Man

Couchpotato said:


> I want the state to protect the life of children, yes I do.   How fucked up is a culture/society who doesn't protect its most vulnerable members.
> 
> So when do protections against bodily harm and death kick in for an unborn baby in your mind?    How many weeks after conception does it take for fetus to get rights?


So let me clarify your position.

You think that the state has the right to force pregnant women to comply with their rules of behavior for pregnant women.

So therefor it is perfectly fine for the state to incarcerate a pregnant woman who might smoke a cigarette, or who gets too fat while pregnant, or drinks more then the recommended amount of coffee or who doesn't follow the USDA dietary guidelines because all those behaviors put an unborn fetus at risk.  You want the state to forcibly keep pregnant women from traveling to a state where abortion is legal because there is the chance she will choose to get one.

Correct?


----------



## Blues Man

Esdraelon said:


> Yes, and that's as it should be.  Perhaps you could spread the word to those who are hyperventilating over this.  They realize that this issue, once fully explained, will stop being quite as politically beneficial, so they're already putting media pieces out warning that the bad old Republicans are forming ranks to pass a Federal statute that basically outlaws abortion in all 50 states.


You should read the posts of people who think a fetus should have the same compliment of Constitutional rights you do


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> I can't comment on those _"Moon Bats"_ that fester in tour noggin, presumably you reference most Americans who support Roe v Wade.
> 
> Do you believe that Senators Murkowsky and Collins were deceived by Goresuch and Kavanaugh in light of their judicial activism?
> 
> Murkowski: _*"If the decision is going the way that the draft that has been revealed is actually the case, it was not — it was not the direction that I believed that the court would take based on statements that have been made about Roe being settled and being precedent."*_
> 
> _*"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,"* _Collins said in a statement released by her office.


Every Supreme Court nominee, including the ones nominated by the filth ass Democrats, never say anything about how they will rule on any issue.

I remember the Trump nominees saying that "settled law" would be one of their consideration but never saying that was going to be the only consideration.

Your definition of settled law and their definition may differ.  Just because R v W was considered to be "settled" doesn't mean it shouldn't be overturned if they thought it was "one of the worst decisions ever made by the Court".

By the way Moon Bat, that little dumbass Negro bitch that Potatohead nominated lied several times to the Committee so be careful about complaining about things like this.


----------



## Esdraelon

Blues Man said:


> Less than 1% of abortions take place after 21 weeks
> 
> Most abortions actually take place in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy 99% take place by week 20


Yet we know, from the mouths of PP execs, that enough of the late term type occur to supply a market for parts.  If a woman has decided that she refuses to carry her child to term there is nothing that will stop her from killing it.  
IF this decision stands, the right to do that has not been taken from her.  Organizations like PP can now put their money where their mouth has been and pay the freight to keep this ghoulish practice "alive".  They're already working on grant applications or funding requests to Congress so that the taxpayers are on the hook for a whole new type of paid welfare.


----------



## Blues Man

Blues Man said:


> You should read the posts of people who think a fetus should have the same compliment of Constitutional rights you do





task0778 said:


> You are entitled to that opinion.  Not everyone agrees though.
> 
> Do you support the idea that the Supreme Court can and should legislate from the bench, creating civil rights out of thin air that have no root in our Constitution?
> 
> Do you support the idea that the Supreme Court can determine at a later date that an earlier ruling was in error and rectify it?



I think the government should stay out of all medical decisions a person makes.  I have no problem with early term abortions and have always said that there should be some restriction on when abortions can be performed by I don't think a total ban is good policy.

So do you think a fertilized ovum has the full compliment of COnstituional rights you do?


----------



## Blues Man

Esdraelon said:


> Yet we know, from the mouths of PP execs, that enough of the late term type occur to supply a market for parts.  If a woman has decided that she refuses to carry her child to term there is nothing that will stop her from killing it.
> IF this decision stands, the right to do that has not been taken from her.  Organizations like PP can now put their money where their mouth has been and pay the freight to keep this ghoulish practice "alive".  They're already working on grant applications or funding requests to Congress so that the taxpayers are on the hook for a whole new type of paid welfare.



Still 1% or less of all abortions occur at or after the 21 week mark


----------



## Delldude

skews13 said:


> It’s not an issue to be decided at the state level. Now you know what individual rights are all about.
> 
> FTFY


Funny, I don't see this listed under the Bill of Rights.
SCOTUS can not decree a human right.


----------



## Blues Man

Delldude said:


> Funny, I don't see this listed under the Bill of Rights.
> SCOTUS can not decree a human right.


Except that the 9th amendment also states that people have rights that may not be enumerated in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution as a whole and that those rights are no less protected


----------



## Couchpotato

Blues Man said:


> So let me clarify your position.
> 
> You think that the state has the right to force pregnant women to comply with their rules of behavior for pregnant women.
> 
> So therefor it is perfectly fine for the state to incarcerate a pregnant woman who might smoke a cigarette, or who gets too fat while pregnant, or drinks more then the recommended amount of coffee or who doesn't follow the USDA dietary guidelines because all those behaviors put an unborn fetus at risk.  You want the state to forcibly keep pregnant women from traveling to a state where abortion is legal because there is the chance she will choose to get one.
> 
> Correct?


If a state legislature passed those laws and they were upheld in court after they would most definitely challenged then yes.   Why would those laws be any different than then myriad of laws that are restrictions on what we can do with our bodies    But those laws dont exist so you're hyperventilating over something that hasn't happened and isnt even something people are talking about. 

Is the seatbelt law legal?     There are laws against suicide are those legal?    Are laws requiring the wear of life preservers legal?    Why is it illegal for me to go down to the courthouse steps and light myself on fire, or shoot up heroin?     Why aren't you ranting and raving against those laws?     At least when I light myself a blaze I'm only hurting me unlike when a woman has an abortion.


----------



## Delldude

skews13 said:


> That was one of many mistakes by Congress to assume because the court handed down the decision, there was no need to pass related legislation.
> 
> This decision is going to force Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer to hold votes, which could hurt members of their own party, but it is also going to prevent Republicans in swing districts, and Senators up for reelection, from hiding behind not having to vote, something Mitch McConnell protected them from their entire terms.
> 
> It also will put House Republicans that were fairly safe, in a less safe position, because many of them live in districts that are prochoice.


Congress outsourced their job to SCOTUS. It's a touchy issue and they don't want to do their job and possibly lose an election.

They can hold votes all day long, in the end it will still be a states rights issue.


----------



## Couchpotato

Blues Man said:


> I think the government should stay out of all medical decisions a person makes.  I have no problem with early term abortions and have always said that there should be some restriction on when abortions can be performed by I don't think a total ban is good policy.
> 
> So do you think a fertilized ovum has the full compliment of COnstituional rights you do?


What's the line?  How many weeks before it's murder?


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


If it is overturned, it will be one of the greatest mistakes ever made by the courts. There's only one reason to bring life into this world and that is based on love. There are many reasons not to and that is based on love too. We would be making women sucking class citizens. We would be creating a new generation of super criminals. We would be creating so many new unwanted children by people who could least afford it. This law will be one based on hatred and lack of understanding. Abortion law should be illegal. Abortion is a medical procedure that should be decided between the woman and her doctor ( and her husband or significant other if there is one ) . No one else should be involved in the process, it's a difficult decision and have a other people involved in the process just makes it more complicated and more painful. Christians think they're doing the right thing, they are not. They are simply extending their control over everyone. The law is about power over people not power for people. A fetus is a potential human being it is not an unborn child or a person. Those terms are not real. Those terms are meant to make you feel emotional about the issue and it's worked on 28% of the population . 70% of Americans still believe that women should have control of their own bodies. Roe versus Wade protects all women not just pregnant women it gives them equality under the law.


----------



## Esdraelon

Blues Man said:


> You should read the posts of people who think a fetus should have the same compliment of Constitutional rights you do


I have.  On the whole, I support that.  I'm simply adult enough to understand that people will do as they please and consequences be damned, so the next best thing is to keep such government decisions at the level closest to the people - their own state.
I think that ending the life of a human being that was carelessly created, unwanted, and totally avoidable with the slightest bit of planning, is an abomination.  Those who resort to abortion as birth control should be sterilized, imo.  Either that or they should be permanently disqualified from receiving womb to tomb benefits for themselves and their unfortunate children.

All the decisions we take in life have consequences and there is no way to stop that.  One party decided a few decades ago to infantilize a whole sub-culture in America, imbue them with permanent victim status and force all others to pay their way, no matter how outrageous their behavior.  Before I start hearing "you RAY-SUS!"  I include in that group whites and Hispanics as well.  

A huge number of these slaughtered innocents were created as a result of that evil.  If states want to continue it, then let their own taxpayers carry that burden.  If that stance makes me evil in the eyes of the Left, I'll wear it proudly.


----------



## Delldude

Blues Man said:


> Except that the 9th amendment also states that people have rights that may not be enumerated in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution as a whole and that those rights are no less protected


It has to be recognized and/or defined.
I'd think what you are saying would hold water if congress did their job and passed law on this.
That's where SCOTUS comes in.....to define it.
 This was a decision.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> If it is overturned, it will be one of the greatest mistakes ever made by the courts. There's only one reason to bring life into this world and that is based on love. There are many reasons not to and that is based on love too. We would be making women sucking class citizens. We would be creating a new generation of super criminals. We would be creating so many new unwanted children by people who could least afford it. This law will be one based on hatred and lack of understanding. Abortion law should be illegal. Abortion is a medical procedure that should be decided between the woman and her doctor ( and her husband or significant other if there is one ) . No one else should be involved in the process, it's a difficult decision and have a other people involved in the process just makes it more complicated and more painful. Christians think they're doing the right thing, they are not. They are simply extending their control over everyone. The law is about power over people not power for people. A fetus is a potential human being it is not an unborn child or a person. Those terms are not real. Those terms are meant to make you feel emotional about the issue and it's worked on 28% of the population . 70% of Americans still believe that women should have control of their own bodies. Roe versus Wade protects all women not just pregnant women it gives them equality under the law.


How many of these abortions were based on love or a good drunken roll in the hay?


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> What's the line?  How many weeks before it's murder?


Criminalizing women, as well as making them second class citizens. Just what this country needs more stupid laws.


----------



## Esdraelon

Cecilie1200 said:


> The legal profession in general, even the sleazy ambulance chaser types, are shocked by this breach of ethics.


How Roberts is seen to handle this breach will be his legacy.  Nothing else he does will have a greater impact on the future of the SCOTUS.  This is one he can't weasel out of...


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> If it is overturned, it will be one of the greatest mistakes ever made by the courts. There's only one reason to bring life into this world and that is based on love. There are many reasons not to and that is based on love too. We would be making women sucking class citizens. We would be creating a new generation of super criminals. We would be creating so many new unwanted children by people who could least afford it. This law will be one based on hatred and lack of understanding. Abortion law should be illegal. Abortion is a medical procedure that should be decided between the woman and her doctor ( and her husband or significant other if there is one ) . No one else should be involved in the process, it's a difficult decision and have a other people involved in the process just makes it more complicated and more painful. Christians think they're doing the right thing, they are not. They are simply extending their control over everyone. The law is about power over people not power for people. A fetus is a potential human being it is not an unborn child or a person. Those terms are not real. Those terms are meant to make you feel emotional about the issue and it's worked on 28% of the population . 70% of Americans still believe that women should have control of their own bodies. Roe versus Wade protects all women not just pregnant women it gives them equality under the law.


If it is overturned, it will be one of the greatest rulings in American judicial history. Correcting an egregious mistake made about 50 years ago is overdue, but a welcome admission of past fallibility. Stepping up and correcting such major mistakes is hugely important. The decision Roe v. Wade denigrated human life.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> How many of these abortions were based on love or a good drunken roll in the hay?


I don't know and I don't care it doesn't matter. You want to be the judge of other people. How about all the people who smoke should we stop them from smoking how about all the people who drink or do drugs should we stop them from drinking should we stop them from doing drugs when does this garbage end.


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> If it is overturned, it will be one of the greatest rulings in American judicial history. Correcting an egregious mistake made about 50 years ago is overdue, but a welcome admission of past fallibility. Stepping up and correcting such major mistakes is hugely important. The decision Roe v. Wade denigrated human life.


Thel greatest moment in American judicial history will be when the supreme Court finally says abortion is a medical issue and there's no need for any ruling on it it's a personal matter a medical matter that's what it is stop trying to make it something that it isn't. All abortion laws need to be put to an end.


----------



## Delldude

I think it was leaked now because the left is planning their made for TV J6 spectacular in June. If this decision came out before SCOTUS recess, it would overwhelm the TV spectacular.
Beyond that, if it is thought this could force SCOTUS to change their minds......they did that at Floyd and got caught trying during Rittenhouse. 
I also think they screwed up doing this. By November, it will be shown this doesn't eliminate abortion rights....restrict them, yes. How about full term abortion, is that right?


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> If it is overturned, it will be one of the greatest mistakes ever made by the courts. There's only one reason to bring life into this world and that is based on love. There are many reasons not to and that is based on love too. We would be making women sucking class citizens. We would be creating a new generation of super criminals. We would be creating so many new unwanted children by people who could least afford it. This law will be one based on hatred and lack of understanding. Abortion law should be illegal. Abortion is a medical procedure that should be decided between the woman and her doctor ( and her husband or significant other if there is one ) . No one else should be involved in the process, it's a difficult decision and have a other people involved in the process just makes it more complicated and more painful. Christians think they're doing the right thing, they are not. They are simply extending their control over everyone. The law is about power over people not power for people. A fetus is a potential human being it is not an unborn child or a person. Those terms are not real. Those terms are meant to make you feel emotional about the issue and it's worked on 28% of the population . 70% of Americans still believe that women should have control of their own bodies. Roe versus Wade protects all women not just pregnant women it gives them equality under the law.


Then pass a law to that effect.  Which btw is what the draft decision says.    It doesn't say whether abortion should or shouldn't be legal only that the decision of the court in 1972 to weigh in on the subject was wrong and that this decision should be made by the state legislatures not the USSC.    

It's like 95% of the people bitching about this decision (which is only a draft) can't be bothered to even read the decision they say is supposedly one of the most important decisions in their lifetime.   How can you disagree with something you haven't read?       This decision will not stop a single abortion from happening in the United States.   Not 1.   Only state legislatures can do that if this ends up being the determination of the court.    So if you oppose abortion take it up with your state legislature.    Also if you are for abortion take it up with them as well.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> I don't know and I don't care it doesn't matter. You want to be the judge of other people. How about all the people who smoke should we stop them from smoking how about all the people who drink or do drugs should we stop them from drinking should we stop them from doing drugs when does this garbage end.


That was a response to your statement :


> There's only one reason to bring life into this world and that is based on love.



So is it?


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> Criminalizing women, as well as making them second class citizens. Just what this country needs more stupid laws.


so how many weeks is that then?  Saying you cant kill a baby doesnt make you a second class citizen.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> Criminalizing women, as well as making them second class citizens. Just what this country needs more stupid laws.


This was a stupid decision.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> I think it was leaked now because the left is planning their made for TV J6 spectacular in June. If this decision came out before SCOTUS recess, it would overwhelm the TV spectacular.
> Beyond that, if it is thought this could force SCOTUS to change their minds......they did that at Floyd and got caught trying during Rittenhouse.
> I also think they screwed up doing this. By November, it will be shown this doesn't eliminate abortion rights....restrict them, yes. How about full term abortion, is that right?


There's no such thing as full-term abortion. There's third trimester abortions, the one married women have after they find out from the doctor that the child they are carrying is hopelessly terribly deformed and most likely not viable.


----------



## Blues Man

Couchpotato said:


> If a state legislature passed those laws and they were upheld in court after they would most definitely challenged then yes.   Why would those laws be any different than then myriad of laws that are restrictions on what we can do with our bodies    But those laws dont exist so you're hyperventilating over something that hasn't happened and isnt even something people are talking about.
> 
> Is the seatbelt law legal?     There are laws against suicide are those legal?    Are laws requiring the wear of life preservers legal?    Why is it illegal for me to go down to the courthouse steps and light myself on fire, or shoot up heroin?     Why aren't you ranting and raving against those laws?     At least when I light myself a blaze I'm only hurting me unlike when a woman has an abortion.


Except people right here in this thread are saying that if any state wants to grant rights to a fetus then it should be allowed.

So it seems to me people are indeed talking about it.


----------



## task0778

Blues Man said:


> Except that the 9th amendment also states that people have rights that may not be enumerated in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution as a whole and that those rights are no less protected




Today, the Ninth Amendment is used mainly to stop the government from expanding its power rather than just limiting their power. Sometimes, courts try to use the Ninth Amendment as a way to provide and enforce rights that are not actually talked about in the Constitution.

Unlike many of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment does not actually give any rights, but rather just makes a statement about them.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> so how many weeks is that then?  Saying you cant kill a baby doesnt make you a second class citizen.


Saying you don't have control over your own body does make you a second class citizen. And whatever the weeks are doesn't matter it's none of your business. You do not have the right no one has the right to judge a woman if she has to make that terrible choice and no matter how you look at it it is a terrible choice but it's their choice not yours and definitely not ours. You don't want that kind of responsibility and neither does the state. The states that have put these restrictions in already will be paying a very high price for their mistake.


----------



## Stann

Blues Man said:


> Except people right here in this thread are saying that if any state wants to grant rights to a fetus then it should be allowed.
> 
> So it seems to me people are indeed talking about it.


Even if fetuses have some kind of Rights they can't override the rights of people that are already here. A fetus is not a person it is a potential person that's the best you can say about it. And it definitely isn't an unborn child, that's just a con job to make you feel emotional about the issue.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> There's no such thing as full-term abortion. There's third trimester abortions, the one married women have after they find out from the doctor that the child they are carrying is hopelessly terribly deformed and most likely not viable.


Yet they happen.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> *Saying you don't have control over your own body does make you a second class citizen. *


You cool then with vaccine mandates?


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> Yet they happen.


You are mistaken, no one waits till a woman is full term. It must be some kind of propaganda you have heard. It's just plain stupid.


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> Thel greatest moment in American judicial history will be when the supreme Court finally says abortion is a medical issue and there's no need for any ruling on it it's a personal matter a medical matter that's what it is stop trying to make it something that it isn't. All abortion laws need to be put to an end.


Wrong. Correcting Roe is such a superlative move that it may be a crowning achievement in our judicial history. 

And for all those liberoids now complaining that a precedent and settled law should be the end of the story, I ask: will that be your position if the SCOTUS someday revisits this Dobbs case?


----------



## Blues Man

task0778 said:


> Today, the Ninth Amendment is used mainly to stop the government from expanding its power rather than just limiting their power. Sometimes, courts try to use the Ninth Amendment as a way to provide and enforce rights that are not actually talked about in the Constitution.
> 
> Unlike many of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment does not actually give any rights, but rather just makes a statement about them.


it acknowledges that more rights exist than just those enumerated


----------



## Blues Man

BackAgain said:


> Wrong. Correcting Roe is such a superlative move that it may be a crowning achievement in our judicial history.
> 
> And for all those liberoids now complaining that a precedent and settled law should be the end of the story, I ask: will that be your position if the SCOTUS someday revisits this Dobbs case?


So if or when Roe gets reinstated you won;t be whining about it right?


----------



## Blues Man

Stann said:


> Even if fetuses have some kind of Rights they can't override the rights of people that are already here. A fetus is not a person it is a potential person that's the best you can say about it. And it definitely isn't an unborn child, that's just a con job to make you feel emotional about the issue.


So then what's the problem with abortion?

Anti abortion people want a fetus to have the full compliment of rights that any adult has


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> Thel greatest moment in American judicial history will be when the supreme Court finally says abortion is a medical issue and there's no need for any ruling on it it's a personal matter a medical matter that's what it is stop trying to make it something that it isn't. All abortion laws need to be put to an end.


Wrong. And repeating your failed argument doesn’t serve to salvage it.


----------



## konradv

Delldude said:


> You cool then with vaccine mandates?


They‘re nothing new.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> You are mistaken, no one waits till a woman is full term. It must be some kind of propaganda you have heard. It's just plain stupid.


It has happened, but rare.


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> Wrong. Correcting Roe is such a superlative move that it may be a crowning achievement in our judicial history.
> 
> And for all those liberoids now complaining that a precedent and settled law should be the end of the story, I ask: will that be your position if the SCOTUS someday revisits this Dobbs case?


Actually abortion laws need to come to an end. The truth is there a medical decision and procedure that should only be decided by those involved the woman her doctor and significant other or husband if there is one. The courts have just complicated our lives in trying to interfere with them and control them. That is not their place. There is no criminal intent or activity here.


----------



## Stann

konradv said:


> They‘re nothing new.


Off subject.


----------



## BackAgain

Blues Man said:


> So if or when Roe gets reinstated you won;t be whining about it right?


I haven’t whined ar all. If I applaud the prospective overruling of Roe v. Wade, of course I’d lament the overruling of Dobbs.

Pretty stupid “question” you “ask.”


----------



## Delldude

BackAgain said:


> Wrong. And repeating your failed argument doesn’t serve to salvage it.


An end to this perpetual argument would be a legal definition of when life starts.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> You cool then with vaccine mandates?


Off subject.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> Off subject.


But you said:


> Saying you don't have control over your own body does make you a second class citizen.


----------



## beautress

schmidlap said:


> If women seek refuge in states where their rights are respected, will the repressive states  resurrect a version of the fugitive slave law to prevent their accessing the medical services they seek?


Well, a few prisoners when released often go rob a bank just so they can be convicted to jail for a long long time, because they couldn't stand fending for themselves when they found safety behind bars. Why would a woman who had another rid her of her baby be any different? Vice is heavy and some people who use vice get tired of fending for themselves in a cold, cruel world that misunderstands their widdle probwems.  


Canon Shooter said:


> What exactly is "pro-abortion"?
> 
> See, if "pro-life" is the belief that every pregnancy should be carried to term, then "pro-abortion" would be the belief that every pregnancy should be terminated.
> 
> No one is advocating for that...


Pro-abortion is a euphemism for cowardly pro-bloody murder that is legal because cowards like the term so they can screw, murder their own kid, and screw again, kill the next, and the next, and the next, and the next.   

'if "pro-life" is the belief that every pregnancy should be carried to term...'​​You're making too much out of the meaning of "pro-life." It's definition is literally FOR life, and as it is commonly used, it is for the lives of the unborn when discussing abortion, which is a cruel way to end a human being's life.

The reason the "law" doesn't know that ending a human being's life is murder is because a cowardly and jealous Congress doesn't have the cajones to define where life starts scientifically, so wrongfully and against science, we've had that Roe v. Wade cramming dead future Americans into garbage dumps for forty-eight or more years, considering the cases before then were reissued as part of the new murder-of-unborn-human-beings "law" was legislated from the highest court's bench. They were too full of themselves to define where life starts for one, they were too politically motivated to piss on nature in order to keep their lawyerly jobs, so they pissed on the Constitution for their failure to know through science that a 2-cell zygote is a separate human being than its own mother and father. Nature makes way for babies. Puerile human beings want to rewrite God's laws of live and let live which had done nothing but harden women's minds to reality that their body was made for having children to keep the human race going since death can happen by fate or to the end of that person's natural life from natural occurrences that cause death, such as a body killing off its own cells by way of the complications of aging which are as numerous as the complications of a 2-cell zygote going through numerous life stages until birth. And abortion is the teacher of this last 48 years of human life in America. It teaches people to cowardly extinguish a human citizen before its birth and reaching the age of accountability. In the meantime, Hollywood has glamorized youthful beauty from earlier and earlier and earlier ages as years and time go by.

People with no regard for right and wrong have pushed abortion on this world into killing off millions and millions of human beings for a huge profit to "do-no-further-damage-doctor-wannabes" for killing people's right to life just because they're too little to punch their killers in the nose and give 'em a black eye and a sore belly from punching back while they're being "extinguished" in the most inhumane manner imaginable, not to mention the aftermath of their death by being torn limb by limb and beheading in order to make life easy on their killer mom who agreed to the insanity of abortion by euphemistic lies perpetrated on them by of all things "planned parenthood" which ought to be forced to call itself "planned murderers of the world's future of human life." 'Scuse me while I go vomit. All this garbage Russia is throwing at growing children in vaporizing their schools, teachers, kids, and caretakers alike sets my jaws on the wrong angles, but oh, well. That's life.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> An end to this perpetual argument would be a legal definition of when life starts.


It's not that simple, physical life begins at conception. Personhood begins at birth. So are you trying to protect all life, or all people. I go with the latter, women need to be protected from atrocitious abortion laws.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> But you said:


And then you went off subject.


----------



## task0778

Blues Man said:


> it acknowledges that more rights exist than just those enumerated


True, but apparently the right to an abortion is not one of them.


----------



## beautress

schmidlap said:


> You may be upset by my noting most freedom-loving American's support for Roe v Wade, but it is that opposition to authoritarianism that will safeguard a woman's freedom throughout the advanced, enlightened states.


You are confused, sir. Abortion has been murder made legal, and many people from science backgrounds know it and do not care for the legalization of murder, considering that serial murderers have been threatening this nation worse than ever before in my lifetime.


----------



## Blues Man

BackAgain said:


> I haven’t whined ar all. If I applaud the prospective overruling of Roe v. Wade, of course I’d lament the overruling of Dobbs.
> 
> Pretty stupid “question” you “ask.”



No not really but only time will tell


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> But you said:


You're not making any sense. Covid is not related to the abortion issue at all. Please stop talking about it.


----------



## Blues Man

task0778 said:


> True, but apparently the right to an abortion is not one of them.



Not true because even states that might ban abortion cannot stop any woman from getting one.

There will never be a federal ban


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> And then you went off subject.


Your post is off topic. Your earlier post was off topic. And you’re generally wrong here even when you manage to be sort of on topic. 

Back on topic:  if Roe v. Wade was a horrible SCOTUS decision made without regard to the actual Constitution (and it was), then overruling it is good and perfectly proper.


----------



## beautress

Delldude said:


> An end to this perpetual argument would be a legal definition of when life starts.


This perpetual argument would end if the Congress had the cajones to scientifically rule on when human life begins by tossing aside politics of getting votes out of women who like themselves for murdering their own child because they hadn't respect then and they've no respect now for human life. They're the most grissly women who ever lived if they liked the attention they got from caregivers who artificially congratulate them on enduring their murderous act long enough to pay them for their services.


----------



## Stann

beautress said:


> You are confused, sir. Abortion has been murder made legal, and many people from science backgrounds know it and do not care for the legalization of murder, considering that serial murderers have been threatening this nation worse than ever before in my lifetime.


If abortion is murder as you say, there have to be victims. Please name the victims. People have names.


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> You're not making any sense. Covid is not related to the abortion issue at all. Please stop talking about it.


You’re denying reality. COVID isn’t the issue. The Government’s mandating that things be done to our bodies IS the issue. Stop evading the point.


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> Your post is off topic. Your earlier post was off topic. And you’re generally wrong here even when you manage to be sort of on topic.
> 
> Back on topic:  if Roe v. Wade was a horrible SCOTUS decision made without regard to the actual Constitution (and it was), then overruling it is good and perfectly proper.


I I am countering that position. I did not compare it to mandates for covid that's ridiculous.


----------



## beautress

Stann said:


> If abortion is murder as you say, there have to be victims. Please name the victims. People have names.


If you think people name the babies they just murdered, honey, you're thinking on moronic levels of human discernment and nobody can pull your brain outta your posterior sphincter.


----------



## BackAgain

Blues Man said:


> No not really but only time will tell


Yes. Really. It was stupid to begin with. The passage of more time isn’t required to demonstrate that your question was and is stupid.


----------



## task0778

Blues Man said:


> Not true because even states that might ban abortion cannot stop any woman from getting one.



The ability to get an abortion somewhere does not translate into the right to have one in the US Constitution.  Which I think is what you were talking about with your reference to the 9th Amendment.  Roe v Wade basically ruled that the right to an abortion is included in the US Constitution; we are apparently going to see that the current SCOTUS is going to overturn that ruling.  Whatever a particular state does has no bearing whatsoever on that.


----------



## Canon Shooter

beautress said:


> Pro-abortion is a euphemism for cowardly pro-bloody murder that is legal because cowards like the term so they can screw, murder their own kid, and screw again, kill the next, and the next, and the next, and the next.
> 
> 'if "pro-life" is the belief that every pregnancy should be carried to term...'You're making too much out of the meaning of "pro-life." It's definition is literally FOR life, and as it is commonly used, it is for the lives of the unborn when discussing abortion, which is a cruel way to end a human being's life.



Okay, so, thank you for not refuting my very valid point.

There is no such thing as "pro-abortion". Literally no one is advocating for that...


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> I I am countering that position. I did not compare it to mandates for covid that's ridiculous.


No. You’re stupid. But that’s obvious. The point you are not countering and cannot counter is that when it suits you, you are all for government substituting it’s judgment on medical matters for our own. But when it doesn’t suit you, you are opposed to it. 

I understand why you rebel against the obvious conclusion that you are a hypocrite. It is a commendable thing to feel embarrassed over your own hypocrisy.


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> No. You’re stupid. But that’s obvious. The point you are not countering and cannot counter is that when it suits you, you are all for government substituting it’s judgment on medical matters for our own. But when it doesn’t suit you, you are opposed to it.
> 
> I understand why you rebel against the obvious conclusion that you are a hypocrite. It is a commendable thing to feel embarrassed over your own hypocrisy.


Why do you believe a woman's right to make that choice that difficult choice is any of your f****** business you are the f****** hypocrite don't you understand that.


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> Your post is off topic. Your earlier post was off topic. And you’re generally wrong here even when you manage to be sort of on topic.
> 
> Back on topic:  if Roe v. Wade was a horrible SCOTUS decision made without regard to the actual Constitution (and it was), then overruling it is good and perfectly proper.


When all this s*** started the supreme Court should have said abortion is a medical procedure and a Private matter and it's none of our business. Ending all abortion laws before they started would have been the right thing to do.


----------



## Couchpotato

Blues Man said:


> Except people right here in this thread are saying that if any state wants to grant rights to a fetus then it should be allowed.
> 
> So it seems to me people are indeed talking about it.


Yeah.   If the state legislatures pass the laws and they are upheld in court then why wouldn't they be valid laws?


----------



## evenflow1969

Foolardi said:


> This is a grave abuse of clerkship.A Scotus law clerk
> LEAKED a Febuary Draft Opinion from our Supreme
> Court.
> This has to be addressed Immediately.Find out who pulled
> this stunt.The last bastion of Protection  is guarding our
> Supreme court.
> OR ... will this Leaker be celebrated as a Honorable
> Whistleblower.
> If this passes muster ... The End of the SCOTUS is
> imminent.


Well first off we don't know who leaked it. Second it's not a done deal yet. I am in a wait and see pattern. At this point it feels like some sort of diversion.  Look over here as I bend you over and use no lube type thing. Something tells me we are about to get screwed over in another way while watching this diversion.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> Why do you believe a woman's right to make that choice that difficult choice is any of your f****** business you are the f****** hypocrite don't you understand that.


Why is it difficult?  If its not a life and just a clump of cells it should be an easy decision one way or another shouldnt it?


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> No. You’re stupid. But that’s obvious. The point you are not countering and cannot counter is that when it suits you, you are all for government substituting it’s judgment on medical matters for our own. But when it doesn’t suit you, you are opposed to it.
> 
> I understand why you rebel against the obvious conclusion that you are a hypocrite. It is a commendable thing to feel embarrassed over your own hypocrisy.


Abortion exists for a reason. People seem to have very little control over their sexual natures thus the Creator entity put many controls in place to try to control the population. We are still over populating the Earth, the last thing we need is any more people on this Earth adding to the problem. If a god existing I believe it does, it would not want us to destroy this world as we are doing.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> When all this s*** started the supreme Court should have said abortion is a medical procedure and a Private matter and it's none of our business. Ending all abortion laws before they started would have been the right thing to do.


you can literally say that about anything.     Are seatbelt laws legal?    Drug use?    Why is the state involved in regulating when people can smoke or drink?   It's a personal choice that effects their body what business is it of the states?


----------



## Stann

evenflow1969 said:


> Well first off we don't know who leaked it. Second it's not a done deal yet. I am in a wait and see pattern. At this point it feels like some sort of diversion.  Look over here as I bend you over and use no lube type thing. Something tells me we are about to get screwed over in another way while watching this diversion.


It was probably meant to test the waters. 70% of Americans still believe a woman's right to choose is the way to go. A minority only 28% believe the opposite. Doing away with roe versus Wade would create tremendous social injustice.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> It's not that simple, physical life begins at conception. Personhood begins at birth. So are you trying to protect all life, or all people. I go with the latter, women need to be protected from atrocitious abortion laws.


So it's the magical trip through the birth canal that grants personhood?


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> It was probably meant to test the waters. 70% of Americans still believe a woman's right to choose is the way to go. A minority only 28% believe the opposite. Doing away with roe versus Wade would create tremendous social injustice.


Only because most people are as stupid as you are and think that the overturning of Roe V Wade will stop a single abortion or that the decision on the court to over turn it has to do with whether the court believes abortions should be legal or not.   Neither of those things is true.


----------



## evenflow1969

Stann said:


> It was probably meant to test the waters. 70% of Americans still believe a woman's right to choose is the way to go. A minority only 28% believe the opposite. Doing away with roe versus Wade would create tremendous social injustice.


I don't know what to think yet. Absolutely nothing is concrete about the whole thing and all eyes are on it. I hope it is just a test the water type thing but can not escape the feeling they want me to look here when I  should be looking the opposite direction


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> you can literally say that about anything.     Are seatbelt laws legal?    Drug use?    Why is the state involved in regulating when people can smoke or drink?   It's a personal choice that effects their body what business is it of the states?


All these things you mentioned protect people. We are talking about abortion and a woman's right to choose. The only comparison I could think of that would make any sense would be if the government said men could only ejaculate with their wives for the expressed purpose of procreation. Banning all other types of sexual release. You see how inappropriate it is.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> If abortion is murder as you say, there have to be victims. Please name the victims. People have names.


So a person without a name cant be murdered?       

If a baby is born and I kill it before the parents name it Im not guilty of murder?    

WTF?


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> Why do you believe a woman's right to make that choice that difficult choice is any of your f****** business you are the f****** hypocrite don't you understand that.


You’re a retard. A woman’s “right” to “choose” to kill an innocent human being doesn’t exist. It is certainly well within my business to decide to try to prevent the murder of *any* person. That’s not hypocrisy, you witless lummox. It’s a statement of fact.

If a woman doesn’t have the “right” of “privacy” in her own home to “choose” to kill a houseguest, then one might well assume (correctly) that the right to privacy and the “right” to choice are not rights superior to the law against murder. The right to life of the houseguest *supersedes* those other alleged rights.

Pretty fucking stupid argument you’re trying so poorly to cobble together there, Stain.


----------



## eagle1462010

Blues Man said:


> Still 1% or less of all abortions occur at or after the 21 week mark


And the law in Mississippi is at 15 weeks.  

So whats the problem then.  Your side is always ahainst the 1%ers


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> All these things you mentioned protect people. We are talking about abortion and a woman's right to choose. The only comparison I could think of that would make any sense would be if the government said men could only ejaculate with their wives for the expressed purpose of procreation. Banning all other types of sexual release. You see how inappropriate it is.


Who do seatbelt laws protect?    Who do drug and smoking laws protect?    I get to CHOOSE right?  My body my choice?   Some shit like that.    You are talking out of your ass.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> If it is overturned, it will be one of the greatest mistakes ever made by the courts. There's only one reason to bring life into this world and that is based on love. There are many reasons not to and that is based on love too. We would be making women sucking class citizens. We would be creating a new generation of super criminals. We would be creating so many new unwanted children by people who could least afford it. This law will be one based on hatred and lack of understanding. Abortion law should be illegal. Abortion is a medical procedure that should be decided between the woman and her doctor ( and her husband or significant other if there is one ) . No one else should be involved in the process, it's a difficult decision and have a other people involved in the process just makes it more complicated and more painful. Christians think they're doing the right thing, they are not. They are simply extending their control over everyone. The law is about power over people not power for people. A fetus is a potential human being it is not an unborn child or a person. Those terms are not real. Those terms are meant to make you feel emotional about the issue and it's worked on 28% of the population . 70% of Americans still believe that women should have control of their own bodies. Roe versus Wade protects all women not just pregnant women it gives them equality under the law.


Excuses.  How much does a rubber cost?  Accountability doesnt exist in your Utopia.  Mississippi its 15 weeks to make up your damn mind.  Whats the problem?


----------



## Stann

beautress said:


> If you think people name the babies they just murdered, honey, you're thinking on moronic levels of human discernment and nobody can pull your brain outta your posterior sphincter.


Are you that much of an idiot, what I'm saying is no fetus that was ever aborted had a name, in essence they did not exist. When people want a child, even before it is born, they often name it. If there is a miscarriage ( god's abortion ) late in the term they may even bury it and give it a grave marker. There is love there.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> Who do seatbelt laws protect?    Who do drug and smoking laws protect?    I get to CHOOSE right?  My body my choice?   Some shit like that.    You are talking out of your ass.


This is off subject I replied to your stupid original comment please stop talking about crap like this it doesn't belong here goodbye


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> All these things you mentioned protect people. We are talking about abortion and a woman's right to choose. The only comparison I could think of that would make any sense would be if the government said men could only ejaculate with their wives for the expressed purpose of procreation. Banning all other types of sexual release. You see how inappropriate it is.


Either abortion is murder or it isnt.  That's what we are talking about.   So if you're contention is that abortion is not murder when does life start?    It has to start at some point and legallly we can just say well it's whenever the woman decides because it has to be the same across the board.     So draw a line in the sand otherwise you're argument is bull shit.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> This is off subject I replied to your stupid original comment please stop talking about crap like this it doesn't belong here goodbye


it's the same thing just because it blows up your stupid choice argument doesn't make it not valid.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> Either abortion is murder or it isnt.  That's what we are talking about.   So if you're contention is that abortion is not murder when does life start?    It has to start at some point and legallly we can just say well it's whenever the woman decides because it has to be the same across the board.     So draw a line in the sand otherwise you're argument is bull shit.


Abortion is not murder, by it never was.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Are you that much of an idiot, what I'm saying is no fetus that was ever aborted had a name, in essence they did not exist. When people want a child, even before it is born, they often name it. If there is a miscarriage ( god's abortion ) late in the term they may even bury it and give it a grave marker. There is love there.


More excuses because you fogot to wrap that rascal.  Excuses for late term abortion.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Abortion is not murder, by it never was.


Will be soon in some states if you do late term


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> Abortion is not murder, by it never was.


Ok so where's the line?  When does a fetus become a life you are willing to defend?  How many weeks?


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Abortion is not murder, by it never was.


Physical life begins at conception. Personhood begins at birth. That's why people have birthdays. Otherwise the whole world would be celebrating conception days  ( which are unknown ). How the hell do you do that ? You don't.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Will be soon in some states if you do late term


Then you'd be criminalizing and murdering a lot of married women that require it to preserve their lives and /or to prevent the birth of a terribly deformed child which are often non-viable anyway.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Then you'd be criminalizing and murdering a lot of married women that require it to preserve their lives and /or to prevent the birth of a terribly deformed child which are often non-viable anyway.


Another Lie.  The law allows for that...rape..incest... To save the mother

You speak with forked tongue


----------



## DarthTrader

https://twitter.com/i/events/1521299416740626434
		


This is just too funny to me. So the supreme court decides to exercise their freedom of choice to abort Roe v. Wade and the pro-choicers shit a brick.

Meanwhile, men can have babies, so it's not an attack on women and we don't even know what a woman is so who cares?


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> Abortion exists for a reason. People seem to have very little control over their sexual natures thus the Creator entity put many controls in place to try to control the population. We are still over populating the Earth, the last thing we need is any more people on this Earth adding to the problem. If a god existing I believe it does, it would not want us to destroy this world as we are doing.


There *are* some circumstances where abortion is sadly necessary. There are (in my estimation) other circumstances where it isn’t a “necessity” strictly speaking, but might nevertheless be “justifiable.”  There are far more cases where it is simply used as contraception which it technically is not. In the majority of cases, it is indefensible.  

Your Malthusian argument is insane.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

DarthTrader said:


> https://twitter.com/i/events/1521299416740626434
> 
> 
> 
> This is just too funny to me. So the supreme court decides to exercise their freedom of choice to abort Roe v. Wade and the pro-choicers shit a brick.
> 
> Meanwhile, men can have babies, so it's not an attack on women and we don't even know what a woman is so who cares?


Didnt several of the judges lie on this very issue in order to get on the court ?

Surely action can be taken to nullify their influence. 

Liars should not make policy.


----------



## DarthTrader

Frankly - I'm pro abortion. The sooner we can discover the gay gene, and the transgender gene, the sooner we can abort those babies selectively.

No law against choosing to abort a deformed baby....yet.

_Argumentum ad Absurdum_

I'm actually against abortion, let the SCOTUS abort Roe v Wade lol


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Another Lie.  The law allows for that...rape..incest... To save the mother
> 
> You speak with forked tongue


I'm sorry,you're mistaken; not all the laws allow for rape or incest either.


----------



## Ringtone

Tommy Tainant said:


> *Didnt several of the judges lie on this very issue in order to get on the court ?*
> 
> Surely action can be taken to nullify their influence.
> 
> Liars should not make policy.


You don't know?

So you just start babbling sans the actual facts?


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> Physical life begins at conception. Personhood begins at birth. That's why people have birthdays. Otherwise the whole world would be celebrating conception days  ( which are unknown ). How the hell do you do that ? You don't.


Ok.  So a baby is delivered at 20 weeks.    If I kill that baby that's murder, but if I punch a woman in the stomach who's 30 weeks pregnant and kill the fetus inside her it's just simple assault against her and not murder?    30 days in jail max?


----------



## LilOlLady

Only the *creator of life* can know when life begins. Not the *Supreme court* or *man's constitution*. How can Christian support abortions?

Luke 1:41
 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary,* the baby leaped in her womb.* And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,

Jeremiah 1:5
“*Before I formed you in the womb I knew yo*u,
and *before you were born I consecrated yo*u;
*I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”*

GOD HELP US
I am a diehard Democrat that will never vote for a pro-choice candidate.


----------



## DarthTrader

Tommy Tainant said:


> Didnt several of the judges lie on this very issue in order to get on the court ?
> 
> Surely action can be taken to nullify their influence.
> 
> Liars should not make policy.


You're learning the hardway that the American elites don't give a fuck. Now sit and be forced to have babies you cow.


----------



## schmidlap

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pretending abortion is gone?


There is no way that the authoritarians can spin the leaked abrogation of established law, supported by the majority of Americans, as other than the repressive revocation of personal liberty and arrogation of freedom by the State in those regressive jurisdictions but, as a practical matter,  women will still control their own bodies. The Statists will just punish them for exercising their freedom.


----------



## LilOlLady

Why are we not talking about *affordable birth contro*l instead of abortion? Worked for me 60 years ago

*16 Types of Birth Control* and Contraception (2021 Guide)
There are more types of birth control than ever. Some forms of contraception are long-lasting; Others are single-use.

Over *63 million abortions *have occurred in the US since Roe v. Wade decision in 1973
America saw more than *1,000,000 abortions each year *between 1975 and 2012

Planned Parenthood* CEO Cecile Richards *has argued that "there's no specific moment when life begins" and that *hers began when her children were born*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

schmidlap said:


> There is no way that the authoritarians can spin the leaked abrogation of established law, supported by the majority of Americans, as other than the repressive revocation of personal liberty and arrogation of freedom by the State in those regressive jurisdictions but, as a practical matter,  women will still control their own bodies. The Statists will just punish them for exercising their freedom.


All I hear from you is gun control. Begone you fascist pig


----------



## TeeDub

Tommy Tainant said:


> Didnt several of the judges lie on this very issue in order to get on the court ?
> 
> Surely action can be taken to nullify their influence.
> 
> Liars should not make policy.


Senile old men shouldn't be President too.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Tommy Tainant said:


> Didnt several of the judges lie on this very issue in order to get on the court ?
> 
> Surely action can be taken to nullify their influence.
> 
> Liars should not make policy.


Spin it to gun control leftists who have done the same exact thing.


----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:


> A lame come back from a tool who can’t say more than “authoritarian” at any given time. Shitlap, you’re a total fail and I enjoy the absolute futility of your infantile posting  efforts.


You are in a tizzy because I accurately characterized the arrogation of personal liberty by the state as _"authoritarian." _
It is unfortunate that the word upsets you, Sunshine.

*authoritarian* [ uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor- ]*: 1) favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom.*










						Definition of authoritarian | Dictionary.com
					

Authoritarian definition, favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority  as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes. See more.




					www.dictionary.com


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> There is no way that the authoritarians can spin the leaked abrogation of established law, supported by the majority of Americans, as other than the repressive revocation of personal liberty and arrogation of freedom by the State in those regressive jurisdictions but, as a practical matter,  women will still control their own bodies. The Statists will just punish them for exercising their freedom.


There's no law.  That's the issue.  The Roe decision wasn't a decision about a law, the court created a law from nothing which is why it's being overturned now and should never have been decided the way it was decided in the first place.      You're bitch is with Congress not USSC.  The only people advocating for authoritarianism are those asking 9 people with lifetime appointments and arent answerable to the electorate to do the job of the Legislature.


----------



## citygator

If abortion is murder why are all you internet warriors sitting around doing nothing while babies are murdered? I know this fuckers….If I thought babies were being murdered I’d be up off my ass saving them. You guys just sit around whining on the internet because you know it isn’t murder.

You just want to control women and fake virtue signal while you’ll be the first person to drive your daughters to LA for an abortion… if you weren’t fat trolls that couldnt get a date. Assholes all of you.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I'm sorry,you're mistaken; not all the laws allow for rape or incest either.


The one here does.  Some states think it is ok to harvest the organs and abort the baby at birth itself.  Imagine that.

Why is it murder of a pregnant woman a double homicide?


----------



## Flash

This ruling doesn't ban abortion, by the way.

It just makes it subject to the will of the majority.

If it is supported so much by the American public (like the stupid Moon Bats claim} then there is nothing to worry about, eh, Moon Bats?


----------



## basquebromance

We need Beto-style grassroots movements in every single swing state in America this year.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Spin it to gun control leftists who have done the same exact thing.


Nope. That is something that you are making up.
On the other hand these judges told ies in order to gain their seats.
A civilisd country cant run on such a basis.


----------



## DarthTrader

It'll be hard for the Supreme Court to say you have a right to an abortion and therefore can't be fired because of it. LOL. It's not like being gay or black....


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> You are in a tizzy because I accurately characterized the arrogation of personal liberty by the state as _"authoritarian." _
> It is unfortunate that the word upsets you, Sunshine.
> 
> *authoritarian* [ uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor- ]*: 1) favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of authoritarian | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Authoritarian definition, favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority  as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com


Wrong again. Being consistently wrong isn’t a good thing, Shitlick. 😂

I’m not in any tizzy. Shitstains like you don’t provide cause for any strong emotional reaction. You only warrant sufficient caution not to step in a pile of you. 

And your reliance on a word doesn’t mean you are capable of using it correctly. Obviously.


----------



## BackAgain

Tommy Tainant said:


> Didnt several of the judges lie on this very issue in order to get on the court ?
> 
> Surely action can be taken to nullify their influence.
> 
> Liars should not make policy.


The imbecile claim that they “lied” is baseless and dishonest liberal bullshit.


----------



## elektra

Gays, trangendered, and democrats with a bunch in the center to include the RINOs. 

Abort them all, they should not suffer this life they hate and complain against.


----------



## basquebromance

My 12 yo son was sitting on the couch & crying. When I asked why, he said, “What’s happened to our country?” And told me he feels powerless. I was not prepared for that


----------



## Couchpotato

citygator said:


> If abortion is murder why are all you internet warriors sitting around doing nothing while babies are murdered? I know this fuckers….If I thought babies were being murdered I’d be up off my ass saving them. You guys just sit around whining on the internet because you know it isn’t murder.
> 
> You just want to control women and fake virtue signal while you’ll be the first person to drive your daughters to LA for an abortion… if you weren’t fat trolls that couldnt get a date. Assholes all of you.


Because people generally believe in the rule of law and fighting within the bounds of the law to change it.   What exactly should people do to stop abortions other than fight to change the law?      

Do you believe slavery is wrong?     There are more slaves in the world today than at any other time in history, why arent you getting off your ass to stop it?


----------



## Couchpotato

basquebromance said:


> We need Beto-style grassroots movements in every single swing state in America this year.


LOL  Beto O'Rourke the failed politician?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

BackAgain said:


> The imbecile claim that they “lied” is baseless and dishonest liberal bullshit.


Nope. settled law. Not so settled it seems.


----------



## Couchpotato

Tommy Tainant said:


> Nope. settled law. Not so settled it seems.


Which LAW passed by any legislature did Roe V Wade uphold.   I'll wait.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Tommy Tainant said:


> Nope. settled law. Not so settled it seems.



No law is ever settled and that includes SCOTUS decisions of the past that gets overturned later.


----------



## White 6

basquebromance said:


> My 12 yo son was sitting on the couch & crying. When I asked why, he said, “What’s happened to our country?” And told me he feels powerless. I was not prepared for that


He sounds like a lot of 45+ age people, right here on the board.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> It's not that simple, physical life begins at conception. Personhood begins at birth. So are you trying to protect all life, or all people. I go with the latter, women need to be protected from atrocitious abortion laws.


What is an atrocious abortion law? If you want to have an abortion, there is nothing atrocious to saying get it by a certain period. If you want to rid ones self, time wouldn't necessarily matter.
I believe abortions will be available nationwide.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> And then you went off subject.


Then fine me.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Sunsettommy said:


> No law is ever settled and that includes SCOTUS decisions of the past that gets overturned later.


That isnt what the lying judges said.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> You're not making any sense. Covid is not related to the abortion issue at all. Please stop talking about it.


You claimed not being able to control your own body makes you a second class citizen......vax mandates fall under that statement.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> If abortion is murder as you say, there have to be victims. Please name the victims. People have names.


They come by the pound at your friendly local government sponsored planned parenthood center.


----------



## task0778

The thing that gets me the most about the pro-choice people is that they don't give a damn about the unborn.  To them, he/she has no more rights than a pimple on your ass.  And anyone who believes that the unborn or yet to be born should have rights is labeled a kook that should be ignored.  IOW, only their opinion matters.


----------



## Stann

Ringtone said:


> You don't know?
> 
> So you just start babbling sans the actual facts?


The transcripts of their Congressional review are still available. All you have to do is access them, it's not privileged information. It's public information.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> They come by the pound at your friendly local government sponsored planned parenthood center.


You are very sick person, to even be able to think like that.


----------



## basquebromance

White 6 said:


> He sounds like a lot of 45+ age people, right here on the board.


i'll pass it on


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> There's no law.  That's the issue.  The Roe decision wasn't a decision about a law, the court created a law from nothing which is why it's being overturned now and should never have been decided the way it was decided in the first place.      You're bitch is with Congress not USSC.  The only people advocating for authoritarianism are those asking 9 people with lifetime appointments and arent answerable to the electorate to do the job of the Legislature.


Unfortunately several of those nine seem to have got on the court with specific agendas in mind; usually judges with that kind of prejudice stay out of the decision making process. This could be the biggest prejudicial error ever made.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> You are very sick person, to even be able to think like that.


Not thinking that at all, it's fact, why do you think PP is under fire....they offload baby parts for a profit. They claim they don't but there is quite the lucrative market out there for fetal parts. So where does this lucrative market get its dead babies?
I'd say PP is the McDonald's of a source for fetal parts.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> What is an atrocious abortion law? If you want to have an abortion, there is nothing atrocious to saying get it by a certain period. If you want to rid ones self, time wouldn't necessarily matter.
> I believe abortions will be available nationwide.


All abortion laws are atrocious. They have no place in modern society, they are a hangover of moral judgment. Remember most of those moral judgments are based on tribal laws to strengthen the tribe, it has nothing to do with the tribal gods that they worshiped.


----------



## BackAgain

Libtarded Democrap Senator reacting to the draft decision in Dobbs:


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> Not thinking that at all, it's fact, why do you think PP is under fire....they offload baby parts for a profit. They claim they don't but there is quite the lucrative market out there for fetal parts. So where does this lucrative market get its dead babies?
> I'd say PP is the McDonald's of a source for fetal parts.


You obviously believe every lie that's come down the pike about abortion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Tommy Tainant said:


> Nope. That is something that you are making up.
> On the other hand these judges told ies in order to gain their seats.
> A civilisd country cant run on such a basis.


Horseshit you worthless fuck


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> All abortion laws are atrocious. They have no place in modern society, they are a hangover of moral judgment. Remember most of those moral judgments are based on tribal laws to strengthen the tribe, it has nothing to do with the tribal gods that they worshiped.


It sounds like you don't support abortion then.


----------



## BackAgain

Tommy Tainant said:


> Nope. settled law. Not so settled it seems.


“Settled” doesn’t mean impervious to being corrected. I don’t care what they taught you in Wails. (Not a typo.)


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> You obviously believe every lie that's come down the pike about abortion.


So how do research, medical and so on entities obtain fetal body parts then?


----------



## Delldude

BackAgain said:


> Libtarded Democrap Senator reacting to the draft decision in Dobbs:
> 
> View attachment 640439


Where's her vagina suit?


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> Ok.  So a baby is delivered at 20 weeks.    If I kill that baby that's murder, but if I punch a woman in the stomach who's 30 weeks pregnant and kill the fetus inside her it's just simple assault against her and not murder?    30 days in jail max?


Your statement is an error. If a woman successfully delivers a living child at 20 weeks. It is a person at that point. To kill it would be murder. Like all cases of murder that would be decided by the courts. We have no right to make arbitrary decisions about sentences. Each case is always unique that's why the courts come into play.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> So how do research, medical and so on entities obtain fetal body parts then?


When I get blood at the university hospital for testing they ask if they have permission to do research on it. I'm sure the same principle is in play at healthcare centers for women all across the country.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> When I get blood at the university hospital for testing they ask if they have permission to do research on it. I'm sure the same principle is in play at healthcare centers for women all across the country.


That should say when I give blood


----------



## ChemEngineer

SLAX said:


> I'm a WHITE JEWISH GUY here. So I don't know why you keep bringing up Black issues.
> 
> A lot of these babies are better off if they stay in heaven.
> 
> ABORTION IS NOT MURDER -- the fetus is not a fully human being right away.
> 
> We have enough unwanted children on this planet that nobody takes care of. Nobody wants to pay taxes for.
> 
> Children should be planned & wanted.  Let these WOMEN decide what they will do with their bodies.



You're unwanted.  Millions of adults today were born as a result of premarital sex, or unplanned pregnancy of a married woman.  Before this vile evil was promulgated, women had their babies, the father usually married them, and here we are, all normal. 

Then women demanded "freedom" to sleep around like men do, irresponsibly. 
Then women got pregnant as a result of their "freedom" and irresponsibility not to take preventative measures.
Then women demanded the "right" to kill a human being with unique DNA and you can't understand and comprehend that.  

"Before you were conceived in the womb I knew you." - The Holy Bible says that

You should be ashamed of yourself, parroting murderous talking points.

"If  you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the bus?" - Garrison Keillor, talking to pro-abortion evil idiots


----------



## BackAgain

Delldude said:


> Where's her vagina suit?


She had to settle for a pussy cap.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> So in the 3rd trimester it's ok to MURDER THEM OVER MONEY..
> 
> pffft..........by then they are forming......Do they have a soul yet...............do you know.
> 
> How about the women make up their damn mind early on..........And there are plenty of great people who grew up in foster homes .


Does any of what you're saying matter, no.


----------



## Stann

ChemEngineer said:


> You're unwanted.  Millions of adults today were born as a result of premarital sex, or unplanned pregnancy of a married woman.  Before this vile evil was promulgated, women had their babies, the father usually married them, and here we are, all normal.
> 
> Then women demanded "freedom" to sleep around like men do, irresponsibly.
> Then women got pregnant as a result of their "freedom" and irresponsibility not to take preventative measures.
> Then women demanded the "right" to kill a human being with unique DNA and you can't understand and comprehend that.
> 
> "Before you were conceived in the womb I knew you." - The Holy Bible says that
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself, parroting murderous talking points.
> 
> "If  you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the bus?" - Garrison Keillor, talking to pro-abortion evil idiots


There are no pro-abortion people, they are all pro women's right to choose and mind your own f****** business.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> Your statement is an error. If a woman successfully delivers a living child at 20 weeks. It is a person at that point. To kill it would be murder. Like all cases of murder that would be decided by the courts. We have no right to make arbitrary decisions about sentences. Each case is always unique that's why the courts come into play.


Ok so there's some magic that happens when a baby is born that confers personhood on it then?     And no there cant be some subjective standard of what life is and who gets rights or not.    That's a recipe for some Orwellian horror show.       The courts aren't deciding whether the individual who was killed in a murder case had the right to life or not, they are deciding whether their life was taken by the person accused of murder those are 2 vastly different questions.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> When I get blood at the university hospital for testing they ask if they have permission to do research on it. I'm sure the same principle is in play at healthcare centers for women all across the country.


Article from 2012 yet this is what former employee testimony from PP revealed.

Here's how it's done:


> “. . . The research institutes and the abortion clinics have joined with a third party, the fetal tissue wholesaler. The fetal tissue wholesaler pays the abortion clinics a “site fee” to place employees, known as “procurement agents,” who collect various body parts of the aborted fetuses as soon as the abortion process is finished and ship them to various research institutes. By having free access to all the desirable fetal tissue, these agents take the body parts that are requested to various research laboratories and government agencies.
> The wholesaler is technically renting the space to harvest the body parts rather than paying for the tissue itself. The abortionist then “donates” the tissues to the wholesalers. At the other end of the transaction, the wholesaler will “donate” the fetal material to researchers but bill them for the cost of retrieval. Thus the business deal is complete.*“*
Click to expand...

Selling Unborn Babies: the Reality of Fetal Tissue Research - ClinicQuotes


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> Does any of what you're saying matter, no.


But what you’re saying does?  😂🤣


----------



## Flash




----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> Ok so there's some magic that happens when a baby is born that confers personhood on it then?     And no there cant be some subjective standard of what life is and who gets rights or not.    That's a recipe for some Orwellian horror show.       The courts aren't deciding whether the individual who was killed in a murder case had the right to life or not, they are deciding whether their life was taken by the person accused of murder those are 2 vastly different questions.


No magic involved. It's simply a fact, it is no longer a fetus. It has a birthdate, it is a person.


----------



## Stann

Flash said:


> View attachment 640448


One sick puppies opinion. Definitely not the case of the majority of women. Just as most men aren't as miserable as he is.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> No magic involved. It's simply a fact, it is no longer a fetus. It has a birthdate, it is a person.



So define when life begins and come to some compromise with the baby killers.


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> But what you’re saying does?  😂🤣


I'm trying to defend all women from being subjugated by archaic moral thinking. I thought we had gotten away from this garbage, but it's back to haunt the world.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> So define when life begins and come to some compromise with the baby killers.


I've already done that several times, physical life begins at conception there's no doubt about that. What what the opposing side is trying to contend is that it's an " unborn child ". That doesn't exist, never has never will be. And you're dragging this out trying to make yourself look good and make points for your side. I'm sorry it's just getting worse for your side, you'rer emotionally invested in this issue you need to get a life.


----------



## Doc7505

​

Bias has invaded the highest court in America. 
Monday night sparked demonstrations outside America’s highest court, condemnation from Joe Biden and fears that the judiciary has suffered profound damage to its reputation for independence. This leak constitutes an insurrection against our Constitutional Republic. The feckless Karens crying their fears.
"Cultural Maoist Marxism" and associated "political correctness" have come the USA. The "Cultural Maoist Marxist" movement uses traditional Marxist means to reach it's unjust goals which include:
1. Terrorism (political correctness in it's mildest form);
2. Political indoctrination (as, for example, NPR); and,
3. Sustained guerrilla warfare. Perhaps changing our current electoral system to some form of "proportional" electoral representation would, in part, address the aforementioned anomalies.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> I've already done that several times, physical life begins at conception there's no doubt about that. What what the opposing side is trying to contend is that it's an " unborn child ". That doesn't exist, never has never will be. And you're dragging this out trying to make yourself look good and make points for your side. I'm sorry it's just getting worse for your side, you'rer emotionally invested in this issue you need to get a life.


Still it is not legally defined. That is the final answer.


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> I'm trying to defend all women from being subjugated by archaic moral thinking. I thought we had gotten away from this garbage, but it's back to haunt the world.


You’re trying to make the world safe for infanticide. You’re a dope.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> Still it is not legally defined. That is the final answer.


I gave you the scientific definition, that's not going to change no matter what legal maneuvers are made.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> No magic involved. It's simply a fact, it is no longer a fetus. It has a birthdate, it is a person.


LOL.   Ok.   So in your head whether or not a baby is a person is not based on any scientific, or logical reasoning it's just the opinion of the person carrying the baby inside them?


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> You’re trying to make the world safe for infanticide. You’re a dope.


You represent 28% of the population that believes as you do and you're calling me a dope. I'm sorry you've been so badly mislead about abortion.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> I gave you the scientific definition, that's not going to change no matter what legal maneuvers are made.


Science doesn't work under the law......unless it is legally defined.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> LOL.   Ok.   So in your head whether or not a baby is a person is not based on any scientific, or logical reasoning it's just the opinion of the person carrying the baby inside them?


First of all it's not a baby until it's born. Secondly, we are talking about individual women. Women who want to have a child and are pregnant believe they are carrying a baby inside of them. Women who do not want to have a child do not think like that, they cannot. It is not a baby, the correct term fetus allows them to believe that. Abortion is never a procedure that could be taking lightly by any woman. Why on Earth would you want to complicate that decision, it makes no sense.


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> You represent 28% of the population that believes as you do and you're calling me a dope. I'm sorry you've been so badly mislead about abortion.


You are a dope. And I’m not the one misled. You are. You imagine that snuffing out innocent and helpless human life for the sake of convenience is inconsequential. You couldn’t be more wrong.

And your poll driven analysis is of absolutely zero utility. If we took a poll and it showed 69% of those polled believed that Hitler won WWII, that wouldn’t mean that were posting in German.

Some things have nothing to do with polling.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> Science doesn't work under the law......unless it is legally defined.


Okay I'm done talking to you, you're absolutely insane. I will not reply to you anymore, been there done that and it gets completely ridiculous with you goodbye.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> You represent 28% of the population that believes as you do and you're calling me a dope. I'm sorry you've been so badly mislead about abortion.


Remind me what percentage of the population believed the earth was flat in 1200?    What percentage were correct?        What percentage of the population believed slavery was ok in 1200 and what percentage was correct?    What percentage of the population believed abortion should be completely banned in 1970?   Were they right?  

The percentage of people who believe something has nothing to do with whether something is morally and ethically ok or right.  

And if the percentage of people who think abortion should be legal is actually that high why would we need the court to create a law protecting it out of whole cloth vs just having the legislatures pass laws making it legal which is actually how our system is supposed to work?


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> First of all it's not a baby until it's born. Secondly, we are talking about individual women. Women who want to have a child and are pregnant believe they are carrying a baby inside of them. Women who do not want to have a child do not think like that, they cannot. It is not a baby, the correct term fetus allows them to believe that. Abortion is never a procedure that could be taking lightly by any woman. Why on Earth would you want to complicate that decision, it makes no sense.


It’s not a giraffe in the womb. It’s a baby. It isn’t born yet, but it’s still a human baby.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> First of all it's not a baby until it's born. Secondly, we are talking about individual women. Women who want to have a child and are pregnant believe they are carrying a baby inside of them. Women who do not want to have a child do not think like that, they cannot. It is not a baby, the correct term fetus allows them to believe that. Abortion is never a procedure that could be taking lightly by any woman. Why on Earth would you want to complicate that decision, it makes no sense.


right so not based on any scientific or logical reasoning just the opinion of the person who happened to get impregnated.    That's a great way to set legal definitions....


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> You are a dope. And I’m not the one misled. You are. You imagine that sniffing out innocent and helpless human life for the sake of convenience is inconsequential. You couldn’t be more wrong.
> 
> And your poll driven analysis is of absolutely zero utility. If we took a poll and it showed 69% of those polled believed that Hitler won WWII, that wouldn’t mean that were posting in German.
> 
> Some things have nothing to do with polling.


You're about as deluded as Delldude is


----------



## Flash

Stann said:


> One sick puppies opinion. Definitely not the case of the majority of women. Just as most men aren't as miserable as he is.


The reality of these stupid deranged Moon Bat bitches that demand to use the murder of children as a birth control method hurt, doesn't it?

Real women love and cherish children.  Moon Bat bitches kill them so the kids won't be a bother to them.


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> You're about as deluded as Delldude is


No. That would be you who is deluded. Disagreeing with your banal and ignorant claims is a sign of being right. Your abject confusion is duly noted. In fact, it’s inescapable.


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> It’s not a giraffe in the womb. It’s a baby. It isn’t born yet, but it’s still a human baby.


One more time here and then I'm gone. I'm sick of you emotional idiots. In the beginning it is a fertilized egg, then it is a blastula ( germinal stage / first 2werks ), then it becomes an embryo ( embryonic stage / 3-8 weeks ) followed by the development of a fetus ( fetal stage / 9th.week - birth ) At no time is it a child, not even a so-called " unborn child ". That term was developed by religious groups to provoke an emotional response to this issue and it's worked very well on people like you unfortunately.


----------



## Stann

Flash said:


> The reality of these stupid deranged Moon Bat bitches that demand to use the murder of children as a birth control method hurt, doesn't it?
> 
> Real women love and cherish children.  Moon Bat bitches kill them so the kids won't be a bother to them.


Look at what you're calling these people these women you don't even know. So who's the crazy one them or you I think you.


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> One more time here and then I'm gone. I'm sick of you emotional idiots. In the beginning it is a fertilized egg, then it is a blastula ( germinal stage / first 2werks ), then it becomes an embryo ( embryonic stage / 3-8 weeks ) followed by the development of a fetus ( fetal stage / 9th.week - birth ) At no time is it a child, not even a so-called " unborn child ". That term was developed by religious groups to provoke an emotional response to this issue and it's worked very well on people like you unfortunately.


The technical term is fetus until birth. On that point you are correct. Finally. You said something correct. I applaud you. 

But we all know that a fetus *is* a preborn baby. 😎

Now. Don’t go away mad. Just go away. 👍
And don’t forget your lovely parting gift:


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> right so not based on any scientific or logical reasoning just the opinion of the person who happened to get impregnated.    That's a great way to set legal definitions....


As usual you're trying to twist my words I'm sorry you're a total idiot and you don't make sense half the time I take that back you don't make sense most of the time goodbye and good riddance


----------



## Flash

Elizabeth Deutsch - Breyer clerk  - abortion activist, seen below at her wedding with Politico Reporter who broke the story

Why did they delete this? pic.twitter.com/m9Mg6e0Mj8

— Ultra MAGA Poso \uD83C\uDDFA\uD83C\uDDF8??

Will Chamberlain  (@willchamberlain) May 4, 2022



Meet Elizabeth Deutsch. She's currently a law clerk for Justice Breyer.

And, in my humble opinion, she's the most likely person to have leaked the draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs, purporting to overturn Roe v. Wade.

\uD83E\uDDF5 pic.twitter.com/V8mfc5hG2I


Here's where things start to get interesting. Every law student has to write a note - a long legal research paper, usually making a novel argument about the law.

Elizabeth Deutsch wrote hers about reproductive rights and abortion. pic.twitter.com/yXygrzxeer


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> The technical term is fetus until birth. On that point you are correct. Finally. You said something correct. I applaud you.
> 
> But we all know that a fetus *is* a preborn baby.  😎


Wow, you gave me credit for one thing when all of it was correct how very condescending you are and you cleaned a new word " preborn baby " in the process. I'm sorry but it's not as catchy as unborn baby I don't think it's going to go over well. Have a good day I plan on it. Thanks for the laughs.


----------



## BackAgain

Flash said:


> Elizabeth Deutsch - Breyer clerk  - abortion activist, seen below at her wedding with Politico Reporter who broke the story
> 
> Why did they delete this? pic.twitter.com/m9Mg6e0Mj8
> 
> — Ultra MAGA Poso \uD83C\uDDFA\uD83C\uDDF8??
> 
> Will Chamberlain  (@willchamberlain) May 4, 2022
> 
> 
> 
> Meet Elizabeth Deutsch. She's currently a law clerk for Justice Breyer.
> 
> And, in my humble opinion, she's the most likely person to have leaked the draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs, purporting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
> 
> \uD83E\uDDF5 pic.twitter.com/V8mfc5hG2I
> 
> 
> Here's where things start to get interesting. Every law student has to write a note - a long legal research paper, usually making a novel argument about the law.
> 
> Elizabeth Deutsch wrote hers about reproductive rights and abortion. pic.twitter.com/yXygrzxeer


I don’t know if she is the leak or not. But that there does constitute some actual sleuthing.


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> Wow, you gave me credit for one thing when all of it was correct how very condescending you are and you cleaned a new word " preborn baby " in the process. I'm sorry but it's not as catchy as unborn baby I don't think it's going to go over well. Have a good day I plan on it. Thanks for the laughs.


You did get credit where it was due. And you don’t get credit for any of your other nonsense because your nonsense is — nonsense. And I’ve used “preborn baby” before. I don’t think I can claim credit for that term. “Unborn” and “preborn” are pretty much synonymous though. 

I don’t care how it goes over, either way. It’s accurate and that’s plenty good enough for me. I can see how accuracy wounds you.


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> I don’t know if she is the leak or not. But that there does constitute some actual sleuthing.


Speculation at this point, not really worthy of addressing at this time.


----------



## Stann

BackAgain said:


> You did get credit where it was due. And you don’t get credit for any of your other nonsense because your nonsense is — nonsense. And I’ve used “preborn baby” before. I don’t think I can claim credit for that term. “Unborn” and “preborn” are pretty much synonymous though.
> 
> I don’t care how it goes over, either way. It’s accurate and that’s plenty good enough for me. I can see how accuracy wounds you.


Science is the best assessment of our world. Fetus is the scientific term for a developing human in the womb. I stand with science not with science fiction or any other nonsense. No offense meant to science fiction, I enjoy it very much as entertainment.


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> Speculation at this point, not really worthy of addressing at this time.


Then don’t. Nobody needs your input on anything. You aren’t actually significant. 👍


----------



## Flash

Stann said:


> Look at what you're calling these people these women you don't even know. So who's the crazy one them or you I think you.


I personally never knew a Nazi Concentration Camp guard but I know they are scumbags.

Any filthy ass bitch that chooses to use murder as a birth control method rather than love the child they conceived is worthy of ridicule and disrespect.


----------



## citygator

Couchpotato said:


> Because people generally believe in the rule of law and fighting within the bounds of the law to change it.   What exactly should people do to stop abortions other than fight to change the law?
> 
> Do you believe slavery is wrong?     There are more slaves in the world today than at any other time in history, why arent you getting off your ass to stop it?


I don’t think American are killing babies so I’m living with a clear conscious.  If I thought babies were being murdered law be damned.


----------



## beagle9

Clipper said:


> The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.
> 
> And millions of them vote.


Yeah, maybe controlling their own bodies when it comes to dieting, fighting many disorders, dealing with stress, marriage, job's, and everything else pertaining to their own human life, but they weren't ever supposed to commit baby murder in order to somehow deal with their situations in life. It has nothing to do with controlling their bodies, but everything to do with murdering a child. It's really amazing how so many people were brainwashed.


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> Science is the best assessment of our world. Fetus is the scientific term for a developing human in the womb. I stand with science not with science fiction or any other nonsense. No offense meant to science fiction, I enjoy it very much as entertainment.


Fun fact:  The term “preborn” was apparently first used in 1962 which is a good 11 years before Roe v. Wade.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Does any of what you're saying matter, no.


Many agree.  Guess what?  It is in court right now Moonbat.  Mississippi days 15 weeks.

How does it feel that your comments are useless?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Death Angel said:


> Right and wrong depends on gender?  Are all women pro-death?  And how do we know they were men? You're not a trained biologist


You don't need a PhD in human biology to tell the difference between men and women.

You only need to be a Democrat not to.


----------



## Who_Me?

Why not focus on being proactive in preventing unwanted pregnancy?  There are many many forms of birth control available that eliminate the need to even consider an abortion. You don't have to kill the child.


----------



## Stann

Who_Me? said:


> Why not focus on being proactive in preventing unwanted pregnancy?  There are many many forms of birth control available that eliminate the need to even consider an abortion. You don't have to kill the child.


You don't think all these women health centers are trying to promote healthy lifestyles. Of course they are. Education has brought abortion to new lows. Greater funding to women's health centers is needed and will help the situation.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> View attachment 640281


These were obviously smart men who knew the government should stay out of women's bodies.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Many agree.  Guess what?  It is in court right now Moonbat.  Mississippi days 15 weeks.
> 
> How does it feel that your comments are useless?


If you are still alive 20 or 30 years from now when the government  ( having had the power over women's bodies and reproductive Rights already ) does an about face and issues edicts limiting the right of women to have children because of the overpopulation of the world. I am certain I will no longer be alive, I wouldn't want to live in that kind of dystopian world that you helped create.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> As usual you're trying to twist my words I'm sorry you're a total idiot and you don't make sense half the time I take that back you don't make sense most of the time goodbye and good riddance


How am I twisting your words?      You said the fetus has zero rights until it's born and if that child is born is based solely on the person who got impregnated so if and when the baby is ever granted personhood is based solely on the opinion of that person.     Is that not what you are saying?


----------



## Couchpotato

citygator said:


> I don’t think American are killing babies so I’m living with a clear conscious.  If I thought babies were being murdered law be damned.


And what exactly would you do about it?


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> How am I twisting your words?      You said the fetus has zero rights until it's born and if that child is born is based solely on the person who got impregnated so if and when the baby is ever granted personhood is based solely on the opinion of that person.     Is that not what you are saying?


No. The status of a fetus is determined by the mother if she wants a child then it hopefully everything will go well and she will end up with a child if it's a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant then it ends up being aborted hopefully. Legality has nothing to do with it. The law shouldn't be a factor.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> No. The status of a fetus is determined by the mother if she wants a child then it hopefully everything will go well and she will end up with a child if it's a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant then it ends up being aborted hopefully. Legality has nothing to do with it. The law shouldn't be a factor.


So based on the opinion on of the person who got impregnated is what determines whether that child is a person or not.   That's exactly what I said you said.  You want to infer rights or withhold them based on an individual's opinion.


----------



## lantern2814

Clipper said:


> Hey ass wipe, Kavanaugh, Barrett, & Gorusch didn't know that when they were asked that question, shit for brains?
> 
> Now, go apeshit.


Poor little faggot. Having  a meltdown because your shit is getting destroyed by facts. Fuck off asshole. Yet you cheer a light on pedos unqualified affirmative action placement on the court. Continue your tantrum bitch.


----------



## lantern2814

Dragonlady said:


> But women have already started dying because of the Texas laws, and other attempts to make abortion difficult.


Your link to that appears to be broken you lying hack.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> So based on the opinion on of the person who got impregnated is what determines whether that child is a person or not.   That's exactly what I said you said.  You want to infer rights or withhold them based on an individual's opinion.


No again, are you dense. I stated previously that a fetus cannot be considered a child it is what it is. You believe it's a child other people do not they have that right and I don't think the government has a right to control anyone's body or reproductive Rights it's that simple.


----------



## lantern2814

basquebromance said:


> Kavanaugh would not have been confirmed if he'd told the truth about his plans for Roe.
> 
> Gorsuch would not have been confirmed if he'd told the truth about his plans for Roe.
> 
> Barrett would not have been confirmed if she'd told the truth about her plans for Roe.


“Settled law” gets reviewed every time an appeal is heard. Nobody lied you lazy know nothing.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dragonlady said:


> But women have already started dying because of the Texas laws,


The Ministry of Truth has flagged your post as disinformation.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Death Angel said:


> Right and wrong depends on gender?  Are all women pro-death?  And how do we know they were men? You're not a trained biologist



Where did I say "all women are pro-death"? Far leftists perhaps, women oblivious to the men in their party telling them what to do with their own bodies perhaps, but not 'all women.'


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> If you are still alive 20 or 30 years from now when the government  ( having had the power over women's bodies and reproductive Rights already ) does an about face and issues edicts limiting the right of women to have children because of the overpopulation of the world. I am certain I will no longer be alive, I wouldn't want to live in that kind of dystopian world that you helped create.


You after the Virtue Signaling awards again?

Where life begins is the issue.  And 62 million abortions since row versus wade. Abortion was never intended to be the new birth control


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> I don’t think American are killing babies so I’m living with a clear conscious.  If I thought babies were being murdered law be damned.



You aren't living with a clear conscience, you are living without one.


----------



## citygator

Couchpotato said:


> And what exactly would you do about it?


If someone down the street was killing babies?  I’d Marshall the entire neighborhood to go save them. Are you kidding?  Would be easy. 

However, I couldn’t get 2 people to go interfere in a woman’s choice to not let a group of cells mature into a fetus then eventually a baby.  That’s some whacked out shit. 

But… if you think that second situation is murder you’re complicit letting it happen.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> You aren't living with a clear conscience, you are living without one.


Nope. Very clear. There isn’t one baby being murdered in this country legally.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Nope. Very clear. There isn’t one baby being murdered in this country legally.


You must be joking.


----------



## Couchpotato

citygator said:


> If someone down the street was killing babies?  I’d Marshall the entire neighborhood to go save them. Are you kidding?  Would be easy.
> 
> However, I couldn’t get 2 people to go interfere in a woman’s choice to not let a group of cells mature into a fetus then eventually a baby.  That’s some whacked out shit.
> 
> But… if you think that second situation is murder you’re complicit letting it happen.


But it's happening on a national scale and is sanctioned by the government.    So your little stunt would result in nothing but you being arrested and the abortions continuing.   So in other words you'd do nothing of consequence.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> You must be joking.


Nope. Not a single one. Legally murdering babies is illegal.


----------



## Couchpotato

citygator said:


> Nope. Not a single one. Legally murdering babies is illegal.


that sentence makes zero sense.


----------



## citygator

Couchpotato said:


> that sentence makes zero sense.


What makes zero sense is you thinking babies are being murdered. Either you’re sitting on your fat ass about it OR you really don’t believe babies are being murdered.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Nope. Not a single one. Legally murdering babies is illegal.



Tell that to the states of California and New York.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> Tell that to the states of California and New York.


Why?  Is it legal to murder babies there?


----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:


> ... I’m not in any tizzy. Shitstains ...


Stay calm, Buttercup, and try to understand my position.

I trust women as superior to politicians and bureaucrats in exercising control over their own bodies.

Such authoritarian retrogression is antithetical to the progress we have seen in _advanced_ nations (_e.g., Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany) _- but characteristic of _repressive_ ones _(e.g., Iraq, Egypt, El Salvador, Honduras.)_

Progress _has_ been occurring - As of February 2022, 65 countries had legalized or decriminalized abortion on request. I am aware of none where women's rights have been arrogated by the State in recent years, but if you can cite any, I would be most appreciative.


----------



## XponentialChaos

I wonder how many protesters out there didn’t bother to vote in 2016.   

Idiots.


----------



## eagle1462010

citygator said:


> Nope. Very clear. There isn’t one baby being murdered in this country legally.


Partial birth abortion is barbarism.  And it happens in blue lunatic areas.  But these same areas will decide their states fate.  Pass their own lunatic laws.  

And we in the Red States will tell you to go to hell.  Not happening here.


----------



## eagle1462010

XponentialChaos said:


> I wonder how many protesters out there didn’t bother to vote in 2016.
> 
> Idiots.


Elections have consequences.  Awe.  You though Hillary had it locked in.  Poor poor Smeagle


----------



## Couchpotato

citygator said:


> What makes zero sense is you thinking babies are being murdered. Either you’re sitting on your fat ass about it OR you really don’t believe babies are being murdered.


Ok internet tough guy


----------



## XponentialChaos

eagle1462010 said:


> Elections have consequences.  Awe.  You though Hillary had it locked in.  Poor poor Smeagle


Yup, elections definitely have consequences. Doesn’t impact me. I’m a guy and I’m in a blue state. 

But there are people who will be impacted, who care deeply about this, and who didn’t bother to vote. I hope they learned their lesson.


----------



## eagle1462010

XponentialChaos said:


> Yup, elections definitely have consequences. Doesn’t impact me. I’m a guy and I’m in a blue state.
> 
> But there are people who will be impacted, who care deeply about this, and who didn’t bother to vote. I hope they learned their lesson.


Well given how the polls over Covid and inflation ate going you needed something to get the zombies of the left all raving mad again.  

Inflation will fat outweigh this.  Remind them of Covid and teaching BS will over come this.


----------



## XponentialChaos

eagle1462010 said:


> Well given how the polls over Covid and inflation ate going you needed something to get the zombies of the left all raving mad again.
> 
> Inflation will fat outweigh this.  Remind them of Covid and teaching BS will over come this.


This will likely help our chances but it’s hard to say how things will look next election. I still expect to lose the House and keep the Senate but who knows.


----------



## eagle1462010

XponentialChaos said:


> This will likely help our chances but it’s hard to say how things will look next election. I still expect to lose the House and keep the Senate but who knows.


Lot of time til then.  Sure new scheduled surprises coming.


----------



## XponentialChaos

eagle1462010 said:


> Lot of time til then.  Sure new scheduled surprises coming.


Yup.


----------



## lantern2814

schmidlap said:


> Some extremist crackpots try to claim that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a _"human being,"_ and demand that their politicians seize control of wombs wherever one exists. Most decent American oppose such fanaticism.
> 
> Were freedom-loving Republicans like Murkowski and Collins lied to under oath by Goresuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett before they trashed the conservative judicial principle of _stare decisis_, respect for settled law?


Another know nothing parrot who doesn't realize that “settled law” gets re-examined upon every new case. Funny you aren’t crying about Brown vs Board of Education overturning “settled law”. Or the Dred Scott decision. Nobody got lied to dumbfuck.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Why?  Is it legal to murder babies there?


In California, abortion is legal up until the 23rd week of pregnancy. That is EXTREMELY late 2nd trimester. At that point, the definitions and physical characteristics of the unborn child make it difficult not to recognize them apart from an actual human baby. 









						Definition of Feticide | Criminal Attorney in Los Angeles, CA
					

Read the definition of "Feticide" in our Los Angeles criminal defense legal dictionary. Stephen G. Rodriguez & Partners can protect your rights - call for a case review!



					www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com
				




As for New York, it's already legal.  






						Bill Search and Legislative Information | New York State Assembly
					

News and Information from the New York State Assembly



					www.assembly.state.ny.us
				






			Reproductive health act passed in New York - Google Search


----------



## Couchpotato

XponentialChaos said:


> This will likely help our chances but it’s hard to say how things will look next election. I still expect to lose the House and keep the Senate but who knows.


Why would you want the SCOTUS to decide this?    Why would you want the US Congress to decide this?    What jurisdiction would the Federal Government have on this issue anyway?    This is clearly an issue that should be debated and decided on by the individual state legislatures.


----------



## lantern2814

Blues Man said:


> You should read the posts of people who think a fetus should have the same compliment of Constitutional rights you do


You should get an education. Nobody is banning interstate travel you hyperventilating nimrod. So you’re okay with a woman abusing drugs and alcohol during a pregnancy. That damages another person.


----------



## Clipper

lantern2814 said:


> Poor little faggot. Having  a meltdown because your shit is getting destroyed by facts. Fuck off asshole. Yet you cheer a light on pedos unqualified affirmative action placement on the court. Continue your tantrum bitch.


Rght on cue, triggered. 

Anything to add without being hysterical, drama queen?

No?

That's what I figured.


----------



## lantern2814

Clipper said:


> Rght on cue, triggered.
> 
> Anything to add without being hysterical, drama queen?
> 
> No?
> 
> That's what I figured.


You’re the hysterical one who’s throwing a tantrum here faggot. Poor triggered asshole. Killing of children isn’t  right and you’re whining about it. Now tell your boyfriend you need comforting.


----------



## Who_Me?

“You have the freedom to believe what you wish, I’ll sort things out later”.  — GOD


----------



## dudmuck

citygator said:


> Why?  Is it legal to murder babies there?


----------



## schmidlap

lantern2814 said:


> Another know nothing parrot who doesn't realize that “settled law” gets re-examined upon every new case. Funny you aren’t crying about Brown vs Board of Education overturning “settled law”. Or the Dred Scott decision. Nobody got lied to dumbfuck.


The repressive states will still have a difficult time depriving women of the freedom they have enjoyed for fifty years.

Over half of abortions in the U.S. is now by medication,  approved for use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, and additional research shows provision beyond 10 weeks is safe and effective, Some providers administer medication abortion “off label” after that point in pregnancy.

Rather than requiring that they flee to advanced states where their freedom to safely control their own bodies is respected, regressive regimes will have to interdict the mails, and delivery by alternate methods is still likely.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dudmuck said:


>


Nonsense.
This assumes the only way to care about babies is to make sure they and their mother have a bunch of free stuff.
Sure, it makes sense to a welfare-state liberal, but in the real world, not so much.


----------



## M14 Shooter

schmidlap said:


> The repressive states will still have a difficult time depriving women of the freedom they have enjoyed for fifty years.


What freedom?
_Roe _gives the state the power to limit, restrict, regulate and in some instances ban abortions.


schmidlap said:


> Rather than requiring that they flee to advanced states where their freedom to safely control their own bodies...


It mght very well be that red states pass laws that drive liberals out.
I am sure those states won't mind.


----------



## citygator

eagle1462010 said:


> Partial birth abortion is barbarism.  And it happens in blue lunatic areas.  But these same areas will decide their states fate.  Pass their own lunatic laws.
> 
> And we in the Red States will tell you to go to hell.  Not happening here.



Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US. Typically, these procedures cost well over $1,000, excluding the cost of travel and lost wages. They normally require treatment over multiple days, and are only performed by a subset of all abortion providers.
Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.
_Roe v. Wade _made the concept of viability critical to the regulation of abortion, particularly when it comes to abortions later in pregnancy. Viability is not set at a specific date in the pregnancy, rather multiple factors play into the determination of viability, including gestational age, fetal weight and sex, and medical interventions available.


----------



## Couchpotato

citygator said:


> Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US. Typically, these procedures cost well over $1,000, excluding the cost of travel and lost wages. They normally require treatment over multiple days, and are only performed by a subset of all abortion providers.
> Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.
> _Roe v. Wade _made the concept of viability critical to the regulation of abortion, particularly when it comes to abortions later in pregnancy. Viability is not set at a specific date in the pregnancy, rather multiple factors play into the determination of viability, including gestational age, fetal weight and sex, and medical interventions available.


Ok then where is the line?  How many weeks before it's considered murder.  I keep asking this and keep getting deflections.    Put a stake in the ground.


----------



## Couchpotato

dudmuck said:


>


Yes if the tax payer isnt willing to pay for the birth and raising of your child they have no right to tell you cant kill it.


----------



## Viktor

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


This is a victory for democracy. Now the voters in the individual states get to decide if they want abortions inside their borders.  The Constitution gives the Federal govt no authority over medical matters. Under the 10th amendment, that means that power rests with the states and with the people. I am shocked that the Democrats in Congress took an oath to defend the Const and now they have abandoned it.


----------



## dudmuck

M14 Shooter said:


> Nonsense.
> This assumes the only way to care about babies is to make sure they and their mother have a bunch of free stuff.
> Sure, it makes sense to a welfare-state liberal, but in the real world, not so much.


yep...









						US Ranks Worst in Maternal Care, Mortality Compared With 10 Other Developed Nations
					

Among 11 developed countries, the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate, a relative undersupply of maternity care providers, and is the only country not to guarantee access to provider home visits or paid parental leave in the postpartum period, a recent report from The...



					www.ajmc.com
				




any you want to make it worse, dont ya?


----------



## bodecea

dudmuck said:


>


This.


----------



## gipper

Is there a better way to mobilize and energize the left prior to the midterm elections, than overturning Roe v Wade?


----------



## TemplarKormac

schmidlap said:


> I trust women as superior to politicians and bureaucrats in exercising control over their own bodies.



Does that, or did that trust extend to pregnant women refusing to get a covid vaccine?


----------



## citygator

Couchpotato said:


> Ok then where is the line?  How many weeks before it's considered murder.  I keep asking this and keep getting deflections.    Put a stake in the ground.


Seems fine to me.


----------



## bodecea

M14 Shooter said:


> Nonsense.
> This assumes the only way to care about babies is to make sure they and their mother have a bunch of free stuff.
> Sure, it makes sense to a welfare-state liberal, but in the real world, not so much.


Male.....


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.


That is in stark contrast to the Democratic platform of "Abortion on Demand." No longer do they want it "safe, legal, and _rare._"


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Seems fine to me.
> 
> View attachment 640526


The flaw of your argument:

It isn't the rarity, it's the legality.


----------



## Couchpotato

citygator said:


> Seems fine to me.
> 
> View attachment 640526


This doesn't establish a line where the fetus is considered a life and therefore when abortion is considered murder.    Quit being a pussy and say X week is when it's a life.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> That is in stark contrast to the Democratic platform of "Abortion on Demand." No longer do they want it "safe, legal, and _rare._"


Link?


----------



## Couchpotato

bodecea said:


> Male.....View attachment 640527


Men shouldn't be allowed to abort babies either.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Link?











						Abortion On Demand - National Abortion Federation
					






					prochoice.org
				











						Abortion on Demand - Easy, fast & accessible online medication abortion
					

Abortion On Demand will get you abortion pills quickly and conveniently, via easy telehealth consults with experienced practitioners.




					abortionondemand.org
				




Anything else?


----------



## TemplarKormac

When you use the words "on demand" it is only natural to assume that also includes abortions that aren't medically necessary and can happen at any point in the preganancy.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> Abortion On Demand - National Abortion Federation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prochoice.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion on Demand - Easy, fast & accessible online medication abortion
> 
> 
> Abortion On Demand will get you abortion pills quickly and conveniently, via easy telehealth consults with experienced practitioners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abortionondemand.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything else?


Yea. This is a link. The democratic platform you moron. 






__





						ACHIEVING UNIVERSAL, AFFORDABLE, QUALITY HEALTH CARE - Democrats
					






					democrats.org
				




Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice​Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion. We will repeal the Title X domestic gag rule and restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides vital preventive and reproductive health care for millions of people, especially low-income people, and people of color, and LGBTQ+ people, including in underserved areas.

Democrats oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights. We will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and protect and codify the right to reproductive freedom. We condemn acts of violence, harassment, and intimidation of reproductive health providers, patients, and staff. We will address the discrimination and barriers that inhibit meaningful access to reproductive health care services, including those based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, income, disability, geography, and other factors. Democrats oppose restrictions on medication abortion care that are inconsistent with the most recent medical and scientific evidence and that do not protect public health.

We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care; medically accurate, LGBTQ+ inclusive, age-appropriate sex education; and the full range of family planning services are all essential to ensuring that people can decide if, when, and how to start a family. We are proud to be the party of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination in health care on the basis of sex and requires insurers to cover prescription contraceptives at no cost. These efforts have significantly reduced teen and unintended pregnancies by making it easier to decide whether, when, and how to have a child.

We believe that a person’s health should always come first. Democrats will protect the rights of all people to make personal health care decisions, and will reject the Trump Administration’s use of broad exemptions to allow medical providers, employers, and others to discriminate.


----------



## schmidlap

M14 Shooter said:


> What freedom?
> _Roe _gives the state the power to limit, restrict, regulate and in some instances ban abortions.
> 
> It mght very well be that red states pass laws that drive liberals out.
> I am sure those states won't mind.


Advanced nations favor an individual's freedom, especially to control her own body.

Regressive nations arrogate an individual's freedoms to the State, and politicians, entirely ignorant of her circumstances, dictate to her.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Yea. This is a link. The democratic platform you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACHIEVING UNIVERSAL, AFFORDABLE, QUALITY HEALTH CARE - Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> democrats.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice​Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion. We will repeal the Title X domestic gag rule and restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides vital preventive and reproductive health care for millions of people, especially low-income people, and people of color, and LGBTQ+ people, including in underserved areas.
> 
> Democrats oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights. We will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and protect and codify the right to reproductive freedom. We condemn acts of violence, harassment, and intimidation of reproductive health providers, patients, and staff. We will address the discrimination and barriers that inhibit meaningful access to reproductive health care services, including those based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, income, disability, geography, and other factors. Democrats oppose restrictions on medication abortion care that are inconsistent with the most recent medical and scientific evidence and that do not protect public health.
> 
> We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care; medically accurate, LGBTQ+ inclusive, age-appropriate sex education; and the full range of family planning services are all essential to ensuring that people can decide if, when, and how to start a family. We are proud to be the party of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination in health care on the basis of sex and requires insurers to cover prescription contraceptives at no cost. These efforts have significantly reduced teen and unintended pregnancies by making it easier to decide whether, when, and how to have a child.
> 
> We believe that a person’s health should always come first. Democrats will protect the rights of all people to make personal health care decisions, and will reject the Trump Administration’s use of broad exemptions to allow medical providers, employers, and others to discriminate.



Gee, the National Abortion Federation consists of, you guessed it, Democrats. The DNC wouldn't make any pro-abortion without first seeking guidance from people like this, or NARAL. Or any percieved experts on abortion, who would potentially support abortion on demand.


----------



## TemplarKormac

schmidlap said:


> Advanced nations favor an individual's freedom, especially to control her own body.
> 
> Regressive nations arrogate an individual's freedoms to the State, and politicians, entirely ignorant of her circumstances, dictate to her.



Regressive:

A nation dictating for two years to women the choice of injecting a vaccine into their bodies, essentially robbing them of their bodily autonomy. 

Guess who? The US. Every western nation (or 'advanced' nation).

So, how do you address this double standard?


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> Gee, the National Abortion Federation consists of, you guessed it, Democrats. The DNC wouldn't make any position on abortion without first seeking guidance from people like this, or NARAL. Or any percieved experts on abortion, who would potentially support abortion on demand.


Yet there is the platform in black and white.


----------



## schmidlap

TemplarKormac said:


> Regressive:
> 
> A nation dictating for two years to women the choice of injecting a vaccine into their bodies, essentially robbing them of their bodily autonomy.
> 
> Guess who? The US. Every western nation (or 'advanced' nation).
> 
> So, how do you address this double standard?


If you need to pretend that, as a public health measure, vaccination against a deadly pandemic that offers a degree of protection for others, especially the most vulnerable, is comparable to depriving a citizen of personal freedom she has enjoyed for half a century, you will contrives such an absurd correspondence, I guess.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Actually abortion laws need to come to an end. The truth is there a medical decision and procedure that should only be decided by those involved the woman her doctor and significant other or husband if there is one. The courts have just complicated our lives in trying to interfere with them and control them. That is not their place. There is no criminal intent or activity here.



Well, how nice for you that you're going to finally get a chance to hold votes on doing exactly that.

You're welcome, and good luck with that.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Yet there is the platform in black and white.



Which was advised by groups like the National Abortion Federation. 

Why then, does the behavior of Democrats belie the position taken in that platform? Because none of them believe in the safety, legality, or rarity of abortion. 









						House Democrats Pass Extreme, Un-American Abortion Bill
					

The fact is, the measures in the Democrats' abortion-on-demand legislation are extreme, even for Americans who identify as "pro-choice."




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Regressive:
> 
> A nation dictating for two years to women the choice of injecting a vaccine into their bodies, essentially robbing them of their bodily autonomy.
> 
> Guess who? The US. Every western nation (or 'advanced' nation).
> 
> So, how do you address this double standard?



These are the same people who don't think a woman should have enough control over her own body to decide who she does and doesn't want to get naked in front of in the locker room.

They address this double standard the way they address all of their double standards:  "I want it, and you're bad for not giving it to me!!  Wanting it makes it right!!!"


----------



## Clipper

lantern2814 said:


> You’re the hysterical one who’s throwing a tantrum here faggot. Poor triggered asshole. Killing of children isn’t  right and you’re whining about it. Now tell your boyfriend you need comforting.


Nothing even remotely sane to add, mouth breather?

Just drivel?

Nothing new here.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> Which was advised by groups like the National Abortion Federation.
> 
> Why then, does the behavior of Democrats belie the position taken in that platform? Because none of them believe in the safety, legality, or rarity of abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> House Democrats Pass Extreme, Un-American Abortion Bill
> 
> 
> The fact is, the measures in the Democrats' abortion-on-demand legislation are extreme, even for Americans who identify as "pro-choice."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com


Mischaracterization. No surprise there. 









						The New Republic: “Newsweek” Has Turned into   “A Zombie Magazine”
					

Alex Shephard writes in the latest issue of The New Republic that something odd has happened to Newsweek. It has become an outlet for rightwing advocacy. The Newsweek story has been covered by many…




					dianeravitch.net
				




Alex Shephard writes in the latest issue of _The New Republic_ that something odd has happened to _Newsweek._ It has become an outlet for rightwing advocacy. The _Newsweek_ story has been covered by many media outlets over the past several years, but I had not seen those stories and had no idea about what happened to this once iconic magazine.

For half a century, _Newsweek_ was owned by the _Washington Post _and was a well-respected voice in American journalism. In 2010, the _Post_ sold _Newsweek_to 91-year-old businessman Sidney Harman; Harman bought it for $1 and assumption of its liabilities. Ownership turned over a few more times, from Harman to Barry Diller. Diller regretted his purchase and sold _Newsweek_ in 2014 to a group called International Business Times Media. IBTM changed its name to Newsweek Media Group. Its owners were tied to a small Christian college (Olivet University) led by a charismatic Korean pastor, David Jang. Jang also was founder of a cult called “The Community,” according to this report in Mother Jones.

In 2018, the offices of _Newsweek_ were raided by federal agents investigating a money-laundering operation between the publication, the cult, and the college.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> They address this double standard the way they address all of their double standards: "I want it, and you're bad for not giving it to me!! Wanting it makes it right!!!"


I get it. But call me naive for wanting a truthful answer for once.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Mischaracterization. No surprise there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Republic: “Newsweek” Has Turned into   “A Zombie Magazine”
> 
> 
> Alex Shephard writes in the latest issue of The New Republic that something odd has happened to Newsweek. It has become an outlet for rightwing advocacy. The Newsweek story has been covered by many…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dianeravitch.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex Shephard writes in the latest issue of _The New Republic_ that something odd has happened to _Newsweek._ It has become an outlet for rightwing advocacy. The _Newsweek_ story has been covered by many media outlets over the past several years, but I had not seen those stories and had no idea about what happened to this once iconic magazine.
> 
> For half a century, _Newsweek_ was owned by the _Washington Post _and was a well-respected voice in American journalism. In 2010, the _Post_ sold _Newsweek_to 91-year-old businessman Sidney Harman; Harman bought it for $1 and assumption of its liabilities. Ownership turned over a few more times, from Harman to Barry Diller. Diller regretted his purchase and sold _Newsweek_ in 2014 to a group called International Business Times Media. IBTM changed its name to Newsweek Media Group. Its owners were tied to a small Christian college (Olivet University) led by a charismatic Korean pastor, David Jang. Jang also was founder of a cult called “The Community,” according to this report in Mother Jones.
> 
> In 2018, the offices of _Newsweek_ were raided by federal agents investigating a money-laundering operation between the publication, the cult, and the college.


Deflection. Attacking the source, not the behavior being addressed by the source.

So, where's your point?

Notice how I didn't attack that image of yours from Mother Jones earlier. So the least you can do is provide me with the same dignity. 

Or admit you have no cogent point.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Alex Shephard writes in the latest issue of _The New Republic_ that something odd has happened to _Newsweek._ It has become an outlet for rightwing advocacy.


But since you're attacking my link for being from a right-wing advocacy site, I will note that Mother Jones is the leftist equivalent.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> Deflection. Attacking the source, not the behavior being addressed by the source.
> 
> So, where's your point?
> 
> Notice how I didn't attack that image of yours from Mother Jones earlier. So the least you can do is provide me with the same dignity.
> 
> Or admit you have no cogent point.


Second paragraph of the bill:

(2) Since 1973, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, and to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care professional, for the preservation of the life or health of the person who is pregnant.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> It's not that simple, physical life begins at conception. Personhood begins at birth. So are you trying to protect all life, or all people. I go with the latter, women need to be protected from atrocitious abortion laws.



You know what "it's not that simple" usually means?  It means, "It IS that simple, but I really want to justify doing what I want."

And what is this "personhood" thing you want us to simply accept trumps life?  Is "personhood" a scientific term?  Which discipline can you find that definition in?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> If abortion is murder as you say, there have to be victims. Please name the victims. People have names.



Oh, okay, so now humanity is defined by having a name?  So when that baby is born, does that personhood magically convey when the birth certificate is filled out, or when it's filed with Vital Statistics?  Or is it just when the parents agree on what the name's going to be?  What happens if the parents just can't decide?


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Second paragraph of the bill:
> 
> (2) Since 1973, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, and to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care professional, for the preservation of the life or health of the person who is pregnant.



Yeah, and?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Why do you believe a woman's right to make that choice that difficult choice is any of your f****** business you are the f****** hypocrite don't you understand that.



And why is that choice difficult?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> When all this s*** started the supreme Court should have said abortion is a medical procedure and a Private matter and it's none of our business. Ending all abortion laws before they started would have been the right thing to do.



Do you actually think "medical procedure" puts something beyond government regulation?    

The left could have tried to "end all abortion laws", but they went with, "We'll get the court to just make everyone do what we want!" instead.  Why do you suppose that was?


----------



## bodecea

TemplarKormac said:


> That is in stark contrast to the Democratic platform of "Abortion on Demand." No longer do they want it "safe, legal, and _rare._"


What part of "CHOICE" don't you get?


----------



## bodecea

TemplarKormac said:


> The flaw of your argument:
> 
> It isn't the rarity, it's the legality.


You don't want women to have the CHOICE to con-trol their own bodies.   
You want them to be 2nd class citizens legally.


----------



## beagle9

Viktor said:


> This is a victory for democracy. Now the voters in the individual states get to decide if they want abortions inside their borders.  The Constitution gives the Federal govt no authority over medical matters. Under the 10th amendment, that means that power rests with the states and with the people. I am shocked that the Democrats in Congress took an oath to defend the Const and now they have abandoned it.


They've been long ago abandoned it when they went crazy.


----------



## bodecea

Couchpotato said:


> Men shouldn't be allowed to abort babies either.


Vasectomies can be temporary.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Abortion exists for a reason. People seem to have very little control over their sexual natures thus the Creator entity put many controls in place to try to control the population. We are still over populating the Earth, the last thing we need is any more people on this Earth adding to the problem. If a god existing I believe it does, it would not want us to destroy this world as we are doing.



You realize you just defined the reason we have every law on the books that prohibits behavior, not the reason we shouldn't have laws that you seem to think you did, right?


----------



## bodecea

Clipper said:


> Nothing even remotely sane to add, mouth breather?
> 
> Just drivel?
> 
> Nothing new here.


Exactly.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> It was probably meant to test the waters. 70% of Americans still believe a woman's right to choose is the way to go. A minority only 28% believe the opposite. Doing away with roe versus Wade would create tremendous social injustice.



"My agenda is correct, because I'm SUUUUURE that everyone else agrees with me!!!  So we HAVE to make sure there are never any votes about it!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Couchpotato said:


> So it's the magical trip through the birth canal that grants personhood?



Apparently, it's the magical trip to the Vital Statistics Bureau to file the birth certificate, judging by his claim that unborn babies aren't people because they don't have names.


----------



## beagle9

gipper said:


> Is there a better way to mobilize and energize the left prior to the midterm elections, than overturning Roe v Wade?


Ha ha, it only digs their losing to a far greater level than before, because the people are breaking the brainwashing chains that they've found themselves bound by finally. The left is losing it's grip, and losing it's mind all at the same time.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> All these things you mentioned protect people. We are talking about abortion and a woman's right to choose. The only comparison I could think of that would make any sense would be if the government said men could only ejaculate with their wives for the expressed purpose of procreation. Banning all other types of sexual release. You see how inappropriate it is.



"Those things protect people, and this doesn't, because I have decided that babies aren't people, and that makes it truuuuueee!!"

Honestly, what IS it with you pro-aborts and your complete inability to argue your position, instead of just declaring it fact and demanding that everyone else accept it?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Couchpotato said:


> So a person without a name cant be murdered?
> 
> If a baby is born and I kill it before the parents name it Im not guilty of murder?
> 
> WTF?



I definitely want an actual timeline from him on when, precisely, the magic of personhood happens.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Both legally and scientifically, Roe was and is flawed.



			Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception


----------



## gipper

beagle9 said:


> Ha ha, it only digs their losing to a far greater level than before, because the people are breaking the brainwashing chains that they've found themselves bound by finally. The left is losing it's grip, and losing it's mind all at the same time.


Which makes it dangerous.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Second paragraph of the bill:
> 
> (2) Since 1973, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, and to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care professional, for the preservation of the life or health of the person who is pregnant.











						On Abortion Rights, 2020 Democrats Move Past ‘Safe, Legal and Rare’ (Published 2019)
					

The Democratic presidential candidates don’t want to simply defend abortion rights. They want to go on offense.




					www.nytimes.com
				




Moving on.


----------



## beagle9

1st they won't define a woman (don't know what that is), but then out of convenience they clarify a "WOMAN", but only when they want to claim their right to abortion as a choice, and I mean even without the woman having to show knowledge in regards to or in concerns of a tragic hell like procedure when wanting to just exercise this so called choice or right in which ends the life of a separate human fetus/baby within their body, otherwise that is growing in the womb, and worse without regard to the potential of that human being if were to be brought to full term as the baby should be.


----------



## Couchpotato

bodecea said:


> Vasectomies can be temporary.


When they start making women get their tubes tied you'll have a point.


----------



## bodecea

TemplarKormac said:


> Both legally and scientifically, Roe was and is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception


So start child support from then.   Make sure that embryo has a SSN number ASAP.  Count them as a second person in the car pool lane.   Count them on the census.


----------



## Couchpotato

Cecilie1200 said:


> I definitely want an actual timeline from him on when, precisely, the magic of personhood happens.


None of them will put a stake in the ground as to when exactly a fetus get's their right to life.     I think they realize the obvious question if they do.   What's different from X week and X week minus 1 day?


----------



## bodecea

Couchpotato said:


> When they start making women get their tubes tied you'll have a point.


Tubes tied isn't temporary.   But you bring up a point....there surely is another way to force men to keep their pants zipped and not waste those LIVING sperm.


----------



## Couchpotato

bodecea said:


> So start child support from then.   Make sure that embryo has a SSN number ASAP.  Count them as a second person in the car pool lane.   Count them on the census.


Ok.  If we do these things can we stop murdering unborn babies?


----------



## Couchpotato

bodecea said:


> Tubes tied isn't temporary.   But you bring up a point....there surely is another way to force men to keep their pants zipped and not waste those LIVING sperm.


Sure it is.  You can reverse tubal ligation.









						What Is Tubal Ligation Reversal?
					

WebMD explains tubal ligation reversal.




					www.webmd.com
				




I would recommend a simple google search before you talk out of your ass. 

Try again.


----------



## beagle9

gipper said:


> Which makes it dangerous.


No pain, no gain right ? This country wasn't won by two sides getting together to hash things out over tea and crumpets. Passionate beliefs will be defended always, but the only crux is that the beliefs had best be right, because God won't stand up for wrong. Never has, and never will. He stands up for sinner's because he has given them the choice to redeem themselves through salvation and repentance, so he doesn't stand for them to continue in sin, but that they are willing to change for the better, and therefore move forward from sin otherwise leaving it in the dust bins of time.


----------



## eagle1462010

citygator said:


> Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US. Typically, these procedures cost well over $1,000, excluding the cost of travel and lost wages. They normally require treatment over multiple days, and are only performed by a subset of all abortion providers.
> Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.
> _Roe v. Wade _made the concept of viability critical to the regulation of abortion, particularly when it comes to abortions later in pregnancy. Viability is not set at a specific date in the pregnancy, rather multiple factors play into the determination of viability, including gestational age, fetal weight and sex, and medical interventions available.


Then the Mississippi law shouldn't bother you........99% comply with it already........


----------



## skye

Support the current thing......support the current thing 

Ukraine flags down.....pussy hats back!!!!!!


----------



## eagle1462010

gipper said:


> Is there a better way to mobilize and energize the left prior to the midterm elections, than overturning Roe v Wade?


Amazing how they are ready to kill people for the right to kill babies............imagine that.

Oh but Get the fucking jab or else we will make you lose your job and destroy you.

Fuck em.


----------



## eagle1462010

Democrats, in trend, warn of violence if Supreme Court rules against Roe v. Wade
					

Analysis by WorldTribune Staff, December 1, 2021  Analysts on both sides of the abortion debate are saying that oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Wednesday over a key Mississippi abortion case resulted in a huge victory for the pro-life side.  The pro-life movement should rejoice with how...




					www.worldtribune.com
				












						Sally Field: If I See Ron DeSantis or Greg Abbott 'I Cannot Be Responsible for What I Would Do'
					

Actress Sally Field says that if she sees Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) or Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R), she "cannot be responsible for what I would do."




					www.breitbart.com


----------



## night_son

eagle1462010 said:


> Amazing how they are ready to kill people for the right to kill babies............imagine that.
> 
> Oh but Get the fucking jab or else we will make you lose your job and destroy you.
> 
> Fuck em.



Pro-choice is a cult, that much is undeniable. Who founded the cult might surprise some, especially some of these fugly militant feminist activists. Le Marquis de Sade was a huge proponent of unlimited abortion. So in that way, whenever a feminist pro-choice bitch has an abortion, she is essentially being forced to do so by a centuries dead old white guy. So much for the femme in feminism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Are you that much of an idiot, what I'm saying is no fetus that was ever aborted had a name, in essence they did not exist. When people want a child, even before it is born, they often name it. If there is a miscarriage ( god's abortion ) late in the term they may even bury it and give it a grave marker. There is love there.



So your big argument is, "We're sociopaths who erase people's existence, so that makes it okay that we're sociopaths who dismember them"?  I mean, what is the argument you think you're making here?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Abortion is not murder, by it never was.



And now we're back to, "My beliefs are fact, they just ARE."


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> If abortion is murder why are all you internet warriors sitting around doing nothing while babies are murdered? I know this fuckers….If I thought babies were being murdered I’d be up off my ass saving them. You guys just sit around whining on the internet because you know it isn’t murder.
> 
> You just want to control women and fake virtue signal while you’ll be the first person to drive your daughters to LA for an abortion… if you weren’t fat trolls that couldnt get a date. Assholes all of you.



"You're not practicing your belief I don't share the way I think you should, so that means you don't really believe it!"

And sorry, but who the fuck are you that I should care if you approve of me or justify myself to you?


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> Are you that much of an idiot, what I'm saying is no fetus that was ever aborted had a name, in essence they did not exist. When people want a child, even before it is born, they often name it. If there is a miscarriage ( god's abortion ) late in the term they may even bury it and give it a grave marker. There is love there.


I hereby name all fetus's Bill.  They now have a name and are thus a person.   Can we stop killing them now?


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> Abortion is not murder, by it never was.


Never?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Unfortunately several of those nine seem to have got on the court with specific agendas in mind; usually judges with that kind of prejudice stay out of the decision making process. This could be the biggest prejudicial error ever made.



Oh, yeah, the only Justices that got onto the court with a predetermined agenda are on the right.    Hey, did Ketanji Brown Jackson ever figure out what a woman was?  I'm thinking if she called a biologist to discuss it, they'd probably take the call.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> All abortion laws are atrocious. They have no place in modern society, they are a hangover of moral judgment. Remember most of those moral judgments are based on tribal laws to strengthen the tribe, it has nothing to do with the tribal gods that they worshiped.



"I have decided that abortion should magically be the only thing in the whole entire world which is entirely, 100% beyond any reference to law whatsoever, BECAUSE!"

And let's discuss this tossaway notion of yours that "modern" equals "beyond morality".  How does THAT work?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Your statement is an error. If a woman successfully delivers a living child at 20 weeks. It is a person at that point. To kill it would be murder. Like all cases of murder that would be decided by the courts. We have no right to make arbitrary decisions about sentences. Each case is always unique that's why the courts come into play.



What was it five minutes earlier when it was in her uterus?  And exactly what was the magic that took place in that five minutes to change it from whatever to a "person", whatever you mean by that?


----------



## Cecilie1200

dudmuck said:


>



I just love this, "You don't really care about babies, because you aren't supporting the social spending programs I want!!!" argument.  Basically, the left's agenda is objective morality at all times and in all ways, just because they say so.

I think I will pass on begging for moral approval from someone loathsome enough to support killing babies, thanks.  Call me if you want to beg for the right to describe yourself as a human.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Couchpotato said:


> Yes if the tax payer isnt willing to pay for the birth and raising of your child they have no right to tell you cant kill it.



So I'm walking down the street, and I see some guy about to step out in front of a bus.  Can I run forward and pull him out of the way of the bus, or do I have to be prepared to financially support him for the rest of his natural life first?


----------



## Couchpotato

Cecilie1200 said:


> So I'm walking down the street, and I see some guy about to step out in front of a bus.  Can I run forward and pull him out of the way of the bus, or do I have to be prepared to financially support him for the rest of his natural life first?


Does he have a name?   If not you can actually push him in front of the bus as he is not a person


----------



## Cecilie1200

beagle9 said:


> 1st they won't define a woman (don't know what that is), but then out of convenience they clarify a "WOMAN", but only when they want to claim their right to abortion as a choice, and I mean even without the woman having to show knowledge in regards to or in concerns of a tragic hell like procedure when wanting to just exercise this so called choice or right in which ends the life of a separate human fetus/baby within their body, otherwise that is growing in the womb, and worse without regard to the potential of that human being if were to be brought to full term as the baby should be.



I do notice that the same people currently proclaiming themselves to be "champions of women's right" and profoundly concerned about "women becoming second-class citizens" had no idea what a woman even WAS a month ago.  Oh, and they had no worries whatsoever about women being erased from their sports, their awards, their bathrooms, and their locker rooms.  It appears that the line between full citizen and second-class citizen exists solely at being used as a sperm container for every asshole man who wants to get his rocks off and then vanish.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Couchpotato said:


> Does he have a name?   If not you can actually push him in front of the bus as he is not a person



How about if I just don't know his name?  Is that close enough?


----------



## Couchpotato

Cecilie1200 said:


> How about if I just don't know his name?  Is that close enough?


Hmm. Thats a tough call youll probably have to ask Stann


----------



## dudmuck

Cecilie1200 said:


> I just love this, "You don't really care about babies, because you aren't supporting the social spending programs I want!!!" argument.  Basically, the left's agenda is objective morality at all times and in all ways, just because they say so.
> 
> I think I will pass on begging for moral approval from someone loathsome enough to support killing babies, thanks.  Call me if you want to beg for the right to describe yourself as a human.


You could chose your own social programs to support babies, but we all know that according to the GOP the sanctity of life begins at conception but stops when children are born.


----------



## ThisIsMe

schmidlap said:


> Lurid visions fester in your noggin, but I expect that authoritarians will not succeed in seizing control of the bodies of women, even in the most repressive states.
> 
> Most Americans support freedom:
> Poll Finds Most Americans Support Access to Abortion​
> Will the repressive states pass updated versions of fugitive slave laws and pursue women fleeing to free states?
> 
> We'll see.


Nobody is trying to control the bodies of women.  If a woman wants to go on tiktok and punch herself in the face for an hour straight, nobody is going to stop her.  If she wants to dye her skin pink and surgically attach a horn to her head and call herself a unicorn, nobody is going to protest.  If she wants to cut off all of her hair and sew a wig on in its place, have at it.  If she wants to take an ink pen and hand draw tattoos all over her body, nobody will care.  This is not about controlling the body of a woman, it's about the life inside of her.


----------



## Who_Me?

They rationalize that a fetus cannot survive on its own to justify abortion. 
I could say the same about millennials - are they fair game?


----------



## eagle1462010

dudmuck said:


> You could chose your own social programs to support babies, but we all know that according to the GOP the sanctity of life begins at conception but stops when children are born.


So lets kill them all then.........huh.....

The Lunatic leftist answer...............

How about you put on a fucking rubber........used for fucking...........understand and don't get her pregnant.

It's high time that Abortion isn't used for birth control.


----------



## BackAgain

Stann said:


> Abortion is not murder, by it never was.



Guess again. 









						Who is Nicola Riley, the Utah abortion doctor charged with murder?
					

Editor's note • The first of two stories, this draws on records released by medical licen




					archive.sltrib.com


----------



## Cecilie1200

dudmuck said:


> You could chose your own social programs to support babies, but we all know that according to the GOP the sanctity of life begins at conception but stops when children are born.



Oh, well thank you so much for "generously" allowing me to choose the way in which I conform to your edicts on the only correct way to do things.  I will counter with a generous offer of your choice of the method to go fuck yourself.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> I just love this, "You don't really care about babies, because you aren't supporting the social spending programs I want!!!" argument.  Basically, the left's agenda is objective morality at all times and in all ways, just because they say so.
> 
> I think I will pass on begging for moral approval from someone loathsome enough to support killing babies, thanks.  Call me if you want to beg for the right to describe yourself as a human.


Holy shit.


----------



## eagle1462010

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, well thank you so much for "generously" allowing me to choose the way in which I conform to your edicts on the only correct way to do things.  I will counter with a generous offer of your choice of the method to go fuck yourself.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Holy shit.



What, am I still being too polite?  I keep trying to break that habit and say what I really think, but . . .


----------



## eagle1462010

Cecilie1200 said:


> What, am I still being too polite?  I keep trying to break that habit and say what I really think, but . . .


I'm LOVING THIS.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> What, am I still being too polite?  I keep trying to break that habit and say what I really think, but . . .


Nah. I choose life. 

Besides, I am rather fond of this stick, and the arm it's attached to.

I am a big fan of that direct style. Don't change!


----------



## gipper

beagle9 said:


> No pain, no gain right ? This country wasn't won by two sides getting together to hash things out over tea and crumpets. Passionate beliefs will be defended always, but the only crux is that the beliefs had best be right, because God won't stand up for wrong. Never has, and never will. He stands up for sinner's because he has given them the choice to redeem themselves through salvation and repentance, so he doesn't stand for them to continue in sin, but that they are willing to change for the better, and therefore move forward from sin otherwise leaving it in the dust bins of time.


The history of the human condition is living in tyranny. Our country was the exception, but that’s coming to an end. Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> I keep trying to break that habit and say what I really think, but . . .



I wouldn't dare stop you.


----------



## Who_Me?

Video captured a visibly rattled, angry Elizabeth Warren saying that overturning Roe v Wade is 'not what a majority of Americans want'​Then state elections will determine abortion rights.  If the majority want this then it will be voted into law at the state level.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> Yeah, and?


Follows the law dick.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> On Abortion Rights, 2020 Democrats Move Past ‘Safe, Legal and Rare’ (Published 2019)
> 
> 
> The Democratic presidential candidates don’t want to simply defend abortion rights. They want to go on offense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moving on.


All you quote is opinion pieces. I put in the bill. You’re a victim of fear. The cowardice of the right.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Follows the law dick.



Yeah, Roe does not follow the law. It patently ignores it.


----------



## eagle1462010

citygator said:


> Follows the law dick.


Well it looks like there is a new law that will stand down here.............oh well.......

Do whatever in your state..............doesn't work here.


----------



## citygator

Cecilie1200 said:


> "You're not practicing your belief I don't share the way I think you should, so that means you don't really believe it!"
> 
> And sorry, but who the fuck are you that I should care if you approve of me or justify myself to you?


It’s proof your position is fake as hell.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> All you quote is opinion pieces. I put in the bill. You’re a victim of fear. The cowardice of the right.



Yeah, that was a left-wing source this time. You can't beat me, so you insult me.

Brilliant strategy.

I am adroitly demonstrating the seismic shift in abortion sentiments/policy by the left, and you can do nothing but hurl insults and ad hominem.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> It’s proof your position is fake as hell.



Says the misogynist.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> Yeah, that was a left-wing source this time. You can't beat me, so you insult me.
> 
> Brilliant strategy.


You do understand what an opinion is correct?  I posted the democratic platform, the bill’s text in question and… you post 3 opinion pieces yelling fire in a theatre. That’s not debate. That’s the voice of fear.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> Says the misogynist.


Link?


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

citygator said:


> Link?


Ahhhhh...poor little murdering lover snowfwake...for the record i could give a shit about any of this except the trigger value.........................you'll still be abler to get your male abortion,,,,don't worry


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> You do understand what an opinion is correct?  I posted the democratic platform, the bill’s text in question and… you post 3 opinion pieces yelling fire in a theatre. That’s not debate. That’s the voice of fear.



You forget that this is a political opinion board.

You are the one who is scared, not me.

Consider who is giving those opinions. What you do is fail to consider the experience and/or weight of knowledge of the one giving the opinion. Their political affiliation does not always take away from the validity of the points being made in the opinion itself.

You could say, "oh, this is a right-wing opinion, he/she/they must be wrong!" or "I don't agree with this opinion, therefore it must be wrong!" whilst ignoring that they might have decades of experience in the legal field or in the subject they are opining on.

We call what you are doing 'intellectual dishonesty.' Own up to it, you coward. You reek of it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Link?



To what precisely?

You essentially told a woman who has had more than one child that her opinions and positions regarding abortion and female bodily autonomy are fake. You dismissed her out of hand. You acted like she knew nothing that she was talking about. All of that presumably coming from a man. 

Sometimes it's fun to use liberal logic against liberals, and you sir as far as this issue goes, are very liberal.

Did anyone tell you that you suck at mansplaining?


----------



## Couchpotato

citygator said:


> You do understand what an opinion is correct?  I posted the democratic platform, the bill’s text in question and… you post 3 opinion pieces yelling fire in a theatre. That’s not debate. That’s the voice of fear.


You ever going to state when exactly a fetus becomes a life and thus has a right to life?   Or are you too much of a coward?


----------



## Stann

M14 Shooter said:


> The Ministry of Truth has flagged your post as disinformation.


I couldn't find documentation of any cases so far but it's definitely got to increase the maternal and fetal fatality rate, further complicate problems and risky pregnancies and lead to a lot more mental health issues.


----------



## Couchpotato

TemplarKormac said:


> To what precisely?
> 
> You essentially told a woman who has had more than one child that her opinions and positions regarding abortion and female bodily autonomy are fake. You dismissed her out of hand. You acted like she knew nothing that she was talking about. All of that presumably coming from a man.
> 
> Sometimes it's fun to use liberal logic against liberals, and you sir as far as this issue goes, are very liberal.
> 
> Did anyone tell you that you suck at mansplaining?


citygator 

This is what the kids call getting owned.


----------



## citygator

Hang on Sloopy said:


> Ahhhhh...poor little murdering lover snowfwake...for the record i could give a shit about any of this except the trigger value.........................you'll still be abler to get your male abortion,,,,don't worry


You’re an intellectual giant. Your GED at work.


----------



## citygator

Couchpotato said:


> You ever going to state when exactly a fetus becomes a life and thus has a right to life?   Or are you too much of a coward?


Abortion up to viability of the fetus and in special cases after as determined by a doctor. Just like Roe v Wade says.


----------



## eagle1462010

citygator said:


> Abortion up to viability of the fetus and in special cases after as determined by a doctor. Just like Roe v Wade says.


And the Ghoul Docs say it's fine even if it's partial birth.

62 million and counting.  Abortion ............the new condom..........huh


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> You ever going to state when exactly a fetus becomes a life and thus has a right to life?   Or are you too much of a coward?


Now you're doing this s*** to some other person. Physical life begins at conception that is a scientific fact. Personhood begins at birth, that's why we birth dates are so important. It begins the chronology of our existence as a person.


----------



## Couchpotato

citygator said:


> Abortion up to viability of the fetus and in special cases after as determined by a doctor. Just like Roe v Wade says.


So as medical advances move forward at some point in the future abortion will always be murder since at some point we will be able to keep a fetus alive outside the womb at any age.

Why would a doctor get to decide when a fetus has a right to life?


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Now you're doing this s*** to some other person. Physical life begins at conception that is a scientific fact. Personhood begins at birth, that's why we birth dates are so important. It begins the chronology of our existence as a person.


Where da fuck did you invent this PERSONHOOD terminology...............Your side justs make shit up all the time.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> Now you're doing this s*** to some other person. Physical life begins at conception that is a scientific fact. Personhood begins at birth, that's why we birth dates are so important. It begins the chronology of our existence as a person.


That’s the dumbest argument in support of abortion I think I’ve ever heard.         If it’s a human life and you kill it on purpuse that’s literally the definition of murder.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> And the Ghoul Docs say it's fine even if it's partial birth.
> 
> 62 million and counting.  Abortion ............the new condom..........huh


As long as you're going to get into the nasty side of abortion. Remembering that it's not the rule but the exception. The worst of all is necessary late-term abortions that involve very small women who were caring megalocephalic fetises. Especially the mother has other complications, especially septicemia. The  woman and that we can State cannot withstand the surgery of removing the fetus so they use crusher forceps to crush the skull to facilitate removing it vaginally. That's the worst I've ever seen. Remember this is very very rare.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Where da fuck did you invent this PERSONHOOD terminology...............Your side justs make shit up all the time.


You people invented " unborn child " I looked up the word, I don't make s*** up like you people do.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> and in special cases


And there it is, the biggest loophole of them all. What is the definition of a 'special case' to someone who fights so fervently for unfettered abortion? And before you answer, I know what the legitimate, medical cases are. They are quite different from the liberal definition you're positing. 

Please do answer the question, it will reveal your blatant duality on the subject.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> You people invented " unborn child " I looked up the word, I don't make s*** up like you people do.


We disagree on when life begins.............And in our Red States we WILL DECIDE what our State believes in.
Not listening to brain dead people from the INSANE ASYLUM OF CALIFORNIA..........Keep your Frutcakes there...........Thanks.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> You people invented " unborn child " I looked up the word, I don't make s*** up like you people do.



Here. From Princeton.



			Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> And there it is, the biggest loophole of them all. What is the definition of a 'special case' to someone who fights so fervently for unfettered abortion? And before you answer, I know what the legitimate, medical cases are. They are quite different from the liberal definition you're positing.
> 
> Please do answer the question, it will reveal your blatant duality on the subject.


Why should he answer you at all you've already convicted him about a crime you people like convicting people of crimes don't you. You are all sick bastards.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Here. From Princeton.
> 
> 
> 
> Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception


You're not keeping up. I already said physical life begins at conception there's no doubt about it it's a scientific fact. Equally true, none of the three stages of human embryo development can be called a person, and there's no such thing as an " unborn child ". The term was developed by far right wing nuts invoke to invoke a negative emotional response to abortion.


----------



## Esdraelon

candycorn said:


> This is what happens when you don’t vote.


?  What about the supposed 81 MILLION who voted for the turnip-in-chief?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Why should he answer you at all you've already convicted him about a crime you people like convicting people of crimes don't you. You are all sick bastards.



Oh look at you, poor baby (Oops. Should I have called you a fetus instead? Should I attempt to dehumanize you in the same way you do unborn children?)

Because when you make any assertion on a board like this, it will naturally bring about questions. If you aren't prepared for the questions, don't make the assertion.

Understand?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> You're not keeping up. I already said physical life begins at conception there's no doubt about it it's a scientific fact.


Say one thing, mean another. 

Not falling for your tripe.


----------



## Esdraelon

candycorn said:


> It defacto bans abortion for anyone who doesn't have the means to travel to a state where a woman's right to privacy will still be the law of the land.  Get ready for more generational poverty Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina etc...


Because the citizens there aren't intelligent enough to use contraception?  It works every time it's tried.  Also, Planned Parenthood gets billions a year to provide "reproductive health" services so it's time they ponied up for these poor, idiot women who aren't bright enough to use the pill by paying for their travel and lodging expenses to get them to a state where this ghoulish practice is still condoned.  

Except they won't and you know it.  PP is about making bank, not doing good deeds.


----------



## Esdraelon

candycorn said:


> If they do...Its responsible political discourse...or so I'm told.


Let them.  The demographic you folks depend on most will be turned off in a big way by continuing lawlessness and jeopardizing their safety.


----------



## candycorn

Esdraelon said:


> Because the citizens there aren't intelligent enough to use contraception?  It works every time it's tried.  Also, Planned Parenthood gets billions a year to provide "reproductive health" services so it's time they ponied up for these poor, idiot women who aren't bright enough to use the pill by paying for their travel and lodging expenses to get them to a state where this ghoulish practice is still condoned.
> 
> Except they won't and you know it.  PP is about making bank, not doing good deeds.


Do you really believe contraception works "every time"?


----------



## Esdraelon

candycorn said:


> You should study history. But I'm sure the Red States will be there to support all of the unwed mothers, fatherless children, tens of thousands of unwanted pregnancies, etc... because, as we all know, the Red States are at the fore front of sex education


You people really cannot seem to understand or accept even the concept of personal responsibility, can you?  With you, it's either allow abortion or the state becomes responsible for every life that is carelessly created through a total lack of concern.  IF the government stopped subsidizing abortion and also paying for every unwanted child born to irresponsible people, this problem would QUICKLY solve itself.


----------



## Esdraelon

candycorn said:


> Do you really believe contraception works "every time"?


Nah, the failure rate may approach a couple of % but that doesn't begin to excuse your outlook.  You don't give a damn about the fact that millions of babies are carelessly created without even attempting contraception, then, they are slaughtered for the convenience of the silly couple that created them.  IT IS EVIL.


----------



## Stann

Esdraelon said:


> ?  What about the supposed 81 MILLION who voted for the turnip-in-chief?


Cute name for trump, however that turnip only got 74,222,958 votes. It was Biden who got 81,283,098 votes ( 51.3% ). trump spent $3 million in Wisconsin on recounts. The recounts ended up giving Biden 257 more votes, making his lead even bigger. Same thing happened in all the other states that were questioned, the full spent millions making Biden an even bigger winner. I love the irony of that.


----------



## Esdraelon

1srelluc said:


> I'm torn on this one. I'm right-leaning but pro-choice to a point.
> 
> That said RvW was shit decision by a shit court who was on the wrong side of everything, it should never had been heard and left to the states.
> 
> BUT......*I see this as a HUGE landmine for the gop's chances going forward.* The best thing the gop can do is STFU about it instead of the incessant crowing I'm already hearing.


It isn't enough of a hot button for Republicans or Independents to stop what's coming in November.  No Democrat was going to vote Red anyway.  If there is an effect it might be to keep status quo in the Senate but unless they ditch the filibuster, that isn't too much of a problem either.  
When the House flips, Biden becomes an instant lame(r) duck and will spend the rest of his time signing EOs.  If we get lucky and the Senate flips as well, we get to watch Chucky the Putzhead, spontaneously combust on the Senate floor.


----------



## Stann

Esdraelon said:


> You people really cannot seem to understand or accept even the concept of personal responsibility, can you?  With you, it's either allow abortion or the state becomes responsible for every life that is carelessly created through a total lack of concern.  IF the government stopped subsidizing abortion and also paying for every unwanted child born to irresponsible people, this problem would QUICKLY solve itself.


You don't get it, if the state demands control over reproductive Rights then they are responsible for the end results. Abortion is a medical procedure best served by the woman and her doctor alone, with the possible exception of her husband or significant other. No other people or entities should be involved in that process. That's the reality.


----------



## Stann

Esdraelon said:


> It isn't enough of a hot button for Republicans or Independents to stop what's coming in November.  No Democrat was going to vote Red anyway.  If there is an effect it might be to keep status quo in the Senate but unless they ditch the filibuster, that isn't too much of a problem either.
> When the House flips, Biden becomes an instant lame(r) duck and will spend the rest of his time signing EOs.  If we get lucky and the Senate flips as well, we get to watch Chucky the Putzhead, spontaneously combust on the Senate floor.


It must be nice to have a crystal ball. Good luck with that.


----------



## Esdraelon

Stann said:


> Cute name for trump, however that turnip only got 74,222,958 votes. It was Biden who got 81,283,098 votes ( 51.3% ). trump spent $3 million in Wisconsin on recounts. The recounts ended up giving Biden 257 more votes, making his lead even bigger. Same thing happened in all the other states that were questioned, the full spent millions making Biden an even bigger winner. I love the irony of that.


What's your opinion about "2000 MULES"?  Haven't watched?  You probably should make the time.  You'll be hearing A LOT about it in the months ahead.  You fools seem convinced that as long as your media keeps repeating a thing, it MAKES IT TRUE.  Nope... Next year a Republican house is going to take up these investigations OR the members who refuse will be gone after one term.  This isn't going away, Cletus, not ever.


----------



## Esdraelon

Stann said:


> That's the reality.


So in your estimation, there is absolutely no responsibility whatever on a personal basis where people simply ignore contraception and if they become pregnant, they MUST be allowed to use abortion as "birth control"?  Can't you see how disgusting that is?


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> That’s the dumbest argument in support of abortion I think I’ve ever heard.         If it’s a human life and you kill it on purpuse that’s literally the definition of murder.


You idiots complain about not being able to have your guns I'm not going to start discussing guns I just want to make a stupid comparison like you guys do. How can you compare anything like that to not even having control over your own body. Women are supposed to be equals with men. Abortion laws make women second class citizens, they are a joke.


----------



## Stann

Esdraelon said:


> What's your opinion about "2000 MULES"?  Haven't watched?  You probably should make the time.  You'll be hearing A LOT about it in the months ahead.  You fools seem convinced that as long as your media keeps repeating a thing, it MAKES IT TRUE.  Nope... Next year a Republican house is going to take up these investigations OR the members who refuse will be gone after one term.  This isn't going away, Cletus, not ever.


You guys have a lot of fantasies going on in your heads, don't let it get the better of you. Take a deep breath and come down to reality once in a while.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> Okay I'm done talking to you, you're absolutely insane. I will not reply to you anymore, been there done that and it gets completely ridiculous with you goodbye.



Logic doesn't float in Stanns world is what you are saying.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> Logic doesn't float in Stanns world is what you are saying.


Logic requires the use of science not emotion that's your first mistake.


----------



## Gregory A

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


It will be overturned because it was a poor legal decision. Abortion itself not really being part of the issue at hand and will continue regardless. And if anything this is just a response brought about by the death throes of a dying conservative movement. Part of a last stand as society in general moves to the left.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> You idiots complain about not being able to have your guns I'm not going to start discussing guns I just want to make a stupid comparison like you guys do. How can you compare anything like that to not even having control over your own body. Women are supposed to be equals with men. Abortion laws make women second class citizens, they are a joke.


whoops. I think we’ve broken him.


----------



## Lakhota

*THE MEDIEVAL LOGIC BEHIND THE SCOTUS DRAFT*​


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> Logic requires the use of science not emotion that's your first mistake.


True, show me where science was used by SCOTUS to 'create a law or right'.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Couchpotato

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 640680
> 
> *THE MEDIEVAL LOGIC BEHIND THE SCOTUS DRAFT*​


Huh.  Apparently being against something you haven’t read isn’t just a thing for USMB posters.  Journo”s at HuffPost are in on it as well….


----------



## Couchpotato

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 640683


Where’s the government funded facility I can walk into and get free guns and ammo?     Oh there isn’t one?    Yeah this meme is fucking stupid then.


----------



## Delldude

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 640683


If you have uterus issues, it should be codified into law by congress and then challenged at the SCOTUS level.
That is how it works.


----------



## Lakhota

Couchpotato said:


> Huh.  Apparently being against something you haven’t read isn’t just a thing for USMB posters.  Journo”s at HuffPost are in on it as well….



Your confusing ignorance won you a permanent ignore.  Bye...


----------



## Couchpotato

Lakhota said:


> Your confusing ignorance won you a permanent ignore.  Bye...


LOL ok.   Have you read the 95 page draft decision?


----------



## Stann

Gregory A said:


> It will be overturned because it was a poor legal decision. Abortion itself not really being part of the issue at hand and will continue regardless. And if anything this is just a response brought about by the death throes of a dying conservative movement. Part of a last stand as society in general moves to the left.


Fact is no one knows it's going to happen. Although likely, it's not set in stone until it's done and I can't see this being put down when 70% of the population supports it.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> Fact is no one knows it's going to happen. Although likely, it's not set in stone until it's done and I can't see this being put down when 70% of the population supports it.


Where are you getting that 70% number from?


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> Fact is no one knows it's going to happen. Although likely, it's not set in stone until it's done and I can't see this being put down when 70% of the population supports it.


The Justice Department should rule on the applicability of the decision regarding the constitution and nothing else.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> Where’s the government funded facility I can walk into and get free guns and ammo?     Oh there isn’t one?    Yeah this meme is fucking stupid then.





Couchpotato said:


> Where are you getting that 70% number from?


That was on the news tonight 70% of American support roe versus wade a woman's right to choose.


----------



## Delldude

Couchpotato said:


> Where are you getting that 70% number from?


Rachal Maddiw


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> Fact is no one knows it's going to happen. Although likely, it's not set in stone until it's done and I can't see this being put down when 70% of the population supports it.











						Abortion
					

With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?  Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?




					news.gallup.com
				




Theres no where near 70% support for abortion.    There’s probably not 70% support for anything in this country.    I’m not sure we could get 70% support for free blow jobs..


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> Rachal Maddiw


ABC News, I didn't get a chance to watch PBS tonight.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> That was on the news tonight 70% of American support roe versus wade a woman's right to choose.


Saw a differing view.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> ABC News, I didn't get a chance to watch PBS tonight.


Saw a different polling


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> That was on the news tonight 70% of American support roe versus wade a woman's right to choose.


Link?


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> Saw a differing view.


I didn't tell you the bad news only 28% support removing role versus Wade.


----------



## beautress

Hossfly said:


> In most states (including California), when a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is charged with a double murder. However, when a woman wants to kill her baby by abortion, it's just a blob of flesh.  Something doesn't smell right here.


Outta the park, Mr. Hossfly.


----------



## Rigby5

Couchpotato said:


> Where are you getting that 70% number from?


{...
Fifty-seven percent of respondents said they want the Supreme Court to support abortion rights, 28% hope it opposes them and 15% don’t know or have no opinion, according to the Politico/Morning Consult poll.
...}
So twice as many people want abortion rights than want to end abortion rights.








						Majority of voters want Supreme Court to protect abortion rights, poll shows
					

A majority of voters say they want the Supreme Court to support abortion rights, according to a poll that was conducted following the leak of a draft opinion showing the justices are prepared to strike down Roe v. Wade.




					www.washingtontimes.com
				




Nor do states have any standing.
They are not the ones being aborted and lose nothing when abortions are performed.
States should get no say in whether or not abortions are legal.
The states are trying to dictate the actions of others based on religious beliefs.
That is illegal.


----------



## Rigby5

Delldude said:


> Saw a different polling



If you add those who support abortion rights with those who do not care, then it is 72% who are against over turning Roe Vs Wade.
Only 28% want to force a changes.
Where I come from, when 28% get their way over what others should be able to do, it is time to load up the rifles.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> Nor do states have any standing.


Hey!

You may wish to read the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.


----------



## Rigby5

beautress said:


> Outta the park, Mr. Hossfly.



Depends on how far along and intent.
But likely states that charge for the death of a fetus are just plain wrong.
To charge for the death of a fetus, the murderer would have to know of the pregnancy.


----------



## Lakhota

It's going to be a long hot summer for the Republican Taliban!


----------



## Stann

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


That would be on appropriate response. I really hope it happens, but the propaganda these people put out has gotten a large minority of women.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> Where I come from, when 28% get their way over what others should be able to do, it is time to load up the rifles.



Where I come from, I call that irony.

If we take this logic of yours into account, it might be high time to do something about the very small minority of wokesters influencing policies directed at our children.  Or about the minority who convinced state governments to defund our police, or any culture-related issue for that matter.


----------



## Stann

Hossfly said:


> In most states (including California), when a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is charged with a double murder. However, when a woman wants to kill her baby by abortion, it's just a blob of flesh.  Something doesn't smell right here.


That seems appropriate for any woman who is pregnant and wanted to carry the pregnancy to term.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lakhota said:


> It's going to be a long hot summer for the Republican Taliban!



Of course, when Biden's economic policies cause us all not to be able to pay for the electricity powering our AC.


----------



## Rigby5

TemplarKormac said:


> Hey!
> 
> You may wish to read the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.



The 10th amendment does NOT give the states any additional authority at all.
All the 9th and 10th amendment says, is the federal government only has authority over what is explicitly granted to it in the constitution, and all other authority remains as it was, either state, municipal, or individual.
The 9th and 10th amendments do not grant any new authority to the states, and the states never have any authority over person medical choices.
For example, the feds were not granted any authority over religion, but that then does not mean states have authority over religion.
Individuals each have their own personal authority over religion.


----------



## Rigby5

Stann said:


> That seems appropriate for any woman who is pregnant and wanted to carry the pregnancy to term.



No it does not seem at all appropriate, unless the killed knew of the pregnancy and was deliberately killing the woman because of the fetus.


----------



## Esdraelon

Rigby5 said:


> So twice as many people want abortion rights than want to end abortion rights.


Even if true, and I seriously doubt those numbers, this decision DOES NOT remove abortion as an option for women who want one.  You guys are gonna LOSE on this one and if your freak show Leftist posse begins burning and looting this summer, you're apt to lose even larger this November.


----------



## Esdraelon

Rigby5 said:


> For example, the feds were not granted any authority over religion, but that then does not mean states have authority over religion.


Bullshit!  ALL rights not mentioned specifically in the Constitution as part of the Federal government automatically arrogate to the states.  ALL OF THEM.


----------



## beautress

Rigby5 said:


> Depends on how far along and intent.
> But likely states that charge for the death of a fetus are just plain wrong.
> To charge for the death of a fetus, the murderer would have to know of the pregnancy.


I had not heard of anyone charging for a fetus's death.


----------



## Ame®icano

Could someone explain, how this website got registered, and build for this event two weeks before Roe v Wade news got leaked?









						The Jewish Rally for Abortion Justice
					

Washington, DC | May 17, 2022 | 9am ET | For too long, the American narrative about religion and abortion has ignored Jewish voices — and it’s past time for that to end.




					jewishrallyforabortionjustice.org


----------



## Rigby5

Esdraelon said:


> Even if true, and I seriously doubt those numbers, this decision DOES NOT remove abortion as an option for women who want one.  You guys are gonna LOSE on this one and if your freak show Leftist posse begins burning and looting this summer, you're apt to lose even larger this November.



Does not really matter if there are still abortion options.
If the SCOTUS reverses Roe Vs Wade, they have to go.
And I don't care what else has to go in order to make that happen.
It is beyond the pale.
Unacceptable.
Autocratic.


----------



## Stann

Lakhota said:


> It's going to be a long hot summer for the Republican Taliban!


The fools don't know what they're doing.


----------



## Stann

Rigby5 said:


> {...
> Fifty-seven percent of respondents said they want the Supreme Court to support abortion rights, 28% hope it opposes them and 15% don’t know or have no opinion, according to the Politico/Morning Consult poll.
> ...}
> So twice as many people want abortion rights than want to end abortion rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of voters want Supreme Court to protect abortion rights, poll shows
> 
> 
> A majority of voters say they want the Supreme Court to support abortion rights, according to a poll that was conducted following the leak of a draft opinion showing the justices are prepared to strike down Roe v. Wade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtontimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do states have any standing.
> They are not the ones being aborted and lose nothing when abortions are performed.
> States should get no say in whether or not abortions are legal.
> The states are trying to dictate the actions of others based on religious beliefs.
> That is illegal.


And 70% of Americans want Rowe versus Wade to stay in place to allow women to have a choice in the matter.


----------



## Rigby5

Esdraelon said:


> Bullshit!  ALL rights not mentioned specifically in the Constitution as part of the Federal government automatically arrogate to the states.  ALL OF THEM.



Totally and completely wrong.
I don't even have to paraphrase.

{... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, *or to the people*. ...}

Clearly states do NOT have any additional rights or powers due to the 10th amendment.
There are lots of things states ever had any authority over before the 10th amendment, and they still do not after the 10th amendment.
For example, states do not have any authority over police, fire departments, curfews, traffic regulations, zoning, religion, health care, etc.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Clipper said:


> The majority of women suport a women's right to control their own bodies, dumbass.
> 
> And millions of them vote.


Correct, women and men should control their own bodies. I believe in women making a choice, and that choice should be made 'before' the pregnancy.

Then we had the COVID vaccination issue where all of a sudden, people having the right to control their own body, certainly by Democrats, was thrown out of the window.


----------



## Flash

Oddball said:


> When lifer lefty lawyer Alan Dersh sez Roe is bad law, it's really bad law.


The stupid decision was made back in the 70s to appease the Feminazis.  It was determined for the wrong reasons.  Imagine how stupid it was for the Court to say that it was a Consititonal Liberty to allow a person to kill a child for the purpose of birth control.

Great example of why we can't depend upon the Courts to protect our Liberties any more than we can depend upon the Legislative or Executive Branches.   Something our Founding Fathers knew.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> And there it is, the biggest loophole of them all. What is the definition of a 'special case' to someone who fights so fervently for unfettered abortion? And before you answer, I know what the legitimate, medical cases are. They are quite different from the liberal definition you're positing.
> 
> Please do answer the question, it will reveal your blatant duality on the subject.


Doctors are doctors you moron. Special cases are health situations. You fuckers should leave the doctoring to people who went to school for a decade vs your dumb asses.


----------



## citygator

Couchpotato said:


> So as medical advances move forward at some point in the future abortion will always be murder since at some point we will be able to keep a fetus alive outside the womb at any age.
> 
> Why would a doctor get to decide when a fetus has a right to life?


Same pic from my last post. You guys are clinically stupid.  There is nothing wrong with the current law.


----------



## Flash

Stann said:


> And 70% of Americans want Rowe versus Wade to stay in place to allow women to have a choice in the matter.


That is bullshit.  Maybe some stupid internet poll will say 70% but that is not a real representation.

Except for a few really dumbass Moon Bats I hear about in the news or on the internet I don't even know anybody in real life that supports abortion on demand for the sake of convenience. 

This bullshit by the Libtards about "my body my choice" went out the window with the filthy ass insistance to wear mask and get vaccinated for Covid.  They no more believe that than the Man in the Moon.


----------



## citygator

Flash said:


> That is bullshit.  Maybe some stupid internet poll will say 70% but that is not a real representation.
> 
> Except for a few really dumbass Moon Bats I hear about in the news or on the internet I don't even know anybody in real life that supports abortion on demand for the sake of convenience.
> 
> This bullshit by the Libtards about "my body my choice" went out the window with the filthy ass insistance to wear mask and get vaccinated for Covid.  They no more believe that than the Man in the Moon.


100% of people support it when they need one. The only people who oppose the procedure are those who don’t need it. Just like unemployment… until they do.


----------



## Flash

citygator said:


> Doctors are doctors you moron. Special cases are health situations. You fuckers should leave the doctoring to people who went to school for a decade vs your dumb asses.
> 
> View attachment 640771





You are confused Moon Bat.

Typical Moon Bat bullshit by a shithass Libtard publication like "Mother Jones".  Most women don't even know they are pregnant by 1-6 weeks.  By the time they do know they are pregnant the baby has a heartbeat already.

You stupid Moon Bats don't know any more about Biology than you know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.

I notice you quote "Mother Jones" quite a bit on this forum.  You are a fucking moron.  Mother Jones supposedly got their information from the CDC and we all know how fucked up the CDC is with all the disinformation they have put out on Covid, don't we?  Besides, getting knocked up isn't a disease so what the hell do they know about it?


----------



## citygator

Flash said:


> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> Typical Moon Bat bullshit by a shithass Libtard publication like "Mother Jones".  Most women don't even know they are pregnant by 1-6 weeks.  By the time they do know they are pregnant the baby has a heartbeat already.
> 
> You stupid Moon Bats don't know any more about Biology than you know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.
> 
> I notice you quote "Mother Jones" quite a bit on this forum.  You are a fucking moron.  Mother Jones supposedly got their information from the CDC and we all know how fucked up the CDC is with all the disinformation they have put out on Covid, don't we?  Besides, getting knocked up isn't a disease so what the hell do they know about it?


I just posted the histogram of abortion frequency dumb fuck. I swear.  It’s the CDC bitch. So now you just know the numbers?  How the fuck do you do that?  You’re a brainwashed turd.  Argue the facts not your fantasy basement boy tin hat shit.


----------



## Flash

citygator said:


> 100% of people support it when they need one. The only people who oppose the procedure are those who don’t need it. Just like unemployment… until they do.


You are confused Moon Bat

Nobody needs to murder their child on demand, for the sake of convenience, as a method of birth control. 

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know any more about Ethics than you know about Biology, Economics, History, Climate Science or the Constitution.


----------



## Flash

citygator said:


> I just posted the histogram of abortion frequency dumb fuck. I swear.  It’s the CDC bitch. So now you just know the numbers?  How the fuck do you do that?  You’re a brainwashed turd.  Argue the facts not your fantasy basement boy tin hat shit.



You are confused Moon Bat.

The CDC lost all their credibility with the COVID bullshit you fucking moron.  They are government bureaucrats that don't know jackshit about the crap they feed Libtard publications like Mother Jones.  We saw that big time, didn't we?

My wife and I worked on a church mission to help council women that were considering getting an abortion.  In all instances they were well into their second month or later before they even started to consider an abortion.

Besides it really doesn't  make any difference when a woman murders their child, does it? It is still murder.   By the time a woman knows she is knocked up the baby has a heartbeat.  

If you weren't so ethically challenged you would understand what is wrong with murdering a child as a method of birth control.  You Libtards never get anything right, do you?


----------



## citygator

Flash said:


> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> The CDC lost all their credibility with the COVID bullshit you fucking moron.  They are government bureaucrats that don't know jackshit about the crap they feed Libtard publications like Mother Jones.  We saw that big time, didn't we?
> 
> My wife and I worked on a church mission to help council women that were considering getting an abortion.  In all instances they were well into their second month or later before they even started to consider an abortion.
> 
> Besides it really doesn't  make any difference when a woman murders their child, does it? It is still murder.   By the time a woman knows she is knocked up the baby has a heartbeat.
> 
> If you weren't so ethically challenged you would understand what is wrong with murdering a child as a method of birth control.  You Libtards never get anything right, do you?


So back to babies being murdered eh?  Well then you have no ethics. You are just sitting by and watching it happen. You’re guilty as sin, read my signature.  At least I know that an unviable fetus is just that.  You think it’s a person and just sit by with murder occurring down the street?!?!  You really think that’s happening? How do you live with yourself? . At least I can live with myself.


----------



## citygator

Flash said:


> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> The CDC lost all their credibility with the COVID bullshit you fucking moron.  They are government bureaucrats that don't know jackshit about the crap they feed Libtard publications like Mother Jones.  We saw that big time, didn't we?
> 
> My wife and I worked on a church mission to help council women that were considering getting an abortion.  In all instances they were well into their second month or later before they even started to consider an abortion.
> 
> Besides it really doesn't  make any difference when a woman murders their child, does it? It is still murder.   By the time a woman knows she is knocked up the baby has a heartbeat.
> 
> If you weren't so ethically challenged you would understand what is wrong with murdering a child as a method of birth control.  You Libtards never get anything right, do you?


Put up your own numbers then dipshit. Let me destroy them.


----------



## Flash

citygator said:


> Put up your own numbers then dipshit. Let me destroy them.


The only number that is relevant is the fact that over 600,000 American children are murdered each year as a method of birth control.

Here is the stat from your fucking CDC since you love that source so much.





__





						CDCs Abortion Surveillance System FAQs | CDC
					

CDCs Abortion Surveillance System Frequently Asked Questions




					www.cdc.gov
				




In 2019, 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC

Something you asshole murdering sonofabitch Libtards celebrate.


----------



## citygator

Flash said:


> The only number that is relevant is the fact that over 600,000 American children are murdered each year as a method of birth control.
> 
> Here is the stat from your fucking CDC since you love that source so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CDCs Abortion Surveillance System FAQs | CDC
> 
> 
> CDCs Abortion Surveillance System Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cdc.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2019, 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC
> 
> Something you asshole murdering sonofabitch Libtards celebrate.


Almost all before viability. They were not peeps. They were globs of cells. Part of a woman.


----------



## citygator

My wife had two miscarriages.  We didn’t name and bury them. Flushed in toilet.  Am I the father of two dead children?  Should I morn on their flush dates?


----------



## lantern2814

schmidlap said:


> The repressive states will still have a difficult time depriving women of the freedom they have enjoyed for fifty years.
> 
> Over half of abortions in the U.S. is now by medication,  approved for use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, and additional research shows provision beyond 10 weeks is safe and effective, Some providers administer medication abortion “off label” after that point in pregnancy.
> 
> Rather than requiring that they flee to advanced states where their freedom to safely control their own bodies is respected, regressive regimes will have to interdict the mails, and delivery by alternate methods is still likely.


Cry harder. Nobody is stopping you from traveling to another state to perform your immoral act. And no shitflap, your blue state shitholes are NOT “advanced”.


----------



## lantern2814

schmidlap said:


> If you need to pretend that, as a public health measure, vaccination against a deadly pandemic that offers a degree of protection for others, especially the most vulnerable, is comparable to depriving a citizen of personal freedom she has enjoyed for half a century, you will contrives such an absurd correspondence, I guess.


So you’re a hypocritical bitch. Another do as I say not as I do libturd. So to idiots like you “my body my choice” ONLY applies to killing an unborn child.


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> It’s proof your position is fake as hell.



No, it's proof that you've never made a real attempt to understand my position.  You were too busy "understanding" what you wanted to see my position as, to flatter yourself about your own.

You want to talk about my position, you ASK me what it is.  You don't tell me what you "know" it is and delude yourself that I'm going to defend myself to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> Abortion up to viability of the fetus and in special cases after as determined by a doctor. Just like Roe v Wade says.



So you're telling us that life is defined as location?


----------



## schmidlap

ThisIsMe said:


> Nobody is trying to control the bodies of women.


That is precisely what the authoritarians are doing, of course. Control that a woman has exercised over her own body for half-a-century is being arrogated by ideologically-extreme politicians and bureaucrats, even as advanced nations have been progressing to greater freedom, not such statist subjugation.


----------



## lantern2814

Esdraelon said:


> Because the citizens there aren't intelligent enough to use contraception?  It works every time it's tried.  Also, Planned Parenthood gets billions a year to provide "reproductive health" services so it's time they ponied up for these poor, idiot women who aren't bright enough to use the pill by paying for their travel and lodging expenses to get them to a state where this ghoulish practice is still condoned.
> 
> Except they won't and you know it.  PP is about making bank, not doing good deeds.


In most places, if they’re too lazy or cheap to buy contraception, they can get it for FREE at clinics. There’s truly no excuse for not taking precautions. That goes for the woman too. Personal responsibility. What a concept.....


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Now you're doing this s*** to some other person. Physical life begins at conception that is a scientific fact. Personhood begins at birth, that's why we birth dates are so important. It begins the chronology of our existence as a person.



I note that you glossed right past the question of "what the hell is personhood, and how and why does it trump life", and kept right on chanting it as a fact.

Birth dates are important, Einstein, simply because it's a date we can pinpoint due to our ability to see it.  Only very primitive people think, "It's not real until I can see it."  So no, the fact that we commemorate birth dates does not have any scientific meaning about life.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> So lets kill them all then.........


That's not a decision for you to make.

Whether to terminate a pregnancy within her own body up to the point of viability is a personal decision that has been respected under law for the past half century in America, as is the case in most advanced nations (not in Iran, Egypt, El Salvador, Honduras where the State imposes its edicts.) If politicians and bureaucrats suddenly seize that control away from an American, it is a statist arrogation of personal freedom.

Authoritarians can lash out and spew their childish _ad hominems_ when that truth is honestly stated, but that's the way it is.


----------



## citygator

Cecilie1200 said:


> So you're telling us that life is defined as location?


Makes no sense.  Is my wife’s miscarriage a dead baby?  Fuck no.


----------



## citygator

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, it's proof that you've never made a real attempt to understand my position.  You were too busy "understanding" what you wanted to see my position as, to flatter yourself about your own.
> 
> You want to talk about my position, you ASK me what it is.  You don't tell me what you "know" it is and delude yourself that I'm going to defend myself to you.


You’re position is your own fucking business. I am not forcing you to change your position.  The Supreme Court is planning to tell me what my position is based on what state I live in. Bullshit.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

citygator said:


> You do understand what an opinion is correct?  I posted the democratic platform, the bill’s text in question and… you post 3 opinion pieces yelling fire in a theatre. That’s not debate. That’s the voice of fear.


I love how this leak came out...lolololol

It is so divisive and hysterical. Love watching you fetus eaters go nuts...lolol


----------



## citygator

Hang on Sloopy said:


> I love how this leak came out...lolololol
> 
> It is so divisive and hysterical. Love watching you fetus eaters go nuts...lolol


Why?


----------



## BackAgain

Gregory A said:


> It will be overturned because it was a poor legal decision. Abortion itself not really being part of the issue at hand and will continue regardless. And if anything this is just a response brought about by the death throes of a dying conservative movement. Part of a last stand as society in general moves to the left.


🙄


Lakhota said:


> Your confusing ignorance won you a permanent ignore.  Bye...


Oh nozies. An idiot like Lakhota is ignoring somebody.  Sound the alarms.


----------



## BackAgain

Lakhota said:


> It's going to be a long hot summer for the Republican Taliban!


There is no GOP Taliban. So much for that ^ retarded one liner. 🙄


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> As long as you're going to get into the nasty side of abortion. Remembering that it's not the rule but the exception. The worst of all is necessary late-term abortions that involve very small women who were caring megalocephalic fetises. Especially the mother has other complications, especially septicemia. The  woman and that we can State cannot withstand the surgery of removing the fetus so they use crusher forceps to crush the skull to facilitate removing it vaginally. That's the worst I've ever seen. Remember this is very very rare.



Let's address this comforting lie you pro-aborts tell yourself that "late-term abortions are very rare, and only done for severe medical reasons", as though the rarity of evil somehow makes it less evil.



			https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013
		


"_Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays (e.g., difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs), which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous_."

"But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment."

"The most salient findings are that women seeking second-trimester abortions did not realize they were pregnant until much later than women seeking first-trimester abortions, and that myriad logistical barriers slow down access to abortion once a woman is beyond 13 weeks. Certain physical health conditions, such as obesity25, 26 and a lack of pregnancy symptoms,26 increase the risk of late discovery. Research from the United Kingdom has identified uncertainty about what to do if pregnant and changing personal circumstances, such as dissolution of romantic partnerships or job loss, as associated with delay in seeking abortion."

Table 3. Percentage of women reporting specific reasons for delay in seeking abortion services, by timing of abortion

ReasonAllb (N=384)First-trimester (N=166)Later (N=218)*Any barrier*a*88**80**94*Not knowing about the pregnancy434045Trouble deciding about the abortion373340Disagreeing about the abortion with the man involved181620Not knowing where to go for an abortion301838Difficulty getting to the abortion facility201227Raising money for procedure and related costs513165Difficulty securing insurance coverage322041


----------



## gipper

BackAgain said:


> There is no GOP Taliban. So much for that ^ retarded one liner. 🙄


You and the Sioux squaw should get together. You have so much in common.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You people invented " unborn child " I looked up the word, I don't make s*** up like you people do.



No, "we people" didn't "invent" anything.  The term "unborn child" has been used for as long as people have known that that growing bulge in a woman's abdomen resulted in birth.  Even more commonly, the unborn child was simply referred to as "the baby".

In fact, the preferred terms "embryo" and "fetus" that ignorant pro-aborts use in the mistaken belief that they denote something different from an unborn child ACTUALLY MEAN "unborn child".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Why should he answer you at all you've already convicted him about a crime you people like convicting people of crimes don't you. You are all sick bastards.



Same reason that YOU expect to level accusations at us and have us defend ourselves to you.

If you want to fire questions at other people, and then reserve to yourself the right to never answer any questions, I suggest you take your cowardly ass elsewhere.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You're not keeping up. I already said physical life begins at conception there's no doubt about it it's a scientific fact. Equally true, none of the three stages of human embryo development can be called a person, and there's no such thing as an " unborn child ". The term was developed by far right wing nuts invoke to invoke a negative emotional response to abortion.



YOU aren't keeping up.  I've asked you several times what this "personhood" thing is you keep whipping out and declaring as a fact trumping the existence of life, and you just keep right on talking like it's an established thing that everyone has to accept.


----------



## BackAgain

gipper said:


> You and the Sioux squaw should get together. You have so much in common.


You’re babbling again. Wipe the drool off your chin.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You don't get it, if the state demands control over reproductive Rights then they are responsible for the end results. Abortion is a medical procedure best served by the woman and her doctor alone, with the possible exception of her husband or significant other. No other people or entities should be involved in that process. That's the reality.



YOU don't get it.  The state does not assume financial responsibility for a person simply by prohibiting others from killing that individual.  You can use all the euphemisms you want to obscure that fact, but producing a fog to hide something doesn't change the thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Couchpotato said:


> Where are you getting that 70% number from?



Talking points.  Notice that they ALL parrot that number.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> That was on the news tonight 70% of American support roe versus wade a woman's right to choose.



Like I said, talking points.  

Did "the news" bother to mention why, if "everyone agrees with us", the left is so desperate to keep the people from having a say at the ballot box?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Couchpotato said:


> Abortion
> 
> 
> With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?  Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.gallup.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theres no where near 70% support for abortion.    There’s probably not 70% support for anything in this country.    I’m not sure we could get 70% support for free blow jobs..



Well, I can guarantee you that _women _wouldn't be agreeing with that in any great number.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> That would be on appropriate response. I really hope it happens, but the propaganda these people put out has gotten a large minority of women.



You do realize that the majority of "these people" ARE women themselves, right?

Have you noticed your tendency on this subject to talk as though women are gullible, ignorant morons?  Are you always this misogynistic, or just on the subject of, "I want to get laid and then ghost without responsibility"?


----------



## BackAgain

Cecilie1200 said:


> You do realize that the majority of "these people" ARE women themselves, right?
> 
> Have you noticed your tendency on this subject to talk as though women are gullible, ignorant morons?  Are you always this misogynistic, or just on the subject of, "I want to get laid and then ghost without responsibility"?


Come on.  Be fair.  Let him mansplain himself.


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> 100% of people support it when they need one. The only people who oppose the procedure are those who don’t need it. Just like unemployment… until they do.



"I'm just SURE that everyone agrees with me and has relative morals like I do!"

Please show us proof that "100% of people support it when they need one."

As it happens, I would stand as evidence disproving your "100%".  By your definitions, I "needed" one when I got pregnant with my first child.  I was 20 years old, unmarried, had a crappy minimum-wage job that I had to leave because of the morning sickness, father had taken himself out of the picture.  Scared out of my mind, no idea what I was going to do with a baby.  Know what I didn't do?  Abandon my belief that abortion was wrong and evil and the killing of an innocent life.

For the record, that child is now 32 years old, the mother of my grandchildren, and served as the catalyst for me pulling my life together and getting a good job that put me on a career path to later advancement and eventually meeting the man I married.

Wow, it's almost like there IS an alternative to "kill the baby and pretend nothing happened."


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> I didn't tell you the bad news only 28% support removing role versus Wade.


Doesn't matter. What does matter will be the final tally from SCOTUS.


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> My wife had two miscarriages.  We didn’t name and bury them. Flushed in toilet.  Am I the father of two dead children?  Should I morn on their flush dates?



Yes, and yes.  And I feel sorry for your wife doubly, for losing the babies and for having such a callous sociopath as her emotional support in life.


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> Makes no sense.  Is my wife’s miscarriage a dead baby?  Fuck no.



Yes, your wife's miscarriage IS a dead baby.  Your sociopathic unwillingness to believe that fact doesn't change it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

The Supreme Court's Leaked Draft Is Full Of Mystifying Arguments Against Abortion Rights
					

Justice Samuel Alito’s reasoning is stuck in the 1600s — literally.




					www.huffpost.com
				




It repeatedly cites a misogynist from the 1600s who had women executed for “witchcraft.”​


> Most Americans have probably never heard of Sir Matthew Hale, an English jurist who was born in 1609. But Alito cites him a half-dozen times throughout his draft as proof that abortion bans are an indispensable part of our country’s heritage.
> 
> If all medical standards from Hale’s life were applied today, we wouldn’t know about the existence of germs, medicinal ingredients would include the ground-up skulls of executed criminals and live worms, and doctors would cover ailing patients in leeches to suck our their blood. For most of Hale’s lifetime, doctors didn’t even have a scientific understanding of where babies came from.


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> You’re position is your own fucking business. I am not forcing you to change your position.  The Supreme Court is planning to tell me what my position is based on what state I live in. Bullshit.



Nice attempt at a dodge, but it doesn't skate you past the fact that the topic of my post was you trying to define what my position is.  So don't come at me telling me what I believe, and then when you're called on it think you can change the subject to "generously" offering your permission to believe what I want, as though you have any authority to give me permission for shit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BackAgain said:


> Come on.  Be fair.  Let him mansplain himself.



I already did.  He made a dog's dinner out of it.  Not my responsibility.


----------



## Flash

Looks like the Feminazi assholes are going to instigate an insurrection because they won't get to murder as many children as a method of birth control.



ShutDownDC is also advertising a Saturday evening "Candlelight Vigil for Roe v. Wade," calling for abortion supporters to "join us in a march to Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts' homes to protest for reproductive freedom!!"

Leftist Groups Direct Protesters To Descend Upon Supreme Court Justices’ Homes | The Daily Wire

https://twitter.com/CatholicVote/status/1521901756074012673?ref_src=twsrc


----------



## Death Angel

basquebromance said:


> Barrett would not have been confirmed if she'd told the truth about her plans for Roe.


You mean judging this by the  CONSTITUTION?


----------



## dudmuck

Flash said:


> Looks like the Feminazi assholes are going to instigate an insurrection because they won't get to murder as many children as a method of birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> ShutDownDC is also advertising a Saturday evening "Candlelight Vigil for Roe v. Wade," calling for abortion supporters to "join us in a march to Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts' homes to protest for reproductive freedom!!"
> 
> Leftist Groups Direct Protesters To Descend Upon Supreme Court Justices’ Homes | The Daily Wire
> 
> https://twitter.com/CatholicVote/status/1521901756074012673?ref_src=twsrc









its legal to protest in front of somebody's home


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> "I'm just SURE that everyone agrees with me and has relative morals like I do!"
> 
> Please show us proof that "100% of people support it when they need one."
> 
> As it happens, I would stand as evidence disproving your "100%".  By your definitions, I "needed" one when I got pregnant with my first child.  I was 20 years old, unmarried, had a crappy minimum-wage job that I had to leave because of the morning sickness, father had taken himself out of the picture.  Scared out of my mind, no idea what I was going to do with a baby.  Know what I didn't do?  Abandon my belief that abortion was wrong and evil and the killing of an innocent life.
> 
> For the record, that child is now 32 years old, the mother of my grandchildren, and served as the catalyst for me pulling my life together and getting a good job that put me on a career path to later advancement and eventually meeting the man I married.
> 
> Wow, it's almost like there IS an alternative to "kill the baby and pretend nothing happened."


Boom.


----------



## Lisa558

Flash said:


> Looks like the Feminazi assholes are going to instigate an insurrection because they won't get to murder as many children as a method of birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> ShutDownDC is also advertising a Saturday evening "Candlelight Vigil for Roe v. Wade," calling for abortion supporters to "join us in a march to Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts' homes to protest for reproductive freedom!!"
> 
> Leftist Groups Direct Protesters To Descend Upon Supreme Court Justices’ Homes | The Daily Wire
> 
> https://twitter.com/CatholicVote/status/1521901756074012673?ref_src=twsrc


How about a Candlelight Vigil for 62 million Americans who were robbed of life?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> The 10th amendment does NOT give the states any additional authority at all.


I never said it did. All it does is confer authority on states not originally granted to the US government.

And since it never conferred the authority to allow or ban abortion on the US government, that automatically meant that such authority fell to the states.

Why is basic constitutional law so hard for people like you?


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Doctors are doctors you moron. Special cases are health situations. You fuckers should leave the doctoring to people who went to school for a decade vs your dumb asses.
> 
> View attachment 640771


You totally failed to understand my post. I wasn't simply referring to doctors, I was referring to doctors who held your views on abortion and based their definitions of 'special cases' on such views.

Keep up or drop the sack, pal.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

citygator said:


> You’re position is your own fucking business. I am not forcing you to change your position.  The Supreme Court is planning to tell me what my position is based on what state I live in. Bullshit.


You're ok with the government telling you that you can't own a gun.  Why are you pissed off, now?


----------



## gronked

citygator said:


> Almost all before viability. They were not peeps. They were globs of cells. Part of a woman.


incorrect.  viability is always a losing argument for abortionists.  Also, those "globs of cells" have individual genetic code that will program their entire body beginning at the 2 cell stage.  

as far as viability, there are millions upon millions of humans who are not "viable" currently living in the United States.  heck, my kids were far from viable for a very long time after they were born.  try leaving a 1 year old home alone for a month and see just how viable they are...


Mr's Merriam and Webster,  Viable:
"capable of living"
"capable of existence and development as an independent unit"


----------



## gronked

citygator said:


> My wife had two miscarriages.  We didn’t name and bury them. Flushed in toilet.  Am I the father of two dead children?  Should I morn on their flush dates?


Many people do mourn the loss of a pre-born baby.  Miscarriage and Abortion are 2 distinctly different things ethically.  one has intent, the other doesnt.


----------



## gronked

schmidlap said:


> That is precisely what the authoritarians are doing, of course. Control that a woman has exercised over her own body for half-a-century is being arrogated by ideologically-extreme politicians and bureaucrats, even as advanced nations have been progressing to greater freedom, not such statist subjugation.


that is such a juvenile argument.  pre born babies are no more a part of the mothers body than the shoes i am wearing are a part of mine.  they live in the mothers body for 7-9 months, but they are certainly not a part of that mothers body.

that pre born person has an individually unique genetic code that is in every case different than that of the mothers.  

to put another way, am I a "part" of the apartment I used to live in?  of course not.  it was just a place i lived for a short period of time.


----------



## Ame®icano

gronked said:


> incorrect.  viability is always a losing argument for abortionists.  Also, those "globs of cells" have individual genetic code that will program their entire body beginning at the 2 cell stage.
> 
> as far as viability, there are millions upon millions of humans who are not "viable" currently living in the United States.  heck, my kids were far from viable for a very long time after they were born.  try leaving a 1 year old home alone for a month and see just how viable they are...
> 
> 
> Mr's Merriam and Webster,  Viable:
> "capable of living"
> "capable of existence and development as an independent unit"



In leftist minds, all those who are not viable are subject to abortion, so when do we start "aborting" people on welfare? It does fit their narrative...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ame®icano said:


> In leftist minds, all those who are not viable are subject to abortion, so when do we start "aborting" people on welfare? It does fit their narrative...



Or those on dialysis, or on feeding tubes.  Both are not "viable" in the sense of maintaining their own lives independent of other support.


----------



## gronked

schmidlap said:


> That's not a decision for you to make.
> 
> Whether to terminate a pregnancy within her own body up to the point of viability is a personal decision that has been respected under law for the past half century in America, as is the case in most advanced nations (not in Iran, Egypt, El Salvador, Honduras where the State imposes its edicts.) If politicians and bureaucrats suddenly seize that control away from an American, it is a statist arrogation of personal freedom.
> 
> Authoritarians can lash out and spew their childish _ad hominems_ when that truth is honestly stated, but that's the way it is.


You are living under the assumption that the original law was ethical and just in the first place.  there are many examples of laws that have been on the books for many years but were incorrect/unethical and needed to be changed.  see, separate but equal, the 3/5ths clause, the 13th amendment etc.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> That's not a decision for you to make.
> 
> Whether to terminate a pregnancy within her own body up to the point of viability is a personal decision that has been respected under law for the past half century in America, as is the case in most advanced nations (not in Iran, Egypt, El Salvador, Honduras where the State imposes its edicts.) If politicians and bureaucrats suddenly seize that control away from an American, it is a statist arrogation of personal freedom.
> 
> Authoritarians can lash out and spew their childish _ad hominems_ when that truth is honestly stated, but that's the way it is.


Including late term which is barbarism.  We disagree


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> Including late term which is barbarism.  We disagree


Late term? Try post-birth! Here is Virginia‘s former leftist governor, discussing the decision to let a helpless newborn die:

Skip to 1:30.


----------



## Couchpotato

Rigby5 said:


> The 10th amendment does NOT give the states any additional authority at all.
> All the 9th and 10th amendment says, is the federal government only has authority over what is explicitly granted to it in the constitution, and all other authority remains as it was, either state, municipal, or individual.
> The 9th and 10th amendments do not grant any new authority to the states, and the states never have any authority over person medical choices.
> For example, the feds were not granted any authority over religion, but that then does not mean states have authority over religion.
> Individuals each have their own personal authority over religion.


Wow I dont know that I've ever heard a more wrong headed understanding of what the Constitution says.     

The 10th amendment grants to the States all powers and responsibilities of Governance not specifically lined out in the Constitution as powers and responsibilities of the Federal Government.       Is it your contention that individual states do not have any laws governing medical care?    That the Federal Government doesn't?    Do you believe that they don't have the authority to pass laws governing these things?      

Can I sell my organs?   Is that legal or is there a law against that?       Huh, I guess there are laws that govern medical choices.     

But the objection to abortion surrounds the fact that your medical procedure is killing another being.      If someone was killed because I wanted/needed to get hip replacement surgery would that be ok?  Do you think it would be legal to get hip replacement surgeries?     Do you think there might be a law about it? 

 And, again the overturning of Roe doesn't prohibit a single abortion.   Not 1.   This decision if it ends up being the decision just puts the onus back onto whom it should have rested in the first place.  The legislatures.    That's the problem with Roe and always has been.  The court was way outside it's box with Roe, this just puts it back into it's box and returns the power to govern these things to the people and requires the Legislatures to do their damn jobs.     All the Democrat congress people screaming and gnashing their teeth need to look in the mirror if they are pissed off about this decision.    They could have closed the issue decades ago had they done their jobs instead of trying to get some other branch of government to do it for them.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> That's not a decision for you to make.
> 
> Whether to terminate a pregnancy within her own body up to the point of viability is a personal decision that has been respected under law for the past half century in America, as is the case in most advanced nations (not in Iran, Egypt, El Salvador, Honduras where the State imposes its edicts.) If politicians and bureaucrats suddenly seize that control away from an American, it is a statist arrogation of personal freedom.
> 
> Authoritarians can lash out and spew their childish _ad hominems_ when that truth is honestly stated, but that's the way it is.


Shitlap is spewing shit. If a woman wishes to have the size of her breasts augmented or reduced, she is dealing with her own body. But once she starts trying to exterminate a separate and distinct human being inside her, it is no longer necessarily a “personal” matter. The preborn child gets no voice but society may speak on behalf of the helpless.  

Dishonest hacks like Shitlap try to make it sound like the State is imposing a requirement that conception-capable women have a duty to meet a quota.  Shitlap is basically a liar. The State has no authority to require a woman to get pregnant. But the State does have several reasons for its own existence and one of the big reasons is to protect *life*.


----------



## gronked

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, "we people" didn't "invent" anything.  The term "unborn child" has been used for as long as people have known that that growing bulge in a woman's abdomen resulted in birth.  Even more commonly, the unborn child was simply referred to as "the baby".
> 
> In fact, the preferred terms "embryo" and "fetus" that ignorant pro-aborts use in the mistaken belief that they denote something different from an unborn child ACTUALLY MEAN "unborn child".


To add, our fearless leader, Joe O'Biden actually referred to those who are killed through abortion as Children on Tuesday.  

I think that the truth may be sneaking out due to the senility.


----------



## citygator

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nice attempt at a dodge, but it doesn't skate you past the fact that the topic of my post was you trying to define what my position is.  So don't come at me telling me what I believe, and then when you're called on it think you can change the subject to "generously" offering your permission to believe what I want, as though you have any authority to give me permission for shit.


If you’re anti abortion because you think it’s killing babies and you aren’t doing something drastic about it you’re lying. You can’t have those two viewpoints.  They are inconsistent.


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> If you’re anti abortion because you think it’s killing babies and you aren’t doing something drastic about it you’re lying. You can’t have those two viewpoints.  They are inconsistent.



If you're pro-abortion, you have no instructions to give me on how to behave whatsoever.  If you imagine that I need your approval of my viewpoints, you're delusional.  Save your "rulings" for someone who gives a shit.


----------



## citygator

gronked said:


> Many people do mourn the loss of a pre-born baby.  Miscarriage and Abortion are 2 distinctly different things ethically.  one has intent, the other doesnt.


So I’m the father of dead children?  It was an amazing 6 weeks that we knew each other. Can I answer that I have 4 kids, 2 deceased, on forms and surveys and what not?


----------



## citygator

Cecilie1200 said:


> If you're pro-abortion, you have no instructions to give me on how to behave whatsoever.  If you imagine that I need your approval of my viewpoints, you're delusional.  Save your "rulings" for someone who gives a shit.


Like I thought. I don’t believe abortion is murder so I’m not sitting around the house thinking babies are being murdered. YOU are.  How do you live with yourself?


----------



## eagle1462010

citygator said:


> If you’re anti abortion because you think it’s killing babies and you aren’t doing something drastic about it you’re lying. You can’t have those two viewpoints.  They are inconsistent.


Just because huh.  Depends on how long the baby has been cooking.  When dies life begin.  Our rights dont begin where yours end.  

BTW.  Your side is losing.  Red States are done with your insanity.  Doesnt make abortion illegal in this country.  Just means you cant do it here.

50 states decide their laws.  Cali no longer to tell other states what they can and can not do.


----------



## citygator

gronked said:


> that is such a juvenile argument.  pre born babies are no more a part of the mothers body than the shoes i am wearing are a part of mine.  they live in the mothers body for 7-9 months, but they are certainly not a part of that mothers body.
> 
> that pre born person has an individually unique genetic code that is in every case different than that of the mothers.
> 
> to put another way, am I a "part" of the apartment I used to live in?  of course not.  it was just a place i lived for a short period of time.


28% of pregnancies end up in miscarriage. Wow. That’s a lot of dead humans. Are they all in heaven? If a woman is unhealthy and miscarries is it child abuse?  Manslaughter?  Pre born. Lol. What a crock of shit.


----------



## eagle1462010

citygator said:


> Like I thought. I don’t believe abortion is murder so I’m not sitting around the house thinking babies are being murdered. YOU are.  How do you live with yourself?


Once the baby is 3rd or better I believe it is a baby.  

Riddle me this.  Why is a pregnant mother murdered called a double homocide??

I sleep just fine knowing I dont preach standing on a pulpit built on dead babies.


----------



## citygator

eagle1462010 said:


> Just because huh.  Depends on how long the baby has been cooking.  When dies life begin.  Our rights dont begin where yours end.
> 
> BTW.  Your side is losing.  Red States are done with your insanity.  Doesnt make abortion illegal in this country.  Just means you cant do it here.
> 
> 50 states decide their laws.  Cali no longer to tell other states what they can and can not do.


The law is viable except when deemed necessary by a doctor. Then you should be happy with roe wade.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> If you're pro-abortion, you have no instructions to give me on how to behave whatsoever.  If you imagine that I need your approval of my viewpoints, you're delusional.  Save your "rulings" for someone who gives a shit.


You have spunk! I like spunk! (Are you old enough to get the reference?)

And of course I agree with you.


----------



## BackAgain

citygator said:


> 28% of pregnancies end up in miscarriage. Wow. That’s a lot of dead humans. Are they all in heaven? If a woman is unhealthy and miscarries is it child abuse?  Manslaughter?  Pre born. Lol. What a crock of shit.


ShittyCrock confuses “natural causes” with “intentional killing.”  What a moron he is.


----------



## eagle1462010

citygator said:


> 28% of pregnancies end up in miscarriage. Wow. That’s a lot of dead humans. Are they all in heaven? If a woman is unhealthy and miscarries is it child abuse?  Manslaughter?  Pre born. Lol. What a crock of shit.


So that is excuse to abort them even at the time of birth.

You are twisted.


----------



## eagle1462010

citygator said:


> The law is viable except when deemed necessary by a doctor. Then you should be happy with roe wade.


Roe  Wade is dying .  We dont agree.  Go live with the barbarians in California and stop telling other states what to believe.

It is Not your decision.


----------



## Lisa558

I will summarize the ruling (not final, but likely):

It is simply allowing the citizens of each state to decide whether or not to allow abortion, and if so, under what terms. Why should some leftist in Vermont or New York get to tell Ohio residents what their laws must be?

And this is how the Constitution intended things to be. The SCOTUS is correcting the incorrect ruling from 50 years ago.


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> So I’m the father of dead children?  It was an amazing 6 weeks that we knew each other. Can I answer that I have 4 kids, 2 deceased, on forms and surveys and what not?



You can if you want.  Or don't.  Forms have not a damned thing to do with it.

My mother had a baby between my older sister and older brother.  She was in her eighth month, and fell down a flight of ice-covered stairs.  The fall sent her into premature labor, and the baby lived in the hospital for about a week before he died.  In all the almost-60 years since then, I can't recall her ever having to fill out a form that asked her the total number of babies she'd had; the only questions she was ever asked on forms was along the lines of, "How many children do you have living in your home?"

By the way, she only "knew" my brother for eight months.  She's mourned him for 60 years.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> If you’re anti abortion because you think it’s killing babies and you aren’t doing something drastic about it you’re lying. You can’t have those two viewpoints.  They are inconsistent.



Lol, she gave birth to her children instead of killing them in utero. That's about as drastic an action as she could take, given that she carried the children and went through the terrible pain of giving birth.

That's called consistently acting on one's beliefs.

Now, where do you get off telling her what her (a woman) views on abortion should be? Hmm?


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> Like I thought. I don’t believe abortion is murder so I’m not sitting around the house thinking babies are being murdered. YOU are.  How do you live with yourself?



It's not myself I have to live with.  I'M not the sociopath writing off human life like it's a large bowel movement.  I think it's obvious how I live with you:  with great impatience.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> The law is viable except when deemed necessary by a doctor.



That's the law. But not according to you or the activist doctors out there.


----------



## TemplarKormac

It just strikes me, all of a sudden, how naive citygator is about abortion in general.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> You can if you want.  Or don't.  Forms have not a damned thing to do with it.
> 
> My mother had a baby between my older sister and older brother.  She was in her eighth month, and fell down a flight of ice-covered stairs.  The fall sent her into premature labor, and the baby lived in the hospital for about a week before he died.  In all the almost-60 years since then, I can't recall her ever having to fill out a form that asked her the total number of babies she'd had; the only questions she was ever asked on forms was along the lines of, "How many children do you have living in your home?"
> 
> By the way, she only "knew" my brother for eight months.  She's mourned him for 60 years.


That is so sad. Poor little guy. At least he was loved for the 7 days he lived, and mourned for decades. Better than the so-called “medical waste” these liberals snuff out - and some PROUD to have done it, too  (like the NY AG).


----------



## citygator

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's not myself I have to live with.  I'M not the sociopath writing off human life like it's a large bowel movement.  I think it's obvious how I live with you:  with great impatience.


Look. My point is if you REALLY thought it was murder you’d act way different than if you simply think it’s immoral or something. I wouldn’t stand by while kids were murdered. The line that it’s murder isn’t supported by the actions of those calling it murder. It’s a joke. It’s hyperbole. It’s not what you or anyone really thinks. You can’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t stand for babies killed. That’s crazy.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> So I’m the father of dead children?



If they're your children, yes. 

Genetics just don't suddenly and magically not apply when the child dies.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> That's the law. But not according to you or the activist doctors out there.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

citygator said:


> 28% of pregnancies end up in miscarriage. Wow. That’s a lot of dead humans. Are they all in heaven? If a woman is unhealthy and miscarries is it child abuse?  Manslaughter?  Pre born. Lol. What a crock of shit.


What if the unhappy boyfriend doesn't want the child and beats his girlfriend's belly until she miscarries?  What if he just slips an abortion drug into her morning orange juice?   You know this is murder right?


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Look. My point is if you REALLY thought it was murder you’d act way different than if you simply think it’s immoral or something.



SHE DID.

She let them live!


----------



## dudmuck

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, well thank you so much for "generously" allowing me to choose the way in which I conform to your edicts on the only correct way to do things.  I will counter with a generous offer of your choice of the method to go fuck yourself.


----------



## Lisa558

TemplarKormac said:


> It just strikes me, all of a sudden, how naive citygator is about abortion in general.


Leftists often have very simplistic views. The retort that “a woman can decide what to do with her own body” reveals their inability to analyze, or even recognize, complexities.

I want a chin implant? My body. I want my breasts reduced? My bodyI I want to abort a baby? Someone else’s body is involved. But to leftists, that’s just a minor detail not worthy of discussion.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> If they're your children, yes.
> 
> Genetics just don't suddenly and magically not apply when the child dies.


So my -33 week old size of a grain of rice group of cells that my wife passed in a miscarriage was a full human and my son/daughter? I assure you I don’t mourn the loss of it as a child. I mourned the loss of the promise of a child since the second pregnancy took a while to take. Not a kids death though. 

Am I going to meet it in heaven?


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> View attachment 640892


You can keep posting that but it doesn't make a damned bit of difference.

Because your personal views on this thread are incongruent with the information you are citing. 

And you called _her_ inconsistent?

That's funny as hell man.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> So my -33 week old size of a grain of rice group of cells that my wife passed in a miscarriage was a full human and my son/daughter?


Yeah, according to science. Not you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Am I going to meet it in heaven?



Who says you'll be in heaven with it?


----------



## citygator

EvilCat Breath said:


> What if the unhappy boyfriend doesn't want the child and beats his girlfriend's belly until she miscarries?  What if he just slips an abortion drug into her morning orange juice?   You know this is murder right?


Laws on the book there. It’s a crime no matter what but varies in severity depending on fetus age. Just like abortion practices.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> SHE DID.
> 
> She let them live!


You know I’m talking about the 600,000 abortions per year, which are not murder, but according to you all, it is. That’s a lot to live with.


----------



## Rigby5

Captain Caveman said:


> Correct, women and men should control their own bodies. I believe in women making a choice, and that choice should be made 'before' the pregnancy.
> 
> Then we had the COVID vaccination issue where all of a sudden, people having the right to control their own body, certainly by Democrats, was thrown out of the window.



Wrong.
The only way to prevent pregnancy 'before pregnancy' is to abstain from sex, and that is harmful.
There is no way to have a full life without also having to risk pregnancy that needs to sometimes be terminated.
Humans have much too high of a nature reproductive rate due to the long history of humans having been prey.
Now that we are predators instead of prey, we can't wait for evolution to reduce our reproductive rates, we have to do it artificially, and that includes with abortion.

If covid could effect others, then vaccination could preempt personal choice.
But since the mRNA vaxes are fake, then others have no right to be involved in any way.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Laws on the book there. It’s a crime no matter what but varies in severity depending on fetus age. Just like abortion practices.



There's the law as it stands (for now), and your currently held positions. One is not like the other.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> You know I’m talking about the 600,000 abortions per year, which are not murder, but according to you all, it is. That’s a lot to live with.



Mad? I would be if I made such embarrassing arguments and spoke down to a woman the way you did.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> You can keep posting that but it doesn't make a damned bit of difference.
> 
> Because your personal views on this thread are incongruent with the information you are citing.
> 
> And you called _her_ inconsistent?
> 
> That's funny as hell man.


What is inconsistent ?


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> There's the law as it stands (for now), and your currently held positions. One is not like the other.


Meh.Not true.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> I’m talking about the 600,000 abortions per year, which are not murder, but according to you all, it is



Because unlike you, we adhere to the scientific definition of when life begins, therefore we know what potential for life those children aborted in the first trimester had _before_ they were so swiftly and cruelly escorted from this mortal coil.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Meh.Not true.


Prove it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> What is inconsistent ?



Not what, but _whom_.

And that _whom_ is _you_.


----------



## Rigby5

Esdraelon said:


> Bullshit!  ALL rights not mentioned specifically in the Constitution as part of the Federal government automatically arrogate to the states.  ALL OF THEM.



Totally wrong.
The 10th amendment specifically says:
{... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, *or to the people*. ...}
Nothing automatically defaults to the states.
State only specifically get what powers their state constitution grants.
The vast majority of rights are individual and not given to the states or federal government.
For example, the right to religion or firearms are individual and NOT under state authority at all.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> Because unlike you, we adhere to the scientific definition of when life begins, therefore we know what potential for life those children aborted in the first trimester have.


So you sit around knowing they are being murdered?  That’s what I don’t understand. If someone was bringing 2 year olds to a room to be murdered you’d just post about it on the internet? Clearly a 2 year old and a fetus have different value to you cuz you’d do more. Right?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> Totally wrong.
> The 10th amendment specifically says:
> {... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, *or to the people*. ...}
> Nothing automatically defaults to the states.
> State only specifically get what powers their state constitution grants.
> The vast majority of rights are individual and not given to the states or federal government.
> For example, the right to religion or firearms are individual and NOT under state authority at all.



"are reserved to the states"


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> Prove it.


You made the claim. Unsupported I might add. I dispute. It’s up to you to prove your point. You said my statements were not consistent. How?


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> The stupid decision was made back in the 70s to appease the Feminazis.  It was determined for the wrong reasons.  Imagine how stupid it was for the Court to say that it was a Consititonal Liberty to allow a person to kill a child for the purpose of birth control.
> 
> Great example of why we can't depend upon the Courts to protect our Liberties any more than we can depend upon the Legislative or Executive Branches.   Something our Founding Fathers knew.



Wrong.
Dershowitz is not actually liberal at all, and has always been conservative in disguise.
And of course abortion should always have been and remained legal, for ANY reason a woman chooses.
No one should ever be forced to do anything medical to support anything or anyone else.
For example, if a person needs a transfusion from a particular person and no one else, there is no legal way to force them to give that transfusion, even if that means death to the person who wants the transfusion.
Imminent death is not a valid reason to demand anything from anyone else.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Clearly a 2 year old and a fetus have different value to you.



They have equal value. Both are human. The survival of both dependent on the mother.


citygator said:


> That’s what I don’t understand. If someone was bringing 2 year olds to a room to be murdered you’d just post about it on the internet?



How do you expect me to stop it? What power or authority do you think I have?

Also, what about this is so hard for you to understand?

The argument against the humanity of an embryo/fetus based on any stage of development is a chronological fallacy, a faulty justification used to permit killing unborn children. As is the viability/survivability standard liberals use.

Because, if so, according to your logic, a 2-year-old would not be human either, and just as eligible for death as the unborn child.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dudmuck said:


> yep...


And thus, your position rests on an invalid standard.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> That is so sad. Poor little guy. At least he was loved for the 7 days he lived, and mourned for decades. Better than the so-called “medical waste” these liberals snuff out - and some PROUD to have done it, too  (like the NY AG).



Sadly, it was not uncommon in the early 1960s.  Safety procedures regarding inclement weather on stairs have improved since then.  Also, obstetric procedures have advanced light-years from there.


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> Look. My point is if you REALLY thought it was murder you’d act way different than if you simply think it’s immoral or something. I wouldn’t stand by while kids were murdered. The line that it’s murder isn’t supported by the actions of those calling it murder. It’s a joke. It’s hyperbole. It’s not what you or anyone really thinks. You can’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t stand for babies killed. That’s crazy.



Look, MY point is you have no advice and judgement to give me on how to practice beliefs you don't hold.  That will continue to be my point no matter how many times you try to arrogate to yourself the authority to pass judgements on how I uphold morals you don't have.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dudmuck said:


>



I think that, in all cases, your memes are a pathetic and inadequate replacement for the thought you can't produce.


----------



## Rigby5

TemplarKormac said:


> "are reserved to the states"



Can you not read?
It say, "are reserved to the States respectively, *or to the people*."
You do understand the meaning of the word "or"?
It means there are 2 choices, depending on other factors.
So then NO, all other powers not granted to the federal government are NOT automatically granted to the states.
Only a very few powers are granted to the states, and you have to look at each state constitution to see what powers are granted to each state.  The vast majority of powers are based on inherent individual rights that precede the creation of any level of government and can not be taken by any government.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> How do you live with yourself?



She lives, and that act of living isn't dependent on your opinions.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> Can you not read?
> It say, "are reserved to the States respectively, *or to the people*."
> You do understand the meaning of the word "or"?
> It means there are 2 choices, depending on other factors.
> So then NO, all other powers not granted to the federal government are NOT automatically granted to the states.
> Only a very few powers are granted to the states, and you have to look at each state constitution to see what powers are granted to each state.  The vast majority of powers are based on inherent individual rights that precede the creation of any level of government and can not be taken by any government.


The states are governed by the people. The use of 'or to the people' are the founders defining what states are and consist of. 

Simple.

Please, keep the lectures to yourself.


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Dershowitz is not actually liberal at all, and has always been conservative in disguise.
> And of course abortion should always have been and remained legal, for ANY reason a woman chooses.
> No one should ever be forced to do anything medical to support anything or anyone else.
> For example, if a person needs a transfusion from a particular person and no one else, there is no legal way to force them to give that transfusion, even if that means death to the person who wants the transfusion.
> Imminent death is not a valid reason to demand anything from anyone else.


You stupid Moon Bats are now preaching  the "my body, my choice" bullshit after you turds  tried to force all that oppression about masks and vaccinations down our throats?  LOL!

 Of course your real ignorance comes with you lack of knowledge of Biology.  It is just not one human body.  There are two once a woman gets knocked up.  I shit you not.  Go look it up.

A woman can do anything she wants to herself but when she kills another human being then that is murder.  Abortion is murder.  A woman is killing another human being as a birth control method and that is wrong.  Really, really wrong.

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats are just as confused about Biology and Ethics as you are confused about History, Economics, Climate Science and the Constitution.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> You made the claim. Unsupported I might add. I dispute. It’s up to you to prove your point. You said my statements were not consistent. How?


Easy. The activist viewpoints you expressed, such as "abortion is not murder" are incongruent with the laws and statistics you cite. 

The law defines gestational viability, your held views on the matter, in stark contrast, do not.


----------



## Rigby5

Cecilie1200 said:


> Look, MY point is you have no advice and judgement to give me on how to practice beliefs you don't hold.  That will continue to be my point no matter how many times you try to arrogate to yourself the authority to pass judgements on how I uphold morals you don't have.



But it has nothing to do with YOUR personal morals.
Do you think you can or should dictate what others in other countries should do over things like capital punishment, etc.? 
Of course not.
You are only supposed to apply your personal morals to your own actions, and not try to dictate to others.


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> So my -33 week old size of a grain of rice group of cells that my wife passed in a miscarriage was a full human and my son/daughter? I assure you I don’t mourn the loss of it as a child. I mourned the loss of the promise of a child since the second pregnancy took a while to take. Not a kids death though.
> 
> Am I going to meet it in heaven?



Did you think humanity was determined by size and length of existence?  How primitive of you.

Is the fact that you don't mourn the loss supposed to mean something to us other than what we already know about you?

This is only my personal opinion, but I don't think the odds are currently in your favor of meeting him in Heaven.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TemplarKormac said:


> Easy. The activist viewpoints you expressed, such as "abortion is not murder" are incongruent with the laws and statistics you cite.
> 
> The law defines gestational viability, your held views on the matter, in stark contrast, do not.



To add, citygator , your position places no limits on when abortion can occur, yet the laws you cite, do. Even Roe does.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> You are only supposed to apply your personal morals to your own actions, and not try to dictate to others.



Speak for yourself. Anyone arguing on this thread has an interest in applying their morals and standards to American society, it is simply a matter of which morals are just and which ones aren't.

As for her children, I really hope she did apply her personal morals to them, that's a core tenet of raising children in my opinion.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> You stupid Moon Bats are now preaching  the "my body, my choice" bullshit after you turds  tried to force all that oppression about masks and vaccinations down our throats?  LOL!
> 
> Of course your real ignorance comes with you lack of knowledge of Biology.  It is just not one human body.  There are two once a woman gets knocked up.  I shit you not.  Go look it up.
> 
> A woman can do anything she wants to herself but when she kills another human being then that is murder.  Abortion is murder.  A woman is killing another human being as a birth control method and that is wrong.  Really, really wrong.
> 
> You stupid uneducated Moon Bats are just as confused about Biology and Ethics as you are confused about History, Economics, Climate Science and the Constitution.



First of all, although I am far left, liberal, progressive, I am totally against masks and vax for covid.
Second is that NO one human body ever gets to dictate medical choices of another, and the fetus has no authority over the mother at all, in any way.
If some stranger wanted and needed something like a blood transfusion in order to survive, no one can be forced to give it.
Similarly, a fetus has no say over the woman's body at all, in any way.
And no, a fetus is not at all a human being, as it is not conscious, self aware, or sentient.

You have a right to your own ethical beliefs, but only over what you do, not anyone else.


----------



## Rigby5

TemplarKormac said:


> Easy. The activist viewpoints you expressed, such as "abortion is not murder" are incongruent with the laws and statistics you cite.
> 
> The law defines gestational viability, your held views on the matter, in stark contrast, do not.



Wrong.
All sperm and ovum have "gestational viability", but no one has any rights over the body of the woman except the woman.  
Legislation is NOT the source of rights or abstract law.
Rights are inherent and no one could ever make a fetus supreme over the choice of the woman.


----------



## Rigby5

TemplarKormac said:


> To add, citygator , your position places no limits on when abortion can occur, yet the laws you cite, do. Even Roe does.



The legislation is wrong.
Government has zero legal authority over any choice a woman may make with here own medical procedures, ever.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> The only way to prevent pregnancy 'before pregnancy' is to abstain from sex, and that is harmful.



No, it's not. Abstinence is not the only method. Contraceptives and birth control steps taken before sexual activity can drastically reduce the risk of pregnancy. 

Besides, the exercise of better judgment is never ever harmful. Never ever.


----------



## Rigby5

TemplarKormac said:


> Speak for yourself. Anyone arguing on this thread has an interest in applying their morals and standards to American society, it is simply a matter of which morals are just and which ones aren't.
> 
> As for her children, I really hope she did apply her personal morals to them, that's a core tenet of raising children in my opinion.



Wrong.
No one ever has any interests in forcing moral standards on anyone else.
The ONLY time government has any legal authority is when what someone else does effect YOU, and that is not the case with abortion.
With abortion you are attempting to interfere with something between 2 others where you have zero standing and should stay out of it.

Moral standards can not and should not ever be forced.
They are only to be explained, and let people decide for themselves.
Anything else is fascist and dictatorial.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> Legislation is NOT the source of rights or abstract law



That's news to me. Good thing I know more about the topic than you.


----------



## Rigby5

TemplarKormac said:


> No, it's not. Abstinence is not the only method. Contraceptives and birth control steps taken before sexual activity can drastically reduce the risk of pregnancy.
> 
> Besides, the exercise of better judgment is never ever harmful. Never ever.



Wrong.
Birth control is good, but never 100%.
Abortion will always be necessary forever.
In fact, we are dangerously overpopulated and risk species extinction already.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> No one ever has any interests in forcing moral standards on anyone else.



You're doing it right now, by demanding every woman in America act monolithically in their support of abortion.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Birth control is good, but never 100%.



That's why there are multiple methods. To ensure 100% success. 

This isn't hard. 

Might be because your arguments are too overly simplistic.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> In fact, we are dangerously overpopulated and risk species extinction already.


Oh my, we have a eugenicist on our hands folks.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> Moral standards can not and should not ever be forced.
> They are only to be explained, and let people decide for themselves.
> Anything else is fascist and dictatorial.



Then why did leftists support the leak of the SCOTUS draft opinion? That surely flies in the face of letting people think freely or decide freely, let alone the Supreme Court. It also reeks of people wishing to enforce their collective wills and morality on others. 

Only people like you can be so blind to that realization.


----------



## Ralph Norton

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> All sperm and ovum have "gestational viability", but no one has any rights over the body of the woman except the woman.
> Legislation is NOT the source of rights or abstract law.
> Rights are inherent and no one could ever make a fetus supreme over the choice of the woman.


What or who is the source of these "inherent rights"?


----------



## Lisa558

TemplarKormac said:


> Then why did leftists support the leak of the SCOTUS draft opinion? That surely flies in the face of letting people think freely or decide freely, let alone the Supreme Court. It also reeks of people wishing to enforce their collective wills and morality on others.
> 
> Only people like you can be so blind to that realization.


Absolutely! If this came from the conservatives, the WH would be out with condemnation, and Psaki would be focused on this egregious breach. The fact that they are downplaying the leak, or actually ignoring it completely, and focusing on the way the decision will likely go, speaks volumes.


----------



## Lisa558

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Birth control is good, but never 100%.
> Abortion will always be necessary forever.
> In fact, we are dangerously overpopulated and risk species extinction already.


Birth control, especially doubled up for extra protection, is more than 99% effective. And that’s over an entire year - not one time. If abortion becomes more restrictive in certain states, and that means an annoying bus ride to seek out an abortion, I guarantee you the number of unplanned pregnancies will drop substantially.

Birth control isn’t rocket science.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lisa558 said:


> Birth control isn’t rocket science.



This.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Remember kids, it might take a few days in threads like these _and _some uncomfortable methods, but the screaming will eventually stop.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The only way to prevent pregnancy 'before pregnancy' is to abstain from sex, and that is harmful.
> There is no way to have a full life without also having to risk pregnancy that needs to sometimes be terminated.
> Humans have much too high of a nature reproductive rate due to the long history of humans having been prey.
> Now that we are predators instead of prey, we can't wait for evolution to reduce our reproductive rates, we have to do it artificially, and that includes with abortion.
> 
> If covid could effect others, then vaccination could preempt personal choice.
> But since the mRNA vaxes are fake, then others have no right to be involved in any way.


Wrong.

Sex doesn't have to be penetrative sex of the vagina with a penis. For that, you have contraceptive gels, the pill, and condoms, use more than one. For sexual pleasure, you have toys and two more orifices. It's basic biology, if you inject sperm into a vagina, there's a chance of pregnancy. Anyone who doesn't understand that, is thick as fuck and doesn't deserve have reproductive organs.

Put it this way, if you want an abortion, the woman and bloke have to pay 10 times their annual salary, in order to get the message through their retarded thick skulls.

The vaccination protects YOU from the virus. It is not designed to protect YOU from THOSE who didn't get the vaccination. But there again, the pro vaxxers are in the same the same thick skull camp as the bakes who need an abortion.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Oddball said:


> When lifer lefty lawyer Alan Dersh sez Roe is bad law, it's really bad law.


Ruth Bader Ginsberg said it was bad law.


----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:


> Shitlap is spewing shit. If a woman wishes to have the size of her breasts augmented or reduced, she is dealing with her own body. But once she starts trying to exterminate a separate and distinct human being inside her, it is no longer necessarily a “personal” matter. The preborn child gets no voice but society may speak on behalf of the helpless.
> 
> Dishonest hacks like Shitlap try to make it sound like the State is imposing a requirement that conception-capable women have a duty to meet a quota.  Shitlap is basically a liar. The State has no authority to require a woman to get pregnant. But the State does have several reasons for its own existence and one of the big reasons is to protect *life*.


The State denying the freedom a woman has had over her reproductive system for the past 50 years is an abrogation of an existing liberty. 

No matter how much you whine that the politicians should seize control, there is no denying that.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> The State denying the freedom a woman has had over her reproductive system for the past 50 years is an abrogation of an existing liberty.


No. It’s the termination of an existing fallacy.


schmidlap said:


> No matter how much you whine that the politicians should seize control, there is no denying that.


No matter how often you repeat your blithering imbecility, it doesn’t change. It *was* blithering imbecility and it still *is*. And it *will be* the next dozen or more times.  Etc.


----------



## Oddball

schmidlap said:


> The State denying the freedom a woman has had over her reproductive system for the past 50 years is an abrogation of an existing liberty.
> 
> No matter how much you whine that the politicians should seize control, there is no denying that.


Half of those aborted had the same fledgling reproductive systems, which you're fine with destroying.

GFY.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> My wife had two miscarriages.  We didn’t name and bury them. Flushed in toilet.  Am I the father of two dead children?  Should I morn on their flush dates?



That is by far the sickest thing I have ever read on this board. _Ever_.


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> The State denying the freedom a woman has had over her reproductive system for the past 50 years is an abrogation of an existing liberty.
> 
> No matter how much you whine that the politicians should seize control, there is no denying that.


Let the people living in each state decide what they want. Why should some Lefty Loon in Vermont get to tell Ohio what its laws need to be?


----------



## Lisa558

TemplarKormac said:


> That is by far the sickest thing I have ever read on this board. Ever.


The libs are really showing how little they care about human life. Some of the comments: PROUD to have an abortion! We flushed the embryos down the toilet. Aborted babies are just “medical waste.” Life isn’t that precious.

If life isn’t that precious, why do liberals want us to give out more and more welfare? Food stamps. Subsidized housing. Medicaid. if life isn’t that precious, why don’t we just let them starve, out in the cold, with a broken arm? After all, life isn’t that precious. 

Liberals are some heartless SOBs.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> The libs are really showing how little they care about human life. Some of the comments: PROUD to have an abortion! We flushed the embryos down the toilet. Aborted babies are just “medical waste.” Life isn’t that precious.
> 
> If life isn’t that precious, why do liberals want us to give out more and more welfare? Food stamps. Subsidized housing. Medicaid. if life isn’t that precious, why don’t we just let them starve, out in the cold, with a broken arm? After all, life isn’t that precious.
> 
> Liberals are some heartless SOBs.





I know, I know!

Life is only precious to leftists when that life can vote.


----------



## BackAgain

Cecilie1200 said:


> I know, I know!
> 
> Life is only precious to leftists when that life can vote.


But only if it votes as directed by the cult.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lisa558 said:


> The libs are really showing how little they care about human life. Some of the comments: PROUD to have an abortion! We flushed the embryos down the toilet. Aborted babies are just “medical waste.” Life isn’t that precious.
> 
> If life isn’t that precious, why do liberals want us to give out more and more welfare? Food stamps. Subsidized housing. Medicaid. if life isn’t that precious, why don’t we just let them starve, out in the cold, with a broken arm? After all, life isn’t that precious.
> 
> Liberals are some heartless SOBs.



Liberals have no idea how easily their definitions of life and humanity can be turned against them. Viability, survivability, humanity.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BackAgain said:


> But only if it votes as directed by the cult.



Excellent point.


----------



## Sunsettommy

citygator said:


> 28% of pregnancies end up in miscarriage. Wow. That’s a lot of dead humans. Are they all in heaven? If a woman is unhealthy and miscarries is it child abuse?  Manslaughter?  Pre born. Lol. What a crock of shit.



Your statement is misleading because those are accidental/natural events of a Pregnancy many by women who WANTED to have a child in the first place.

Now the Miscarriage stats are lower than your unsupported claim according to HealthGrades,






A miscarriage is the unplanned loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week of pregnancy. At least 10 to 15% of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage, but experts say the actual rate of miscarriage is probably greater because some miscarriages occur before women even realize they are pregnant.


----------



## Dragonlady

Nostra said:


> For some unknown reason you think all women support killing babies.  They don't , Dumbass.



For some unknown reason, you think abortions kill babies. They don’t. Dumbass. 




Captain Caveman said:


> Correct, women and men should control their own bodies. I believe in women making a choice, and that choice should be made 'before' the pregnancy.
> 
> Then we had the COVID vaccination issue where all of a sudden, people having the right to control their own body, certainly by Democrats, was thrown out of the window.



You’re truly living up to you name.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dragonlady said:


> For some unknown reason, you think abortions kill babies. They don’t. Dumbass.


Ah.   
-That's- how you get through the mental and emotional pain associated with your abortions.
You lie to yourself.


----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:


> No. It’s the termination of an existing fallacy.
> 
> No matter how often you repeat your blithering imbecility, it doesn’t change. It *was* blithering imbecility and it still *is*. And it *will be* the next dozen or more times.  Etc.


You keep spewing your churlish ad _hominems, _but doing so does not alter the reality that a personal freedom that has been the law of the land for fifty years and is supported by most Americans is about to bge abrogated by the  State - the retrogressive, authoritarian ones. Elsewhere, in advanced states, freedom will be protected.


----------



## Dragonlady

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.
> -That's- how you get through the mental and emotional pain associated with your abortions.
> You lie to yourself.



I’ve never had an abortion but it’s no lie. 

The misogyny and hatred of women is at the root of our post. You don’t care about these children at all. You just want to abuse poor women who have few choices.


----------



## Couchpotato

citygator said:


> Like I thought. I don’t believe abortion is murder so I’m not sitting around the house thinking babies are being murdered. YOU are.  How do you live with yourself?


There are kids being killed and exploited on our southern border every day.   Im sure that's where you are right now trying to stop it right?   You're nothing but a blow hard.


----------



## Couchpotato

Dragonlady said:


> For some unknown reason, you think abortions kill babies. They don’t. Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re truly living up to you name.


When does a fetus get it's rights?   How many weeks after conception until it's killing a living being?


----------



## Rigby5

TemplarKormac said:


> That's news to me. Good thing I know more about the topic than you.



It is obvious that legislation is NOT at all the source of law.
First of all, legislation did not used to exist, so then are you claiming there was not right or wrong?
Secondly is how is it that we can decide legislation is wrong, and fight rebellions in order to change it?
Obviously we have more direct means of determining what is right and wrong than mere legislation, and in fact legislation is often totally wrong.
Third is that if legislation were the source of law, then we would not only not need judges to temper and interpret legislation, but judges would have nothing to use or go by in doing so.
The reality is that Common Law precedent is the main source of law, and is a series of agreed upon values that have gone through a long trial and error process to optimize.
Attempts by legislators to diverge at all from traditional common law is almost always totally illegal and corrupt.


----------



## eagle1462010

citygator said:


> So my -33 week old size of a grain of rice group of cells that my wife passed in a miscarriage was a full human and my son/daughter? I assure you I don’t mourn the loss of it as a child. I mourned the loss of the promise of a child since the second pregnancy took a while to take. Not a kids death though.
> 
> Am I going to meet it in heaven?


33 weeks.  Lmao  size of a grain.  Dna gene pool of a very small midget


----------



## Rigby5

Couchpotato said:


> When does a fetus get it's rights?   How many weeks after conception until it's killing a living being?



A fetus never gains rights over the medical choices of the mother.
It simply no longer is dependent upon the mother after birth.


----------



## Couchpotato

Rigby5 said:


> A fetus never gains rights over the medical choices of the mother.
> It simply no longer is dependent upon the mother after birth.


At some point it does otherwise neither you nor I have rights as we were all fetuses.   So when does that happen?    How do I know that the entity Im dealing with is a full fledged member of society and has had their rights conferred on them and Im not allowed to arbitrarily end it's existence anymore?


----------



## eagle1462010

Dragonlady said:


> For some unknown reason, you think abortions kill babies. They don’t. Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re truly living up to you name.


Soooo.  Leave the baby cooking 9 months and nothing comes out right??  You know a baby had a heart beat fingers and toes in the womb.  How do you know there is no soul there?

Doesnt matter.  Abortion is still legal to 15 weeks inMississippi.  After that you should have moved to California.  Gonna go to jail.  Its illegal now and looks like SCOTUS agrees


----------



## Captain Caveman

Dragonlady said:


> You’re truly living up to you name.


Anyone who doesn't understand the basics of basic sex education, they have no place in the gene pool and their parents did a bad job.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Come on Dragonlady , what do you think could happen if sperm gets near an egg in the female's uterus?

So, rocket science bit here. Do you think if a female doesn't want to get pregnant and a guy doesn't want to become a father, should they keep the sperm away from the egg, and if they're feeling randy, are there any other ways to sexual gratification? Answers on a postcard.


----------



## Rigby5

TemplarKormac said:


> Mad? I would be if I made such embarrassing arguments and spoke down to a woman the way you did.



If you prevented those 600,000 abortions a years, the US would be destroyed by poverty within a century.
If the whole planet stopped having abortions, we could likely cause human species extinction within a 1000 years.


----------



## Rigby5

TemplarKormac said:


> Because unlike you, we adhere to the scientific definition of when life begins, therefore we know what potential for life those children aborted in the first trimester had _before_ they were so swiftly and cruelly escorted from this mortal coil.



Totally wrong.
All cells are life.
We have no concern over life at all, but only about sentience and consciousness.


----------



## Rigby5

Lisa558 said:


> Let the people living in each state decide what they want. Why should some Lefty Loon in Vermont get to tell Ohio what its laws need to be?



Wrong.
You personally already have all the choices you need in your state, since you do not intend to have any abortion.
But you are not satisfied and for some reason want to jail others in your state who have different views on when a fetus becomes human.
What right do you have to demand others of your state do or not do anything?
Being a majority does not increase the correctness of your position or give you the authority to violate the inherent individual rights of anyone else.


----------



## Rigby5

Couchpotato said:


> At some point it does otherwise neither you nor I have rights as we were all fetuses.   So when does that happen?    How do I know that the entity Im dealing with is a full fledged member of society and has had their rights conferred on them and Im not allowed to arbitrarily end it's existence anymore?



Totally wrong.
After birth the fetus still has zero rights over the medical choices of the mother.
The only difference is that after birth, the infant no longer has any medical needs that need any sacrifice by the mother.
The mother can just put it up for adoption.
It has nothing at all to do with whether or not a fetus has rights.
The point is that the fetus NEVER have any rights over the medical choices of the mother.


----------



## Lisa558

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> You personally already have all the choices you need in your state, since you do not intend to have any abortion.
> But you are not satisfied and for some reason want to jail others in your state who have different views on when a fetus becomes human.
> What right do you have to demand others of your state do or not do anything?
> Being a majority does not increase the correctness of your position or give you the authority to violate the inherent individual rights of anyone else.


Because according to the Constitution, individual states get to make the laws for their own state, and voters IN THAT STATE determine that, via their elected officials.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> Because according to the Constitution, individual states get to make the laws for their own state, and voters IN THAT STATE determine that, via their elected officials.


And that just sums up what is about to happen.  They think they should be able to force other states to do what blue states do already.  

Red States dont play that game.  Deap South not only says No.  But Hell No.  

Thank You Mississippi.  From Alabama


----------



## beagle9

gipper said:


> The history of the human condition is living in tyranny. Our country was the exception, but that’s coming to an end. Be careful what you wish for.


What do I wish for ??


----------



## beagle9

Who_Me? said:


> Video captured a visibly rattled, angry Elizabeth Warren saying that overturning Roe v Wade is 'not what a majority of Americans want'​Then state elections will determine abortion rights.  If the majority want this then it will be voted into law at the state level.


It proves that ever since the feds overthrew state's rights, and became big brother to all during the sixties, the hippie's took advantage of that control, and recognized it's power (regardless of the issues being right or wrong since), otherwise all the way up to this very day.

Like I said, if an issue is right then I'll back anyone's stance on the right issue, but if it's wrong then don't count me in.


----------



## Rigby5

Lisa558 said:


> Because according to the Constitution, individual states get to make the laws for their own state, and voters IN THAT STATE determine that, via their elected officials.



WRONG!
The Constitution is very clear that there are individual rights limiting what states can legislate at all.
This is just part of the 14th amendment.
{...
 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...}
Voters, the majority, or legislators in any state do not get to arbitrarily dictate limits on individual rights.
Any one single individual must remain supreme over the desires of all the rest of the residents of a state, when it comes to inherent individual rights of that one individual.
And whether or not to give birth is an inherent individual choice, not up to legislators or majorities.


----------



## Rigby5

eagle1462010 said:


> And that just sums up what is about to happen.  They think they should be able to force other states to do what blue states do already.
> 
> Red States dont play that game.  Deap South not only says No.  But Hell No.
> 
> Thank You Mississippi.  From Alabama



States are irrelevant.
They have NO rights at all.
Only individuals have rights, and it is illegal for states to violate them.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Rigby5 said:


> Totally wrong.
> After birth the fetus still has zero rights over the medical choices of the mother.
> The only difference is that after birth, the infant no longer has any medical needs that need any sacrifice by the mother.
> The mother can just put it up for adoption.
> It has nothing at all to do with whether or not a fetus has rights.
> The point is that the fetus NEVER have any rights over the medical choices of the mother.



After birth it is NO longer a Fetus it is now a BABY.

The DO they have legal rights when they are born as FindLaw points out:

What are the Legal Rights of Children?​
_Created by FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors_ _| Last updated March 18, 2019_

Excerpt:

This article covers the basic legal rights of children in the United States.
Legal Rights of Children: The Basics​
Although children grow and mature at different rates, there are some rights that every child is born with. For instance, children are entitled to a safe environment, good nutrition, healthcare, and education. Although parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, if a child is not safe, the state will remove the children from their home. Parents are required to meet the child's basic needs.

Minors also have rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they have the right to equal protection, which means that every child is entitled to the same treatment at the hands of authority regardless of race, gender, disability, or religion. Children are also entitled to due process, which includes notice and a hearing, before any of their basic rights are taken away by the government.

Children with disabilities also have rights under the federal Disabilities Education Act. The Disabilities Education Act provides children in need of special education with special accommodations to ensure they receive the same education as their peers.

LINK


----------



## airplanemechanic

Penelope why did you "dislike" my post number 2 on this thread saying that this should be up to the states? Is this not what a democracy is about? Letting the voters in each state decide what they want? Why is that a "dislike"?


----------



## Calypso Jones

Dragonlady said:
			
		

> This will be the end of Republicans. Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.



what does the GOP have to do with.......OH...I GET IT..   Trying to pin decisions by these judges on the GOP in order to try to take back election 2022.       Lots of those women voters are Trump voters.    I see the plan.   We'll see if it works.    I don't know if you can count on it.


----------



## Gregory A

Stann said:


> You idiots complain about not being able to have your guns I'm not going to start discussing guns I just want to make a stupid comparison like you guys do. How can you compare anything like that to not even having control over your own body. Women are supposed to be equals with men. Abortion laws make women second class citizens, they are a joke.


But isn't it the problem that Roe v Wade gave abortion the status of a fundamental right when at best it should be only something 'allowed'. It's not as though women become pregnant spontaneously. They don't compromise their rights when they chose to enter into a sexual relationship? To me as a non-American the original Roe v Wade ruling was political. When laws should not pander to anyone's politics. As they are there for everyone.


----------



## Rigby5

Sunsettommy said:


> After birth it is NO longer a Fetus it is now a BABY.
> 
> The DO they have legal rights when they are born as FindLaw points out:
> 
> What are the Legal Rights of Children?​
> _Created by FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors_ _| Last updated March 18, 2019_
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> This article covers the basic legal rights of children in the United States.
> Legal Rights of Children: The Basics​
> Although children grow and mature at different rates, there are some rights that every child is born with. For instance, children are entitled to a safe environment, good nutrition, healthcare, and education. Although parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, if a child is not safe, the state will remove the children from their home. Parents are required to meet the child's basic needs.
> 
> Minors also have rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they have the right to equal protection, which means that every child is entitled to the same treatment at the hands of authority regardless of race, gender, disability, or religion. Children are also entitled to due process, which includes notice and a hearing, before any of their basic rights are taken away by the government.
> 
> Children with disabilities also have rights under the federal Disabilities Education Act. The Disabilities Education Act provides children in need of special education with special accommodations to ensure they receive the same education as their peers.
> 
> LINK



Absolutely and totally wrong.
No one ever questioned the rights of any baby, fetus, ovum, or sperm.
That is totally irrelevant.
The POINT is that the rights of the mother, to her own body, can never be violated by or for anyone.
Not an ovum, fetus, or born baby.
If the born baby wants a liter of blood for a transfusion, the mother legally has a choice and can say no.


----------



## Rigby5

airplanemechanic said:


> Penelope why did you "dislike" my post number 2 on this thread saying that this should be up to the states? Is this not what a democracy is about? Letting the voters in each state decide what they want? Why is that a "dislike"?



The reason you are totally and completely wrong is that states can't ever be allowed to dictate over the choices of individuals.
State has no standing about whether or not a woman wants to allow a fetus to be delivered from HER body.
Voters in states get NO choice in what a woman decides.
That would be a dictatorship.
In a republic, each person makes their own choices over their medical procedures.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Rigby5 said:


> Absolutely and totally wrong.
> No one ever questioned the rights of any baby, fetus, ovum, or sperm.
> That is totally irrelevant.
> The POINT is that the rights of the mother, to her own body, can never be violated by or for anyone.
> Not an ovum, fetus, or born baby.
> If the born baby wants a liter of blood for a transfusion, the mother legally has a choice and can say no.



Ha ha ha.... by law the mother MUST care for the Babys needs such as feeding, medical care and such as pointed out in the link you ignored.

I didn't realize babies have a habit of asking for blood transfusions must be a medical prodigy!

 "For instance, children are entitled to a safe environment, good nutrition, healthcare, and education. Although parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, if a child is not safe, the state will remove the children from their home. Parents are required to meet the child's basic needs."

There have been plenty of state actions rescuing children because of parents not taking care of them.


----------



## Gregory A

Rigby5 said:


> Absolutely and totally wrong.
> No one ever questioned the rights of any baby, fetus, ovum, or sperm.
> That is totally irrelevant.
> The POINT is that the rights of the mother, to her own body, can never be violated by or for anyone.
> Not an ovum, fetus, or born baby.
> If the born baby wants a liter of blood for a transfusion, the mother legally has a choice and can say no.


What you are saying makes sense if pregnancies were spontaneous occurrences. But it is her that has chosen to compromise the situation by choosing to allow a second party in the form of a male to have access to her body.  If she has the right to terminate what then becomes a third party, then why not the second party having that same right. The faith the male might have in her claim she is taking preventions is not considered violated if she chooses to have the baby. It is a risk he takes, but why then a no-risk position for her.  If humans laid eggs whose right would it be to break those eggs.


----------



## Rigby5

Sunsettommy said:


> Ha ha ha.... by law the mother MUST care for the Babys needs such as feeding, medical care and such as pointed out in the link you ignored.
> 
> I didn't realize babies have a habit of asking for blood transfusions must be a medical prodigy!
> 
> "For instance, children are entitled to a safe environment, good nutrition, healthcare, and education. Although parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, if a child is not safe, the state will remove the children from their home. Parents are required to meet the child's basic needs."
> 
> There have been plenty of state actions rescuing children because of parents not taking care of them.



Wrong.
Any woman may at any time put their child up for adoption or give them to someone else.
A woman has no responsibility for a baby once born.
You can't force an adult to do anything in a republic.
Only a dictatorship does that.


----------



## Rigby5

Gregory A said:


> What you are saying makes sense if pregnancies were spontaneous occurrences. But it is her that has chosen to compromise the situation by choosing to allow a second party in the form of a male to have access to her body.  If she has the right to terminate what then becomes a third party, then why not the second party having that same right. The faith the male might have in her claim she is taking preventions is not considered violated if she chooses to have the baby. It is a risk he takes, but why then a no-risk position for her.  If humans laid eggs whose right would it be to break those eggs.



I disagree.
Sex is a biological need and totally independent of whether or not it results in a pregnancy.
We are not like rabbits any more, that need massive reproduction rates.
We have to reduce reproductive rates, but still have to also satisfy our inherent sexual needs.
So then there is no other way then abortion sometimes.


----------



## Gregory A

Rigby5 said:


> I disagree.
> Sex is a biological need and totally independent of whether or not it results in a pregnancy.
> We are not like rabbits any more, that need massive reproduction rates.
> We have to reduce reproductive rates, but still have to also satisfy our inherent sexual needs.
> So then there is no other way then abortion sometimes.


Sure, and you make a valid point one that I do accept. But she could still decide to proceed with the pregnancy. Should he have the right to order a termination based on the point you have made. Why should the decision be hers alone.  I mean the pregnancy could have been intentional. He would not need to know and is it a risk he takes? Marriage should decide these things which mostly has always been the way.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Any woman may at any time put their child up for adoption or give them to someone else.
> A woman has no responsibility for a baby once born.
> You can't force an adult to do anything in a republic.
> Only a dictatorship does that.



Never said anything against adoption and you still ignore the laws I posted showing parent are *responsible* to caring for the children for the food, medical and physical needs.

Women are expected to care for the child they brought into the world that is so elementary an understanding that it shouldn't be argued I have two daughters according to you it seems I could just take them out into the desert and leave them there because according to you parents have no responsibility for their lives.

You disgust me to the point that I put you on ignore.

Cheers.


----------



## eagle1462010

Rigby5 said:


> States are irrelevant.
> They have NO rights at all.
> Only individuals have rights, and it is illegal for states to violate them.


We beg to differ.  We are changing the law........And it very well appears that SCOTUS will not overturn it.

You don't tell us what to do here................Period..........Go back to your Blue Shithole and be you.


----------



## Lakhota

*Yes you did!!!!!*


----------



## Lakhota

*Seriously, is Susan Collins retarded?*


----------



## yidnar

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639671
> 
> Amen!  That's why I think SCOTUS may have intentionally leaked their draft opinion as a trial balloon.  I firmly believe this is good news for Democrats.


it appears Lakhota has found a website to get his idiotic points across for him ..... congrats idiot !


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> If you prevented those 600,000 abortions a years, the US would be destroyed by poverty within a century.


Teach proper parenting skills, and make college education affordable and entry-level jobs more readily available and accessible, then poverty wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> For some unknown reason, you think abortions kill babies. They don’t. Dumbass.


Wait, wut?


----------



## Lakhota

*They LIED to us all - while under oath!*​


----------



## beagle9

Rigby5 said:


> WRONG!
> The Constitution is very clear that there are individual rights limiting what states can legislate at all.
> This is just part of the 14th amendment.
> {...
> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> ...}
> Voters, the majority, or legislators in any state do not get to arbitrarily dictate limits on individual rights.
> Any one single individual must remain supreme over the desires of all the rest of the residents of a state, when it comes to inherent individual rights of that one individual.
> And whether or not to give birth is an inherent individual choice, not up to legislators or majorities.


Different time we're living in bud, where as no one could have foreseen the future as based upon how the amendments would play out for a citizenry that has since gone rogue, otherwise just like what we've seen play out over the years looking back now, and then of course looking forward. The amendments might have to be revisited, and then made clear on what they were added for, what they covered at the time, and what they never intended to cover going forward from that time. To many constitutional amendments have been misconstrued in order to attempt to usher in terrible things that were not intended to be protected by the amendments added.

Now not all amendments are bad, nor have they been abused, but we definitely have seen abuse going on in the comprehension dept or interpretation dept of these constitutional amendments by devil's with very evil purposes involved.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 641061
> 
> *They LIED to us all - while under oath!*​


Pot painting kettle black............

Do you know what happens to people who get the shit harassed out of them by LEFTIST LUNATICS?????????   They get some payback.


----------



## beagle9

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 641061
> 
> *They LIED to us all - while under oath!*​


Nope, they spoke the truth, but the people/citizen's who the government is supposed to work for, and are supposed to represent, are basically saying to these rogue politicians (through these fine upstanding justices voices), that enough is enough, otherwise enough on the reinterpretation of the laws and/or on the constitution of these United States of America, where as these rogue race baiting, trouble stirring, troublemaking leftist politician's have been misconstruing and reinterpreting our constitution in order to fit their narratives or agenda's somehow up under their hyped up large umbrella, and this by usage of our own document's against us. It's got to end, and the nation United once again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 641027
> 
> *Yes you did!!!!!*



Like LizardBitch, you do NOT speak for "all women", so keep to your lane and speak about your own repulsive self.


----------



## yidnar

Dragonlady said:


> For some unknown reason, you think abortions kill babies. They don’t. Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re truly living up to you name.


is a human being in the womb killed during an abortion ?


----------



## BackAgain

Dragonlady said:


> For some unknown reason, you think abortions kill babies. They don’t. Dumbass.


Yeah. They do you moron. I keep telling you imbecile libtards: when the human man’s squiggly little spermatozoa gets into the human female’s little ovum, that’s called conception the start of human life. And the product of that conception will never be anything other than a human being. No giraffe, no rhino, no frog, no bird. A human being.


----------



## beagle9

yidnar said:


> is a human being in the womb killed during an abortion ?


Exactly... It sure isn't a cat, dog, fish, horse etc. If any of these bodies were laid out for identification purposes, otherwise (side by side), the human being would be identified easily as opposed to the other's when searching for the human being amongst them.


----------



## yidnar

beagle9 said:


> Exactly... It sure isn't a cat, dog, fish, horse etc. If any of these bodies were laid out for identification purposes, otherwise (side by side), the human being would be identified easily as opposed to the other's when searching for the human being amongst them.


no leftist has attempted to answer that question as of yet ... they cant and they know it .


----------



## beagle9

yidnar said:


> no leftist has attempted to answer that question as of yet ... they cant and they know it .


They won't because it destroys their narrative. Any question that destroys their narrative won't be answered ever by them, otherwise they'll just spin their excuses right out of the room. It's an easy tactic to spot once understand the leftist attributes and/or character.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rigby5 said:


> Totally wrong.
> All cells are life.
> We have no concern over life at all, but only about sentience and consciousness.



You totally don't know what life is, do you?

Take plants, for example, they exhibit neither sentience nor consciousness but live and die the same as we do. They live, breathe and reproduce by indirect means. We consider them life, but not unborn children in the womb?

Get off my lawn.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Abortion rights group doxxes Supreme Court justices, offers stipends for protests
					

A pro-abortion rights protest group that claims to carry on the legacy of former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it would fund protesters to participate in demonstrations outside the homes of the six Republican-appointed justices in response to the court's expected ruling to overturn…




					www.washingtonexaminer.com
				




The left terrorists have learned well from their brother jihadiis.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

schmidlap said:


> Impregnation can occur inadvertently, even by rape and incest. Rather than someone presuming to sit in judgment and dictate, the law of the land for the past half century that recognizes the rights of women is supported by most Americans. Authoritarians seizing control will only divide the advanced states from the retrogressive ones.


States don’t have to take away that right


----------



## San Souci

Dragonlady said:


> Abortion is not murder.  Lefties are not clueless fucking idiots, but you definitely qualify.  You know nothing about birth control.
> 
> Condoms have an 18% failure rate.  CBP's have a 9% failure rate, so no none of your birth control methods are 95% effective.  Even sterilization isn't foolproof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Birth Control Failure Rate Percentages
> 
> 
> Birth Control Failure is more common than most people think. Our birth control chart shows the failure percentages for each birth control method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanpregnancy.org


Put them together ,numbnuts. Check out the figure. Try doing the math.


----------



## San Souci

Muhammed said:


> Don't fuck a girl and you won't get her pregnant. It's not rocket science. Abstinence is a 100% effective method of birth control.


One could always get a "Lewinsky". (snicker)


----------



## tahuyaman

TemplarKormac said:


> It is clear that the constitution doesn't enumerate any power of the government to regulate abortion.
> 
> Very accurate reading of the constitution.


Nor does the constitution say anywhere that abortion is a human right.  Abortion as a right was made up out of thin air. 


In the end, all this hysteria about overturning Roe vs Wade is simply a  left wing fear tactic.  Placing this issue in the hands of each state is not a big deal.  It changes basically nothing.


----------



## night_son

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Birth control is good, but never 100%.
> Abortion will always be necessary forever.
> In fact, we are dangerously overpopulated and risk species extinction already.



If you are willing to fight and die for the right of women to murder their unborn children and those like me are willing to fight and die to stop you, then what are we all waiting for? Let's get down to business. Anything else is foreplay.


----------



## Stann

citygator said:


> Doctors are doctors you moron. Special cases are health situations. You fuckers should leave the doctoring to people who went to school for a decade vs your dumb asses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is bullshit.  Maybe some stupid internet poll will say 70% but that is not a real representation.
> 
> Except for a few really dumbass Moon Bats I hear about in the news or on the internet I don't even know anybody in real life that supports abortion on demand for the sake of convenience.
> 
> This bullshit by the Libtards about "my body my choice" went out the window with the filthy ass insistance to wear mask and get vaccinated for Covid.  They no more believe that than the Man in the Moon.
> 
> 
> 
> Most pools can be off 5% or so, that still means the majority of Americans still want roe versus wadein place. Sorry you get so emotional when you're wrong about things
> View attachment 640771
Click to expand...


----------



## Stann

tahuyaman said:


> Nor does the constitution say anywhere that abortion is a human right.  Abortion as a right was made up out of thin air.
> 
> 
> In the end, all this hysteria about overturning Roe vs Wade is simply a  left wing fear tactic.  Placing this issue in the hands of each state is not a big deal.  It changes basically nothing.


Hysteria ! That's what I would call the minority trying to end roe versus Wade. There are very emotionally invested in this cause and that's what it is it's a cause it's not anything that should be put into law or used to end a law. It's a sickness.


----------



## Stann

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Birth control is good, but never 100%.
> Abortion will always be necessary forever.
> In fact, we are dangerously overpopulated and risk species extinction already.


There is only one good reason to bring a child into this world and that's because it's loved and wanted. These pro-life people are trying to upend a model that has worked well for over 50 years allowing both sides to practice what they preach what they want. But that's not good enough for the prolife people they want to control everyone else's life besides their own. This is a a battle for rights a woman's right over her own body and reproductive decisions. They want the government to control that they are fools. They want freedom to carry their guns without any restrictions to take life but when a woman only wants to control her own body they'll have none of that they're just plain sick.


----------



## TemplarKormac

tahuyaman said:


> Nor does the constitution say anywhere that abortion is a human right.  Abortion as a right was made up out of thin air.
> 
> 
> In the end, all this hysteria about overturning Roe vs Wade is simply a  left wing fear tactic.  Placing this issue in the hands of each state is not a big deal.  It changes basically nothing.


That's how I see, it, Tahuya.


----------



## Stann

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 641061
> 
> *They LIED to us all - while under oath!*​


You think judges of all people, would have to see both sides of controversial issues and make a middle of the road and decision if they had to. The real answer is for the supreme Court to say abortion is a personal matter a medical matter and it cannot be regulated by laws and in this once and for all this is insanity to go through all this crap again and again. It's just plain disgusting that some people want to control other people's lives that they don't even know or care about. I thought we were a free Nation, at least we're supposed to be.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Yea. This is a link. The democratic platform you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACHIEVING UNIVERSAL, AFFORDABLE, QUALITY HEALTH CARE - Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> democrats.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice​Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion. We will repeal the Title X domestic gag rule and restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides vital preventive and reproductive health care for millions of people, especially low-income people, and people of color, and LGBTQ+ people, including in underserved areas.
> 
> Democrats oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights. We will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and protect and codify the right to reproductive freedom. We condemn acts of violence, harassment, and intimidation of reproductive health providers, patients, and staff. We will address the discrimination and barriers that inhibit meaningful access to reproductive health care services, including those based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, income, disability, geography, and other factors. Democrats oppose restrictions on medication abortion care that are inconsistent with the most recent medical and scientific evidence and that do not protect public health.
> 
> We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care; medically accurate, LGBTQ+ inclusive, age-appropriate sex education; and the full range of family planning services are all essential to ensuring that people can decide if, when, and how to start a family. We are proud to be the party of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination in health care on the basis of sex and requires insurers to cover prescription contraceptives at no cost. These efforts have significantly reduced teen and unintended pregnancies by making it easier to decide whether, when, and how to have a child.
> 
> We believe that a person’s health should always come first. Democrats will protect the rights of all people to make personal health care decisions, and will reject the Trump Administration’s use of broad exemptions to allow medical providers, employers, and others to discriminate.


Your argument is invalid.


When Psaki refers us to Biden's answers...









						In Supreme Court shadow, Biden urges voters to protect abortion rights
					

U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday appealed to voters to protect abortion rights by backing candidates who support them in November's elections after a leaked Supreme Court draft showed it could soon overturn its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.




					www.reuters.com
				




That means even candidates who support no restrictions on abortions, thus "Abortion on Demand."

We are done here.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> You think judges of all people, would have to see both sides of controversial issues and make a middle of the road and decision if they had to.



The middle ground, in this case, would be allowing the states to make the decision. 

How is this not the middle ground? Is it because you don't want it to be?


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> You think judges of all people, would have to see both sides of controversial issues and make a middle of the road and decision if they had to. The real answer is for the supreme Court to say abortion is a personal matter a medical matter and it cannot be regulated by laws and in this once and for all this is insanity to go through all this crap again and again. It's just plain disgusting that some people want to control other people's lives that they don't even know or care about. I thought we were a free Nation, at least we're supposed to be.


I've heard Republicans call women who want abortions all kinds of terrible names. That's how much they care about people human life. They have no respect for the life that's already here. Then what's this child is born it's not wanted not loved and has multiple problems they don't want to pay for it they don't want to have any responsibility for it I'm sorry if you're going to demand women have children they don't want you better be ready to take care of them and that takes a lot of money if you think the welfare cases are bad now it's going to multiply like you won't believe they'll be generations of them as long as this stupid lock stays in effect. America is supposed to be a free Nation. Not a fascist Nation where people are forced to do things they don't want. Changing this law is unAmerican, unChristian and just playing inhuman.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> I've heard Republicans call women who want abortions all kinds of terrible names.



I've heard Democrats call women who are pro-life all kinds of terrible names, even questioning their very womanhood because they made the wrong choice with their bodies. Your point? Politics these days is full of petulant, mewling children on both sides who stamp and cry instead of looking to compromise on issues they mutually agree on.


Stann said:


> That's how much they care about people human life. They have no respect for the life that's already here



We do. That's why we fight to protect it at every stage in development. You wish to exterminate it as a matter of convenience, not of necessity. You are the ones who have no respect for life. We understand abortion can sometimes be medically necessary, but in those cases where it isn't and where contraceptive measures are not taken before intercourse, the life should be protected.

Your respect for life only extends to children the women wish to have, as opposed to the established science that says life begins when the egg is fertilized and transforms into a zygote.









						zygote | Definition, Development, Example, & Facts
					

zygote,  fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm). In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells. The...



					www.britannica.com
				





Stann said:


> Then what's this child is born it's not wanted not loved and has multiple problems they don't want to pay for it they don't want to have any responsibility for it



There's a way around all of this. Contraception. Make sure there is no child to abort in the first place.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> I'm sorry if you're going to demand women have children they don't want you better be ready to take care of them



Nobody is demanding they have children they don't want. We are demanding they exercise a modicum of common sense before doing the hunka-chunka.

If not, they should bear the consequences of their behavior. Literally. If they cannot understand that unprotected sex results in the development of new life, they should be made to, the man and the woman, in the most hands-on way possible. 

Offer them the choice of taking advantage of government subsidies to help them raise their children, or put the child up for adoption.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> America is supposed to be a free Nation. Not a fascist Nation where people are forced to do things they don't want.



America is a free nation. But not a nation free from the consequences of one's own actions. Which you clearly want sexually promiscuous men and particularly women, to be.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Changing this law is unAmerican, unChristian and just playing inhuman.



Changing the law has no effect. It gives states (and their citizens) the choice of whether or not to allow or restrict abortion.

The freedom of choice is something liberals like you preach about, is it not?

Let democracy run its course. That is the most American, Christian, and human thing to do.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> I've heard Democrats call women who are Pro-Life all kinds of terrible names, even questioning their very womanhood because they made the wrong choice with their bodies. Your point? Politics these days is full of petulant, mewling children on both sides who stamp and cry instead of looking to compromise on issues they mutually agree on.
> 
> 
> We do. That's why we fight to protect it at every stage in development. You wish to exterminate it as a matter of convenience, not of necessity. You are the ones who have no respect for life. We understand abortion can sometimes be medically necessary, but in those cases where it isn't and where contraceptive measures are not taken before intercourse, the life should be protected.
> 
> Your respect for life only extends to children the women wish to have, as opposed to the established science that says life begins when the egg is fertilized and transforms into a zygote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zygote | Definition, Development, Example, & Facts
> 
> 
> zygote,  fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm). In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells. The...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a way around all of this. Contraception. Make sure there is no child to abort in the first place.


Maybe you've let a perfect life but few people have, most people make the mistakes, some more than most. Life is messy, always has been, always will be. You think you are solving a problem. You are not you are creating many, many more. I am certain you will live to regret this.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Changing the law has no effect. It gives states (and their citizens) the choice of whether or not to allow or restrict abortion.
> 
> The freedom of choice is something liberals like you preach about, is it not?
> 
> Let democracy run its course. That is the most American, Christian, and human thing to do.


Christians had Trump rigged the courts with planted people that were liars. I think Justice in America is dead. Judges are supposed to be neutral to political issues, and this is totally political.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Maybe you've let a perfect life but few people have, most people make the mistakes, some more than most.



It's not hard to plan for the future. There is no need to justify killing children in the womb because some people are 'prone to mistakes.'


Stann said:


> You are not you are creating many, many more. I am certain you will live to regret this.



Hardly. My grandmother worked at UGA as a secretary, and she had to counsel many co-eds who were traumatized by their choice to have an abortion.

Sometimes two mistakes are made, not just one. Conceiving a child and aborting the child.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Christians had Trump rigged the courts with planted people that were liars.



You're spewing lies. You know they are lies, yet they are all you know.  



Stann said:


> I think Justice in America is dead.



Justice isn't dead in a society if it fails to carry out your version of it. 

Justice is blind. When you take the blindfold off of justice, it becomes revenge.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> It's not hard to plan for the future. There is no need to justify killing children in the womb because some people are 'prone to mistakes."
> 
> 
> Hardly. My grandmother worked at UGA as a secretary, and she had to counsel many co-eds who were traumatized by their choice to have an abortion.
> 
> Sometimes two mistakes are made, not just one. Conceiving a child and aborting the child.


Not everyone has a privilege life or even a decent life. One case in particular in Texas just before the thank God just before the stupid abortion law in Texas started. A 12-year-old girl was repeatedly raped by her father and kept in solitude in the house. She didn't even know she was pregnant she didn't know how she got pregnant but she was thank God they were able to do an abortion on her. If the Texas law had been in effect she would have been forced to carry that obviously deformed child to term a 12-year-old child no you can't make blanket laws that controlling abortion is way too many exceptions in cases that if you look at the graph most abortions occur before 6 weeks and that's great because there's nothing there to speak of. And there are very few late term abortions most of those are when the mother a married woman finds out she's carrying a totally a child with multiple problems let's put it that way that wouldn't probably survive anyway they have abortions too you're trying to take that away from them I'm sorry this is sick it should never be a blanket log against abortion if you want to have a review committee on each case go ahead but you're interfering with a woman's reproductive Rights they're making them second class citizens there's no way around that you can't be a first class citizen if you don't even have control over your body that's what's insane about all this we're America where we and Republicans are supposed to be supporting people's freedoms but they want to take them away from women that's insane.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Judges are supposed to be neutral to political issues, and this is totally political.



Actually, sending this issue to the states to decide (what overturning Roe actually does), is as neutral an act as can be.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> It's not hard to plan for the future. There is no need to justify killing children in the womb because some people are 'prone to mistakes."
> 
> 
> Hardly. My grandmother worked at UGA as a secretary, and she had to counsel many co-eds who were traumatized by their choice to have an abortion.
> 
> Sometimes two mistakes are made, not just one. Conceiving a child and aborting the child.


There are never two mistakes made, your so-called child never existed. It never had a name, it was never born, it never existed.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Actually, sending this issue to the states to decide (what overturning Roe actually does), is as neutral an act as can be.


So the Republicans are going to victimize all the women and all the Republican states great just great.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Not everyone has a privilege life or even a decent life.



But they are bestowed with the blessing of intelligence. The ability to plan ahead, and to consider the consequences of their actions. Better judgment. 

You don't need to be privileged to have these things. Contraceptive measures are always affordable, and sometimes even free.  Medicine has even advanced to a point that there are even contraceptives for men as well. So the consequences for a child having to be aborted can lie equally at the feet of the couple who chose not to take these prevention measures. So, lesson here is 1) Wear a condom if you are a man, 2) Take contraceptives if you are a woman.  









						A non-hormonal pill could soon expand men’s birth control options - American Chemical Society
					

Scientists report a non-hormonal male contraceptive that effectively prevents pregnancy in mice, without obvious side effects.




					www.acs.org
				




Yet again, your reason is not a reason women should be allowed to abort their children indiscriminately.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> There are never two mistakes made, your so-called child never existed. It never had a name, it was never born, it never existed.



The child exists the moment the cell divides. 

Names do not confer on anyone their humanity.

How foolish.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> You're spewing lies. You know they are lies, yet they are all you know.
> 
> 
> 
> Justice isn't dead in a society if it fails to carry out your version of it.
> 
> Justice is blind. When you take the blindfold off of justice, it becomes revenge.


Your reasoning is off. Women exist, women are citizens, they should be protected by our laws not harmed by them. And especially they are not supposed to be made second class citizens not even having control over their own bodies and reproductive functions that's a crime I'm not talking about Justice here I'm saying this is a crime. The most a human embryo can be is property of that woman.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> So the Republicans are going to victimize all the women and all the Republican states great just great.



Hardly. Move to a state that allows it. It's not like they are being kept prisoner in Republican states, now are they?

Or they can simply take contraceptives. It's not hard. If there is no child in the first place, there is no abortion. And it renders this entire issue moot.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> But they are bestowed with the blessing of intelligence. The ability to plan ahead, and to consider the consequences of their actions. Better judgment.
> 
> You don't need to be privileged to have these things. Contraceptive measures are always affordable, and sometimes even free.  Medicine has even advanced to a point that there are even contraceptives for men as well. So the consequences for a child having to be aborted can lie equally at the feet of the couple who chose not to take these prevention measures. So, lesson here is 1) Wear a condom if you are a man, 2) Take contraceptives if you are a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non-hormonal pill could soon expand men’s birth control options - American Chemical Society
> 
> 
> Scientists report a non-hormonal male contraceptive that effectively prevents pregnancy in mice, without obvious side effects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.acs.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet again, your reason is not a reason women should be allowed to abort their children indiscriminately.


And who best to judge whether that they're aborting indiscriminately or not ? A lawyer a politician a judge or doctor I think a doctor should make those decisions don't you doesn't make sense if it doesn't make sense something's very wrong with you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Your reasoning is off. Women exist, women are citizens, they should be protected by our laws not harmed by them.


How are they being harmed? By being made to bear the consequences of their choices before conception?


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Hardly. Move to a state that allows it. It's not like they are being kept prisoner in Republican states, now are they?
> 
> Or they can simply take contraceptives. It's not hard. If there is no child in the first place, there is no abortion. And it renders this entire issue moot.


You mark my word women will be harmed if roe versus Wade is repealed. It will end up doing more harm than good.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> How are they being harmed? By being made to bear the consequences of their choices before conception?


Their consequences ? Wow, you really hate women don't you. I don't think you had much of a life all kinds of situations go down that you don't have control over. This is just one of them.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> And who best to judge whether that they're aborting indiscriminately or not ? A lawyer a politician a judge or doctor I think a doctor should make those decisions don't you doesn't make sense if it doesn't make sense something's very wrong with you.



Don't deflect. 

Once again, the woman needs only take as many contraceptive measures as she can before having sex. It eliminates having to pay for a full-on abortion and the guilt that causes.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Don't deflect.
> 
> Once again, the woman needs only take as many contraceptive measures as she can before having sex. It eliminates having to pay for a full-on abortion and the guilt that causes.


I hope to God you're not talking about the 12 year old child in Texas that was repeatedly raped by her father and became pregnant. That's a super example of winning abortion is needed.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> I hope to God you're not talking about the 12 year old child in Texas that was repeatedly raped by her father and became pregnant. That's a super example of winning abortion is needed.


That's a super example of when an abortion is absolutely necessary.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> You mark my word women will be harmed if roe versus Wade is repealed. It will end up doing more harm than good.



No thank you. I don't believe I will.  You are trying to appeal to my emotions, to that, you will fail.  On the other hand, Roe wasn't legislation passed by congress, it was a ruling made by a court. 

You can't repeal legislation that doesn't exist.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> I hope to God you're not talking about the 12 year old child in Texas that was repeatedly raped by her father and became pregnant.



No, I'm not. I'm talking about adult women who know better.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> That's a super example of when an abortion is absolutely necessary.



I agree, but that is not what I'm referring to. I am talking about men and women who choose to have unprotected sex which results in a pregnancy.  I know what you're doing right now, so you can cease with the theatrics.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> No thank you. I don't believe I will.  You are trying to appeal to my emotions, to that, you will fail.  On the other hand, Roe wasn't legislation passed by congress, it was a ruling made by a court.
> 
> You can't repeal legislation that doesn't exist.


Yes the courts came to that decision because it was a nightmare women were killing themselves of course the rape rate was a lot higher than and Men did totally disrespected women but now it's more acute the attacks on women more incisive and this is an attack on all women whether you realize it or not I'm not appealing to your emotions your emotions are feeling your instincts about this dilemma which isn't even yours. I'm trying to appeal to common sense we've been through this before this was the best solution and it still is nothing's changed people don't change that much they're still I don't know sad greedy little people that's what this is this is from the minds of little people to try to hurt other people. It just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> No, I'm not. I'm talking about adult women who know better.


No I don't there's some pro life fanatics on here who have said that women who have abortions should be executed for murder. They didn't even care what the circumstances were that surrounded the abortion don't know don't care just want to kill that's what this is all about it's sickness.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> No I don't there's some pro life fanatics on here who have said that women who have abortions should be executed for murder. They didn't even care what the circumstances were that surrounded the abortion don't know don't care just want to kill that's what this is all about it's sickness.


They said I should be murdered for supporting the abortionists. I do not support abortion, I support a woman's right to choose what to do with their own body that's the bottom line in all this so abortion laws have to go all together they have no place in society there are moral judgments on other people that you don't know and don't care about.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Yes the courts came to that decision because it was a nightmare women were killing themselves



Yet nearly five decades later, medicine has advanced to a point where a man and woman can stop a pregnancy before it starts. Condoms, contraceptives. 

Does a woman need to abort a child to feel like she has any rights? If so, that's a most barbaric way of thinking.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> They said I should be murdered for supporting the abortionists. I do not support abortion, I support a woman's right to choose what to do with their own body that's the bottom line



Those who wish you death for your position are fools. Same as the ones who wish death on people like me for ours. 

Primarily, when the phrase "a woman's right to choose" is cited in this political climate, it doesn't mean the choice to give birth.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Yet nearly five decades later, medicine has advanced to a point where a man and woman can stop a pregnancy before it starts. Condoms, contraceptives.
> 
> Does a woman need to abort a child to feel like she has any rights? If so, that's a most barbaric way of thinking.


See this is wrong there is no child. It's her body. North barbaric to try to control someone else's life . You're saying they have to live their lives according to what you believe, that's not right and there's no freedom for anyone in that kind of thinking.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> See this is wrong there is no child. It's her body. North barbaric to try to control someone else's life . You're saying they have to live their lives according to what you believe, that's not right and there's no freedom for anyone in that kind of thinking.


It's late and I have to go to bed but I think you're starting to get my point. Hopefully you're not that dense. This is about control nothing else and we still want to remain a brief society I think we can agree on that.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> See this is wrong there is no child. It's her body.



If there is no child, there is no abortion. The woman can control her body at any point, even before the pregnancy, by engaging in a contraceptive regimen. 

Nobody took her choices away from her, it is only you that convinced them they had none, to begin with. Such lies need to be culled.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> It's late and I have to go to bed but I think you're starting to get my point. Hopefully you're not that dense. This is about control nothing else and we still want to remain a brief society I think we can agree on that.



Are you talking to yourself?

At any rate, whatever point you were trying to make was lost on me. That might simply be due to the fact that there are many options for women to take to avoid this entire process in the first place.

By all means, go to bed. But that won't make any of your points more salient in the morning.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> If there is no child, there is no abortion. The woman can control her body at any point, even before the pregnancy, by engaging in a contraceptive regimen.
> 
> Nobody took her choices away from her, it is only you that convinced them they had none, to begin with. Such lies need to be culled.


Your logic is totally faulty abortions don't remove babies abortions remove embryos in any one of the three stages. I have nothing to do with a woman's intelligence and their decision on what to do about what they do with their reproductive Rights.  That is their decision and their decision alone.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Your logic is totally faulty abortions don't remove babies abortions remove embryos in any one of the three stages. I have nothing to do with a woman's intelligence and their decision on what to do about what they do with their reproductive Rights.  That is their decision and their decision alone.


Nothing is 100% foolproof. You can be the most careful woman in the world and still end up with a dangerous and / or unwanted pregnancy. S*** happens in the real world.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Your logic is totally faulty abortions don't remove babies


Contraceptives were designed to help prevent pregnancy, ergo no baby and no abortion.

The neat thing about it is a woman can use multiple forms of contraceptives at once, to virtually ensure a pregnancy never happens.


----------



## Leo123

TemplarKormac said:


> Nobody is demanding they have children they don't want. We are demanding they exercise a modicum of common sense before doing the hunka-chunka.
> 
> If not, they should bear the consequences of their behavior. Literally. If they cannot understand that unprotected sex results in the development of new life, they should be made to, the man and the woman, in the most hands-on way possible.
> 
> Offer them the choice of taking advantage of government subsidies to help them raise their children, or put the child up for adoption.


Unfortunately Roe took any responsibility away from the male.   The whole decision to birth or kill the child was placed with the woman.  At the time Feminism was the vogue.   'My body my choice' was the rallying cry promoted by leftist Democrats for political reasons and, I think, even one radical Feminist said 'all sex is rape."    SCOTUS completely ignored the science of human procreation in the Roe decision.   

I agree with teaching accountability for the result of a sexual episode.    Both the man and woman....(because only a male and female can have procreational sex) have the responsibility to use contraception and agree on what they will do if the attempted insemination is successful.   Teaching kids about heterosexuality should be paramount in our public schools not teaching multi-genderism.   Teach them the reality of what happens to teenagers (for example) when they have unprotected sex and a pregnancy ensues.   Teach them about real life, not bullshit homosexual crap.


----------



## Leo123

Stann said:


> Nothing is 100% foolproof. You can be the most careful woman in the world and still end up with a dangerous and / or unwanted pregnancy. S*** happens in the real world.


Why would any decent woman have sex with a guy when she doesn't want his genes?   After all, SHE is the one who will bear the brunt of the circumstances.   Seems pretty dumb to me.  Males are attracted to strong, 'sexy' women.   Women do their best to be attractive to strong and successful, good looking males.    Both need to consider the repercussions for unprotected sex before it takes place.  That is the 'real world'......


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Hysteria ! That's what I would call the minority trying to end roe versus Wade. There are very emotionally invested in this cause and that's what it is it's a cause it's not anything that should be put into law or used to end a law. It's a sickness.


Sickness is 62 million abortions used as birth control.

Sickness is left wing politicians promoting violence again.

Sickness is the teaching of perversion in schools.

Sickness is teaching white people are evil.

Sickness is burning down business and calling it Peaceful.

Sickness is attacking someone for wearing a maga hat

Sickness is leaving Americans at the mercy of the taliban.

Sickness is mass taxation and regulation then lie to the poor saying you are here for them.

Sickness is using govt to attack those who disagree.

Sickness is having orgies in the streets of San Fran Sicko and saying it is normal.

Sickness is legalizing hard core drugs.

Sickness is giving a free pass to politicians to Launder money.

Sickness is believing there are 72 genders.


Etc


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Maybe you've let a perfect life but few people have, most people make the mistakes, some more than most. Life is messy, always has been, always will be. You think you are solving a problem. You are not you are creating many, many more. I am certain you will live to regret this.


And you believe in no accountability for their mistakes.

Not to mention abortion isnt gone if Roe versus wade is overturned.  Shithole blue states will still allow partial birth abortions and the selling of organs.

It just will not be allowed in states who think this is barbarism.

Shows one thing clear.  When your side doesnt get its way you call for violence Every time.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Yes the courts came to that decision because it was a nightmare women were killing themselves of course the rape rate was a lot higher than and Men did totally disrespected women but now it's more acute the attacks on women more incisive and this is an attack on all women whether you realize it or not I'm not appealing to your emotions your emotions are feeling your instincts about this dilemma which isn't even yours. I'm trying to appeal to common sense we've been through this before this was the best solution and it still is nothing's changed people don't change that much they're still I don't know sad greedy little people that's what this is this is from the minds of little people to try to hurt other people. It just doesn't make any sense.


Not about rape   States allow abortions for rape and incest and for the safety of the mother.

You are just playing the victim card.  No one makes you spread your legs.  That is a choicem

Put on a rubber and STFU


----------



## Lisa558

Calypso Jones said:


> Abortion rights group doxxes Supreme Court justices, offers stipends for protests
> 
> 
> A pro-abortion rights protest group that claims to carry on the legacy of former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it would fund protesters to participate in demonstrations outside the homes of the six Republican-appointed justices in response to the court's expected ruling to overturn…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left terrorists have learned well from their brother jihadiis.


This also shows how damaging it is to have a leftist leak a pending ruling - and why these things are secret until a decision is final. The upcoming decisions of the SCOTUS aren’t supposed to be changed because losers intimidate or threaten violence against the justices.

So where is the president on this? He sure had plenty of contempt and scolding for those of us who are guilty of nothing more than supporting the other candidate - we’re the most dangerous extremists  apparently - and plenty to say when the jury acquitted an innocent whitey -  and yet, he can’t get on the blow horn and say the leftists intimidating the justices is despicable?

Or, for that matter, what about the senator who threatened violence of the SCOTUS doesn’t cave to leftist demands? Why isn’t the president out there defending the sanctity of the Supreme Court, and saying that threats of violence will not be tolerated?

Answer: Biden is an empty-headed demented fool who is being manipulated by the anti-American Marxists trying to destroy this country.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> This also shows how damaging it is to have a leftist leak a pending ruling - and why these things are secret until a decision is final. The upcoming decisions of the SCOTUS aren’t supposed to be changed because losers intimidate or threaten violence against the justices.
> 
> So where is the president on this? He sure had plenty of contempt and scolding for those of us who are guilty of nothing more than supporting the other candidate - we’re the most dangerous extremists  apparently - and plenty to say when the jury acquitted an innocent whitey -  and yet, he can’t get on the blow horn and say the leftists intimidating the justices is despicable?
> 
> Or, for that matter, what about the senator who threatened violence of the SCOTUS doesn’t cave to leftist demands? Why isn’t the president out there defending the sanctity of the Supreme Court, and saying that threats of violence will not be tolerated?
> 
> Answer: Biden is an empty-headed demented fool who is being manipulated by the anti-American Marxists trying to destroy this country.


I went out and bought a fire extinguisher and a Viking Suit.  Dont tell DHS where im at.  Im a domestic terrorist.

Oh and I plan on taking selfies too but dont tell them.

Oh.... Where were we at.  DNC basically being Peaceful saying go kill  Scotus.


----------



## Lisa558

TemplarKormac said:


> You're spewing lies. You know they are lies, yet they are all you know.
> 
> 
> 
> Justice isn't dead in a society if it fails to carry out your version of it.
> 
> Justice is blind. When you take the blindfold off of justice, it becomes revenge.


You are hitting the nail on the head on so many of your posts, I didn’t know which one to respond to.

But you’ve sure got it pegged with the above leftist regarding his claim  that if Roe v Wade is overturned, “justice is dead.” Anytime these petulant and violent children don’t get their way, they claim that justice is dead. NO, it’s the opposite here: if the leftists succeed in threatening and intimidating to rule in violation of the Constitution,  THEN justice will be dead.

And the people intent on destroying this country are dangerously close. They succeeded via unethical means, at best, of installing a puppet president to do their bidding…..they’ve already succeeded in hijacking Congress to the radical left….and now they are going about destroying the sanctity of upcoming SCOTUS decisions, and in doing so, destroying the very essence of the Supreme Court.

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.


----------



## Lisa558

TemplarKormac said:


> I agree, but that is not what I'm referring to. I am talking about men and women who choose to have unprotected sex which results in a pregnancy.  I know what you're doing right now, so you can cease with the theatrics.


Leftists always come up with extreme examples to make their case. In the above, it’s easy enough to answer: states will make exceptions for rape.

But for adult women who make a voluntary choice to engage in unprotected sex, they know the risk. And if they’ve done so, there’s always the morning after pill.

Unwanted pregnancies will drop by half, at least, when consenting adults in states with restrictive abortion laws decide to do the nasty. They’ll be more responsible, knowing the consequences, and use birth control.

And for those who don’t, or for those who had a rare instance of birth control failure, then they can still likely choose an abortion, but they’ll have to decide quickly, or if they delay, they can take the Greyhound to an abortion state. if they’re poor, PP will have a transportation fund all set up.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> Not everyone has a privilege life or even a decent life. One case in particular in Texas just before the thank God just before the stupid abortion law in Texas started. A 12-year-old girl was repeatedly raped by her father and kept in solitude in the house. She didn't even know she was pregnant she didn't know how she got pregnant but she was thank God they were able to do an abortion on her. If the Texas law had been in effect she would have been forced to carry that obviously deformed child to term a 12-year-old child no you can't make blanket laws that controlling abortion is way too many exceptions in cases that if you look at the graph most abortions occur before 6 weeks and that's great because there's nothing there to speak of. And there are very few late term abortions most of those are when the mother a married woman finds out she's carrying a totally a child with multiple problems let's put it that way that wouldn't probably survive anyway they have abortions too you're trying to take that away from them I'm sorry this is sick it should never be a blanket log against abortion if you want to have a review committee on each case go ahead but you're interfering with a woman's reproductive Rights they're making them second class citizens there's no way around that you can't be a first class citizen if you don't even have control over your body that's what's insane about all this we're America where we and Republicans are supposed to be supporting people's freedoms but they want to take them away from women that's insane.


So you come up with a rare case, and that means all states have to allow abortions upon demand, at any point, to millions of women - even states where the majority of voters don’t want it?

It‘s up to the voters of each state to decide how their laws will be set. In the case of the rape victim, I expect all states will have exceptions for that. For those who don’t, there will still be abortions wildly available throughout the country.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> Leftists always come up with extreme examples to make their case. In the above, it’s easy enough to answer: states will make exceptions for rape.


They LIE...........stann............YOU ARE A PRAVDA LIAR.






Here is their MININISTRY OF TRUTH.  LMAO


----------



## Lisa558

TemplarKormac said:


> Yet nearly five decades later, medicine has advanced to a point where a man and woman can stop a pregnancy before it starts. Condoms, contraceptives.
> 
> Does a woman need to abort a child to feel like she has any rights? If so, that's a most barbaric way of thinking.


They’ve always has condoms. It’s the least scientific and medically advanced form of birth control there is. 

And even at the time of Roe v Wade, they had the Pill.

Roe v Wade was the wrong decision 50 years ago, given the availability of birth control even then. But I get your point - BC has advanced even more over the past five decades, so there’s even less of an excuse for an unplanned pregnancy now.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> Your argument is invalid.
> 
> 
> When Psaki refers us to Biden's answers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Supreme Court shadow, Biden urges voters to protect abortion rights
> 
> 
> U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday appealed to voters to protect abortion rights by backing candidates who support them in November's elections after a leaked Supreme Court draft showed it could soon overturn its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means even candidates who support no restrictions on abortions, thus "Abortion on Demand."
> 
> We are done here.


It SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO A DOCTOR NOT POLITICIANS you nitwit. What don’t you understand?   You can’t legislate every medical condition. Just cuz you are a nazi who wants to live in  the world created by Handmaidens Tale you can fuck off.  

Jen is spot on. No legal restrictions. Doctors and the patient are the decision makers. Not you Nazis.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## eagle1462010

citygator said:


> It SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO A DOCTOR NOT POLITICIANS you nitwit. What don’t you understand?   You can’t legislate every medical condition. Just cuz you are a nazi who wants to live in  the world created by Handmaidens Tale you can fuck off.
> 
> Jen is spot on. No legal restrictions. Doctors and the patient are the decision makers. Not you Nazis.


The SOUTHERN RED STATES ARE SENDING YOU A MESSAGE...............it is CODED.

Here it is.


----------



## eagle1462010

citygator said:


> It SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO A DOCTOR NOT POLITICIANS you nitwit. What don’t you understand?   You can’t legislate every medical condition. Just cuz you are a nazi who wants to live in  the world created by Handmaidens Tale you can fuck off.
> 
> Jen is spot on. No legal restrictions. Doctors and the patient are the decision makers. Not you Nazis.


----------



## schmidlap

AzogtheDefiler said:


> States don’t have to take away that right


No, they don't, and one asks why they are doing so? 

Personal freedom guaranteed by established law for half a century, reflective of the progress that has been made in other advanced nations, is being snatched away by authoritarians, and their statist fanaticism is ravaging our liberty.

Many Americans assumed that the progress, reflective of that throughout advanced nations, that had been established law for half a century in the U.S., was sacrosanct, and yet it appears that invasive and intrusive statists are hellbent upon retrogressing. There is no reason that freedom-loving Americans should trust them. They are determined to further erode a woman's rights by confiscating private mail:
​May 5, 2022
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF) — Gov. Bill Lee signed legislation Thursday that would criminalize a person for obtaining abortion pills via a mail delivery service. The law would mean a Class E felony charge with the potential for a fine. Amended out, the original bill had up to a 20-year prison sentence. As written, the law wouldn't criminalize a physician providing an abortion pill to a pregnant person.​

Reproductive choices are private, personal matters, best made by the woman herself, in consultation with her loved ones and medical and spiritual advisers whom she trusts, not arrogated by impersonal politicians issuing blanket their decrees.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dragonlady said:


> I’ve never had an abortion but it’s no lie.
> The misogyny and hatred of women is at the root of our post. You don’t care about these children at all. You just want to abuse poor women who have few choices.


The Ministry of Truth flagged your post as disinformation.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

schmidlap said:


> No, they don't, and one asks why they are doing so?
> 
> Personal freedom guaranteed by established law for half a century, reflective of the progress that has been made in other advanced nations, is being snatched away by authoritarians, and their statist fanaticism is ravaging our liberty.
> 
> Many Americans assumed that the progress, reflective of that throughout advanced nations, that had been established law for half a century in the U.S., was sacrosanct, and yet it appears that invasive and intrusive statists are hellbent upon retrogressing. There is no reason that freedom-loving Americans should trust them. They are determined to further erode a woman's rights by confiscating private mail:
> ​May 5, 2022​NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF) — Gov. Bill Lee signed legislation Thursday that would criminalize a person for obtaining abortion pills via a mail delivery service.The law would mean a Class E felony charge with the potential for a fine. Amended out, the original bill had up to a 20-year prison sentence. As written, the law wouldn't criminalize a physician providing an abortion pill to a pregnant person.​
> 
> Reproductive choices are private, personal matters, best made by the woman herself, in consultation with her loved ones and medical and spiritual advisers whom she trusts, not arrogated by impersonal politicians issuing blanket their decrees.


They are doing so because the voters want it. Duh.


----------



## beautress

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


Doing the right thing on the part of Republicans will ultimately bring a lot of people back to serving other people with love in their hearts. It's that simple.


----------



## gronked

Rigby5 said:


> First of all, although I am far left, liberal, progressive, I am totally against masks and vax for covid.
> Second is that NO one human body ever gets to dictate medical choices of another, and the fetus has no authority over the mother at all, in any way.
> If some stranger wanted and needed something like a blood transfusion in order to survive, no one can be forced to give it.
> Similarly, a fetus has no say over the woman's body at all, in any way.
> And no, a fetus is not at all a human being, as it is not conscious, self aware, or sentient.
> 
> You have a right to your own ethical beliefs, but only over what you do, not anyone else.


all of your arguments can also be used in relation to the pre born.  

a pre born baby is 100% human.  if you use consciousness, self awareness or sentience as proofs of humanity, you will lose that argument every single time as there are millions upon millions of people living in america today who pass none of those tests.  

unless the life of the mother is literally at risk (and that instance is exceedingly rare:  17.4/100,000 births) all abortion is birth control of convenience.


----------



## gronked

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> All sperm and ovum have "gestational viability", but no one has any rights over the body of the woman except the woman.
> Legislation is NOT the source of rights or abstract law.
> Rights are inherent and no one could ever make a fetus supreme over the choice of the woman.


allowing the pre born a chance at actually being born is in no way putting his/her rights over the woman.  it is simply not allowing the woman to murder another human.


----------



## gronked

Rigby5 said:


> The legislation is wrong.
> Government has zero legal authority over any choice a woman may make with here own medical procedures, ever.


that is correct.  a woman can do whatever she wants with her own personal medical procedures.  the very second her "choice" becomes one to do harm to another human body is where her bodily autonomy ends.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Your reasoning is off. Women exist, women are citizens, they should be protected by our laws not harmed by them. And especially they are not supposed to be made second class citizens not even having control over their own bodies and reproductive functions that's a crime I'm not talking about Justice here I'm saying this is a crime. The most a human embryo can be is property of that woman.



Oh, NOW women exist.  Could swear we've been hearing for months that it's a meaningless word and category, with nothing special attaching to it and no particular recognition or protection needed.

I'm getting whiplash from how quickly the narrative keeps changing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I hope to God you're not talking about the 12 year old child in Texas that was repeatedly raped by her father and became pregnant. That's a super example of winning abortion is needed.



So if we were willing to stipulate that we're willing to allow abortions for 12-year-olds raped by their fathers and other such extreme cases, would you be willing to restrict all other abortions?


----------



## gronked

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> No one ever has any interests in forcing moral standards on anyone else.
> The ONLY time government has any legal authority is when what someone else does effect YOU, and that is not the case with abortion.
> With abortion you are attempting to interfere with something between 2 others where you have zero standing and should stay out of it.
> 
> Moral standards can not and should not ever be forced.
> They are only to be explained, and let people decide for themselves.
> Anything else is fascist and dictatorial.


this statement is just so incorrect.  there are scores of examples of the government having legal authority over the "other"  they can exert authority over murder, rape, incest, child abuse, child neglect etc..  even if it does not effect "you"

why do you think there is a department of child protection?  it is simply the government exerting authority on the behalf of children.


----------



## gronked

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Birth control is good, but never 100%.
> Abortion will always be necessary forever.
> In fact, we are dangerously overpopulated and risk species extinction already.


Abortion is hardly ever necessary.  outside of the life of the mother, ALL abortions are performed out of convenience.  

you sound a lot like Margaret sanger...  not a good look


----------



## schmidlap

AzogtheDefiler said:


> They are doing so because the voters want it. Duh.


Authoritarian ideologues trashing established law and savaging personal freedoms is very unpopular with most Americans.
Survey: Over 60% of adults say most abortions should be legal in U.S.​*Poll*: Majorities of Voters Want Supreme Court to Support Abortion Access​Roe v. Wade: Polls reflect most Americans support abortion​


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Contraceptives were designed to help prevent pregnancy, ergo no baby and no abortion.
> 
> The neat thing about it is a woman can use multiple forms of contraceptives at once, to virtually ensure a pregnancy never happens.


No baby has ever existed in the womb. Did you know it's still legal for Christian hospitals to refuse the morning after pill to rape victims that is a crime. It should be federal law that all hospitals have to offer that right off the bat to rape victims, only one question should be asked by police, and that is do you want to pursue this issue. Since 90% of rapes go unreported. These women do not need to be further harmed or criminalized, as often is the case. You keep quoting idealized situations. The ideal seldom exists in most cases where women need to have abortions. As I said before there's only one reason to bring a child into those world and that's if you want one and if you love them. Otherwise the last thing this world needs is more people in it, especially ones that are miserable.


----------



## schmidlap

gronked said:


> this statement is just so incorrect.  there are scores of examples of the government having legal authority over the "other"  they can exert authority over murder, rape, incest, child abuse, child neglect etc..  even if it does not effect "you"
> 
> why do you think there is a department of child protection?  it is simply the government exerting authority on the behalf of children.


Why do you think that a woman's rights have been respected for half-a-century under law, as has been the case in most advanced nations?


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> It SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO A DOCTOR NOT POLITICIANS you nitwit. What don’t you understand?   You can’t legislate every medical condition. Just cuz you are a nazi who wants to live in  the world created by Handmaidens Tale you can fuck off.
> 
> Jen is spot on. No legal restrictions. Doctors and the patient are the decision makers. Not you Nazis.



Oh, my God, get OUT of here with that medically-ignorant crap about "leave it up to doctors, not politicians", like you think that's how ANYTHING in medicine works.  Well, you're you, so you probably DO have that uninformed idea.

Medicine and healthcare are among the most regulated industries known to modern mankind, you dimwit.  If you're suggesting that abortion should be treated like "just a medical procedure", and you're also suggesting that it should be left totally out of the sphere of government control and regulation and the doctors should be allowed to do whatever they want or "think is best", then you need to recognize that those are two completely different things and you're going to have to pick one.


----------



## citygator

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, my God, get OUT of here with that medically-ignorant crap about "leave it up to doctors, not politicians", like you think that's how ANYTHING in medicine works.  Well, you're you, so you probably DO have that uninformed idea.
> 
> Medicine and healthcare are among the most regulated industries known to modern mankind, you dimwit.  If you're suggesting that abortion should be treated like "just a medical procedure", and you're also suggesting that it should be left totally out of the sphere of government control and regulation and the doctors should be allowed to do whatever they want or "think is best", then you need to recognize that those are two completely different things and you're going to have to pick one.


Should you have a knee replacement surgery?  Well let’s pass a law so we can have the masses decide whether it’s ok with us you violate God’s plan for what knee you should be using.


----------



## Dragonlady

TemplarKormac said:


> The middle ground, in this case, would be allowing the states to make the decision.
> 
> How is this not the middle ground? Is it because you don't want it to be?



It’s ridiculous to have every state make different laws. Women should have the exact same right to determine their own lives in every state of the union.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Stann said:


> I've heard Republicans call women who want abortions all kinds of terrible names. That's how much they care about people human life. They have no respect for the life that's already here. Then what's this child is born it's not wanted not loved and has multiple problems they don't want to pay for it they don't want to have any responsibility for it I'm sorry if you're going to demand women have children they don't want you better be ready to take care of them and that takes a lot of money if you think the welfare cases are bad now it's going to multiply like you won't believe they'll be generations of them as long as this stupid lock stays in effect. America is supposed to be a free Nation. Not a fascist Nation where people are forced to do things they don't want. Changing this law is unAmerican, unChristian and just playing inhuman.


Nobody is demanding a woman have a baby, all they are saying is that it's not the job of the federal government to weigh in on it.   Abortion will likely be banned in certain states, but other states will have abortion available to all who want them.


----------



## gronked

schmidlap said:


> You keep spewing your churlish ad _hominems, _but doing so does not alter the reality that a personal freedom that has been the law of the land for fifty years and is supported by most Americans is about to bge abrogated by the  State - the retrogressive, authoritarian ones. Elsewhere, in advanced states, freedom will be protected.


just because it has been the law of the land for 50 years does in no means make it a good decision.  there have been lots of terrible decisions that lasted for years and had to be overturned.  separate but equal, 13th amendment etc...


----------



## gronked

Rigby5 said:


> A fetus never gains rights over the medical choices of the mother.
> It simply no longer is dependent upon the mother after birth.


what are you talking about?  Babies are completely dependent on their mothers long long long after they are born.  try laying one on a table and see how long it survives.  

likewise, the mothers "medical" choices never have precident over the pre born baby.  just because one is older does not mean they have more "rights"


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

schmidlap said:


> Authoritarian ideologues trashing established law and savaging personal freedoms is very unpopular with most Americans.
> Survey: Over 60% of adults say most abortions should be legal in U.S.​*Poll*: Majorities of Voters Want Supreme Court to Support Abortion Access​Roe v. Wade: Polls reflect most Americans support abortion​


If it is unpopular then the legislators will be voted out, correct? Answer my question don't deflect.


----------



## gronked

Dragonlady said:


> It’s ridiculous to have every state make different laws. Women should have the exact same right to determine their own lives in every state of the union.


ummmm, this is already happening.  and for many many years.  every state has been legislating their own gun laws for decades.  you sure better know state gun laws if you plan on driving through Mass, NY, NJ etc.  

In addition, gun rights are enumerated in the bill of rights.  not so with abortion


----------



## Cecilie1200

citygator said:


> Should you have a knee replacement surgery?  Well let’s pass a law so we can have the masses decide whether it’s ok with us you violate God’s plan for what knee you should be using.



For people who hate, hate, HATE religion, you and your comrades certainly seem to inject it into every fucking topic you can.  Who's talking about "God's plan" on anything?

Did you have something rational and fact-based to say, or is it all just hysterical, emotional hypotheticals that frantically try to change the subject?  Because if it's the latter, you can just say, "I have no argument, I just WANT THIS!!!" and save us both some time.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> It’s ridiculous to have every state make different laws. Women should have the exact same right to determine their own lives in every state of the union.



Spoken like someone who isn't an American and knows fuck and all about what America is about and how it works.  Maybe the next time you try to deal yourself into someone else's country uninvited and decidedly unwelcome, you might try learning a little about it, instead of ASSuming that you know better.

Ridiculous because why?  Because that's not what you prefer?  Who the fuck asked you?  Ridiculous because that's not what your nothing of a country does?  Maybe that's WHY your country is such a non-entity that your stupid ass has to try to stick your oar in on other countries and how they operate.


----------



## gronked

Rigby5 said:


> If you prevented those 600,000 abortions a years, the US would be destroyed by poverty within a century.
> If the whole planet stopped having abortions, we could likely cause human species extinction within a 1000 years.


quite a Malthusian comment there.  we are nowhere close to overpopulating the earth by the way. if standing up, you could fit every human being currently alive on the planet in the city limits of Los Angeles.  

a piece of land the size of Texas has enough acreage to produce far more food than every human on the planet could consume in the span of a year.


----------



## gronked

Rigby5 said:


> Totally wrong.
> All cells are life.
> We have no concern over life at all, but only about sentience and consciousness.


that is a very very light line that you are towing there.  you will never ever win an abortion debate if you use sentience and consciousness as your tenets.


----------



## Dragonlady

beautress said:


> Doing the right thing on the part of Republicans will ultimately bring a lot of people back to serving other people with love in their hearts. It's that simple.



Never going to happen. Republicans have become too selfish and have little love in their hearts for anyone. 

Abortions can never be banned. They will go on regardless, and women will die.


----------



## gronked

Stann said:


> No baby has ever existed in the womb. Did you know it's still legal for Christian hospitals to refuse the morning after pill to rape victims that is a crime. It should be federal law that all hospitals have to offer that right off the bat to rape victims, only one question should be asked by police, and that is do you want to pursue this issue. Since 90% of rapes go unreported. These women do not need to be further harmed or criminalized, as often is the case. You keep quoting idealized situations. The ideal seldom exists in most cases where women need to have abortions. As I said before there's only one reason to bring a child into those world and that's if you want one and if you love them. Otherwise the last thing this world needs is more people in it, especially ones that are miserable.


you do realize that the morning after pill is nothing more than abortion, right?  why would a Christian hospital ever allow such a thing?  

furthermore, why in the world should it be a federal law for hospitals to offer abortion to rape victims?  Rape is one of the very worst things one human can do to another.  but why kill the pre-born baby?  that human did no wrong.  that human committed no crime.  if we are killing babies, pre-born or not because their fathers were terrible terrible people who did terrible things, there wouldnt be enough land to bury all the bodies.

should we punish the child for the sins of the father?


----------



## gronked

Dragonlady said:


> It’s ridiculous to have every state make different laws. Women should have the exact same right to determine their own lives in every state of the union.


It is already happening.  Every state in the union already has their own gun laws.  and they are vastly different.  why dont the people living in california have the same 2nd amendment rights as those living in florida?  because the majority of people who live in each state have their own values.  they legislate those values into laws that reflect those values.  why should abortion be any different?  It has been happening to gun enthusiasts for decades.  get used to it.

guess what we have to do if we are living in a state with gun control laws that do not reflect our personal views?

we move.  or elect different representatives who better reflect our views.


----------



## gronked

Dragonlady said:


> Never going to happen. Republicans have become too selfish and have little love in their hearts for anyone.
> 
> Abortions can never be banned. They will go on regardless, and women will die.


it is so amusing to me how backwards some peoples views have become.  I mean, just step back and listen to what you are saying for 30 seconds.  

here, I will help you out...

you are saying that the political party that is AGAINST the killing of our most innocent, vulnerable members has "little love in their hearts for anyone."

I mean really think about what you are saying.  

it is unreal.  you have such scales over your eyes that you cant even see a most simple truth.  it should NEVER be considered appropriate for a mother to literally kill their own children, be it inside or outside of the womb unless her life will end because of a complication of the birthing process.  and even then, I cant imagine a woman choosing her life over her own offspring.  I would die for my children.  without a thought.  

our society is truly in a sad sad place.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Concerned About Roe, These Women Are Turning to Sterilization
					

For women who don’t want children, sterilization is a safe and common option. But following the leaked Supreme Court decision, it’s taken on a new sense of direness and urgency




					melmagazine.com
				




OH HELL YES>..GO FOR IT.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Never going to happen. Republicans have become too selfish and have little love in their hearts for anyone.
> 
> Abortions can never be banned. They will go on regardless, and women will die.



Show of hands, everyone who's devastated to not have to moral approval of LizardBitch.

Anyone?

Okay, how about a show of hands for everyone who takes her ignorant hysteria as fact?

I'll wait.


----------



## rightnow909

schmidlap said:


> Authoritarian ideologues trashing established law... very unpopular with most Americans.
> ​​


*Right

better to trash human beings, literally*

we see where you people are mentally

as Michael Savage said "Liberalism is a mental disease"



+


----------



## ClaireH

TemplarKormac said:


> Nobody is demanding they have children they don't want. We are demanding they exercise a modicum of common sense before doing the hunka-chunka.
> 
> If not, they should bear the consequences of their behavior. Literally. If they cannot understand that unprotected sex results in the development of new life, they should be made to, the man and the woman, in the most hands-on way possible.
> 
> Offer them the choice of taking advantage of government subsidies to help them raise their children, or put the child up for adoption.


One important fact that is being left out of this discussion is the lengthy lists of couples awaiting adoption. Multitudes of couples from the states relying on foreign access to unwanted babies. This still is the case or there wouldn’t be couples waiting 2 or more years to adopt. Many couples cannot have children due to genetics who long for children.

The problem is when a woman is pregnant and did not plan to become pregnant (even though she knowingly took the actions to become pregnant) and considers abortion as an alternative to resolving her “problem”. In 2022, this is not even a rational consideration due to the successful alternative- the day after pill, available at all major drug stores without a prescription. Pharmacies are also required by law to not make it difficult for minors to acquire the day after pill. They are not even allowed to ask if a girl if she is 17 or 18, however, some have done so.

I don’t understand why the conversation about abortion has not significantly changed since 1980, as if birth control information and technology stopped 40 years ago. The conversation needs to include the alternatives that were not around even 15 years ago, tmk.

Many people are stuck in their outdated mindsets and don’t learn new info. Considering that each of us has access to instant information (most of it legit hopefully) that is beyond bizarre imo.


----------



## rightnow909

citygator said:


> Should you have a knee replacement surgery?  Well let’s pass a law so we can have the masses decide whether it’s ok with us you violate God’s plan for what knee you should be using.


How about this

Using your own words w/ a few changes... how about this:

Should you have your 2 year killed?  Well let’s pass a law so we can have the masses decide whether it’s ok with us for you to violate the laws against murder (which btw exist in ALL societies and cultures [ie it's not about "religion"])


----------



## Calypso Jones

dragonlady said:
			
		

> Never going to happen. Republicans have become too selfish and have little love in their hearts for anyone.
> 
> Abortions can never be banned. They will go on regardless, and women will die.



it's an upsidedown world when a leftist will say that repunklicans conservatives have little love in their hearts when they are the only ones who care about these little lives destroyed before they have a chance and when we find out planned butcherhood is selling body parts of these little babes to leftist universities for black experiments and profit.
 Abortions will never be banned.  there will always be someone who will do the deed for a woman who should never be a mother...and some will die....just like they're dying now from so called professionals (HA) in Planned butcherhood.    Planned Butcherhood does not care about the baby, OVIOUSLY; nor the mother.  What they care about is the $$$$.


----------



## eagle1462010

Dragonlady said:


> Never going to happen. Republicans have become too selfish and have little love in their hearts for anyone.
> 
> Abortions can never be banned. They will go on regardless, and women will die.


Why are you standing on a pile of dead babies PREACHING TO ME Canuck?

Especially after your people locking up old women for honking their horns.

We need no advice from you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> It SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO A DOCTOR NOT POLITICIANS you nitwit. What don’t you understand?   You can’t legislate every medical condition. Just cuz you are a nazi who wants to live in  the world created by Handmaidens Tale you can fuck off.
> 
> Jen is spot on. No legal restrictions. Doctors and the patient are the decision makers. Not you Nazis.


I have won this debate and proven just how much of a liar you are.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> So if we were willing to stipulate that we're willing to allow abortions for 12-year-olds raped by their fathers and other such extreme cases, would you be willing to restrict all other abortions?


What do you think the answer is gonna be?


----------



## eagle1462010

TemplarKormac said:


> What do you think the answer is gonna be?


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> What do you think the answer is gonna be?



I know what the answer is.  I want to make him say it out loud.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Leftists always come up with extreme examples to make their case. In the above, it’s easy enough to answer: states will make exceptions for rape.
> 
> But for adult women who make a voluntary choice to engage in unprotected sex, they know the risk. And if they’ve done so, there’s always the morning after pill.
> 
> Unwanted pregnancies will drop by half, at least, when consenting adults in states with restrictive abortion laws decide to do the nasty. They’ll be more responsible, knowing the consequences, and use birth control.
> 
> And for those who don’t, or for those who had a rare instance of birth control failure, then they can still likely choose an abortion, but they’ll have to decide quickly, or if they delay, they can take the Greyhound to an abortion state. if they’re poor, PP will have a transportation fund all set up.


Extreme examples the right the far right is really good at that, remember when they set up planned Parenthood to try to make it look like they were selling body parts. Right, there are extremists on both sides of the issue. Middle ground is always the answer and that's what Roe versus Wade was. No one was forced to have an abortion, and those who needed one got them. Everyone should have been happy.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> So if we were willing to stipulate that we're willing to allow abortions for 12-year-olds raped by their fathers and other such extreme cases, would you be willing to restrict all other abortions?


I said from the very beginning laws restricting abortion have no place in our nation. An abortion is a medical procedure and it should be kept between the woman and her doctor a significant other or husband can also be included in that mix when it occurs. All other parties have no rights in the decision. And I just mentioned one extreme case, there are thousands of reasons to have an abortion. There's only one good reason to have a child and that's because you want one and you love it. This is my final answer and eventually the courts will see the wisdom of the decision it's not in their jurisdiction it's not in anyone's jurisdiction except the parties involved.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> I said from the very beginning laws restricting abortion have no place in our nation. An abortion is a medical procedure and it should be kept between the woman and her doctor a significant other or husband can also be included in that mix when it occurs. All other parties have no rights in the decision. And I just mentioned one extreme case, there are thousands of reasons to have an abortion. There's only one good reason to have a child and that's because you want one and you love it. This is my final answer and eventually the courts will see the wisdom of the decision it's not in their jurisdiction it's not in anyone's jurisdiction except the parties involved.


In 20 to 30 years I won't be alive but if you give government this power over women's reproductive rights now they will have the right when the world is faced with overpopulation and starvation which is just around the corner at the rate the population keeps continuing to grow then they will have the right to tell you you cannot have a child you must have an abortion. Government will have that right established already that control over you.


----------



## citygator

TemplarKormac said:


> I have won this debate and proven just how much of a liar you are.


Taking his ball and going home.  You lose.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> I have won this debate and proven just how much of a liar you are.


I realize you think you won everyone loses if roe versus wade goes to the wayside. No one wins. The supreme Court needs to develop the balls to tell you people it's none of your business. We need a federal law making any and all abortion laws illegal. It will happen when people come to their senses and stop making it an emotional issue.


----------



## Stann

citygator said:


> Taking his ball and going home.  You lose.


These people don't know what common sense is. It is a totally emotional issue for them. Emotions never make sensible legislation.


----------



## beagle9

Everything these government official's cause from their loose political trouble stirring aggitating lips (in as far as violence goes, otherwise by them condoning it), and doing so in the name of protest as a cover, uhhh should be recorded for future prosecutorial purposes. 

It's time for accountability when we begin to hear our so called government officials actually condoning violence in a very aggressive and reckless way, and doing so without any reposonsible standard's being stood for or applied too such rhetoric any longer in these things, otherwise just as long as the Democrat's get their political way it seems that nothing else matters to them but what they want...Fact......... Some sick crap is going on these days, and it's time for Democrat's to take a huge step back, and to then try and realize just how out of touch with reality, and out of touch with the citizen's, (they are) as a political party these days . JMO.


----------



## TemplarKormac

citygator said:


> Taking his ball and going home.  You lose.


Go home, gator, and proclaim your defeat loudly for everyone to hear.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> These people don't know what common sense is. It is a totally emotional issue for them. Emotions never make sensible legislation.



Yet you were the one spewing emotion this morning.

"MARK MY WORDS!" You kept saying.

Please don't.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> everyone loses if roe versus wade goes to the wayside.



Emotion. Like so.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> The supreme Court needs to develop the balls to tell you people it's none of your business.



The Supreme Court needs to develop the ba...

Wait, did you just tell Justice Barrett, a woman, to grow a pair of balls?

Please stop, I'm laughing here.

What the Supreme Court needs to do is rule on the Constitution, not on your feelings.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> I said from the very beginning laws restricting abortion have no place in our nation



That... is not for you to decide.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> No baby has ever existed in the womb.


Really? Is that what you're going with?


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I said from the very beginning laws restricting abortion have no place in our nation. An abortion is a medical procedure and it should be kept between the woman and her doctor a significant other or husband can also be included in that mix when it occurs. All other parties have no rights in the decision. And I just mentioned one extreme case, there are thousands of reasons to have an abortion. There's only one good reason to have a child and that's because you want one and you love it. This is my final answer and eventually the courts will see the wisdom of the decision it's not in their jurisdiction it's not in anyone's jurisdiction except the parties involved.


Our.  Only our if we agree  huh.

We dont agree and it appears the courts will be with us.

Will not affect you in blue shitholes


----------



## skye




----------



## beautress

gronked said:


> all of your arguments can also be used in relation to the pre born.
> 
> a pre born baby is 100% human.  if you use consciousness, self awareness or sentience as proofs of humanity, you will lose that argument every single time as there are millions upon millions of people living in america today who pass none of those tests.
> 
> unless the life of the mother is literally at risk (and that instance is exceedingly rare:  17.4/100,000 births) all abortion is birth control of convenience.


"Second is that NO one human body ever gets to dictate medical choices of another, and the fetus has no authority over the mother at all, in any way."

Got that covered! We're not funding other people's damned abortions. They have to pay for it themselves. RESOLVED!!!!

And I thank you, sir or madam.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Go home, gator, and proclaim your defeat loudly for everyone to hear.


He has nothing to be ashamed of, there's no defeat. You people have a lot to be ashamed of.


----------



## Esdraelon

Rigby5 said:


> It is beyond the pale.
> Unacceptable.


Sounds like you need to get busy, then.  I'm sure there are organizations doing their planning as we type.  It's gonna end badly for ya though.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Emotion. Like so.


The pro-life campaign carefully chose its words calling a fetus a baby to encourage a strong emotional response. Attempting to discredit planned Parenthood by staging a false undercover scheme. Kidding people against people they don't even know or care about. Demonizing abortion clinics. If you believe all these evil Acts can bring about a good result you are mistaken. Everyone will regret if row and Wade is repealed.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Our.  Only our if we agree  huh.
> 
> We dont agree and it appears the courts will be with us.
> 
> Will not affect you in blue shitholes


You still have a right to your opinion but it shouldn't be made law it's ridiculous. Moral laws that tell other people what they can and can't do. There's no place for them in a free Nation. If you don't want to be part of a free Nation move to Russia or Iran I'm sure abortion is not allowed there that's what dictatorships do they control every aspect of people's lives.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> The Supreme Court needs to develop the ba...
> 
> Wait, did you just tell Justice Barrett, a woman, to grow a pair of balls?
> 
> Please stop, I'm laughing here.
> 
> What the Supreme Court needs to do is rule on the Constitution, not on your feelings.


You know what I mean, these judges are lying themselves to be squeezed by you people into doing something that they shouldn't be doing in the first place. Abortion laws have no place in a free society they shouldn't exist at all.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Stann said:


> You still have a right to your opinion but it shouldn't be made law it's ridiculous. Moral laws that tell other people what they can and can't do. There's no place for them in a free Nation. If you don't want to be part of a free Nation move to Russia or Iran I'm sure abortion is not allowed there that's what dictatorships do they control every aspect of people's lives.


You reference a free nation, but then suggest anyone who doesn't agree with your version of a free nation should move to Russia. Perhaps someone's idea of a free nation is the ability to have their own state be able to decide what things it will and will not allow, rather than the federal government forcing them to do what it wants.


----------



## Coyote

Nostra said:


> For some unknown reason you think all women support killing babies.  They don't , Dumbass.


She doesn’t, dumbass, nor does anything in her post state that.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Stann said:


> You know what I mean, these judges are lying themselves to be squeezed by you people into doing something that they shouldn't be doing in the first place. Abortion laws have no place in a free society they shouldn't exist at all.


What the supreme court shouldn't have done was rule in favor a roe in the first place. It wasn't an authority they possessed. 



> Abortion laws have no place in a free society they shouldn't exist at all.



You say that, while the house is current trying to codify abortion into law, and.if they do, you'll cheer it.


----------



## Stann

ThisIsMe said:


> You reference a free nation, but then suggest anyone who doesn't agree with your version of a free nation should move to Russia. Perhaps someone's idea of a free nation is the ability to have their own state be able to decide what things it will and will not allow, rather than the federal government forcing them to do what it wants.


You don't get it. I know you're not that dance you just don't want to get it. Roe versus Wade gave everybody what they wanted or needed. Those who didn't want to have an abortion didn't have to have one those who need it or wanted one could have one. That's how it should be. On the side issue I saw people saying this isn't part of our rights well so I looked up abortion during the colonial days and it was a very well known fact that women needing or wanting abortions at that time went to other women who knew herbology and were helped by them. This news was widespread and readily open to anyone that needed this. The founding fathers never addressed abortion because it was a non-issue back then. Overzealous pro-life advocates have played on people's emotions making them all think that they're going to do some good by stopping abortions when nothing could be further from the truth. In the future I hope abortion numbers and information is kept confidential like other patient information is. Too much knowledge in this area  creates a problem for some of the population obviously otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion  over and over again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Extreme examples the right the far right is really good at that, remember when they set up planned Parenthood to try to make it look like they were selling body parts. Right, there are extremists on both sides of the issue. Middle ground is always the answer and that's what Roe versus Wade was. No one was forced to have an abortion, and those who needed one got them. Everyone should have been happy.



No, I don't remember anyone "setting up" Planned Parenthood.  I remember them getting caught out by an investigative journalist and all their minions swinging into action to try to excuse it away.

_Roe v. Wade_ was not "middle ground" to anyone except those who were getting everything they wanted, exactly the way they wanted.  In the sane world, that's not called "middle ground".  The first place you went wrong was when you ASSumed that "middle ground" can ever be defined by just one side.  "No one was forced to have an abortion":  is that your idea of a concession to the pro-lifers?  "You don't get anything you actually want, but we'll 'generously' prohibit something you weren't worried about in the first place, and in exchange we get everything we want.  That should make you happy."

One definition of "extremist" would be "someone who thinks a compromise involves telling opponents how lucky they are to concede everything."

REAL middle ground would be what overturning _Roe v. Wade_ will accomplish:  everyone having a say in what the laws of their state will be, and everyone having the freedom to move somewhere that suits them better if they don't agree with the majority of their neighbors.  The exact same middle ground America has on many issues, and is supposed to have on most issues.  Coincidentally, this is the same middle ground that the left fights tooth and nail to do away with on increasing numbers of issues.


----------



## Jarlaxle

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!​
> 
> nah, nothing will happen.


I hope not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I said from the very beginning laws restricting abortion have no place in our nation. An abortion is a medical procedure and it should be kept between the woman and her doctor a significant other or husband can also be included in that mix when it occurs. All other parties have no rights in the decision. And I just mentioned one extreme case, there are thousands of reasons to have an abortion. There's only one good reason to have a child and that's because you want one and you love it. This is my final answer and eventually the courts will see the wisdom of the decision it's not in their jurisdiction it's not in anyone's jurisdiction except the parties involved.



So basically, you're not arguing in good faith.  Your blatant attempt at manipulation by whining about, "12-year-old girl!" is summarily dismissed, since you've admitted that you don't really give a fuck about her; she's just a human shield to hide what you really want.

If what you want to argue for is, "Abortion any time, for any reason!" then do so.  Don't waste my time with dishonest arguments about sob stories again.

And no, I didn't dignify the rest of your post with my time after you admitted that you were bullshitting.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I realize you think you won everyone loses if roe versus wade goes to the wayside. No one wins. The supreme Court needs to develop the balls to tell you people it's none of your business. We need a federal law making any and all abortion laws illegal. It will happen when people come to their senses and stop making it an emotional issue.



Then take your tyranny-aspiring ass out and make the case to your fellow voters and to Congress.  Stop trying to force your preferences on the rest of us by judicial _fiat _and demands for us to shut up and be happy with what you tell us to.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Calypso Jones said:


> it's an upsidedown world when a leftist will say that repunklicans conservatives have little love in their hearts when they are the only ones who care about these little lives destroyed before they have a chance and when we find out planned butcherhood is selling body parts of these little babes to leftist universities for black experiments and profit.
> Abortions will never be banned.  there will always be someone who will do the deed for a woman who should never be a mother...and some will die....just like they're dying now from so called professionals (HA) in Planned butcherhood.    Planned Butcherhood does not care about the baby, OVIOUSLY; nor the mother.  What they care about is the $$$$.


How many unwanted children have YOU adopted?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> These people don't know what common sense is. It is a totally emotional issue for them. Emotions never make sensible legislation.



Coming from the side of, "Babies aren't alive, because I don't want them to be!!" that's somewhat less than devastating.  I wouldn't sully myself with anything that YOU would consider "common sense".


----------



## Calypso Jones

I haven't had to adopt any of them but i have provided safe haven for a number of them.  asshole.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Calypso Jones said:


> I haven't had to adopt any of them but i have provided safe haven for a number of them.  asshole.


None, as expected. 

So...like most pro lifers, you are in the "Talk a good game and nothing else," camp. Not surprising at all.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You don't get it. I know you're not that dance you just don't want to get it. Roe versus Wade gave everybody what they wanted or needed. Those who didn't want to have an abortion didn't have to have one those who need it or wanted one could have one. That's how it should be. On the side issue I saw people saying this isn't part of our rights well so I looked up abortion during the colonial days and it was a very well known fact that women needing or wanting abortions at that time went to other women who knew herbology and were helped by them. This news was widespread and readily open to anyone that needed this. The founding fathers never addressed abortion because it was a non-issue back then. Overzealous pro-life advocates have played on people's emotions making them all think that they're going to do some good by stopping abortions when nothing could be further from the truth. In the future I hope abortion numbers and information is kept confidential like other patient information is. Too much knowledge in this area  creates a problem for some of the population obviously otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion  over and over again.



I just heard, "I'm not listening to what you think, because what I believe you think serves my purposes better!  I was happy, so that means everyone else should have been, too!  Stop having beliefs I don't approve of!"

And then I didn't waste any more of my time on your self-serving, utterly oblivious speech.

I realize that this is going to be incomprehensible to someone who so clearly can't wrap his brain around the idea that people even CAN disagree with him, much less have a right to do so, but Roe v. Wade manifestly did NOT "give everybody what they wanted or needed".  Do you know how you can tell?  By the fact that abortion has been the number-one most hotly contested issue in this country from the moment Roe v. Wade was imposed against the will of the people.

You don't win arguments by ignoring what your opponents have to say and chanting, "You should want THIS!" over and over.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> How many unwanted children have YOU adopted?



By that "logic", you'd better not say a word about the plight of the homeless unless you've got some stashed in your guest bedroom.  Seriously?  "If you don't personally adopt children, you can't object to killing them!"?  That's what passes for intelligent thought where you come from?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> None, as expected.
> 
> So...like most pro lifers, you are in the "Talk a good game and nothing else," camp. Not surprising at all.



"You don't practice your beliefs that I don't share the way I think you should!"

Your pathetic logic is becoming more pathetic by the moment.

I have two children who would have been aborted if I wasn't a better person than you are.  You wanna come at ME with your, "I am the High Arbiter of Beliefs I Don't Share, justify yourself for my approval!" routine?


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, I don't remember anyone "setting up" Planned Parenthood.  I remember them getting caught out by an investigative journalist and all their minions swinging into action to try to excuse it away.
> 
> _Roe v. Wade_ was not "middle ground" to anyone except those who were getting everything they wanted, exactly the way they wanted.  In the sane world, that's not called "middle ground".  The first place you went wrong was when you ASSumed that "middle ground" can ever be defined by just one side.  "No one was forced to have an abortion":  is that your idea of a concession to the pro-lifers?  "You don't get anything you actually want, but we'll 'generously' prohibit something you weren't worried about in the first place, and in exchange we get everything we want.  That should make you happy."
> 
> One definition of "extremist" would be "someone who thinks a compromise involves telling opponents how lucky they are to concede everything."
> 
> REAL middle ground would be what overturning _Roe v. Wade_ will accomplish:  everyone having a say in what the laws of their state will be, and everyone having the freedom to move somewhere that suits them better if they don't agree with the majority of their neighbors.  The exact same middle ground America has on many issues, and is supposed to have on most issues.  Coincidentally, this is the same middle ground that the left fights tooth and nail to do away with on increasing numbers of issues.


Two questions, who funded that investigative journalism and conspired to lie about their interests in the first place. The answer, a pro-life group and they attempted to practice entrapment. It didn't work they were caught red-handed everybody knows that except you try to ignore that. Second question, ending the reproductive protections that roe versus Wade represents limits women's rights, there's no way around that. You say that it somehow affects your rights please explain that how a woman you don't know or even care about having an abortion affects your rights I'd like to know that.


----------



## Stann

Jarlaxle said:


> How many unwanted children have YOU adopted?


If Roe versus Wade is knocked down there's going to be a whole lot more unwanted children to be adopted. Looked it up in 2007 only 133,737 children were adopted in the United States. The adoption rates are unfortunately going down. I guess we'll have to have a rummage sale on these unwanted children.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> He has nothing to be ashamed of, there's no defeat. You people have a lot to be ashamed of.



And we're supposed to value YOUR judgement on what's shameful because why?  What have you ever done or said that you imagine gives you any moral authority to declare that?


----------



## Calypso Jones

Helping children does not always require adoption.    How many have you adopted Strawman? Jarlaxle      Excellent try at taking the focus of the democrats platform of death to the unborn.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> And we're supposed to value YOUR judgement on what's shameful because why?  What have you ever done or said that you imagine gives you any moral authority to declare that?


Attempting to make a person feel shameful or not valued is a technique imposed by people who want to control others. He never attempted any of this, he was / is fighting for the rights of women everywhere / actually all people. Those who cannot admit their faults are the people who need the help the most.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> The pro-life campaign carefully chose its words calling a fetus a baby to encourage a strong emotional response. Attempting to discredit planned Parenthood by staging a false undercover scheme. Kidding people against people they don't even know or care about. Demonizing abortion clinics. If you believe all these evil Acts can bring about a good result you are mistaken. Everyone will regret if row and Wade is repealed.



Seriously, are you some kind of dumb fuck?  You think the world began the day Roe v. Wade was handed down?

The pro-life campaign didn't "carefully choose its words", you moron.  They didn't HAVE to.  Humanity has been referring to the pre-born as babies since forever.  WE aren't the ones who magically decided we had figured something out in the 1960s that no one else had ever known, and had to find new vocabulary to cover it; YOU did.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You know what I mean, these judges are lying themselves to be squeezed by you people into doing something that they shouldn't be doing in the first place. Abortion laws have no place in a free society they shouldn't exist at all.



The more you talk, the more convinced I am that you have very carefully avoided ever listening to an actual pro-lifer, in favor of listening to a lot of pro-aborts telling you about pro-lifers.

You are very mistaken in your belief that you have something to contribute to a debate with this level of careful, deliberate ignorance.


----------



## Stann

Calypso Jones said:


> Helping children does not always require adoption.    How many have you adopted Strawman? Jarlaxle      Excellent try at taking the focus of the democrats platform of death to the unborn.


Agreed, but I wasn't the one who asked that question, everyone's situation is different. There are people who can do that that should, and there are people who can't do that and shouldn't. Problems arise when people get those things confused. I was simply stating that in 2007 there were only 133,737 adoptions in the United States and the adoption rate is going down. Here in Nebraska they've been advertising to get people to adopt. The number of children institutionalized is growing here, and more restrictive abortion laws aren't going to help the situation. They will hurt it badly there will be more children and many more children that are basically unadoptable. Institutionalized children seldom finish high School, commit more crimes and have more mental problems. The quality of the children being produced is going to go down, that's a given and the numbers are going to get go up, again, that's a given. While adoption rates are going down. This is just one of the many problems that are going to be produced if roe versus Wade is done away with.


----------



## Calypso Jones

y'all are so  thoughtful.  Killing children because no one you think will adopt them.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> The more you talk, the more convinced I am that you have very carefully avoided ever listening to an actual pro-lifer, in favor of listening to a lot of pro-aborts telling you about pro-lifers.
> 
> You are very mistaken in your belief that you have something to contribute to a debate with this level of careful, deliberate ignorance.


I live in Nebraska, I've heard far too many pro lifers. They don't think things through. For every action one takes there are reactions. There are so many negatives to this thing it isn't funny. And guess what, most of those abortions you're so against will still occur. Many women will be hurt in this process, far more than ever before. You're actually think it's worth it to try to force women to carry on pregnancies they don't want or need. When the first child is born that has multiple multiple problems and requires 50 surgeries to get halfway normal the state was going to have to pick up all those bills. And one of these children can cost millions. Economically and socially none of this makes sense. Hope it makes you feel morally okay.


----------



## Stann

Calypso Jones said:


> y'all are so  thoughtful.  Killing children because no one you think will adopt them.


It's already a fact, and it's going to get worse. I don't think it, I know it, you can't fight statistics.


----------



## Calypso Jones

I know it will get worse.    The left has no respect for life.   There's nothing anyone can do about that but that is on them.  They must face those consequences.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> Attempting to make a person feel shameful or not valued is a technique imposed by people who want to control other…..



What do you think the leftists are doing when they scream ”racist!” at everyone who disagrees with them, and silence, censor, or otherwise tries to humiliate them? You people have been using that technique for years.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I live in Nebraska, I've heard far too many pro lifers. They don't think things through. For every action one takes there are reactions. There are so many negatives to this thing it isn't funny. And guess what, most of those abortions you're so against will still occur. Many women will be hurt in this process, far more than ever before. You're actually think it's worth it to try to force women to carry on pregnancies they don't want or need. When the first child is born that has multiple multiple problems and requires 50 surgeries to get halfway normal the state was going to have to pick up all those bills. And one of these children can cost millions. Economically and socially none of this makes sense. Hope it makes you feel morally okay.


Nobody’s forcing anyone to continue a pregnancy. You people are acting as if the Supreme Court is going to ban abortion. It will still be wildly available, albeit not as convenient for some.


----------



## Stann

Calypso Jones said:


> I know it will get worse.    The left has no respect for life.   There's nothing anyone can do about that but that is on them.  They must face those consequences.


You got that backwards. The right has no respect for life. They want their guns, they want the death penalty and they want their women barefoot and pregnant at home serving their men.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Nobody’s forcing anyone to continue a pregnancy. You people are acting as if the Supreme Court is going to ban abortion. It will still be wildly available, albeit not as convenient for some.


Any restriction on abortion will force some women to carry a pregnancy they do not want to in the first place. The poor and the very ignorant are most subject to this.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> You got that backwards. The right has no respect for life. They want their guns, they want the death penalty and they want their women barefoot and pregnant at home serving their men.


Oh geez…..you don’t honestly believe that, do you?


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> Any restriction on abortion will force some women to carry a pregnancy they do not want to in the first place. The poor and the very ignorant are most subject to this.


No it won’t. If there is a restriction beginning at 15 weeks, they’ll just have to make their decision within the first couple of months. You want a woman to be able to get an abortion on demand, no matter how far along she is? Even when it’s a viable baby?


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> You still have a right to your opinion but it shouldn't be made law it's ridiculous. Moral laws that tell other people what they can and can't do. There's no place for them in a free Nation. If you don't want to be part of a free Nation move to Russia or Iran I'm sure abortion is not allowed there that's what dictatorships do they control every aspect of people's lives.


You lose in our States.  Its that simple.  You cn not tell our people what to believe here.

You can still be a barbarian in your shithole blue state


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Oh geez…..you don’t honestly believe that, do you?


Some states have gone as far as to say no exceptions for rape or incest. Who does that give power to ? Wake up already, before you're not even able to vote anymore. This is just the beginning. There are probably far right-wing nuts who watched the handmaidens tale series on TV and said what a wonderful idea. I really don't think we should go there. It ends up being the immorality of the few gets to dictate the morality of the many. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just look at the history of the Roman Catholic Church.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> He has nothing to be ashamed of, there's no defeat. You people have a lot to be ashamed of.


There is his utter defeat and your obvious state of denial.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> Some states have gone as far as to say no exceptions for rape or incest. Who does that give power to ? Wake up already, before you're not even able to vote anymore. This is just the beginning. There are probably far right-wing nuts who watched the handmaidens tale series on TV and said what a wonderful idea. I really don't think we should go there. It ends up being the immorality of the few gets to dictate the morality of the many. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just look at the history of the Roman Catholic Church.


Get a grip. Sell your alarmist crap to someone who will fall for it.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> No it won’t. If there is a restriction beginning at 15 weeks, they’ll just have to make their decision within the first couple of months. You want a woman to be able to get an abortion on demand, no matter how far along she is? Even when it’s a viable baby?


If ? You don't know what you're talking about, time is an hours the issue. Most of the late term abortions are by married women who discovered the fetus is horribly malformed and probably not viable. That's why these blanket abortion bands are a bad deal. Let's be truthful any abortion band is a bad deal. It takes away having to make one of the most important decisions a woman has to make. And that should be hers alone. Imagine for one second if a man was told he could only have sex for the purpose of procreation, no other sex would be allowed and especially outside of marriage. How well would that go over. It wouldn't men wouldn't allow this to happen to them. That's why I'm shocked women are allowing this to happen. So much progress to become first class citizens and it's all going to be gone.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> "You don't practice your beliefs that I don't share the way I think you should!"
> 
> Your pathetic logic is becoming more pathetic by the moment.
> 
> I have two children who would have been aborted if I wasn't a better person than you are.  You wanna come at ME with your, "I am the High Arbiter of Beliefs I Don't Share, justify yourself for my approval!" routine?


It's OK. You have to live with the hypocrisy, not me.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Stann said:


> If Roe versus Wade is knocked down there's going to be a whole lot more unwanted children to be adopted. Looked it up in 2007 only 133,737 children were adopted in the United States. The adoption rates are unfortunately going down. I guess we'll have to have a rummage sale on these unwanted children.


Are you attempting to make some sort of POINT?


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> There is his utter defeat and your obvious state of denial.


You wish. I understand roe versus Wade might be repealed. But it's not set in stone yet. The justices have time to think about what they're doing and if they really gave it a lot of thought they'd come to a very different conclusion.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Calypso Jones said:


> Helping children does not always require adoption.    How many have you adopted Strawman? Jarlaxle      Excellent try at taking the focus of the democrats platform of death to the unborn.


Adopt? I'm not the one demanding the birth of unwanted children.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> It's OK. You have to live with the hypocrisy, not me.



I'll take that as a, "No, I don't want to actually defend my position".  You have my leave to complete your craven retreat.  Come back if you ever find your balls.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'll take that as a, "No, I don't want to actually defend my position".  You have my leave to complete your craven retreat.  Come back if you ever find your balls.


I understand...you don't like me pointing out your hypocrisy.


----------



## Stann

Jarlaxle said:


> Are you attempting to make some sort of POINT?


It is so foolish to think that this is going to solve anything. Knocking down Roe versus Wade is just going to create a whole lot of new problems, worse problems.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> If ? You don't know what you're talking about, time is an hours the issue. Most of the late term abortions are by married women who discovered the fetus is horribly malformed and probably not viable. That's why these blanket abortion bands are a bad deal. Let's be truthful any abortion band is a bad deal. It takes away having to make one of the most important decisions a woman has to make. And that should be hers alone. Imagine for one second if a man was told he could only have sex for the purpose of procreation, no other sex would be allowed and especially outside of marriage. How well would that go over. It wouldn't men wouldn't allow this to happen to them. That's why I'm shocked women are allowing this to happen. So much progress to become first class citizens and it's all going to be gone.


It’s up to the voters in each state. And  if someone lives in a state with restrictive laws, they can either move to a state that is more fitting with their leanings, or, if they get pregnant, they can take a bus ride to a neighboring state. It’s not convenient, but the baby about to be robbed of life is paying a bigger cost.


----------



## Lisa558

What is actually more important at this time, since a final decision has not been revealed, is that pro-abortion savages are threatening the lives of the justices if they don’t yield to liberals’ demands.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> It’s up to the voters in each state. And  if someone lives in a state with restrictive laws, they can either move to a state that is more fitting with their leanings, or, if they get pregnant, they can take a bus ride to a neighboring state. It’s not convenient, but the baby about to be robbed of life is paying a bigger cost.


How about the states that have imposed Nazi laws that were you spy on your neighbor and get rewarded if you turn them in for having an abortion. Those are really sick laws.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Stann said:


> It is so foolish to think that this is going to solve anything. Knocking down Roe versus Wade is just going to create a whole lot of new problems, worse problems.


Ok. Your point?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> Adopt? I'm not the one demanding the birth of unwanted children.



Oh, are you still hanging around issuing challenges you don't have the stones to actually back up?  Okay, I remain ready for you to carry the fight you pretend to want to me, if you're finally up to it.

You want to challenge someone about taking care of the children you want to kill?  You challenge ME, no one else.  Are you ready, or do you need to go change your pissed-in frillies again?


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> Nobody’s forcing anyone to continue a pregnancy. You people are acting as if the Supreme Court is going to ban abortion. It will still be wildly available, albeit not as convenient for some.


Weaning these people off of the government teet is almost impossible. They have realized a federal government power that has been used to force the will of the people to break on various issues. 

They feel as if they can't survive without the federal government forcing compliance for them on many unpopular issues in which they choose to engage in, and want everyone else to either support without any regards whatsoever to their cult or ya gonna pay a price by way of a government jack boot on your neck.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> What is actually more important at this time, since a final decision has not been revealed, is that pro-abortion savages are threatening the lives of the justices if they don’t yield to liberals’ demands.


Remember when pro-life people were murdering abortion clinic personnel. Or are they still doing that ?


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> You wish. I understand roe versus Wade might be repealed. But it's not set in stone yet. The justices have time to think about what they're doing and if they really gave it a lot of thought they'd come to a very different conclusion.


Aka your side is doxxing them hoping to scare them into keeping Roe v Wade.

Tactics of terrorism.All for the right to use abortion as birth gontrol.  And it doesnt even ban it.

You are a barbarian


----------



## Stann

Jarlaxle said:


> Ok. Your point?


This is a can of worms no one should be opening. If it happens after a few years the people in this nation are going to be even crazier than they are now and demanding to go back to some sensibility about this issue.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, are you still hanging around issuing challenges you don't have the stones to actually back up?  Okay, I remain ready for you to carry the fight you pretend to want to me, if you're finally up to it.
> 
> You want to challenge someone about taking care of the children you want to kill?  You challenge ME, no one else.  Are you ready, or do you need to go change your pissed-in frillies again?


I'm sorry, are you still  jumping up and down and screeching?


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> How about the states that have imposed Nazi laws that were you spy on your neighbor and get rewarded if you turn them in for having an abortion. Those are really sick laws.


Oh right….I remember. That leftist mayor in NYC was asking his followers to report people not wearing masks to “enforcers.” That’s why I will never in NYC. Can‘t stand their leftist nonsense.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Aka your side is doxxing them hoping to scare them into keeping Roe v Wade.
> 
> Tactics of terrorism.All for the right to use abortion as birth gontrol.  And it doesnt even ban it.
> 
> You are a barbarian


LOL. I guarantee you, you are more of a barbarian than I am I am not making personal attacks on anyone here. When I condemn, I'm condemning the pro-life movement. This issue doesn't even affect me. I just feel sorry for all the women who are going to be victimized by this.


----------



## eagle1462010

beagle9 said:


> Weaning these people off of the government teet is almost impossible. They have realized a federal government power that has been used to force the will of the people to break on various issues.
> 
> They feel as if they can't survive without the federal government forcing compliance for them on many unpopular issues in which they choose to engage in, and want everyone else to either support without any regards whatsoever to their cult or ya gonna pay a price by way of a government jack boot on your neck.


They cant handle it when people fight back.  Trump made them lose their minds.  Now they see their controll slipping.

Twitter.  Free Speach and they create a new govt agency headed by a Liar.  They are Pathetic


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> I understand...you don't like me pointing out your hypocrisy.



I understand.  Your script only gave you one line, and all you can do is repeat it because your masters didn't tell you what to say when someone had an answer.  

Once again for those who have their fingers in their ears:  I have TWO of the children you say pro-lifers don't care about.  Where's this "hypocrisy" you thought was an unanswerable victory for you?  

Go ahead.  Blindly parrot about "hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!" at me again.  I'm sure we'll all enjoy laughing at your frantic incoherence.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Oh right….I remember. That leftist mayor in NYC was asking his followers to report people not wearing masks to “enforcers.” That’s why I will never in NYC. Can‘t stand their leftist nonsense.


You can't compare a virus that affects us all and a public health issue with a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. There is no comparison.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> They cant handle it when people fight back.  Trump made them lose their minds.  Now they see their controll slipping.
> 
> Twitter.  Free Speach and they create a new govt agency headed by a Liar.  They are Pathetic


You're close, trump is certainly losing his mind.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> LOL. I guarantee you, you are more of a barbarian than I am I am not making personal attacks on anyone here. When I condemn, I'm condemning the pro-life movement. This issue doesn't even affect me. I just feel sorry for all the women who are going to be victimized by this.


I dont give a shit what you think.  Its that simple.  Ststes rights are being restored by states who dont give a rip if you are offended


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> LOL. I guarantee you, you are more of a barbarian than I am I am not making personal attacks on anyone here. When I condemn, I'm condemning the pro-life movement. This issue doesn't even affect me. I just feel sorry for all the women who are going to be victimized by this.


I feel sorry for the babies aborted in month 5 and later, limb by limb. Or worse, the babies delivered alive and left to die - AKA a post-birth abortion.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> I understand.  Your script only gave you one line, and all you can do is repeat it because your masters didn't tell you what to say when someone had an answer.
> 
> Once again for those who have their fingers in their ears:  I have TWO of the children you say pro-lifers don't care about.  Where's this "hypocrisy" you thought was an unanswerable victory for you?
> 
> Go ahead.  Blindly parrot about "hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!" at me again.  I'm sure we'll all enjoy laughing at your frantic incoherence.


You could have adopted more. You didn't.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> You're close, trump is certainly losing his mind.


Have you heard Biden try to answer a question lately? His mind is half-gone.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> You can't compare a virus that affects us all and a public health issue with a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. There is no comparison.


Lol.  Adults right to take a jab.  But side pushed to be just like Canada and failed.  Not the same as a baby with no voice.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Lisa558 said:


> Have you heard Biden try to answer a question lately? His mind is half-gone.


More than that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> I'm sorry, are you still  jumping up and down and screeching?



No, I'm still standing here, watching you scurry around like the cornered rat you are, desperately hoping for a hole in the baseboard to hide in.

Either follow through on the challenge you threw out, or admit you're a coward who only offers a fight when you won't have to back it up.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> You can't compare a virus that affects us all and a public health issue with a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. There is no comparison.


No, it’s a good analogy, setting aside the fact that masks didn‘t make much difference anyway. My decision not to wear a mask MIGHT give you COVID. A woman‘s decision to abort her child WILL end his or her life.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, I'm still standing here, watching you scurry around like the cornered rat you are, desperately hoping for a hole in the baseboard to hide in.
> 
> Either follow through on the challenge you threw out, or admit you're a coward who only offers a fight when you won't have to back it up.


Still no point,then? 

It wasn't a challenge, it was a simple question...and I got exactly the answer I expected.


----------



## Lisa558

Jarlaxle said:


> More than that.


I’d say 64.8%, and going up by the day.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> You're close, trump is certainly losing his mind.


He ate your brain leftist.  Right now your side is threatening justices who May say NO to you.

Threaten to kill when people dissgree.  Go play in traffic leftist.

Thing is.  Roe versus Wade will not stop states from having abortions.  Just means some will not be a barbarian like you are.  Your main problem here is people are Saying NO and you cant handle it


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> He ate your brain leftist.  Right now your side is threatening justices who May say NO to you.
> 
> Threaten to kill when people dissgree.  Go play in traffic leftist.
> 
> Thing is.  Roe versus Wade will not stop states from having abortions.  Just means some will not be a barbarian like you are.  Your main problem here is people are Saying NO and you cant handle it


Here’s the other issue. On the off-chance that the SCOTUS comes out in June with the decision to uphold Roe v Wade, we will know they did so under threats by progs to murder them, or their children.

And the entire system of having a SCOTUS will be gone. The leftists will have succeeded in destroying more of what made America great.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> Still no point,then?
> 
> It wasn't a challenge, it was a simple question...and I got exactly the answer I expected.



Still the same point:  You're a craven, puling little coward who only has insults and who runs away the instant someone stands up to you, like all dickless bullies.

Jarlaxle:  "How many unwanted babies have YOU adopted?  You're a hypocrite!  You can't oppose abortion because I say so!"

Me:  "I have two children that would have been aborted by your standards."

Jarlaxle:  "Oh, shit, someone has an answer!  I don't know what to say next!  HYPOCRITE!!"  *much scampering away and pissing of pants*  "Damn it, they told me that line would win without me having to fight!"

I'm laughing at you, girly man.  My dog has bigger balls than you, and he's neutered.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> Still the same point:  You're a craven, puling little coward who only has insults and who runs away the instant someone stands up to you, like all dickless bullies.
> 
> Jarlaxle:  "How many unwanted babies have YOU adopted?  You're a hypocrite!  You can't oppose abortion because I say so!"
> 
> Me:  "I have two children that would have been aborted by your standards."
> 
> Jarlaxle:  "Oh, shit, someone has an answer!  I don't know what to say next!  HYPOCRITE!!"  *much scampering away and pissing of pants*  "Damn it, they told me that line would win without me having to fight!"
> 
> I'm laughing at you, girly man.  My dog has bigger balls than you, and he's neutered.


Spunk! I like spunk! 

Keep fighting. I’m right there with you,


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> Here’s the other issue. On the off-chance that the SCOTUS comes out in June with the decision to uphold Roe v Wade, we will know they did so under threats by progs to murder them, or their children.
> 
> And the entire system of having a SCOTUS will be gone. The leftists will have succeeded in destroying more of what made America grrwr.


Why im calling them terrorist.  It is the very definition right now.  Violence for a political gain is terrotism.

On a law that will not stop abortion in blue states.

They are batshit crazy leftist retards


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> I dont give a shit what you think.  Its that simple.  Ststes rights are being restored by states who dont give a rip if you are offended


This is a discussion board, if you're not interested in an opposing opinion you should not be here. It's that simple.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Why im calling them terrorist.  It is the very definition right now.  Violence for a political gain is terrotism.
> 
> On a law that will not stop abortion in blue states.
> 
> They are batshit crazy leftist retards


I think the big difference here is the people you are referring to as leftists, actually care about people other than themselves. To call them all names, and to blame all of them for threatening justices which might be the act of a few might even be the act of a few right people far right people they've done it before. At any rate it's very selfish thinking.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> This is a discussion board, if you're not interested in an opposing opinion you should not be here. It's that simple.


I will post where I please.  This is a public forum.  You are a barbarian.

15 weeks.  Mississippi.  If you cant make up your mind in that time.  You must be a Moonbat leftist.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> Why im calling them terrorist.  It is the very definition right now.  Violence for a political gain is terrotism.
> 
> On a law that will not stop abortion in blue states.
> 
> They are batshit crazy leftist retards


And Biden won’t even condemn it. He should be out there condemning the leak, and the Progs threatening the justices. He had more condemnation for decent, law-abiding Trump voters the other day.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> He ate your brain leftist.  Right now your side is threatening justices who May say NO to you.
> 
> Threaten to kill when people dissgree.  Go play in traffic leftist.
> 
> Thing is.  Roe versus Wade will not stop states from having abortions.  Just means some will not be a barbarian like you are.  Your main problem here is people are Saying NO and you cant handle it


And here I thought we were having a discussion, in order to do that you have to have two points of view. Or would you really prefer to just hear yourself go on and on.


----------



## Calypso Jones

stann said:
			
		

> You got that backwards. The right has no respect for life. They want their guns, they want the death penalty and they want their women barefoot and pregnant at home serving their men.



well stann...i know you don't see this but these men you say have no respect for life?....they protect their wives and children and the weak and innocent.  They protect them with gun Stann.   And then when necessary they go to war to protect all that and the nation with a gun Stann becuause it would be stupid to go to war with a water pistol...oh wait...that's banned.   .....why....that's almost like not having any control over what you do with your body now isn't it.    They want those guns to protect their families otherwise your radical leftist terrorists invade their homes and kill their wives and children and pets, and burn their homes and businesses.    They need that death penalty to stop certain bad men from raping their wives and children...and pets.    Now perhaps you don't care about that....heh Stann?    Do you think that maybe some people don't deserve to live among decent hardworking people?    Like just recently where a leftist DA released an illegal rapist and he went right out and did it again because he knew he could get away with it.   you know...it almost looks like the left has intentionally put Americans in harms way intentionally with illegals and radical leftist crazies.       What would stop the rioting, protesting, burning home invasisons, rapings and killings...the FIB? The local police?    No...you have to be ready yourself to defend your family because when seconds count, the police are minutes away...or not at all.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I think the big difference here is the people you are referring to as leftists, actually care about people other than themselves. To call them all names, and to blame all of them for threatening justices which might be the act of a few might even be the act of a few right people far right people they've done it before. At any rate it's very selfish thinking.


No.  I refuse to back down from your arrogant threats.  Same as our states.

This about states rights.  Our people here disagree.  We dont have to listen to you.  If overturned we will decide whats right and wrong here.  Mind your own business you dont live here


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> I will post where I please.  This is a public forum.  You are a barbarian.
> 
> 15 weeks.  Mussissippi.  If you cant make up your mind in that time.  You must be a Moonbat leftist.


One size does not fit all. That's a fact of life. I don't really mind if you keep calling me names. It just makes you look very bad.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> And here I thought we were having a discussion, in order to do that you have to have two points of view. Or would you really prefer to just hear yourself go on and on.


You have posted more than any poster here.

Im responding.  You dont agree  Oh Well


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> One size does not fit all. That's a fact of life. I don't really mind if you keep calling me names. It just makes you look very bad.


And im supposed to care.  LOL


----------



## Calypso Jones

How does anyone accuse the right of having no respect for life when it is the left that promotes and supports the killing of the unborn  even after birth.    Leftist Planned Butcherhood was shown to be harvesting organs of Born alive infants slated for abortion and they killed them when harvesting their organs.....The unborn are innocent helpless humans.   Those on death row are not innocent...they are rapists and murderers.    There is no comparison.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> Still the same point:  You're a craven, puling little coward who only has insults and who runs away the instant someone stands up to you, like all dickless bullies.
> 
> Jarlaxle:  "How many unwanted babies have YOU adopted?  You're a hypocrite!  You can't oppose abortion because I say so!"
> 
> Me:  "I have two children that would have been aborted by your standards."
> 
> Jarlaxle:  "Oh, shit, someone has an answer!  I don't know what to say next!  HYPOCRITE!!"  *much scampering away and pissing of pants*  "Damn it, they told me that line would win without me having to fight!"
> 
> I'm laughing at you, girly man.  My dog has bigger balls than you, and he's neutered.


I'm sorry you do not like what you see in the mirror. Only you can change that.


----------



## Stann

Calypso Jones said:


> well stann...i know you don't see this but these men you say have no respect for life?....they protect their wives and children and the weak and innocent.  They protect them with gun Stann.   And then when necessary they go to war to protect all that and the nation with a gun Stann becuause it would be stupid to go to war with a water pistol...oh wait...that's banned.   .....why....that's almost like not having any control over what you do with your body now isn't it.    They want those guns to protect their families otherwise your radical leftist terrorists invade their homes and kill their wives and children and pets, and burn their homes and businesses.    They need that death penalty to stop certain bad men from raping their wives and children...and pets.    Now perhaps you don't care about that....heh Stann?    Do you think that maybe some people don't deserve to live among decent hardworking people?    Like just recently where a leftist DA released an illegal rapist and he went right out and did it again because he knew he could get away with it.   you know...it almost looks like the left has intentionally put Americans in harms way intentionally with illegals and radical leftist crazies.       What would stop the rioting, protesting, burning home invasisons, rapings and killings...the FIB? The local police?    No...you have to be ready yourself to defend your family because when seconds count, the police are minutes away...or not at all.


I was your young man when the draft was still in place. I got a very high number and I probably would have never had to serve, but I joined anyway. We were fighting the Vietnam war, fighting for people's rights. I can't imagine any right more important than woman's reproductive Rights.


----------



## Stann

Calypso Jones said:


> How does anyone accuse the right of having no respect for life when it is the left that promotes and supports the killing of the unborn  even after birth.    Leftist Planned Butcherhood was shown to be harvesting organs of Born alive infants slated for abortion and they killed them when harvesting their organs.....The unborn are innocent helpless humans.   Those on death row are not innocent...they are rapists and murderers.    There is no comparison.


What far right horror film have you watched now ? You need to stop that, it's going to rot your brain completely.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Calypso Jones said:


> How does anyone accuse the right of having no respect for life when it is the left that promotes and supports the killing of the unborn  even after birth.    Leftist Planned Butcherhood was shown to be harvesting organs of Born alive infants slated for abortion and they killed them when harvesting their organs.....The unborn are innocent helpless humans.   Those on death row are not innocent...they are rapists and murderers.    There is no comparison.


How many have you adopted, again? 

Wait,that's right: zero.


----------



## Calypso Jones

stann said:
			
		

> I was your young man when the draft was still in place. I got a very high number and I probably would have never had to serve, but I joined anyway. We were fighting the Vietnam war, fighting for people's rights. I can't imagine any right more important than woman's reproductive Rights.



well do ya THINK stann that she might consider keeping her legs closed or perhaps USING BIRTH CONTROL??  rather than  exercising her most important reproductive right of killing her own unborn babe??


----------



## Calypso Jones

stann said:
			
		

> What far right horror film have you watched now ? You need to stop that, it's going to rot your brain completely.


YOU DOUBT what i just told you about PP??     WHERE do  you people stay during the day??  in a closed coffin??





__





						Planned Parenthood Leaders Admit Under Oath to Harvesting Body Parts From Babies Born Alive - LifeNews.com
					

The Center for Medical Progress released horrific new video footage Tuesday showing a Planned Parenthood partner admitting that body parts were harvested from aborted babies who still had beating hearts. The video exposes the testimonies of several top Planned Parenthood officials and a human...



					www.lifenews.com


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> And im supposed to care.  LOL


Yet you feign a caring attitude about this issue. Another obvious joke and not a good one.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I was your young man when the draft was still in place. I got a very high number and I probably would have never had to serve, but I joined anyway. We were fighting the Vietnam war, fighting for people's rights. I can't imagine any right more important than woman's reproductive Rights.


And you cooked your brain on LSD and screwed up your kids.  Lol


----------



## Stann

Calypso Jones said:


> well do ya THINK stann that she might consider keeping her legs closed or perhaps USING BIRTH CONTROL??  rather than  exercising her most important reproductive right of killing her own unborn babe??


Oh, it's all her fault I understand, you think they're all people that don't care and have no sense at all. You're right about a few of them, but not all of them. Judge not, lest you be judged.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Yet you feign a caring attitude about this issue. Another obvious joke and not a good one.


Im calling you a barbsruan for supporting a law with over 62 million abortions.

Our states are saying enough.  Not here.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Jarlaxle said:
			
		

> How many have you adopted, again?
> 
> Wait,that's right: zero.



how can anyone adopt an aborted baby?   providing adoption services would cost Planned Butcherhood $$$$.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Oh, it's all her fault I understand, you think they're all people that don't care and have no sense at all. You're right about a few of them, but not all of them. Judge not, lest you be judged.


Virtue signaling standing on a mountain if dead babies.

Ghoul


----------



## eagle1462010

Calypso Jones said:


> well do ya THINK stann that she might consider keeping her legs closed or perhaps USING BIRTH CONTROL??  rather than  exercising her most important reproductive right of killing her own unborn babe??


That would make to much sense.  But tue left are a party of excuses


----------



## Calypso Jones

Stann said:
			
		

> Oh, it's all her fault I understand, you think they're all people that don't care and have no sense at all. You're right about a few of them, but not all of them. Judge not, lest you be judged.



that's not judging Stann...that's a suggestion.  One i noticed you don't want to touch.    I feel pity for young women who are talked into abortions and then regret it for the rest of their lives.  That can't be fixed.  All one can do is to repent and ask God's forgiveness...>but the women who brag about it, push it as a solution to other naive women (perhaps they think it lessens their own murderous character) are hellish in my opinion.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> And you cooked your brain on LSD and screwed up your kids.  Lol


At 12 years old I made a comprehensive Life plan. It did not include a wife and it did not include children. By the way it didn't include drugs either. I kept those promises to myself. I've had a very full and satisfying life. My imprint on this world is negligible. In fact, in my lifetime I probably planted an entire Forest. Making my existence a plus for this world. I hope you didn't screw up your kids or do too many drugs and above all I hope you did something to help this world. If you have children they deserve to have a better world one they can thrive in not one they simply survive in. This life can be wonderful, or it can be turned into a nightmare. Every little change affects the outcome.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Stann...talking about judgement.  You are okay with pronouncing the judgement of death on an unborn infant.  you are heartless Stann yet you think you are morally superior.

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof _are_ the ways of death.” Proverbs 14:12


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> At 12 years old I made a comprehensive Life plan. It did not include a wife and it did not include children. By the way it didn't include drugs either. I kept those promises to myself. I've had a very full and satisfying life. My imprint on this world is negligible. In fact, in my lifetime I probably planted an entire Forest. Making my existence a plus for this world. I hope you didn't screw up your kids or do too many drugs and above all I hope you did something to help this world. If you have children they deserve to have a better world one they can thrive in not one they simply survive in. This life can be wonderful, or it can be turned into a nightmare. Every little change affects the outcome.


Well good for you.  You are a legend in your own mind.  I dont care.


----------



## Stann

Calypso Jones said:


> that's not judging Stann...that's a suggestion.  One i noticed you don't want to touch.    I feel pity for young women who are talked into abortions and then regret it for the rest of their lives.  That can't be fixed.  All one can do is to repent and ask God's forgiveness...>but the women who brag about it, push it as a solution to other naive women (perhaps they think it lessens their own murderous character) are hellish in my opinion.


I'll put it more bluntly then, lumping all the women who want and / or need abortions into one group, basically calling them s**** is more correctly called bigotry.


----------



## Calypso Jones

STann said:
			
		

> I'll put it more bluntly then, lumping all the women who want and / or need abortions into one group, basically calling them s**** is more correctly called bigotry.



 does it depend on the degree?  baby killer wouldn't be bigotry then would it....it would definitely be the truth.


----------



## Stann

Calypso Jones said:


> Stann...talking about judgement.  You are okay with pronouncing the judgement of death on an unborn infant.  you are heartless Stann yet you think you are morally superior.
> 
> “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof _are_ the ways of death.” Proverbs 14:12


Saying abortion is murder, abortion ends of child life, those are judgments. I see you're quoting the Bible. The origins of the Christian religion are tribal. That list of abominations, was basically a list of rules that the tribal members were required to abide by. The goal was to make a stronger tribe therefore pregnancy was encouraged, especially pregnancies that resulted in male births. Homosexuality, adultery, sex outside of marriage, even masturbation ( wasting seed ) were forbidden. They never said life are sacred though, unless it was their own, you know the chosen people. But they didn't care much about outsiders,  they loved committing genocide, that included men women and children, even pregnant women; in at least one case they slaughtered all the other tribe's animals because their tribal God told them they were unclean. What could an animal do to make them unclean ? They didn't give much thought to that one. At any rate what I'm saying is a recent development, this sanctity of Life thing. If I could pinpoint when it's exactly started it would be the early 19th century  Holiness Methodism.


----------



## beautress

Stann said:


> The pro-life campaign carefully chose its words calling a fetus a baby to encourage a strong emotional response. Attempting to discredit planned Parenthood by staging a false undercover scheme. Kidding people against people they don't even know or care about. Demonizing abortion clinics. If you believe all these evil Acts can bring about a good result you are mistaken. Everyone will regret if row and Wade is repealed.


Er let's walk back this BS "Demonizing abortion clinics" charge as to who is the damn demon. Are you absolutely certain that using abortion instead of abstaining from sex until marriage does not deserve a second glance? That a mother who uses her fifteenth abortion rather than contraceptives is above demonic behavior? Should we just stfu when one of our daughter's best friends terminated her pregnancy so she could snag a better partner from the marriage she would like to break up? No demons in that one? lol

But anyone who opposes the abusive and pain-filled extinction of a future American citizen is considered in your book a "demon"? Izzat so? I have a hunch you never want to grow up. You're thinking conscientious humans who love children one and all are Demons? I'm staggered, indeed.


----------



## Stann

Calypso Jones said:


> does it depend on the degree?  baby killer wouldn't be bigotry then would it....it would definitely be the truth.


You have to have a baby to begin with.


----------



## Stann

beautress said:


> Er let's walk back this BS "Demonizing abortion clinics" charge as to who is the damn demon. Are you absolutely certain that using abortion instead of abstaining from sex until marriage does not deserve a second glance? That a mother who uses her fifteenth abortion rather than contraceptives is above demonic behavior? Should we just stfu when one of our daughter's best friends terminated her pregnancy so she could snag a better partner from the marriage she would like to break up? No demons in that one? lol
> 
> But anyone who opposes the abusive and pain-filled extinction of a future American citizen is considered in your book a "demon"? Izzat so? I have a hunch you never want to grow up. You're thinking conscientious humans who love children one and all are Demons? I'm staggered, indeed.


I'm saying the emotional idea surrounding abortion should never be the basis for good law. Abortion is a matter best left to doctors and their patients. Good parents concentrate on their children, not on children that never existed in the first place.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> I'm saying the emotional idea surrounding abortion should never be the basis for good law. Abortion is a matter best left to doctors and their patients. Good parents concentrate on their children, not on children that never existed in the first place.


The only demons that exist are the ones that we create. The only hell that exists is the one we create for one another. It's time to end that cycle and live as Jesus taught loving one another, not trying to control one another.


----------



## beautress

Stann said:


> These people don't know what common sense is. It is a totally emotional issue for them. Emotions never make sensible legislation.


You missed Elizabeth Warren's screaming mimi hair-tearing, jumping up and down experience in verbal as well as clench-fisted form today? Honey, she was spittin' steam onto photolenses.    You need to reconsider the words "totally emotional" for what it is. It's screaming mimi, hair-tearing, jumping up and down experience along with the clench-fisted shake wagging leftist baby killer approval committee baloney.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Abortion IS murder Stann.  you can twist yourself in pretzel knots from now to kingdom come and it will  not change a damn thing.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Stann said:
			
		

> Saying abortion is murder, abortion ends of child life, those are judgments. I see you're quoting the Bible. The origins of the Christian religion are tribal. That list of abominations, was basically a list of rules that the tribal members were required to abide by. The goal was to make a stronger tribe therefore pregnancy was encouraged, especially pregnancies that resulted in male births. Homosexuality, adultery, sex outside of marriage, even masturbation ( wasting seed ) were forbidden. They never said life are sacred though, unless it was their own, you know the chosen people. But they didn't care much about outsiders, they loved committing genocide, that included men women and children, even pregnant women; in at least one case they slaughtered all the other tribe's animals because their tribal God told them they were unclean. What could an animal do to make them unclean ? They didn't give much thought to that one. At any rate what I'm saying is a recent development, this sanctity of Life thing. If I could pinpoint when it's exactly started it would be the early 19th century Holiness Methodism.



that was stupid Stann.  epicly. stupid.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> You wish. I understand roe versus Wade might be repealed



I don't wish. I _know_. 

There is no 'repeal' because there is no federal law regarding abortion. Only a ruling.  Rulings are overturned, not repealed.


----------



## Stann

beautress said:


> You missed Elizabeth Warren's screaming mimi hair-tearing, jumping up and down experience in verbal as well as clench-fisted form today? Honey, she was spittin' steam onto photolenses.    You need to reconsider the words "totally emotional" for what it is. It's screaming mimi, hair-tearing, jumping up and down experience along with the clench-fisted shake wagging leftist baby killer approval committee baloney.


That is unfortunate that she became emotional, but it is somewhat logical to become upset when emotions are possibly going to play a part in bringing down sound policy like Roe versus Wade.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> I don't wish. I _know_.
> 
> There is no 'repeal' because there is no federal law regarding abortion. Only a ruling.  Rulings are overturned, not repealed.


Yes, I remember when it was enacted. The states were in total disarray. So we're going to go back to that. Great just great, something else swollen out of all proportions to divide us even more.


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> Have you heard Biden try to answer a question lately? His mind is half-gone.


You know something, ummmmm I'm starting to think that it's all been a sinister plan to make us think that he's lost it, when in reality other than his aging, and slightly within his mind (even though senile at times or worse maybe misunderstood), he could actually possibly be ok in reality. 

If not then why are they not invoking the 25th on him ?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> The pro-life campaign carefully chose its words calling a fetus a baby to encourage a strong emotional response.


Pphhhbbtttt...

No, we chose our words rather boldly and without fear. Because we have an actionable scientific consensus behind us on when life begins.

Our emotions are so strong because we KNOW we are right.

Whereas your strong emotions stem from demanding to others that you be right, those emotions are 1) Fear of being wrong and 2) anger at resistance to your stated goals.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Yes, I remember when it was enacted.



You're using words you don't understand. 

The words 'enact' and 'repeal' apply only to laws that are passed by legislative bodies like Congress or state legislatures.

Whereas words like 'overturn, overrule, strike down,' or 'uphold' apply to the courts.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> So we're going to go back to that.



The one losing the argument does not get to dictate the course of the debate, my friend.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Great just great, something else swollen out of all proportions to divide us even more.



You are using fear as a divisive mechanism.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> She doesn’t, dumbass, nor does anything in her post state that.



The statements don't have to be explicit, the points they make do. And the point she made is essentially "abortion on demand and without apology."

This time we don't rely on mere words to discern a position, we observe the pattern of behavior.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> You have to have a baby to begin with.



Lol, you know nothing of the human reproductive process.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> How many unwanted children have YOU adopted?



None, because she _gave birth_ to the children she wanted. 

How utterly clueless can you be?


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Pphhhbbtttt...
> 
> No, we chose our words rather boldly and without fear. Because we have an actionable scientific consensus behind us on when life begins.
> 
> Our emotions are so strong because we KNOW we are right.
> 
> Whereas your strong emotions stem from demanding to others that you be right, those emotions are 1) Fear of being wrong and 2) anger at resistance to your stated goals.


You're confusing physical life with personhood. Yes, I'm glad you agree physical Life begins with fertilization of the egg by a sperm. ( Actually both of those things were alive before they joined, but for the purpose of this discussion we'll allow for that. ) There's no dispute there. The problem is when prolife people call it an  " unborn child ", there is no such animal. First it is a fertilized egg, then it is a bastula ( germinal stage ), then it is called an embryo ( embryonic stage ), it is not called a fetus  ( fetal stage ) until the last stage. It is not identifiable as a human embryo until at least 16 weeks. At no time in the fetal development can it be called a child or unborn child. These terms have no value except to excite pro life advocates on an emotional level. I am not wrong, my beliefs are based on facts not fiction.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> The statements don't have to be explicit, the points they make do. And the point she made is essentially "abortion on demand and without apology."
> 
> This time we don't rely on mere words to discern a position, we observe the pattern of behavior.


Yes…I am observing a pattern of behavior here, you should actually read her post.


----------



## Calypso Jones

More insanity.   Okay guys.  defend this now.









						Democrats Scrub Abortion Bill Language Saying Men Can Get Pregnant
					

The newest version of the Women's Health Protection Act removed references to white supremacy, gender oppression, and transgender pregnancies.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## Calypso Jones

STann said:
			
		

> The only demons that exist are the ones that we create. The only hell that exists is the one we create for one another. It's time to end that cycle and live as Jesus taught loving one another, not trying to control one another.



no fear of God in you.


----------



## Stann

Calypso Jones said:


> Abortion IS murder Stann.  you can twist yourself in pretzel knots from now to kingdom come and it will  not change a damn thing.


Name a fetus a person that was murdered ?  A verdict of Murder requires a trial and a body.


----------



## Stann

Calypso Jones said:


> no fear of God in you.


I don't believe in travel gods I believe in the real GOD the natural GOD of which we were are all one with. Sorry you haven't come to that realization. That's the whole reason we cannot make moral judgments against others. We are simply attacking ourselves. There's no logic in that.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> I don't believe in travel gods I believe in the real GOD the natural GOD of which we were are all one with. Sorry you haven't come to that realization. That's the whole reason we cannot make moral judgments against others. We are simply attacking ourselves. There's no logic in that.


PS: Fear was just one of the tactics the ancients used to get people to believe in their tribal gods. I do not fear death, because it's just another illusion, it does not exist. The problem with people in this world as they live too much in their bodies and not enough in their spirit.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Yes…I am observing a pattern of behavior here, you should actually read her post.



I've been commenting on this thread since it was started. I've seen enough of her posts, along with almost everyone who has taken her side here to discern one. It's not hard to see anyone of like mind gravitating toward another expressing the same opinion. All I have to do is take note of the general opinion they agree on, and it rebuts any contrary ones they take and lies low any refusal to acknowledge their original opinion. In short, law of averages.

What, you didn't think I paid any attention to that stuff?


----------



## airplanemechanic

Rigby5 said:


> The reason you are totally and completely wrong is that states can't ever be allowed to dictate over the choices of individuals.
> State has no standing about whether or not a woman wants to allow a fetus to be delivered from HER body.
> Voters in states get NO choice in what a woman decides.
> That would be a dictatorship.
> In a republic, each person makes their own choices over their medical procedures.



So allowing the people in a state to vote on a law is a "dictatorship?"

Really? Are you this stupid?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.



But since you accused me of not reading the post (even though I did), Coyote, here we go:

"This will be the end of Republicans. Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men."

This very sentence here leaves one to surmise that she means ALL women, especially the part where she stated "there are 8  million more women voters" than men.

Really? Doesn't that suggest to the reader that every woman in the country will vote this one way in response to Roe getting potentially overturned?

She overstates her case and is woefully oblivious to other women who don't think the same as her.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> But since you accused me of not reading the post (even though I did), Coyote, here we go:
> 
> "This will be the end of Republicans. Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men."
> 
> This very sentence here leaves one to surmise that she means ALL women, especially the part where she stated "there are 8  million more women voters" than men.
> 
> Really? Doesn't that suggest to the reader that every woman in the country will vote this one way in response to Roe getting potentially overturned?
> 
> She overstates her case and is woefully oblivious to other women who don't think the same as her.


Yes there are two sides to this issue two solutions for two different people and it has nothing to do with the law or morality.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Yes there are two sides to this issue two solutions for two different people and it has nothing to do with the law or morality.


It's always nice to have choices. That's one of the best principles of freedom.


----------



## Lakhota

Wow, Alito wants a return to the Dark Ages.  Does he think those were the good ole days?   Welcome to Christian Taliban Sharia Law.


----------



## Stann

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 641511
> 
> Wow, Alito wants a return to the Dark Ages.  Does he think those were the good ole days?   Welcome to Christian Taliban Sharia Law.


All this goes back to tribal religious beliefs. It codified women as property and reproductive machines. Unfortunately Christianity didn't change any of that.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> But since you accused me of not reading the post (even though I did), Coyote, here we go:
> 
> "This will be the end of Republicans. Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men."
> 
> This very sentence here leaves one to surmise that she means ALL women, especially the part where she stated "there are 8  million more women voters" than men.
> 
> Really? Doesn't that suggest to the reader that every woman in the country will vote this one way in response to Roe getting potentially overturned?
> 
> She overstates her case and is woefully oblivious to other women who don't think the same as her.


If I were a woman I would take all the necessary precautions to not get pregnant if I didn't want to become pregnant but you're doing all that didn't work and /or I wanted to become pregnant but found out that the fetus was terribly malformed and didn't have much of a chance of viability I would definitely have an abortion. I'd like to see less abortions, but the individual woman has to make that choice for herself that has to remain her right otherwise she's the second class citizen not even in control of her own body.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Alito isn't interested in a return to the dark ages.  The draft opinion doesn't even suggest that abortion be banned.  It correctly points out that the Roe decision was unconstitutional.   It is.  The correct decision is the one that puts the burden of this decision on the states.  Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg recognized that the Roe case was badly decided.

Even with all that,  the case might have stood had the Casey decision not overruled it, in part.   The ruling in the Casey court held that the old rules of when an abortion could be administered no longer applied.  The new standard was undue burden.  If the pregnancy and birth resulted in an undue burden, however slight, on the mother, abortion was legal up to the point of birth.   Since Casey we have had horrible interpretations questioning whether two year old children could be the subject of a post birth abortion.   This horrified most people and justifies going back to 1973 and undoing it all.  Let the voters decide.


----------



## Stann

EvilCat Breath said:


> Alito isn't interested in a return to the dark ages.  The draft opinion doesn't even suggest that abortion be banned.  It correctly points out that the Roe decision was unconstitutional.   It is.  The correct decision is the one that puts the burden of this decision on the states.  Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg recognized that the Roe case was badly decided.
> 
> Even with all that,  the case might have stood had the Casey decision not overruled it, in part.   The ruling in the Casey court held that the old rules of when an abortion could be administered no longer applied.  The new standard was undue burden.  If the pregnancy and birth resulted in an undue burden, however slight, on the mother, abortion was legal up to the point of birth.   Since Casey we have had horrible interpretations questioning whether two year old children could be the subject of a post birth abortion.   This horrified most people and justifies going back to 1973 and undoing it all.  Let the voters decide.


The United States of America with 50 variations on abortion laws. Just what we needed something else to divide us.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Stann said:


> The United States of America with 50 variations on abortion laws. Just what we needed something else to divide us.


Yep.  Just like gun laws.  No matter how you might wish it, there is no common ground in abortion.  Actually, there is no common ground among the warring factions in this country at all.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> If I were a woman I would take all the necessary precautions to not get pregnant if I didn't want to become pregnant



No joke huh?

If you did, especially before intercourse, it would render this entire issue moot. The abortion, the debate, all of it. 

Did I just not get through telling you that the night before last?


----------



## Stann

EvilCat Breath said:


> Yep.  Just like gun laws.  No matter how you might wish it, there is no common ground in abortion.  Actually, there is no common ground among the warring factions in this country at all.


I better solution would be to say it's a medical issue between a woman and her doctor and forbid any laws regulating it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> I better solution would be to say it's a medical issue between a woman and her doctor and forbid any laws regulating it.



That would be extremely foolish, and ludicrous.

No laws regulating abortion would essentially mean unrestricted abortion, at any point during a pregnancy.

Say, the woman decides her labor pains aren't worth it and makes the choice to abort the child before it is imminently born. No. There need to be laws regulating abortion. Period.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Stann said:


> I better solution would be to say it's a medical issue between a woman and her doctor and forbid any laws regulating it.


We tried that.  It resulted in wackos deciding if two year olds were too much of a burden and should be executed.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

TemplarKormac said:


> That would be extremely foolish, and ludicrous.
> 
> No laws regulating abortion would essentially mean unrestricted abortion, at any point during a pregnancy.
> 
> Say, the woman decides her labor pains aren't worth it and makes the choice to abort the child before it is imminently born. No. There need to be laws regulating abortion. Period.


Or after it's born.  









						Teen charged with throwing baby in dumpster will go to trial
					

HOBBS, N.M. (KRQE) – More information was made available on Monday about the newborn baby found in a Hobbs dumpster in January. It was part of testimony in the preliminary hearing for the…




					www.krqe.com
				




So much for women making an agonizing decision, just her and her doctor.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Flash said:


> Most women don't even know they are pregnant by 1-6 weeks. By the time they do know they are pregnant the baby has a heartbeat already



Well, if you have a regular monthly menstrual cycle, the earliest and most reliable sign of pregnancy is a missed period. Also, morning sickness symptoms usually start when you’re around 4-6 weeks pregnant. To my knowledge, women are usually around the 6 week mark when doing a pregnancy test, which was the case when we had our two boys.

So for 1-6 weeks to have the highest abortion rate, and how long does it take to get an abortion appointment, I find the 1-6 week stat very sketchy at best.


----------



## Captain Caveman

citygator said:


> My wife had two miscarriages.  We didn’t name and bury them. Flushed in toilet.  Am I the father of two dead children?  Should I morn on their flush dates?


Everyone is different, so yes/no/partly.


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> Here’s the other issue. On the off-chance that the SCOTUS comes out in June with the decision to uphold Roe v Wade, we will know they did so under threats by progs to murder them, or their children.
> 
> And the entire system of having a SCOTUS will be gone. The leftists will have succeeded in destroying more of what made America great.


It's time for people to be prosecuted if that's the case. No more excuses to be used by them, it would be time. Like you say, once we lose our ability to righteously judge or to make judgements in courts as pertaining to our law's, then we are finished as a COUNTRY. Time to really get serious about upholding the court's decisions whenever rendered, and to protect the court's with the law's already on the book's just as it is laid out in our constitution.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> That would be extremely foolish, and ludicrous.
> 
> No laws regulating abortion would essentially mean unrestricted abortion, at any point during a pregnancy.
> 
> Say, the woman decides her labor pains aren't worth it and decides to abort the child before it is imminently born. No. There need to be laws regulating abortion. Period.


Actually it's the only thing that would resolve this issue. Then maybe people would start minding their own damn business,


EvilCat Breath said:


> We tried that.  It resulted in wackos deciding if two year olds were too much of a burden and should be executed.


WTG, human pregnancies only last 9 months, why are you talking about elephants.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> You could have adopted more. You didn't.


Not your place to tell her how many children she should have, or if she should adop any. So many men taking down to a woman on this thread, it betrays literally everything liberals say they believe about women.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I don't believe in travel gods I believe in the real GOD the natural GOD of which we were are all one with. Sorry you haven't come to that realization. That's the whole reason we cannot make moral judgments against others. We are simply attacking ourselves. There's no logic in that.


So since you agree that we cannot make moral judgments against others, who are the liberals in Vermont and California to say what the conservatives in Mississippi and Alabama should have for their laws?


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I better solution would be to say it's a medical issue between a woman and her doctor and forbid any laws regulating it.


But you’re ignoring the third party involved. Should a woman and her doctor decide it’s OK to abort a third-trimester baby, limb by limb?

Liberals always put in the “and her doctor” phrase to give the impression that this is a medical decision. It’s the majority of cases, it isn’t - it’s a form of late birth control.

The other phrase is “with her own body.” This skips over the fact that there is another body involved.


----------



## Foolardi

task0778 said:


> I do not believe the Women's Health Protection Act can pass in the Senate with only 50 votes.  Reconciliation is only for budgets, spending and revenue.  Sorry, you're gonna need 60.


  The democrats always seem to come back with some kind
   of new tactic.Like how about using a " carve out " to
  make way for going around a Filibuster.
   Anything to putz their noxious political will.
   Reminiscent of the Paul Muni movie :
   - Angel on my Shoulder - { 1946 }
   Where the devil arranges for a deceased gangster to 
    return to earth as a well-respected judge.
    To make up for his previous life.
    If only that would work today.
    If Only.


----------



## Foolardi

Lisa558 said:


> So since you agree that we cannot make moral judgments against others, who are the liberals in Vermont and California to say what the conservatives in Mississippi and Alabama should have for their laws?


  Real simple solution.Let the States decide.If New Yorkers
  care not a whit about rampant Crime run amuck and
   humans being pushed onto subway tracks.Or the ever
  increased cost of living in the Big Apple where taxes are
    taken for granted.
   As compared to places like Florida.Where instead of
   dreary weather { lots rain and cloudy days where even
  Pigeons are starting to take notice },there's healthy sunshine
  and beaches and fresh air.
    Plus many places for affordable retirement { think 
   - The Golden Girls - TV series.


----------



## Foolardi

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 639645
> 
> *Amen!*


The proven Liar has no place to run or hide.So why not
  scream bloody murder.Americans know who and what she
  is.A Lying fraud.Since when is being a skinny prick female
  legislator who screeches out a maddening plea considered
    *statesman like.Or Statesgalsy like.
     Since when. ?

   * how long before the drat left changes the definition.
A male political leader regarded as a disinterested
     promoter of the public good.


----------



## Lisa558

Foolardi said:


> The democrats always seem to come back with some kind
> of new tactic.Like how about using a " carve out " to
> make way for going around a Filibuster.
> Anything to putz their noxious political will.
> Reminiscent of the Paul Muni movie :
> - Angel on my Shoulder - { 1946 }
> Where the devil arranges for a deceased gangster to
> return to earth as a well-respected judge.
> To make up for his previous life.
> If only that would work today.
> If Only.


They’re trying to lump the right to kill your unborn baby whenever you feel like it as “Health Protection”?


----------



## schmidlap

rightnow909 said:


> we see where you people are mentally


We, the People of the United States, overwhelmingly support the established law of half a century regarding a woman's reproductive freedom, and oppose the authoritarians who would retrogress, the State arrogating that freedom and dictating to them, antithetical to the progress that has occurred in advanced, democratic nations.


*CNN/SSRS**:* 66% said they do not support overturning Roe, while 34% did.
*The Pew Research Center**:* Just 8% said abortion should be illegal in all cases, no exceptions. Broadening it out, roughly 37% said it should be illegal in most or all cases. But even among that group, there are sizable portions that said it should be legal in if the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother (46%) or if it is the result of a rape (36%).
*Monmouth University**:* Just 11% said abortion should always be illegal. Another quarter said it should be illegal with exceptions for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
*YouGov**:* 24% said Roe should be overturned, while 55% said it should not.
*Fox News**:* 27% said it should be overturned; 63% said no.
*ABC News/Washington Post**:* 28% said Roe should be overturned, 54% said it should be upheld. (Just 16% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.)
*Gallup**:* 19% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances; 48% said it should be legal only under certain circumstances; 32% said it should be legal in all circumstances. And 47% said abortion is morally acceptable, the highest ever recorded in two decades of Gallup asking the question. (46% said it is not morally acceptable.)


Those who crave Big Government intrusion in the matter wish to emulate Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador.


----------



## Flash

Captain Caveman said:


> Well, if you have a regular monthly menstrual cycle, the earliest and most reliable sign of pregnancy is a missed period. Also, morning sickness symptoms usually start when you’re around 4-6 weeks pregnant. To my knowledge, women are usually around the 6 week mark when doing a pregnancy test, which was the case when we had our two boys.
> 
> So for 1-6 weeks to have the highest abortion rate, and how long does it take to get an abortion appointment, I find the 1-6 week stat very sketchy at best.


That histogram from Mother Jones (LOL) that the stupid Moon Bat posted and supposedly from the CDC is a lie.

Of course we caught the CDC lying about COVID so it is not surprising they would lie about abortions.

The fact is that 96% of all abortions are for the sake of convenience and that is despicable.  A child should not be murdered because it might be an inconvenience to the mother.  Murder as a method of birth control is absolutely unacceptable.


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> We, the People of the United States, overwhelmingly support the established law of half a century regarding a woman's reproductive freedom, and oppose the authoritarians who would retrogress, the State arrogating that freedom and dictating to them, antithetical to the progress that has occurred in advanced, democratic nations.
> 
> 
> *CNN/SSRS**:* 66% said they do not support overturning Roe, while 34% did.
> *The Pew Research Center**:* Just 8% said abortion should be illegal in all cases, no exceptions. Broadening it out, roughly 37% said it should be illegal in most or all cases. But even among that group, there are sizable portions that said it should be legal in if the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother (46%) or if it is the result of a rape (36%).
> *Monmouth University**:* Just 11% said abortion should always be illegal. Another quarter said it should be illegal with exceptions for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
> *YouGov**:* 24% said Roe should be overturned, while 55% said it should not.
> *Fox News**:* 27% said it should be overturned; 63% said no.
> *ABC News/Washington Post**:* 28% said Roe should be overturned, 54% said it should be upheld. (Just 16% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.)
> *Gallup**:* 19% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances; 48% said it should be legal only under certain circumstances; 32% said it should be legal in all circumstances. And 47% said abortion is morally acceptable, the highest ever recorded in two decades of Gallup asking the question. (46% said it is not morally acceptable.)
> View attachment 641564​Those who crave Big Government intrusion in the matter wish to emulate Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador.


Source - "General Social Survey 2021".  LOL

For the rest of that stupid shit you posted how about telling us who was polled and what questions were they asked.

If the majority of Americans believe in killing children for birth control then this a country that would make the Nazis proud.


----------



## schmidlap

Flash said:


> Source - "General Social Survey 2021".  LOL


Source: All public surveys I can find.

If you believe that Americans would rather retrogress, surrender extant freedoms to the State, and emulate Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador, you'll have to cite your surveys rather than spew your contempt for freedom-loving Americans.


----------



## eagle1462010

::Issues4Life Foundation | Judgment At Nuremberg
					

The Issues4Life Foundation is dedicated to addressing the issues surrounding the inviolability or sanctity of human life in the African-American community.




					www.issues4life.org
				




On Monday, January 22nd, 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 and simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton regarding the issue of abortion. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy "somewhere" under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two (2) legitimate interests in regulating abortions and protecting women's health and ultimately the protection the potentiality of human life. Importantly, the United States Supreme Court never declared abortion itself to be a constitutional right. Rather, the Supreme Court said: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins … the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Then, in the very text of the Roe v. Wade decision, the High Court made a key admission:

*"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."**1*

In my opinion, the United States Supreme Court needed to "resolve the difficult question of when life begins … " before rendering judgment on the death of the only product of a human male and a human female, that is a human being. Below are clips from the 1961 movie Judgment at Nuremburg. In light of the fact that not one (1) of the seven (7) Supreme Court justices that made up the majority for 1973 Roe v. Wade decision are alive today, you can be the judge. Top









						FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
					

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since




					caselaw.findlaw.com
				




To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

*(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165]   may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.*

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. 67  

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. *The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. *The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [410 U.S. 113, 166]   state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.


----------



## eagle1462010

What’s The Earliest A Baby Can Be Born And Survive?
					

Perhaps you’re facing a high-risk pregnancy, or you’re pregnant after a previous loss, and now you’re wondering how early a




					www.bellybelly.com.au
				




At what week in pregnancy can a baby survive outside the womb?​The earliest a baby has been born and survived is 21 weeks and 5 days. Two premature babies hold the record for this.

Surprisingly, the first record holder was born in 1987, a time when the medical care of premature babies (neonatology) was a very new field.

However, this is well before the accepted age of viability. Usually, the earliest a baby can survive is about 22 weeks gestation. The age of viability is 24 weeks.

At 22 weeks, there’s a 0-10% chance of survival; at 24 weeks the survival rate is 40-70%.










						U.S. Abortion Statistics
					

Facts and figures relating to the frequency of abortion in the United States.



					www.abort73.com
				




WHEN DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?​
In 2019, 79% of all U.S. abortions occurred prior to the 10th week of gestation; 93% occurred prior to 14 weeks’ gestation (CDC).
Percentage of 2019 Reported Abortions by Weeks of Gestation* (CDC):

≤6 wks7-9 wks10-13 wks14-15 wks16-17 wks18-20 wks≥21 wks42.9%36.4%13.4%2.9%1.7%1.6%1.0%
*Gestational weeks are measured from the first day of the woman's last menstruation and not from the day of conception. Though it does not provide an accurate fetal age (which is roughly 2 weeks less than the gestational age), it is the simplest way for an OB/GYN to age a pregnancy since the day of conception is often not known. Hence, if an abortion occurs at 8 weeks gestation, it is actually aborting a 6 week embryo. The images on our Prenatal Development and Abortion Pictures pages are more precisely captioned with fetal ages in accordance with standard teaching texts on prenatal development.


----------



## eagle1462010

Roe V Wade wasn't set in stone as much as the left says it does.............It WAS NEVER A BLANKET ABORTION RIGHT.........It shot down the Texas Law which was a crime at CONCEPTION.  In it's very brief it said that States have the RIGHT TO PASS LAWS............based on VIABILITY of the Fetus.  Which it stated as 24 weeks.

It NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION of when LIFE BEGINS..............It did what SCOTUS ALWAYS DOES..........Kicked the can down the road on that question and the CAN IS HERE NOW.

Mississippi Law states 15 weeks ...........After that via the documents I've shown only 4.3% are affected by that law.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## eagle1462010

Roe v. Wade,* 410 U.S. 113 (1973)* A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.









						Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
					

A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.




					supreme.justia.com
				




(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.


*LOOK AT THE LEFT DEFENDING THE 1%ERS.*


----------



## Death Angel

citygator said:


> So I’m the father of dead children?  It was an amazing 6 weeks that we knew each other. Can I answer that I have 4 kids, 2 deceased, on forms and surveys and what not?


My sister counts, remembers, and named, her miscarried child


----------



## ThisIsMe

Stann said:


> You don't get it. I know you're not that dance you just don't want to get it. Roe versus Wade gave everybody what they wanted or needed. Those who didn't want to have an abortion didn't have to have one those who need it or wanted one could have one. That's how it should be. On the side issue I saw people saying this isn't part of our rights well so I looked up abortion during the colonial days and it was a very well known fact that women needing or wanting abortions at that time went to other women who knew herbology and were helped by them. This news was widespread and readily open to anyone that needed this. The founding fathers never addressed abortion because it was a non-issue back then. Overzealous pro-life advocates have played on people's emotions making them all think that they're going to do some good by stopping abortions when nothing could be further from the truth. In the future I hope abortion numbers and information is kept confidential like other patient information is. Too much knowledge in this area  creates a problem for some of the population obviously otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion  over and over again.


I'm not saying people should or should not have access to abortions, I'm just saying it's not the job of the federal government to force states into allowing it. 

In your example, not everyone does get what they want. The only ones who do are the pro abortion crowd. There are people who don't want killing babies to be legal. You disagree with that description, and that is your right, but others don't disagree, and that is THEIR right. If you have the federal government step in and say "abortion is legal nationwide", then whos rights are being trampled?  It takes the debate and decision away from the people and the states. 

Abortion isn't going away, you may have to travel to do it, but there will always be access to it, and there will always be pro abortion groups willing to pay for you to travel to get it done.


----------



## eagle1462010

States with Gestational Limits for Abortion
					

The Kaiser Family Foundation website provides in-depth information on key health policy issues including Medicaid, Medicare, health reform, global health, HIV/AIDS, health insurance, the uninsured …




					www.kff.org
				




Red State versus Blue State data............

Most Blue states allow LATE TERM ABORTION..............

The argument that Roe versus Wade GIVES THEM THAT RIGHT..........................IS A LIE.

If the SCOTUS has the balls............They would rule that the States allowing Abortion after viability are in VIOATION OF ROE VERSUS WADE.

Roe v Wade WAS NEVER A BLANKET RIGHT TO ABORT.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> ::Issues4Life Foundation | Judgment At Nuremberg
> 
> 
> The Issues4Life Foundation is dedicated to addressing the issues surrounding the inviolability or sanctity of human life in the African-American community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.issues4life.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, January 22nd, 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 and simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton regarding the issue of abortion. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy "somewhere" under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two (2) legitimate interests in regulating abortions and protecting women's health and ultimately the protection the potentiality of human life. Importantly, the United States Supreme Court never declared abortion itself to be a constitutional right. Rather, the Supreme Court said: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins … the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Then, in the very text of the Roe v. Wade decision, the High Court made a key admission:
> 
> *"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."**1*
> 
> In my opinion, the United States Supreme Court needed to "resolve the difficult question of when life begins … " before rendering judgment on the death of the only product of a human male and a human female, that is a human being. Below are clips from the 1961 movie Judgment at Nuremburg. In light of the fact that not one (1) of the seven (7) Supreme Court justices that made up the majority for 1973 Roe v. Wade decision are alive today, you can be the judge. Top
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
> 
> 
> FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caselaw.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To summarize and to repeat:
> 
> 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
> 
> (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
> 
> *(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165]   may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.*
> 
> 2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.
> 
> In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. 67
> 
> This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. *The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. *The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [410 U.S. 113, 166]   state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.


What has happened here is what has happened with other SCOTUS rulings: the leftists pervert it to meet their own biased wishes.

In the case of R v W, the Court still allowed states the rights to restrict abortions, especially as the term of pregnancy lengthens. Yet, we have (some) leftists defending the right of the mother to choose to “abort” the infant even as it begins its descent through the birth canal, or, as Governor Northam explained, even after a living child is delivered.


----------



## miketx

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


Nothing will change.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> What has happened here is what has happened with other SCOTUS rulings: the leftists pervert it to meet their own biased wishes.
> 
> In the case of R v W, the Court still allowed states the rights to restrict abortions, especially as the term of pregnancy lengthens. Yet, we have (some) leftists defending the right of the mother to choose to “abort” the infant even as it begins its descent through the birth canal, or, as Governor Northam explained, even after a living child is delivered.


Which is a clear Violation of Roe V. Wade..................The Ruling........SCOTUS can't pass laws.

The entire debate is about when life begins............Mississippi already had laws in place for late term....They moved up the date of Viability.

Yet almost every blue state has NO LAW............making it legal DEFACTO.........Then they play PASS A LAW like Cuomo did to VIRTUE SIGNAL FOR VOTES........Right to Abort LAW.............and the Clowns CHEERED FOR IT.

Legally it changed NOTHING.


----------



## miketx

eagle1462010 said:


> States with Gestational Limits for Abortion
> 
> 
> The Kaiser Family Foundation website provides in-depth information on key health policy issues including Medicaid, Medicare, health reform, global health, HIV/AIDS, health insurance, the uninsured …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red State versus Blue State data............
> 
> Most Blue states allow LATE TERM ABORTION..............
> 
> The argument that Roe versus Wade GIVES THEM THAT RIGHT..........................IS A LIE.
> 
> If the SCOTUS has the balls............They would rule that the States allowing Abortion after viability are in VIOATION OF ROE VERSUS WADE.
> 
> Roe v Wade WAS NEVER A BLANKET RIGHT TO ABORT.


They don't have a spine.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> Roe V Wade wasn't set in stone as much as the left says it does.............It WAS NEVER A BLANKET ABORTION RIGHT.........It shot down the Texas Law which was a crime at CONCEPTION.  In it's very brief it said that States have the RIGHT TO PASS LAWS............based on VIABILITY of the Fetus.  Which it stated as 24 weeks.
> 
> It NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION of when LIFE BEGINS..............It did what SCOTUS ALWAYS DOES..........Kicked the can down the road on that question and the CAN IS HERE NOW.
> 
> Mississippi Law states 15 weeks ...........After that via the documents I've shown only 4.3% are affected by that law.


SCOTUS does this kicking the can thing a lot. In the last Grutter case on affirmative action, about 20 years ago, they said that Affirmative Action would not be necessary by the next generation (which would make 3 generations of lesser qualified blacks being admitted over whites), around 25 years. We are here now in that arena as well.

What concerns me is that the leftists threatening violence and harm - even death - to justices who won’t yield to their demands will result in future cases being decided on avoiding the wrath of the left.

Biden needs to protect the Constitution and condemn the savages threatening violence, and defend the sanctity of the Supreme Court’s process and decisions. That he refuses to do so is another violation of his oath and another cause for impeachment.


----------



## eagle1462010

miketx said:


> Nothing will change.


In Texas it will go to 6 weeks immediately.   But they will just leave to another state and get the abortion anyway.

Blue States will still think it is RIGHTEOUS TO ABORT til the day of Birth............This will be the NEW BATTLE CRY OF THE MOONBATS come November as they have nothing at all given they are failures the last 2 years.

Red States will lower the weeks to allow abortion in their states...........and try to preserve life as the people here believe via the majority.  The LEFT HATES that people dare to OPPOSE THEIR POWER.

The right to ABORT and they are ready to kill over it.

They are a bunch of PATHETIC MOONBATS.


----------



## eagle1462010

miketx said:


> They don't have a spine.


They didn't have one during the SCOTUS ROE v WADE.............they kicked the can down the road.  

The can they kicked is sitting at SCOTUS.........SCOTUS will probably agree but will say after 15 weeks now it's ok for states to pass laws against Abortion on Demand.  Then Texas will go WAIT A MINUTE 6 WEEKS..............Others maybe less ............maybe more.

What is important...........to me at least is that STATE'S RIGHTS are partially restored by the decision..........and less power Fed..........which is needed on EVERYTHING.  Might be a symbol............but could SPARK STATES to stand up and say enough of the over reach of Federal Power.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> SCOTUS does this kicking the can thing a lot. In the last Grutter case on affirmative action, about 20 years ago, they said that Affirmative Action would not be necessary by the next generation (which would make 3 generations of lesser qualified blacks being admitted over whites), around 25 years. We are here now in that arena as well.
> 
> What concerns me is that the leftists threatening violence and harm - even death - to justices who won’t yield to their demands will result in future cases being decided on avoiding the wrath of the left.
> 
> Biden needs to protect the Constitution and condemn the savages threatening violence, and defend the sanctity of the Supreme Court’s process and decisions. That he refuses to do so is another violation of his oath and another cause for impeachment.


The Far Left have aborted the Liberal of Old.  There are no JFKs anymore.  They would trash his views...........We are more like JFK now on the conservative side .......shows how far we have slid from sanity.

The Far LEFT IS A CANCER TO THIS COUNTRY.........and they show this cancer more and more every day..........That is why some states are throwing round house punches at them to tell them where they can stick their views..............

And that is what this is about.........States saying NO TO THEM..........they can't handle the word NO.


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> Source: All public surveys I can find.
> 
> If you believe that Americans would rather retrogress, surrender extant freedoms to the State, and emulate Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador, you'll have to cite your surveys rather than spew your contempt for freedom-loving Americans.


Show me the questions asked and who was surveyed.  Was it a real poll with valid representative demographics or some stupid Internet poll?

Only fucking idiots and immoral pieces of shit think that it is acceptable to kill children for birth control.

One thing about it.  It looks like that now the Supreme Court is saying there is no Constitutional right to kill a child for the purpose of birth control and that is a good thing.  Bad thing if you have a Nazi sense of morality.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> The statements don't have to be explicit, the points they make do. And the point she made is essentially "abortion on demand and without apology."
> 
> This time we don't rely on mere words to discern a position, we observe the pattern of behavior.


Show me a post where she thinks anything like all women support killing babies.  A link will do, otherwise it is obfuscation.

When you rely “on a pattern of behavior” subjectively defined, to “discern a position” without being able to pinpoint any part of that pattern to support your conclusion, then you’re just blowing hot air.

What is factually supported, is that the majority of American women support upholding Roe, keeping abortion safe and legal, putting some restrictions on it.   This is supported by numerous polls over the years.

Subjectively (because I haven’t actually looked it up) I think most women who have an abortion, do not make that decision easily and that while many may never choose to have one themselves, they strongly believe that choices concerning her body and medical decisions are hers and hers alone.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> SCOTUS does this kicking the can thing a lot. In the last Grutter case on affirmative action, about 20 years ago, they said that Affirmative Action would not be necessary by the next generation (which would make 3 generations of lesser qualified blacks being admitted over whites), around 25 years. We are here now in that arena as well.
> 
> What concerns me is that the leftists threatening violence and harm - even death - to justices who won’t yield to their demands will result in future cases being decided on avoiding the wrath of the left.
> 
> Biden needs to protect the Constitution and condemn the savages threatening violence, and defend the sanctity of the Supreme Court’s process and decisions. That he refuses to do so is another violation of his oath and another cause for impeachment.


You are suddenly concerned about threats of violence and death after all this time?


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> You are suddenly concerned about threats of violence and death after all this time?


----------



## miketx

Lol, monsters are concerned about womens bodies but don't give a damn about the body of the child they are so willing to destroy!


----------



## schmidlap

Coyote said:


> Show me a post where she thinks anything like all women support killing babies.


Americans overwhelmingly support Roe v Wade, not your _"killing babies."_

If you can contrive any legitimate surveys that find otherwise, please cite them.


*CNN/SSRS**:* 66% said they do not support overturning Roe, while 34% did.
*The Pew Research Center**:* Just 8% said abortion should be illegal in all cases, no exceptions. Broadening it out, roughly 37% said it should be illegal in most or all cases. But even among that group, there are sizable portions that said it should be legal in if the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother (46%) or if it is the result of a rape (36%).
*Monmouth University**:* Just 11% said abortion should always be illegal. Another quarter said it should be illegal with exceptions for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
*YouGov**:* 24% said Roe should be overturned, while 55% said it should not.
*Fox News**:* 27% said it should be overturned; 63% said no.
*ABC News/Washington Post**:* 28% said Roe should be overturned, 54% said it should be upheld. (Just 16% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.)
*Gallup**:* 19% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances; 48% said it should be legal only under certain circumstances; 32% said it should be legal in all circumstances. And 47% said abortion is morally acceptable, the highest ever recorded in two decades of Gallup asking the question. (46% said it is not morally acceptable.)





Those who crave Big Government intrusion in the matter wish to emulate Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador.


----------



## eagle1462010

miketx said:


> Lol, monsters are concerned about womens bodies but don't give a damn about the body of the child they are so willing to destroy!
> 
> View attachment 641615


And these monsters will continue to be monsters if Roe V Wade is overturned.  Changes nothing for states that allow late term abortion.  

They believe they have the right to tell us to be monsters in our state.

And at the moment it's WE WILL KILL SCOTUS if we don't get our way. 

They are PATHETIC FASCISTS.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> Those who crave Big Government intrusion in the matter wish to emulate Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador.


Pot paints kettle black.  Roe v. Wade is big government making abortion legal up to 24 weeks.......After that each state decides .

Roe v Wade would give that decision to the people of each state...........Changes NOTHING IN BLUE SHITHOLES.  who overwhelmingly allow late term abortion.

You believe you have the right to DICATTE YOUR VIEWS......to states that don't agree with you and nothing more.

But RIOT SEASON BY BRAIN DEAD LEFTIST IS UPON US as it's election time again.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> You are suddenly concerned about threats of violence and death after all this time?


Huh? I’ve always been opposed to threats of violence and death, whether it raged all summer long at cities throughout the country by BLM leftists, or on one day for a few hours by conservatives.

But since I assume you are opposed to it, how about condemning what your leftists are doing in threatening the SCOTUS? And how about condemning the POS who decided to leak this?


----------



## miketx

Lisa558 said:


> Huh? I’ve always been opposed to threats of violence and death, whether it raged all summer long at cities throughout the country by BLM leftists, or on one day for a few hours by conservatives.
> 
> But since I assume you are opposed to it, how about condemning what your leftists are doing in threatening the SCOTUS? And how about condemning the POS who decided to leak this?


You gotta be kidding.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> Show me a post where she thinks anything like all women support killing babies.  A link will do, otherwise it is obfuscation.
> 
> When you rely “on a pattern of behavior” subjectively defined, to “discern a position” without being able to pinpoint any part of that pattern to support your conclusion, then you’re just blowing hot air.
> 
> What is factually supported, is that the majority of American women support upholding Roe, keeping abortion safe and legal, putting some restrictions on it.   This is supported by numerous polls over the years.
> 
> Subjectively (because I haven’t actually looked it up) I think most women who have an abortion, do not make that decision easily and that while many may never choose to have one themselves, they strongly believe that choices concerning her body and medical decisions are hers and hers alone.


If it’s not Constitutional, it’s not Constitutional. End of story,.


----------



## Lisa558

miketx said:


> You gotta be kidding.


Yeah, not holding my breath. These leftists are such hypocrites.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> Huh? I’ve always been opposed to threats of violence and death, whether it raged all summer long at cities throughout the country by BLM leftists, or on one day for a few hours by conservatives.
> 
> But since I assume you are opposed to it, how about condemning what your leftists are doing in threatening the SCOTUS? And how about condemning the POS who decided to leak this?


They use this tactic always.........Coyote is an expert at it..............She attacks you to deflect the topic to chow down on you because she doesn't want to defend the BS being spewed by her side.

Yesterday..............I used a flame thrower............today I use the actual facts throwing bombs at them

Changes nothing for their states.............it is them trying to IMPOSE THEIR BELIEFS on us..............and nothing more.  And they will RAMP UP VIOLENCE IN THEIR OUTRAGE..........and Burn Loot And Murder by a different name.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> They use this tactic always.........Coyote is an expert at it..............She attacks you to deflect the topic to chow down on you because she doesn't want to defend the BS being spewed by her side.
> 
> Yesterday..............I used a flame thrower............today I use the actual facts throwing bombs at them
> 
> Changes nothing for their states.............it is them trying to IMPOSE THEIR BELIEFS on us..............and nothing more.  And they will RAMP UP VIOLENCE IN THEIR OUTRAGE..........and Burn Loot And Murder by a different name.


Yes, they do that - and Coyote is the poster child for it. She deflects by accusing me of something to remove the focus from the barbaric behavior of spoiled, rotten leftists - and she does it with something I never said in the first place. When did I ever support threats of violence and murder?


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> Yes, they do that - and Coyote is the poster child for it. She deflects by accusing me of something to remove the focus from the barbaric behavior of spoiled, rotten leftists - and she does it with something I never said in the first place. When did I ever support threats of violence and murder?


EXACTLY.........fight fire with fire..............don't play her game.


----------



## BackAgain

miketx said:


> Nothing will change.


Sure it will. But not as much as the fears of the libtarded.


----------



## eagle1462010

BackAgain said:


> Sure it will. But not as much as the fears of the libtarded.


Only in Red States..............Nothing will change in Blue ones.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Stann said:


> Actually it's the only thing that would resolve this issue. Then maybe people would start minding their own damn business,
> 
> WTG, human pregnancies only last 9 months, why are you talking about elephants.


Because there are democrats today that feel post birth abortion is appropriate  Colorado Springs Gazette: Barbaric new bill allows postnatal 'abortion' rights


----------



## miketx

EvilCat Breath said:


> Because there are democrats today that feel post birth abortion is appropriate  Colorado Springs Gazette: Barbaric new bill allows postnatal 'abortion' rights


Anyone killing a child after birth needs a bullet in the head.


----------



## BackAgain

eagle1462010 said:


> Only in Red States..............Nothing will change in Blue ones.


I suspect that’s correct.  And maybe not all that much in all red states for that matter.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> EXACTLY.........fight fire with fire..............don't play her game.


It’s actually an Alinsky tactic - put your opponent on the defensive so you won’t be forced to defend your own indefensible position.


----------



## eagle1462010

BackAgain said:


> I suspect that’s correct.  And maybe not all that much in all red states for that matter.


Probably lower to existing laws to 15.  depends on the ruling.  If history is correct SCOTUS will just move it to 15 weeks and kick the can down the road again.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> Probably lower to existing laws to 15.  depends on the ruling.  If history is correct SCOTUS will just move it to 15 weeks and kick the can down the road again.


Yes, that’s my bet too. It’s a compromise, although still in violation of the Constitution that grants the decision to the states. 

But I’d rather see a “window”, giving states at least some discretion, with abortions available up to 8 weeks at the minimum, and 15 weeks at the maximum, other than when the life of the mother is at stake.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> Yes, that’s my bet too. It’s a compromise, although still in violation of the Constitution that grants the decision to the states.
> 
> But I’d rather see a “window”, giving states at least some discretion, with abortions available up to 8 weeks at the minimum, and 15 weeks at the maximum, other than when the life of the mother is at stake.


I have no faith in SCOTUS to do this.........they will go for minimal ruling and kick the can.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> Pot paints kettle black.  Roe v. Wade is big government making abortion legal up to 24 weeks.......After that each state decides .
> 
> Roe v Wade would give that decision to the people of each state...........Changes NOTHING IN BLUE SHITHOLES.  who overwhelmingly allow late term abortion.
> 
> You believe you have the right to DICATTE YOUR VIEWS......to states that don't agree with you and nothing more.
> 
> But RIOT SEASON BY BRAIN DEAD LEFTIST IS UPON US as it's election time again.


Depriving women of the freedom they have enjoyed for 50 years and permitting the authoritarians to arrogate that freedom to their politicians and bureaucrats is a retrogression most Americans oppose. Advanced states _will_ protect freedom.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> Depriving women of the freedom they have enjoyed for 50 years and permitting the authoritarians to arrogate that freedom to their politicians and bureaucrats is a retrogression most Americans oppose. Advanced states _will_ protect freedom.


Advanced States.................LMAO.......New York that allows abortion on demand at ANY TIME INCLUDING AT BIRTH.

Advancement................


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> Not your place to tell her how many children she should have, or if she should adop any. So many men taking down to a woman on this thread, it betrays literally everything liberals say they believe about women.


I wouldn't know, what do "liberals" say about women?


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> I have no faith in SCOTUS to do this.........they will go for minimal ruling and kick the can.


I really question Roberts. Either he’s a spineless jellyfish, or the Dems have the goods on him.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> I really question Roberts. Either he’s a spineless jellyfish, or the Dems have the goods on him.


Yup.  Do you see these clowns tripping the fuck up when called out.

That is how you deal with clowns.


----------



## Flash

eagle1462010 said:


> What’s The Earliest A Baby Can Be Born And Survive?
> 
> 
> Perhaps you’re facing a high-risk pregnancy, or you’re pregnant after a previous loss, and now you’re wondering how early a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bellybelly.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what week in pregnancy can a baby survive outside the womb?​The earliest a baby has been born and survived is 21 weeks and 5 days. Two premature babies hold the record for this.
> 
> Surprisingly, the first record holder was born in 1987, a time when the medical care of premature babies (neonatology) was a very new field.
> 
> However, this is well before the accepted age of viability. Usually, the earliest a baby can survive is about 22 weeks gestation. The age of viability is 24 weeks.
> 
> At 22 weeks, there’s a 0-10% chance of survival; at 24 weeks the survival rate is 40-70%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Abortion Statistics
> 
> 
> Facts and figures relating to the frequency of abortion in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> www.abort73.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?​
> In 2019, 79% of all U.S. abortions occurred prior to the 10th week of gestation; 93% occurred prior to 14 weeks’ gestation (CDC).
> Percentage of 2019 Reported Abortions by Weeks of Gestation* (CDC):
> 
> ≤6 wks7-9 wks10-13 wks14-15 wks16-17 wks18-20 wks≥21 wks42.9%36.4%13.4%2.9%1.7%1.6%1.0%
> *Gestational weeks are measured from the first day of the woman's last menstruation and not from the day of conception. Though it does not provide an accurate fetal age (which is roughly 2 weeks less than the gestational age), it is the simplest way for an OB/GYN to age a pregnancy since the day of conception is often not known. Hence, if an abortion occurs at 8 weeks gestation, it is actually aborting a 6 week embryo. The images on our Prenatal Development and Abortion Pictures pages are more precisely captioned with fetal ages in accordance with standard teaching texts on prenatal development.


If a woman aborts at six weeks she is killing a child

*WEEK 6 *
_(8 weeks after the first day of the last normal menstrual period)_



The embryo is about 1/2-inch and has a four-chambered heart and nostrils.
Electrical activity begins in the developing brain and nervous system.
The brain continues to form.
The lungs begin to form.
Fingers and toes begin to form, and arms and legs have grown longer.
Feet and hands can be distinguished and now have fingers and toes (digits), which may still be webbed.
The shell-shaped parts of the baby's ears are forming, and the baby's eyes are visible. The upper lip and nose have formed.
The trunk of the baby's body is beginning to straighten.









						Stages of Fetal Development - First Trimester | La Dept. of Health
					

The Louisiana Department of Health protects and promotes health and ensures access to medical, preventive and rehabilitative services for all citizens of the State of Louisiana.




					ldh.la.gov


----------



## eagle1462010

Flash said:


> If a woman aborts at six weeks she is killing a child
> 
> *WEEK 6 *
> _(8 weeks after the first day of the last normal menstrual period)_
> 
> 
> 
> The embryo is about 1/2-inch and has a four-chambered heart and nostrils.
> Electrical activity begins in the developing brain and nervous system.
> The brain continues to form.
> The lungs begin to form.
> Fingers and toes begin to form, and arms and legs have grown longer.
> Feet and hands can be distinguished and now have fingers and toes (digits), which may still be webbed.
> The shell-shaped parts of the baby's ears are forming, and the baby's eyes are visible. The upper lip and nose have formed.
> The trunk of the baby's body is beginning to straighten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stages of Fetal Development - First Trimester | La Dept. of Health
> 
> 
> The Louisiana Department of Health protects and promotes health and ensures access to medical, preventive and rehabilitative services for all citizens of the State of Louisiana.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ldh.la.gov


And that is the question Roe Verus Wade refused to address.........they used Viability and ran the hell away.


----------



## Flash

eagle1462010 said:


>


They are killing a child

Your Baby's Development at 24 Weeks​
At 24 weeks, a baby is about 8 1/4 inches (21.3 centimeters) from the top of the head to the bottom of the buttocks (known as the crown-rump length). A baby's height is approximately 12 inches or 1 foot (30.4 centimeters) from the top of the head to the heel (crown-heel length).1 This week, a baby typically weighs 24 ounces or 1 1/2 pounds (665 grams).2

Gaining Weight​
Your baby is in rapid-growth mode, putting on about 3 to 6 ounces each week.2 Part of that weight gain is coming from the addition of fat. This fat does more than smooth out wrinkles. It also helps the baby retain body heat and regulate temperature.3

  Lungs 

The branches of the baby’s lungs are forming, as well as the cells that make surfactant, a natural substance that lines the tiny air sacs (called alveoli) in the lungs to make breathing possible.4 While a small amount of surfactant is now present, the lungs are still immature. Babies born this early have a hard time breathing.5

  Ears 

Your baby’s inner ear—which controls hearing and balance—is continuing to develop.6 By 24 weeks, your baby may begin responding to sounds.7

  Eyelids 

The eyelids closed and sealed together around week 11. They began to separate during week 20. By 24 weeks, the eyelids have separated, and are beginning to take their final shape.8


Survival Outside the Womb​
Babies born at 24 weeks can survive outside the uterus, but they are extremely premature. They have difficulty breathing, need advanced medical care, and often have many health challenges. At 24 weeks, 42% to 59% of babies survive to go home with their families.9

















						Week 24 of Your Pregnancy
					

At 24 weeks pregnant, your baby is about 8 1/4 inches (CRL), 1 foot in height, and weighs 1 1/2 pounds. Learn more about your symptoms and how your baby is growing is this week.




					www.verywellfamily.com


----------



## eagle1462010

Flash said:


> They are killing a child
> 
> Your Baby's Development at 24 Weeks​
> At 24 weeks, a baby is about 8 1/4 inches (21.3 centimeters) from the top of the head to the bottom of the buttocks (known as the crown-rump length). A baby's height is approximately 12 inches or 1 foot (30.4 centimeters) from the top of the head to the heel (crown-heel length).1 This week, a baby typically weighs 24 ounces or 1 1/2 pounds (665 grams).2
> 
> Gaining Weight​
> Your baby is in rapid-growth mode, putting on about 3 to 6 ounces each week.2 Part of that weight gain is coming from the addition of fat. This fat does more than smooth out wrinkles. It also helps the baby retain body heat and regulate temperature.3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lungs​
> The branches of the baby’s lungs are forming, as well as the cells that make surfactant, a natural substance that lines the tiny air sacs (called alveoli) in the lungs to make breathing possible.4 While a small amount of surfactant is now present, the lungs are still immature. Babies born this early have a hard time breathing.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ears​
> Your baby’s inner ear—which controls hearing and balance—is continuing to develop.6 By 24 weeks, your baby may begin responding to sounds.7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eyelids​
> The eyelids closed and sealed together around week 11. They began to separate during week 20. By 24 weeks, the eyelids have separated, and are beginning to take their final shape.8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Survival Outside the Womb​
> Babies born at 24 weeks can survive outside the uterus, but they are extremely premature. They have difficulty breathing, need advanced medical care, and often have many health challenges. At 24 weeks, 42% to 59% of babies survive to go home with their families.9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Week 24 of Your Pregnancy
> 
> 
> At 24 weeks pregnant, your baby is about 8 1/4 inches (CRL), 1 foot in height, and weighs 1 1/2 pounds. Learn more about your symptoms and how your baby is growing is this week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.verywellfamily.com


I'm quoting the laws.  And the real consequences of it.  And how this is Red States trying to end it here.


----------



## miketx

eagle1462010 said:


> I have no faith in SCOTUS to do this.........they will go for minimal ruling and kick the can.


Scotus? Aren't they the spineless cowards who refused to hear arguments on the stolen election?


----------



## Lisa558

miketx said:


> Scotus? Aren't they the spineless cowards who refused to hear arguments on the stolen election?


In fairness, two of them wanted to. One was Thomas. I can’t remember the other, but I’m pretty sure it was Alito.


----------



## miketx

Lisa558 said:


> In fairness, two of them wanted to. One was Thomas. I can’t remember the other, but I’m pretty sure it was Alito.


Still didn't get heard.


----------



## eagle1462010

miketx said:


> Scotus? Aren't they the spineless cowards who refused to hear arguments on the stolen election?


Why yes .............that is them...........and now they will do a minimal decision and run.


----------



## Lisa558

miketx said:


> Still didn't get heard.


They’d rather let an election be stolen and have the loser claim the presidency than wade into uncomfortable waters. I do blame Roberts, mostly. I lost confidence in him when he twisted into a pretzel to decide that the obviously unconstitutional Obamacare could be allowed.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Lisa558 said:


> They’d rather let an election be stolen and have the loser claim the presidency than wade into uncomfortable waters. I do blame Roberts, mostly. I lost confidence in him when he twisted into a pretzel to decide that the obviously unconstitutional Obamacare could be allowed.


He also twisted in a pretzel to decide that illegals offspring born here would be citizens despite what the law actually said.


----------



## beautress

Stann said:


> That is unfortunate that she became emotional, but it is somewhat logical to become upset when emotions are possibly going to play a part in bringing down sound policy like Roe versus Wade.


Count your blessings if you missed seeing a mental case coming unglued.


----------



## Flash




----------



## Flash




----------



## beautress

Lisa558 said:


> They’d rather let an election be stolen and have the loser claim the presidency than wade into uncomfortable waters. I do blame Roberts, mostly. I lost confidence in him when he twisted into a pretzel to decide that the obviously unconstitutional Obamacare could be allowed.


Some scholarly Constitutional minds skip practical matters such as "How is this idea going to be funded?" 

In this case other issues were circumvented as well. I do not know enough of the laws passed in the last few years to be a critic.


----------



## Lisa558

beautress said:


> Some scholarly Constitutional minds skip practical matters such as "How is this idea going to be funded?"
> 
> In this case other issues were circumvented as well. I do not know enough of the laws passed in the last few years to be a critic.


It’s not even that. It’s not up to the SCOTUS to determine how something is to be funded; its job is to determine if an idea is Constitutional. Obamacare was not. The government cannot force individuals to purchase private products simply because they are American citizens. Roberts is bought and paid for.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Not your place to tell her how many children she should have, or if she should adop any. So many men taking down to a woman on this thread, it betrays literally everything liberals say they believe about women.


It's as bad as pro life people calling unwanted fetuses in other women's bodies " unborn child ".


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> Depriving women of the freedom they have enjoyed for 50 years and permitting the authoritarians to arrogate that freedom to their politicians and bureaucrats is a retrogression most Americans oppose. Advanced states _will_ protect freedom.


How is taking the decision about what should or shouldn't be legal away from the few and giving it to the many, authoritarian?     Your contention is that having 9 lifetime appointed individuals making decisions is less authoritarian than State legislatures which are answerable to the electorate doing it?


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> New York that allows abortion on demand at ANY TIME INCLUDING AT BIRTH.


That's a lie. The freedom women have enjoyed in New York for the past half century is the same as women have enjoyed in the other 49
 states.

Authoritarian statists seizing control and denying women that freedom is likely to occur only in retrogressive states, and women in those repressive jurisdictions will look to the advanced states to retain the control of their bodies that the statists are consigning to their politicians.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> That's a lie. The freedom women have enjoyed in New York for the past half century is the same as women have enjoyed in the other 49
> states.
> 
> Authoritarian statists seizing control and denying women that freedom is likely to occur only in retrogressive states, and women in those repressive jurisdictions will look to the advanced states to retain the control of their bodies that the statists are consigning to their politicians.


Freedom to kill at birth.  Lol

Ive shown links that show states who have late term abortion laws which is allowed by Roe v Wade.

You are either ignorant or a liar.  Which is it?


----------



## schmidlap

Couchpotato said:


> How is taking the decision about what should or shouldn't be legal away from the few and giving it to the many, authoritarian?     Your contention is that having 9 lifetime appointed individuals making decisions is less authoritarian than State legislatures which are answerable to the electorate doing it?


Taking a woman's personal control away from her and assigning it to the State is an impersonal tyranny that denies her the right to make reproductive decisions for herself in consultation with loved ones and spiritual and medical advisers who know her and whom she trusts.

Statists taking a woman's freedom away is antithetical to the progress of reproductive liberty throughout advanced, democratic nations.

Reverting to the state womb control of Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador is not progress.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> Taking a woman's personal control away from her and assigning it to the State is an impersonal tyranny that denies her the right to make reproductive decisions for herself in consultation with loved ones and spiritual and medical advisers who know her and whom she trusts.
> 
> Statists taking a woman's freedom away is antithetical to the progress of reproductive liberty throughout advanced, democratic nations.
> 
> Reverting to the state womb control of Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador is not progress.


Same bs you been posting on other threads.  You dont even know the lawvMoonbat


----------



## rightnow909

schmidlap said:


> Taking a woman's personal control away from her and assigning it to the State is an impersonal tyranny that denies her the right to make reproductive decisions for herself in consultation with loved ones and spiritual and medical advisers who know her and whom she trusts.


how utterly absurd!

no one is taking away any such thing. She has the right to make those "reproductive decisions" as long as they do not involve murder. The time to abstain from getting pregnant (making a baby) comes BEFORE she actually has one.


unless u are saying the state has no interest in people committing murder... or that people of a certain age have no right to be protected...

either way... we see how your side is....



=


----------



## rightnow909

Lisa558 said:


> They’d rather let an election be stolen and have the loser claim the presidency than wade into uncomfortable waters. I do blame Roberts, mostly. I lost confidence in him when he twisted into a pretzel to decide that the obviously unconstitutional Obamacare could be allowed.


yeh, that Roberts... 

how did he get to be head honcho? Clarence Thomas should be that


----------



## Calypso Jones

Freakin' hysterical lefties. YOU WILL STILL BE ABLE TO KILL  YOUR BABY>  YOU WILL STILL BE ABLE to Use Abortion as Birth Control.  THere are plenty of doctors/nurses that will gladly/gleefully do that for you.  They will BEG you to come let them kill your progeny.  

good grief.   yOu'd think someone had taken their damn masks from them.


----------



## Calypso Jones

CRazy damn lefties.


----------



## eagle1462010

Calypso Jones said:


> CRazy damn lefties.


Yes they are wacked.  They start getting hit back they may rethink swinging


----------



## Calypso Jones

it's way past time.  But same as the Jan 6 Patriots...expect the right to be arrested and jailed....the left won't be.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> Same bs you been posting on other threads.  You dont even know the lawvMoonbat


It's very strange when someone snatches away the right of a woman to make intimate, personal decisions for herself in consultation with loved ones, and medical and spiritual advisers who know her and whom she trusts, and arrogates it to someone with no familiarity with her and no expertise in the matter such as this:


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> It's very strange when someone snatches away the right of a woman to make intimate, personal decisions for herself in consultation with loved ones, and medical and spiritual advisers who know her and whom she trusts, and arrogates it to someone with no familiarity with her and no expertise in the matter such as this:
> View attachment 641716​


It’s not only about HER. There is a living being that can feel excruciating pain as its life is snuffed out.


----------



## schmidlap

rightnow909 said:


> no one is taking away any such thing.


False. Women who have enjoyed reproductive freedom for half-a-century are threatened with having that freedom arrogated by authoritarian statists.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> It's very strange when someone snatches away the right of a woman to make intimate, personal decisions for herself in consultation with loved ones, and medical and spiritual advisers who know her and whom she trusts, and arrogates it to someone with no familiarity with her and no expertise in the matter such as this:
> View attachment 641716​


Stop dancing and read the laws.  Your just pissing in the wind here.  It will have zero effect in Blue states


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> False. Women who have enjoyed reproductive freedom for half-a-century are threatened with having that freedom arrogated by authoritarian statists.


They will still have that freedom. It might be a little less convenient because they’ll have to take a bus to another state. Planned Parenthood will pay for it.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> False. Women who have enjoyed reproductive freedom for half-a-century are threatened with having that freedom arrogated by authoritarian statists.


The freedom to kill ...aka ..birth control by abortion.

But overturning Roe doesnt end that


----------



## skye




----------



## beagle9

Captain Caveman said:


> Everyone is different, so yes/no/partly.


He says they were miscarriages, so that is much more different than pulling the pre-meditated abortion trigger all by one's self, otherwise just like what is being done out of convenience by many in order to correct a mistake of having unprotected sex that leads to a pregnancy.  Abortion is outdated, and is no longer trendy..

Best to always use contraception during sex if not wanting to get pregnant, otherwise if one is a woman or to not get a woman pregnant if one is a man. 

Simple stuff, but for some reason people act as if they are completely naive on these matter's, and therefore causing a tragic situation to occur as a result of their carelessness or just plain ignorance on such matters. We can't continue to be this stupid as a civilized society can we ?? We should be embarrassed as a so called civilized society today.

Going back to the "wait until marriage" thing, now that would be the more preferable righteous thing to teach and to heavily support in our so called civilized society. 

And if by some chance a young female say at the age of 16, 17 or 18 gets pregnant by a young male of the same ages, otherwise if that were to somehow occur, then proper council should be offered in order to help her get through the pregnancy with her baby, and to strengthen her hopes and dreams by showing her that Life is very sacred and a very precious thing, and even though she somehow got pregnant it's not the end of her world in regards for her hopes and dreams, but instead where their was just one (her), now their will be two total or maybe even three (if twins), in which to share her hopes and dreams with if by chance that no one else is there. 

A mother will never regret having children that will support her no matter what in life, and a child or her children would do just that in life. The best solution is abstinence until ready to marry, and hopefully one meets the right one in which if wait the chances are much better at meeting the right one or it best to just use contraception be it one or the other.

How a woman can carry a baby in her womb, and feel that baby kicking and know it's a human being, but then have that baby terminated out of convenience is simply an amazing thing, otherwise it is one that makes one scratch the head knowing that such a thing has taken place without regard to the living being or living beings that are within her womb. 

Wow.

In special case's doctor's along with the parent's can determine the best outcomes if a person is to young to make the responsible decisions about a situation that may have occurred, but it needs to be immediately dealt with after the occurrence took place or if it is a person of accountability age, then she should take the morning after pill in order to stop any potential pregnancy that may have resulted from an act of either recklessness or maybe if something else may have happened in which the same also could still be done, otherwise if that is what she figured the situation was when she consensually engaged in the act or worse something else took place as with a rape or with incest. JMO is all....


----------



## beagle9

Stann said:


> Saying abortion is murder, abortion ends of child life, those are judgments. I see you're quoting the Bible. The origins of the Christian religion are tribal. That list of abominations, was basically a list of rules that the tribal members were required to abide by. The goal was to make a stronger tribe therefore pregnancy was encouraged, especially pregnancies that resulted in male births. Homosexuality, adultery, sex outside of marriage, even masturbation ( wasting seed ) were forbidden. They never said life are sacred though, unless it was their own, you know the chosen people. But they didn't care much about outsiders,  they loved committing genocide, that included men women and children, even pregnant women; in at least one case they slaughtered all the other tribe's animals because their tribal God told them they were unclean. What could an animal do to make them unclean ? They didn't give much thought to that one. At any rate what I'm saying is a recent development, this sanctity of Life thing. If I could pinpoint when it's exactly started it would be the early 19th century  Holiness Methodism.


You attempting to understand something in regards to the scriptures is simply hilarious, and worse you try to apply your worldly knowledge to something that is holy and spiritual, and you attempt to apply it to something that is very powerful in which is way beyond your abilities to grapple with much less think that you are somehow right upon...... I sit in total amazement of people like you Stann. Your evil twisting of everything is very telling about your views, and about your worldly ways in life.


----------



## Lisa558

beagle9 said:


> He says they were miscarriages, so that is much more different than pulling the pre-meditated abortion trigger all by one's self, otherwise just like what is being done out of convenience by many in order to correct a mistake of having unprotected sex that leads to a pregnancy.  Abortion is outdated, and is no longer trendy..
> 
> Best to always use contraception during sex if not wanting to get pregnant, otherwise if one is a woman or to not get a woman pregnant if one is a man.
> 
> Simple stuff, but for some reason people act as if they are completely naive on these matter's, and therefore causing a tragic situation to occur as a result of their carelessness or just plain ignorance on such matters. We can't continue to be this stupid as a civilized society can we ?? We should be embarrassed as a so called civilized society today.
> 
> Going back to the "wait until marriage" thing, now that would be the more preferable righteous thing to teach and to heavily support in our so called civilized society.
> 
> And if by some chance a young female say at the age of 16, 17 or 18 gets pregnant by a young male of the same ages, otherwise if that were to somehow occur, then proper council should be offered in order to help her get through the pregnancy with her baby, and to strengthen her hopes and dreams by showing her that Life is very sacred and a very precious thing, and even though she somehow got pregnant it's not the end of her world in regards for her hopes and dreams, but instead where their was just one (her), now their will be two total or maybe even three (if twins), in which to share her hopes and dreams with if by chance that no one else is there.
> 
> A mother will never regret having children that will support her no matter what in life, and a child or her children would do just that in life. The best solution is abstinence until ready to marry, and hopefully one meets the right one in which if wait the chances are much better at meeting the right one or it best to just use contraception be it one or the other.
> 
> How a woman can carry a baby in her womb, and feel that baby kicking and know it's a human being, but then have that baby terminated out of convenience is simply an amazing thing, otherwise it is one that makes one scratch the head knowing that such a thing has taken place without regard to the living being or living beings that are within her womb.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> In special case's doctor's along with the parent's can determine the best outcomes if a person is to young to make the responsible decisions about a situation that may have occurred, but it needs to be immediately dealt with after the occurrence took place or if it is a person of accountability age, then she should take the morning after pill in order to stop any potential pregnancy that may have resulted from an act of either recklessness or maybe if something else may have happened in which the same also could still be done, otherwise if that is what she figured the situation was when she consensually engaged in the act or worse something else took place as with a rape or with incest. JMO is all....


Yes. I can’t get over how a woman can feel her own baby kicking, and then snuff it out - often in pain.

I sure hope the SCOTUS does the correct thing and returns this decision to the states, and that even the most leftist of them limit abortions to the first trimester, except in the case of the mother’s life.

There is NO excuse to delay and delay until your baby is at or near viability, kicking in the womb, to decide to kill it. Inexcusable. Leftists, who always lord it over us as being so compassionate are a bunch of cold heartless people.


----------



## beagle9

Calypso Jones said:


> CRazy damn lefties.


Until these punks are finally brought to justice, and the penalties become very stern, then it's going to get worse and worse. Maybe the law if are being run by leftist want these things to escalate while they sit back laughing while people get hurt ? Do your damned job's law enforcement, and judge's. You will be held accountable to God for your lack of actions in doing what is right while you lived upon this earth, and you could be held accountable by man if the right leadership finally gets into office again one day.


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> Yes. I can’t get over how a woman can feel her own baby kicking, and then snuff it out - often in pain.
> 
> I sure hope the SCOTUS does the correct thing and returns this decision to the states, and that even the most leftist of them limit abortions to the first trimester, except in the case of the mother’s life.
> 
> There is NO excuse to delay and delay until your baby is at or near viability, kicking in the womb, to decide to kill it. Inexcusable. Leftists, who always lord it over us as being so compassionate are a bunch of cold heartless people.


They definitely put themselves in the cold heartless categories for sure. They make fools of themselves and this country when it comes to common sense issues.


----------



## Foolardi

schmidlap said:


> We, the People of the United States, overwhelmingly support the established law of half a century regarding a woman's reproductive freedom, and oppose the authoritarians who would retrogress, the State arrogating that freedom and dictating to them, antithetical to the progress that has occurred in advanced, democratic nations.
> 
> 
> *CNN/SSRS**:* 66% said they do not support overturning Roe, while 34% did.
> *The Pew Research Center**:* Just 8% said abortion should be illegal in all cases, no exceptions. Broadening it out, roughly 37% said it should be illegal in most or all cases. But even among that group, there are sizable portions that said it should be legal in if the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother (46%) or if it is the result of a rape (36%).
> *Monmouth University**:* Just 11% said abortion should always be illegal. Another quarter said it should be illegal with exceptions for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
> *YouGov**:* 24% said Roe should be overturned, while 55% said it should not.
> *Fox News**:* 27% said it should be overturned; 63% said no.
> *ABC News/Washington Post**:* 28% said Roe should be overturned, 54% said it should be upheld. (Just 16% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.)
> *Gallup**:* 19% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances; 48% said it should be legal only under certain circumstances; 32% said it should be legal in all circumstances. And 47% said abortion is morally acceptable, the highest ever recorded in two decades of Gallup asking the question. (46% said it is not morally acceptable.)
> View attachment 641564​Those who crave Big Government intrusion in the matter wish to emulate Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador.


yeah real cute thar Bub.What about the Rights of the Unborn.
   Used to be universally sacred and sacrosanct.
    No one would dare talk in public in the 50's the way
 they do today about the Unborn.Says all one need know
 about humanity and the Human condition.
   It's getting worse by the month.Already halfway past the point of no return.Humanity and the human condition cannot
  sustain much more of this Deplorableness.
   Where even a Pope has been sustainably made weak and
   ineffective.
   " One day posterity will remember
     This strange era,these strange times,when
     Ordinary common honesty was called Courage. "
              -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko {Dissident Russian Poet }


----------



## Foolardi

beagle9 said:


> They definitely put themselves in the cold heartless categories for sure. They make fools of themselves and this country when it comes to common sense issues.


Common sense to yer garden variety Democrat is like
  Table manners to a crocodile.


----------



## beagle9

Foolardi said:


> Common sense to yer garden variety Democrat is like
> Table manners to a crocodile.


These days "YES".


----------



## Stann

Death Angel said:


> My sister counts, remembers, and named, her miscarried child


That is appropriate for women who want to carry their pregnancies to full term and end up with a child. I have a second cousin who do the same thing, she went 6 months, knew something was wrong so she went to the her doctor. Unfortunately she was right, if you just had already died. Her and her husband both carried some autosomal recessive condition, I don't remember what it was. They had a memorial service and even a little grave. It was years ago. Rather than take another chance she had a hysterectomy and they adopted her children a boy and a girl. So it did work out for them after all.


----------



## Stann

Foolardi said:


> yeah real cute thar Bub.What about the Rights of the Unborn.
> Used to be universally sacred and sacrosanct.
> No one would dare talk in public in the 50's the way
> they do today about the Unborn.Says all one need know
> about humanity and the Human condition.
> It's getting worse by the month.Already halfway past the point of no return.Humanity and the human condition cannot
> sustain much more of this Deplorableness.
> Where even a Pope has been sustainably made weak and
> ineffective.
> " One day posterity will remember
> This strange era,these strange times,when
> Ordinary common honesty was called Courage. "
> -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko {Dissident Russian Poet }


There's no such thing as an unborn child.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> That is appropriate for women who want to carry their pregnancies to full term and end up with a child. I have a second cousin who do the same thing, she went 6 months, knew something was wrong so she went to the her doctor. Unfortunately she was right, if you just had already died. Her and her husband both carried some autosomal recessive condition, I don't remember what it was. They had a memorial service and even a little grave. It was years ago. Rather than take another chance she had a hysterectomy and they adopted her children a boy and a girl. So it did work out for them after all.


Rare example and show me the states that would not protect the life of the mother in these instances?


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> There's no such thing as an unborn child.


Then tell thevDAs that as if you kill a pregnant mother yoy will be tried for murder of the unborn child


----------



## Stann

airplanemechanic said:


> Sean Hannity is reporting the same thing.
> 
> Thank God. Nowhere in the constitution does it make abortion legal. This should be up to the states.


The founding fathers were smart,  they knew that was women's business and they kept out of it. Yes abortions did occur in colonial America as they have in the history of the world since the ancient Egyptians they're the first ones we know of who used herbs to induce abortion. There's also nothing in the Constitution that forbids abortion. Remember at the time only white land owning men were able to vote and women were property at the time.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> Then tell thevDAs that as if you kill a pregnant mother yoy will be tried for murder of the unborn child


True. if you kill a pregnant woman, it’s two counts of murder. So in that case, they’re counting the unborn child as a person, whose life was stolen.

Basically, it comes down to this: a woman is allowed to commit murder on her own unborn child, but nobody else is. You really shouldn’t be able to define whether an unborn child has a right to life based on who his murderer is.


----------



## Foolardi

Stann said:


> There's no such thing as an unborn child.


  You are partially correct.An unborn child is not
  a thing.But a living,breathing potential child waiting
  in the womb.The unborn are Human.
   Not animal or vegetable.Like some Mommies who think
  it cute to brag about their abortions.
   I could easily make the case that Robins are close
  to 10 times more concerned about their baby chicks
  in their nest than Today's Democrat Hag Mommies.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> The founding fathers were smart,  they knew that was women's business and they kept out of it. Yes abortions did occur in colonial America as they have in the history of the world since the ancient Egyptians they're the first ones we know of who used herbs to induce abortion. There's also nothing in the Constitution that forbids abortion. Remember at the time only white land owning men were able to vote and women were property at the time.


There’s nothing in the Constitution that forbids lots of things. That’s because it was developed specifically to not have much say on all sorts of things. That is left for the states to decide.


----------



## Foolardi

Stann said:


> The founding fathers were smart,  they knew that was women's business and they kept out of it. Yes abortions did occur in colonial America as they have in the history of the world since the ancient Egyptians they're the first ones we know of who used herbs to induce abortion. There's also nothing in the Constitution that forbids abortion. Remember at the time only white land owning men were able to vote and women were property at the time.


  No mention AT ALL about Abortion in our Constitution.
   End of discussion on the matter.
   You can't compare apples to oranges in some 
    Swamp.Unless one is a Democrat jerk.Which is par
  on their golf links.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Rare example and show me the states that would not protect the life of the mother in these instances?


So that would state, that the mother's life has priority over the life of the fetus. That's a good start. Michigan's abortion law went so far as to say what does and does not constitute a threat to the mother's life. Mississippi's law says instead of a threat to the mother's life it has to be a medical emergency. Not all of these threats are an emergency, some are long-term and have horrific endings. Both of these States laws are problematic. Plus 13 states have trigger laws in effect banning all abortions if Roe versus Wade is repealed. Many do not have exceptions  for rape, incest and saving the life of the mother.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> There’s nothing in the Constitution that forbids lots of things. That’s because it was developed specifically to not have much say on all sorts of things. That is left for the states to decide.


That being said the states should follow that lead it's sensible we don't want overbearing government either state or federal. And a woman's womb is definitely not a place state or federal should be in.


----------



## Lisa558

Anything short of a full reversal of the ruling is going to be problematic. A compromise will always be suspect because one wonders whether it was decided based under duress of threats of violence from the leftist savages.

Even worse….the leftist savages will consider a compromise a “win,” and will prepare for the next round of death threats for the next case. And our traitorous president will congratulate them on successfully threatening the justices into taking the leftist position.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> That being said the states should follow that lead it's sensible we don't want overbearing government either state or federal. And a woman's womb is definitely not a place state or federal should be in.


Yes it is, if it involves torturing to death a viable baby.

State’s rights.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> So that would state, that the mother's life has priority over the life of the fetus. That's a good start. Michigan's abortion law went so far as to say what does and does not constitute a threat to the mother's life. Mississippi's law says instead of a threat to the mother's life it has to be a medical emergency. Not all of these threats are an emergency, some are long-term and have horrific endings. Both of these States laws are problematic. Plus 13 states have trigger laws in effect banning all abortions if Roe versus Wade is repealed. Many do not have exceptions  for rape, incest and saving the life of the mother.


There are trigger laws but dont all ban abortion completely.  Pretty much all blue states have no laws banning abortion.

It affects them Zero.  Yet they are screaming like maniacs


----------



## Foolardi

Lisa558 said:


> There’s nothing in the Constitution that forbids lots of things. That’s because it was developed specifically to not have much say on all sorts of things. That is left for the states to decide.


Our Supreme Court exists to interpret what our Founders
  wrote in the Constitution.
   It appears that Founder Benjamin Franklin was 
  onto something with :
   " Our Constitution is in actual operation;
     everything appears to promise that it will last.;
      but nothing is certain in this world but death
       and taxes. " - Letters { to M.Leroy of the French Academy
    of Sciences } 1789


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> There are trigger laws but dont all ban abortion completely.  Pretty much all blue states have no laws banning abortion.
> 
> It affects them Zero.  Yet they are screaming like maniacs


Sensible people live everywhere. I live in a red state. And yes people get upset when their rights are taken away from them.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Anything short of a full reversal of the ruling is going to be problematic. A compromise will always be suspect because one wonders whether it was decided based under duress of threats of violence from the leftist savages.
> 
> Even worse….the leftist savages will consider a compromise a “win,” and will prepare for the next round of death threats for the next case. And our traitorous president will congratulate them on successfully threatening the justices into taking the leftist position.


We have gotten to this point after decades of far right wing nuts terrorizing abortion clinics and murdering their staff. This whole pro-life movement is very calculating and manipulative. They know just who to hit with their emotional reaction to other people's abortions that they don't care about and don't even know. It's like the king of the busy bodies has invaded the minds of what otherwise would be sensible supreme Court judges and sensible regular people.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Sensible people live everywhere. I live in a red state. And yes people get upset when their rights are taken away from them.


What right have you lost?  The decusion is only a leak.  What prevents you from travelung?

Each state will decide its fate ss it should be under the constittution.  We refuse to accept late term abortion as necessary


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> We have gotten to this point after decades of far right wing nuts terrorizing abortion clinics and murdering their staff. This whole pro-life movement is very calculating and manipulative. They know just who to hit with their emotional reaction to other people's abortions that they don't care about and don't even know. It's like the king of the busy bodies has invaded the minds of what otherwise would be sensible supreme Court judges and sensible regular people.


Lol  You say this as the left is calling to kill SCOTUS.  GTFO


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> True. if you kill a pregnant woman, it’s two counts of murder. So in that case, they’re counting the unborn child as a person, whose life was stolen.
> 
> Basically, it comes down to this: a woman is allowed to commit murder on her own unborn child, but nobody else is. You really shouldn’t be able to define whether an unborn child has a right to life based on who his murderer is.


Pure logic...


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> What right have you lost?  The decusion is only a leak.  What prevents you from travelung?
> 
> Each state will decide its fate ss it should be under the constittution.  We refuse to accept late term abortion as ne.


----------



## Stann

I'm an old gay man I haven't lost any rights. But I can't think of any right that's greater than one's control over their own body. If that doesn't make you a second class citizen I don't know what does. Abortion laws are a joke, and not a good one. Abortion must remain between the woman and her doctor.


----------



## Stann

The majority of late-term abortions are performed on married women, and the majority of those are necessary.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I'm an old gay man I haven't lost any rights. But I can't think of any right that's greater than one's control over their own body. If that doesn't make you a second class citizen I don't know what does. Abortion laws are a joke, and not a good one. Abortion must remain between the woman and her doctor.


Which doesnt take into effect if the mother and baby are healthy there is no reason to abort.  Oops


----------



## Foolardi

eagle1462010 said:


> There are trigger laws but dont all ban abortion completely.  Pretty much all blue states have no laws banning abortion.
> 
> It affects them Zero.  Yet they are screaming like maniacs


They are screaming because they want to impact the
   Decision of the Supreme Court.All it takes is for 5 Justices
  to pass Alito's Opinion.If only 4 pass it than Roe remains 
  the law of the land.By Statute.
    In hindsight how Ironic.Because " Jane Roe " or
  Norma McCorvey never had an abortion.In fact,used
  the allegation that she needed an Abortion due to being
  Raped.She was not raped.The Lawyers took the case because
  they felt the need to legalize Abortion.
   Therein LIES the Great myth of Roe vs. Wade.
   Lawyers.Can't live with em and can't die without 
   having them stick their two cents worth in.
    let alone a Divorce.


----------



## eagle1462010

Foolardi said:


> They are screaming because they want to impact the
> Decision of the Supreme Court.All it takes is for 5 Justices
> to pass Alito's Opinion.If only 4 pass it than Roe remains
> the law of the land.By Statute.
> In hindsight how Ironic.Because " Jane Roe " or
> Norma McCorvey never had an abortion.In fact,used
> the allegation that she needed an Abortion due to being
> Raped.She was not raped.The Lawyers took the case because
> they felt the need to legalize Abortion.
> Therein LIES the Great myth of Roe vs. Wade.
> Lawyers.Can't live with em and can't die without
> having them stick their two cents worth in.
> let alone a Divorce.


That is why they did the leak.  So they can use intimidation to influence the decision.


----------



## beagle9

eagle1462010 said:


> There are trigger laws but dont all ban abortion completely.  Pretty much all blue states have no laws banning abortion.
> 
> It affects them Zero.  Yet they are screaming like maniacs


They were told that these issues will slide down the slope into other issues, and their gulable brain's ate it up. Ever notice in the collages that are shown, that the leftist media will repeat the same rhetoric and line's of bull crap given them by their cultist handler's in which proves they are a cult in the ways that they become parrot's over the issues ?

This stuff is so obvious that Stevie Wonder can see it coming from a mile away.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Which doesnt take into effect if the mother and baby are healthy there is no reason to abort.  Oops


And that affects your right somehow ? A law, which actually is a sentence, has skipped the judicial process altogether. Shame, guilt, morality; these don't make for good law. They do work well in the fascist States however. It's one of the things they need in order to function.


----------



## Who_Me?

schmidlap said:


> It's very strange when someone snatches away the right of a woman to make intimate, personal decisions for herself in consultation with loved ones, and medical and spiritual advisers who know her and whom she trusts, and arrogates it to someone with no familiarity with her and no expertise in the matter such as this:
> View attachment 641716​


Nobody is taking away her rights to make decisions over her body.  She and her sexual partner should decide to use one of the many birth control devices that are available.  Taking personal responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies should be the focus, not taking a life.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I'm an old gay man I haven't lost any rights. But I can't think of any right that's greater than one's control over their own body. If that doesn't make you a second class citizen I don't know what does. Abortion laws are a joke, and not a good one. Abortion must remain between the woman and her doctor.


You’re ignoring ome detail: there’s somebody else’s body involved too.


----------



## Foolardi

Stann said:


> The majority of late-term abortions are performed on married women, and the majority of those are necessary.


NO! The majority of Abortions are performed on
  Black Females.Who have 5 times the number of 
  abortions than do White females.Somewhere
  close to 17 Million thus far.
   How come the Black Community is not up in arms
  over that.The same reason they aren't too bugged that
   Blacks lead the Nation in Homicides { over 50 % of Homicides
    each year are by blacks }.Blacks are Murdering,Raping,
    Robbing each other in record numbers.
    Thereby Explaining the Great Lie about BlackLivesMatter.
   The Democrats cannot risk losing their Black constituency.
    They are a reliable Voting block.Around 93 % each General
  Election.However the Hispanic vote is dramatically swinging
    to the center or Conservative side.
     Therefore the motive behind BLM.
   To keep Blacks Riled up.Like the Conservatives are taking
  away their rights.


----------



## Stann

schmidlap said:


> It's very strange when someone snatches away the right of a woman to make intimate, personal decisions for herself in consultation with loved ones, and medical and spiritual advisers who know her and whom she trusts, and arrogates it to someone with no familiarity with her and no expertise in the matter such as this:
> View attachment 641716​


I hear you loud and clear. Given that the federal government and the state run things so well,  what other medical advice should we seek from them !


----------



## Death Angel

Stann said:


> There's no such thing as an unborn child.


Of course you're right. Here's an unborn frog


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> You’re ignoring ome detail: there’s somebody else’s body involved too.


Who ? Name him or her, or are we talking about an it ?


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> Who ? Name him or her, or are we talking about an it ?


Look at the photo one up. That is who we are talking about.


----------



## Stann

Death Angel said:


> Of course you're right. Here's an unborn frog
> 
> View attachment 641808


Nice fake picture, I guess you've never seen a real baby in the womb. Does it bring tears to your eyes ? You've been had, not by me by the pro-life machine. They people up and spit them out, all out of the kindness of their hearts and they want you to believe that that possibility of life is more important than the life of the woman. It isn't, it never was and it never will be.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Look at the photo one up. That is who we are talking about.


I already did you loser. And a pregnant mother who knew what the sex was would probably already have given her/ him a name. But let's talk about what is usually being aborted when an abortion occurs. Since 52% of abortions occur before the 7th. week, we are talking about a physical life form that is about a half inch long, it has no eyes, it has a primitive brain that has just started to function, 1/3 of the body length is a tail, it has buds where the arms will be and the legs haven't formed yet. Tissues are starting to specialize and form organs. A primitive heart has just started beating also to serve the specialized tissues. The picture you show of what is supposed to be a late-term fetus ( the picture is a fake ) is seldom aborted I think it amounts to .043 % of all abortions. I'm just trying to show you how ridiculous showing that picture was. No offense intended, but you have to be brought back down to reality somehow. These emotional displays are sad.


----------



## beagle9

Who_Me? said:


> Nobody is taking away her rights to make decisions over her body.  She and her sexual partner should decide to use one of the many birth control devices that are available.  Taking personal responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies should be the focus, not taking a life.


Pure logic..


----------



## Foolardi

Stann said:


> We have gotten to this point after decades of far right wing nuts terrorizing abortion clinics and murdering their staff. This whole pro-life movement is very calculating and manipulative. They know just who to hit with their emotional reaction to other people's abortions that they don't care about and don't even know. It's like the king of the busy bodies has invaded the minds of what otherwise would be sensible supreme Court judges and sensible regular people.


  So,then it would be appaling to even consider Stopping
   The Biggest Serial Killer in American History and his
   House of Horrors.Or Dr.Kermit Gosnell from practicing.
    It was just luck that ended Gosnells Abortion clinic
  in Philly.He was over prescribing Oxycontin.And was under
  investigation by the DEA.
    What Investigators found when they finally managed to
   storm his Clinic was " appaling ".
     Describing it to the Grand Jury :
     " _as filthy,deplorable,disgusting,very unsanitary,
     very outdated,horrendous,and by far the worst "
   that these investigators had ever encountered.
    There was blood on the floor.A stench of urine filled
  the air.A flea-infested cat was wandering through the
  facility,and there were cat feces on the stairs.Semi-conscious women waiting for abortions were moaning 
  in the waiting and recovery rooms.Where they sat on
  dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. _


----------



## beagle9

Stann said:


> I hear you loud and clear. Given that the federal government and the state run things so well,  what other medical advice should we seek from them !


None, because them (the government) working for the leftist is what got this country in the jam that it's in now.


----------



## beagle9

Foolardi said:


> So,then it would be appaling to even consider Stopping
> The Biggest Serial Killer in American History and his
> House of Horrors.Or Dr.Kermit Gosnell from practicing.
> It was just luck that ended Gosnells Abortion clinic
> in Philly.He was over prescribing Oxycontin.And was under
> investigation by the DEA.
> What Investigators found when they finally managed to
> storm his Clinic was " appaling ".
> Describing it to the Grand Jury :
> " _as filthy,deplorable,disgusting,very unsanitary,
> very outdated,horrendous,and by far the worst "
> that these investigators had ever encountered.
> There was blood on the floor.A stench of urine filled
> the air.A flea-infested cat was wandering through the
> facility,and there were cat feces on the stairs.Semi-conscious women waiting for abortions were moaning
> in the waiting and recovery rooms.Where they sat on
> dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. _


Sounds hellish enough.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I already did you loser. And a pregnant mother who knew what the sex was would probably already have given her/ him a name. But let's talk about what is usually being aborted when an abortion occurs. Since 52% of abortions occur before the 7th. week, we are talking about a physical life form that is about a half inch long, it has no eyes, it has a primitive brain that has just started to function, 1/3 of the body length is a tail, it has buds where the arms will be and the legs haven't formed yet. Tissues are starting to specialize and form organs. A primitive heart has just started beating also to serve the specialized tissues. The picture you show of what is supposed to be a late-term fetus ( the picture is a fake ) is seldom aborted I think it amounts to .043 % of all abortions. I'm just trying to show you how ridiculous showing that picture was. No offense intended, but you have to be brought back down to reality somehow. These emotional displays are sad.


I stopped within your first few words when you called me “loser.” What an arrogant leftist, name-calling people because they won’t submit to his opinion.


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> I stopped within your first few words when you called me “loser.” What an arrogant leftist, name-calling people because they won’t submit to his opinion.


Not sure why the guy has been given the time that he's been given on the subject(?), because he's definitely not right on anything he's said on the subject so far.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> And that affects your right somehow ? A law, which actually is a sentence, has skipped the judicial process altogether. Shame, guilt, morality; these don't make for good law. They do work well in the fascist States however. It's one of the things they need in order to function.


As you ignore the rights of an unborn child that you deny exists.

Time we said something.........and time we said NOT IN OUR STATE...........Drive your sorry ass out of Alabama if you want to be a Barbarian.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I already did you loser. And a pregnant mother who knew what the sex was would probably already have given her/ him a name. But let's talk about what is usually being aborted when an abortion occurs. Since 52% of abortions occur before the 7th. week, we are talking about a physical life form that is about a half inch long, it has no eyes, it has a primitive brain that has just started to function, 1/3 of the body length is a tail, it has buds where the arms will be and the legs haven't formed yet. Tissues are starting to specialize and form organs. A primitive heart has just started beating also to serve the specialized tissues. The picture you show of what is supposed to be a late-term fetus ( the picture is a fake ) is seldom aborted I think it amounts to .043 % of all abortions. I'm just trying to show you how ridiculous showing that picture was. No offense intended, but you have to be brought back down to reality somehow. These emotional displays are sad.


Says the one who this issue doesn't affect's PARTY is advocating killing SCOTUS.

Fuck off.


----------



## Stann

Foolardi said:


> So,then it would be appaling to even consider Stopping
> The Biggest Serial Killer in American History and his
> House of Horrors.Or Dr.Kermit Gosnell from practicing.
> It was just luck that ended Gosnells Abortion clinic
> in Philly.He was over prescribing Oxycontin.And was under
> investigation by the DEA.
> What Investigators found when they finally managed to
> storm his Clinic was " appaling ".
> Describing it to the Grand Jury :
> " _as filthy,deplorable,disgusting,very unsanitary,
> very outdated,horrendous,and by far the worst "
> that these investigators had ever encountered.
> There was blood on the floor.A stench of urine filled
> the air.A flea-infested cat was wandering through the
> facility,and there were cat feces on the stairs.Semi-conscious women waiting for abortions were moaning
> in the waiting and recovery rooms.Where they sat on
> dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. _


Since three of the supreme Court justices are basically perjured themselves by their testimony before Congress before they were installed. They should do the right thing and abstain from this vote.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Says the one who this issue doesn't affect's PARTY is advocating killing SCOTUS.
> 
> Fuck off.


I think you have me confused with someone else. Read the above statement to tell me where I said it's okay to kill scotus. You are quite a trip, or you're on one.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Since three of the supreme Court justices are basically perjured themselves by their testimony before Congress before they were installed. They should do the right thing and abstain from this vote.


LOL

Says the ones wanting to kill them because they might disagree.

Up yours.  Looks like Roe is about to die................GOOD............

And our people will pass laws accordingly..........We in Alabama don't care if you don't like..........don't like it...........Carry your sorry butt out of here.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> I stopped within your first few words when you called me “loser.” What an arrogant leftist, name-calling people because they won’t submit to his opinion.


I called you a loser because of the things you said they're disgusting.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I think you have me confused with someone else. Read the above statement to tell me where I said it's okay to kill scotus. You are quite a trip, or you're on one.


I've watched the DNC and politicians DOXXING THEM..........giving out their adresses and calling for violence.

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

Your endless BS is starting to bore me.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> LOL
> 
> Says the ones wanting to kill them because they might disagree.
> 
> Up yours.  Looks like Roe is about to die................GOOD............
> 
> And our people will pass laws accordingly..........We in Alabama don't care if you don't like..........don't like it...........Carry your sorry butt out of here.


You're insane I never said I wanted anybody killed. Those are things that people like you and other extremists keep saying.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> I've watched the DNC and politicians DOXXING THEM..........giving out their adresses and calling for violence.
> 
> Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
> 
> Your endless BS is starting to bore me.


I am not even a Democrat you crazy people. I don't believe any Democrats are calling for violence, they're calling for a lot of protest because this is unheard of.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> You're insane I never said I wanted anybody killed. Those are things that people like you and other extremists keep saying.


Guilt by association with the left..............Tell me you aren't a DNC loving wanker.  Well?


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I am not even a Democrat you crazy people. I don't believe any Democrats are calling for violence, they're calling for a lot of protest because this is unheard of.


I don't believe you.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> I've watched the DNC and politicians DOXXING THEM..........giving out their adresses and calling for violence.
> 
> Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
> 
> Your endless BS is starting to bore me.


Every time I post something no one debates what I say I guess they can't. It's easy to get bored when you run out of excuses for your cause. Goodbye.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Guilt by association with the left..............Tell me you aren't a DNC loving wanker.  Well?


Basically Republicans want to criminalize women who want want or need abortions. Yes I think I'm going to side with the Democrats on this one.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Every time I post something no one debates what I say I guess they can't. It's easy to get bored when you run out of excuses for your cause. Goodbye.


Don't let the door hit your ass...............fitting symbol of the DNC............on the way out.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Basically Republicans want to criminalize women who want want or need abortions. Yes I think I'm going to side with the Democrats on this one.


That's because you are a LIAR........and have been with them the whole time...............

You will not tell Alabama how to live and we'll do the same for you..........Time to end this leftist BS.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Don't let the door hit your ass...............fitting symbol of the DNC............on the way out.


I will be going to bed in a couple hours but in the meantime I will keep checking back to see what you idiots are up to. Yes I called you an idiot. You're trying to do something that shouldn't be done. There are many things you can control in life, trying to control other people that you don't know and don't care about is one of the worst things people should be doing. It has no place in a free Nation. Things like this can only should be done in a fascist state.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I will be going to bed in a couple hours but in the meantime I will keep checking back to see what you idiots are up to. Yes I called you an idiot. You're trying to do something that shouldn't be done. There are many things you can control in life, trying to control other people that you don't know and don't care about is one of the worst things people should be doing. It has no place in a free Nation. Things like this can only should be done in a fascist state.


While you sleep............Dream about someone who cares who you call an idiot.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> While you sleep............Dream about someone who cares who you call an idiot.


I know you don't care that's the whole problem.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I know you don't care that's the whole problem.


LOL

Go to bed fruticake.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> LOL
> 
> Go to bed fruticake.


I'd much rather be a fruit cake than a idiot. At least fruitcakes don't take life too seriously. Idiots can't help anybody, not even themselves.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I'd much rather be a fruit cake than a idiot. At least fruitcakes don't take life too seriously. Idiots can't help anybody, not even themselves.


Yawn..............zzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Yawn..............zzzzzzzzzzzzz


Sounds like you're the one who needs to go to bed. Try to have a good night, I plan on it.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Sounds like you're the one who needs to go to bed. Try to have a good night, I plan on it.


If if you're not too sleepy Saturday night just came out of there doing a great skit about this abortion insanity. It all centers on judge alito's quoting a British law from 1295 in his attempt to criminalize abortion. It really hits the point.


----------



## Death Angel

Stann said:


> and they want you to believe that that possibility of life...


The POSSIBILITY OF LIFE?
You leftist swine really are insane, and I'm dead serious.  You just need to be BURIED beginning in November.


----------



## Stann

Death Angel said:


> The POSSIBILITY OF LIFE?
> You leftist swine really are insane, and I'm dead serious.  You just need to be BURIED beginning in November.


Maybe I said that wrong. I meant to say that the fetus has the potential to become a human being, if it has all the right conditions. As we all know not every pregnancy continues to full term. Pregnancy has all types of complications, many lead to death before fruition. And of course God takes his toll in miscarriages. You didn't threaten me just because we disagree about this issue. That is very sick of you. To choose the rights of a potential human being over the rights of women who are definitely here and exist. That makes no sense to me.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Maybe I said that wrong. I meant to say that the fetus has the potential to become a human being, if it has all the right conditions. As we all know not every pregnancy continues to full term. Pregnancy has all types of complications, many lead to death before fruition. And of course God takes his toll in miscarriages. You didn't threaten me just because we disagree about this issue. That is very sick of you. To choose the rights of a potential human being over the rights of women who are definitely here and exist. That makes no sense to me.


From Saturday Night Live, " Happy Mother's Day - You may not be a perfect person, but you're a perfect mom.


----------



## Death Angel

Stann said:


> Maybe I said that wrong. I meant to say that the fetus has the potential to become a human being, if it has all the right conditions. As we all know not every pregnancy continues to full term. Pregnancy has all types of complications, many lead to death before fruition. And of course God takes his toll in miscarriages. You didn't threaten me just because we disagree about this issue. That is very sick of you. To choose the rights of a potential human being over the rights of women who are definitely here and exist. That makes no sense to me.


This is why recreational sex outside of marriage has always been recognized as a sin.  A *LIFE* has been created and you want to ignore the responsibility of the parents who created that *LIFE*.

Over 60 million *LIVES* have been murdered because of liberal "morality." It's really no different than Nazi Germany who had no use for their UNWANTED Jewish population.


----------



## Stann

Death Angel said:


> This is why recreational sex outside of marriage has always been recognized as a sin.  A *LIFE* has been created and you want to ignore the responsibility of the parents who created that *LIFE*.
> 
> Over 60 million *LIVES* have been murdered because of liberal "morality." It's really no different than Nazi Germany who had no use for their UNWANTED Jewish population.


If that statistic is even true, it only represents potential birth not the true number that would have occurred had there been no abortions. There are lots of contributing factors to fetal fatalities, abortion is just one of them. I guess you never heard of miscarriages, that's a nice way of saying one of the fetuses that god snuffed out. And my question to you the world is already overpopulated what would we do with 60 million more people I mean most people on the right are complaining about the 10 million undocumented immigrants in our nation what would they do with 60 million more people that are basically unwanted,  overall most of these would become high School dropouts, criminals and and people with mental problems. Just what we need more of those, and more miles to feed in a world where food hunters just getting off to a horrific start and it's only going to get worse because no one's cooperating no one's helping solve the problem. I understand people can't help themselves and they have sex all the time it's just crazy the way these heterosexuals carry on.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Stann said:


> The founding fathers were smart,  they knew that was women's business and they kept out of it. Yes abortions did occur in colonial America as they have in the history of the world since the ancient Egyptians they're the first ones we know of who used herbs to induce abortion. There's also nothing in the Constitution that forbids abortion. Remember at the time only white land owning men were able to vote and women were property at the time.



There is nothing in the constitution forbidding the ownership of automatic weapons either. 

You really wanna continue?


----------



## Stann

airplanemechanic said:


> There is nothing in the constitution forbidding the ownership of automatic weapons either.
> 
> You really wanna continue?


Only with people who have relevant arguments to make.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Stann said:


> Only with people who have relevant arguments to make.



I'll accept your defeat.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Only with people who have relevant arguments to make.


It's after midnight here and I'll be going to bed soon. So it's mother's Day. " Happy Mother's Day " I'm glad you had the right to make the choice that was right for you without any government interference. Cherish what you have, it is your right.


----------



## Stann

airplanemechanic said:


> I'll accept your defeat.


I was trying to tell you in a nice way that your argument doesn't hold water because it's not a valid equivalent. Sorry but you said it it's your problem. Try to have a good night, I plan on it.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> I stopped within your first few words when you called me “loser.” What an arrogant leftist, name-calling people because they won’t submit to his opinion.


That is unfortunate because you would have learned something besides that photo was an obvious fake. Plus it was obviously made to make sure you had a emotional response and see the fetus as a child not what it really is. Most abortions occur before the 7th week, the fetus is unrecognizable as a human being at that point.


----------



## Stann

Death Angel said:


> Of course you're right. Here's an unborn frog
> 
> View attachment 641808


This is a child that's at least one month old. I don't know what kind of fabrication they put it in. But there's no amniotic fluid and there's an obvious lack of vernix caseosa on the child's skin. As I've already said this is a fake photo designed for and buy some pro-life group to bring an emotional response out of its followers. Making them think that this is what's being aborted, it is not.


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> They will still have that freedom. It might be a little less convenient because they’ll have to take a bus to another state. Planned Parenthood will pay for it.


Such punitive statist measures previously took the form of jim Crow laws.

Freedom prevailed.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> As you ignore the rights of an unborn child that you deny exists.
> 
> Time we said something.........and time we said NOT IN OUR STATE...........Drive your sorry ass out of Alabama if you want to be a Barbarian.


You notice how all the pro-abortion people focus solely on the mother and neglect to mention that there is another life at stake?


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> LOL
> 
> Says the ones wanting to kill them because they might disagree.
> 
> Up yours.  Looks like Roe is about to die................GOOD............
> 
> And our people will pass laws accordingly..........We in Alabama don't care if you don't like..........don't like it...........Carry your sorry butt out of here.


It shows how far down the leftists have sunk if others don’t yield to their preferences. First, verbal abuse with untrue accusations. Then silencing. Then out and out bans and censorship. And now, threats of death: “If you don’t vote the way liberals want, we’ll kill you”!

And led by the true loser of the election, who refuses to condemn these savages.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> Basically Republicans want to criminalize women who want want or need abortions. Yes I think I'm going to side with the Democrats on this one.


No they don’t. They want to let the states decide what their own laws will be. If a state criminalizes it, then the woman can take a bus to another state to kill her child.

So you’re not arguing against criminalizing abortions. You’re arguing against the inconvenience of having to take a bus trip in order to kill the baby.


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> Such punitive statist measures previously took the form of jim Crow laws.
> 
> Freedom prevailed.


And in chimes a leftist, screaming “waaaaacism!”

You live in a blue state? Then the women you knock up can get an abortion 10 minutes away. If you’re in a red state, and the woman delayed too long, you’ll have to drive her to the next state over, or she’ll take a bus ride paid for by PP. Either way, she still gets to kill her unborn child.

What ledtists afe arguing for here is NOT abortion, because that will still be available. They are arguing for the most convenient abortion possible.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I think the big difference here is the people you are referring to as leftists, actually care about people other than themselves. To call them all names, and to blame all of them for threatening justices which might be the act of a few might even be the act of a few right people far right people they've done it before. At any rate it's very selfish thinking.



"I'm the one who really cares about people, because look how I've defined 'people' as only including the ones I want to care about.  And look how I've defined 'caring' as doing what I prefer."


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> One size does not fit all. That's a fact of life. I don't really mind if you keep calling me names. It just makes you look very bad.



"One size does not fit all" from someone who's screeching and hollering about the prospect of not having one federal decision governing all fifty states without any of the voters having a say in it.


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> And in chimes a leftist, screaming “waaaaacism!”
> 
> You live in a blue state? Then the women you knock up can get an abortion 10 minutes away. If you’re in a red state, and the woman delayed too long, you’ll have to drive her to the next state over, or she’ll take a bus ride paid for by PP. Either way, she still gets to kill her unborn child.
> 
> What ledtists afe arguing for here is NOT abortion, because that will still be available. They are arguing for the most convenient abortion possible.


I don't know why you call the clear majority of Americans _"leftists._"

Advanced states reflect the progress that women have made in advanced democratic nations.

Some jurisdictions prefer to emulate nations such as Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador where politicians dictate to women regarding private, reproductive matters.

As a practical matter, abortion is always available everywhere. It is of concern when and where it is unsafe because women must hide from the authoritarian statists who insist upon dictating to them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> I'm sorry you do not like what you see in the mirror. Only you can change that.



I note that you're still trying to change the subject away from your "Gotcha!" challenge that failed.

This is why lawyers are taught to never ask a question they don't know the answer to.  It sucks when you think you're saying something devastating, and you discover that you've screwed yourself.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> How many have you adopted, again?
> 
> Wait,that's right: zero.



Nope, sorry, chickenshit.  You already got an answer to that question, and you ran away as fast as you could.  You don't get to use it again until you sack up and deal with the answer you got.

Until you show us you have something to say to the person who tells you, "Yeah, I have two children who you would have aborted", you forfeit any right to play Mr. Moral Outrage at anyone else.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Calypso Jones said:


> well do ya THINK stann that she might consider keeping her legs closed or perhaps USING BIRTH CONTROL??  rather than  exercising her most important reproductive right of killing her own unborn babe??



He's feeling far too virtuous by fighting for women to have a right he's decided, in his superior male wisdom, that they really need, and screw all those dumb bitches who have the nerve to tell him they want something other than what he's told them to want.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Calypso Jones said:


> YOU DOUBT what i just told you about PP??     WHERE do  you people stay during the day??  in a closed coffin??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood Leaders Admit Under Oath to Harvesting Body Parts From Babies Born Alive - LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> The Center for Medical Progress released horrific new video footage Tuesday showing a Planned Parenthood partner admitting that body parts were harvested from aborted babies who still had beating hearts. The video exposes the testimonies of several top Planned Parenthood officials and a human...
> 
> 
> 
> www.lifenews.com



Echo chamber where all they have to hear is the first spate of talking points from their leaders.  Once they know what it is they need to say, they plug their ears and start parroting.

Listening to anything after that point would just confuse them, so they don't.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Yet you feign a caring attitude about this issue. Another obvious joke and not a good one.



Life certainly is easier when you can 'know' what your opponents think and feel without the messy process of actually listening to them and thinking about what they say, isn't it?


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> I don't know why you call the clear majority of Americans _"leftists._"
> 
> Advanced states reflect the progress that women have made in advanced democratic nations.
> 
> Some jurisdictions prefer to emulate nations such as Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador where politicians dictate to women regarding private, reproductive matters.
> 
> As a practical matter, abortion is always available everywhere. It is of concern when and where it is unsafe because women must hide from the authoritarian statists who insist upon dictating to them.


Again, you are ignoring that there is another life at stake, that is about to be ended.

An inconvenient truth.

And if you think Honduras and El Salvador are so much more advanced that America (you suggest we should emulate them), then move there. You’ll be happier living in a country you admire, with people you admire, than in a country to despise, with people for whom you have contempt.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I'll put it more bluntly then, lumping all the women who want and / or need abortions into one group, basically calling them s**** is more correctly called bigotry.



Funny, that's what I call lumping all unborn babies into one group and calling them, "disposable".

Your "moral high ground" continues to be the top of a compost heap, and you continue to fail to shame anyone for disagreeing with you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Name a fetus a person that was murdered ?  A verdict of Murder requires a trial and a body.



"It's not murder, because we disposed of the body!"

What is this, the Mafia School of Debate?


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> Funny, that's what I call lumping all unborn babies into one group and calling them, "disposable".
> 
> Your "moral high ground" continues to be the top of a compost heap, and you continue to fail to shame anyone for disagreeing with you.


I’ve heard worse than “disposable.” Some leftists refer to the aborted bodies of unborn babies as “medical waste” - and as worthy of respect as yesterday’s garbage.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> The United States of America with 50 variations on abortion laws. Just what we needed something else to divide us.



Oh, I'm sorry, did you mistakenly believe that you had achieved some sort of "unity" by forcing your personal beliefs on everyone and telling them to shut up and like it?

I'm very sorry that you hate the American ideal of sovereign states.  Maybe instead of trying to turn the country into some monolith, you should move to a country that already does things that way.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, I'm sorry, did you mistakenly believe that you had achieved some sort of "unity" by forcing your personal beliefs on everyone and telling them to shut up and like it?
> 
> I'm very sorry that you hate the American ideal of sovereign states.  Maybe instead of trying to turn the country into some monolith, you should move to a country that already does things that way.


That’s so “it”: isn’t it? Leftists want unity by requiring everyone in the country to go along with what THEY want.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> You notice how all the pro-abortion people focus solely on the mother and neglect to mention that there is another life at stake?


There are no pro-abortion people. It's all about a woman's right to choose when and if to bring children into this world. Life isn't always black and white, this is a gray area. Abortion is an always will be unnecessary evil. A tool of last resort.


----------



## Opie

Joe Biden said we should be able to have the right to choose to abort children


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I better solution would be to say it's a medical issue between a woman and her doctor and forbid any laws regulating it.



Yeah, because "medical issue" precludes government intervention . . . says the fool who clearly knows nothing about healthcare, one of THE most regulated industries in the country. There is literally no "medical issue" that is just between the patient and the doctor without reference to government regulations.  Not one.  If abortion were actually treated like every other "medical issue", you'd be screaming your damned head off about how "restrictive" it is.  We know this, because we've already seen how the pro-abort left reacted to the notion of requiring abortion clinics to meet the same safety standards as outpatient clinics.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> I’ve heard worse than “disposable.” Some leftists refer to the aborted bodies of unborn babies as “medical waste” - and as worthy of respect as yesterday’s garbage.



I went with "disposable", because I wasn't just talking about unwanted babies.  The left views ALL babies, wanted and unwanted, as disposable.  Optional.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, I'm sorry, did you mistakenly believe that you had achieved some sort of "unity" by forcing your personal beliefs on everyone and telling them to shut up and like it?
> 
> I'm very sorry that you hate the American ideal of sovereign states.  Maybe instead of trying to turn the country into some monolith, you should move to a country that already does things that way.


We do have a federal government that takes president over states rights. And you anti- abortion ( obviously not pro life ) people are sadly mistaken if doing this all over again is going to have different results. Abortion is a medical issue it's a matter between a woman and her doctor no one else should intervene. The travesty of justice that is occurring here is tantamount to taking women back to the 1950s, which were a nightmare for women, especially poor black women.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> There are no pro-abortion people. It's all about a woman's right to choose when and if to bring children into this world. Life isn't always black and white, this is a gray area. Abortion is an always will be unnecessary evil. A tool of last resort.



It's amazing how you can fight so hard for something you desperately want to distance yourself from.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, I'm sorry, did you mistakenly believe that you had achieved some sort of "unity" by forcing your personal beliefs on everyone and telling them to shut up and like it?
> 
> I'm very sorry that you hate the American ideal of sovereign states.  Maybe instead of trying to turn the country into some monolith, you should move to a country that already does things that way.


PS : I don't hate the United States. Your actions prove that you do. I like the idea that the United States is a free Nation based on science not hatred and fear, shame and guilt, ignorance and misinformation; all the things you people are promoting here. Some of you are even doing this in the name of your god. That is just plain disgusting.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's amazing how you can fight so hard for something you desperately want to distance yourself from.


It's not about abortion. It's about control for you people. More of your people support the death penalty for criminals. How can you call yourself for life just to be pro control wake up already and many think they're doing this in the name of god and their religious beliefs. That is totally disgusting to me.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, I'm sorry, did you mistakenly believe that you had achieved some sort of "unity" by forcing your personal beliefs on everyone and telling them to shut up and like it?
> 
> I'm very sorry that you hate the American ideal of sovereign states.  Maybe instead of trying to turn the country into some monolith, you should move to a country that already does things that way.


Yeah this is supposed to be a monolith of freedom not fascism and your movement is fascist. No doubt about it.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> I’ve heard worse than “disposable.” Some leftists refer to the aborted bodies of unborn babies as “medical waste” - and as worthy of respect as yesterday’s garbage.


Keep dreaming up more horror stories. That's all you guys seem to be good at. This is why medical information should be kept private at all times. You don't know how to deal with The facts of Life.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> We do have a federal government that takes president over states rights. And you anti- abortion ( obviously not pro life ) people are sadly mistaken if doing this all over again is going to have different results. Abortion is a medical issue it's a matter between a woman and her doctor no one else should intervene. The travesty of justice that is occurring here is tantamount to taking women back to the 1950s, which were a nightmare for women, especially poor black women.



No, we have a federal government that takes "president" [sic] over state laws IN SPECIFIC AREAS.  Outside of its proper sphere, it's supposed to mind its own business and allow the states and the people to decide for themselves.  People like you, who are so puffed up with their own overweening pride and self-righteous certainty that you know some "truth" about what's best that other people are too dumb to recognize (they MUST be too dumb, because look at how they don't agree with you), fear that freedom and go out of your way to obscure that division, "for our own good".

You keep parroting, "medical issue, medical issue" like some mantra you think means, "Free-for-all where everyone does as they please".  I will point out yet again, in the hopes it will get past the fingers in your ears, that healthcare is among the most highly-regulated industries in the country.  And every time we have ever attempted to truly treat abortion as the "medical issue" you pretend to want it to be, you pro-aborts squeal like a bunch of stuck pigs.  I honestly don't know if you're just the most dishonest bunch of hypocrites clinging to whichever talking point seems to work at the moment, regardless of how much they require you to contradict yourselves from moment to moment, or if you're actually that frigging stupid.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> There are no pro-abortion people. It's all about a woman's right to choose when and if to bring children into this world. Life isn't always black and white, this is a gray area. Abortion is an always will be unnecessary evil. A tool of last resort.


And a woman will STILL be able to choose. The difference is that the majority of people in each state get to decide the laws surrounding it in their own state.

Why do YOU get the foist your beliefs onto people of another state, who might think differently? We are made up of 50 individual states, each with its own preferences, as determined by votes.

Thats the beauty of our Constitution. It was set up to avoid a controlling, massive central government.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Yeah this is supposed to be a monolith of freedom not fascism and your movement is fascist. No doubt about it.



No, honey, you're not fighting for "freedom".  You're fighting for a monolith of "What I think is best, everyone else shut up".  The only "freedom" you want is YOUR freedom, everyone to be "free" the way YOU choose, and shut the fuck up about anything they might choose that you, in your presumed-infinite wisdom, have decided they don't need.

Only a leftist can handle the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy of "fighting for freedom" by fighting to tell people to shut up and do as they're told.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Keep dreaming up more horror stories. That's all you guys seem to be good at. This is why medical information should be kept private at all times. You don't know how to deal with The facts of Life.



The way you do by pretending that "medical issues" are an unregulated free-for-all?


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Yeah this is supposed to be a monolith of freedom not fascism and your movement is fascist. No doubt about it.


Says the one trying to force your views on us.

Roe dies nothing changes for you Moonbats except some states said take your barbarism elsewhere.

We dont care about proud baby killers in Alabama


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> Keep dreaming up more horror stories. That's all you guys seem to be good at. This is why medical information should be kept private at all times. You don't know how to deal with The facts of Life.


Sure I do. That’s why I took birth control during my childbearing years when I didn’t want to get pregnant. It’s not rocket science. And if in the rare event it failed, I would have kept the baby. But if I were a different type of woman and wanted to have an abortion, I would either have had it nearby if my own state allowed, or taken a bus ride to a neighboring state.

I’ve gone outside my own state for medical procedures and/or medical exams before because a better medical facility was there. It’s not that big a deal. And before you groan and moan about the poor, helpless women who can’t afford a bus ticket, I guarantee you PP will set up a fund.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> It's as bad as pro life people calling unwanted fetuses in other women's bodies " unborn child ".



No, it's really not.  Do you really think "You believe things I've told you not to" is as bad as, "Shut up, you dumb broad, and take what I've decided you should have, I know what's best for you"?


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> Again, you are ignoring that there is another life at stake


A microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is not a person. Fetal viability occurs at around 23-24 weeks of gestation, and when a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy, and is not delayed by authoritarians contriving delays, it occurs well before that stage. 

 A 2019 survey found that 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> There's no such thing as an unborn child.



"I have decided your beliefs are invalid.  You can only make arguments I've decided you can."

You've never even TRIED to break out of your "benevolent dictator" mindset.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> A microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is not a person. Fetal viability occurs at around 23-24 weeks of gestation, and when a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy, and is not delayed by authoritarians contriving delays, it occurs well before that stage.
> 
> A 2019 survey found that 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation.


And the Miss. Law is 15 weeks.  No laws against abortion in blue states.

Yet your sorry ass party is threatening to kill SCOTUS.  Which part of you can kiss my ass dont you understand leftist?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> The founding fathers were smart,  they knew that was women's business and they kept out of it. Yes abortions did occur in colonial America as they have in the history of the world since the ancient Egyptians they're the first ones we know of who used herbs to induce abortion. There's also nothing in the Constitution that forbids abortion. Remember at the time only white land owning men were able to vote and women were property at the time.



No, honey, the Founding Fathers were smart and knew that was state and local government business, and they kept the federal government out of it.

It's really funny to hear someone who's fighting to undo what the Founding Fathers set up trying to appeal to their "wisdom" to do it.

Tell me, what other laws do you think we shouldn't have on the basis of "People do it anyway"?


----------



## Lisa558

Opie said:


> Joe Biden said we should be able to have the right to choose to abort children


And Maryland, another liberal state, has a proposal that says women whose children die (regardless of how mysteriously) during the PERI-natal’ stage of life will not be investigated. Just how long do we want to extend past-birth “abortions”?

In other words, a woman can starve her newborn, or just leave It naked in the snow in the backyard, or whatever, and there will be no criminal investigation. If that isn’t permission to murder one’s own living baby, I don’t know what is.

* Peri-natal is a nebulous term that can mean up to 28 days AFTER birth.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> So that would state, that the mother's life has priority over the life of the fetus. That's a good start. Michigan's abortion law went so far as to say what does and does not constitute a threat to the mother's life. Mississippi's law says instead of a threat to the mother's life it has to be a medical emergency. Not all of these threats are an emergency, some are long-term and have horrific endings. Both of these States laws are problematic. Plus 13 states have trigger laws in effect banning all abortions if Roe versus Wade is repealed. Many do not have exceptions  for rape, incest and saving the life of the mother.



I hate to break it to you, but "We have to save one or the other, because we can't save both" is no kind of "start" to "we should be able to kill babies just because we want to".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> That being said the states should follow that lead it's sensible we don't want overbearing government either state or federal. And a woman's womb is definitely not a place state or federal should be in.



Well, then you can go make that case to the states.  What you don't get to do is say, "This is what I've decided you should do, so shut up and do it."


----------



## Cecilie1200

eagle1462010 said:


> There are trigger laws but dont all ban abortion completely.  Pretty much all blue states have no laws banning abortion.
> 
> It affects them Zero.  Yet they are screaming like maniacs



Leftists are deeply offended by the idea that someone, somewhere, is living his or her life in a way they haven't approved.


----------



## eagle1462010

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, then you can go make that case to the states.  What you don't get to do is say, "This is what I've decided you should do, so shut up and do it."


We will throw his sorry ass out of Alsbama.  They only can do this in leftist hives.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> One size does not fit all. That's a fact of life. I don't really mind if you keep calling me names. It just makes you look very bad.


1) Says the person who called me a “loser” for disagreeing

2) Says the person who’s screaming for a one-size solution for all 50 states.

Do these hypocrites ever hear themselves??


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> We have gotten to this point after decades of far right wing nuts terrorizing abortion clinics and murdering their staff. This whole pro-life movement is very calculating and manipulative. They know just who to hit with their emotional reaction to other people's abortions that they don't care about and don't even know. It's like the king of the busy bodies has invaded the minds of what otherwise would be sensible supreme Court judges and sensible regular people.



Oh, please.  50+ years of "woman's right to choose" and "her own body", and you want to fire off the "calculating and manipulative" accusation?


----------



## beagle9

Stann said:


> Basically Republicans want to criminalize women who want want or need abortions. Yes I think I'm going to side with the Democrats on this one.


No one is wanting to criminalize the women after the fact, because what was done prior, was being done legally when they did it because of the law as it stood, but the possible criminalization of the act of abortion in which steps outside of certain boundaries set after the law is retracted or reformed going forward, will definitely begin a new, so in the state's going forward they will make new laws or work on the law's that regulate the purposes of medical procedures when and if they are used within their states.

The only purpose of an actual abortion IMO would be to remove the body of a baby that might die from natural causes within a womb. In a case of rape or incest, then upon arrival at the hospital immediately after the act had taken place, a procedure can be administered in which would stop a pregnancy from ever developing in such a situation. 

Abortion on demand is an act that carries dire stress and life long consequences for the woman who had engaged in such a thing. Abortion has only one function IMO, and that would be to remove the dead body of an unborn child in which passed away due to "NATURAL CAUSES" that were out of control of the mother's hand or ability to stop the unborn baby from passing.

How abortion became what it became is appalling, and it is a sear on the conscience of humanity.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> And the Miss. Law is 15 weeks.  No laws against abortion in blue states.
> 
> Yet your sorry ass party is threatening to kill SCOTUS.  Which part of you can kiss my ass dont you understand leftist?


Americans, by a large margin, support the established law of the past half century that guaranteed a reasonable degree of freedom to women regarding control of their own bodies, progress typical of advanced democratic nations. 

Authoritarian statists retrogressing to their politicians and bureaucrats dictating to women is unpopular with champions of personal liberty.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> Sure I do. That’s why I took birth control during my childbearing years when I didn’t want to get pregnant. It’s not rocket science. And if in the rare event it failed, I would have kept the baby. But if I were a different type of woman and wanted to have an abortion, I would either have had it nearby if my own state allowed, or taken a bus ride to a neighboring state.
> 
> I’ve gone outside my own state for medical procedures and/or medical exams before because a better medical facility was there. It’s not that big a deal. And before you groan and moan about the poor, helpless women who can’t afford a bus ticket, I guarantee you PP will set up a fund.



When I wanted bariatric surgery, I had to drive three hours each way not only for the surgery, but for every single pre-surgery consult.  There was no place in my own city that did the operation at that time.  Now, my state is big enough that three hours doesn't take me out of the state, but in a lot of states, it would.  It was a nuisance, I'm not gonna lie, but it was completely doable.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I think the big difference here is the people you are referring to as leftists, actually care about people other than themselves. To call them all names, and to blame all of them for threatening justices which might be the act of a few might even be the act of a few right people far right people they've done it before. At any rate it's very selfish thinking.


You’re the selfish one - and arrogant as well. YOU are saying that people who think like you do are the ones who care about people other than themselves. You sure don’t care when unborn children (Biden DID call them children) have their lives terminated, and often in pain.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> 1) Says the person who called me a “loser” for disagreeing
> 
> 2) Says the person who’s screaming for a one-size solution for all 50 states.
> 
> Do these hypocrites ever hear themselves??



Not if they can possibly avoid it.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> We will throw his sorry ass out of Alsbama.  They only can do this in leftist hives.


I’d prefer he just leaves, but I’d be fine with him getting a case of hives too. Could be from guilt.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> Americans, by a large margin, support the established law of the past half century that guaranteed a reasonable degree of freedom to women regarding control of their own bodies, progress typical of advanced democratic nations.
> 
> Authoritarian statists retrogressing to their politicians and bureaucrats dictating to women is unpopular with champions of personal liberty.


Garbage.  Because half the country passed laws on the basis of viability under the Roe devision.  Blue states just didnt pass any abortion laws while red states did.

You just cant handle us saying NO to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

beagle9 said:


> Not sure why the guy has been given the time that he's been given on the subject(?), because he's definitely not right on anything he's said on the subject so far.



Because he's the only pro-abort attempting to make a reasoned argument.  Mind you, he's failing miserably, but he's at least trying.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> I’d prefer he just leaves, but I’d be fine with him getting a case of hives too. Could be from guilt.


I call blue cities Hives.

Most Dems are in large pop cities.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, we have a federal government that takes "president" [sic] over state laws IN SPECIFIC AREAS.  Outside of its proper sphere, it's supposed to mind its own business and allow the states and the people to decide for themselves.  People like you, who are so puffed up with their own overweening pride and self-righteous certainty that you know some "truth" about what's best that other people are too dumb to recognize (they MUST be too dumb, because look at how they don't agree with you), fear that freedom and go out of your way to obscure that division, "for our own good".
> 
> You keep parroting, "medical issue, medical issue" like some mantra you think means, "Free-for-all where everyone does as they please".  I will point out yet again, in the hopes it will get past the fingers in your ears, that healthcare is among the most highly-regulated industries in the country.  And every time we have ever attempted to truly treat abortion as the "medical issue" you pretend to want it to be, you pro-aborts squeal like a bunch of stuck pigs.  I honestly don't know if you're just the most dishonest bunch of hypocrites clinging to whichever talking point seems to work at the moment, regardless of how much they require you to contradict yourselves from moment to moment, or if you're actually that frigging stupid.


Your ignorance is compounded by your arrogance. You're so pretentious it isn't funny, it's sad.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> When I wanted bariatric surgery, I had to drive three hours each way not only for the surgery, but for every single pre-surgery consult.  There was no place in my own city that did the operation at that time.  Now, my state is big enough that three hours doesn't take me out of the state, but in a lot of states, it would.  It was a nuisance, I'm not gonna lie, but it was completely doable.


Yup. I had a condition and wanted a second opinion from a very highly rated hospital that specialized in it. It was only two hours away, but I took an overnight in a hotel in case it would be difficult to drive back in the same day. And I paid for it with my own money - the exam, the drive, the hotel, the meals out. You can bet PP will be covering the costs for all the poor women too irresponsible to use birth control fo make a similar trip.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> Your ignorance is compounded by your arrogance. You're so pretentious it isn't funny, it's sad.


OMG. Someone is in need of a mirror.


----------



## beagle9

schmidlap said:


> Such punitive statist measures previously took the form of jim Crow laws.
> 
> Freedom prevailed.


Desperation and twisted rhetoric is all people like you have when trying to defend the indefensible. What are you leftist white liberals going to do when you don't have your race card to pull out when you get your ace's in a jam in the future ?? It'll be over for you because the black's will have finally figured out how you and your gang had been using them to destroy Christianity in this country.

Many black's are finally waking up, and the blacklash on white leftist liberalism is going to be hell to pay.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Your ignorance is compounded by your arrogance. You're so pretentious it isn't funny, it's sad.


Only if we agreed with you ,then you would bless us by removing that label you assign for those who disagree.  

Should I where a yellow star for you?
 And are not so ignorant to undetstand what that means?


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> I hate to break it to you, but "We have to save one or the other, because we can't save both" is no kind of "start" to "we should be able to kill babies just because we want to".


Wow you people are just keep getting sicker and sicker. Everyone whoever wanted abortion or needed one is just " killing babies because they want to " . How can you even think like that ,?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I'd much rather be a fruit cake than a idiot. At least fruitcakes don't take life too seriously. Idiots can't help anybody, not even themselves.



Coming from someone who's making 50-year-old arguments and carefully ignoring any new developments in science and medicine, that's pretty funny.  Show of hands, anyone who's devastated by being called "an idiot" by Stann?  Anyone?


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Only if we agreed with you ,then you would bless us by removing that label you assign for those who disagree.
> 
> Should I where a yellow star for you?
> And are not so ignorant to undetstand what that means?


Get a life already. This is a lost cause. Some things were never meant to be. Sorry you can't accept what does exist and move on with your life. This is not something to dwell on.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coming from someone who's making 50-year-old arguments and carefully ignoring any new developments in science and medicine, that's pretty funny.  Show of hands, anyone who's devastated by being called "an idiot" by Stann?  Anyone?


At least I'm with the majority of people that believe it's a woman's right to choose. You crazies on here act as if you're in the majority you are not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Maybe I said that wrong. I meant to say that the fetus has the potential to become a human being, if it has all the right conditions. As we all know not every pregnancy continues to full term. Pregnancy has all types of complications, many lead to death before fruition. And of course God takes his toll in miscarriages. You didn't threaten me just because we disagree about this issue. That is very sick of you. To choose the rights of a potential human being over the rights of women who are definitely here and exist. That makes no sense to me.



"Potential to become a human being"?  So what is a fetus before "becoming a human being"?  Exactly what is this mythical non-human stage of existence that humans go through before "becoming" human?

Is "fetuses sometimes die, so that means they aren't human" really your argument?


----------



## Jets




----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> From Saturday Night Live, " Happy Mother's Day - You may not be a perfect person, but you're a perfect mom.



Now you're taking your "wisdom" from a comedy sketch show that stopped being relevant 30 years ago?


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Wow you people are just keep getting sicker and sicker. Everyone whoever wanted abortion or needed one is just " killing babies because they want to " . How can you even think like that ,?


You just keep making shit up because we disagree.  You think its waste until birth.  Blue states allow partial birth abortions and even worse.

We refuse to allow that here in Alabama.  And we disagree with the Roe versus Wade ruling on Viability.  Laws here already dont allow late term.

And we are sicj and tired of abortion being used as birth control.

We SAY NO.  Dont like it.  Dont move here


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> It's after midnight here and I'll be going to bed soon. So it's mother's Day. " Happy Mother's Day " I'm glad you had the right to make the choice that was right for you without any government interference. Cherish what you have, it is your right.



More of your "you should be happy to have what I've decided you should have, and stop wanting things I keep telling you not to want."


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Get a life already. This is a lost cause. Some things were never meant to be. Sorry you can't accept what does exist and move on with your life. This is not something to dwell on.


You are the one who is lost.  Overturning Roe doesnt stop abortions  Just stops people like you from being an animal in our states.  And you cant handle us saying NO to your twisted version of Morality


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> That is unfortunate because you would have learned something besides that photo was an obvious fake. Plus it was obviously made to make sure you had a emotional response and see the fetus as a child not what it really is. Most abortions occur before the 7th week, the fetus is unrecognizable as a human being at that point.



NOW your argument is, "I'm too stupid to know what I'm looking at, so that means it isn't what it is"?

Actually, the fetus is recognizable as a human being at 7 weeks, because that's what human beings look like at 7 weeks.  That YOU don't know what you're looking at doesn't change what it is.

Try to be more precise and accurate.  A fetus at 7 weeks of development doesn't look like a human AT A LATER STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT.


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> And a woman will STILL be able to choose. The difference is that the majority of people in each state get to decide the laws surrounding it in their own state.
> 
> Why do YOU get the foist your beliefs onto people of another state, who might think differently? We are made up of 50 individual states, each with its own preferences, as determined by votes.
> 
> Thats the beauty of our Constitution. It was set up to avoid a controlling, massive central government.


How this you say got turned around over time is simply amazing, but undoubtedly the people had went to sleep after the government took control of them in the sixties. The piggy backing affect on the civil rights issues hadn't been realized in it's totality until it all finally all came to a head. What really reveals the truth in it all, is where everytime a leftist gets challenged on their bull crap, they try to drag the black struggle into the mix in order to hopefully shield them by making black's think that everything is an attack on them when it's obvious that it's not.

They act as if black's in a majority all think alike, and will somehow just play along because they say so. The most recent reveal of this was with voter ID, and how the white leftist liberals ran around saying that black's couldn't understand nor would they have access to computer's and transportation to get their IDs etc.... It's all just unbelievable what has taken place in this country.


----------



## postman

Stann said:


> At least I'm with the majority of people that believe it's a woman's right to choose. You crazies on here act as if you're in the majority you are not.


The problem is that for nearly 50 years, women have become dependent on abortion as a birth control failsafe.


----------



## postman

beagle9 said:


> What really reveals the truth in it all, is where everytime a leftist gets challenged on their bull crap, they try to drag the black struggle into the mix in order to hopefully shield them by making black's think that everything is an attack on them when it's obvious that it's not.


Actually Roe V Wade was based on the Loving case, which made interracial marriage legal.
*Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) *
If Roe was wrongfully decided (no constitutional basis) then working backwards, that would also overthrow and allow a ban on  interracial marriage, and working forward, a ban on gay marriage.
*Obergefell v. Hodges Citation. 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015)*


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Wow you people are just keep getting sicker and sicker. Everyone whoever wanted abortion or needed one is just " killing babies because they want to " . How can you even think like that ,?



Because I'm not invested in obscuring the truth from myself.  My position allows for brutal honesty.

From the Guttmacher Institute:

_"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."









						Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives
					

Public discussion about abortion in the United States has generally focused on policy: who should be allowed to have abortions, and under what circumstances. Receiving less attention are the women behind the statistics—the 1.3 million women who obtain abortions each year1—and their reasons for...




					www.guttmacher.org
				



_
Mind you, the Guttmacher Institute is PRO-abortion, and their own statistics nevertheless show that the vast majority of abortions are performed simply because the women want to have one.

And by the way, if your position that fetuses aren't human and aren't living organisms with any value that needs to be considered is correct, why is it "sick" to suggest that abortions are performed because people want to do it?  Is it "sick" if I go to the doctor to have a mole removed, not because it's cancerous, but just because I don't like having it?  That's the level of "medical issue" you demand that abortion be considered, isn't it?  So how is it "sick" to consider abortion voluntary?


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> "Potential to become a human being"?  So what is a fetus before "becoming a human being"?  Exactly what is this mythical non-human stage of existence that humans go through before "becoming" human?
> 
> Is "fetuses sometimes die, so that means they aren't human" really your argument?


I thought that would be very apparent. It is one of the tools the government uses to track all of its citizens. It's called a birth date. I never said they weren't human tissue, I said they weren't human beings yet. There's a big difference.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> At least I'm with the majority of people that believe it's a woman's right to choose. You crazies on here act as if you're in the majority you are not.



Sorry, hon, but I outgrew peer pressure in middle school.  Maybe you should try it.  Being an adult who can stand for what I believe without the comfort of "Lots of people agree with me" is rather freeing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> Actually Roe V Wade was based on the Loving case, which made interracial marriage legal.
> *Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) *
> If Roe was wrongfully decided (no constitutional basis) then working backwards, that would also overthrow and allow a ban on  interracial marriage, and working forward, a ban on gay marriage.



Not necessarily, because it's possible for _Loving _to have been decided correctly, and _Roe _incorrectly extrapolated off of it.


----------



## Jets

postman said:


> Actually Roe V Wade was based on the Loving case, which made interracial marriage legal.
> *Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) *
> If Roe was wrongfully decided (no constitutional basis) then working backwards, that would also overthrow and allow a ban on  interracial marriage, and working forward, a ban on gay marriage.
> *Obergefell v. Hodges Citation. 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015)*



What about Griswold v Conn 1965?


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sorry, hon, but I outgrew peer pressure in middle school.  Maybe you should try it.  Being an adult who can stand for what I believe without the comfort of "Lots of people agree with me" is rather freeing.


I am speaking for myself, I realize I can't speak for anyone else but me. First you people were saying certain abortion shouldn't be allowed, then you were saying if there's a fetal heartbeat that's a human being there, now some of you were saying at the moment of conception there are human being, some of you want to ban all abortions despite all the consequences, make up your f****** minds already.


----------



## eagle1462010

postman said:


> Actually Roe V Wade was based on the Loving case, which made interracial marriage legal.
> 
> If Roe was wrongfully decided (no constitutional basis) then working backwards, that would also overthrow interracial marriage, and working forward, gay marriage.


Roe V Wade stated that it avoided when life begins and stated legislstures decide that down the road.  Kicked the can.  It then used medical journals of the time to define VIABILITY.  Which is why half the country have abortion laws after the viability mark.

Now many states didnt remove abortion laws after the ruling.  Since they are still on the books they become Trigger Laws if Roe v Wade is completely overturned.

However, SCOTUS may set the ruling to 15 weeks via Miss. Law and kick the can again.

SCOTUS is telling legislature to deal with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I thought that would be very apparent. It is one of the tools the government uses to track all of its citizens. It's called a birth date. I never said they weren't human tissue, I said they weren't human beings yet. There's a big difference.



I swear, this mindset of "the government is all" is like a sickness with you leftists.

A birth date does not convey life or humanity, you weirdo.  Nor does "the government does this" constitute science, fact, or reality.

And if you really want to go into the biology with your little "human tissue, but not human beings" schtick, we can do that.  I don't think you have the education to try to make the case that fetuses are "tissue" but not organisms, but far be it from me to deny you the freedom to expose your ignorance publicly.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I am speaking for myself, I realize I can't speak for anyone else but me. First you people were saying certain abortion shouldn't be allowed, then you were saying if there's a fetal heartbeat that's a human being there, now some of you were saying at the moment of conception there are human being, some of you want to ban all abortions despite all the consequences, make up your f****** minds already.


Our minds are made up on one thing primarily.  That using abortion as birth control is barbarism.  

Your side SAYs OBEY me.  We can kill a baby after birth because we changed our minds.

Here in Alabama you do that we are going to throw your sorry ass in jail and throw away the key.


----------



## beagle9

postman said:


> Actually Roe V Wade was based on the Loving case, which made interracial marriage legal.
> *Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) *
> If Roe was wrongfully decided (no constitutional basis) then working backwards, that would also overthrow and allow a ban on  interracial marriage, and working forward, a ban on gay marriage.
> *Obergefell v. Hodges Citation. 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015)*


No it wouldn't, because people are smarter than this. Nothing but abortion is affected in the reversal, because abortion in the ways that it has been used and interpreted was a huge mistake looking back now. Interracial marriages and such was not a mistake in the eyes of the people, so the good legislation will always be separated from the bad in a proper allowed democracy or republic that is being run properly. Watching the ill effects of bad legislation is always what a nation must do in order to correct if necessary. To ignore such things to a nation's demise is folly.

Overturning R-v-W doesn't involve anything but abortion. Not allowing the people to vote on the issues has been another injustice in this country. Turning the issue over to the state's was the right thing to do.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Roe V Wade stated that it avoided when life begins and stated legislstures decide that down the road.  Kicked the can.  It then used medical journals of the time to define VIABILITY.  Which is why half the country have abortion laws after the viability mark.
> 
> Now many states didnt remove abortion laws after the ruling.  Since they are still on the books they become Trigger Laws if Roe v Wade is completely overturned.
> 
> However, SCOTUS may set the ruling to 15 weeks via Miss. Law and kick the can again.
> 
> SCOTUS is telling legislature to deal with it.


And that is unfortunate. They don't have the gall to say it's not a legal issue it's a medical issue.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I am speaking for myself, I realize I can't speak for anyone else but me. First you people were saying certain abortion shouldn't be allowed, then you were saying if there's a fetal heartbeat that's a human being there, now some of you were saying at the moment of conception there are human being, some of you want to ban all abortions despite all the consequences, make up your f****** minds already.


I realize you’re getting angry because we refuse to agree with you, but really….be an adult. No need for the language.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> And that is unfortunate. They don't have the gall to say it's not a legal issue it's a medical issue.


Actually someone needs to challenge that to say its Murder after Viability 24 weeks if you are healthy and have an abortion anyway.

That has many laws to back it up just in the double homicide murder laws of pregnant women

Be careful who you keep pushing leftist.  You will not like what comes from Pandora.

We could do that now with SCOTUS and that would change the Law in Every State in this country.

Be satisfied with a return to States decide before we push farther.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> Garbage.  Because half the country passed laws on the basis of viability under the Roe devision.  Blue states just didnt pass any abortion laws while red states did.
> 
> You just cant handle us saying NO to you.


Americans have supported the established national law of the past half-century that respects women, and still do according to all current surveys.

The authoritarians' arrogation of liberty is not popular.


----------



## iceberg

basquebromance said:


> So what we’ve learned from the Roe decision is the next time a scotus seat comes up, it’s ok for the nominee to lie about what they’ll protect, including your gun rights, MAGAs.


and Biden has shown us its 9k to 8g ore court orders. 

wheee


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> Americans have supported the established national law of the past half-century that respects women, and still do according to all current surveys.
> 
> The authoritarians' arrogation of liberty is not popular.


A law that distepected the life of an unborn child.  There ...fixed it for you.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> I realize you’re getting angry because we refuse to agree with you, but really….be an adult. No need for the language.


Distraught is it better word, having to deal with all you children and the precarious situation you have thrust upon yourselves. Anger is something that ignorant people do. It is emotion based.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Distraught is it better word, having to deal with all you children and the precarious situation you have thrust upon yourselves. Anger is something that ignorant people do. It is emotion based.


Did you make up your mind yet ?


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Distraught is it better word, having to deal with all you children and the precarious situation you have thrust upon yourselves. Anger is something that ignorant people do. It is emotion based.


DAD  is that you DAD.

Leftist lunatics preaching morality from a mountain of dead babies they call waste.

You are Twisted


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I am speaking for myself, I realize I can't speak for anyone else but me. First you people were saying certain abortion shouldn't be allowed, then you were saying if there's a fetal heartbeat that's a human being there, now some of you were saying at the moment of conception there are human being, some of you want to ban all abortions despite all the consequences, make up your f****** minds already.



Does it ever bother you when you have to ignore the point being made to argue something else entirely?  I mean, topic-hopping would make me feel like a dishonest coward, but you do you.

You people put a lot of effort into remaining ignorant of your opposition.  I personally wouldn't want to make an argument that depends on knowing as little as possible about what I'm addressing, but again, you do you.  Case in point, the argument you think you made about, "Your arguments are contradictory" depends entirely on being willfully ignorant of who pro-lifers are and what we believe and stand for.

It's called "incrementalism", honey.  It's a technique the left has used for as long as I can remember, but somehow becomes despicable when pro-lifers do it, presumably because we're not making the case the left doesn't share the way the left thinks we should.  I'm not entirely sure why our arguments are beholden to being and doing what our opponents decide we should.

There's nothing inconsistent about saying, "We would prefer all abortions be stopped, but we will take whatever stopped abortions we can get."  Only a fool refuses to win a battle because ultimate victory in the war is currently out of reach.

There is also nothing inconsistent about recognizing the need to educate the public about the reality of abortion after decades of leftist obscuring of the facts.  It's not our fault that there are so many people out there who are ignorant of the fact that the fetus is more than "a blob of cells"; that's on you and your comrades.

By the way, we aren't "now saying" that life begins at conception.  We've been saying it all along.  That's 100% been our central position from the start.  The fact that you only just noticed it is a reflection of how determinedly you've avoided listening to anything but your talking points.  Personally, I wouldn't want to reveal to the world that I've been oblivious to my opponents' central position this whole time, but . . . you do you.


----------



## eagle1462010

Cecilie1200 said:


> Does it ever bother you when you have to ignore the point being made to argue something else entirely?  I mean, topic-hopping would make me feel like a dishonest coward, but you do you.
> 
> You people put a lot of effort into remaining ignorant of your opposition.  I personally wouldn't want to make an argument that depends on knowing as little as possible about what I'm addressing, but again, you do you.  Case in point, the argument you think you made about, "Your arguments are contradictory" depends entirely on being willfully ignorant of who pro-lifers are and what we believe and stand for.
> 
> It's called "incrementalism", honey.  It's a technique the left has used for as long as I can remember, but somehow becomes despicable when pro-lifers do it, presumably because we're not making the case the left doesn't share the way the left thinks we should.  I'm not entirely sure why our arguments are beholden to being and doing what our opponents decide we should.
> 
> There's nothing inconsistent about saying, "We would prefer all abortions be stopped, but we will take whatever stopped abortions we can get."  Only a fool refuses to win a battle because ultimate victory in the war is currently out of reach.
> 
> There is also nothing inconsistent about recognizing the need to educate the public about the reality of abortion after decades of leftist obscuring of the facts.  It's not our fault that there are so many people out there who are ignorant of the fact that the fetus is more than "a blob of cells"; that's on you and your comrades.
> 
> By the way, we aren't "now saying" that life begins at conception.  We've been saying it all along.  That's 100% been our central position from the start.  The fact that you only just noticed it is a reflection of how determinedly you've avoided listening to anything but your talking points.  Personally, I wouldn't want to reveal to the world that I've been oblivious to my opponents' central position this whole time, but . . . you do you.


Death by a thousand paper cuts is what I've always called it.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> DAD  is that you DAD.
> 
> Leftist lunatics preaching morality from a mountain of dead babies they call waste.
> 
> You are Twisted


What you call waste ( and only the far right wing nuts are doing so ) is valuable material in research. Most of it is donated. This is appropriate, nothing in life is wasted, everything serves a purpose.


----------



## miketx

schmidlap said:


> That's a lie. The freedom women have enjoyed in New York for the past half century is the same as women have enjoyed in the other 49
> states.
> 
> Authoritarian statists seizing control and denying women that freedom is likely to occur only in retrogressive states, and women in those repressive jurisdictions will look to the advanced states to retain the control of their bodies that the statists are consigning to their politicians.


Child murdering butcher.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Does it ever bother you when you have to ignore the point being made to argue something else entirely?  I mean, topic-hopping would make me feel like a dishonest coward, but you do you.
> 
> You people put a lot of effort into remaining ignorant of your opposition.  I personally wouldn't want to make an argument that depends on knowing as little as possible about what I'm addressing, but again, you do you.  Case in point, the argument you think you made about, "Your arguments are contradictory" depends entirely on being willfully ignorant of who pro-lifers are and what we believe and stand for.
> 
> It's called "incrementalism", honey.  It's a technique the left has used for as long as I can remember, but somehow becomes despicable when pro-lifers do it, presumably because we're not making the case the left doesn't share the way the left thinks we should.  I'm not entirely sure why our arguments are beholden to being and doing what our opponents decide we should.
> 
> There's nothing inconsistent about saying, "We would prefer all abortions be stopped, but we will take whatever stopped abortions we can get."  Only a fool refuses to win a battle because ultimate victory in the war is currently out of reach.
> 
> There is also nothing inconsistent about recognizing the need to educate the public about the reality of abortion after decades of leftist obscuring of the facts.  It's not our fault that there are so many people out there who are ignorant of the fact that the fetus is more than "a blob of cells"; that's on you and your comrades.
> 
> By the way, we aren't "now saying" that life begins at conception.  We've been saying it all along.  That's 100% been our central position from the start.  The fact that you only just noticed it is a reflection of how determinedly you've avoided listening to anything but your talking points.  Personally, I wouldn't want to reveal to the world that I've been oblivious to my opponents' central position this whole time, but . . . you do you.


Just as you're not listening to me, I scan your replies to see if it's anything Worthy of response to. It's all nothing that I haven't heard before. It defies logic.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> What you call waste ( and only the far right wing nuts are doing so ) is valuable material in research. Most of it is donated. This is appropriate, nothing in life is wasted, everything serves a purpose.


Now you use the tactic out of context.  Another shallow leftist tactic.  

Now you moved the goal post to We Kill them for Science.

Predictable


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> There are no pro-abortion people. It's all about a woman's right to choose when and if to bring children into this world. Life isn't always black and white, this is a gray area. Abortion is an always will be unnecessary evil. A tool of last resort.



If your arguments are true, why is abortion an "evil"?  You keep telling us that abortion is just "a medical issue", but I don't know anyone who thinks of medical procedures as an "evil".  Nuisance, maybe, but not an "evil".

And no, abortion is not a "last resort" for far too many women.  As a woman, and a woman who has moreover actually worked in the field of healthcare for decades, I can unequivocally state that abortion is not the desperate, last-ditch effort for many women that you believe from the comfort of your far-removed couch and political theorizing.  For many women, it's a license to make bad and careless decisions they wouldn't otherwise have made, and it's a convenience.  I know; I've met them and talking to them.  Have you?  Women who have or consider abortion are a concrete, physical reality to me, with faces. Lots of them, not just one or two. How about you?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> What you call waste ( and only the far right wing nuts are doing so ) is valuable material in research. Most of it is donated. This is appropriate, nothing in life is wasted, everything serves a purpose.



WE don't call them "waste".  Pro-aborts do.  And then they get their panties in a wad and squawk when we notice it, like you just did.

I'm not sure how you find comfort in making the Mengele argument, but far be it from me to keep you from doing so.  Unlike leftists, I LIKE hearing my opponents say what they think where everyone can hear it.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Now you use the tactic out of context.  Another shallow leftist tactic.
> 
> Now you moved the goal post to We Kill them for Science.
> 
> Predictable


LOL, you're not listening at all. Bottom line is there's only one reason to bring a child into this world and that's because you love them and you want them. There are a thousand different reasons not to bring a child into this world. I rest my case. It's a gorgeous day, I don't have to work this weekend and I'm not going to waste my day on here arguing with people that don't have any common sense. After all I got tomatoes to plant. Thank GOD the winter is finally over.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> LOL, you're not listening at all. Bottom line is there's only one reason to bring a child into this world and that's because you love them and you want them. There are a thousand different reasons not to bring a child into this world. I rest my case. It's a gorgeous day, I don't have to work this weekend and I'm not going to waste my day on here arguing with people that don't have any common sense. After all I got tomatoes to plant. Thank GOD the winter is finally over.


Then go plant.  You Gain of Function nothing here.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Just as you're not listening to me, I scan your replies to see if it's anything Worthy of response to. It's all nothing that I haven't heard before. It defies logic.



Sweetie, I listen to everything you say.  I've listened to the same rote arguments for the last 50 years.  You just don't think they're "worthy of response" because I'm not giving the response you want.  And you're certain I'm not listening because I'm daring to continue to disagree even after you've presented your "wisdom".

It doesn't "defy logic".  It defies YOUR "logic", because it isn't logic at all.


----------



## postman

Jets said:


> What about Griswold v Conn 1965?


Alito's attack on Roe is the same basis to attack Griswold.  There are probably dozens of cases based on Roe, that Alito's draft would greenlight overturning.  Although he only specifically overturned Roe and Casey

Roe V Wade 1973
Planned parenthood V Casey


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> If your arguments are true, why is abortion an "evil"?  You keep telling us that abortion is just "a medical issue", but I don't know anyone who thinks of medical procedures as an "evil".  Nuisance, maybe, but not an "evil".
> 
> And no, abortion is not a "last resort" for far too many women.  As a woman, and a woman who has moreover actually worked in the field of healthcare for decades, I can unequivocally state that abortion is not the desperate, last-ditch effort for many women that you believe from the comfort of your far-removed couch and political theorizing.  For many women, it's a license to make bad and careless decisions they wouldn't otherwise have made, and it's a convenience.  I know; I've met them and talking to them.  Have you?  Women who have or consider abortion are a concrete, physical reality to me, with faces. Lots of them, not just one or two. How about you?


Again you haven't been listening one last time here did I ever say I liked abortion that I would do it if there was any other choice the answer is no. I am here solely as the voice of women who want to have a choice in the matter. I think everybody deserves choice in this world, in your religion if you are a religious nut like half of these people are. Isn't choice granted by your tribal god, and you want to limit people's choices. That sounds kind of hypocritical. Like I said those tomatoes aren't going to plant themselves I'm out of here. Try to have a good day, I plan on it.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sweetie, I listen to everything you say.  I've listened to the same rote arguments for the last 50 years.  You just don't think they're "worthy of response" because I'm not giving the response you want.  And you're certain I'm not listening because I'm daring to continue to disagree even after you've presented your "wisdom".
> 
> It doesn't "defy logic".  It defies YOUR "logic", because it isn't logic at all.


If you're logic where the rule, this world will be already dead. This planet wasn't designed for this many humans. We are in the process of killing off all the other species on the planet because of our own lack of will to control our sexual urges.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> PS : I don't hate the United States. Your actions prove that you do. I like the idea that the United States is a free Nation based on science not hatred and fear, shame and guilt, ignorance and misinformation; all the things you people are promoting here. Some of you are even doing this in the name of your god. That is just plain disgusting.



No, hon, you hate the American ideal.  Whatever love you have for the United States is predicated on the nation you'd like to make it into, not the nation it was designed to be.  This is borne out by your current argument of, "If you don't agree with me, that means you hate the United States.  If you don't define freedom as letting specific people do the specific thing I want done and silencing anyone who disagrees with me, you hate the United States.  How DARE you not accept my definition of everything?  That's Unamerican!"

I can live with being "disgusting" to someone arguing on behalf of killing babies.  Waste as much breath as you like on trying to shame me for not being like you.


----------



## schmidlap

miketx said:


> Child murdering butcher.


Your rage against most Americans who oppose authoritarians seizing control of wombs is noted.

Rather than the progress that has been made in advanced, democratic nations, you may wish to look to the draconian reproductive laws of Iran, Egypt, Honduras, and El Salvador to follow your bliss.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> Your rage against most Americans who oppose authoritarians seizing control of wombs is noted.
> 
> Rather than the progress that has been made in advanced, democratic nations, you may wish to look to the draconian reproductive laws of Iran, Egypt, Honduras, and El Salvador to follow your bliss.


Saying the bot message over and over again here doesnt work.  Try MsDNC bot


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> It's not about abortion. It's about control for you people. More of your people support the death penalty for criminals. How can you call yourself for life just to be pro control wake up already and many think they're doing this in the name of god and their religious beliefs. That is totally disgusting to me.



Here we go again.  "This is what I've decided that you believe, now defend the position I've set for you!"

You're right.  I do support the death penalty for heinous criminals.  I don't need to lie to myself about that or anything else, because unlike you, I know what my REAL position is.  I'm not beholden to what your tyrannical ass tells me I believe.

The more you try to make this debate into you arguing against what you want me to have said to avoid addressing what I actually say - to avoid, if possible, ever letting me say it at all - the more obvious your deliberate ignorance becomes.

Just so you know, trying to control both sides of a debate is an admission of defeat.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> A law that distepected the life of an unborn child.  There ...fixed it for you.


Fantasies that a mindless, microscopic amalgam of cells is a person that licenses authoritarians seizing control of wombs is not supported by most decent Americans, nor by medical science.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Yeah this is supposed to be a monolith of freedom not fascism and your movement is fascist. No doubt about it.



Do your ears ever hurt from having your fingers jammed in them so deeply?


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> Fantasies that a mindless, microscopic amalgam of cells is a person that licenses authoritarians seizing control of wombs is not supported by most decent Americans.


Roe doesnt do that bot  You still get to be a barnarian.  Just not in my state


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, hon, you hate the American ideal.  Whatever love you have for the United States is predicated on the nation you'd like to make it into, not the nation it was designed to be.  This is borne out by your current argument of, "If you don't agree with me, that means you hate the United States.  If you don't define freedom as letting specific people do the specific thing I want done and silencing anyone who disagrees with me, you hate the United States.  How DARE you not accept my definition of everything?  That's Unamerican!"
> 
> I can live with being "disgusting" to someone arguing on behalf of killing babies.  Waste as much breath as you like on trying to shame me for not being like you.


You made your choice. Do you feel ashamed of it ? Why can't you let other women you don't know or even care about make their own choices like you did it. I don't feel ashamed about my position. It doesn't come out of hatred towards anyone. I've seen poster after poster on here making assumptions about the people who get abortions and about abortions themselves. They don't know what they're talking about. I live in a small town, the only woman in this town that I know of who's had an abortion is marriage and his four children already. I did not know about the abortion until one night when your abortion issues came up on TV she says oh my God they're going to torment people all over again. That is hatred tearing apart our society for no good reason. End of story I'm not going to argue with you you think you're right despite all the consequences your Position is going to create. Good luck with that you're going to need it.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> Roe doesnt do that bot  You still get to be a barnarian.  Just not in my state


Your treating pregnant Americans like your "bots" because you need to arrogate their liberty under established law to authoritarian politicians doesn't make sense.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> Your treating pregnant Americans like your "bots" because you need to arrogate their liberty under established law to authoritarian politicians doesn't make sense.


Are you pregnant?  bot


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Keep dreaming up more horror stories. That's all you guys seem to be good at. This is why medical information should be kept private at all times. You don't know how to deal with The facts of Life.



Keep denying reality.  Is it comforting to close your eyes and say, "I didn't see that, because I want to believe it didn't happen"?

Here's a fact of life YOU aren't dealing with.  Remember this story?









						An anti-abortion group claims it took 115 fetuses from a medical waste truck
					

Washington, D.C., police originally said it found five fetal remains in one of the group member's apartments. Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising now says there were 115 fetuses in total.




					www.npr.org
				




Note the headline:  "Medical waste truck".

Fourth paragraph:  "The two women saw the medical waste truck, from Curtis Bay Medical Waste Services, outside Washington Surgi-Clinic, which performs medical procedures such as abortions."  Once again, in the name of the company that picks up from that clinic.

What is it you think abortion doctors do with the material they remove from the woman's uterus?


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> Are you pregnant?  bot


The personal liberty that women in America have enjoyed for half-a-century with the ongoing support of most Americans should not be summarily snatched away by authoritarians and arrogated by the state, even if the maximal statists need to pretend they are only _"bots."_


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> The personal liberty that women in America have enjoyed for half-a-century with the ongoing support of most Americans should not be summarily snatched away be authoritarians and arrogated by the state, even if the maximal statists pretend they are only _"bots."_


I called you a bot


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Again you haven't been listening one last time here did I ever say I liked abortion that I would do it if there was any other choice the answer is no. I am here solely as the voice of women who want to have a choice in the matter. I think everybody deserves choice in this world, in your religion if you are a religious nut like half of these people are. Isn't choice granted by your tribal god, and you want to limit people's choices. That sounds kind of hypocritical. Like I said those tomatoes aren't going to plant themselves I'm out of here. Try to have a good day, I plan on it.



Oh, I've been listening.  I've been listening to what you claim your position is, and I've been listening to the arguments you make that contradict your proclaimed position.  And I've pointed out how contradictory your own words are, and you've carefully avoided acknowledging it.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why it is you "dislike" abortion.

Do I need to point out again the hilarious irony of you arguing against a woman to be "the voice of women"?  Or the one in saying you're "arguing for choice" by arguing against the people choosing for themselves?  You're welcome to argue that the only "choice" you agree with are the very specific choices you want people to have, but at least be honest that your position is that all other choices shouldn't be allowed.

I'm ignoring the part where you once again declared what my position was based on what you really WISH it was, because it fits the arguments you want to make without requiring you to think before you parrot.


----------



## beagle9

Cecilie1200 said:


> Does it ever bother you when you have to ignore the point being made to argue something else entirely?  I mean, topic-hopping would make me feel like a dishonest coward, but you do you.
> 
> You people put a lot of effort into remaining ignorant of your opposition.  I personally wouldn't want to make an argument that depends on knowing as little as possible about what I'm addressing, but again, you do you.  Case in point, the argument you think you made about, "Your arguments are contradictory" depends entirely on being willfully ignorant of who pro-lifers are and what we believe and stand for.
> 
> It's called "incrementalism", honey.  It's a technique the left has used for as long as I can remember, but somehow becomes despicable when pro-lifers do it, presumably because we're not making the case the left doesn't share the way the left thinks we should.  I'm not entirely sure why our arguments are beholden to being and doing what our opponents decide we should.
> 
> There's nothing inconsistent about saying, "We would prefer all abortions be stopped, but we will take whatever stopped abortions we can get."  Only a fool refuses to win a battle because ultimate victory in the war is currently out of reach.
> 
> There is also nothing inconsistent about recognizing the need to educate the public about the reality of abortion after decades of leftist obscuring of the facts.  It's not our fault that there are so many people out there who are ignorant of the fact that the fetus is more than "a blob of cells"; that's on you and your comrades.
> 
> By the way, we aren't "now saying" that life begins at conception.  We've been saying it all along.  That's 100% been our central position from the start.  The fact that you only just noticed it is a reflection of how determinedly you've avoided listening to anything but your talking points.  Personally, I wouldn't want to reveal to the world that I've been oblivious to my opponents' central position this whole time, but . . . you do you.


Funny how when a woman learns she is pregnant, there is a huge celebration that a human being is now forming within her body, and she tells her husband and family the news with the biggest overwhelming smile and humbleness shown upon her face because the miracle of life has now begun within her body.  That is the normal reaction of pregnancy, instead of ohhh no I need to stop this after knowing full well what it took to get it started. If don't want life to begin as a result of sex, then smart people know what to do in order to prevent that from happening. Everything else is excuse making to cover up being stupid and compulsive in life. Stop being stupid and compulsive, and use contraception is my opinion. I mean we are humans not animal's people.

Not living an educated life on these things or not being taught such things is a leftist problem going on in society, because the left wants total freedom to do anything regardless of the consequences, and so it works to hide the consequences that come with being compulsive, irrational and irresponsible in life. This needs to change starting yesterday. As it were in life concerning so many other issues throughout time, education, education, education is what matters, but it must be the proper education with regulations or laws to go along with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> If you're logic where the rule, this world will be already dead. This planet wasn't designed for this many humans. We are in the process of killing off all the other species on the planet because of our own lack of will to control our sexual urges.



Careful, Mr. Logical.  Your emotion is making your posts incoherent.

If you really believe that Malthusian garbage about, "We have to kill people to prevent overpopulation", why are YOU still here?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You made your choice. Do you feel ashamed of it ? Why can't you let other women you don't know or even care about make their own choices like you did it. I don't feel ashamed about my position. It doesn't come out of hatred towards anyone. I've seen poster after poster on here making assumptions about the people who get abortions and about abortions themselves. They don't know what they're talking about. I live in a small town, the only woman in this town that I know of who's had an abortion is marriage and his four children already. I did not know about the abortion until one night when your abortion issues came up on TV she says oh my God they're going to torment people all over again. That is hatred tearing apart our society for no good reason. End of story I'm not going to argue with you you think you're right despite all the consequences your Position is going to create. Good luck with that you're going to need it.



Excuse me, I made no choices whatsoever about killing my children, because I do not and never have recognized that there IS a choice.  I find your projecting onto me your personal perceptions onto me to be incredibly offensive.  Your question presupposes an acceptance of your worldview, which is part and parcel with exactly what I've said about you:  You're deliberately ignorant of any viewpoint other than your own, and you feel that your viewpoint is so superior that everyone else should be forced to live by it.

I don't recall having ever suggested that you hated anyone, nor do I hear you claiming that I did.  What I do hear is you trying to make me responsible for other people's words, because you'd rather argue against them than address MY words.  I have no obligation to defend anyone else's argument, and I certainly have no obligation to dignify your "This is the debate I wish we were having".

What did I say?  "Unlike you, I have met and talked to lots of women who've had and/or considered abortion."  And here you are, confirming that and thinking that's an affirmative argument for your position.  

Whenever you have something to say about MY arguments to me, you will let me know, won't you?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Your ignorance is compounded by your arrogance. You're so pretentious it isn't funny, it's sad.



I just heard, "I can't refute this, so I'll just mock it and hope no one notices."


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> Yup. I had a condition and wanted a second opinion from a very highly rated hospital that specialized in it. It was only two hours away, but I took an overnight in a hotel in case it would be difficult to drive back in the same day. And I paid for it with my own money - the exam, the drive, the hotel, the meals out. You can bet PP will be covering the costs for all the poor women too irresponsible to use birth control fo make a similar trip.



And apparently a lot of big corporations who feel they REALLY need to get political on this.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> The problem is that for nearly 50 years, women have become dependent on abortion as a birth control failsafe.



This meme has become a popular argument lately, and for the life of me, I don't see how anyone finds this convincing.









						'I’m entering my celibacy era': TikToker says hookup culture will be ruined if Roe v. Wade gets overturned, sparking debate
					

Following a leak of a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, a woman says that hookup culture will be ruined without abortion access.




					www.dailydot.com
				




The first time I saw this, my response is, "Why are you having mediocre sex with a drunk rando who might get you pregnant NOW?!"  My second response was, "So women are going to start being choosier about who they fuck around with and make decisions as though their lives, their bodies, and their sexual favors have some actual value.  And men are going to have to actually start being worthy of a woman's sexual favors instead of being Cheeto-munching slackers on their moms' couches.  And the downside to this is what?"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> And that is unfortunate. They don't have the gall to say it's not a legal issue it's a medical issue.



As if the two are completely separate.  Because everyone knows that healthcare has no regulations on it.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> I called you a bot


You can call folks whatever you need to if you cannot engage in a substantive discussion, of course.

I respect a woman's right and superior knowledge of her personal circumstances to control her womb, in consultation with her loved ones and medical and spiritual advisers whom she trusts.

Authoritarian statists want her liberty snatched away and arrogated to anonymous politicians and bureaucrats with no familiarity with her whatever.

Most Americans support the personal freedom option.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Keep denying reality.  Is it comforting to close your eyes and say, "I didn't see that, because I want to believe it didn't happen"?
> 
> Here's a fact of life YOU aren't dealing with.  Remember this story?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An anti-abortion group claims it took 115 fetuses from a medical waste truck
> 
> 
> Washington, D.C., police originally said it found five fetal remains in one of the group member's apartments. Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising now says there were 115 fetuses in total.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the headline:  "Medical waste truck".
> 
> Fourth paragraph:  "The two women saw the medical waste truck, from Curtis Bay Medical Waste Services, outside Washington Surgi-Clinic, which performs medical procedures such as abortions."  Once again, in the name of the company that picks up from that clinic.
> 
> What is it you think abortion doctors do with the material they remove from the woman's uterus?


We used to incinerate all the remains, now some of it is donated to research and development that helps everyone. I suppose it's against the law to incinerate anymore so it has to be hauled away by some specialty firms as is with used needles and batteries. Implying there's something sinister about all this simply isn't true.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Excuse me, I made no choices whatsoever about killing my children, because I do not and never have recognized that there IS a choice.  I find your projecting onto me your personal perceptions onto me to be incredibly offensive.  Your question presupposes an acceptance of your worldview, which is part and parcel with exactly what I've said about you:  You're deliberately ignorant of any viewpoint other than your own, and you feel that your viewpoint is so superior that everyone else should be forced to live by it.
> 
> I don't recall having ever suggested that you hated anyone, nor do I hear you claiming that I did.  What I do hear is you trying to make me responsible for other people's words, because you'd rather argue against them than address MY words.  I have no obligation to defend anyone else's argument, and I certainly have no obligation to dignify your "This is the debate I wish we were having".
> 
> What did I say?  "Unlike you, I have met and talked to lots of women who've had and/or considered abortion."  And here you are, confirming that and thinking that's an affirmative argument for your position.
> 
> Whenever you have something to say about MY arguments to me, you will let me know, won't you?


You were lucky you still have the choice to bring children into this world that's what I was saying. If you hand over a woman's reproductive Rights to the state in the future when the world is overpopulated and finally people start dealing with it the right to have children will be very much restricted. In the state will say in the state and the courts will say well we have the right to control it you gave us that right. Don't you see you're not looking at the bigger picture. Plus if the far right gets away with this who knows what else what other group they're going to Target next.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> We used to incinerate all the remains, now some of it is donated to research and development that helps everyone. I suppose it's against the law to incinerate anymore so it has to be hauled away by some specialty firms as is with used needles and batteries. Implying there's something sinister about all this simply isn't true.


Now I can't even burn my yard waste in my town. Go figure.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> We used to incinerate all the remains, now some of it is donated to research and development that helps everyone. I suppose it's against the law to incinerate anymore so it has to be hauled away by some specialty firms as is with used needles and batteries. Implying there's something sinister about all this simply isn't true.



Hmmm.  Incinerate.  You mean, like medical waste?

Over 600,000 abortions are performed in the United States every year, according to the CDC.  Not all, or even most, of those are usable for medical research.  In fact, even you admit that only "some" is donated to research and development.  What happens to the rest?

Hauled away to where?  What happens to it when it gets there?  Do you know?  Do you care enough to know, or are you happier comforting yourself with, "I'm sure it's all okay"?

The truth is, how those remains are treated depends on which state you're in.  Some states, typically those which are more pro-life, have laws requiring cremation and burial.  Many states have little to no regulation, and those regulations that do exist mandate that the remains be treated as "pathological waste", as it's phrased in the California statutes.  That would include incineration.  New Mexico law requires either incineration or burial, quite specifically.  Texas law specifies a choice of disposal options:  incineration, grinding up the remains to discharge into a sewage system, burial, stem disinfection followed by burial, moist disinfection followed by depositing in a landfill, chlorine disinfection and maceration followed by depositing in a landfill, or any process that renders the remains unrecognizable followed by depositing in a landfill.

Tell me again that pro-aborts don't call fetal remains "medical waste", because it's written in plain English in multiple state laws.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hmmm.  Incinerate.  You mean, like medical waste?
> 
> Over 600,000 abortions are performed in the United States every year, according to the CDC.  Not all, or even most, of those are usable for medical research.  In fact, even you admit that only "some" is donated to research and development.  What happens to the rest?
> 
> Hauled away to where?  What happens to it when it gets there?  Do you know?  Do you care enough to know, or are you happier comforting yourself with, "I'm sure it's all okay"?
> 
> The truth is, how those remains are treated depends on which state you're in.  Some states, typically those which are more pro-life, have laws requiring cremation and burial.  Many states have little to no regulation, and those regulations that do exist mandate that the remains be treated as "pathological waste", as it's phrased in the California statutes.  That would include incineration.  New Mexico law requires either incineration or burial, quite specifically.  Texas law specifies a choice of disposal options:  incineration, grinding up the remains to discharge into a sewage system, burial, stem disinfection followed by burial, moist disinfection followed by depositing in a landfill, chlorine disinfection and maceration followed by depositing in a landfill, or any process that renders the remains unrecognizable followed by depositing in a landfill.
> 
> Tell me again that pro-aborts don't call fetal remains "medical waste", because it's written in plain English in multiple state laws.


You sound judgmental again. Incinerate as in burn. We did not know the materials were useful and give hope to people with many different illnesses.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You were lucky you still have the choice to bring children into this world that's what I was saying. If you hand over a woman's reproductive Rights to the state in the future when the world is overpopulated and finally people start dealing with it the right to have children will be very much restricted. In the state will say in the state and the courts will say well we have the right to control it you gave us that right. Don't you see you're not looking at the bigger picture. Plus if the far right gets away with this who knows what else what other group they're going to Target next.



You continue to think that the reason I disagree with your viewpoint is just because I don't understand how "brilliant and moral" it is, and if you just patiently and condescendingly explain to me one more time how you know what's best for me better than I do, THIS time I'll accept it.

I can't even tell you how offensive and insulting it is for you to lecture me about what I want, what I need, and what I'm "lucky" to have because you think I'm too stupid to know what's best on my own.

I'm "lucky to have the choice to bring children into the world"?  Who the hell is arguing to prevent women from getting pregnant?  Do you actually see, "Women should be able to kill their unborn babies if they don't want them" as a high-minded defense of women getting pregnant and having children?  Weren't you the one deriding other people with "dream up more horror stories" just a minute ago?  And now your argument has devolved to, "Look at all the apocalyptic dystopias I can imagine"?

In the unlikely and hallucinatory event that the state of Arizona decides, for some currently-unknown reason, to start mandating who has permission to get pregnant, then the people of Arizona will deal with that at that time.  Thank you for your "kind" offer of killing babies for convenience now to prevent the insane daydreaming of "maybe later", but I'll pass.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Now I can't even burn my yard waste in my town. Go figure.



Which has little or nothing to do with what licensed medical waste disposal companies can or can't do.  Or didn't you know that, either?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You sound judgmental again. Incinerate as in burn. We did not know the materials were useful and give hope to people with many different illnesses.



You sound like you're dodging.  Again.  What difference do you imagine your "helpful" definition of incinerate - as though I might not know what it means - is going to make?  And please stop talking like incineration is something that used to happen but doesn't now, while carefully ignoring the bulk of the post, which makes clear that incineration still takes place and is legislatively mandated right at this moment.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> You continue to think that the reason I disagree with your viewpoint is just because I don't understand how "brilliant and moral" it is, and if you just patiently and condescendingly explain to me one more time how you know what's best for me better than I do, THIS time I'll accept it.
> 
> I can't even tell you how offensive and insulting it is for you to lecture me about what I want, what I need, and what I'm "lucky" to have because you think I'm too stupid to know what's best on my own.
> 
> I'm "lucky to have the choice to bring children into the world"?  Who the hell is arguing to prevent women from getting pregnant?  Do you actually see, "Women should be able to kill their unborn babies if they don't want them" as a high-minded defense of women getting pregnant and having children?  Weren't you the one deriding other people with "dream up more horror stories" just a minute ago?  And now your argument has devolved to, "Look at all the apocalyptic dystopias I can imagine"?
> 
> In the unlikely and hallucinatory event that the state of Arizona decides, for some currently-unknown reason, to start mandating who has permission to get pregnant, then the people of Arizona will deal with that at that time.  Thank you for your "kind" offer of killing babies for convenience now to prevent the insane daydreaming of "maybe later", but I'll pass.


I do not know what's best for you only you can be the judge of that. I just think every woman should have that choice. Is that so hard to comprehend ? I think not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I do not know what's best for you only you can be the judge of that. I just think every woman should have that choice. Is that so hard to comprehend ? I think not.



You really don't even hear yourself, do you?  The know-it-all condescension?  Well, you're a man, so I wouldn't expect you to.  
We're not talking about a ban on abortion, regardless of what you and your comrades want to pretend.  We're talking about both sides of the argument making their case and convincing people to agree with them, without either side silencing all debate.  Women don't require a special, untouchable, inviolable right that cannot ever be argued or disputed.  We are as capable of making an argument defending what we want as men are.

Do I think killing the unborn is as unacceptable a "choice" as killing any other human would be?  Yes.  But that's not what's actually at stake with _Roe_.  All that's really at stake is whether or not the debate even happens.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> You really don't even hear yourself, do you?  The know-it-all condescension?  Well, you're a man, so I wouldn't expect you to.
> We're not talking about a ban on abortion, regardless of what you and your comrades want to pretend.  We're talking about both sides of the argument making their case and convincing people to agree with them, without either side silencing all debate.  Women don't require a special, untouchable, inviolable right that cannot ever be argued or disputed.  We are as capable of making an argument defending what we want as men are.
> 
> Do I think killing the unborn is as unacceptable a "choice" as killing any other human would be?  Yes.  But that's not what's actually at stake with _Roe_.  All that's really at stake is whether or not the debate even happens.


I'm sorry you're being ridiculous you made your choice live with it. Other women deserve the same right of choice.


----------



## Delldude

Lakhota said:


> It's going to be a long hot summer for the Republican Taliban!


Yeah especially since the goal is to upend the Nov midterms.
Only issue I see is a majority of voters supportive of abortion are democrats who wouldn't be voting for republicans anyway.Polling shows this isn't the number one issue you want to try and make it be.

You people have any idea why the left has been ginning you all up over this for quite some time now?

Youevr stop and think, Schumer, Pelosi and the rest of the bunch are all lawyers who knew for the longest time this was a bad SCOTUS decision and would end up being overturned? 

Yall been played.

Even Ginsberg had issues with the decision.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I'm sorry you're being ridiculous you made your choice live with it. Other women deserve the same right of choice.



I just heard, "I can't refute any of this, so I'm just going to ignore it and re-assert my opinion and how noble I am."


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Careful, Mr. Logical.  Your emotion is making your posts incoherent.
> 
> If you really believe that Malthusian garbage about, "We have to kill people to prevent overpopulation", why are YOU still here?


There was nothing I could do to prevent my birth. And I don't believe in suicide, or murder.  The world definitely has a problem with overpopulation, the early signs have been there since the 20th century, I'd say we're in the middle phase at present and you don't want to get to the last stage. By that time the planet will be basically unlivable and people will be committing suicide just to escape it. It shouldn't be my concern, I'ma not going to be here much longer but I am concerned for people who will be here. There's already too much suffering in this world, most of which we bring upon ourselves. Life is too short as it is. Physical Life was never sacred ; thank GOD we are spiritual beings that are eternal. All physicsl forms die, perhaps this world is meant to die in the grander scheme of things.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> There was nothing I could do to prevent my birth. And I don't believe in suicide, or murder.  The world definitely has a problem with overpopulation, the early signs have been there since the 20th century, I'd say we're in the middle phase at present and you don't want to get to the last stage. By that time the planet will be basically unlivable and people will be committing suicide just to escape it. It shouldn't be my concern, I'ma not going to be here much longer but I am concerned for people who will be here. There's already too much suffering in this world, most of which we bring upon ourselves. Life is too short as it is. Physical Life was never sacred ; thank GOD we are spiritual beings that are eternal. All physicsl forms die, perhaps this world is meant to die in the grander scheme of things.



I didn't say anything about "preventing your birth".  I said, if you really believe that Malthusian crap about "We need fewer people to be alive", why do you continue to impose YOUR existence on our "overpopulated planet"?  What you're really telling me is, "Overpopulation isn't a problem when it comes to born people, but it is with the unborn because it's easier for me to lie to myself about them."


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> I didn't say anything about "preventing your birth".  I said, if you really believe that Malthusian crap about "We need fewer people to be alive", why do you continue to impose YOUR existence on our "overpopulated planet"?  What you're really telling me is, "Overpopulation isn't a problem when it comes to born people, but it is with the unborn because it's easier for me to lie to myself about them."


And I told you I do not believe in suicide. Besides I never had children, I never added to the problem, in fact I probably have a negative impact on this world because I planted at least a forest of trees. And my lunch break is about over I've got a lot more tomatoes to plant. My neighbors are depending on me they love my committers they're absolutely delicious. Here in the Midwest the soil is alkaline, so tomatoes are on The bland side, I add various natural elements to change my soil to acidic. Most people don't realize that acidic soil makes things sweeter. Maybe that has an implication on the abortion issue, if there were no abortions you wouldn't appreciate your children as much. Could it be that simple. Life is strange, you never know. Oh and if I have a surplus I always give extra to the food pantry in our town. Plus I recycle everything I can, I still produce about a half bag of trash each month. No system is perfect. Have a good day, try to enjoy yourself, I plan on it.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> And I told you I do not believe in suicide. Besides I never had children, I never added to the problem, in fact I probably have a negative impact on this world because I planted at least a forest of trees. And my lunch break is about over I've got a lot more tomatoes to plant. My neighbors are depending on me they love my committers they're absolutely delicious. Here in the Midwest the soil is alkaline, so tomatoes are on The bland side, I add various natural elements to change my soil to acidic. Most people don't realize that acidic soil makes things sweeter. Maybe that has an implication on the abortion issue, if there were no abortions you wouldn't appreciate your children as much. Could it be that simple. Life is strange, you never know. Oh and if I have a surplus I always give extra to the food pantry in our town. Plus I recycle everything I can, I still produce about a half bag of trash each month. No system is perfect. Have a good day, try to enjoy yourself, I plan on it.


I thought I got all the typos that this machine puts in I see I missed a few I was talking about tomatoes not committers. There's probably other air is true I don't have the time to waste proof reading everything. Seize the day.


----------



## Death Angel

Lisa558 said:


> You notice how all the pro-abortion people focus solely on the mother and neglect to mention that there is another life at stake?


Some lives have value to the Biden voter and others do not


----------



## Death Angel

Stann said:


> *We do have a federal government that takes president over states rights. *And you anti- abortion ( obviously not pro life ) people are sadly mistaken if doing this all over again is going to have different results. Abortion is a medical issue it's a matter between a woman and her doctor no one else should intervene. The travesty of justice that is occurring here is tantamount to taking women back to the 1950s, which were a nightmare for women, especially poor black women.


So much pure nonsense in your post, but for now I will only deal with the portion I bolded.

Any powers not SPECIFICALLY relegated to the federal government t BELONG TO *THE STATES*.  This is the reason Roe v Wade is even in jeopardy.   This is NOT a power of the federal government and every sane person understands this


----------



## Death Angel

Stann said:


> . And I don't believe in suicide, or murder


Yeah, you do


----------



## Stann

Death Angel said:


> Some lives have value to the Biden voter and others do not


No it's just being practical. If the woman dies, she can never have any more children. If the fetus dies, no one has died unless the mother actually wanted the child and it was loved. Otherwise all it was was a fetus. Using scientific terms helps distance the remorse some mothers feel when they're forced to do this. I think it's sickening at the so-called pro-life people, most of them are simply anti-abortion cuz they neither respect or care about the woman involved. It's just a number to them. A number they'd rather not hear about so they're trying to silence those women's voices.


----------



## Stann

Death Angel said:


> Yeah, you do


No, you do. I know better, I don't. Wake up already, are you Spirit or are you body. And please don't say both although in actuality that is the case. You have to choose and you can only choose one. Which is more important our physical lives here on Earth or are eternal spiritual lives in what you commonly call heaven.


----------



## Death Angel

I'm betting we'll find out this "leak" is every bit the LIE the Hillary/Steele document was.

Democrat/commies see the disaster coming and they need to rally the troops.

I refuse to keep participating in these abortion threads. Why should I help the DNC do their dirty work


----------



## Death Angel

Stann said:


> No, you do. I know better, I don't. Wake up already, are you Spirit or are you body. And please don't say both although in actuality that is the case. You have to choose and you can only choose one. Which is more important our physical lives here on Earth or are eternal spiritual lives in what you commonly call heaven.


Leftists always spew meaningless nonsense.

Here's THE definition of MURDER:

The intentional taking of an INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE.

You are a huge advocate for murder.  You have the spirit of murder -- but then all Biden cultists do


----------



## Stann

Death Angel said:


> I'm betting we'll find out this "leak" is every bit the LIE the Hillary/Steele document was.
> 
> Democrat/commies see the disaster coming and they need to rally the troops.
> 
> I refuse to keep participating in these abortion threads. Why should I help the DNC do their dirty work


Whoever did it is going to be subject to sanction or even disbarment if it was one of the judges. This type of action will go along with the three who perjured themselves and lied about their position on Roe versus Wade.


----------



## Orangecat

Stann said:


> There was nothing I could do to prevent my birth. And I don't believe in suicide, or murder.


Hypocritically convenient, that.


----------



## Stann

Orangecat said:


> Hypocritically convenient, that.


Unlike you I am not unhappy with my life. I've had a great life and when my time comes I'll be happy to leave. You on the other hand I don't know but I bet you you've thought about suicide since you keep bringing it up.


----------



## Orangecat

Stann said:


> I don't know


That's the only relevant part of your blather, kid.


> Unlike you I am not unhappy with my life. I've had a great life and when my time comes I'll be happy to leave. You on the other hand I don't know but I bet you you've thought about suicide since you keep bringing it up.


I keep bringing up suicide? Link it, dumbass.
And learn to use commas, too, you illiterate imbecile.


----------



## Stann

Orangecat said:


> That's the only relevant part of your blather, kid.
> Learn to use commas, you illiterate imbecile.


The machine doesn't put them in and I'm not wasting any more time talking to you that I have to. So you're the f****** universal try to have a good life everybody even you deserves wrong. No, oh my I guess you can't understand what I'm saying you can't comprehend the written word I don't think you should be on this site then.


----------



## miketx

Looks like roe v wade has been successfully aborted.


----------



## Orangecat

Stann said:


> The machine doesn't put them in and I'm not wasting any more time talking to you that I have to.


So, without the machine, you really are an illiterate imbecile.


> So you're the f****** universal try to have a good life everybody even you deserves wrong.


Coherent English, please.


> No, oh my I guess you can't understand what I'm saying you can't comprehend the written word I don't think you should be on this site then.


Truth is, you just don't think at all.


----------



## Death Angel

Like I said Stann, I'm done with these abortion threads. I won't help the DNC.  I.  see yoi in November for your bloodbath


----------



## Stann

Orangecat said:


> So, without the machine, you really are an illiterate imbecile.
> 
> Coherent English, please.
> 
> Truth is, you just don't think at all.


Truth is, you sound like a real b****. Like I said, try to have a nice day, if that's possible. Comprendo !


----------



## Orangecat

Stann said:


> Truth is, you sound like a real b****. Like I said, try to have a nice day, if that's possible. Comprendo !


Poor stann, neither intelligent nor witty.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, I've been listening.  I've been listening to what you claim your position is, and I've been listening to the arguments you make that contradict your proclaimed position.  And I've pointed out how contradictory your own words are, and you've carefully avoided acknowledging it.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to explain why it is you "dislike" abortion.
> 
> Do I need to point out again the hilarious irony of you arguing against a woman to be "the voice of women"?  Or the one in saying you're "arguing for choice" by arguing against the people choosing for themselves?  You're welcome to argue that the only "choice" you agree with are the very specific choices you want people to have, but at least be honest that your position is that all other choices shouldn't be allowed.
> 
> I'm ignoring the part where you once again declared what my position was based on what you really WISH it was, because it fits the arguments you want to make without requiring you to think before you parrot.


The arrogance of that guy, I know. There are a number of women on this thread who want Roe v Wade reversed, of which you and I are two, and that arrogant leftist (are there any kind?) calls us all sorts of names and throws insults at us while sanctimoniously claiming he’s “the voice of women.”

Hah!


----------



## Stann

Orangecat said:


> Poor stann, neither intelligent nor witty.


LOL. Thanks for the laugh. Got 25 tomato plants planted, was taking a break. They're going back out to plant the other 25.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, I've been listening.  I've been listening to what you claim your position is, and I've been listening to the arguments you make that contradict your proclaimed position.  And I've pointed out how contradictory your own words are, and you've carefully avoided acknowledging it.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to explain why it is you "dislike" abortion.
> 
> Do I need to point out again the hilarious irony of you arguing against a woman to be "the voice of women"?  Or the one in saying you're "arguing for choice" by arguing against the people choosing for themselves?  You're welcome to argue that the only "choice" you agree with are the very specific choices you want people to have, but at least be honest that your position is that all other choices shouldn't be allowed.
> 
> I'm ignoring the part where you once again declared what my position was based on what you really WISH it was, because it fits the arguments you want to make without requiring you to think before you parrot.


I'm glad you think your world is black and white. The real world isn't, it's got a whole rainbow and amongst all those colors are various shades of Gray. Life is a little more complex than you put on.


----------



## Orangecat

Stann said:


> LOL. Thanks for the laugh. Got 25 tomato plants planted, was taking a break. They're going back out to plant the other 25.


Don't strain yourself.


----------



## Stann

Orangecat said:


> Don't strain yourself.


That was just not kill us,  makes us stronger. I am very strong and work is a joy to me.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I'm glad you think your world is black and white. The real world isn't, it's got a whole rainbow and amongst all those colors are various shades of Gray. Life is a little more complex than you put on.


Yes, different strokes for different folks. That‘s why we should let states set the abortion laws for their own states, rather than some arrogant leftist in Vermont or wherever insist that the people in Alabama allow abortion wherever, whenever…..and any woman who disagrees he calls a bitch, or a loser, or illogical.


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> The arrogance of that guy, I know. There are women on this thread, of which you and I are two, and that arrogant leftist (are there any kind?) calls us all sorts of names and throws insults at us while sanctimoniously claiming he’s “the voice of women.”
> 
> Hah!


Petty, personal vituperations aside, the reality is that the authoritarians snatching away personal freedom that Americans have enjoyed for half-a-century is going to demand further government intrusion to have the impact they hope for. 

Progress is still occurring in medical technology, even as it is savaged by statist ideologues. 



> *Telemedicine abortion providers see a surge in interest*
> If the Supreme Court adopts the draft opinion, experts forecast that
> people seeking abortions will turn more heavily to telemedicine and
> abortion pills that can be mailed discreetly to a home.
> 
> Data from online abortion site Plan C shows a surge in traffic coming
> from both Republican-controlled states like Texas and Florida, which
> are set to limit abortion access, and also from Democrat-held states
> like California and New York, which are unlikely to limit access.​


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Yes, different strokes for different folks. That‘s why we should let states set the abortion laws for their own states, rather than some arrogant leftist in Vermont or wherever insist that the people in Alabama allow abortion wherever, whenever…..and any woman who disagrees he calls a bitch, or a loser, or illogical.


There you go contradicting yourself. You said different strokes for different folks then you went on to say the state should decide. I'm sorry that doesn't fly when we're talking about a person's own body.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> That was just not kill us,  makes us stronger. I am very strong and work is a joy to me.


Too bad the babies being killed don’t get that opportunity. 



schmidlap said:


> Petty, personal vituperations aside, the reality is that the authoritarians snatching away personal freedom that Americans have enjoyed for half-a-century is going to demand further government intrusion to have the impact they hope for.
> 
> Progress is still occurring in medical technology, even as it is savaged by statist ideologues.


What’s authoritarian is the federal government setting sweeping laws for all states, which is what our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid via the “default” position being decisions are up to the individual states.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> There you go contradicting yourself. You said different strokes for different folks then you went on to say the state should decide. I'm sorry that doesn't fly when we're talking about a person's own body.


You keep forgetting…..we are talking about TWO bodies. You keep skipping over the baby part.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Too bad the babies being killed don’t get that opportunity.
> 
> 
> What’s authoritarian is the federal government setting sweeping laws for all states, which is what our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid via the “default” position being decisions are up to the individual states.


I need to take more time and proofread everything that comes out.  In the first part your reference, it should have read " that which does not kill us, makes us stronger. " To which you replied,  " Too bad the babies that are being killed don't get that opportunity. " To which I must reply. " No baby has ever been killed during an abortion procedure. You cannot regret, what never was to begin with. " Regret is another one of the useless emotions. It often occurs after repeated futile attempts to do the same thing and expect different results. It just doesn't happen. Roe versus Wade was enacted in response to some states developing egregious abortion laws. It looks like we're on track already to be making the same mistake again in history. At the state level again.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I need to take more time and proofread everything that comes out.  In the first part your reference, it should have read " that which does not kill us, makes us stronger. " To which you replied,  " Too bad the babies that are being killed don't get that opportunity. " To which I must reply. " No baby has ever been killed during an abortion procedure. You cannot regret, what never was to begin with. " Regret is another one of the useless emotions. It often occurs after repeated futile attempts to do the same thing and expect different results. It just doesn't happen. Roe versus Wade was enacted in response to some states developing egregious abortion laws. It looks like we're on track already to be making the same mistake again in history. At the state level again.


Are you honestly trying to claim that women who have killed their unborn babies don’t feel regret?! Some of the colder ones, maybe….but others often have regret.


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> Too bad the babies being killed don’t get that opportunity.
> 
> 
> What’s authoritarian is the federal government setting sweeping laws for all states, which is what our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid via the “default” position being decisions are up to the individual states.


The fanatics who need to pretend that microscopic, mindless amalgams of cells are "babies," and lash out at the majority of Americans who respect a woman's rights over that of the statist ideologues dictating to her will persist in their hysterical revilements of decent folks everywhere, no doubt.


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> The fanatics who need to pretend that microscopic, mindless amalgams of cells are "babies," and lash out at the majority of Americans who respect a woman's rights over that of the statist ideologues dictating to her will persist in their hysterical revilements of decent folks everywhere, no doubt.


You keep saying the same thing. These babies feel PAIN as their mother kills them, unless it’s done very early.

DECENT folks have a problem with that.


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> Are you honestly trying to claim that women who have killed their unborn babies don’t feel regret?!


Some might. Some might wish they had terminated a pregnancy sooner. Freedom to control one's own body does not guarantee unallied joy.


----------



## Lisa558

I’m starting to notice a pattern in this thread. The posters insulting pro-life women are MEN, for the most part.

Could it be they just like the idea of not having to wear a condom, knowing that if they knock the woman up, they won’t be stuck having to pay for child support?


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> Some might. Some might wish they had terminated a pregnancy sooner. Freedom to control one's own body does not guarantee unallied joy.


Again, you keep trying to say it’s a woman’s “own body” while neglecting the fact that another human is involved - and about to have its life sniffed out.


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> These babies feel PAIN as their mother kills them, unless it’s done very early.
> 
> DECENT folks have a problem with that.


You can deny that most Americans are decent people if you need to, of course.

While authoritarian statists _do_ attempt to_ delay_ the procedure, medical researchers agree that a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, between 29 and 30 weeks. 

The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.

(A March 2010 report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation.)

​


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> You keep saying the same thing. These babies feel PAIN as their mother kills them, unless it’s done very early.
> 
> DECENT folks have a problem with that.


Have you ever looked at a graph on abortion. 34% of them occur between the first and sixth week of pregnancy. There is no brain in an embryo at that time just a brain stem. Another 18% have it done during the 7th week, there is a heartbeat at that point from a primitive heart and the brain is beginning to form. Now we got more than half of them done,52%. Most all the rest are done before the first trimester screening occurs or while it's occurring. We have entered the fetal stage at that time. About 85% of all abortions are completed by this time. The number of abortions gets less and less and ends up with ,005 % of them being late term abortions. Decent folks also have problems forcing other people to live by their rules. Received for the most part most of these people do live by the rules. Maybe they're not very smart, maybe they're very poor, maybe,maybe, maybe,  it doesn't matter,it's their life. Only they should have the right to decide what to do and I'm sorry if that's it's badly with you. You definitely got a problem then. I'm just hope these women are mature enough to compartmentalize this aspect of their life and move on and learn from it all. That would be a success for everyone.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Again, you keep trying to say it’s a woman’s “own body” while neglecting the fact that another human is involved - and about to have its life sniffed out.


You see it as a life, obviously the women who have abortions do not see it that way if they are lucky. You seem to think this is a real choice, it isn't for some. I'm sure there are many, many married women who have to have abortions that wanted a child instead. We are only human, we can't control everything. Beliefs are a lot more powerful than you think. When beliefs conflict with reality, you must question the beliefs.


----------



## schmidlap

Stann said:


> Have you ever looked at a graph on abortion. 34% of them occur between the first and sixth week of pregnancy. There is no brain in an embryo at that time just a brain stem. Another 18% have it done during the 7th week, there is a heartbeat at that point from a primitive heart and the brain is beginning to form. Now we got more than half of them done,52%. Most all the rest are done before the first trimester screening occurs or while it's occurring. We have entered the fetal stage at that time. About 85% of all abortions are completed by this time. The number of abortions gets less and less and ends up with ,005 % of them being late term abortions. Decent folks also have problems forcing other people to live by their rules. Received for the most part most of these people do live by the rules. Maybe they're not very smart, maybe they're very poor, maybe,maybe, maybe,  it doesn't matter,it's their life. Only they should have the right to decide what to do and I'm sorry if that's it's badly with you. You definitely got a problem then. I'm just hope these women are mature enough to compartmentalize this aspect of their life and move on and learn from it all. That would be a success for everyone.


Even if authoritarians institute draconian measures against women, medical reality and the woman's vastly superior awareness of her own personal circumstances mean that her exercising her freedom to make personal decisions in consultation with loved ones, spiritual advisers and health care professionals whom she trusts is _vastly_ preferable to anonymous bureaucrats dictating their impersonal blanket edicts to her.


----------



## bodecea

Has anyone here read Alito's rough draft?   He refers to TWO witch hunters from the 1600s...Sir Edward Cooke and Sir Matthew Hale.   THIS is what Alito is basing his ruling on........................17th century woman-hating witch hunters.


----------



## Lisa558

Still should be up to the states.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I'm glad you think your world is black and white. The real world isn't, it's got a whole rainbow and amongst all those colors are various shades of Gray. Life is a little more complex than you put on.



Another dodge to "I'd really rather talk about personal criticisms of you than respond to your arguments I can't refute."

You stand as evidence of why pro-lifers have no desire to silence their opponents the way you pro-aborts do.  Sometimes, our best argument is to let you be yourselves as loudly and often as possible.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> I note that you're still trying to change the subject away from your "Gotcha!" challenge that failed.
> 
> This is why lawyers are taught to never ask a question they don't know the answer to.  It sucks when you think you're saying something devastating, and you discover that you've screwed yourself.


Speak, Fifi, speak!  Good girl! Now roll over!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Stann said:


> There are no pro-abortion people. It's all about a woman's right to choose when and if to bring children into this world. Life isn't always black and white, this is a gray area. Abortion is an always will be unnecessary evil. A tool of last resort.


Well, no, that's wrong. Some people ABSOLUTELY ARE pro abortion.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Show me a post where she thinks anything like all women support killing babies. A link will do, otherwise it is obfuscation.


I just did. The overbroad nature of that line suggests that all women will vote in that manner because she thinks they all support unrestricted abortion.  The fact you ignore it so willingly is obfuscation within itself.

Moving on.


----------



## TemplarKormac

schmidlap said:


> Those who crave Big Government intrusion in the matter wish to emulate Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador.



(Doesn't mention China, which mandates abortion, even for women who choose to have children.)

But that flies against your narrative, doesn't it?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> I wouldn't know, what do "liberals" say about women?


I'm not a liberal. That you think I am means you're gullible enough to believe there's no inbetween. 

Please stop.


----------



## Who_Me?

"The left promises abortion rights and cradle to the grave protection, so the trick is to make it to the cradle."

*Dennis Miller*


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> It's as bad as pro life people calling unwanted fetuses in other women's bodies " unborn child ".



Before a child carried to term is born, what do you call it? A fetus? You idiot. That is a fully developed unborn child. You think it is a matter of time and location. It's not. From zygote to full term, that is an unborn child. Period. Full stop.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> But since you accused me of not reading the post (even though I did), Coyote, here we go:
> 
> "This will be the end of Republicans. Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men."
> 
> This very sentence here leaves one to surmise that she means ALL women, especially the part where she stated "there are 8  million more women voters" than men.
> 
> Really? Doesn't that suggest to the reader that every woman in the country will vote this one way in response to Roe getting potentially overturned?
> 
> She overstates her case and is woefully oblivious to other women who don't think the same as her.


She is speaking generally.  A lot of women may not support abortion but support choice and where some where ambivalen, losing that choice alter that ambivalence.  If even half of those 8 million women became politically active it could change things.  That is my read on it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> She is speaking generally.


Precisely, by speaking generally she is not delineating between women who don't and women who do. It is tantamount to an intentional assertion. 

It's called "broad brushing."


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> I just did. The overbroad nature of that line suggests that all women will vote in that manner because she thinks they all support unrestricted abortion.  The fact you ignore it so willingly is obfuscation within itself.
> 
> Moving on.


I didn’t ignore, I didn’t see your response.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Precisely, by speaking generally she is not delineating between women who don't and women who do. It is tantamount to an intentional assertion.
> 
> It's called "broad brushing."


True.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> A lot of women may not support abortion but support choice and where some where ambivalen



I'm pretty sure there are. But that's not what she was asserting.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> I didn’t ignore, I didn’t see your response.



By all means, kindly read it.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> Yes, different strokes for different folks. That‘s why we should let states set the abortion laws for their own states, rather than some arrogant leftist in Vermont or wherever insist that the people in Alabama allow abortion wherever, whenever…..and any woman who disagrees he calls a bitch, or a loser, or illogical.


We should let states set their own gun laws then.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> By all means, kindly read it.


I did, I just responded to it.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> (Doesn't mention China, which mandates abortion, even for women who choose to have children.)
> 
> But that flies against your narrative, doesn't it?


Forced abortion is as abhorrent as forced pregnancy.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> I did, I just responded to it.



Erm, okay, so which post are we talking about, then?


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> We should let states set their own gun laws then.


Apples and oranges.
The right to bear arms is specifically laid out in the Constitution. There is no “right to kill unborn child” in the Constituiom.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Erm, okay, so which post are we talking about, then?


Wasn’t it the one I responded to in post 2296?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Death Angel said:


> Some lives have value to the Biden voter and others do not



Illegals pouring through our border have value.
Unborn babies who would be natural born citizens do not.
This is Darwinism at its most ironic.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Forced abortion is as abhorrent as forced pregnancy.



True, but the US isn't forcing any woman to become pregnant. Nor will they ever.

"Forced pregnancy" is a scare tactic. It is something people with no compelling argument use to scare ambivalent women, as you say, into thinking the government will force them to do something with their bodies _that it doesn't have the power to do_.


----------



## schmidlap

TemplarKormac said:


> (Doesn't mention China, which mandates abortion, even for women who choose to have children.)


Indeed, China's is yet _another_ authoritarian, statist regime that denies personal freedom and arrogates control of wombs to bureaucrats.

_Progressive_ western nations respect women.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Wasn’t it the one I responded to in post 2296?



Yeap, but right after it you said "I didn't ignore, I didn't see it."

Guess the order of your responses got me. 

Carry on then.


----------



## TemplarKormac

schmidlap said:


> Indeed, China's is yet _another_ authoritarian, statist regime that denies personal freedom and arrogates control of wombs to bureaucrats.
> 
> _Progressive_ western nations respect women.



Progressive western nations respect women no matter what choice they make regarding abortion. 

There, fixed that for you.


----------



## yidnar

schmidlap said:


> Indeed, China's is yet _another_ authoritarian, statist regime that denies personal freedom and arrogates control of wombs to bureaucrats.
> 
> _Progressive_ western nations respect women.


sure they do ...


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> We should let states set their own gun laws then.


They already do.


----------



## eagle1462010

Roe overturned changes nothing in blue state shitholes.

Justices and their families have been forced out of their homes frim violent mobs of leftist lunatics.

They need to be put down Harshly.  I suggest SCOTUS move the court to Alabama.  And see how long that bs lasts here.


----------



## beagle9

schmidlap said:


> You can call folks whatever you need to if you cannot engage in a substantive discussion, of course.
> 
> I respect a woman's right and superior knowledge of her personal circumstances to control her womb, in consultation with her loved ones and medical and spiritual advisers whom she trusts.
> 
> Authoritarian statists want her liberty snatched away and arrogated to anonymous politicians and bureaucrats with no familiarity with her whatever.
> 
> Most Americans support the personal freedom option.


Ha, you support her rights to have you pay for her abortion's and contraception's in life eh ?? Most having abortion's need some sort of financial assistance don't they ?  It's hard to imagine an educated goal oriented person just allowing herself to be a slut that result's in an unwanted pregnancy or her maybe not being able to resist a one nighter with what she may have thought was a guy that she could save in life, so of course it could happen if didn't use contraception in a drunken stuper or if it was a spontaneous compulsive action in hopes for a whooing effect yet might not have worked out afterwards, but that's what the next day pill is for right ? 

Best to clean up the system including Hollywood influence that lead's our bright and goal oriented young folk's to literally screw up their lives left and right.


----------



## beagle9

Death Angel said:


> Some lives have value to the Biden voter and others do not


Great point... The Democrat mom can cast a Democrat vote, but that unborn baby can't, so it is insignificant to a Democrat politician.


----------



## beagle9

schmidlap said:


> You can deny that most Americans are decent people if you need to, of course.
> 
> While authoritarian statists _do_ attempt to_ delay_ the procedure, medical researchers agree that a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, between 29 and 30 weeks.
> 
> The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.
> 
> (A March 2010 report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation.)
> 
> 
> ​


The fact that something has to be studied because someone wasn't responsible in life, and therefore needs someone to handle their dirty work for them afterwards is really an amazing thing, yet we call ourselves a civilized society ???... ROTFLMBO... We undoubtedly want to live like animal's  instead of human beings, so isn't that what you are defending really ??


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> I'm not a liberal. That you think I am means you're gullible enough to believe there's no inbetween.
> 
> Please stop.


You're the one posting about what liberals say to and about women...if you can't actually say what that is, your posts mean nothing.


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> Indeed, China's is yet _another_ authoritarian, statist regime that denies personal freedom and arrogates control of wombs to bureaucrats.
> 
> _Progressive_ western nations respect women.


You mean respect women who agree with progressivism. Otherwise, as evidenced in this thread, they call them losers, bitches, and so forth. And if that isn’t enough, they will allow a boy to compete in a high school girls’ sporting event, and kill the girl’s’ hopes for college scholarships.


----------



## Death Angel

schmidlap said:


> _Progressive_ western nations respect women.


You only respect Democrat voting women


----------



## schmidlap

TemplarKormac said:


> Progressive western nations respect women no matter what choice they make regarding abortion.


True. Authoritarian nations arrogate power over their wombs.

 Iran, Egypt, Honduras, El Salvador, and China are prime examples of such rabid, intrusive statism.


----------



## schmidlap

Death Angel said:


> You only respect Democrat[ic] voting women


Why are you making that up?

Senators Collins and Murkowski are conspicuous examples of Republican women who support a woman's freedom.

Authoritarian, repressive laws are unpopular.

58 percent of Americans want federal law making abortion legal​​


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You see it as a life, obviously the women who have abortions do not see it that way if they are lucky. You seem to think this is a real choice, it isn't for some. I'm sure there are many, many married women who have to have abortions that wanted a child instead. We are only human, we can't control everything. Beliefs are a lot more powerful than you think. When beliefs conflict with reality, you must question the beliefs.



That is literally the first time, in all these pages, that you've even acknowledged the smallest part of what we believe, and the fact that we believe it.

What does it say about you and your argument that it's taken you this long to even notice that?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> You're the one posting about what liberals say to and about women...if you can't actually say what that is, your posts mean nothing.



I'm not interested in what liberals say, because 1) I'm not a liberal, and 2) because they are almost always wrong on a plethora of issues. Including this one. I only pay attention to them because of how trivial it is sometimes to prove them wrong or catch them in their own lies and hypocrisy. 

Do you honestly not see me railing on abortion in this thread? Or any other abortion thread that's been posted ad nauseam for the 9 years I've been here?


----------



## TemplarKormac

schmidlap said:


> Why are you making that up?
> 
> Senators Collins and Murkowski are conspicuous examples of Republican women who support a woman's freedom.
> 
> Authoritarian, repressive laws are unpopular.
> 
> 58 percent of Americans want federal law making abortion legal​​


You ironically made his point. 

You only respect women who agree with you or who will vote your way.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> You mean respect women who agree with progressivism. Otherwise, as evidenced in this thread, they call them losers, bitches, and so forth. And if that isn’t enough, they will allow a boy to compete in a high school girls’ sporting event, and kill the girl’s’ hopes for college scholarships.



Oh, yeah, let's not forget that many of the same people currently telling us they're "champions" and "voices" for women were also telling us a month ago that "woman" couldn't possibly be defined, that men could BE women, that concerns about safety and privacy and fair competition were all just "transphobia" and far less important than "fairness" and the hurt feelings of those who wanted to be women (whatever that is).

I think it's pretty obvious that the only "right" these people want women to have is to be handy, disposable masturbatory tools for men, with no messy complications when those men get what they want and are ready to vanish.  I don't respect that, and I'm not going to playact that it's some serious, noble cause.

I won't pretend that I don't want to live in a society where unborn babies aren't viewed as the enemies of their own mothers, where women feel entrapped and enslaved by their own femaleness and desperately try to be smaller, weaker versions of men.  But I'm willing to achieve that by arguing and debating and convincing other people to agree with me, and I'm happy that we're getting back to a place where people decide what their society is, instead of being told by their "betters".


----------



## TemplarKormac

schmidlap said:


> Authoritarian, repressive laws are unpopular.



How many times must we say this?

ROE IS NOT CODIFIED LAW.


----------



## TemplarKormac

schmidlap said:


> True. Authoritarian nations arrogate power over their wombs.



Yeah, so are you going to prove that Republicans want the same thing or not?
By all means, reiterate your talking points if you wish. You're still wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Have you ever looked at a graph on abortion. 34% of them occur between the first and sixth week of pregnancy. There is no brain in an embryo at that time just a brain stem. Another 18% have it done during the 7th week, there is a heartbeat at that point from a primitive heart and the brain is beginning to form. Now we got more than half of them done,52%. Most all the rest are done before the first trimester screening occurs or while it's occurring. We have entered the fetal stage at that time. About 85% of all abortions are completed by this time. The number of abortions gets less and less and ends up with ,005 % of them being late term abortions. Decent folks also have problems forcing other people to live by their rules. Received for the most part most of these people do live by the rules. Maybe they're not very smart, maybe they're very poor, maybe,maybe, maybe,  it doesn't matter,it's their life. Only they should have the right to decide what to do and I'm sorry if that's it's badly with you. You definitely got a problem then. I'm just hope these women are mature enough to compartmentalize this aspect of their life and move on and learn from it all. That would be a success for everyone.



Decent folks DO have problems forcing other people to live by their rules.  And then there are pro-aborts, who have forced the entire country to live by their rules for 50+ years, and now want to whine about the "fascism" of the people voting on the issue, instead of just letting a bunch of lawyers in robes tell them how it's going to be, and that it's "much too important an issue" for the people to weigh in.


----------



## Who_Me?

I find the irony between celebrating Mother's Day and the hysteria over overturning Roe vs. Wade mind boggling.

CNN starts every "newscast" with a warm Happy Mother's Day to all Moms, then they dig into their lead story driving home their narrative that 66% of Americans believe that women have the right to terminate pregnancies.

Men and women have the right and responsibility to use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  You don't have to kill the child.

Happy Mother's Day!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> Speak, Fifi, speak!  Good girl! Now roll over!



I just heard, "Why can't these damned broads shut up and do as I want?  Do they think they're people, or something?"

I'm laughing at you, Dickless.  And you're still not going to wave your "Gotcha!" line at anyone else until you either deal with the answer you thought you wouldn't get, or admit that you're a lying, cowardly weasel.

Insult me all you want.  I'm used to that from impotent losers who resent strong women.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> We should let states set their own gun laws then.



Except for that pesky Constitution thingy that you so conveniently ignore in your rush to dismiss anything you don't like.

It continues to amaze me that some people will hysterically defend the "Constitutional right" of something that appears nowhere in the Constitution, but then turn around and demand that something that ACTUALLY APPEARS IN THE CONSTITUTION be done away with.


----------



## TemplarKormac

schmidlap said:


> Why are you making that up?
> 
> Senators Collins and Murkowski are conspicuous examples of Republican women who support a woman's freedom.
> 
> Authoritarian, repressive laws are unpopular.
> 
> 58 percent of Americans want federal law making abortion legal​​


Also, imagine how authoritarian and repressive it would be if I had the power to strip you of your right to vote on this particular issue, one way or the other?

That's what the liberal argument is. Let Roe stand so people nationwide are forbidden to vote on it, one way or another. 

They are scared of the ones who vote against it, as are you.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Reproductive health is an oxymoron as used by pro-murdering Leftists.

They deny reproduction and champion killing helpless infants any time.
There is NOTHING "healthy" about murdering the baby while conferring a lifetime of guilt to the woman who decide to kill it.

Men are doing life in prison for killing unborn babies.  Scott Peterson is one example but there are many others.

NO  WOMAN, whatever brain dead "progressives" say they are, is in prison for killing an unborn baby she carried.

This is as sick as it is unjust and evil.


----------



## Lisa558

ChemEngineer said:


> Reproductive health is an oxymoron as used by pro-murdering Leftists.
> 
> They deny reproduction and champion killing helpless infants any time.
> There is NOTHING "healthy" about murdering the baby while conferring a lifetime of guilt to the woman who decide to kill it.
> 
> Men are doing life in prison for killing unborn babies.  Scott Peterson is one example but there are many others.
> 
> NO  WOMAN, whatever brain dead "progressives" say they are, is in prison for killing an unborn baby she carried.
> 
> This is as sick as it is unjust and evil.


And at the same time, they argue against the death penalty for even a pedophile who murders a child because “it’s not up to us to take a life.”

Democrats always defend the wrong people.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TemplarKormac said:


> I'm not a liberal. That you think I am means you're gullible enough to believe there's no inbetween.
> 
> Please stop.



Look, it's the woman with the snake-shaped vagina in her profile pic.  This you, bodecea ?  Yeah, there's a reason I don't take you seriously.


----------



## bodecea

TemplarKormac said:


> Look, it's the woman with the snake-shaped vagina in her profile pic.  This you, bodecea ?  Yeah, there's a reason I don't take you seriously.


Supporting 17th century to witchhunters, I see.


----------



## TemplarKormac

The way I've seen both conservative and liberal men and women speak down to another woman in this thread, Cecilie1200 to be specific, I am convinced misogyny knows no party or gender.


----------



## Stann

schmidlap said:


> Even if authoritarians institute draconian measures against women, medical reality and the woman's vastly superior awareness of her own personal circumstances mean that her exercising her freedom to make personal decisions in consultation with loved ones, spiritual advisers and health care professionals whom she trusts is _vastly_ preferable to anonymous bureaucrats dictating their impersonal blanket edicts to her.


I agree. Meant as a joke, when one develops cancer should we also go to the bureaucrats or go to our doctor. Abortion laws have no place in our society. Women should not be second class citizens, that doesn't happen in first class ( free ) Nations.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> Apples and oranges.
> The right to bear arms is specifically laid out in the Constitution. There is no “right to kill unborn child” in the Constituiom.


Not really.  Gun violence is now the number one killer of children and teens. 



Cecilie1200 said:


> Except for that pesky Constitution thingy that you so conveniently ignore in your rush to dismiss anything you don't like.
> 
> It continues to amaze me that some people will hysterically *defend the "Constitutional right" of something that appears nowhere in the Constitution, *but then turn around and demand that something that ACTUALLY APPEARS IN THE CONSTITUTION be done away with.



The Constitution also states:

IX.  *The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*


----------



## Who_Me?

Pro-abortion groups target churches for Mother's Day protests​An illustration of how stupid the pro-abortion crowd is.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> IX. *The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*



You know what you just did? Construed the enumeration of that selfsame constitution in an attempt to deny or disparage the rights held by other people.

And while we're on the topic of abortion, the constitution does not enumerate such a right. The Roe court gave a right to people that the constitution did not enumerate. Therefore, Roe was unconstitutionally decided.


----------



## bodecea

Who_Me? said:


> I find the irony between celebrating Mother's Day and the hysteria over overturning Roe vs. Wade mind boggling.
> 
> CNN starts every "newscast" with a warm Happy Mother's Day to all Moms, then they dig into their lead story driving home their narrative that 66% of Americans believe that women have the right to terminate pregnancies.
> 
> Men and women have the right and responsibility to use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  You don't have to kill the child.
> 
> Happy Mother's Day!


What part of CHOICE don't you get?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Not really. Gun violence is now the number one killer of children and teens.


Yes, criminals are the number one killer of children and teens. The guns do nothing when they're sitting on the table as the killers plot their next murder.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Yes, criminals are the number one killer of children and teens. The guns do nothing when they're sitting on the table, as the killers plot their next murder.


It is all about rights.  And just because they aren’t enumerated doesn’t mean you can take them away.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote so prove me wrong. 

And no, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply, nor does Title IX.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> It is all about rights.  And just because they aren’t enumerated doesn’t mean you can take them away.



That's bunk reasoning. What right to abortion did the Constitution give women when it was ratified at the Philadelphia Convention?

You can't make rights out of thin air.


----------



## TemplarKormac

I'm still waiting.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Where in your flawed interpretation of the Constitution does it say you can create rights it doesn't specify?

If I told you the 10th Amendment was the remedy for that, would you still be protesting?

The constitution did not give the federal government the power to regulate abortion, as I said last Monday in this thread. What powers aren't granted to government fall to the states.

Why is it acceptable for a state to pass laws allowing the right to abortion but not for one to restrict them?

Why can't states do what they like on the issue? Fear perhaps?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Yanno, if someone is gonna press the disagree button and not actually disagree with me, is the disagreement valid or simply a kneejerk emotional response to what I said?


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> That's bunk reasoning. What right to abortion did the Constitution give women when it was ratified at the Philadelphia Convention?
> 
> You can't make rights out of thin air.


Not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> I just heard, "Why can't these damned broads shut up and do as I want?  Do they think they're people, or something?"



See an audiologist and a psychiatrist...you're hearing things.



> I'm laughing at you, Dickless.  And you're still not going to wave your "Gotcha!" line at anyone else until you either deal with the answer you thought you wouldn't get, or admit that you're a lying, cowardly weasel.



Look, I get it: you do not like what you see in the mirror I held up, and you are now yapping like a teacup poodle to distract from that fact.



> Insult me all you want.  I'm used to that from impotent losers who resent strong women.



I showed that to my wife. She laughed so hard she scared the cat off my lap.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution.


I wonder what rights I can give myself with that logic?

Pretty sure you wouldn't agree with what rights I could give myself.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> She laughed so hard she scared the cat off my lap.


You should get off her lap then.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I agree. Meant as a joke, when one develops cancer should we also go to the bureaucrats or go to our doctor. Abortion laws have no place in our society. Women should not be second class citizens, that doesn't happen in first class ( free ) Nations.








						Federal Health Legislation
					

Legislation from the current Congress dealing with federal health related to NCI.




					www.cancer.gov
				






			4203 Cancer Treatment Program
		










						Public Policy Advocacy
					

In this section, you will find information and resources about major policy issues that affect people with cancer. Every day, local and national policymakers make decisions that directly influence the care of patients. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the nation’s leading...




					www.cancer.net
				












						NC Cancer Treatment Fairness Act
					

NC Cancer Treatment Fairness ActThe NC Cancer Treatment Fairness Act would require that insurers that provide coverage for both IV AND oral chemotherapies must provide the coverage for oral chemotherapies on a basis no less favorable than coverage for IV treatment, including patients’ out of...




					www.fightcancer.org
				









						2021 NCI Budget Fact Book - Research Funding
					

See how appropriated funds are spent for frequently requested areas of cancer research.




					www.cancer.gov
				




That's just from the first couple of pages of my Google search.

You really can't get it through your head that medicine and healthcare are not some wide-open Wild West, free of all government involvement and regulation, can you?  No matter how many times you're told that your tired line about "women and their doctors, not the government" is ignorant (not to mention hypocritical, since YOUR side spent 50+ years with the federal government mandating things the way you wanted them).


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> It is all about rights.  And just because they aren’t enumerated doesn’t mean you can take them away.


Rights of babies need not apply on the left huh?

Nor the rights of Justices and theirbfamilues.

Seems Riot Season is here again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Not really.  Gun violence is now the number one killer of children and teens.
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution also states:
> 
> IX.  *The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*



You are correct.  However, it ALSO states:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since abortion, as previously mentioned, does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, it cannot be a matter for the federal government, and therefore the power to balance the rights of all concerned belongs with the States, and with their people.

Guns, however, ARE mentioned very specifically in the Constitution, and it states that the right to keep and bear them "shall not be infringed".

You don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution suit you at the moment.  It's not _a la carte_.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> It is all about rights.  And just because they aren’t enumerated doesn’t mean you can take them away.



Actually, it means we can deny that they're "rights" at all, if you have no proof that they are other than, "I want them to be."

More to the point, the States and their people get to debate and vote and decide for themselves, instead of having your personal viewpoint forced on them while they're told it's "too important" for them to have a say.  Why?  Just because you've decided so.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Yanno, if someone is gonna press the disagree button and not actually disagree with me, is the disagreement valid or simply a kneejerk emotional response to what I said?



It basically means, "I can't actually argue with you, and I'm really, REALLY mad!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution.



And not all things claimed to be "rights" actually are.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> It basically means, "I can't actually argue with you, and I'm really, REALLY mad!"



So, same as the 'funny' button in certain contexts. Gotcha.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> See an audiologist and a psychiatrist...you're hearing things.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I get it: you do not like what you see in the mirror I held up, and you are now yapping like a teacup poodle to distract from that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> I showed that to my wife. She laughed so hard she scared the cat off my lap.



Look, I get it.  You thought you had a winning "Gotcha!" and forgot to find out what to do when it didn't work.  So you just ran away and hoped I'd let you go on with waving around your "Gotcha!"

Didn't work.  And the more you attack me, and claim that you have a wife who's proud of a husband who attacks women for disagreeing with him, the more you look like what I called you.

But don't let me stop you from playing out your sad loserdom as long as you like.  Just don't think you will EVER trot out, "Well, how many unwanted babies have YOU adopted?   Aha, I WIN!" until you answer me with something besides playground insults.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> Look, I get it.  You thought you had a winning "Gotcha!" and forgot to find out what to do when it didn't work.  So you just ran away and hoped I'd let you go on with waving around your "Gotcha!"



No, I just point out hypocrites when I see them. Don't want to be pointed out, don't be a hypocrite!



> Didn't work.  And the more you attack me, and claim that you have a wife who's proud of a husband who attacks women for disagreeing with him, the more you look like what I called you.



Naah, I never said that. I didn't attack you for disagreeing with me, I called out your hypocrisy.



> But don't let me stop you from playing out your sad loserdom as long as you like.  Just don't think you will EVER trot out, "Well, how many unwanted babies have YOU adopted?   Aha, I WIN!" until you answer me with something besides playground insults.



Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Calypso Jones

This whole thing is weird..just out of the blue.  









						Cowardly Chief Justice John Roberts Is Pressuring Conservative Justices to Save Roe v. Wade and Kill More Babies ⋆ 🔔 The Liberty Daily
					

The worst joke in corporate media is their continuous claim that Chief Justice John Roberts is among the “conservatives” at the Supreme Court. Time and again he has proven that he is a left-leaning centrist at best, often siding with the progressive court members on decisions of great...




					thelibertydaily.com
				




You knew this asshole would be a problem.   I doubt anything will happen and these lefty terrorists will get to gleefully kill the unborn.


----------



## bodecea

ChemEngineer said:


> Illegals pouring through our border have value.
> Unborn babies who would be natural born citizens do not.
> This is Darwinism at its most ironic.


Life at con- ception...includes one day old fetus of illegal women in the U.S.  Auto citizenship.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Naah, I never said that. I didn't attack you for disagreeing with me, I called out your hypocrisy.



I'm curious, why are you talking down to a woman again?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> No, I just point out hypocrites when I see them. Don't want to be pointed out, don't be a hypocrite!


How many adopted children do you have in your home, currently?


----------



## Stann

Coyote said:


> Forced abortion is as abhorrent as forced pregnancy.


And if they dismantle Roe versus Wade it will give government the authority over a person's reproductive Rights. So in 20 or 30 years when all the nations of the world  have to address the overpopulation issue. The United States will be ahead of the game, they'll already have control of reproductive Rights so then they could decide who can and cannot become pregnant. Things will be completely reversed then, abortions will be forced on women. Only a select few, most likely the rich and powerful, will be allowed to have children.


----------



## Stann

ChemEngineer said:


> Illegals pouring through our border have value.
> Unborn babies who would be natural born citizens do not.
> This is Darwinism at its most ironic.


It would make more sense if you said unwanted pregnancies. As it is, in a consumer society, like ours, the more the better, despite the consequences to the planet.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> No, I just point out hypocrites when I see them. Don't want to be pointed out, don't be a hypocrite!
> 
> 
> 
> Naah, I never said that. I didn't attack you for disagreeing with me, I called out your hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Federal Health Legislation
> 
> 
> Legislation from the current Congress dealing with federal health related to NCI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cancer.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4203 Cancer Treatment Program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public Policy Advocacy
> 
> 
> In this section, you will find information and resources about major policy issues that affect people with cancer. Every day, local and national policymakers make decisions that directly influence the care of patients. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the nation’s leading...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cancer.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NC Cancer Treatment Fairness Act
> 
> 
> NC Cancer Treatment Fairness ActThe NC Cancer Treatment Fairness Act would require that insurers that provide coverage for both IV AND oral chemotherapies must provide the coverage for oral chemotherapies on a basis no less favorable than coverage for IV treatment, including patients’ out of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fightcancer.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2021 NCI Budget Fact Book - Research Funding
> 
> 
> See how appropriated funds are spent for frequently requested areas of cancer research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cancer.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just from the first couple of pages of my Google search.
> 
> You really can't get it through your head that medicine and healthcare are not some wide-open Wild West, free of all government involvement and regulation, can you?  No matter how many times you're told that your tired line about "women and their doctors, not the government" is ignorant (not to mention hypocritical, since YOUR side spent 50+ years with the federal government mandating things the way you wanted them).


If you looked up the record on all those things you mentioned you'd find they had broad bipartisan support.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> How many adopted children do you have in your home, currently?


None...but unlike the hypocrites, I am not trying to stop abortion.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> I'm curious, why are you talking down to a woman again?


If you can't figure that out, there is no point in attempting to answer. You're not bright enough to understand.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> How many times must we say this?
> 
> ROE IS NOT CODIFIED LAW.


Correct, it's been called " settled law " for most of the 50-year history. It's only now that a minority of malcontents are contesting it.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> Not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution.


And who gets to decide which rights people get? The Democrats?


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> It basically means, "I can't actually argue with you, and I'm really, REALLY mad!"


Try to get over your emotions and you'll see this issue more clearly for what it actually is.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> And not all things claimed to be "rights" actually are.


I guess that depends on whose rights are being violated and how powerful their oppressors are. Said commentary on a nation that's supposed to have Justice and equality for all.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> Correct, it's been called " settled law " for most of the 50-year history. It's only now that a minority of malcontents are contesting it.


Oh please. There’s about a two point percentage difference between pro-lifers and pro-abortioners: latest is 47 to 49%. It’s pretty evenly split.

Besides which, it doesn’t matter: the correct ruling is to reverse the earlier one handed down by an activist Court and apply the Constitution: return the decision to the people to decide, per state.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Oh please. There’s about a two point percentage difference between pro-lifers and pro-abortioners: latest is 47 to 49%. It’s pretty evenly split.
> 
> Besides which, it doesn’t matter: the correct ruling is to reverse the earlier one handed down by an activist Court and apply the Constitution: return the decision to the people to decide, per state.


You keep missing the important point here. If I was in that survey, I would delicious pro life on that question. On a personal level I do not believe in abortion. It would be a last resort. Something I'd avoid. But the next question you didn't show was that 70% of Americans still think Roe versus Wade should be in place, not because they all believe in abortion or want it for themselves but because they believe women should have the right to decide their own reproductive Rights, not the courts and definitely not the state.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> You keep missing the important point here. If I was in that survey, I would delicious pro life on that question. On a personal level I do not believe in abortion. It would be a last resort. Something I'd avoid. But the next question you didn't show was that 70% of Americans still think Roe versus Wade should be in place, not because they all believe in abortion or want it for themselves but because they believe women should have the right to decide their own reproductive Rights, not the courts and definitely not the state.


And you keep missing two important points:

1) What constitutes “reproductive rights” is subject to opinion. Almost half the people think that right ends when it involves terminating the life of another. Ofherwise, you could smash the baby to smithereens as it descends through the birth canal. Or, since the head emerges first, just have the doctor ready with a machete.

2) It doesn’t matter what the majority of the nation thinks, no matter how slim that majority is. It matters what the majority of the people in each state think. That’s how the Constitution was set up.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> And you keep missing two important points:
> 
> 1) What constitutes “reproductive rights” is subject to opinion. Almost half the people think that right ends when it involves terminating the life of another. Ofherwise, you could smash the baby to smithereens as it descends through the birth canal. Or, since the head emerges first, just have the doctor ready with a machete.
> 
> 2) It doesn’t matter what the majority of the nation thinks, no matter how slim that majority is. It matters what the majority of the people in each state think. That’s how the Constitution was set up.


Well if the people are given a choice, it's not even a done deal here in Nebraska, a very Republican state, the effort to try to get a trigger Bill attached to the Roe versus Wade outcome didn't Garner enough votes to pass. People here generally live by the rule. " Live and let livlive


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Well if the people are given a choice, it's not even a done deal here in Nebraska, a very Republican state, the effort to try to get a trigger Bill attached to the Roe versus Wade outcome didn't Garner enough votes to pass. People here generally live by the rule. " Live and let livlive


People here generally live by the rule, " Live and let live. " In other words mind your own business, and respect other people's decisions, especially on controversial issues where one side is trying to dominate and control the other side.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> Well if the people are given a choice, it's not even a done deal here in Nebraska, a very Republican state, the effort to try to get a trigger Bill attached to the Roe versus Wade outcome didn't Garner enough votes to pass. People here generally live by the rule. " Live and let livlive


Fine by me, if that’s what people in Nebraska vote for. It’s not up to me to demand how other states set their laws.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> People here generally live by the rule, " Live and let live. " In other words mind your own business, and respect other people's decisions, especially on controversial issues where one side is trying to dominate and control the other side.


And it isn’t YOUR side trying to dominate and control the other side? Leftists are threatening violence - even death - to SCOTUS justices who won’t vote their way, and Biden condones it.

People on our side say the anti-Constitutionalists should mind their own business, get a hold of their arrogance, and stop telling people living in other states how they must set their laws.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Fine by me, if that’s what people in Nebraska vote for. It’s not up to me to demand how other states set their laws.


The whole reason bro versus Wade came into existence was because different states were passing egregious abortion laws. Even if Roe versus Wade does go by the wayside. The same thing is about to happen all over again, so it will have to be brought back and the federal government will settle the matter once again hopefully for all time.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> And it isn’t YOUR side trying to dominate and control the other side? Leftists are threatening violence - even death - to SCOTUS justices who won’t vote their way, and a Biden condones it.


No, they're not. No woman's rights activist is trying to force any so-called pro-life woman to have an abortion. Your argument is totally unfounded.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> The whole reason bro versus Wade came into existence was because different states were passing egregious abortion laws. Even if Roe versus Wade does go by the wayside. The same thing is about to happen all over again, so it will have to be brought back and the federal government will settle the matter once again hopefully for all time.


it’s not Bro vs Wade. Now you’re trying to make it that it’s men against women, when YOU - a man - has launched insult after insult at women  who disagree with you.

In fact, the ones on this thread arguing strongest for women to be able to kill their unborn children are men. I guess you like the idea of being able to knock a woman up, and just have her “get rid of it,” without your having to pay child support.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Had Roe remained as it was nothing would have been done. Abortion up to the moment of birth and possibly for several months thereafter demanded action.  Make the legislature responsible for killing children.


----------



## Lisa558

This entire leak is to force the issue into Congress, where a massive and nasty debate can take place, and remove the focus from Biden’s failures with the economy….with the illegals…..with Afghanistan…..with energy independence….with Hunter’s laptop….


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> it’s not Bro vs Wade. Now you’re trying to make it that it’s men against women, when YOU - a man - has launched insult after insult at women  who disagree with you.
> 
> In fact, the ones on this thread arguing strongest for women to be able to kill their unborn children are men. I guess you like the idea of being able to knock a woman up, and just have her “get rid of it,” without your having to pay child support.


As I have said that was times before I use a voice machine to print out the words because I have bad arthritis in my hands. Of course it's supposed to be Roe versus Wade there's no deception intended there. And where did I say it was men against women ? I'm sorry but you're adding your thoughts to the conversation and not concentrating on what I'm saying. It's getting late maybe you're tired I know I am I had a very rewarding day and I'm about to go to bed so keep worrying about things that aren't your concern and I'm sure you'll get a lot more wrinkles and have a less satisfying life. That's about all the good it's going to do you.  You see things very strangely. I'm not sure I can continue talking to you. There's no Goodwill in your tone of voice. You keep trying to put words in my mouth that you are thinking.


----------



## forkup

Lisa558 said:


> Oh please. There’s about a two point percentage difference between pro-lifers and pro-abortioners: latest is 47 to 49%. It’s pretty evenly split.
> 
> Besides which, it doesn’t matter: the correct ruling is to reverse the earlier one handed down by an activist Court and apply the Constitution: return the decision to the people to decide, per state.


It seems to me that a 7-2 decision by judges nominated by both parties is a hell of a lot less activist than a 5-4 decision rammed through by a majority consisting exclusively of judges nominated by Conservative judges. Wouldn't you say? 

Coming back to your "activism" claim. A judge that in his legal argument claim immediately puts in caveats to which his argumentation doesn't apply isn't so much making a legal argument as he is justifying activism. 

As for "the people" deciding. They already do. NOBODY is forcing anybody to have an abortion.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> None...but unlike the hypocrites, I am not trying to stop abortion.


You are aware that abortion and adoption have nothing to do with each other, right? You do understand that she doesn't want to end abortion altogether, do you?

Are you aware that she understands there are medical reasons for abortion that don't involve vanity or convenience?

This kind of stupidity from you is quite new.

Just want to ask one more time, though:

You do understand that abortion and adoption have nothing in common with each other, right?

Apparently not.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> If you can't figure that out, there is no point in attempting to answer. You're not bright enough to understand.


Of course, I've never quite understood misogynistic pricks like you, telling a woman in what manner she should have her kids. It's none of your damn business.


----------



## Stann

forkup said:


> It seems to me that a 7-2 decision by judges nominated by both parties is a hell of a lot less activist than a 5-4 decision rammed through by a majority consisting exclusively of judges nominated by Conservative judges. Wouldn't you say?
> 
> Coming back to your "activism" claim. A judge that in his legal argument claim immediately puts in caveats to which his argumentation doesn't apply isn't so much making a legal argument as he is justifying activism.
> 
> As for "the people" deciding. They already do. NOBODY is forcing anybody to have an abortion.


That doesn't change the fact that 70% of Americans believe Roe versus Wade should stay in place. If the supreme Court does reverse their opinion about it, it will be the most unpopular decision ever. And then all the problems that Roe versus Wade will resurface again and the people will demand its return.


----------



## Stann

forkup said:


> . NOBODY is forcing anybody to have an abortion.


----------



## Stann

I wanted to address this statement of yours separately. That is true today, but by handing over women's reproductive rights to the states. You give the state the right to force women to have abortions in the future if it is deemed necessary. And the world is hurling very fast towards being overpopulated. During such a Time having more children would probably be detrimental to society and deemed illegal.


----------



## forkup

Stann said:


> That doesn't change the fact that 70% of Americans believe Roe versus Wade should stay in place. If the supreme Court does reverse their opinion about it, it will be the most unpopular decision ever. And then all the problems that Roe versus Wade will resurface again and the people will demand its return.


I wasn't disagreeing with you. It will be unpopular. 

That's besides the point actually. The leaked argumentation is simply flawed since Alito has to immediately say that he won't apply the same logic to other potential cases that will be brought before the Supreme Court.

Just like Lisa's argument that she wants "the people" decide is flawed because that's exactly what the status quo allowed, and she is arguing for taking the choice away from "the people"


----------



## forkup

Stann said:


> I wanted to address this statement of yours separately. That is true today, but by handing over women's reproductive rights to the states. You give the state the right to force women to have abortions in the future if it is deemed necessary. And the world is hurling very fast towards being overpopulated. During such a Time having more children would probably be detrimental to society and deemed illegal.


Theoretically yes. Although that is a bit far-fetched from a practical standpoint IMO.


----------



## Stann

forkup said:


> I wasn't disagreeing with you. It will be unpopular.
> 
> That's besides the point actually. The leaked argumentation is simply flawed since Alito has to immediately say that he won't apply the same logic to other potential cases that will be brought before the Supreme Court.
> 
> Just like Lisa's argument that she wants "the people" decide is flawed because that's exactly what the status quo allowed, and she is arguing for taking the choice away from "the people"





forkup said:


> I wasn't disagreeing with you. It will be unpopular.
> 
> That's besides the point actually. The leaked argumentation is simply flawed since Alito has to immediately say that he won't apply the same logic to other potential cases that will be brought before the Supreme Court.
> 
> Just like Lisa's argument that she wants "the people" decide is flawed because that's exactly what the status quo allowed, and she is arguing for taking the choice away from "the people"


Lisa made no sense at all. The way you worded your response threw me off. It's late I'm going to bed. I'm just sorry that a few bad apples are making us go through all this crap again.


----------



## Stann

forkup said:


> Theoretically yes. Although that is a bit far-fetched from a practical standpoint IMO.


You don't think so in about 20 or 30 years if they are giving this power over us now. I am quite certain that the future this world faces is going to be horrific.


----------



## forkup

Stann said:


> Lisa made no sense at all. The way you worded your response threw me off. It's late I'm going to bed. I'm just sorry that a few bad apples are making us go through all this crap again.


It seems to me backtracking is kind of a sign of the times. The US is becoming less tolerant and more partisan by the minute. And that's because of bad apples on both sides, although I don't think the blame is equal.

Have a good night.


----------



## forkup

forkup said:


> In 20 or 30 years anything can happen. I do believe that if by that time any state in the US is actually  contemplating forcing abortion on woman. That particular issue would be the least of our worries. It would mean absolutely extreme solutions are contemplated. Wich suggests extreme problems. Problems that make constitutional law kind of moot.


----------



## Stann

That's exactly where this world is headed. Humans don't seem to be able to help themselves.


----------



## forkup

Stann said:


> That's exactly where this world is headed. Humans don't seem to be able to help themselves.


Lol, having trouble sleeping?

I'm an optimist by nature. I believe that humans, when the need is high enough, are capable of solving nearly any problem. How much of that is hope and how much is reality I wouldn't know.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> As I have said that was times before I use a voice machine to print out the words because I have bad arthritis in my hands. Of course it's supposed to be Roe versus Wade there's no deception intended there. And where did I say it was men against women ? I'm sorry but you're adding your thoughts to the conversation and not concentrating on what I'm saying. It's getting late maybe you're tired I know I am I had a very rewarding day and I'm about to go to bed so keep worrying about things that aren't your concern and I'm sure you'll get a lot more wrinkles and have a less satisfying life. That's about all the good it's going to do you.  You see things very strangely. I'm not sure I can continue talking to you. There's no Goodwill in your tone of voice. You keep trying to put words in my mouth that you are thinking.


I did not know you use a voice machine, so I figured when you typed bro against Roe, you were implying it was a men against women thing.

As far your comment that I keep worrying about things that aren’t my concern, what are YOU doing? You’re a man and will never need an abortion, yet you feel it is your right to declare people living in other states what their abortion laws should be.

Finally, when you complain that there’s no goodwill in MY voice, remember that YOU called ME a “loser” because I wouldn’t agree you with wish to violate the Constitution….that I see things very strangely…etc. So you name-call and insult women who disagree with you, and then you have the nerve to say there‘s no goodwill in MY voice?!

You are such a typical liberal. Sanctimonious and unable to see how hypocritical you are. You hold yourself up as superior to those who don’t agree with you, and announce you are “the voice of women”. NO. You are the voice of women who want to disregard states’ rights. Other women you insult.


----------



## Lisa558

forkup said:


> It seems to me that a 7-2 decision by judges nominated by both parties is a hell of a lot less activist than a 5-4 decision rammed through by a majority consisting exclusively of judges nominated by Conservative judges. Wouldn't you say?
> 
> Coming back to your "activism" claim. A judge that in his legal argument claim immediately puts in caveats to which his argumentation doesn't apply isn't so much making a legal argument as he is justifying activism.
> 
> As for "the people" deciding. They already do. NOBODY is forcing anybody to have an abortion.


No, the people are not deciding. A slim majority of the entire nation wants to go against the Constitution, and a large minority of the entire nation want it to revert to states’ rights, as would be the correct decision.

As far as “if I don’t want an abortion, don’t have one,” that’s anither simplistic liberal statement I’ve heard before. If I think it’s wrong that someone robbed a neighbor‘s house, would you say “if you think it’s wrong to rob a neighbor’s house, don’t do it”?


----------



## postman

Lisa558 said:


> No, the people are not deciding. A slim majority of the entire nation wants to go against the Constitution, and a large minority of the entire nation want it to revert to states’ rights, as would be the correct decision.


Read the 14th amendment to the constitution.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> And who gets to decide which rights people get? The Democrats?


No, apparently, it’s the Republicans.


----------



## Lisa558

TemplarKormac said:


> Of course, I've never quite understood misogynistic pricks like you, telling a woman in what manner she should have her kids. It's none of your damn business.


Do you notice how it’s the men insisting on all states having to allow abortion, and insulting or instructing women? A BIG part of this is that the men like the idea that if they knock up a woman, she can just “get rid of it”?

I once had a pregnancy scare - about a week late, which never happened. When I told my boyfriend about it, he said “well, we’ll just get rid of it.” When I told him I couldn’t do that, he said if I decided to keep it, that I earned enough money and that he wouldn’t be involved in the support. Clearly, the guys like the idea that the woman get get rid of it, and they‘d be off the hook.

(End of story: period came a few days later, and I broke up with the louse due to his reaction.)


----------



## postman

Coyote said:


> No, apparently, it’s the Republicans.


The democrats established people have a "right to privacy"

Republicans want the government in everybodies bedroom.


----------



## Lisa558

postman said:


> Read the 14th amendment to the constitution.


Birthright citizenship. What does the fact that illegals are streaming in here and having babies have to do with forcing all states to permit abortions as late as they want?


----------



## postman

Lisa558 said:


> Birthright citizenship. What does the fact that illegals are streaming in here and having babies have to do with forcing all states to permit abortions as late as they want?


This is actually a good example of people like you only reading the headlines and not the story.

The 14th amendment said a lot (5 sections worth). You should read ALL of it.


----------



## Lisa558

postman said:


> The democrats established people have a "right to privacy"
> 
> Republicans want the government in everybodies bedroom.


And the “right to privacy” is the clause that was perverted in order to yield to the liberals’ demands.

If I sneak into my neighbor’s house and kill their baby, do I have the right to declare, in my defense, “hey, what I do is private!”? 

No, because right to privacy does not extend when another life is at stake.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> You don't think so in about 20 or 30 years if they are giving this power over us now. I am quite certain that the future this world faces is going to be horrific.


Oh, and out they come with the scare tactics! What “power” are “they” having over you? The states get to determine at what stage, if any, you get to terminate a life.

The sneaky, unethical leaker sure got her wish. Send the entire country into a massive argument - Democrats’ tactics are always about divisiveness, and the “you’re a racist” lie was wearing thin - so the POS decided to do this.


----------



## postman

Lisa558 said:


> And the “right to privacy” is the clause that was perverted in order to yield to the liberals’ demands.



The right to privacy in an inalienable right, given to the people by the creator.


----------



## postman

Lisa558 said:


> No, because right to privacy does not extend when another life is at stake.



What about assisted suicide?

Another life is at stake, yet several states have said the government should honor their right to privacy in that instance.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> That's exactly where this world is headed. Humans don't seem to be able to help themselves.


Oh, you sanctimonious liberals know so much better?

Let‘s start with the government halting all their massive giveaways and have people WORK to support themselves. You America-haters want to turn this country into one where 60.% of the people can’t “help themselves” and have to have the minority support them.


----------



## Lisa558

postman said:


> The right to privacy in an inalienable right, given to the people by the creator.


The “right to privacy” was distorted in order to force all states to allow abortions. Who gets to decide what rights they are specifically?

i could use that excuse to do whatever I want….what I do is private!


----------



## postman

Lisa558 said:


> The “right to privacy” was distorted in order to force all states to allow abortions. Who gets to decide what rights they are specifically?



The creator endowed every person with certain inalienable rights, as the declaration of independence laid out.

And the Constitution codified in Amendment 10 
_ “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”_

*Power to the people !!!*


----------



## Lisa558

postman said:


> The creator endowed every person with certain inalienable rights, as the declaration of independence laid out.
> 
> And the Constitution codified in Amendment 10
> _ “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”_
> 
> *Power to the people !!!*


And YOU get to decide for everyone that killing one’s unborn child is a right? NO YOU DO NOT.


----------



## postman

Lisa558 said:


> i could use that excuse to do whatever I want….what I do is private!



If they are acts between two consenting adults.


----------



## Lisa558

postman said:


> If they are acts between two consenting adults.


We aren’t talking about sex. We are talking about people in liberal states forcing people in conservative states to allow abortion-on-demand.


----------



## postman

Lisa558 said:


> And YOU get to decide for everyone that killing one’s unborn child is a right? NO YOU DO NOT.


The constitution originally gave to one group of "the people", the right to take the life, liberty or property of another group of "the people".

So such exercise by "the people" over something that isn't even a member of "the people". clearly has constitutional sanction.


----------



## postman

Lisa558 said:


> We aren’t talking about sex. We are talking about people in liberal states forcing people in conservative states to allow abortion-on-demand.


Acts between two consenting adults is not limited to sex (you seem obsessed Rorschach)


----------



## Lisa558

postman said:


> Acts between two consenting adults is not limited to sex (you seem obsessed Rorschach)


So you’re saying the mother can kill the baby because it’s not a consenting adult? Then let’s kill whatever kids we want up to the age of 16.


----------



## Lisa558

I can see why the leaker did this. The anger and arrogance of leftists who insist that rulings go THEIR way is so extreme - together with the out and out threats of violence against the justices if they don’t yield - will apply the type of pressure that will make them fearful of making the correct, Constitutional decision. We’ve already seen how weak Robert’s is - I suspect the leftists have dirt on him - the way he caved to Obamacare - so I’m thinking that Roberts will be able to twist the arms of another couple of justices, and they’ll come out with some cowardly, wishy-washing decision.

And with that, the Democrats will have destroyed the sanctity of thr Supreme Court, knowing that any pending decision will be subjected to their tantrums and threats of violence.

And to think all this was enabled by the Dems weaponizing a virus to install a puppet president and push through their destruction of this country.


----------



## schmidlap

TemplarKormac said:


> You ironically made his point.
> 
> You only respect women who agree with you or who will vote your way.
> How many times must we say this?
> 
> ROE IS NOT CODIFIED LAW
> Also, imagine how authoritarian and repressive it would be if I had the power to strip you of your right to vote on this particular issue, one way or the other?
> 
> That's what the liberal argument is. Let Roe stand so people nationwide are forbidden to vote on it, one way or another.
> 
> They are scared of the ones who vote against it, as are you.
> Also, imagine how authoritarian and repressive it would be if I had the power to strip you of your right to vote on this particular issue, one way or the other?
> 
> That's what the liberal argument is. Let Roe stand so people nationwide are forbidden to vote on it, one way or another.
> 
> They are scared of the ones who vote against it, as are you.



Women in America have exercised reproductive freedom under law for half-a-century, consistent with the progress achieved in other advanced, democratic nations.

Authoritarian statists are hellbent upon arrogating that freedom. _(See Iran, Egypt, Honduras, El Salvador)_

Such draconian Big Government intrusion into such personal matters is opposed by most Americans. 

Such a retrogression in the rights of women is evocative of the Taliban.

The nearly two-thirds of Americans who want Roe v. Wade kept in place say they feel angry and discouraged about the prospect that it may be overturned, describing that as "a danger to women" and as a threat to rights more generally. Most Americans, and particularly younger women, think it would also lead to restrictions on birth control and family planning choices. Going forward, most would like to see a federal law passed that protects abortion and in their own states, two-thirds want it to be legal, at least in most cases.​​Those who imagines that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is an homunculus are free to preach their notion as stridently as they desire, but their need to force women to submit to politicians by coercion is emblematic of their falure to persuade.


----------



## schmidlap

Stann said:


> I agree. Meant as a joke, when one develops cancer should we also go to the bureaucrats or go to our doctor. Abortion laws have no place in our society. Women should not be second class citizens, that doesn't happen in first class ( free ) Nations.


The zealots, especially the weird worshippers, venerate their politicians' pronouncements in climatology, epidemiology, embryology - and other scientific disciplines in which they are abysmally unqualified - as divine revelation.

Their yearning for State control seems unquenchable.


----------



## forkup

Lisa558 said:


> No, the people are not deciding. A slim majority of the entire nation wants to go against the Constitution, and a large minority of the entire nation want it to revert to states’ rights, as would be the correct decision.
> 
> As far as “if I don’t want an abortion, don’t have one,” that’s anither simplistic liberal statement I’ve heard before. If I think it’s wrong that someone robbed a neighbor‘s house, would you say “if you think it’s wrong to rob a neighbor’s house, don’t do it”?


It is not simplistic. It is the heart of the matter. In the US "the people" consists of... people.

 Your position is that the entire nation isn't qualified to decide if everybody can have an abortion. The people themselves aren't qualified. Instead you believe the States should be.

As to constitutionality. In the seventies 7 out of 9 judges decided that it was constitutional. Now, presumably 5 out of 9 are deciding it isn't. That is 11 to 7 in total that disagree with you. More if I count all the times Roe vs Wade was upheld.

Not only that. As I said. The legal argumentation is so strained that the judge making the argument puts in caveats in his own ruling.

This is about one thing and one thing only. You personally don't like abortion. You realise it's a minority opinion and as such are incapable of enforcing it on other people. So you support the only alternative you have and that's enforcing it on some people.


----------



## Lisa558

forkup said:


> It is not simplistic. It is the heart of the matter. In the US "the people" consists of... people.
> 
> Your position is that the entire nation isn't qualified to decide if everybody can have an abortion. The people themselves aren't qualified. Instead you believe the States should be.
> 
> As to constitutionality. In the seventies 7 out of 9 judges decided that it was constitutional. Now, presumably 5 out of 9 are deciding it isn't. That is 11 to 7 in total that disagree with you. More if I count all the times Roe vs Wade was upheld.
> 
> Not only that. As I said. The legal argumentation is so strained that the judge making the argument puts in caveats in his own ruling.
> 
> This is about one thing and one thing only. You personally don't like abortion. You realise it's a minority opinion and as such are incapable of enforcing it on other people. So you support the only alternative you have and that's enforcing it on some people.


It hardly qualifies as a minority opinion. The last Gallop poll was 47% think it’s morally acceptable and 46% think it’s morally wrong, with a few percentage undecided. In a nation evenly divided, we should let the people in each state set their own laws, as the Constituion said, rather than have one blanket policy that meets the liberals’ demands.









						Record-High 47% in U.S. Think Abortion Is Morally Acceptable
					

A record-high 47% of U.S. adults think abortion is morally acceptable, while 46% believe it is morally wrong. U.S. adults are also split in their self-identification as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."




					news.gallup.com


----------



## forkup

Lisa558 said:


> It hardly qualifies as a minority opinion. The last Gallop poll was 47% think it’s morally acceptable and 46% think it’s morally wrong, with a few percentage undecided. In a nation evenly divided, we should let the people in each state set their own laws, as the Constituion said, rather than have one blanket policy that meets the liberals’ demands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Record-High 47% in U.S. Think Abortion Is Morally Acceptable
> 
> 
> A record-high 47% of U.S. adults think abortion is morally acceptable, while 46% believe it is morally wrong. U.S. adults are also split in their self-identification as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.gallup.com


Something can be considered morally wrong by someone yet still be acceptable. I think for instance voting for Trump is morally wrong, chances are you disagree. I don't like abortion. I find it morally questionable in a lot of circumstances, yet I have a problem with enforcing that opinion on people I don't know and whose circumstances I don't share. 

I realise that is my personal opinion and as such I accept that others don't have to share it. Nor is abortion a yes or no question. I can imagine that you yourself might even see circumstances where it should be allowed.

 The support for Roe vs Wade by the way is higher than a slim majority.


----------



## Lisa558

forkup said:


> Something can be considered morally wrong by someone yet still be acceptable. I think for instance voting for Trump is morally wrong, chances are you disagree. I don't like abortion. I find it morally questionable in a lot of circumstances, yet I have a problem with enforcing that opinion on people I don't know and whose circumstances I don't share.
> 
> I realise that is my personal opinion and as such I accept that others don't have to share it. Nor is abortion a yes or no question. I can imagine that you yourself might even see circumstances where it should be allowed.
> 
> The support for Roe vs Wade by the way is higher than a slim majority.


If half the people think abortion is morally acceptable, and half the people think it is morally wrong, as the Gallop poll showed, then we shouldn’t have the half saying it’s acceptable demand that it be available for EVERYONE, in whatever state they live. That’s up to the people in the states to decide. Otherwise, you are having the majority in California who think it’s fine demand that the residents in Alabama, who think it’s wrong, still make it available.

The liberals MAY get their way, though, as I said up a post. There have been such threats of violence against the justices made by leftists, including senators warning of what will be should the SCOTUS not yield to their demands, that the wishy-washy Court, which has already demonstrated its cowardice, may yield to threats of violence.

And then the libs will know that threatening the lives of justices gets them their way, and we no longer have a woeking Supreme Court. That Biden doesn’t speak out against this is despicable.


----------



## forkup

Lisa558 said:


> If half the people think abortion is morally acceptable, and half the people think it is morally wrong, as the Gallop poll showed, then we shouldn’t have the half saying it’s acceptable demand that it be available for EVERYONE, in whatever state they live. That’s up to the people in the states to decide. Otherwise, you are having the majority in California who think it’s fine demand that the residents in Alabama, who think it’s wrong, still make it available.
> 
> The liberals MAY get their way, though, as I said up a post. There have been such threats of violence against the justices made by leftists, including senators warning of what will be should the SCOTUS not yield to their demands, that the wishy-washy Court, which has already demonstrated its cowardice, may yield to threats of violence.
> 
> And then the libs will know that threatening the lives of justices gets them their way, and we no longer have a woeking Supreme Court. That Biden doesn’t speak out against this is despicable.


Of course we should. If half believes something is wrong they won't do it. The other half can. There is no problem, unless someone (YOU) want to enforce your personal beliefs onto others.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Democrats HATE children, which is why they use the phrase "unwanted child" so bitterly, so often, so irresponsibly.  Fathers have NO RIGHTS but bitter, hateful, anti-science Democrats don't give a **** about babies or the fathers who contributed half of the children's DNA called so ignorantly "my body" by haters.


----------



## LibertyKid

Lisa558 said:


> It hardly qualifies as a minority opinion. The last Gallop poll was 47% think it’s morally acceptable and 46% think it’s morally wrong, with a few percentage undecided. In a nation evenly divided, we should let the people in each state set their own laws, as the Constituion said, rather than have one blanket policy that meets the liberals’ demands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Record-High 47% in U.S. Think Abortion Is Morally Acceptable
> 
> 
> A record-high 47% of U.S. adults think abortion is morally acceptable, while 46% believe it is morally wrong. U.S. adults are also split in their self-identification as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.gallup.com


And that is the entire point. The constitution set the boundary to allow the people to vote in each state for those issues and rights not specified by the constitution. I'm sorry that some feel that this isn't fair, but that is supposed to be the way it's done. There are plenty of other topics that get voted on and are decided by the people and we are perfectly fine with that. And when a topic is this divisive, why shouldn't it be voted on and given to the state and the people to decide? 

This issue is not one sided at all despite the narrative that is being espoused.


----------



## Lisa558

forkup said:


> Of course we should. If half believes something is wrong they won't do it. The other half can. There is no problem, unless someone (YOU) want to enforce your personal beliefs onto others.


What you still don’t get is that’s not how our country works. It goes state by state. So if the majority of the people in a state think abortion is wrong, or needs tighter restrictions, that’s for them to say. Unless someone (YOU) want to enforce your personal beliefs onto others in a state you don’t live in.

Otherwise, why have states at all? We would just have one central government and one large country. Our founders wisely realized that there is too much of a difference among people to allow a blanket policy for every one.


----------



## LibertyKid

Lisa558 said:


> What you still don’t get is that’s not how our country works. It goes state by state. So if half the people in a state think abortion is wrong, or needs tighter restrictions, that’s for them to say. Unless someone (YOU) want to enforce your personal beliefs onto others in a state you don’t live in.
> 
> Otherwise, why have states at all? We would just have one central government and one large country. Our founders wisely realized that there is too much of a difference among people to allow a blanket policy for every one.


And this is another logical point, which if it was up to most far-left, they would do away with states their ability to govern themselves. They would want a totalitarian government to rule over them and decide what is best for them instead of allowing the people to decide. 

I think a good portion of the US population are ignorant to how our Federal and State governments are to be ran. And part of that ignorance is our MSM's focus on POTUS. It's as if the POTUS is the only governance of our country. In fact, our local and state politics should be a greater focus than our national federal government because our local governments should have a great impact on our lives. But most could care less about local politics because they just don't care. They will follow the MSM lead to feed them what they should know.


----------



## Lisa558

LibertyKid said:


> And this is another logical point, which if it was up to most far-left, they would do away with states their ability to govern themselves. They would want a totalitarian government to rule over them and decide what is best for them instead of allowing the people to decide.
> 
> I think a good portion of the US population are ignorant to how our Federal and State governments are to be ran. And part of that ignorance is our MSM's focus on POTUS. It's as if the POTUS is the only governance of our country. In fact, our local and state politics should be a greater focus than our national federal government because our local governments should have a great impact on our lives. But most could care less about local politics because they just don't care. They will follow the MSM lead to feed them what they should know.


Yes, the libs would defInitely like a singular approach to how the country is run - with them making the decisions of course. That’s why they tried to nationalize elections.

I also agree that an ignorant voter is the biggest danger to our country. That’s why the Democrats want mail-in ballot harvesting: they can go to the most stupid, ignorant, and/or lazy citizens, manipulate them into believing all sorts of nonsense, and get them to check “D.” That is also why they are setting up the Truth Ministry - to block valid information from the other side that might educate voters to the true situation.


----------



## forkup

Lisa558 said:


> What you still don’t get is that’s not how our country works. It goes state by state. So if the majority of the people in a state think abortion is wrong, or needs tighter restrictions, that’s for them to say. Unless someone (YOU) want to enforce your personal beliefs onto others in a state you don’t live in.
> 
> Otherwise, why have states at all? We would just have one central government and one large country. Our founders wisely realized that there is too much of a difference among people to allow a blanket policy for every one.


A state has no believes it is not a person. I can't enforce my beliefs on something that is not a person. I respect the opinion on abortion from everybody. This includes anybody in any State. You on the other hand do not.


----------



## Lisa558

forkup said:


> A state has no believes it is not a person. I can't enforce my beliefs on something that is not a person. I respect the opinion on abortion from everybody. This includes anybody in any State. You on the other hand do not.


Oye. You’re clueless as to how our Constitution is set up. You, as a resident of one state, have no say as to how the voters in another state want to set up their state.

We are not one monolithic country, where when 47% of the country as a whole thinks one way, and 46% of the country thinks the other, and the 47% gets to decide the rules for each state.

I really wish they would go back to teaching CIvics in high school instead of far-left social justice. There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, and thus it reverts to states rights.


----------



## Calypso Jones

What are the real chances this will be overturned and given to the states to decide.   

I say less than 50%.


----------



## BackAgain

Calypso Jones said:


> What are the real chances this will be overturned and given to the states to decide.
> 
> I say less than 50%.


I suspect that draft opinion will be the ultimate decision at least substantively. Some wording may change. I’d guess the chances are close to 100%.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> No, I just point out hypocrites when I see them. Don't want to be pointed out, don't be a hypocrite!
> 
> 
> 
> Naah, I never said that. I didn't attack you for disagreeing with me, I called out your hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> Pot, meet kettle.



No, hon, you tried to call out your talking points' idea of someone else's hypocrisy.  And then, when you got confronted with someone who could answer your inane accusation, you just started screaming, "Hypocrite!  Hypocrite!!" for no discernible reason.  Then you pissed your frillies and ran away.

Had you been "calling out my hypocrisy", you'd have been able to stick around and actually tell me how I'm a "hypocrite", in any way other than, "Hypocrite means someone who disagrees with me!"

Noticeably, I've been inviting you to tell me of my "hypocrisy" since then, and all you've had to say in return is juvenile insults.  Is that how you "call out hypocrisy"?

Whenever you're ready to "point out hypocrisy", instead of just screaming, "Hypocrite!" randomly, bring it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> How many adopted children do you have in your home, currently?



Oh, he doesn't have to, because he wants them dead.


----------



## Stann

forkup said:


> Lol, having trouble sleeping?
> 
> I'm an optimist by nature. I believe that humans, when the need is high enough, are capable of solving nearly any problem. How much of that is hope and how much is reality I wouldn't know.


I work nights, so my sleep pattern varies a lot. When I sleep I sleep good. I am not concerned about me, I've done all I can and I won't be here much longer. I'm concerned for everyone else on the planet. Despite some problems, I had a wonderful life and I wish people in the future could have just as good a life. This planet was a paradise and a beautiful place to visit, if even for a period of time as physical life is given here.


----------



## Lisa558

Calypso Jones said:


> What are the real chances this will be overturned and given to the states to decide.
> 
> I say less than 50%.


The problem is that now that the leftists - even including a U.S. senators - have threatened violence, a decision to uphold it will:

1) be suspicious, because we don’t know to what extent the terrorist liberals scared Roberts into pressuring two conservative justices to let the original ruling stand, and

2) show the terrorist liberals that threatening the lives of justices if they don’t submit to the liberal position will work, and they will do it each time,

3) show the leaker that leaking the direction a decision is going gives the violent leftists a chance to threaten justices, and it can keep happening.


----------



## Lisa558

BackAgain said:


> I suspect that draft opinion will be the ultimate decision at least substantively. Some wording may change. I’d guess the chances are close to 100%.


Even though the leftists had threatened violence and even death to justices? They have children and grandchildren, and I wouldn’t put it past these leftists to let it be known that they are willing to sacrifice  their kiddies. After all, we see how little value they place on the lives of children.


----------



## BackAgain

This thread got moved to a different forum!!!

Actually, a sensible move.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> If you looked up the record on all those things you mentioned you'd find they had broad bipartisan support.



If you looked up the history of this conversation, you'd find that this response is irrelevant and refutes no point made whatsoever.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Correct, it's been called " settled law " for most of the 50-year history. It's only now that a minority of malcontents are contesting it.



We've been contesting it all along, and you've been so comfortable with your "We forced them to accept what we want, and we are entitled to have it FOREVER!" that you didn't pay attention to what was happening around you.  Too bad, so sad, that's on you.

Turns out all your labels and slogans didn't actually force anyone to accede to your tyranny.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I work nights, so my sleep pattern varies a lot. When I sleep I sleep good. I am not concerned about me, I've done all I can and I won't be here much longer. I'm concerned for everyone else on the planet. Despite some problems, I had a wonderful life and I wish people in the future could have just as good a life. This planet was a paradise and a beautiful place to visit, if even for a period of time as physical life is given here.


This sentiment actually made my eyes water. Yes, it has been a beautiful place to visit, and about half of us do not want to see the opportunity you and I were given robbed from a developing child.

But we understand that not everyone agrees with us - there’s your half, who while enjoying a life because his mother allowed him to continue his development toward birth, is OK with others not getting the gift of life - and that’s why we leave it up to the people in each  state to decide whether a growing life should be given a chance, at least, of visiting this beautiful place you called “paradise” - or robbed of it depending on its “mother’s” wishes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Try to get over your emotions and you'll see this issue more clearly for what it actually is.



Try to look less desperate for an attack and you might find an argument that's actually valid.  Trying to deflect off onto "Your response to my idiocy means you're all emotional!" is just sad and bush league, even by your standards.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I guess that depends on whose rights are being violated and how powerful their oppressors are. Said commentary on a nation that's supposed to have Justice and equality for all.



Oh, my God, could you sound any more like a hysterical, melodramatic girl at this moment?  This is a sad commentary on the state of leftist education.

If you need a timeout to go whimper in the corner for how badly you're losing this debate, I won't mind.  Go ahead.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, my God, could you sound any more like a hysterical, melodramatic girl at this moment?  This is a sad commentary on the state of leftist education.
> 
> If you need a timeout to go whimper in the corner for how badly you're losing this debate, I won't mind.  Go ahead.


When libs start throwing around the word “oppressors,” you know they’ve been brainwashed beyond belief.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Well if the people are given a choice, it's not even a done deal here in Nebraska, a very Republican state, the effort to try to get a trigger Bill attached to the Roe versus Wade outcome didn't Garner enough votes to pass. People here generally live by the rule. " Live and let livlive



And you're fighting like Hell to put a stop to that very mindset.  Congratulations.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> The whole reason bro versus Wade came into existence was because different states were passing egregious abortion laws. Even if Roe versus Wade does go by the wayside. The same thing is about to happen all over again, so it will have to be brought back and the federal government will settle the matter once again hopefully for all time.



"We only imposed our will on people because too many of them were doing something we didn't like!"

Uh huh.  We know.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> No, they're not. No woman's rights activist is trying to force any so-called pro-life woman to have an abortion. Your argument is totally unfounded.


----------



## Calypso Jones




----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> You are aware that abortion and adoption have nothing to do with each other, right? You do understand that she doesn't want to end abortion altogether, do you?
> 
> Are you aware that she understands there are medical reasons for abortion that don't involve vanity or convenience?
> 
> This kind of stupidity from you is quite new.
> 
> Just want to ask one more time, though:
> 
> You do understand that abortion and adoption have nothing in common with each other, right?
> 
> Apparently not.



If you are not intelligent enough to connect the dots between unwanted children and adoption, there is no point in continuing, you're not bright enough to interact with.



TemplarKormac said:


> Of course, I've never quite understood misogynistic pricks like you, telling a woman in what manner she should have her kids. It's none of your damn business.



Well, yes, it is, considering that my money is taken to support them.


----------



## Flash




----------



## Flash




----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> You are aware that abortion and adoption have nothing to do with each other, right? You do understand that she doesn't want to end abortion altogether, do you?
> 
> Are you aware that she understands there are medical reasons for abortion that don't involve vanity or convenience?
> 
> This kind of stupidity from you is quite new.
> 
> Just want to ask one more time, though:
> 
> You do understand that abortion and adoption have nothing in common with each other, right?
> 
> Apparently not.






You should read this.  It explains so much about how otherwise intelligent, educated people willingly become morons when their ideology gets in the way.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> That doesn't change the fact that 70% of Americans believe Roe versus Wade should stay in place. If the supreme Court does reverse their opinion about it, it will be the most unpopular decision ever. And then all the problems that Roe versus Wade will resurface again and the people will demand its return.



No one has to change that "fact", because it's not a fact.  It's a highly biased interpretation of reality.

And if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade, it will be "unpopular" for exactly as long as it takes for people to see through your lies about what that means to what it ACTUALLY means.  Very few people are really going to be incensed by, "You vote on it for yourselves", no matter how much you try to tell yourself that the vast majority of people are just dying for tyrannical rule.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> No, the people are not deciding. A slim majority of the entire nation wants to go against the Constitution, and a large minority of the entire nation want it to revert to states’ rights, as would be the correct decision.
> 
> As far as “if I don’t want an abortion, don’t have one,” that’s anither simplistic liberal statement I’ve heard before. If I think it’s wrong that someone robbed a neighbor‘s house, would you say “if you think it’s wrong to rob a neighbor’s house, don’t do it”?



Personally, I say, "If you don't want abortion restrictions, don't pass them."

Funny how their mindset never applies to anything else, though.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> Read the 14th amendment to the constitution.



Read it many times, and I'm sure Lisa has, as well.  Did you have a point to make, or did you just hope you could imply you did?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> No, apparently, it’s the Republicans.



How is that "apparent"?  Someone stopping you from voting in your state?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> Do you notice how it’s the men insisting on all states having to allow abortion, and insulting or instructing women? A BIG part of this is that the men like the idea that if they knock up a woman, she can just “get rid of it”?
> 
> I once had a pregnancy scare - about a week late, which never happened. When I told my boyfriend about it, he said “well, we’ll just get rid of it.” When I told him I couldn’t do that, he said if I decided to keep it, that I earned enough money and that he wouldn’t be involved in the support. Clearly, the guys like the idea that the woman get get rid of it, and they‘d be off the hook.
> 
> (End of story: period came a few days later, and I broke up with the louse due to his reaction.)



I find it amusing that he thought he got to declare whether or not he would be involved in the support.

On the other side of the scale, we have my husband.  While he is not as vocal as I am on the pro-life side, I pity anyone who comes at him with, "No uterus, no opinion!  You're not a woman, so this is none of your business!"

When he was in college, before we met (actually right around the time that I had my first child), he was engaged.  His fiancee was also in college, and they planned to get married after they both graduated.  His fiancee got pregnant, and they panicked, and they believed all the pro-abort lines about "their futures" and "blob of tissue" and no big deal, and they decided to get an abortion.

As it turned out, it WAS a big deal for both of them.  Seems that killing the baby didn't erase the fact that he had existed, and it grew between them until neither of them could stand to look at each other, because the fact of the abortion was all they could see.  They broke up, and my husband basically couldn't bring himself to date anyone, for fear that she might get pregnant and decide to abort his baby, and he would have no control over it.  It wasn't until he met me and my daughter, who was living proof that I would not have an abortion no matter what the circumstances, that he felt safe to date again.

Fast forward 27 years.  Our daughter is 32, and has given us grandchildren that my husband adores.  And I know - because he's told me - that every time he looks at his daughter or grandchildren, some part of him inside is seeing his other child, who would have been about the same age, and the life he might have had, and the grandchildren he might have produced.

No, I wouldn't be the person who tries to tell him this issue is none of his business because he's a man.  Not for a second.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> The democrats established people have a "right to privacy"
> 
> Republicans want the government in everybodies bedroom.



No, the Democrats DECLARED that a universal, uncodified "right to privacy" existed.  There's a difference.

And we have no interest in being in anyone's bedroom.  Abortion clinics, on the other hand . . .

And if you're going to expect me to be embarrassed or ashamed about that, I sincerely invite you to hold your breath waiting.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> This is actually a good example of people like you only reading the headlines and not the story.
> 
> The 14th amendment said a lot (5 sections worth). You should read ALL of it.



Maybe you should try actually making your point and telling us what you think the 14th Amendment proves about it, instead of just vaguely trying to imply it and demanding that we go research and prove you right about whatever the fuck you're trying desperately not to say.

Fail.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> The right to privacy in an inalienable right, given to the people by the creator.



Which is so clear to see by your complete refusal to cite it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> What about assisted suicide?
> 
> Another life is at stake, yet several states have said the government should honor their right to privacy in that instance.



What about it?  You seem to think pointing out another vile mutation of the law somehow justifies this vile mutation of the law, but are once again being purposely vague about what point you think you've made.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> The creator endowed every person with certain inalienable rights, as the declaration of independence laid out.
> 
> And the Constitution codified in Amendment 10
> _ “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”_
> 
> *Power to the people !!!*



You're going to use the Tenth Amendment to justify trying to contradict and undermine the Tenth Amendment?  Interesting strategy, but ultimately another fail.


----------



## Cecilie1200

postman said:


> The constitution originally gave to one group of "the people", the right to take the life, liberty or property of another group of "the people".
> 
> So such exercise by "the people" over something that isn't even a member of "the people". clearly has constitutional sanction.



You skipped right past the very long passages of the Constitution where it specified who could restrict or take those rights, how they could do it, and under what circumstances.

Maybe YOU should go back and read it.


----------



## eagle1462010

postman said:


> The creator endowed every person with certain inalienable rights, as the declaration of independence laid out.
> 
> And the Constitution codified in Amendment 10
> _ “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”_
> 
> *Power to the people !!!*


Which creats 50 different experiments or countries within a country.

Abortion will not end if Roe v Wade is ovetturned.  Almost half the states have no abortion bans at all.  Nothing changes there.  In mainly red states.  Each state will decide whete they will dtaw the line on where life begins.  Women who want abortions after that point will have to travel.

Under Roe v Wade States van legally have laws over the viability set in that case.


----------



## forkup

Lisa558 said:


> Oye. You’re clueless as to how our Constitution is set up. You, as a resident of one state, have no say as to how the voters in another state want to set up their state.
> 
> We are not one monolithic country, where when 47% of the country as a whole thinks one way, and 46% of the country thinks the other, and the 47% gets to decide the rules for each state.
> 
> I really wish they would go back to teaching CIvics in high school instead of far-left social justice. There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, and thus it reverts to states rights.


I'm clueless about how the constitution is set up?
Lisa, you are treating as gospel an opinion that admits its reasoning doesn't apply universally to other unenumerated rights.

Issued by judges of 1 particular ideology. Placed in power by the expediency of refusing a hearing to a Scotus nominee put forth by the other party.(going against the spirit, if not the letter of the nomination process set forth in the constitution you claim to hold so dear) And in the face of several other rulings that upheld it.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> I find it amusing that he thought he got to declare whether or not he would be involved in the support.
> 
> On the other side of the scale, we have my husband.  While he is not as vocal as I am on the pro-life side, I pity anyone who comes at him with, "No uterus, no opinion!  You're not a woman, so this is none of your business!"
> 
> When he was in college, before we met (actually right around the time that I had my first child), he was engaged.  His fiancee was also in college, and they planned to get married after they both graduated.  His fiancee got pregnant, and they panicked, and they believed all the pro-abort lines about "their futures" and "blob of tissue" and no big deal, and they decided to get an abortion.
> 
> As it turned out, it WAS a big deal for both of them.  Seems that killing the baby didn't erase the fact that he had existed, and it grew between them until neither of them could stand to look at each other, because the fact of the abortion was all they could see.  They broke up, and my husband basically couldn't bring himself to date anyone, for fear that she might get pregnant and decide to abort his baby, and he would have no control over it.  It wasn't until he met me and my daughter, who was living proof that I would not have an abortion no matter what the circumstances, that he felt safe to date again.
> 
> Fast forward 27 years.  Our daughter is 32, and has given us grandchildren that my husband adores.  And I know - because he's told me - that every time he looks at his daughter or grandchildren, some part of him inside is seeing his other child, who would have been about the same age, and the life he might have had, and the grandchildren he might have produced.
> 
> No, I wouldn't be the person who tries to tell him this issue is none of his business because he's a man.  Not for a second.



Thank you for sharing you story.

And yes. There are definitely many, many woman (as well as the would-have-been fathers) who think to themselves….my child would have turned two this month….my child would be in first grade this year…..my child would be driving around now….my child would be in college at this point….my child would be 25 now.…and 30 now….perhaps with her own children…and 35 now…..now 40…..now 50…for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Lisa558

forkup said:


> I'm clueless about how the constitution is set up?
> Lisa, you are treating as gospel an opinion that admits its reasoning doesn't apply universally to other unenumerated rights.
> 
> Issued by judges of 1 particular ideology. Placed in power by the expediency of refusing a hearing to a Scotus nominee put forth by the other party.(going against the spirit, if not the letter of the nomination process set forth in the constitution you claim to hold so dear) And in the face of several other rulings that upheld it.


The sad thing is that this should not even be debated at this point. The leaker should be punished, and the SCOTUS should, G-d willing, issue the same decision they would have had they not been threatened with violence and death if they don’t yield.

And yes, there are different ways to interpret the Constitution, or we never would have had the decision we did 50 years ago.  Now it’s being reviewed, rightly so.

You have one interpretation….I have the other. Just as half the people think abortion is OK, and the other half don’t. In a country so evenly split, it seems quite arrogant for the liberals to demand that THEIR way be the law of the land in every state.

Again, I just hope the justices don’t change their opinion under pressure from leftists threatening violence.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> Which creats 50 different experiments or countries within a country.
> 
> Abortion will not end if Roe v Wade is ovetturned.  Almost half the states have no abortion bans at all.  Nothing changes there.  In mainly red states.  Each state will decide whete they will dtaw the line on where life begins.  Women who want abortions after that point will have to travel.
> 
> Under Roe v Wade States van legally have laws over the viability set in that case.


Precisely. Liberals aren’t arguing for a woman’s right for an abortion - which will still be wildly available - they are arguing for a convenient abortion.


----------



## forkup

Lisa558 said:


> The sad thing is that this should not even be debated at this point. The leaker should be punished, and the SCOTUS should, G-d willing, issue the same decision they would have had they not been threatened with violence and death if they don’t yield.
> 
> And yes, there are different ways to interpret the Constitution, or we never would have had the decision we did 50 years ago.  Now it’s being reviewed, rightly so.
> 
> You have one interpretation….I have the other. Just as half the people think abortion is OK, and the other half don’t. In a country so evenly split, it seems quite arrogant for the liberals to demand that THEIR way be the law of the land in every state.
> 
> Again, I just hope the justices don’t change their opinion under pressure from leftists threatening violence.


What's more arrogant? Someone who allows an individual person to make a decision for themselves. Or someone who insists they don't have the right to make that decision for themselves because he or she feels the decision should be made on the basis of THEIR interpretation of a document written in a time were women were NOT full citizens.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> View attachment 642342
> 
> You should read this.  It explains so much about how otherwise intelligent, educated people willingly become morons when their ideology gets in the way.


This might be interesting.


----------



## Lisa558

forkup said:


> What's more arrogant? Someone who allows an individual person to make a decision for themselves. Or someone who insists they don't have the right to make that decision for themselves because he or she feels the decision should be made on the basis of THEIR interpretation of a document written in a time were women were NOT full citizens.


You are like a stuck pig. The country is set up for individuals within each state to set up the laws. Majority rules, on a state by state basis.


----------



## forkup

Lisa558 said:


> You are like a stuck pig. The country is set up for individuals within each state to set up the laws. Majority rules, on a state by state basis.


Not the issue. You are claiming I'm arrogant while I'm holding no one captive to my opinion. You on the other hand feel you have the right to do so with at least some people. I don't care if you feel you have the right for whatever reason.


----------



## Lisa558

forkup said:


> Not the issue. You are claiming I'm arrogant while I'm holding no one captive to my opinion. You on the other hand feel you have the right to do so with at least some people. I don't care if you feel you have the right for whatever reason.


No, you don’t get the reason the Constitution said that anything not specifically delineated as being under the authority of the central government default to state’s rights.

You do not have any say in how people in Bible Belt states set their laws.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> This might be interesting.



It talks about specific intellectual morons - and not all from the left, if I remember correctly - but it gives insight into how this works for just about anyone blinded by ideology.


----------



## konradv

Lisa558 said:


> No, you don’t get the reason the Constitution said that anything not specifically delineated as being under the authority of the central government default to state’s rights.
> 
> You do not have any say in how people in Bible Belt states set their laws.


It’s time to get some people voted out.  If the Republicans had a gender gap had before, it may be a chasm now.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> If you are not intelligent enough to connect the dots between unwanted children and adoption, there is no point in continuing, you're not bright enough to interact with.


You're saying I'm not bright whilst not explaining any difference between abortion and adoption?

Okay. I get it. You believe that she somehow wants other women to give birth without considering how those children are taken care of in the future.

We just got done observing Mother's Day.  And since she's a mother,  she would naturally know how to care for adopted children the same way she would if she gave birth to them. The charge is the same. It's not that she wouldn't or couldn't adopt children, she can't. She made the decision to have children as opposed to adopting them. Two children were already an enormous strain on her personal resources. 

Naturally, if faced with the prospect of having to adopt children, she would be readily prepared with experience. You assumed she couldn't (as a mother who gave birth to two children naturally) adopt children. Giving birth to children naturally gives a woman a unique perspective on the value of life that apparently you fail to grasp a male member of the human species.  

I cannot believe this is the argument you're making

"You don't want women to abort children so why won't you adopt them?"

How totally asinine and completely ignorant. Your attempt to sound objective and thoughtful has failed.


----------



## forkup

Lisa558 said:


> No, you don’t get the reason the Constitution said that anything not specifically delineated as being under the authority of the central government default to state’s rights.
> 
> You do not have any say in how people in Bible Belt states set their laws.


Again. YOUR judge, who made the ruling in YOUR favor, does not agree with your reasoning.

Page 5 of his ruling.

*"That* provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”









						Read Justice Alito's initial draft abortion opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade
					

Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion.




					www.politico.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lisa558 said:


> No, you don’t get the reason the Constitution said that anything not specifically delineated as being under the authority of the central government default to state’s rights.
> 
> You do not have any say in how people in Bible Belt states set their laws.


Actually the tenth amendment does say anything about " specifically delineated " rights. The are enumerated rights but there are also unenumerated rights established by case law that flow from the enumerated rights such as the right to due process and equal protection under the law.

Penumbra is also an interesting concept



> Penumbra is the* implied rights provided in the U.S. constitution*, or in a rule. Literally, the term penumbra was created to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses. The term penumbra is used in legal sense as a metaphor describing implied powers of the federal government.


*Penumbra* Law and Legal Definition | *USLegal*, Inc.​


definitions.uslegal.com/p/penumbra/


----------



## Lisa558

forkup said:


> Again. YOUR judge, who made the ruling in YOUR favor, does not agree with your reasoning.
> 
> Page 5 of his ruling.
> 
> *"That* provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read Justice Alito's initial draft abortion opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade
> 
> 
> Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com


All that says is that SOME rights that are not mentioned in the
Constitution are held to guarantee but that they must be deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition. The right to abort one’s child is NOT deeply rooted as such, which is where he was going with this.

P.S. I am NOT reading the leaked document. Shame on you for publishing something that should not have yet seen the light of day.


----------



## forkup

Lisa558 said:


> All that says is that SOME rights that are not mentioned in the
> Constitution are held to guarantee but that they must be deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition. The right to abort one’s child is NOT deeply rooted as such, which is where he was going with this.
> 
> P.S. I am NOT reading the leaked document. Shame on you for publishing something that should not have yet seen the light of day.


Lol, it is public. If you really were concerned about propriety you wouldn't be arguing with me. So save me the faux-outrage.

So know you are changing your argument? From, well-unenumerated rights automatically fall to the States. To, well some unenumerated rights do? 

Any more goalposts you want moving?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Well, yes, it is, considering that my money is taken to support them.



Yeah, no. It was hers too. She chose to birth children instead of adopting them. She actually saved you money by birthing them and paying for them herself. 

Speak, blind man, speak! Prove that you are not only blind in sight but in mind!


----------



## Lisa558

forkup said:


> Lol, it is public. If you really were concerned about propriety you wouldn't be arguing with me. So save me the faux-outrage.
> 
> So know you are changing your argument? From, well-unenumerated rights automatically fall to the States. To, well some unenumerated rights do?
> 
> Any more goalposts you want moving?


And you are deciding which rights? Clearly, the right to terminate a life is not a “right” intended by the Constitution. Why do liberals think THEY get to determine which rights are guaranteed, and conservatives have to STFU about it? Oh right, I forgot….silencing.

A child is about to be robbed of a life here on Earth, and your big concern is that it shouldn’t be inconvenient for women who live in states that will have restrictions, and who most likely were irresponsible with birth control, and then took too long to make up her mind. If her baby is about to be killed, she can get on a GD bus.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> Yeah, no. It was hers too. She chose to birth children instead of adopting them. She actually saved you money by birthing them and paying for them herself.
> 
> Speak, blind man, speak! Prove that you are not only blind in sight but in mind!


Are you on some sort of drugs?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle 





Is this the best you can do?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Are you on some sort of drugs?


I get high on reality often. 

What about you?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lisa558 said:


> All that says is that SOME rights that are not mentioned in the
> Constitution are held to guarantee but that they must be deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition. The right to abort one’s child is NOT deeply rooted as such, which is where he was going with this.
> 
> P.S. I am NOT reading the leaked document. Shame on you for publishing something that should not have yet seen the light of day.


Tradition evolve and change. Remember when women needed a husbands permission to apply for credit or get a job?. Remember when they could not vote?



> An example of this is the fact that wives needed their husbands’ permission to do many things, including* getting a job*. There are also examples of requiring a husband’s signature to obtain a credit card. Nurses from the 1970s.
> *40 Basic Rights Women Did Not Have* Until The 1970s​





Your argument ( And Alito's) is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> I get high on reality often.
> 
> What about you?


You wouldn't know reality if it crawled up your nose.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> You wouldn't know reality if it crawled up your nose.


Cry more.

So, this is what you're reduced to when confronted with a person who has actually made the choice you have repeatedly criticized her for not making. She made the more painful choice. The actual, physically more painful, choice. 

What's that about reality, again?


----------



## forkup

Lisa558 said:


> And you are deciding which rights? Clearly, the right to terminate a life is not a “right” intended by the Constitution. Why do liberals think THEY get to determine which rights are guaranteed, and conservatives have to STFU about it? Oh right, I forgot….silencing.
> 
> A child is about to be robbed of a life here on Earth, and your big concern is that it shouldn’t be inconvenient for women who live in states that will have restrictions, and who most likely were irresponsible with birth control, and then took too long to make up her mind. If her baby is about to be killed, she can get on a GD bus.


So now you are switching again. Going from I support it because it's constitutional. To, I support it because it's morally right. I sure wish you would pick one.

Putting up a strawman doesn't make your argument better. We have established, and you have conceded there are different ways to interpret the constitution. We have established, and you have conceded that people can have different viewpoints on abortion. We have established, and you have conceded that the constitution allows for unenumerated rights to be held constitutional in certain cases.

Only one of us is insisting that despite all that ambiguity their opinion allows them to impose their viewpoint on other people, even if they don't agree. That person is you.

Disagreeing with someone does not equate to silencing. Here as in the issue of abortion, you are trying to make the argument that only your opinion is valid.


----------



## eagle1462010

forkup said:


> What's more arrogant? Someone who allows an individual person to make a decision for themselves. Or someone who insists they don't have the right to make that decision for themselves because he or she feels the decision should be made on the basis of THEIR interpretation of a document written in a time were women were NOT full citizens.


As you ignore a unborn childs life.  He has no voice.  Kissvthis


----------



## eagle1462010

forkup said:


> So now you are switching again. Going from I support it because it's constitutional. To, I support it because it's morally right. I sure wish you would pick one.
> 
> Putting up a strawman doesn't make your argument better. We have established, and you have conceded there are different ways to interpret the constitution. We have established, and you have conceded that people can have different viewpoints on abortion. We have established, and you have conceded that the constitution allows for unenumerated rights to be held constitutional in certain cases.
> 
> Only one of us is insisting that despite all that ambiguity their opinion allows them to impose their viewpoint on other people, even if they don't agree. That person is you.
> 
> Disagreeing with someone does not equate to silencing. Here as in the issue of abortion, you are trying to make the argument that only your opinion is valid.


BS  Roe v Wade ruling stated they avoided when life begins in the ruling.  That is why half the states have banned late term already.  They used viability to survive birth for that.  They also agreed it was a life at that point which too many call medical waste.


----------



## forkup

eagle1462010 said:


> As you ignore a unborn childs life.  He has no voice.  Kissvthis


Yes, I will. In the choice between a fully developed person, who has an impact on the world around them, a voice, a family who will miss them, and who will be expected to take care and provide for a baby if he or she is born. And something that is neither developed, self-aware, and has no way to survive outside of the womb ( the standard Roe v Wade set for allowing abortion). I will choose the first. Both do not have equal rights.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> As you ignore a unborn childs life.  He has no voice.  Kissvthis


The problem with that argument is that most people who are obsessed with the life of the unborn, do not give a shit about those kids after they are born.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The problem with that argument is that most people who are obsessed with the life of the unborn, do not give a shit about those kids after they are born.



The problem with that argument is that it's complete, made-up bullshit by people who are far too busy "knowing" about pro-lifers to actually talk to and listen to pro-lifers.

But go ahead.  Criticize us for not caring enough about the babies you want to just kill.  THAT'LL certainly work.


----------



## Lisa558

forkup said:


> So now you are switching again. Going from I support it because it's constitutional. To, I support it because it's morally right. I sure wish you would pick one.
> 
> Putting up a strawman doesn't make your argument better. We have established, and you have conceded there are different ways to interpret the constitution. We have established, and you have conceded that people can have different viewpoints on abortion. We have established, and you have conceded that the constitution allows for unenumerated rights to be held constitutional in certain cases.
> 
> Only one of us is insisting that despite all that ambiguity their opinion allows them to impose their viewpoint on other people, even if they don't agree. That person is you.
> 
> Disagreeing with someone does not equate to silencing. Here as in the issue of abortion, you are trying to make the argument that only your opinion is valid.


I didn’t change my argument. I still say R v W should be reversed because it violates the Constitution regarding states rights. i quoted the Gallop poll that said that 47% of Americans believe abortion is morally acceptable and 46% do not. The country is evenly split.

And again, you do not have a right to decide the laws in states other than your own. This is not one monolithic country…..it is a country of 50 individual states.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Pelousy applauds the righteous anger of Baby Killers.









						Nancy Pelosi Applauds ‘Righteous Anger’ Of Abortion Rights Activists In Letter To Fellow Democrats | The Daily Wire
					






					www.dailywire.com


----------



## Lisa558

Calypso Jones said:


> Pelousy applauds the righteous anger of Baby Killers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nancy Pelosi Applauds ‘Righteous Anger’ Of Abortion Rights Activists In Letter To Fellow Democrats | The Daily Wire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailywire.com


When do the Democrats’ actions cross over to incite to riot, and form grounds for impeachment?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> When do the Democrats’ actions cross over to incite to riot, and form grounds for impeachment?



When Republicans take power and can enforce the laws, one hopes.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> The problem with that argument is that it's complete, made-up bullshit by people who are far too busy "knowing" about pro-lifers to actually talk to and listen to pro-lifers.
> 
> But go ahead.  Criticize us for not caring enough about the babies you want to just kill.  THAT'LL certainly work.


I have talked to plenty of so called pro-lifers. They are mostly republicans who do not support things like which would provide an incentive to bring a child to term-even if unplanned :


Health care for all
Food programs
Housing assistance
Affordable day care and pre school
Protecting the environment from pollution 
Addressing climate change so that there is a viable earth for those kids
Addressing income and wealth disparity to preserve and strengthen the middle and working class
Nor do they support policies and programs that prevent unwanted pregnancies


Meaningful and comprehensive sex education
Affordable contraception
Career and educational opportunities that provide an incentive to avoid pregnancy
The fact is that the rate of abortion is way down thanks to progressive policies and programs and it could be much lower if it were not for Republican obstructionism 

THE STATES THAT HAVE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LAWS ARE ALSO THE STATES THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST INFANT MORTALITY RATES, THE LOWEST RATES OF PRENATAL CARE AND HIGHEST LEVELS OF POVERTY


----------



## Calypso Jones

This is not a third world country.   Americans take care of themselves.  When you put your life in the hands of the gov't they destroy you...just like where we are now.

The rethinking of Roe V Wade is not going to change things any...except it won't be determined by the feds but rather the states.  you can kill your child if you think it inconvenient.  that will go on.   But i won't be paying for it.  And then it will TRULY be in the hands of the the woman and her doctor.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> When Republicans take power and can enforce the laws, one hopes.


I can see grounds for impeachment for Biden, on several fronts; for Harris, for obvious incompetence; for Pelosi, for riling up an angry mob and inciting riots; and for Schumer, for threatening the justices of the Supreme Court.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Calypso Jones said:


> This is not a third world country.   Americans take care of themselves.  When you put your life in the hands of the gov't they destroy you...just like where we are now.
> 
> The rethinking of Roe V Wade is not going to change things any...except it won't be determined by the feds but rather the states.  you can kill your child if you think it inconvenient.  that will go on.   But i won't be paying for it.  And then it will TRULY be in the hands of the the woman and her doctor.


Many Americans are living in  poverty as thought it were a third world country through no fault of there own.


----------



## Calypso Jones

You're right.  It is the fault of this administration.


----------



## eagle1462010

forkup said:


> Yes, I will. In the choice between a fully developed person, who has an impact on the world around them, a voice, a family who will miss them, and who will be expected to take care and provide for a baby if he or she is born. And something that is neither developed, self-aware, and has no way to survive outside of the womb ( the standard Roe v Wade set for allowing abortion). I will choose the first. Both do not have equal rights.


Roe v Wade allows bans past 22 weeks  and only allows abortion up to that point.  Half the country has late term abortion laws half does not

Changing Nothing for the half with no bans already.  10th Amendment decision coming up.  Does not ban abortion in most states.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Pro-Abortion Feminist Calls for Killing Pro-Life Americans, Celebrates Firebombing - LifeNews.com
					

A prominent pro-abortion writer called for more violence against pro-life advocates Sunday in response to reports about a fire intentionally being set at a Wisconsin pro-life organization. In a post on Twitter captured by Jerry Dunleavy of the Washington Examiner, Caroline Reilly, who works for...



					www.lifenews.com
				




The Left...calling for the killing of Pro-life Americans....what the hell is wrong with these people..  They want to kill the unborn, the just born and then anyone that opposes their bloodthirsty-ness.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Georgetown Law Prof calls for violence against SC justices.  Josh Chafetz is his name.    Seems to me that would be reasons for arrest?









						Georgetown Law Professor Appears To Endorse Mob Violence Against SCOTUS On Twitter
					

A Georgetown Law professor insinuated that it is appropriate to protest at the homes of conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices.




					dailycaller.com


----------



## Zincwarrior

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have talked to plenty of so called pro-lifers. They are mostly republicans who do not support things like which would provide an incentive to bring a child to term-even if unplanned :
> 
> 
> Health care for all
> Food programs
> Housing assistance
> Affordable day care and pre school
> Protecting the environment from pollution
> Addressing climate change so that there is a viable earth for those kids
> Addressing income and wealth disparity to preserve and strengthen the middle and working class
> Nor do they support policies and programs that prevent unwanted pregnancies
> 
> 
> Meaningful and comprehensive sex education
> Affordable contraception
> Career and educational opportunities that provide an incentive to avoid pregnancy
> The fact is that the rate of abortion is way down thanks to progressive policies and programs and it could be much lower if it were not for Republican obstructionism
> 
> THE STATES THAT HAVE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LAWS ARE ALSO THE STATES THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST INFANT MORTALITY RATES, THE LOWEST RATES OF PRENATAL CARE AND HIGHEST LEVELS OF POVERTY





Calypso Jones said:


> Georgetown Law Prof calls for violence against SC justices.  Josh Chafetz is his name.    Seems to me that would be reasons for arrest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgetown Law Professor Appears To Endorse Mob Violence Against SCOTUS On Twitter
> 
> 
> A Georgetown Law professor insinuated that it is appropriate to protest at the homes of conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com


The article says protest, not violence. Protests are protected speech and the basis for the inception of the US.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> Cry more.
> 
> So, this is what you're reduced to when confronted with a person who has actually made the choice you have repeatedly criticized her for not making. She made the more painful choice. The actual, physically more painful, choice.
> 
> What's that about reality, again?


I'm not sure if you haven't been reading the thread, or you're just stupid.


----------



## Lisa558

Calypso Jones said:


> Pro-Abortion Feminist Calls for Killing Pro-Life Americans, Celebrates Firebombing - LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> A prominent pro-abortion writer called for more violence against pro-life advocates Sunday in response to reports about a fire intentionally being set at a Wisconsin pro-life organization. In a post on Twitter captured by Jerry Dunleavy of the Washington Examiner, Caroline Reilly, who works for...
> 
> 
> 
> www.lifenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Left...calling for the killing of Pro-life Americans....what the hell is wrong with these people..  They want to kill the unborn, the just born and then anyone that opposes their bloodthirsty-ness.


This is no longer America.

The disgusting leftists have escalated their hateful actioms to unbelievable lows. First, it was bad enough when they heaped verbal abuse - you racist! you moron! - on those who wouldn’t support their political beliefs. Then they moved to various forms of “shunning” - a harmful psychological ploy - via silencing, banning, censorship, even loss of jobs or promotions. Now they have escalated it to threats of, and actual violence, and the latest….threats of murder.

These people have so demonized Trump voters - much like Hitler did to the Jews - that they feel entitled to abuse those who disagree with them. I “fired” my hair stylist a few months ago when I refused to agree with her that Kyle Rittenhouse was a white supremacist who deserved life in prison. When I wouldn’t concur, she flew into a rage, screaming at me. I told her she just lost a client, and I haven‘t been back since.

The nerve of these people!


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> I'm not sure if you haven't been reading the thread, or you're just stupid.



I've been reading this thread and responding to it since last Monday.

You have anything _else_ non-substantive to throw at me?


----------



## Calypso Jones

This is a foretaste of hell on earth Lisa558    To be the only sane person in a world gone mad.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> I'm not sure if you haven't been reading the thread, or you're just stupid.



Why is it you wish her to adopt children so badly simply because she's against abortion?

It isn't that I'm stupid, it's purely for lack of understanding your arrogance and ignorance of the trials of motherhood.


----------



## Lisa558

Calypso Jones said:


> This is a foretaste of hell on earth Lisa558    To be the only sane person in a world gone mad.


Yes, sort of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and you’re the last normal person.

Now I’ll have nightmares tonight that MSNBC has brainwashed every single person in America, other than me, and dozens of leftists are outside my house, threatening to kill me if I don’t convert.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Calypso Jones said:


> You're right.  It is the fault of this administration.


This administration? How stupid can you possibly be? It has been pervasive across all administrations throughout our history. It is just getting worse It is the fault of capitalist greed and the lack of an adequate social safety net


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> I've been reading this thread and responding to it since last Monday.
> 
> You have anything _else_ non-substantive to throw at me?



Then I was right, you're just stupid, or you're playing stupid.



TemplarKormac said:


> Why is it you wish her to adopt children so badly simply because she's against abortion?
> 
> It isn't that I'm stupid, it's purely for lack of understanding your arrogance and ignorance of the trials of motherhood.


I guess I have  to lead you to this by the nose. Anyone against abortion is, therefore, in favor of forcing unwanted children to be born. Yet, those same people never actually seem to do anything about unwanted children.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Progpatriot said:
			
		

> Which administration? It has been pervasive across all administrations throughout our history. It is just getting worse It is the fault of capitalist greed and the lack of an adequate social safety net



oh stop.  you know which one. tHIS one.  UNPRECEDENTED.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Calypso Jones said:


> oh stop.  you know which one. tHIS one.  UNPRECEDENTED.


Total bullshit, How stupid can you possibly be?!


----------



## Weatherman2020

Stann said:


> You got that backwards. The right has no respect for life. They want their guns, they want the death penalty and they want their women barefoot and pregnant at home serving their men.


Tell us more how you Leftards deny women from winning sports events.


----------



## Calypso Jones

progpatriot said:
			
		

> Total bullshit, How stupid can you possibly be?!



wuhl...apparently not as stupid as you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tell us more how you Leftards deny women from winning sports events.


Red herring and false equivalency logical fallacy. Can't you do better than that? Never mind, I know the answer.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tell us more how you Leftards deny women from winning sports events.


Tell us more about how you people are preventing school shootings and safeguarding  the lives of kids after they are born


----------



## Weatherman2020

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Red herring and false equivalency logical fallacy. Can't you do better than that? Never mind, I know the answer.


Ah, downplaying your assault on women. Typical abuser. Back to the kitchen for you women and stop playing your silly sports games!


----------



## Weatherman2020

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Tell us more about how you people are preventing school shootings and safeguarding  the lives of kids after they are born


Tell us more about the +100k violent felons you Leftards released from prison early in the past two years.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tell us more about the +100k violent felons you Leftards released from prison early in the past two years.


Did we ? Really? I don't know about that?


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have talked to plenty of so called pro-lifers. They are mostly republicans who do not support things like which would provide an incentive to bring a child to term-even if unplanned :
> 
> 
> Health care for all
> Food programs
> Housing assistance
> Affordable day care and pre school
> Protecting the environment from pollution
> Addressing climate change so that there is a viable earth for those kids
> Addressing income and wealth disparity to preserve and strengthen the middle and working class
> Nor do they support policies and programs that prevent unwanted pregnancies
> 
> 
> Meaningful and comprehensive sex education
> Affordable contraception
> Career and educational opportunities that provide an incentive to avoid pregnancy
> The fact is that the rate of abortion is way down thanks to progressive policies and programs and it could be much lower if it were not for Republican obstructionism
> 
> THE STATES THAT HAVE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LAWS ARE ALSO THE STATES THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST INFANT MORTALITY RATES, THE LOWEST RATES OF PRENATAL CARE AND HIGHEST LEVELS OF POVERTY



Basically, I just heard, "You don't care about babies, because you don't approve of the government spending that I want, and that's the ONLY way to care about anyone."

Fuck off, and take your disapproval with you to someone who values your opinion.


----------



## Weatherman2020

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Did we ? Really? I don't know about that?


I find all Leftards are clueless to reality.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Anyone against abortion is, therefore, in favor of forcing unwanted children to be born.



That is reckless illogic and wildly presumptive.

Who said Cecilie1200 wanted to ban ALL abortions? Are you mad that she wants irresponsible women to live with the consequences?

Furthermore, why aren't you in any rush to get a vasectomy? _Because your position is just as hypocritical as you claim hers to be_. If you want to be part of the solution, do to your body what you wish women to do freely. Remove yourself from the process that leads to the conception of a child. Sterilize yourself. With more sterile men, the women go un-impregnated, ergo fewer children born and less need to adopt. Are you prepared to do that? No?

Then cease your unnatural screeching with this fake argument of yours.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Red herring and false equivalency logical fallacy. Can't you do better than that? Never mind, I know the answer.



So your response is, "You're only allowed to connect the dots when I want them connected.  If I don't like it, that makes it irrelevant!"


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Then I was right, you're just stupid, or you're playing stupid.



I just needed you to clarify your hypocrisy. 

Go under the knife, be part of the solution to your invented crisis, or be quiet.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Why is it you wish her to adopt children so badly simply because she's against abortion?
> 
> It isn't that I'm stupid, it's purely for lack of understanding your arrogance and ignorance of the trials of motherhood.



Part and parcel of the leftard mindset of tyranny and arrogance:  They are so convinced that they know everything and should therefore control other people's lives and thoughts that they even feel justified in trying to dictate how people practice beliefs they don't share.

Weird thing is, even when people aren't otherwise leftists, they adopt leftard thinking patterns on any issue they agree with the left on.  It's like a contagion.


----------



## eagle1462010

Jarlaxle said:


> Then I was right, you're just stupid, or you're playing stupid.
> 
> 
> I guess I have  to lead you to this by the nose. Anyone against abortion is, therefore, in favor of forcing unwanted children to be born. Yet, those same people never actually seem to do anything about unwanted children.


Anyone who is for late term abortion is a barbarian and can kiss my ass.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> Then I was right, you're just stupid, or you're playing stupid.
> 
> 
> I guess I have  to lead you to this by the nose. Anyone against abortion is, therefore, in favor of forcing unwanted children to be born. Yet, those same people never actually seem to do anything about unwanted children.



Typical.  "You must accept my premise as fact!  THEN we can discuss on the basis of you agreeing with me!"

I'm not "forcing" anyone to do anything.  Nature is.  I have never in my life strapped a woman to a table and inseminated her.  Prohibiting a woman from killing her child is no more "forcing" her to have a child than prohibiting her from killing her husband for the insurance money is "forcing" her to be married.

Furthermore, Mr. "Women's Champion Until Those Bitches Disagree With Me", if your measure of "doing something about unwanted children" is killing them - and it manifestly is - then you certainly have nothing to say to me or anyone else about "hypocrisy".  I can't think of anything more hypocritical, not to mention polluting-the-world-by-existing evil, than saying, "I care about children being unwanted, so I think we should kill them and dump them in a landfill or incinerator instead.  If you don't agree, you're not compassionate."

You have no fucking clue about what pro-lifers do or don't do regarding unwanted children, any more than you have a clue about being a decent human being instead of a bipedal virus.  You've never asked.  You've just read your talking points, patted yourself on the back because your masters told you you were a good dog, and then ASSumed.

My two children lived, and make the world better for being in it; they would be compost now if you had been in my place.  Nothing more needs to be said on moral comparisons between the two of us, and you can take your attempts at condescension, condemnation, and whatever pride you mistakenly have in what you are, and shove them where the sun don't shine.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Tell us more about how you people are preventing school shootings and safeguarding  the lives of kids after they are born



Tell US more about how YOU people are preventing school shootings.  Because from where I sit, YOU are the ones currently in charge of public schools, not us, and you're accomplishing fuck and all.

As for safeguarding the lives of kids after they are born, let's start with the fact that WE support allowing them to HAVE lives after birth.  We frankly don't NEED to say anything else to be way ahead of you on the subject.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> That is reckless illogic and wildly presumptive.
> 
> Who said Cecilie1200 wanted to ban ALL abortions? Are you mad that she wants irresponsible women to live with the consequences?
> 
> Furthermore, why aren't you in any rush to get a vasectomy? _Because your position is just as hypocritical as you claim hers to be_. If you want to be part of the solution, do to your body what you wish women to do freely. Remove yourself from the process that leads to the conception of a child. Sterilize yourself. With more sterile men, the women go un-impregnated, ergo fewer children born and less need to adopt. Are you prepared to do that? No?
> 
> Then cease your unnatural screeching with this fake argument of yours.



Actually, I said I'd prefer there were no abortions.  Left-thinkers lusting after tyranny are incapable of considering there's any way to do something beyond seizing power and forcing your will on people at the point of a government gun, so they ASSume everyone else thinks like them.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Where have all the transwomen in sports gone to??  hmmm.


----------



## Calypso Jones




----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> _Actually, I said I'd prefer there were no abortions._  Left-thinkers lusting after tyranny are incapable of considering there's any way to do something beyond seizing power and forcing your will on people at the point of a government gun, so they ASSume everyone else thinks like them.



Ah. Of course. 

Even still, you aren't the tyrannical type and wouldn't force other women to have children against their will, as Jarlaxle was suggesting. Because you respect the sanctity of law and precedent. He apparently doesn't.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> That is reckless illogic and wildly presumptive.
> 
> Who said Cecilie1200 wanted to ban ALL abortions? Are you mad that she wants irresponsible women to live with the consequences?
> 
> Furthermore, why aren't you in any rush to get a vasectomy? _Because your position is just as hypocritical as you claim hers to be_. If you want to be part of the solution, do to your body what you wish women to do freely. Remove yourself from the process that leads to the conception of a child. Sterilize yourself. With more sterile men, the women go un-impregnated, ergo fewer children born and less need to adopt. Are you prepared to do that? No?
> 
> Then cease your unnatural screeching with this fake argument of yours.


Thanks for that fat, hanging curveball I just launched into the upper deck: I started saving for a vasectomy at 15.


----------



## Jarlaxle

eagle1462010 said:


> Anyone who is for late term abortion is a barbarian and can kiss my ass.


Here's a penny, call someone who gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> Ah. Of course.
> 
> Even still, you aren't the tyrannical type and wouldn't force other women to have children against their will, as Jarlaxle was suggesting. Because you respect the sanctity of law and precedent. He apparently doesn't.


You're all over the place...what are you jabbering about now?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Tha.ks for that fat, hanging curveball I just launched into the upper deck: I started saving for a vasectomy at 15.



Cool. But you haven't gotten it yet, have you?

Swing and a miss. 

Thanks for that analogy.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> You're all over the place...what are you jabbering about now?


Was I talking to you?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Here's a penny, call someone who gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut.



It's a quarter, you mathematically illiterate fuck.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> Cool. But you haven't gotten it yet, have you?
> 
> Swing and a miss.
> 
> Thanks for that analogy.


Doctors wouldn't do it on an 18 year old.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> It's a quarter, you mathematically illiterate fuck.


Neither you or he are worth a quarter.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Doctors wouldn't do it on an 18 year old.



Of course not. But you said "I started saving" not "I already got one."

Language is important, it also binds you to a position. Keep going, though.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Neither you or he are worth a quarter.



The very fact you place tangible value on people, and thus life, says everything about you I need to know.

Life in any form is valuable. Inside or outside the womb.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> Of course not. But you said "I started saving" not "I already got one."
> 
> Language is important, it also binds you to a position. Keep going, though.


Are you attempting to stumble upon a point?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Are you attempting to stumble upon a point?


Nope. Just doing to you what you were doing to her. Demanding you be consistent with your position.

Unless or until you get a vasectomy, your views on abortion or adoption lack any credibility whatsoever.

Sound familiar? It's the logic you used.


----------



## TemplarKormac

But





Is all he can manage.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Ah. Of course.
> 
> Even still, you aren't the tyrannical type and wouldn't force other women to have children against their will, as Jarlaxle was suggesting. Because you respect the sanctity of law and precedent. He apparently doesn't.



Obviously I wouldn't force women to have children against their will.  Like I said, I have never in my life strapped a woman down and inseminated her.  Have no plans to, either.

Personally, my ideal plans involve taking the tons of money the government shovels into Planned Parenthood and other butcher shops like them, and funneling it instead to organizations like crisis pregnancy centers and others that are set up to help women who choose to let their children live.  And I hope someday pro-lifers won't have to expend so much energy just keeping children alive, and can focus that energy into things like reforming the foster care system, or cleaning up the adoption system so couples don't have to spend tens of thousands of dollars and years of their lives to give homes to children who need them.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> Obviously I wouldn't force women to have children against their will.  Like I said, I have never in my life strapped a woman down and inseminated her.  Have no plans to, either.
> 
> Personally, my ideal plans involve taking the tons of money the government shovels into Planned Parenthood and other butcher shops like them, and funneling it instead to organizations like crisis pregnancy centers and others that are set up to help women who choose to let their children live.  And I hope someday pro-lifers won't have to expend so much energy just keeping children alive, and can focus that energy into things like reforming the foster care system, or cleaning up the adoption system so couples don't have to spend tens of thousands of dollars and years of their lives to give homes to children who need them.



It pleases me to hear you mention crisis pregnancy and the foster care system. That is what we call consistency. 

All we need to do is reform the system.


----------



## Man of Ethics

Coyote said:


> We should let states set their own gun laws then.


I agree 100%.  Guns are also used for murder and suicide.  Human lives are of paramount importance.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Relative Ethics said:


> I agree 100%.  Guns are also used for murder and suicide.  Human lives are of paramount importance.


The thing you fail to understand is that humans are the ones who pick up the gun. They are compelled by their desire to kill to do so.

Therefore, humans take human lives, guns do not.


----------



## Man of Ethics

TemplarKormac said:


> The thing you fail to understand is that humans are the ones who pick up the gun. They are compelled by their desire to kill to do so.
> 
> Therefore, humans take human lives, guns do not.


The same argument can be used to permit Fentanyl.

Being pro-life means opposing homicide and suicide.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Relative Ethics said:


> Being pro-life means opposing homicide and suicide.



Yeah, and I do. I just know the distinction between preventing homicide and depriving someone of their 2nd Amendment rights. 
May I ask if you know the difference, perchance?


----------



## Man of Ethics

TemplarKormac said:


> Yeah, and I do. I just know the distinction between preventing homicide and depriving someone of their 2nd Amendment rights.
> May I ask if you know the difference, perchance?


In my opinion, steps should be taken to decrease the incidence of abortion, homicide, and suicide.  

Human life is G-d's Creation which has paramount value.  Some people believe that only the fittest have value.  I disagree 100%.  But I have Moderate Autism -- I am not one of the fittest.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> Nope. Just doing to you what you were doing to her. Demanding you be consistent with your position.
> 
> Unless or until you get a vasectomy, your views on abortion or adoption lack any credibility whatsoever.
> 
> Sound familiar? It's the logic you used.


There was no point...the only woman I've been with since 1996 can't have children. Thus, the chance of accidental pregnancy is, exactly, zero.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Relative Ethics said:


> In my opinion, steps should be taken to decrease the incidence of abortion, homicide, and suicide.



For abortion, be pro-life, as in, ban all medically unnecessary abortions as long the woman is healthy and can bear the child, hasn't been raped, or was forced into an incestuous sexual relationship.

As for homicide, look to parenting and family cohesion. Teach respect for the law and for other people.

As for suicide, advocate for reform to our broken mental health system.

(EDIT: I should have added "teaching self-defense and proficiency with handguns" as another means to combat homicide.)


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> But
> 
> View attachment 642623
> 
> Is all he can manage.


It's all your posts deserve.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> There was no point...the only woman I've been with since 1996 can't have children. Thus, the chance of accidental pregnancy is, exactly, zero.



Oh is that it? 

So Cecilie should be just like your wife?

Please. What an utterly pathetic and misogynistic argument.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> It's all your posts deserve.



Your admission of defeat has been noted, as has been your objectification of other women.


----------



## Man of Ethics

TemplarKormac said:


> As for homicide, look to parenting and family cohesion. Teach respect for the law and for other people.
> 
> As for suicide, advocate for reform to our broken mental health system.


1)  Provision and free mental health for all people in need should help reduce Homicide and Suicide.

2)  Items like firearms and strong narcotics should be significantly restricted.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> Oh is that it?
> 
> So Cecilie should be just like your wife?
> 
> Please. What an utterly pathetic and misogynistic argument.


Ok,you're getting less coherent.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> Your admission of defeat has been noted, as has been your objectification of other women.


You seem to be hallucinating.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> You seem to be hallucinating.



Nope. 

I only see a vengeful man.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Ok,you're getting less coherent.



The smarter I sound, the less coherent I become to you.

I'll forgive you for your total lack of comprehension.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> It pleases me to hear you mention crisis pregnancy and the foster care system. That is what we call consistency.
> 
> All we need to do is reform the system.



When I got pregnant with my daughter, I got my pregnancy test at a crisis pregnancy center.  I remember how kind and considerate they were, and how much effort they put into calming me down and helping me think clearly about the future.  I also remember how much help they gave me during the pregnancy, and all the other contacts they gave me for other help during the pregnancy and after the birth.  Fortunately, I didn't need a lot of help from them, because I had family and a church who came together and supported me.  But I know the center was prepared to take up that slack if I hadn't had them.  
And I know they do all their caring for pregnant women and their children the REAL way, with money donated out of the pockets of pro-life people, not with taxpayer dollars from the government's slush funds.

Now that I'm financially stable and have my life in order, I donate to centers like the one that helped me.

That's the belief pro-aborts never hear, because they're too busy telling me what they "know" about me to ask me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Yeah, and I do. I just know the distinction between preventing homicide and depriving someone of their 2nd Amendment rights.
> May I ask if you know the difference, perchance?



I'm a big fan of preventing homicide by enabling potential victims to defend themselves, personally.  This is because I know murderous, evil criminals don't become fluffy bunnies just because they don't have a gun handy.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> Nope.
> 
> I only see a vengeful man.


Get your eyes checked.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Oh is that it?
> 
> So Cecilie should be just like your wife?
> 
> Please. What an utterly pathetic and misogynistic argument.



I'm not sure what his angle is, to tell you the truth.  "We can't have children, so everyone else should view them as enemies invading their bodies"?  No clue.

But the reality remains that, whatever else he is, he's a damned coward who whipped out his "Gotcha!" line that was supposed to shut down all discussion, and when he got an answer instead, he ran like a yellow bitch.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Get your eyes checked.



They're fine. They see easily through that facade you're putting forward.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> They're fine. They see easily through that facade you're putting forward.


More gibberish.

Dude...five dollar words don't help. You have a 5 cent brain.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Relative Ethics said:


> 2) Items like firearms and strong narcotics should be significantly restricted.



Firearms, meet the 2nd Amendment. Meet DC v. Heller (2008) SCOTUS case.

Narcotics, agreed.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> More gibberish.
> 
> Dude...five dollar words don't help. You have a 5 cent brain.



Is this the best you can do?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm not sure what his angle is, to tell you the truth.  "We can't have children, so everyone else should view them as enemies invading their bodies"?  No clue.



I have no idea where you came up with that...fever dream. Do you? 



> But the reality remains that, whatever else he is, he's a damned coward who whipped out his "Gotcha!" line that was supposed to shut down all discussion, and when he got an answer instead, he ran like a yellow bitch.


You don't like admitting your hypocrisy. It's fine...most hypocrites don't.


----------



## Jarlaxle

TemplarKormac said:


> Is this the best you can do?


No, but it's all the effort you are worth.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> More gibberish.
> 
> Dude...five dollar words don't help. You have a 5 cent brain.



Maybe you should get that poor poster you gave the penny and rolling donut to return them so you can buy yours back.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> No, but it's all the effort you are worth.



No effort, no argument = laziness/fear/cowardice.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> You don't like admitting your hypocrisy. It's fine...most hypocrites don't.



The question remains, what hypocrisy?

What also remains is yours.


----------



## Calypso Jones

CDC: D.C. Had Nation’s Highest Reported Ratio of Abortions to Live Births
					

Among the jurisdictions that reported their abortion numbers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its latest annual Abortion Surveillance report, Washington, D.C. led with the highest number of abortions (501) per each 1,000 live births.




					cnsnews.com
				




MY GOD...Forgive us. DC  501 abortions per 1000 live births.   NO wonder that city looks the way it does and has leaders the way they are.  And it is the office space to the most corrupt people in the world. Home to the dirtiest, filthiest, most corrupt police force in the US, maybe the world.

  I don't know that this can be fixed.   We are in for judgement unless something drastic happens in this nation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> I have no idea where you came up with that...fever dream. Do you?
> 
> 
> You don't like admitting your hypocrisy. It's fine...most hypocrites don't.



I'm still waiting on you to quit running and hiding and tell me what this "hypocrisy" is, other than just a word you think means, "People who disagree with me, STOP POINTING OUT WHAT A LOSER I AM!"

Your woman can't have children.  But here you are, sanctimoniously championing the so-called rightness of other women, who can have children, viewing the most wonderful aspect of being female as either a horrible tragedy destroying their lives, from which they must have the ability to distance themselves, or a dreadful nuisance they're grudgingly tolerating as a generous gift to others.  It's not a huge deductive leap to think that maybe you're projecting your own bitterness onto others.  I suppose I could have gone the other way and deduced that you were a self-centered cad who likes abortion so that men can use women for their own needs and then rabbit with no consequences to themselves.  Which would you prefer?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Still hanging around, are we?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm still waiting on you to quit running and hiding and tell me what this "hypocrisy" is, other than just a word you think means, "People who disagree with me, STOP POINTING OUT WHAT A LOSER I AM!"



Already stated it. You ignored it.



> Your woman can't have children.  But here you are, sanctimoniously championing the so-called rightness of other women, who can have children, viewing the most wonderful aspect of being female as either a horrible tragedy destroying their lives, from which they must have the ability to distance themselves, or a dreadful nuisance they're grudgingly tolerating as a generous gift to others.



Ok...I'm serious: I have ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING IDEA where you got this. It reads like a fever dream and has nothing to do with anything I posted.



> It's not a huge deductive leap to think that maybe you're projecting your own bitterness onto others.  I suppose I could have gone the other way and deduced that you were a self-centered cad who likes abortion so that men can use women for their own needs and then rabbit with no consequences to themselves.  Which would you prefer?



Again, I have no idea where you're getting this.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jarlaxle said:


> Already stated it. You ignored it.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok...I'm serious: I have ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING IDEA where you got this. It reads like a fever dream and has nothing to do with anything I posted.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I have no idea where you're getting this.



No.  I may have missed it in all the frantic smokescreen of juvenile insults you hurled.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jarlaxle said:


> Ok...I'm serious: I have ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING IDEA where you got this.



I do.



Jarlaxle said:


> There was no point...the only woman I've been with since 1996 can't have children. Thus, the chance of accidental pregnancy is, exactly, zero.



Cecilie1200


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lol. 









						Feminist writer on MSNBC trashes White conservative women for 'voting against their interest'
					

Feminist writer Jill Filipovic praised White Democrat women while trashing White conservative women as voting against their interests on abortion rights, while on MSNBC.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> The “right to privacy” was distorted in order to force all states to allow abortions. Who gets to decide what rights they are specifically?
> 
> i could use that excuse to do whatever I want….what I do is private!


But when is government getting to intrusive. I cannot think of any situation worse than not having control over your own reproductive choices if you're a woman. No matter how you look at it taking that right away from a woman makes them a second class citizen and that's not just not right that's her choice and her choice alone. No matter what the courts or States say.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Yes, the libs would defInitely like a singular approach to how the country is run - with them making the decisions of course. That’s why they tried to nationalize elections.
> 
> I also agree that an ignorant voter is the biggest danger to our country. That’s why the Democrats want mail-in ballot harvesting: they can go to the most stupid, ignorant, and/or lazy citizens, manipulate them into believing all sorts of nonsense, and get them to check “D.” That is also why they are setting up the Truth Ministry - to block valid information from the other side that might educate voters to the true situation.


Hypocrisy of the far right in is beyond belief. They scream about having to wear a mask during a public health crisis yet they want to force women to have children they don't want. Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience. Being forced to Bear a child, living with that everyday for 9 months the concert reminder of things that weren't supposed to be, has to be absolute torture. I couldn't imagine living that over and over again especially if I was raped by the victim of incest. That's an insane demand to put on anyone.


----------



## Man of Ethics

TemplarKormac said:


> Firearms, meet the 2nd Amendment. Meet DC v. Heller (2008) SCOTUS case.
> 
> Narcotics, agreed.


Sadly, tens of thousands of lives per year will continue to be lost to gun suicide.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Hypocrisy of the far right in is beyond belief. They scream about having to wear a mask during a public health crisis yet they want to force women to have children they don't want. Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience. Being forced to Bear a child, living with that everyday for 9 months the concert reminder of things that weren't supposed to be, has to be absolute torture. I couldn't imagine living that over and over again especially if I was raped by the victim of incest. That's an insane demand to put on anyone.


As you again deny the right to life of an unborn child.

The actions of the plannedemic went agsinst normal logic for a low death rate virus.  Causing it to drag on forever with massive economic costs and current conditions.

For what?  Worst stats on planet earth for only allowing the Chosen Ones.  Big pharma a seat at the table.


----------



## eagle1462010

Relative Ethics said:


> Sadly, tens of thousands of lives per year will continue to be lost to gun suicide.


Which has nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## eagle1462010

Jarlaxle said:


> Here's a penny, call someone who gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut.


Same to you Barbarian.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> As you again deny the right to life of an unborn child.


I sure as fuck do - especially when these supposed "rights" are used to deny the rights of an actual - already born - person.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> So your response is, "You're only allowed to connect the dots when I want them connected.  If I don't like it, that makes it irrelevant!"


There are no dots to connect


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> As you again deny the right to life of an unborn child.
> 
> The actions of the plannedemic went agsinst normal logic for a low death rate virus.  Causing it to drag on forever with massive economic costs and current conditions.
> 
> For what?  Worst stats on planet earth for only allowing the Chosen Ones.  Big pharma a seat at the table.


There never was such an animal as a " unborn child " so get over yourself. The pro-life agenda has played you to the hilt and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker. In 99% of abortions you would be unable to discern that it was a human fetus at all. The late term abortions are generally by married women and they're done in order to save the life of the mother or to prevent the birth of a child with multiple systemic problems and low viability. The alternative is to let the mother proceed with the pregnancy and have a child that would probably end up needing 50 operations to look halfway normal and never leaf a normal life. I wouldn't want that for myself I can't see how anybody would want that for their child, it's sick. Play turn abortions only amount for .05% it isn't sound financial responsibility or moral responsibility for that matter
 Get the facts and you'll probably change your mind about having the government control a woman's reproductive Rights. That should be left to her doctor and her, if there is a husband and significant other they can be included. There's no need for abortion laws at all, they have no place in modern society.


----------



## Who_Me?

bodecea said:


> What part of CHOICE don't you get?


The CHOICE should be what method of birth control couples should use to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, not whether or not to kill the child.


----------



## Stann

Who_Me? said:


> The CHOICE should be what method of birth control couples should use to prevent a pregnancy, not whether or not to kill the child.


Once again there is no unborn child
 This is just to psych you up emotionally
 It was a very carefully plant agenda by the far right and a very sick one at that.


----------



## Who_Me?

Stann said:


> Once again there is no unborn child
> This is just to psych you up emotionally
> It was a very carefully plant agenda by the far right and a very sick one at that.


Nope, it is what we Catholics believe.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> I sure as fuck do - especially when these supposed "rights" are used to deny the rights of an actual - already born - person.


Another unborn baby is medical waste barbarian?

Overturning Roe doesnt stop abortions.  It returns the power to the States.  But you are supposed to be Libertarian.  LOL

You are a wolf in sheeps clothing.  SCOTUS under Trump makes you lose your mind every time. You are a leftist pretending to be from the middle


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Once again there is no unborn child
> This is just to psych you up emotionally
> It was a very carefully plant agenda by the far right and a very sick one at that.


Sick is partial birth abortion allowed in Barbarian Blue shithole states.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> There never was such an animal as a " unborn child " so get over yourself. The pro-life agenda has played you to the hilt and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker. In 99% of abortions you would be unable to discern that it was a human fetus at all. The late term abortions are generally by married women and they're done in order to save the life of the mother or to prevent the birth of a child with multiple systemic problems and low viability. The alternative is to let the mother proceed with the pregnancy and have a child that would probably end up needing 50 operations to look halfway normal and never leaf a normal life. I wouldn't want that for myself I can't see how anybody would want that for their child, it's sick. Play turn abortions only amount for .05% it isn't sound financial responsibility or moral responsibility for that matter
> Get the facts and you'll probably change your mind about having the government control a woman's reproductive Rights. That should be left to her doctor and her, if there is a husband and significant other they can be included. There's no need for abortion laws at all, they have no place in modern society.


Long winded rant to justify killing babies in the womb and nothing more.


----------



## Stann

Who_Me? said:


> Nope, it is what we Catholics believe.


I believe in the natural GOD, you gave us minds to use. The spirit is sacred the physical form that we inhabit is not. Life is precious, but there are limits on everything. Besides your Bible tells you when the spirit enters the body wether you know it or not, and it's not at conception.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> But when is government getting to intrusive. I cannot think of any situation worse than not having control over your own reproductive choices if you're a woman. No matter how you look at it taking that right away from a woman makes them a second class citizen and that's not just not right that's her choice and her choice alone. No matter what the courts or States say.


She has control over her reproductive choices. She can choose to use birth control when she doesn’t want to get pregnant, or not use it if she wants to get pregnant. In the event of a RARE birth control failure, she can most likely get an abortion nearby. In case she lives in a state that restricts it to a short timeline, and she failed to make her choice in time, then she can take a bus ride to a neighboring state.

What you people are doing is insisting that women in other states not your own have a right to a CONVENIENT abortion. That she will have a right to an abortion itself is not in question.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I believe in the natural GOD, you gave us minds to use. The spirit is sacred the physical form that we inhabit is not. Life is precious, but there are limits on everything. Besides your Bible tells you when the spirit enters the body wether you know it or not, and it's not at conception.


Aren’t you the poster who made the very moving post (to me, anyway) about how much you‘ve enjoyed your “visit” here, and that you considered the world “paradise”? Then why are you so eager to rob others of enjoying the same visit to paradise?

I imagine you are grateful your mother didn't abort you.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> Sick is partial birth abortion allowed in Barbarian Blue shithole states.


Sick is right. I’d like to see Congress pass a law prohibiting any abortion - across all states - after 20 weeks, except in the case of the mother’s life. Now instead we have a liberal state such as Maryland going in the opposite direction, with a proposal that women whose living babies turn up dead during the peri-natal period will not be investigated. IOW, it’s a wink-wink to go ahead and let your newborn starve or freeze to death, and nobody will look into it.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> She has control over her reproductive choices. She can choose to use birth control when she doesn’t want to get pregnant, or not use it if she wants to get pregnant. In the event of a RARE birth control failure, she can most likely get an abortion nearby. In case she lives in a state that restricts it to a short timeline, and she failed to make her choice in time, then she can take a bus ride to a neighboring state.
> 
> What you people are doing is insisting that women in other states not your own have a right to a CONVENIENT abortion. That she will have a right to an abortion itself is not in question.


----------



## Stann

I haven't been brainwashed as you have been. I know that the majority of these women who have abortions take it very seriously they they aren't doing it because it's convenient. And reproductive Rights are either there or they aren't. State does not have this authority over people not in a free Nation.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Another unborn baby is medical waste barbarian?


Another fascist fuck who can't let others be.


eagle1462010 said:


> Overturning Roe doesnt stop abortions.  It returns the power to the States.  But you are supposed to be Libertarian.  LOL


I don't mind it going to the states, dipshit. LOL


eagle1462010 said:


> You are a wolf in sheeps clothing.  SCOTUS under Trump makes you lose your mind every time. You are a leftist pretending to be from the middle


Well, I'd certainly rather be a wolf than a sheep, so that's all good. 

Government should have no jurisdiction over our innards, regardless of what you think is in there.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I haven't been brainwashed as you have been. I know that the majority of these women who have abortions take it very seriously they they aren't doing it because it's convenient. And reproductive Rights are either there or they aren't. State does not have this authority over people not in a free Nation.


So if they’re not doing it because it’s convenient, that means they’ll still do it if inconvenient. If I could schelp myself out of state to a medical facility, at my own expense, then a woman wanting an abortion can do the same, and likely paid by PP.

And yes, the state DOES have the authority to set the laws within its own state. Roe v Wade created a new “right” in order to rule the way they did. The right to murder one’s unborn child was not enumerated in the Constitution. Just because cold-hearted liberals - have you heard the most recent one on MSNBC? Saying she would ”joyfully” abort her child?? - want it to be a right doesn't make it so.


----------



## Stann

dblack said:


> Another fascist fuck who can't let others be.
> 
> I don't mind it going to the states, dipshit. LOL
> 
> Well, I'd certainly rather be a wolf than a sheep, so that's all good.
> 
> Government should have no jurisdiction over our innards, regardless of what you think is in there.


How can a woman be a first class citizen if she doesn't even have control of her reproductive Rights.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> So if they’re not doing it because it’s convenient, that means they’ll still do it if inconvenient. If I could schelp myself out of state to a medical facility, at my own expense, then a woman wanting an abortion can do the same, and likely paid by PP.
> 
> And yes, the state DOES have the authority to set the laws within its own state. Roe v Wade created a new “right” in order to rule the way they did. The right to murder one’s unborn child was not enumerated in the Constitution. Just because cold-hearted liberals - have you heard the most recent one on MSNBC? Saying she would ”joyfully” abort her child?? - want it to be a right doesn't make it so.


Any abortion law is a judgment against women. They don't know or care of the circumstances that the woman has gone through. They don't even care about the fetus. All they want is that controlling  power over women and that is just sick.


----------



## Lisa558

If libs are saying the right to kill one’s unborn baby - joyfully, proudly, however they claim they do - is based on the right to privacy, then shouldn’t the LAST thing they do is violate the right to privacy that the justices have?

The leftists are going so far overboard with this - first one of them said she was PROUD to have an abortion, and now another says she would abort her baby JOYFULLY - and now we have them threatening the lives of justices if they don’t submit to leftists’ demands that this is going to have the opposite effect the leaker intended: it is showing even more blatantly how savage the left has become.

Midterms is going to be a big sweep, with Republicans taking majorities in both chambers. The Affirmative Action Idiot will no linger have the tie-breaker, and the Demented One will be neutralized.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> Any abortion law is a judgment against women. They don't know or care of the circumstances that the woman has gone through. They don't even care about the fetus. All they want is that controlling  power over women and that is just sick.


No, they want the right to kill babies up to the point of birth, and that is just sick.

You men need to shut up about this, and stop talking down to women who have some morality.


----------



## dblack

Stann said:


> How can a woman be a first class citizen if she doesn't even have control of her reproductive Rights.


It's the general principle that bothers me. Statists can't seem to mind their own business. The abortion thing is just one example. Drug prohibition is another. Shall we make a list?


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> If libs are saying the right to kill one’s unborn baby - joyfully, proudly, however they claim they do - is based on the right to privacy, then shouldn’t the LAST thing they do is violate the right to privacy that the justices have?
> 
> The leftists are going so far overboard with this - first one of them said she was PROUD to have an abortion, and now another says she would abort her baby JOYFULLY - and now we have them threatening the lives of justices if they don’t submit to leftists’ demands that this is going to have the opposite effect the leaker intended: it is showing even more blatantly how savage the left has become.
> 
> Midterms is going to be a big sweep, with Republicans taking majorities in both chambers. The Affirmative Action Idiot will no linger have the tie-breaker, and the Demented One will be neutralized.


Wake up already. There is no baby.


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> It's the general principle that bothers me. Statists can't seem to mind their own business. The abortion thing is just one example. Drug prohibition is another. Shall we make a list?


WTH is a statist? Someone who follows the Constitution, and its default position to state’s rights?


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> Wake up already. There is no baby.


OK, then….I’ll call it a child instead. Like Biden did. Better?


----------



## dblack

Stann said:


> Any abortion law is a judgment against women.


I prefer not to frame this as a women's rights issue. It's an individual rights issue. And the premise that the contents of one's body represents a compelling state interest has frightening implications, far beyond abortion.


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> WTH is a statist?


Someone who sees the government as a tool to force others to abide by their preferences.


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> Someone who sees the government as a tool to force others to abide by their preferences.


Well that’s why we want to return this to the states. So that voters of each state can decide what type of state they want, rather than have the federal government issuing blanket decrees that apply to the entire nation as a whole.


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> Well that’s why we want to return this to the states. So that voters of each state can decide what type of state they want, rather than have the federal government issuing blanket decrees that apply to the entire nation as a whole.


This is another foundational belief of the statist: that rights are at the mercy of voters. They aren't. That's the whole point of Constitutionally protected rights in the first place.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> OK, then….I’ll call it a child instead. Like Biden did. Better?


You can call it whatever you want but it's not a baby or a child, never was and most likely won't become for a woman seeking an abortion. I just looked up and of the second semester abortions 90% of the pregnancies with down syndrome will be aborted. It doesn't show up until this check that's why it isn't done earlier. Education helps a lot. Scientific advances are great it lets people know ahead of time if there's any multiple problems with any birth so they can terminate it rather than take those risks.


----------



## Flash




----------



## Stann

Flash said:


> View attachment 642740


Boy that's really twisted. I guess you weren't alive then back then to know what really happened. Fortunately I was. The claim was unfounded. I was in the Air Force at the time fighting for the freedom that allowed them to protest and I was proud of that. Some people just don't think. I support a woman's right to choose it's her body it's her life and despite what all the so-called pro-life people call an ' "  unborn child ", there is no such animal. It's a ploy to get you to become emotional about the issue and make foolish demands on other people you don't know or even care about. It's a good work of fascism. Fortunately we live in a free country this garbage is going to fly for very long. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came in to being


Flash said:


> View attachment 642740





Flash said:


> View attachment 642740





Lisa558 said:


> Well that’s why we want to return this to the states. So that voters of each state can decide what type of state they want, rather than have the federal government issuing blanket decrees that apply to the entire nation as a whole.


The whole reason Roe versus Wade came into existence in the first place was  because States were putting egregious abortion laws into place. They're already starting to do that, Texas and Mississippi are terrible examples of that. And it's only going to get worse. The supreme Court will eventually have to outlaw all abortion laws that's the only way around this garbage.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Boy that's really twisted. I guess you weren't alive then back then to know what really happened. Fortunately I was. The claim was unfounded. I was in the Air Force at the time fighting for the freedom that allowed them to protest and I was proud of that. Some people just don't think. I support a woman's right to choose it's her body it's her life and despite what all the so-called pro-life people call an ' "  unborn child ", there is no such animal. It's a ploy to get you to become emotional about the issue and make foolish demands on other people you don't know or even care about. It's a good work of fascism. Fortunately we live in a free country this garbage is going to fly for very long. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came in to being
> 
> 
> 
> The whole reason Roe versus Wade came into existence in the first place was  because States were putting egregious abortion laws into place. They're already starting to do that, Texas and Mississippi are terrible examples of that. And it's only going to get worse. The supreme Court will eventually have to outlaw all abortion laws that's the only way around this garbage.


I just correlated some information. Every one of the Republican states that has strong abortion laws also has the death penalty. Now that is an ironic, nothing is. That's why I say the so-called pro-life movement is a joke, and not a good one. Total hypocrites. Back in April Texas charged a woman for murder and we're ready to try her because she did an abortion on herself. There was such a public outcry they dropped the case. They were idiotic enough to put the death penalty on the case.


----------



## Flash

Stann said:


> The whole reason Roe versus Wade came into existence in the first place was  because States were putting egregious abortion laws into place.


Not "egregious".  Just "commons sense" restrictions.  You know, like what the Moon Bats say about restrictions on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Another fascist fuck who can't let others be.
> 
> I don't mind it going to the states, dipshit. LOL
> 
> Well, I'd certainly rather be a wolf than a sheep, so that's all good.
> 
> Government should have no jurisdiction over our innards, regardless of what you think is in there.


Overturning Roe v Wade returns it to the states.  You seem confused again.


----------



## alexa

Stann said:


> I just correlated some information. Every one of the Republican states that has strong abortion laws also has the death penalty. Now that is an ironic, nothing is. That's why I say the so-called pro-life movement is a joke, and not a good one. Total hypocrites. Back in April Texas charged a woman for murder and we're ready to try her because she did an abortion on herself. There was such a public outcry they dropped the case. They were idiotic enough to put the death penalty on the case.


and probably will do until people have become emotionally triggered to believe that is the only right thing to do and they deserve it.  If they manage to get abortion legalised I have heard it suggested that then they will go for banning contraception and I suspect that will happen too..  It does seem to have a strong dollop of misogny.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> But when is government getting to intrusive. I cannot think of any situation worse than not having control over your own reproductive choices if you're a woman. No matter how you look at it taking that right away from a woman makes them a second class citizen and that's not just not right that's her choice and her choice alone. No matter what the courts or States say.



What a coincidence.  I think government has abdicated its responsibilities entirely when it doesn't protect children from being killed.  No matter how you look at it, there is no "right" to do that, and no sob story about "women are second-class citizens if they're subject to nature and biology" that isn't, at its base, sexist.  You're basically saying that the full citizenship depends on being just like a man.  Womanhood at its most natural IS "second class citizenship", and inherently inferior.

There is no "choice" about killing babies, any more than there is about killing anyone else.  Cover it in all the euphemisms to deflect from the central argument all you like; all it does is point out how much you know you're in the wrong.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> There never was such an animal as a " unborn child " so get over yourself. The pro-life agenda has played you to the hilt and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker. In 99% of abortions you would be unable to discern that it was a human fetus at all. The late term abortions are generally by married women and they're done in order to save the life of the mother or to prevent the birth of a child with multiple systemic problems and low viability. The alternative is to let the mother proceed with the pregnancy and have a child that would probably end up needing 50 operations to look halfway normal and never leaf a normal life. I wouldn't want that for myself I can't see how anybody would want that for their child, it's sick. Play turn abortions only amount for .05% it isn't sound financial responsibility or moral responsibility for that matter
> Get the facts and you'll probably change your mind about having the government control a woman's reproductive Rights. That should be left to her doctor and her, if there is a husband and significant other they can be included. There's no need for abortion laws at all, they have no place in modern society.


Now an unborn baby is an animal.  Was Medical waste.  Make uo your mind.


----------



## Stann

Flash said:


> Not "egregious".  Just "commons sense" restrictions.  You know, like what the Moon Bats say about restrictions on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


Right, the Texas laws at 6 weeks when most women don't even know they're pregnant yet. Not allowing for rape or incest victims. I'm waiting for the one to say that they can't even save the life of the mother and the fetus has priority over the mother that's going to take the cake that's when all these laws need to go down.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Hypocrisy of the far right in is beyond belief. They scream about having to wear a mask during a public health crisis yet they want to force women to have children they don't want. Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience. Being forced to Bear a child, living with that everyday for 9 months the concert reminder of things that weren't supposed to be, has to be absolute torture. I couldn't imagine living that over and over again especially if I was raped by the victim of incest. That's an insane demand to put on anyone.



Illiteracy of the far left is beyond belief.  As much as you dipshits like to fling around accusations of "hypocrisy" like a monkey house flinging feces, you'd think one of you would give some consideration to what the word means.  One more time, it does NOT mean "disagreeing with what I've declared is correct, and refusing to practice beliefs I don't share the way I have decreed they should be."  Didn't before, doesn't now, won't in the future.

The difference between the mask issue and the abortion issue is, and remains, in the central point that is the one thing you will dodge and duck and ignore until the life leaves your dishonest body:  unborn babies are living human organisms.  What you do or don't think about the inconvenience level of a worthless mask on MY face, it remains MY face.  It is 100% and in no way YOUR face to have any say about.  Abortions, on the other hand, involve a second human being by definition.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Relative Ethics said:


> Sadly, tens of thousands of lives per year will continue to be lost to gun suicide.



Sadly, suicidal people don't magically decide they want to live just because they don't have a gun.  Stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and address the gaping hole in the side of the ship.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> What a coincidence.  I think government has abdicated its responsibilities entirely when it doesn't protect children from being killed.  No matter how you look at it, there is no "right" to do that, and no sob story about "women are second-class citizens if they're subject to nature and biology" that isn't, at its base, sexist.  You're basically saying that the full citizenship depends on being just like a man.  Womanhood at its most natural IS "second class citizenship", and inherently inferior.
> 
> There is no "choice" about killing babies, any more than there is about killing anyone else.  Cover it in all the euphemisms to deflect from the central argument all you like; all it does is point out how much you know you're in the wrong.


We have laws that protect children no children are being murdered in the womb because there are no children in the womb. There's a fetus with the potential of becoming a human being if it gets through all the challenges facing it. A woman carrying a fetus that she does not want would make a terrible mother. I finished being carried without Love is already out of disadvantage and from there it only gets worse.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> There are no dots to connect



Your declaration of that opinion as fact means less than nothing.  No one can create reality simply by saying, "This is so, now accept it", and people who are stupid even for leftists - like you - REALLY can't.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> This is another foundational belief of the statist: that rights are at the mercy of voters. They aren't. That's the whole point of Constitutionally protected rights in the first place.


As you ignore the 10th Amendment and Enumerated powers.  All the while claiming to be a libertarian.

Ending Roe doesnt end abortion.  It is Semantics for gaslighting the leftist brain dead zombies


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Illiteracy of the far left is beyond belief.  As much as you dipshits like to fling around accusations of "hypocrisy" like a monkey house flinging feces, you'd think one of you would give some consideration to what the word means.  One more time, it does NOT mean "disagreeing with what I've declared is correct, and refusing to practice beliefs I don't share the way I have decreed they should be."  Didn't before, doesn't now, won't in the future.
> 
> The difference between the mask issue and the abortion issue is, and remains, in the central point that is the one thing you will dodge and duck and ignore until the life leaves your dishonest body:  unborn babies are living human organisms.  What you do or don't think about the inconvenience level of a worthless mask on MY face, it remains MY face.  It is 100% and in no way YOUR face to have any say about.  Abortions, on the other hand, involve a second human being by definition.


As long as you're talking about the ignorance surrounding masks during a pandemic. For 2 years straight whenever I went out in public I wore a mask. In an average year I get two to three colds. For 2 years I didn't have it even a single cold. About a month ago I decided it was safe to go without the mask. Two weeks later I had  Covid. I'm going to continue wearing my mask until this stuff is gone and that may take several years the way people are abusing the public safeguards. Plenty of vectors out there to catch it if they aren't taking precautions. Why so many adults are acting like children in this matter is beyond me.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Overturning Roe v Wade returns it to the states.  You seem confused again.


You don't remember why roe versus Wade began in the first place, because the states got ridiculous with their abortion restrictions. The court called them " egregious ". I think that totally describes the Texas and Mississippi laws, now other states will be emboldened to do the same darn garbage. Roe versus Wade will just have to come back or the supreme Court is finally going to say abortions are none of your business abortions are a medical procedure and no legal restrictions can apply to it it's up to the doctor and the woman involved in the situation. No other medical conditions have ever had so many restrictions. It's absolutely ridiculous that we're back at ground zero again where it all began and where it's going to happen again.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Now an unborn baby is an animal.  Was Medical waste.  Make uo your mind.


With the freaking unborn baby again what is wrong with you. And yes human beings are all animals I'm surprised you don't know that it's a basic science course in high school. You either didn't finish high School or you slept through the class.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> s for safeguarding the lives of kids after they are born, let's start with the fact that WE support allowing them to HAVE lives after birth. We frankly don't NEED to say anything else to be way ahead of you on the subject.


Bullshit! See post 2512 How many of those items do you support?


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> What a coincidence.  I think government has abdicated its responsibilities entirely when it doesn't protect children from being killed.  No matter how you look at it, there is no "right" to do that, and no sob story about "women are second-class citizens if they're subject to nature and biology" that isn't, at its base, sexist.  You're basically saying that the full citizenship depends on being just like a man.  Womanhood at its most natural IS "second class citizenship", and inherently inferior.
> 
> There is no "choice" about killing babies, any more than there is about killing anyone else.  Cover it in all the euphemisms to deflect from the central argument all you like; all it does is point out how much you know you're in the wrong.


There's nothing right about calling women second class citizens naturally. I think we've evolved a little since caveman days.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> There's nothing right about calling women second class citizens naturally. I think we've evolved a little since caveman days.


The truth comes out it's all about control with you people. Sick, sick, sick !


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Once again there is no unborn child
> This is just to psych you up emotionally
> It was a very carefully plant agenda by the far right and a very sick one at that.



"I keep telling you to think THIS is reality, now stop making arguments I have declared you can't!"

You can see the alacrity with which we are rushing to accept your one-sided imposition of debate parameters.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I just correlated some information. Every one of the Republican states that has strong abortion laws also has the death penalty. Now that is an ironic, nothing is. That's why I say the so-called pro-life movement is a joke, and not a good one. Total hypocrites. Back in April Texas charged a woman for murder and we're ready to try her because she did an abortion on herself. There was such a public outcry they dropped the case. They were idiotic enough to put the death penalty on the case.



"Aha!  You are not practicing your beliefs, which I disdain, the way I have decided that you should!"

Did you actually think that pro-lifers were deeply concerned about how a pro-abort thinks pro-life should be done?


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> "I keep telling you to think THIS is reality, now stop making arguments I have declared you can't!"
> 
> You can see the alacrity with which we are rushing to accept your one-sided imposition of debate parameters.


I keep telling you to think. That definition was made up it's artificial it's fake. There's no unborn child in the womb there is a fetus in different stages of a development. If a fetus is allowed to reach maturity and a woman gives birth then you have a child it's not a child until it's born. That's reality those are the facts.


----------



## Cecilie1200

alexa said:


> and probably will do until people have become emotionally triggered to believe that is the only right thing to do and they deserve it.  If they manage to get abortion legalised I have heard it suggested that then they will go for banning contraception and I suspect that will happen too..  It does seem to have a strong dollop of misogny.



Can you demonstrate evidence of any such widespread hatred of contraception among anyone, other than your, "You hate women if you disagree with me!" hysteria?


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> "Aha!  You are not practicing your beliefs, which I disdain, the way I have decided that you should!"
> 
> Did you actually think that pro-lifers were deeply concerned about how a pro-abort thinks pro-life should be done?


Most people have the common sense to realize they're not doing things correctly if they're constantly criticized. This is a debate site if you don't want to hear the other side's point of view you shouldn't be on here.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Can you demonstrate evidence of any such widespread hatred of contraception among anyone, other than your, "You hate women if you disagree with me!" hysteria?


I'm not the one who's fanatical about stopping other people I don't know and don't care about from having safe and effective abortions. You are. And you've already said that women are naturally second class citizens. You you need to re-examine how you think about women and what their rights should be.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Right, the Texas laws at 6 weeks when most women don't even know they're pregnant yet. Not allowing for rape or incest victims. I'm waiting for the one to say that they can't even save the life of the mother and the fetus has priority over the mother that's going to take the cake that's when all these laws need to go down.



Yet another, "I don't like what you believe, so I've decided you MUST also believe this other thing, because it gives me a scary thrill to panic about it."

To quote my favorite television show, "My days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle."


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> I'm not the one who's fanatical about stopping other people I don't know and don't care about from having safe and effective abortions. You are. And you've already said that women are naturally second class citizens. You you need to re-examine how you think about women and what their rights should be.


This is supposed to be a free country. And the rights keep complaining about government overreach. Well this is way over the top.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yet another, "I don't like what you believe, so I've decided you MUST also believe this other thing, because it gives me a scary thrill to panic about it."
> 
> To quote my favorite television show, "My days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle."


I'm trying to tell you this is ridiculous to go through this again we've already been down this road and the right decision was made. Or at least as right as they could get it. Nobody seems to have the balls to tell all these nosy bodies is none of their business and get them out of when is the vaginas that they don't know. Republicans are really good about that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> We have laws that protect children no children are being murdered in the womb because there are no children in the womb. There's a fetus with the potential of becoming a human being if it gets through all the challenges facing it. A woman carrying a fetus that she does not want would make a terrible mother. I finished being carried without Love is already out of disadvantage and from there it only gets worse.



I'm still yawning at your blank, unsubstantiated declarations that unborn babies are not children because you say so.  At some point, I really hope you start holding your breath while waiting for your assertions to matter.


----------



## Flash

Stann said:


> Right, the Texas laws at 6 weeks when most women don't even know they're pregnant yet. Not allowing for rape or incest victims. I'm waiting for the one to say that they can't even save the life of the mother and the fetus has priority over the mother that's going to take the cake that's when all these laws need to go down.


Just like saying not allowing standard 30 rd magazines for an AR-15 or a hand grip is "common sense" gun regulations, huh?


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> As you ignore the 10th Amendment and Enumerated powers.  All the while claiming to be a libertarian.


LOL - the statist lectures on libertarian values. Do go on, it's hilarious.

I don't give a shit whether you're trying to violate individual rights federally, or at the state level, I'm going to call you on it. Government should have no jurisdiction over the contents of my, or anyone else's, body. Period.


----------



## Calypso Jones

It's a real education into the machinations of evil to see how the left uses words and phrases to make themselves sound morally superior and sensitive.  Take the words prolife and prochoice.   There is no question about what pro-LIFE means.

But pro-choice..    doesn't mean a choice of either life or death for the unborn. Oh no...it means death irrevocably for the unborn.  Perhaps the choice they mean is the time frame....the WHEN of the  deed...either while it is in the womb or fresh out.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> LOL - the statist lectures on libertarian values. Do go on, it's hilarious.
> 
> I don't give a shit whether you're trying to violate individual rights federally, or at the state level, I'm going to call you on it. Government should have no jurisdiction over the contents of my, or anyone else's, body. Period.


So you threw out States Rights along with medical waste and believe a baby can be aborted at birth, fully developed, and healthy?

That baby is not a life Until YOU SAY SO.  

You are NO libertarian.  You are the Far Left pretending to be Libertarian.  That is clear to me now.


----------



## JustAGuy1

dblack said:


> LOL - the statist lectures on libertarian values. Do go on, it's hilarious.
> 
> I don't give a shit whether you're trying to violate individual rights federally, or at the state level, I'm going to call you on it. Government should have no jurisdiction over the contents of my, or anyone else's, body. Period.



That's why MILLIONS of us didn't take your stupid Jab


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> With the freaking unborn baby again what is wrong with you. And yes human beings are all animals I'm surprised you don't know that it's a basic science course in high school. You either didn't finish high School or you slept through the class.


More drivel making excuses for allowing babies to be murdered saying they are not human yet.

Moonbat BS


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> This is supposed to be a free country. And the rights keep complaining about government overreach. Well this is way over the top.



Would it shock you to discover that "free country" doesn't mean "Do whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want"?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I'm trying to tell you this is ridiculous to go through this again we've already been down this road and the right decision was made. Or at least as right as they could get it. Nobody seems to have the balls to tell all these nosy bodies is none of their business and get them out of when is the vaginas that they don't know. Republicans are really good about that.



And I'm trying to tell YOU that asserting something doesn't make it reality, and it CERTAINLY doesn't impress me in the slightest.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> How can a woman be a first class citizen if she doesn't even have control of her reproductive Rights.



See my previous post, re: female biology = inferior, more like men = superior.  That's basically what you're saying, and it's offensively sexist.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Wake up already. There is no baby.



This just in:  reality still not determined by your assertions. 

At some point, an intelligent person would realize, "That's not true, so THERE" is not a functional response and makes you look like an idiot and a poltroon.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You can call it whatever you want but it's not a baby or a child, never was and most likely won't become for a woman seeking an abortion. I just looked up and of the second semester abortions 90% of the pregnancies with down syndrome will be aborted. It doesn't show up until this check that's why it isn't done earlier. Education helps a lot. Scientific advances are great it lets people know ahead of time if there's any multiple problems with any birth so they can terminate it rather than take those risks.



Still doggedly proving you're no kind of intelligent, thinking person.


----------



## alexa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Can you demonstrate evidence of any such widespread hatred of contraception among anyone, other than your, "You hate women if you disagree with me!" hysteria?


Listen I am not American and so do not have much experience of what you are all about. I am just going by how things tend to go.  When the far right want to get others to buy their point of view they usually throw it out, see the reaction and if it seems too against, go quiet for a while, then bring it up again later.  I see you in the US far right motivated by evangelical Christianity and I know their ideal would be to make the US a Theocracy of their religion. I don't see the concern about abortions being anything about concern for the fetus.  Christians were accepting of abortions.  ..and then fundamental Christians decided that although prior to this they did not vote, they were going to and they were going to encourage all the others to. They were going to use abortion which some Christians were not so ok about to draw people in and give them their first thing to work for.  They did a lot of work getting hold of Seminaries and teaching people this new kind of Christianity and gained a lot of power which they have now being in your Government and in your legal system.  Abortion is first but this head set is about an extreme right Christianity so yes, I it may not happen but I see it as a very strong possibility that contraception will be banned and we will probably see the death sentence for women who have abortions.  How far you take this is up to you but that is where you are headed,


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Can you demonstrate evidence of any such widespread hatred of contraception among anyone, other than your, "You hate women if you disagree with me!" hysteria?











						Mississippi governor refuses to rule out banning contraception
					

‘That is not what we’re focused on at this time,’ says Tate Reeves while state has ‘trigger law’ that would outlaw almost all abortions




					www.theguardian.com
				












						Idaho Republican Leader Says He'd Consider Banning Morning-After Pills and IUDs
					

The Republican Party insists they "DO NOT want to take away contraception." But some lawmakers are admitting the quiet part out loud.




					jezebel.com
				












						GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use
					

Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters thinks judges should also take aim at the right to buy and use contraception after outlawing abortion.




					www.azmirror.com
				












						The Anti–Birth Control Movement Is the New Anti-Abortion Movement
					

Republicans are “conflating medications that prevent pregnancy—birth control and emergency contraception—with medications that end pregnancy,” says the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.




					www.vogue.com
				












						Louisiana Bans Iud: Louisiana Lawmakers Advance Bill Making Abortion Homicide—Even If Roe V. Wade Isn’t Overturned
					

Louisiana lawmakers moved a bill out of committee on Wednesday that could make having an abortion grounds for homicide charges, going far beyond current




					bulletinxp.com


----------



## dblack

JustAGuy1 said:


> That's why MILLIONS of us didn't take your stupid Jab


My jab? WTF are you talking about? I opposed mandated vaccinations. Stow your stupid team sports stereotypes, please.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> So you threw out States Rights along with medical waste and believe a baby can be aborted at birth, fully developed, and healthy?
> 
> That baby is not a life Until YOU SAY SO.
> 
> You are NO libertarian.  You are the Far Left pretending to be Libertarian.  That is clear to me now.


I'm not, in the least, interested in your misconceptions about libertarianism. Just keep your government out of my body and we'll get along fine.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> As long as you're talking about the ignorance surrounding masks during a pandemic. For 2 years straight whenever I went out in public I wore a mask. In an average year I get two to three colds. For 2 years I didn't have it even a single cold. About a month ago I decided it was safe to go without the mask. Two weeks later I had  Covid. I'm going to continue wearing my mask until this stuff is gone and that may take several years the way people are abusing the public safeguards. Plenty of vectors out there to catch it if they aren't taking precautions. Why so many adults are acting like children in this matter is beyond me.



"As long as you're talking about what I want, the way I want, you can talk."

Fuck off, dictator-wannabe.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You don't remember why roe versus Wade began in the first place, because the states got ridiculous with their abortion restrictions. The court called them " egregious ". I think that totally describes the Texas and Mississippi laws, now other states will be emboldened to do the same darn garbage. Roe versus Wade will just have to come back or the supreme Court is finally going to say abortions are none of your business abortions are a medical procedure and no legal restrictions can apply to it it's up to the doctor and the woman involved in the situation. No other medical conditions have ever had so many restrictions. It's absolutely ridiculous that we're back at ground zero again where it all began and where it's going to happen again.



Wow, it's almost like other people don't agree with your worldview of, "I didn't like it, so that made it wrong and required forcing everyone to do things my preferred way."  How shocking.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> With the freaking unborn baby again what is wrong with you. And yes human beings are all animals I'm surprised you don't know that it's a basic science course in high school. You either didn't finish high School or you slept through the class.



"Why do you keep persisting in believing something I have declared you're not allowed to?  Why can't you just accept my premise?"

Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over, unable to understand why you don't get a different result.  Stupidity can also be described that way.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> I just correlated some information. Every one of the Republican states that has strong abortion laws also has the death penalty. Now that is an ironic, nothing is. That's why I say the so-called pro-life movement is a joke, and not a good one. Total hypocrites. Back in April Texas charged a woman for murder and we're ready to try her because she did an abortion on herself. There was such a public outcry they dropped the case. They were idiotic enough to put the death penalty on the case.


What’s ironic is that the liberal states are all for killing innocent unborn children, and then fight to the death (literally) to keep mass murderers alive.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit! See post 2512 How many of those items do you support?



That whooshing noise was the entire point flying over your dunce cap as you obsessed over your inane belief that you can dictate how other people practice beliefs you don't share according to the way you think they should.

Let me see if I can dumb this down to your level:  I don't have to check off your fucking "Do you support the things I like?" list.  I don't have to justify myself to the likes of you.  Your moral authority on this subject is bullshit, and your checklist of leftist "compassion" via government spending is bullshit.

I don't want to kill babies; you're outraged by not killing them.  Anything you want to congratulate yourself on past that point is meaningless noise . . . kinda like everything else that spews from your blowhole.

Get over your belief that you are setting the standards for anyone else to defend by.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> There's nothing right about calling women second class citizens naturally. I think we've evolved a little since caveman days.



I agree.  So why are you doing it?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> The truth comes out it's all about control with you people. Sick, sick, sick !



You keep responding to your own posts.  If you need a little private time with yourself, please do it offline.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I keep telling you to think. That definition was made up it's artificial it's fake. There's no unborn child in the womb there is a fetus in different stages of a development. If a fetus is allowed to reach maturity and a woman gives birth then you have a child it's not a child until it's born. That's reality those are the facts.



No, you keep telling me WHAT to think, and flattering yourself that you're just "telling me to think".  Anytime you're saying, "You're not thinking, because look how much you refuse to agree with me", you're wrong.

You should be aware that the instant you start re-asserting your opinion as fact, I stop reading and laugh at you.  You are convincing no one of anything by this, "THIS is reality.  It IS, it IS!" repetitions except that you are a dogmatic, ignorant ideologue.


----------



## Cecilie1200

alexa said:


> Listen I am not American and so do not have much experience of what you are all about. I am just going by how things tend to go.  When the far right want to get others to buy their point of view they usually throw it out, see the reaction and if it seems too against, go quiet for a while, then bring it up again later.  I see you in the US far right motivated by evangelical Christianity and I know their ideal would be to make the US a Theocracy of their religion. I don't see the concern about abortions being anything about concern for the fetus.  Christians were accepting of abortions.  ..and then fundamental Christians decided that although prior to this they did not vote, they were going to and they were going to encourage all the others to. They were going to use abortion which some Christians were not so ok about to draw people in and give them their first thing to work for.  They did a lot of work getting hold of Seminaries and teaching people this new kind of Christianity and gained a lot of power which they have now being in your Government and in your legal system.  Abortion is first but this head set is about an extreme right Christianity so yes, I it may not happen but I see it as a very strong possibility that contraception will be banned and we will probably see the death sentence for women who have abortions.  How far you take this is up to you but that is where you are headed,



I stopped reading at "I am not American", because no one gives a fart in a wind tunnel what you have to say about a country you aren't part of.  Shut the fuck up, mind your own business, and go try to turn your country into something interesting so you don't have to try to butt into other people's nations to feel important.

You are henceforth dismissed and forgotten, dipshit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Mississippi governor refuses to rule out banning contraception
> 
> 
> ‘That is not what we’re focused on at this time,’ says Tate Reeves while state has ‘trigger law’ that would outlaw almost all abortions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idaho Republican Leader Says He'd Consider Banning Morning-After Pills and IUDs
> 
> 
> The Republican Party insists they "DO NOT want to take away contraception." But some lawmakers are admitting the quiet part out loud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jezebel.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use
> 
> 
> Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters thinks judges should also take aim at the right to buy and use contraception after outlawing abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.azmirror.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Anti–Birth Control Movement Is the New Anti-Abortion Movement
> 
> 
> Republicans are “conflating medications that prevent pregnancy—birth control and emergency contraception—with medications that end pregnancy,” says the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vogue.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana Bans Iud: Louisiana Lawmakers Advance Bill Making Abortion Homicide—Even If Roe V. Wade Isn’t Overturned
> 
> 
> Louisiana lawmakers moved a bill out of committee on Wednesday that could make having an abortion grounds for homicide charges, going far beyond current
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bulletinxp.com



You're not exactly the brightest light on the Christmas tree, are you?  How many times do you have to be derisively mocked and dismissed for this, "Look at all the leftwing sites that told me so!  I MUST be right!" tack before it sinks into your brain that you are the best evidence in the world AGAINST anything you believe?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Most people have the common sense to realize they're not doing things correctly if they're constantly criticized. This is a debate site if you don't want to hear the other side's point of view you shouldn't be on here.



I agree, so why are you having so much difficulty with it?

I already know the other side's point of view.  Do you really imagine anyone can live in the United States of America their whole lives and NOT hear the exact same talking points you keep asserting from every other mindless, parroting leftist drone imagining him or herself to be brilliant because they say the correct lines?

There's a difference between "not wanting to hear the other side" - which is a laughably ironic accusation, coming from someone who spends his whole life desperately avoiding ever hearing what his opponents think - and pointing out that simply declaring something over and over and demanding that it be accepted makes you sound like an asshole.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I'm not the one who's fanatical about stopping other people I don't know and don't care about from having safe and effective abortions. You are. And you've already said that women are naturally second class citizens. You you need to re-examine how you think about women and what their rights should be.



No, you are the one who's fanatical about ASSuming that I don't care about people simply because I don't know them.  And I have not said women are naturally second-class citizens.  You really need to work on your reading comprehension.  Clearly, long-term leftism is rotting your brain.  I said YOU are saying that.  Go back and have someone explain the nice words to you, moron.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I'm trying to tell you this is ridiculous to go through this again we've already been down this road and the right decision was made. Or at least as right as they could get it. Nobody seems to have the balls to tell all these nosy bodies is none of their business and get them out of when is the vaginas that they don't know. Republicans are really good about that.



You can "try to tell me" that I should just let you talk unanswered until your face turns blue.  Any time you have a problem with it, you have the solution of just going away and not talking.  What you don't have is the option of talking unopposed.


----------



## JustAGuy1

dblack said:


> My jab? WTF are you talking about? I opposed mandated vaccinations. Stow your stupid team sports stereotypes, please.



We cross? Too bad.


----------



## dblack

JustAGuy1 said:


> We cross? Too bad.


Huh? So you have anything coherent to add?


----------



## task0778

Coyote said:


> Mississippi governor refuses to rule out banning contraception
> 
> 
> ‘That is not what we’re focused on at this time,’ says Tate Reeves while state has ‘trigger law’ that would outlaw almost all abortions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idaho Republican Leader Says He'd Consider Banning Morning-After Pills and IUDs
> 
> 
> The Republican Party insists they "DO NOT want to take away contraception." But some lawmakers are admitting the quiet part out loud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jezebel.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use
> 
> 
> Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters thinks judges should also take aim at the right to buy and use contraception after outlawing abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.azmirror.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Anti–Birth Control Movement Is the New Anti-Abortion Movement
> 
> 
> Republicans are “conflating medications that prevent pregnancy—birth control and emergency contraception—with medications that end pregnancy,” says the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vogue.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Louisiana Bans Iud: Louisiana Lawmakers Advance Bill Making Abortion Homicide—Even If Roe V. Wade Isn’t Overturned
> 
> 
> Louisiana lawmakers moved a bill out of committee on Wednesday that could make having an abortion grounds for homicide charges, going far beyond current
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bulletinxp.com



I think banning contraceptives is a step too far, and any state that does that risks losing their grip on that state's gov't.  If some individuals want to spout off about it, fine.  They're entitled to speak their mind, but they also have to deal with the consequences just as some from the Left will.  Hard to believe the people in any state would support that, and politicians who ignore the will of the most people tend to get voted out of office.

Much as I dislike the democratic party, if my state reps are for banning contraceptives then they ain't going to get my vote.


----------



## Cecilie1200

task0778 said:


> I think banning contraceptives is a step too far, and any state that does that risks losing their grip on that state's gov't.  If some individuals want to spout off about it, fine.  They're entitled to speak their mind, but they also have to deal with the consequences just as some from the Left will.  Hard to believe the people in any state would support that, and politicians who ignore the will of the most people tend to get voted out of office.
> 
> Much as I dislike the democratic party, if my state reps are for banning contraceptives then they ain't going to get my vote.



Consider the sources.


----------



## Lisa558

task0778 said:


> I think banning contraceptives is a step too far, and any state that does that risks losing their grip on that state's gov't.  If some individuals want to spout off about it, fine.  They're entitled to speak their mind, but they also have to deal with the consequences just as some from the Left will.  Hard to believe the people in any state would support that, and politicians who ignore the will of the most people tend to get voted out of office.
> 
> Much as I dislike the democratic party, if my state reps are for banning contraceptives then they ain't going to get my vote.


Precisely. Anyone that goes to that extreme will be voted out - and they know it. It’s just talk.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> That whooshing noise was the entire point flying over your dunce cap as you obsessed over your inane belief that you can dictate how other people practice beliefs you don't share according to the way you think they should.
> 
> Let me see if I can dumb this down to your level:  I don't have to check off your fucking "Do you support the things I like?" list.  I don't have to justify myself to the likes of you.  Your moral authority on this subject is bullshit, and your checklist of leftist "compassion" via government spending is bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to kill babies; you're outraged by not killing them.  Anything you want to congratulate yourself on past that point is meaningless noise . . . kinda like everything else that spews from your blowhole.
> 
> Get over your belief that you are setting the standards for anyone else to defend by.


Holy shit! That is quite an inane rant! Did you head just spin completely   around which projective vomiting pea soup.

Now I am going to dumb it down for YOU. Your version of "pro life" is  to continue to bleat about being pro life. Then, when asked what you would actually do in the interest of preserving and protecting life you go off like a banshee about how we want to kill babies. 

I presented concrete plans and policies to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to support and encourage women and families to keep the children and not abort. You have nothing. I am more pro life than you. In fact, you are not pro life at all


----------



## task0778

Cecilie1200 said:


> Consider the sources.



Yeah, I get that.  But whatever the source, people can say what they want but actually passing such a law to ban contraceptives is a whole 'nother thing.  I would hope the citizens in any state would send a clear message not to do that.


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> Taking a woman's personal control away from her and assigning it to the State is an impersonal tyranny that denies her the right to make reproductive decisions for herself in consultation with loved ones and spiritual and medical advisers who know her and whom she trusts.
> 
> Statists taking a woman's freedom away is antithetical to the progress of reproductive liberty throughout advanced, democratic nations.
> 
> Reverting to the state womb control of Egypt, Iran, Honduras, and El Salvador is not progress.


You're only angry that they are giving this decision to the States where it belongs based on the Constitution because of the outcome.   You would be ok with this decision if Roe v Wade had outlawed abortion for the last 50 years.     We wouldnt hear a peep out of you about stare decisis or authoritarians other than to call the SCOTUS Court of 1973 that of course.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm still yawning at your blank, unsubstantiated declarations that unborn babies are not children because you say so.  At some point, I really hope you start holding your breath while waiting for your assertions to matter.


I'm sorry you're so easily bored by opposing points of view. An " unborn " bird is actually called an egg. I don't know of anyone who calls it unborn bird. That would be totally ridiculous and " Un " realistic for any intelligent person to do. I don't think I need to point out that one most abortions are done the fetus is in no way recognizable as a human child, but with you arrogant people I guess I have to.


----------



## Stann

task0778 said:


> Yeah, I get that.  But whatever the source, people can say what they want but actually passing such a law to ban contraceptives is a whole 'nother thing.  I would hope the citizens in any state would send a clear message not to do that.


That would be complete and utter Insanity.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> I'm not, in the least, interested in your misconceptions about libertarianism. Just keep your government out of my body and we'll get along fine.


States Rights went right out the window with you.

LOL


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> I'm sorry you're so easily bored by opposing points of view. An " unborn " bird is actually called an egg. I don't know of anyone who calls it unborn bird. That would be totally ridiculous and " Un " realistic for any intelligent person to do. I don't think I need to point out that one most abortions are done the fetus is in no way recognizable as a human child, but with you arrogant people I guess I have to.


What is an egg?    Can a chicken egg develop into a finch?     If I steal a robin's egg and put it in a egret's nest will it hatch an egret?     Of course not.    It's just a stage in a bird's development.      A zygote, fetus, baby, toddler, child, adolescent, young adult, adult, senior citizen/elderly adult etc, are all human they are just different stages of human life.  You people act like a fetus might turn into a zebra while it's in it's human mother and we don't know what it will be until it takes the magical trip through the birth canal.    What's sad is birds know their eggs are life, and they defend them with more vigor than many humans defend their unborn....


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Huh? So you have anything coherent to add?


Show me an unborn baby.  Yes I said that.  That can object for him or herself.  You eirher consider it a life or not.  You clearly see it as not a life at all.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> States Rights went right out the window with you.
> 
> LOL


They certainly don't trump individual rights. Clearly, you think they do.


----------



## Couchpotato

dblack said:


> They certainly don't trump individual rights. Clearly, you think they do.


?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> They certainly don't trump individual rights. Clearly, you think they do.


Right over your head.  As you ignore that unborn babies right to life.


----------



## Stann

task0778 said:


> I think banning contraceptives is a step too far, and any state that does that risks losing their grip on that state's gov't.  If some individuals want to spout off about it, fine.  They're entitled to speak their mind, but they also have to deal with the consequences just as some from the Left will.  Hard to believe the people in any state would support that, and politicians who ignore the will of the most people tend to get voted out of office.
> 
> Much as I dislike the democratic party, if my state reps are for banning contraceptives then they ain't going to get my vote.


Dismantling Roe versus Wade is already a step too far. Any attack on birth control and /or emergency drugs like the morning after pill for rape victims would be met with immediately legal action I would definitely win. Our state is trying to stop personal mail order all such type drugs and they failed already. I'm sure other states like Texas and Mississippi are going to try garbage like that.


task0778 said:


> Yeah, I get that.  But whatever the source, people can say what they want but actually passing such a law to ban contraceptives is a whole 'nother thing.  I would hope the citizens in any state would send a clear message not to do that.


Messing with personal mail is a federal offense.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Show me an unborn baby.  Yes I said that.


What a weird thing to say.


eagle1462010 said:


> That can object for him or herself.  You eirher consider it a life or not.  You clearly see it as not a life at all.


How many unborn babies would you say there are? Do they get to vote? Exactly what are their rights?


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Right over your head.  As you ignore that unborn babies right to life.


Yes, unborn babies don't have rights. It's a ridiculous concept.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Dismantling Roe versus Wade is already a step too far. Any attack on birth control and /or emergency drugs like the morning after pill for rape victims would be met with immediately legal action I would definitely win. Our state is trying to stop personal mail order all such type drugs and they failed already. I'm sure other states like Texas and Mississippi are going to try garbage like that.
> 
> Messing with personal mail is a federal offense.


Show me the banning of rubbers in Mississippi??

You have lost your stinking mind.  Morning after?  Mississippi law moved to 15 weeks on their law for abortikn.


----------



## dblack

Couchpotato said:


> ?


He's citing state's rights as his excuse for violating individual rights.


----------



## Couchpotato

dblack said:


> Yes, unborn babies don't have rights. It's a ridiculous concept.


So when do they get their rights then?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> What a weird thing to say.
> 
> How many unborn babies would you say there are? Do they get to vote? Exactly what are their rights?


Yawn.  What do you consider a umborn baby???  Its 9 months.  Water broke.  You change your mind and abort.  This happens in many states already.  Do you agree with this or NOT?


----------



## Couchpotato

dblack said:


> He's citing state's rights as his excuse for violating individual rights.


States rights have to do with what's in the States purview vs the Federal Government's.  It' has nothing to do with individual rights.      In this instance because the Constitution does not speak to abortion it like most other things is the purview of the individual states to govern or in other words states rights.    It has zero to do with whether that state makes abortion or anything else for that matter legal or otherwise.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> He's citing state's rights as his excuse for violating individual rights.


As you say yoy areaLibertarian who traditionally want States Rights.  As you disregard the right to life of a baby


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Yawn.  What do you consider a umborn baby???


You go first - you're the one who keeps throwing the term around. It's nonsensical from my point of view. That's why I asked you how many there are - to pin you down to SOME kind of definition. Vague appeals to emotion don't make for productive debate.


----------



## Stann

dblack said:


> What a weird thing to say.
> 
> How many unborn babies would you say there are? Do they get to vote? Exactly what are their rights?


A few days ago one of the posters on this site posted an obvious fake photo of what was probably a one month old child set in the background of a woman's vagina complete with an attached umbilical cord. It was one of those photos that the pro-life agenda is creating to get an emotional response out of their followers. It was a very sad attempt to do so. There are some states gullible enough to attempt to give certain rights to fetuses. Once that is done, they think that gives them more legal authority in the matters of abortions. It does not, it's just another ridiculous ploy / tactic of these desperate people to control all women's lives.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> As you say yoy areaLibertarian who traditionally want States Rights.  As you disregard the right to life of a baby


Again with the baby crap what is wrong with you people.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> You go first - you're the one who keeps throwing the term around. It's nonsensical from my point of view. That's why I asked you how many there are - to pin you down to SOME kind of definition. Vague appeals to emotion don't make for productive debate.


Baloney.  I asked you a specific question.  You afraid?  9 months.  Healthy baby being born.  And they change their mind and abort.  

Simple question


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Again with the baby crap what is wrong with you people.


Fuck off.  You think its medical waste and not a life.  I say you are screwed in the head


----------



## Couchpotato

dblack said:


> What a weird thing to say.
> 
> How many unborn babies would you say there are? Do they get to vote? Exactly what are their rights?


Can 13 y/o's vote?  Is it your contention that until you are 18 and can legally vote you have no rights and I can kill you?


----------



## dblack

Couchpotato said:


> States rights have to do with what's in the States purview vs the Federal Government's.  It' has nothing to do with individual rights.


Exactly - that's what I meant by saying they don't trump individual rights. ie states don't have the power to violate individual rights any more than the feds do.


Couchpotato said:


> In this instance because the Constitution does not speak to abortion ...


This is a common misconception, but it's not how the Constitution is supposed to work. Read the Ninth Amendment. There's a reason it's listed before the Tenth.


----------



## Stann

dblack said:


> You go first - you're the one who keeps throwing the term around. It's nonsensical from my point of view. That's why I asked you how many there are - to pin you down to SOME kind of definition. Vague appeals to emotion don't make for productive debate.


No one calls an egg an " unborn bird. " They don't understand how ridiculous they sound. Even their savior, trump had the word fetus banned from use by the department of health and human services. Thinking that would change things. No it just gave us a window into what fascists want for this world. Absolute Control over the people.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> No one calls an egg an " unborn bird. " They don't understand how ridiculous they sound. Even their savior, trump had the word fetus banned from use by the department of health and human services. Thinking that would change things. No it just gave us a window into what fascists want for this world. Absolute Control over the people.


LMAO


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> Can 13 y/o's vote?  Is it your contention that until you are 18 and can legally vote you have no rights and I can kill you?


We're not talking about people that actually exist, we're trying to tell you and every other so-called pro lifer that the term unborn baby is ridiculous and it is.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> LMAO


I'm glad you find it funny, glad you unlike trump, can't accept the truth and not be destroyed by it.


----------



## Lisa558

If unborn babies have no right to life, why then can you be charged with two murders if you kill a pregnant woman?

Scott Petersen was charged AND CONVICTED with murdering his wife and their unborn son. So basically, liberals are saying it’s OK to murder an unborn child if the mother is doing it, but not OK if someone else is doing it.

Murder is murder. You don’t adjust the charge depending on who the murderer is.





__





						Scott Peterson convicted of murder
					

On November 12, 2004, Scott Peterson is convicted of murdering his wife Laci and their unborn son.  A jury of six men and six women delivered the verdict 23




					www.history.com


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Baloney.  I asked you a specific question.


And I answered you, dipshit. 'Unborn baby' is a nonsense phrase. Or, more to the point, it's a deliberately vague, yet emotionally provocative, phrase designed to avoid real debate.

If you disagree, provide your definition. Or ostrich up and stay vague.


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> If unborn babies have no right to life, why then can you be charged with two murders if you kill a pregnant woman?


Because pro-lifers pursued these policies, deliberately and openly, as a legal wedge, so you could make this dumb argument with a straight face.


----------



## dblack

Couchpotato said:


> Can 13 y/o's vote?  Is it your contention that until you are 18 and can legally vote you have no rights and I can kill you?


Not at all. The general approach we have taken is to assume that newborns have very few rights, and accrue them over time as they become more and more responsible for themselves. The process starts at birth, and ends at legal adulthood.


----------



## Couchpotato

dblack said:


> Exactly - that's what I meant by saying they don't trump individual rights. ie states don't have the power to violate individual rights any more than the feds do.
> 
> This is a common misconception, but it's not how the Constitution is supposed to work. Read the Ninth Amendment. There's a reason it's listed before the Tenth.


Have you read the 10th amendment?  Or did you stop once your argument broke down? 

*AMENDMENT X*

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## dblack

Couchpotato said:


> Have you read the 10th amendment?  Or did you stop once your argument broke down?
> 
> *AMENDMENT X*
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Yes, have you read the ninth??? Do you understand the difference between powers and rights?


----------



## Couchpotato

dblack said:


> Not at all. The general approach we have taken is to assume that newborns have very few rights, and accrue them over time as they become more and more responsible for themselves. The process starts at birth, and ends at legal adulthood.


 But they have the right to not be murdered right?  

So when does one get the right to not have your life snuffed out?    How many weeks after conception?


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> If unborn babies have no right to life, why then can you be charged with two murders if you kill a pregnant woman?
> 
> Scott Petersen was charged AND CONVICTED with murdering his wife and their unborn son. So basically, liberals are saying it’s OK to murder an unborn child if the mother is doing it, but not OK if someone else is doing it.
> 
> Murder is murder. You don’t adjust the charge depending on who the murderer is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Peterson convicted of murder
> 
> 
> On November 12, 2004, Scott Peterson is convicted of murdering his wife Laci and their unborn son.  A jury of six men and six women delivered the verdict 23
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com


You mentioned a rare specific case. I will mention one too. Just last month in Texas in April. Lizelle Herrera was charged with murder after she did self abortion ( I can't even imagine how alone, afraid and tortured that poor woman felt. ) And they were even considering the death penalty in this case to make an example of her because of the " egregious " new abortion ban in the state of Texas. There was such a public outcry, all charges were dropped against her. This is what happens when there is no justice to begin with. This woman could have had a supervised, clean safe abortion had the Texas law never been put into place. We're going to see more and more of these type cases and worse, wait till the death start mounting up. And I'm talking about real deaths of people that actually exist.


----------



## Couchpotato

dblack said:


> Yes, have you read the ninth??? Do you understand the difference between powers and rights?


Yes,   do you?


----------



## dblack

Couchpotato said:


> But they have the right to not be murdered right?


Yes. After they are born.


Couchpotato said:


> So when does one get the right to not have your life snuffed out?    How many weeks after conception?


In my view, conception doesn't enter into it. They start accruing rights when they are born, not when they are 'conceived'.


----------



## dblack

Couchpotato said:


> Yes,   do you?


Yeah, and I'd explain it to you, but I suspect it would take a lot of effort, and I'm not in the mood.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> But they have the right to not be murdered right?
> 
> So when does one get the right to not have your life snuffed out?    How many weeks after conception?


Pregnancy lasts 9 months,  the vast majority of my abortions occur before the 7th week of pregnancy but with each examination, the first trimester examination and blood tests between the 10th and 12th week of pregnancy can and do reveal more information that might lead to the need for an abortion. Usually by the second trimester examination between the 15th and 20th week most abnormalities are found. But like any pregnancy there can be complications during the whole pregnancy to which abortion is the best answer. So you see it's Case by case and that's why it's best left between a doctor and the woman. I don't think passing any abortions restrictions assists the process. This is a case where less interference is the best policy.


----------



## Stann

dblack said:


> Yes. After they are born.
> 
> In my view, conception doesn't enter into it. They start accruing rights when they are born, not when they are 'conceived'.


The idea of life begins at conception is a physical fact. But these people are saying that the conception is a sacred event and that is their religious right. Fortunately our government is secular, reality based and not subject to the whims of religious beliefs. At least that is the case in every other issue except for abortion. Go figure.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> The idea of life begins at conception is a physical fact. But these people are saying that the conception is a sacred event and that is their religious right. Fortunately our government is secular, reality based and not subject to the whims of religious beliefs. At least that is the case in every other issue except for abortion. Go figure.


Also, further proof of this is your very own birthday. It is the most defining fact that you exist. The government wouldn't know who you are without it.


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> Because pro-lifers pursued these policies, deliberately and openly, as a legal wedge, so you could make this dumb argument with a straight face.


That’s no defense. This was in liberal California, and the jury convicted. So you can’t have it both ways. If a man is convicted for killing his unborn son, then killing unborn babies is a crime punishable by prison (or death, depending in the state).


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I'm glad you find it funny, glad you unlike trump, can't accept the truth and not be destroyed by it.


Let me make my point clear.  It is a life in my view.  It is a viable life by Roe v Wade itself.  Calling it not a life near birth when healthy is Murder of a baby in my view.

No amount of words will change my mind tjete.  None.

Now reality.  Overturning Roe v Wade Does Not stop abortion.  You just might have to travel to be a barbarian and do late term abortion.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> That’s no defense. This was in liberal California, and the jury convicted. So you can’t have it both ways. If a man is convicted for killing his unborn son, then killing unborn babies is a crime punishable by prison (or death, depending in the state).


Further examples of Rights and obligations of citizens / people, would be when courts decide whether a juvenile is tried in juvenile court or as an adult. The ability to make these decisions is greatly involved. So ability to reason ( and that's a real scary thought because a lot of people posting on here don't seem to have any common sense and can't reason things out they are driven by their emotions and that's not helpful for anybody even them. ) Plays a strong part in how we view others.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Yeah, and I'd explain it to you, but I suspect it would take a lot of effort, and I'm not in the mood.


Aka.  Your view is shoved down our throats.  Nope.  We shall see the ruling and in our Red states we will make adjustments to the right of life to a baby.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Let me make my point clear.  It is a life in my view.  It is a viable life by Roe v Wade itself.  Calling it not a life near birth when healthy is Murder of a baby in my view.
> 
> No amount of words will change my mind tjete.  None.
> 
> Now reality.  Overturning Roe v Wade Does Not stop abortion.  You just might have to travel to be a barbarian and do late term abortion.


I would say that you are the barbarian that you keep calling me. The so-called minor imposition you say this post is on people has already created a horrible situation in Texas for one woman named Lizelle Herrera, thank GOD she didn't die. The first of many more to come because of the egregious new law Texans foolishly put on the books.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I would say that you are the barbarian that you keep calling me. The so-called minor imposition you say this post is on people has already created a horrible situation in Texas for one woman named Lizelle Herrera, thank GOD she didn't die. The first of many more to come because of the egregious new law Texans foolishly put on the books.


Aborting at birth is barbarism.  It is not medical waste.  Any who think its ok are fucked in the head.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Aka.  Your view is shoved down our throats.  Nope.  We shall see the ruling and in our Red states we will make adjustments to the right of life to a baby.


This is a discussion board. Sorry your inconvenienced by hearing sound opposing opinions. That's all any of us have here, is opinions. We don't dictate foolish laws, we don't create the situations that adversely affect us. We are all victims, waiting, like Jesus, for the truth to set us all free.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> This is a discussion board. Sorry your inconvenienced by hearing sound opposing opinions. That's all any of us have here, is opinions. We don't dictate foolish laws, we don't create the situations that adversely affect us. We are all victims, waiting, like Jesus, for the truth to set us all free.


And Ive made my opinion Very Clear here.  You disagree....oh well


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Aborting at birth is barbarism.  It is not medical waste.  Any who think its ok are fucked in the head.


You keep saying medical waste, one of the plus sides of abortion is all the advancements that have been made in various conditions because of the valuable remains of the fetus. As with all other medical conditions, women are given a consent form to sign that allows these remains to be used to further advance education and science. I've never heard of anyone refusing to do that.


----------



## dblack

Stann said:


> The idea of life begins at conception is a physical fact.


Is it? Life is a continuous stream. A sperm is alive. So is a cell. When they join up, they're alive, after the cells start to divide, still alive. The question isn't when life begins, but when a person with legal rights begins.


----------



## Man of Ethics

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sadly, suicidal people don't magically decide they want to live just because they don't have a gun.  Stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and address the gaping hole in the side of the ship.


Most people who attempt suicide without guns do not succeed.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> And Ive made my opinion Very Clear here.  You disagree....oh well


In the process you have repeatedly insulted women again and again. What's being created is not just an insignificant barrier to abortion, it's declaring war on it. And as usual in a world's largely ruled by men women are the victims.


----------



## Stann

dblack said:


> Is it? Life is a continuous stream. A sperm is alive. So is a cell. When they join up, they're alive, after the cells start to divide, still alive. The question isn't when life begins, but when a person with legal rights begins.


Agreed. I was talking in terms they were referencing as the possible creation of a new individual. That is physically correct. I also believe in the natural GOD and I've been given very good insight because of that. The sacredness, the spiritual entity that resides in each and every one of us is not able to enter the body of a human being on this planet until he / she takes their first breath at birth. It is haphazardly mentioned in the Bible. They had to get something right.


----------



## Stann

dblack said:


> Is it? Life is a continuous stream. A sperm is alive. So is a cell. When they join up, they're alive, after the cells start to divide, still alive. The question isn't when life begins, but when a person with legal rights begins.


As I said before, a person's legal rights begin with their birth date. That kind of makes it official. Our government cannot support the pro-life movement or the women's right to choose movement. Although since women have birth dates that should give them preference. As would be indicated by the exception clause in most of the abortion cases, in order to save the life of the mother. Once again that's under attack, the state of Michigan tried to dictate which cases would and would not apply ( overruling doctors in some cases ) in such cases. Some other crazy state, tried to say only if it was an emergency. Well not all these life-threatening situations are emergencies, they just keep getting worse and worse as the pregnancy goes on, until it finally becomes an emergency. Sometimes by that time a fetus is very far along. So another example of how the state interferes and makes the situation worse. I realize I'm starting to ramble on, I just wanted to get everything out in the open for the opposing side to try to attack. I have a life I can't stay on here all day. Everyone, try to have a good day I plan on it goodbye.


----------



## schmidlap

Couchpotato said:


> You're only angry that they are giving this decision to the States where it belongs based on the Constitution because of the outcome.   You would be ok with this decision if Roe v Wade had outlawed abortion for the last 50 years.     We wouldnt hear a peep out of you about stare decisis or authoritarians other than to call the SCOTUS Court of 1973 that of course.


You would respect a woman's right to make personal, private decisions for herself in consultation with her loved ones and spiritual and medical advisors if you were not an authoritarian, believing that such personal freedoms should be arrogated by an impersonal State apparatus.


----------



## Delldude

Flash said:


> That is bullshit.  Maybe some stupid internet poll will say 70% but that is not a real representation.
> 
> Except for a few really dumbass Moon Bats I hear about in the news or on the internet I don't even know anybody in real life that supports abortion on demand for the sake of convenience.
> 
> This bullshit by the Libtards about "my body my choice" went out the window with the filthy ass insistance to wear mask and get vaccinated for Covid.  They no more believe that than the Man in the Moon.


Read that 70% is women.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Relative Ethics said:


> Most people who attempt suicide without guns do not succeed.



Ignorance.

You must have never heard of bridges. Or highrise buildings. Or knives.

And I, having tried twice, know exactly where to cut on my body to ensure a quick death.

There are plenty of ways to successfully kill yourself.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then, when asked what you would actually do in the interest of preserving and protecting life you go off like a banshee about how we want to kill babies.



Actually, she mentioned it earlier in this thread. Yet you were too lazy to go back in this thread and check her positions before making assumptions. 

Here:



Cecilie1200 said:


> Personally, my ideal plans involve taking the tons of money the government shovels into Planned Parenthood and other butcher shops like them, and funneling it instead to organizations like crisis pregnancy centers and others that are set up to help women who choose to let their children live. And I hope someday pro-lifers won't have to expend so much energy just keeping children alive, and can focus that energy into things like reforming the foster care system, or cleaning up the adoption system so couples don't have to spend tens of thousands of dollars and years of their lives to give homes to children who need them.


She has already made herself clear on that specific subject.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Actually, she mentioned it earlier in this thread. Yet you were too lazy to go back in this thread and check her positions before making assumptions.
> 
> Here:
> 
> 
> She has already made herself clear on that specific subject.


Are you fucking shitting me! Crisis pregnancy centers? Where they shame and humiliate women seeking an abortion? This is pure bullshit! Where  is the plan to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and to support women and families with services that will help them keep and raise a child?

And shutting down Planned Parenthood? The agency that provides birth control and cancer screening? How stupid can you people be??!!

 Total fucking inane horseshit!

C: Cecilie1200


----------



## task0778

Stann said:


> Dismantling Roe versus Wade is already a step too far.


I disagree about that, IMHO the 1973 RvW decision was not based in the Constitution and never should have happened in the 1st place.  We can argue all day long about the morality of it, but the SC is supposed to rule based on existing law and prior rulings, of which there were none relative to abortion rights.  It was judicial activism that ought to be overturned.

I don't think 9 unelected people ought to make up civil rights out of thin air and that is precisely what they did.  By overturning that ruling the Court will throw the issue open to the legislators at both the national and state levels, where it should be.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Ignorance.
> 
> You must never heard of bridges. Or highrise buildings. Or knives.
> 
> And I, having tried twice, know exactly where to cut on my body to ensure a quick death.
> 
> There are plenty of ways to successfully kill yourself.


Why are you attempted to kill yourself
 What on Earth could have made you so unhappy. I can't imagine even considering the concept. But you were unsuccessful, unsuccessful attempts usually means it's a desperate cry for help doesn't it. I don't know it just baffles me. I've had times in my life where I felt totally isolated, totally unloved, totally demoralized and that thought could come to mind but it was only a glancing thought that I wouldn't allow myself to accept. I guess you just have to not accept that as an alternative I'm not trying to go off subject but in one post could you give me your thoughts on it.





TemplarKormac said:


> Ignorance.
> 
> You must never heard of bridges. Or highrise buildings. Or knives.
> 
> And I, having tried twice, know exactly where to cut on my body to ensure a quick death.
> 
> There are plenty of ways to successfully kill yourself.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Why are you attempted to kill yourself
> What on Earth could have made you so unhappy. I can't imagine even considering the concept. But you were unsuccessful, unsuccessful attempts usually means it's a desperate cry for help doesn't it. I don't know it just baffles me. I've had times in my life where I felt totally isolated, totally unloved, totally demoralized and that thought could come to mind but it was only a glancing thought that I wouldn't allow myself to accept. I guess you just have to not accept that as an alternative I'm not trying to go off subject but in one post could you give me your thoughts on it.


Thank you.


----------



## Stann

task0778 said:


> I disagree about that, IMHO the 1973 RvW decision was not based in the Constitution and never should have happened in the 1st place.  We can argue all day long about the morality of it, but the SC is supposed to rule based on existing law and prior rulings, of which there were none relative to abortion rights.  It was judicial activism that ought to be overturned.
> 
> I don't think 9 unelected people ought to make up civil rights out of thin air and that is precisely what they did.  By overturning that ruling the Court will throw the issue open to the legislators at both the national and state levels, where it should be.


But you want even less supposedly righteous people deciding the issue in every state, further complicating abortion in the United States.


----------



## Stann

task0778 said:


> I disagree about that, IMHO the 1973 RvW decision was not based in the Constitution and never should have happened in the 1st place.  We can argue all day long about the morality of it, but the SC is supposed to rule based on existing law and prior rulings, of which there were none relative to abortion rights.  It was judicial activism that ought to be overturned.
> 
> I don't think 9 unelected people ought to make up civil rights out of thin air and that is precisely what they did.  By overturning that ruling the Court will throw the issue open to the legislators at both the national and state levels, where it should be.


You might be correct. I believe the supreme Court should have said. Abortion is a personal matter between a doctor and the woman involved. It is a medical matter for doctors to decide not politicians. No laws can be enacted in a free Nation that interfere with this process. In conclusion, all abortion laws in the United States are here within are dissolved.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Are you fucking shitting me! Crisis pregnancy centers? Where they shame and humiliate women seeking an abortion?



Have you ever been in one? 

No?

Fuck off.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> And shutting down Planned Parenthood? The agency that provides birth control and cancer screening? How stupid can you people be??!!



Because abortion and contraceptive care are their goals. They are abortion and contraceptive providers (and baby part sellers). Furthermore, there are women, who, when faced with an unexpected pregnancy, choose to keep the child instead of aborting them. That's what crisis pregnancy centers are for. It must be foreign to you that there exist millions of women out there who favor life over death when it comes to pregnancy.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Total fucking inane horseshit!


Spare me your sanctimony. You have no right.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> But you were unsuccessful, unsuccessful attempts usually means it's a desperate cry for help doesn't it.



No. Someone stopped me. Had they not, I would be in the ground right now.


----------



## TemplarKormac

In the meantime, far-left liberal policies are ensuring children die outside as well as inside the womb:


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit! That is quite an inane rant! Did you head just spin completely   around which projective vomiting pea soup.
> 
> Now I am going to dumb it down for YOU. Your version of "pro life" is  to continue to bleat about being pro life. Then, when asked what you would actually do in the interest of preserving and protecting life you go off like a banshee about how we want to kill babies.
> 
> I presented concrete plans and policies to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to support and encourage women and families to keep the children and not abort. You have nothing. I am more pro life than you. In fact, you are not pro life at all



I just heard, "I'm too busy 'knowing' what I was told to allow myself to hear anything else."

You presented a leftist wishlist of government spending and then declared that it was THE only way possible to care about women and children, and if I wasn't in favor of it, that meant that I didn't really care, because for some unknown and possibly alcohol-induced reason, you think YOU are some sort of moral arbiter qualified to judge others and respected enough for others to give a shit.

I repeat, and please let me know if I'm still being too complicated for your rudimentary brain stem: I don't want to kill babies; you're outraged by not killing them. You "care more" than absolutely no one on Earth.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> In the meantime, far-left liberal policies are ensuring children die outside as well as inside the womb:
> 
> View attachment 642920



I'm quite sure they have yet another overpriced government program they'd love to trot out for that in order to "compassionately" shove the problem off onto bureaucrats so they can congratulate themselves while simultaneously forgetting those pesky peasants.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I'm sorry you're so easily bored by opposing points of view. An " unborn " bird is actually called an egg. I don't know of anyone who calls it unborn bird. That would be totally ridiculous and " Un " realistic for any intelligent person to do. I don't think I need to point out that one most abortions are done the fetus is in no way recognizable as a human child, but with you arrogant people I guess I have to.



I'm sorry you think you're going to lie to me the way you lie to yourself.

No, actually, I'm not sorry.  I'm rather glad to see being called on your self-serving bullshit is tying you into a pretzel.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> What's being created is not just an insignificant barrier to abortion, it's declaring war on it.



You seriously believe that?

This is a war on life.


----------



## Man of Ethics

TemplarKormac said:


> Ignorance.
> 
> You must have never heard of bridges. Or highrise buildings. Or knives.
> 
> And I, having tried twice, know exactly where to cut on my body to ensure a quick death.
> 
> There are plenty of ways to successfully kill yourself.


Thank you for sharing.  *I hope you are in a better shape now!*

I never harmed myself -- except overeating and being mostly immobile.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Relative Ethics said:


> Thank you for sharing. *I hope you are in a better shape now!*


Far better.

Having had those experiences, I now value the life I have as opposed to taking it.

That view applies to this thread also.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> You're not exactly the brightest light on the Christmas tree, are you?  How many times do you have to be derisively mocked and dismissed for this, "Look at all the leftwing sites that told me so!  I MUST be right!" tack before it sinks into your brain that you are the best evidence in the world AGAINST anything you believe?


That is all you have?  Really?


----------



## Man of Ethics

TemplarKormac said:


> Far better.
> 
> Having had those experiences, I now value the life I have as opposed to taking it.
> 
> That view applies to this thread also.


Best luck!

I weigh about 155 kg due to my diet and lack of mobility.  I did lose 5 kg over a year.


----------



## Cecilie1200

task0778 said:


> Yeah, I get that.  But whatever the source, people can say what they want but actually passing such a law to ban contraceptives is a whole 'nother thing.  I would hope the citizens in any state would send a clear message not to do that.



Clearly, you don't get that, because you're still arguing from the assumption that what Coyote posted had any validity. It's never a good idea to hear a leftist say something and automatically leap to defending against it. One should always consider first whether or not it's a steaming load of fresh bullshit.

Let's consider the sources together:

_








						Mississippi governor refuses to rule out banning contraception
					

‘That is not what we’re focused on at this time,’ says Tate Reeves while state has ‘trigger law’ that would outlaw almost all abortions




					www.theguardian.com
				



_
First of all, I wouldn't believe The Guardian if they told me water was wet.  I've heard more unbiased honesty from a teenager trying to explain why he missed curfew and there's a new dent in the car fender.

Second of all, when you read their story and weed through all the speculation and scaremongering narrative, here's what it actually says:  

_"[Mississippi Governor] Reeves’ host on CNN, Jake Tapper, then referred to neighbouring Louisiana, where Republicans have advanced a bill to make abortion a crime of murder.

Tapper said: “They’re talking about not only criminally charging girls and women who get abortions as committing homicide, but they’re also talking about defining the moment of conception as fertilisation, which would theoretically … mean if you use an IUD [intrauterine device], you are committing murder.

“… I’m not making this up. These are the conversations going on in legislatures in your area. So, just to be clear, you have no intention of seeking to ban IUDs or Plan B [morning-after pills]?”

Reeves said: “That is not what we’re focused on at this time."_

That's it.  Jake Tapper pulled this entire line of crap about outlawing contraception out of his ass and babbled what he "knew" about it from another state entirely, then demanded to know if Reeves was going to do something he'd never even mentioned in passing, and which had fuck and all to do with the actual topic Reeves was there for, and got told, "Yeah, we're busy with real stuff right now."  The Guardian then blew it up into a whole story about, "Aaaah, he didn't swear an oath in blood that he wouldn't, so that means he wants to!"  And Coyote ran away with her marching orders.  The End.

_








						Idaho Republican Leader Says He'd Consider Banning Morning-After Pills and IUDs
					

The Republican Party insists they "DO NOT want to take away contraception." But some lawmakers are admitting the quiet part out loud.




					jezebel.com
				



_
Jezebel.  If I wouldn't believe The Guardian if they told me water was wet, I would immediately assume it was as dry as talcum powder if Jezebel told me it was wet.  If they were printed on paper, I wouldn't use them to line my cat box, for fear that the addition of cat piss might complete their evil spell and open a portal to Hell.

Here's what "proof" they offered of a widespread conspiracy to outlaw contraception:

*"*_[Republican state Rep. Brent Crane, Assistant Majority Leader for Idaho’s House of Representatives], who boasted that he’s passed or worked on 17 anti-abortion bills in the state legislature, told Idaho Reports that he “probably would” hear legislation banning the morning-after pill, and possibly IUDs as well. “I’m not certain where I would be on that issue,” he said of the latter method—as if the idea of birth control remaining legal in America, while you’re also criminalizing abortion, is a really difficult question."_

No yellow, biased "journalism" there, right?  In that whole article, that is literally the only quote from him:  that he probably would hear legislation on the two most controversial forms of contraception on the market, and that he's not certain where he would be on it.  Well, duh!  Hearing proposed legislation is part of his job, and how the Hell WOULD he know where he'd be on it, before he's heard it?  Nevertheless, that warrants a long article of Jezebel insisting Idaho's getting ready to outlaw ALL contraception, and giving clear marching orders to the likes of Coyote on how hysterical they should be about it.

_








						GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use
					

Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters thinks judges should also take aim at the right to buy and use contraception after outlawing abortion.




					www.azmirror.com
				



_
The Arizona Mirror started in 2018.  They claim to be a 501(c)3 non-profit, but their funding is less than transparent while their leftist bias is all too clear.

Here's the proof Coyote assumed they had when she ran screaming with her hair on fire over their headline:

_"Blake Masters, a Tucson-based venture capitalist, boasts on his website that he will only vote to confirm federal judges “who understand that Roe and Griswold and Casey were wrongly decided, and that there is no constitutional right to abortion.” Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1973 and 1992, respectively, both upheld a constitutional right to abortion access.

But the ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 protected a married couple’s right to buy and use contraceptives without government restrictions."_  So obviously, he MUST want contraception outlawed.  It couldn't possibly be he thought it was wrongly decided, just because that's what he said.  It HAS to be that he REALLY wants no contraception!

Are you getting the idea now?  Always start by assuming anything a leftist says is a lie, then work from there.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Again with the baby crap what is wrong with you people.



What part of the many times I've said, "You don't define reality, or other people's positions, just by declaring that THIS is the only thing acceptable" did you not understand?  Too many words for you?

Face it, fool.  We're going to go right ahead believing what we believe and stating it, and you can either get your panties in a twist over our refusal to comply with your dictates, or you can sack up and deal with our actual position for the first time in your life.

Or you can run away.  Up to you.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> You're not exactly the brightest light on the Christmas tree, are you?  How many times do you have to be derisively mocked and dismissed for this, "Look at all the leftwing sites that told me so!  I MUST be right!" tack before it sinks into your brain that you are the best evidence in the world AGAINST anything you believe?


That is all you have?  Really?  Not that I expected much from you, but I am always optimistic that your deranged bleating might eventually come to reflect a coherent thought process.

I wonder why the Mississippi governor refuses to rule out banning our most effective contraceptives.  

Or why Idaho said it would consider banning IUD’s and Plan B, then reversed and “clarified” when the GOP told Republicans to follow the new “kindly” Republican narrative and save those bans for later.

Keep bleating.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> No one calls an egg an " unborn bird. " They don't understand how ridiculous they sound. Even their savior, trump had the word fetus banned from use by the department of health and human services. Thinking that would change things. No it just gave us a window into what fascists want for this world. Absolute Control over the people.



Actually, Mensa Boy, that's EXACTLY what everyone calls them, every time they call them "eggs".  This is because that's what the word "egg" means.









						Definition of EGG
					

the hard-shelled reproductive body produced by a bird and especially by the common domestic chicken; also : its contents used as food… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com
				




Seriously, learn the English language, would you?

And don't even talk to us about the "horrors" of wanting absolute control over people when you're pissing your frillies over the idea that you're losing that exact thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> We're not talking about people that actually exist, we're trying to tell you and every other so-called pro lifer that the term unborn baby is ridiculous and it is.



"We don't want to believe it, so you have to stop believing it, too!  It's silly of you to think things we told you not to!"


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Clearly, you don't get that, because you're still arguing from the assumption that what Coyote posted had any validity. It's never a good idea to hear a leftist say something and automatically leap to defending against it. One should always consider first whether or not it's a steaming load of fresh bullshit.
> 
> Let's consider the sources together:
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mississippi governor refuses to rule out banning contraception
> 
> 
> ‘That is not what we’re focused on at this time,’ says Tate Reeves while state has ‘trigger law’ that would outlaw almost all abortions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> First of all, I wouldn't believe The Guardian if they told me water was wet.  I've heard more unbiased honesty from a teenager trying to explain why he missed curfew and there's a new dent in the car fender.
> 
> Second of all, when you read their story and weed through all the speculation and scaremongering narrative, here's what it actually says:
> 
> _"[Mississippi Governor] Reeves’ host on CNN, Jake Tapper, then referred to neighbouring Louisiana, where Republicans have advanced a bill to make abortion a crime of murder.
> 
> Tapper said: “They’re talking about not only criminally charging girls and women who get abortions as committing homicide, but they’re also talking about defining the moment of conception as fertilisation, which would theoretically … mean if you use an IUD [intrauterine device], you are committing murder.
> 
> “… I’m not making this up. These are the conversations going on in legislatures in your area. So, just to be clear, you have no intention of seeking to ban IUDs or Plan B [morning-after pills]?”
> 
> Reeves said: “That is not what we’re focused on at this time."_
> 
> That's it.  Jake Tapper pulled this entire line of crap about outlawing contraception out of his ass and babbled what he "knew" about it from another state entirely, then demanded to know if Reeves was going to do something he'd never even mentioned in passing, and which had fuck and all to do with the actual topic Reeves was there for, and got told, "Yeah, we're busy with real stuff right now."  The Guardian then blew it up into a whole story about, "Aaaah, he didn't swear an oath in blood that he wouldn't, so that means he wants to!"  And Coyote ran away with her marching orders.  The End.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idaho Republican Leader Says He'd Consider Banning Morning-After Pills and IUDs
> 
> 
> The Republican Party insists they "DO NOT want to take away contraception." But some lawmakers are admitting the quiet part out loud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jezebel.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Jezebel.  If I wouldn't believe The Guardian if they told me water was wet, I would immediately assume it was as dry as talcum powder if Jezebel told me it was wet.  If they were printed on paper, I wouldn't use them to line my cat box, for fear that the addition of cat piss might complete their evil spell and open a portal to Hell.
> 
> Here's what "proof" they offered of a widespread conspiracy to outlaw contraception:
> 
> *"*_[Republican state Rep. Brent Crane, Assistant Majority Leader for Idaho’s House of Representatives], who boasted that he’s passed or worked on 17 anti-abortion bills in the state legislature, told Idaho Reports that he “probably would” hear legislation banning the morning-after pill, and possibly IUDs as well. “I’m not certain where I would be on that issue,” he said of the latter method—as if the idea of birth control remaining legal in America, while you’re also criminalizing abortion, is a really difficult question."_
> 
> No yellow, biased "journalism" there, right?  In that whole article, that is literally the only quote from him:  that he probably would hear legislation on the two most controversial forms of contraception on the market, and that he's not certain where he would be on it.  Well, duh!  Hearing proposed legislation is part of his job, and how the Hell WOULD he know where he'd be on it, before he's heard it?  Nevertheless, that warrants a long article of Jezebel insisting Idaho's getting ready to outlaw ALL contraception, and giving clear marching orders to the likes of Coyote on how hysterical they should be about it.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use
> 
> 
> Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters thinks judges should also take aim at the right to buy and use contraception after outlawing abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.azmirror.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The Arizona Mirror started in 2018.  They claim to be a 501(c)3 non-profit, but their funding is less than transparent while their leftist bias is all too clear.
> 
> Here's the proof Coyote assumed they had when she ran screaming with her hair on fire over their headline:
> 
> _"Blake Masters, a Tucson-based venture capitalist, boasts on his website that he will only vote to confirm federal judges “who understand that Roe and Griswold and Casey were wrongly decided, and that there is no constitutional right to abortion.” Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1973 and 1992, respectively, both upheld a constitutional right to abortion access.
> 
> But the ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 protected a married couple’s right to buy and use contraceptives without government restrictions."_  So obviously, he MUST want contraception outlawed.  It couldn't possibly be he thought it was wrongly decided, just because that's what he said.  It HAS to be that he REALLY wants no contraception!
> 
> Are you getting the idea now?  Always start by assuming anything a leftist says is a lie, then work from there.


Mississippi and and Idaho put contraception on the table.  They could have said, no, it is off the table but they didn’t did they?

Yellow journalism?  Try what you rightists did with Northam.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> Clearly, you don't get that, because you're still arguing from the assumption that what Coyote posted had any validity. It's never a good idea to hear a leftist say something and automatically leap to defending against it. One should always consider first whether or not it's a steaming load of fresh bullshit.
> 
> Let's consider the sources together:
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mississippi governor refuses to rule out banning contraception
> 
> 
> ‘That is not what we’re focused on at this time,’ says Tate Reeves while state has ‘trigger law’ that would outlaw almost all abortions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> First of all, I wouldn't believe The Guardian if they told me water was wet.  I've heard more unbiased honesty from a teenager trying to explain why he missed curfew and there's a new dent in the car fender.
> 
> Second of all, when you read their story and weed through all the speculation and scaremongering narrative, here's what it actually says:
> 
> _"[Mississippi Governor] Reeves’ host on CNN, Jake Tapper, then referred to neighbouring Louisiana, where Republicans have advanced a bill to make abortion a crime of murder.
> 
> Tapper said: “They’re talking about not only criminally charging girls and women who get abortions as committing homicide, but they’re also talking about defining the moment of conception as fertilisation, which would theoretically … mean if you use an IUD [intrauterine device], you are committing murder.
> 
> “… I’m not making this up. These are the conversations going on in legislatures in your area. So, just to be clear, you have no intention of seeking to ban IUDs or Plan B [morning-after pills]?”
> 
> Reeves said: “That is not what we’re focused on at this time."_
> 
> That's it.  Jake Tapper pulled this entire line of crap about outlawing contraception out of his ass and babbled what he "knew" about it from another state entirely, then demanded to know if Reeves was going to do something he'd never even mentioned in passing, and which had fuck and all to do with the actual topic Reeves was there for, and got told, "Yeah, we're busy with real stuff right now."  The Guardian then blew it up into a whole story about, "Aaaah, he didn't swear an oath in blood that he wouldn't, so that means he wants to!"  And Coyote ran away with her marching orders.  The End.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idaho Republican Leader Says He'd Consider Banning Morning-After Pills and IUDs
> 
> 
> The Republican Party insists they "DO NOT want to take away contraception." But some lawmakers are admitting the quiet part out loud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jezebel.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Jezebel.  If I wouldn't believe The Guardian if they told me water was wet, I would immediately assume it was as dry as talcum powder if Jezebel told me it was wet.  If they were printed on paper, I wouldn't use them to line my cat box, for fear that the addition of cat piss might complete their evil spell and open a portal to Hell.
> 
> Here's what "proof" they offered of a widespread conspiracy to outlaw contraception:
> 
> *"*_[Republican state Rep. Brent Crane, Assistant Majority Leader for Idaho’s House of Representatives], who boasted that he’s passed or worked on 17 anti-abortion bills in the state legislature, told Idaho Reports that he “probably would” hear legislation banning the morning-after pill, and possibly IUDs as well. “I’m not certain where I would be on that issue,” he said of the latter method—as if the idea of birth control remaining legal in America, while you’re also criminalizing abortion, is a really difficult question."_
> 
> No yellow, biased "journalism" there, right?  In that whole article, that is literally the only quote from him:  that he probably would hear legislation on the two most controversial forms of contraception on the market, and that he's not certain where he would be on it.  Well, duh!  Hearing proposed legislation is part of his job, and how the Hell WOULD he know where he'd be on it, before he's heard it?  Nevertheless, that warrants a long article of Jezebel insisting Idaho's getting ready to outlaw ALL contraception, and giving clear marching orders to the likes of Coyote on how hysterical they should be about it.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use
> 
> 
> Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters thinks judges should also take aim at the right to buy and use contraception after outlawing abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.azmirror.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The Arizona Mirror started in 2018.  They claim to be a 501(c)3 non-profit, but their funding is less than transparent while their leftist bias is all too clear.
> 
> Here's the proof Coyote assumed they had when she ran screaming with her hair on fire over their headline:
> 
> _"Blake Masters, a Tucson-based venture capitalist, boasts on his website that he will only vote to confirm federal judges “who understand that Roe and Griswold and Casey were wrongly decided, and that there is no constitutional right to abortion.” Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1973 and 1992, respectively, both upheld a constitutional right to abortion access.
> 
> But the ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 protected a married couple’s right to buy and use contraceptives without government restrictions."_  So obviously, he MUST want contraception outlawed.  It couldn't possibly be he thought it was wrongly decided, just because that's what he said.  It HAS to be that he REALLY wants no contraception!
> 
> Are you getting the idea now?  Always start by assuming anything a leftist says is a lie, then work from there.


.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> That is all you have?  Really?  Not that I expected much from you, but I am always optimistic that your deranged bleating might eventually come to reflect a coherent thought process.
> 
> I wonder why the Mississippi governor refuses to rule out banning our most effective contraceptives.
> 
> Or why Idaho said it would consider banning IUD’s and Plan B, then reversed and “clarified” when the GOP told Republicans to follow the new “kindly” Republican narrative and save those bans for later.
> 
> Keep bleating.



Oh, I'm sorry, what brilliance did you think you'd vomited forth that deserved more than, "Your sources are leftist blog garbage, like they always are"?

I wonder if you think things are true just because they're on the Internet, or if you think they're true because they're what you want to hear?  Or is it both?

At no point in time will I be treating your favorite tinfoil hat conspiracy sites like real news just because you do.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> I just heard, "I'm too busy 'knowing' what I was told to allow myself to hear anything else."
> 
> You presented a leftist wishlist of government spending and then declared that it was THE only way possible to care about women and children, and if I wasn't in favor of it, that meant that I didn't really care, because for some unknown and possibly alcohol-induced reason, you think YOU are some sort of moral arbiter qualified to judge others and respected enough for others to give a shit.
> 
> I repeat, and please let me know if I'm still being too complicated for your rudimentary brain stem: I don't want to kill babies; you're outraged by not killing them. You "care more" than absolutely no one on Earth.


You keep repeating that moronic assertion that I am "outraged by not wanting to kill babies" How fucking stupid! Apparently you care about government spending more than you care about the lives of children, unborn and born. You are a pathetic hypocrite and your pro life stance is pure bullshit. While I am pro choice, I am  also far more pro life than you are. Once again, I promote programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and provide assistance to families that will encourage them to carry a child to term rather than abort. 

Yes I do judge you for your callousness and stupidity. You have nothing to offer but you insults anti government rhetoric while I have specific and workable ideas for reducing abortion. Your simplistic stand that we should just ban abortion will not end abortion. It will just drive it underground and result in the death of women and more late term abortions. How fucking stupid can you be.?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Mississippi and and Idaho put contraception on the table. They could have said, no, it is off the table but they didn’t Did they?
> 
> Yellow journalism? Try what you rightists did with Northam.



There is a big difference between considering something and outright supporting it. 

Did any of the states you mention carry through with it?

Northam is a deflection.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Mississippi and and Idaho put contraception on the table.  They could have said, no, it is off the table but they didn’t did they?
> 
> Yellow journalism?  Try what you rightists did with Northam.



Mississippi and Idaho did nothing of the sort.  Your masters told you to "know" that they did, and you ran away in a panic like the obedient dog you are.

Go back and get your Snausage.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Apparently you care about government spending more than you care about the lives of children



Ironic, this post.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> Mississippi and and Idaho put contraception on the table.  They could have said, no, it is off the table but they didn’t did they?
> 
> Yellow journalism?  Try what you rightists did with Northam.


What the hell do you know about Mississippi.  Lmao  Not only are they gonna ban abortion but they are gonna force you to get pregnant.

My god the DNC needs to get its act together on marching orders.

BTW.  Blue state laws that will be overturned if Roe id ocverturned?  Thanks


----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You keep repeating that moronic assertion that I am "outraged by not wanting to kill babies" How fucking stupid! Apparently you care about government spending more than you care about the lives of children, unborn and born. You are a pathetic hypocrite and your pro life stance is pure bullshit. While I am pro choice, I am  also far more pro life than you are. Once again, I promote programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and provide assistance to families that will encourage them to carry a child to term rather than abort.
> 
> Yes I do judge you for your callousness and stupidity. You have nothing to offer but you insults anti government rhetoric while I have specific and workable ideas for reducing abortion. Your simplistic stand that we should just ban abortion will not end abortion. It will just drive it underground and result in the death of women and more late term abortions. How fucking stupid can you be.?


Same dang question to you.  What blue state laws get overturned if Roe gets overturned?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Ironic, this post.


Please elaborate.


----------



## TemplarKormac

eagle1462010 said:


> Same dang question to you.  What blue state laws get overturned if Roe gets overturned?



This. Will the leftists on this thread kindly tell us what blue state abortion laws will be scrapped if Roe is overturned?

They won't. Purely because the laws won't. By remanding this issue to the states, the blue states can keep their abortion laws on the books, other blue states can pass them, and red states can pass laws banning abortion. 

What's there not to love from this?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> Same dang question to you.  What blue state laws get overturned if Roe gets overturned?


None. But so what? How many women in red states will no longer have access to abortion? THAT is the question


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> There is a big difference between considering something and outright supporting it.
> 
> Did any of the states you mention carry through with it?
> 
> Northam is a deflection.


I will remember that next time you start screaming about gun grabbing.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> This. Will the leftists on this thread kindly tell us what blue state abortion laws will be scrapped if Roe is overturned?
> 
> They won't. Purely because the laws won't. By remanding this issue to the states, the blue states can keep their abortion laws on the books, other blue states can pass them, and red states can pass laws banning abortion.
> 
> What's there not to love from this?


See post 2799. You people have a piss poor understanding of the impact of  this ruling and do not give a shit about the women who will be affected by it


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> I will remember that next time you start screaming about gun grabbing.



Curious, what is the relevance?

Consideration and implementation are two different things. 

Just because I consider killing someone doesn't mean I will. Just because I consider stealing from a store doesn't mean I will. It means I used my better judgment. 

Consideration does not causate to support of the action being considered.


----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> None. But so what? How many women in red states will no longer have access to abortion? THAT is the question


None of your damn business if you dont live here.  Your blue states allow barbaric late term abortions and will continue this barbarism if Roe is overturned.

People from our state can still be barbarians and go to your state.  They just cant do it hete.  Wah


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> None. But so what? How many women in red states will no longer have access to abortion? THAT is the question



I'm pretty sure they have freedom of movement. You act as if the states they live in will ban them from getting abortions in other states. 

Please cease this illogic at once.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> I will remember that next time you start screaming about gun grabbing.


You grab the guns on 2nd come armed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You keep repeating that moronic assertion that I am "outraged by not wanting to kill babies" How fucking stupid! Apparently you care about government spending more than you care about the lives of children, unborn and born. You are a pathetic hypocrite and your pro life stance is pure bullshit. While I am pro choice, I am  also far more pro life than you are. Once again, I promote programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and provide assistance to families that will encourage them to carry a child to term rather than abort.
> 
> Yes I do judge you for your callousness and stupidity. You have nothing to offer but you insults anti government rhetoric while I have specific and workable ideas for reducing abortion. Your simplistic stand that we should just ban abortion will not end abortion. It will just drive it underground and result in the death of women and more late term abortions. How fucking stupid can you be.?



You keep pretending I can't read your fucking posts.  I can only assume it's because you're illiterate and think everyone else suffers the same problem.

"Apparently you care more about . . ."  I sincerely doubt anything is apparent to you without a flashing neon sign and someone to read it for you.  What I care about is that government spending is neither an efficient way of getting things done, nor does it take the place of genuine charity and compassion to vote for someone else to handle it.

"Yes I do judge you . . ."  Once again, you missed the point.  I don't care what you judge, because I wouldn't allow you to give me your approval if it was on a solid gold platter.  I'd be mortally offended if I had anything in common with filth like you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 2799. You people have a piss poor understanding of the impact of  this ruling and do not give a shit about the women who will be affected by it



I did. And my position remains unchanged. The choices women and their states make on abortion remain unchanged by the invalidation of Roe.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> There is a big difference between considering something and outright supporting it.
> 
> Did any of the states you mention carry through with it?
> 
> Northam is a deflection.



They aren't even considering it.  Coyote wouldn't know a reliable source if one fell on her head.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> This. Will the leftists on this thread kindly tell us what blue state abortion laws will be scrapped if Roe is overturned?
> 
> They won't. Purely because the laws won't. By remanding this issue to the states, the blue states can keep their abortion laws on the books, other blue states can pass them, and red states can pass laws banning abortion.
> 
> What's there not to love from this?



1.  Why do you think they plan on stopping at the state level?

2.  And we already know that red states will not respect state borders in going after women who cross state lines to obtain a legal abortion.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> 1.  Why do you think they plan on stopping at the state level?
> 
> 2.  And we already know that red states will not respect state borders in going after women who cross state lines to obtain a legal abortion.


Lol  Demons in your head told you.

You are out there.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> The idea of life begins at conception is a physical fact. But these people are saying that the conception is a sacred event and that is their religious right. Fortunately our government is secular, reality based and not subject to the whims of religious beliefs. At least that is the case in every other issue except for abortion. Go figure.



"These people are saying that"?  Who?  Which people?  Please cite the specific post where anyone said that.  I know that's the argument you WISH we'd make so you can argue against it, but - as I keep telling you - you can't create reality simply by asserting it's so.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Please elaborate.


A progressive liberal railing against government spending and arguing for life while taking positions against both in the very same thread.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Also, further proof of this is your very own birthday. It is the most defining fact that you exist. The government wouldn't know who you are without it.



Are we back to that again?  I don't recall you ever explaining what science textbook gave you "has a birthday" as a criterion of life.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Curious, what is the relevance?
> 
> Consideration and implementation are two different things.
> 
> Just because I consider killing someone doesn't mean I will. Just because I consider stealing from a store doesn't mean I will. It means I used my better judgment.
> 
> Consideration does not causate to support of the action being considered.


Again, next time you you start screaming about infringing on rights and slippery slopes just because someone talks about gun regulation, I will remember this.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> This is a discussion board. Sorry your inconvenienced by hearing sound opposing opinions. That's all any of us have here, is opinions. We don't dictate foolish laws, we don't create the situations that adversely affect us. We are all victims, waiting, like Jesus, for the truth to set us all free.



How would he know if he's inconvenienced by sound opposing opinions?  There haven't been any.  We've heard a lot of assertions about, "This is fact.  Period. Because I say so."  Sound opposing opinions?  Nary a one.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Relative Ethics said:


> Most people who attempt suicide without guns do not succeed.



According to whom?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> 1. Why do you think they plan on stopping at the state level?



Why wouldn't they?



Coyote said:


> 2. And we already know that red states will not respect state borders in going after women who cross state lines to obtain a legal abortion.



Actually, they only have jurisdiction over abortions that occur within their borders. 

Quit spreading fear, Coyote. It's infuriating.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> In the process you have repeatedly insulted women again and again. What's being created is not just an insignificant barrier to abortion, it's declaring war on it. And as usual in a world's largely ruled by men women are the victims.



That's pretty funny, coming from Mr. "If women aren't more like men, they're inferior".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Again, next time you you start screaming about infringing on rights and slippery slopes just because someone talks about gun regulation, I will remember this.



I can't speak for Templar, but I view that less as a foreboding threat, and more of a wearying nuisance.  Kinda like catching a cold every winter.

"Oh noes!  If I say something Coyote doesn't like, she's going to show up in every thread and spew nonsense at me!"  So, what you were going to do anyway.  Meh.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Again, next time you you start screaming about infringing on rights and slippery slopes just because someone talks about gun regulation, I will remember this.



Yeah, but I won't be, because I know for a fact it won't happen. Gun rights are constitutionally guaranteed. Abortion isn't.

What isn't guaranteed by the constitution is left for the states to decide.

What really changes if Roe is overturned? You can't tell me. You refuse to tell me. You deflect to other points. You spread needless fear. You feel the need to cause hysteria instead of educating others about the *real* ramifications of Roe being struck down. 

Gun rights, as you view them, are a deflection.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Ignorance.
> 
> You must have never heard of bridges. Or highrise buildings. Or knives.
> 
> And I, having tried twice, know exactly where to cut on my body to ensure a quick death.
> 
> There are plenty of ways to successfully kill yourself.



Second most successful method, according to the CDC, is drowning.  Third would be suffocation and hanging.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> I can't speak for Templar, but I view that less as a foreboding threat, and more of a wearying nuisance.  Kinda like catching a cold every winter.
> 
> "Oh noes!  If I say something Coyote doesn't like, she's going to show up in every thread and spew nonsense at me!"  So, what you were going to do anyway.  Meh.



I'm a gun owner. That should tell her what I think of her argumentum ad nauseam about gun rights.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Are you fucking shitting me! Crisis pregnancy centers? Where they shame and humiliate women seeking an abortion? This is pure bullshit! Where  is the plan to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and to support women and families with services that will help them keep and raise a child?
> 
> And shutting down Planned Parenthood? The agency that provides birth control and cancer screening? How stupid can you people be??!!
> 
> Total fucking inane horseshit!
> 
> C: Cecilie1200



Wow, I didn't realize your handlers had put out a talking point on, "What you should 'know' to scream about crisis pregnancy centers without ever setting foot into one".  Good to know.

Planned Parenthood doesn't do cancer screenings, moron.  They provide referrals, which could be gotten easier by just Googling it.  And birth control?  Who the hell told you birth control was so hard to come by that we had to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into Planned Parenthood to provide it?  You can get that shit at any free clinic in town.

Thanks for proving you don't know shit about the lives of the women you pretend to "care" about.


----------



## Man of Ethics

Cecilie1200 said:


> According to whom?


Here.



> Between 2007 and 2014, there were 3,657,886 suicide attempts, with 309,377 deaths resulting from those attempts.





> Drug poisoning accounted for 59.4% of suicide attempts but only 13.5% of deaths, while firearms and hanging accounted for 8.8% of attempts , but 75.3% of deaths. Firearms were the most lethal method with 89.6% of attempts with firearms resulting in death, followed by drowning at 56.4% and hanging at 52.7%.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Thank you.



Seriously, why do you keep responding to your own posts like you're talking to another person?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> But you want even less supposedly righteous people deciding the issue in every state, further complicating abortion in the United States.



Where did task say anything about "righteous"?  Are you trying to force your straw men onto people again?


----------



## eagle1462010

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seriously, why do you keep responding to your own posts like you're talking to another person?


Hes Nuts


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seriously, why do you keep responding to your own posts like you're talking to another person?



I would ignore it if I were you. The destruction of his argument likely brought that on.


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Lol  Demons in your head told you.
> 
> You are out there.


Are you really that stupid?  Rhetorical question.









						With Roe likely to fall, Senate Republicans weigh nationwide abortion restrictions
					

GOP senators are divided, with some forecasting a future push to outlaw abortion, others saying it's a state issue and still others predicting any such effort would fail.




					www.nbcnews.com
				












						Senate GOP ducks questions on federal abortion bans
					

Senate Republicans are dodging questions about whether they would seek restrictions or bans on abortion at the federal level if the Supreme Court overturns the Roe v. Wade decision and the GOP wins…




					thehill.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> Wow, I didn't realize your handlers had put out a talking point on, "What you should 'know' to scream about crisis pregnancy centers without ever setting foot into one".  Good to know.
> 
> Planned Parenthood doesn't do cancer screenings, moron.  They provide referrals, which could be gotten easier by just Googling it.  And birth control?  Who the hell told you birth control was so hard to come by that we had to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into Planned Parenthood to provide it?  You can get that shit at any free clinic in town.
> 
> Thanks for proving you don't know shit about the lives of the women you pretend to "care" about.


Still screaming about baby killing with nothing to offer as far as prevention of unwanted pregnancies or support to families who might decide to keep a child if help were available ? So noted.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> Are you really that stupid?  Rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Roe likely to fall, Senate Republicans weigh nationwide abortion restrictions
> 
> 
> GOP senators are divided, with some forecasting a future push to outlaw abortion, others saying it's a state issue and still others predicting any such effort would fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senate GOP ducks questions on federal abortion bans
> 
> 
> Senate Republicans are dodging questions about whether they would seek restrictions or bans on abortion at the federal level if the Supreme Court overturns the Roe v. Wade decision and the GOP wins…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com


Fear Porn for DNC Riot season.  

Which laws in blue states will be overturned?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You might be correct. I believe the supreme Court should have said. Abortion is a personal matter between a doctor and the woman involved. It is a medical matter for doctors to decide not politicians. No laws can be enacted in a free Nation that interfere with this process. In conclusion, all abortion laws in the United States are here within are dissolved.



You might as well stop trying to pretend you didn't hear this, because I'm not going to stop saying this:  there's no such thing as "medical matter with no government".  Not in ANY area of practice.  Your fantasy that medicine is free-range and unregulated is even more stupid than most of your crap.


----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Still screaming about baby killing with nothing to offer as far as prevention of unwanted pregnancies or support to families who might decide to keep a child if help were available ? So noted.


Ever heard of stores that sell rubbers,?  Hmmm


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Because abortion and contraceptive care are their goals. They are abortion and contraceptive providers (and baby part sellers). Furthermore, there are women, who, when faced with an unexpected pregnancy, choose to keep the child instead of aborting them. That's what crisis pregnancy centers are for. It must be foreign to you that there exist millions of women out there who favor life over death when it comes to pregnancy.



He's obviously never set foot in a crisis pregnancy center OR a Planned Parenthood clinic.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Relative Ethics said:


> Most people who attempt suicide without guns do not succeed.


Let's revisit this. 

All suicide attempts that result in death are successful. Guns, drugs, drowning, hanging, falling.

Someone desperately wishing to die will seek out the most lethal method available to them. If not a gun, a bedsheet; if not a bedsheet, a knife... and etc.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Are you really that stupid?  Rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Roe likely to fall, Senate Republicans weigh nationwide abortion restrictions
> 
> 
> GOP senators are divided, with some forecasting a future push to outlaw abortion, others saying it's a state issue and still others predicting any such effort would fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senate GOP ducks questions on federal abortion bans
> 
> 
> Senate Republicans are dodging questions about whether they would seek restrictions or bans on abortion at the federal level if the Supreme Court overturns the Roe v. Wade decision and the GOP wins…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com



Once again, consideration and implementation are two different things.

Consider the likelihood of the success of any bill passed by these Republicans being signed by Biden.

Now weigh that with your misplaced fear and anxiety. If you had any clue as to the mechanics of our legislative system, you wouldn't be screaming "THEY'RE GOING TO BAN ABORTIONS FOREVER!!!!11!!1!1"


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> Ever heard of stores that sell rubbers,?  Hmmm


Really? That's it? That is all you have to offer. Tell us more about how pro life YOU are.


----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? That's it? That is all you have to offer. Tell us more about how pro life YOU are.


Im obligated to tell you nothing.  Your posts are stupid.  Perhaps your handlers can train you better,  Unless you are a BT.   Barely trainable


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? That's it? That is all you have to offer. Tell us more about how pro life YOU are.



Condoms don't kill life, they prevent life from taking place. Therefore that is irrelevant to the "pro-life" premise.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Why wouldn't they?



Answering a question with a question.

Will the Republican pro(some)life base be satisfied with legal abortion anywhere in the country?  Be serious.  They will not.  They have said so in their own words.  The “leave it up to the states” is nothing more than a stepping stone in the process and not the end goal.

It presents a conundrum for the Republicans who claimed to have made it about states rights but are now facing a push for a federal ban.  And there are senators who have unequivocally said they would support a federal ban.



TemplarKormac said:


> Actually, they only have jurisdiction over abortions that occur within their borders.


It will be interesting to see what happens with the proposal to allow people to sue anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion in another state.



TemplarKormac said:


> Quit spreading fear, Coyote. It's infuriating.


What is infuriating is your assumption (naive or calculated) that this will stop at the state level.  We are already seeing laws and proposed laws with no exceptions for rape or incest.  That is by definition a forced pregnancy.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Once again, consideration and implementation are two different things.
> 
> Consider the likelihood of the success of any bill passed by these Republicans being signed by Biden.
> 
> Now weigh that with your misplaced fear and anxiety. If you had any clue as to the mechanics of our legislative system, you wouldn't be screaming "THEY'RE GOING TO BAN ABORTIONS FOREVER!!!!11!!1!1"


Biden won’t be in office forever.  Try again.

To put it into perspective:  remember next time you scream "THEY'RE GOING TO BAN GUNS FOREVER!!!!”


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Condoms don't kill life, they prevent life from taking place. Therefore that is irrelevant to the "pro-life" premise.


The pro life premise is fake anyway since it is only pro some life (though a handful of folks here are truly pro life).


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Because abortion and contraceptive care are their goals. They are abortion and contraceptive providers (and baby part sellers). Furthermore, there are women, who, when faced with an unexpected pregnancy, choose to keep the child instead of aborting them. That's what crisis pregnancy centers are for. It must be foreign to you that there exist millions of women out there who favor life over death when it comes to pregnancy.


 Have you ever been in one?

I have.

They provide contraception, STD screening and treatment, counseling pre-natal care, adoption service referrals, and abortion.  

I suspect, if you rely on rightwing sources for all your info, this might be foreign for you.


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> You would respect a woman's right to make personal, private decisions for herself in consultation with her loved ones and spiritual and medical advisors if you were not an authoritarian, believing that such personal freedoms should be arrogated by an impersonal State apparatus.


That has zero to do with whether Roe was a good decision from a legal perspective which it isn’t.    The reasons why are laid out in the draft decision to overturn it.    Even RGB thought it was on shaky legal ground.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> Pregnancy lasts 9 months,  the vast majority of my abortions occur before the 7th week of pregnancy but with each examination, the first trimester examination and blood tests between the 10th and 12th week of pregnancy can and do reveal more information that might lead to the need for an abortion. Usually by the second trimester examination between the 15th and 20th week most abnormalities are found. But like any pregnancy there can be complications during the whole pregnancy to which abortion is the best answer. So you see it's Case by case and that's why it's best left between a doctor and the woman. I don't think passing any abortions restrictions assists the process. This is a case where less interference is the best policy.


Either it’s a life and all abortion is murder or it isn’t in which case there’s no reason to care when someone has an abortion and there is no reason to have any restrictions on it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Answering a question with a question.



Because a smart question is sometimes better than a stupid answer.


Coyote said:


> Will the Republican pro(some)life base be satisfied with legal abortion anywhere in the country? Be serious. They will not.



Asking a question without letting me answer it, okay. Without having ever been a Republican or pro-life, you can only go based on what you are told.

Spare me your presumptuousness.


Coyote said:


> The “leave it up to the states” is nothing more than a stepping stone in the process and not the end goal.



Curiously, do you really think the leaders of the Republican party will let 'no exceptions' abortion bans pass? That is a sure-fire way to make every woman, left or right, vote against you. Why would you ever think they would consider something so politically disastrous?

You must think we're all extremists. I mean if you let the fringe rightists on this board advise that opinion, the yeah, they are.


Coyote said:


> It will be interesting to see what happens with the proposal to allow people to sue anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion in another state.



If the act happens in another state, you can only sue that person based on the laws of that state. If so, and a blue state, then the case will be dismissed. Jurisdiction.



Coyote said:


> What is infuriating is your assumption (naive or calculated) that this will stop at the state level.



It will. Trust me on that. It doesn't matter what I think.



Coyote said:


> We are already seeing laws and proposed laws with no exceptions for rape or incest.











						An Overview of Abortion Laws
					






					www.guttmacher.org


----------



## TemplarKormac

And about Idaho's trigger ban...









						13 states have passed so-called 'trigger laws,' bans designed to go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned
					

Many Americans anxiously anticipating the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade may have been offered a glimpse of what's to come when Politico revealed a draft Supreme Court opinion Monday night that would upend the landmark abortion rights case.




					www.cnn.com
				




And Mississippi's trigger ban:









						13 states have passed so-called 'trigger laws,' bans designed to go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned
					

Many Americans anxiously anticipating the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade may have been offered a glimpse of what's to come when Politico revealed a draft Supreme Court opinion Monday night that would upend the landmark abortion rights case.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Biden won’t be in office forever. Try again.



He doesn't need to be.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> The pro life premise is fake anyway since it is only pro some life (though a handful of folks here are truly pro life).



Spare me your sanctimony, Coyote. You are the furthest from being able to lecture anyone about their viewpoints.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Have you ever been in one?
> 
> I have.
> 
> They provide contraception, STD screening and treatment, counseling pre-natal care, adoption service referrals, and abortion.



Curious, why does PP brand itself as an abortion provider? Because that is their primary service. It regularly participates in political activism regarding abortion. 

I don't need to be in one to educate myself about their functions. I only need to see how they behave on the political stage.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Biden won’t be in office forever.  Try again.
> 
> To put it into perspective:  remember next time you scream "THEY'RE GOING TO BAN GUNS FOREVER!!!!”



Your comeback is weak. Your countenance is weak. You are gullible and easily led. This fear you are spreading about abortion is absolutely unwarranted.

Your lack of legal knowledge precludes you from understanding that abortion will still be legal regardless of which way SCOTUS rules. 

But please do try again.

And for the record, do you care about women having their rights or the Democrats having power? I am easily convinced you see others of your own sex as tools, not compatriots.


----------



## dblack

Couchpotato said:


> Either it’s a life and all abortion is murder or it isn’t in which case there’s no reason to care when someone has an abortion and there is no reason to have any restrictions on it.


Or, regardless of how we classify what's in there, regardless of whether or not we consider abortion to be murder - we recognize that the kind of government required to enforce such a law would be a cure worse than the sickness.

It can be hard to accept, but not every social ill can be solved with a law. And in such cases, trying to force the issue with intrusive legislation only makes things worse.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Because a smart question is sometimes better than a stupid answer.



If that had been a s art question, rather than a dodge, you would have a point.



TemplarKormac said:


> Asking a question without letting me answer it, okay. Without having ever been a Republican or pro-life, you can only go based on what you are told.
> 
> Spare me your presumptuousness.


Oh for God’s sakes.  Get off your high horse.  



TemplarKormac said:


> Curiously, do you really think the leaders of the Republican party will let 'no exceptions' abortion bans pass? That is a sure-fireway to make every woman, left or right, vote against you. Why would you ever think they would consider something so politically disastrous?


Do you mean no exceptions as in for the mother’s life?  No, I would hope not.  But if you mean no exceptions for rape, they are.



TemplarKormac said:


> You must think we're all extremists. I mean if you let the fringe rightists on this board advise that opinion, the yeah, they are.


It’s hard to evaluate given it is extremely difficult to have a rational discussion on abortion here.




TemplarKormac said:


> If the act happens in another state, you can only sue that person based on the laws of that state. If so, and a blue state, then the case will be dismissed. Jurisdiction.


I am really not so sure given these law that rely on lawsuits for enforcement are largely uncharted waters.




TemplarKormac said:


> It will. Trust me on that. It doesn't matter what I think.



Given that we are talking very fundamental and passionately held rights here, I have my doubts.  




TemplarKormac said:


> An Overview of Abortion Laws
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guttmacher.org


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Oh for God’s sakes. Get off your high horse.



I choose to remain upon it thanks. I prefer to meet my opponents in a debate on equal standing.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Given that we are talking very fundamental and passionately held rights here, I have my doubts.



You are free to have those doubts. But that doesn't necessarily mean that every woman you meet will have them.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> I am really not so sure given these law that rely on lawsuits for enforcement are largely uncharted waters.



Please. Please. Please.

Enough with the conspiracies. I know you to be way smarter than what you're demonstrating here.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Do you mean no exceptions as in for the mother’s life? No, I would hope not. But if you mean no exceptions for rape, they are.



While it is rare, some women who are raped choose to give birth to the child. Smartly, since the circumstances of the child's conception were something the child had no power over. Why kill the child? The cells dividing in the womb know nothing of how they came into being.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> If that had been a s art question, rather than a dodge, you would have a point.



I don't dodge on abortion. I attack.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Your comeback is weak. Your countenance is weak. You are gullible and easily led. This fear you are spreading about abortion is absolutely unwarranted.
> 
> Your lack of legal knowledge precludes you from understanding that abortion will still be legal regardless of which way SCOTUS rules.



My lack of knowledge?  Maybe you are overestimating your own.  You are no more able to read the future than I.  You sound presumptuous and arrogant with that statement.

You would not be in the least affected if elective abortion became illegal, so of course you can say we shouldn’t be afraid.  If it was an issue you felt passionately about, like gun rights, I seriously doubt you would this unconcerned.




TemplarKormac said:


> But please do try again.
> 
> And for the record, do you care about women having their rights or the Democrats having power? I am easily convinced you see others of your own sex as tools, not compatriots.



For the record: F U

This is not and never has been a political issue, it is an issue of MY most fundamental right, control and ownership of MY body, and that right belongs to no one else.  And certainly not some like you who blows off pregnancy as a minor “inconvenience” who can’t begin to fathom what it is like to find out you pregnant when you don’t want to be or can’t afford to be and who then boils it down to an “oh, it’s just about political parties having power” Kind of statement.

Good bye.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> My lack of knowledge? Maybe you are overestimating your own. You are no more able to read the future than I. You sound presumptuous and arrogant with that statement.



I read and edify myself on the law. I don't make these statements warrantlessly. 

And I know for a fact you lack that knowledge.


----------



## Man of Ethics

TemplarKormac said:


> Let's revisit this.
> 
> All suicide attempts that result in death are successful. Guns, drugs, drowning, hanging, falling.
> 
> *Someone desperately wishing to die* will seek out the most lethal method available to them. If not a gun, a bedsheet; if not a bedsheet, a knife... and etc.


Most suicide victim/perpetrators are ambivalent about killing themselves.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> This is not and never has been a political issue, it is an issue of MY most fundamental right, control and ownership of MY body, and that right belongs to no one else.



What you seem to miss is that the dismissal of Roe is not causal to losing your abortion rights. Why can't you understand that?



Coyote said:


> For the record: F U


Oh boy, such a cutting retort. I'll survive.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Please. Please. Please.
> 
> Enough with the conspiracies. I know you to be way smarter than what you're demonstrating here.


Now you are just being arrogant and condescending.  Legal experts have been stating that these laws relying on lawsuits for enforcement are questionable, even The SCOTUS expressed some reservations on the enforcement mechanism and the way it side stepped challenges in the courts.  Please.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> And certainly not some like you who blows off pregnancy as a minor “inconvenience” who can’t begin to fathom what it is like to find out you pregnant when you don’t want to be or can’t afford to be and who then boils it down to an “oh, it’s just about political parties having powe



No, I don't blow off pregnancy as a minor inconvenience, I take issue with people like you seeing unborn life as a major inconvenience. I take issue with anyone using children as a political tool, for gun control/gun rights or abortion. 

All for the sake of 'rights' that you are in no danger of losing.

If you ever let pregnancy get to the second trimester before choosing to abort the child, you should have never been allowed to procreate in the first place. You and your OB-GYN both know what that is in your womb, _*and it isn't a damned inconvenience. It was a choice you made in the bedroom, both you and your partner. *_


----------



## TemplarKormac

Relative Ethics said:


> Most suicide victim/perpetrators are ambivalent about killing themselves.



As was I. Until I was stopped. I am surrounded by people who have level heads and a better view of life than even I do.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Have you ever been in one?
> 
> No?
> 
> Fuck off.


They manipulate the women and never give them any alternatives. On the other hand planned alternative lays everything out gives both sides. So my question is which group is more moral and honest.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> No, I don't blow off pregnancy as a minor inconvenience, I take issue with people like you seeing unborn life as a major inconvenience.
> 
> All for the sake of your rights and 'bodily autonomy.'
> 
> If you ever let pregnancy get to the second trimester before choosing to abort the child, you should have never been allowed to procreate in the first place. You and your OB-GYN both know what that is in your womb, and it isn't a damned inconvenience.


As I've already stated the second trimester abortions are mostly married women who find out from the second trimester blood works in chemistries that are done that the child is in dire straits and not probably very viable. You really want to prevent these married women from doing the right thing for them and their families. I don't think so you're talking out of your ass.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> They manipulate the women and never give them any alternatives.


I'm pretty sure the women going there were pretty aware of the alternative when they walked into the office. 

Killing the child.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Now you are just being arrogant and condescending.



I disagree. 

But please continue.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> As I've already stated the second trimester abortions are mostly married women who find out from the second trimester blood works in chemistries that are done that the child is in dire straits and not probably very viable.



Moving the goalposts. We're talking about healthy women of sound mind and conscience and the healthy babies forming in their wombs due to a choice THEY made.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Spare me your sanctimony, Coyote. You are the furthest from being able to lecture anyone about their viewpoints.


Oh stuff it.  You are so full of yourself.  At least I am not claiming to be some sort of self-appointed legal expert.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TemplarKormac said:


> No, I don't blow off pregnancy as a minor inconvenience, I take issue with people like you seeing unborn life as a major inconvenience. I take issue with anyone using children as a political tool, for gun control/gun rights or abortion.
> 
> All for the sake of 'rights' that you are in no danger of losing.
> 
> If you ever let pregnancy get to the second trimester before choosing to abort the child, you should have never been allowed to procreate in the first place. You and your OB-GYN both know what that is in your womb, _*and it isn't a damned inconvenience. It was a choice you made in the bedroom, both you and your partner. *_



For any woman who chooses to have sex that results in pregnancy to treat the prospect of life so lightly in order to justify their want of convenience makes me sick to my stomach.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Oh stuff it.  You are so full of yourself.  At least I am not claiming to be some sort of self-appointed legal expert.



I never said I was a legal expert. I just know more about it than you do. There's a distinct difference. I don't need to spend thousands of dollars on a legal degree to learn about the law. Given that the internet is the compendium of human knowledge, I use that instead.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> I'm pretty sure the women going there were pretty aware of the alternative when they walked into the office.
> 
> Killing the child.


Getting all the information available without adversarial attitudes promises the best outcome in any situation, but it is unbelievably important in this situation.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote

Oh hey look, I pressed the disagree button!


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Getting all the information available without adversarial attitudes promises the best outcome in any situation, but it is unbelievably important in this situation.



Perhaps it was *because* of the adversarial nature of this issue that these women chose to preserve the life of their child. Perhaps they assimilated all the pertinent information and determined for themselves that the pro-life choice was superior.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Perhaps it was *because* of the adversarial nature of this issue that these women chose to preserve the life of their child. Perhaps they assimilated all the pertinent information and determined for themselves that the pro-life choice was superior.


And that would be great as far as I'm concerned as long as the people who presented the information were objective. You, for example, right off the bat you would be disqualified because you can't be objective about the subject, your statement baby killers says it all.


----------



## Chuz Life

Hey all. What's up? Anything news?


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> No, I don't blow off pregnancy as a minor inconvenience, I take issue with people like you seeing unborn life as a major inconvenience. I take issue with anyone using children as a political tool, for gun control/gun rights or abortion.


You blow it off as an inconvenience.  When you are lowering pregnancy and childbirth to a matter of inconvenience and convenience, you diminishing the enormity of it.

When you claim to care about unborn children, but refuse support the systems needed to help mothers and children stay out poverty, stay employed or finish an education then those children are nothing more than political tools to you and their usefulness ends after birth.







TemplarKormac said:


> All for the sake of 'rights' that you are in no danger of losing.



Don’t presume to speak for my rights.



TemplarKormac said:


> If you ever let pregnancy get to the second trimester before choosing to abort the child, you should have never been allowed to procreate in the first place. You and your OB-GYN both know what that is in your womb, _*and it isn't a damned inconvenience. It was a choice you made in the bedroom, both you and your partner. *_


Gee, ya know…would have been nice if we had actually DISCUSSED that instead of YOU presuming to know what I think, you might be surprised.


----------



## TemplarKormac

I have never met a group of people in my life so consumed by fear of losing something they are in no danger of losing. So willing to permeate that fear among the unsuspecting and refusing to educate them about ways to mitigate or resolve it. Knowledge is the antidote to fear. Ignorance is the catalyst.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> I have never met a group of people in my life so consumed by fear of losing something they are in no danger of losing. So willing to permeate that fear among the unsuspecting and refuse to educate them about ways to mitigate or resolve it. Knowledge is the antidote to fear. Ignorance is the catalyst.


I can't lose anything, I am not a woman. I take it back, I would lose respect for this country. It failed to live up to its obligation to half its citizens.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Gee, ya know…would have been nice if we had actually DISCUSSED that instead of YOU presuming to know what I think, you might be surprised.



I would take that statement seriously if you, along with other liberals in this thread, weren't doing that to Cecilie. Someone whose gender makes her equally as qualified to speak on this matter as you. 
I know what you think, you are a moderator here, and you regularly post your opinions. The resolution due to the volume of those opinions being enough to make a presumption of your positions on a majority of political issues.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> I can't lose anything, I am not a woman. I take it back, I would lose respect for this country. It failed to live up to its obligation to half its citizens.



You can't lose something you never had, Stan.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Don’t presume to speak for my rights.



I will, and I shall. 

Your rights will still exist in this country regardless of the Roe opinion. I'm sorry you're too blinded by fear to see that.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> I never said I was a legal expert. I just know more about it than you do. There's a distinct difference. I don't need to spend thousands of dollars on a legal degree to learn about the law. Given that the internet is the compendium of human knowledge, I use that instead.


Oh.  You know more about it than I do.  According to you of course.  Ya..why get a law degree  

I mean….if the internet see so it must be true.

If you knew so much more than me you would have realized that these new laws depending on private citizen lawsuits for enforcement are uncharted territory and no one knows how they are going to play out when challenged in the courts or in other states which are themselves setting up a bunch of laws to protect their own citizens from potential lawsuits.  It’s a mess.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> When you claim to care about unborn children, but refuse support the systems needed to help mothers and children stay out poverty, stay employed or finish an education then those children are nothing more than political tools to you and their usefulness ends after birth.



It is because I don't support something you support that I don't care about unborn children. Got it.

Had my mother not misplaced her contraceptives, I wouldn't be here. I know the value of life because I almost never had one to begin with. That alone makes me imminently qualified to speak on the sanctity of life.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> I mean….if the internet see so it must be true.



You were using the internet too, snarky miss. 


Coyote said:


> If you knew so much more than me you would have realized that these new laws depending on private citizen lawsuits for enforcement are uncharted territory and no one knows how they are going to play out when challenged in the courts or in other states which are themselves setting up a bunch of laws to protect their own citizens from potential lawsuits. It’s a mess.



Einstein once said, "if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough."

I do know much more than you, I've been on this thread for eight days arguing my point unceasingly. I wouldn't do that if I lacked confidence in my position or lacked knowledge on the subject.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Oh. You know more about it than I do. According to you of course. Ya..why get a law degree



Because knowledge is free. One doesn't need to pre-qualify for any profession to acquire it.

Your appeal to authority is noted (granted, so am I, but this is established authority, not authority ginned up out of thin air).


----------



## Chuz Life

TemplarKormac said:


> You can't lose something you never had, Stan.


^^^ This!

And it plays right into the quote from Roe v Wade in my signature.


----------



## TemplarKormac

In truth, this issue brings out the worst in us. I wish it didn't. But I view life as precious, some people don't. I don't understand why.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> You can't lose something you never had, Stan.


I already said that, but can you say women will have as much control over their reproductive Rights as they do now if Roe versus Wade go to the wayside. You know they won't. Overzealous state legislatures will try to outdo each other with outlandish abortion regulations. Non-medical entities making medical decisions, just great!


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> In truth, this issue brings out the worst in us. I wish it didn't. But I view life as precious, some people don't. I don't understand why.


Everyone should cherish life, but not into the dichotomy are trying to covet everyone else's lives. That can't end well.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Everyone should cherish life, but not into the dichotomy are trying to covet everyone else's lives. That can't end well.


Dichotomy of trying to covet


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> I would take that statement seriously if you, along with other liberals in this thread, weren't doing that to Cecilie. Someone whose gender makes her equally as qualified to speak on this matter as you.
> I know what you think, you are a moderator here, and you regularly post your opinions. The resolution due to the volume of those opinions being enough to make a presumption of your positions on a majority of political issues.


It may shock you, but I am just as qualified to speak my opinion as any conservative woman and my being a moderator here has nothing to do with it.  You have no issues with liberals being attacked or broadly stereotyping their positions. 

No.  You do not know what, or at least it is not evident in your statements in this thread.  You just THINK you because I am a “baby killing leftist” who is pro-choice, therefore there is no need for further discussion of viewpoints.  Prove me wrong.


----------



## Stann

Coyote said:


> It may shock you, but I am just as qualified to speak my opinion as any conservative woman and my being a moderator here has nothing to do with it.  You have no issues with liberals being attacked or broadly stereotyping their positions.
> 
> No.  You do not know what, or at least it is not evident in your statements in this thread.  You just THINK you because I am a “baby killing leftist” who is pro-choice, therefore there is no need for further discussion of viewpoints.  Prove me wrong.


Now you're both getting too emotionally involved in the issue. Good luck to both of you, you're going to need it.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Because knowledge is free. One doesn't need to pre-qualify for any profession to acquire it.
> 
> Your appeal to authority is noted (granted, so am I, but this is established authority, not authority ginned up out of thin air).


Uhh…what?  The internet YOU use is “established authority” but the internet I use is “ginned up out of thin air”?  Good grief.


----------



## Chuz Life

TemplarKormac said:


> In truth, this issue brings out the worst in us. I wish it didn't. But I view life as precious, some people don't. I don't understand why.


I vehemently oppose abortion but I do not consider life to be precious. Just tossing that out there for consideration.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> You have no issues with liberals being attacked or broadly stereotyping their positions.



Tell that to the protesters picketing SCOTUS justice's houses. 

Or to Samuel Alito specifically, who had to be moved to an undisclosed location because of the utter reliance of the abortion lobby on fear and intimidation tactics. 

Oh and don't act like you've never stereotyped conservatives or their positions either.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Uhh…what? The internet YOU use is “established authority” but the internet I use is “ginned up out of thin air”? Good grief.



Knowledge, which is verifiable and correct, is authoritative. 

Your fear is not based on any knowledge I know of.  Or if so, incomplete knowledge.


----------



## Coyote

Stann said:


> Now you're both getting too emotionally involved in the issue. Good luck to both of you, you're going to need it.


True…


----------



## Man of Ethics

TemplarKormac said:


> As was I. Until I was stopped. I am surrounded by people who have level heads and a better view of life than even I do.


Thank you for sharing.  Best regards!  Hopefully everything is all right now.

I never thought of harming myself -- yet I do lead an unhealthy lifestyle.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Chuz Life said:


> I vehemently oppose abortion but I do not consider life to be precious. Just tossing that out there for consideration.



Let me clarify, life is only precious up to a point.

When a murderer takes a life, his life is forfeit. A pregnant woman's life, doubly as forfeit.

And if you want me to be absolutely and brutally honest, women who terminate life for the sake of sating their personal conveniences and not for medical necessity or to correct a tragic encounter with a rapist or incestuous pervert, also make their lives worthless. They may be entitled to live, yet they have taken all the worth out of their life by taking the life of an unborn child.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Relative Ethics said:


> yet I do lead an unhealthy lifestyle.


I have no room to talk there, either.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> True…


I am so emotionally invested purely due to the circumstances which led to my birth.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> I am so emotionally invested purely due to the circumstances which led to my birth.


I am because no one else has rights over my body.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> I am because no one else has rights over my body.



Curious, what rights will you lose when Roe is overturned?

List them.

Now, list the odds of a 'no exception' federal abortion ban becoming law in this country.

Very unlikely. That is the best way to end a political career. Simply get others to see you as unmerciful, and boom, you become politically irrelevant.

My view of life is such that if a woman's life is in danger due to her pregnancy and she is forced to give birth, and she dies, not only is her life lost, the life she has the potential to give birth to is also lost. If the woman is raped, where she was actually given no choice over her body, and you make no exceptions for it, poof, unmerciful, lack of compassion. Incest is the same way, because it can lead to genetic issues or deformities. How does lack of compassion enhance life? It doesn't.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> In truth, this issue brings out the worst in us. I wish it didn't. But I view life as precious, some people don't. I don't understand why.


You are thinking on the most base level. Physical life forms are necessary in order that our spiritual essence can dwell in them ( human beings being the most suitable host in this world ) . The fact that this occurs is what gives human beings that humanity. Overall, the spirit is what is important in this equation. People are simply The chosen species on this planet.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> You are thinking on the most base level. Physical life forms are necessary in order that our spiritual essence can dwell in them ( human beings being the most suitable host in this world ) . The fact that this occurs is what gives human beings that humanity. Overall, the spirit is what is important in this equation. People are simply The chosen species on this planet.



Base thinking, huh? Then what's this? ^


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Moving the goalposts. We're talking about healthy women of sound mind and conscience and the healthy babies forming in their wombs due to a choice THEY made.


Moving the Goalposts, I think that's your problem. You made the blatant statement that any woman that got to the second semester shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. What you don't seem to understand is 92.7% of all abortions are performed before the 13th week of gestation. But many severe abnormalities don't show up until the second trimester blood work and chemistries are done and that is between the 15th and 20th week. There are even others that don't show up until late term checkups, thus the need for late term abortions. You just don't understand pregnancy at all. Most of these later abortions are not wanted,they're necessary. They affect women who wanted to have children, many are married, many have other children that they love and adore. So obviously you want to make them even more miserable and complicate this horrible decision they have to make by allowing the government to make arbitrary laws governing their reproductive Rights. This is not the end of the story. I have to keep talking to you over and over for it to sink in. Remember when I told you that most women 92.7% have their abortions before the 13th week. You see that's after the first trimester blood work and chemistry is coming between the 10th and 12th week. So abnormalities in the fetuses are starting to show up. At any rate the " unborn child " you are talking about at 13 weeks is still unrecognizable as a human being. It is 2.64 in Long it weighs 2.58 Oz or roughly the size of a half stick of margarine. That's why it's called a fetus and not a child.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Relative Ethics said:


> Most suicide victim/perpetrators are ambivalent about killing themselves.


Not quite. Some people plan them out.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TemplarKormac said:


> Obstructing a government proceeding: 18 U.S. Code § 1505 -  Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
> 
> Obstruction of justice: 18 U.S. Code § 1503 -  Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
> 
> Potential for 15 years in prison.
> 
> Put the perp away.


Add 1507 and Viginia code 18.2 - 419.


----------



## MisterBeale

TemplarKormac said:


> I have never met a group of people in my life so consumed by fear of losing something they are in no danger of losing. So willing to permeate that fear among the unsuspecting and refusing to educate them about ways to mitigate or resolve it. Knowledge is the antidote to fear. Ignorance is the catalyst.


----------



## MisterBeale




----------



## MisterBeale

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Where is the plan to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and to support women


----------



## schmidlap

Couchpotato said:


> That has zero to do with whether Roe was a good decision from a legal perspective which it isn’t.


That is the opinion of those who oppose the decision, so much so that they - despite the pretense under oath to respecting it as established law - are willing to trash it, in contravention of the progress that has been made in advanced democratic nations, and the clear support of the established law by most Americans.

An ideological ilk, legislating from the bench, revoking a personal freedom that has for so long been respected, and arrogating it to the State apparatus in a blatant act of authoritarianism, will be seized upon by statists in regressive states, further dividing the nation.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> That is the opinion of those who oppose the decision, so much so that they - despite the pretense under oath to respecting it as established law - are willing to trash it, in contravention of the progress that has been made in advanced democratic nation, and the clear support of the established law by most Americans.
> 
> An ideological ilk, legislating from the bench, revoking a personal freedom that has for so long been respected, and arrogating it to the State apparatus in a blatant act of authoritarianism, will be seized upon by statists in regressive states, further dividing the nation.


Cleary you havent read the Roe v Wade Decision.  It never addresed when life begins and kicked the can down the road.  It established that states can legally have laws at the point of Viability.  Which half the country has and half doesnt.  

In the half that doesnt overturning Roe v Wade changes NOTHING.


----------



## eagle1462010

Endless thread where the left believes if they yell loud enough and long emough they will get their way.

They cant handle No even when their mission is late term abortion murder if babies shall not be infringed even though it doesnt in blue shithole states.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> It never addresed when life begins


_That_ is a subjective criterion upon which one can speculate, including whether incipient "life" is the key. Every newly-formed epidermal cell is "life."

Is a microscopic, mindless aggregate of cells within a womb a _person?_ Does a woman have proprietary, nine-points-of-the-law, control over her own _womb?_

Roe v Wade is a long-standing compromise solution that satisfies most Americans.

Statists trashing established law and denying Americans a personal freedom that has been respected for fifty years and arrogating it to politicians in regressive states is far from a triumph for medical science, nor for liberty.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> Endless thread where the left believes if they yell loud enough and long emough they will get their way.
> 
> They cant handle No even when their mission is late term abortion murder if babies shall not be infringed even though it doesnt in blue shithole states.


See post 2512. I am more pro life that any of anti abortion people are


----------



## Stann

MisterBeale said:


>


The abortion laws that are currently being put in place by states are so egregious they will be easily contested in court. Laws in free nations need to be reasonable and equitable. We are not a fascist country, where the state can force things on it's citizens. This is the ultimate in government outreach.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Curious, what rights will you lose when Roe is overturned?
> 
> List them



Body autonomy.




TemplarKormac said:


> Now, list the odds of a 'no exception' federal abortion ban becoming law in this country.
> 
> Very unlikely. That is the best way to end a political career. Simply get others to see you as unmerciful, and boom, you become politically irrelevant.



I once considered the overturning of Roe as highly unlikely considering a majority of Americans supported keeping it in place.  I see politicians refusing to rule out attempting a federal ban.  I see some politicians even considering fetal personhood bills  in their states.  Given all this, I no longer have the luxury of assuming this will never happen.  You, however do.




TemplarKormac said:


> My view of life is such that if a woman's life is in danger due to her pregnancy and she is forced to give birth, and she dies, not only is her life lost, the life she has the potential to give birth to is also lost. If the woman is raped, where she was actually given no choice over her body, and you make no exceptions for it, poof, unmerciful, lack of compassion. Incest is the same way, because it can lead to genetic issues or deformities. How does lack of compassion enhance life? It doesn't.



I think that is a fair view.

My view is up until 16 weeks, abortion is legal, no barriers, restrictions, and clinics operate under the same regulations and rules as any other comparable out patient services. That gives a women enough time to realize she is pregnant, make a decision get financing and access a clinic.

After that, elective abortions can be restricted, but it should always be legal if a mother's health or life is in danger or severe fetal defects.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Body autonomy.


How will your bodily autonomy cease to exist when Roe is overturned? If you live in a blue state it won't.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> How will your bodily autonomy cease to exist when Roe is overturned? If you live in a blue state it won't.


I don't.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> I don't.


Pardon?


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> Body autonomy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I once considered the overturning of Roe as highly unlikely considering a majority of Americans supported keeping it in place.  I see politicians refusing to rule out attempting a federal ban.  I see some politicians even considering fetal personhood bills  in their states.  Given all this, I no longer have the luxury of assuming this will never happen.  You, however do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a fair view.
> 
> My view is up until 16 weeks, abortion is legal, no barriers, restrictions, and clinics operate under the same regulations and rules as any other comparable out patient services. That gives a women enough time to realize she is pregnant, make a decision get financing and access a clinic.
> 
> After that, elective abortions can be restricted, but it should always be legal if a mother's health or life is in danger or severe fetal defects.


Your activists would stone you for 16 weeks because they would lose late term abortion.  

The left have no intension of compromise.  A deal.  Why we are ready to destroy each other.  You cant negotiate with them.

Right now they attempt to use fear and intimidation on judges.  And this is against the law.  DOJ and Biden do nothing but pretend that they even care.

Gloves are off.  So be it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> I see politicians refusing to rule out attempting a federal ban. I see some politicians even considering fetal personhood bills in their states.



1. The federal ban will go nowhere. Senators and congressmen only propose and vote for such things to appease their bases. They do it on both sides, wasting our time and taxpayer money in the process.

2. And yes, a viable, healthy fetus is a person.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Pardon?


I live in a red state.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Given all this, I no longer have the luxury of assuming this will never happen. You, however do.



Yes, you do. If you consider the politics and legislative mechanics of such a 'federal ban.'


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Your activists would stone you for 16 weeks because they would lose late term abortion.
> 
> The left have no intension of compromise.  A deal.  Why we are ready to destroy each other.  You cant negotiate with them.
> 
> Right now they attempt to use fear and intimidation on judges.  And this is against the law.  DOJ and Biden do nothing but pretend that they even care.
> 
> Gloves are off.  So be it.


What compromise is the right making?


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> What compromise is the right making?


You just said 16 weeks.  A compromise would be in that range and ends late term abortion even in blue states.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> I live in a red state.



I see, but now the question remains, how does the right to an abortion cease to exist in the blue states that passed more expansive abortion rights laws when Roe is overturned? You have such a dystopian view of abortion rights, Coyote.


----------



## eagle1462010

Aka.  Why should we compromise with leftist who allow even after birth abortion Right now???


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> After that, elective abortions can be restricted, but it should always be legal if a mother's health or life is in danger or severe fetal defects.



I have, exactly, zero issue with that.


----------



## Ropey

eagle1462010 said:


> You just said 16 weeks.  A compromise would be in that range and ends late term abortion even in blue states.


She'd be willing to go to for an 'after the first breath' 'clause'.



eagle1462010 said:


> Aka.  Why should we compromise with leftist who allow even after birth abortion Right now???



Because they demand the right to kill the unborn. They've been demanding this right since the dawn of man.

They?  Pagans.


----------



## eagle1462010

In our state we argue with ourselves on issues.  Leftist high steps in cadence.  Tue left are do as we say or we Burn.

Sorry no negotiation with that.


----------



## TemplarKormac

schmidlap said:


> An ideological ilk, legislating from the bench



Curious, that wasn't the case when they legalized gay marriage or upheld Obamacare. Ironically that was a contention made by the right. 

Question the legitimacy of the court only when they make a ruling other than the one you want. It's politically universal.


----------



## eagle1462010

They demand we compromise and never compromise themselves.

So Ramming speed bitches.  Its what you wanted.  When you say OR ELSE all the time.  Else will come.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## eagle1462010

TemplarKormac said:


> View attachment 643224


Because the voters would throw him out.

No way they sell late term abortion in most states.  

But even here when we say ok.  Blue states too no abortion past x number of weeks.  Poof they gone.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Restating a point I made last week:

How can Democrats champion bodily autonomy for women when they literally forced them to take vaccines during the pandemic whether they wished to or not?

How does bodily autonomy apply in one circumstance, but not the other?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> Moving the Goalposts, I think that's your problem. You made the blatant statement that any woman that got to the second semester shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. What you don't seem to understand is 92.7% of all abortions are performed before the 13th week of gestation. But many severe abnormalities don't show up until the second trimester blood work and chemistries are done and that is between the 15th and 20th week. There are even others that don't show up until late term checkups, thus the need for late term abortions. You just don't understand pregnancy at all. Most of these later abortions are not wanted,they're necessary. They affect women who wanted to have children, many are married, many have other children that they love and adore. So obviously you want to make them even more miserable and complicate this horrible decision they have to make by allowing the government to make arbitrary laws governing their reproductive Rights. This is not the end of the story. I have to keep talking to you over and over for it to sink in. Remember when I told you that most women 92.7% have their abortions before the 13th week. You see that's after the first trimester blood work and chemistry is coming between the 10th and 12th week. So abnormalities in the fetuses are starting to show up. At any rate the " unborn child " you are talking about at 13 weeks is still unrecognizable as a human being. It is 2.64 in Long it weighs 2.58 Oz or roughly the size of a half stick of margarine. That's why it's called a fetus and not a child.



All this except for the fact that the scientific consensus is that human life begins when the gametes from the male and female transition into a multi-celled zygote. 

Your "it needs to look like a human to be human" argument is invalid. Any DNA test will prove the humanity of a newly formed zygote before your argument will.


----------



## eagle1462010

Notice when we go ok.  But blue states too they leave.  Lol

Why we cant compromise.


----------



## MisterBeale

Stann said:


> The abortion laws that are currently being put in place by states are so egregious they will be easily contested in court. Laws in free nations need to be reasonable and equitable. We are not a fascist country, where the state can force things on it's citizens. This is the ultimate in government outreach.


I like you you equate "abortion laws," to the unconstitutional mask mandates and movement lock-downs we suffered during the past two years, that no senator or representative even had a chance to vote on those, those weren't even laws. . . .

All of a sudden?  NOW, you are concerned with. . . _"We are not a fascist country"




_


----------



## Stann

Coyote said:


> Body autonomy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I once considered the overturning of Roe as highly unlikely considering a majority of Americans supported keeping it in place.  I see politicians refusing to rule out attempting a federal ban.  I see some politicians even considering fetal personhood bills  in their states.  Given all this, I no longer have the luxury of assuming this will never happen.  You, however do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a fair view.
> 
> My view is up until 16 weeks, abortion is legal, no barriers, restrictions, and clinics operate under the same regulations and rules as any other comparable out patient services. That gives a women enough time to realize she is pregnant, make a decision get financing and access a clinic.
> 
> After that, elective abortions can be restricted, but it should always be legal if a mother's health or life is in danger or severe fetal defects.


Several States already have egregious abortion laws. It's only going to get worse from here on out if Roe versus Wade goes to the wayside. Plus you were talking about limiting abortion to so many weeks. 92.7% of all abortions occur before the 13th week. But some of the most serious cases aren't discovered until the second trimester checkup and none of those abortions are a matter of inconvenience in a matter of grave concern.  Late-term checkups reveal even more problems so the timetable thing is out. Ideally every case would have to be reviewed by the state if they're going to do this kind of garbage. It's basically a waste of time.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> How will your bodily autonomy cease to exist when Roe is overturned? If you live in a blue state it won't.


The body autonomy of every single woman that is fertile is threatened.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> How will your bodily autonomy cease to exist when Roe is overturned? If you live in a blue state it won't.


Whether it's a blue state or a red state there are plenty of prolife crazies in all states. Not only are they a threat to themselves they're a threat to everyone else.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Your activists would stone you for 16 weeks because they would lose late term abortion.
> 
> The left have no intension of compromise.  A deal.  Why we are ready to destroy each other.  You cant negotiate with them.
> 
> Right now they attempt to use fear and intimidation on judges.  And this is against the law.  DOJ and Biden do nothing but pretend that they even care.
> 
> Gloves are off.  So be it.


----------



## Stann

Actually I was contacted by a group yesterday. They intend to ban all abortion laws. I hope they succeed because it's a bad joke on every American.


----------



## Stann

Coyote said:


> Body autonomy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I once considered the overturning of Roe as highly unlikely considering a majority of Americans supported keeping it in place.  I see politicians refusing to rule out attempting a federal ban.  I see some politicians even considering fetal personhood bills  in their states.  Given all this, I no longer have the luxury of assuming this will never happen.  You, however do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a fair view.
> 
> My view is up until 16 weeks, abortion is legal, no barriers, restrictions, and clinics operate under the same regulations and rules as any other comparable out patient services. That gives a women enough time to realize she is pregnant, make a decision get financing and access a clinic.
> 
> After that, elective abortions can be restricted, but it should always be legal if a mother's health or life is in danger or severe fetal defects.


The Michigan law already violates the mother's health or life in danger of severe fetal defects, they had the gall to put limitations on that. I love it when non-medical people think they know what they're doing about a medical issue. Things are getting very serious in Michigan.


----------



## Stann

Ropey said:


> She'd be willing to go to for an 'after the first breath' 'clause'.
> 
> 
> 
> Because they demand the right to kill the unborn. They've been demanding this right since the dawn of man.
> 
> They?  Pagans.


Believe it or not most abortions in the United States are by so-called Christians.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> Restating a point I made last week:
> 
> How can Democrats champion bodily autonomy for women when they literally forced them to take vaccines during the pandemic whether they wished to or not?
> 
> How does bodily autonomy apply in one circumstance, but not the other?


You're trying to compare apples with oranges. It doesn't work.


----------



## Stann

MisterBeale said:


> I like you you equate "abortion laws," to the unconstitutional mask mandates and movement lock-downs we suffered during the past two years, that no senator or representative even had a chance to vote on those, those weren't even laws. . . .
> 
> All of a sudden?  NOW, you are concerned with. . . _"We are not a fascist country"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


I think you'd better read up on the rights privileges and duties of US citizens. Rights come with responsibilities and public health is a national concern. Sorry to burst your bubble but you're comparing apples with oranges and it just doesn't work.


----------



## Stann

TemplarKormac said:


> All this except for the fact that the scientific consensus is that human life begins when the gametes from the male and female transition into a multi-celled zygote.
> 
> Your "it needs to look like a human to be human" argument is invalid. Any DNA test will prove the humanity of a newly formed zygote before your argument will.


You are describing physical life, that is a correct. You are not describing an independent living person or citizen. I think that makes all the difference in the world.


----------



## Ropey

Stann said:


> so-called



The house of Judah has outhouses of reform as well. They reformed themselves out of Judaism.

I submit the same for those reformed "Christians". 

They both reformed their beliefs to the following of the golden calf... and into liberal pagans who history has shown, love to slaughter both the unborn and the young born children.


----------



## Stann

Ropey said:


> The house of Judah has outhouses of reform as well. They reformed themselves out of Judaism.
> 
> I submit the same for those reformed "Christians".
> 
> They both reformed their beliefs to the following of the golden calf... and into liberal pagans who history has shown, love to slaughter both the unborn and the young born children.


The reason I said so-called, is only 17% of Christians are actually practicing Christians attending church regularly etc. The rest of that number is Christian in name only basically.


----------



## Ropey

Stann said:


> The reason I said so-called, is only 17% of Christians are actually practicing Christians attending church regularly etc. The rest of that number is Christian in name only basically.


No one in the mortal knows the minds of those who believe. 

You can attempt to quantify the unknown, but that's on you.


----------



## Stann

Ropey said:


> No one in the mortal knows the minds of those who believe.
> 
> You can attempt to quantify the unknown, but that's on you.


No I'm talking about a survey that was taken this is what people said whether they went to church or not whether they're actually practicing the religion. Doesn't matter to me. But I know here in Nebraska the pews are empty and churches are closing and consolidating.


----------



## Ropey

Stann said:


> No I'm talking about a survey that was taken this is what people said whether they went to church or not whether they're actually practicing the religion. Doesn't matter to me. But I know here in Nebraska the pews are empty and churches are closing and consolidating.


And people often do not say what they actually think and feel to those who are asking them such personal questions.

Those who believe the polls can choose to do so all they wish but it's not a highly valid quantification... because validity scaling has shown how quantifiably great are the number of deviations from validity once personal questions are entered into the topics.

Attending Church or Temple is attending a religiosity of tradition. Many believers of many faiths do not follow religiosity yet retain moral viewpoints encapsulating their own beliefs.


----------



## Stann

Ropey said:


> And people often do not say what they actually think and feel to those who are asking them such personal questions.
> 
> Those who believe the polls can choose to do so all they wish but it's not a highly valid quantification... because validity scaling has shown how quantifiably great are the number of deviations from validity once personal questions are entered into the topics.
> 
> Attending Church or Temple is attending a religiosity of tradition. Many believers of many faiths do not follow religiosity yet retain moral viewpoints encapsulating their own beliefs.


Are you saying that Christians lie ? I kind of expected that, trump claims to be a Christian but I've never seen him in a church and he lies all the time. I guess you're right. Have a good day.


----------



## Ropey

Coyote said:


> Body autonomy.


----------



## Ropey

Stann said:


> Are you saying that Christians lie ? I kind of expected that, trump claims to be a Christian but I've never seen him in a church and he lies all the time.


Now you are just being silly. People lie. It's a human characteristic.



Stann said:


> I guess you're right. Have a good day.



No guesses are necessary.  You either know or don't.

Have a good day.


----------



## ChemEngineer

*Roe V. Wade - Wall Street Journal May 9, 2022*



There are many reasons that precedent should not be followed as to_ Roe_ in particular, but it is valuable to remember that the Supreme Court’s precedent as to following precedent is . . . not to follow it. See, for example,_ Lawrence v. Texas_ (2003, gay rights);_ Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority_ (1985, federal power);_ Mapp v. Ohio_ (1961, applying the exclusionary rule to the states);_ Brown v. Board of Education_ (1954, school integration);_ Wickard v. Filburn_ (1942, federal power); _United States v. Darby _(1941, federal power);_ Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins_ (1938, overruling an 100-year-old precedent); and_ Knox v. Lee_ (1871, paper money).

*PROF. STEVEN G. CALABRESI*

_Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Chicago_


----------



## Stann

Ropey said:


> View attachment 643323


Another cute pro life propaganda poster. Unfortunately the fetus doesn't even know who or what it is. Everybody has a name. Let's have some more fun and call this fetus " Shelia ". Now she's a person in your mind. But what if it turns out to be male. We better come up with a more neutral name, " Dakota " would work. Now are you good to go


----------



## Stann

Ropey said:


> Now you are just being silly. People lie. It's a human characteristic.
> 
> 
> 
> No guesses are necessary.  You either know or don't.
> 
> Have a good day.


If I was going to lie, it would be a small lie to protect a friend or relative. I see no need to lie to complete strangers; plus I have a little more faith in humanity than you do, most people don't lie when they take surveys.


----------



## Ropey

passive/aggressive is very passive/aggressive.

So, you're not having a good day, then.


----------



## Ropey

Stann said:


> Another cute pro life propaganda poster. Unfortunately the fetus doesn't even know who or what it is. Everybody has a name. Let's have some more fun and call this fetus " Shelia ". Now she's a person in your mind. But what if it turns out to be male. We better come up with a more neutral name, " Dakota " would work. Now are you good to go


It may be that the picture with an unborn baby in it is one that is bothering you.


----------



## Stann

Ropey said:


> passive/aggressive is very passive/aggressive.
> 
> So, you're not having a good day, then.


I'm sorry I don't know who you're talking to but in case it was me. I'm having a great day; it all depends on you, attitude makes all the difference in the world. Have a good day, I plan on it.


----------



## Ropey

Stann said:


> I'm sorry



Apology accepted.



Stann said:


> I don't know



This is clear.



Stann said:


> Have a good day.



Then, again, good day.


----------



## Stann

Ropey said:


> It may be that the picture with an unborn baby in it is one that is bothering you.


It doesn't bother me, it makes me laugh.


----------



## Stann

Ropey said:


> Apology accepted.


You are a piece of work, taking things out of context. Your problem, not mine. Good luck with that.


----------



## Ropey

Stann said:


> It doesn't bother me, it makes me laugh.


Good.


Stann said:


> You are a piece of work, taking things out of context. Your problem, not mine. Good luck with that.



You do not sound like you're laughing.  It looks like the photo of the mother and  her baby picture set you a bit off...


----------



## Stann

Ropey said:


> Good.


And with that goodbye for now.


----------



## Ropey

Stann said:


> And with that goodbye for now.


Good day.

Again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Still screaming about baby killing with nothing to offer as far as prevention of unwanted pregnancies or support to families who might decide to keep a child if help were available ? So noted.



Once again, I don't have any obligation to "offer" anything to the likes of you, because I have no need to come hat in hand to the "Just kill them" crowd and beg them to accept an alternative.  

The fact is, the overturning of Roe v Wade itself will serve as a deterrent to unwanted pregnancies all by itself, at least in the states that aren't run by people like you.  People on your own side have said so, although they probably don't realize it.





Admittedly, this is just TikTok, but they're far from the only ones on the left issuing dark "warnings" about how the overturn of _Roe v. Wade_ will lead to women being less willing to behave like the town pump.  And they're correct.  Women are no more inherently stupid and unable to calculate personal risks than men are.  The left has never seemed to understand this, but human beings alter their behavior according to changing circumstances.

Now, people on the left seem to think this is some horrible, looming calamity.  Personally, I don't understand why women were willing to have mediocre sex with drunk randos in the first place.

The left has always taken a very simplistic view of the situation:  unwanted pregnancy, kill the baby, done.  The idea of looking at the society and culture this created, and the influences the presence of legalized abortion exerts of everyone, regardless of their position on abortion, is completely beyond your interest.

In fact, what happened is that, with abortion seen as a "backup", attitudes toward casual sex and contraceptive use changed dramatically, even among women who would not choose to have an abortion.  Relationship dynamics between men and women changed.  When increasing numbers of women felt free to make their sexual decisions without concern for possible pregnancy impacting their futures, other women felt increased pressure to behave likewise.  We went from a society where men had to pursue women and convince them to engage in sex to a society where women had to compete for men, and if they didn't put out, someone else would.

What the research showed is that the advent of abortion actually coincided with an _increase _in unplanned, out-of-wedlock births.  Because women who would not have abortions were influenced by an increasing "hookup culture" to behave like women who would.  Because men felt no societal pressure to be worthwhile, decent guys who took responsibility.  Hey, she chose to have the baby, that's on her, not them.  Now we have a widespread phenomenon of men spraying their sperm around like a garden hose, making multiple children they subsequently ignore with multiple women.  There are actually men who consider it a badge of honor to have multiple "baby mamas", like they're getting a high score in Pokemon Go or something.

I have far more I can say, but I'm not a fan of hugely long posts, since I doubt most people bother reading them.


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> You just said 16 weeks.  A compromise would be in that range and ends late term abortion even in blue states.


No it does not end late term abortion, it ends ELECTIVE late term abortion.  So are saying you agree to legal unrestricted abortion up to 16 weeks?


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Restating a point I made last week:
> 
> How can Democrats champion bodily autonomy for women when they literally forced them to take vaccines during the pandemic whether they wished to or not?
> 
> How does bodily autonomy apply in one circumstance, but not the other?


Well, I think this is where the right is being a wee bit dishonest.  No one was forced to get vaccinated.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> No it does not end late term abortion, it ends ELECTIVE late term abortion.  So are saying you agree to legal unrestricted abortion up to 16 weeks?


Yes.  But applied to everyone and every state.

That is called compromise.  Blue state late term goes bye bye


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> Well, I think this is where the right is being a wee bit dishonest.  No one was forced to get vaccinated.


Define force????  Do it OR ELSE you lose your job is Force.  Laws are Force.  

You cherry pick the definition of force


----------



## Coyote

Stann said:


> Several States already have egregious abortion laws. It's only going to get worse from here on out if Roe versus Wade goes to the wayside. Plus you were talking about limiting abortion to so many weeks. 92.7% of all abortions occur before the 13th week. But some of the most serious cases aren't discovered until the second trimester checkup and none of those abortions are a matter of inconvenience in a matter of grave concern.  Late-term checkups reveal even more problems so the timetable thing is out. Ideally every case would have to be reviewed by the state if they're going to do this kind of garbage. It's basically a waste of time.


Agree, but late term abortions are usually not elective, it is more likely to impact a woman’s health or life or due to severe fetal defects.  That should always be legal.


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Yes.  But applied to everyone and every state.
> 
> That is called compromise.  Blue state late term goes bye bye


Blue state elective late term.

Andred state abortion bans and obstacles go bye bye.

Compromise.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> Blue state elective late term.
> 
> Andred state abortion bans and obstacles go bye bye.
> 
> Compromise.


Never sell in blue states.  Red states have bans already late term in most cases.  Not down to 16 weeks.

Blue have none and allow partial birth abortion which is barbarism.

End the barbarism


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Define force????  Do it OR ELSE you lose your job is Force.  Laws are Force.
> 
> You cherry pick the definition of force


Employers have always been able to require some vaccines, particularly in healthcare.  Suddenly deciding one particular vaccine is “force” after going along with all he others  isn’t going to work.  If the federal government mandates it for everyone, that is a different story.  Even Biden’s attempt to make it mandatory for Federal workers and contractors was shot down in the courts. No cherry picking.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> Blue state elective late term.
> 
> Andred state abortion bans and obstacles go bye bye.
> 
> Compromise.


NO.  End deal  Elective GOES bye bye.  Only if morhers life in danger.

Slick Coyote .  Elective lol


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> Employers have always been able to require some vaccines, particularly in healthcare.  Suddenly deciding one particular vaccine is “force” after going along with all he others  isn’t going to work.  If the federal government mandates it for everyone, that is a different story.  Even Biden’s attempt to make it mandatory for Federal workers and contractors was shot down in the courts. No cherry picking.


BS.  Its force


----------



## eagle1462010

No more abortions after 16 weeks unless to save mothers life.  Nation wide Coyote


----------



## Chuz Life

Coyote said:


> I am because no one else has rights over my body.



I doubt that you believe that. 

Really?

Did you not have a body when you were in your own mother's womb?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Chuz Life said:


> I doubt that you believe that.
> 
> Really?
> 
> Did you not have a body when you were in your own mother's womb?



Her body was only hers unless her mother thought otherwise. That's the logic of pro-abortion. 

The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning.


----------



## Chuz Life

TemplarKormac said:


> Her body was only hers unless her mother thought otherwise. That's the logic of pro-abortion.
> 
> The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning.


I'm glad you see what I was trying to convey.


----------



## eagle1462010

TemplarKormac said:


> Her body was only hers unless her mother thought otherwise. That's the logic of pro-abortion.
> 
> The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning.


Notice how she used electivebin compromise.  LOL.  Actually overlooked it at first.  Forgot who im dealing with.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Well, I think this is where the right is being a wee bit dishonest.  No one was forced to get vaccinated.



"Vaccinate or lose your job."
"Vaccinate or be excluded from society"
"Show your vaccine passport, please"

Sorry, no. Everyone saw that happening.


----------



## Coyote

eagle1462010 said:


> Never sell in blue states.  Red states have bans already late term in most cases.  Not down to 16 weeks.
> 
> Blue have none and allow partial birth abortion which is barbarism.
> 
> End the barbarism


And you know it will never fly in red states either, where they are trying to out do each other in who has the most restrictive abortion ban….no exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother.  End the barbarism Right?

Also, let’s be honest here.  Only a handful of states have no gestational limits: Alaska, CO, DC, NH, NJ, NM, OR, VT.  They aren’t all blue states.  Yet blue states like CA and NY have a cut off at fetal viability.

….so where does that leave you and I?  Can we compromise?


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> And you know it will never fly in red states either, where they are trying to out do each other in who has the most restrictive abortion ban….no exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother.  End the barbarism Right?
> 
> Also, let’s be honest here.  Only a handful of states have no gestational limits: Alaska, CO, DC, NH, NJ, NM, OR, VT.  They aren’t all blue states.  Yet blue states like CA and NY have a cut off at fetal viability.
> 
> ….so where does that leave you and I?  Can we compromise?


I stated my compromise.  You got slick with term.  

Blue states dont want compromise and refuse.  We do the same.

Roe doesnt end abortion if overturned.  This is the rior season gas lighting.


----------



## Chuz Life

Coyote said:


> ….so where does that leave you and I?  Can we compromise?


No.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> They manipulate the women and never give them any alternatives. On the other hand planned alternative lays everything out gives both sides. So my question is which group is more moral and honest.



We'll take that non-answer to the question as, "No, I haven't, but I know EVERYTHING my masters told me to say!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> As I've already stated the second trimester abortions are mostly married women who find out from the second trimester blood works in chemistries that are done that the child is in dire straits and not probably very viable. You really want to prevent these married women from doing the right thing for them and their families. I don't think so you're talking out of your ass.



As you've already been, you are wrong.









						Second-Trimester Abortion: Logistics and Lack of Symptoms Are Factors
					

By the time they suspected and confirmed their pregnancies, more than half of patients seeking a second-trimester abortion at a California clinic had already missed the opportunity to have a first-trimester abortion.1 In a study that asked women to identify factors that delayed their efforts to...




					www.guttmacher.org
				




_"Participants who obtained second-trimester abortions were significantly more likely than their first-trimester counterparts to have had trouble finding an abortion provider (45% vs. 26%), to have been referred from other clinics (86% vs. 58%), to have had previous second-trimester abortions (31% vs. 15%) and to be unsure of the date of their last menstrual period (37% vs. 23%). In addition, they were less likely than first-semester patients to report pregnancy symptoms, such as nausea or vomiting (68% vs. 81%). Roughly two-thirds of women in each group said they had been using contraceptives at the time of conception."_

In other words, most of them just didn't know they were pregnant until they were farther in.






						Second-Trimester Abortions Concentrated Among Certain Groups of Women
					

In the United States, nearly nine in 10 abortions occur in the first trimester, but, until now, little was known about the 10% of women who have abortions at 13 weeks’ gestation or later. According to "Who Has Second-Trimester Abortions in the United States?," by Rachel K. Jones and Lawrence B...




					www.guttmacher.org
				




_"Certain groups of women were more likely than others to obtain abortions at 13 weeks or later. For example, teens were more likely than older women to obtain an abortion in the second trimester—accounting for 14% of abortions among teens, compared with 9% among women aged 30 and older. Similarly, the proportion of abortions that occurred in the second trimester was 13% among black women, compared with 9% among non-Hispanic whites; 13% among women who had not graduated from high school, compared with 6% among college graduates; 14% among those using health insurance to pay for the procedure, compared with 8% among those who paid out of pocket; and 15% among those who had experienced three or more disruptive events in the past year, compared with 9% among women experiencing no disruptive events."_

So . . . teens, not married, and logistical and timing problems, not "non-viable baby".  That's pretty much a clean sweep in the "How fucking ignorant can I be?" category for you.  Any other fantasies you've been comforting yourself with that I can explode for you?


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> I'm pretty sure the women going there were pretty aware of the alternative when they walked into the office.
> 
> Killing the child.



Crisis pregnancy centers give far more options than abortion clinics do, probably because they - unlike the abortion clinics - don't make money off of your choice.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Getting all the information available without adversarial attitudes promises the best outcome in any situation, but it is unbelievably important in this situation.



Then one needs to be in a crisis pregnancy center, not an abortion clinic, for that to happen.  

And before you start pompously lecturing me on what you "know" about crisis pregnancy centers from your talking points, please remember I got help from one with my first child.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> And that would be great as far as I'm concerned as long as the people who presented the information were objective. You, for example, right off the bat you would be disqualified because you can't be objective about the subject, your statement baby killers says it all.



Probably why he doesn't work in a pregnancy center.  If that's the best you've got, "I'm sure they're adversarial because YOU are!" give it up now.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I can't lose anything, I am not a woman. I take it back, I would lose respect for this country. It failed to live up to its obligation to half its citizens.



What a coincidence, we've felt that way for 50+ years, but of course, you only care when it's you.

I think the country can live without the respect of someone like you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> I will, and I shall.
> 
> Your rights will still exist in this country regardless of the Roe opinion. I'm sorry you're too blinded by fear to see that.



Besides, she presumes to speak on behalf of all women quite a bit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> It may shock you, but I am just as qualified to speak my opinion as any conservative woman and my being a moderator here has nothing to do with it.  You have no issues with liberals being attacked or broadly stereotyping their positions.
> 
> No.  You do not know what, or at least it is not evident in your statements in this thread.  You just THINK you because I am a “baby killing leftist” who is pro-choice, therefore there is no need for further discussion of viewpoints.  Prove me wrong.



It may shock you - since you clearly didn't read his post very carefully - but he never said you weren't qualified.  He said I'm as qualified to speak for women as you are.  And yet I've gotten nothing but attacks and denigration from your comrades . . . and curiously, not one single question about what I think and believe, either.  Just lots of lectures about what they "know" I think and believe.  So if you want to snipe at Templar for not asking you your position, you need to have a word with some of the people on your side about doing the same thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Let me clarify, life is only precious up to a point.
> 
> When a murderer takes a life, his life is forfeit. A pregnant woman's life, doubly as forfeit.
> 
> And if you want me to be absolutely and brutally honest, women who terminate life for the sake of sating their personal conveniences and not for medical necessity or to correct a tragic encounter with a rapist or incestuous pervert, also make their lives worthless. They may be entitled to live, yet they have taken all the worth out of their life by taking the life of an unborn child.



I consider capital punishment to be a demonstration of how precious life is.  To exact any less of a retribution for the heinous taking of human life would be to devalue that human life.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> I am because no one else has rights over my body.



And no one's talking about your body.  Do as you please to yourself.  We're talking about the baby's body.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 2512. I am more pro life that any of anti abortion people are



By YOUR standards, and literally no one but you views those as worth more than the gum on my shoe sole.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> The abortion laws that are currently being put in place by states are so egregious they will be easily contested in court. Laws in free nations need to be reasonable and equitable. We are not a fascist country, where the state can force things on it's citizens. This is the ultimate in government outreach.



Then it shouldn't be hard for you to actually make that case, instead of trying to pre-emptively stop the debate from happening at all.

Good luck with that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Body autonomy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I once considered the overturning of Roe as highly unlikely considering a majority of Americans supported keeping it in place.  I see politicians refusing to rule out attempting a federal ban.  I see some politicians even considering fetal personhood bills  in their states.  Given all this, I no longer have the luxury of assuming this will never happen.  You, however do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a fair view.
> 
> My view is up until 16 weeks, abortion is legal, no barriers, restrictions, and clinics operate under the same regulations and rules as any other comparable out patient services. That gives a women enough time to realize she is pregnant, make a decision get financing and access a clinic.
> 
> After that, elective abortions can be restricted, but it should always be legal if a mother's health or life is in danger or severe fetal defects.



You're going to lose this apocryphal bodily autonomy?  Which red state do you live in?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> I don't.



Then perhaps you should look at moving to a state with more people who think like you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> What compromise is the right making?



We're allowing the people of the states to decide what they want for themselves.  What compromise is the left making, with 50 years of, "This is how it will be, now shut up and live with it!" under their belts and their current caterwauling about the horrors of losing that tyranny?


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> All this except for the fact that the scientific consensus is that human life begins when the gametes from the male and female transition into a multi-celled zygote.
> 
> Your "it needs to look like a human to be human" argument is invalid. Any DNA test will prove the humanity of a newly formed zygote before your argument will.



Funny thing is, when they say, "It needs to look like a human", what they mean is, "It needs to look like an older human, because I'm too ignorant to recognize anything else."  A human embryo looks like a human embryo to someone who knows what a human embryo is supposed to look like.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> The body autonomy of every single woman that is fertile is threatened.



Hysteria much?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> I consider capital punishment to be a demonstration of how precious life is.  To exact any less of a retribution for the heinous taking of human life would be to devalue that human life.


Absolutely.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> The Michigan law already violates the mother's health or life in danger of severe fetal defects, they had the gall to put limitations on that. I love it when non-medical people think they know what they're doing about a medical issue. Things are getting very serious in Michigan.



I take it you've never read Michigan's abortion law, just the marching orders about what you should "know" about it.

_


			https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-328-1931-III.pdf
		


750.14 Miscarriage; administering with intent to procure; felony, penalty. 
Sec. 14. Administering drugs, etc., with intent to procure miscarriage—Any person who shall wilfully[sic] administer to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, substance or thing whatever, or shall employ any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of any such woman, *unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such woman,* shall be guilty of a felony, and in case the death of such pregnant woman be thereby produced, the offense shall be deemed manslaughter. In any prosecution under this section, it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove that no such necessity existed. 
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.14. 
Constitutionality: Section held unconstitutional as relating to abortions in the first trimester of a pregnancy as authorized by the pregnant woman's attending physician in the exercise of his medical judgment. People v Bricker, 389 Mich 524; 208 NW2d 172 (1973)._

I should hire myself out as a thinking-brain human, kinda like a seeing-eye dog, except it's for the terminally stupid.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> Believe it or not most abortions in the United States are by so-called Christians.



Are you planning to prove THIS assertion, or are you just going to say, "It's true, because look how firmly I said it" like you always do?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You're trying to compare apples with oranges. It doesn't work.



How is it apples and oranges?  Is the vaccine not administered to her body?  Did the mandates not declare it would be administered to her body whether she wanted it or not?

Or is it just, "That doesn't work because I don't like it"?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> I think you'd better read up on the rights privileges and duties of US citizens. Rights come with responsibilities and public health is a national concern. Sorry to burst your bubble but you're comparing apples with oranges and it just doesn't work.



"You have a responsibility to be completely germ-free so I don't catch the flu, but it's silly to think you have a responsibility not to kill your unborn child."  Yeah, that's logical.


----------



## Coyote

Ending legal abortion will not reduce unwanted pregnancies.   It isn’t as if it wasn’t happening before RvW.  Men cheerfully sprayed their sperm around and women got pregnant.  It was hidden away in shotgun marriages, abusive mother/baby homes, and illegal abortions.  It worse then because there was little a woman could do to force support.

Abortion rates increased after Roe until 1980, when they began to decline and have done so ever since and that decline has been seen in states that restricted access and those that increased access to abortion.  That decline also matches the overall decline in birth rates as well.  There are any number of reason’s why this might be but the most compelling is the availability of better birthcontrol measures.


What changes the number of unwanted pregnancies and reduces abortions is the availability of affordable birth control and sexual education.

What is interesting (imo) is addressed by these statistics.

Teen pregnancy:  the US has the highest level of teen pregnancy for any developed nation. It is hard to quantify unwanted pregnancies outside of abortion statistics, but teen pregnancies usually qualify as unwanted or at least not a good thing.

States with the highest: AR, MS, LA, OK, AL, WV, KY, NM, TX, TN (Many of those are also states with the lowest per capita spending on women, children and foster care).

States with the lowest: NH, MA, VT, CT, ME, RI, NJ, MN, NY, UT

States with the highest abortion rates: NY, IL, FL, GA, MI, NV, NC, CT, MA, NJ

States that do not mandate sex ed be taught, and if it is, contraception does not need to be taught and abstinence must be taught: MS, TX, AZ, AR, LA

States that only allow abstinence to be taught:  except for NM, it includes all of the highest teen pregnancy states as well as FL and GA (in the list with the highest abortion rates).

The teen pregnancy rate for the US is 52.1 per thousand while Switzerland and Netherlands are fewer than 7.  Contraception is free to youth and heavily subsidized for adults.   Comprehensive sexual education is mandatory.  Abortion is legal, and abortion rates are low (less than half the US).

Abortion isn’t the problem and making it illegal won’t fix the real problems.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200  see post 3016.


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> And it isn’t YOUR side trying to dominate and control the other side? Leftists are threatening violence - even death - to SCOTUS justices who won’t vote their way, and Biden condones it.
> 
> People on our side say the anti-Constitutionalists should mind their own business, get a hold of their arrogance, and stop telling people living in other states how they must set their laws.


Good points... So true... Activist have been born of the sixties generation, and they've since morphed into the most radical humans beings ever to live in this nation.


----------



## beagle9

Coyote said:


> Ending legal abortion will not reduce unwanted pregnancies.   It isn’t as if it wasn’t happening before RvW.  Men cheerfully sprayed their sperm around and women got pregnant.  It was hidden away in shotgun marriages, abusive mother/baby homes, and illegal abortions.  It worse then because there was little a woman could do to force support.
> 
> Abortion rates increased after Roe until 1980, when they began to decline and have done so ever since and that decline has been seen in states that restricted access and those that increased access to abortion.  That decline also matches the overall decline in birth rates as well.  There are any number of reason’s why this might be but the most compelling is the availability of better birthcontrol measures.
> 
> View attachment 643451
> What changes the number of unwanted pregnancies and reduces abortions is the availability of affordable birth control and sexual education.
> 
> What is interesting (imo) is addressed by these statistics.
> 
> Teen pregnancy:  the US has the highest level of teen pregnancy for any developed nation. It is hard to quantify unwanted pregnancies outside of abortion statistics, but teen pregnancies usually qualify as unwanted or at least not a good thing.
> 
> States with the highest: AR, MS, LA, OK, AL, WV, KY, NM, TX, TN (Many of those are also states with the lowest per capita spending on women, children and foster care).
> 
> States with the lowest: NH, MA, VT, CT, ME, RI, NJ, MN, NY, UT
> 
> States with the highest abortion rates: NY, IL, FL, GA, MI, NV, NC, CT, MA, NJ
> 
> States that do not mandate sex ed be taught, and if it is, contraception does not need to be taught and abstinence must be taught: MS, TX, AZ, AR, LA
> 
> States that only allow abstinence to be taught:  except for NM, it includes all of the highest teen pregnancy states as well as FL and GA (in the list with the highest abortion rates).
> 
> The teen pregnancy rate for the US is 52.1 per thousand while Switzerland and Netherlands are fewer than 7.  Contraception is free to youth and heavily subsidized for adults.   Comprehensive sexual education is mandatory.  Abortion is legal, and abortion rates are low (less than half the US).
> 
> Abortion isn’t the problem and making it illegal won’t fix the real problems.


Gotta start somewhere, but I guarantee you that the left doesn't want to start anywhere to solve or work towards solving these issues. They gotta an excuse for everything, so even though you come with your stats, they mean nothing to your leftist bud's. If they did then working to solve the issues would be a bipartisan work, but you know what is going on in all of this stuff, but you gotta keep going even if it is a bunch of bull crap by the left to just keep kicking that can down the road right on and right on.


----------



## Coyote

beagle9 said:


> Gotta start somewhere, but I guarantee you that the left doesn't want to start anywhere to solve or work towards solving these issues. They gotta an excuse for everything, so even though you come with your stats, they mean nothing to your leftist bud's. If they did then working to solve the issues would be a bipartisan work, but you know what is going on in all of this stuff, but you gotta keep going even if it is a bunch of bull crap by just keep kicking that can down the road right on and right on.


I don't think your rightist buds are any less intransigent.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> And it isn’t YOUR side trying to dominate and control the other side? Leftists are threatening violence - even death - to SCOTUS justices who won’t vote their way, and Biden condones it.
> 
> People on our side say the anti-Constitutionalists should mind their own business, get a hold of their arrogance, and stop telling people living in other states how they must set their laws.


umh....you're complaining about folks threatening people and making death threats?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stann said:


> The body autonomy of every single woman that is fertile is threatened.


Oh dear.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> It may shock you - since you clearly didn't read his post very carefully - but he never said you weren't qualified.  He said I'm as qualified to speak for women as you are.  *And yet I've gotten nothing but attacks and denigration from your comrades* . . . and curiously, not one single question about what I think and believe, either.  Just lots of lectures about what they "know" I think and believe.  So if you want to snipe at Templar for not asking you your position, you need to have a word with some of the people on your side about doing the same thing.


That might be due more to your delivery then your self appointed victimhood.  When you come out of the gate flaming away and telling others what they believe and support, don't be shocked when they respond in kind.

As to "some of the people on my side", I don't own them.  But maybe you could set an example and have a chat with your team about improving civil discourse and I'll take notes and see what I can do.  Unless you are too invested in your cult of victimhood like a lot rightists seem to be.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> I consider capital punishment to be a demonstration of how precious life is.  To exact any less of a retribution for the heinous taking of human life would be to devalue that human life.


And yet innocent people end up on death row.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Cecilie1200  see post 3016.


Why?


----------



## Calypso Jones

There will be states that will love to aid those so inclined in killing their unborn.  Make a vacation and a celebration out of it since that is what it appears The left has been doing.   California has even expanded the options...isn't that right?  

Why is the left so afraid of letting states make this decision.  I think i know...because the left knows that they are the minority in this matter.  The American people do not approve of this practice.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> That might be due more to your delivery then your self appointed victimhood.  When you come out of the gate flaming away and telling others what they believe and support, don't be shocked when they respond in kind.
> 
> As to "some of the people on my side", I don't own them.  But maybe you could set an example and have a chat with your team about improving civil discourse and I'll take notes and see what I can do.  Unless you are too invested in your cult of victimhood like a lot rightists seem to be.



Honey, I'm not claiming "victimhood"; I'm not a leftist.  I'm just stating the facts of their behavior.  I couldn't give less of a shit about it.  I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of YOUR whining.

No one said you own them.  The point is, if you're going to bitch at Templar for allegedly engaging in this behavior, then where are your posts calling people on your own side out for it?  It's almost like you don't really disapprove; you just don't like it aimed at you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> And yet innocent people end up on death row.



I'm also a big believer in being VERY sure of the facts before imposing such a sentence.  Otherwise, life in prison without parole is fine, as well.

Also, 18 people have been exonerated from death row.  Every one of them was convicted prior to the use of DNA evidence, which is what exonerated them.


----------



## beagle9

Coyote said:


> And yet innocent people end up on death row.


Your point ??????.... If our system was perfect then million's upon million's of innocent now aborted babies wouldn't have ended up on death row and killed, but you couldn't care less about that one eh ??? Funny how only the most heinous of criminal's are being stood up for because oops, we might make a mistake during trial, and oops hang an innocent person. Yes that would be tragic for sure, but consider that as not being the norm, and that we as a nation can't be detered from making our most heinous criminal's pay for their dastardly deeds in life..


----------



## beagle9

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm also a big believer in being VERY sure of the facts before imposing such a sentence.  Otherwise, life in prison without parole is fine, as well.
> 
> Also, 18 people have been exonerated from death row.  Every one of them was convicted prior to the use of DNA evidence, which is what exonerated them.


With new technology, death row inmates have a far better chance of proving their innocence than they did in the past. That's great, but we shouldn't be detered on carrying out death row sentencing, otherwise meaning if their innocence can't be proven before the date of the execution (usually set for year's later), arrives.


----------



## Stann

Cecilie1200 said:


> Once again, I don't have any obligation to "offer" anything to the likes of you, because I have no need to come hat in hand to the "Just kill them" crowd and beg them to accept an alternative.
> 
> The fact is, the overturning of Roe v Wade itself will serve as a deterrent to unwanted pregnancies all by itself, at least in the states that aren't run by people like you.  People on your own side have said so, although they probably don't realize it.
> 
> View attachment 643118
> 
> Admittedly, this is just TikTok, but they're far from the only ones on the left issuing dark "warnings" about how the overturn of _Roe v. Wade_ will lead to women being less willing to behave like the town pump.  And they're correct.  Women are no more inherently stupid and unable to calculate personal risks than men are.  The left has never seemed to understand this, but human beings alter their behavior according to changing circumstances.
> 
> Now, people on the left seem to think this is some horrible, looming calamity.  Personally, I don't understand why women were willing to have mediocre sex with drunk randos in the first place.
> 
> The left has always taken a very simplistic view of the situation:  unwanted pregnancy, kill the baby, done.  The idea of looking at the society and culture this created, and the influences the presence of legalized abortion exerts of everyone, regardless of their position on abortion, is completely beyond your interest.
> 
> In fact, what happened is that, with abortion seen as a "backup", attitudes toward casual sex and contraceptive use changed dramatically, even among women who would not choose to have an abortion.  Relationship dynamics between men and women changed.  When increasing numbers of women felt free to make their sexual decisions without concern for possible pregnancy impacting their futures, other women felt increased pressure to behave likewise.  We went from a society where men had to pursue women and convince them to engage in sex to a society where women had to compete for men, and if they didn't put out, someone else would.
> 
> What the research showed is that the advent of abortion actually coincided with an _increase _in unplanned, out-of-wedlock births.  Because women who would not have abortions were influenced by an increasing "hookup culture" to behave like women who would.  Because men felt no societal pressure to be worthwhile, decent guys who took responsibility.  Hey, she chose to have the baby, that's on her, not them.  Now we have a widespread phenomenon of men spraying their sperm around like a garden hose, making multiple children they subsequently ignore with multiple women.  There are actually men who consider it a badge of honor to have multiple "baby mamas", like they're getting a high score in Pokemon Go or something.
> 
> I have far more I can say, but I'm not a fan of hugely long posts, since I doubt most people bother reading them.


You haven't even begun to address all the problems this will create and recreate. The pro-life agenda has no provisions in place for all the problems they're going to create, and that's going to be very, very costly, both in lives and financially.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> You haven't even begun to address all the problems this will create and recreate. The pro-life agenda has no provisions in place for all the problems they're going to create, and that's going to be very, very costly, both in lives and financially.



Well, gosh, you mean a single post didn't provide complete and comprehensive information about any and all details, as well as a 100% accurate crystal ball prediction of the future?  Shocking.

You pro-aborts didn't have provisions in place for all the problems you caused 50 years ago, and you didn't create any in that time, other than a raft of lies, excuses, and deflections.  So we can't possibly do worse than you did.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Men cheerfully sprayed their sperm around and women got pregnant.


Stop. Right. There.

As a man, I take great offense to members of my gender being stereotyped in this manner. You seem to think men only lack self restraint. The misandry is pervasive.

There is also this misconception that women are/were innocent victims in all of this. They are just as susceptible to the same lapse in judgment.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Why?


Were you not addressing her with that post?


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> Ending legal abortion will not reduce unwanted pregnancies.   It isn’t as if it wasn’t happening before RvW.  Men cheerfully sprayed their sperm around and women got pregnant.  It was hidden away in shotgun marriages, abusive mother/baby homes, and illegal abortions.  It worse then because there was little a woman could do to force support.
> 
> Abortion rates increased after Roe until 1980, when they began to decline and have done so ever since and that decline has been seen in states that restricted access and those that increased access to abortion.  That decline also matches the overall decline in birth rates as well.  There are any number of reason’s why this might be but the most compelling is the availability of better birthcontrol measures.
> 
> View attachment 643451
> What changes the number of unwanted pregnancies and reduces abortions is the availability of affordable birth control and sexual education.
> 
> What is interesting (imo) is addressed by these statistics.
> 
> Teen pregnancy:  the US has the highest level of teen pregnancy for any developed nation. It is hard to quantify unwanted pregnancies outside of abortion statistics, but teen pregnancies usually qualify as unwanted or at least not a good thing.
> 
> States with the highest: AR, MS, LA, OK, AL, WV, KY, NM, TX, TN (Many of those are also states with the lowest per capita spending on women, children and foster care).
> 
> States with the lowest: NH, MA, VT, CT, ME, RI, NJ, MN, NY, UT
> 
> States with the highest abortion rates: NY, IL, FL, GA, MI, NV, NC, CT, MA, NJ
> 
> States that do not mandate sex ed be taught, and if it is, contraception does not need to be taught and abstinence must be taught: MS, TX, AZ, AR, LA
> 
> States that only allow abstinence to be taught:  except for NM, it includes all of the highest teen pregnancy states as well as FL and GA (in the list with the highest abortion rates).
> 
> The teen pregnancy rate for the US is 52.1 per thousand while Switzerland and Netherlands are fewer than 7.  Contraception is free to youth and heavily subsidized for adults.   Comprehensive sexual education is mandatory.  Abortion is legal, and abortion rates are low (less than half the US).
> 
> Abortion isn’t the problem and making it illegal won’t fix the real problems.


Except it won’t be illegal. It’s possible a woman might have to travel to a neighboring state - like I did for a medical issue - and PP will pay for it.

What is being debated here is whether abortion, which will always be legal and widely available in the United States, also has to be CONVENIENT.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> umh....you're complaining about folks threatening people and making death threats?
> 
> View attachment 643484


Um…..yes I am. Are you defending people threatening Supreme Court justices with death threats in order to subvert it, and bully conservatives into submitting to liberals’ position?


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> Except it won’t be illegal. It’s possible a woman might have to travel to a neighboring state - like I did for a medical issue - and PP will pay for it.
> 
> What is being debated here is whether abortion, which will always be legal and widely available in the United States, also has to be CONVENIENT.


In theory it is possible, but for many people it might not be.  Even within just one state like TX, you are looking at a couple hundred miles, when it is a group of states, even more. On top of that, you have laws putting a bounty on anyone who helps them in any way.  The people most effected will be those least able to care for another child or get an abortion now.  It isn't a matter of "convenience".  You also keep iterating it will always be legal.  You don't know that.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> Um…..yes I am. Are you defending people threatening Supreme Court justices with death threats in order to subvert it, and bully conservatives into submitting to liberals’ position?


I am defending nothing.  Death threats need to be taken seriously and if they mob the court, they should treated like the Jan 6 rioters.

But the rightists nonchalance when poll workers, voting machine workers, and election officials and their families doxxed and threatened is a sad commentary on our society today. These people don't get special protection, they are just ordinary citizens doing their job.

I support strict laws against doxing and threats against public officials and people engaged in civic duties, even ordinary citizens shouldnt be doxxed.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> In theory it is possible, but for many people it might not be.  Even within just one state like TX, you are looking at a couple hundred miles, when it is a group of states, even more. On top of that, you have laws putting a bounty on anyone who helps them in any way.  The people most effected will be those least able to care for another child or get an abortion now.  It isn't a matter of "convenience".  You also keep iterating it will always be legal.  You don't know that.


Of course it will always be legal. You think with all the leftists so adamant that abortions should be convenient that they are threatening the lives of the SCOTUS justices that lib-heavy states will vote to ban abortion.

And the bus ride might be a couple hundred miles? OK, not ideal….but certainly reasonable. When I had to travel out of state for my medical issue, I had to stay overnight in a hotel before I could return the next day. PP can include the cost of a hotel stay in their “Abortion Transport” program.

Let the states decide what restrictions they want to place on killing unborn children. There’s nothing in the constitution that mentions abortion as resting with the federal government.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Were you not addressing her with that post?


No, I made it a stand alone.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Stop. Right. There.
> 
> As a man, I take great offense to members of my gender being stereotyped in this manner. You seem to think men only lack self restraint. The misandry is pervasive.
> 
> There is also this misconception that women are/were innocent victims in all of this. They are just as susceptible to the same lapse in judgment.


That is true, point taken.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> I am defending nothing.  Death threats need to be taken seriously and if they mob the court, they should treated like the Jan 6 rioters.
> 
> But the rightists nonchalance when poll workers, voting machine workers, and election officials and their families doxxed and threatened is a sad commentary on our society today. These people don't get special protection, they are just ordinary citizens doing their job.
> 
> I support strict laws against doxing and threats against public officials and people engaged in civic duties, even ordinary citizens shouldnt be doxxed.


The mobsters are already breaking the law by setting up camp on the private residences of Supreme Court justices. They should be rounded up and put in jail, just like the Jan 6 protestors.

And what about the Code Pink savages who marched into the Capital when the Kavanaugh hearing was going on? Why weren’t they arrested and jailed? Oh right, I forgot….they are in the liberal side.

Also, I don’t recall the Jan 6 protestors threatening to murder government officials who wouldn’t kowtow to their demands.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> Of course it will always be legal. You think with all the leftists so adamant that abortions should be convenient that they are threatening the lives of the SCOTUS justices that lib-heavy states will vote to ban abortion.



That is the problem with rightists, they thing that most life altering decision a woman can make is mere "convenience".

Of course nothing.  For 50 years we had Roe.  Now it may be overturned.  No guarantees when rightists lie at every turn.




Lisa558 said:


> And the bus ride might be a couple hundred miles? OK, not ideal….but certainly reasonable. When I had to travel out of state for my medical issue, I had to stay overnight in a hotel before I could return the next day. PP can include the cost of a hotel stay in their “Abortion Transport” program.



Realistically you know PP can't possibly cover the need, and you are a professional woman with resources so is that comparable?  No one who helps you will face 10000 dollar lawsuits either.


Lisa558 said:


> Let the states decide what restrictions they want to place on killing unborn children. There’s nothing in the constitution that mentions abortion as resting with the federal government.


A lot of things arent detailed in the Constitution, that is why we have amendment 9.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> The mobsters are already breaking the law by setting up camp on the private residences of Supreme Court justices. They should be rounded up and put in jail, just like the Jan 6 protestors.


Arrest them.




Lisa558 said:


> And what about the Code Pink savages who marched into the Capital when the Kavanaugh hearing was going on? Why weren’t they arrested and jailed? Oh right, I forgot….they are in the liberal side.





Lisa558 said:


> Also, I don’t recall the Jan 6 protestors threatening to murder government officials who wouldn’t kowtow to their demands.


Then you have a very faulty memory.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> That is the problem with rightists, they thing that most life altering decision a woman can make is mere "convenience".
> 
> Of course nothing.  For 50 years we had Roe.  Now it may be overturned.  No guarantees when rightists lie at every turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Realistically you know PP can't possibly cover the need, and you are a professional woman with resources so is that comparable?  No one who helps you will face 10000 dollar lawsuits either.
> 
> A lot of things arent detailed in the Constitution, that is why we have amendment 9.


Yawn Excuses to kill unborn and Red States have no say because you say so.

Lies.  Your compromise was a lie.  No deals when one side says my way or else.  Else is here.  And in this overturning Roe changes nothing in blue barbarian states that allow healthy babies to be aborted.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> Arrest them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have a very faulty memory.


Arrest them?  Send SCOTUS to Alabama for business and I guarantee you the protests at their homes would end.  Virginia.  Appears not so much anymore


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> That is the problem with rightists, they thing that most life altering decision a woman can make is mere "convenience".



Yes, killing one’s unborn child is a life altering decision. If it rests on whether it’s “convenient,” or whether one has to take a bus to the next state, that certainly isn’t taking it seriously. In fact, maybe the decision to abort SHOULD come with a little bit of inconvenience.

It’s like when I was a teen and saw a piece of jewelry I wanted. My  mother said if I wanted it, I’d have to get a job to pay for it. So I did, which required me walking almost a mile from school to a babysitting job every day. After I earned enough for the ring, and bought it, my mother gave me the money for it. She said she would have bought it for me upfront, but she wanted to make sure I REALLY wanted it. That I went the extra mile (literally) to get it proved I did.


Coyote said:


> Of course nothing.  For 50 years we had Roe.  Now it may be overturned.  No guarantees when rightists lie at every turn.



Oh please. That’s just the scare tactics the libs pull. Oh noooes…..the Republicans are going to make it so nobody can get a abortion. Just look at the libs are behaving over the thought that SOME states might ban it. You think lib-run states would ever do it? Get real.


Coyote said:


> Realistically you know PP can't possibly cover the need, and you are a professional woman with resources so is that comparable?  No one who helps you will face 10000 dollar lawsuits either.



Of course they’re can cover the need. The money that they spent providing free abortions will now go to a $45 bus trip and a night at the Holiday Inn.

And yes, I am (was) a professional woman with resources, which is why I paid for my medical trip - and why I acknowledged that PP will pay for poor women to get abortions,


Coyote said:


> A lot of things arent detailed in the Constitution, that is why we have amendment 9.



Is that the amendment with right to privacy? That is what is being debated. Exactly where does the right to privacy end? Should it include it when it involves terminating the life of another human being?


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> Arrest them?  Send SCOTUS to Alabama for business and I guarantee you the protests at their homes would end.  Virginia.  Appears not so much anymore


Yes. I’m thinking now that we have all these electronic means of communications that the SCOTUS justices don‘t have to be in the middle of Liberal Land, given how prone leftists are to rioting and mayhem.

Let the justices live where they want, where they won’t have to fear that a liberal mob - encouraged by Democrats like Schumer and Pelosi - will harm their personal property or them, or their children. Arguments in trial can be made via Zoom, as can negotiations among the justices themselves.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> Yes. I’m thinking now that we have all these electronic means of communications that the SCOTUS justices don‘t have to be in the middle of Liberal Land, given how prone leftists are to rioting and mayhem.
> 
> Let the justices live where they want, where they won’t have to fear that a liberal mob - encouraged by Democrats like Schumer and Pelosi - will harm their personal property or them, or their children. Arguments in trial can be made via Zoom, as can negotiations among the justices themselves.


I Guarantee the protesters would have the fear of god put into them down here.  They would have to run back to their cult state.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> I Guarantee the protesters would have the fear of god put into them down here.  They would have to run back to their cult state.


They are really coddling the mob here in Virginia. Winsome Sears, the Lt Gov, was just on Fox this morning, telling how they are pleading with the DOJ to take action against the thugs, but nothing doing. Three of the justices live in liberal Fairfax County, and the police are trying to maintain the peace. But they aren’t staffed for that.

The same DOJ, under Garland, who went after the 1/6 protestors with a vengeance, are allowing these criminals to continue to break the law. It is clear that there are two standards of justice being handed out by the Democrats - one for those who agree with them, and the other for dissenters.

This place is looking more like communist China every day.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> That is the problem with rightists, they thing that most life altering decision a woman can make is mere "convenience".
> 
> Of course nothing.  For 50 years we had Roe.  Now it may be overturned.  No guarantees when rightists lie at every turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Realistically you know PP can't possibly cover the need, and you are a professional woman with resources so is that comparable?  No one who helps you will face 10000 dollar lawsuits either.
> 
> A lot of things arent detailed in the Constitution, that is why we have amendment 9.



Well, let's put it this way:  If it's so vitally important to a woman to kill her unborn baby, it should certainly merit the effort of a bus ride.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, let's put it this way:  If it's so vitally important to a woman to kill her unborn baby, it should certainly merit the effort of a bus ride.


That was my point upthread. A woman who wants to kill her unborn child will not be deterred by a bus ride, paid for by PP.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> Once again, I don't have any obligation to "offer" anything to the likes of you, because I have no need to come hat in hand to the "Just kill them" crowd and beg them to accept an alternative.


Same shit , different day. What you are really saying that you have no obligation to offer anything is that you have NOTHING to offer. You call us the "just kill them crowd" by aborting them but the real "just kill them crowd "is you and your ilk because you are quite will to let then die once born


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> The fact is, the overturning of Roe v Wade itself will serve as a deterrent to unwanted pregnancies all by itself, at least in the states that aren't run by people like you. People on your own side have said so, although they probably don't realize it.


The fact is that the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions have been on a steady decline since 1990 largely due o factors that I promoted such as sex education and access to contraception.









						U.S. Abortion Statistics By Year (1973-Current) - Christian Life Resources
					

National Right to Life Committee, 2022 THE CONSEQUENCES OF ROE V. WADE TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973: 63,459,781 Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2020,  with 3 percent added for GI estimated possible 3-5 percent undercount for 1973-2014. Another... Read This Post




					christianliferesources.com
				



Note that the source is an anti abortion Christian organization

Yes there was a spike in the number of abortions reported to the CDC and others in the years right after Roe was decided. But  does not mean that more abortions were being performed. Those numbers most likely reflect a shift from illegal to legal abortions


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> Admittedly, this is just TikTok, but they're far from the only ones on the left issuing dark "warnings" about how the overturn of _Roe v. Wade_ will lead to women being less willing to behave like the town pump. And they're correct. Women are no more inherently stupid and unable to calculate personal risks than men are. The left has never seemed to understand this, but human beings alter their behavior according to changing circumstances.


That all sounds like some simplistic bullshit that gives women no credit for self control or judgement. Most are not careless or cavalier about pregnancy if abortion is available


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That all sounds like some simplistic bullshit that gives women no credit for self control or judgement. Most are not careless or cavalier about pregnancy if abortion is available



Then why have there been 61 million of them since 1973?


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Note that the source is an anti abortion Christian organization



Doesn't matter who the source is if the information is accurate.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The fact is that the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions have been on a steady decline since 1990 largely due o factors that I promoted such as sex education and access to contraception.



Then why fight so hard for something that may not exist in the next decade?

If abortion is on the decline, and the trend continues, why bother?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Then why have there been 61 million of them since 1973?


Well then tell the class how many there would of  been if abortion had continued to be  banned in most  since 1973. Of  course you don't know. No one does. Your question is pointless


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Then why fight so hard for something that may not exist in the next decade?
> 
> If abortion is on the decline, and the trend continues, why bother?


Give me a damned break!! There will always be a need for some abortions. Are just being a wise ass with these questions?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Doesn't matter who the source is if the information is accurate.


Just stop it! In this case it adds veracity to the numbers


----------



## Ropey

Coyote said:


> And yet innocent people end up on death row.


The unborn are innocent and the left attack them before birth.   You are transparent.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Give me a damned break!! There will always be a need for some abortions. Are just being a wise ass with these questions?


Forgive me, just using your convoluted logic.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Just stop it! In this case it adds veracity to the numbers



Am I getting to you?


----------



## Lisa558

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Same shit , different day. What you are really saying that you have no obligation to offer anything is that you have NOTHING to offer. You call us the "just kill them crowd" by aborting them but the real "just kill them crowd "is you and your ilk because you are quite will to let then die once born


Yeah, right. You libtards hold yourself up as so superior, as though we are the ones who don’t care about our living babies. You are moving baby formula to the border so the ILLEGALS can feed their children, while American mothers are trying to find food for their children.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ropey said:


> The unborn are innocent and the left attack them before birth.   You are transparent.


They are still innocent after they are born. Then you people attack them with things like taking away health care, food assistance, denying paid family leave, and affordable day care to name just a few items. But feel free to keep bloviating about how pro life you are-how you are better than us.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lisa558 said:


> Yeah, right. You libtards hold yourself up as so superior, as though we are the ones who don’t care about our living babies. You are moving baby formula to the border so the ILLEGALS can feed their children, while American mothers are trying to find food for their children.


I don't know about this formular thing,  but I have consistently made the case for how we are arguably more pro life than you people


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Am I getting to you?


Don't flatter yourself . You don't have what it takes


----------



## Ropey

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> you people



You are transparent.  I am a person with his own views.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Forgive me, just using your convoluted logic.


Convoluted logic? You show no logic


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ropey said:


> You are transparent.  I am a person with his own views.


Then how come you sound just like all of those other anti women, and anti choice people?


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Don't flatter yourself . You don't have what it takes



Your behavior says otherwise.


----------



## Ropey

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then how come you sound just like all of those other...


Because you can only hear one thing. That's why you are an ideologue.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Convoluted logic? You show no logic



Given that it's your logic, you are correct. 

You may go now.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I don't know about this formular thing,  but I have consistently made the case for how we are arguably more pro life than you people



Pro-life doesn't mean running our economy into the ground and sentencing hundreds of thousands of families across America to starve because their income doesn't support the inflation and rising retail prices of things they need. 

Spare us all your emotional diatribe, churl.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Your behavior says otherwise.


----------



## Lisa558

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I don't know about this formular thing,  but I have consistently made the case for how we are arguably more pro life than you people


Then why are you libs intentionally depriving American infants of their nutrition in order to funnel it to the babies of illegals?

You can insist that you care more about American children than we do til the cows come home, but your actions are screaming so loudly that we can’t hear what you’re saying.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Pro-life doesn't mean running our economy into the ground and sentencing hundreds of thousands of families across America to starve because their income doesn't support the inflation and rising retail prices of things they need.
> 
> Spare us all your emotional diatribe, churl.


Holy shit! What? If we can afford tax giveaways to the wealthy and to corporations, we can afford to support children and families. Poverty and inflation is not out fault so cut the crap right now


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lisa558 said:


> Then why are you libs intentionally depriving American infants of their nutrition in order to funnel it to the babies of illegals?


You will have to document that because I have not idea what that is about. Is it something that you heard on Fox "news" or from Alex Jones?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lisa558 said:


> You can insist that you care more about American children than we do til the cows come home, but your actions are screaming so loudly that we can’t hear what you’re saying.


Who has opposed the Affordable Care Act from day 1?
Who has cut Food Stamps?
Who has undermines middle and working class families with policies exacerbate wealth and income disparity?

I could go on but you get the idea


----------



## dblack

I've always seen abortion as something similar to suicide. It's a horrible thing and it would be great if we could prevent it by passing a law. But trying to do so is, ultimately, a gross violation of individual sovereignty and doesn't address the real problem - the fact that people are so desperate that they consider such alternatives in the first place.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit! What? If we can afford tax giveaways to the wealthy and to corporations, we can afford to support children and families. Poverty and inflation is not out fault so cut the crap right now



Deflection. _You_ cut the crap.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Who has opposed the Affordable Care Act from day 1?
> Who has cut Food Stamps?
> Who has undermines middle and working class families with policies exacerbate wealth and income disparity?



Inflation and economic hardship exacerbate wealth and income disparity.  

What are the Democrats in power now doing about it? 

Pretty much the same thing you're doing. Spewing emotionally manipulative talking points, not offering any actual solutions to the issue.


----------



## Lisa558

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit! What? If we can afford tax giveaways to the wealthy and to corporations, we can afford to support children and families. Poverty and inflation is not out fault so cut the crap right now


^^^ Sanctimonious, arrogant liberal.

Let’s start by maintaining Title 42, rather than invite 18,000 illegals PER DAY into our country, and diverting needed baby formula from law-abiding Americans to foreigners who have no right to be here in the first place.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Deflection. _You_ cut the crap.


Really? Please elaborate. I could have easily said that your response was a deflection. Actually, it was a non sequitur logical fallacy


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? Please elaborate. I could have easily said that your response was a deflection. Actually, it was a non sequitur logical fallacy


Was just getting to that. 

You ignore the billionaires in your own party because they donate to causes you support. No wealth disparity there, is it? How much of their money are they spending to help people in poverty?

Political donations by party as of 2018:


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Inflation and economic hardship exacerbate wealth and income disparity.
> 
> What are the Democrats in power now doing about it?
> 
> Pretty much the same thing you're doing. Spewing emotionally manipulative talking points, not offering any actual solutions to the issue.


Please explain your understanding of the causes of inflation and wealth/income disparity, and what we can and should be doing about it. What have Republicans done about it. You can accuse me of emotional manipulation all that you want but it does not validate your attempts to put the blame on Democrats


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Was just getting to that.
> 
> You ignore the billionaires in your own party because they donate to causes you support. No wealth disparity there, is it? How much of their money are they spending to help people in poverty?
> 
> Political donations by party as of 2018:
> 
> View attachment 643697


Another deflection. yes we have those people too. Some help, some are philanthropists, and some are just fat cats. But I am talking about party politics. Laws and policies that come out of Washinton and the State Houses driven by Republicans. Try again


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Please explain your understanding of the causes of inflation and wealth/income disparity, and what we can and should be doing about it.


Excess government spending. 

End of list.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> But I am talking about party politics. Laws and policies that come out of Washinton and the State Houses driven by Republicans. Try again



You do realize that Democrats control the federal government from top to bottom right now, right? How many other times have they had this kind of power and did nothing to fix the economy?
Another thing, statehouses run by Republicans are a response by voters to Democrats trying to turn their towns and neighborhoods into shitholes.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? Please elaborate. I could have easily said that your response was a deflection. Actually, it was a non sequitur logical fallacy



You have no idea what a "non sequitur" is. But I know what red herrings are, and you're full of them.


----------



## TemplarKormac

US parents battle for baby formula as its hoarded at the border
					

Concerned parents are begging the FDA to reopen the largest baby formula plant in the U.S. amid a nationwide shortage. Dozens of families have contacted DailyMail.com detailing their struggles.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## FranklinRoosevelt_FTW

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


This is a big topic. From my own perspective as a Catholic, and as an American. From both a religious and secular  in my opinion abortion should be outlawed. I say that because I believe in human life. But I would Also request of conservative American Christians if they are against abortion they should also be against the death penalty,  and they should be for helping immigrants and refugees. Because if One claims to care for human life well they must care for all human life. We need to figure out how to rework the prison system and we need to figure out how to get the criminal recidivism rate down.  Perhaps it would be good for the country if more conservatives talk about getting the criminal recidivism rate down in America. We need to think of giving  ex-convicts the right to vote.

So for a lot of Christians the issue of abortion ties into other social issues such as how to handle refugees and how to handle the death penalty for example. How to handle our criminal penalties and how much time we should impose on criminals.

And we should also hear out what  women who are both for abortion and against it have to say without calling them names. Really is all about being polite everybody can hear each other out on this one.  From a societal point of view how much of this abortion issue should be decided by men and women. It takes two people to make a pregnancy happen after all but of course men don’t have to carry the babies. So there’s a lot going on here


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> Pro-life doesn't mean running our economy into the ground and sentencing hundreds of thousands of families across America to starve because their income doesn't support the inflation and rising retail prices of things they need.
> 
> Spare us all your emotional diatribe, churl.



"Churl".  Good word.  Were you going for "mean-spirited person" or "peasant"?


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Never sell in blue states.  Red states have bans already late term in most cases.  Not down to 16 weeks.
> 
> Blue have none and allow partial birth abortion which is barbarism.
> 
> End the barbarism


See that's where you're wrong. Partial birth abortions are essential in different cases. It all depends on the woman's size, her health, whether or not the fetus is a hydrocephalic. There's nothing indiscriminate about deciding what to do in these rare cases. Everything is carefully decided. Foolish abortion laws are going to interfere with the process, to the detriment of everyone involved.


----------



## Stann

FranklinRoosevelt_FTW said:


> This is a big topic. From my own perspective as a Catholic, and as an American. From both a religious and secular  in my opinion abortion should be outlawed. I say that because I believe in human life. But I would Also request of conservative American Christians if they are against abortion they should also be against the death penalty,  and they should be for helping immigrants and refugees. Because if One claims to care for human life well they must care for all human life. We need to figure out how to rework the prison system and we need to figure out how to get the criminal recidivism rate down.  Perhaps it would be good for the country if more conservatives talk about getting the criminal recidivism rate down in America. We need to think of giving  ex-convicts the right to vote.
> 
> So for a lot of Christians the issue of abortion ties into other social issues such as how to handle refugees and how to handle the death penalty for example. How to handle our criminal penalties and how much time we should impose on criminals.
> 
> And we should also hear out what  women who are both for abortion and against it have to say without calling them names. Really is all about being polite everybody can hear each other out on this one.  From a societal point of view how much of this abortion issue should be decided by men and women. It takes two people to make a pregnancy happen after all but of course men don’t have to carry the babies. So there’s a lot going on here


The supposed intent of anti-abortion laws is to save lives. They will not, they will cause more deaths. This decision must remain between the doctors and the women.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> See that's where you're wrong. Partial birth abortions are essential in different cases. It all depends on the woman's size, her health, whether or not the fetus is a hydrocephalic. There's nothing indiscriminate about deciding what to do in these rare cases. Everything is carefully decided. Foolish abortion laws are going to interfere with the process, to the detriment of everyone involved.


Your problem is everyone else is wrong but you.  Nice story and not true.

No matter how long you preach it will NOT CHANGE MY  MIND...............And this is just the DNC throwing gas on the fire because you have nothing else but MISERY.

I will continue to speak my mind..............Late term abortion is barbarism.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> See that's where you're wrong. Partial birth abortions are essential in different cases. It all depends on the woman's size, her health, whether or not the fetus is a hydrocephalic. There's nothing indiscriminate about deciding what to do in these rare cases. Everything is carefully decided. Foolish abortion laws are going to interfere with the process, to the detriment of everyone involved.


The fact that you would defend the murder of a baby already in the process of BIRTH tells me that the pro-abortion killers have no compassion at all for a helpless being, minutes away from being a breathing child.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> I've always seen abortion as something similar to suicide. It's a horrible thing and it would be great if we could prevent it by passing a law. But trying to do so is, ultimately, a gross violation of individual sovereignty and doesn't address the real problem - the fact that people are so desperate that they consider such alternatives in the first place.


A violation of individual sovereignty eh ? What about the baby that is developing as a healthy child in the host mother's womb ? You don't have enough compassion to try and help the mother not make the mistake of her lifetime by aborting her healthy baby ??? 

Even though this nation has intervened in so many moral issue's over the long history of it, otherwise stopping it from making immoral mistakes, now all of a sudden it flip's and decides to assist an American woman into causing a developing baby with a heart beat, feet, hands, toe's, head and etc to be put to death out of convenience ?? What on earth is wrong with you people ??


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> That is the opinion of those who oppose the decision, so much so that they - despite the pretense under oath to respecting it as established law - are willing to trash it, in contravention of the progress that has been made in advanced democratic nations, and the clear support of the established law by most Americans.
> 
> An ideological ilk, legislating from the bench, revoking a personal freedom that has for so long been respected, and arrogating it to the State apparatus in a blatant act of authoritarianism, will be seized upon by statists in regressive states, further dividing the nation.


That's the difference between you and I.   I think Roe would have been a bad decision if they had used it to outlaw abortion across the country as well because it's not the courts job to legislate.   We have body of elected officials to serve that function and in this case that body is the individual state legislatures.      You are all for authoritarian rule so long as you get what you want.  I'm not regardless of whether I agree with what the authoritarian is doing or not.     This is no different than the seatbelt laws or helmet laws.  Individual states have passed their own laws regarding these issues.   You'll notice we don't have a federal seatbelt law or federal helmet law.   Why do you think that is?    It's my body and my choice right?    If I want to smash my face into my car windshield or bounce my skull down the asphalt without a helmet on why is it any business of anyone else let alone the states?


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Your problem is everyone else is wrong but you.  Nice story and not true.
> 
> No matter how long you preach it will NOT CHANGE MY  MIND...............And this is just the DNC throwing gas on the fire because you have nothing else but MISERY.
> 
> I will continue to speak my mind..............Late term abortion is barbarism.


You're the one who doesn't know the truth, or is it that you just don't want to know the truth.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> You're the one who doesn't know the truth, or is it that you just don't want to know the truth.


Your opinion is NOT THE TRUTH.........Mine isn't to some........others agree.

Anyone who thinks it's ok to do late term abortion is a scumbag..........barbarian was my civil word.

Yes...........I'm callin you a scumbag for agreeing with it.

And most would agree.  No matter how many times you post the same shit over and over again.


----------



## beagle9

Couchpotato said:


> That's the difference between you and I.   I think Roe would have been a bad decision if they had used it to outlaw abortion across the country as well because it's not the courts job to legislate.   We have body of elected officials to serve that function and in this case that body is the individual state legislatures.      You are all for authoritarian rule so long as you get what you want.  I'm not regardless of whether I agree with what the authoritarian is doing or not.     This is no different than the seatbelt laws or helmet laws.  Individual states have passed their own laws regarding these issues.   You'll notice we don't have a federal seatbelt law or federal helmet law.   Why do you think that is?    It's my body and my choice right?    If I want to smash my face into my car windshield or bounce my skull down the asphalt without a helmet on why is it any business of anyone else let alone the states?


Pure logic, and common sense..


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Your opinion is NOT THE TRUTH.........Mine isn't to some........others agree.
> 
> Anyone who thinks it's ok to do late term abortion is a scumbag..........barbarian was my civil word.
> 
> Yes...........I'm callin you a scumbag for agreeing with it.
> 
> And most would agree.  No matter how many times you post the same shit over and over again.


Do yourself a favor, go to the search button on your phone, press the speaker symbol, and simply ask why do physicians do you like term abortions. Once you have that information, do it again and this time ask, why do positions do partial birth abortions. Then you will find out what the truth is. It's not barbaric, those are only done in the best interests of the woman. I know you don't want to know you don't want to have anything conflict with what you believe that would be too hard on you to accept I guess.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> Do yourself a favor, go to the search button on your phone, press the speaker symbol, and simply ask why do physicians do you like term abortions. Once you have that information, do it again and this time ask, why do positions do partial birth abortions. Then you will find out what the truth is. It's not barbaric, those are only done in the best interests of the woman. I know you don't want to know you don't want to have anything conflict with what you believe that would be too hard on you to accept I guess.


Stop thinking you have the right to tell other people what to do and THINK..............

Which part of NO WORDS WILL CHANGE MY MIND..............NONE.............WE ARE PUSHING BACK..........NO MORE BACKING DOWN FROM YOU CLOWNS.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> Stop thinking you have the right to tell other people what to do and THINK..............
> 
> Which part of NO WORDS WILL CHANGE MY MIND..............NONE.............WE ARE PUSHING BACK..........NO MORE BACKING DOWN FROM YOU CLOWNS.


You can believe whatever you want I'm telling you it's better to have your beliefs based on facts. That's what I was trying to offer you the facts you keep trying to insult me trying to tell me I don't have any business being on here when you're the one being foolish you're the one who shouldn't be here because you're not telling the truth.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> You can believe whatever you want I'm telling you it's better to have your beliefs based on facts. That's what I was trying to offer you the facts you keep trying to insult me trying to tell me I don't have any business being on here when you're the one being foolish you're the one who shouldn't be here because you're not telling the truth.


The Fact is we DISAGREE.............PERIOD......Opinions are NOT FACTS.........and we are tired of this BS........and overturning Roe doesn't even stop it.

So go cry to someone else.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> You're the one who doesn't know the truth, or is it that you just don't want to know the truth.


^^^ This is an example of why it is so disingenuous for Biden to have a Disinformation Board to determine what is and what is not the truth, and thus what Americans will be allowed to hear.

The “truth” is simply the liberal position.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> The Fact is we DISAGREE.............PERIOD......Opinions are NOT FACTS.........and we are tired of this BS........and overturning Roe doesn't even stop it.
> 
> So go cry to someone else.


In response to your latest diatribe, I would say, opinions based on facts have more validity. Home Page Top Stories>2006/02/21 " Partial-Birth Abortion: Separating Fact from Spin- NPR


----------



## Lisa558

Partial birth abortion is the murder of a living child, and in the most barbaric way.









						What is a Partial-Birth Abortion? | EWTN
					

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.



					www.ewtn.com


----------



## TemplarKormac

Cecilie1200 said:


> "Churl".  Good word.  Were you going for "mean-spirited person" or "peasant"?


I would have simply called him an emotional child,  but given pro-abort hostility toward unborn children, I'd rather not debase the innocent.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> ^^^ This is an example of why it is so disingenuous for Biden to have a Disinformation Board to determine what is and what is not the truth, and thus what Americans will be allowed to hear.
> 
> The “truth” is simply the liberal position.


That's because his predecessor, trump wouldn't even allow HHS to use the word fetus and a whole bunch of other technically descriptive words in their department.  He's trying to get all that garbage out of the system.


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> Partial birth abortion is the murder of a living child, and in the most barbaric way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a Partial-Birth Abortion? | EWTN
> 
> 
> EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ewtn.com


From the Catholic Church, in order for an article to have validity it has to basically be unbiased. You got a non-starter here.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> You have no idea what a "non sequitur" is. But I know what red herrings are, and you're full of them.


Oh but I do know what a non sequitur is. Your unsupported premise, that we are running the economy into the ground does  not support you conclusion that we are not, in the end pro life


----------



## Stann

Lisa558 said:


> The fact that you would defend the murder of a baby already in the process of BIRTH tells me that the pro-abortion killers have no compassion at all for a helpless being, minutes away from being a breathing child.


See you don't even know what a partial birth abortion is. They call it partial birth because the remains are evacuated from the body through the birth canal. Please wake up and educate yourself on what actually is.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> In response to your latest diatribe, I would say, opinions based on facts have more validity. Home Page Top Stories>2006/02/21 " Partial-Birth Abortion: Separating Fact from Spin- NPR


NPR  New Pravda Review.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> See you don't even know what a partial birth abortion is. They call it partial birth because the remains are evacuated from the body through the birth canal. Please wake up and educate yourself on what actually is.


IT'S MURDER.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh but I do know what a non sequitur is. Your unsupported premise, that we are running the economy into the ground does  not support you conclusion that we are not, in the end pro life


If you don't have money to pay for food for your children,  they starve. They become malnourished, they die. Tell me, how is that pro life?

It's not hard to see how much of that would be related to economic policies put in place by Democrats.


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> From the Catholic Church, in order for an article to have validity it has to basically be unbiased. You got a non-starter here.


And you posted something from liberal NPR. And you’re demanding unbiased sources from others?

This was a description of the little baby, with an angelic face, who was wiggling his body and clasping his little hands, who went limp when the doctor scrambled his brain and crushed his skull. Sorry if the description of the barbarism you support is “icky” - and thus you attack the source.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> If you don't have money to pay for food for your children,  they starve. They become malnourished, they die. Tell me, how is that pro life?
> 
> It's not hard to see how much of that would be related to economic policies put in place by Democrats.


What economic  policies are you referring to? Be specific and include documentation


----------



## Lisa558

Stann said:


> See you don't even know what a partial birth abortion is. They call it partial birth because the remains are evacuated from the body through the birth canal. Please wake up and educate yourself on what actually is.


Yes, thats how they remove the dead infant whose brain they scrambled as he or she was moving down the birth canal.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What economic  policies are you referring to? Be specific and include documentation


Reckless, unchecked government spending.









						Worst inflation since 1982 puts Democrats in political jeopardy
					

Prices have risen 7% over the last year, the fastest pace in nearly 40 years.




					www.google.com
				












						Runaway inflation discredits Democrats’ fiscal and monetary policy
					

Americans are experiencing a Biden pay cut of declining real wages and living standards, and small businesses are hurting.




					www.google.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Reckless, unchecked government spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worst inflation since 1982 puts Democrats in political jeopardy
> 
> 
> Prices have risen 7% over the last year, the fastest pace in nearly 40 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Runaway inflation discredits Democrats’ fiscal and monetary policy
> 
> 
> Americans are experiencing a Biden pay cut of declining real wages and living standards, and small businesses are hurting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com











						Biden’s Costly Agenda Alarms Republicans, But Trump Spent Big, Too
					

The White House will release a $6 trillion budget plan amid complaints from the GOP about wasteful spending and ruinous debt, but their guy also added to the national debt big-time.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Biden’s Costly Agenda Alarms Republicans, But Trump Spent Big, Too
> 
> 
> The White House will release a $6 trillion budget plan amid complaints from the GOP about wasteful spending and ruinous debt, but their guy also added to the national debt big-time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


Thanks for making my case.  Moving along.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> NPR  New Pravda Review.


You are absolutely ridiculous. Try to have a good night, I plan on it. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Biden’s Costly Agenda Alarms Republicans, But Trump Spent Big, Too
> 
> 
> The White House will release a $6 trillion budget plan amid complaints from the GOP about wasteful spending and ruinous debt, but their guy also added to the national debt big-time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


Comparing COVID spending to…government handouts.


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> You are absolutely ridiculous. Try to have a good night, I plan on it. Thanks for the laugh.


I'm done with your nonsense and as you sponsor the murder of babies.


----------



## Stann

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Biden’s Costly Agenda Alarms Republicans, But Trump Spent Big, Too
> 
> 
> The White House will release a $6 trillion budget plan amid complaints from the GOP about wasteful spending and ruinous debt, but their guy also added to the national debt big-time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


So you want to blame everything on Biden now, even things that are out of his control. The truth is, we have been warned about the growing dependence on fossil fuels for years now because they are quickly becoming depleted. The past 30 years Saudi Arabia has pumped out 90 trillion barrels of oil. The amount of their oil reserves is said to be over exaggerated. Even so giving those numbers, the oil reserves are less than 50% now. The BBC has been reporting on this for years. 20 or 40 years ago we should have made a great effort to get on renewable energy sources, but big oil fought us every step of the way and succeeded in buying off the Republican party. So now we're paying for it. The squeeze is on, everybody who has any oil at all is going to charge all they can until there's none left oil depletion in the world wasn't scheduled to happen for 43 years. With the increased demands of China and India, that is now down to 38 years. It doesn't matter, no one can afford gas when it's 20 or $30 a gallon. And that's exactly where we're headed .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Excess government spending.
> 
> End of list.


A simplistic, dumbed down explanation





__





						causes of inflation - Search
					






					www.bing.com
				




And Trump was a big spender too...only on the wrong things like tax giveaways to the wealthy ant to corporations









						Biden’s Costly Agenda Alarms Republicans, But Trump Spent Big, Too
					

The White House will release a $6 trillion budget plan amid complaints from the GOP about wasteful spending and ruinous debt, but their guy also added to the national debt big-time.




					www.forbes.com
				






> But debt rose by nearly $7.8 trillion under President Donald Trump, according to a ProPublica analysis, despite his 2016 pronouncement to the _Washington Post_ that he would eliminate the debt entirely over eight years.






> In the three years Trump occupied the White House before the crisis, two rounds of tax cuts and two spending deals with Congress added some $4.5 trillion to the deficit, figures Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates for a sustainable national debt.


----------



## Stann

eagle1462010 said:


> I'm done with your nonsense and as you sponsor the murder of babies.


I'm not sponsoring anything, you are sponsoring making all women in this country second class citizens, not even in control of their own bodies never mind their destinies. I keep stating facts you keep stating your spin. All I can say is good luck with that, wait till you see what you reap. It's not going to be at all what you're expected.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> I'm done with your nonsense and as you sponsor the murder of babies.


You people sponsor the murder of children already born


----------



## eagle1462010

Stann said:


> I'm not sponsoring anything, you are sponsoring making all women in this country second class citizens, not even in control of their own bodies never mind their destinies. I keep stating facts you keep stating your spin. All I can say is good luck with that, wait till you see what you reap. It's not going to be at all what you're expected.


OVER 3000 posts back and forth............NO MAS.

BYE STANN THE MURDERER.

You are the weakest link.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> A simplistic, dumbed down explanation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> causes of inflation - Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bing.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Trump was a big spender too...only on the wrong things like tax giveaways to the wealthy ant to corporations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden’s Costly Agenda Alarms Republicans, But Trump Spent Big, Too
> 
> 
> The White House will release a $6 trillion budget plan amid complaints from the GOP about wasteful spending and ruinous debt, but their guy also added to the national debt big-time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com



'Tu quoque' or 'you too' argument. 

I've heard just about enough.


----------



## beagle9

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You people sponsor the murder of children already born


How so ? Maybe in the dependency creating, control minded Democrat mindset it works that way, but responsible people aren't laying with their legs spread wide open, otherwise without any thought of the results of their actions or them thinking that hey "no need to worry, I can get an abortion" without any questions asked.  Wow....

All people have to do better at in life basically is this, if they aren't married, but have sex anyway, and therefore create a baby without regards for it, and next shockingly then wanting to kill it out of convenience uhhhhhhhhhmmm isn't good thing at all IMO.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> So you want to blame everything on Biden now, even things that are out of his control. The truth is, we have been warned about the growing dependence on fossil fuels for years now because they are quickly becoming depleted. The past 30 years Saudi Arabia has pumped out 90 trillion barrels of oil. The amount of their oil reserves is said to be over exaggerated. Even so giving those numbers, the oil reserves are less than 50% now. The BBC has been reporting on this for years. 20 or 40 years ago we should have made a great effort to get on renewable energy sources, but big oil fought us every step of the way and succeeded in buying off the Republican party. So now we're paying for it. The squeeze is on, everybody who has any oil at all is going to charge all they can until there's none left oil depletion in the world wasn't scheduled to happen for 43 years. With the increased demands of China and India, that is now down to 38 years. It doesn't matter, no one can afford gas when it's 20 or $30 a gallon. And that's exactly where we're headed .











						World Oil Statistics - Worldometer
					

Amount of Oil left in the world based on proven gas reserves and current global consumption levels. World Oil reserves, production, and consumption by year and by country, imports, exports, charts and list.




					www.worldometers.info
				




yeah the oils going to run out any minute now.    Or 40 years from now assuming we don’t develop more oil reserves but ANY SECOND NOW ALL THE OIL WILL NE GONE!!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Stann said:


> See you don't even know what a partial birth abortion is. They call it partial birth because the remains are evacuated from the body through the birth canal. Please wake up and educate yourself on what actually is.



Let me get this straight.  You're comforting yourself in your evil by telling yourself that it's only called "partial birth abortion" because the birth canal happens to be the passageway by which they remove the remains?  So, in essence, your theory is that ALL abortions are partial-birth?

How about YOU wake up and educate yourself on what it actually is?









						Abortion, Partial Birth
					

Definition of Abortion, Partial Birth in the Medical Dictionary by The Free Dictionary




					medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
				




Description​
IDX first involves administration of medications to cause the cervix to dilate. Dilation usually occurs over the course of several days. Next, the physician rotates the fetus to a footling breech position. The body of the fetus is then drawn out of the uterus feet first, until only the head remains inside the uterus. The physician then uses an instrument to puncture the base of the skull, which collapses the fetal head. Typically, the contents of the fetal head are then partially suctioned out, which results in the death of the fetus and reduces the size of the fetal head enough to allow it to pass through the cervix. The dead but otherwise intact fetus is then removed from the woman's body.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> That was my point upthread. A woman who wants to kill her unborn child will not be deterred by a bus ride, paid for by PP.


Shouldn’t that then be applied to all out patient medical procedures?


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm also a big believer in being VERY sure of the facts before imposing such a sentence.  Otherwise, life in prison without parole is fine, as well.
> 
> Also, 18 people have been exonerated from death row.  Every one of them was convicted prior to the use of DNA evidence, which is what exonerated them.


I would have to look it it up to be sure but I think some were cleared based on corrupted evidence or bad witness identifications and exoneration was based on that coming to light.

I could support a death penalty if it was just and equally applied to the worst of the worst only, with DNA evidence.  It is far from equal though.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> Shouldn’t that then be applied to all out patient medical procedures?


What are you saying? That PP should pay for all out-patient medical procedures?


----------



## Jets

3100 posts later and we understand why there is no compromise on this issue…


----------



## Lisa558

Jets said:


> 3100 posts later and we understand why there is no compromise on this issue…


And that’s why it should be left up to the states. The liberal states can allow their barbaric practices, and the conservative states will have compassionate restrictions.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Shouldn’t that then be applied to all out patient medical procedures?



Shouldn't what be applied to all outpatient medical procedures?  I'm not following this particular leap.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> I would have to look it it up to be sure but I think some were cleared based on corrupted evidence or bad witness identifications and exoneration was based on that coming to light.
> 
> I could support a death penalty if it was just and equally applied to the worst of the worst only, with DNA evidence.  It is far from equal though.



Well, the execution I attended, there wasn't DNA evidence that I'm aware of.  However, there were fingerprints all over the scene, his excuses were laughable, he confessed after he was convicted, and he himself waived his appeals and chose to be executed over life in prison.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> Shouldn't what be applied to all outpatient medical procedures?  I'm not following this particular leap.


I don’t understand what she’s driving at either, unless she means that people should have to go out of state for all sorts of medical procedures.

What she’s not allowing for is that we are talking about a highly controversial procedure - abortion - and applying the normal actions involved with, say, macular generation (eye disease).


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, the execution I attended, there wasn't DNA evidence that I'm aware of.  However, there were fingerprints all over the scene, his excuses were laughable, he confessed after he was convicted, and he himself waived his appeals and chose to be executed over life in prison.


A good one for an execution is the black racist who mowed down 50 White people, killing six, including an 8-year-old. If a White man mowed down a parade of Black people, killing half a dozen, it would still be on the nightly news, his trial would be televised, and libs would be outside the Courthouse, calling for his execution.


----------



## schmidlap

Couchpotato said:


> ...  It's my body and my choice right?    If I want to smash my face into my car windshield or bounce my skull down the asphalt without a helmet on why is it any business of anyone else let alone the states?


You seem willing and eager to make the public pay for your self-indulgence. If you fantasize that you will be allowed to exsanguinate  as another roadside attraction, that is not how a civilized society treats self-destructive citizens.

Perhaps, since it is not a _male_ right that is likely to be revoked after half-a-century in retrogressive states, it would be more fitting if only those being deprived of their freedom - _women_ - decide the matter, free of statist coercion.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> You seem willing and eager to make the public pay for your self-indulgence. If you fantasize that you will be allowed to exsanguinate  as another roadside attraction, that is not how a civilized society treats self-destructive citizens.
> 
> Perhaps, since it is not a _male_ right that is likely to be revoked after half-a-century in retrogressive states, it would be more fitting if only those being deprived of their freedom - _women_ - decide the matter, free of statist coercion.


The left trying to argue against statism is laughable.


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> You seem willing and eager to make the public pay for your self-indulgence. If you fantasize that you will be allowed to exsanguinate  as another roadside attraction, that is not how a civilized society treats self-destructive citizens.
> 
> Perhaps, since it is not a _male_ right that is likely to be revoked after half-a-century in retrogressive states, it would be more fitting if only those being deprived of their freedom - _women_ - decide the matter, free of statist coercion.


Yes, and since you’re a male….stay out of it.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> The left trying to argue against statism is laughable.


Also laughable is that the leftist is expressing displeasure with making the public pay for others’ self-indulgence, but what is a PP provided abortion?

And don’t give me it doesn’t come from federal funds. Money is fungible.


----------



## schmidlap

beagle9 said:


> What about the baby that is developing as a healthy child in the host mother's womb ?


Over 99% of women, free of authoritarian coercion, opt to terminate their pregnancies for whatever personal reasons are compelling, during the earliest stages, before a viable fetus has developed. 

Statists now eager to arrogate that established personal freedom to their politicians and bureaucrats confront progress in which private, medical abortions now account for most in the U.S., and are increasing.

Will the repressive jurisdictions interdict private mail and hack into secure internet communications?


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> Yes, and since you’re a male….stay out of it.


I'm happy to prohibit the male-run state apparatus from arrogating the freedom of women.

The State seizing control of wombs - as happens in Iran, Egypt, Honduras, and El Salvador - runs counter to the progress achieved throughout advanced democracies.


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> Over 99% of women, free of authoritarian coercion, opt to terminate their pregnancies for whatever personal reasons are compelling, during the earliest stages, before a viable fetus has developed.
> 
> Statists now eager to arrogate that established personal freedom to their politicians and bureaucrats confront progress in which private, medical abortions now account for most in the U.S., and are increasing.
> 
> Will the repressive jurisdictions interdict private mail and hack into secure internet communications?


So if the SCOTUS is going to violate the Constitution anyway, by refusing to return the decision to the states, how about we have some compassionate law in place (again, noting the SCOTUS isn’t supposed to make law) that abortion is legal up to 12 weeks? (Exceptions made for mother’s life.)

Almost everyone knows they’re pregnant by 4 or 5 weeks. Give it another week, and say by week 6, you’ll know. That still gives the “non-mother” six full weeks to schedule and obtain an abortion.

In fact, I’d say 10 weeks. That still gives the non-mother a full month to schedule the appointment, and carry it out.


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> I'm happy to prohibit the male-run state apparatus from arrogating the freedom of women.
> 
> The State seizing control of wombs - as happens in Iran, Egypt, Honduras, and El Salvador - runs counter to the progress achieved throughout advanced democracies.


That’s why we don’t think the State (federal) should issue blanket laws for everyone. Leave it up to the individual states, as our Founders intended.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> That’s why we don’t think the State (federal) should issue blanket laws for everyone. Leave it up to the individual states, as our Founders intended.


The left have made it clear.............they don't negotiate or compromise.


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> Also laughable is that the leftist is expressing displeasure with making the public pay for others’ self-indulgence, but what is a PP provided abortion?
> 
> And don’t give me it doesn’t come from federal funds. Money is fungible.


Your ideological fanaticism has no impact upon the reality that most Americans support Roe v Wade, established precedent of 50 years, and oppose an activist court depriving American women of their freedom to make personal, informed decisions in such a private matter, and arrogating control to your state bureaucracy.


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> Your ideological fanaticism has no impact upon the reality that most Americans support Roe v Wade, established precedent of 50 years, and oppose an activist court depriving American women of theit freedom to make personal, informed decisions in such a private matter, and arrogating control to your state bureaucracy.


Precedent of 50 years is meaningless if it is judged that the 73 ruling was in violation of states’ rights. And what about the 200 years before that?

And the right to privacy is not without restriction. If I want to sneak into my neighbor’s house and steal something, is that my private decision?


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> The left have made it clear.............they don't negotiate or compromise.


That _"left"_ that festers in your noggin notwithstanding, most Americans support the established compromise precedent of Roe v Wade, and oppose the rabid statism whereby politicians seize control of a personal freedom.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> That _"left"_ that festers in your noggin notwithstanding, most Americans support the established compromise precedent of Roe v Wade, and oppose the rabid statism whereby politicians seize control of a personal freedom.


No they don't .  That is evident by the laws in this country where half have laws and half do not.

This country has always been split on this.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> No they don't .  That is evident by the laws in this country where half have laws and half do not.
> 
> This country has always been split on this.


Yes. The Left always like to pretend that those who disagree with them are outliers (which is also why they censor dissenting opinions), but the fact is it’s almost evenly split.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> No they don't .  That is evident by the laws in this country where half have laws and half do not.
> 
> This country has always been split on this.


Most Americans support Roe v Wade, the established compromise precedent of half-a-century.

Strong Majorities Support Keeping Roe vs. Wade​


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> If you don't have money to pay for food for your children,  they starve. They become malnourished, they die. Tell me, how is that pro life?
> 
> It's not hard to see how much of that would be related to economic policies put in place by Democrats.


Tell me how Democrats are responsible for poverty and how Republicans re fighting poverty


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Thanks for making my case.  Moving along.


You stated that it was government spending alone that is the cause of inflation. I showed that it is much more complex than that. You case has not been made by anyone


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> Most Americans support Roe v Wade, the established compromise precedent of half-a-century.
> 
> Strong Majorities Support Keeping Roe vs. Wade​


That’s because they don’t understand the full meaning. Many have been led to believe, falsely and intentionally, that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal.

In another poll, it shows that Americans are pretty evenly split: 47% think it’s morally acceptable, and 46% think it isn’t.









						Record-High 47% in U.S. Think Abortion Is Morally Acceptable
					

A record-high 47% of U.S. adults think abortion is morally acceptable, while 46% believe it is morally wrong. U.S. adults are also split in their self-identification as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."




					news.gallup.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lisa558 said:


> That’s because they don’t understand the full meaning. Many have been led to believe, falsely and intentionally, that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal.


No fool! We understand very well what overturning Roe would mean. It would allow individual states to make abortion illegal. Prior to Roe, that was the case in 30 states.


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> That’s because they don’t understand the full meaning. Many have been led to believe, falsely and intentionally, that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal.


Most Americans, especially in advanced states, understand that the the regression by an activist court arrogates personal freedom to statist politicians. There is no way that the authoritarian fanatics can finesse that reality.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No fool! We understand very well what overturning Roe would mean. It would allow individual states to make abortion illegal. Prior to Roe, that was the case in 30 states.


Next thing you know you can burn down a business in NYS and only pay a $150.00 fine.

Ooops!  That’s actually the law in NYS!


----------



## schmidlap

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No fool! We understand very well what overturning Roe would mean. It would allow individual states to make abortion illegal. Prior to Roe, that was the case in 30 states.


The authoritarian states that would stifle the personal freedom of half-a-century established by the compromise ruling of Roe v Wade will be confront the progress that has occurred as more than half of abortions in America are now self-administered at home via medication. Fanatical statists could be further violating a citizen's privacy by interdicting their mail and hacking into their secure internet communications.

Ironically, this retrogressive government intrusion is being perpetrated as women's rights have expanded throughout advanced democracies.


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> Most Americans, especially in advanced states, understand that the the regression by an activist court arrogates personal freedom to statist politicians. There is no way that the authoritarian fanatics can finesse that reality.


Not true. The liberals I have spoken to, who live in what you would call “advanced states” are all under the impression that the SCOTUS is debating whether to ban abortions.

And THAT is why the majority are opposed to an overturn. They don’t know what it means. When you dig deeper, the country is split 50/50 as to whether abortion is morally acceptable or morally wrong.

I just pray that the thugs threatening the lives of SCOTUS justices - these libs don’t seem to have respect for life, period, unless it’s a mass murderer on death row - don’t bully them into making the wrong decision, under duress. Then we can expect leftist thugs to start threatening violence for all SCOTUS cases.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> That’s because they don’t understand the full meaning. Many have been led to believe, falsely and intentionally, that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal.
> 
> In another poll, it shows that Americans are pretty evenly split: 47% think it’s morally acceptable, and 46% think it isn’t.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Record-High 47% in U.S. Think Abortion Is Morally Acceptable
> 
> 
> A record-high 47% of U.S. adults think abortion is morally acceptable, while 46% believe it is morally wrong. U.S. adults are also split in their self-identification as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.gallup.com


Most dont have a clue.  Media fed sheep


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> Most dont have a clue.  Media fed sheep


Whenever I talk to a liberal, I‘m shocked by how ignorant they are. And that’s why the Left wants to censor dissenting opinion, or even the entire picture. An uneducated, uninformed American is the Democrats’ best voter.


----------



## BackAgain

FranklinRoosevelt_FTW said:


> This is a big topic. From my own perspective as a Catholic, and as an American. From both a religious and secular  in my opinion abortion should be outlawed. I say that because I believe in human life. But I would Also request of conservative American Christians if they are against abortion they should also be against the death penalty,  and they should be for helping immigrants and refugees. Because if One claims to care for human life well they must care for all human life. We need to figure out how to rework the prison system and we need to figure out how to get the criminal recidivism rate down.  Perhaps it would be good for the country if more conservatives talk about getting the criminal recidivism rate down in America. We need to think of giving  ex-convicts the right to vote.
> 
> So for a lot of Christians the issue of abortion ties into other social issues such as how to handle refugees and how to handle the death penalty for example. How to handle our criminal penalties and how much time we should impose on criminals.
> 
> And we should also hear out what  women who are both for abortion and against it have to say without calling them names. Really is all about being polite everybody can hear each other out on this one.  From a societal point of view how much of this abortion issue should be decided by men and women. It takes two people to make a pregnancy happen after all but of course men don’t have to carry the babies. So there’s a lot going on here


The difference between my opposition (in most cases) to abortion and my support (in rare cases) for a death penalty is the clear difference between the wrongful taking of innocent life and the perceived need to end a guilty life. I don’t say that from any religious perspective since I’m not very religious. I say it from a legal perspective and a justice perspective.


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> Not true. The liberals I have spoken to, who live in what you would call “advanced states” are all under the impression that the SCOTUS is debating whether to ban abortions.


I have no idea what folks you call liberals in what states you call advanced you claim to have spoken to.

I have encountered no one who does not understand that ideologues legislating from the bench, and overthrowing fifty-years of established law (in respect for the conservative principle of _stare decisis_), would result in only retrogressive, authoritarian states denying personal freedom to women and arrogating control over their wombs to politicians.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> Precedent of 50 years is meaningless if it is judged that the 73 ruling was in violation of states’ rights. And what about the 200 years before that?
> 
> And the right to privacy is not without restriction. If I want to sneak into my neighbor’s house and steal something, is that my private decision?



Last time I checked, pedophiles usually read child porn in private, rather than on a busy bus stop bench.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BackAgain said:


> The difference between my opposition (in most cases) to abortion and my support (in rare cases) for a death penalty is the clear difference between the wrongful taking of innocent life and the perceived need to end a guilty life. I don’t say that from any religious perspective since I’m not very religious. I say it from a legal perspective and a justice perspective.



Anyone who thinks "oppose the death penalty" is the only possible Christian perspective hasn't really read and understood the Bible, anyway.


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> You seem willing and eager to make the public pay for your self-indulgence. If you fantasize that you will be allowed to exsanguinate  as another roadside attraction, that is not how a civilized society treats self-destructive citizens.
> 
> Perhaps, since it is not a _male_ right that is likely to be revoked after half-a-century in retrogressive states, it would be more fitting if only those being deprived of their freedom - _women_ - decide the matter, free of statist coercion.


How does me smashing my head into my windshield affect you at all monetarily?    Are you paying for my head or my windshield and where do I send the bill?    But seriously miss the point more.    I don't have an issue with helmet and seatbelt laws since they were appropriately legislated by the state legislature where I live and if I don't like those laws I have redress, by either petitioning my elected legislator, working to get one that I agree with on the subject elected or moving to a state that already has laws that I agree with.    I have no such redress when the court takes on the role of the state legislature.      You are missing that the process is always far more important because regardless of the issue, if resolve these issues according to our style of government (Rep Republic) we can fix them if it's wrong.       If the court had decided to find the opposite in Roe and outlaw abortion every where across the US via the bench would you be on there pissing and moaning about stare decisis or 50 years of precedent or how SCOTUS judges "lied under oath" in their confirmation hearings?     Answer no.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> Most dont have a clue.  Media fed sheep


You people get more idiotic every day


----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You people get more idiotic every day


From a Moonbat ill just ignore it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> From a Moonbat ill just ignore it.


You all seem to be good at ignoring a lot of things-like the fact that we understand exactly what overturning Roe would and would not do. But you people pick up on one stupid thing after another and keep repeating it and bouncing it off each other until you actually believe it. Then, you call US sheep


----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You all seem to be good at ignoring a lot of things-like the fact that we understand exactly what overturning Roe would and would not do. But you people pick up on one stupid thing after another and keep repeating it and bouncing it off each other until you actually believe it. Then, you call US sheep


Half the country and blue states have NO LAWS to ban abortion.............changes NOTHING.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> Half the country and blue states have NO LAWS to ban abortion.............changes NOTHING.


What the hell do you mean?  It changes everything for women in the other half of the country that have or will pass laws banning abortion. It will be devastating for women, especially for those who can't travel. I don't think that you people actually believe your own bullshit. But you keep telling these lies because you think that others will believe them. Maybe you moron friends on the right will, but you are not fooling us









						Doctors on an Abortion Ban: Unnecessary Health Risks, Stress on Safety Nets
					

DURHAM, N.C. -- An abortion ban would create a broad swath of unnecessary health risks for women while also creating risk and reluctance for doctors who care for them, three Duke doctors said Tuesday. In overturning Roe vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court would put myriad new obstacles in the path...




					today.duke.edu
				












						The negative health implications of restricting abortion access
					

Ana Langer, professor of the practice of public health and coordinator of the Women and Health Initiative, discusses abortion access in the U.S. and globally, and the negative health implications c…




					www.hsph.harvard.edu
				












						The Devastating Economic Impacts of an Abortion Ban
					

The overturning of Roe v. Wade would seriously hinder women’s education, employment, and earning prospects.




					www.newyorker.com


----------



## schmidlap

Couchpotato said:


> How does me smashing my head into my windshield affect you at all monetarily?


Your becoming a public road hazard endangers others, and even if they escape the danger you have created for them, they will incur the financial burden of police, ambulance, and other emergency vehicles, as well as medical care or expense to haul your carcass away.

Returning to the topic, there is a very real threat to women in regressive states having their personal freedom that has been their right for fifty years snatched away by authoritarians and arrogated by  intrusive government politicians and bureaucrats. Most Americans oppose that.


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> Most Americans support Roe v Wade, the established compromise precedent of half-a-century.
> 
> Strong Majorities Support Keeping Roe vs. Wade​


While those polls exist 65% of Americans also believe that if Roe v Wade is overturned that abortion will be outright banned in the US as well so their support of the decision  doesn't really mean much since they don't even know what it says.       But even if they did support it, so what?     What percentage of the US population supported Plessy?    What percentage supported outright slavery in the 1700's?    Was it correct just because a plurality of people agreed with it?    What percentage of people thought the world was flat in 900 BC?      

Here's an idea.   If there is overwhelming support for abortion just have the state legislatures pass laws allowing it.     Or they can make no laws banning it or concerning it at all which would do the same thing right?      If there is truly that type of support for abortion this shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> Your becoming a public road hazard endangers others, and even if they escape the danger you have created for them, they will incur the financial burden of police, ambulance, and other emergency vehicles, as well as medical care or expense to haul your carcass away.
> 
> Returning to the topic, there is a very real threat to women in regressive states having their personal freedom that has been their right for fifty years snatched away by authoritarians and arrogated by  intrusive government politicians and bureaucrats. Most Americans oppose that.


How would my not wearing a seatbelt cause a hazard for anyone else exactly?    Are you confused about what your seatbelt does?   You are aware that seatbelts dont keep you from crashing your car right?    If I wreck my car and have a seatbelt on Im just as much a hazard as if Im in the same wreck without my seatbelt.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

schmidlap said:


> Your becoming a public road hazard endangers others, and even if they escape the danger you have created for them, they will incur the financial burden of police, ambulance, and other emergency vehicles, as well as medical care or expense to haul your carcass away.
> 
> Returning to the topic, there is a very real threat to women in regressive states having their personal freedom that has been their right for fifty years snatched away by authoritarians and arrogated by  intrusive government politicians and bureaucrats. Most Americans oppose that.


Not to mention the fact that he would become ( if he is not already) dependent on the social safety net (if he lived) and instead of being  productive and a taxpayer, would be a drain on the systems such as state disability and social security. The fool probably does not have health insurance either





__





						Couchpotato
					





					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> While those polls exist 65% of Americans also believe that if Roe v Wade is overturned that abortion will be outright banned in the US as well so their support of the decision doesn't really mean much since they don't even know what it says.


That sounds like a boatload of bizarre bovine excrement. I find it hard to believe that so many people are that poorly informed.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> How would my not wearing a seatbelt cause a hazard for anyone else exactly?    Are you confused about what your seatbelt does?   You are aware that seatbelts dont keep you from crashing your car right?    If I wreck my car and have a seatbelt on Im just as much a hazard as if Im in the same wreck without my seatbelt.


See post 3184. I suspect that you have already smashed your head and are suffering from serious brain damage


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That sounds like a boatload of bizarre bovine excrement. I find it hard to believe that so many people are that poorly informed.


You believe that the majority of Americans are educated on a court decision that was made almost 50 years ago?   That's truly what you believe?    Ok.


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Not to mention the fact that he would become ( if he is not already) dependent on the social safety net (if he lived) and instead of being  productive and a taxpayer, would be a drain on the systems such as state disability and social security. The fool probably does not have health insurance either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couchpotato
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com


Cant see the forest due to the trees can you?   But to your point why have we allowed states to make their own laws regarding this issue that's going to cause hazards and monetary hardships for the rest of us?  Why is New Hampshire allowed to go on not having a seatbelt law?   Why are Ohio and HI to name 2 allowed to not have a helmet law for the motorcyclists?


----------



## schmidlap

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Not to mention the fact that he would become ( if he is not already) dependent on the social safety net (if he lived) and instead of being  productive and a taxpayer, would be a drain on the systems such as state disability and social security. The fool probably does not have health insurance either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couchpotato
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com


Living in the United States, one is the recipient of numerous benefits, and to pretend otherwise is churlish.


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> Living in the United States, one is the recipient of numerous benefits, and to pretend otherwise is churlish.


Im well aware of the benefits of living in the US.  Unlike most of the people on this board I spent a good part of my adult life living outside the US in some of the worst places the world has to offer.


----------



## schmidlap

Couchpotato said:


> If I wreck my car and have a seatbelt on Im just as much a hazard as if Im in the same wreck without my seatbelt.


If you are claiming that a serious head injury would not impact your cerebral function in any detectible manner that would render you more dependent upon a benevolent society, you need to realize that others would likely experience a significant diminution.


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> Returning to the topic, there is a very real threat to women in regressive states having their personal freedom that has been their right for fifty years snatched away by authoritarians and arrogated by  intrusive government politicians and bureaucrats. Most Americans oppose that.


It is a bigger threat to the children that are being murdered because the mother was too stupid to use birth control when getting porked by Jamal.


----------



## Couchpotato

schmidlap said:


> If you are claiming that a serious head injury would not impact your cerebral function in any detectible manner that would render you more dependent upon a benevolent society, you need to realize that others would likely experience a significant diminution.


Ok,  why have we allowed state governments to make these decisions?  There are states without helmet laws and one without a seatbelt law.    Why has the federal government not mandated via the SCOTUS that all states have seatbelt and helmet laws?


----------



## Couchpotato

Flash said:


> It is a bigger threat to the children that are being murdered because the mother was too stupid to use birth control when getting porked by Jamal.


Really?  Porked?


----------



## Flash

Couchpotato said:


> Really?  Porked?




Would you have rather me say "fucked"?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Flash said:


> It is a bigger threat to the children that are being murdered because the mother was too stupid to use birth control when getting porked by Jamal.


Then I take it that you support unrestricted access to affordable birth control?. You do know that some of those states that will ban abortion would also ban most forms of birth control? Who that hell is Jamal? Oh right, a black guy. I see where you're coming from


----------



## Couchpotato

Flash said:


> Would you have rather me say "fucked"?


Porked is just so 1980's   Did he not boff her?   Maybe he engaged in Coitus....


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then I take it that you support unrestricted access to affordable birth control?. You do know that some of those states that will ban abortion would also ban most forms of birth control? Who that hell is Jamal? Oh right, a black guy. I see where you're coming from


You didn't read the draft decision did you?


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> Half the country and blue states have NO LAWS to ban abortion.............changes NOTHING.


Absolutely. As I’ve  said elsewhere, the thugs threatening the justices with murder aren’t doing so to keep abortion available, but to make sure it’s convenient and doesn’t require a bus ride.

I say if the unborn baby is about to endure the “inconvenience” of being robbed of life, then Mama can sit her butt down for a few hours if she’s in a restrictive state and has delayed too long about her decision - or move to a state that better suits her outlook on killing one’s child.


----------



## Lisa558

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What the hell do you mean?  It changes everything for women in the other half of the country that have or will pass laws banning abortion. It will be devastating for women, especially for those who can't travel. I don't think that you people actually believe your own bullshit. But you keep telling these lies because you think that others will believe them. Maybe you moron friends on the right will, but you are not fooling us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doctors on an Abortion Ban: Unnecessary Health Risks, Stress on Safety Nets
> 
> 
> DURHAM, N.C. -- An abortion ban would create a broad swath of unnecessary health risks for women while also creating risk and reluctance for doctors who care for them, three Duke doctors said Tuesday. In overturning Roe vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court would put myriad new obstacles in the path...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> today.duke.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The negative health implications of restricting abortion access
> 
> 
> Ana Langer, professor of the practice of public health and coordinator of the Women and Health Initiative, discusses abortion access in the U.S. and globally, and the negative health implications c…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hsph.harvard.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Devastating Economic Impacts of an Abortion Ban
> 
> 
> The overturning of Roe v. Wade would seriously hinder women’s education, employment, and earning prospects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newyorker.com


If they’re physically able to do the nasty dance, they can sit on a freakin’ Greyhound. (Or, if they picked their dance partner responsibly, let HIM drive her.)


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> Ok,  why have we allowed state governments to make these decisions?  There are states without helmet laws and one without a seatbelt law.    Why has the federal government not mandated via the SCOTUS that all states have seatbelt and helmet laws?


Obviously you don't have a very good understanding of how our system works. The SCOTUS reviews and interpret laws to interpret them and rule on their constitutionality. It may strike down laws or rule on how they may be applied. it does not tell states that they must pass a law.  With regards to seat belts and helmets, there is no question regarding interpretation and there is certainly no constitutional issue. If anything, a case might be brought that requiring helmets and seatbelts is* unconstitutional* but that would be a stretch,


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> Absolutely. As I’ve  said elsewhere, the thugs threatening the justices with murder aren’t doing so to keep abortion available, but to make sure it’s convenient and doesn’t require a bus ride.
> 
> I say if the unborn baby is about to endure the “inconvenience” of being robbed of life, then Mama can sit her butt down for a few hours if she’s in a restrictive state and has delayed too long about her decision - or move to a state that better suits her outlook on killing one’s child.


They should just be locked up as soon as they're reported as pregnant. So we can make sure they don't do it wrong.


----------



## Lisa558

Couchpotato said:


> Porked is just so 1980's   Did he not boff her?   Maybe he engaged in Coitus....


Say “shag.” It’s the classy British way.


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Obviously you don't have a very good understanding of how our system works. The SCOTUS reviews and interpret laws to interpret them and rule on their constitutionality. It may strike down laws or rule on how they may be applied. it does not tell states that they must pass a law.  With regards to seat belts and helmets, there is no question regarding interpretation and there is certainly no constitutional issue. If anything, a case might be brought that requiring helmets and seatbelts is* unconstitutional* but that would be a stretch,


And you are obviously missing the point.  Which is no surprise really.


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> They should just be locked up as soon as they're reported as pregnant. So we can make sure they don't do it wrong.


Another leftist who goes to a ridiculous extreme. “Let’s put all the pregnant women in prison!!” Yeah, that’s the ticket.


----------



## Lisa558

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then I take it that you support unrestricted access to affordable birth control?. You do know that some of those states that will ban abortion would also ban most forms of birth control? Who that hell is Jamal? Oh right, a black guy. I see where you're coming from


Which forms of birth control will be banned, and which states?


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> Another leftist who goes to a ridiculous extreme. “Let’s put all the pregnant women in prison!!” Yeah, that’s the ticket.



Leftist? Sure man. That's me. I'm a commie progressive all the way!

Dipshit.


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> Another leftist who goes to a ridiculous extreme. “Let’s put all the pregnant women in prison!!” Yeah, that’s the ticket.


Pointing out the insanity of someone's proposal by applying it consistently is a common rhetorical technique. You clearly think that once a woman is pregnant, the state's interest in her fetus overrides her control of her body. Might as well put her in prison at that point.


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> Leftist? Sure man. That's me. I'm a commie progressive all the way!
> 
> Dipshit.


Of course you are. A regular person would not make a ridiculous claim that they’re going to lock up pregnant women. That’s a leftist tactic.

Also, the uncalled for personal and profane insult at the end is a sign too.

You leftists are getting so predictable.


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> Pointing out the insanity of someone's proposal by applying it consistently is a common rhetorical technique. You clearly think that once a woman is pregnant, the state's interest in her fetus overrides her control of her body. Might as well put her in prison at that point.


Nope. Trying to scare voters is a leftist taking. Nobody is putting pregnant women in jail. All you’re doing is making yourself sound ridiculous - and your credibility is completely lost.

Yes, the interest of protecting life is paramount.


----------



## Lisa558

This thread has really proven what cold-hearted bastards liberals are.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lisa558 said:


> If they’re physically able to do the nasty dance, they can sit on a freakin’ Greyhound. (Or, if they picked their dance partner responsibly, let HIM drive her.)


You people are cruel, but unfortunately not unusual


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> Of course you are. A regular person would not make a ridiculous claim that they’re going to lock up pregnant women. That’s a leftist tactic.
> 
> Also, the uncalled for personal and profane insult at the end is a sign too.
> 
> You leftists are getting so predictable.



Oh, I see. So you don't really mean "leftist" in the traditional sense. You just mean "anyone who makes me mad". Got it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lisa558 said:


> Nope. Trying to scare voters is a leftist taking. Nobody is putting pregnant women in jail. All you’re doing is making yourself sound ridiculous - and your credibility is completely lost.
> 
> Yes, the interest of protecting life is paramount.


Would that include that the life of the child after being born as well?


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> Oh, I see. So you don't really mean "leftist" in the traditional sense. You just mean "anyone who makes me mad". Got it.


Are you a man?


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> Nope. Trying to scare voters is a leftist taking. Nobody is putting pregnant women in jail.


I'm sorry I used the word "rhetorical". I didn't mean to offend.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lisa558 said:


> This thread has really proven what cold-hearted bastards liberals are.


Oh really?? Look in the mirror sweetie


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> Are you a man?


Are you?


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> Are you?


My name is Lisa. Take a guess. So my question still applies: are you a man?


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> My name is Lisa. Take a guess. So my question still applies: are you a man?


Take a guess (ie nunya bidnez)


----------



## Flash

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then I take it that you support unrestricted access to affordable birth control?. You do know that some of those states that will ban abortion would also ban most forms of birth control? Who that hell is Jamal? Oh right, a black guy. I see where you're coming from


It is not my responsibly to pay for you birth control.  It is your responsibility.  It is, however, my responsibility to be an advocate for a child that can't speak for themselves to keep it from being murdered.

Go buy a goddamn condom.  They cost about 25 cents and many places will give them to you for free.

Of course you can always keep your panties on and not have to worry.


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> Take a guess (ie nunya bidnez)


I’m conducting a study. It seems that the most virulent pro-abortion supporters, and who attack and insult those who don’t, are men.

A lot of this is driven by dudes who like the idea that if they knock up a woman, there’s an easy out for them so they don’t get stuck with child support.


----------



## Lisa558

Flash said:


> It is not my responsibly to pay for you birth control.  It is your responsibility.  It is, however, my responsibility to be an advocate for a child that can't speak for themselves to keep it from being murdered.
> 
> Go buy a goddamn condom.  They cost about 25 cents and many places will give them to you for free.
> 
> Of course you can always keep your panties on and not have to worry.


In my experience, there has NEVER been a man who has refused to wear a condom when “no sex otherwise” was the other choice.


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> I’m conducting a study. It seems that the most virulent pro-abortion supporters, and who attack and insult those who don’t, are men.


Here's a hint: I'm not interested in your attempts to turn the debate into a cesspool of ad hom attacks. Talk about the ideas, and refrain from personal attacks. 

Do you have any? Ideas?


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> Here's a hint: I'm not interested in your attempts to turn the debate into a cesspool of ad hom attacks. Talk about the ideas, and refrain from personal attacks.
> 
> Do you have any? Ideas?


Got it. You’re a man.

And my idea is to follow the Constitution and let voters of each state determine their laws.

And as far as ad hom attacks, weren’t you the man who called me a dipshit for refusing to yield to the liberal position?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Flash said:


> It is not my responsibly to pay for you birth control.  It is your responsibility.  It is, however, my responsibility to be an advocate for a child that can't speak for themselves to keep it from being murdered.
> 
> Go buy a goddamn condom.  They cost about 25 cents and many places will give them to you for free.
> 
> Of course you can always keep your panties on and not have to worry.


Thank you for confirming your hypocrisy and ignorance. The cost to you of birth control through insurance would equal that of a weekly Latte at Starbucks and condoms often fail. If you are going to oppose abortion, you damned sure have an obligation to support the prevention of pregnancy. You can't have it both ways


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Here's a hint: I'm not interested in your attempts to turn the debate into a cesspool of ad hom attacks. Talk about the ideas, and refrain from personal attacks.
> 
> Do you have any? Ideas?


Hsvent seen you this mad since I rubbed your fake Libertarian ass in the dirt with the SCOTUS picks.  Poor Hillary.  

Elections have consequences.  Anyway your side should have no say in all states especially when you go postal over murdering babies.  Especially Late Term which is barbarism.

Leftist lose their minds ehen they lose.  And you are a leftist pretending to be a libertarian.


----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for confirming your hypocrisy and ignorance. The cost to you of birth control through insurance would equal that of a weekly Latte at Starbucks and condoms often fail. If you are going to oppose abortion, you damned sure have an obligation to support the prevention of pregnancy. You can't have it both ways


More Free shit.  Because we Owe you something?

Get a job.  Buy your own dang rubbers.  Or dont put it in if you dont want babies.


----------



## Flash

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for confirming your hypocrisy and ignorance. The cost to you of birth control through insurance would equal that of a weekly Latte at Starbucks and condoms often fail. If you are going to oppose abortion, you damned sure have an obligation to support the prevention of pregnancy. You can't have it both ways


Thank you for indicating that you don't give a shit about personal responsibility.  If you are going to fuck a woman and don't want to knock her up then you need to pay for you own condom or else keep your pecker in your pants.  It is not my responsibility.

My obligation is to save the life of a child that you Libtards want to murder.  That is a core moral obligation of all humans to protect children that can't protect themselves.

It is the responsibility of the parents to not get pregnant if they don't want to be bothered with taking care of their child.  It is also their responsibility to provide for the welfare of the child once it is born, not mine.

You Moon Bat are always confused about the concept of responsibility, aren't you?


----------



## Lisa558

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for confirming your hypocrisy and ignorance. The cost to you of birth control through insurance would equal that of a weekly Latte at Starbucks and condoms often fail. If you are going to oppose abortion, you damned sure have an obligation to support the prevention of pregnancy. You can't have it both ways.


Condoms are really cheap. Are you telling me that mentally competent  adults who decide to engage in sex can’t afford a condom? That’s the excuse?


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for confirming your hypocrisy and ignorance. The cost to you of birth control through insurance would equal that of a weekly Latte at Starbucks and condoms often fail. If you are going to oppose abortion, you damned sure have an obligation to support the prevention of pregnancy. You can't have it both ways


Wait.  If you oppose the killing of an unborn baby you have to support the taxpayer funding birth control?


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> Got it. You’re a man.
> 
> And my idea is to follow the Constitution and let voters of each state determine their laws.
> 
> And as far as ad hom attacks, weren’t you the man who called me a dipshit for refusing to yield to the liberal position?


Sure whatever.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Elections have consequences.


I think this phrase, more than anything else Obama said, represents what's wrong with the Democratic party (and by extension, Trumpster Republicans, who are essentially the same thing). The kind of in-your-face majoritarianism that it embodies is tearing our nation apart.


> And you are a leftist pretending to be a libertarian.


Yes, yes. By your moronic definition of "leftist" (anyone who doesn't suck Trump's balls), I guess I must be a leftist.

As far a "libertarian" goes - you're just not smart enough dude. I'm not even gonna try to explain it to you.


----------



## schmidlap

Flash said:


> It is a bigger threat to the children that are being murdered because the mother was too stupid to use birth control when getting porked by Jamal.


Your compulsion to sit in judgement and dictate your demands to women, and your pretense that even microscopic, mindless amalgams of cells are _"children"_  are silly.

Most Americans respect a woman's right to make private decisions in consultation with loved ones, and her medical and spiritual advisers whom she trusts, not to be subjected to authoritarian edicts in retrogressive states that pander to statist fanatics.


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> Your compulsion to sit in judgement and dictate your demands to women, and your pretense that even microscopic, mindless amalgams of cells are _"children"_  are silly.
> 
> Most Americans respect a woman's right to make private decisions in consultation with loved ones, and her medical and spiritual advisers whom she trusts, not to be subjected to authoritarian edicts in retrogressive states that pander to statist fanatics.




You are really confused about this, aren't you?  Typical for a stupid uneducated Moon Bat.

I respect the right of a woman to be responsible and killing a child for the purpose of birth control is as irresponsible as it gets.

It goes beyond being private because it involves the death of another human being.  A human being that cannot speak for itself.

If a "loved one" advises you to kill your kid because it will be a bother to you then that loved one is a piece of shit. 

It is amazing how immoral you Libtard asshoes are when it comes to such a basic human instinct as protecting children that can't protect themselves.  Disgusting.  You are not much of a human, are you?


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> What are you saying? That PP should pay for all out-patient medical procedures?


No, that if it is important enough they should pony up and take a long bus ride.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, the execution I attended, there wasn't DNA evidence that I'm aware of.  However, there were fingerprints all over the scene, his excuses were laughable, he confessed after he was convicted, and he himself waived his appeals and chose to be executed over life in prison.


Well….gotta say…I have never attended an execution.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> No, that if it is important enough they should pony up and take a long bus ride.


You’re still not making sense. If something is important enough, yes….people should be willing to take a bus ride. What’s the issue?


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> You’re still not making sense. If something is important enough, yes….people should be willing to take a bus ride. What’s the issue?


That abortion clinics are not treated the same as other clinics which do comparable out patient services.


----------



## Coyote

Couchpotato said:


> Wait.  If you oppose the killing of an unborn baby you have to support the taxpayer funding birth control?


You want the government to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies but don’t want the government to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  Yup, that’s rightwing logic for you.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> Condoms are really cheap. Are you telling me that mentally competent  adults who decide to engage in sex can’t afford a condom? That’s the excuse?


Condoms are not the most reliable methods.


----------



## Coyote

Flash said:


> It is not my responsibly to pay for you birth control.  It is your responsibility.  It is, however, my responsibility to be an advocate for a child that can't speak for themselves to keep it from being murdered.
> 
> Go buy a goddamn condom.  They cost about 25 cents and many places will give them to you for free.
> 
> Of course you can always keep your panties on and not have to worry.


Why does your advocacy stop at birth then?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> More Free shit.  Because we Owe you something?
> 
> Get a job.  Buy your own dang rubbers.  Or dont put it in if you dont want babies.


Holy shit!! Can't you people ever come up with an original thought,  an idea of your own . All that you do is to continue to bleat party line talking points like "free shit" and" baby killers' without actually putting any thought into the issue


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> That abortion clinics are not treated the same as other clinics which do comparable out patient services.


You must be kidding. Abortion is a highly controversial procedure in which the intentional termination of life is involved ; a new treatment for a medical condition which impacts nobody’s life but one‘s own is not.

That you think abortion is the same as getting a broken bone set tells me how little value you place on unborn children, and this is why there is a big problem.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> Condoms are not the most reliable methods.


Then the woman doubles up with something in addition. That’s what responsible people who can’t risk a pregnancy do.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> Wait.  If you oppose the killing of an unborn baby you have to support the taxpayer funding birth control?


Now you're catching on. Not only do you have to support the availability of birth control, but you also have to support health care, food programs, paid family leave and a whole lot more. Tell us more about how pro life you are you fucking hypocrite .


----------



## Couchpotato

Coyote said:


> You want the government to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies but don’t want the government to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  Yup, that’s rightwing logic for you.


LOL.   I don't think that as a society we should condone the killing of unborn children.  I'm asking if it's the government's role to provide birth control at taxpayer expense.    It's not like you get pregnant by accident or we don't know how it happens.     Why is it a binary choice, either you let me kill my unborn children or provide me birth control free of charge. You could get a job and provide your own birth control, what's that cost 15-25 dollars a month?   If you can't afford 15 dollars a month you can't afford to have sex.


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now you're catching on. Not only do you have to support the availability of birth control, but you also have to support health care, food programs, paid family leave and a whole lot more. Tell us more about how pro life you are you fucking hypocrite .


LOL let me kill unborn children or support me birth to grave with government programs.


----------



## Coyote

Couchpotato said:


> LOL.   I don't think that as a society we should condone the killing of unborn children.  I'm asking if it's the government's role to provide birth control at taxpayer expense.    It's not like you get pregnant by accident or we don't know how it happens.     Why is it a binary choice, either you let me kill my unborn children or provide me birth control free of charge. You could get a job and provide your own birth control, what's that cost 15-25 dollars a month?   If you can't afford 15 dollars a month you can't afford to have sex.


Taxpayers often end up paying for unwanted children one way or another.  Birth control is a hell of a lot cheaper than a child.  Why not fund it or subsidize it?


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> You must be kidding. Abortion is a highly controversial procedure in which the intentional termination of life is involved ; a new treatment for a medical condition which impacts nobody’s life but one‘s own is not.
> 
> That you think abortion is the same as getting a broken bone set tells me how little value you place on unborn children, and this is why there is a big problem.


Basically it is a simple medical procedure with a complicated ethical component.  In terms of regulating clinics and those who use the service it should be the same as any other comparable medical procedure.  It isn’t a question of value.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Flash said:


> Thank you for indicating that you don't give a shit about personal responsibility.  If you are going to fuck a woman and don't want to knock her up then you need to pay for you own condom or else keep your pecker in your pants.  It is not my responsibility.
> 
> My obligation is to save the life of a child that you Libtards want to murder.  That is a core moral obligation of all humans to protect children that can't protect themselves.
> 
> It is the responsibility of the parents to not get pregnant if they don't want to be bothered with taking care of their child.  It is also their responsibility to provide for the welfare of the child once it is born, not mine.
> 
> You Moon Bat are always confused about the concept of responsibility, aren't you?


You people love to blather about personal responsibility but seem to be unaware of the fact that in a civilized society we  also have a responsibility others, to the community. You are a bunch of selfish, "every poor bastard for them selves" pricks. You bleat about killing n innocent child which is not actually a child yet, but do not give a half of a shit about the well being of that child once born. You people make me sick.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> LOL.   I don't think that as a society we should condone the killing of unborn children.  I'm asking if it's the government's role to provide birth control at taxpayer expense.    It's not like you get pregnant by accident or we don't know how it happens.     Why is it a binary choice, either you let me kill my unborn children or provide me birth control free of charge. You could get a job and provide your own birth control, what's that cost 15-25 dollars a month?   If you can't afford 15 dollars a month you can't afford to have sex.


Selfish, stupid and short cited bulllshit


----------



## Flash

Coyote said:


> Why does your advocacy stop at birth then?


Saving the life of children from the death of abortion does not mean I am responsible for them for the rest of their lives.

It is the responsibility of the parents to care for their child.

Simple things like this is really hard for you stupid uneducated Moon Bats to understand, isn't it?


----------



## Flash

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You people love to blather about personal responsibility but seem to be unaware of the fact that in a civilized society we  also have a responsibility others, to the community. You are a bunch of selfish, "every poor bastard for them selves" pricks. You bleat about killing n innocent child which is not actually a child yet, but do not give a half of a shit about the well being of that child once born. You people make me sick.




The selfish bastards are the shitheads that will kill a child because they don't want to bother to take care of them.  That is what 96% of all abortions is all about.  Abortion on demand for the sake of convenience.

Saving a child's life does not mean I am responsible for their welfare for the rest of their lives.  The parents that borne the child are responsible for the welfare of the child.  You idiot Moon Bats don't understand that, do you?

You idiot Libtards have no concept of responsibility, do you?  Typical for stupid Socialist.


----------



## Coyote

Flash said:


> Saving the life of children from the death of abortion does not mean I am responsible for them for the rest of their lives.
> 
> It is the responsibility of the parents to care for their child.
> 
> Simple things like this is really hard for you stupid uneducated Moon Bats to understand, isn't it?


Ya….I figure that is what you and Chuz would say.  Your concern for children ends at birth.


----------



## Chuz Life

Coyote said:


> Ya….I figure that is what you and Chuz would say.  Your concern for children ends at birth.


Personal attacks from a mod. Aren't their rules against that?


----------



## Coyote

Chuz Life said:


> Personal attacks from a mod. Aren't their rules against that?


No.  How can it be a personal attack when it’s what you agreed with?


----------



## Coyote




----------



## Chuz Life

Coyote said:


> No.  How can it be a personal attack when it’s what you agreed with?


The attack is in the way you projected your own assumptions onto me. I never once said that my concern for children ends at birth because I actually do support laws that criminalize the abuse and neglect of children of any age or stage of development. 

So, your assumption is both wrong and because you directed your assumption at me personally. . .  it is a personal attack.


----------



## Coyote

Chuz Life said:


> The attack is in the way you projected your own assumptions onto me. I never once said that my concern for children ends at birth because I actually do support laws that criminalize the abuse and neglect of children of any age or stage of development.
> 
> So, your assumption is both wrong and because you directed your assumption at me personally. . .  it is a personal attack.


That is awesome!  You support criminalizing abuse!  Of course, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t.  But how exactly is that going to help all those children you are now forcing women to bear, whether or not they can afford it, or get maternity leave, or afford childcare so they can work or finish school?  How will it feed those kids, and provide for their medical care?


----------



## Chuz Life

Coyote said:


> That is awesome!  You support criminalizing abuse!  Of course, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t.  But how exactly is that going to help all those children you are now forcing women to bear, whether or not they can afford it, or get maternity leave, or afford childcare so they can work or finish school?  How will it feed those kids, and provide for their medical care?


You are projecting yet another assumption onto me, personally. I have not forced "women to bear" anything. Unless the woman was raped, she risked getting pregnant voluntarily. 
As for all the other stuff, I support laws and even programs to help women who need it. I was a fucking single parent myself and that is why your personal attacks are so off fucking base and offensive to me.


----------



## Coyote

Chuz Life said:


> You are projecting yet another assumption onto me, personally. I have not forced "women to bear" anything. Unless the woman was raped, she risked getting pregnant voluntarily.
> As for all the other stuff, I support laws and even programs to help women who need it. I was a fucking single parent myself and that is why your personal attacks are so off fucking base and offensive to me.


It is strange then that you agreed with Flash’s post then since he very clearly stated it wasn’t his problem once it was born.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> Basically it is a simple medical procedure with a complicated ethical component.  In terms of regulating clinics and those who use the service it should be the same as any other comparable medical procedure.  It isn’t a question of value.


NO. It is not the same as any other medical procedure. As you say, t has a controversial ethical component - the termination of a life - and one cannot in full faith align it with “other comparable medical procedures” - although I know liberals would like it to be viewed that way. A cataract removal, a colonoscopy, an abortion….all the same.


----------



## Chuz Life

Coyote said:


> It is strange then that you agreed with Flash’s post then since he very clearly stated it wasn’t his problem once it was born.


You only assumed that is what he said and meant. His actual words were;

"Saving the life of children from the death of abortion does not mean I am responsible for them for the rest of their lives."

Do you disagree with that?

"It is the responsibility of the parents to care for their child."

Do you disagree with that one too?


----------



## Lisa558

Chuz Life said:


> You are projecting yet another assumption onto me, personally. I have not forced "women to bear" anything. Unless the woman was raped, she risked getting pregnant voluntarily.
> As for all the other stuff, I support laws and even programs to help women who need it. I was a fucking single parent myself and that is why your personal attacks are so off fucking base and offensive to me.


I hear your anger and frustration, and I’m with you.


----------



## Coyote

Chuz Life said:


> You only assumed that is what he said and meant. Hiactual words were;
> 
> "Saving the life of children from the death of abortion does not mean I am responsible for them for the rest of their lives."
> 
> Do you disagree with that?
> 
> "It is the responsibility of the parents to care for their child."
> 
> Do you disagree with that one too?


Responsibility.  What we as individuals as well as collectively have towards others.  You feel responsible for ending abortion, but you don’t feel responsibility for what happens to them after as a consequence?

Especially now that you have removed choice?  Everything you and Flash say seems to indicate that once the child is born, tough luck.

You don’t believe in a collective responsibility towards children.


----------



## beagle9

Coyote said:


> Shouldn’t that then be applied to all out patient medical procedures?


It can be..


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> Responsibility.  What we as individuals as well as collectively have towards others.  You feel responsible for ending abortion, but you don’t feel responsibility for what happens to them after as a consequence?
> 
> Especially now that you have removed choice?  Everything you and Flash say seems to indicate that once the child is born, tough luck.
> 
> You don’t believe in a collective responsibility towards children.


They’ll still have a choice. Stop pretending as if a national ban on abortion is coming.

And you don’t seem to believe in parental responsibility toward children. We don’t live in communes.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> They’ll still have a choice. Stop pretending as if a national ban on abortion is coming.


There is no guarentee it won’t and a choice is only a choice when you are free to make it.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> There is no guarentee it won’t and a choice is only a choice when you are free to make it.


Save your scare tactics for someone who will fall for them. NO WAY are liberal states going to ban abortion. And everyone will still have a choice, albeit a bus ride away for some.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> Save your scare tactics for someone who will fall for them. NO WAY are liberal states going to ban abortion.


I wasn’t thinking that, but of a federal ban.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> I wasn’t thinking that, but of a federal ban.


How could there be a federal ban? SCOTUS doesn’t have the authority to write laws, and Congress would never do it.

I bet you $93,000 it will never happen.


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> How could there be a federal ban? SCOTUS doesn’t have the authority to write laws, and Congress would never do it.
> 
> I bet you $93,000 it will never happen.


I don’t make bets, but at this point, a federal ban is not off the table.  I never expected Roe to be overturned either.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> I don’t make bets, but at this point, a federal ban is not off the table.  I never expected Roe to be overturned either.


Of course a federal ban is off the table. Who would issue such a ban?

As far as Roe being overturned, the final decision hasn’t be made yet, but why wouldn't you be aware that it could be reversed? It was a controversial decision at the time, and the country is pretty evenly divided over whether killing unborn babies is morally acceptable.

So why wouldn’t it occur to you that an issue over which about half the people are unhappy, and whose application as to states’ rights is questionable, wouldn’t be revisited at some point? Why would you just assume that YOUR  half gets to continue setting law for the entire country?


----------



## Coyote

Lisa558 said:


> Of course a federal ban is off the table. Who would issue such a ban?
> 
> As far as Roe being overturned, the final decision hasn’t be made yet, but why wouldn't you be aware that it could be reversed? It was a controversial decision at the time, and the country is pretty evenly divided over whether killing unborn babies is morally acceptable.
> 
> So why wouldn’t it occur to you that an issue over which about half the people are unhappy, and whose application as to states’ rights is questionable, wouldn’t be revisited at some point? Why would you just assume that YOUR  half gets to continue setting law for the entire country?


Judicial decisions aren’t typically based on popular approval.  When Roe passed it passed 7-2 with a ideological plurality.  It withstood court challenges for 50 years, was the basis for subsequent laws  and retained popular support, between 61 and 66%, so not that evenly divided And certainly not half.  There was no reason to seriously believed it would be struck down.  Since there is no such thing as settled law anymore, I supposed this decision could later be reversed and others, like Heller, when the ideological make of the court changes.


----------



## Lisa558

Coyote said:


> Judicial decisions aren’t typically based on popular approval.  When Roe passed it passed 7-2 with a ideological plurality.  It withstood court challenges for 50 years, was the basis for subsequent laws  and retained popular support, between 61 and 66%, so not that evenly divided And certainly not half.  There was no reason to seriously believed it would be struck down.  Since there is no such thing as settled law anymore, I supposed this decision could later be reversed and others, like Heller, when the ideological make of the court changes.


That 61% support is suspect because voters are poorly informed as to what Roe v Wade means. Many people think a reversal means a total ban, rather than on a state by state basis. It remains that half the country thinks abortion is morally wrong, and half do not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Well….gotta say…I have never attended an execution.



Be glad.  The only reason I attended one is because the bastard assaulted me and my sister.  For that, he was sentenced to 16 years in prison.  About halfway through that, he was linked by a new fingerprint program to the scene of a 2-year-old girl who was murdered with an ice pick.

I attended his execution because I wanted to be sure he was dead, and would never get out of prison and try to come after me.

So you can see why I'm unmovable on the subject of capital punishment overall.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> That abortion clinics are not treated the same as other clinics which do comparable out patient services.



This is true.  For one thing, abortion clinics are allowed to bypass the legal requirements comparable outpatient clinics are subject to.

Even excluding the most egregious examples such as Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors - for which any other provider of outpatient medical procedures would have been put _under _the jail - they get away with conditions that would be unthinkable for a medical clinic.

For example, remember a few years back, when Louisiana tried to pass a law requiring that abortion providers have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital, for the treatment of their patients should something go seriously wrong?  Every outpatient surgical clinic in the nation is required by law to have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital in case of emergency.  Hell, my GP has admitting privileges to a hospital.  But the pro-choice cohort lost their damned minds and ended up challenging the law in federal court.

There are states in this country where abortion clinics have fewer regulations on them for safety and cleanliness than veterinary clinics and tattoo parlors.

So by all means, let's talk about abortion clinics being treated differently.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> You want the government to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies but don’t want the government to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  Yup, that’s rightwing logic for you.



Did Couch suggest inseminating women at gunpoint?  How awful!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Condoms are not the most reliable methods.



True, but other forms of birth control are easier to come by than people pretend.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Why does your advocacy stop at birth then?



How do you know it does?  Do you know Flash in real life?  Follow him around?  Snoop around in his tax returns to find out which charities he donates to?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Taxpayers often end up paying for unwanted children one way or another.  Birth control is a hell of a lot cheaper than a child.  Why not fund it or subsidize it?



For one thing, because it won't be "instead of".  It will be "in addition to", because the left is still going to insist that we keep funding people cradle to grave.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Basically it is a simple medical procedure with a complicated ethical component.  In terms of regulating clinics and those who use the service it should be the same as any other comparable medical procedure.  It isn’t a question of value.



Why don't you start by agreeing to hold abortion clinics to the same health, safety, and sanitation standards as other medical clinics, and then we'll talk about how "oppressed" they are?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> View attachment 644199



"Look at this great meme I found about what I just KNOW the other side thinks!  Who needs to actually talk to them?!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Responsibility.  What we as individuals as well as collectively have towards others.  You feel responsible for ending abortion, but you don’t feel responsibility for what happens to them after as a consequence?
> 
> Especially now that you have removed choice?  Everything you and Flash say seems to indicate that once the child is born, tough luck.
> 
> You don’t believe in a collective responsibility towards children.



Once again, you are projecting onto him what you want to hear in his words, not what he actually said.  And you are being offensive and personally insulting to him.

He's right, and you should set a much better example of behavior as someone who presumes to judge the behavior of others on the board.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> There is no guarentee it won’t and a choice is only a choice when you are free to make it.



"Free to make a choice" is not the same thing as "having all inconveniences about my choice borne by other people".


----------



## Calypso Jones

The damn choice shoulda been whether you were going to have unprotected sex  or not.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Tell me how Democrats are responsible for poverty and how Republicans re fighting poverty


Easy, both of them are ineffectual, one causes it, and the other refuses to stop it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lisa558 said:


> Got it. You’re a man.
> 
> And my idea is to follow the Constitution and let voters of each state determine their laws.
> 
> And as far as ad hom attacks, weren’t you the man who called me a dipshit for refusing to yield to the liberal position?


This is what he sounds like. What all liberals who talk down to women sound like regarding abortion sound like:









						‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Pro-Abortion Activists Protest Outside Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s House
					

One protester thought Coney-Barrett doesn't have any idea what it is like to have a pregnancy full-term.




					legalinsurrection.com


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> You feel responsible for ending abortion, but you don’t feel responsibility for what happens to them after as a consequence?



Instead of teaching poor families in poverty how to prosper, you advocate for programs that perpetuate it. Welfare, food stamps.  Did you ever stop to consider the consequences of that? Why not programs that encourage them to pursue an education that could lead to a well-paying job? Ever consider the benefits of that?

No, of course, you haven't. You don't want these families to prosper, nor their children, you want them to continually be reliant on an entity that has no intention of seeing them prosper. Giving them barely enough money to get by? Hardly enough to sustain them from week to week.

That is tantamount to prolonging suffering, not ending it. So tell me, how is it you care for children after birth?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Do you want to prevent suffering? Teach abstinence. Teach personal responsibility and self-discipline. Teach women how to be prepared when the time comes to conceive a child. Before then, tell them there are methods to take to prevent conception altogether, no conception, no pregnancy, no abortion, and no child to suffer in poverty.

The timing isn't all that hard to grasp. Spare us the emotionally feeble arguments about when we truly care for a child. We care for a child in every stage, from conception until they are grown enough to face the wide-open world on their own.

And for the love of the gods, Coyote, stop encouraging women to kill them in the womb! Give them more options to consider, and maybe abortion may not have to be the only one.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit!! Can't you people ever come up with an original thought,  an idea of your own . All that you do is to continue to bleat party line talking points like "free shit" and" baby killers' without actually putting any thought into the issue


Read the two posts above this one, and consider putting more thought into your own posts before you consider barking your sanctimony at others.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Responsibility.


Exists before conception, during pregnancy, and after birth.

Abortion is a woman who willingly had unprotected sex acknowledging they 1) acted irresponsibly in the first place, and 2) would shirk the responsibility if forced to follow through with their pregnancy.

The simplest thing you can ask a man and a woman to do is to weigh the consequences of their actions.

Condoms, contraceptives. Everything is there to help prevent a pregnancy from ever happening.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Couchpotato said:


> You believe that the majority of Americans are educated on a court decision that was made almost 50 years ago?   That's truly what you believe?    Ok.



In fact, people like ProgressivePatriot rely on such to further their agenda.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Tell me how Democrats are responsible for poverty and how Republicans re fighting poverty


Once again, read my posts.



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It changes everything for women in the other half of the country that have or will pass laws banning abortion.


It changes nothing for the states that legalize it. The needless, wanton slaughter of viable healthy unborn children will continue. Take delight in that, you ghoulish sadist.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Jets said:


> 3100 posts later and we understand why there is no compromise on this issue…


There never will be. And I for one, will never compromise on my positions.


----------



## beagle9

Coyote said:


> Responsibility.  What we as individuals as well as collectively have towards others.  You feel responsible for ending abortion, but you don’t feel responsibility for what happens to them after as a consequence?
> 
> Especially now that you have removed choice?  Everything you and Flash say seems to indicate that once the child is born, tough luck.
> 
> You don’t believe in a collective responsibility towards children.


Once a child is born then tough luck eh ? Nope, no one is advocating or saying that in life, it's being made up.......... Many children grew up in extreme poverty throughout our nation's history, and guess what ? They became some of our most greatest citizen's of all time. Out of struggle's comes many great lesson's in life, and it molds character, strength, and endurance into a person's DNA going forward. The collective is but just one part of our design in our nation, otherwise in which collectively helps within our set up, so if struggle's are in play, then we have multiple ways of helping, but snuffing a life out due to unwarranted fear of a supposed struggle to come is unexceptable.

Now if the mother is a PO-Crap, and she abuses a child that has been born into her care, then she is simply a PO-Crap, and she shouldn't be able to use the collective as a way to kill her baby for her convenience just so she can hide the fact that she's a PO-Crap in life.

She should be responsible for her actions in life, and she should pay a price for being a PO-Crap who would abuse her child in life or worse kill an unborn child out of convenience in order to hide the fact that she's a PO-Crap in life.... She shouldn't be set up to become easily a repeat offender by giving her the chance to abuse everyone with her bull crap in life. Becoming an accessory to people's irresponsible acts in life is an absolute tragedy.

No one should be forced to aid and abet the horrible acts of violence taking place in the womb against the innocent, and all because of the irresponsible acts going on outside of the host body in which is then shockingly leading to the act of attacking that which is growing healthy inside the body over unwarranted lies and fears of a bad future, otherwise if don't follow the cult or trend that has been created around the cult.


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> That’s why we don’t think the State (federal) should issue blanket laws for everyone. Leave it up to the individual states, as our Founders intended.


They'll never do it because they are and have been on this path of oppressing the many at the behest of a few since the sixties. They fear losing any mind control in which they've established or acquired over these years, because they fear it will lead to losing all sorts of other control's in which they've established or have since engaged in over these year's.


----------



## eagle1462010

Cecilie1200 said:


> How do you know it does?  Do you know Flash in real life?  Follow him around?  Snoop around in his tax returns to find out which charities he donates to?


The left just make shit up...........Lie and deceive.  Do whatever it takes to gain power.






This is who they remind me of in History...........Before Lenin and Stalin were done.......nearly 60 million people died.


----------



## eagle1462010

Coyote said:


> Responsibility.  What we as individuals as well as collectively have towards others.  You feel responsible for ending abortion, but you don’t feel responsibility for what happens to them after as a consequence?
> 
> Especially now that you have removed choice?  Everything you and Flash say seems to indicate that once the child is born, tough luck.
> 
> You don’t believe in a collective responsibility towards children.


LOL

So you just KILL THEM............We KILL THEM FOR THEIR OWN GOOD.

You are a parrty of BUTCHERS.


----------



## beagle9

eagle1462010 said:


> The left just make shit up...........Lie and deceive.  Do whatever it takes to gain power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is who they remind me of in History...........Before Lenin and Stalin were done.......nearly 60 million people died.


That's Joe Biden in his past life... Stirring up crap to hide his own.


----------



## beagle9

eagle1462010 said:


> LOL
> 
> So you just KILL THEM............We KILL THEM FOR THEIR OWN GOOD.
> 
> You are a parrty of BUTCHERS.


Exactly... Have you ever heard of such idiotic logic in which they use ? Just kill them for their own good is what they advocate for... They need help for their mental condition's in life, not position's of power instead.


----------



## eagle1462010

beagle9 said:


> That's Joe Biden in his past life... Stirring up crap to hide his own.


That one caused the death of about 60 million.  They slaughtered anyone who disagreed.  Including their own side.

All yelling DIVERSITY AND UNITY .........we are HERE FOR THE WORKER........as they slaughter people.


----------



## eagle1462010

beagle9 said:


> Exactly... Have you ever heard of such idiotic logic in which they use ? Just kill them for their own good is what they advocate for... They need help for their mental condition's in life, not position's of power instead.


Many like them in History.  And a massive trail of dead people.  Lenin said give me 4 years with your child and I'll change him forever.

 Same as Hitler Youth.........brain washed Fanatics..............Told from birth that JEWS DID ALL THIS SHIT TO YOU............

Middle East the same.......We get the child a baseball glove...........they get the child a ak47


----------



## beagle9

eagle1462010 said:


> That one caused the death of about 60 million.  They slaughtered anyone who disagreed.  Including their own side.
> 
> All yelling DIVERSITY AND UNITY .........we are HERE FOR THE WORKER........as they slaughter people.


Could easily go down those same roads here also. We aren't immune to this sort of thing happening, and it appears that the storm's are attempting to line themselves up for bad weather to come.


----------



## eagle1462010

beagle9 said:


> Could easily go down those same roads here also. We aren't immune to this sort of thing happening, and it appears that the storm's are attempting to line themselves up for bad weather to come.


Well the new Bolsheviks have moved into places to brain wash our kids............they control most of the 4th tier of government........Federal Employees......They use tactics of terror and intimidation.

Only thing missing is the sickle and star.


----------



## beagle9

eagle1462010 said:


> Well the new Bolsheviks have moved into places to brain wash our kids............they control most of the 4th tier of government........Federal Employees......They use tactics of terror and intimidation.
> 
> Only thing missing is the sickle and star.


Must be watchful or this nation could easily be taken down the paths of destruction. It seems that we are already toying with it big time


----------



## Lisa558

beagle9 said:


> Must be watchful or this nation could easily be taken down the paths of destruction. It seems that we are already toying with it big time


Yes, and Coyote signaled it upthread when she asked “aren‘t children a collective responsibility?”

The leftists are moving everything away from personal responsibility to collective responsibility - in which, of course, the collective decides what is best. We saw that when Biden told teachers that other people’s children were THEIR children during school hours. We saw that when McAuliffe (loser in the VA gov race) said that parents shouldn’t have a say in what their kids are taught in school.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Chuz Life said:


> The attack is in the way you projected your own assumptions onto me. I never once said that my concern for children ends at birth because I actually do support laws that criminalize the abuse and neglect of children of any age or stage of development.


Do you support the Affordable Care Act, Paid Family Leave, and Food Stamps?


----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Do you support the Affordable Care Act, Paid Family Leave, and Food Stamps?


Projection............Look at this.........if you say you don't approve of these..............You have the RIGHT TO KILL........

For their own Good..............Sound's like Lenin and Stalin...........Did someone put Lenin in the pet cemetary again?


----------



## schmidlap

Flash said:


> You are really confused about this, aren't you?  Typical for a stupid uneducated Moon Bat.
> 
> I respect the right of a woman to be responsible and killing a child for the purpose of birth control is as irresponsible as it gets.
> 
> It goes beyond being private because it involves the death of another human being.  A human being that cannot speak for itself.
> 
> If a "loved one" advises you to kill your kid because it will be a bother to you then that loved one is a piece of shit.
> 
> It is amazing how immoral you Libtard asshoes are when it comes to such a basic human instinct as protecting children that can't protect themselves.  Disgusting.  You are not much of a human, are you?


Fanatics fantasize that mindless, microscopic amalgams of cells are persons. In fact, fetal viability is generally considered to begin at 23 or 24 weeks gestational.

You favor your politicians and bureaucrats inflicting your opinion on women over allowing women to make personal, informed decisions in such private matters, rather than women having the freedom they enjoy in advanced democracies.

 Your state control is practiced in Iran, Egypt, Honduras, and El Salvador

Most Americans clearly support freedom from your intrusive government coercion:

Most Americans favor keeping Roe v. Wade​


			https://www.foxnews.com/politics/most-americans...


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> Fanatics fantasize that mindless, microscopic amalgams of cells are persons. In fact, fetal viability is generally considered to begin at 23 or 24 weeks gestational.
> 
> You favor your politicians and bureaucrats inflicting your opinion on women over allowing women to make personal, informed decisions in such private matters, rather than women having the freedom they enjoy in advanced democracies.
> 
> Your state control is practiced in Iran, Egypt, Honduras, and El Salvador
> 
> Most Americans clearly support freedom from your intrusive government coercion:
> 
> Most Americans favor keeping Roe v. Wade​
> 
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/most-americans...


Most Americans favor it because they have been lied to by the media to believe overturning it means a national ban. if they were told the truth - about it reverting to the voters in each state - it would be 50/50.


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> Fanatics fantasize that mindless, microscopic amalgams of cells are persons. In fact, fetal viability is generally considered to begin at 23 or 24 weeks gestational.
> 
> You favor your politicians and bureaucrats inflicting your opinion on women over allowing women to make personal, informed decisions in such private matters, rather than women having the freedom they enjoy in advanced democracies.
> 
> Your state control is practiced in Iran, Egypt, Honduras, and El Salvador
> 
> Most Americans clearly support freedom from your intrusive government coercion:
> 
> Most Americans favor keeping Roe v. Wade​
> 
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/most-americans...


Most humans don't support the killing of children.  You stupid Moon Bats do but then you are lacking in human morality aren't you?


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> Most Americans favor it because they have been lied to by the media


Your need to inflict your paranoid view of the free press to prop up your partisan wish to inflict big government into personal, private decisions is transparent.

If fact, you have no credible data to sustain your prejudiced view.


----------



## schmidlap

Flash said:


> Most humans don't support the killing of children.


Certainly not. A woman exercising her personal freedom concerning such private decisions rather than your bureaucrats dictating to her concerns the period of gestation before a viable person has developed.


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> Your need to inflict your paranoid view of the free press to prop up your partisan wish to inflict big government into personal, private decisions is transparent.
> 
> If fact, you have no credible data to sustain your prejudiced view.


Oh riiiiight….the “free press.” That’s why libtards went into meltdown over the idea that Musk would allow free speech on Twitter.


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> Your need to inflict your paranoid view of the free press to prop up your partisan wish to inflict big government into personal, private decisions is transparent.
> 
> If fact, you have no credible data to sustain your prejudiced view.


But yet it was the Worthless Negro that said that Fox News was a threat to America.

Now that asshole Potatohead just announced he was using the government as a propaganda instrument with telling America what is true or not.  A Ministry of Truth.  Right out of 1984.

Socialism requirement tremendous government control and we see it when the filthy Democrats get power.


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> Certainly not. A woman exercising her personal freedom concerning such private decisions rather than your bureaucrats dictating to her concerns the period of gestation before a viable person has developed.


“Private decisions” are not private when they involve terminating a life.

What if I make a private decision to push the toddler next door off the balcony?


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> Certainly not. A woman exercising her personal freedom concerning such private decisions rather than your bureaucrats dictating to her concerns the period of gestation before a viable person has developed.



This is where you stupid immoral Moon Bats are always confused.

You don't understand that a woman's right to chose does not include the right to murder a child for the sake of convenience.  You are lacking in basic human morality to understand something like that.  Kinda of like the Nazis not understanding that it was wrong to kill Jews because they diodn't want them around.

You little shits were not concerned about the right to chose when it came to Pandemic government mandates so don't give me that horseshit.


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> Oh riiiiight….the “free press.” That’s why libtards went into meltdown over the idea that Musk would allow free speech on Twitter.


I have expressed no interest in your social media.

I note the reality that a broad range of diverse perspectives in reportage and editorial opinion is readily accessible in the United States, despite the "deep state" paranoia that festers in some noggins.


----------



## schmidlap

Flash said:


> But yet it was the Worthless Negro that said that Fox News was a threat to America.
> 
> Now that asshole Potatohead just announced he was using the government as a propaganda instrument with telling America what is true or not.  A Ministry of Truth.  Right out of 1984.
> 
> Socialism requirement tremendous government control and we see it when the filthy Democrats get power.


Spew your venom as you will, most Americans support Roe v Wade, established precedent for half-a-century, reflective of the progress that has occurred in advanced democratic nations.


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> “Private decisions” are not private when they involve terminating a life.
> 
> What if I make a private decision to push the toddler next door off the balcony?


Please clarify.

 Are you capable of distinguishing an early-stage mindless, microscopic entity from a viable fetus, or are you adamant that faceless bureaucrats should seize control away from a woman at he instant of conception?


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> Spew your venom as you will, most Americans support Roe v Wade, established precedent for half-a-century, reflective of the progress that has occurred in advanced democratic nations.


BS.  The media has fed many their lies..........not explaining the real deal here............All to create CHAOS...........and riots and outrage................same as every election season.

It is NOW RIOT SEASON AGAIN.


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> Spew your venom as you will, most Americans support Roe v Wade, established precedent for half-a-century, reflective of the progress that has occurred in advanced democratic nations.


If you don't have it in your moral foundation to protect children from being murdered for the sake of convenience then you are a piss poor excuse for a human being, aren't you?


----------



## Lisa558

Flash said:


> If you don't have it in your moral foundation to protect children from being murdered for the sake of convenience then you are a piss poor excuse for a human being, aren't you?


He’s a man. He just likes the idea that he can knock a woman up and there’s a way out of his paying child support.


----------



## schmidlap

Flash said:


> If you don't have it in your moral foundation to protect children from being murdered...


I don't know if your fanaticism compels you to believe that most Americans, like most advanced democratic nations, support "children" being "murdered." 

Your sensationalistic rhetoric aside, supporting a woman's personal decisions over the edicts of politicians abrogating and arrogating her established rights applies only to early stages of gestation, prior to a viable fetus forming.


----------



## schmidlap

Flash said:


> ... children... murdered


Try to stop spewing the hyperbolic rhetoric you have been trained to parrot.

A woman terminating a pregnancy, for whatever personal reasons she may have, prior to the formation of a viable fetus, is not _murdering children._


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> A woman terminating a pregnancy, for whatever personal reasons she may have, prior to the formation of a viable fetus, is not _murdering children._


As the troll learns..........because viability was in the Roe V Wade decision..........and ignored by every blue state in this country..........As they terminate .........Murder the unborn after the viability set by Roe V Wade..........

And should Roe be overturned..........it changes nothing in those states..............NOTHING.


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> I don't know if your fanaticism compels you to believe that most Americans, like most advanced democratic nations, support "children" being "murdered."
> 
> Your sensationalistic rhetoric aside, supporting a woman's personal decisions over the edicts of politicians abrogating and arrogating her established rights applies only to early stages of gestation, prior to a viable fetus forming.


This has been explained to you many times but you have your head up your ass and don't want to hear it.

There are two human beings when a woman get pregnant and one does not have the right to kill the other one for the sake of convenience. 

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats are as ignorant of Biology as you are of everything else, aren't you?


----------



## beagle9

schmidlap said:


> Fanatics fantasize that mindless, microscopic amalgams of cells are persons. In fact, fetal viability is generally considered to begin at 23 or 24 weeks gestational.
> 
> You favor your politicians and bureaucrats inflicting your opinion on women over allowing women to make personal, informed decisions in such private matters, rather than women having the freedom they enjoy in advanced democracies.
> 
> Your state control is practiced in Iran, Egypt, Honduras, and El Salvador
> 
> Most Americans clearly support freedom from your intrusive government coercion:
> 
> Most Americans favor keeping Roe v. Wade​
> 
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/most-americans...


Comes down to whether one is being a moral rational responsible citizen in your democracy or whether one is being a leftist radical that would (in your democracy), say that hey anything should go or should be allowed, otherwise if a bunch of bad characters/people were to come together and say that it's ok to kill unborn babies at any stage of the development, and to do so out of convenience or for the so called "good of the child", then kill that unborn baby eh ???

Get help, because your ways of thinking is badly flawed. The fact that we in the world have a higher power to adhere too, and to highly respect puts your radical minded bunch at odds with that power, otherwise when they decide to go against a loving God that has imprinted the differences between right and wrong into every living human beings mind.

Now for those that rebell and refuse instruction, then they have chosen folly instead of wisdom in life, and it shows in everything they do.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> As the troll learns..........because viability was in the Roe V Wade decision..........and ignored by every blue state in this country..........As they terminate .........Murder the unborn after the viability set by Roe V Wade..........
> 
> And should Roe be overturned..........it changes nothing in those states..............NOTHING.


 It _is_ likely that only regressive, authoritarian-dominated states will abrogate and arrogate the rights of women, consigning their personal, informed decisions to their impersonal politicians and bureaucrats, but the reality of medical abortions increasing in the early weeks of pregnancy will make it increasingly difficult for the autocrats to police their seizure of wombs.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> It _is_ likely that only regressive, authoritarian-dominated states will abrogate and arrogate the rights of women, consigning their personal, informed decisions to their impersonal politicians and bureaucrats, but the reality of medical abortions increasing in the early weeks of pregnancy will make it increasingly difficult for the autocrats to police their seizure of wombs.


Long winded rant and nothing more............as your blue state shitholes abort all the way up to birth and say it's not a life.

FO


----------



## beagle9

schmidlap said:


> Spew your venom as you will, most Americans support Roe v Wade, established precedent for half-a-century, reflective of the progress that has occurred in advanced democratic nations.


No most have not supported it, so that's a lie, but leftist lie and falsely state unsupported bull crap in hopes to convince people of such lies in order to keep the lies going. Never has there been a true Democratic vote taken on the subject, because if there would have been thing's would have been different.


----------



## schmidlap

beagle9 said:


> Comes down to whether one is being a moral rational responsible citizen in your democracy or whether one is being a leftist radical


If you need to pretend that most freedom-loving Americans, in concert with most advanced, democratic nations, are your _"leftists radicals" _that is your perverse, self-serving delusion.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> As the troll learns..........because viability was in the Roe V Wade decision..........and ignored by every blue state in this country..........As they terminate .........Murder the unborn after the viability set by Roe V Wade..........
> 
> And should Roe be overturned..........it changes nothing in those states..............NOTHING.


I sure pray it IS overturned. Otherwise, we’ve emboldened the violent leftists threatening the lives of the justices if they don’t yield to liberal demands.


----------



## beagle9

schmidlap said:


> If you need to pretend that most freedom-loving Americans, in concert with most advanced, democratic nations, are your _"leftists radicals" _that is your perverse, self-serving delusion.
> 
> View attachment 644365​


Pffft, "leaving the question to each person" as if the decision born of the question involves no one else.. So if one chooses to take the life of the unborn child at any stage of development, then leftist are willing to adhere to that person's decision without conscience of it, and so they would just help them kill that unborn child at any stage eh ??


----------



## Lisa558

beagle9 said:


> Pffft, "leaving the question to each person" as if the decision born of the question involves no one else.. So if one chooses to take the life of the unborn child at any stage of development, then leftist are willing to adhere to that person's decision without conscience of it, and so they would just help them kill that unborn child at any stage eh ??


That’s what the leftists are doing: to each their own…..like other comparable medical procedures…..it’s her own body…..etc.

They either skip over the “inconvenient truth” that an innocent life is being wiped out, or reduce the baby to a “bunch of cells.” At the same time, these leftists will protest to save the life of a convicted mass murderer.

i can sum up the problem with leftists in one short sentence: THEY ALWAYS DEFEND THE WRONG PEOPLE.


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> That’s what the leftists are doing: to each their own…..like other comparable medical procedures…..it’s her own body…..etc.
> 
> They either skip over the “inconvenient truth” that an innocent life is being wiped out, or reduce the baby to a “bunch of cells.” At the same time, these leftists will protest to save the life of a convicted mass murderer.
> 
> i can sum up the problem with leftists in one short sentence: THEY ALWAYS DEFEND THE WRONG PEOPLE.


And what does that make them ? Worker's for evil maybe aware of or surprisingly unaware of their take on life. Hopefully for them it's just that they are brainwashed and no not what they do.


----------



## Lisa558

beagle9 said:


> And what does that make them ? Worker's for evil maybe aware of or surprisingly unaware of their take on life. Hopefully for them it's just that they are brainwashed and no not what they do.


I do think they are so brainwashed they don’t even hear what hypocrites they are.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TemplarKormac said:


> This is what he sounds like. What all liberals who talk down to women sound like regarding abortion sound like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Pro-Abortion Activists Protest Outside Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s House
> 
> 
> One protester thought Coney-Barrett doesn't have any idea what it is like to have a pregnancy full-term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> legalinsurrection.com



Seriously, do people on the left know that there are other books in the world besides "Handmaid's Tale" and the Harry Potter series?


----------



## schmidlap

beagle9 said:


> Pffft, "leaving the question to each person" as if the decision born of the question involves no one else.. So if one chooses to take the life of the unborn child at any stage of development, then leftist are willing to adhere to that person's decision without conscience of it, and so they would just help them kill that unborn child at any stage eh ??


Your distortion of reality is noted, as well as your fixation upon the "leftists" that frolic in your noggin.

A woman's right of privacy and control of her own body, as she makes personal decisions in consultation with loved ones, and medical and spiritual advisers, is respected under the compromise ruling of Roe v Wade, established law for half-a-century, supported by most Americans,_ before _a viable fetus has developed.

Authoritarians abrogating that freedom and arrogating it to state bureaucracy is antithetical to the progress that has been achieved in advanced democratic nations.


----------



## schmidlap

beagle9 said:


> Could easily go down those same roads here also. We aren't immune to this sort of thing happening, and it appears that the storm's are attempting to line themselves up for bad weather to come.


The hyperbolic, hateful, extremist rhetoric by authoritarians who are hellbent upon state bureaucracies seizing recognized individual freedom in making informed, personal decisions is deranged.

Most Americans respect the right of an American to control her own body before a viable fetus has developed within it, at which point society has a legitimate interest in protecting it.

Screeching _"Murderer!"_ at most Americans, and at citizens of advanced democracies, evidences a fanaticism that is not conducive to  intelligent discussion.


----------



## beagle9

schmidlap said:


> The hyperbolic, hateful, extremist rhetoric by authoritarians who are hellbent upon state bureaucracies seizing recognized individual freedom in making informed, personal decisions is deranged.
> 
> Most Americans respect the right of an American to control her own body before a viable fetus has developed within it, at which point society has a legitimate interest in protecting it.
> 
> Screeching _"Murderer!"_ at most Americans, and at citizens of advanced democracies, evidences a fanaticism that is not conducive to  intelligent discussion.


Now you want to try and wiggle out of the bull crap by claiming it's been all the while about stopping a woman's choice "before a viable fetus is developed", when you know damned well what's been going on in all of the shocking developments or add ons over the year's.. Then you try and revert back to the beginning as if nothing has progressed forward in stages over the year's... You are a joke.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> Well the new Bolsheviks have moved into places to brain wash our kids............they control most of the 4th tier of government........Federal Employees......They use tactics of terror and intimidation.
> 
> Only thing missing is the sickle and star.


The irony of the hyper-partisan, authoritarian radicals raving about their demonic _"liberals!" _(i.e., most Americans who support Rue v Wade) is that, by any rational criterion, respecting a half-century's established law is, clearly, to espouse a _conservative_ position. 

conservative: 1) disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Of course,_ "restoring traditional ones"_ by trashing the conservative principle of _stare decisis, c_ould mean returning to the _"quickening"_ (16-20 weeks) standard of Christian theologians Aquinas and Augustine that had been the temporal moral determinant of Christianity that applied throughout most of the history of the United States. For centuries, the _"quickening"_ also had important legal ramifications. British common law, eventually imported to Colonial America, outlawed abortion only if it took place only _after_ the quickening, again, 16-20 weeks.

There is nothing _conservative_ about promoting an extreme change from an accepted status quo to intrusive, invasive statism.


----------



## schmidlap

beagle9 said:


> Now you want to try and wiggle out of the bull crap by claiming it's been all the while about stopping a woman's choice "before a viable fetus is developed", when you know damned well what's been going on in all of the shocking developments or add ons over the year's.. Then you try and revert back to the beginning as if nothing has progressed forward in stages over the year's... You are a joke.


Your fraudulent claims notwithstanding, I, like _most_ Americans, support the established law of the land as determined by the Roe v Wade compromise fifty years ago, the decision to terminate a pregnancy being solely at the discretion of the woman, not your politicians and bureaucrats dictating to her. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## beagle9

schmidlap said:


> Your fraudulent claims notwithstanding, I, like _most_ Americans, support the established law of the land as determined by the Roe v Wade compromise fifty years ago, the decision to terminate a pregnancy being solely at the discretion of the woman, not your politicians and bureaucrats dictating to her. Nothing more, nothing less.


Trying to be slick ain't helping you.


----------



## schmidlap

beagle9 said:


> Trying to be slick ain't helping you.


It's obvious that you are unable to refute the truth that I have clearly stated. I, like _most_ Americans, support the established law of the land as determined by the Roe v Wade compromise fifty years ago, the decision to terminate a pregnancy being solely at the discretion of the woman, not your politicians and bureaucrats dictating to her.

Authoritarians want their politicians and bureaucrats to abrogate that established right.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> It changes nothing for the states that legalize it.


Not for now anyway. But the Republicans are pushing for legislation to ban abortion nationally


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> The needless, wanton slaughter of viable healthy unborn children will continue. Take delight in that, you ghoulish sadist.


Give me a fucking break! How many are actually viable. You are the sadistic ghoul who wants to force women to resort to back ally abortions where the will be at risk of serious harm or death. And because those abortions will be unregulated, there will be many late term abortions which, for the most part are now banned. How stupid can you people be?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> Many like them in History.  And a massive trail of dead people.  Lenin said give me 4 years with your child and I'll change him forever.
> 
> Same as Hitler Youth.........brain washed Fanatics..............Told from birth that JEWS DID ALL THIS SHIT TO YOU............
> 
> Middle East the same.......We get the child a baseball glove...........they get the child a ak47


Holy Shit! You people are over the edge!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> .because viability was in the Roe V Wade decision..........and ignored by every blue state in this country.


Do you have documentation of that or are you just blowing smoke?


----------



## beagle9

schmidlap said:


> It's obvious that you are unable to refute the truth that I have clearly stated. I, like _most_ Americans, support the established law of the land as determined by the Roe v Wade compromise fifty years ago, the decision to terminate a pregnancy being solely at the discretion of the woman, not your politicians and bureaucrats dictating to her.
> 
> Authoritarians want their politicians and bureaucrats to abrogate that established right.


50 years ago means nothing, otherwise we can revisit the Vietnam war to determine that certain things our government did weren't correct or right, and therefore it put us on a path of correction, so you constantly trying to tell us that 50 year's ago the ruling was correct is laughable. We know better that we are not a perfect people, and that we are subject to making mistakes, but at least we've had the since to correct those mistakes, especially after viewing the fall out and negative effects of those mistakes.


----------



## Flash




----------



## Flash




----------



## Flash




----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Do you have documentation of that or are you just blowing smoke?


Ive posted  use google and read the findings Moonbat


----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy Shit! You people are over the edge!
> 
> View attachment 644507


Yes you are


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> Ive posted  use google and read the findings Moonbat


Bullshit! Where did you post it?


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Not for now anyway. But the Republicans are pushing for legislation to ban abortion nationally


Well, yeah, but not for a complete "no exception" ban like you're _lying_ about.


----------



## TemplarKormac

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Do you have documentation of that or are you just blowing smoke?







__





						Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> Well, yeah, but not for a complete "no exception" ban like you're _lying_ about.


Where did I say "no exceptions"  YOU are lying!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


And where in  there does it support your claim that "every  blue state" ignored the viability provision of Roe?


----------



## dblack

MYOB


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> MYOB


….except when another life is harmed, or worse - terminated.


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> ….except when another life is harmed, or worse - terminated.


MYOB - the contents of another person's body is none of your meddling business. It doesn't matter what you think is in there. Buzz off.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> MYOB - the contents of another person's body is none of your meddling business. It doesn't matter what you think is in there. Buzz off.


Seems likev you ignoring your own advice caused the need for abortion.  Maybe you should follow your own advice


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Seems likev you ignoring your own advice caused the need for abortion.  Maybe you should follow your own advice


You can't do it, can you? Gotta be sticking your nose up someone else's crotch. 

The most important political division in the US isn't left and right. It's people who want to control others, and those who have no such desire.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> You can't do it, can you? Gotta be sticking your nose up someone else's crotch.
> 
> The most important political division in the US isn't left and right. It's people who want to control others, and those who have no such desire.


You ignore the unborns right to life


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> You ignore the unborns right to life


MYOB


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> MYOB


As you ignore you didnt have to fuck to begin with


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> You ignore the unborns right to life


Because the concept of unborn people having rights is nonsense. It's a conceit to justify your desire to bully others.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Because the concept of unborn people having rights is nonsense. It's a conceit to justify your desire to bully others.


Baloney.  It is an argument of when life begins.  And you want to use abortion as birth control instead of safe sex.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Baloney.  It is an argument of when life begins.  And you want to use abortion as birth control instead of safe sex.



No, it's not.  It's a question of an individual's sovereignty over their own body. What they choose to do with their life, and the life inside them, is just none of your fucking business. Jesus, get a hobby and quit meddling with others' lives.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> No, it's not.  It's a question of an individual's sovereignty over their own body. What they choose to do with their life, and the life inside them, is just none of your fucking business. Jesus, get a hobby and quit meddling with others' lives.


My hobby is antagonizing you.

Once an unborn child is considered life it is double homicide if the mother is killed.  That baby has no voice and blue state shitholes will still allow you to get an ahortion


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> My hobby is antagonizing you.


Obviously. Trolling is the true calling for Trumpsters. That's all ya got.


eagle1462010 said:


> Once an unborn child is considered life it is double homicide if the mother is killed.  That baby has no voice and blue state shitholes will still allow you to get an ahortion


Listen - as I said, it doesn't matter what you imagine is in there - you have no business poking around in another person's body. People are not state property.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Obviously. Trolling is the true calling for Trumpsters. That's all ya got.
> 
> Listen - as I said, it doesn't matter what you imagine is in there - you have no business poking around in another person's body. People are not state property.


I have never poked your body.

Lol

Roe may be overturned.  But they will not completely overturn it I think.  I believe they may just go with 15 weeks.

We will not know til its out.  But changes nothing on abortion except maybe having to travel to get an abortion.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> I have never poked your body.


You're advocating for the government to do that on your behalf. You're arguing for the state to monitor pregnant women and ensure they abide by your wishes.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> You're advocating for the government to do that on your behalf. You're arguing for the state to monitor pregnant women and ensure they abide by your wishes.


Most laws will make illegal for doctors to do the abrtion.  Up to a year in an old trigger law in Alabama.  

No charges against the woman in that law


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Most laws will make illegal for doctors to do the abrtion.  Up to a year in an old trigger law in Alabama.
> 
> No charges against the woman in that law


Keep dancing. Will self induced abortion be allowed in these states? Why? If it's murder, it's murder, right?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Keep dancing. Will self induced abortion be allowed in these states? Why? If it's murder, it's murder, right?


Yawn.  You are speculating.  Each state will decide unless SCOTUS kicks the can again like Roe v Wade.  Who said when life begins is something for future law to decide


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Yawn.  You are speculating.


And you are dodging. Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?


----------



## BackAgain

dblack said:


> And you are dodging. Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?


Historically, the would be mothers aren’t the ones who get prosecuted for abortions.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> And you are dodging. Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?


You refuse to answer when life begins or the right to life.

Why should answer your questions as you dodge mine.


----------



## dblack

BackAgain said:


> Historically, the would be mothers aren’t the ones who get prosecuted for abortions.


It's just a question. You don't have to answer it, of course, but it seems pretty important as we go down this road of trying to ban abortion. Wanna try again?

 Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> You refuse to answer when life begins or the right to life.


Nope I've answered. Fetuses are very much alive. It's just irrelevant to the question of whether the state has jurisdiction over the womb.


eagle1462010 said:


> Why should answer your questions as you dodge mine.


You're still dodging.

Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Nope I've answered. Fetuses are very much alive. It's just irrelevant to the question of whether the state has jurisdiction over the womb.
> 
> You're still dodging.
> 
> Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?


Right to life is ignored again in your post.

Yet you say very much alive.  So you want the right to kill


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Right to life is ignored again in your post.
> 
> Yet you say very much alive.  So you want the right to kill


Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?


Put the cost hanger down while you virtue signal.  You might hurt yourself


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Put the cost hanger down while you virtue signal.  You might hurt yourself


Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?

And more to the point - why are you so afraid to answer? What do you think it would reveal?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?
> 
> And more to the point - why are you so afraid to answer? What do you think it would reveal?


You have given no specifics.  It will depend on the laws.

Over the counter day after pills.  Nope.  Prescribed only if within the law via a doctor.

15 weeks is fine by me as a compromise.  If its nationwide.  If not  we will decide in Alabama when life begins


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> You have given no specifics.  It will depend on the laws.


I'm not asking for legal advice. I'm asking for your opinion. But you sure don't want to say what it is. How come?

Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?

If your state proposed a law to punish women for self-induced abortions, would you support it or not?


----------



## BackAgain

dblack said:


> It's just a question. You don't have to answer it, of course, but it seems pretty important as we go down this road of trying to ban abortion. Wanna try again?
> 
> Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?


Historically, as I said, women aren’t the ones prosecuted. I see no reason to believe that will change. 

Your question is about my personal opinion. Then you claim the question is important. I dispute that. My own personal view is of very limited significance one way or the other. I’m not a Congressman or a state legislator. Nor do I plan on ever being one. 

The issue itself is actually more complicated than your rather simplistic question suggests.  

If the baby gets born and mom immediately and intentionally smothers it to death, you bet she should be prosecuted for murder. But go back a half hour earlier and she snuffs the baby inside of her, the outcome should be different?  Why?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> I'm not asking for legal advice. I'm asking for your opinion. But you sure don't want to say what it is. How come?
> 
> Do you think self-induced abortions should be punished? Why or why not?
> 
> If your state proposed a law to punish women for self-induced abortions, would you support it or not?


Yawn.  At what term and by what means.  If you self induce abortion in Alabama RIGHT NOW.  You have violated Alabama law and can go to jail after ,20 weeks


----------



## task0778

dblack said:


> Because the concept of unborn people having rights is nonsense. It's a conceit to justify your desire to bully others.



Is it really?  The yet to be born has a separate pumping heart, a separate brain, and it's own unique DNA with arms, legs, and other human organs and a body of it's own inside the mother's womb.  He or she is alive and is human, and in the minds of many it is utter nonsense to claim the unborn have no rights at all.  

Are you sure there's no bullying going on from both sides?


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> I have never poked your body.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Roe may be overturned.  But they will not completely overturn it I think.  I believe they may just go with 15 weeks.
> 
> We will not know til its out.  But changes nothing on abortion except maybe having to travel to get an abortion.


They’ll probably due that - go to 15 weeks - as a compromise.

But from a Constitutional perspective, it’s still wrong. the SCOTUS should not be making laws. The correct decision would be to return it to the states. But with the leftists threatening to murder them if they don’t yield, I doubt they will.


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> Because the concept of unborn people having rights is nonsense. It's a conceit to justify your desire to bully others.


So you’re opposed to bullying others? Then I take it you agree the thugs in front of the justices houses, issuing threats, should be arrested and out in jail?


----------



## dblack

BackAgain said:


> Your question is about my personal opinion. Then you claim the question is important. I dispute that. My own personal view is of very limited significance one way or the other. I’m not a Congressman or a state legislator. Nor do I plan on ever being one.


We're discussion the rationale and practice of banning abortion. If you're afraid to express your opinion, that's ok. I'm just curious how far pro-lifers want to take this. And it IS a relevant question because - especially as abortion clinics are banned - self-induced abortion will become common. And I suspect pro-lifers will want to prohibit that as well. Will you support that, or push back?


BackAgain said:


> If the baby gets born and mom immediately and intentionally smothers it to death, you bet she should be prosecuted for murder. But go back a half hour earlier and she snuffs the baby inside of her, the outcome should be different?  Why?


Because that's where we draw the line between a separate person, with rights, and the contents of a woman's body (and no one else's business). It's the only practicable approach in my view.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Yawn.  At what term and by what means.  If you self induce abortion in Alabama RIGHT NOW.  You have violated Alabama law and can go to jail after ,20 weeks


 

Do you have an opinion on the matter? Would you vote for, or against, such a law in your state?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Do you have an opinion on the matter? Would you vote for, or against, such a law in your state?


I agree with a compromise down to 15 weeks.  Bur the blue states end late term abortion.

If you self abort here after 15 weeks enjoy prison.


----------



## dblack

task0778 said:


> Is it really?


Yes.


task0778 said:


> The yet to be born has a separate pumping heart, a separate brain, and it's own unique DNA with arms, legs, and other human organs and a body of it's own inside the mother's womb.  He or she is alive and is human, and in the minds of many it is utter nonsense to claim the unborn have no rights at all.
> 
> Are you sure there's no bullying going on from both sides?


Quite sure.  We have to draw a line on when a legal person, with state protected rights, exists. Drawing that line inside the woman's body is, to me, incompatible with fundamental individual rights.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> If you self abort here after 15 weeks enjoy prison.


Ok. Thanks for finally answering.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Ok. Thanks for finally answering.


Its 20 weeks now here already lol


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> So you’re opposed to bullying others? Then I take it you agree the thugs in front of the justices houses, issuing threats, should be arrested and out in jail?


Yep.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Its 20 weeks now here already lol


So what?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> So what?


Facts bother you  lol

Blue states nothing changes.

So healthy  unborn baby.  Water broke.  9 months.  

She changes her mind.  Abort the baby.

Do you agree with this abortion dblack?


----------



## eagle1462010

Well?


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Facts bother you  lol


Nope. I'm just curious why you posted that. What you did you mean? C'mon. Can't you drop the troll act for five minutes and just have  areal discussion?


eagle1462010 said:


> Blue states nothing changes.
> 
> So healthy  unborn baby.  Water broke.  9 months.
> 
> She changes her mind.  Abort the baby.
> 
> Do you agree with this abortion dblack?


I never "agree" with abortion. I see it like suicide: a tragedy, but not something we can alleviate by simply passing a law.

But it IS her right do what she wants with her body and its contents. Until the umbilical is cut and a baby takes its first breath, it's up to the mother what happens with her body. We have to draw the line somewhere, and drawing that line inside a woman's body is a fundamental violation of her rights.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Nope. I'm just curious why posted that. What you did you mean? C'mon. Can't you drop the troll act for five minutes and just have  areal discussion?
> 
> I never "agree" with abortion. I see it like suicide: a tragedy, but not something we can alleviate by simply passing a law.
> 
> But it IS her right do what she wants with her body and its contents. Until the umbilical is cut and a baby takes its first breath, it's up to the mother what happens with her body. We have to draw the line somewhere, and drawing that line inside a woman's body is a fundamental violation of her basic rights.


Aka.  You agree with late term abortion and are a Barbarian.  Done with your sorry ass.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Aka.  You agree with late term abortion and are a Barbarian.  Done with your sorry ass.


Piss off, troll.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Piss off, troll.


Piss off Murderer


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Piss off Murderer


Piss off, troll.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Piss off, troll.


Got you to admit what you sre... Poor thing


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Got you to admit what you sre... Poor thing


Piss off, troll.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Piss off, troll.


Your mad because you showed everyone here who reads that...you want psrtial birth abortion.

But I already knew that without you admitting it slready


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Your mad because you showed everyone here who reads that...you want psrtial birth abortion.
> 
> But I already knew that without you admitting it slready


Piss off, troll.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## BackAgain

dblack said:


> We're discussion the rationale and practice of banning abortion. If you're afraid to express your opinion, that's ok. I'm just curious how far pro-lifers want to take this. And it IS a relevant question because - especially as abortion clinics are banned - self-induced abortion will become common. And I suspect pro-lifers will want to prohibit that as well. Will you support that, or push back?
> 
> Because that's where we draw the line between a separate person, with rights, and the contents of a woman's body (and no one else's business). It's the only practicable approach in my view.


Oh. So that’s where we “draw” the “line.”  Cool. Then time for an eraser. And also time for a more realistic line  to be drawn. Since it’s all a matter of definition and common sense. Reasonable folks may differ. But that can get haggled-out and ironed-out. Still, when something is exposed as arbitrary and foundation-less, it is a good time to re-examine it.

Let’s start with a basic. *Life* begins at conception. The product of conception is an entirely unique life. That will be the starting point. Let’s call it point “a.” 

Now since most of us are perfectly content to acknowledge that a baby born into this world is not allowed to be murdered, let’s call that the end point of any case for abortion.  Let’s call it “z.” 

Some people contend that a zygote at point “a” is a “person.”  Some people contend that the individual life isn’t a “person” until point “z.”  If mom can’t legally extinguish the life of her baby at point “z” or later, but is “allowed” to do so at any time prior to point “z,” then the argument to justify that difference *has* to be premised entirely on the definition of a life becoming a “person” at “z.” 

I say that’s nonsensical. So I ask again: what is the basis for the massive distinction between what constitutes a “person” at 1 instant after “z” as opposed to one instant prior to “z?” And my contention is that it is a distinction without any reasonable basis.

You will likely find this to be just a joke. But it isn’t: Dr. Seuss said it very well long ago. “A person’s a person, no matter how small.”


----------



## dblack

BackAgain said:


> Oh. So that’s where we “draw” the “line.”  Cool. Then time for an eraser.


Right. That's what this is about. I don't want to see our rights erased.


----------



## BackAgain

dblack said:


> Right. That's what this is about. I don't want to see our rights erased.


I don’t want the right to life erased. That is, after all, the primary right.


----------



## dblack

BackAgain said:


> I don’t want the right to life erased. That is, after all, the primary right.


You're trying to change the point where a new person, with state protected rights, is legally acknowledged. Trying to say that starts inside another person's body just seems insane to me. It basically means one must forfeit control over their own body if anyone else reports them as pregnant.


----------



## BackAgain

dblack said:


> You're trying to change the point where a new person, with state protected rights, is legally acknowledged. Trying to say that starts inside another person's body just seems insane to me. It basically means one must forfeit control over their own body if anyone else reports them as pregnant.


You forfeit your right to freely swing your fist when in too close proximity to another person, too.


----------



## dblack

BackAgain said:


> You forfeit your right to freely swing your fist when in too close proximity to another person, too.


Agreed. The point being debated is when a fetus is legally acknowledged as a person.


----------



## BackAgain

dblack said:


> Agreed. The point being debated is when a fetus is legally acknowledged as a person.


Right. That is the point. And we know it has been (even prior to Roe v. Wade) traditionally viewed as when it is born and maybe drawn it’s dirt breath. But that is not necessarily a reasonable view.  If you can’t kill the newborn infant at the moment it has taken breath number one, then why *can* you kill that same life a moment before it is born?  Are we really claiming that the magic of “personhood” suddenly comes into existence only after the kid comes outside of the mom’s body?  Or, are we not bound by logic and common sense to acknowledge that the little life was a “person” every bit as much when it was still inside the mom’s body only a moment earlier? 

My answer remains. At some point between “a” and “z” the life became a person. Maybe this is why the SCOTUS wrestled with the notion of “viability” in the Roe v. Wade decision. That’s how come they marked the pregnancy into trimesters. But science has moved in. “Viability” comes sooner nowadays. And it may come even sooner and sooner as science continues to progress. If the life is not viable yet in the zygote stage, maybe that’s not yet a person. At some point in the embryonic stage, maybe it becomes viable. Maybe it is a “person” at that point.


----------



## dblack

BackAgain said:


> Right. That is the point. And we know it has been (even prior to Roe v. Wade) traditionally viewed as when it is born and maybe drawn it’s dirt breath. But that is not necessarily a reasonable view.  If you can’t kill the newborn infant at the moment it has taken breath number one, then why *can* you kill that same life a moment before it is born?


Because as long as it's part of the woman's body, and not its own entity, it's up to her what happens to it.

I think what we're running into here is the basic liberal, statist premise that every single social problem can be solved by passing a law. Most problems can't be solved by government and, in those cases, trying to force a legal remedy only makes things worse.


----------



## BackAgain

dblack said:


> Because as long as it's part of the woman's body, and not its own entity, it's up to her what happens to it.
> 
> I think what we're running into here is the basic liberal, statist premise that every single social problem can be solved by passing a law. Most problems can't be solved by government and, in those cases, trying to force a legal remedy only makes things worse.


It is not part of her body. It is connected to her body. But it is — even to the point of being genetically — a different life. 

And your claim is devoid of merit. While some things can’t be properly addressed by law, some things *can*. And some things should.


----------



## dblack

BackAgain said:


> While some things can’t be properly addressed by law, some things *can*. And some things should.


I think the coming shitshow will prove my point. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not, it's going to get ugly


----------



## BackAgain

dblack said:


> I think the coming shitshow will prove my point. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not, it's going to get ugly


The shit show has been happening for over 50 years with the imprimatur of the US government. Maybe now we can at least seek to prevent the slaughter — or at least stanch the flow of blood a bit.


----------



## dblack

BackAgain said:


> The shit show has been happening for over 50 years with the imprimatur of the US government. Maybe now we can at least seek to prevent the slaughter — or at least stanch the flow of blood a bit.


Like I said, I hope you're right. But I suspect the slaughter will go on unabated. States will fuck around with a 'War on Abortion" for a few decades and then walk it back.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## TemplarKormac

dblack said:


> Agreed. The point being debated is when a fetus is legally acknowledged as a person.


Aaaaaaand I'm back in this thread again.

Life begins when gametes converge into a zygote and the zygote divides into two separate, distinct cells.

Nature doesn't obey the law, nor does human biology.  They obey science.


----------



## task0778

dblack said:


> Agreed. The point being debated is when a fetus is legally acknowledged as a person.



I think there's more to it than that.  Another point is also being debated, and that has to do with whether or not the Supreme Court should get out of the business of trying to discern fundamental rights beyond those drawn from its text, with the possible exception of rights that can be shown to be objectively, deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions.  Implied rights with no supporting case history doesn't cut it.  IOW, do we base our entire system of justice on what the law says or what 9 unelected people say it is.  The US Congress is charged with legislating our laws, nobody else.  It is their duty to create our constitutionally unenumerated civil rights, NOT the Supreme Court.  And if they can't or won't do it, then it falls to the states to write their own legislation on the issue at hand.


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> Because the concept of unborn people having rights is nonsense. It's a conceit to justify your desire to bully others.



Abortion is the ultimate bullying.


----------



## buttercup

dblack said:


> No, it's not.  It's a question of an individual's sovereignty over their own body. What they choose to do with their life, and the life inside them, is just none of your fucking business. Jesus, get a hobby and quit meddling with others' lives.



That is absolutely false, and demonstrably so. If it really _was _about bodily autonomy, then abortion would be acceptable and justifiable for any reason throughout the entire pregnancy, including moments before birth.

But apart from total sociopaths, we all know that butchering a full-term baby moments before birth is evil and barbaric. So that right there blows away your outdated bodily autonomy non-argument.

And what that shows is that it really comes down to when life begins. And only an ignorant person doesn't understand that life begins long before the baby pops his head out of the birth canal.


----------



## TemplarKormac

BackAgain said:


> It is not part of her body. It is connected to her body. But it is — even to the point of being genetically — a different life.
> 
> And your claim is devoid of merit. While some things can’t be properly addressed by law, some things *can*. And some things should.


The genetic variance the developing child has from the mother and father prove alone that the child is a separate entity. While related to the mother,  they are unique and just that bit different from her.


----------



## Ghost1776




----------



## TemplarKormac

Ghost1776 said:


> View attachment 645815


.  Reply as a retweet. Because I can. Because that meme was funny as hell and dead on accurate.


----------



## Delldude

dblack said:


> Because as long as it's part of the woman's body, and not its own entity, it's up to her what happens to it.
> 
> I think what we're running into here is the basic liberal, statist premise that every single social problem can be solved by passing a law. Most problems can't be solved by government and, in those cases, trying to force a legal remedy only makes things worse.


Murder a pregnant woman and see how fast it becomes an entity.
Last I read, Roberts can't get the other con's to budge.


----------



## dblack

Delldude said:


> Murder a pregnant woman and see how fast it becomes an entity.


Yes. The goal of adding penalties for killing a pregnant woman was to establish the fetus as a person. This was done as part of the pro-life campaign, so citing it here is merely circular.


Delldude said:


> Last I read, Roberts can't get the other con's to budge.


Probably not. We're going to be in for a national shitshow.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Yes. The goal of adding penalties for killing a pregnant woman was to establish the fetus as a person. This was done as part of the pro-life campaign, so citing it here is merely circular.
> 
> Probably not. We're going to be in for a national shitshow.


Tell that to those convicted its merely.

The shitshow is 50 years of abortions up to partial birth abortions which is barbsrusm.

High time for a shit show against killing the unborn whi cant speak for themselves.

Most opinions are Roe v Wade will be overturned.

Let the shit show begin.


----------



## Lisa558

Delldude said:


> Murder a pregnant woman and see how fast it becomes an entity.
> Last I read, Roberts can't get the other con's to budge.


That’s good news, but how would you know that? Robert’s isn’t broadcasting what’s happening in secret discussions, is he?

But no surprise that Roberts is kowtowing to the leftists’ threats. He already revealed himself for a turncoat when he claimed Obamacare was Constitutional. I wonder what dirt they have on him.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Tell that to those convicted its merely.
> 
> The shitshow is 50 years of abortions up to partial birth abortions which is barbsrusm.
> 
> High time for a shit show against killing the unborn whi cant speak for themselves.
> 
> Most opinions are Roe v Wade will be overturned.
> 
> Let the shit show begin.


Piss off, troll.


----------



## Delldude

Lisa558 said:


> That’s good news, but how would you know that? Robert’s isn’t broadcasting what’s happening in secret discussions, is he?
> 
> But no surprise that Roberts is kowtowing to the leftists’ threats. He already revealed himself for a turncoat when he claimed Obamacare was Constitutional. I wonder what dirt they have on him.


Insider sources.....you know, just like they got a leaker.


----------



## Lisa558

Delldude said:


> Insider sources.....you know, just like they got a leaker.


Well, I’m glad to hear it. Now especially, the SCOTUS cannot be seen retreating in the face of violent threats from the leftist animals, and for the same reason one doesn’t negotiate with terrorists: all you do is encourage more of the behavior.

Announcement is coming in June.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Piss off, troll.


So angry when people don't agree.  You want abortion til birth.  You made that clear.  I consider that barbaric.  If the shoe fits wear it.

Your side refusing to Ever compromise brought us to this day.

Roe v Wade will soon be overturned.  And the States shall decide for themselves as it should be.


----------



## Delldude

Lisa558 said:


> Well, I’m glad to hear it. Now especially, the SCOTUS cannot be seen retreating in the face of violent threats from the leftist animals, and for the same reason one doesn’t negotiate with terrorists: all you do is encourage more of the behavior.
> 
> Announcement is coming in June.


I think this was leaked early so not to lose any momentum with Pelosi's J6 TV spectacular coming at the same time......can't have two blockbusters at the same time.


----------



## beagle9

Delldude said:


> I think this was leaked early so not to lose any momentum with Pelosi's J6 TV spectacular coming at the same time......can't have two blockbusters at the same time.


If all the information in concerning the investigation that Durham is conducting, uhhhh is found to be true, then indictments need to be plenty going forward, and if what Glen Beck is saying on his Blaze TV about the Biden's being criminal's is true, then Biden needs to be impeached quick fast and in a hurry, and possibly jailed also for his crimes if convicted............... After all that, if this documentary called 2000 Mules is true, then the patriot's held in lock down over Jan.6th, might need to be released immediately, and maybe even given the medal of honor for their actions in trying to save America from all that corruption.

The wheels of justice grind slowly, and if it is found out that democrat's are somewhat criminal's, then that should be realized by American's finally, and proper action's should be taken in mass at the ballot box.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> So angry when people don't agree.  You want abortion til birth.  You made that clear.  I consider that barbaric.  If the shoe fits wear it.
> 
> Your side refusing to Ever compromise brought us to this day.
> 
> Roe v Wade will soon be overturned.  And the States shall decide for themselves as it should be.


Piss off, troll.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Piss off, troll.


Your true colors got shown here..............GOOD........

Why you hate me............Fine by me.............you aren't no libertarian.........You ARE A LEFTIST.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Your true colors got shown here..............GOOD........
> 
> Why you hate me............Fine by me.............you aren't no libertarian.........You ARE A LEFTIST.


I hate you for the same reason I hate Trump. You're a troll. You love negative attention because that's all you can generate. You're not here to discuss politics, you're here to be a twat. Carry on.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> I hate you for the same reason I hate Trump. You're a troll. You love negative attention because that's all you can generate. You're not here to discuss politics, you're here to be a twat. Carry on.


You HATE ME because I use a cattle prod to get the truth out of you.

And you sure as hell did here................You made it perfectly clear you are ok with PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION.

And I HATE YOU FOR THAT...............See how this works.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> You HATE ME because I use a cattle prod to get the truth out of you.
> 
> And you sure as hell did here................You made it perfectly clear you are ok with PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION.
> 
> And I HATE YOU FOR THAT...............See how this works.


Anyone who defends partial birth abortion is a heartless barbarian.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> Anyone who defends partial birth abortion is a heartless barbarian.


She is mad because we EXPOSED HER for what she is now.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> She is mad because we EXPOSED HER for what she is now.


I think someone should stick her in a cannon, pull her out through the long tube part in front, and as soon as her head pops out the opening, put it in a vise and squeeze. Then she can fill 1/100th of the pain and torture she is fine subjecting a baby to.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> I think someone should stick her in a cannon, pull her out through the long tube part in front, and as soon as her head pops out the opening, put it in a vise and squeeze. Then she can fill 1/100th of the pain and torture she is fine subjecting a baby to.


I've watched just a little of a partial abortion video...........It is SICKENING............Not something I care to watch again.

And we have people who are rioting to PROTECT IT.....but ending Roe doesn't even end it.  There are EVIL PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD...........MONSTERS.

And they are showing us they are here on USMB as well.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> I've watched just a little of a partial abortion video...........It is SICKENING............Not something I care to watch again.
> 
> And we have people who are rioting to PROTECT IT.....but ending Roe doesn't even end it.  There are EVIL PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD...........MONSTERS.
> 
> And they are showing us they are here on USMB as well.


I haven’t seen such a video, and I wouldn’t want to. It would give me nightmares.

And yes, the USMB pro-abortionists, along with the NY AG who said how proud she was to abort her baby and the news anchor who said she would JOYFULLY abort a baby, have revealed what soulless, heartless people they are.

Another poster upthread said he heard (how he heard, I don’t know) that Roberts - the turncoat - has been desperately trying to flip the conservative justices, but thus far no go. Alito won’t fold. Thomas won’t fold. I‘m hoping the other three stay firm.

The best we can hope for is a reversal, at 5-4, with Roberts joining the three liberal women.


----------



## beautress

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


To equate a new life with cosmetic vanity became a new low when a million future citizens were being murdered right inside their mother's belly. It was vomitus to start out, and it still is. From the time it's a 2-cell zygote until it goes through every developmental stage from conception to death, it's a distinct human being not only from its schoolmates but it is also a human being in its own rights, DNA and all. The Democrats don't want to end their power over women who fall for the line that they will be better off without having the baby that formed inside what should be the safest place in the world, their mother.


----------



## Delldude

I'm reading the ruling will come out in June or July. I think this may end up overshadowing the Pelosi J6 TV spectacular. If reports are accurate, doesn't look good for the left.

LOL


----------



## eagle1462010

Delldude said:


> I'm reading the ruling will come out in June or July. I think this may end up overshadowing the Pelosi J6 TV spectacular. If reports are accurate, doesn't look good for the left.
> 
> LOL


Wish they would speed it up.  Less time tor the left to be offended..........But hell they are offended by everything anyways...........so.............oh well.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> Wish they would speed it up.  Less time tor the left to be offended..........But hell they are offended by everything anyways...........so.............oh well.


I agree. Why give this so much time to fester? I say make the announcement soon - ahead of other decisions, if necessary.

I just have to remember to pull my car into the garage that night. These DC protards have marched through my neighborhood before, cussing up a storm, and they’ve only gotten more violent since then.


----------



## task0778

eagle1462010 said:


> Wish they would speed it up.  Less time tor the left to be offended..........But hell they are offended by everything anyways...........so.............oh well.



This case has an impact on other cases and issues, such as contraceptives, same sex marriage which could be threatened depending on how the Supreme Court rules and what they say or don't say.  It's kind of a big deal that I don't think should be rushed;  do it right this time.


----------



## Delldude

The Alito thing mentioned this would only be dealing with the abortion issue. But no one seems to have read that.


----------



## BackAgain

Delldude said:


> The Alito thing mentioned this would only be dealing with the abortion issue. But no one seems to have read that.


He was explicitly clear about that. But you’re right. Ignoring it to spread disinformation and fear is the leftist way.


----------



## Delldude

We need a Ministry of Truth.


----------



## dblack

Delldude said:


> We need a Ministry of Truth.


And a State Womb Registry.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> I agree. Why give this so much time to fester? I say make the announcement soon - ahead of other decisions, if necessary.
> 
> I just have to remember to pull my car into the garage that night. These DC protards have marched through my neighborhood before, cussing up a storm, and they’ve only gotten more violent since then.



Well, it was only a draft opinion, intended for circulation and discussion and change.  I assume they're not releasing it right now because they're not ready to have their final vote.

I think there's probably also an element of not wanting to let the leaker and his cronies believe they can control and manipulate the Court.


----------



## Delldude

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, it was only a draft opinion, intended for circulation and discussion and change.  I assume they're not releasing it right now because they're not ready to have their final vote.
> 
> I think there's probably also an element of not wanting to let the leaker and his cronies believe they can control and manipulate the Court.


Also inside reports the con justices aren't going to let Robert's change their position.
Just think, how will left wing MSM cover Pelosi's TV J6 spectacular AND the R  v W decision if it goes back to the states?


----------



## beautress

dblack said:


> Piss off, troll.


This is a debate. Act like it.


eagle1462010 said:


> Wish they would speed it up.  Less time tor the left to be offended..........But hell they are offended by everything anyways...........so.............oh well.


The White House is in full derelection of duty by allowing wannabe assassins to roam the streets where the Justices live and make ugly assertions and threats to the families of the Supreme Court justices. This should have been made clear the first day the despicable female assassins of their own children started their charlatanic charade. People who have their children dismembered so they will have a comfortable time of it is hateful, sinful, bad, and murderous. When someone murders his pregnant girlfriend, so he won't have to face the music with his fiance, he is charged with two murders. An abortion murders only one, but it is still killing another human being. And that human being deserves to live. Doing right is not always easy, but pregnancy prevention is the right thing to do in order to take paying for erotic escapades of other people off the backs of other taxpayers.


----------



## beautress

Lisa558 said:


> I think someone should stick her in a cannon, pull her out through the long tube part in front, and as soon as her head pops out the opening, put it in a vise and squeeze. Then she can fill 1/100th of the pain and torture she is fine subjecting a baby to.


Ending a human life is God's job, not ours. Otherwise, we are no better than the murderous activities of irresponsible sex addicts who do not honor any aspect of human life when they have their baby ruthlessly murdered with dismemberment and brain surgeried to death inside their own body they disrespected so they can get rid of the remains of a human being comfortably removed from their bodies.

That these creepy female bangers disrespect the threat to their hateful deeds I am not surprised they come to think the world owes them a living and they can break laws of the Constitution to make a point for murdering one's own. Even wild animals defend their own from all predators.


----------



## beagle9

eagle1462010 said:


> I've watched just a little of a partial abortion video...........It is SICKENING............Not something I care to watch again.
> 
> And we have people who are rioting to PROTECT IT.....but ending Roe doesn't even end it.  There are EVIL PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD...........MONSTERS.
> 
> And they are showing us they are here on USMB as well.


I've seen some crazy position's defended on here in the past, and like you say it is some sickening stuff. Not sure why people are so crazy to defend the indefensible like they do, but I've seen it here plenty of times. Sometimes I think they just argue for the sake of arguing, and if it takes going there then they'll go there just to win that debate or argument no matter how twisted it gets (not really believing in what they're defending), but they can't stop once they climb on board this being the "devil's advocate" train".


----------



## beagle9

Delldude said:


> The Alito thing mentioned this would only be dealing with the abortion issue. But no one seems to have read that.


It should be an eye opener that they think correcting one wrong somehow would lead to their positions taken on other things in life, otherwise things that they must worry could be wrong also in their mind's, so I ask why do "they" harbor such guilt on other issue's like they do ?


----------



## beautress

\


dblack said:


> And a State Womb Registry.


Why should we do that when we can deport people who break the law. That's what the world is doing to us on the Southern border. They're depositing their hardened jailbirds on the Rio Grande. We don't have to have endless crime here because the dysfunctional Biden is enlarging criminal takeover of America in every way he can to please mob mafiosa Pelosi, the first name in undeserved maximum greed for power.


----------



## dblack

beautress said:


> \
> 
> Why should we do that when we can deport people who break the law. That's what the world is doing to us on the Southern border. They're depositing their hardened jailbirds on the Rio Grande. We don't have to have endless crime here because the dysfunctional Biden is enlarging criminal takeover of America in every way he can to please mob mafiosa Pelosi, the first name in undeserved maximum greed for power.


The main thing is, government needs to be dictating human action at all times, in all circumstances. At the border, in the womb, up your asshole - whatever it takes!


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> The main thing is, government needs to be dictating human action at all times, in all circumstances. At the border, in the womb, up your asshole - whatever it takes!


OMG. You think our government should have no say over who comes into this country, or how? And no say over barbaric abortions performed on viable babies?

You liberals show what soulless people you are with each post. The irony is you think you’re compassionate.


----------



## Lisa558

beautress said:


> \
> 
> Why should we do that when we can deport people who break the law. That's what the world is doing to us on the Southern border. They're depositing their hardened jailbirds on the Rio Grande. We don't have to have endless crime here because the dysfunctional Biden is enlarging criminal takeover of America in every way he can to please mob mafiosa Pelosi, the first name in undeserved maximum greed for power.


This is true. They are opening their jails and letting their criminals cross illegally into America. And the liberals, who think more of foreign criminals than law-abiding Americans, are defending it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Delldude said:


> Also inside reports the con justices aren't going to let Robert's change their position.
> Just think, how will left wing MSM cover Pelosi's TV J6 spectacular AND the R  v W decision if it goes back to the states?



Rather frantically, I would imagine.


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> OMG. You think our government should have no say over who comes into this country, or how? And no say over barbaric abortions performed on viable babies?
> 
> You liberals show what soulless people you are with each post. The irony is you think you’re compassionate.


No, no, no - you're not listening. I've seen the light. I'm shining up my jackboots. We must bow to the omnipotent state. It's the only way to keep brown people from infesting the womb.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> No, no, no - you're not listening. I've seen the light. I'm shining up my jackboots. We must bow to the omnipotent state. It's the only way to keep brown people from infesting the womb.


Your Jack boots crush the skulls of babies with late term abortion.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Your Jack boots crush the skulls of babies with late term abortion.


I promise to only use my jackboots as directed by the state.


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> No, no, no - you're not listening. I've seen the light. I'm shining up my jackboots. We must bow to the omnipotent state. It's the only way to keep brown people from infesting the womb.


And boom! Out with the race card. You liberals disgust me.


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> And boom! Out with the race card. You liberals disgust me.


It's sad, isn't it? Liberals are poo poo heads. The source of all our trouble. But we can squash them with the righteous power of the state. Uber alles and shit. Go team!


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> I promise to only use my jackboots as directed by the state.


Show me in the Constitution where pursuit of life is NOT GUARANTEED for unborn babies?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> It's sad, isn't it? Liberals are poo poo heads. The source of all our trouble. But we can squash them with the righteous power of the state. Uber alles and shit. Go team!


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Show me in the Constitution where pursuit of life is NOT GUARANTEED for unborn babies?


? What a weird sentence. 

Anyway - I'm down. Unborn babies get all the rights. It's a travesty that they're not allow to vote. Nor counted in the census. They should also have to start paying taxes too. We should look into that. Lost revenue.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> ? What a weird sentence.
> 
> Anyway - I'm down. Unborn babies get all the rights. It's a travesty that they're not allow to vote. Nor counted in the census. They should also have to start paying taxes too. We should look into that. Lost revenue.


Basic Biology escapes you...........Late term abortion is an abomination.........and you are part of a cult who thinks it's ok to kill a baby even though moments later it is clearly life.

You ARE EVIL.


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> It's sad, isn't it? Liberals are poo poo heads. The source of all our trouble. But we can squash them with the righteous power of the state. Uber alles and shit. Go team!


The state is the one that proposed a Truth Ministry to squash dissenting opinion. But you go ahead and believe that it’s Republicans trying to suppress your rights. If it were up to the liberals, we wouldn’t be allowed to speak at all.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> The state is the one that proposed a Truth Ministry to squash dissenting opinion. But you go ahead and believe that it’s Republicans trying to suppress your rights. If it were up to the liberals, we wouldn’t be allowed to speak at all.


Stalin would be proud of Dblack


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> Basic Biology escapes you...........Late term abortion is an abomination.........and you are part of a cult who thinks it's ok to kill a baby even though moments later it is clearly life.


You're not listening. I'm with you. We must save all the unborn babies. Who knows how many unborn babies are in any given womb? Only one way to know for sure - consistent thorough monitoring.


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> The state is the one that proposed a Truth Ministry to squash dissenting opinion. But you go ahead and believe that it’s Republicans trying to suppress your rights. If it were up to the liberals, we wouldn’t be allowed to speak at all.


Liberals suck. Is there some way we can ban them?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> You're not listening. I'm with you. We must save all the unborn babies. Who knows how many unborn babies are in any given womb? Only one way to know for sure - consistent thorough monitoring.


Are you still to stupid on how it works...........

Here......since you are being sarcastic.


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> Liberals suck. Is there some way we can ban them?


No, I don’t believe in banning free speech - no matter how sucky liberals are. Liberals, otoh, are going off the deep end trying to figure out how to silence conservatives.

Thats the difference between you and me. I believe in a free, democratic country, people are free to express themselves regardless of their political beliefs. You want to use the strong arm of the government to censor non-liberal speech.


----------



## Lisa558

eagle1462010 said:


> Are you still to stupid on how it works...........
> 
> Here......since you are being sarcastic.


You’ve probably noticed this, but when liberals are on the losing side of an argument, they revert to 1) personal attacks, or 2) sarcasm.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lisa558 said:


> You’ve probably noticed this, but when liberals are on the losing side of an argument, they revert to 1) personal attacks, or 2) sarcasm.


Been posting as a hobby since the 90s.  They never change except they have gotten a thousand times worse.


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> No, I don’t believe in banning free speech - no matter how sucky liberals are. Liberals, otoh, are going off the deep end trying to figure out how to silence conservatives.
> 
> Thats the difference between you and me. I believe in a free, democratic country, people are free to express themselves regardless of their political beliefs. You want to use the strong arm of the government to censor non-liberal speech.



This isn't about the rights of liberals, it's about the rights of unborn babies. What about _their_ freedom of speech?


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> This isn't about the rights of liberals, it's about the rights of unborn babies. What about _their_ freedom of speech?


You denied them of ever seeing that right when you crushed their head in the uterous.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> You denied them of ever seeing that right when you crushed their head in the uterous.


Well, I've seen the error of my ways. Once a woman is pregnant - it's no longer up to her. It's the state's call. Only government can be trusted to protect the sanctity of human life.


----------



## eagle1462010

dblack said:


> Well, I've seen the error of my ways. Once a woman is pregnant - it's no longer up to her. It's the state's call. Only government can be trusted to protect the sanctity of human life.


So now you went back to the a argument........even though you want the z formula.

You are a leftist loon........pretending to be something else...........and we REFUSE TO AGREE with you being a MONSTER.......anyone who thinks it's ok to kill a baby right at birth is a dang MONSTER.


----------



## Lisa558

dblack said:


> This isn't about the rights of liberals, it's about the rights of unborn babies. What about _their_ freedom of speech?


They have the right not be murdered. That’s why when a murderer kills a pregnant woman, he gets charged with two counts.


----------



## dblack

eagle1462010 said:


> So now you went back to the a argument........even though you want the z formula.
> 
> You are a leftist loon........pretending to be something else...........and we REFUSE TO AGREE with you being a MONSTER.......anyone who thinks it's ok to kill a baby right at birth is a dang MONSTER.


You're right of course. I bow to the state on the matter. Government will make the right call. They always do.


----------



## dblack

Lisa558 said:


> They have the right not be murdered.


Lliberals, Or unborn babies?


Lisa558 said:


> That’s why when a murderer kills a pregnant woman, he gets charged with two counts.


Hell yes! String 'em up.


----------



## Delldude

dblack said:


> And a State Womb Registry.


Better not be any unregistered ghost wombs.


----------



## Delldude

Cecilie1200 said:


> Rather frantically, I would imagine.


Be like Guy's Grocery Games in the last few seconds.


----------



## beagle9

eagle1462010 said:


> You denied them of ever seeing that right when you crushed their head in the uterous.


Crushed their head ? I thought it was just a clump of cell's ? I want my money back lefty's, because YOU LIED !!!! Oh wait this is when the human being has developed a heartbeat and a full complete head where as they choose to snuff it out. Bad stuff.


----------



## Delldude

eagle1462010 said:


> You denied them of ever seeing that right when you crushed their head in the uterous.


Actually, I think they put a scalpel up into the brain stem and swish it around a bit.
Doctors saving lives.


----------



## dblack

Delldude said:


> Better not be any unregistered ghost wombs.


And what a but illegal's wombs? Is that like a two-bagger?


----------



## Esdraelon

dudmuck said:


> its legal to protest in front of somebody's home


I'd say the law is very clear and concise regarding such protests:








						Federal Statute Bans Picketing Judges' Residences "With The Intent of Influencing [the] Judge"
					

There's been talk of protests outside Supreme Court Justices' homes; but it appears likely that such protests are illegal, under 18...




					reason.com
				




What is ALSO CLEAR is that Democrat politicians, judges, and presidents, don't obey laws they don't AGREE with.  That kind of behavior is known, simply, as "lawlessness".  The biggest problem with lawlessness is that it acts like a cancer.  It spreads.  It grows.  Pretty soon, those on the Left are going to find they have lots of company from their fellow Americans on the Right.  This is going to lead to some interesting reflections from the Democrats.  

My guess is that very few of them will even recognize their own hypocrisy when they begin yelling and raising hell against Republicans who DARE to disobey laws that have been duly passed in Congress and signed by a Democrat President.  Ultimately, once the lawlessness spreads far enough, the system simply falls into chaos.  Every group just does its own thing and refuses to honor any rules they disagree with.  Now, I have no real problem with them choosing to ignore laws.  What I have a HUGE problem with is when they DEMAND that I obey them.

Imagine the Democrat wokesters dismay when they finally grasp that just because their favorite propaganda outlet agrees with every view they hold... it doesn't mean anyone else is COMPELLED to do so as well.  These idiots probably believe, somewhere in the foggy, musty, mildewed areas of their psyche that Republicans have no right or ability to rebel and disobey.  "Put them in prison" will likely be a cherished refrain.  Eventually though, someone is going to explain to them that the numbers just don't work.  We don't have millions of jail cells and our military isn't apt to just "follow orders" and go in shooting.


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The Supreme Court's Leaked Draft Is Full Of Mystifying Arguments Against Abortion Rights
> 
> 
> Justice Samuel Alito’s reasoning is stuck in the 1600s — literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It repeatedly cites a misogynist from the 1600s who had women executed for “witchcraft.”​


That was absolutely not the reason to cite to the opinion of Lord Hale. You’re boring when you lie. You’re always boring for that reason.


----------



## Delldude

BackAgain said:


> That was absolutely not the reason to cite to the opinion of Lord Hale. You’re boring when you lie. You’re always boring for that reason.


Huffpo.....LOL


----------



## beagle9

Esdraelon said:


> I'd say the law is very clear and concise regarding such protests:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal Statute Bans Picketing Judges' Residences "With The Intent of Influencing [the] Judge"
> 
> 
> There's been talk of protests outside Supreme Court Justices' homes; but it appears likely that such protests are illegal, under 18...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reason.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is ALSO CLEAR is that Democrat politicians, judges, and presidents, don't obey laws they don't AGREE with.  That kind of behavior is known, simply, as "lawlessness".  The biggest problem with lawlessness is that it acts like a cancer.  It spreads.  It grows.  Pretty soon, those on the Left are going to find they have lots of company from their fellow Americans on the Right.  This is going to lead to some interesting reflections from the Democrats.
> 
> My guess is that very few of them will even recognize their own hypocrisy when they begin yelling and raising hell against Republicans who DARE to disobey laws that have been duly passed in Congress and signed by a Democrat President.  Ultimately, once the lawlessness spreads far enough, the system simply falls into chaos.  Every group just does its own thing and refuses to honor any rules they disagree with.  Now, I have no real problem with them choosing to ignore laws.  What I have a HUGE problem with is when they DEMAND that I obey them.
> 
> Imagine the Democrat wokesters dismay when they finally grasp that just because their favorite propaganda outlet agrees with every view they hold... it doesn't mean anyone else is COMPELLED to do so as well.  These idiots probably believe, somewhere in the foggy, musty, mildewed areas of their psyche that Republicans have no right or ability to rebel and disobey.  "Put them in prison" will likely be a cherished refrain.  Eventually though, someone is going to explain to them that the numbers just don't work.  We don't have millions of jail cells and our military isn't apt to just "follow orders" and go in shooting.


Can you imagine what this lawlessness has created for every day working class good citizen's in thousands of communities across the nation, otherwise to echo your words in a sense about it spreading like a cancer ?? 

It has created an environment where the good citizen's are afraid to get involved or to report lawbreakers anymore, and this due the fear that leftist/liberal/Democrat voting judge's, defence lawyer's, liberal juries, bail-bondsman, and basically a leftist justice system has opted on the side of quickly releasing these criminal's back into society without the proper vetting or consideration of their records in which looks like a lottery ticket roll before the first ticket is ever sold out of it. It's just that thick...

Losing faith in the system concerning the participation of the good citizen's working hand in hand with law enforcement is what causes crime to get way out of control.

Addressing this problem is probably one of the most important issue of our time.


----------



## Delldude

beagle9 said:


> Can you imagine what this lawlessness has created for every day working class good citizen's in thousands of communities across the nation, otherwise to echo your words in a sense about it spreading like a cancer ??
> 
> It has created an environment where the good citizen's are afraid to get involved or to report lawbreakers anymore, and this due the fear that leftist/liberal/Democrat voting judge's, defence lawyer's, liberal juries, bail-bondsman, and basically a leftist justice system has opted on the side of quickly releasing these criminal's back into society without the proper vetting or consideration of their records in which looks like a lottery ticket roll before the first ticket is ever sold out of it. It's just that thick...
> 
> Losing faith in the system concerning the participation of the good citizen's working hand in hand with law enforcement is what causes crime to get way out of control.
> 
> Addressing this problem is probably one of the most important issue of our time.


Limit getting involved, end around on the 1st via doxing, canceling


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> That was absolutely not the reason to cite to the opinion of Lord Hale. You’re boring when you lie. You’re always boring for that reason.


What exactly are you blathering about? What did I lie about? Alito has a 16th century view of women and women's rights. That is a fact. Now wipe the spit off of your chin and get a grip! Talk about boring! Holy shit!


----------



## beagle9

Delldude said:


> Limit getting involved, end around on the 1st via doxing, canceling


Yep that should have been addressed immediately as well, because anyone caught doxing, stalking or cancelling individual's based of their political views expressed (views not in violation of any law's), should be quickly hauled in front of a judge and charged for what should be a crime that will cost them time in jail, and money. It's got to stop.


----------



## Lisa558

beagle9 said:


> Yep that should have been addressed immediately as well, because anyone caught doxing, stalking or cancelling individual's based of their political views expressed (views not in violation of any law's), should be quickly hauled in front of a judge and charged for what should be a crime that will cost them time in jail, and money. It's got to stop.


Yet the Dems are letting the threats go on and on. In fact, in some cases, they’re participating in it. Why isn’t Schumer being brought up on impeachment charges for threatening violence if the justices don’t yield to liberals’ demands? It was bad enough when BLM was doing it, but members of Congress??!!


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What exactly are you blathering about? What did I lie about? Alito has a 16th century view of women and women's rights. That is a fact. Now wipe the spit off of your chin and get a grip! Talk about boring! Holy shit!


You falsely claimed why Alito cited Hale:  “But Alito cites him a half-dozen times throughout his draft *as proof that abortion bans are an indispensable part of our country’s heritage.”  

Wrong. But that’s the crap your citation said. That is not the purpose for the citations to the opinions of Lord Hale. 

Don’t be obtuse. You’re an asshole. Sure. Understood. But you can be an honest asshole if you’d be willing to at least try. *


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> Yet the Dems are letting the threats go on and on. In fact, in some cases, they’re participating in it. Why isn’t Schumer being brought up on impeachment charges for threatening violence if the justices don’t yield to liberals’ demands? It was bad enough when BLM was doing it, but members of Congress??!!


These people are out of control and they know it.... Makes me wonder just how long they can keep the charades going.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> You falsely claimed why Alito cited Hale:  “But Alito cites him a half-dozen times throughout his draft *as proof that abortion bans are an indispensable part of our country’s heritage.”
> 
> Wrong. But that’s the crap your citation said. That is not the purpose for the citations to the opinions of Lord Hale.
> 
> Don’t be obtuse. You’re an asshole. Sure. Understood. But you can be an honest asshole if you’d be willing to at least try. *


Wrong ? Where am I wrong, Alito most certainly cited Hale

 Hale said that *abortion bans are an indispensable part of our country’s heritage.”*_ That is an appeal to tradition in order to defend banning abortion. If tradition were the standard for determining current laws and policies, we would still have slavery,  child labor, and women would still need their husbands approval to work outside of the home.

Read on:



			https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/world/asia/abortion-lord-matthew-hale.html4
		

_


> _Just two weeks ago, in the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health that promised to overturn Roe v. Wade*, Justice Alito cited Hale’s treatise eight times as evidence that abortion was considered a crime *at the time the U.S. Constitution was written._





> ....... while citing Hale looks from one angle like a sober reference to legal history, from another it reads as a more partisan political statement: This is how America has always been, and any change from it is illegitimate.




_Lord Hale, who was quoted numerous times by Alito was a misogynist from the dark ages, who thought that men should be allowed to rape their wives and  who Alito whole heartedly embraced

ONCE AGAIN, WHAT THE FUCK DID I LIE ABOUT?

YOU are lying, You are trying to gaslight me mut its not working. You are not smart enough to make me doubt what I know. And calling me an asshole does not help your failed case









						The Supreme Court's Leaked Draft Is Full Of Mystifying Arguments Against Abortion Rights
					

Justice Samuel Alito’s reasoning is stuck in the 1600s — literally.




					www.huffpost.com
				



_


> _Though Alito holds him up as the authority on the criminality of aborting a fetus, Hale also advocated for the death penalty for children as young as 14._


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Wrong ? Where am I wrong, Alito most certainly cited Hale
> 
> Hale said that *abortion bans are an indispensable part of our country’s heritage.”*_ That is an appeal to tradition in order to defend banning abortion. If tradition were the standard for determining current laws and policies, we would still have slavery,  child labor, and women would still need their husbands approval to work outside of the home.
> 
> Read on:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/world/asia/abortion-lord-matthew-hale.html4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lord Hale, who was quoted numerous times by Alito was a misogynist from the dark ages, who thought that men should be allowed to rape their wives and  who Alito whole heartedly embraced
> 
> ONCE AGAIN, WHAT THE FUCK DID I LIE ABOUT?
> 
> YOU are lying, You are trying to gaslight me mut its not working. You are not smart enough to make me doubt what I know. And calling me an asshole does not help your failed case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court's Leaked Draft Is Full Of Mystifying Arguments Against Abortion Rights
> 
> 
> Justice Samuel Alito’s reasoning is stuck in the 1600s — literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


I know he cited Hale. You idiot. But he didn’t cite Hale for the reason your linked article claimed it was for. You imbecile hack bitch lying scumbag bitch. Go fuck your self now.


----------



## dudmuck

Esdraelon said:


> I'd say the law is very clear and concise regarding such protests:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal Statute Bans Picketing Judges' Residences "With The Intent of Influencing [the] Judge"
> 
> 
> There's been talk of protests outside Supreme Court Justices' homes; but it appears likely that such protests are illegal, under 18...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reason.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is ALSO CLEAR is that Democrat politicians, judges, and presidents, don't obey laws they don't AGREE with.  That kind of behavior is known, simply, as "lawlessness".  The biggest problem with lawlessness is that it acts like a cancer.  It spreads.  It grows.  Pretty soon, those on the Left are going to find they have lots of company from their fellow Americans on the Right.  This is going to lead to some interesting reflections from the Democrats.
> 
> My guess is that very few of them will even recognize their own hypocrisy when they begin yelling and raising hell against Republicans who DARE to disobey laws that have been duly passed in Congress and signed by a Democrat President.  Ultimately, once the lawlessness spreads far enough, the system simply falls into chaos.  Every group just does its own thing and refuses to honor any rules they disagree with.  Now, I have no real problem with them choosing to ignore laws.  What I have a HUGE problem with is when they DEMAND that I obey them.
> 
> Imagine the Democrat wokesters dismay when they finally grasp that just because their favorite propaganda outlet agrees with every view they hold... it doesn't mean anyone else is COMPELLED to do so as well.  These idiots probably believe, somewhere in the foggy, musty, mildewed areas of their psyche that Republicans have no right or ability to rebel and disobey.  "Put them in prison" will likely be a cherished refrain.  Eventually though, someone is going to explain to them that the numbers just don't work.  We don't have millions of jail cells and our military isn't apt to just "follow orders" and go in shooting.


_"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."_

we actually had to review the 1st amendment, sad.

Madsen v. women's health center made it legal to protest outside the home of a clinic employee.   Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## Delldude

dudmuck said:


> _"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or *the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> we actually had to review the 1st amendment, sad.
> 
> Madsen v. women's health center made it legal to protest outside the home of a clinic employee.   Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.


Until someone has been effected....the law stands.....see you at SCOTUS


----------



## Man of Ethics

Just half a year ago I was against *legislating morality*.  Even though abortion takes an innocent life of an unborn child, most immoral acts are not against the law.  For instance, promiscuity and adultery are not crimes.


Having followed some prominent feminist accounts on Twitter, I understood that it is my duty as a citizen to oppose abortion and support anti-abortion candidates.


----------



## beagle9

dudmuck said:


> _"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."_
> 
> we actually had to review the 1st amendment, sad.
> 
> Madsen v. women's health center made it legal to protest outside the home of a clinic employee.   Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.


Individual law's are individual law's that address certain activities the specific law's are created for, so in the ruling of protest outside of a clinic, it isn't the same as protesting outside of justices home's, because that is seen as the attempt at intimidation being used to cast fear into member's of the court's as so to help sway it's opinions into one's favor by such tactics used as that.


----------



## Lisa558

beagle9 said:


> Individual law's are individual law's that address certain activities the specific law's are created for, so in the ruling of protest outside of a clinic, it isn't the same as protesting outside of justices home's, because that is seen as the attempt at intimidation being used to cast fear into member's of the court's as so to help sway it's opinions into one's favor by such tactics used as that.


Yup. Same reason one is allowed to yell “fire” in a movie theater. Free speech doesn’t extend to everything, in every circumstance.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> I know he cited Hale. You idiot. But he didn’t cite Hale for the reason your linked article claimed it was for. You imbecile hack bitch lying scumbag bitch. Go fuck your self now.


Holy shit! Now I know what I'm dealing with here. 

Maybe you should get an adult to help you with your communication skills. While your at it, take an anger management class


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit! Now I know what I'm dealing with here.
> 
> Maybe you should get an adult to help you with your communication skills. While your at it, take an anger management class


I knew I was dealing with a retard before I read your post and responded to it. You have a track record of being a retard. Again, go fuck yourself. And learn how to simply admit that you were wrong. It would save tons of time. 👍


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> I knew I was dealing with a retard before I read your post and responded to it. You have a track record of being a retard. Again, go fuck yourself. And learn how to simply admit that you were wrong. It would save tons of time. 👍


Look Kid, I have better things to do than to get into a pissing match with an emotionally disturbed, foul mouthed  delinquent

The fact is that Alito based his opinion of the philosophy of a 16th century misogynist, who believed in witchcraft and in the execution of children. Deal with it





__





						The Alito Opinion Is Going To Set Off A Nuclear Bomb In America's Jurisprudence!
					

The Supreme Court in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, the current case challenging the 1973 landmark abortion case of Row v. Wade, if they issue as their opinion the draft opinion of Justice Alito or anything like it they will be setting off a nuclear bomb that will destroy...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## DudleySmith

Stann said:


> There is no brain in an embryo at that time just a brain stem.



You show all indication of that yourself. Should it be legal to murder you?


----------



## DudleySmith

Lisa558 said:


> Still should be up to the states.



Rubbish, States have no more of a right to murder babies than the Fed does.


----------



## Lisa558

DudleySmith said:


> Rubbish, States have no more of a right to murder babies than the Fed does.


States have the right to make the laws for the residents of their states. That’s how it works.


----------



## TemplarKormac

This thread is still alive?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lisa558 said:


> States have the right to make the laws for the residents of their states. That’s how it works.


States do not have the right to take away rights long established by Constitutional Law.


----------



## Jets

Has anyone changed their position in this thread?


----------



## HikerGuy83

Jets said:


> Has anyone changed their position in this thread?



A pig flew past my bedroom window.....so maybe.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Jets said:


> Has anyone changed their position in this thread?


I have changed. I used to have a degree of respect for those who oppose abortion. While I am pro choice, I do not take abortion lightly. As a male of a certain age, I have had two occasions over the years to have been with a woman who had an abortion and it was difficult for them.

We can argue forever about when life begins but I understand that a fetus is at the very least the beginning of a human being. But I also recognize that there are circumstances when abortion is in necessary for those who- for whatever reason-conceive a child that they are not ready for- those who we know to be living beings.. Indeed, you might also consider that abortion may be in the best interest of the child, -who-depending on what you believe - may just become a soul waiting in the wings to be born at a better time and place.  My position is and  always has been that abortion should be rare ( and it has become much less prevalent) while safe and available until viability or if the womans life is at risk.

I have change in so far as my aforementioned respect for those who oppose abortion for a number of reasons:

Many are displaying a stubborn and unreasonable willingness to compromise in any way such as allowing abortion in cases of incest or medical necessity.

Throughout the debate, those opposed to abortion have shown a blatant hostility towards women and a callous disregard for their well being. I think that Alito, in his leaked opinion, said something about access to abortion- which has allowed women to plan families and pursue careers is not longer necessary because they have come so far. Yes they have, but is that a reason to revert to the barefoot and pregnant mentality?

Many go so far as to oppose birth control or support free and easy access to birth control, meaningful sex education, or anything that can prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Alito relied heavily on an appeal to tradition logical fallacy that I am sure many antiabortion people will agree with,  by saying that there is no tradition of access to abortion. How long does it take to establish a tradition? If 50 years is not enough, what is?

Most who oppose abortion are also opposed to programs and policies that can contribute to the well being of families and children and encourage women to carry a child to term-knowing that there will be support systems in place. Those include health care, affordable day care and preschool, nutritional programs, affordable housing and much, much more. Instead, that take the position that it is "not my problem" and I should not have to pay for "free shit" for others.

Lastly for now, banning abortion is classist. It will not stop abortion. It will mean that women who have the means and the time will travel to a place where they can obtain a same abortion. Those who are not so lucky will have to seek out illegal abortions which are not regulated and which may well put them at risk. And as an aside, those unregulated abortions will likely include late term abortions which even pro choice people oppose

So yes, I have changed my opinion. I have become hardened and intrenched. And angry. These people are stupid, vicious and short sighted and need to be stopped. They disgust me to no end.


----------



## Lisa558

Jets said:


> Has anyone changed their position in this thread?


I did somewhat. I am more adamantly opposed now that I see how obnoxious and soulless the people-abortion people are.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lisa558 said:


> I did somewhat. I am more adamantly opposed now that I see how obnoxious and soulless the people-abortion people are.


See post 3532. Do you really want to talk about obnoxious and soulless?


----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 3532. Do you really want to talk about obnoxious and soulless?


Long winded BS


----------



## Man of Ethics

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Most who oppose abortion are also opposed to programs and policies that can contribute to the well being of families and children and encourage women to carry a child to term-knowing that there will be support systems in place. Those include health care, affordable day care and preschool, nutritional programs, affordable housing and much, much more. Instead, that take the position that it is "not my problem" and I should not have to pay for "free shit" for others.


This is why I am neither Liberal nor Conservative.

1)  I absolutely support help for everyone in need.  I have Disability myself.  Children must take #1 priority in getting help.  I disagree with Conservatives on Welfare.

2)  I oppose pro-death Liberals who support Abortion.  I oppose pro-death Conservatives who support guns.


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Look Kid, I have better things to do than to get into a pissing match with an emotionally disturbed, foul mouthed  delinquent
> 
> The fact is that Alito based his opinion of the philosophy of a 16th century misogynist, who believed in witchcraft and in the execution of children. Deal with it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Alito Opinion Is Going To Set Off A Nuclear Bomb In America's Jurisprudence!
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, the current case challenging the 1973 landmark abortion case of Row v. Wade, if they issue as their opinion the draft opinion of Justice Alito or anything like it they will be setting off a nuclear bomb that will destroy...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com


Listen pissant. I have better things to do than try to educate you on the law or even on basic reading comprehension skills. But I will deign to tell you again:  if you can read and if you have the ability to comprehend both the meaning of words and the reason for which Alito cited to any decisions by Lord Hale, and if you were also honest, you’d acknowledge that you were wrong. But I don’t suppose you have any of those qualities.  So you go on believing your bullshit. 

Your lack of intelligence, sophistication, maturity and honesty will be in sharp focus until you step up. Citing decisions by Lord Hale does not reflect a fucking thing along the lines you suggest. You are quite ignorant. Wise up.  In the meanwhile, gfy.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> Listen pissant. I have better things to do than try to educate you on the law or even on basic reading comprehension skills. But I will deign to tell you again:  if you can read and if you have the ability to comprehend both the meaning of words and the reason for which Alito cited to any decisions by Lord Hale, and if you were also honest, you’d acknowledge that you were wrong. But I don’t suppose you have any of those qualities.  So you go on believing your bullshit.
> 
> Your lack of intelligence, sophistication, maturity and honesty will be in sharp focus until you step up. Citing decisions by Lord Hale does not reflect a fucking thing along the lines you suggest. You are quite ignorant. Wise up.  In the meanwhile, gfy.


That is quite an unhinged moronic rant kid. The last thing that I need is for you to educate me. I had my say about Aliti and your Lord Hale. They are both. despicable excuses for human beings as are you. It is all well documented. You are just throwing shit at the wall hoping something will slick. You can't gaslight me.  I know what I know and I am confident in my beliefs,  so just fuck off sonny boy


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> Long winded BS


Really? Care to explain...? if you can. which I doubt.


----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? Care to explain...? if you can. which I doubt.


Lol

Why would i engage with a fool like you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> Lol
> 
> Why would i engage with a fool like you.


So you admit that you have no argument? That you are not up to the task of countering what I am saying? You are making yourself look like the fool. You are the fool


----------



## eagle1462010

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So you admit that you have no argument? That you are not up to the task of countering what I am saying? You are making yourself look like the fool. You are the fool


I admit nothing but you are a waste of my time


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is quite an unhinged moronic rant kid. The last thing that I need is for you to educate me. I had my say about Aliti and your Lord Hale. They are both. despicable excuses for human beings as are you. It is all well documented. You are just throwing shit at the wall hoping something will slick. You can't gaslight me.  I know what I know and I am confident in my beliefs,  so just fuck off sonny boy


No no. You obviously need an education. Urgently. Your ignorance is astounding. But in addition, you  are a loathsome piece of shit.

As for throwing shit, stop projecting. You are the one doing that by noting that the draft Alito decision does cite some historical Hale decisions and intentionally conflating that with his agreement for anything said by Hale. I realize that you’re a liar. I also see that you’re ignorant and rather plodding. But the purpose for the citation to the historical antecedents was obviously for a very different juridical purpose.

Maybe get an adult to help you with those “word” things. I fear you are beyond *any* help in your shitty lack of honesty.


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So you admit that you have no argument? That you are not up to the task of countering what I am saying? You are making yourself look like the fool. You are the fool


Why would anybody have a discussion with a sexual pervert such as yourself?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> Your lack of intelligence, sophistication, maturity


Says the juvenile delinquent who keeps telling me to go fuck myself. Yiu are a sick joke without a punch line


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

eagle1462010 said:


> I admit nothing but you are a waste of my time


You do not have to admit anything. Your lack of a valid counter argument speaks volumes about your failure


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> No no. You obviously need an education. Urgently. Your ignorance is astounding. But in addition, you  are a loathsome piece of shit.
> 
> As for throwing shit, stop projecting. You are the one doing that by noting that the draft Alito decision does cite some historical Hale decisions and intentionally conflating that with his agreement for anything said by Hale. I realize that you’re a liar. I also see that you’re ignorant and rather plodding. But the purpose for the citation to the historical antecedents was obviously for a very different juridical purpose.
> 
> Maybe get an adult to help you with those “word” things. I fear you are beyond *any* help in your shitty lack of honesty.


Gish Gallop !'


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Says the juvenile delinquent who keeps telling me to go fuck myself. Yiu are a sick joke without a punch line


I’m not even middle aged anymore. And your opinion of my maturity means so little coming from a worthless troll hypocrite piece of shit like you.  So, ya know. There’s that.  

You still can’t defend you own point. We know why. You’re quite stupid and a determined dishonest propagandist.


----------



## Indeependent

BackAgain said:


> I’m not even middle aged anymore. And your opinion of my maturity means so little coming from a worthless troll hypocrite piece of shit like you.  So, ya know. There’s that.
> 
> You still can’t defend you own point. We know why. You’re quite stupid and a determined dishonest propagandist.


*I’m not even middle aged anymore.*

You got younger?!


----------



## BackAgain

Indeependent said:


> *I’m not even middle aged anymore.*
> 
> You got younger?!


That would be wonderful!


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> Yup. Same reason one is allowed to yell “fire” in a movie theater. Free speech doesn’t extend to everything, in every circumstance.


Correct, they are mixing apple's and oranges, but the two don't go together. They do this to skirt the law, but the law is supposed to be keen on them doing this, and they should be getting hauled into jail for pulling the crap they keep pulling.


----------



## DudleySmith

Lisa558 said:


> States have the right to make the laws for the residents of their states. That’s how it works.



 So you think a state govt. has some right to legalize the murder of babies.


----------



## surada

Hossfly said:


> In most states (including California), when a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is charged with a double murder. However, when a woman wants to kill her baby by abortion, it's just a blob of flesh.  Something doesn't smell right here.


You just can't figure that out?


----------



## SweetSue92

surada said:


> You just can't figure that out?



Yes apparently housing the baby in her own body gives the mother extra special rights to kill the baby. Not only that but your side calls this a "right"


----------



## Lisa558

DudleySmith said:


> So you think a state govt. has some right to legalize the murder of babies.


More so than the federal government.

But I‘m on your side. There is no way that we could ever get a national ban on abortion, so isn’t it better that instead of a federal law that FORCES all states to allow abortion, that we return the decision to the individuals in each state, and thus at least get some decent laws in half of them?

You are arguing to ban all abortions. That would never happen. The best we can hope for is to remove the edict that prohibits such a ban nationwide.


----------



## BackAgain

surada said:


> You just can't figure that out?


Worse yet; you can.


----------



## DudleySmith

Lisa558 said:


> More so than the federal government.
> 
> But I‘m on your side. There is no way that we could ever get a national ban on abortion, so isn’t it better that instead of a federal law that FORCES all states to allow abortion, that we return the decision to the individuals in each state, and thus at least get some decent laws in half of them?
> 
> You are arguing to ban all abortions. That would never happen. The best we can hope for is to remove the edict that prohibits such a ban nationwide.


 I've already said  several times I take the liberal view on abortions, i.e. in cases of rape, incest, and medical threats to the mother's life. This is not the same thng as murdering babies for the petty bourgeois crime of Inconvenience.


----------



## Lisa558

DudleySmith said:


> I've already said  several times I take the liberal view on abortions, i.e. in cases of rape, incest, and medical threats to the mother's life. This is not the same thng as murdering babies for the petty bourgeois crime of Inconvenience.


But what are you going to do? The unfortunate fact is that we live in a country where about half the states are OK with a woman murdering her unborn child. At least when the SCOTUS lifts the ban that forces all states to allow these murders, the other half will at least show some compassion for a defenseless and innocent life. It’s better than what we have now.


----------



## schmidlap

beagle9 said:


> ... 50 year's ago the ruling was correct


Yes, given the fact that most Americans still approve of the compromise ruling of 50 years ago that has applied as established law since then, _stare decisis_ is the conservative legal principle that pertains.

With women now being empowered by medical abortion via the internet and the mail, authoritarians' attempt to exert control over the personal matter and their draconian laws are ineffectual. The abortion rate is about the same in advanced nations with more personal liberty as in regressive ones where the State dictates:

... In countries where abortion is broadly legal, there are between 36 and 47 abortions performed annually per 1,000 women, ages 15 to 49. And what about in countries where abortions are prohibited altogether? "In these countries, there are between 31 and 51 abortions annually per 1,000 women, on average."​​... [R]estrictive abortion laws don't correlate with a lower abortion rate. Instead, those laws correlate with more unintended pregnancies, which ultimately leads to an abortion rate comparable to what's observed in countries where the procedure is accessible.​​That finding is consistent with several previous studies, including a large one published by the Guttmacher Institute in 2012, and covered by Goats and Soda in 2014.​​"Many studies have shown that making abortions illegal doesn't decline the number of abortions," Ana Langer, at Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, told NPR. "Once a procedure becomes illegal, the need is still there. Women will look for services, safe or unsafe, to terminate their pregnancy."​​








						Do restrictive abortion laws actually reduce abortion? A global map offers insights
					

Click to see how restrictive or liberal local abortion laws are — and to look at the rate of abortion. The data offers a sense of whether stricter abortion laws reduce the number of abortions.




					www.npr.org
				



​


----------



## HikerGuy83

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Throughout the debate, those opposed to abortion have shown a blatant hostility towards women and a callous disregard for their well being. I think that Alito, in his leaked opinion, said something about access to abortion- which has allowed women to plan families and pursue careers is not longer necessary because they have come so far. Yes they have, but is that a reason to revert to the barefoot and pregnant mentality?



I think you need to ask why Alito is even touching this.

If that statement were in his decision, I'd be as pissed at him as I get when I read Roe.  

Women planning families is not the concern of the court.

Constitutionality is.


----------



## HikerGuy83

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is quite an unhinged moronic rant kid. The last thing that I need is for you to educate me. I had my say about Aliti and your Lord Hale. They are both. despicable excuses for human beings as are you. It is all well documented. You are just throwing shit at the wall hoping something will slick. You can't gaslight me.  I know what I know and I am confident in my beliefs,  so just fuck off sonny boy



Yea....fight a rant with........ a rant.


----------



## HikerGuy83

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Lastly for now, banning abortion is classist. It will not stop abortion. It will mean that women who have the means and the time will travel to a place where they can obtain a same abortion. Those who are not so lucky will have to seek out illegal abortions which are not regulated and which may well put them at risk. And as an aside, those unregulated abortions will likely include late term abortions which even pro choice people oppose





			https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> Yes, given the fact that most Americans still approve of the compromise ruling of 50 years ago that has applied as established law since then, _stare decisis_ is the conservative legal principle that pertains.
> 
> With women now being empowered by medical abortion via the internet and the mail, authoritarians' attempt to exert control over the personal matter and their draconian laws are ineffectual. The abortion rate is about the same in advanced nations with more personal liberty as in regressive ones where the State dictates:
> 
> ... In countries where abortion is broadly legal, there are between 36 and 47 abortions performed annually per 1,000 women, ages 15 to 49. And what about in countries where abortions are prohibited altogether? "In these countries, there are between 31 and 51 abortions annually per 1,000 women, on average."​​... [R]estrictive abortion laws don't correlate with a lower abortion rate. Instead, those laws correlate with more unintended pregnancies, which ultimately leads to an abortion rate comparable to what's observed in countries where the procedure is accessible.​​That finding is consistent with several previous studies, including a large one published by the Guttmacher Institute in 2012, and covered by Goats and Soda in 2014.​​"Many studies have shown that making abortions illegal doesn't decline the number of abortions," Ana Langer, at Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, told NPR. "Once a procedure becomes illegal, the need is still there. Women will look for services, safe or unsafe, to terminate their pregnancy."​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do restrictive abortion laws actually reduce abortion? A global map offers insights
> 
> 
> Click to see how restrictive or liberal local abortion laws are — and to look at the rate of abortion. The data offers a sense of whether stricter abortion laws reduce the number of abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


Your absolutely ignorant grasp on _stare decisis_ is both expected and tragic.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> Yes, given the fact that most Americans still approve of the compromise ruling of 50 years ago that has applied as established law since then, _stare decisis_ is the conservative legal principle that pertains.
> 
> With women now being empowered by medical abortion via the internet and the mail, authoritarians' attempt to exert control over the personal matter and their draconian laws are ineffectual. The abortion rate is about the same in advanced nations with more personal liberty as in regressive ones where the State dictates:
> 
> ... In countries where abortion is broadly legal, there are between 36 and 47 abortions performed annually per 1,000 women, ages 15 to 49. And what about in countries where abortions are prohibited altogether? "In these countries, there are between 31 and 51 abortions annually per 1,000 women, on average."​​... [R]estrictive abortion laws don't correlate with a lower abortion rate. Instead, those laws correlate with more unintended pregnancies, which ultimately leads to an abortion rate comparable to what's observed in countries where the procedure is accessible.​​That finding is consistent with several previous studies, including a large one published by the Guttmacher Institute in 2012, and covered by Goats and Soda in 2014.​​"Many studies have shown that making abortions illegal doesn't decline the number of abortions," Ana Langer, at Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, told NPR. "Once a procedure becomes illegal, the need is still there. Women will look for services, safe or unsafe, to terminate their pregnancy."​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do restrictive abortion laws actually reduce abortion? A global map offers insights
> 
> 
> Click to see how restrictive or liberal local abortion laws are — and to look at the rate of abortion. The data offers a sense of whether stricter abortion laws reduce the number of abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


You keep repeating a Lie.  Half the country has abortion laws and the other half doesnt.  The devide in this country has never been clearer


----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:


> Your absolutely ignorant grasp on _stare decisis_ is both expected and tragic.


You need to pleasure yourself with such nonsense because most Americans support the established law of half-a-century.

Just so you'l know, _stare decisis_ is a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice.

In any event, your regressive, authoritarian states where your politicians and bureaucrats are arrogating the personal liberty of women that has been respected for fifty years are very likely not reducing abortions.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> You need to pleasure yourself with such nonsense because most Americans support the established law of half-a-century.
> 
> Just so you'l know, _stare decisis_ is a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice.
> 
> In any event, your regressive, authoritarian states where your politicians and bureaucrats are arrogating the personal liberty of women that has been respected for fifty years are very likely not reducing abortions.


Long lie again.  Respect for what?  Killing unborn because people are too lazy to use protection?

Personal liberty to kill you mean


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> You keep repeating a Lie.  Half the country has abortion laws and the other half doesnt.  The devide in this country has never been clearer


Regardless of your authoritarian dogma, please respect the _truth:_

*The polling data is pretty clear that a majority of Americans think that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned.* According to a January poll from CNN, 69% of Americans want to keep Roe v. Wade intact, while just 30% want the ruling completely overturned.​​This position is not a recent change, either, as support has remained fairly consistent for more than 20 years. Since 1989, between 52% and 66% of U.S. adults have said they want Roe v. Wade to remain, according to polling conducted and compiled by Gallup.​​And according to data compiled by FiveThirtyEight from Pew, Gallup, the Kaiser Family Foundation and YouGov, roughly 10% to 15% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases, about 25% to 30% want abortion to be legal in all cases, and 55% to 65% tell pollsters that they want abortion to be legal in some or most cases. ​​When asked if abortion should be legal in the first trimester, 61% of Americans agree, a slight drop from the 69% of Americans who say they support Roe v. Wade. A majority of Americans also say that abortions in the second and third trimesters should be illegal in almost all cases, according to AP-NORC data.​​Only 1.3% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks of gestation or later, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.​​



__





						What percentage of Americans support Roe v. Wade? How people really feel about abortion, according to polls
					





					www.msn.com
				


​​​​


----------



## M14 Shooter

schmidlap said:


> Regardless of your authoritarian dogma, please respect the _truth:_
> 
> *The polling data is pretty clear that a majority of Americans think that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned.* According to a January poll from CNN, 69% of Americans want to keep Roe v. Wade intact, while just 30% want the ruling completely overturned.​


Constitutionality is not determined by, or dependent upon, public opinion.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> Regardless of your authoritarian dogma, please respect the _truth:_
> 
> *The polling data is pretty clear that a majority of Americans think that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned.* According to a January poll from CNN, 69% of Americans want to keep Roe v. Wade intact, while just 30% want the ruling completely overturned.​​This position is not a recent change, either, as support has remained fairly consistent for more than 20 years. Since 1989, between 52% and 66% of U.S. adults have said they want Roe v. Wade to remain, according to polling conducted and compiled by Gallup.​​And according to data compiled by FiveThirtyEight from Pew, Gallup, the Kaiser Family Foundation and YouGov, roughly 10% to 15% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases, about 25% to 30% want abortion to be legal in all cases, and 55% to 65% tell pollsters that they want abortion to be legal in some or most cases. ​​When asked if abortion should be legal in the first trimester, 61% of Americans agree, a slight drop from the 69% of Americans who say they support Roe v. Wade. A majority of Americans also say that abortions in the second and third trimesters should be illegal in almost all cases, according to AP-NORC data.​​Only 1.3% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks of gestation or later, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.​​
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of Americans support Roe v. Wade? How people really feel about abortion, according to polls
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.msn.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​​​​


Another long winded lie.  On this subject this nation is split Period


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is quite an unhinged moronic rant kid. The last thing that I need is for you to educate me. I had my say about Aliti and your Lord Hale. They are both. despicable excuses for human beings as are you. It is all well documented. You are just throwing shit at the wall hoping something will slick. You can't gaslight me.  I know what I know and I am confident in my beliefs,  so just fuck off sonny boy


No. It wasn’t unhinged. And it wasn’t a rant the most urgent thing you need is a functioning brain so that some education might deep into your pin head. I am defeating your absolute gibberish imbecilenprojectile vomiting form of “argument”!


schmidlap said:


> You need to pleasure yourself with such nonsense because most Americans support the established law of half-a-century.
> 
> Just so you'l know, _stare decisis_ is a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice.
> 
> In any event, your regressive, authoritarian states where your politicians and bureaucrats are arrogating the personal liberty of women that has been respected for fifty years are very likely not reducing abortions.


You are a jerk off and you pleasure yourself by falsely imagining that _stare decisis_ somehow means we’re forever stuck with a badly decided shit decision. That’s such an obviously regarded notion that only utter fools and assholes — like you — would think about it and say “yeah!  That’s what _stare decisis_ is.”  You’re an imbecile.


----------



## schmidlap

BackAgain said:


> You are a jerk off ... You’re an imbecile.


Statists are not always coherent in contriving intelligent arguments for arrogating personal liberty to their politicians and bureaucrats. Most Americans support keeping Roe v Wade as established law.


----------



## schmidlap

eagle1462010 said:


> Another long winded lie.  On this subject this nation is split Period


If you don't like the overwhelming evidence that most Americans support Roe v Wade, you can pretend otherwise if that is what you need to do, of course.


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> Statists are not always coherent in contriving intelligent arguments for arrogating personal liberty to their politicians and bureaucrats. Most Americans support keeping Roe v Wade as established law.


…..only because the media has tricked them into believing that a reversal means all abortions would be banned.


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> Statists are not always coherent in contriving intelligent arguments for arrogating personal liberty to their politicians and bureaucrats. Most Americans support keeping Roe v Wade as established law.



I couldn’t care less even if we were to assume that the stat was true. If the “majority” were in favor of incarcerating people because they were Jewish, it would still be absolutely wrong. 

You’re one of those miscreant asshole scumbags who places value of “democracy” over our form of government. I am very grateful that we are not a democracy. You’re a fucking  imbecile.


----------



## Lisa558

BackAgain said:


> I couldn’t care less even if we were to assume that the stat was true. If the “majority” were in favor of incarcerating people because they were Jewish, it would still be absolutely wrong.
> 
> You’re one of those miscreant asshole scumbags who places value of “democracy” over our form of government. I am very grateful that we are not a democracy. You’re a fucking  imbecile.


Agree. Our republic was devised to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. And, as I stated upthread, the majority support R v W only because they don’t understand what a reversal would mean.


----------



## schmidlap

Lisa558 said:


> …..only because the media has tricked them into believing that a reversal means all abortions would be banned.


You can always pretend, with no evidence, that _"the media"_ is to blame when most folks hold a different opinion than you, as well as pretend that you do not obtain _your_ information via _"the media."_

*Most Americans support legal abortion, upholding Roe v Wade*​


----------



## Lisa558

schmidlap said:


> You can always pretend, with no evidence, that _"the media"_ is to blame when most folks hold a different opinion than you, as well as pretend that you do not obtain _your_ information via _"the media."_
> 
> *Most Americans support legal abortion, upholding Roe v Wade*​


Aa I said, while a majority say they support upholding it, delving deeper into the poll results show that plenty of people who answered yes don’t understand what it means, and in fact are downright confused. (After all, it Americans were knowledgeable and not easily fooled, we wouldn’t have someone with dementia as president.)









						Do Americans Who Support Roe v. Wade Understand Its Implications?
					

Although recent polls show a majority thinks the abortion precedent should be preserved, some respondents seem confused about what that would mean.




					reason.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> No. It wasn’t unhinged. And it wasn’t a rant the most urgent thing you need is a functioning brain so that some education might deep into your pin head. I am defeating your absolute gibberish imbecilenprojectile vomiting form of “argument”!
> 
> You are a jerk off and you pleasure yourself by falsely imagining that _stare decisis_ somehow means we’re forever stuck with a badly decided shit decision. That’s such an obviously regarded notion that only utter fools and assholes — like you — would think about it and say “yeah!  That’s what _stare decisis_ is.”  You’re an imbecile.


You're a fucking mess kid. I can't take you seriously


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lisa558 said:


> Aa I said, while a majority say they support upholding it, delving deeper into the poll results show that plenty of people who answered yes don’t understand what it means, and in fact are downright confused. (After all, it Americans were knowledgeable and not easily fooled, we wouldn’t have someone with dementia as president.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Americans Who Support Roe v. Wade Understand Its Implications?
> 
> 
> Although recent polls show a majority thinks the abortion precedent should be preserved, some respondents seem confused about what that would mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reason.com


I would think that a Libertarian publication would support.....Liberty as in minimal government interference in personal choices

Aside from that, the article is a hot mess of convoluted bullshit and in no way shows that people who support Roe don't understand what it means.  

A third said that they did not understand certain aspects of it, and many support tightening restrictions on it, but none of that adds up to what you suggest..."if they really understood it, they would not support it" The fact is that everyone on both sides understands very well that if Roe were overturned there would be NO abortion in half of the states ( or more) and liberals DO NOT support that.


----------



## eagle1462010

schmidlap said:


> If you don't like the overwhelming evidence that most Americans support Roe v Wade, you can pretend otherwise if that is what you need to do, of course.


Lol  What evidence?  You are just blathering


----------



## BackAgain

schmidlap said:


> You can always pretend, with no evidence, that _"the media"_ is to blame when most folks hold a different opinion than you, as well as pretend that you do not obtain _your_ information via _"the media."_
> 
> *Most Americans support legal abortion, upholding Roe v Wade*​


Irrelevant.


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You're a fucking mess kid. I can't take you seriously


Nobody gives a shit who an asshole like you imagines he can or can’t take seriously. You’re retarded beyond hope of recovery. Gfy.


----------



## beagle9

DudleySmith said:


> So you think a state govt. has some right to legalize the murder of babies.


No one's saying that, but it could happen that way in which would be furthering the tragedy of open abortion unregulated consequences of state's choosing such a thing like that. We have to start somewhere, and this would be much better than us having to deal with a federal government forcing the abortion processes into every state by mandate, and this while it is being controlled by those who would back it or direct it to do such a thing.


----------



## Bezukhov

I'm surprised that no Republican has suggested allowing fetuses to carry firearms. Fetuses exercising their 2nd Amendment rights would stop abortions toot sweet.


----------



## beagle9

Bezukhov said:


> I'm surprised that no Republican has suggested allowing fetuses to carry firearms. Fetuses exercising their 2nd Amendment rights would stop abortions toot sweet.


I'm surprised that your brain has enough matter to think at all. lol


----------



## DudleySmith

beagle9 said:


> No one's saying that, but it could happen that way in which would be furthering the tragedy of open abortion unregulated consequences of state's choosing such a thing like that. We have to start somewhere, and this would be much better than us having to deal with a federal government forcing the abortion processes into every state by mandate, and this while it is being controlled by those who would back it or direct it to do such a thing.



Some keep babbling about 'states' rights' here; it's still murder just because the Fed is out of the game. It's a distinction without a difference.


----------



## DudleySmith

BackAgain said:


> Irrelevant.



Yes. The number of tards who think that just because a majority of halfwits approve of something it should be legal is scary.


----------



## beagle9

DudleySmith said:


> Some keep babbling about 'states' rights' here; it's still murder just because the Fed is out of the game. It's a distinction without a difference.


I agree, but we must get the Fed's out of it before it can be stopped, because the Fed's are a disaster anymore, and they have become a loose cannon depending on who is controlling it. Breaking it down hopefully is the begining of the end for out of control abortion's being promoted or stood up for at a federal level.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain joins the fray 
NFBW2207191519

*BackAgain* #2,434  Yes. It does mention born. But it doesn’t say that the preborn are, on such a flimsy basis, denied the right to life. 

*NFBW: *Which means it does not say that a clump of “live” cells going through the process of human development and fully dependent on an actual citizen for its growth to continue such growth has a right to have the government force that citizen to allow that growth to continue against her will.  

So what makes you so special that you get to add language to the Constitution but no one else can? Are you a Christian or something? END2207191519


----------



## ding

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I would think that a Libertarian publication would support.....Liberty as in minimal government interference in personal choices


That's not the job of SCOTUS.  That's the job of legislatures.  So now they need to do their jobs.


----------



## miketx

NotfooledbyW said:


> BackAgain joins the fray
> NFBW2207191519
> 
> *BackAgain* #2,434  Yes. It does mention born. But it doesn’t say that the preborn are, on such a flimsy basis, denied the right to life.
> 
> *NFBW: *Which means it does not say that a clump of “live” cells going through the process of human development and fully dependent on an actual citizen for its growth to continue such growth has a right to have the government force that citizen to allow that growth to continue against her will.
> 
> So what makes you so special that you get to add language to the Constitution but no one else can? Are you a Christian or something? END2207191519


Yes baffle them with bullsht!


----------



## ding

DudleySmith said:


> Some keep babbling about 'states' rights' here; it's still murder just because the Fed is out of the game. It's a distinction without a difference.


Is it a distinction without a difference?  I can see how one might view it that way but each branch of government has a different job to do.  SCOTUS did their job by kicking it back to the states to decide how to handle abortion.  It remains to be seen if the federal legislature will enact federal legislation.  But SCOTUS was correct in telling the state and federal legislatures to do your job.  It's not the court's job to write laws.  So for me it is not a distinction without a difference.  It's a wake up call.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NotfooledbyW said:


> BackAgain joins the fray
> NFBW2207191519
> 
> *BackAgain* #2,434  Yes. It does mention born. But it doesn’t say that the preborn are, on such a flimsy basis, denied the right to life.
> 
> *NFBW: *Which means it does not say that a clump of “live” cells going through the process of human development and fully dependent on an actual citizen for its growth to continue such growth has a right to have the government force that citizen to allow that growth to continue against her will.
> 
> So what makes you so special that you get to add language to the Constitution but no one else can? Are you a Christian or something? END2207191519


You got your states right move on


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> BackAgain joins the fray
> NFBW2207191519
> 
> *BackAgain* #2,434  Yes. It does mention born. But it doesn’t say that the preborn are, on such a flimsy basis, denied the right to life.
> 
> *NFBW: *Which means it does not say that a clump of “live” cells going through the process of human development and fully dependent on an actual citizen for its growth to continue such growth has a right to have the government force that citizen to allow that growth to continue against her will.
> 
> So what makes you so special that you get to add language to the Constitution but no one else can? Are you a Christian or something? END2207191519


Wrong. What it guarantees is the right to life. 

I didn’t add language at all. That’s you tools doing that shit.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Many men are doing LIFE in prison for murdering unborn babies.
How do vile Leftists explain that?  They cannot begin to and dare not even try.
Scott Peterson murdered Stacey and Conner, his unborn son.
It was Scott's "choice," wasn't it Leftists, sick, evil Leftists.


----------



## alang1216

ChemEngineer said:


> Many men are doing LIFE in prison for murdering unborn babies.
> How do vile Leftists explain that?  They cannot begin to and dare not even try.
> Scott Peterson murdered Stacey and Conner, his unborn son.


It wasn't Stacey that made that choice.



ChemEngineer said:


> It was Scott's "choice," wasn't it Leftists, sick, evil Leftists.


No it wasn't.



ChemEngineer said:


> View attachment 672007


Transplanting organs from pigs to humans​Should we now consider pigs to human?  Maybe you should refine your definition of what it means to be human.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> Should we now consider pigs to human? Maybe you should refine your definition of what it means to be human.


That didn't enter into the calculus of overturning Roe v Wade.  

But feel free to engage your state and federal representatives and convince them because they will be the ones writing the laws.


----------



## ding

I for one would love to see the federal government write abortion and climate change laws.  If these are as important issues as they keep saying they are then it would seem to be time to put their money where their mouth is.  I just can't help but think that they don't really believe these are important issues though.  It seems to me they would rather not address these issues through legislation and keep these issues as dog whistles for their base.


----------



## Delldude

ding said:


> That didn't enter into the calculus of overturning Roe v Wade.
> 
> *But feel free to engage your state and federal representatives and convince them because they will be the ones writing the laws.*


That isn't occurring to the cradle to grave mindset.


----------



## ding

Delldude said:


> That isn't occurring to the cradle to grave mindset.


They seem to want to rehash Dobbs v Jackson more than anything else.  Seems like a waste of time as that ruling did not rule on the legality of abortion only that abortion isn't a constitutional right.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain joins the fray 
NFBW2207191705

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

BackAgain-#3,594   “Wrong. What it guarantees is the right to life”

NFBW: It guarantees the right to life to the  born. You already acknowledged that fact. it only mentions born.

BackAgain #2,434  “Yes. It does mention born. But it doesn’t say that the preborn are, on such a flimsy basis, denied the right to life.”

*NFBW*:  The Constitution does not say that a living human zygote inside a woman’s body has a right to continue developing if the woman does not want it. Nor does the Constitution say that terminating a living human zygote is homicide.  

So why do you keep making shit up about what the Constitution says?  END2207191705


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> I for one would love to see the federal government write abortion and climate change laws.  If these are as important issues as they keep saying they are then it would seem to be time to put their money where their mouth is.


I agree.



ding said:


> I just can't help but think that they don't really believe these are important issues though.  It seems to me they would rather not address these issues through legislation and keep these issues as dog whistles for their base.


It is not a lack of belief but a lack of consensus.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> I agree.
> 
> 
> It is not a lack of belief but a lack of consensus.


Maybe I am ignorant of failed efforts but I am unaware of any attempts that were tried.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding ‘s absurdities
NFBW2207191802

ding220729-#3,598 “I for one would love to see the federal government write abortion and climate change laws.”

*NFBW: *Do you support legal abortion nationwide?
Are you willing to vote for Democrats in all three branches of government until they get a 60/40 majority in the Senate so they can?

If you vote Republican you get religious tyranny through the courts since Trump.

The Republican Party quadrennially pledged in its platform to appoint Supreme Court justices committed to reversing Roe v. Wade, and Catholics in the pews were encouraged to vote in favor of candidates' whose support for "life" issues was unwavering.​​The American Catholic Church And Roe. v. Wade  END2207191802​


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> So why do you keep making shit up about what the Constitution says?


Why do you keep rehashing Dobbs v Jackson?  It's over.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Do you support legal abortion nationwide?


That's for Congress to work through.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding ‘s absurdities
> NFBW2207191802
> 
> ding220729-#3,598 “I for one would love to see the federal government write abortion and climate change laws.”
> 
> *NFBW: *Do you support legal abortion nationwide?
> Are you willing to vote for Democrats in all three branches of government until they get a 60/40 majority in the Senate so they can?
> 
> If you vote Republican you get religious tyranny through the courts since Trump.
> 
> The Republican Party quadrennially pledged in its platform to appoint Supreme Court justices committed to reversing Roe v. Wade, and Catholics in the pews were encouraged to vote in favor of candidates' whose support for "life" issues was unwavering.​​The American Catholic Church And Roe. v. Wade  END2207191802​


Abortion is now a states matter.  Every state has a choice.  I thought you Democrats believed in choice?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding ‘s absurdities 
NFBW2207191822

Ding220719-#3,605     “Why do you keep rehashing Dobbs v Jackson?”

NFBW: is this compatible with your personal religious belief?

Most importantly, the essential biblical difference between ape and man is that man was created in the image of God, and God’s Spirit was breathed into man (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:7​
END2207191822


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding ‘s absurdities
> NFBW2207191822
> 
> Ding220719-#3,605     “Why do you keep rehashing Dobbs v Jackson?”
> 
> NFBW: is this compatible with your personal religious belief?
> 
> Most importantly, the essential biblical difference between ape and man is that man was created in the image of God, and God’s Spirit was breathed into man (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:7​
> END2207191822


No idea what you are trying to ask or how it pertains to the OP.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207191830

ding220718-#3,606  That's for Congress to work through.

NFBW: which outcome matches your religious beliefs?END2207191830


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain joins the fray
NFBW2207191857

BackAgain    #1     “Is this a lock? I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing *slaughter of innocent life* — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end”

ding 220719-#3,609   No idea what you are trying to ask or how it pertains to the OP

NFBW: Trying to find out why you and BackAgain assume that a woman’s right to choose her private health decision to terminate a pregnancy is          *slaughter of innocent life *as stated in the OP..    END2207191857


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> BackAgain joins the fray
> NFBW2207191857
> 
> BackAgain    #1     “Is this a lock? I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing *slaughter of innocent life* — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end”
> 
> ding 220719-#3,609   No idea what you are trying to ask or how it pertains to the OP
> 
> NFBW: Trying to find out why you and BackAgain assume that a woman’s right to choose her private health decision to terminate a pregnancy is          *slaughter of innocent life *as stated in the OP..    END2207191857


You try in vain to understand anything. You’re truly just not at all smart. I haven’t discussed any alleged “right” of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. There is no such right. Never has been. 

But there was a claimed right to slaughter the preborn totally helpless, defenseless and perfectly innocent life of preborn humans. That alleged right was “found” (literally) in the emanations of Constitutional shadows. And it is absurd.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207191830
> 
> ding220718-#3,606  That's for Congress to work through.
> 
> NFBW: which outcome matches your religious beliefs?END2207191830


Still not getting what you are asking.  Can you be more specific?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Trying to find out why you and @BackAgain assume that a woman’s right to choose her private health decision to terminate a pregnancy is *slaughter of innocent life *as stated in the OP..


As a rule the purpose of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy by ending a human life.  

That's how I would say it.


----------



## beagle9

alang1216 said:


> It wasn't Stacey that made that choice.
> 
> 
> No it wasn't.
> 
> 
> Transplanting organs from pigs to humans​Should we now consider pigs to human?  Maybe you should refine your definition of what it means to be human.


Spin it leftist, spin it.... Do you have no shame ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207191928
Ding220719-#3,605     “Why do you keep rehashing Dobbs v Jackson?”
NFBW: because it’s happening in what you call a Christian Nation.
ding200124-#518 “America is still a Christian nation even if all of its people don’t behave in Christian 

NFBW: Dobbs v Jackson was a Christian Nationalist ruling granting Christian  lawmakers the power to overturn religious freedom in whatever states a nationalistic Christian majority controls the government. 

That is  an infringement on religious freedom. That is not how religious minorities are to be left unprotected in this country or in any state having a dominant white right wing Christian majority having control over a non right wing minority. 

It reeks of fascism in the name of Jesus.  END2207191928


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> Maybe I am ignorant of failed efforts but I am unaware of any attempts that were tried.


Here's one:
The Political History of Cap and Trade​


----------



## alang1216

beagle9 said:


> Spin it leftist, spin it.... Do you have no shame ?


Did I write anything that was incorrect?


----------



## beagle9

BS Filter said:


> Abortion is now a states matter.  Every state has a choice.  I thought you Democrats believed in choice?


No they believe in the jack boot of the Fed's when they control it to some degree. Hopefully that's all fixing to change.


----------



## beagle9

alang1216 said:


> Did I write anything that was incorrect?


Yep


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Dobbs v Jackson was a Christian Nationalist ruling granting Christian lawmakers the power to overturn religious freedom in whatever states a nationalistic Christian majority controls the government.
> 
> That is an infringement on religious freedom. That is not how religious minorities are to be left unprotected in this country or in any state having a dominant white right wing Christian majority having control over a non right wing minority.
> 
> It reeks of fascism in the name of Jesus. END2207191928


Cool story.  The SCOTUS ruling on Dobbs v Jackson found that abortion wasn't a constitutionally protected right and over turned Roe v Wade.  Absent a federal law, it is now left up to each state to decide for itself the legality of  abortion and/or restrictions if any. 

Given that there are no further appeals possible you should focus on moving forward and influencing your state and federal representatives.  Or you could keep bitching and moaning about not getting the outcome you wanted which won't change anything at all.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> As a rule the purpose of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy by ending a human life


Based solely on your religious beliefs that a developing human life is the same as a fully developed human life equal in value to the mother. THE conception has to be a GOD driven event where HE is personally involved in the creation of a new life.  A That is CATHOLIC doctrine verbatim, Humanai Vitae


----------



## BS Filter

beagle9 said:


> No they believe in the jack boot of the Fed's when they control it to some degree. Hopefully that's all fixing to change.


Now everyone knows when they scream "democracy", it's just for show.  They don't really want democracy. Phoney.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Based solely on your religious beliefs that a developing human life is the same as a fully developed human life equal in value to the mother. THE conception has to be a GOD driven event where HE is personally involved in the creation of a new life.  A That is CATHOLIC doctrine verbatim, Humanai Vitae


No.  It's based upon the science that at fertilization a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.  I haven't gotten within 100 miles of a religious argument.  You are the only one who is trying to make this about religion.  Probably because you have no scientific argument to make.

My belief that abortion - as a rule - is to terminate a pregnancy by ending a human life is based on empirical evidence.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Based solely on your religious beliefs that a developing human life is the same as a fully developed human life equal in value to the mother. THE conception has to be a GOD driven event where HE is personally involved in the creation of a new life.  A That is CATHOLIC doctrine verbatim, Humanai Vitae


That is a Bible believer doctrine.


----------



## Concerned American

ChemEngineer said:


> Scott Peterson murdered Stacey and Conner, his unborn son.


That would be Laci and Connor.


----------



## Concerned American

alang1216 said:


> It wasn't Stacey that made that choice.


Her name was Laci.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> you should focus



I want to focus on debate on this message board about the religious freedom aspect of the ruling. 

if you aren’t up to it - duly noted you run from debate unless you control it.

You can start by answering my questions


----------



## ding

BS Filter said:


> That is a Bible believer doctrine.


I have three kids.  I'm pretty certain God wasn't in the room when they were conceived.  She was probably moaning oh God, but I never saw him.  I was too preoccupied.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> I want to focus on debate on this message board about the religious freedom aspect of the ruling.
> 
> if you aren’t up to it - duly noted you run from debate unless you control it.
> 
> You can start by answering my questions


The ruling wasn't made according to religion, but according to the Constitution. 


ding said:


> I have three kids.  I'm pretty certain God wasn't in the room when they were conceived.  She was probably moaning oh God, but I never saw him.  I was too preoccupied.


God is omnipotent.


----------



## beagle9

BS Filter said:


> Now everyone knows when they scream "democracy", it's just for show.  They don't really want democracy. Phoney.


They just highjack old terminology in attempts to fool the people by making them think that they are normal still... It's an old corrupt game, and they think that they are masters at it now. Spinnadrama is their game now. Thank God folks are waking up. 

The same thing was done with American businessmen, where as they were dancing with the Chinese so they would mass produce American products using super cheap and possibly slave labor that is out of our eyesight, then we were running down buying these products as if we were supporting jobs and American Labor. Talk about the biggest con this nation has ever seen, but to keep balance so it could all stay nice and smooth running, abortion was controlling population explosion while drugs and murders took care of what is left of the American dream.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BS Filter said:


> That is a Bible believer doctrine.




ITS CATHOLIC doctrine and Trump Protestant Christian but not all Bible believers hold that opinion that a human being is formed at conception


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I want to focus on debate on this message board about the religious freedom aspect of the ruling.
> 
> if you aren’t up to it - duly noted you run from debate unless you control it.
> 
> You can start by answering my questions


It's not a religious debate.  It's a debate upon when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence and when rights convey to new genetically distinct human beings.  The first question has already been answered by empirical scientific evidence.  The second question has yet to be decided on a federal level but has been addressed at the state level and will most likely be revisited again given now that Roe v Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> ITS CATHOLIC doctrine and Trump Protestant Christian but not all Bible believers hold that opinion that a human being is formed at conception


Then they don't believe the Bible.  You're wrong.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I want to focus on debate on this message board about the religious freedom aspect of the ruling.


Then you should probably create a non-callout thread in the appropriate forum.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ITS CATHOLIC doctrine and Trump Protestant Christian but not all Bible believers hold that opinion that a human being is formed at conception


It's an empirical scientific fact confirmed through DNA that at fertilization a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> It's a debate upon when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence and when rights convey to new genetically distinct human beings.



ITS A LIVING Human  ZYGOTE in the womb of a human being that is terminated - no one is terminating a hunan being. No scientists you have cited call a human zygote a human being,  to transform a zygote into something god commands you not terminate you have follow Catholic doctrine called Humana Vitae


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> It's an empirical scientific fact confirmed through DNA that at fertilization a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.


the DNA of a zygote means the zygote is still a zygote and not a human being.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> ITS A LIVING Human  ZYGOTE in the womb of a human being that is terminated - no one is terminating a hunan being. No scientists you have cited call a human zygote a human being,  to transform a zygote into something god commands you not terminate you have follow Catholic doctrine called Humana Vitae


When there is a heartbeat is that a human life?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ITS A LIVING Human  ZYGOTE in the womb of a human being that is terminated - no one is terminating a hunan being. No scientists you have cited call a human zygote a human being,  to transform a zygote into something god commands you not terminate you have follow Catholic doctrine called Humana Vitae


Again... not a religious argument.  A scientific fact based upon empirical evidence.  

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.  The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."
Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> the DNA of a zygote means the zygote is still a zygote and not a human being.


Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."
Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland


----------



## Concerned American

BS Filter said:


> When there is a heartbeat is that a human life?


Yes! Unequivocally.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> you have no scientific argument to make.


There is no scientific argument that there were living human beings slaughtered because of Roe vs WADE.  It is a religion driven argument affixed to a fictional reading of scientific findings.  No science has declared a living human zygote to be a living human being equal to its mother. 

Why do you deny the religious argument? Do you think Trump’s three court picks are Catholics or raised Catholic out of coincidence? Do you think their religious upbringing is anything to do their decision?

What’s the fear on your part of it being a religious argument?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."
> Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland


Like I said. Dr. William Reville Does not refer to a living zygote as a living hunan being Because that would be absurd. And scientists are usually bad into being absurd


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no scientific argument that there were living human beings slaughtered because of Roe vs WADE.  It is a religion driven argument affixed to a fictional reading of scientific findings.  No science has declared a living human zygote to be a living human being equal to its mother.
> 
> Why do you deny the religious argument? Do you think Trump’s three court picks are Catholics or raised Catholic out of coincidence? Do you think their religious upbringing is anything to do their decision?
> 
> What’s the fear on your part of it being a religious argument?


Biden and Pelosi are Catholics.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no scientific argument that there were living human beings slaughtered because of Roe vs WADE.  It is a religion driven argument affixed to a fictional reading of scientific findings.  No science has declared a living human zygote to be a living human being equal to its mother.
> 
> Why do you deny the religious argument? Do you think Trump’s three court picks are Catholics or raised Catholic out of coincidence? Do you think their religious upbringing is anything to do their decision?
> 
> What’s the fear on your part of it being a religious argument?


It can't be a religious argument.  It's a Constitutional decision.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no scientific argument that there were living human beings slaughtered because of Roe vs WADE.


The SCOTUS ruling on Dobbs v Jackson found that abortion wasn't a constitutionally protected right and over turned Roe v Wade. So the question of when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence wasn't relevant to the case or the Court's finding.

I suspect the question of when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence will be debated by state and federal legislatures when they write their abortion laws.  The answer to that question has already been answered by empirical scientific evidence; after fertilization occurs a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

It is disingenuous to argue abortion doesn't end the life of a genetically distinct human being  when the purpose of an abortion is to terminate the pregnancy and prevent the birth of a new genetically distinct human being.



NotfooledbyW said:


> It is a religion driven argument affixed to a fictional reading of scientific findings.


Not only is that incorrect it is irrelevant to the Supreme Court's finding that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right.  Furthermore, quibbling over when a human being comes into existence is an admission that it's wrong to end the life of a new genetically distinct human being because an abortion is intended to terminate the pregnancy and birth of a new genetically distinct human being.



NotfooledbyW said:


> No science has declared a living human zygote to be a living human being equal to its mother.


It's not the job of science to address the question of precedence of rights.  The only job of science is to inform the legislatures of when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence - which is after fertilization.  It's the state and federal legislature's job to weigh the rights of all parties and craft laws with the appropriate balance.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BS Filter said:


> It can't be a religious argument. It's a Constitutional decision.


Why not?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why do you deny the religious argument?


I already addressed this.  It's not a religious issue.  It's a human rights issue.  It's a debate upon when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence and when rights convey to new genetically distinct human beings. The first question has already been answered by empirical scientific evidence. The second question has yet to be decided on a federal level but has been addressed at the state level and will most likely be revisited again given now that Roe v Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court.


NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you think Trump’s three court picks are Catholics or raised Catholic out of coincidence?


No idea.  They were confirmed by the Senate.  If judicial activism concerns existed because of their religious affiliation, that would have been the time to address it.   


NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you think their religious upbringing is anything to do their decision?


No idea.  If you were a justice would your religious upbringing have anything to do with your decision?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> What’s the fear on your part of it being a religious argument?


There's no fear.  It's not relevant to the discussion.  Like I told you before, it's not a religious debate. It's a debate upon when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence and when rights convey to new genetically distinct human beings. The first question has already been answered by empirical scientific evidence. The second question has yet to be decided on a federal level but has been addressed at the state level and will most likely be revisited again given now that Roe v Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court.

What possible purpose would a discussion on religion serve?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Like I said. Dr. William Reville Does not refer to a living zygote as a living hunan being Because that would be absurd. And scientists are usually bad into being absurd


Every single embryology textbook ever published teaches that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization.  The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development.

Why are you having such a hard time admitting that abortion ends the life of a human being?  It's literally the purpose of an abortion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> The SCOTUS ruling on Dobbs v Jackson found that abortion wasn't a constitutionally protected right and over turned Roe v Wade


I know. Trump/ white evangelicals and rightwing Catholics  got lucky four years to appoint three Catholics who were hell bent to get there and declare that.   Freedom loving multicultural Americans got lucky that SCOTUS made the decision with plenty of time better There midterms   

I just filled up my tank   Gas is down  $.70 /gal   In four weeks to $4.25  


So no I’m not bothered at all about SCOTUS making an ideological decision that publicized what really concerns me -  older white Trumpism Christian’s convincing enough young Americans that America was founded as a white straight Christian Nation and to restore that wonderful white male dominated time they  need to elect Republicans.  young Americans ain’t going there.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> It's not relevant to the discussion. Like I told you before,


Perhaps you should try just engaging in discussion before telling the other side that what you don’t want to deal with is irrelevant.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Every single embryology textbook ever published teaches that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization.


But they don’t say a zygote is a human being do they? If they did I assume you wouid show  us. 

And they definitely don’t say a human being suddenly appears at the moment of conception if that is what you are saying. It’s after fertilization - couid be nine months if you are Jewish .


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I know. Trump/ white evangelicals and rightwing Catholics  got lucky four years to appoint three Catholics who were hell bent to get there and declare that.   Freedom loving multicultural Americans got lucky that SCOTUS made the decision with plenty of time better There midterms
> 
> I just filled up my tank   Gas is down  $.70 /gal   In four weeks to $4.25
> 
> 
> So no I’m not bothered at all about SCOTUS making an ideological decision that publicized what really concerns me -  older white Trumpism Christian’s convincing enough young Americans that America was founded as a white straight Christian Nation and to restore that wonderful white male dominated time they  need to elect Republicans.  young Americans ain’t going there.


That's nice.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Why are you having such a hard time admitting that abortion ends the life of a human being?


Because under the ROE ruling it doesn’t end the life of a human being - that is absurd.

It ends the life of a human created by GOD That he hopes to have a personal relationship with according to Catholic doctrine    - I’m not Catholic- are you.


----------



## mamooth

ding said:


> Every single embryology textbook ever published teaches that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization.


No, they don't. That's because it's absurd.



ding said:


> The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development.


The same can be said about a sperm cell, showing just how stupid your claim is.

Got anything other than your endless repetitions of "BECAUSE I SAY SO!". Of course not. It's all any pro-lifer has ever had. It defies biology, logic and history, yet they still cling to it.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Perhaps you should try just engaging in discussion before telling the other side that what you don’t want to deal with is irrelevant.


Because it's not a religious debate. It's a debate upon when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence and when rights convey to new genetically distinct human beings. The first question has already been answered by empirical scientific evidence. The second question has yet to be decided on a federal level but has been addressed at the state level and will most likely be revisited again given now that Roe v Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court.

What possible purpose would a discussion on religion serve?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> But they don’t say a zygote is a human being do they? If they did I assume you wouid show  us.
> 
> And they definitely don’t say a human being suddenly appears at the moment of conception if that is what you are saying. It’s after fertilization - couid be nine months if you are Jewish .


The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development.  That's what they say.



> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”


Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30



> “Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.”


The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1



> “It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.”


F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi



> “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”


Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co



> “The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)



> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”


Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144



> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”


Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55



> “The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world.”


DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584



> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”


Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419



> “A zygote (a single fertilized egg cell) represents the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life.”


Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53



> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”


Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3



> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”


Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943



> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”


Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974



> “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”


Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3



> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”


Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.



> “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”


Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.



> “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo..”


Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.



> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”


The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18


----------



## BackAgain

ding said:


> The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development.  That's what they say.
> 
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1
> 
> 
> F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
> 
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> 
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co
> 
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> 
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> 
> DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584
> 
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> 
> Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53
> 
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> 
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> 
> Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.
> 
> 
> Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
> 
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18


Bravo!  Great post.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Because under the ROE ruling it doesn’t end the life of a human being - that is absurd.
> 
> It ends the life of a human created by GOD That he hopes to have a personal relationship with according to Catholic doctrine    - I’m not Catholic- are you.


In the real world abortion is literally intended to terminate a pregnancy, prevent birth and terminate a human life.  Your denial of this is your admission that you know abortion is wrong.  Apparently you believe that if abortion did end a human life that you wouldn't support abortion.  Why else would you keep denying the obvious.  Mothers don't cry after abortions because they had some tissue removed.


----------



## ding

mamooth said:


> No, they don't. That's because it's absurd.


Ummmm... yes, every single embryology textbook ever published does teach that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization.  

See?



> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”


Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30



> “Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.”


The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1



> “It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.”


F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi



> “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”


Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co



> “The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> Click to expand...


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)



> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”


Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144



> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”


Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55



> “The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world.”


DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584



> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”


Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419



> “A zygote (a single fertilized egg cell) represents the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life.”


Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53



> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”


Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3



> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”


Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943



> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”


Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974



> “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”


Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3



> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”


Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.



> “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”


Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.



> “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo..”


Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.



> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”


The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Because it's not a religious debate. It's a debate upon when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence and when rights convey to new genetically distinct human beings.


The DNA of a living human zygote leaves a zygote scientifically being a living human zygote. DNA evidence does not create a human being. Your science changes nothing since I learned that life begin at conception over half a century ago. I married my girlfriend and mother and ended up raising two perfect women who have given us grand kids and a couple of great grandkids.. 


I have no religion  - what about you.


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> The DNA of a living human zygote leaves a zygote scientifically being a living human zygote. DNA evidence does not create a human being. Your science changes nothing since I learned that life begin at conception over half a century ago. *I married my girlfriend and mother *and ended up raising two perfect women who have given us grand kids and a couple of great grandkids..
> 
> 
> I have no religion  - what about you.



I’m not sure you meant exactly what you wrote.


----------



## ding

mamooth said:


> The same can be said about a sperm cell, showing just how stupid your claim is.
> 
> Got anything other than your endless repetitions of "BECAUSE I SAY SO!". Of course not. It's all any pro-lifer has ever had. It defies biology, logic and history, yet they still cling to it.


Sperm and unfertilized eggs are not new genetically distinct human beings, dummy.  So, no.  The same cannot be said about a sperm cell.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> The DNA of a living human zygote leaves a zygote scientifically being a living human zygote. DNA evidence does not create a human being. Your science changes nothing since I learned that life begin at conception over half a century ago. I married my girlfriend and mother and ended up raising two perfect women who have given us grand kids and a couple of great grandkids..
> 
> 
> I have no religion  - what about you.


DNA is evidence of a new person.  Does it disturb you that abortion terminates a human life?  

My religion is truth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> n the real world abortion is literally intended to terminate a pregnancy, prevent birth and terminate a human life





BackAgain said:


> I’m not sure you meant exactly what you wrote


I didn’t write girlfriend and her mother If that is what concerns you. 

My girlfriend was an expectant mother when we got married. She still is a mother.  Learn to read


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> I didn’t write girlfriend and her mother If that is what concerns you.
> 
> My girlfriend was an expectant mother when we got married. She still is a mother.  Learn to read


You wrote what you wrote. And I know, because I quoted it verbatim. 

Learn to write correctly.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Why do you keep citing these ding  as if there define a a livin human zygote as a living human being 

zygote is the beginning of a new human being.

This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning

 the initiation of the life of a new individual.”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain said:


> You wrote what you wrote. And I know, because I quoted it verbatim.


What wrong with it then?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why do you keep citing these ding  as if there define a a livin human zygote as a living human being
> 
> zygote is the beginning of a new human being.
> 
> This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning
> 
> the initiation of the life of a new individual.”


You would be much better off stating that abortion ends a human life and you still support a woman's right to choose an abortion than you would making such a blatantly dishonest argument that abortion isn't ending a human life.  As much as you wish it weren't alive and human, that's exactly what it is and that's exactly how science has categorized it.  All you are really admitting by making such a dishonest argument is that if abortion did end a human life it would be wrong and illegal.  You are literally shooting yourself in the foot.  It's a mistake but it's your mistake to make.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> DNA is evidence of a new person.




But it’s not a new person when terminated  under ROE - Your scientists all say it’s a beginning … not a result.


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> What wrong with it then?


It’s illiterate or at least ungrammatical and unclear. Read literally,  it says that you married _both_ your girlfriend *and* your mother. (That would be bigamy and possibly incestuous.) 😮

I had *assumed* you intended to say “and mother [of your child or children].”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain said:


> I’m not sure you meant exactly what you wrote.


*I married my girlfriend and mother *and ended up raising two perfect women who have given us grand kids and a couple of great grandkids..

if you read it literally that  I married two different people one being my mother and  they gave us grandkids then my mother would  be having great great great grandkids

Bottom  LINE   You are an AHOLE


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> *I married my girlfriend and mother *and ended up raising two perfect women who have given us grand kids and a couple of great grandkids..
> 
> if you read it literally that  I married two different people one being my mother and  they gave us grandkids then my mother would  be having great great great grandkids
> 
> Bottom  LINE   You are an AHOLE


No. The bottom line is that you are ungrammatical and have no sense of humor.

But your defense of your poor writing skills is funny. 😂🤣

Oh and you’ve always been an asshole. 👍


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You would be much better off stating that abortion ends a human life



Then I would be lying. I don’t lie. it ends the continued development of cells that could become a human life at some point.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> But it’s not a new person when terminated  under ROE - Your scientists all say it’s a beginning … not a result.


Legal rulings don't alter the physical world.  DNA says it is a new person.  The scientifically defined characteristics of living things says it's alive.  Abortion by design is intended to end that life.  These are the facts.  If your sensibility is offended to end a human life you shouldn't support abortion at all because that's exactly what abortion does.  It ends a human life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain said:


> Oh and you’ve always been an asshole.


You are a liar.   Always = “at all times”
you have not seen and heard everything I’ve done my entire live so you cannot say that. We’ve established you are a liar.  

Grammar wise you  should have said “from what I’ve seen@ you are an asshole.  -  So from what I’ve seen you are a lying assailed.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Then I would be lying. I don’t lie. it ends the continued development of cells that could become a human life at some point.


Hitler denied the humanness of Jews and slave owners denied the humanness of slaves.  Why?  Because it's easier to kill them if they aren't perceived to be human.  This is your problem.  If you acknowledge the humanness of life in the womb then it's harder for you to support killing them.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Then I would be lying.


The only honest argument for abortion is to acknowledge that abortion ends a human life but that the rights of the mother outweighs the rights of the child.  That's an honest argument.  The argument you are making is dishonest.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> DNA says it is a new person.


The DNA of a living human new zygot says it is a living human new zygote when terminated under ROE.


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar.   Always = “at all times”
> you have not seen and heard everything I’ve done my entire live so you cannot say that. We’ve established you are a liar.
> 
> Grammar wise you  should have said “from what I’ve seen@ you are an asshole.  -  So from what I’ve seen you are a lying assailed.


No. You’re always an asshole. 

Confession is good for the soul. Confess you asshole!

🤣😂

You’re all triggered and shit. What an asshole!


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why not?


Read my post again.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.


----------



## beagle9

BS Filter said:


> It can't be a religious argument.  It's a Constitutional decision.


A constitution born of religious men for the most part, but that's ok with me, but not with these devil's in this place, and I mean devil's of the worst kind.


----------



## beagle9

ding said:


> Ummmm... yes, every single embryology textbook ever published does teach that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization.
> 
> See?
> 
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1
> 
> 
> F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
> 
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> 
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co
> 
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> 
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> 
> DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584
> 
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> 
> Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53
> 
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> 
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> 
> Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.
> 
> 
> Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
> 
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18


Sounds like in a case of rape or incest, then the population needs to be educated that in such cases the victim needs immediate medical attention in order that the above mentioned does not take place or get started, otherwise it needs to be implanted into the brain that if such an event or event's take place, then the victim should seek medical care in order to stop any chance of the above mentioned taking place. If a minor the parent's should be responsible to get the child immediate medical care in order to stop any potential for the process to begin in such cases.

What do ya think ??


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding ‘s absurdities
NFBW2207200447

ding 220719-#3,662  “Ummmm... yes, every single embryology textbook ever published does teach that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization.  See?”

NFBW: Who put together your list ding   ????

Was it these Christians?

©2022 LIFESITENEWS.COM
All Rights Reserved.
(888) 678-6008 ext. 1
LifeSiteNews.com, Inc.
LifeSiteNews.com, Inc.
4 Family Life Lane
Front Royal, VA 22630
USA

END2207200448


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding ‘s absurdities
> NFBW2207200447
> 
> ding 220719-#3,662  “Ummmm... yes, every single embryology textbook ever published does teach that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization.  See?”
> 
> NFBW: Who put together your list ding   ????
> 
> Was it these Christians?
> 
> ©2022 LIFESITENEWS.COM
> All Rights Reserved.
> (888) 678-6008 ext. 1
> LifeSiteNews.com, Inc.
> LifeSiteNews.com, Inc.
> 4 Family Life Lane
> Front Royal, VA 22630
> USA
> 
> END2207200448


You got something against Christian's ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You got something against Christian's ?


Nope; what made you think that


----------



## ChemEngineer

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*:  The Constitution does not say that a living human zygote inside a woman’s body has a right to continue developing if the woman does not want it. Nor does the Constitution say that terminating a living human zygote is homicide.
> 
> So why do you keep making shit up about what the Constitution says?  END2207191705




Human "zygotes" butchered by Leftist Decree:


----------



## ChemEngineer

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Trying to find out why you and BackAgain assume that a woman’s right to choose her private health decision to terminate a pregnancy is          *slaughter of innocent life *as stated in the OP..    END2207191857



No you are not. You simply play on words, calling savage, evil butchery "choice," pretending that women have some "right" to kill unborn babies when in fact men are doing life in prison for killing unborn babies.  You lie and then lie to immorally defend your earlier lies.  You never comment without subtracting from the discussion and the subject.   Anyone responding to you is wasting his time, so you now go on my lengthy Ignore List.
"Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible, source of the quote,
"Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you."

ciao brutto


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding ‘s absurdities
NFBW2207200538

ding 220719-#3,662 “Ummmm...
“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

*NFBW:*  FYI ding passed the above opinion off as scientific fact  . It was written by  James Bopp,

James Bopp is a CATHOLIC   Republican Terrorist

In 2022, responding to reports that a 10-year-old rape victim needed and received an abortion, Bopp said that model legislation he developed for the National Right to Life Committee would have banned that abortion;​



__





						James Bopp - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				


he also said that they believed *she should have had the baby, and "we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child."*[6]   END2207200538​


----------



## ding

beagle9 said:


> Sounds like in a case of rape or incest, then the population needs to be educated that in such cases the victim needs immediate medical attention in order that the above mentioned does not take place or get started, otherwise it needs to be implanted into the brain that if such an event or event's take place, then the victim should seek medical care in order to stop any chance of the above mentioned taking place. If a minor the parent's should be responsible to get the child immediate medical care in order to stop any potential for the process to begin in such cases.
> 
> What do ya think ??


It seems to me that certain exceptions need to exist.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Genesis 2:7
Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and *breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. *NFBW2307201010

ChemicalEngineer220720-#3,689  “Human "zygotes" butchered by Leftist Decree:”


*NFBW: S*ince you do not have photos of actual human beings being butchered you can stay in hiding ChemEngineer   A human zygote as photographed is living human cell tissue in the form of a living zygote without a soul.  It is developing based upon the soul of the mother. *The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth ding inside her body as Jewish people believe “ensoulment’ takes place at first breath of the newborn child. *  I agree with Jewish tradition and disagree  with Catholic tradition that a soul is created by God at conception  or any other Christian who thinks they have the right to control every girl and womans health and bodily development who are living and breathing on earth, . . . , clear?  - here is where you say “crystal” if you are not in hiding as of yet.

Jewish tradition shows a soul does not require fles,  bones and blood to exist in a personal relationship with God.

ChemicalEngineer220720-#3,689   “Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible, source of the quote, “Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you."”


NFBW: You want Bible Verses in this discussion ChemEngineer here is more, and for you too ding :


Genesis 2:7
Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and *breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.*


2 Timothy 1:7
For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control. Trump

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die.


Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.  END2307201010


----------



## mamooth

ding said:


> Ummmm... yes, every single embryology textbook ever published does teach that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization.



Even some of your examples didn't say what you claimed. Not to mention that you haven't covered "every textbook". So, way to go proving my point.

I see you've gone full-blown eugenicist on us, claiming that superior DNA is what defines a human being. That's scary as hell. How long until pro-lifers dehumanize their opponents even further by declaring that their DNA isn't up to snuff?



> DNA says it is a new person.



No, it doesn't. That's just a eugenics freak screaming "BECAUSE I SAY SO!", and it contradicts biology, ethics and all of human history.

Long before humans knew what DNA was, we knew what a human being was. Over all of human history, the definition of a person has been "human, born and alive". And now you fascist cranks want to change that, based solely on your whackaloon eugenic-religious beliefs. No, not good enough.

And does it bother you at all that you keep company with third-world shitholes, Islamic republics and fascist dictators? That would bother a normal person. In contrast, we keep company with liberty-based democracies.


----------



## ding

mamooth said:


> Even some of your examples didn't say what you claimed. Not to mention that you haven't covered "every textbook". So, way to go proving my point.
> 
> I see you've gone full-blown eugenicist on us, claiming that superior DNA is what defines a human being. That's scary as hell. How long until pro-lifers dehumanize their opponents even further by declaring that their DNA isn't up to snuff?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. That's just a eugenics freak screaming "BECAUSE I SAY SO!", and it contradicts biology, ethics and all of human history.
> 
> Long before humans knew what DNA was, we knew what a human being was. Over all of human history, the definition of a person has been "human, born and alive". And now you fascist cranks want to change that, based solely on your whackaloon eugenic-religious beliefs. No, not good enough.
> 
> And does it bother you at all that you keep company with third-world shitholes, Islamic republics and fascist dictators? That would bother a normal person. In contrast, we keep company with liberty-based democracies.


Feel free to post the science that you believe supports whatever your arbitrary designation for when a human life begins.


----------



## BackAgain

ding said:


> Feel free to post the science that you believe supports whatever your arbitrary designation for when a human life begins.


Way too much to ask of him.


----------



## ding

BackAgain said:


> Way too much to ask of him.


That's because the science shows that human life begins after fertilization.  

The fact they keep arguing against this tells us that they know it's wrong to end a human life.  That's why they have concocted an unreasonable belief that they aren't killing a human being.  They are just removing some tissue.  It's silly.


----------



## BackAgain

ding said:


> That's because the science shows that human life begins after fertilization.
> 
> The fact they keep arguing against this tells us that they know it's wrong to end a human life.  That's why they have concocted an unreasonable belief that they aren't killing a human being.  They are just removing some tissue.  It's silly.


👏


----------



## mamooth

ding said:


> Feel free to post the science that you believe supports whatever your arbitrary designation for when a human life begins.


It's not a scientific definition, dumbass. That's why you faceplant so hard. It's a social, historical and legal definition.

If you disagree, explain to us how humans knew what a human being was before the discovery of DNA.


----------



## ding

mamooth said:


> It's not a scientific definition, dumbass. That's why you faceplant so hard. It's a social, historical and legal definition.
> 
> If you disagree, explain to us how humans knew what a human being was before the discovery of DNA.


And yet you offer not one scientific citation on the beginning of human life.


----------



## mamooth

ding said:


> And yet you offer not one scientific citation on the beginning of human life.


That would be because it's not a scientific definition.

Do I need to type it slower for you? 

It's not a difficult concept. A small child could grasp it, but you struggle with it. Why?


----------



## ding

mamooth said:


> That would be because it's not a scientific definition.
> 
> Do I need to type it slower for you?
> 
> It's not a difficult concept. A small child could grasp it, but you struggle with it. Why?


Incorrect.









						What Are the Ten Characteristics of Living Organisms?
					

Scientists identified several characteristics that define the status of an organism as either living or non-living. All living organisms share these same features.




					sciencing.com


----------



## ding

mamooth said:


> That would be because it's not a scientific definition.
> 
> Do I need to type it slower for you?
> 
> It's not a difficult concept. A small child could grasp it, but you struggle with it. Why?


The reason you can't offer one single scientific citation on when human life begins is because every single one of them states that human life begins after fertilization.  

It's hilarious that you have conceded the point that if human life begins after fertilization that abortion is wrong.  Which is why you continue to deny the self evident fact that human life begins after fertilization.


----------



## mamooth

ding said:


> Incorrect.


And there's that "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" thing again. It's all you have.

I think everyone notices you're running from the question that destroys your kook claims. Namely, if your claim is correct, then how did people know what a human being was before DNA was discovered?



> The reason you can't offer one single scientific citation on when human life begins



... is because it's not a scientific definition. Are you really as stupid as you sound, or are you just pretending to be that stupid?

At this stage, the question is _why_ you choose to lie. That is, you're only useful as a psychological study of abnormal personalities.

The biggest two reasons?

Tribalism. All your cult pals are telling the same lie, so you go along to reaffirm your tribal identity.

Sadism. Pro-lifers get off on being sick pervy control freaks.


----------



## ding

mamooth said:


> And there's that "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" thing again. It's all you have.
> 
> I think everyone notices you're running from the question that destroys your kook claims. Namely, how did people know what a human being was before DNA was discovered?
> 
> 
> 
> ... is because it's not a scientific definition. Are you really as stupid as you sound, or are you just pretending to be that stupid?
> 
> At this stage, the question is _why_ you choose to lie. That is, you're only useful as a psychological study.
> 
> The biggest two reasons?
> 
> Tribalism. All your cult pals are telling the same lie, so you go along to reaffirm your tribal identity.
> 
> Sadism. Pro-lifers get off on being sick pervy control freaks.


So you have no scientific citations to support your arbitrary starting point of when human life begins?

In fact, you don't even have a point where you will claim it's human, right?  Is birth your starting point for human life?


----------



## ding

mamooth Here are some. 



> *“Human life begins at fertilization,* the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite *to produce a genetically distinct individual.”*


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is *the beginning of a new human being.”*


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”*


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> *“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)* when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


----------



## BackAgain

mamooth said:


> It's not a scientific definition, dumbass. That's why you faceplant so hard. It's a social, historical and legal definition.
> 
> If you disagree, explain to us how humans knew what a human being was before the discovery of DNA.


Because if you can evade the use of science, you get to rely on arbitrary crap that doesn’t address the primary issue:  life itself. 

By the way, lots of things existed before we made scientific discoveries about those things. Then, we learned.


----------



## BackAgain

mamooth said:


> That would be because it's not a scientific definition.
> 
> Do I need to type it slower for you?
> 
> It's not a difficult concept. A small child could grasp it, but you struggle with it. Why?


Because your premise is false. You are trying in vain to explain your own in total error without recognizing that it is erroneous. 

It is indeed a matter of scientific definition.


----------



## ding

It's so funny to watch them lash out and make insults because they are upset they are losing this debate.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding ‘s absurdities
NFBW2207201406

ding220720-#3,697   “. . . the science shows that human life begins after fertilization.

*NFBW: *All Science shows is that  a development process begins after fertilization/conception - henceforth if conditions are favorable after that  it will lead to the birth of a living breathing eating pooping human infant needing about 16 more years of supervision and human guidance to become an adult human bring capable of legally driving an automobile on public roads 

ding220720- 3,692   “It seems to me that certain exceptions need to exist.”
NFBW: So kind of you to release your legal authority over every female human being starting at age 10 through menopause if certain circumstances and or conditions to your liking are met.  Do you want to b nominated for the medal of freedom or something ding  ??   END2207201406


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> James Bopp, e



Ding likes the White male Catholic Taliban who says the 10 year old raped pregnant girl shouid deliver the baby and like it   No shit:


ding ‘s absurdities

NFBW2207200538-3,691



ding 220719-#3,662 “Ummmm...

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”



NFBW: FYI ding passed the above opinion off as scientific fact . It was written by James Bopp,



James Bopp is a CATHOLIC Republican Terrorist



In 2022, responding to reports that a 10-year-old rape victim needed and received an abortion, Bopp said that model legislation he developed for the National Right to Life Committee would have banned that abortion;



James Bopp - Wikipedia



he also said that they believed she should have had the baby, and "we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child."[6] END2207200538


The piece of shit company ding Keeps  WTF???


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


Jesus ding    Wtf is wrong with you?


----------



## ding

Still not seeing any claim of when they believe human life begins or any scientific evidence for when a human life begins (other than what I have posted) or any scientific explanation for why the demarcation for when human life begins can't be determined.

But I did find this scientific evidence for human life beginning after fertilization.



> *
> “Human life begins at fertilization,* the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite *to produce a genetically distinct individual.”*


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is *the beginning of a new human being.”*


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”*


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> *“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)* when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> Click to expand...


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

#winning


----------



## ding

But what is obvious is that NotfooledbyW and mamooth believe it is wrong to end a human life.


----------



## mamooth

BackAgain said:


> Because if you can evade the use of science, you get to rely on arbitrary crap that doesn’t address the primary issue:  life itself.


"BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

Unless you only eat dirt, you definitely don't care about "life".



BackAgain said:


> By the way, lots of things existed before we made scientific discoveries about those things. Then, we learned.


The point is that the definitions were made before those discoveries, hence they clearly have nothing to do with the discoveries.


----------



## BackAgain

ding said:


> It's so funny to watch them lash out and make insults because they are upset they are losing this debate.


They already lost it.


----------



## BackAgain

mamooth said:


> "BECAUSE I SAY SO!"
> 
> Unless you only eat dirt, you definitely don't care about "life".


The full blown gibberish is in full control of what passes for manboob’s brain at this point. 😂


mamooth said:


> The point is that the definitions were made before those discoveries, hence they clearly have nothing to do with the discoveries.


The actual point  this that as we learn, we need to adapt accordingly. You have no hope of grasping this since you are incapable of learning.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Feel free to post the science that you believe supports whatever your arbitrary designation for when a human life begins.



See below


NFBW2207201644

ding220719-#3,662 “Ummmm...

“the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

birth: a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.”

birth: an incident in the whole developmental process.”

the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “

A zygote is the beginning of a new human being

“Fertilization of male and female haploid gametes is  genetically distinct individual.”

beginning of a new human being.”
“human being, . .  begins life as a fertilized ovum.”

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)i

“ the zygote, which is the start of a new individual

a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.

offspring destined to develop

single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being.

Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”

the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life.”

higher animals start their lives from a single cell,

the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”

“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs

(zygote), a new life has begun….

embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life

A new life will have begun.”

“The development of a human being begins with fertilization,

the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

our description of the developing human

 the embryonic development of a new individual.

The beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”

“a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…

 The zygote … is a unicellular embryo..”

A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.

Human development begins at fertilization,

, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

*NFBW: *That is @ding’s science. Not one of them says a woman who terminates her pregnancy according to ROE is guilty of slaughtering a human being.

That is because she is terminating not a human being, but a (I choose this one) “lThe development of a human being” because her, the impregnated woman’s biology created it and it is hers to decide if she will allow the development to continue.


It’s none of ding and ChemEngineer   and BackAgain S business but hers and her partner family and doctor during the developmental stage of a new human life.  END2207201644


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> See below
> 
> 
> NFBW2207201644
> 
> ding220719-#3,662 “Ummmm...
> 
> “the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
> 
> birth: a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.”
> 
> birth: an incident in the whole developmental process.”
> 
> the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “
> 
> A zygote is the beginning of a new human being
> 
> “Fertilization of male and female haploid gametes is  genetically distinct individual.”
> 
> beginning of a new human being.”
> “human being, . .  begins life as a fertilized ovum.”
> 
> “The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)i
> 
> “ the zygote, which is the start of a new individual
> 
> a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.
> 
> offspring destined to develop
> 
> single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being.
> 
> Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life.”
> 
> higher animals start their lives from a single cell,
> 
> the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs
> 
> (zygote), a new life has begun….
> 
> embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life
> 
> A new life will have begun.”
> 
> “The development of a human being begins with fertilization,
> 
> the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
> 
> our description of the developing human
> 
> the embryonic development of a new individual.
> 
> The beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
> 
> “a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…
> 
> The zygote … is a unicellular embryo..”
> 
> A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.
> 
> Human development begins at fertilization,
> 
> , totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
> 
> *NFBW: *That is @ding’s science. Not one of them says a woman who terminates her pregnancy according to ROE is guilty of slaughtering a human being.
> 
> That is because she is terminating not a human being, but a (I choose this one) “lThe development of a human being” because her, the impregnated woman’s biology created it and it is hers to decide if she will allow the development to continue.
> 
> 
> It’s none of ding and ChemEngineer   and BackAgain S business but hers and her partner family and doctor during the developmental stage of a new human life.  END2207201644


Wrong. 

It’s the business of every decent human being in America to try to protect innocent defenseless human life in our own land.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> See below
> 
> 
> NFBW2207201644
> 
> ding220719-#3,662 “Ummmm...
> 
> “the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
> 
> birth: a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.”
> 
> birth: an incident in the whole developmental process.”
> 
> the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “
> 
> A zygote is the beginning of a new human being
> 
> “Fertilization of male and female haploid gametes is  genetically distinct individual.”
> 
> beginning of a new human being.”
> “human being, . .  begins life as a fertilized ovum.”
> 
> “The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)i
> 
> “ the zygote, which is the start of a new individual
> 
> a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.
> 
> offspring destined to develop
> 
> single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being.
> 
> Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
> 
> the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life.”
> 
> higher animals start their lives from a single cell,
> 
> the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
> 
> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs
> 
> (zygote), a new life has begun….
> 
> embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life
> 
> A new life will have begun.”
> 
> “The development of a human being begins with fertilization,
> 
> the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
> 
> our description of the developing human
> 
> the embryonic development of a new individual.
> 
> The beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
> 
> “a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…
> 
> The zygote … is a unicellular embryo..”
> 
> A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.
> 
> Human development begins at fertilization,
> 
> , totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
> 
> *NFBW: *That is @ding’s science. Not one of them says a woman who terminates her pregnancy according to ROE is guilty of slaughtering a human being.
> 
> That is because she is terminating not a human being, but a (I choose this one) “lThe development of a human being” because her, the impregnated woman’s biology created it and it is hers to decide if she will allow the development to continue.
> 
> 
> It’s none of ding and ChemEngineer   and BackAgain S business but hers and her partner family and doctor during the developmental stage of a new human life.  END2207201644


I'm super glad you agree with me that ending a human life would be wrong.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I'm super glad you agree with me that ending a human life would be wrong.


No ending a human life is murder it’s criminal not just wrong. So why do you think he won the debate?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> No ending a human life is murder it’s criminal not just wrong. So why do you think he won the debate?


Wow.  No wonder you are fighting so hard to deny humanness to babies in the womb.  You know it's murder.  

Your problem is that no one will ever buy your argument that they aren't living human beings in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Your problem is that no one will ever buy your argument that they aren't living human beings in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death.



Every person I know agrees with me. I don’t know any Trump Christian Taliban 

It’s not my problem at all.  They are developing human tissue and cells of the woman who is pregnant. They are a developing human life firm that will become a human being if the woman decides to carry it full term. If she does not she has terminated a growth in her body and it is not killing a human being. It cannot be killing a human being because a human “being” does not exist yet. 

None of your scientists say anything  other than what I say.  They all say what goes on inside the body of a pregnant woman is precisely a developing natural process same as in all mammals, involving  human cells and human tissue,  but it is a process, not a being . It belongs to the mother.

Nothing about it being murder if a woman (it’s her body not yours) decides to terminate the grueth.  get your nose out of woman’s bodies unrelated to you. WHATS WRONG WITH You?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Every person I know agrees with me. I don’t know any Trump Christian Taliban
> 
> It’s not my problem at all.  They are developing human tissue and cells of the woman who is pregnant. They are a developing human life firm that will become a human being if the woman decides to carry it full term. If she does not she has terminated a growth in her body and it is not killing a human being. It cannot be killing a human being because a human “being” does not exist yet.
> 
> None of your scientists say anything  other than what I say.  They all say what goes on inside the body of a pregnant woman is precisely a developing natural process same as in all mammals, involving  human cells and human tissue,  but it is a process, not a being . It belongs to the mother.
> 
> Nothing about it being murder if a woman (it’s her body not yours) decides to terminate the grueth.  get your nose out of woman’s bodies unrelated to you. WHATS WRONG WITH You?


Science, DNA, the human life cycle, common sense and reality all say it's a new genetically distinct human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.  If you are going to take its life I think you ought to have to acknowledge that.  I want to hear your chicken shit ass say I am for a woman's right to choose an abortion even though abortion ends a human life.  Women's rights are important.  But so are the child's.  If you can't be honest about what you are doing, you shouldn't be able to do it.  The days of sweeping things under the rug are over.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Science, DNA, the human life cycle, common sense and reality all say it's a new genetically distinct human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.


You are a liar. Not one of your scientists on your list ever says that a work in progress is a human being immediately at conception. You are a liar. Your so steeped in the pro-life white rightwing Trumpism Christian propaganda that you can’t even comprehend the words that you post.

They are saying it would be a new genetically distinct human being if if  if   If it goes to full term.  They are not saying it is a being at conception.  in Catholic doctrine it’s a sin to terminate a pregnancy because they believe God creates a new soul with each new body in order to have a  personal relationship with each soul after conception. 

So interfering with God’s plan for that being would be a sin against GOD. To me that is hocus pocus but go for it all you want..


If you want to stick with the conception scheme then you are a Catholic and you are not talking about civil law under our Constitution. You are talking about religious sin. So if you’re a Catholic don’t get an abortion. Leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. Not one of your scientists on your list ever says that a work in progress is a human being immediately at conception. You are a liar. Your so steeped in the pro-life white rightwing Trumpism Christian propaganda that you can’t even comprehend the words that you post.
> 
> They are saying it would be a new genetically distinct human being if if  if   If it goes to full term.  They are not saying it is a being at conception.  in Catholic doctrine it’s a sin to terminate a pregnancy because they believe God creates a new soul with each new body in order to have a  personal relationship with each soul after conception.
> 
> So interfering with God’s plan for that being would be a sin against GOD. To me that is hocus pocus but go for it all you want..
> 
> 
> If you want to stick with the conception scheme then you are a Catholic and you are not talking about civil law under our Constitution. You are talking about religious sin. So if you’re a Catholic don’t get an abortion. Leave the rest of us alone.


You need to own what you are suggesting.  If you can't say you support ending a human life then you have no business supporting abortion.  Man up.


----------



## Meister

NotfooledbyW said:


> None of your scientists say anything  other than what I say.  They all say what goes on inside the body of a pregnant woman is precisely a developing natural process same as in all mammals, involving  human cells and human tissue,  but it is a process, not a being . It belongs to the mother.
> 
> Nothing about it being murder if a woman (it’s her body not yours) decides to terminate the grueth.  get your nose out of woman’s bodies unrelated to you. WHATS WRONG WITH You?


So you are for abortion right up to the time of a natural birth? WOW dude. You are quite the prize.


----------



## ChemEngineer

"Her body" is the biggest lie of Leftists:


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meister said:


> So you are for abortion right up to the time of a natural birth? WOW dude. You are quite the prize.



Do you think JEWS are quite the prize?

I’m not for abortion at all. I was fixed after my second child.  Why do you ask? Are you a Christian? Why did you want to control women’s bodies whom you do not know?

Now as for everybody else including you:

The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body as Jewish people believe “ensoulment’ takes place at first breath of the newborn child.

For society, not me personally,  I agree with Jewish tradition and disagree with Catholic tradition that a soul is created by God at conception

Fair enough or do want to remove the freedom of conscience the founding fathers gave me?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Genesis 2:7
> Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and *breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. *NFBW2307201010
> 
> ChemicalEngineer220720-#3,689  “Human "zygotes" butchered by Leftist Decree:”
> 
> 
> *NFBW: S*ince you do not have photos of actual human beings being butchered you can stay in hiding ChemEngineer   A human zygote as photographed is living human cell tissue in the form of a living zygote without a soul.  It is developing based upon the soul of the mother. *The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth ding inside her body as Jewish people believe “ensoulment’ takes place at first breath of the newborn child. *  I agree with Jewish tradition and disagree  with Catholic tradition that a soul is created by God at conception  or any other Christian who thinks they have the right to control every girl and womans health and bodily development who are living and breathing on earth, . . . , clear?  - here is where you say “crystal” if you are not in hiding as of yet.
> 
> Jewish tradition shows a soul does not require fles,  bones and blood to exist in a personal relationship with God.
> 
> ChemicalEngineer220720-#3,689   “Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible, source of the quote, “Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you."”
> 
> 
> NFBW: You want Bible Verses in this discussion ChemEngineer here is more, and for you too ding :
> 
> 
> Genesis 2:7
> Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and *breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.*
> 
> 
> 2 Timothy 1:7
> For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control. Trump
> 
> Ezekiel 18:20
> The soul who sins shall die.
> 
> 
> Ezekiel 18:4
> Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.  END2307201010


Your interpretation of the Bible verses are of course highly subjective, and left open to very heavy, heavy scrutiny, and this is all because you aren't a practicing Christian I'm guessing right ??? So is it that you see yourself as an intellectual that feels as if you can somehow authoritatively speak on this subject without challenge or without equal maybe ?  Sorry bud, but I'm not buying into anything you say or advocate for here. Period.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you think JEWS are quite the prize?
> 
> I’m not for abortion at all. I was fixed after my second child.  Why do you ask? Are you a Christian? Why did you want to control women’s bodies whom you do not know?
> 
> Now as for everybody else including you:
> 
> The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body as Jewish people believe “ensoulment’ takes place at first breath of the newborn child.
> 
> For society, not me personally,  I agree with Jewish tradition and disagree with Catholic tradition that a soul is created by God at conception
> 
> Fair enough or do want to remove the freedom of conscience the founding fathers gave me?


There's a lot more to your bull crap than just abortion, because if it wasn't then you wouldn't be so hyped up about it, and especially if you are not for abortion at all. 

Where do you think that it all might go huh ??? Are you a leftist by chance ?? 

Your word's - I'm not for abortion at all, but, but, but, but, but... Unbelievable lol.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you think JEWS are quite the prize?
> 
> I’m not for abortion at all. I was fixed after my second child.  Why do you ask? Are you a Christian? Why did you want to control women’s bodies whom you do not know?
> 
> Now as for everybody else including you:
> 
> The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body as Jewish people believe “ensoulment’ takes place at first breath of the newborn child.
> 
> For society, not me personally,  I agree with Jewish tradition and disagree with Catholic tradition that a soul is created by God at conception
> 
> Fair enough or do want to remove the freedom of conscience the founding fathers gave me?


The First Amendment's Establishment Clause *prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”* This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. So you can forget about a federal law being based upon the Jewish religious belief of ensoulment.  It ain't going to happen.  It would be unconstitutional.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207202229

beagle9220720-#3,730

you aren't a practicing Christian I'm guessing right ??? 

NFBW: Right!  Religion? none.

beagle9220720-#3,730  So is it that you see yourself as an intellectual that feels as if you can somehow authoritatively speak on this subject without challenge or without equal maybe ? 

*NFBW:* Nope! I’m here looking for a challenge? You up to it? What is wrong with what I have written? Be specific please.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> For society, not me personally, *I agree with Jewish tradition and disagree with Catholic tradition that a soul is created by God at conception*


The question of ensoulment has no place in this discussion.  You of all people should know that.

Here is what you said in another thread about religion and government:



NotfooledbyW said:


> Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that *freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.*





NotfooledbyW said:


> I’m saying the Founding Founders established a multicultural nation when enlightenment non-Christian, highly educated men, namely Jefferson and Madison and several others convinced a majority of Christian men that *the best way to go in the Constitution was for absolute religious liberty which meant that separation of church and state.*





NotfooledbyW said:


> *They sought to restrict the power that religious dogma had over the minds off its followers and that is what they accomplished by writing a secular Constitution *and getting orthodox Christians to agree.



And now you are wanting the federal government to write laws based upon certain religious beliefs?

Not going to happen.  The First Amendment's Establishment Clause *prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”* This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207202247



beagle9220720-#3,731  Your word's - I'm not for abortion at all, but, but, but, but, but... 

DBW: If you are going to challenge me you need to be accurate when citing my words. you have failed already. 

these are my words

I’m not for abortion at all. I was fixed after my second child.  There is no but this or but that. It is firm.  END2207202247


----------



## ding

> *
> “Human life begins at fertilization,* the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite *to produce a genetically distinct individual.”*


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is *the beginning of a new human being.”*


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”*


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> *“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)* when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> Click to expand...


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> DBW: If you are going to challenge me you need to be accurate when citing my words. you have failed already.
> 
> these are my words
> 
> I’m not for abortion at all. I was fixed after my second child. There is no but this or but that. It is firm. END2207202247


Are you for separation of church and state?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207202323

ding220720-#3,734   “And now you are wanting the federal government to write laws based upon certain religious beliefs?”

*NFBW: *Snagglepuss said it best: Heavens to Murgatroyd ding . I want the Feds and states to leave all law abiding citizens alone specifically on matters of conscience, religion and health privacy.

You know like when a woman finds herself pregnant and wants to terminate the cells and tissues growing in her body, I want all government and church people  to stay out of it.

Leave her alone.

The Federal Government needs no new laws to protect pregnant women from white Christian religious zealots that have been elected to power in too many red states.  END2207202322


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207202323
> 
> ding220720-#3,734   “And now you are wanting the federal government to write laws based upon certain religious beliefs?”
> 
> *NFBW: *Snagglepuss said it best: Heavens to Murgatroyd ding . I want the Feds and states to leave all law abiding citizens alone specifically on matters of conscience, religion and health privacy.
> 
> You know like when a woman finds herself pregnant and wants to terminate the cells and tissues growing in her body, I want all government and church people  to stay out of it.
> 
> Leave her alone.
> 
> The Federal Government needs no new laws to protect pregnant women from white Christian religious zealots that have been elected to power in too many red states.  END2207202322


Good news then.  This is a science and legal rights argument.  So glad you agree with me that there is no place for a religious discussion in abortion (even though you just made one).  Just like I am glad that you agree with me that it's wrong to end a human life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207210015

ding220720-#3,739 This is a science and legal rights argument. So glad you agree with me that there is no place for a religious discussion in abortion.

NFBW:  IF religion  is banned by you from this  discussion then all your pro-life propaganda goes away.  

then we have this secular alternative solution to unwanted pregnancy,

choice   If you oppose abortion don’t do it. And we have this:

The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body. END2207210015


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207210030

ding220720-#3,739   This is a science and legal rights argument. So glad you agree with me that there is no place for a religious discussion in abortion.
NFBW  Why this?


Former religious right leader: I saw our phrases in Alito’s abortion opinion

By JOSH GERSTEIN

A former leader of the religious right contends that an effort he helped lead to influence conservative Supreme Court justices through prayer sessions, private dinners and other social events contributed to the stridency of the court’s opinion last month striking down Roe v. Wade.

Former religious right leader: I saw our phrases in Alito’s abortion opinion

Rev. Rob Schenck said on a religion-focused podcast released last week that the behind-the-scenes lobbying effort led by his former group Faith and Action to encourage the conservative justices to “be bolder and far more assertive in their opinions” on social issues like abortion contributed to the sweeping nature of the five-justice majority’s decision to roll back abortion rights.END2207210030


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW:  IF religion  is banned by you from this  discussion then all your pro-life propaganda goes away.


Afraid not.  The right to life is not a religious issue.  It's a human rights issue.  It's no different than the abolitionists - many who were religious - fighting to end slavery.  Abolition was not a religious issue. Abolition was a human rights issue.  Abolitionists - just like pro-lifers - spoke on the behalf of  those who couldn't speak for themselves.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body.


SCOTUS ruled that abortion is not a constitutional right.  So it will be up to state or federal legislators to balance the rights of the mother and child (which you so callously refer to as that growth inside her body).


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> then we have this secular alternative solution to unwanted pregnancy,
> 
> choice If you oppose abortion don’t do it.


Absent Federal laws on abortion, that will be up to each state to decide for itself.  So, no, abortion probably won't be an option everywhere.


----------



## irosie91

ding said:


> Absent Federal laws on abortion, that will be up to each state to decide for itself.  So, no, abortion probably won't be an option everywhere.


it will be a matter of  WHO CAN PAY


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207210930
@ding’s (religious right’s confederate fallacy) Meister ChemEngineer BackAgain    -   There is no DNA science that can prove a human zygot has a separate right to life over and above the actual human being to which “it” is attached for development and future becoming of a separated at birth (first breath) human being same as the mother was when she was born. THERE is precedent for that in American law. We should return to that in all states without delay.

ding220720-#3,739 “This is a science and legal rights argument.

NFBW2207210015-#3,740  IF religion  is banned by you from this  discussion then all your pro-life propaganda goes away.  Then we have this secular alternative solution to unwanted pregnancy,

choice   If you oppose abortion don’t do it. And we have this:

The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body. END2207210015

Ding220721-#3,742  “The right to life is not a religious issue. It's a human rights issue.

*NFBW: *Immediately above is not settled to be true, but this below is ding ‘s argument’s killer and fallacy.

Ding220721-#3,742 It's no different than the abolitionists - many who were religious - fighting to end slavery.

*NFBW*: There is a huge difference. And ding should already know what it is. @Ding’s defense argument against a woman’s right to choose to terminate the growth inside her body is fatally flawed.

Africans brought to the New World as slaves and property were not considered to be human in the “Christian nation” where many “Christians” were flawed by holding that false belief regarding black subhumans.

The fatal flaw in @ding’s argument right here is that the American Africans that were freed by Lincoln and the abolitionists were at the time all human beings who were fully and unquestionably separated from their mother’s womb. ding ignores an obvious fact in his argument.  That is a fatal flaw. He has to deal with the critical “difference”.  Let us see what he and his confederate compatriots do. END2207210930


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207210930
> @ding’s (religious right’s confederate fallacy) Meister ChemEngineer BackAgain    -   There is no DNA science that can prove a human zygot has a separate right to life over and above the actual human being to which “it” is attached for development and future becoming of a separated at birth (first breath) human being same as the mother was when she was born. THERE is precedent for that in American law. We should return to that in all states without delay.
> 
> ding220720-#3,739 “This is a science and legal rights argument.
> 
> NFBW2207210015-#3,740  IF religion  is banned by you from this  discussion then all your pro-life propaganda goes away.  Then we have this secular alternative solution to unwanted pregnancy,
> 
> choice   If you oppose abortion don’t do it. And we have this:
> 
> The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body. END2207210015
> 
> Ding220721-#3,742  “The right to life is not a religious issue. It's a human rights issue.
> 
> NFBW: Immediate above is not settled to be true, but here below is ding ‘s argument’s killer and fallacy.
> 
> Ding220721-#3,742 It's no different than the abolitionists - many who were religious - fighting to end slavery.
> 
> NFBW: There is a huge difference. And you should already know what it is. @Ding’s defense argument against a woman’s right to choose to terminate the growth inside her body is fatally flawed.
> 
> Africans brought to the New World as slaves and property were not considered to be human in the “Christian nation” where many “Christians” were flawed by holding that false belief regarding black subhumans.
> 
> The fatal flaw in @ding’s argument right here is that the American Africans that were freed by Lincoln and the abolitionists were at the time all human beings who were fully and unquestionably separated from their mother’s womb. ding ignores an obvious fact in his argument.  That is a fatal flaw. He has to deal with the critical “difference”.  Let us see what he and his confederate compatriots do. END2207210930


Our Constitution clearly guarantees the right to life, etc.

Science absolutely says that a human zygote is a human life. 

Pretty much ending the debate.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207210959

BackAgain220721-#3,747  Our Constitution clearly guarantees the right to life, etc.

NFBW wrote: Not for living human zygotes or any other cells and tissue with individual DNA while “it” is existing unborn inside the uterus and womb of an impregnated human being who owns the womb. 


BackAgain220721-#3,747 Science absolutely says that a human zygote is a human life.

NFBW: Show the actual science where they say a zygote is a developed complete functional human being if separated from its natural life support system. END2207210959


----------



## Meister

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207210930
> @ding’s (religious right’s confederate fallacy) Meister ChemEngineer BackAgain    -   There is no DNA science that can prove a human zygot has a separate right to life over and above the actual human being to which “it” is attached for development and future becoming of a separated at birth (first breath) human being same as the mother was when she was born. THERE is precedent for that in American law. We should return to that in all states without delay.
> 
> ding220720-#3,739 “This is a science and legal rights argument.
> 
> NFBW2207210015-#3,740  IF religion  is banned by you from this  discussion then all your pro-life propaganda goes away.  Then we have this secular alternative solution to unwanted pregnancy,
> 
> choice   If you oppose abortion don’t do it. And we have this:
> 
> The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body. END2207210015
> 
> Ding220721-#3,742  “The right to life is not a religious issue. It's a human rights issue.
> 
> *NFBW: *Immediately above is not settled to be true, but this below is ding ‘s argument’s killer and fallacy.
> 
> Ding220721-#3,742 It's no different than the abolitionists - many who were religious - fighting to end slavery.
> 
> *NFBW*: There is a huge difference. And ding should already know what it is. @Ding’s defense argument against a woman’s right to choose to terminate the growth inside her body is fatally flawed.
> 
> Africans brought to the New World as slaves and property were not considered to be human in the “Christian nation” where many “Christians” were flawed by holding that false belief regarding black subhumans.
> 
> The fatal flaw in @ding’s argument right here is that the American Africans that were freed by Lincoln and the abolitionists were at the time all human beings who were fully and unquestionably separated from their mother’s womb. ding ignores an obvious fact in his argument.  That is a fatal flaw. He has to deal with the critical “difference”.  Let us see what he and his confederate compatriots do. END2207210930


Dude, I just asked if you were in favor of abortions right up to the natural birth.
WTF with all of that drivel?
A simple yes, or no would have sufficed.

You can always tell when a poster is on his/her heals when they try and baffle you with bullshit. (notfooledbyW) 205662595eatshit


----------



## Meister

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207202247
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9220720-#3,731  Your word's - I'm not for abortion at all, but, but, but, but, but...
> 
> DBW: If you are going to challenge me you need to be accurate when citing my words. you have failed already.
> 
> these are my words
> 
> I’m not for abortion at all. I was fixed after my second child.  There is no but this or but that. It is firm.  END2207202247


You're not for abortion....but, it's okay if a woman has an abortion?   
Wow, you do have issues.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207211119

Meister220721-#3,750   “You're not for abortion....but, it's okay if a woman has an abortion?”

*NFBW: *You are not citing something I actually said. Correct?

 Please communicate here using actual quotes by me that you wish to discuss like I did with you.

Can you tell me if you accept it as ok/legal if a ten year old  rape victim has an abortion?  END2207211119


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no DNA science that can prove a human zygot has a separate right to life over and above the actual human being to which “it” is attached for development and future becoming of a separated at birth (first breath) human being same as the mother was when she was born. THERE is precedent for that in American law. We should return to that in all states without delay.


It's not the purpose of science/DNA to weigh the rights of the mother and child.  The only purpose science/DNA plays is to establish when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence.  And the seminal moment of the creation of a new genetically distinct human being is after fertilization.







> *“Human life begins at fertilization,* the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite *to produce a genetically distinct individual.”*


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is *the beginning of a new human being.”*


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”*


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> *“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)* when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> Click to expand...
> Click to expand...


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> THERE is precedent for that in American law. We should return to that in all states without delay.


SCOTUS just ruled on that in Dobbs v Ferguson.  It was determined that abortion wasn't a constitutional right.  So the only way it's going to be like it used to be - absent the passage of a  federal law - is on a state by state basis.  That is the reality of the situation.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207210015-#3,740  IF religion is banned by you from this discussion then all your pro-life propaganda goes away. Then we have this secular alternative solution to unwanted pregnancy,
> 
> choice If you oppose abortion don’t do it. And we have this:
> 
> The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth inside her body. END2207210015


Again... This isn't a religious issue.  The constitution forbids anyone from making a religious argument.  No one other than you is trying to make this a religious issue.   This is a human rights issue.  It's no different than the abolitionists - many who were religious - fighting to end slavery. Abolition was not a religious issue. Abolition was a human rights issue. Abolitionists - just like pro-lifers - spoke on the behalf of those who couldn't speak for themselves.

SCOTUS just ruled that women do not have a constitutional right to abortion.  So in America women do not have a natural right of abortion.  If you want women to have the right of abortion, I suggest you try to influence your state and federal representatives to have them pass a law to your liking.


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207211119
> 
> Meister220721-#3,750   “You're not for abortion....but, it's okay if a woman has an abortion?”
> 
> *NFBW: *You are not citing something I actually said. Correct?


Dude. He *quoted* *your* post.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is a huge difference. And @ding should already know what it is. @Ding’s defense argument against a woman’s right to choose to terminate the growth inside her body is fatally flawed.


It's not my argument.  It's a SCOTUS ruling.  SCOTUS determined that abortion isn't a constitutional right. It's now up to state or federal legislatures to decide which laws to write.  


NotfooledbyW said:


> Africans brought to the New World as slaves and property were not considered to be human in the “Christian nation” where many “Christians” were flawed by holding that false belief regarding black subhumans.


According to you a fetus is property too.  So it's exactly the same.  


NotfooledbyW said:


> The fatal flaw in @ding’s argument right here is that the American Africans that were freed by Lincoln and the abolitionists were at the time all human beings who were fully and unquestionably separated from their mother’s womb. @ding ignores an obvious fact in his argument. That is a fatal flaw. He has to deal with the critical “difference”. Let us see what he and his confederate compatriots do. END2207210930


The abolition movement was in existence at the time the Constitution was ratified.  It took over 60 years and a civil war to change the law.   You are rehashing a decision that has already been made by SCOTUS.  The ship you are wanting to get on has already sailed.  You lost.  You can bitch about their decision all you want but it won't change anything.  If you want to make a change, I suggest you contact your state and federal representatives and try to influence their decision.


----------



## Meister

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207211119
> 
> Meister220721-#3,750   “You're not for abortion....but, it's okay if a woman has an abortion?”
> 
> *NFBW: *You are not citing something I actually said. Correct?
> 
> Please communicate here using actual quotes by me that you wish to discuss like I did with you.
> 
> Can you tell me if you accept it as ok/legal if a ten year old  rape victim has an abortion?  END2207211119


A 10 year old rape victim?  Yes, I'm in favor an abortion.
A 20 year old rape victim?  Yes, I'm in favor of an abortion.
See how clear and precise I am with my answers.....without all the bullshit like you spew?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BS Filter said:


> Biden and Pelosi are Catholics.


I voted for Biden and support Speaker Pelosi because they are good true Anerucsn Catholics. We need more good Catholics in high office who understand that Separation of Church and State is a good thing and should not be aborted.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207211227

ding220721-#3,756    “According to you a fetus is property too. So it's exactly the same. “


*NFBW*: No,  that is a lie.  I have never used that term to describe the scientific  development process that you inappropriately define as a human being while it is taking place inside an impregnated woman’s body following conception.

Do you agree that you decided to lie as part of your argument?  END2207211227


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> I voted for Biden and support Speaker Pelosi because they are good true Anerucsn Catholics. We need more good Catholics in high office who understand that Separation of Church and State is a good thing and should not be aborted.


Yes, they're doing an excellent job, always have.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207211227
> 
> ding220721-#3,756    “According to you a fetus is property too. So it's exactly the same. “
> 
> 
> *NFBW*: No,  that is a lie.  I have never used that term to describe the scientific  development process that you define as a human being while it taking place inside an impregnated woman’s body following conception.
> 
> Do you agree that you decided to lie as part of your argument?  END2207211227


When does the fetus become human?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BS Filter said:


> When does the fetus become human?


If your question is when does a fetus have equal right to life as the mother and every other viable human being on earth, I believe Roe v. Wade set precedent at viability outside the womb . Catholic doctrine of Humana vitae declares in my absolutely non theological capacity That God creates a soul at conception because he has a plan for its life. It is therefore a sin to terminate pregnancy. Jewish theology however declares that ensoulment takes place at first breath and that is when a fetus becomes a human being. Science does not not define an exact moment between those two theological conclusions on the subject that’s why I believe Roe v. Wade was settled law for 50 years and should not have been taken down giving precedence to  the Catholic doctrine becoming  a law for everyone.


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> If your question is when does a fetus have equal right to life as the mother and every other viable human being on earth, I believe Roe v. Wade set precedent at viability outside the womb . Catholic doctrine of Humana vitae declares in my absolutely non theological capacity That God creates a soul at conception because he has a plan for its life. It is therefore a sin to terminate pregnancy. Jewish theology however declares that ensoulment takes place at first breath and that is when a fetus becomes a human being. Science does not not define an exact moment between those two theological conclusions on the subject that’s why I believe Roe v. Wade was settled lol for 50 years and should not have been taken down giving president the Catholic doctrine becomes a law for everyone.


Roe v. Wade is no longer deemed a precedent.  😎


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain said:


> Roe v. Wade is no longer deemed a precedent.


It was. That’s all I said. So what is your point? Do you have a point? Do you have anything to contribute to this conversation?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: No,  that is a lie.  I have never used that term to describe the scientific  development process that you define as a human being while it taking place inside an impregnated woman’s body following conception.
> 
> Do you agree that you decided to lie as part of your argument?  END2207211227


If you deny it's humanness and argue it can be disposed of at the will of its "owner" then it most certainly is property.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> If your question is when does a fetus have equal right to life as the mother and every other viable human being on earth, I believe Roe v. Wade set precedent at viability outside the womb . Catholic doctrine of Humana vitae declares in my absolutely non theological capacity That God creates a soul at conception because he has a plan for its life. It is therefore a sin to terminate pregnancy. Jewish theology however declares that ensoulment takes place at first breath and that is when a fetus becomes a human being. Science does not not define an exact moment between those two theological conclusions on the subject that’s why I believe Roe v. Wade was settled law for 50 years and should not have been taken down giving precedence to  the Catholic doctrine becoming  a law for everyone.


I'm pretty sure he only asked when a fetus becomes human.  He didn't ask you to weigh the rights of the fetus to the rights of the woman.  He just asked you when you believe a fetus is human?  It's a question you have been dodging this this discussion began.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> If your question is when does a fetus have equal right to life as the mother and every other viable human being on earth, I believe Roe v. Wade set precedent at viability outside the womb . Catholic doctrine of Humana vitae declares in my absolutely non theological capacity That God creates a soul at conception because he has a plan for its life. It is therefore a sin to terminate pregnancy. Jewish theology however declares that ensoulment takes place at first breath and that is when a fetus becomes a human being. Science does not not define an exact moment between those two theological conclusions on the subject that’s why I believe Roe v. Wade was settled law for 50 years and should not have been taken down giving precedence to  the Catholic doctrine becoming  a law for everyone.


I'm asking when do you believe a fetus becomes human?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207211327
ding 220721-#3,765   “If you deny it's humanness and argue it can be disposed of at the will of its "owner" then it most certainly is property.”

NTBW: I do not deny the humanness of the living process taking place inside a woman’s body at all. It is human. I refute your mischaracterization of the alleged science that says a human being  is instantly created at conception as it is contained in Catholic doctrine.  So you are lying on top of a lie.

The relationship between a pregnant woman is not a public transaction  anything likened to a corral full of slaves being sold on the public square.  I contend it is private and involves  private health issues and personal private life issues and objectives. 

You are a liar and are aggressively convincing me that you are a Catholic Taliban set in your ideological disrespect for women and their rights to even privacy and control of their own health.
END2207211327


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207211327
> ding 220721-#3,765   “If you deny it's humanness and argue it can be disposed of at the will of its "owner" then it most certainly is property.”
> 
> NTBW: I do not deny the humanness of the living process taking place inside a woman’s body at all. It is human. I refute your mischaracterization of the alleged science that says a human being  is instantly created at conception as it is contained in Catholic doctrine.  So you are lying on top of a lie.
> 
> The relationship between a pregnant woman is not a public transaction  anything likened to a corral full of slaves being sold on the public square.  I contend it is private and involves  private health issues and personal private life issues and objectives.
> 
> You are a liar and are aggressively convincing me that you are a Catholic Taliban set in your ideological disrespect for women and their rights to even privacy and control of their own health.
> END2207211327


So then, at long last, are you saying, “yes, at conception, a human zygote is a human life?”  

Seems like that ought to be easy enough to affirm or deny.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BS Filter said:


> I'm asking when do you believe a fetus becomes human?



I told you. 

I believe Roe v. Wade set precedent at viability outside the womb,’


That’s when a  human fetus becomes a human “being” according to the Roe versus Wade ruling. I believe Roe v. Wade set legal precedent at viability outside the womb and that ruling remains legal in the majority of the states in the country as of now I believe.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain said:


> So then, at long last, are you saying, “yes, at conception, a human zygote is a human life?”



No. Not what I said. You are a liar. 

 I explicitly said “. I refute ( ding  ) your mischaracterization of the alleged science that says a human being is instantly created at conception as it is contained in Catholic doctrine.”

A ZYGOTE is not a human life - it is a living developing human zygote that will become a human life at some point unless the pregnancy is terminated.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> I told you.
> 
> I believe Roe v. Wade set precedent at viability outside the womb,’
> 
> 
> That’s when a  human fetus becomes a human “being” according to the Roe versus Wade ruling. I believe Roe v. Wade set legal precedent at viability outside the womb and that ruling remains legal in the majority of the states in the country as of now I believe.


So you don't believe in science. Thanks.


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. Not what I said. You are a liar.
> 
> I explicitly said “. I refute ( ding  ) your mischaracterization of the alleged science that says a human being is instantly created at conception as it is contained in Catholic doctrine.”
> 
> A ZYGOTE is not a human life - it is a living developing human zygote that will become a human life at some point unless the pregnancy is terminated.


You are a mistress of double speak. That makes you the liar.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Challenge any baby murderer to specify the precise second when a developing baby "becomes" a human.  Demand that they scientifically represent why it is NOT human one second earlier.
They will never answer that question because it shows their reprehensible callousness and disregard for babies in the womb.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207211455

ChemEngineer220721-#3,774 Challenge any baby murderer to specify the precise second when a developing baby "becomes" a human.

*NFBW:* Let’s designate what scientists identify as a developing biological process that starts and progresses in all female gendered mammals including humans at conception, a pregnancy. What is the precise second when society should accept that  a pregnancy has produced a human being equal to the human being on the date and time that the pregnant woman was born?

If this is only about science and rights then you must be able to precisely answer that question and back it up with science.

What is the precise second that human science can indisputably confirm that a pregnancy has produced a human being equal to the human being on the date and time that the pregnant woman was herself born?  END2207211455


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChemEngineer220721-#3,774 Challenge any baby murderer to specify the precise second when a developing baby "becomes" a human

NFBW: a fetus scientifically becomes a human “being” when it can survive outside the womb with continued support from human beings including highly trained medical professional human beings. Prior to that moment it is human but is not a human being.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207210659 ding ’s authoritarian absurdities

ding220720-#3,739 “This is a science and legal rights argument.

ding220721-#3,742 “The right to life is not a religious issue. It's a human rights issue.

*NFBW:* The major political, financial and motivational force driving the fifty years of pro-life Taliban warriors against Roe v Wade is white flavored Christian religion as stated here by one of them.

airplanemechanic210527-#39   “God has given women the right to create life, but NOT the right to end it.”

*NFBW*:  it’s not coming from a handful of scientists.

END2207210659


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BS Filter said:


> So you don't believe in science



I don’t believe in science propaganda generated on white Christian Taliban websites  like this guy who is no scientist that ding keeps passing off as a scientist.

ding 220719-#3,662 “Ummmm...

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
NFBW: FYI ding passed the above opinion off as scientific fact . It was written by James Bopp,
James Bopp is a CATHOLIC Republican Terrorsist

In 2022, responding to reports that a 10-year-old rape victim needed and received an abortion, Bopp said that model legislation he developed for the National Right to Life Committee would have banned that abortion;

James Bopp - Wikipedia

he also said that they believed she should have had the baby, and "we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child."[6] END2207200538

The piece of shit company ding Keeps WTF???  END2207201425


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207202229
> 
> beagle9220720-#3,730
> 
> you aren't a practicing Christian I'm guessing right ???
> 
> NFBW: Right!  Religion? none.
> 
> beagle9220720-#3,730  So is it that you see yourself as an intellectual that feels as if you can somehow authoritatively speak on this subject without challenge or without equal maybe ?
> 
> *NFBW:* Nope! I’m here looking for a challenge? You up to it? What is wrong with what I have written? Be specific please.


NFBW: I'm not for abortion at all...

Beagle9: But, but, but, but, but, but, but you just want to argue about something you are in agreement with ???? ROTFLMBO..

Someone is either lying or you messed up by saying "I'm not for abortion at all". Duh.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> I don’t believe in science propaganda generated on white Christian Taliban websites  like this guy who is no scientist that ding keeps passing off as a scientist.
> 
> ding 220719-#3,662 “Ummmm...
> 
> “The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> NFBW: FYI ding passed the above opinion off as scientific fact . It was written by James Bopp,
> James Bopp is a CATHOLIC Republican Terrorsist
> 
> In 2022, responding to reports that a 10-year-old rape victim needed and received an abortion, Bopp said that model legislation he developed for the National Right to Life Committee would have banned that abortion;
> 
> James Bopp - Wikipedia
> 
> he also said that they believed she should have had the baby, and "we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child."[6] END2207200538
> 
> The piece of shit company ding Keeps WTF???  END2207201425


So you don't follow science.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BS Filter said:


> So you don't follow science.


Do you THINK James Boppis a scientist,  not only must a ten year old rape victim have the baby she is executer to like it.   Fuck @ding’s vision of science.



James Bopp - Wikipedia

he also said that they believed she should have had the baby, and "we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child."[6] END2207200538

IF it did not kill her.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you THINK James Boppis a scientist,  not only must a ten year old rape victim have the baby she is executer to like it.   Fuck @ding’s vision of science.
> 
> 
> 
> James Bopp - Wikipedia
> 
> he also said that they believed she should have had the baby, and "we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child."[6] END2207200538
> 
> IF it did not kill her.


I don't care about him.  I'm talking to you.  Is a fetus human? Yes or no.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BS Filter said:


> I don't care about him. I'm talking to you. Is a fetus human? Yes or no.


Bopp has been presented as a pro-life scientist.  he is a political Lawyer right wing hack and Devout Catholic   That is some fucked up scientist that you want me to believe. 

A fetus is human but not a human “being” yet. .it is a human biological process that all real scientists agree it is a going through many stages of development, The fetus is part of the woman, not a separate being. I don’t need a scientist to confirm that.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Bopp has been presented as a pro-life scientist.  he is a political Lawyer right wing hack and Devout Catholic   That is some fucked up scientist that you want me to believe.
> 
> A fetus is human but not a human “being” yet. .it is a human biological process that all real scientists agree it is a going through many stages of development, The fetus is part of the woman, not a separate being. I don’t need a scientist to confirm that.


Wrong.  The fetus is a separate human being.  That's science.


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> Bopp has been presented as a pro-life scientist.  he is a political Lawyer right wing hack and Devout Catholic   That is some fucked up scientist that you want me to believe.


Cool as hominem argument. And like all fallacies, it’s petty and unpersuasive. 


NotfooledbyW said:


> A fetus is human but not a human “being” yet.


It is a living human. What the fuck do you imagine is meant by “being?”


NotfooledbyW said:


> .it is a human biological process that all real scientists agree it is a going through many stages of development,



It is a *life* in one stage of its development. Sort of like if you’re testes ever drop, that will be another stage in your development. 


NotfooledbyW said:


> The fetus is part of the woman, not a separate being.



Absolutely wrong. Her uterus is a part of the woman. Her arms and toes are. Her breasts and teeth are. The totally unique life developing inside her has its own distinct DNA. Thus, the wee little life inside her is not a “part” of the mother. 


NotfooledbyW said:


> I don’t need a scientist to confirm that.



You need to get informed because you’re badly misinformed.  Obviously.


----------



## ClaireH

Without checking, any medical person who says that a fetus is not a separate life from its mother created his or her own medical certification off a fax machine, but of course they had help. The misinformed chant by the pro-abortionist groups, "My body, my choice!" EXACTLY, your body is your body and under your control...want to fry your brains out on crack, you can do it tonight! Somewhere....but guess what? My body, my life doesn't include life created by union of sperm and egg. Yet, these loudmouths (mostly) choose to use the phrase "My body, my choice" as if removing a body part such as a rib. Uh no.

I've posted the following prior to now, but in 2022 abortions should not be used as birth control, particularly since Plan B is widely available without prescription - this NOT the "abortion pill" as it works prior to conception.

Why are we not reading about tons of funding going into birth control R&D? Yeah, I know-usually a lost cause throwing big money in our corruptive system, but sometimes hits the mark. What's the hold-up, comparatively speaking they are behind the times by a few decades.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207220128
NFBW2207211608-#3,783   “A fetus is human but not a human “being” yet. “

BackAgain220721-#3,785    “It is a living human. What the fuck do you imagine is meant by “being?””

*NFBW*: Do you believe that each human being has a soul?

The “ensoulment” factor aside for the moment, there is one significant material distinction  between a human fetus existing in the limited world of the womb with its development receiving oxygenated blood through lungs of human being and a human being like you and me existing and functioning in the entire universe with free will, breathing and oxygenating our own blood.

I will explain further regarding the obligations between a human being existing with free will in the universe and a fetus living in the womb attached to a human being by a feeding tube if you acknowledge the fundamental difference I described exists.

Do you agree there is a difference?  END2207220128


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I refute ( @ding ) your mischaracterization of the alleged science that says a human being is instantly created at conception as it is contained in Catholic doctrine.”


What does Catholic doctrine have to do with science?

Here's the science.  See?  No Catholic doctrine needed.  











> *“Human life begins at fertilization,* the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite *to produce a genetically distinct individual.”*


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is *the beginning of a new human being.”*


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”*


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> *“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)* when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NTBW: I do not deny the humanness of the living process taking place inside a woman’s body at all. It is human. I refute your mischaracterization of the alleged science that says a human being is instantly created at conception as it is contained in Catholic doctrine. So you are lying on top of a lie.


So now you are calling the process humanness instead of the living being?

Science, DNA, the human life cycle, common sense and reality all say it's a new genetically distinct human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. If you are going to take its life I think you ought to have to acknowledge that. I want to hear your chicken shit ass say I am for a woman's right to choose an abortion even though abortion ends a human life. Women's rights are important. But so are the child's. If you can't be honest about what you are doing, you shouldn't be able to do it. The days of sweeping things under the rug are over.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> The relationship between a pregnant woman is not a public transaction anything likened to a corral full of slaves being sold on the public square. I contend it is private and involves private health issues and personal private life issues and objectives.


The Supreme Court apparently disagrees.  Because they literally ruled that abortion is not a constitutional right.  Which means it's up to legislators to decide.  That is the reality of the situation and no amount of arm waving by you will change that.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar and are aggressively convincing me that you are a Catholic Taliban set in your ideological disrespect for women and their rights to even privacy and control of their own health.


I haven't lied about anything.  The only one lying about anything is you when you keep denying that abortion doesn't end a human life.  Your denial that abortion doesn't end a human life is an admission that abortion is wrong.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I told you.
> 
> I believe Roe v. Wade set precedent at viability outside the womb,’
> 
> 
> That’s when a  human fetus becomes a human “being” according to the Roe versus Wade ruling. I believe Roe v. Wade set legal precedent at viability outside the womb and that ruling remains legal in the majority of the states in the country as of now I believe.


That's not science, dummy.  Science, DNA, the human life cycle, common sense and reality all say it's a new genetically distinct human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> A ZYGOTE is not a human life - it is a living developing human zygote that will become a human life at some point unless the pregnancy is terminated.


If a zygote isn't human being in its earliest stage of the human life cycle, what is it?


----------



## Care4all

ding said:


> If a zygote isn't human being in its earliest stage of the human life cycle, what is it?


At the time of our founding fathers, common law recognized the importance of pregnancy, from infancy.... A zygote....

However, the fetus was not considered another life, another human life, until the baby stirred in the mother's womb, around 19 or 20 weeks gestation....and at that point, terminating a pregnancy, abortion, was considered against the law.  Quickening.

_ 
One of the most authoritative sources for learning law during the founding era was William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone, a distinguished English jurist, was so well-liked by the founding fathers that he was the second most frequently cited thinker in the American political writings of the founding era. American law students studied his work so religiously that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that “Blackstone is to us what the Koran is to the Muslims.”

*Blackstone affirmed in his Commentaries that an individual’s right to life is an “immediate gift of God.” This right to life is legally binding “as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” Per Blackstone,*_



> _“For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise kills it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dies in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.”_


_Interestingly, Blackstone also explains that fetuses “in the mother’s womb” are legally considered “to be born.” Thus, the law considered a fetus to be his or her own person, independent of the mother.

*From these commentaries, the founding fathers learned that any abortion perpetrated after the stirring of an infant in the mother’s womb was a “heinous misdemeanor.”*

American courts upheld this traditional common law approach in characterizing abortion as a misdemeanor. Founding father James Wilson, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and original U.S. Supreme Court justice, taught his law students that,_



> _“*With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”*_


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207220945 the universe in which we beings live has some mystery

NFBW2207211608-#3,783   “The fetus is part of the woman, not a separate being. I don’t need a scientist to confirm that.”

ClaireH220721-#3,786   “Without checking, any medical person who says that a fetus is not a separate life from its mother created his or her own medical certification off a fax machine, but of course they had help.

*NFBW: *Can you tell me ClaireH or ding or  BackAgain or airplanemechanic what an umbilical cord does?

Do you know in your vast scientific and medical knowledge without checking  ClaireH why a separate life as you call it is using oxygenated blood produced by an actual living breathing, eating, drinking, peeing, pooping, thinking’ laughing, crying, bitching, loving human being who lives and experiences life  in the exact same and entirely magnificent and mysterious universe as all of us posting here on this message board?

Are you a “being” like us ClaireH or are you a “being”  living like a fetus temporarily connected to an umbilical cord in a dark wet very small and limited universe called the womb?     END2207220945


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> I told you.
> 
> I believe Roe v. Wade set precedent at viability outside the womb,’
> 
> 
> That’s when a  human fetus becomes a human “being” according to the Roe versus Wade ruling. I believe Roe v. Wade set legal precedent at viability outside the womb and that ruling remains legal in the majority of the states in the country as of now I believe.


I also told you that Roe is no longer a case having any value as precedent.


----------



## airplanemechanic

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207220945 the universe in which we beings live has some mystery
> 
> NFBW2207211608-#3,783   “The fetus is part of the woman, not a separate being. I don’t need a scientist to confirm that.”
> 
> ClaireH220721-#3,786   “Without checking, any medical person who says that a fetus is not a separate life from its mother created his or her own medical certification off a fax machine, but of course they had help.
> 
> *NFBW: *Can you tell me ClaireH or ding or  BackAgain or airplanemechanic what an umbilical cord does?
> 
> Do you know in your vast scientific and medical knowledge without checking  ClaireH why a separate life as you call it is using oxygenated blood produced by an actual living breathing, eating, drinking, peeing, pooping, thinking’ laughing, crying, bitching, loving human being who lives and experiences life  in the exact same and entirely magnificent and mysterious universe as all of us posting here on this message board?
> 
> Are you a “being” like us ClaireH or are you a “being”  living like a fetus temporarily connected to an umbilical cord in a dark wet very small and limited universe called the womb?     END2207220945



What does the umbilical cord have anything to do with this? It provides the child nourishment and blood to develop. Doesn't mean it's not its own separate life. No more than saying a newborn baby isn't a separate life because it depends solely on its mother to sustain life as its completely helpless. A child is completely dependent on others until at least age 3 or 4 where it can possibly "gather" food on its own, but that's highly unlikely in todays world. Is a 3yo not it's own life because it can't take care of itself? Should we start aborting 3 year olds now?

Whats your point?


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> .
> 
> *NFBW: *Can you tell me ClaireH or ding or  BackAgain or airplanemechanic what an umbilical cord does?


It attaches one life to another life for a variety of purposes.  Hope that helps you. 


NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you know in your vast scientific and medical knowledge without checking  ClaireH why a separate life as you call it is using oxygenated blood produced by an actual living breathing, eating, drinking, peeing, pooping, thinking’ laughing, crying, bitching, loving human being who lives and experiences life  in the exact same and entirely magnificent and mysterious universe as all of us posting here on this message board?



If you stopped breathing (due to an accident, for example) and some poor slob felt obliged to give you mouth to mouth resuscitation, in your estimation you two would be (in that moment, at least) one human life. 🙄


NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you a “being” like us ClaireH or are you a “being”  living like a fetus temporarily connected to an umbilical cord in a dark wet very small and limited universe called the womb?     END2207220945


The zygote or embryo or fetus in whatever stage of human development is a being like is. Exactly like us but-for the precise stage of development. So your faux question is obviously just a *false dichotomy* premised on your ignorance and your ongoing. misconceptions and tragic confusion.


----------



## ding

Care4all said:


> At the time of our founding fathers, common law recognized the importance of pregnancy, from infancy.... A zygote....
> 
> However, the fetus was not considered another life, another human life, until the baby stirred in the mother's womb, around 19 or 20 weeks gestation....and at that point, terminating a pregnancy, abortion, was considered against the law.  Quickening.
> 
> _
> One of the most authoritative sources for learning law during the founding era was William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone, a distinguished English jurist, was so well-liked by the founding fathers that he was the second most frequently cited thinker in the American political writings of the founding era. American law students studied his work so religiously that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that “Blackstone is to us what the Koran is to the Muslims.”
> 
> *Blackstone affirmed in his Commentaries that an individual’s right to life is an “immediate gift of God.” This right to life is legally binding “as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” Per Blackstone,*
> 
> 
> Interestingly, Blackstone also explains that fetuses “in the mother’s womb” are legally considered “to be born.” Thus, the law considered a fetus to be his or her own person, independent of the mother.
> 
> *From these commentaries, the founding fathers learned that any abortion perpetrated after the stirring of an infant in the mother’s womb was a “heinous misdemeanor.”*
> 
> American courts upheld this traditional common law approach in characterizing abortion as a misdemeanor. Founding father James Wilson, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and original U.S. Supreme Court justice, taught his law students that,_


I linked to this web page earlier myself.  I don't disagree with their approach in handling it.  It's something our current state and federal legislators should take into consideration.

Similarly, St. George Tucker, a Madison judicial appointee and professor of law at the College of William and Mary, explained in his celebrated legal treatise on American law that it is  “a great misprision [misdemeanor]” to “kill a child in its mother’s womb.”

Laws in American states criminalized abortion from the beginning. For example, Virginia law outlawed the practice of using “potion” to “unlawfully destroy the child within her [womb].” These laws were crafted by many of the same individuals who framed the Constitution.









						Is abortion constitutional? Let’s ask the founders - Family Policy Institute of Washington
					

Is abortion constitutional? The Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade (1973) that an expectant mother has a “fundamental right to abortion.” According to Supreme Court logic, this right to abortion is protected under the penumbral right of privacy supposedly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. To...




					fpiw.org


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207211608-#3,783 “The fetus is part of the woman, not a separate being. I don’t need a scientist to confirm that.”


DNA says otherwise.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW: *Can you tell me @ClaireH or @ding or @BackAgain or @airplanemechanic what an umbilical cord does?
> 
> Do you know in your vast scientific and medical knowledge without checking @ClaireH why a separate life as you call it is using oxygenated blood produced by an actual living breathing, eating, drinking, peeing, pooping, thinking’ laughing, crying, bitching, loving human being who lives and experiences life in the exact same and entirely magnificent and mysterious universe as all of us posting here on this message board?
> 
> Are you a “being” like us @ClaireH or are you a “being” living like a fetus temporarily connected to an umbilical cord in a dark wet very small and limited universe called the womb? END2207220945


There's a very simple reason you deny that after fertilization a new genetically distinct human has been created... you can't bear to face the reality of supporting the ending a human life.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Always been a question liberals can't answer. It's a simple one, too.

If a "fetus" is part of the mother while inside the womb, why does someone get charged with 2 counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207221839

BackAgain  “….. from nothing to being there is no logical bridge” James

BackAgain220722-#3,798     “The zygote or embryo or fetus in whatever stage of human development is a being like is. Exactly like us but-for …. “”

NFBW: ah yes! but-for. . .  as a  moral free will human being existing in the vast universe,  I bring up the ‘but-fors’ regarding the moral obligations I have to a  human fetus living in the womb of a human being also existing with free will in the same universe but unbeknownst to me, and the American Taliban Tag TEAM here cries foul. Not permissible in the discussion. There is no distinction between a fetus and me. END2207221839


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> If your question is when does a fetus have equal right to life as the mother and every other viable human being on earth, I believe Roe v. Wade set precedent at viability outside the womb . Catholic doctrine of Humana vitae declares in my absolutely non theological capacity That God creates a soul at conception because he has a plan for its life. It is therefore a sin to terminate pregnancy. Jewish theology however declares that ensoulment takes place at first breath and that is when a fetus becomes a human being. Science does not not define an exact moment between those two theological conclusions on the subject that’s why I believe Roe v. Wade was settled law for 50 years and should not have been taken down giving precedence to  the Catholic doctrine becoming  a law for everyone.


You, me or no human being knows when a soul is placed (whether it be placed into a developing child while in the womb or after it takes it's first breath). No one knows.

Theologians, scientist or any human being cannot see a soul, and therefore they have no idea when it's placed into a human being or at what stage of development it is placed into that human being. 

The heartbeat could possibly signify soul induction, or the soul could be living in the very cell's that begin to form the human being within the womb. Who knows, I don't.

Best not to play around in areas that are grey and/or foggy, because if wrong it's not good.


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207221839
> 
> BackAgain  “….. from nothing to being there is no logical bridge” James
> 
> BackAgain220722-#3,798     “The zygote or embryo or fetus in whatever stage of human development is a being like is. Exactly like us but-for …. “”
> 
> NFBW: ah yes! but-for. . .  as a  moral free will human being existing in the vast universe,  I bring up the ‘but-fors’ regarding the moral obligations I have to a  human fetus living in the womb of a human being also existing with free will in the same universe but unbeknownst to me, and the American Taliban Tag TEAM here cries foul. Not permissible in the discussion. There is no distinction between a fetus and me. END2207221839


Don’t distort. I said but for the specific stage of development.  I didn’t address the question of sentience or cognition. That too is a stage of development. And your insertion of the concept of free will is oddly a religious concept and philosophical. It’s not scientific per se. So what did you of all people choose to go that route?

I know you dislike being pinned down. Your waddling and evasions prove that. But it’s quite clear that you aren’t interested in a serious discussion.  

So, before I have to just place you on ignore, answer the question. If a human zygote is a living human, with its own unique DNA, then it is deserving of the right to life.  Yes or no?


----------



## airplanemechanic

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207221839
> 
> BackAgain  “….. from nothing to being there is no logical bridge” James
> 
> BackAgain220722-#3,798     “The zygote or embryo or fetus in whatever stage of human development is a being like is. Exactly like us but-for …. “”
> 
> NFBW: ah yes! but-for. . .  as a  moral free will human being existing in the vast universe,  I bring up the ‘but-fors’ regarding the moral obligations I have to a  human fetus living in the womb of a human being also existing with free will in the same universe but unbeknownst to me, and the American Taliban Tag TEAM here cries foul. Not permissible in the discussion. There is no distinction between a fetus and me. END2207221839



Care to answer the question posed in post 3802?


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207220945 the universe in which we beings live has some mystery
> 
> NFBW2207211608-#3,783   “The fetus is part of the woman, not a separate being. I don’t need a scientist to confirm that.”
> 
> ClaireH220721-#3,786   “Without checking, any medical person who says that a fetus is not a separate life from its mother created his or her own medical certification off a fax machine, but of course they had help.


*NFBW: *Can you tell me ClaireH or ding or BackAgain or airplanemechanic what an umbilical cord does? It is necessary to deliver nutrients to the baby, and crap when the mother CHOOSES to injest crap...all her choice of course as it's HER body she's feeding as well, even if the mother to be in question considers her growing baby to be a 2nd class citizen, or 3rd as some do. The cord attaches the baby to the mother as you already know but is not part of the baby nor needed by the mother after birth. It is typically discarded by medical personnel or used for stem cell experiments. Some families preserve the cord and afterbirth, but I'll leave the reasoning out of this discussion as it's beyond my cultural beliefs and slightly off topic.

Why didn't you answer the questions posed to you about this topic by other members? You seem to be skilled at C&P so what's up? Hmmm I'd say questions ignored are intentionally ignored yes? Answer this: what is a zygote if not a baby in early stage?  

Science confirms it takes male sperm to create a zygote by fertilizing the female egg. Your take that a baby growing in the womb share the mother's life, as if they are of one life and not two, is likely due to your own abortion bias not from miseducation. If the baby and pregnant mother were to actually share the same life, they could never be separated.  It's hard enough to survive living following delicate organ procedures such as significant heart surgeries working with actual vital organs, much less if doctors attempted to reduce "1 life" in half. Like that's happening during delivery. Good grief. Food delivery source...there's your cut and dry answer to the cord. That's it.


----------



## BackAgain

ClaireH said:


> *NFBW: *Can you tell me ClaireH or ding or BackAgain or airplanemechanic what an umbilical cord does? It is necessary to deliver nutrients to the baby, and crap when the mother CHOOSES to injest crap...all her choice of course as it's HER body she's feeding as well, even if the mother to be in question considers her growing baby to be a 2nd class citizen, or 3rd as some do. The cord attaches the baby to the mother as you already know but is not part of the baby nor needed by the mother after birth. It is typically discarded by medical personnel or used for stem cell experiments. Some families preserve the cord and afterbirth, but I'll leave the reasoning out of this discussion as it's beyond my cultural beliefs and slightly off topic.
> 
> Why didn't you answer the questions posed to you about this topic by other members? You seem to be skilled at C&P so what's up? Hmmm I'd say questions ignored are intentionally ignored yes? Answer this: what is a zygote if not a baby in early stage?
> 
> Science confirms it takes male sperm to create a zygote by fertilizing the female egg. Your take that a baby growing in the womb share the mother's life, as if they are of one life and not two, is likely due to your own abortion bias not from miseducation. If the baby and pregnant mother were to actually share the same life, they could never be separated.  It's hard enough to survive living following delicate organ procedures such as significant heart surgeries working with actual vital organs, much less if doctors attempted to reduce "1 life" in half. Like that's happening during delivery. Good grief. Food delivery source...there's your cut and dry answer to the cord. That's it.


Already answered


----------



## bodecea

airplanemechanic said:


> Always been a question liberals can't answer. It's a simple one, too.
> 
> If a "fetus" is part of the mother while inside the womb, why does someone get charged with 2 counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman?


Why aren't pregnant women allowed to claim a fetus on their taxes?

Why do dead people get more body autonomy than pregnant women?


----------



## bodecea

BackAgain said:


> Don’t distort. I said but for the specific stage of development.  I didn’t address the question of sentience or cognition. That too is a stage of development. And your insertion of the concept of free will is oddly a religious concept and philosophical. It’s not scientific per se. So what did you of all people choose to go that route?
> 
> I know you dislike being pinned down. Your waddling and evasions prove that. But it’s quite clear that you aren’t interested in a serious discussion.
> 
> So, before I have to just place you on ignore, answer the question. If a human zygote is a living human, with its own unique DNA, then it is deserving of the right to life.  Yes or no?


And deserving of child support from the moment of con-ception.  Plus, time to reset the idea of a birthday back 9 months.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207222109

NFBW2207211608-#3,783 “The fetus is part of the woman, not a separate being. I don’t need a scientist to confirm that.”

ClaireH220721-#3,786 “Without checking, any medical person who says that a fetus is not a separate life from its mother created his or her own medical certification off a fax machine, but of course they had help.

NFBW2207220945-#3,795    Can you tell me ClaireH or ding or BackAgain or airplanemechanic what an umbilical cord does?

ClaireH220722-#3,807   “Food delivery source...there's your cut and dry answer to the cord. That's it.”

*NFBW:  *So, ClaireH if the fetus is separated from the human being that is eating and breathing for it, what happens to the fetus?  END2207222109


----------



## BackAgain

bodecea said:


> And deserving of child support from the moment of con-ception.  Plus, time to reset the idea of a birthday back 9 months.


I wasn’t addressing you, troll.


----------



## airplanemechanic

bodecea said:


> Why aren't pregnant women allowed to claim a fetus on their taxes?
> 
> Why do dead people get more body autonomy than pregnant women?



So you have no answer to the question. Thanks for playing.

They can't claim a fetus on their taxes because the fetus doesn't have an SSN yet. Taxes have absolutely nothing to do with being a human or not. An SSN is issued when a baby is born. An SSN doesn't make someone a human, or else every non US citizen would be a non-human as they don't have SSN numbers either.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207222200
ClaireH220722-#3,807    The cord attaches the baby to the mother as you already know 

*NFBW*: Why did you type the following utterly absurd statement  knowing full well that every fetus is connected to a living breathing human being. Without that attachment the development of a live fetus stops. 

ClaireH220721-#3,786  . . . any medical person who says that a fetus is not a separate life from its mother created his or her own medical certification off a fax machine

*NFBW*: Can any of you ClaireH
BackAgain airplanemechanic
ding explain how the unique  DNA of the fetus can save the life of the fetus if a fetus is separated from the living breathing human being who provides nourishment and oxygenated blood for its survival?   END2207222200


----------



## airplanemechanic

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207222200
> ClaireH220722-#3,807    The cord attaches the baby to the mother as you already know
> 
> *NFBW*: Why did you type the following utterly absurd statement  knowing full well that every fetus is connected to a living breathing human being. Without that attachment the development of a live fetus stops.
> 
> ClaireH220721-#3,786  . . . any medical person who says that a fetus is not a separate life from its mother created his or her own medical certification off a fax machine
> 
> *NFBW*: Can any of you ClaireH
> BackAgain airplanemechanic
> ding explain how the unique  DNA of the fetus can save the life of the fetus if a fetus is separated from the living breathing human being who provides nourishment and oxygenated blood for its survival?   END2207222200



Can you answer the question I asked in 3802?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207222200
> ClaireH220722-#3,807    The cord attaches the baby to the mother as you already know
> 
> *NFBW*: Why did you type the following utterly absurd statement  knowing full well that every fetus is connected to a living breathing human being. Without that attachment the development of a live fetus stops.
> 
> ClaireH220721-#3,786  . . . any medical person who says that a fetus is not a separate life from its mother created his or her own medical certification off a fax machine
> 
> *NFBW*: Can any of you ClaireH
> BackAgain airplanemechanic
> ding explain how the unique  DNA of the fetus can save the life of the fetus if a fetus is separated from the living breathing human being who provides nourishment and oxygenated blood for its survival?   END2207222200


A 10 day old baby is connected to it's mother also, otherwise if she is breast feeding or hand feeding, if she stops what happens to the tiny human being ? Your arguments are ridiculous.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207230010    “bring into being"    -  Spoken when Jesus walked the earth - partus "act of giving birth, childbirth," from parere "to give birth to, bring into being"

History and Etymology for postpartum - from the Latin phrase post partum "after childbirth," from post "after" + partum, accusative of partus "act of giving birth, childbirth," from parere "to give birth to, bring into being"​
airplanemechanic220722-#3,802   If a "fetus" is part of the mother while inside the womb, why does someone get charged with 2 counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman?”

*NFBW*: The fetus is wholly part of and temporarily fully dependent upon the eating and breathing human being that the fetus is attached to. The final stage of pregnancy is called the Postpartum period

So Your “if”  airplanemechanic  is pure American Taliban Bullshit, but the answer to the question is that a potential life is at stake. THE LAW  must assume that at the time of such a murder a pregnant woman’s intent had to be that she planned to allow the pregnancy to go full term.  Hence 2 homicides. One for the actualized human being, the other for the latent and potential human being.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207230030

ClaireH220722-#3,807     Why didn't you answer the questions posed to you about this topic by other members?

*NFBW*: I try to answer all questions. If I missed one, point it out, I will answer it for you ClaireH    END2207230030


----------



## airplanemechanic

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207230010    “bring into being"    -  Spoken when Jesus walked the earth - partus "act of giving birth, childbirth," from parere "to give birth to, bring into being"
> 
> History and Etymology for postpartum - from the Latin phrase post partum "after childbirth," from post "after" + partum, accusative of partus "act of giving birth, childbirth," from parere "to give birth to, bring into being"​
> airplanemechanic220722-#3,802   If a "fetus" is part of the mother while inside the womb, why does someone get charged with 2 counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman?”
> 
> *NFBW*: The fetus is wholly part of and temporarily fully dependent upon the eating and breathing human being that the fetus is attached to. The final stage of pregnancy is called the Postpartum period
> 
> So Your “if”  airplanemechanic  is pure American Taliban Bullshit, but the answer to the question is that a potential life is at stake. THE LAW  must assume that at the time of such a murder a pregnant woman’s intent had to be that she planned to allow the pregnancy to go full term.  Hence 2 homicides. One for the actualized human being, the other for the latent and potential human being.



So it becomes, to use your words, no longer a "latent and potential" human being if the mother decides she wants to kill it?

There is no provision in the law about whether or not the mom wanted to keep it or any assumptions one way or the other. So with that in mind, that you basically just make shit up as you go along, what if she had planned to have an abortion and was killed standing outside the abortion clinic waiting to get in? Should the man be charged with double murder? Or maybe he should be able to send the family the bill for his free abortion services?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207230117

beagle9220722-#3,816   “A 10 day old baby is connected to it's mother also, otherwise if she is breast feeding or hand feeding, if she stops what happens to the tiny human being ?

NFBW: I covered that. See below  - I have two daughters and when they were babies I managed to bottle feed them whenever I had a chance.  If a natural mother  is not available after the birth of a child other humans can take over .

ChemEngineer220721-#3,774 Challenge any baby murderer to specify the precise second when a developing baby "becomes" a human.

NFBW2207221425-#3,776: a fetus scientifically becomes a human “being” when it can survive outside the womb with continued support from human beings including highly trained medical professional human beings. Prior to that moment it is human but is not a human being. END2207230117


----------



## NotfooledbyW

airplanemechanic said:


> There is no provision in the law about whether or not the mom wanted to keep it or any assumptions one way or the other.


THat is what I said: 

THE LAW must assume that at the time of such a murder a pregnant woman’s intent had to be that she planned to allow the pregnancy to go full term.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207230230 all for one - one for all ClaireH
BackAgain airplanemechanic
ding beagle9

NFBW2207230010-#3,817  THE LAW must assume that at the time of such a murder a pregnant woman’s intent had to be that she planned to allow the pregnancy to go full term. Hence 2 homicides. One for the actualized human being, the other for the latent and potential human.

airplanemechanic220722-#3,819     So it becomes, to use your words, no longer a "latent and potential" human being if the mother decides she wants to kill it?

NFBW: A pregnant woman cannot be held legally responsible for deciding to terminate a latent or potential human being under development as part of her body and health serving  functions. It’s her body, It’s her choice.

 If a pregnant woman is unlawfully injured or harmed by another person that person legally is not entitled to her choice and has therefore committed murder of a potential life. The choice to terminate a pregnancy by the pregnant woman is hers and hers alone in a proper and moral secular governed society. THERE  is no immorality when a woman makes that decision.
END2207230230


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> One for the actualized human being, the other for the latent and potential human.


A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being.  It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death.  Every stage along the continuum is fully human and has the appropriate human characteristics for that stage of the human life cycle.  Learn some science.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207230117
> 
> beagle9220722-#3,816   “A 10 day old baby is connected to it's mother also, otherwise if she is breast feeding or hand feeding, if she stops what happens to the tiny human being ?
> 
> NFBW: I covered that. See below  - I have two daughters and when they were babies I managed to bottle feed them whenever I had a chance.  If a natural mother  is not available after the birth of a child other humans can take over .
> 
> ChemEngineer220721-#3,774 Challenge any baby murderer to specify the precise second when a developing baby "becomes" a human.
> 
> NFBW2207221425-#3,776: a fetus scientifically becomes a human “being” when it can survive outside the womb with continued support from human beings including highly trained medical professional human beings. Prior to that moment it is human but is not a human being. END2207230117


Was your daughter's adopted ?? Are you a leftist ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207230900
ClaireH BackAgain airplanemechanic
ding beagle9
Mashmont Correll Meister

NFBW: converting ding ‘s graphic to reflect an absolutely indispensable common knowledge REALITY that cannot be ignored if we are to have a genuine secular and scientific discussion about a pregnant woman’s right to choose to terminate HER pregnancy in HER womb.







In a mysterious Secular Human Universe the Womb Universe is a distinctly separate moral and legal universe from the Human Unuverse.

There are teens through old age adults holding a belief that they live materially and spiritually in God’s universe under His laws passed down through the ages through generational traditions. Belief in God in some Americans causes them to make and allow no distinction between the Womb Universe and the secular Human Universe giving them the right to impose their sense of morality on all humankind. 

They are in error and doing harm to humanity.  END2207230900


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Are you a leftist ?



Lean away from right wing, authoritarian, nationalistic,  white mostly, Republican Christians?

Are you a Christian?


Lean toward BLM American Christians and Jews which includes a majority of Catholics who vote for Democrat multicultural leadership in this country - which includes choice.  END2207230933


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207230900
> ClaireH BackAgain airplanemechanic
> ding beagle9
> Mashmont Correll Meister
> 
> NFBW: converting ding ‘s graphic to reflect an absolutely indispensable common knowledge REALITY that cannot be ignored if we are to have a genuine secular and scientific discussion about a pregnant woman’s right to choose to terminate HER pregnancy in HER womb.
> 
> 
> View attachment 673611
> 
> 
> In a mysterious Secular Human Universe the Womb Universe is a distinctly separate moral and legal universe from the Human Unuverse.
> 
> There are teens through old age adults holding a belief that they live materially and spiritually in God’s universe under His laws passed down through the ages through generational traditions. Belief in God in some Americans causes them to make and allow no distinction between the Womb Universe and the secular Human Universe giving them the right to impose their sense of morality on all humankind.
> 
> They are in error and doing harm to humanity.  END2207230900


And what is this mysterious object in the womb universe?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207231043

ding220723-#3,827   “And what is this mysterious object in the womb universe?”

*NFBW: *it is the physical environment designed in nature for essentially all mammals where a fetus lives and grows. it is the limit of the fetus’ existence until entry is made into the full scale human universe in which you and I ding exist. comprehendo?
END2207231043


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207231043
> 
> ding220723-#3,827   “And what is this mysterious object in the womb universe?”
> 
> NFBW: it is the physical environment designed in nature for essentially all mammals where a fetus lives and grows. it is the limit of the fetus’ existence until entry is made into the full scale human universe in which you and I ding exist. comprehendo?
> END2207231043


You are describing the womb not the "object" in the womb.  What is the "object" in the womb?  If it's not human, what is it?


----------



## BackAgain

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207222200
> ClaireH220722-#3,807    The cord attaches the baby to the mother as you already know
> 
> *NFBW*: Why did you type the following utterly absurd statement  knowing full well that every fetus is connected to a living breathing human being. Without that attachment the development of a live fetus stops.
> 
> ClaireH220721-#3,786  . . . any medical person who says that a fetus is not a separate life from its mother created his or her own medical certification off a fax machine
> 
> *NFBW*: Can any of you ClaireH
> BackAgain airplanemechanic
> ding explain how the unique  DNA of the fetus can save the life of the fetus if a fetus is separated from the living breathing human being who provides nourishment and oxygenated blood for its survival?   END2207222200


Seeing as how fool refuses to answer the question, I now banish him to the phantom zone. He is sent to iggy land. The rest of you can enjoy his foolish trolling.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207231139  It’s BackAgain beating cheeks back to the safe unintellectual safe womb of Iggyland . 

BackAgain220723-#3,830 “Seeing as how fool refuses to answer the question,”

NFBW: I wonder which answer drive him away. We can never know. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass BackAgain, Doing a cowardly Josh Howley running like Trump’s bitch


----------



## bodecea

airplanemechanic said:


> So you have no answer to the question. Thanks for playing.
> 
> They can't claim a fetus on their taxes because the fetus doesn't have an SSN yet. Taxes have absolutely nothing to do with being a human or not. An SSN is issued when a baby is born. An SSN doesn't make someone a human, or else every non US citizen would be a non-human as they don't have SSN numbers either.


Then it's time to assign a SSN from the moment of con-ception.   Why wasn't that being done if it's a person already?

And yes, taxes INDEED have something to do with being a human or not.   Where have YOU been?


----------



## bodecea

ding said:


> A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being.  It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death.  Every stage along the continuum is fully human and has the appropriate human characteristics for that stage of the human life cycle.  Learn some science.
> 
> View attachment 673555


Here's your car.  Enjoy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

bodecea said:


> Here's your car.  Enjoy.  View attachment 673670


Thanks I think they might only understand pictures.


----------



## ding

bodecea said:


> Here's your car.  Enjoy.  View attachment 673670


Thanks.  Hitler dehumanized Jews too because it was easier to kill them.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I think they might only understand pictures.


The hoops you guys jump through to be able to sleep at night is astonishing.


----------



## bodecea

NotfooledbyW said:


> I think they might only understand pictures.





ding said:


> Thanks.  Hitler dehumanized Jews too because it was easier to kill them.


You mean like today's Republican Party dehumanizes black Americans?   dehumanizes gays?   dehumanizes transpeople?


----------



## ding

bodecea said:


> You mean like today's Republican Party dehumanizes black Americans?   dehumanizes gays?   dehumanizes transpeople?


That's hilarious.  I played golf with a retired district judge and his wife yesterday.  We had a great time.  He's black and she is white.

Did I mention he was a Republican?


----------



## ding

bodecea said:


> You mean like today's Republican Party dehumanizes black Americans?   dehumanizes gays?   dehumanizes transpeople?


Is it seriously too much to ask that you acknowledge you support killing a human life in the womb?


----------



## beagle9

BackAgain said:


> Seeing as how fool refuses to answer the question, I now banish him to the phantom zone. He is sent to iggy land. The rest of you can enjoy his foolish trolling.


It does become a huge waste of time after a while, but that's their game (Outlast their opponent's, and keep hammering the lie's until people think that it's the truth). Some sickening bull crap really.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2206231228  a blindDing BS storm

ding2207230843-#3,827 “And what is this mysterious object in the womb universe?”

NFBW220623#3,829   “it is the physical environment designed in nature for essentially all mammals where a *fetus* lives and grows. it is the limit of the *fetus’ *existence until entry is made into the full scale human universe in which you and I ding exist. comprehendo?”

ding220723-#3,829   You are describing the womb not the "object" in the womb. What is the "object" in the womb? If it's not human, what is it?

*NFBW: *I described the object in the womb as a “fetus” . Are you efn blind? Get new glasses or something? END2206231228


----------



## BackAgain

ding said:


> Is it seriously too much to ask that you acknowledge you support killing a human life in the womb?


One cannot reasonably expect a straight answer from boredtoseeya, ever.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2206231228  a blindDing BS storm
> 
> ding2207230843-#3,827 “And what is this mysterious object in the womb universe?”
> 
> NFBW220623#3,829   “it is the physical environment designed in nature for essentially all mammals where a *fetus* lives and grows. it is the limit of the *fetus’ *existence until entry is made into the full scale human universe in which you and I ding exist. comprehendo?”
> 
> ding220723-#3,829   You are describing the womb not the "object" in the womb. What is the "object" in the womb? If it's not human, what is it?
> 
> *NFBW: *I described the object in the womb as a “fetus” . Are you efn blind? Get new glasses or something? END2206231228


If you can't be honest that abortion is killing a human life, you don't deserve to be able to kill that human life.  Man up.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW: *I described the object in the womb as a “fetus”


Is this fetus human?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2206231435  the Tarzan ????

NFBW2206231228-#3,841  “I described the object in the womb as a “fetus” .

ding220723-#3,844 Is this fetus

*NFBW:* Every single fetus in the womb of a living breathing human being is a living human fetus. I have said so a zillion times so since you don’t like the answer quit asking me the same question.

That is of course unless it’s Jane. If Jane is carrying Tarzan’s baby and if Tarzan is half man half ape then I don’t know about her fetus.  END2206231435


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2206231644  dealing with feeble souls 

Spinoza  “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls​
NFBW2206231228-#3,841 “I described the object in the womb as a “fetus” .

ding 220723-#3,843   “If you can't be honest that abortion is killing a human life, you don't deserve to be able to kill that human life.

*NFBW: *On what basis are you telling me ding that I, a human male, or any woman, not impregnated by me, are killing a human life when a woman decides to terminate the growth of a fetus in her own body.  

That unbeknownst to me woman is not killing a human being that is living in the human universe outside of her own body. The mysterious human universe in which from my perspective is where you, me and the pregnant woman lives and breathes. 

What she does with her life as long as it does not harm a member of the human universe in which we all live is none of my and none of your goddamned business.






END2206231644


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207232350

ding 220723-#3,839      Is it seriously too much to ask that you acknowledge you support killing a human life in the womb?

*NFBW: *Where is your evidence ding that a homicide or a murder of a living breathing human being is being committed when a woman terminates a pregnancy?

What court or law enforcement agency in the Human Universe authorizes you to obstruct a health decision being made by a pregnant woman?

What gives you legal jurisdiction to go into a woman’s womb to find victims of murder when there is no murderer?   END2207232350


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207240242   no thanks to joining your god-centric universe agenda    ClaireH
BackAgain airplanemechanic
ding beagle9 BS Filter

ding220723-#3,792   “Science, DNA, the human life cycle, common sense and reality all say it's a new genetically distinct human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.”

NFBW: What you are driving at on a secular level ding is for me to begin emoting as you are in favor of the zygote over the autonomy of the would be mother if she decides to terminate her pregnancy because on a strictly secular level, I was once a zygote myself.

I still say it’s none of our business.

I recall nothing of how I came into being and my earliest years are  very much a mystery to me.  My journey of self-consciousness causes me to empathize more with living breathing souls having joys and pains and stories and quietness and appreciation for a night under the stars in Arizona or seeing water fall at Niagara, seeing your mom holding a newborn granddaughter, just breathing in life in the human universe taking it all in.

So, ding if you think putting a fellow living breathing traveler ahead of a fetus in the wombs of any of them is cruel  - well tough shit - I’m not participating in your agenda  END2207240242


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: What you are driving at on a secular level @ding is for me to begin emoting as you are in favor of the zygote over the autonomy of the would be mother if she decides to terminate her pregnancy because on a strictly secular level, I was once a zygote myself.


Incorrect.  That's for legislators to decide.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> So, @ding if you think putting a fellow living breathing traveler ahead of a fetus in the wombs of any of them is cruel - well tough shit - I’m not participating in your agenda END2207240242


I'm for honesty.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207240836     ding ‘s pro-zygote emoting tirade

NFBW2207240242-#3,848  What you are driving at on a secular level ding is for me to begin emoting as you are in favor of the zygote over the autonomy of the would be mother if she decides to terminate her pregnancy because on a strictly secular level, I was once a zygote myself.

ding 220724-#3,849    “Incorrect. That's for legislators to decide.”

*NFBW*: But you have decided in favor of the zygote over the autonomy of the would be mother if she decides to terminate her pregnancy, yes or no?

ding 220723-#3,839 Is it seriously too much to ask that you acknowledge you support killing a human life in the womb?​​ding 220723-#3,843   “If you can't be honest that abortion is killing a human life, you don't deserve to be able to kill that human life.​
*NFBW:  * Emoting ding in action  ❤️ luvs  @ChemEngineer’s extremely emotional post ChemEngineer220721-#3,774






Reactions:
ding

ChemEngineer220721-#3,774 Challenge any baby murderer to specify the precise second when a developing baby "becomes" a human.​
*NFBW*: So, ding what is this bait n switch routine all about? How can you honestly say you have no agenda? NFBW2207240836


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: But you have decided in favor of the zygote over the autonomy of the would be mother if she decides to terminate her pregnancy, yes or no?


Incorrect.  I have merely established the facts.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: So, @ding what is this bait n switch routine all about? How can you honestly say you have no agenda? NFBW2207240836


No bait and switch.  It's all been in your head.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207241020

Meister211218-#37     “We are all sinners, that's why Christ died on the cross, it was for us.

ding21218-#38     “Or technically because of us”

Meister211218-#40    “Sad that you never had a relationship with God, I see it nearly every single day.”

*NFBW: *Based on the above, the two of you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and that relationship offers you two the opportunity to escape being punished by almighty God the father because you were told and you believe you were conceived and born with original sin?   Does that sum it up for furtherance of our “secular” discussion here? Yes or No?

Based on your personal relationship with God are you a believer that the fetus in the following chart is (a) created special by God as one unique being to have a personal relationship together through eternity.   (b) in the condition you Christians refer to as original sin?








Please respond openly and honestly as most Christians do.   END2207241020


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW: *Based on the above, the two of you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and that relationship offers you two the opportunity to escape being punished by almighty God the father because you were told and you believe you were conceived and born with original sin? Does that sum it up for furtherance of our “secular” discussion here? Yes or No?
> 
> Based on your personal relationship with God are you a believer that the fetus in the following chart is (a) created special by God as one unique being to have a personal relationship together through eternity. (b) in the condition you Christians refer to as original sin?


I believe that after fertilization the zygote is a living human being in the earliest stage of its human life cycle.  I don't consider souls or original sin or anything else.  Those are religious beliefs and have nothing to do with establishing rights.  As for my personal beliefs about souls, I believe I have one.  I can't tell you where it is, when I got it or even what it is.  As for original sin, I think the original meaning of the account of fall of man has been lost through time so I don't necessarily agree with original sin especially since it may mean one thing to one person and another thing to a different person.  Your use of words like soul and original sin is vague, undefined and open to interpretation.  It's an unnecessary rabbit hole which will serve no purpose other than to confuse the issue.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207241200  Belief v Belief

ding220724-#3,855     “I believe that after fertilization the zygote is a living human being in the earliest stage of its human life cycle.”

*NFBW*: I believe that the moment the fetus is able, (if surgically removed from the womb and the umbilical cord is cut) to take over breathing (viability)on its own, as you and I are doing; then at that time a fetus becomes a human being with a right to life just like you and me. And that right to life is permanent until death from that moment on.

So what gives you the right ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted  by elected lawmakers to pass laws restricting abortion to force women to become mothers because terminating a pregnancy is killing your “belief” as to when human life begins? END2207241200


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207241200  Belief v Belief
> 
> ding220724-#3,855     “I believe that after fertilization the zygote is a living human being in the earliest stage of its human life cycle.”
> 
> *NFBW*: I believe that the moment the fetus is able, (if surgically removed from the womb and the umbilical cord is cut) to take over breathing (viability)on its own, as you and I are doing; then at that time a fetus becomes a human being with a right to life just like you and me. And that right to life is permanent until death from that moment on.
> 
> So what gives you the right ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted  by elected lawmakers to pass laws restricting abortion to force women to become mothers because terminating a pregnancy is killing your “belief” as to when human life begins? END2207241200


Because it's just science.  It's not emotion.


----------



## beagle9

ding said:


> I'm for honesty.


I'm for him maybe stopping with his post looking like some sort of homework that he needs to turn into his college professor... Why not just make it easy is my thoughts ? ROTFLMBO...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Because it's just science. It's not emotion.



You said you “believe” . You did not say you “know” .

My “belief” actually contains more “science “then your belief.  YOUR belief has human life beginning  at a point when the zygote is living on oxygenated blood and nutrients that are produced by an actual viable human being who is living in the human universe that you and I are experiencing.

You do not account for that distinction. It is a scientific problem for you but not for me.







No science can make that call no more than they can prove the existence of God, 

But on my behalf,  viability outside the womb appears to be a correct solution to our mystery. And the only scientific call to be made by we mere humans.

I will add my tracking numbers later if necessary so that beagle9 can engage in a meaningful discussion on this topic rather than taking pot shots from the sidelines about format not content.

When I do track the conversations that means I have some respect for my apponent not being a mindless shit  for brains goofball posting shit .


----------



## ding

beagle9 said:


> I'm for him maybe stopping with his post looking like some sort of homework that he needs to turn into his college professor... Why not just make it easy is my thoughts ? ROTFLMBO...


Seems rather OCDish.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> You said you “believe” . You did not say you “know” .
> 
> My “belief” actually contains more “science “then your belief.  YOUR belief has human life beginning  at a point when the zygote is living on oxygenated blood and nutrients that are produced by an actual viable human being who is living in the human universe that you and I are experiencing.
> 
> You do not account for that distinction. It is a scientific problem for you but not for me.
> 
> 
> View attachment 674204
> 
> 
> No science can make that call no more than they can prove the existence of God,
> 
> But on my behalf,  viability outside the womb appears to be a correct solution to our mystery. And the only scientific call to be made by we mere humans.
> 
> I will add my tracking numbers later if necessary so that beagle9 can engage in a meaningful discussion on this topic rather than taking pot shots from the sidelines about format not content.
> 
> When I do track the conversations that means I have some respect for my apponent not being a mindless shit  for brains goofball posting shit .


You are making up "science" to match your preference.  You have a guilty conscience.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You are making up "science" to match your preference.



Instead of dictating your Christian verdict that, I am making up science, tell me what is “made up” about this science :

 YOUR belief has human life beginning at a point when the zygote is living on oxygenated blood and nutrients that are produced by an actual viable human being. There is a stage in human development when a fetus can breathe and process food on its own.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207242333    Spread your legs, Thou Shall Give Birth   - white Christian males write 11th COMMANDMENT FOR JESUS

ding220724-#3,855    I don't consider souls or original sin or anything else. Those are religious beliefs and have nothing to do with establishing rights.”

NFBW2207241200-#3,856    “So what gives you the right @ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted and pushed by elected lawmakers “

Meister211220-#57    “My Savior is my Lord.”

Meister211221-#66   “My Lord is my Savior, and don't forget that.”

ding220724-#3,857    “Because it's just science. It's not emotion.”

NFBW: Do you believe it is random chance and mere coincidence that the lawmakers who get politically elected in every state where abortion is being banned, as you wish, would hold a majority of the Meister religious belief that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and be Republicans?

Do you really believe that religious political hacks, mostly white Christian males, are the one’s who should be imposing their religious perspective on women and young girls who get pregnant and find out white Christian men are deciding what they can and cannot do with their body. And health?   END2207242333


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207250045  SCIENTISTS PROVE SATAN’S ARMY HAS INVADED AMERICA - so white Christian male LAWMAKERS force birth on all women and girls in Jesus’ states to defeat Satan and his army - - - Just ask Lt Colonel beagle9 in ding ‘s unemotional HOLY unChristianChristian scientific TRUTH CRUSADE for government control of every female reproductive organ  in Jesus’ Christian Nation.

ding200124-#518    “America is still a Christian nation even if all of its people don’t behave in a Christian manner.​​They just need a little more suffering before returning to successful ways. Like I said *before atheism and secular humanism has only infected America,* it hasn’t taken over.​
ding220724-#3,855 I don't consider souls or original sin or anything else. Those are religious beliefs and have nothing to do with establishing rights.”

NFBW2207241200-#3,856 “So what gives you the right @ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted and pushed by elected lawmakers

JoeB131 strollingbones

beagle9220529-#2,385  ... If that sign "In God we trust" hanging there on that wall were to be put into the classroom's along with Christ teaching's and our prayers again, then we wouldn't be where we are today in America​​beagle9220529-#2,389   “American use to stand for something, and that included standing up for God, and believing in Christ for the majority, but then came the author of confusion with his minion's or disciple's to sit down on it all, and I must say that if allowed he can truly cause us pain like we've done never imagined before. Your denial is causing great anarchy and chaos if you attempt to ignore the truth, and choose yourself to be a disciple of the evil one's army.​
ding220724-#3,857 “Because it's just science. It's not emotion.”

*NFBW*: Do you believe it is random chance and mere coincidence ding that the lawmakers who get politically elected in every state where abortion is being banned, as you wish, would hold a majority of the beagle9 religious belief that Americans need to believe that  Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and vote Republicans or else Satan and liberals will take it all away.

*NFBW*: Do you really believe ding that religious political hacks, mostly white Christian males, are the one’s who should be imposing their religious perspective on women and young girls who get pregnant and find out white Christian men are deciding what they can and cannot do with their body and health? END2207250045


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207250252

ding220720-#3,739 “This is a science and legal rights argument.

*NFBW*:  ding ‘s claim to have found science that proves the right of a woman to terminate her own pregnancy must be lawfully superseded because the following biological process has begun, is absurd.

@Ding’s science is said to prove that when a sperm cell penetrates the zona pelluca membrane of an ovum, a new human being, equal in “being” legal status to the woman who just had sexual intercourse with a man, was created right there and then.

No scientist has ever stood behind such nonsense.

Not everything lends itself to scientific measure. Specifically defining when Human life begins.

END2207250252


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Instead of dictating your Christian verdict that, I am making up science, tell me what is “made up” about this science :
> 
> YOUR belief has human life beginning at a point when the zygote is living on oxygenated blood and nutrients that are produced by an actual viable human being. There is a stage in human development when a fetus can breathe and process food on its own.


You have selected an arbitrary definition of life that offers no explanation for what it was before your arbitrary definition of life. 

My belief that a zygote is a human being in its earliest stage of the human life cycle is based on science that is stated in every embryology textbook.

What Christian verdict is it that you believe I am dictating exactly?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207241200-#3,856 “So what gives you the right @ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted and pushed by elected lawmakers “


Legislators are free to decide anything they want.  I'm just stating the science that is taught in every embryology textbook.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Do you believe it is random chance and mere coincidence that the lawmakers who get politically elected in every state where abortion is being banned, as you wish, would hold a majority of the @Meister religious belief that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and be Republicans?
> 
> Do you really believe that religious political hacks, mostly white Christian males, are the one’s who should be imposing their religious perspective on women and young girls who get pregnant and find out white Christian men are deciding what they can and cannot do with their body. And health? END2207242333


I believe abortion is a human rights issue and anyone who weighs the rights of the mother and child must acknowledge that abortion is ending a human life.  Anything less does not properly weigh the rights.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: Do you really believe @ding that religious political hacks, mostly white Christian males, are the one’s who should be imposing their religious perspective on women and young girls who get pregnant and find out white Christian men are deciding what they can and cannot do with their body and health? END2207250045


I believe you can't be honest that abortion ends a human life.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207250252
> 
> ding220720-#3,739 “This is a science and legal rights argument.
> 
> *NFBW*:  ding ‘s claim to have found science that proves the right of a woman to terminate her own pregnancy must be lawfully superseded because the following biological process has begun, is absurd.
> 
> @Ding’s science is said to prove that when a sperm cell penetrates the zona pelluca membrane of an ovum, a new human being, equal in “being” legal status to the woman who just had sexual intercourse with a man, was created right there and then.
> 
> No scientist has ever stood behind such nonsense.
> 
> Not everything lends itself to scientific measure. Specifically defining when Human life begins.
> 
> END2207250252


It's not the job of science to weigh the rights of the mother and child.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207250910       American women with the audacity to want to control their own bodies are not behaving in a manner suitable to ding ‘s Christian Nation est 1781

ding200124-#518 “America is still a Christian nation even if all of its people don’t behave in a Christian manner.​
NFBW2207181311-#2,362   “Are you satisfied ding that the Trumpism Christian SCOTUS has begun to allow states to force its residents to behave in a right-wing Christian manner.​​ding220718-#2,387    “Just look at it this way... it's a good thing that state and federal governments address abortion with legislation. Let's make it crystal clear. Let them have an honest, open and transparent discussion on the subject.​
*NFBW*: Not seeing how states with “Christian” ding “Nation” lawmakers will have an open honest transparent discussion on their agenda of returning to successful Christian ways as ding clearly stated on the 21st day of January, 2020 in the year of his Lord . . .        “before atheism and secular humanism infected America”

We have seen that Christian” ding “Nation” lawmakers are already ramming anti-choice laws onto the books against the powerless minority to stop them.

ding200124-#518 “America is still a Christian nation even if all of its people don’t behave in a Christian manner.     . . .        They just need a little more suffering before returning to successful ways. Like I said before atheism and secular humanism has only infected America, it hasn’t taken over​
ding 220718-#2,389      “I think it's hilarious how emotional this has made you. “

*NFBW*: If you believed in individual liberty and freedom from religionized  government oppression ding you would be emotional too.  it’s women being forced to become child bearers by Christian zealots in states where they are the majority rule.

ding 220718-#2,389      “You do realize that SCOTUS did not rule against abortion, right? SCOTUS only ruled that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. SCOTUS did its job. Now it's time for legislatures to do their job. It's now up to the states or Congress to make it a protected right.”

*NFBW:*  Well ding you know damn well that legal abortion has been a protected right in America for fifty years for whom you emotionally and disparagingly call  Humanists and atheists who don’t behave in a Christian manner.

So what’s going on here is the blatant unconstitutional oppression of the religious minorities in Red States where Taliban-like Christians seek to demolish 240 years of freedom of conscience in America. It is a tragedy that it is happening right in front of our very own eyes and it must be stopped.   END2207250910


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I believe abortion is a human rights issue




Are you going to answer this question or not? 

If you Take the fifth say so.

NFBW2207242333-#3,863   Do you believe it is random chance and mere coincidence that the lawmakers who get politically elected in every state where abortion is being banned, as you wish, would hold a majority of the Meister religious belief that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and be Republicans?​


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you going to answer this question or not?
> 
> If you Take the fifth say so.
> 
> NFBW2207242333-#3,863   Do you believe it is random chance and mere coincidence that the lawmakers who get politically elected in every state where abortion is being banned, as you wish, would hold a majority of the Meister religious belief that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and be Republicans?​


It’s not a religious issue.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207250910       American women with the audacity to want to control their own bodies are not behaving in a manner suitable to ding ‘s Christian Nation est 1781
> 
> ding200124-#518 “America is still a Christian nation even if all of its people don’t behave in a Christian manner.​
> NFBW2207181311-#2,362   “Are you satisfied ding that the Trumpism Christian SCOTUS has begun to allow states to force its residents to behave in a right-wing Christian manner.​​ding220718-#2,387    “Just look at it this way... it's a good thing that state and federal governments address abortion with legislation. Let's make it crystal clear. Let them have an honest, open and transparent discussion on the subject.​
> *NFBW*: Not seeing how states with “Christian” ding “Nation” lawmakers will have an open honest transparent discussion on their agenda of returning to successful Christian ways as ding clearly stated on the 21st day of January, 2020 in the year of his Lord . . .        “before atheism and secular humanism infected America”
> 
> We have seen that Christian” ding “Nation” lawmakers are already ramming anti-choice laws onto the books against the powerless minority to stop them.
> 
> ding200124-#518 “America is still a Christian nation even if all of its people don’t behave in a Christian manner.     . . .        They just need a little more suffering before returning to successful ways. Like I said before atheism and secular humanism has only infected America, it hasn’t taken over​
> ding 220718-#2,389      “I think it's hilarious how emotional this has made you. “
> 
> *NFBW*: If you believed in individual liberty and freedom from religionized  government oppression ding you would be emotional too.  it’s women being forced to become child bearers by Christian zealots in states where they are the majority rule.
> 
> ding 220718-#2,389      “You do realize that SCOTUS did not rule against abortion, right? SCOTUS only ruled that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. SCOTUS did its job. Now it's time for legislatures to do their job. It's now up to the states or Congress to make it a protected right.”
> 
> *NFBW:*  Well ding you know damn well that legal abortion has been a protected right in America for fifty years for whom you emotionally and disparagingly call  Humanists and atheists who don’t behave in a Christian manner.
> 
> So what’s going on here is the blatant unconstitutional oppression of the religious minorities in Red States where Taliban-like Christians seek to demolish 240 years of freedom of conscience in America. It is a tragedy that it is happening right in front of our very own eyes and it must be stopped.   END2207250910


Take it up with SCOTUS.


----------



## ChemEngineer

beagle9 said:


> A 10 day old baby is connected to it's mother also, otherwise if she is breast feeding or hand feeding, if she stops what happens to the tiny human being ? Your arguments are ridiculous.


Then why do you and others keep responding to nonsense?  
You are wasting your time and everyone elses by playing their silly games.


----------



## ChemEngineer

BackAgain said:


> One cannot reasonably expect a straight answer from boredtoseeya, ever.


But you continue to encourage them by replying.
The only answer is to "answer not a fool according to his folly."


----------



## flan327

hjmick said:


> Thus welcoming in the era of Abortion Vacations...


Oh my gladiolus 

How many times have YOU been pregnant?


----------



## flan327

ChemEngineer said:


> But you continue to encourage them by replying.
> The only answer is to "answer not a fool according to his folly."


Who made you God?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChemEngineer said:


> Then why do you and others keep responding to nonsense?


I realize that you had to run away and hide but are you that scared that you have to push other Christian Taliban to run away and hide as well?


The point being discussed was the scientific fact that a fetus is connected to its mother by a tube that provides oxygenated blood and nutrients needed for the growing organizm in the womb.

beagle9  says a 10 day old baby is still connected to its mother in this way.

ding says this is not science  -  he says I made it all up .


Do you  have a comment or are you just an idiot like them.


Blood Circulation in the Fetus and Newborn   CHILDREN’s HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA​
How does the fetal circulatory system work?




__





						Blood Circulation in the Fetus and Newborn | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
					

During pregnancy, the fetal lungs are not used for breathing—the placenta does the work of exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide through the mother's circulation. With the first breaths of air the baby takes at birth, the fetal circulation changes.




					www.chop.edu
				


During pregnancy, the fetal circulatory system works differently than after birth:

The fetus is connected by the umbilical cord to the placenta, the organ that develops and implants in the mother's uterus during pregnancy.
Through the blood vessels in the umbilical cord, the fetus receives all the necessary nutrition, oxygen, and life support from the mother through the placenta.
Waste products and carbon dioxide from the fetus are sent back through the umbilical cord and placenta to the mother's circulation to be eliminated.






The fetal circulatory system uses two right to left shunts, which are small passages that direct blood that needs to be oxygenated. The purpose of these shunts is to bypass certain body parts? in particular, the lungs and liver ? that are not fully developed while the fetus is still in the womb. The shunts that bypass the lungs are called the foramen ovale, which moves blood from the right atrium of the heart to the left atrium, and the ductus arteriosus, which moves blood from the pulmonary artery to the aorta.
Oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood are transferred across the placenta to the fetus. The enriched blood flows through the umbilical cord to the liver and splits into three branches. The blood then reaches the inferior vena cava, a major vein connected to the heart. Most of this blood is sent through the ductus venosus, also a shunt that passes highly oxygenated blood through the liver to the inferior vena cava and then to the right atrium of the heart. A small amount of this blood goes directly to the liver to give it the oxygen and nutrients it needs.
Waste products from the fetal blood are transferred back across the placenta to the mother's blood.
Inside the fetal heart:

Blood enters the right atrium, the chamber on the upper right side of the heart. When the blood enters the right atrium, most of it flows through the foramen ovale into the left atrium.
Blood then passes into the left ventricle (lower chamber of the heart) and then to the aorta, (the large artery coming from the heart).
From the aorta, blood is sent to the heart muscle itself in addition to the brain. After circulating there, the blood returns to the right atrium of the heart through the superior vena cava. About two thirds of the blood will pass through the foramen ovale as described above, but the remaining one third will pass into the right ventricle, toward the lungs.
In the fetus, the placenta does the work of breathing instead of the lungs. As a result, only a small amount of the blood continues on to the lungs. Most of this blood is bypassed or shunted away from the lungs through the ductus arteriosus to the aorta. Most of the circulation to the lower body is supplied by blood passing through the ductus arteriosus.
This blood then enters the umbilical arteries and flows into the placenta. In the placenta, carbon dioxide and waste products are released into the mother's circulatory system, and oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood are released into the fetus' blood.
At birth, the umbilical cord is clamped and the baby no longer receives oxygen and nutrients from the mother. With the first breaths of life, the lungs begin to expand. As the lungs expand, the alveoli in the lungs are cleared of fluid. An increase in the baby's blood pressure and a significant reduction in the pulmonary pressures reduces the need for the ductus arteriosus to shunt blood. These changes promote the closure of the shunt. These changes increase the pressure in the left atrium of the heart, which decrease the pressure in the right atrium. The shift in pressure stimulates the foramen ovale to close.
The closure of the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale completes the transition of fetal circulation to newborn circulation.


----------



## flan327

NotfooledbyW said:


> I realize that you had to run away and hide but are you that scared that you have to push other Christian Taliban to run away and hide as well?
> 
> 
> The point being discussed was the scientific fact that a fetus is connected to its mother by a tube that provides oxygenated blood and nutrients needed for the growing organizm in the womb.
> 
> beagle9  says a 10 day old baby is still connected to its mother in this way.
> 
> ding says this is not science  -  he says I made it all up .
> 
> 
> Do you  have a comment or are you just an idiot like them.
> 
> 
> Blood Circulation in the Fetus and Newborn   CHILDREN’s HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA​
> How does the fetal circulatory system work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blood Circulation in the Fetus and Newborn | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
> 
> 
> During pregnancy, the fetal lungs are not used for breathing—the placenta does the work of exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide through the mother's circulation. With the first breaths of air the baby takes at birth, the fetal circulation changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.chop.edu
> 
> 
> 
> During pregnancy, the fetal circulatory system works differently than after birth:
> 
> The fetus is connected by the umbilical cord to the placenta, the organ that develops and implants in the mother's uterus during pregnancy.
> Through the blood vessels in the umbilical cord, the fetus receives all the necessary nutrition, oxygen, and life support from the mother through the placenta.
> Waste products and carbon dioxide from the fetus are sent back through the umbilical cord and placenta to the mother's circulation to be eliminated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fetal circulatory system uses two right to left shunts, which are small passages that direct blood that needs to be oxygenated. The purpose of these shunts is to bypass certain body parts? in particular, the lungs and liver ? that are not fully developed while the fetus is still in the womb. The shunts that bypass the lungs are called the foramen ovale, which moves blood from the right atrium of the heart to the left atrium, and the ductus arteriosus, which moves blood from the pulmonary artery to the aorta.
> Oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood are transferred across the placenta to the fetus. The enriched blood flows through the umbilical cord to the liver and splits into three branches. The blood then reaches the inferior vena cava, a major vein connected to the heart. Most of this blood is sent through the ductus venosus, also a shunt that passes highly oxygenated blood through the liver to the inferior vena cava and then to the right atrium of the heart. A small amount of this blood goes directly to the liver to give it the oxygen and nutrients it needs.
> Waste products from the fetal blood are transferred back across the placenta to the mother's blood.
> Inside the fetal heart:
> 
> Blood enters the right atrium, the chamber on the upper right side of the heart. When the blood enters the right atrium, most of it flows through the foramen ovale into the left atrium.
> Blood then passes into the left ventricle (lower chamber of the heart) and then to the aorta, (the large artery coming from the heart).
> From the aorta, blood is sent to the heart muscle itself in addition to the brain. After circulating there, the blood returns to the right atrium of the heart through the superior vena cava. About two thirds of the blood will pass through the foramen ovale as described above, but the remaining one third will pass into the right ventricle, toward the lungs.
> In the fetus, the placenta does the work of breathing instead of the lungs. As a result, only a small amount of the blood continues on to the lungs. Most of this blood is bypassed or shunted away from the lungs through the ductus arteriosus to the aorta. Most of the circulation to the lower body is supplied by blood passing through the ductus arteriosus.
> This blood then enters the umbilical arteries and flows into the placenta. In the placenta, carbon dioxide and waste products are released into the mother's circulatory system, and oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood are released into the fetus' blood.
> At birth, the umbilical cord is clamped and the baby no longer receives oxygen and nutrients from the mother. With the first breaths of life, the lungs begin to expand. As the lungs expand, the alveoli in the lungs are cleared of fluid. An increase in the baby's blood pressure and a significant reduction in the pulmonary pressures reduces the need for the ductus arteriosus to shunt blood. These changes promote the closure of the shunt. These changes increase the pressure in the left atrium of the heart, which decrease the pressure in the right atrium. The shift in pressure stimulates the foramen ovale to close.
> The closure of the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale completes the transition of fetal circulation to newborn circulation.


How many times have you been pregnant?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Take it up with SCOTUS


SCOTUS Is not telling me that I live in a Christian Nation infected by humanists and atheists and I have to believe what you a Christian believes when human life begins or I cannot be honest unless I do.   And then you want to hide.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

flan327 said:


> How many times have you been pregnant?


Twice / I am a dad, my wife did the hard part of our two pregnancies


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> It’s not a religious issue.


I did not ask for your feeble opinion that it was a religious issue.

Here is the question:

NFBW2207242333-#3,863 Do you believe it is random chance and mere coincidence that the lawmakers who get politically elected in every state where abortion is being banned, as you wish, would hold a majority of the @Meisterreligious belief that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and be Republicans?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> It's not the job of science to weigh the rights of the mother and child.




not saying it is.  


Where is the scientist who backs you up.  You have not provided the name of the scientist who stands by this:

@Ding’s science is said to prove that 

. . . when a sperm cell penetrates the zona pelluca membrane of an ovum, a new human being, equal in “being” in legal status to the woman who just had sexual intercourse with a man, was created right there and then.

No scientist has ever stood behind such nonsense.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207251431

NFBW2207242333-#3,863      Do you believe it is random chance and mere coincidence that the lawmakers who get politically elected in every state where abortion is being banned, as you wish, would hold a majority of the Meister religious belief that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and be Republicans?​​NFBW2207242333-#3,863   Do you really believe that religious political hacks, mostly white Christian males, are the one’s who should be imposing their religious perspective on women and young girls who get pregnant and find out white Christian men are deciding what they can and cannot do with their body. And health? END2207242333​​ding220725-#3,868       “I believe abortion is a human rights issue and anyone who weighs the rights of the mother and child must acknowledge that abortion is ending a human life. Anything less does not properly weigh the rights”​
*NFBW:  *There were two questions there ding  , you responded to neither.

I have told you what I believe in response to your post #3,868

ding220724-#3,855 “I believe that after fertilization the zygote is a living human being in the earliest stage of its human life cycle.”​​NFBW2207241200-#3,856 Belief v Belief   “I believe that the moment the fetus is able, (if surgically removed from the womb and the umbilical cord is cut) to take over breathing (viability)on its own, as you and I are doing; then at that time a fetus becomes a human being with a right to life just like you and me. And that right to life is permanent until death from that moment on.​​So what gives you the right ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted by elected lawmakers to pass laws restricting abortion to force women to become mothers because terminating a pregnancy is killing your “belief” as to when human life begins?”​
*NFBW*: You didn’t answer the last one either other than because you say so. END2207251431


----------



## Meister

I must have really triggered NotfooledbyW, he/she has me tagged in the majority of his/her threads today.
Not sure why, but I bet he/she has his/her reasons for it.


----------



## hjmick

flan327 said:


> Oh my gladiolus
> 
> How many times have YOU been pregnant?




None. Testicles.

Does this mean I am not entitled to an opinion on the matter?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meister220725-#3,886     “I must have really triggered NotfooledbyW,

NFBW: I like to put all the facts on the record. ding argues that the pro-life political action in America is science driven and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. I disagree.

The idea that human life begins at conception, being immediately entitled to government protection through the entire period of gestation as if it were a normal developed human being is a Christian religious doctrine and it is absolutely defined in Catholic family doctrine called Humanae Vitae.

I notice you Meister side with ding a lot and that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior and oppose abortion rights. I used your quotes to show that right to life for a fertilized egg and a zygote are pursued on political / religious grounds not science,

You are certainly welcome to chime in if you have anything of substance to say on the topic


----------



## Meister

NotfooledbyW said:


> Meister220725-#3,886     “I must have really triggered NotfooledbyW,
> 
> NFBW: I like to put all the facts on the record. ding argues that the pro-life political action in America is science driven and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. I disagree.
> 
> The idea that human life begins at conception, being immediately entitled to government protection through the entire period of gestation as if it were a normal developed human being is a Christian religious doctrine and it is absolutely defined in Catholic family doctrine called Humanae Vitae.
> 
> I notice you Meister side with ding a lot and that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior and oppose abortion rights. I used your quotes to show that right to life for a fertilized egg and a zygote are pursued on political / religious grounds not science,
> 
> You are certainly welcome to chime in if you have anything of substance to say on the topic


Sadly, you just cherry pick what my beliefs are.   
You really should do your research before putting it out in cyberspace.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meister said:


> Sadly, you just cherry pick what my beliefs are.


Just quoted what you wrote.


----------



## Meister

NotfooledbyW said:


> Just quoted what you wrote.


Like I said, you cherry picked what I said.  Perhaps go back and use full context from all the posts that
I have posted on the abortion topic.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> SCOTUS Is not telling me that I live in a Christian Nation infected by humanists and atheists and I have to believe what you a Christian believes when human life begins or I cannot be honest unless I do.   And then you want to hide.


SCOTUS has told everyone that abortion isn't a constitutional right.  Tell it to them.


----------



## beagle9

ding said:


> Seems rather OCDish.


Sounds like that he figures that if he throws his crap against the wall long enough, then hopefully something will stick.... Yeah that's it.... Nothing sticking yet, so on and on he must go slinging his own chit... ROTFLMBO..


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I did not ask for your feeble opinion that it was a religious issue.
> 
> Here is the question:
> 
> NFBW2207242333-#3,863 Do you believe it is random chance and mere coincidence that the lawmakers who get politically elected in every state where abortion is being banned, as you wish, would hold a majority of the @Meisterreligious belief that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and be Republicans?


I believe abortion is a human rights issue.  Religion doesn't enter into it.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> not saying it is.
> 
> 
> Where is the scientist who backs you up.  You have not provided the name of the scientist who stands by this:
> 
> @Ding’s science is said to prove that
> 
> . . . when a sperm cell penetrates the zona pelluca membrane of an ovum, a new human being, equal in “being” in legal status to the woman who just had sexual intercourse with a man, was created right there and then.
> 
> No scientist has ever stood behind such nonsense.


You keep saying things like "equal in 'being' in legal status to the woman."  That's not the job of science.  Science doesn't assess the rights of the child and the mother.  Science only can tell us when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence... which by the way is after fertilization.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207251431
> 
> NFBW2207242333-#3,863      Do you believe it is random chance and mere coincidence that the lawmakers who get politically elected in every state where abortion is being banned, as you wish, would hold a majority of the Meister religious belief that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and be Republicans?​​NFBW2207242333-#3,863   Do you really believe that religious political hacks, mostly white Christian males, are the one’s who should be imposing their religious perspective on women and young girls who get pregnant and find out white Christian men are deciding what they can and cannot do with their body. And health? END2207242333​​ding220725-#3,868       “I believe abortion is a human rights issue and anyone who weighs the rights of the mother and child must acknowledge that abortion is ending a human life. Anything less does not properly weigh the rights”​
> *NFBW:  *There were two questions there ding  , you responded to neither.
> 
> I have told you what I believe in response to your post #3,868
> 
> ding220724-#3,855 “I believe that after fertilization the zygote is a living human being in the earliest stage of its human life cycle.”​​NFBW2207241200-#3,856 Belief v Belief   “I believe that the moment the fetus is able, (if surgically removed from the womb and the umbilical cord is cut) to take over breathing (viability)on its own, as you and I are doing; then at that time a fetus becomes a human being with a right to life just like you and me. And that right to life is permanent until death from that moment on.​​So what gives you the right ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted by elected lawmakers to pass laws restricting abortion to force women to become mothers because terminating a pregnancy is killing your “belief” as to when human life begins?”​
> *NFBW*: You didn’t answer the last one either other than because you say so. END2207251431


Can you quote a post of mine that says I insist laws be passed to restrict abortions?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I notice you @Meister side with @ding a lot and that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior and oppose abortion rights. I used your quotes to show that right to life for a fertilized egg and a zygote are pursued on political / religious grounds not science,


I guess you will just have to challenge all laws that restrict abortion as unconstitutional because they violate the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.  Good luck with that as it appears your case is circumstantial.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Instead of dictating your Christian verdict that, I am making up science, tell me what is “made up” about this science :
> 
> YOUR belief has human life beginning at a point when the zygote is living on oxygenated blood and nutrients that are produced by an actual viable human being. There is a stage in human development when a fetus can breathe and process food on its own.


Get off of your wild ideas in which you can't prove, otherwise you have attempted to tell us when a soul is or isn't placed into a developing fetus in the womb, yet you can't prove anything like that. Once the process begins, you absolutely don't know anything from that point on. No one does, so it's best to respect life, and to protect life even if it's in it's developmental stages.

The answer to it all is to be proactive instead reactive concerning sex. So go fight the good fight on that front unless you want people to remain reckless and irresponsible in life, wherefore they have to regret their  spontaneous decisions that could alter their live's forever.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Can you quote a post of mine that says I insist laws be passed to restrict abortions?


It is either murder in your head or it is not to kill a two week old zygote. What is it in your mind?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Can you quote a post of mine that says I insist laws be passed to restrict abortions?



Don’t need laws to be passed dumbass. You are saying that a zygote is a human being with a right to life just like you and me. It is already against the law to murder a human being.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> It is either murder in your head or it is not to kill a two week old zygote. What is it in your mind?


I'm going to need for you to retract what you said and apologize first.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Don’t need laws to be passed dumbass. You are saying that a zygote is a human being with a right to life just like you and me. It is already against the law to murder a human being.


Is that what I said?  Can you show me where I said that?


----------



## ding

Meister said:


> Sadly, you just cherry pick what my beliefs are.
> You really should do your research before putting it out in cyberspace.


He has a nasty habit of creating false narratives of the beliefs of others.  It makes it hard to have a discussion because we have to spend so much time correcting his error on our beliefs.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> What is it in your mind?


You mean you don't know?  You have been acting like you know everything I believe.  You have been making up my beliefs and then attacking me for the beliefs you made up for over a week now.


----------



## dblack

NotfooledbyW said:


> Every person I know agrees with me. I don’t know any Trump Christian Taliban
> 
> It’s not my problem at all.  They are developing human tissue and cells of the woman who is pregnant. They are a developing human life firm that will become a human being if the woman decides to carry it full term. If she does not she has terminated a growth in her body and it is not killing a human being. It cannot be killing a human being because a human “being” does not exist yet.
> 
> None of your scientists say anything  other than what I say.  They all say what goes on inside the body of a pregnant woman is precisely a developing natural process same as in all mammals, involving  human cells and human tissue,  but it is a process, not a being . It belongs to the mother.
> 
> Nothing about it being murder if a woman (it’s her body not yours) decides to terminate the grueth.  get your nose out of woman’s bodies unrelated to you. WHATS WRONG WITH You?


They're all in on authoritarian government. "Statist" is the term.


----------



## Concerned American

ChemEngineer said:


> Then why do you and others keep responding to nonsense?


Good question, why do you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Is that what I said? Can you show me where I said that?


ding220725-#3,868 “I believe abortion is a human rights issue and anyone who weighs the rights of the mother and child *must acknowledge that abortion is ending a human life.* Anything less does not properly weigh the rights”


As a rule the purpose of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy by ending a human life.


ding said:


> DNA is evidence of a new person. Does it disturb you that abortion terminates a human life?





ding said:


> I want to hear your chicken shit ass say I am for a woman's right to choose an abortion even though abortion ends a human life. Women's rights are important. But so are the child's.



Your argument is bullshit that abortion terminates a life because in the simplest term it terminates an undeveloped or potential life when the abortion is performed. you falsely argue a human being if murdered but then you are apparently are ok with murder if your imaginary human being.


----------



## beagle9

ding said:


> Is that what I said?  Can you show me where I said that?


Why does he think that a developing human being in the womb isn't a human being ? It sure isn't a mammal or an amphibian, birds and etc. It's a unique human being at any stage after conception.


----------



## beagle9

ding said:


> You mean you don't know?  You have been acting like you know everything I believe.  You have been making up my beliefs and then attacking me for the beliefs you made up for over a week now.


A leftist tactic now known, especially around here.


----------



## beagle9

ding said:


> He has a nasty habit of creating false narratives of the beliefs of others.  It makes it hard to have a discussion because we have to spend so much time correcting his error on our beliefs.


A leftist trait.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your argument is bullshit that abortion terminates a life because in the simplest term it terminates an undeveloped or potential life when the abortion is performed.


I don't know how any reasonable person can see it any other way....  Abortion is literally ending the life of a living, genetically distinct human being.

You are not being objective because you have a preference for an outcome.  It is because you aren't being objective that you are being unreasonable.


----------



## ding

beagle9 said:


> Why does he think that a developing human being in the womb isn't a human being ? It sure isn't a mammal or an amphibian, birds and etc. It's a unique human being at any stage after conception.


I think it's because he has to rationalize that it's not wrong.  But he could just as easily say it's wrong but still supports the woman's choice to do it.  The urge to see one's self as morally good is very strong in humans.  And for good reason too.  We are moral beings who prefer good over evil.


----------



## ding

beagle9 said:


> A leftist tactic now known, especially around here.


Yes.  Very disingenuous.


----------



## ding

beagle9 said:


> A leftist trait.


He's trying to make it personal but that doesn't work on me.   I just stick to my points.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I think it's because he has to rationalize that it's not wrong.


I do not have to rationalize that it’s wrong because it’s a woman’s decision, not mine. 

Whatever decision she makes is right.


Up until this moment the fetus is alive, living   off of the mothers’ blood and the mothers dna in the blood and the placenta.

The closure of the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale completes the transition of fetal circulation to newborn circulation​​Blood flowing through the veins of the fetus is the mothers blood and her DNA. 

That ‘separation’ is where separate “human life” begins and has a right to life in my opinion. prior to that the fetus is not a separate life from the mother. It is her choice and there is absolutely nothing wrong about it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207252206

NFBW2207251711-#3,900     “You are saying that a zygote is a human being with a right to life just like you and me.

ding220725-#3,902      “Is that what I said? Can you show me where I said that

NFBW: Assuming the zygote in your imaginary science world  ding deserves the same sanctity of life as you and I and beagle9 do.

ding220724-#3,855 “I believe that after fertilization the zygote is a living human being in the earliest stage of its human life cycle.”

ding220717-#2,310     “Sanctity of life is a Christian value. True.          Sanctity of life is a human issue. True.      Abortion is not a religious issue.          Abortion is a human issue. And true.   END2207252206


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207260019

NFBW2207251632-#3,885        “So what gives you the right ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted by elected lawmakers to pass laws restricting abortion to force women to become mothers because terminating a pregnancy is killing your “belief” as to when human life begins?”

ding220725-#3,896       “Can you quote a post of mine that says I insist laws be passed to restrict abortions?”

NFBW: I did not say that you “insist” laws be passed to restrict abortion. Read #3,885    I wrote, ““So what gives you the right ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted by elected lawmakers to pass laws restricting abortion”

Therefore once again you are a liar.

NEVERTHELESS back in May 2020 you ding are on record affirming that “Governments exist to secure those alienable rights of the freshly conceived “new genetically distinct human being” that “has come into existence”

Here is that post;

ding200505-#121   But the legal argument is that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

ding200505-#121   One that has never existed before and will never exist again. As such he or she has inalienable rights.

ding200505-#121     Governments exist to secure those alienable rights.
END2207260019


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207260608  do not pick the cherries

Lysistrata191129-#151    “So I guess you disagree with me and with all of the people who have decided to have an abortion for whatever reason. Just don't interfere with anyone else's decision-making on matters of abortion, religious choice, or anything else.”

Meister191129-#281    “Yes, I do disagree with you....I thought it was obvious.  I believe that an unborn baby has rights, and you don't.....obviously.”

ding200505-#121 But the legal argument is that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

ding200505-#121 One that has never existed before and will never exist again. As such he or she has inalienable rights.

ding200505-#121 Governments exist to secure those alienable rights.

beagle9220626-#1,885  “until God comes back to render judgement upon the entire world.”

*NFBW*: The Trumpism Christian American Taliban have created the completely made up fallacy as follows in their own self-righteous words;,

  “unborn baby has rights” - Meister

  “new genetically distinct human being” + “has inalienable rights” + “governments exist to secure those . .  rights. “   ding

“until God comes back to render judgement upon the entire world” beagle9

*NFBW*: And a circle jerk was created to facilitate the veracity of the fake fallacy amongst themselves.    END2207260608


----------



## Meister

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207260608  do not pick the cherries
> 
> Lysistrata191129-#151    “So I guess you disagree with me and with all of the people who have decided to have an abortion for whatever reason. Just don't interfere with anyone else's decision-making on matters of abortion, religious choice, or anything else.”
> 
> Meister191129-#281    “Yes, I do disagree with you....I thought it was obvious.  I believe that an unborn baby has rights, and you don't.....obviously.”
> 
> ding200505-#121 But the legal argument is that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.
> 
> ding200505-#121 One that has never existed before and will never exist again. As such he or she has inalienable rights.
> 
> ding200505-#121 Governments exist to secure those alienable rights.
> 
> beagle9220626-#1,885  “until God comes back to render judgement upon the entire world.”
> 
> *NFBW*: The Trumpism Christian American Taliban have created the completely made up fallacy as follows in their own self-righteous words;,
> 
> “unborn baby has rights” - Meister
> 
> “new genetically distinct human being” + “has inalienable rights” + “governments exist to secure those . .  rights. “   ding
> 
> “until God comes back to render judgement upon the entire world” beagle9
> 
> *NFBW*: And a circle jerk was created to facilitate the veracity of the fake fallacy amongst themselves.    END2207260608


And you extrapolate a religious connotation from my words?   Wow, dude, you have some issues, don't you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207261100
ding 220725-3,911    “I don't know how any reasonable person can see it any other way.... Abortion is literally ending the life of a living, genetically distinct human being.”

NFBW: 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.

Beyond the still mysterious questions unresolved by the scientific/biological explanations of the miraculous beginning of a potential human being I am certain that our collective living and breathing human moral  obligation is to other living, breathing and tangible human beings who suffer or whose own lives are at stake in a pregnancy.

If you still don’t get it ding you need to delve into some introspection into the forlorn incapacity of your weak and cynical authoritarian mind. END2207261100


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meister said:


> And you extrapolate a religious connotation from my words?


I do not extrapolate a religious connotation from those particular words. The religious connotation comes from your words that Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I do not have to rationalize that it’s wrong because it’s a woman’s decision, not mine.


You literally just proved me right.  You can't admit abortion is wrong.  You have to see yourself as moral.  If you are looking for proof of God, there it is.  You can't abandon the concept of right and wrong because it's hardwired into you.  You can't say it's wrong to end a human life, so you rationalize it's not a human life.  


NotfooledbyW said:


> Whatever decision she makes is right.


That belief is totally consistent with what I just said.  You can't admit abortion is wrong.  You have to see yourself as moral.  You can't say it's wrong to end a human life, so you rationalize it's not a human life.  


NotfooledbyW said:


> Up until this moment the fetus is alive, living off of the mothers’ blood and the mothers dna in the blood and the placenta.
> 
> The closure of the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale completes the transition of fetal circulation to newborn circulationBlood flowing through the veins of the fetus is the mothers blood and her DNA.
> 
> That ‘separation’ is where separate “human life” begins and has a right to life in my opinion. prior to that the fetus is not a separate life from the mother. It is her choice and there is absolutely nothing wrong about it.


This is you still proving my point.  You have to see yourself as moral.  You can't admit abortion is wrong because you see yourself as a good person.  And since you know it's wrong to end a human life, you rationalize it's not a human life that is being ended.  Your mind has compartmentalized itself to avoid living in conflict.


----------



## ding

Meister said:


> And you extrapolate a religious connotation from my words?   Wow, dude, you have some issues, don't you?


He's imploding.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Assuming the zygote in your imaginary science world @ding deserves the same sanctity of life as you and I and @beagle9 do.


Can't begin to have that conversation with you until you acknowledge that rights exist to be weighed.  Until you acknowledge that human life begins after fertilization you can't possibly weigh its rights because you don't believe it is a living human being so you give its rights zero consideration and weight.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207251632-#3,885 “So what gives you the right ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted by elected lawmakers to pass laws restricting abortion to force women to become mothers because terminating a pregnancy is killing your “belief” as to when human life begins?”


Can you show me where I did that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> This is you still proving my point.


You have no point. You have religious politicak pro-life trash. 

ThIs is a point: 

NFBW2207261100-#3,920

ding 220725-3,911 “I don't know how any reasonable person can see it any other way.... Abortion is literally ending the life of a living, genetically distinct human being.”

NFBW: 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.

Beyond the still mysterious questions unresolved by the scientific/biological explanations of the miraculous beginning of a potential human being I am certain that our collective living and breathing human moral obligation is to other living, breathing and tangible human beings who suffer or whose own lives are at stake in a pregnancy.

If you still don’t get it ding you need to delve into some introspection into the forlorn incapacity of your weak and cynical authoritarian mind. END2207261100


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Can't begin to have that conversation with you until you acknowledge that rights exist to be weighed. Until you acknowledge that human life begins after fertilization you can't possibly weigh its rights because you don't believe it is a living human being so you give its rights zero consideration and weight.





ding said:


> Can you show me where I did that?



YOU JUST did it again.   SEE ABOVE

Until you acknowledge that human life begins after fertilization

You must think you are God if you want me to take your absurd pronouncements seriously.


----------



## Meister

NotfooledbyW said:


> I do not extrapolate a religious connotation from those particular words. The religious connotation comes from your words that Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meister said:


>


What I write is true isn’t it -  you have written that Jesus is your Lord and Savior.


----------



## Meister

NotfooledbyW said:


> What I write is true isn’t it -  you have written that Jesus is your Lord and Savior.


Have I?  I don't recall ever saying that, but you have printed that I do.
Kind of like putting words in my mouth and putting up your argument, isn't it?


----------



## dudmuck

ding said:


> Can't begin to have that conversation with you until you acknowledge that rights exist to be weighed.  Until you acknowledge that human life begins after fertilization you can't possibly weigh its rights because you don't believe it is a living human being so you give its rights zero consideration and weight.


----------



## Flash

dudmuck said:


>


Conservatives believe in reasonable common sense abortion laws that always include protecting the health of the mother.

Libtards want abortion on demand for the sake of convenience and that is despicable.


----------



## citygator

You morons.  It doesnt matter if you think it is morally wrong.  No one can use your body to live, not even a fetus or a baby if you want to call it that.  You dont have to donate a kidney to anyone, give blood to anyone, nor do you have to carry a foreign invader inside your body while it grows into a human.  It doesnt matter if the person was raped or slept with 5 guys in a weekend voluntarily.  There is no right of way to a person's body. GTFOOH!


----------



## dblack

citygator said:


> It doesnt matter if you think it is morally wrong.  No one can use your body to live, not even a fetus or a baby if you want to call it that.  You dont have to donate a kidney to anyone, give blood to anyone, nor do you have to carry a foreign invader inside your body while it grows into a human.  It doesnt matter if the person was raped or slept with 5 guys in a weekend voluntarily.  There is no right of way to a person's body. GTFOOH!


This. Exactly this. Pro-lifers claim state sovereignty over our insides. That will obliterate the fundamental concept of self-ownership and individual liberty.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I did not say that you “insist” laws be passed to restrict abortion. Read #3,885 I wrote, ““So what gives you the right ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted by elected lawmakers to pass laws restricting abortion”


Can you show me where I unilaterally insisted my belief be the only one accepted by lawmakers?  Can you show me where I insisted lawmakers pass laws to restrict abortions?


NotfooledbyW said:


> Therefore once again you are a liar.


What have I lied about?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207261100
> ding 220725-3,911    “I don't know how any reasonable person can see it any other way.... Abortion is literally ending the life of a living, genetically distinct human being.”
> 
> NFBW: 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.
> 
> Beyond the still mysterious questions unresolved by the scientific/biological explanations of the miraculous beginning of a potential human being I am certain that our collective living and breathing human moral  obligation is to other living, breathing and tangible human beings who suffer or whose own lives are at stake in a pregnancy.
> 
> If you still don’t get it ding you need to delve into some introspection into the forlorn incapacity of your weak and cynical authoritarian mind. END2207261100


That's because you have to see yourself as moral. You can't admit abortion ends a human life because you see yourself as a good person. And since you know it's wrong to end a human life, you rationalize it's not a human life that is being ended. Your mind has compartmentalized itself to avoid living in conflict.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> YOU JUST did it again.   SEE ABOVE
> 
> Until you acknowledge that human life begins after fertilization
> 
> You must think you are God if you want me to take your absurd pronouncements seriously.


That's not my belief, dummy.  That's the belief of the scientific community which teaches that in every embryology textbook.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meister said:


> We are all sinners, that's why Christ died on the cross, it was for us





ding said:


> Or technically because of us.





Meister said:


> Sad that you never had a relationship with God,





Meister said:


> Sad that you never had a relationship with God, I see it nearly every single day.





Meister said:


> That's obviously something you have to ponder, I don't need to. My Savior is my Lord.





BackAgain said:


> I am not religious but was raised with Church on Sundays.





Meister said:


> Have I? I don't recall ever saying that



There is  some. should be enough.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is some. should be enough.


If you want to have a discussion on rights and viability we can do that but you first have to acknowledge that abortion ends a human life as that is the basis for rights.  Your argument seems to be no human life no rights which would make sense if there were indeed no human life.  But under the strictest scientific definition of life, life begins after fertilization.  The die has been cast so to speak, it's a very specific human being.  Genetically distinct.  And alive.


----------



## dudmuck

NotfooledbyW said:


> I voted for Biden and support Speaker Pelosi because they are good true Anerucsn Catholics. We need more good Catholics in high office who understand that Separation of Church and State is a good thing and should not be aborted.


----------



## Concerned American

dudmuck said:


>


You do realize that Sotomayor, who voted against the RvW overturn, is Catholic don't you?  BTW, so are Piglosi and Biden.


----------



## beagle9

dudmuck said:


>


Link !!!!!


----------



## dudmuck

beagle9 said:


> Link !!!!!











						Texas woman forced to carry dead fetus due to anti-abortion laws
					

Stell carried the dead fetus inside her uterus for two weeks.




					www.mysanantonio.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207270145  per the most widely used textbook on human embryology.

Ding220726-#3,939     “If you want to have a discussion on rights and viability we can do that but you first have to acknowledge that abortion ends a human life as that is the basis for rights.

NFBW:  I have no desire to discuss “rights and viability” of a living human fetus ding in strict conformance to your arrogant ‘holier than thou’ demands.

I am debunking your apparent religiously disturbed need ding  to lay a guilt trip on impregnated women unbeknownst to you  “after the die is cast so to speak”, who decide in accordance with societal norms and her own “moral intuitions." to terminate, stop, cancel, end, abort, the unique potential human being with its own DNA that is biologically developing through several of it’s natural stages inside her body.

There is no moral dilemma here beagle9 It is her body. It is her choice to terminate whatever you wish to call whatever the scientific community teaches in every embryology textbook and calls it  . . . . . .  including  whatever embryologists Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud call it in their book; The Developing Human(7th edition, 2003), the most widely used textbook on human embryology.   . . . . . .  CLEAR?   . . . . .  Here is where you say “crystal”  . . . . . ding .
END2207270145


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Link !!!!!


Do you want her to be charged with zygoteslaughter of the Governor Abbott first degree


----------



## beagle9

dudmuck said:


> Texas woman forced to carry dead fetus due to anti-abortion laws
> 
> 
> Stell carried the dead fetus inside her uterus for two weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mysanantonio.com


No one has forced anything upon anyone as far as any blanket policy's might go or policy's we're possibly misinterpreted. Now malpractice concerning medical stuff could be at play in such a case, but that's for the lawyer's to figure out now.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I have no desire to discuss “rights and viability” of a living human fetus @ding in strict conformance to your arrogant ‘holier than thou’ demands.


Holiness has nothing to do with it.  It's just science.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I am debunking your apparent religiously disturbed need @ding to lay a guilt trip on impregnated women unbeknownst to you “after the die is cast so to speak”, who decide in accordance with societal norms and her own “moral intuitions." to terminate, stop, cancel, end, abort, the unique potential human being with its own DNA that is biologically developing through several of it’s natural stages inside her body.


You can't bring yourself to admit you are ending a human life because you need to see yourself as being moral.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207270931

NFBW2207270145-#3,944    “per the most widely used textbook on human embryology.

ding220727-#3,947     “It's just science.”

*NFBW*: As a secular humanist agnostic myself,  my argument on maternal vs fetal natural law rights however is based on the exact same “science” that was presented by Robert P. George who is a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic who is considered by the most conservative of the rightwing of Christendom to be America’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.

Robert P. George wrote in the NYTimes A *Distinct Human Organism* November 22, 2005

“the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.​
The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete -- though, of course, immature -- human organism.”​
*NFBW*: I apply RPGeorge’s definition *“immature -- human organism” *as     a fair and scientific definition of the developing human in the womb of every pregnant woman to which I argue the immature human organism, when it depends on receiving oxygenated blood from the living breathing fully developed human being that carries it, may be terminated because the would be mother has a right in good conscience to decide what happens to her health, and pursuit of her mental and economic well being as a citizen of the United States of  America under the protection  of the Constitution. The immature fetus prior to ability of viable separation from its mother had rights secondary and subordinate to its breathing and nourishment source - The pregnant woman.

NFBW2207261100-#3,920
ding-#3,792 3,911 #121
NFBW #3,917         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.”
END2207270931


----------



## flan327

NotfooledbyW said:


> Twice / I am a dad, my wife did the hard part of our two pregnancies


NEWSFLASH 

YOU NEED HELP 

YOU WERE NEVER PREGNANT 
DID YOU HAVE AN EPIDURAL?

🖕


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> You can't bring yourself to admit you are ending a human life because you need to see yourself as being moral.


POTENTIAL LIFE


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> POTENTIAL LIFE


LIFE WITH POTENTIAL.

A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being. It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Every stage along the continuum is fully human and has the appropriate human characteristics for that stage of the human life cycle. Learn some science.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207271616

ding220727-#3,947     “It's just science.”

Robert P. George wrote in the NYTimes A Distinct Human OrganismNovember 22,    2005: “the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.”

NFBW:  This is ding ‘s version; “the human embryo is a human being”

I am a human being with a sense that I have obligations to other human beings such as not kill them unless in self defense. I don’t have any such obligations to a human being in the embryonic stage. And no scientist can prove that I do END2207271616


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207271616
> 
> 
> 
> ding220727-#3,947     “It's just science.”
> 
> 
> 
> Robert P. George wrote in the NYTimes A Distinct Human OrganismNovember 22, 2005: “the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.”
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW:  This is ding ‘s version; “the human embryo is a human being”
> 
> 
> 
> I am a human being with a sense that I have obligations to other human beings such as not kill them unless in self defense. I don’t have any such obligations to a human being in the embryonic stage. And no scientist can prove that I do END2207271616


Same difference.  You must have missed the human being part.

And it's not my version.  It's what every embryology textbook teaches.


----------



## ding

> *
> “Human life begins at fertilization,* the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite *to produce a genetically distinct individual.”*


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is *the beginning of a new human being.”*


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”*


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> *“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)* when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> James Bopp,


NUFF SAID - he’s a devout Catholic who says the ten year old rape victim should’ve had the baby and like it. 

If you believe a fertilized embryo is a human being then the ten year old old rape victim cannot murder it can she ding ? She has to  do God’s will according to DingBopp science  as well.


----------



## beagle9

flan327 said:


> POTENTIAL LIFE


You are a hopeless case seeing that you actually carried children to term (I'm guessing), knowing full well that a separate life was living inside of you.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NUFF SAID - he’s a devout Catholic who says the ten year old rape victim should’ve had the baby and like it.
> 
> If you believe a fertilized embryo is a human being then the ten year old old rape victim cannot murder it can she ding ? She has to  do God’s will according to DingBopp science  as well.


The potential pregnancy should have been stopped before it ever got started, otherwise if a ten year old is raped (horrendous stuff), then the adults in the room were supposed to immediately get her the help that she needed to make sure that something like a pregnancy doesn't get started. If they don't then they should be charged with child neglect or child abandonment . Adult's have got to step up and do what's right in life. They need not hesitate in a case like that.


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> LIFE WITH POTENTIAL.
> 
> A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being. It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Every stage along the continuum is fully human and has the appropriate human characteristics for that stage of the human life cycle. Learn some science.


Nope

It is AKIN to a parasite 
UNTIL
IT CAN SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB


----------



## beagle9

flan327 said:


> Nope
> 
> It is AKIN to a parasite
> UNTIL
> IT CAN SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB


Now you are just being antagonistic... Don't be a troll..


----------



## Concerned American

flan327 said:


> Nope
> 
> It is AKIN to a parasite
> UNTIL
> IT CAN SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB


That is how murderers justify their crimes.  Some catholic you are. puddin head.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You are a hopeless case seeing that you actually carried children to term (I'm guessing), knowing full well that a separate life was living inside of you.


My wife carried our two daughters not me. The stupid ding argument that a zygote is a human being just like me had nothing to do with our choice, Its not a separate being until viability is possible if removed from the womb. Didn’t matter to me. Just don’t like white hillbilly Protestant nationalists and grumpy zealot Catholic nationalists telling women what to do with their bodies back then and right now.


----------



## flan327

beagle9 said:


> Now you are just being antagonistic... Don't be a troll..


I’m NOT


----------



## flan327

Concerned American said:


> That is how murderers justify their crimes.  Some catholic you are. puddin head.


Not a CATHOLIC 
AND
My username does NOT refer to the dessert 

Capisch?!!!!


----------



## Concerned American

flan327 said:


> My username does NOT refer to the dessert


Neither was I puddin head.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207280339 

ClaireH220722-#3,807  Hmmm I'd say questions ignored are intentionally ignored yes?

 Here is a question :     Is a fully developed human being with a uterus and in possession of a l*iving functioning, bloodstream*, committing murder of a separate human being by taking an abortion pill to terminate a pregnancy  when the pill is absorbed into her bloodstream which science says is the one and only only living bloodstream in her human body?       ClaireH BackAgain
airplanemechanic
beagle9 BS Filter Meister

ding220727-#3,947     “It's just science

ding190913-#851   I am Catholic

ding161104 #538      The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”

*NFBW*: if a woman takes an abortion pill  -  ding - is it the killing / murder of a “human being” in your opinion based upon either your science and your religion or both knowing that the pill will enter and impact the one and only alive bloodstream in her body - hers? END2207280339


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207280604
. . ,  to be a potential human or to be human with potential or not to be at at all  -  that is the question.

NFBW2207270145-#3,944        I am debunking your . . . need @ding to lay a guilt trip on impregnated women . . .  who decide . . . to terminate, stop, cancel, end, abort, the unique potential human being with its own DNA that is biologically developing through several of it’s natural stages inside her body.”

ding 220727-#3,948     “You can't bring yourself to admit you are ending a human life because you need to see yourself as being moral”

*NFBW*: see NFBW-#3,944    except above.  I say, _“impregnated women . . .  decide . . . to end, the unique potential human being inside her body.”_

Flan327-#3,951  “POTENTIAL LIFE”

ding 220727-#3,952   “A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being.”

*NFBW*: Your argument has a scientific flaw as presented since none of the scientists on your list define the “developing stages of potential  human life” within the womb scientifically defined as a child. It is a potential child that most commonly is referred to after the stage of development referred to as childbirth. Can you stick with science if you want this discussion  restricted to scientific facts and scientific facts alone?

And on that note are you ever going to scientifically prove your religious or moral argument that a fertilized human embryo is a “human being with potential” rather than a “potential human being” to be a scientific fact rather than a human judgement call base on religious or moral upbringing and or an individual’s conscience reacting to moral human norms and obligations as human adults.

What you got ding ? END2207280604


----------



## flan327

Concerned American said:


> Neither was I puddin head.


You are NEITHER 
CONCERNED
NOR AN
AMERICAN


----------



## flan327

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207280604
> . . ,  to be a potential human or to be human with potential or not to be at at all  -  that is the question.
> 
> NFBW2207270145-#3,944        I am debunking your . . . need @ding to lay a guilt trip on impregnated women . . .  who decide . . . to terminate, stop, cancel, end, abort, the unique potential human being with its own DNA that is biologically developing through several of it’s natural stages inside her body.”
> 
> ding 220727-#3,948     “You can't bring yourself to admit you are ending a human life because you need to see yourself as being moral”
> 
> *NFBW*: see NFBW-#3,944    except above.  I say, _“impregnated women . . .  decide . . . to end, the unique potential human being inside her body.”_
> 
> Flan327-#3,951  “POTENTIAL LIFE”
> 
> ding 220727-#3,952   “A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being.”
> 
> *NFBW*: Your argument has a scientific flaw as presented since none of the scientists on your list define the “developing stages of potential  human life” within the womb scientifically defined as a child. It is a potential child that most commonly is referred to after the stage of development referred to as childbirth. Can you stick with science if you want this discussion  restricted to scientific facts and scientific facts alone?
> 
> And on that note are you ever going to scientifically prove your religious or moral argument that a fertilized human embryo is a “human being with potential” rather than a “potential human being” to be a scientific fact rather than a human judgement call base on religious or moral upbringing and or an individual’s conscience reacting to moral human norms and obligations as human adults.
> 
> What you got ding ? END2207280604


TL;DR


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NUFF SAID - he’s a devout Catholic who says the ten year old rape victim should’ve had the baby and like it.
> 
> If you believe a fertilized embryo is a human being then the ten year old old rape victim cannot murder it can she ding ? She has to  do God’s will according to DingBopp science  as well.


Your lack of objectivity is astounding.  You run on pure emotion.


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> Nope
> 
> It is AKIN to a parasite
> UNTIL
> IT CAN SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB


Science disagrees with you.  Good luck using that argument with legislators. Even the states that allow some form of abortion would cringe at statements like that.


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> Your lack of objectivity is astounding.  You run on pure emotion.


Better too emotional 
Than
A ROBOT


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> My wife carried our two daughters not me. The stupid ding argument that a zygote is a human being just like me had nothing to do with our choice, Its not a separate being until viability is possible if removed from the womb. Didn’t matter to me. Just don’t like white hillbilly Protestant nationalists and grumpy zealot Catholic nationalists telling women what to do with their bodies back then and right now.


It's not my argument, dummy.  It's what every embryology textbook teaches.


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> Science disagrees with you.  Good luck using that argument with legislators. Even the states that allow some form of abortion would cringe at statements like that.


Ding DONG

The witch is DEAD


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> Better too emotional
> Than
> A ROBOT


Then why are you so unhappy?


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> It's not my argument, dummy.  It's what every embryology textbook teaches.


Nope

Use your BRAIN


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> Then why are you so unhappy?


I’m not, STOOPID 

GOING TO THE CARIBBEAN IN AUGUST


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> I’m not, STOOPID
> 
> GOING TO THE CARIBBEAN IN AUGUST


That's doubtful.  Your kind implodes.


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> Would you like to be able to perform an abortion?  Would that sexually arouse you to kill a baby in the womb?


POST REPORTED


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> Nope
> 
> Use your BRAIN


 












> *“Human life begins at fertilization,* the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite *to produce a genetically distinct individual.”*


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is *the beginning of a new human being.”*


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”*


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> *“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)* when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> POST REPORTED


Good.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: if a woman takes an abortion pill - @ding - is it the killing / murder of a “human being” in your opinion based upon either your science and your religion or both knowing that the pill will enter and impact the one and only alive bloodstream in her body - hers? END2207280339


Pills that prevent fertilization aren't abortion, dummy.  Please learn some science and stop being so emotional.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207280604
> . . , to be a potential human or to be human with potential or not to be at at all - that is the question.


After fertilization a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.  This is no longer conjecture.  It is based upon empirical evidence.  DNA.  It is not a potential human it is a human with potential in its earliest stage of its human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death.  











> *“Human life begins at fertilization,* the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite *to produce a genetically distinct individual.”*


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is *the beginning of a new human being.”*


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”*


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> *“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)* when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> Click to expand...


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207270145-#3,944  I am debunking your . . . need @ding to lay a guilt trip on impregnated women . . . who decide . . . to terminate, stop, cancel, end, abort, the unique potential human being with its own DNA that is biologically developing through several of it’s natural stages inside her body.”


I'm not laying a guilt trip.  I am stating reality.  

After fertilization a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. This is no longer conjecture. It is based upon empirical evidence. DNA. It is not a potential human it is a human with potential in its earliest stage of its human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death.

If you are going to end a human life, you need to acknowledge what you are doing.  Otherwise you have no business doing it.  











> *“Human life begins at fertilization,* the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite *to produce a genetically distinct individual.”*


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is *the beginning of a new human being.”*


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”*


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> *“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)* when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> Click to expand...
> Click to expand...


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: Your argument has a scientific flaw as presented since none of the scientists on your list define the “developing stages of potential human life” within the womb scientifically defined as a child. It is a potential child that most commonly is referred to after the stage of development referred to as childbirth. Can you stick with science if you want this discussion restricted to scientific facts and scientific facts alone?


This is you playing word games because you can't bear to face the fact that you support ending a human life.  So instead, you create an alternate reality where you aren't ending a human life all so you can feel better about yourself and see yourself as a moral person.  You aren't.  You are a liar and you are a horrible human being for dehumanizing human life.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> And on that note are you ever going to scientifically prove your religious or moral argument that a fertilized human embryo is a “human being with potential” rather than a “potential human being” to be a scientific fact rather than a human judgement call base on religious or moral upbringing and or an individual’s conscience reacting to moral human norms and obligations as human adults.


Thank you for proving my point that you are a liar and you are a horrible human being for dehumanizing human life.












> *“Human life begins at fertilization,* the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite *to produce a genetically distinct individual.”*


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is *the beginning of a new human being.”*


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, *a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”*


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> *“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)* when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Pills that prevent fertilization aren't abortion, dummy. Please learn some science and stop being so emotional.


Talking about two pill abortion that are taken to terminate a pregnancy within 10 weeks of conception.

Now perhaps you can answer the question paying particular attention to my point about the bloodstream. Or Are you going to keep ignoring the question. This is not the first time I brought up the mothers bloodstream keeping the underdeveloped human being alive on on her DNA.


ClaireH220722-#3,807 Hmmm I'd say questions ignored are intentionally ignored yes?



Here is a question : Is a fully developed human being with a uterus and in possession of a living functioning, bloodstream, committing murder of a separate human being by taking an abortion pill to terminate a pregnancy when the pill is absorbed into her bloodstream which science says is the one and only only living bloodstream in her human body? ClaireH BackAgain

airplanemechanic

beagle9 BS Filter Meister


----------



## Concerned American

flan327 said:


> You are NEITHER
> CONCERNED
> NOR AN
> AMERICAN


You are, as usual, grossly misinformed.  Try again, troll.  BTW, what does your post have to do with Roe v. Wade?  Keep to the topic or I will report you.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Talking about two pill abortion that are taken to terminate a pregnancy within 10 weeks of conception.


That will be up to state and/or federal legislators to decide.  


NotfooledbyW said:


> Now perhaps you can answer the question paying particular attention to my point about the bloodstream. Or Are you going to keep ignoring the question. This is not the first time I brought up the mothers bloodstream keeping the underdeveloped human being alive on on her DNA.


It's irrelevant to the question of when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence.  It may go to weight in the debate of child versus mother rights but we can't begin to discuss that until you actually acknowledge the humanness of the new genetically distinct living being that is created after fertilization.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> It's irrelevant to the question of when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence.


You are a liar when you keep repeating that science has proven thatv a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence. The science you cite does  not say it the way you say it ,

When you say a fertilized embryo seen only under a microscope is a new human being like you and me you are being absurd.   Perhaos insane.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar when you keep repeating that science has proven thatv a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence. The science you cite does  not say it the way you say it ,
> 
> When you say a fertilized embryo seen only under a microscope is a new human being like you and me you are being absurd.   Perhaos insane.


DNA says otherwise.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207281656  Like pulling teeth     -   just answer a damn  question for christ  sake

ding220728-#3,983       “After fertilization a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. This is no longer conjecture. It is based upon empirical evidence. DNA.”

*NFBW*:   Do you mean immediately ding within a split second after the moment of conception or do you mean nine months later when a child is born and breathes it’s first breath of life and begins oxygenating it’s own blood?

If it’s science you are presenting you need to be precise. Your statement is sloppy as posited.

How much time  after fertilization does it take for a human being to come into existence and what is this human beings form?

How long ago was it conjecture? What happened to convert conjecture into empirical evidence. What precise definition does your scientist mean when referring to the phrase human being   END2207281656


----------



## flan327

TL;DR

AND STOP BEING SO CONDESCENDING


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> DNA says otherwise



The glop of human cells that start biological development in a woman’s body at conception  have a unique new DNA   -   Well that proves nothing scientifically beyond that the glop of human cells have a new DNA immediately following conception.

You have proven nothing more than that ding


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> My wife carried our two daughters not me. The stupid ding argument that a zygote is a human being just like me had nothing to do with our choice, Its not a separate being until viability is possible if removed from the womb. Didn’t matter to me. Just don’t like white hillbilly Protestant nationalists and grumpy zealot Catholic nationalists telling women what to do with their bodies back then and right now.


My wife ? Ok, you are a male correct ? I hope so, because otherwise it would make no sense what you are saying unless you adopted or something of the sort.


----------



## White 6

beagle9 said:


> My wife ? Ok, you are a male correct ? I hope so, because otherwise it would make no sense what you are saying unless you adopted or something of the sort.


Dang, beagle.  Figured that right out?  Nothing slow about you.
Sounds like he and his wife want children, just like me and mine, but not crazy about making choices for everybody else.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207282115

ding220728-#3,985   “This is you playing word games because you can't bear to face the fact that you support ending a human life.

*NFBW*: If you have evidence that I support murdering a human life bring the charges. You don’t, you are a liar.

I support a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. That right is based on her autonomous natural right to control what happens in her body. I know full well that when she chooses to terminate a developing human organism in her womb it ends the natural birth and life of a potential human being. The right to life of an undeveloped  human being is secondary to a woman who has the right to self govern her own body and protect her health, happiness career and family planning from the government and CATHOLIC AND WHITE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN religious zealotry.

I am proud and secure in my moral superiority to @ding’s wretched obsession with having the state governments decide what women are to do with their own bodies since the discovery of DNA in Fertilized Embryonic Tissue.  Who the F cares but white Christian nationalists American Taliban. I’m moral. I am good.

Get the F’n log out of your eye before calling out the speck in my eye ding
END2207282115


----------



## ChemEngineer

ding said:


> After fertilization a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.  This is no longer conjecture.  It is based upon empirical evidence.  DNA.  It is not a potential human it is a human with potential in its earliest stage of its human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
> 
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> 
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


Added to 
Woman's  Right Fraud


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: Do you mean immediately @ding within a split second after the moment of conception
> or do you mean nine months later when a child is born and breathes it’s first breath of life and begins oxygenating it’s own blood?  If it’s science you are presenting you need to be precise. Your statement is sloppy as posited.


The embryology textbooks  couldn't have been more clear.



> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”


Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30



> “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”


Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co



> “The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> Click to expand...


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)



> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”


Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144



> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”


Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55



> “The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world.”


DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584



> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”


Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419



> “A zygote (a single fertilized egg cell) represents the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life.”


Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53



> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”


Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3



> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”


Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943



> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”


Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974



> “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”


Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3



> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”


Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.



> “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”


Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.



> “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo..”


Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.



> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”


The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> How much time after fertilization does it take for a human being to come into existence and what is this human beings form?
> 
> How long ago was it conjecture? What happened to convert conjecture into empirical evidence. What precise definition does your scientist mean when referring to the phrase human being


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> The glop of human cells that start biological development in a woman’s body at conception  have a unique new DNA   -   Well that proves nothing scientifically beyond that the glop of human cells have a new DNA immediately following conception.
> 
> You have proven nothing more than that ding


Congratulations on dehumanizing human life so that you can believe you are a moral and good person.


----------



## ding

White 6 said:


> Dang, beagle.  Figured that right out?  Nothing slow about you.
> Sounds like he and his wife want children, just like me and mine, but not crazy about making choices for everybody else.


Is the fetus property to be disposed of at the will of its owner??


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: If you have evidence that I support murdering a human life bring the charges. You don’t, you are a liar.
> 
> I support a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. That right is based on her autonomous natural right to control what happens in her body. I know full well that when she chooses to terminate a developing human organism in her womb it ends the natural birth and life of a potential human being. The right to life of an undeveloped human being is secondary to a woman who has the right to self govern her own body and protect her health, happiness career and family planning from the government and CATHOLIC AND WHITE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN religious zealotry.
> 
> I am proud and secure in my moral superiority to @ding’s wretched obsession with having the state governments decide what women are to do with their own bodies since the discovery of DNA in Fertilized Embryonic Tissue. Who the F cares but white Christian nationalists American Taliban. I’m moral. I am good.
> 
> Get the F’n log out of your eye before calling out the speck in my eye @ding
> END2207282115


Cool story.  But again... you have to dehumanize human life to be able to see yourself as a good and moral person.  To you the fetus is nothing more than property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.  Unfortunately for you the science says it is a new, genetically distinct human being in its earliest stage of the human life cycle.  A specific, unique human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.  The least you could do is acknowledge that you are ending its life.


----------



## White 6

ding said:


> Is the fetus property to be disposed of at the will of its owner??


Owner? What owner?


----------



## ding

White 6 said:


> Owner? What owner?


Why the mother of course.  If the fetus isn't human and its life can be ended, its nothing more than property, right?


----------



## ChemEngineer

ding said:


> Congratulations on dehumanizing human life so that you can believe you are a moral and good person.



Dehumanization that has been ongoing for fifty years is the prime reason for mental illness resulting in psychos shooting up as many others as possible.  When I was growing up, guns were brought to school to show and share.  We hunted with them and carried shotguns and rifles openly on bicycles to the countryside where we hunted.  No problems. Then the feminists and Leftists and socialists spread their poison.


----------



## White 6

ding said:


> Why the mother of course.  If the fetus isn't human and its life can be ended, its nothing more than property, right?


Not playing your games, ding.  Frankly I don't care to justify, but also do not believe in the absolute sanctity of human life or when you think it starts.  I was well trained to end human life.  Starting it, we planned purposefully and poked fun at it.  Still poking fun at it, but not having anymore pregnancies.  So bother somebody else, as I do not proscribe for all.  Simply not my place or yours.


----------



## BackAgain

flan327 said:


> Nope
> 
> It is AKIN to a parasite
> UNTIL
> IT CAN SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB


Fran, you’re a sick loser.


----------



## ding

White 6 said:


> Not playing your games, ding.  Frankly I don't care to justify, but also do not believe in the absolute sanctity of human life or when you think it starts.  I was well trained to end human life.  Starting it, we planned purposefully and poked fun at it.  Still poking fun at it, but not having anymore pregnancies.  So bother somebody else, as I do not proscribe for all.  Simply not my place or yours.


I'm not playing games either.  It was a fair question.  If not human life than what?  Property?  I have no problem with the each state deciding how to balance the rights.  But it's disingenuous to characterize it as anything other than what it is; ending a human life.

I'm glad my question bothered you.  Seeing human life as property should make you feel uncomfortable.  Especially given your amoral position.  In some ways amorality is worse than immorality.


----------



## beagle9

White 6 said:


> Dang, beagle.  Figured that right out?  Nothing slow about you.
> Sounds like he and his wife want children, just like me and mine, but not crazy about making choices for everybody else.


Want children ? I thought he said his wife carried the two children that they have or was it their two children that they have together etc ?? It's irrelevant... Moving on.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207282115
> 
> ding220728-#3,985   “This is you playing word games because you can't bear to face the fact that you support ending a human life.
> 
> *NFBW*: If you have evidence that I support murdering a human life bring the charges. You don’t, you are a liar.
> 
> I support a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. That right is based on her autonomous natural right to control what happens in her body. I know full well that when she chooses to terminate a developing human organism in her womb it ends the natural birth and life of a potential human being. The right to life of an undeveloped  human being is secondary to a woman who has the right to self govern her own body and protect her health, happiness career and family planning from the government and CATHOLIC AND WHITE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN religious zealotry.
> 
> I am proud and secure in my moral superiority to @ding’s wretched obsession with having the state governments decide what women are to do with their own bodies since the discovery of DNA in Fertilized Embryonic Tissue.  Who the F cares but white Christian nationalists American Taliban. I’m moral. I am good.
> 
> Get the F’n log out of your eye before calling out the speck in my eye ding
> END2207282115


You support chaos in society is what you support, because you are a reactionary instead of a pro-active problem solver, otherwise all through the help of instilling a little bit of preventive moral fortitude into human beings after birth, and this while in their upbringing stage's of life could solve these issue's or a lot of problems.

If this were being done, then conversation's like this wouldn't even exist, but here we all are because people like you have no preventive measures or skills that you would use support all due to your contempt upon our thinking on how society should be conditioned in order to avoid the tragedies of the very horrendous thing being talked about here...... You are dealing with or within an afterthought due to the spontaneous reckless out of control actions of a society that has lost it's way in life.... Yeah that's the kind of society you support, and then to sit here and admit that you have two kid's of your own is simply amazing when think about it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> and then to sit here and admit that you have two kid's of your own is simply amazing when think about it


It was amazing to me that when I as their father held both my newborn daughters for the very first time and felt them squeeze my finger with their tiny strong little hand  they did not look like this:








They had become following the miracle of birth occurring in all mammals -  actual living breathing, separate human beings - Americans with their own individual rights.

Same goes for my grand kids and one great grandkid


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You support chaos in society is what you support





NotfooledbyW said:


> It was amazing to me that when I as their father held both my newborn daughters for the very first time and felt them squeeze my finger with their tiny strong little hand


I live near DC and my eldest daughters’ younger sister now lives in the White Evangelical Christian & Catholic Taliban controlled state of Texas.

Mid-July My Grandaughter from Texas, 17 years of age, came to a UNIVERSITY for a week in my area  to participate in a pre-med workshop. When finished  she had scheduled a couple of days to spend some time in the areas so I Joined her for a full day and what a joy it was to spend with the vivacious spitting image of her mother, accomplished pianist, brilliant creative mind and dog loving young adult all to myself for a day.  When the subject of the Texas bans on abortion And the loss of womens’ rights came up her exact words were   “what the fuck,      She will be politically active and it made me feel encouraged to know that her generation will not submit to the power craven authoritarian workings of the  American Republican  Taliban.

Your chaos and religious oppression will be stymied until dead in its tracks beagle9       You can take it to your church and spread the news.


----------



## White 6

ding said:


> I'm not playing games either.  It was a fair question.  If not human life than what?  Property?  I have no problem with the each state deciding how to balance the rights.  But it's disingenuous to characterize it as anything other than what it is; ending a human life.
> 
> I'm glad my question bothered you.  Seeing human life as property should make you feel uncomfortable.  Especially given your amoral position.  In some ways amorality is worse than immorality.


Only in your mind.  Supposedly simple, one size fits all circumstance rarely fit all, and little or no discretion for individual potential mothers is made.  You bother me in your characterization, only.


----------



## ding

White 6 said:


> Only in your mind.  Supposedly simple, one size fits all circumstance rarely fit all, and little or no discretion for individual potential mothers is made.  You bother me in your characterization, only.


The only thing I have characterized is the scientific basis for when a new, genetically distinct human being comes into existence.  Everything else you have imagined was manufactured by you and exists only in your mind.  So I have no idea why you believe I believe one size fits all.  As for you being bothered by my characterization?  Good.  You should be.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> The only thing I have characterized is the scientific basis for when a new, genetically distinct human being comes into existence


It’s how you apply the science per your Catholic biased brain that is flawed, not the science itself.  You mangle the means by which human beings communicate with each other.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> It’s how you apply the science per your Catholic biased brain that is flawed, not the science itself.  You mangle the means by which human beings communicate with each other.


You mean embryology textbooks are flawed. Because this is what they teach.






> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”


Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30



> “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”


Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co



> “The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”
> Click to expand...
> Click to expand...


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)



> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”


Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144



> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”


Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55



> “The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world.”


DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584



> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”


Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419



> “A zygote (a single fertilized egg cell) represents the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life.”


Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53



> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”


Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3



> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”


Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943



> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”


Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974



> “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”


Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3



> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”


Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.



> “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”


Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.



> “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo..”


Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.



> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”


The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> The only thing I have characterized is the scientific basis for when a new, genetically distinct human being comes into existence.



In science and homicide law a “SEPARATE” new, genetically distinct living breathing human being comes into existence only when it breathes its first breath and the biological process of oxygenating its own DNA labeled blood to survive.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You mean embryology textbooks are flawed. Because this is what they teach.
> 
> View attachment 675952
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
> 
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> 
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co
> 
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> 
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> 
> DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584
> 
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> 
> Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53
> 
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> 
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> 
> Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.
> 
> 
> Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
> 
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18



Your chart is faked and false because this depicts fetal scientific reality





Your chart clearly does  not?  Why?


----------



## White 6

ding said:


> The only thing I have characterized is the scientific basis for when a new, genetically distinct human being comes into existence.  Everything else you have imagined was manufactured by you and exists only in your mind.  So I have no idea why you believe I believe one size fits all.  As for you being bothered by my characterization?  Good.  You should be.


And because of that, I am supposed to care?  In general, I really do not.  I refuse to take up your cause, as it is your cause, not mine.  If you expect me to bother, even treating you with respect for your position, you had best remember, I have kicked a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses off my front porch, as I was not in the mood to be proselytized to, by people that wanted to sell me their point of view.  I simply wanted them to fuck off, though never putting it in those exact words, but they got my message and went on to more fertile prospects.  Can you feel me?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> In science and homicide law a “SEPARATE” new, genetically distinct living breathing human being comes into existence only when it breathes its first breath and the biological process of oxygenating its own DNA labeled blood to survive.


Incorrect.  In science a new, genetically distinct living breathing human being comes into existence after fertilization.  Each state has its own laws on homicide and abortion.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your chart is faked and false because this depicts fetal scientific reality
> 
> 
> View attachment 675954
> Your chart clearly does  not?  Why?


Take it up with...

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc.
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co
James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
 the process of fertilization.”
Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584
Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53
Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.
Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18
...it's their embryology textbooks which teach it.


----------



## ding

White 6 said:


> And because of that, I am supposed to care?  In general, I really do not.  I refuse to take up your cause, as it is your cause, not mine.  If you expect me to bother, even treating you with respect for your position, you had best remember, I have kicked a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses off my front porch, as I was not in the mood to be proselytized to, by people that wanted to sell me their point of view.  I simply wanted them to fuck off, though never putting it in those exact words, but they got my message and went on to more fertile prospects.  Can you feel me?


I couldn't care less if you took up my cause.  What exactly do you believe my cause is?  I'm not proselytizing either.  What exactly do you believe I am proselytizing? I am merely stating the reality that is taught in every embryology textbook. 

Obviously you cared enough to express an opinion on the topic. 

What I feel is that my questions have made you uncomfortable.  That's the only thing I'm feeling.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Take it up with...


I’m taking it up with you. Can’t you defend your attack on Women’s reproductive rights without using a flawed chart.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I’m taking it up with you. Can’t you defend your attack on Women’s reproductive rights without using a flawed chart.


I am stating what is taught in embryology textbooks, dummy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I am stating what is taught in embryology textbooks, dummy.


Do you have your own brain for this discussion on this message board?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you have your own brain for this discussion on this message board?


Yes, and I'd love to be able to move to a discussion on rights but that can't happen because you don't acknowledge that abortion literally ends a human life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I am stating what is taught in embryology textbooks, dummy.


All those books are not compelling a state government in America to force full term pregnancy and delivery on all pregnant women wherever white Christian nationalists control the apparatus of government. It is not taught in the text books you have listed. you are therefore a liar.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> All those books are not compelling a state government in America to force full term pregnancy and delivery on all pregnant women wherever white Christian nationalists control the apparatus of government. It is not taught in the text books you have listed. you are therefore a liar.


That's an entirely different subject.  One that is outside the purview of all "those books."


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Sanctimonious Anthoropocentrism Clap Trap *

* Traitors To Us Constitution Support Sedition By SCOTUS **


ding said:


> Incorrect.  In science a new, genetically distinct living breathing human being comes into existence after fertilization.  Each state has its own laws on homicide and abortion.


Capital punishment involves a life , however a state is only concerned with whether a wright to life exists and any sentenced to death has had their wright to life removed .

By induction and , logically , of course , deduction , a state interest begins with a citizen and as birth is required to become a citizen , birth is required for equal protection that includes a wright to life .


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> It was amazing to me that when I as their father held both my newborn daughters for the very first time and felt them squeeze my finger with their tiny strong little hand  they did not look like this:
> 
> View attachment 675906
> 
> 
> 
> They had become following the miracle of birth occurring in all mammals -  actual living breathing, separate human beings - Americans with their own individual rights.
> 
> Same goes for my grand kids and one great grandkid


Ain't that fingers and toes I'm seeing in that picture ? Well by golly I think it is... You can't help yourself, so please keep on making a fool of yourself.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> That's an entirely different subject.


So drop the text book crap. Those books have nothing to do with Roe v Wade being overturned  by a white evangelical Catholic biased Supreme Court who want white Christian majority rule to be allowed in states to force delivery on all women. And that is what you want but can’t defend.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Sanctimonious Anthoropocentrism Clap Trap *
> 
> * Traitors To Us Constitution Support Sedition By SCOTUS **
> 
> Capital punishment involves a life , however a state is only concerned with whether a wright (sic)  to life exists and any sentenced to death has had their wright (sic)  to life removed .
> 
> By induction and , logically , of course , deduction , a state interest begins with a citizen and as birth is required to become a citizen , birth is required for equal protection that includes a wright (sic) to life .



*Many men are doing life in prison for murdering babies in the womb, that were never born.*
*You are so cock-sure certain about things you cannot even spell, much less logically analyze.*


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207292200

ding220719-#3,666       “DNA is evidence of a new person”

*NFBW:* For the period between conception and live birth, DNA is evidence that the physical substance that is attached to a woman’s uterus during pregnancy has a new unique DNA. It does not provide scientific evidence that the developing cells and tissue is a person. There is no doubt however that when a fetus is developed to a point of breathing on its own it’s heart begins pumping blood to and from its own lungs, a ‘person’ is born and joins the human race. END2207292200

This is not a seperate individual human being in any sense.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Have you ever beagle9 met a person that goes through life connected to his or her morher through a tube for supply of oxygenated blood from the mother’s lungs, and nourishment from the mother’s stomach and removal of waste through the mothers’s intestines?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Per Son Is Male And Countable By Census And The More Accurate Term Is Individual "

* Fabricating Personification **


ChemEngineer said:


> *Many men are doing life in prison for murdering babies in the womb, that were never born.*
> *You are so cock-sure certain about things you cannot even spell, much less logically analyze.*


There are laws against animal cruelty based on the nature of the act , but none are *over aggrandizing* that the animal has constitutional protections .

The unborn fetal protection laws have exceptions for abortion , however capital punishment is specifically forbidden by statute , because to receive a sentence of death for removing a wright to life of another , the other must have a wright to life removed and a fetus does not have one .

Had capital punishment been an option , the entire pretentious bullshit and deceit , of forsaking us public of its informed consent , would have hit the high court and have been exposed .

It is not necessary to disregard the technical elements of the law , that a fetus is without constitutional protections - see exceptions for abortion , from a just penalty applied to extenuating circumstances and nature of an offense against the private property of the mother .


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> Have you ever beagle9 met a person that goes through life connected to his or her morher through a tube for supply of oxygenated blood from the mother’s lungs, and nourishment from the mother’s stomach and removal of waste through the mothers’s intestines?
> 
> View attachment 676216


His or her.  Admitting its a life unless you abort him or her.  Wear a rubber and STFU


----------



## San Souci

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


DOBBS. Best decision SCOTUS ever made.


----------



## San Souci

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Per Son Is Male And Countable By Census And The More Accurate Term Is Individual "
> 
> * Fabricating Personification **
> 
> There are laws against animal cruelty based on the nature of the act , but none are *over aggrandizing* that the animal has constitutional protections .
> 
> The unborn fetal protection laws have exceptions for abortion , however capital punishment is specifically forbidden by statute , because to receive a sentence of death for removing a wright to life of another , the other must have a wright to life removed and a fetus does not have one .
> 
> Had capital punishment been an option , the entire pretentious bullshit and deceit , of forsaking us public of its informed consent , would have hit the high court and have been exposed .
> 
> It is not necessary to disregard the technical elements of the law , that a fetus is without constitutional protections - see exceptions for abortion , from a just penalty applied to extenuating circumstances and nature of an offense against the private property of the mother .


Baby murder should be 100% banned.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207290449

This is another question that American Taliban cannot  honestly answer:,

Have you ever eagle1462010  met “person” that goes through life connected to his or her morher through a tube for supply of oxygenated blood from the mother’s lungs, and nourishment from the mother’s stomach and removal of waste through the mothers’s intestines? 





END2207290449


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207290545 the fetal heart

Are you San Souci aware of the scientific fact that a fetus is not at all like you and me for many reasons.

Number One I believe is that a *fetal heart* is pumping blood from the “living person”  that  biologically created it in the first place.  The fetal heart pump’s someone else’s blood throughout it’s fetal circulatory system and that actual living human being’s blood is what keeps the fetal organism alive.

No human being is “alive” in the legal sense like you and me San Souci when it has someone else’s blood being used to keep it alive. When a woman terminates a pregnancy  she therefore is not and in no sense murdering a human being who is alive like you and me;?


Fetal Heart​The fetus does not use its own lungs until birth, so its circulatory system is different from that of a newborn baby​​







						Fetal Heart | Heart Heart Institute
					

The baby growing inside of the mother's uterus (the womb) is called a fetus. The growing fetus is fully dependent on a special organ called the placenta for nourishment.Before birth, the fetal heart does not have to pump blood to the lungs to pick up oxygen.




					www.texasheart.org
				



The baby growing inside of the mother’s uterus (the womb) is called a fetus. The growing fetus is fully dependent on a special organ called the placenta for nourishment. One side of the placenta is attached to the uterus, and the other side is attached to a liquid-filled sac that holds the fetus. A special cord called the umbilical cord links the placenta to the fetus. The mother’s blood flows through a thin layer of cells in the wall of the uterus, giving the fetus food and oxygen while removing any wastes like carbon dioxide. There is actually no direct contact between the circulatory systems of the mother and fetus.​​The fetus does not use its own lungs until birth, so its circulatory system is different from that of a newborn baby. Before birth, the fetal heart does not have to pump blood to the lungs to pick up oxygen. In other words, the fetal heart does not need a separate pulmonary artery and aorta. In the fetal heart, these two blood vessels are connected by a blood vessel called the ductus arteriosus. After birth, the ductus closes and a separate left pulmonary artery and aorta form.​​The fetal heart also has an opening between the upper chambers (the right and left atria) called the foramen ovale. It lets blood flow directly from the right atrium to the left atrium during fetal development, but closes after birth. So the ductus arteriosus and the foramen ovale are part of the fetal circulatory system before birth but disappear soon after birth.​​In most babies, these blood-flow routes naturally close up shortly after birth, when the baby’s lungs and cardiovascular system take over. Because the fetal heart has a circulatory system different from the one the baby uses after birth, it may be days or weeks before some congenital heart defects are found.​







END 2207290545


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Have you ever beagle9 met a person that goes through life connected to his or her morher through a tube for supply of oxygenated blood from the mother’s lungs, and nourishment from the mother’s stomach and removal of waste through the mothers’s intestines?
> 
> View attachment 676216


What's your point, it's still a developing/growing living (human being), regardless of how it's sustaining it's life through the cycle's of development.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> What's your point,


American Taliban cannot answer questions like you did not answer this one 

Have you ever beagle9 met a person that goes through life connected to his or her morher through a tube for supply of oxygenated blood from the mother’s lungs, and nourishment from the mother’s stomach and removal of waste through the mothers’s intestines?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207300832

beagle9220729-#4,042     What's your point, it's still a developing/growing living (human being), regardless of how it's sustaining it's life through the cycle's of development.

*NFBW’s question*:  Is a developing/growing living human being alive like you are . . .  . . . . .  .  . (   ClaireH BackAgain
airplanemechanic
ChemEngineer
ding beagle9 BS Filter Meister San Souci eagle1462010 or any other American Taliban who wants to chime in   )  . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .   . . . . . .  in the same legal status as you are when at such time developing/growing living human being must have another human being doing it’s thinking, breathing, sleeping, eating, drinking, pissing and shitting in the environment for it to be alive?  END2207030832


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Histrionics With Delusional Words "

* Rhetorical Hubris **


San Souci said:


> Baby murder should be 100% banned.


By all means , ban baby murder , as babies have been BORN and any born is entitled to equal protection of law .


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Sanctimonious Anthoropocentrism Clap Trap *
> 
> * Traitors To Us Constitution Support Sedition By SCOTUS **
> 
> Capital punishment involves a life , however a state is only concerned with whether a wright to life exists and any sentenced to death has had their wright to life removed .
> 
> By induction and , logically , of course , deduction , a state interest begins with a citizen and as birth is required to become a citizen , birth is required for equal protection that includes a wright to life .


That will be up to each state to decide.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> So drop the text book crap. Those books have nothing to do with Roe v Wade being overturned  by a white evangelical Catholic biased Supreme Court who want white Christian majority rule to be allowed in states to force delivery on all women. And that is what you want but can’t defend.


Correct.  SCOTUS ruled abortion isn't a constitutionally protected right based upon the Constitution.  The science on when life begins will inform legislators in writing laws.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207292200
> 
> ding220719-#3,666       “DNA is evidence of a new person”
> 
> *NFBW:* For the period between conception and live birth, DNA is evidence that the physical substance that is attached to a woman’s uterus during pregnancy has a new unique DNA. It does not provide scientific evidence that the developing cells and tissue is a person. There is no doubt however that when a fetus is developed to a point of breathing on its own it’s heart begins pumping blood to and from its own lungs, a ‘person’ is born and joins the human race. END2207292200
> 
> This is not a seperate individual human being in any sense.
> 
> View attachment 676208


Embryology textbooks disagree.  Which is why you don't have any scientific citations to back up your claim.  I do.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207301040

ding 220730-4,046        “That will be up to each state to decide.”

NFBW: Why do you think the states ding should have the authority to deny  equal protection rights to women placing women below that of men and an unborn fetus? END2207301040


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207301040
> 
> ding 220730-4,046        “That will be up to each state to decide.”
> 
> NFBW: Why do you think the states ding should have the authority to deny  equal protection rights to women placing women below that of men and an unborn fetus? END2207301040



Banning abortion doesn’t do any such thing.

So no worries.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207301040
> 
> ding 220730-4,046        “That will be up to each state to decide.”
> 
> NFBW: Why do you think the states ding should have the authority to deny  equal protection rights to women placing women below that of men and an unborn fetus? END2207301040


Read the Constitution.


----------



## ding

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Banning abortion doesn’t do any such thing.
> 
> So no worries.


Thanks for pointing out the improper wording on his part.  It's a full time job with this one.  He can't have an honest discussion about this.  He's holding on too tight.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> The science on when life begins


Are you citing the science of biology or some branch of cultural science? Because the discovery of DNA in mammals has not determined when life begins in unborn humans. IT JUST DOES NOT?  Trying to use DNA science  for the purposes of assigning human rights to unborn humans equal to the rights of humans who are already born is fraudulently abusing science and human knowledge. 

All sexually reproducing organisms are members of the kingdom animalia. Human biology puts humans in the same category.​​







						Are Humans Animals? 15 Things to Know
					

Human beings! One of the most intelligent creatures on the planet! But are humans animals? This is an issue that has many proponents as it has opponents. This article seeks to set the record straight.




					www.ourendangeredworld.com
				


​When two sexually compatible cells fuse together- in a process called fertilization- an embryo forms. This embryo will then develop into a new organism that is genetically similar to its parents.​


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you citing the science of biology or some branch of cultural science? Because the discovery of DNA in mammals has not determined when life begins in unborn humans. IT JUST DOES NOT?  Trying to use DNA science  for the purposes of assigning human rights to unborn humans equal to the rights of humans who are already born is fraudulently abusing science and human knowledge.
> 
> All sexually reproducing organisms are members of the kingdom animalia. Human biology puts humans in the same category.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are Humans Animals? 15 Things to Know
> 
> 
> Human beings! One of the most intelligent creatures on the planet! But are humans animals? This is an issue that has many proponents as it has opponents. This article seeks to set the record straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ourendangeredworld.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​When two sexually compatible cells fuse together- in a process called fertilization- an embryo forms. This embryo will then develop into a new organism that is genetically similar to its parents.​


I've been citing what embryology textbooks teach for 20 pages.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> When two sexually compatible cells fuse together- in a process called fertilization- an embryo forms. This embryo will then develop into a new organism that is genetically similar to its parents.


Yes.  By new organism they mean a living being.  By genetically similar they mean genetically distinct.  Similar but distinct.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Yes. By new organism they mean a living being


I do not need a scientist or textbooks to tell me that the fetal growth attached to a woman’s uterus is some kind of living organism, being, fetus or whatever you want to call it Whatever it is it’s *underdeveloped* until it is born to the point that uses an actual human beings’ blood to continue being alive. It’s a living zombie of sorts. 

Science has not determined that it is a sufficiently developed human being from when it is a fertilized embryo attached to a woman’s uterus to the moment when the fetal heart starts pumping it’s own oxygenated blood that society morally is obligated to considerate it alive. 

 Meaning it’s none of your business if the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy while it is an undeveloped human being,  Get  your nose out of every woman’s uterus you sick bastard.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Neighborhood Theistic Dictators Issue Religious Fatwas With Fat Wads "

* No State Interest In Protecting A Wright To Life That Does Not Exist **


ding said:


> That will be up to each state to decide.


So state traitors to us 9th amendment who support sedition against us constitution .

According to such idiocy , a state can dictate any whimsical law it wants as long as there is tyranny by majority to dictate it .

Wow , way to throw the foundations of the constitution and of this republic into a shit hole .


----------



## ChemEngineer

Things that Democrats hate very much:

1.  Unborn babies
2.  The Constitution
3.  Liberty
4.  Facts
5. Common sense
6.  Manly men
7. Beautiful, sexy women
8.  Black Trump supporters
9.  The $50,000 reward offered by the Arizona GOP
10.  Guns for self-defense in the hands of responsible Americans


----------



## ChemEngineer

beagle9 said:


> What's your point, it's still a developing/growing living (human being), regardless of how it's sustaining it's life through the cycle's of development.


He has no point to make.  He never has a point to make.
You waste everyone's time replying to Leftists.  Ignore  them please..


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I do not need a scientist or textbooks to tell me that the fetal growth attached to a woman’s uterus is some kind of living organism, being, fetus or whatever you want to call it Whatever it is it’s *underdeveloped* until it is born to the point that uses an actual human beings’ blood to continue being alive. It’s a living zombie of sorts.
> 
> Science has not determined that it is a sufficiently developed human being from when it is a fertilized embryo attached to a woman’s uterus to the moment when the fetal heart starts pumping it’s own oxygenated blood that society morally is obligated to considerate it alive.
> 
> Meaning it’s none of your business if the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy while it is an undeveloped human being,  Get  your nose out of every woman’s uterus you sick bastard.


It's not the job of science to determine if society morally is obligated to considerate it alive.  It's only the job of science to inform society when it is scientifically alive and genetically distinct.  Society's job (typically done through legislation) is to determine if and/or when that life may be terminated.


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Neighborhood Theistic Dictators Issue Religious Fatwas With Fat Wads "
> 
> * No State Interest In Protecting A Wright To Life That Does Not Exist **
> 
> So state traitors to us 9th amendment who support sedition against us constitution .
> 
> According to such idiocy , a state can dictate any whimsical law it wants as long as there is tyranny by majority to dictate it .
> 
> Wow , way to throw the foundations of the constitution and of this republic into a shit hole .


Tell it to the Supreme Court


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> American Taliban cannot answer questions like you did not answer this one
> 
> Have you ever beagle9 met a person that goes through life connected to his or her morher through a tube for supply of oxygenated blood from the mother’s lungs, and nourishment from the mother’s stomach and removal of waste through the mothers’s intestines?


You need help if you think that whatever it is that you are attempting here has any rationality to it... Don't talk about your nemesis the Taliban boy. You are the one's that gave them a country against the Afghanis will. So Trump was trying to exit yes, but he at least had a strategy in doing so in as far as the conditionals went. Break a condition, pay the price, commit to violence, pay a price, break your promises, pay a price.

Biden left there with the intent of SPITEFULNESS against Trump, and basically got people killed in doing so.

I know, I know, a bit off topic but you caused it with your attack and label's.


----------



## beagle9

ChemEngineer said:


> He has no point to make.  He never has a point to make.
> You waste everyone's time replying to Leftists.  Ignore  them please..


Now wait a minute here, like someone else pointed out to you, and said then why do you do it ???


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you citing the science of biology or some branch of cultural science? Because the discovery of DNA in mammals has not determined when life begins in unborn humans. IT JUST DOES NOT?  Trying to use DNA science  for the purposes of assigning human rights to unborn humans equal to the rights of humans who are already born is fraudulently abusing science and human knowledge.
> 
> All sexually reproducing organisms are members of the kingdom animalia. Human biology puts humans in the same category.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are Humans Animals? 15 Things to Know
> 
> 
> Human beings! One of the most intelligent creatures on the planet! But are humans animals? This is an issue that has many proponents as it has opponents. This article seeks to set the record straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ourendangeredworld.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​When two sexually compatible cells fuse together- in a process called fertilization- an embryo forms. This embryo will then develop into a new organism that is genetically similar to its parents.​


Assigning "human rights" to "unborn HUMANS", uhhhh is of course done because as you just admitted they are HUMAN..... That's how we roll, otherwise we protect and stand up for other humans whether they are born or unborn HUMANS.


----------



## ChemEngineer

beagle9 said:


> Now wait a minute here, like someone else pointed out to you, and said then why do you do it ???


I am trying to encourage you and others like you to not feed the trolls, as is done entirely too much.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You need help


Yes. It will help if you would answer the question: 

Have you ever beagle9 met a person that goes through life connected to his or her morher through a tube for supply of oxygenated blood from the mother’s lungs, and nourishment from the mother’s stomach and removal of waste through the mothers’s intestines?

Please help me. Answer the question.


----------



## beagle9

ChemEngineer said:


> I am trying to encourage you and others like you to not feed the trolls, as is done entirely too much.View attachment 676426


Well what you are really saying, and saying it nicely I might add, is that we are feeding them points that they might use against us. Otherwise if not experienced enough, then stay on the bench right ?? LOL


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes. It will help if you would answer the question:
> 
> Have you ever beagle9 met a person that goes through life connected to his or her morher through a tube for supply of oxygenated blood from the mother’s lungs, and nourishment from the mother’s stomach and removal of waste through the mothers’s intestines?
> 
> Please help me. Answer the question.


I already answered the question before, so if you are wanting me to give you an answer that you might like, then you are dealing with the wrong poster because nothing you say is correct or likeable, and I'm not going to conform... Sorry ..


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207290449
> 
> This is another question that American Taliban cannot  honestly answer:,
> 
> Have you ever eagle1462010  met “person” that goes through life connected to his or her morher through a tube for supply of oxygenated blood from the mother’s lungs, and nourishment from the mother’s stomach and removal of waste through the mothers’s intestines?
> 
> View attachment 676260
> 
> END2207290449


Play this game with others.  If you dont abort him or her they become ablife seperate from the mother.

So who made you fuck and not use a rubber?  Be more responsible.  Showing that pic over and over again doesnt make murdering the unborn justufied.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207310152

beagle9220730-#4,064  “Assigning "human rights" to "unborn HUMANS", uhhhh is of course done because as you just admitted they are HUMAN..... That's how we roll, otherwise we protect and stand up for other humans whether they are born or unborn HUMANS. “

*NFBW*: Who are the “we” in your “That's how we roll” beagle9  . . . Could it be Christians who also stand up for Jesus and God?

beagle9220529-#2,389 “American use to stand for something, and that included standing up for God, and believing in Christ for the majority

*NFBW*: Well beagle9 why do I have to roll with your religious beliefs? I am not a Christian. I have absolutely no desire or need to be a Christian. I am not obligated to protect under-developed unborn humans because as a living breathing actual human being I am duty bound to respect the right of the woman first. End of story. If you as a Christian believe terminated pregnancy is murder don’t terminate a pregnancy in your life. END2207310152


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207310220

eagle1462010220730-#4,069     “If you dont abort him or her they become ablife seperate from the mother.” 

*NFBW*: Yes, if a woman does not abort him or her they become at birth a life separate from the mother. The pregnant woman who terminates her own pregnancy according to eagle1462010 is terminating a part of her own body that has not become a life yet. So white American Christian Taliban should stay out of a woman’s reproductive decisions. END2207310220


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207310152
> 
> beagle9220730-#4,064  “Assigning "human rights" to "unborn HUMANS", uhhhh is of course done because as you just admitted they are HUMAN..... That's how we roll, otherwise we protect and stand up for other humans whether they are born or unborn HUMANS. “
> 
> *NFBW*: Who are the “we” in your “That's how we roll” beagle9  . . . Could it be Christians who also stand up for Jesus and God?
> 
> beagle9220529-#2,389 “American use to stand for something, and that included standing up for God, and believing in Christ for the majority
> 
> *NFBW*: Well beagle9 why do I have to roll with your religious beliefs? I am not a Christian. I have absolutely no desire or need to be a Christian. I am not obligated to protect under-developed unborn humans because as a living breathing actual human being I am duty bound to respect the right of the woman first. End of story. If you as a Christian believe terminated pregnancy is murder don’t terminate a pregnancy in your life. END2207310152


Yeah and you just conveniently look the other way when your world starts pumping out the tragic stats on people getting diseases, cancer, viruses that have no cures, suicide rates, murder rates, ruined live's, joblessness, depression, hopelessness, mental problem's, soulessness, and so many other things that have already been linked back to the promotion of living a "free for all" type of self unregulated highly sinful lifestyle's that are warned about in a book that is thousands of years old, yet here you are constantly making a fool of yourself by bashing Christian's who have the evidence to back us up. You have the evidence also, but you hide it or conveniently lie about it in order to spread your ideologies or leftism as if it is somehow filled with truth's when they are nothing but deceptions or falsehoods that lay far from the truth. So when does the horror's and misery's finally get to you in your conscious finally ???


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207310820 By far #4,072 is the greatest white American Christian screed I have ever seen - - I wonder if Mr Science ding agrees

beagle9220730-#4,072     “Yeah and you just conveniently look the other way when your world starts pumping out the tragic stats on people getting diseases, cancer, viruses that have no cures, suicide rates, murder rates, ruined live's, joblessness, depression, hopelessness, mental problem's, *soulessness*, and so many other things that have already been linked back to the promotion of living a "free for all" type of self unregulated highly sinful lifestyle's that are* warned about in a book that is thousands of years old*, yet here you are constantly making a fool of yourself by bashing Christian's who have the evidence to back us up. You have the evidence also, but you hide it or conveniently lie about it in order to spread your ideologies or leftism as if it is somehow filled with truth's when they are nothing but deceptions or falsehoods that lay far from the truth. So when does the horror's and misery's finally get to you in your conscious finally ???  “

*NFBW: *On Reproductive Rights, I am Jewish. So beagle9 please do tell, are those who practice one of the oldest living world religions being practiced in our time on earth, contributing to the horror’s and misery’s of which you speak in post220730-#4,072  ?????? 

NFBW2207201010-#3,693 Genesis 2:7​Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and *breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.*​
END2207310820


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Step Aside And Give The Legislative Public Question And Answer Stage To Someone With Actual Competence "

* Punk Ass Cowardice Answer For Sanctimonious Traitors To The Republic **


ding said:


> Tell it to the Supreme Court


Yeah , that is a major problem ; isn't it ?

The courts , legislators and fee press are out of touch to the point of being absolutely unaware of its vapid stupidity and traitorous support of scotus sedition .

In the eight hours of congressional and senate hearings on post Roe V Wade , not once was the actual constitutional basis provided , while incompetent legal scholars could not answer simple questions directly to dispatch the anti-choice nonsense ; it was disgraceful .

" When does life begin ? " was asked and the correct answer is " A state is not concerned with when life begins , rather a state is concerned with whether a wright to life exists and consequently , since birth is required to become a citizen , birth is required for equal protection - that includes a wright to life . " .

One congressman challenged whether a fetus was a person , while another challenged about the constitutional entitlements of a fetus once it had been born .

From long standing debates and my asserting that " per son " meant male and countable census - including anti-choice contention that " per son " was not defined ( at the time )  - it is even mentioned as such in roe v wade , the legislature define " per son " in title 1 section 8 as any born at any point of development as an affirmation of a birth requirement for state interests .

The per son answer should have been direct to include that any born is entitled to equal protection , but the only response from the half wits is that they trust women to make the best choice about their health care ; really , what the fuck ?

The letter of law from us 14th and title 1 section 8 was blatantly ignored and purposely usurped by the scotus to traitorously implement its sedition .

The scotus , the legal community , the political community and the fee press place themselves beyond the reach of any except to their inner circle of confidants and platform donors .


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Mr Science @ding


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Step Aside And Give The Legislative Public Question And Answer Stage To Someone With Actual Competence "
> 
> * Punk Ass Cowardice Answer For Sanctimonious Traitors To The Republic **
> 
> Yeah , that is a major problem ; isn't it ?
> 
> The courts , legislators and fee press are out of touch to the point of being absolutely unaware of its vapid stupidity and traitorous support of scotus sedition .
> 
> In the eight hours of congressional and senate hearings on post Roe V Wade , not once was the actual constitutional basis provided , while incompetent legal scholars could not answer simple questions directly to dispatch the anti-choice nonsense ; it was disgraceful .
> 
> " When does life begin ? " was asked and the correct answer is " A state is not concerned with when life begins , rather a state is concerned with whether a wright to life exists and consequently , since birth is required to become a citizen , birth is required for equal protection - that includes a wright to life . " .
> 
> One congressman challenged whether a fetus was a person , while another challenged about the constitutional entitlements of a fetus once it had been born .
> 
> From long standing debates and my asserting that " per son " meant male and countable census - including anti-choice contention that " per son " was not defined ( at the time )  - it is even mentioned as such in roe v wade , the legislature define " per son " in title 1 section 8 as any born at any point of development as an affirmation of a birth requirement for state interests .
> 
> The per son answer should have been direct to include that any born is entitled to equal protection , but the only response from the half wits is that they trust women to make the best choice about their health care ; really , what the fuck ?
> 
> The letter of law from us 14th and title 1 section 8 was blatantly ignored and purposely usurped by the scotus to traitorously implement its sedition .
> 
> The scotus , the legal community , the political community and the fee press place themselves beyond the reach of any except to their inner circle of confidants and platform donors .


Tell it to the Supreme Court


----------



## ChemEngineer

*Truth means nothing without God.*


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Tell it to the Supreme Court


Too late!  Trump packed the court ding with Catholics who lied to get on the court whi believe life begins at conception to satisfy the Christian Trumpism Religious zealot Republican base.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChemEngineer said:


> Truth means nothing without God.


Do you think your  lies mean something with God.then?


----------



## Monk-Eye

" Establishment Clause Equal Protection Of Negative Liberty Clause And Birth Requirement For Equal Protection Clause Violated *

* All Eat Toe scotus Is Proven To Be Seditious Traitorous Imbeciles *


ding said:


> Tell it to the Supreme Court


It will not be pretty for them when i do .


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207310820 By far #4,072 is the greatest white American Christian screed I have ever seen - - I wonder if Mr Science ding agrees
> 
> beagle9220730-#4,072     “Yeah and you just conveniently look the other way when your world starts pumping out the tragic stats on people getting diseases, cancer, viruses that have no cures, suicide rates, murder rates, ruined live's, joblessness, depression, hopelessness, mental problem's, *soulessness*, and so many other things that have already been linked back to the promotion of living a "free for all" type of self unregulated highly sinful lifestyle's that are* warned about in a book that is thousands of years old*, yet here you are constantly making a fool of yourself by bashing Christian's who have the evidence to back us up. You have the evidence also, but you hide it or conveniently lie about it in order to spread your ideologies or leftism as if it is somehow filled with truth's when they are nothing but deceptions or falsehoods that lay far from the truth. So when does the horror's and misery's finally get to you in your conscious finally ???  “
> 
> *NFBW: *On Reproductive Rights, I am Jewish. So beagle9 please do tell, are those who practice one of the oldest living world religions being practiced in our time on earth, contributing to the horror’s and misery’s of which you speak in post220730-#4,072  ??????
> 
> NFBW2207201010-#3,693 Genesis 2:7​Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and *breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.*​
> END2207310820


Deflection noted. Weak...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207311717     scientifically establishing “scientifically alive” and twinning debunks ding ‘s absurdity that DNA establishes when life begins. 

ding220730-#4,060     “It's only the job of science to inform society when it is scientifically alive and genetically distinct.”

*NFBW*: Science teaches that what we humans refer to as human life is scientifically and biologically contingent upon a pre-born  person being physically formed sufficiently to make a once in a lifetime, spark of life switch at a moment when the individual persons’ time in the natural universe comes into being and the switch is pulled. It comes with first breath as in Jewish spiritual belief for thousands of years when the fetal shunts are functionally modified or eliminated, enabling independent life.

Science describes the physiological flip of the switch: 

Formation of the human heart involves complex biological signals, interactions, specification of myocardial progenitor cells, and heart tube looping. To facilitate survival in the hypoxemic intrauterine environment, the fetus possesses structural, physiological, and functional cardiovascular adaptations that are fundamentally different from the neonate. 

The Transitional Heart: From Early Embryonic and Fetal Development to Neonatal Life - PubMed

At birth, upon separation from the placental circulation, the neonatal cardiovascular system takes over responsibility of vital processes for survival. 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. END2207311717


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Deflection noted. Weak



There is no deflection on my part. You are avoiding answering this question and I know exactly why you are avoiding it.

*NFBW: *On Reproductive Rights, I am Jewish. So beagle9 please do tell, are those who practice one of the oldest living world religions being practiced in our time on earth, contributing to the horror’s and misery’s of which you speak in post220730-#4,072 ??????

Also what do you think of Black Americans who attend the vibrant spiritual and peace loving black Christian churches in America who believe abortion must be legal. Are they also contributing to the horror’s and misery’s of which you speak in post220730-#4,072 ??????


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207311717 scientifically establishing “scientifically alive” and twinning debunks @ding ‘s absurdity that DNA establishes when life begins.


It's not my argument.  It's what's taught in embryology textbooks.  If your argument for abortion rights hinges on abortion as not being seen as ending a human life, you will lose.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Genetic Perpetuity For An After Life "

* Mortals Speaking With Conjectural Understanding For Perceptions Of A Personified Eternal Being "*


ding said:


> It's not my argument.  It's what's taught in embryology textbooks.  If your argument for abortion rights hinges on abortion as not being seen as ending a human life, you will lose.


Capital punishment ends a life and war ends many lives , so go blubber the clap trap to eschatologists .

In capital punishment , a wright to life is removed and one is subject to the natural freedoms and moral relativism that exists in nature before entering into this social civil contract , and the only reason a wright exists is because there is an institution capable of reprising its violation .

A fetus has not met a birth requirement for equal protection and a state interest does not exist in defending a wright to life that does not exist , thus a state is only concerned with whether a wright to life exists and not when life begins or if it exists at all .

Simple facts are that nature does not include your petty anthropocentric delusions , and all the pretentious bullshit from sanctimonious cry babies for a uniform fetish to quell an anxiety about not waking up from a dirt nap is ridiculous .

There are +7 billion individuals in this closed system and survival of human life is not in jeopardy , while ts qualify of life could be , due to limits in economic and environmental carrying capacity , so as the authoritarian psychopathic ascetics disregard the struggle to make ends meet , its institutions have historically applied the excuse for creating poverty through over population that they are communists .


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no deflection on my part. You are avoiding answering this question and I know exactly why you are avoiding it.
> 
> *NFBW: *On Reproductive Rights, I am Jewish. So beagle9 please do tell, are those who practice one of the oldest living world religions being practiced in our time on earth, contributing to the horror’s and misery’s of which you speak in post220730-#4,072 ??????
> 
> Also what do you think of Black Americans who attend the vibrant spiritual and peace loving black Christian churches in America who believe abortion must be legal. Are they also contributing to the horror’s and misery’s of which you speak in post220730-#4,072 ??????


Don't bring black's into this leftist, but that's how you roll eh, otherwise you feel that you are empowered by injecting black's into your bull crap, because you don't think that black's think for themselves when it comes to their enslavement to the Democrat party, so they are there for you to just use when your bull crap isn't working eh ? I see right through your bull crap leftist.


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Genetic Perpetuity For An After Life "
> 
> * Mortals Speaking With Conjectural Understanding For Perceptions Of A Personified Eternal Being "*
> 
> Capital punishment ends a life and war ends many lives , so go blubber the clap trap to eschatologists .
> 
> In capital punishment , a wright to life is removed and one is subject to the natural freedoms and moral relativism that exists in nature before entering into this social civil contract , and the only reason a wright exists is because there is an institution capable of reprising its violation .
> 
> A fetus has not met a birth requirement for equal protection and a state interest does not exist in defending a wright to life that does not exist , thus a state is only concerned with whether a wright to life exists and not when life begins or if it exists at all .
> 
> Simple facts are that nature does not include your petty anthropocentric delusions , and all the pretentious bullshit from sanctimonious cry babies for a uniform fetish to quell an anxiety about not waking up from a dirt nap is ridiculous .
> 
> There are +7 billion individuals in this closed system and survival of human life is not in jeopardy , while ts qualify of life could be , due to limits in economic and environmental carrying capacity , so as the authoritarian psychopathic ascetics disregard the struggle to make ends meet , its institutions have historically applied the excuse for creating poverty through over population that they are communists .


Cool story.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207310220
> 
> eagle1462010220730-#4,069     “If you dont abort him or her they become ablife seperate from the mother.”
> 
> *NFBW*: Yes, if a woman does not abort him or her they become at birth a life separate from the mother. The pregnant woman who terminates her own pregnancy according to eagle1462010 is terminating a part of her own body that has not become a life yet. So white American Christian Taliban should stay out of a woman’s reproductive decisions. END2207310220


We disagree.  We see a life.  And you want to murder that life because you were careless


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2207312218

eagle1462010220730-#4,069 “If you dont abort him or her they become a life seperate from the mother.”

NFBW2207310220-#4,071     Yes, if a woman does not abort him or her they become at birth a life separate from the mother.        So white American Christian Taliban should stay out of a woman’s reproductive decisions.

eagle1462010140621-#31     “I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of the Heavens and the Earth.”        I believe Jesus Christ died for our sins and is the son of God.      Anyone that doesn't believe that may quite frankly Go to Hell.

NFBW: You see ding to most of the white American Christian Taliban such as eagle1462010 beagle9 opposition to a women’s right to make their own reproductive decisions is based on their religion . it has nothing to do with DNA science.

Any American who tells another American they can go to hell for not believing Jesus Christ died for their sins and is the son of God is not capable of comprehending scientific truth. Based on that eagle1462010 is not qualified to tell a women that the government has control over what happens with her uterus because Jesus walked on water and died on a cross to save humanity from some conspiracy that all humans are burn with an absurd concept called original sin. END2207312218


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> You see @ding to most of the white American Christian Taliban such as @eagle1462010 @beagle9 opposition to women’s right to make their own reproductive decisions is based on their religion . it has nothing to do with DNA science.


Tell it to the Supreme Court.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagle1462010 said:


> We see a life.


I  see a life too.  It looks like this:





It is the life of the adult living breathing woman pumping all that blood. When separated at birth there are two lives with two separate and individual hearts pumping blood and sustaining life.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207312218
> 
> eagle1462010220730-#4,069 “If you dont abort him or her they become a life seperate from the mother.”
> 
> NFBW2207310220-#4,071     Yes, if a woman does not abort him or her they become at birth a life separate from the mother.        So white American Christian Taliban should stay out of a woman’s reproductive decisions.
> 
> eagle1462010140621-#31     “I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of the Heavens and the Earth.”        I believe Jesus Christ died for our sins and is the son of God.      Anyone that doesn't believe that may quite frankly Go to Hell.
> 
> NFBW: You see ding to most of the white American Christian Taliban such as eagle1462010 beagle9 opposition to a women’s right to make their own reproductive decisions is based on their religion . it has nothing to do with DNA science.
> 
> Any American who tells another American they can go to hell for not believing Jesus Christ died for their sins and is the son of God is not capable of comprehending scientific truth. Based on that eagle1462010 is not qualified to tell a women that the government has control over what happens with her uterus because Jesus walked on water and died on a cross to save humanity from some conspiracy that all humans are burn with an absurd concept called original sin. END2207312218


You promoting or attempting to make women think that it's ok to abort their babies because it's not really a baby (you would claim), makes you a monster. You could apply your same bull crap thinking to a lot of other areas in life, and that makes you even a bigger monster. So the question is "how big of a monster are you" ??


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> I  see a life too.  It looks like this:
> 
> 
> View attachment 676837
> It is the life of the adult living breathing woman pumping all that blood. When separated at birth there are two lives with two separate and individual hearts pumping blood and sustaining life.


You have no respect for human life... You've proved that now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Tell it to the Supreme Court


ding220731-#4,090

*NFBW:   *Why- The Trump appointed white Catholic American Taliban are not interested in a woman’s reproductive rights, or any kind of science on the subject. They have a religious agenda to give power to white Christian nationalists in Red States apparently because it’s now more imperative to serve and please the invisible old man in the sky more so than serving the nation by controlling their religious obsessions and apply laws and Justice according to its Constitutional merit.



beagle9 said:


> You have no respect for human life...


beagle9220731-#4,093

*NFBW*: I hold the same view of when human life begins as Jewish people worldwide do.  You are maintaining that Judaism and its believers has no respect for human life.

You cannot separate your opinion beagle9  of me from those you must be referring to as baby killing Jews.

ding there states unequivocally that legislative majorities in states with Christian Catholic “life” beliefs have the right to pass laws banning Jewish belief on when human life begins. are you with him on that?   END2208910314

NFBW2307201010-#3,693   “The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth ding inside her body as Jewish people believe “ensoulment’ takes place at first breath of the newborn child. I agree with Jewish tradition and disagree with Catholic tradition that a soul is created by God at conception”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208010406

NFBW2207201010-#3,693   “The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth ding inside her body as Jewish people believe “ensoulment’ takes place at first breath of the newborn child. I agree with Jewish tradition and disagree with Catholic tradition that a soul is created by God at conception”

Beagle 9220731-#4,092   “You promoting or attempting to make women think that it's ok to abort their babies because it's not really a baby (you would claim), makes you a monster.

*NFBW*: Jewish people and I believe “ensoulment’ takes place at first breath of the newborn child. That is when God  breathes life into the human flesh and bones of a newborn child. Do you consider beagle9 Jews to be “monsters” as well?   END2208010406


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207312218
> 
> eagle1462010220730-#4,069 “If you dont abort him or her they become a life seperate from the mother.”
> 
> NFBW2207310220-#4,071     Yes, if a woman does not abort him or her they become at birth a life separate from the mother.        So white American Christian Taliban should stay out of a woman’s reproductive decisions.
> 
> eagle1462010140621-#31     “I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of the Heavens and the Earth.”        I believe Jesus Christ died for our sins and is the son of God.      Anyone that doesn't believe that may quite frankly Go to Hell.
> 
> NFBW: You see ding to most of the white American Christian Taliban such as eagle1462010 beagle9 opposition to a women’s right to make their own reproductive decisions is based on their religion . it has nothing to do with DNA science.
> 
> Any American who tells another American they can go to hell for not believing Jesus Christ died for their sins and is the son of God is not capable of comprehending scientific truth. Based on that eagle1462010 is not qualified to tell a women that the government has control over what happens with her uterus because Jesus walked on water and died on a cross to save humanity from some conspiracy that all humans are burn with an absurd concept called original sin. END2207312218


Taliban because you feel the right to kill the unborn and we disagree.  You failed to use birth control and blame it on other people.

Those that call it out are the Taliban.  When it was you too cheap to buy a rubber.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagle1462010 said:


> . You failed to use birth control and blame it on other people.


I’ve been snipped since my second daughter took her first breath of life  so you are a dimwitted American Taliban liar saying things you can’t possibly know if true. Your word means nothing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagle1462010 said:


> Taliban because you feel the right to kill the unborn and we disagree



Science that Mr fake Science ding won’t acknieledge and Judaism show me that when a woman terminates her own pregnancy she is not killing a separate individual human being that has blood cells marked with its own unique DNA circulating in its bloodstream. IT IS THE BLOOD OF THE POTENTIAL MOTHER KEEPING  THE UNDERDEVELOPED ORGANISM ALIVE.

*NFBW*: You can disagree with science for Christ sake but should  not be able to demand that government must force your unscientific religious view  on women you want charged with murder for killing a human being that only potentially exist.

Do you favor the right to kill the unborn in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother?  Why?  END2208010945


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You have no respect for human life... You've proved that now.


If you say I have no respect for human life then you are saying Jews have no respect for human life. I will tell you this beagle9 Jews and all pro-Choice Christians have more respect  for human life’s than you. You have no respect for the human life of a pregnant woman when you demand she submit her uterus over to ding ‘s white Christian Taliban state lawmakers and governors so they can decide what happens in it. You are a skunk when it comes to womens’ right - you stink to high heaven  END2208011001


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW: *Why- The Trump appointed white Catholic American Taliban are not interested in a woman’s reproductive rights, or any kind of science on the subject. They have a religious agenda to give power to white Christian nationalists in Red States apparently because it’s now more imperative to serve and please the invisible old man in the sky more so than serving the nation by controlling their religious obsessions and apply laws and Justice according to its Constitutional merit.


Cool story.  What are you going to do about it?  Cry?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> @ding there states unequivocally that legislative majorities in states with Christian Catholic “life” beliefs have the right to pass laws banning Jewish belief on when human life begins. are you with him on that? END2208910314


Can you show me where I said that?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2307201010-#3,693 “The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth ding inside her body as Jewish people believe “ensoulment’ takes place at first breath of the newborn child. I agree with Jewish tradition and disagree with Catholic tradition that a soul is created by God at conception”


We don't write laws based on religion in America.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207201010-#3,693 “The mother has a natural right to accept or reject the continued growth @ding inside her body as Jewish people believe “ensoulment’ takes place at first breath of the newborn child. I agree with Jewish tradition and disagree with Catholic tradition that a soul is created by God at conception”


We don't write laws based on religion in America.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Science that Mr fake Science @ding won’t acknieledge and Judaism show me that when a woman terminates her own pregnancy she is not killing a separate individual human being that has blood cells marked with its own unique DNA circulating in its bloodstream. IT IS THE BLOOD OF THE POTENTIAL MOTHER KEEPING THE UNDERDEVELOPED ORGANISM ALIVE.


What part of we don't write laws based on religion in America don't you understand.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> You can disagree with science for Christ sake but should not be able to demand that government must force your unscientific religious views on women you want charged with murder for killing a human being that only potentially exist.


Good thing no one is doing that


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you favor the right to kill the unborn in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother? Why?


I couldn't begin to discuss that until you acknowledge that abortion ends a human life.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> @ding there states unequivocally that legislative majorities in states with Christian Catholic “life” beliefs have the right to pass laws banning Jewish belief on when human life begins. are you with him on that? END2208910314


NotfooledbyW there states unequivocally that human life begins at conception and abortion ends a human life.

See what I did there?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW there states unequivocally that he is a white Catholic American Taliban who wants to force women to be impregnated by Donald Trump and have his babies.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW there states unequivocally that he is against women having any rights at all?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> We don't write laws based on religion in America.



Federally yes. States No. Was the Constitution written in your opinion to allow states to write laws based on religion? 
END2308011057


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Can you show me where I said that?


NFBW: As I said in the Post :

NFBW2208010314-#4,094 ding said: *Tell it to the Supreme Court  * ding220731-#4,090

Am I wrong? Do you agree ding with me states have no authority to ban abortion or the SCOTUS decision that legislative majorities in states with Christian Catholic “life” beliefs have the right to pass laws banning Jewish belief on when human life begins.

if no that is great to hear.

END2208011101


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Federally yes. States No. Was the Constitution written in your opinion to allow states to write laws based on religion?
> END2308011057


The establishment clause of the first amendment was but the courts have bound the states through the 14th.  Which they also did to the 2nd.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: As I said in the Post :
> 
> NFBW2208010314-#4,094 ding said: *Tell it to the Supreme Court  * ding220731-#4,090
> 
> Am I wrong? Do you agree ding with me states have no authority to ban abortion or the SCOTUS decision that legislative majorities in states with Christian Catholic “life” beliefs have the right to pass laws banning Jewish belief on when human life begins.
> 
> if no that is great to hear.
> 
> END2208011101


I am saying that the Supreme Court's ruling didn't go your way and you are having a fit and throwing yourself into it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I am saying that the Supreme Court's ruling didn't go your way



NFBW: that means your way is that states have the authority to ban abortion when they have legislative majorities in states with Christian Catholic “life” beliefs giving them the right to pass laws banning Jewish belief on when human life begins.”

Like I said that is exactly what you were saying, but you don’t want to admit it for some reason.  END2208011127


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I am saying that the Supreme Court's ruling didn't go your way


I am opposed to the consequences of that ruling. You have been celebrating the consequences of this ruling. You are evasive and reluctant to discuss the many aspects of this ruling. Are you going to open up with direct answers when asked?  END2208011216


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: that means your way is that states have the authority to ban abortion when they have legislative majorities in states with Christian Catholic “life” beliefs giving them the right to pass laws banning Jewish belief on when human life begins.”
> 
> Like I said that is exactly what you were saying, but you don’t want to admit it for some reason.  END2208011127


No.  That doesn't mean that's my way.  It means exactly what I said and nothing more. 

What you just said means that your way is to impregnate all women with Donald Trump's seed.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I am opposed to the consequences of that ruling. You have been celebrating the consequences of this ruling. You are evasive and reluctant to discuss the many aspects of this ruling. Are you going to open up with direct answers when asked?  END2208011216


You are way more than opposed to the ruling, you have been triggered by that ruling such that you can't have an honest discussion.  

I'm not evasive.  I work through things in a logical, sequential manner and don't skip steps.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> you can't have an honest discussion.


*NFBW*: What have I said or written or inferred or suggested or implied that is not honest. Your vague statement is a typical example of your evasiveness. So don’t evade my question. Show me an example of me being dishonest.  Are you going to open up with direct answers when asked?END2208011243


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: What have I said or written or inferred or suggested or implied that is not honest. Your vague statement is a typical example of your evasiveness. So don’t evade my question. Show me an example of me being dishonest. END2208011243


Every single time you state what I believe you misstate it. It's getting old.  Use the quote feature and you won't have a problem.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> I’ve been snipped since my second daughter took her first breath of life  so you are a dimwitted American Taliban liar saying things you can’t possibly know if true. Your word means nothing.


Then you arent the problem.  Others are the problem and you are defending them.  They should take measures to ptevent getting pregnant.  And why are you defending them for making bad decisions?  Call me Taliban when late term abortion is barbarism.  Your opinion doesnt matter to me or my state.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> Science that Mr fake Science ding won’t acknieledge and Judaism show me that when a woman terminates her own pregnancy she is not killing a separate individual human being that has blood cells marked with its own unique DNA circulating in its bloodstream. IT IS THE BLOOD OF THE POTENTIAL MOTHER KEEPING  THE UNDERDEVELOPED ORGANISM ALIVE.
> 
> *NFBW*: You can disagree with science for Christ sake but should  not be able to demand that government must force your unscientific religious view  on women you want charged with murder for killing a human being that only potentially exist.
> 
> Do you favor the right to kill the unborn in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother?  Why?  END2208010945


Of course we agree that rape or incest abortion should be allowed.  Hell im ok with it til the1st part of second trimester.  After that you can kiss my ass.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Every single time you state what I believe you misstate it.


NFBW:  if you are no longer a Catholic why don’t you say so?


NFBW2208011420

ding220801-#4,106  I couldn't begin to discuss that until you acknowledge that abortion ends a human life.

NFBW: Abortion does not end a human life. You are being illogical, unscientific and evasive.

There is no logical explanation for you ding to say honestly that a developing human organism that lives off the blood supply of a separate viable human being who has a fully developed heart, lungs, blood and circulatory and digestive system, is a human life. Being alive and human means you have a pulse and your heart is pumping your own blood. And you want me to declare your absurd belief that a zombie organism using somebody else’s blood is a living human being. END2208011420


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: if you are no longer a Catholic why don’t you say so?


It's almost like you don't know how to have an adult conversation.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Abortion does not end a human life. You are being illogical, unscientific and evasive.


Science says otherwise.  You couldn't live with yourself believing you were ending a human life and that's why you say what you say.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no logical explanation for you @ding to say honestly that a developing human organism that lives off the blood supply of a separate viable human being who has a fully developed heart, lungs, blood and circulatory and digestive system, is a human life. Being alive and human means you have a pulse and your heart is pumping your own blood. And you want me to declare your absurd belief that a zombie organism using somebody else’s blood is a living human being. END2208011420


Take it up with the embryology textbooks.


----------



## ding

Here's an example of a person who supports abortion and hasn't rationalized that abortion doesn't end a human life.



ricechickie said:


> Regardless, it is a human life, that belongs exclusively to the person upon whom it relies - the mother. So, the baby (fetus, zygote, embryo, womb fruit, whatever you call it) is her property.


----------



## ding

Seen from that perspective I'm pretty sure that most black people would not be big fans of abortion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Take it up with the embryology textbooks.


NFBW: No. You put embryology textbooks  on my screen so I’m taking it up with you. Why do you keep being so evasive  END2208011711


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No. You put embryology textbooks  on my screen so I’m taking it up with you. Why do you keep being so evasive  END2208011711


Taking it up with me won't change what is being taught in universities from embryology textbooks. You might as well be arguing the sun revolves around a flat earth.

What is it that you believe I am evading exactly? Your made up argument that life doesn't begin after fertilization? There's nothing to evade or respond to. It's made up bullshit so you can sleep better at night thinking you are a good person because you don't support the killing of an actual living human being. But you do.



ricechickie said:


> Regardless, it is a human life, that belongs exclusively to the person upon whom it relies - the mother. So, the baby (fetus, zygote, embryo, womb fruit, whatever you call it) is her property.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> I’ve been snipped since my second daughter took her first breath of life  so you are a dimwitted American Taliban liar saying things you can’t possibly know if true. Your word means nothing.


You speak for other's, so don't come off trying to use your own situation as an example, otherwise as if what he said only pertains to you.... You fail again because you try and deflect when the heat is on.


----------



## beagle9

ding said:


> Taking it up with me won't change what is being taught in universities from embryology textbooks. You might as well be arguing the sun revolves around a flat earth.
> 
> What is it that you believe I am evading exactly? Your made up argument that life doesn't begin after fertilization? There's nothing to evade or respond to. It's made up bullshit so you can sleep better at night thinking you are a good person because you don't support the killing of an actual living human being. But you do.


Ricechickie undoubtedly thinks that property includes the human race..  Wonder what she thought about slavery ?? They depended on the slave master for their food, shelter, and clothing also, and yes they were considered property as well. Didn't stop people like us saying that it was wrong, and then proving to their master's that they were wrong. Would ricechickie defend slavery back when it was supposedly a thing that many were attempting to justify, otherwise just like we see going on also here with their defense of the indefensible ???


----------



## ding

beagle9 said:


> Ricechickie undoubtedly thinks that property includes the human race..  Wonder what she thought about slavery ?? They depended on the slave master for their food, shelter, and clothing also, and yes they were considered property as well. Didn't stop people like us saying that it was wrong, and then proving to their master's that they were wrong. Would ricechickie defend slavery back when it was supposedly a thing that many were attempting to justify, otherwise just like we see going on also here with their defense of the indefensible ???


I wouldn't presume to speak for her on that.  That would make me like NotfooledbyW.


----------



## ding

I find ricechickies argument for abortion to be a more compelling case than NotfooledbyW 's argument. 

ricechickie's argument acknowledges the seriousness of abortion; ending a human life.  NotfooledbyW's argument denies respect for humanity.  NotfooledbyW's argument diminishes humanity whereas ricechickies argument celebrates humanity.  I can respect ricechickie's opinion.  I cannot respect NotfooledbyW's opinion.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Individualism In Pursuit Of Virtue "

* Empathy And Law **


beagle9 said:


> Ricechickie undoubtedly thinks that property includes the human race..  Wonder what she thought about slavery ??


Empathy for sentience with equal protection of negative liberties for those which have been born is a basis for abating slavery .

Complying with the principles of individualism for self ownership and self determination is a basis for abating slavery , where self ownership cannot be exchanged to cover a debt incurred by self determination , where self ownership includes free roam , free association and progeny , where self determination includes private property and willful intents by contract made valid through informed consent .

A fetus is not sentient until some point in development , the point after which 98% of elective abortions without justification are complete , while the remaining abortions with justification are for fetal abnormalities or health risks to the mother , whereby anesthesia is already issued to mitigate suffering .

A fetus has not met a birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen .

Individuals are accountable for self ownership to include when and whether to pass on their genetic identity , and individuals are not accountable to whims of states whose interests are limited to protecting the negative liberties between individuals which are entitled to equal protection .


----------



## San Souci

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Histrionics With Delusional Words "
> 
> * Rhetorical Hubris **
> 
> By all means , ban baby murder , as babies have been BORN and any born is entitled to equal protection of law .


So it is OK to murder ond an hour before Labor? GHOUL.


----------



## BackAgain

San Souci said:


> So it is OK to murder ond an hour before Labor? GHOUL.


It is crystal clear that you are addressing a pathetic mental case.


----------



## San Souci

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207290545 the fetal heart
> 
> Are you San Souci aware of the scientific fact that a fetus is not at all like you and me for many reasons.
> 
> Number One I believe is that a *fetal heart* is pumping blood from the “living person”  that  biologically created it in the first place.  The fetal heart pump’s someone else’s blood throughout it’s fetal circulatory system and that actual living human being’s blood is what keeps the fetal organism alive.
> 
> No human being is “alive” in the legal sense like you and me San Souci when it has someone else’s blood being used to keep it alive. When a woman terminates a pregnancy  she therefore is not and in no sense murdering a human being who is alive like you and me;?
> 
> 
> Fetal Heart​The fetus does not use its own lungs until birth, so its circulatory system is different from that of a newborn baby​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fetal Heart | Heart Heart Institute
> 
> 
> The baby growing inside of the mother's uterus (the womb) is called a fetus. The growing fetus is fully dependent on a special organ called the placenta for nourishment.Before birth, the fetal heart does not have to pump blood to the lungs to pick up oxygen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texasheart.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The baby growing inside of the mother’s uterus (the womb) is called a fetus. The growing fetus is fully dependent on a special organ called the placenta for nourishment. One side of the placenta is attached to the uterus, and the other side is attached to a liquid-filled sac that holds the fetus. A special cord called the umbilical cord links the placenta to the fetus. The mother’s blood flows through a thin layer of cells in the wall of the uterus, giving the fetus food and oxygen while removing any wastes like carbon dioxide. There is actually no direct contact between the circulatory systems of the mother and fetus.​​The fetus does not use its own lungs until birth, so its circulatory system is different from that of a newborn baby. Before birth, the fetal heart does not have to pump blood to the lungs to pick up oxygen. In other words, the fetal heart does not need a separate pulmonary artery and aorta. In the fetal heart, these two blood vessels are connected by a blood vessel called the ductus arteriosus. After birth, the ductus closes and a separate left pulmonary artery and aorta form.​​The fetal heart also has an opening between the upper chambers (the right and left atria) called the foramen ovale. It lets blood flow directly from the right atrium to the left atrium during fetal development, but closes after birth. So the ductus arteriosus and the foramen ovale are part of the fetal circulatory system before birth but disappear soon after birth.​​In most babies, these blood-flow routes naturally close up shortly after birth, when the baby’s lungs and cardiovascular system take over. Because the fetal heart has a circulatory system different from the one the baby uses after birth, it may be days or weeks before some congenital heart defects are found.​
> View attachment 676268
> 
> 
> 
> END 2207290545


Wrong. The Baby ,many times ,has a different blood type than the mother. The babys blood is OXYGENATED through the placenta. The BABY has its own blood stream.


----------



## Tau

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


Why'd this get bumped up after all this time?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> NotfooledbyW's argument denies respect for humanity.


NFBW: Coming from someone like ding who has absolutely no respect for the humanity of a living breathing woman who becomes pregnant and does not want to be has no valid opinion on the subject. Can you explain ding why you think it’s necessary to turn a woman’s uterus over to state majority rule and the whims of Christian biased lawmakers in red states? END2208011615


----------



## BackAgain

Tau said:


> Why'd this get bumped up after all this time?


You make no sense.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

San Souci said:


> Wrong. The Baby ,many times ,has a different blood type than the mother. The babys blood is OXYGENATED through the placenta. The BABY has its own blood stream.




NFBW: No.  science is more in line with JEWISH BELIEF  not  CATHOLIC BELIEF

“With the first breaths of air, the lungs start to expand and the ductus arteriosus and the foramen ovale both close. The baby's circulation and blood flow through the heart now function like an adult's. “




Blood Circulation in the Fetus and Newborn​How does the fetal circulatory system work?​During pregnancy, the unborn baby (fetus) depends on its mother for nourishment and oxygen. Since the fetus doesn’t breathe air, their blood circulates differently than it does after birth:


The placenta is the organ that develops and implants in the mother's womb (uterus) during pregnancy. The unborn baby is connected to the placenta by the umbilical cord.
All the necessary nutrition, oxygen, and life support from the mother’s blood goes through the placenta and to the baby through blood vessels in the umbilical cord.
Waste products and carbon dioxide from the baby are sent back through the umbilical cord blood vessels and placenta to the mother's circulation to be eliminated.
While still in the uterus, the baby's lungs aren't being used. The baby’s liver isn't fully developed. Circulating blood bypasses the lungs and liver by flowing in different pathways and through special openings called shunts.  

Blood flow in the unborn baby follows this pathway:


Oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood are transferred across the placenta to the fetus through the umbilical cord.
This enriched blood flows through the umbilical vein toward the baby’s liver. There it moves through a shunt called the ductus venosus.
This allows some of the blood to go to the liver. But most of this highly oxygenated blood flows to a large vessel called the inferior vena cava and then into the right atrium of the heart. 







Here is what happens inside the fetal heart:


When oxygenated blood from the mother enters the right side of the heart, it flows into the upper chamber (the right atrium). Most of the blood flows across to the left atrium through a shunt called the foramen ovale.
From the left atrium, blood moves down into the lower chamber of the heart (the left ventricle). It's then pumped into the first part of the large artery coming from the heart (the ascending aorta).
From the aorta, the oxygen-rich blood is sent to the brain and to the heart muscle itself. Blood is also sent to the lower body.
Blood returning to the heart from the fetal body contains carbon dioxide and waste products as it enters the right atrium. It flows down into the right ventricle, where it normally would be sent to the lungs to be oxygenated. Instead, it bypasses the lungs and flows through the ductus arteriosus into the descending aorta, which connects to the umbilical arteries. From there, blood flows back into the placenta. There the carbon dioxide and waste products are released into the mother's circulatory system. Oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood are transferred across the placenta. Then the cycle starts again.  
At birth, major changes take place. The umbilical cord is clamped and the baby no longer receives oxygen and nutrients from the mother. With the first breaths of air, the lungs start to expand and the ductus arteriosus and the foramen ovale both close. The baby's circulation and blood flow through the heart now function like an adult's.





END2208022040


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> @NotfooledbyW there states unequivocally that human life begins at conception and abortion ends a human life.
> 
> See what I did there?



But you agree ding that states have authority to ban abortion.  I do not agree that human life begins at conception and abortion ends a human life because it doesn’t and it doesn’t. END2208012338


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Coming from someone like ding who has absolutely no respect for the humanity of a living breathing woman who becomes pregnant and does not want to be has no valid opinion on the subject. Can you explain ding why you think it’s necessary to turn a woman’s uterus over to state majority rule and the whims of Christian biased lawmakers in red states? END2208011615


The only things you know about my beliefs are life begins after fertilization, SCOTUS ruled their is no constitutional right for abortion and that state and/or federal legislators will now have to do their jobs.  Because that the only beliefs I have told you.  Everything else has been made up by you.  Like you are doing now.  You've been swinging at windmills for over 20 pages, Don Quixote.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> But you agree ding that states have authority to ban abortion.  I do not agree that human life begins at conception and abortion ends a human life because it doesn’t and it doesn’t. END2208012338


Cool story.  You are living in denial.  I guess your conscience can't handle the truth.

State authority - absent any federal laws - is specified in the constitution so the constitution and SCOTUS say that states have authority to write whatever laws on abortion they see fit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> constitution and SCOTUS say that states have authority to write whatever laws on abortion they see fit.


NFBW: You are a liar. The CONSTITUTION does not state, suggest, or imply that states have authority to write laws on abortion. The Constitution as you know is silent on the unborn and abortion. END2208012322


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Individualism In Pursuit Of Virtue "
> 
> * Empathy And Law **
> 
> Empathy for sentience with equal protection of negative liberties for those which have been born is a basis for abating slavery .
> 
> Complying with the principles of individualism for self ownership and self determination is a basis for abating slavery , where self ownership cannot be exchanged to cover a debt incurred by self determination , where self ownership includes free roam , free association and progeny , where self determination includes private property and willful intents by contract made valid through informed consent .
> 
> A fetus is not sentient until some point in development , the point after which 98% of elective abortions without justification are complete , while the remaining abortions with justification are for fetal abnormalities or health risks to the mother , whereby anesthesia is already issued to mitigate suffering .
> 
> A fetus has not met a birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen .
> 
> Individuals are accountable for self ownership to include when and whether to pass on their genetic identity , and individuals are not accountable to whims of states whose interests are limited to protecting the negative liberties between individuals which are entitled to equal protection .


So let's say the mother is the unborn babies master, and the baby is her slave that depends on her to live, develope, and reach her birth canal, but then she decides to just have her baby killed because it's her "property" where as she ignores it's humanity just like a slave owner did when justifying slavery and it's inhumane treatment of human beings as a mindset put in place by those who groomed and fueled such a mindset as if it was right when it was proven to be so wrong...... Now should the citizen's not cry out over the death's of the innocent due to the reckless behavior's of it's master's, and should rules be put in place to curb such out of control destruction of human beings that are innocently developing in the womb, otherwise while their master's/mother's plot their destruction because they were taught that it is ok to just go down to kill your baby if you just choose too ?

Civilized societies have rules and systems in place in order to foster and promote life, not instead to just kill it.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar. The CONSTITUTION does not state, suggest, or imply that states have authority to write laws on abortion. The Constitution as you know is silent on the unborn and abortion. END2208012322


Doesn't have to say it literally, but it can be applied to anything the citizen's want to apply it's word's too in jest there of. 

It's just a tool like an adjustable wrench, otherwise it can be adjusted to fit when necessary.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> ricechickie's argument acknowledges the seriousness of abortion; ending a human life.



NFBW; If abortion is ending a human life - abortion is murder is it not? 

Why this then?

The sponsor of a bill that would have subjected Louisiana women to murder charges for having abortions abruptly pulled the proposal from debate Thursday night after House members voted 65-26 to totally revamp the legislation, eliminating the criminal penalties.









						No more murder charge for women in Louisiana abortion bill
					

The sponsor of a bill abruptly pulled the proposal from debate Thursday night after House members voted 65-26 to totally revamp the legislation, eliminating the criminal penalties.




					nypost.com
				




The controversial bill would have ventured farther against abortion than lawmakers’ efforts in any other state. It would have made women who end their pregnancies subject to criminal homicide prosecutions. END2208020050


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> states have authority to write whatever laws on abortion they see fit.


NFBW: when you say abortion is ending a human life at every stage from conception to  live birth, states would not need new laws. Homicide is already on the books. What needs to be voted on?  END2208020108


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208020705 Does GOD prefer to experience the material world “he” created through  pro-life mostly white American Protestant Christian’s and pro-life mostly white American Catholics such as our very own ding ?????

ding200226-#42      “I believe he created the material world to experience the material world through us. What other reason could there be?”

ding220719-#3,666       “DNA is evidence of a new person”

*NFBW*: Have you logically concluded ding that DNA and all the newPerson’s being attached to uterine walls is part of the material world that God created?   END2208020705


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar. The CONSTITUTION does not state, suggest, or imply that states have authority to write laws on abortion. The Constitution as you know is silent on the unborn and abortion. END2208012322


10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.









						U.S. Constitution - Tenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
					

The original text of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.




					constitution.congress.gov


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW; If abortion is ending a human life - abortion is murder is it not?
> 
> Why this then?
> 
> The sponsor of a bill that would have subjected Louisiana women to murder charges for having abortions abruptly pulled the proposal from debate Thursday night after House members voted 65-26 to totally revamp the legislation, eliminating the criminal penalties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more murder charge for women in Louisiana abortion bill
> 
> 
> The sponsor of a bill abruptly pulled the proposal from debate Thursday night after House members voted 65-26 to totally revamp the legislation, eliminating the criminal penalties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The controversial bill would have ventured farther against abortion than lawmakers’ efforts in any other state. It would have made women who end their pregnancies subject to criminal homicide prosecutions. END2208020050


It could be in some states.  We'll just have to wait and see what the states do.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: when you say abortion is ending a human life at every stage from conception to  live birth, states would not need new laws. Homicide is already on the books. What needs to be voted on?  END2208020108


Abortion laws.  It's up to the states to decide the laws they will write.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: Have you logically concluded @ding that DNA and all the newPerson’s being attached to uterine walls is part of the material world that God created? END2208020705


Sure.  But there's another possible reason.  We are sharing in his existence.  Of course there's free will to consider.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Are pregnant women “people”? , …. to use the 10th Amendment as an excuse to deprive someone of control over a part of their own body is a misapplication of Constitutional principles. END2208020809


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are pregnant women “people”? , …. to use the 10th Amendment as an excuse to deprive someone of control over a part of their own body is a misapplication of Constitutional principles. END2208020809



Your kid's body is not your body.

You are not "deprived control over your own body" when you are not allowed to attack and kill someone else.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Fangoria Goofs "

* Aborting Dead On Arrival **


San Souci said:


> So it is OK to murder ond an hour before Labor? GHOUL.


Your delusions that some psychopath wanting to kill their own healthy offspring just for the hell of it make you a ghoul .

Roe v Wade substituted viability in lieu of a live birth requirement for equal protection and ruled that state interest could begin in 3rd trimester and could proscribed abortion from that point onward .

The sanctimonious psychopaths who adhere to an egocentric myopia of anthropocentric delusion that hue mammon life is to be religiously dictated from conception were also too deceitful to understand Roe v Wade and they insidiously usurped us constitution as traitors with a scotus that has committed sedition .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208020859

CarsomyrPlusSix220802-#4,156    “Your kid's body is not your body.       You are not "deprived control over your own body" when you are not allowed to attack and kill someone else.”

*NFBW*: I have fathered two kids, a third by marriage. They are all adult women now, but still my kids. Not a one of them had or have someone else’s oxygenated blood coursing it’s way throughout their circulatory systems now or when they were little kids.

How can terminating a pregnancy ding and be “killing someone else” when the part of the woman’s body being terminated has the woman’s blood keeping circulating through it? The fetus cannot be someone else until it is capable of oxygenating its own blood as born humans do.

are you CarsomyrPlusSix a Christian of any sort?  END2208020859


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Not a one of them had or have someone else’s oxygenated blood coursing it’s way throughout their circulatory systems now or when they were little kids.


No, they didn't, including when they were little kids in the womb.  They had their own blood coursing through their own circulatory systems.



NotfooledbyW said:


> The fetus cannot be someone else until it is capable of oxygenating its own blood as born humans do.


Arbitrary, and incorrect.  Parents need to provide for their sons and daughters.



NotfooledbyW said:


> are you CarsomyrPlusSix a Christian of any sort?  END2208020859


Irrelevant, but no.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No, they didn't, including when they were little kids in the womb. They had their own blood coursing through their own circulatory system


NFBW: what preborn fetal cells and tissue do you know that oxygenates it’s own blood?  END2308020906


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Irrelevant, but no.


*NFBW*: Why is it irrelevant? Catholics are supposed to believe that human life begins at conception. Jewish people believe life begins at first breath. I am a secular humanist who goes with the science of biology and I favor Jewish belief 

Catholic belief is absurd to me when it says the instant an embryo is fertilized we must lawfully classify that one cell as a human being.   When does human life begin based on your belief? 2208020926


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: what preborn fetal cells and tissue do you know that oxygenates it’s own blood?  END2308020906


You said they were using maternal blood.

Fetal and maternal blood should not mix and do not normally mix.  That would be quite dangerous.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: Why is it irrelevant? Catholics are supposed to believe that human life begins at conception.


That is textbook scientific fact. 

The Catholic position, in this case, so happens to align with science and reason.  I do not care what their pope says - I do care that others debating this are scientifically literate and do not spread misinformation and error



NotfooledbyW said:


> Jewish people believe life begins at first breath.


This mysticism is at odds with scientific fact and is thus known to be wrong.

While I suppose one could theoretically have the religious belief that say, “gravity does not exist,” gravity will still exist.  So too with “life begins at the first breath.”  Equally absurd.

Human beings are alive long before their first breath.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The Catholic position, in this case, so happens to align with science and reason.



NFBW: When did the science and reason aspects of being human align with the Judeo Christian religious tradition known as Catholicism?  END2208021039


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: When did the science and reason aspects of being human align with the Judeo Christian religious tradition known as Catholicism?  END2208021039


Strange question.

Scientific advancements in microscopy enabled the field of embryology to begin and discover more and more details about a human's life prior to birth.

I do not know the extensive detailed history of the Catholic church - at whatever point they changed doctrine to recognize that life begins at fertilization, they were correct to do so.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are pregnant women “people”? , …. to use the 10th Amendment as an excuse to deprive someone of control over a part of their own body is a misapplication of Constitutional principles. END2208020809


The last time I checked, yes, pregnant women are people.  If you don't like the 10th amendment, then change it.  Until then it's how states are authorized to write laws.  One of which are laws on abortion.  

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Fangoria Goofs "
> 
> * Aborting Dead On Arrival **
> 
> Your delusions that some psychopath wanting to kill their own healthy offspring just for the hell of it make you a ghoul .
> 
> Roe v Wade substituted viability in lieu of a live birth requirement for equal protection and ruled that state interest could begin in 3rd trimester and could proscribed abortion from that point onward .
> 
> The sanctimonious psychopaths who adhere to an egocentric myopia of anthropocentric delusion that hue mammon life is to be religiously dictated from conception were also too deceitful to understand Roe v Wade and they insidiously usurped us constitution as traitors with a scotus that has committed sedition .


Tell it to SCOTUS


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> How can terminating a pregnancy @ding and be “killing someone else” when the part of the woman’s body being terminated has the woman’s blood keeping circulating through it? The fetus cannot be someone else until it is capable of oxygenating its own blood as born humans do.


Take it up with SCOTUS and the states.


----------



## ChemEngineer

*Sunday I heard Barack Lurie talking about the lies of Leftists and atheists.    Barack said "Truth means nothing without God."  I never heard that before but it rings very true.*
*He then spoke of "Due process" when it must be used to take someone's life, which according to our founding documents cannot be taken without.

Then it hit me. Unborn babies' lives have been taken for decades without "due process."
The mother says "kill it" and the abortion butcher does.*
*Fathers kill unborn babies, and they go to prison, using "due process" of the law.*


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208021705   …  if pre-borne existence is “*someone else*” then it would not die because of an abortion now would it? CarsomyrPlusSix ding

NFBW2208020808-#4,155    “to use the 10th Amendment as an excuse to deprive someone of control over a part of their own body is a misapplication of constitutional principles.”

CarsomyrPlusSix220802-#4,156    “You are not "deprived control over your own body" when you are not allowed to attack and kill *someone else*.”

NFBW2208020859-#4,158    “The fetus cannot be “*someone else*” until it is capable of oxygenating its own blood as born humans do.

CarsomyrPlus220802-#4,159   “Arbitrary, and incorrect.”

CarsomyrPlus220802-#4,159 They {little womb kids} had their own blood coursing through their own circulatory systems

NFBW2208020906-#4,160    “what preborn fetal cells and tissue do you know that oxygenates it’s own blood?”

CarsomyrPlus220802-#4,162    “You said they were using maternal blood.”

*NFBW*: No.  You were asked   “what preborn fetal cells and tissue do you know that oxygenates it’s own blood?”

So will you answer the question or not?    END2208021705


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208020859-#4,158 “The fetus cannot be “*someone else*” until it is capable of oxygenating its own blood as born humans do.


What he said.  Arbitrary, and incorrect.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208020859-#4,158 “The fetus cannot be “*someone else*” until it is capable of oxygenating its own blood as born humans do.


So not a human in your eyes until it breaths on its own.  Got it.


----------



## ding

All so he can avoid having a moral dilemma.  Amazing.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208021705   …  if pre-borne existence is “*someone else*” then it would not die because of an abortion now would it? CarsomyrPlusSix ding
> 
> NFBW2208020808-#4,155    “to use the 10th Amendment as an excuse to deprive someone of control over a part of their own body is a misapplication of constitutional principles.”
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220802-#4,156    “You are not "deprived control over your own body" when you are not allowed to attack and kill *someone else*.”
> 
> NFBW2208020859-#4,158    “The fetus cannot be “*someone else*” until it is capable of oxygenating its own blood as born humans do.
> 
> CarsomyrPlus220802-#4,159   “Arbitrary, and incorrect.”
> 
> CarsomyrPlus220802-#4,159 They {little womb kids} had their own blood coursing through their own circulatory systems
> 
> NFBW2208020906-#4,160    “what preborn fetal cells and tissue do you know that oxygenates it’s own blood?”
> 
> CarsomyrPlus220802-#4,162    “You said they were using maternal blood.”
> 
> *NFBW*: No.  You were asked   “what preborn fetal cells and tissue do you know that oxygenates it’s own blood?”
> 
> So will you answer the question or not?    END2208021705


Listen we're not fooled-by-you-either, so here's the deal - In order to have and maintain a CIVILIZED SOCIETY, we must first have standards, law's, moral's, ethic's, and rules. You leftist began challenging and destroying everything that makes up a civilized society, and now we see the fall out from it all. Then we get wicked wisdom from people like you who attempt to cover it all up with your wicked word's that try and suggest to us that up is down and down is up.

What a flipping waste of time it is for entertaining your bull crap, but thankfully we have people still able to stand up to those who are like you, and therefore are willing to call you out for your absurd rhetoric on issues that should highly concern any human being for which has any sense of decency and civilized character about themselves left in today's society.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Listen we're not fooled-by-you-either, so here's the deal - In order to have and maintain a CIVILIZED SOCIETY, we must first have standards, law's, moral's, ethic's, and rules. You leftist began challenging and destroying everything that makes up a civilized society, and now we see the fall out from it all. I


*NFBW*: Do You think Jews can have and participate in a civilized society. If Jews can, I can. We are of one mind on when human life begins and science backs us up. END2208021805


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> So not a human in your eyes until it breaths on its own. Got it.


NFBW: I didn’t say that. You are a liar. END2208021809


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> So not a human in your eyes until it breaths on its own. Got it.




*NFBW*: There is no possibility in my view that a pre-born fetus is not human. I see the human fetus as part of the human mother in the same exact way that human Jewish people see it.

The majority of Jews do not believe that life begins at conception but instead see the creation of life as something that happens over time.​​When Does Life Begin? Outside the Christian Right, the Answer Is “Over Time.”​​During this process, *the fetus is seen as part of the mother*, whose well-being, both immediate and future, *takes precedence*​
END2208021831


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208021705   …  if pre-borne existence is “*someone else*” then it would not die because of an abortion now would it? CarsomyrPlusSix ding


That's stupid.

The abortion is intended to kill them, so yes, they almost certainly will die.  Other humans die when you kill them.



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208020859-#4,158    “The fetus cannot be “*someone else*” until it is capable of oxygenating its own blood as born humans do.


Incorrect.  You seem to want to set your own peculiar definition - I do not agree with your private slang.



NotfooledbyW said:


> No.  You were asked   “what preborn fetal cells and tissue do you know that oxygenates it’s own blood?”
> 
> So will you answer the question or not?    END2208021705


You are engaged in a logical fallacy right now called moving the goalposts.  

That or you just failed at basic reading comprehension.

You said that they used maternal blood in their blood vessels.  I corrected you noting that this does not happen.  They do need oxygen provided by their mom.  Oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged in the placenta.

They do not seize possession of their mom's blood.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: Do You think Jews can have and participate in a civilized society. If Jews can, I can. We are of one mind on when human life begins and science backs us up. END2208021805


a) There are pro-life Jews.  Shapiro comes to mind immediately.

b) Who cares what your religious views about "souls" are?  Your belief does not alter the scientific reality that the lifespan of a sexually reproducing mammal begins at fertilization with the zygote stage of life.  Science has nothing to say about your belief in "souls."

You can believe as hard as you want that the living human being doesn't have a soul until their first breath - for you to deny their humanity or their life, though, is *insane*.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I didn’t say that. You are a liar. END2208021809


You kinda did.  



NotfooledbyW said:


> “The fetus cannot be “*someone else*” until it is capable of oxygenating its own blood as born humans do.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no possibility in my view that a pre-born fetus is not human. I see the human fetus as part of the human mother in the same exact way that human Jewish people see it.


So abortion isn't wrong because she is just killing herself?  So she's committing suicide?  Isn't that also wrong?

You are having to jump through a lot of unnecessary hoops just to avoid stating that abortion ends a human life.  Wouldn't it just be easier for you to admit abortion ends a human life and say you still support a woman's right to do so?  At least then you would be honest.  Because if you can't acknowledge what you are doing you are in effect admitting that you know you shouldn't be doing it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> What he said. Arbitrary, and incorrect.



NFBW: Between the two of you will I see an explanation ding that goes beyond yours and CarsomyrPlusSix ‘s  because-I-say-so-ism.  END2208921844


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Between the two of you will I see an explanation ding that goes beyond yours and CarsomyrPlusSix ‘s  because-I-say-so-ism.  END2208921844


If you can't admit you are ending a human life, you shouldn't be allowed to take that life as you clearly do not understand the consequences of your actions.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" What Gawd Has To Say About Genetic Continuance In The Animal Kingdom "

* Individuals Are Accountable For Their Genetic Self Ownership **


ding said:


> So abortion isn't wrong because she is just killing herself?  So she's committing suicide?  Isn't that also wrong?





			bearded mccacks murderous mothers of the jungle - Google Search
		

_Infanticide is disturbingly common in nature.* It's typically committed by males that take over a pride or pack and kill whatever babies are present to make room for the ones they plan to father. *It's not nearly as common for parents to behave murderously toward their own babies, and it's much rarer still for a mother to be the attacker — especially among primates. 

The only thing that makes the work tolerable is that tamarin troops cooperate to rear young, but the conditions have to be right. There must be plenty of males to do the protecting and provisioning, and there can't be too many other females with babies of their own that also require attention.

When there were at least three assisting males in the troop, the researchers found, the survival rate for infants was an impressive 75%; when there were two or fewer males, the number fell to 42%. When a mother-to-be was the only gestating female in a group, the baby she gave birth to had an 80% chance of surviving at least three months. When there were two or more pregnancies, that forecast plunged to just 20%. "Births must be spaced by three months or more," the authors wrote, "in order to allow efficient helping behavior."

*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. If they're raising babies that have a poor chance of surviving anyway, why make a pointless investment of time, resources and calories trying to keep them alive?* Better to cut their losses, bag the babies and wait for a better season to breed._


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" What Gawd Has To Say About Genetic Continuance In The Animal Kingdom "
> 
> * Individuals Are Accountable For Their Genetic Self Ownership **
> 
> 
> 
> bearded mccacks murderous mothers of the jungle - Google Search
> 
> 
> _Infanticide is disturbingly common in nature.* It's typically committed by males that take over a pride or pack and kill whatever babies are present to make room for the ones they plan to father. *It's not nearly as common for parents to behave murderously toward their own babies, and it's much rarer still for a mother to be the attacker — especially among primates.
> 
> The only thing that makes the work tolerable is that tamarin troops cooperate to rear young, but the conditions have to be right. There must be plenty of males to do the protecting and provisioning, and there can't be too many other females with babies of their own that also require attention.
> 
> When there were at least three assisting males in the troop, the researchers found, the survival rate for infants was an impressive 75%; when there were two or fewer males, the number fell to 42%. When a mother-to-be was the only gestating female in a group, the baby she gave birth to had an 80% chance of surviving at least three months. When there were two or more pregnancies, that forecast plunged to just 20%. "Births must be spaced by three months or more," the authors wrote, "in order to allow efficient helping behavior."
> 
> *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. If they're raising babies that have a poor chance of surviving anyway, why make a pointless investment of time, resources and calories trying to keep them alive?* Better to cut their losses, bag the babies and wait for a better season to breed._


That's nice.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> So abortion isn't wrong


NFBW: Abortion is not wrong unless your religion or code  of ethics says it is. In your case ding if you are involved in a pregnancy do not terminate your gift from your personal Catholic God.  in the meantime get your F’n Church LADY nose out of the four billion uteruses in the world.  They do not belong to you and your dream of majority Taliban control of American uteruses in Christian dominated red states is near the top of moral depravity.END2208021905


----------



## ClaireH

bodecea said:


> Then it's time to assign a SSN from the moment of con-ception.   Why wasn't that being done if it's a person already?
> 
> And yes, taxes INDEED have something to do with being a human or not.   Where have YOU been?


Come on now Bod person, think about what you are claiming here. Let's discuss laws that still remain on the books that are below any level of rational thought. Almost every state has these old laws. My point is that legality of any society usually lags behind information. Take for instance this scenario: a guy on a horse rides to town and his horse suddenly bolts into a canter and tramples a guy to death. The event happened on a Thursday. The new law after the fact reads: no horse riding in town on Thursdays.

Laws for civil behavior are needed, as another wise poster mentioned, but the creation of laws does not indicate it's the best law nor even sensible. 

I like the law still on the books about no spitting on Sundays lol can't recall which state but last I checked it was still on the books of some state statutes.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Cowards Protected By The Flippant *

* Despots Hiding Behind The Walls Of Injustice **


ding said:


> Tell it to SCOTUS


In time , those traitorous reprobates of sedition are going to answer and be disgraced .

How is it that supposedly educated adjudicators are placed in charge of defending the citizens of this republic , yet they are too categorically stupid to understand imminent birth as potential life , where viability is substitute in lieu of live birth , where live birth is required for equal protection , because they supposedly need someone to spoon feed them the meaning of " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest .. not .. prior to live birth . " written by another supreme court justice ?

As all clearly understand the obvious induction and logically of course deduction of a live birth requirement for equal protection by Blackmun's " Logically , of course " statement , and equal protection of negative liberties for those entitled to equal protection , facts are that the justices cannot be that mentally retarded and they are in fact traitors who have knowingly committed sedition !


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> If you can't admit you are ending a human life, you shouldn't be allowed to take that life as you clearly do not understand the consequences of your actions.


*NFBW*: I am not ending a human life. As a viable human since I took my first breath of life a long time ago, my societal obligations apply to viable human beings like me alive  outside the womb., We visbles shalt not kill, main or plunder each other. The goal is to prosper together. What a female visble does if she becomes pregnant is her business. END2208021926


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: Do You think Jews can have and participate in a civilized society. If Jews can, I can. We are of one mind on when human life begins and science backs us up. END2208021805


You keep throwing in stuff like Jew's and such, but we no that you are just diverting to bull crap when you are beaten by your own game.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

You were asked  CarsomyrPlusSix  “what preborn fetal cells and tissue do you know that oxygenates it’s own blood?”



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> They do need oxygen provided by their mom.



NFBW: That is correct:  The fetus uses mom’s oxygen delivered in her blood  and without which the fetus will die, 

So where is the attack that kills someone else? There is no someone else yet. When a pregnancy is terminated prior to  viability. 

CarsomyrPlusSix220802-#4,156    “You are not "deprived control over your own body" when you are not allowed to attack and kill someone else.”

NFBW2208020859-#4,158    “The fetus cannot be “someone else” until it is capable of oxygenating its own blood as born humans do.  2208021953


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Cowards Protected By The Flippant *
> 
> * Despots Hiding Behind The Walls Of Injustice **
> 
> In time , those traitorous reprobates of sedition are going to answer and be disgraced .
> 
> How is it that supposedly educated adjudicators are placed in charge of defending the citizens of this republic , yet they are too categorically stupid to understand imminent birth as potential life , where viability is substitute in lieu of live birth , where live birth is required for equal protection , because they supposedly need someone to spoon feed them the meaning of " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest .. not .. prior to live birth . " written by another supreme court justice ?
> 
> As all clearly understand the obvious induction and logically of course deduction of a live birth requirement for equal protection by Blackmun's " Logically , of course " statement , and equal protection of negative liberties for those entitled to equal protection , facts are that the justices cannot be that mentally retarded and they are in fact traitors who have knowingly committed sedition !


Screw your bull crap and wicked wisdom, because the bottom line is that if a woman doesn't use her knowledge concerning birth control, and she chooses to just engage in animalistic spontaneous sex that result's in her becoming pregnant, and then next her mate decides to hell with this "he just wanted a quick whore lay" and then moves on what comes next ??.......So let's say that she attempts to make it work out (tries to gain his commitment), yet in the meantime she's nurturing a human being that's growing within her body purdy much all in hopes of.......Ok so then it doesn't work out between him and her, so by this time in the situation; the unborn developing human reaches a stage that has formed a beating heart, and probably little finger's and toe's etc.

Now in her disheartening adventure she turns her disappointment inward on her baby, and decides she would rather just take it out on the baby by aborting him or her because she's ridding herself of the whole bad experience that actually she had now caused herself by not showing some kind of control or restraint in her life when it was needed badly.

Abortion's out of convenience or to get back at one another should be something that isn't attainable ever.

Standard's and self-control has to make a comeback in America to a healthier degree, and education, education, education. Vulnerable irrational cultures should be reeducated somehow, and all the madness stopped, and replaced at healthier degree.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Abortion is not wrong


The fact that you can't acknowledge abortion ends a human life says you believe otherwise.


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Cowards Protected By The Flippant *
> 
> * Despots Hiding Behind The Walls Of Injustice **
> 
> In time , those traitorous reprobates of sedition are going to answer and be disgraced .
> 
> How is it that supposedly educated adjudicators are placed in charge of defending the citizens of this republic , yet they are too categorically stupid to understand imminent birth as potential life , where viability is substitute in lieu of live birth , where live birth is required for equal protection , because they supposedly need someone to spoon feed them the meaning of " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest .. not .. prior to live birth . " written by another supreme court justice ?
> 
> As all clearly understand the obvious induction and logically of course deduction of a live birth requirement for equal protection by Blackmun's " Logically , of course " statement , and equal protection of negative liberties for those entitled to equal protection , facts are that the justices cannot be that mentally retarded and they are in fact traitors who have knowingly committed sedition !


That's nice.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: I am not ending a human life. As a viable human since I took my first breath of life a long time ago, my societal obligations apply to viable human beings like me alive  outside the womb., We visbles shalt not kill, main or plunder each other. The goal is to prosper together. What a female visble does if she becomes pregnant is her business. END2208021926


You support abortion. Deep down inside you know it's wrong and that's why you have constructed a convoluted rationalization that abortion isn't ending a human life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208022118

ding220728-#3,985 “This is you playing word games because you can't bear to face the fact that you support ending a human life.

NFBW2207282115-#3,997    “I know full well that when she chooses to terminate a developing human organism in her womb it ends the natural birth and life of a potential human being.

ding 220802-#4,181    “Wouldn't it just be easier for you to admit abortion ends a human life and say you still support a woman's right to do”

*NFBW*: Will you explain what it means when you say “ends a human life”? Is it the same as what CarsomyrPlusSix says it is:

CarsomyrPlusSix220802-#4,156    “You are not "deprived control over your own body" when you are not allowed to attack and kill someone else.”

*NFBW*: Or is it murder after the first trimester as eagle1462010 says: “Of course we agree that rape or incest abortion should be allowed. Hell im ok with it til the1st part of second trimester. After that you can kiss my ass.” END2208022118


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208022334    Toto, I’ve a feeling the American Taliban Church Ladies are not in Kansas anymore.”

Kansas voters block effort to ban abortion in state constitutional amendment vote​Abortion rights forces scored an upset victory in Kansas on Tuesday when voters rejected an amendment that would have allowed the state legislature to ban the procedure.   By ALICE MIRANDA OLLSTEIN
08/02/2022 10:46 PM

ClaireH
BackAgain airplanemechanic
ding beagle9 BS Filter
San Souci eagle1462010
ChemEngineer  
Mashmont

NFBW: From the list I say Mashmont is the biggest loser following the Kansas vote. White Christian Catholic nationalism hit a swift kick to the pants tonight.



ding said:


> You support abortion



*NFBW*: i support a woman’s right to choose snd freedom from @ding’s sneaky authoritarian


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208022118
> 
> ding220728-#3,985 “This is you playing word games because you can't bear to face the fact that you support ending a human life.
> 
> NFBW2207282115-#3,997    “I know full well that when she chooses to terminate a developing human organism in her womb it ends the natural birth and life of a potential human being.
> 
> ding 220802-#4,181    “Wouldn't it just be easier for you to admit abortion ends a human life and say you still support a woman's right to do”
> 
> *NFBW*: Will you explain what it means when you say “ends a human life”? Is it the same as what CarsomyrPlusSix says it is:
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220802-#4,156    “You are not "deprived control over your own body" when you are not allowed to attack and kill someone else.”
> 
> *NFBW*: Or is it murder after the first trimester as eagle1462010 says: “Of course we agree that rape or incest abortion should be allowed. Hell im ok with it til the1st part of second trimester. After that you can kiss my ass.” END2208022118


In Israel women must go before a termination committee to get approval BECAUSE abortion ends a human life.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: i support a woman’s right to choose...


Which is great except you do so with the caveat as long as it doesn't end a human life.


----------



## ding

Because everyone knows that if abortion really did end a human life NotfooledbyW would be against it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> In Israel women must go before a termination committee to get approval BECAUSE abortion ends a human life.



NFBW; Who says abortion ends a human life in Israel. 

The issue of abortions, which are legal but require the okay of a medical termination panel — which approves nearly all cases — rarely captures headlines in Israel. But two lawmakers caused a stir this week when they convened a Knesset committee meeting Monday urging the inclusion of a religious figure on the panels, spotlighting the issue and drawing a furious response from female opposition Knesset members.​​







						15,000 illegal abortions performed in Israel each year, activists claim
					

Some back-alley procedures called 'dangerous,' undertaken by 'nurses, dentists'; Health Ministry says it has no figures on phenomenon - 'How are we supposed to know?'




					www.timesofisrael.com
				


​Attendees at Monday’s at-times heated hearing focused primarily on condemning the proposed inclusion of a religious representative,  F but also touched on whether to reconsider the longstanding practice of the termination panels altogether — under which, in 98.9% of cases last year — women between the ages of 17-40 were approved for abortions.​​_NFBW: Poor Thing ding. What Crusade will you join now?   NFBW2208030001 _


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Because everyone knows


Name them with phone # in alphabetical order please


----------



## airplanemechanic

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208022334    Toto, I’ve a feeling the American Taliban Church Ladies are not in Kansas anymore.”
> 
> Kansas voters block effort to ban abortion in state constitutional amendment vote​Abortion rights forces scored an upset victory in Kansas on Tuesday when voters rejected an amendment that would have allowed the state legislature to ban the procedure.   By ALICE MIRANDA OLLSTEIN
> 08/02/2022 10:46 PM
> 
> ClaireH
> BackAgain airplanemechanic
> ding beagle9 BS Filter
> San Souci eagle1462010
> ChemEngineer
> Mashmont
> 
> NFBW: From the list I say Mashmont is the biggest loser following the Kansas vote. White Christian Catholic nationalism hit a swift kick to the pants tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> *NFBW*: i support a woman’s right to choose snd freedom from @ding’s sneaky authoritarian



Good for Kansas. They voted. Ain't Amerika great?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208030305

CarsomyrPlusSix220802-#247      You don't have to wait for the law to change regarding personhood to condemn the way they treat those who have been denied personhood.

*NFBW*: Seeking personhood for a human zygot zombie is rightwing extremism normally reserved for religious zealots.  You are not religious as far as I can tell, so since you are new here what motivates and drives your hatred for liberals and dusgust for women who reject submission to white religious male politicians. What drives your  secular zealotry for the unborn. END2208030305


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> So where is the attack that kills someone else?


Abortion is an aggressive use of lethal violence against an innocent human being.



NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no someone else yet.


Objectively false.  They are distinct organisms and members of our species - Homo sapiens - no matter how much you hate them or would deny their existence.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> They are distinct organisms and members of our species



NFBW: They are distinct *organisms* and members of our species that use “someone else’s oxygenated blood” which makes them zombies until they have developed as far as you and I did when we started out in the womb of a woman. That stage of development has been referred as viability and abortion should not be an option after viability except when the life of the mother is at stake.

Most Americans will not agree that zombies have equal rights to a viable human and have a right to be carried to full term attached to the uterus of a pregnant woman.

Your extremist political zealotry has hit a brick wall in Kansas. Trump fucked up Republicans politically when he selected 3 Catholic lying Taliban to be SCOTUS JUDGES and your panic has already begun to show.

And on his way out Trump fucked up the only right wing positive legacy he had going in the SCOTUS picks by attempting to overturn the election with his fake electors coup plot and his violent mob attacking the peaceful transfer of power at the Capitol,  END2208020342


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: They are distinct *organisms* and members of our species that use “someone else’s oxygenated blood” which makes them zombies until they have developed as far as you and I did when we started out in the womb of a woman. That stage of development has been referred as viability and abortion should not be an option after viability except when the life of the mother is at stake.
> 
> Most Americans will not agree that zombies have equal rights to a viable human and have a right to be carried to full term attached to the uterus of a pregnant woman.
> 
> Your extremist political zealotry has hit a brick wall in Kansas. Trump fucked up Republicans politically when he selected 3 Catholic lying Taliban to be SCOTUS JUDGES and your panic has already begun to show.
> 
> And on his way out Trump fucked up the only right wing positive legacy he had going in the SCOTUS picks by attempting to overturn the election with his fake electors coup plot and his violent mob attacking the peaceful transfer of power at the Capitol,  END2208020342


What you are advocating for is abortion being used as the alternative to birth control, and that is unexceptable. We advocate for members of the human race practicing restraint and control in their personal live's, as so they don't have to go through the horror's of having a human being in it's developmental stages taken in a horrible procedure from their bodies.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208022118
> 
> ding220728-#3,985 “This is you playing word games because you can't bear to face the fact that you support ending a human life.
> 
> NFBW2207282115-#3,997    “I know full well that when she chooses to terminate a developing human organism in her womb it ends the natural birth and life of a potential human being.
> 
> ding 220802-#4,181    “Wouldn't it just be easier for you to admit abortion ends a human life and say you still support a woman's right to do”
> 
> *NFBW*: Will you explain what it means when you say “ends a human life”? Is it the same as what CarsomyrPlusSix says it is:
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220802-#4,156    “You are not "deprived control over your own body" when you are not allowed to attack and kill someone else.”
> 
> *NFBW*: Or is it murder after the first trimester as eagle1462010 says: “Of course we agree that rape or incest abortion should be allowed. Hell im ok with it til the1st part of second trimester. After that you can kiss my ass.” END2208022118


In Alabama it is now.  Bless your Heart from the Heart of Dixie.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Name them with phone # in alphabetical order please


I'm surprised you didn't off yourself last night over your guilt.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW; Who says abortion ends a human life in Israel.
> 
> The issue of abortions, which are legal but require the okay of a medical termination panel — which approves nearly all cases — rarely captures headlines in Israel. But two lawmakers caused a stir this week when they convened a Knesset committee meeting Monday urging the inclusion of a religious figure on the panels, spotlighting the issue and drawing a furious response from female opposition Knesset members.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15,000 illegal abortions performed in Israel each year, activists claim
> 
> 
> Some back-alley procedures called 'dangerous,' undertaken by 'nurses, dentists'; Health Ministry says it has no figures on phenomenon - 'How are we supposed to know?'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.timesofisrael.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​Attendees at Monday’s at-times heated hearing focused primarily on condemning the proposed inclusion of a religious representative,  F but also touched on whether to reconsider the longstanding practice of the termination panels altogether — under which, in 98.9% of cases last year — women between the ages of 17-40 were approved for abortions.​​_NFBW: Poor Thing ding. What Crusade will you join now?   NFBW2208030001 _


Circumstances under which abortion is approved[edit]​Under a 1977 abortion law, a termination committee can approve an abortion, under sub-section 316a,[10] in the following circumstances:


The woman is younger than the legal marriage age in Israel (which currently is 18, raised from 17 in April 2013),[12] or older than forty. (This was later amended to also include women under the age of twenty.)[11]
The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.), in an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.
The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.
Continued pregnancy may put the woman's life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.
Previously, cases where the woman is between the ages of 20–33, and/or was granted an abortion due to the baby having been conceived under illegal circumstances or incest, the fetus had a serious physical or mental defect, the mother was unmarried, or the mother's health was in danger, the state pays for the abortion. However, the law was modified in 2014 to allow a free state-funded "health basket" for any woman seeking an abortion.[11] Women who get pregnant while serving in the IDF are entitled to free, state-funded abortion.[13][14]

In practice, most requests for abortion that qualify for the above are granted, and leniency is shown especially under the clause for emotional or psychological damage to the pregnant woman. The committees approve 98% of requests.[15]

Structure of the committee[edit]​There are 41 termination committees operating in public or private hospitals across Israel.[16] These committees consist of three members, two of which are licensed physicians, and one a social worker.[10] Of the two physicians, one must be a specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology, and the other one either OB/GYN, internal medicine, psychiatry, family medicine, or public health. At least one member must be a woman. Six separate committees consider abortion requests when the fetus is beyond 24 weeks old.

Abortion debate in Israel[edit]​There is an abortion debate in Israel, although it is sidelined by more publicized and controversial issues. The debate as to the morality of abortion is antecedent to the debate about separation of religion and state in the context of Israel as a Jewish State and a democracy.

Orthodox Jewish organizations, including political parties, strongly oppose abortion because most interpretations of Jewish law view abortion as prohibited except for mother’s life.[17] Political parties that champion this view include Shas, a Sephardic Haredi party; United Torah Judaism, an Ashkenazi Haredi party; and HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home), a Religious Zionist party. A study published in 2001 found that opposition to abortion among Israelis was correlated to strong religious beliefs – particularly Orthodox Jewish beliefs – below-average income, larger family size, and identification with right-wing politics.[18]

The left-wing party Meretz argues in favor of legalized abortion for reasons of personal liberty. In 2006, MK Zehava Gal-On of Meretz proposed a bill that would eliminate the termination committees, effectively decriminalizing unrestricted abortion. Gal-On argued that women with financial means can have abortions in private clinics, bypassing the committee and therefore gaining rights based on their wealth. The bill was rejected by a wide margin.

When the relevant section of the penal code was originally written, it contained a "social clause" permitting women to seek abortions for social reasons, such as economic distress.[10] The clause was withdrawn in 1980 under the initiative of the Orthodox Jewish parties (see Shas, United Torah Judaism, and National Religious Party).

This clause is still under debate in Israel. In 2004, MK Reshef Chen of Shinui submitted an addendum to reinstate the clause, arguing that under present circumstances, women with financial problems must lie to the termination committee to obtain approval under the emotional or psychological damage clause, and that "no advanced country compels its citizens to lie in order to preserve religious, chauvinistic, patronizing archaic values". Women's organizations such as Naamat supported the proposal.[19]

Women's organizations such as Naamat[20] and Shdulat HaNashim (women's lobby)[21] argue in favor for feminist, pro-choice reasons, such as reproductive rights.

Efrat[22] is a religious organization that lobbies against abortions, as well as offering financial support to women who are considering abortion for economic reasons. Efrat's campaign includes stickers with the slogan, "Don't abort me" (Hebrew: אל תפילו אותי). Be'ad Chaim[23] is a Messianic Christian anti-abortion non-profit association. Another organization which provides financial support and counseling to women considering abortion is Just One Life (J.O.L.)[24] – which in Hebrew is known as Nefesh Achat B'Yisrael.






						Abortion in Israel - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> They are distinct organisms


NFBW: by “distinct organisms” do you mean fetuses that are attached to uteruses inside a woman’s body are organisms that are separate from the woman who has the uterus to which the organism is attached?

If that is your case, you have to be a blithering idiot.




ding said:


> I'm surprised you didn't off yourself last night over your guilt.



Yes, a not so distinct complete REPUBLICAN idiot like ding has become thinking I have guilt.for supporting choice.

END2208030733


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: They are distinct *organisms* and members of our species that use “someone else’s oxygenated blood”


Wrong.

I'm tired of correcting you, already.  Read a book.  They need some oxygen and nutrients from that blood, the addition of which the mother already naturally has the inclination to intake for their sake.

They do not "use the blood" or take ownership of the blood.



NotfooledbyW said:


> which makes them zombies


You said this stupidity once and I didn't call you on it, but what the actual fuck?

Here in reality, normal living human being behavior is not "being a zombie," which is a fictional type of undead popularized in George Romero films.

In none of those films, nor any of their spinoffs / copycats / remakes / parodies / deconstructions, are humans just zombies and then magically not zombies anymore.

My point is this - in reality, what you have said makes no sense.  Even as an aficionado of the genre of fiction you might - were you an insane person - think was literally actual reality, your comment does not reflect those fictional universes either.




NotfooledbyW said:


> That stage of development has been referred as viability


The chief factor of viability just means having sufficiently developed lungs with enough surfactant to breathe, including with the best possible NICU equipment.

No organism could develop organs in the first place if he or she wasn't alive.  The unborn are alive.

No organism doesn't have parents - and that organism almost certainly belongs the the same species as his or her parents.  The unborn are human beings.

They have their own body, their own genetic code, etc - they are distinct, and they are "someone else."

QED.



NotfooledbyW said:


> and abortion should not be an option after viability except when the life of the mother is at stake.


Elective abortion should not be an option period, though in the exceedingly rare circumstance when the child is going to die no matter what you do it is understandable to take action to save life if the mother would otherwise die.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Most Americans will not agree that zombies have equal rights to a viable human and have a right to be carried to full term attached to the uterus of a pregnant woman.


I mean, present most Americans with your "zombie" bullshit, and most of them are going to give you a funny look and an eyeroll.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Your extremist political zealotry has hit a brick wall in Kansas.


So Kansas will need to get its own Supreme Court issue fixed - it is doubtful that Kansas's Constitution refers to abortion anymore than the United States Constitution did.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Trump fucked up Republicans politically when he selected 3 Catholic lying Taliban


What lies, precious?



NotfooledbyW said:


> attempting to overturn the election with his fake electors coup plot and his violent mob attacking the peaceful transfer of power at the Capitol,  END2208020342


"his coup plot"

Okay, whatever.  It's clear I'm not talking to someone oriented to reality on Earth.  Miss me with all this nonsense.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: by “distinct organisms” do you mean fetuses that are attached to uteruses inside a woman’s body are organisms that are separate from the woman who has the uterus to which the organism is attached?


They are distinct organisms with their own body.  That attachment via placenta is how embryology works, the attachment does not change the fact that they are distinct.  There are (at least) two distinct and recognizable organisms involved in every pregnancy, and in this case two human beings, which means for any physician worthy of the name, two patients.



NotfooledbyW said:


> If that is your case, you have to be a blithering idiot.


My sympathies at flunking Biology, but look in a mirror when saying this, as you have demonstrated this much ignorance on the subject matter.  It is cartoonish, really.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> There are (at least) two distinct and recognizable organisms involved in every pregnancy,


One is a viable human being like you and me. 

One is what you call an organism that is not a viable human being like you and me. It has to use oxygenated  blood from “someone else” to continue development. It is a potential human being not a human being. 

When you say CarsomyrPlusSix that an  underdeveloped organism must be recognized at the same exact level of human existence by me and a civil society that is run by viable and free human beings who make choices on such matters is an authoritarian farce. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE deciding what is what according to your political whims and preferences. You have no moral authority to make decisions for “someone or something  else”    END2208030816


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> They do not "use the blood"





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> They need some oxygen and nutrients from that blood,



Yes the live developing organism uses the oxygenated maternal blood to stay alive until it is developed sufficiently to oxygenate its own blood when separation from the mother becomes physically possible. At that stage society at large morally and scientifically bestows right to life status on a brand new individual human being recorded at live birth on a certificate of birth even when premature. 

IF You believe it is sooner than that you are free to follow your conscience and religion in your personal relationships as you see fit.

Nothing is stopping you, So what is your agenda to impose you beliefs on “someone else”  Church Lady II?  END2208030842


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> One is a viable human being like you and me.


Your obsession with pulmonary fluid is not one I share.  

The unborn are human beings like you and me, just younger, as you were before you aged.  


NotfooledbyW said:


> It is a potential human being not a human being.


Bullshit.

They are human beings - they could not be any other species.  They will “potentially” age a day by tomorrow if they do not die today, but that is the same as you.



NotfooledbyW said:


> When you say…


When I say… that a young human being should not be discriminated against to the point of their murder being decriminalized, no that is not “authoritarian.”



NotfooledbyW said:


> WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE deciding what is what


A human being who doesn’t want to be killed by needless aggressive violence and doesn’t want anyone else to be killed needlessly either.  A civilized and moral person.  You must be the other type.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> his coup plot"
> 
> Okay, whatever.


John Eastman’s fake electors coup that Trump told us was in play on Jan6




			Https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-13/transcript-of-trumps-speech-at-rally-before-us-capitol-riot?context=amp
		


Trump rallying the forces at noon January 6, 2021: - - -   “John [Eastman] is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country, and he looked at this and he said, “What an absolute disgrace that this can be happening to our Constitution.”   And he looked at Mike Pence, and I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. - - -   Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.  - - -   States want to revote. The states got defrauded, They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.”  21JAN06-DJT-jEASTMAN   END2208030917


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The unborn are human beings like you and me


That’s your choice. I have made a much more moral choice with regard to viable hunan beings who have the reproductive organs and anatomy to conceive human life and reproduce human life when they themselves choose to do so. Your choice you think backed by your unscientific whims is to coerce full term pregnancy on millions of women you do not know because you think your choice of facts are infallible and not to be challenged because.  . . .    You say so.      you are sick with power to control  others unrelated to your existence  for what we do not know yet.       YOU have no religion you say.  You have a unique but strange agenda. 2208030931


----------



## postman

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Objectively false.  They are distinct organisms and members of our species - Homo sapiens - no matter how much you hate them or would deny their existence.



Funny how once those distinct organisms enter the world, republicans turn their back on them.  Whether it's WIC, or healthcare, or school lunches, republicans no longer care what happens to the unborn, once they're born.


----------



## Care4all

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Your obsession with pulmonary fluid is not one I share.
> 
> The unborn are human beings like you and me, just younger, as you were before you aged.
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> They are human beings - they could not be any other species.  They will “potentially” age a day by tomorrow if they do not die today, but that is the same as you.
> 
> 
> When I say… that a young human being should not be discriminated against to the point of their murder being decriminalized, no that is not “authoritarian.”
> 
> 
> A human being who doesn’t want to be killed by needless aggressive violence and doesn’t want anyone else to be killed needlessly either.  A civilized and moral person.  You must be the other type.


The founding father's believed they were human beings forming, from the get go.  But they did not believe the fetus had life, in the sense of personhood under the law where government had jurisdiction under the law, until quickening....until the baby stirred or kicked inside the mother, which is around 20 weeks gestation....before such, the mother to be alone, ruled alone.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Care4all said:


> The founding father's believed they were human beings forming, from the get go.  But they did not believe the fetus had life, in the sense of personhood under the law where government had jurisdiction under the law, until quickening....until the baby stirred or kicked inside the mother, which is around 20 weeks gestation....before such, the mother to be alone, ruled alone.


Be that as it may we have the Declaration of Independence which says all men are created equal, and we have the fact that embryology and cell theory and microscopy were not sufficient or entirely non-existent at the time of the Revolutionary War to know the scientific fact that life begins prior to "quickening."

We now know that "quickening" isn't even a confirmation of pregnancy let alone the start of life, given other conditions that can mimic this feeling.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Speaks Out Of One Side Of Mouth "

* Violators Of Us Establishment Clause **


ding said:


> Because everyone knows that if abortion really did end a human life NotfooledbyW would be against it.


Capital punishment ends a life , where do you stand on that one ?

A state is not concerned with when a life exists , or whether life exists at all , rather a state interest is in whether a wright to life exists .

A fetus has not acquired a wright to life by virtue of not having met a birth requirement to receive it and any sentenced to death has had its wright to life removed , albeit by due process with a necessary contingency of removing a wright to life of another - a double entendre . 

Fetal protection laws do not include a capital punishment because a fetus does not have a wright to life and it would not stand constitutional challenge based on  live birth as a requirement for equal protection .


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> That’s your choice.


No, that is reality, deny it all you want.



NotfooledbyW said:


> I have made a much more moral choice


Your bigotry and promotion of violence are not moral.  You are not just amoral - you are immoral.



NotfooledbyW said:


> your unscientific whims


Oh, the irony.


----------



## postman

NotfooledbyW said:


> That’s your choice. I have made a much more moral choice with regard to viable hunan beings who have the reproductive organs and anatomy to conceive human life and reproduce human life when they themselves choose to do so. Your choice you think backed by your unscientific whims is to coerce full term pregnancy on millions of women you do not know because you think your choice of facts are infallible and not to be challenged because.  . . .    You say so.



Stopping an unplanned pregnancy, whether by contraception, the morning after pill, chemical abortion or mechanical abortion (all before reaching viability) is a medical decision, not a moral one.  Nobody has the right to tell somebody else that they have to do something with their body, that they choose not to do.

It's almost a form of slavery, culminating with (pun intended) forced labor.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

postman said:


> Funny how once those distinct organisms enter the world, republicans turn their back on them.  Whether it's WIC, or healthcare, or school lunches, republicans no longer care what happens to the unborn, once they're born.


This is one of the dumbest things you pro-aborts say.

By your blatantly dishonest leftist metric, I never have turned my back - my back has remained facing exactly the same way.

I will never support WIC, socialized healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, school lunches, or any of that other bullshit, for anyone, of any age.  
I will always support criminalizing killing innocent human beings in cold blooded aggression as the most severe degree of murder, regardless of the age of the victim.

I believe you will still keep saying this stupid thing, despite it being completely debunked.  That is the low level of integrity and critical thinking I have come to expect from your community.


----------



## postman

Monk-Eye said:


> Fetal protection laws do not include a capital punishment because a fetus does not have a wright to life and it would not stand constitutional challenge based on  live birth as a requirement for equal protection .



Then rewrite the 14th amendment, which says:  *All persons born* or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....


----------



## postman

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> This is one of the dumbest things you pro-aborts say.
> 
> By your blatantly dishonest leftist metric, I never have turned my back - my back has remained facing exactly the same way.
> 
> I will never support WIC, socialized healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, school lunches, or any of that other bullshit, for anyone, of any age.



Please.... you're making my point.

Republicans do anything to protect the unborn, and don't give a damn once they're born.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Dictating And Minding None Of Your Own Business "

* Deontology Presumptions From Antiquity Versus Contemporary Consequentialism **


Care4all said:


> The founding father's believed they were human beings forming, from the get go.  But they did not believe the fetus had life, in the sense of personhood under the law where government had jurisdiction under the law, until quickening....until the baby stirred or kicked inside the mother, which is around 20 weeks gestation....before such, the mother to be alone, ruled alone.


Back then women died in droves due to childbirth and having children was a matter of survival , whereas now the planet is full .

Late term abortions are not about killing an otherwise healthy fetus simply for convenience , rather such choices are - or at least should be - based on fitness for quality of life and for satisfying the requirements of an afterlife that presumes individual choice regarding fetal abnormalities and maternal health .


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

postman said:


> Please.... you're making my point.
> 
> Republicans do anything to protect the unborn, and don't give a damn once they're born.


Please.

You just self-owned with demonstrable profound stupidity, a_nd you are so stupid that you didn't even notice it!_


I literally just said we should protect the unborn exactly the same way we protect the born.

Pick one standard and stick with it, and stop with the lies and fallacies.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Elaboration Of The Same "

* Lost In Translation **


postman said:


> Then rewrite the 14th amendment, which says:  *All persons born* or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....


As per son means male ( son ) and countable by census ( per ) , women are not citizens of the united states by letter of law .

The declaration of independence references that all men are created equal , which surreptitiously implies that women are not - see us 19th amendment , and the declaration of independence is supposedly the foundation of whatever in the hell the conservative movement is as per the intellectual buffoonery of the conservative versus liberal paradigm .

The suggestion is therefore to replace per son with individual to make the terminology consistent with us credo of e pluribus unum that is based in the foundation of individualism and equal protection of negative liberties for individuals against the populism of tyranny by majority .

Otherwise , by us 14th amendment a citizen must be born and therefore by induction , by logically of course deduction , birth is required for equal protection , so i am not certain what your statement may be implying .

The only other option of the Roe v Wade court than to substitute viability in lieu of live birth was to return a ruling that abortion could not be outlawed and that a 2/3 constitutional amendment was required to codify it being outlawed .

The definition of per son was stated in title 1 section 8 of us code as any born at any state of development , which is simply a clarification of the birth requirement for equal protection , and scotus ignored all of it and committed sedition .


----------



## Care4all

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Be that as it may we have the Declaration of Independence which says all men are created equal, and we have the fact that embryology and cell theory and microscopy were not sufficient or entirely non-existent at the time of the Revolutionary War to know the scientific fact that life begins prior to "quickening."
> 
> We now know that "quickening" isn't even a confirmation of pregnancy let alone the start of life, given other conditions that can mimic this feeling.


Oh, they were not ignorant to such.  Everyone, laymen and educated, knew human life began being formed from the get go, months earlier....they had disdain for women who chose to abort prior to quickening.....

but they believed that the woman had the right to make her own decisions privately, before the baby showed signs of life at quickening.  At that point, both the mother and the baby had what they called, life, under the law....the government could intervene and punish the woman, for aborting her child....which was only a harsh, misdemeanor, not a felony.....though some felt the law punishment should have been a felony or even harsher than it was....after quickening.

In other words, they believed the woman, had a right to privacy and autonomy decisions....until the baby had viability of its own.....then it became life, under the LAW.....the baby had personhood of its own.  They were medically wrong as far as viability, because it really is about 22 to 26 weeks or 24 weeks, and not at 20 weeks....the quickening point, when the baby is viable....but close enough.

The point is, that they believed they could not interfere with the woman's decision, in the early weeks of pregnancy, no matter the disdain that they had for abortion.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Forget About Demanding Challenges To Quality Of Life And Health Concerns Simply Dismiss It All For Pent Up Sanctimonious Perverts "

* Ascetics Stoicism And Communion **


beagle9 said:


> Screw your bull crap and wicked wisdom, because the bottom line is that if a woman doesn't use her knowledge concerning birth control, and she chooses to just engage in animalistic spontaneous sex that result's in her becoming pregnant, and then next her mate decides to hell with this "he just wanted a quick whore lay" and then moves on what comes next ??.......So let's say that she attempts to make it work out (tries to gain his commitment), yet in the meantime she's nurturing a human being that's growing within her body purdy much all in hopes of.......Ok so then it doesn't work out between him and her, so by this time in the situation; the unborn developing human reaches a stage that has formed a beating heart, and probably little finger's and toe's etc.
> 
> Now in her disheartening adventure she turns her disappointment inward on her baby, and decides she would rather just take it out on the baby by aborting him or her because she's ridding herself of the whole bad experience that actually she had now caused herself by not showing some kind of control or restraint in her life when it was needed badly.
> 
> Abortion's out of convenience or to get back at one another should be something that isn't attainable ever.
> 
> Standard's and self-control has to make a comeback in America to a healthier degree, and education, education, education. Vulnerable irrational cultures should be reeducated somehow, and all the madness stopped, and replaced at healthier degree.


Oh dear , animalistic spontaneous sex , well aren't we the pent up fire and brimstone preacher trying to violate the establishment clause while looking for salvation participants willing to let him express his private lusts , perhaps try not to pay too close of attention to your own fantasies .

Maybe listen pay attention to lyric from sundown by gordon lightfoot , " getting lost in her loving is your first mistake " .


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Speaks Out Of One Side Of Mouth "
> 
> * Violators Of Us Establishment Clause **
> 
> Capital punishment ends a life , where do you stand on that one ?


I'd prefer they live their days out doing hard labor.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I will always support criminalizing killing innocent human beings in cold blooded aggression as the most severe degree of murder, regardless of the age of the victim.


And when you die you can spend eternity with all the souls of unborn fertilized embryos , zygotes and underdeveloped fetuses to your saintly hearts content  - but for the viable life of me I don’t know what you will talk about with that age of human being who never felt you, heard you, saw you or uttered words with you when their entire universe was a woman’s womb. END2208031010


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> A state is not concerned with when a life exists , or whether life exists at all , rather a state interest is in whether a wright to life exists .
> 
> A fetus has not acquired a wright to life by virtue of not having met a birth requirement to receive it and any sentenced to death has had its wright to life removed , albeit by due process with a necessary contingency of removing a wright to life of another - a double entendre .
> 
> Fetal protection laws do not include a capital punishment because a fetus does not have a wright to life and it would not stand constitutional challenge based on live birth as a requirement for equal protection .


That's nice.  Take it up with the states and SCOTUS.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Putting Them Out Of Hour Misery "

* Knot Not Eye **


ding said:


> I'd prefer they live their days out doing hard labor.


Depending upon the nature of their homicide , my preference is to subject them to the natural freedoms and moral relativism that exists prior to entering into this social civil contract and end their life , as after all , life will end at some point and nothing is more consoling to victims than their being alive without having to rationalize that their attackers are enjoying the privileges of time .


----------



## airplanemechanic

postman said:


> Funny how once those distinct organisms enter the world, republicans turn their back on them.  Whether it's WIC, or healthcare, or school lunches, republicans no longer care what happens to the unborn, once they're born.



Funny how liberals want to kill the unborn rather than give them a chance at life and see what happens.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes, a not so distinct complete REPUBLICAN idiot like @ding has become thinking I have guilt.for supporting choice.


Of course you would feel guilt for ending a human.  You're not a monster.  Which is why you have concocted and elaborate and arbitrary rationalization that abortion doesn't end a human life even though it does.  Your conscience can't bear it.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Definitely Working On It "

* Stale Response **


ding said:


> That's nice.  Take it up with the states and SCOTUS.


That's nice , it is not a state issue and SCOTUS has a conflict of interest ; us attorney general is entitled to prosecute them for sedition .


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> One is a viable human being like you and me.
> 
> One is what you call an organism that is not a viable human being like you and me.


That sounds like a conversation between Hitler and Goebbels when discussing the final solution for the Jews.  Maybe you are a monster after all.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> And when you die you can spend eternity with all the souls of unborn fertilized embryos , zygotes and underdeveloped fetuses to your saintly hearts content


Herpaderp.  I don't care about your "souls" beliefs.

I believe in human rights and equality.

You don't.

That's it, that's all.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" They Demand Blue And Red Jerseys To Ignore Political Science "

* Parrots Of Mental Retardation For Populism And Tyranny By Majority Over Protection Of Individualism **


airplanemechanic said:


> Funny how liberals want to kill the unborn rather than give them a chance at life and see what happens.


What the fuck is a liberal ? 

The liberal versus conservative paradigm is intellectual buffoonery .






						Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments
					

" Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments "  * Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises *  Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ?   Does...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I believe in human rights and equality.



get your language sorted out and correct. 

From what you’ve written you are for fetal rights and opposed to women being equal to men.   END2208031940


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> From what you’ve written you are for fetal rights and opposed to women being equal to men.   END2208031940


I am for equal rights and treating women the same as men.

You are a female supremacist who thinks women should be able to get away with murder.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Scapegoating With False Murder Accusations To Make Oneself Seem More Relevant "

* Loose Goose Terminology Of Mindless Valiance **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I am for equal rights and treating women the same as men.
> 
> You are a female supremacist who think women should be able to get away with murder.


By equal wrights to you mean to reference the equal endowment of positive liberties or equal protection of negative liberties ?

Negative wrights are protections against government action ( non action ) by which one receives negative liberties from government .

Positive wrights direct authoritarian , assertive actions by government that may provide protections of negative liberties - to be left alone by other individuals , as independence and individualism , or that may provide positive liberties as endowments , dependence and collectivism .

Murder is a legal construct meaning unlawful killing and by legal positivism there is not a correlation between law and morality .

As for the ethics of abortion , it is ethical in many respects .

Irrespective of debates over ethics , birth is required for equal protection with a citizen as birth is required to become a citizen and therefore a fetus does not have a wright to life and abortion is not murder .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> am for equal rights and treating women the same as men.


Not at all when you demand the government force women to carry a zygote to full term against her self-sovereign will and if she does not obey the government must charge her with murder.  END2208031154


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You are a female supremacist who thinks women should be able to get away with murder.


You are a liar. I do not consider termination of an organism growing in a woman’s body by the woman herself to be a civil threat being anything close to the crime of one individual murdering or maiming some one else who has been born or in some one else’s womb. END2208031207


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Not at all when you demand the government force women to carry a zygote to full term against her self-sovereign will and if she does not obey the government must charge her with murder.  END2208031154


Actually, no - treating killing your kid in cold blood with malice aforethought and hiring someone to do it as murder is very much treating mothers the same as everyone else.

The exception to this hard rule of civilization that you want for only mothers - that is inequality, that is special treatment, THAT is the definition of a double standard.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar.


Again, look in the mirror when saying these things.



NotfooledbyW said:


> I do not consider termination of an organism growing in a woman’s body by the woman herself to be a civil threat being anything close to the crime of one individual murdering or maiming some one else who has been born or in some one else’s womb.


You do not consider premeditated aggressive and contracted homicide to be murder, noted.  

But already established- due to your unrelenting prejudice you have repeatedly denied the life and humanity of these victims, so it is no surprise that this is part of your strategy to promote their killing and prevent justice.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You do not consider premeditated aggressive and contracted homicide to be murder, noted.


That is what you call a woman’s right to terminate her own pregnancy. You are a rare secular goon among many religious goons but a goon just the same.  You are actually nobody to be demanding your own personal definitions of things based on “because I say so”  END2208031232


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is what you call a woman’s right to terminate her own pregnancy. You are a rare secular goon among many religious goons but a goon just the same.  You are actually nobody to be demanding your own personal definitions of things based on “because I say so”  END2208031232


There is no such “right.”

If you only believe whatever the Supreme Court says, then see Dobbs.

If you care about the rule of law beyond the superficial, read the United States Constitution and note the total absence of what you claim to be a “right.”


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Establishment Clause Violators Selling Shit To Imbeciles "

* Mantra Of Traitors Who Support scotus Sedition **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> There is no such “right.”
> 
> If you only believe whatever the Supreme Court says, then see Dobbs.
> 
> If you care about the rule of law beyond the superficial, read the United States Constitution and note the total absence of what you claim to be a “right.”


A fetus does not have a wright to life because it has not met a birth requirement to receive one .

SCROTUS has committed sedition by the dobbs decision , as would any other potentate that usurped us constitution , by ruling that states may issue force against implementation of us law - us 1st , 9th and 14th , and SCROTUS should be prosecuted , while traitors of us 1st , 9th and 14th amendments support its seditious decision .

Us 9th amendment , non enumerated wrights , do not need to be enumerated and any assertion that they must be is a mountain of bull shit supported by sanctimonious traitorous psychopaths trying to implement populism as tyranny by majority to deprive individuals of their equal protections of law - equal protection of negative liberties .

Us 10th amendment state interests begin with citizens or with any which has met a birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen , and state interests cannot be based in whimsy or populism as tyranny by majority , rather a state interests are limited to protection of negative liberties not only from the state but also between individuals .

The negative liberties of the anti-choice are not being disparaged by abortion seekers or abortion provides and states do not have an interest in protecting a wright to life of a zygote / emrbyo / fetus which dos not have a wright to life by virtue of not having met a birth requirement to receive one .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> There is no such “right.”


You have a no right to declare the termination of a pregnancy by the pregnant woman herself and unbeknownst to thou to be murder.  Unless you’ve become God or the supreme divine leader of natural law in the entire universe or just a goon who thinks he is.

Every woman has a natural right to be protected from goons like you and ding  END2208030116


----------



## airplanemechanic

NotfooledbyW said:


> You have a no right to declare the termination of a pregnancy by the pregnant woman herself and unbeknownst to thou to be murder.  Unless you’ve become God or the supreme divine leader of natural law in the entire universe or just a goon who thinks he is.
> 
> Every woman has a natural right to be protected from goons like you and ding  END2208030116



Why do you liberals not give the men any say so? It takes two to create a baby, why does the woman get 100% of the decision whether or not to abort, yet if she wants to keep it and the man doesn't, he still has to pay child support for 18 years? If he wants to keep it and she doesn't, tough luck. She can kill it, according to ya'll. 

Why do liberals hate men and not give them a say?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Actually, no - treating killing your kid in cold blood with malice aforethought and hiring someone to do it as murder is very much treating mothers the same as everyone else.


Why do you keep substituting your harsh choice of words for the normal words that civilized human beings use to discuss matters of reproduction and women’s health.

For instance:

Actually, yes  - terminating her own pregnancy with self concerning aforethought and hiring someone medically licensed to do it legally and safely is very much treating women with unwanted pregnancy the same as everyone else. END2208031355


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix


airplanemechanic said:


> Why do liberals hate men and not give them a say?



I would suggest that every man in a sexual relationship longer than a one night stand etc with a woman who could get pregnant accidentally, discuss the fact that he is opposed to abortifacient  if she gets pregnant. By him. If she tells him she had no plans to be a mother or allow an unplanned pregnancy go to full term he needs to get and find the right woman to have sec with.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You do not consider premeditated aggressive and contracted homicide to be murder, noted


You are a liar. When one individual who oxygenates his or her blood unlawfully terminates the life of a separate individual who oxygenated his or her own blood until death,  it is murder.  END2208031429


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix
> 
> 
> I would suggest that every man in a sexual relationship longer than a one night stand etc with a woman who could get pregnant accidentally, discuss the fact that he is opposed to abortifacient  if she gets pregnant. By him. If she tells him she had no plans to be a mother or allow an unplanned pregnancy go to full term he needs to get and find the right woman to have sec with.


That late?

I would suggest that that’s something that you should discuss on the first date and / or well before intercourse is possible because the classic rule “don’t stick your dick in crazy” has a natural correlary in “don’t stick your dick in evil piece of shit.”


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. When one individual who oxygenates his or her blood unlawfully terminates the life of a separate individual who oxygenated his or her own blood until death,  it is murder.  END2208031429


You are a liar and or a crazy person what with your “zombie” talk.

I don’t give two shits about your respiratory system obsession. 

If we want to get technical, murder only means what the law says it means in a jurisdiction.  My point is that you do not want something that otherwise would apply to apply because of arbitrary and bigoted reasons.  In this case, your bizarre hangup with respiration and the crazed belief that those you hate and want dead are zombies.


----------



## airplanemechanic

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix
> 
> 
> I would suggest that every man in a sexual relationship longer than a one night stand etc with a woman who could get pregnant accidentally, discuss the fact that he is opposed to abortifacient  if she gets pregnant. By him. If she tells him she had no plans to be a mother or allow an unplanned pregnancy go to full term he needs to get and find the right woman to have sec with.



Well I would suggest that a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant keep her fucking legs closed or use birth control of some sort. But planned or not, the father of the baby should be able to have equal rights when it comes to if the baby lives.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Every woman has a natural right to be protected from goons like you and @ding END2208030116


What did we do?  Besides try to get you to acknowledge abortion ends a human life.  You are hurting your cause by not being honest.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Besides try to get you to acknowledge abortion ends a human life.


NFBW: First you ain’t nobody to tell me I have to acknowledge the absurd anti-woman unscientific bullshit  pro-lifer propaganda that you are spreading here with CarsomyrPlusSix .  You are promoting granting states the authority to deny  equal protection rights to women thereby placing women below that of men and an unborn fetus? You are a goon. END2208031636


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> absurd anti-woman unscientific bullshit pro-lifer propaganda


So much projection.  We’re just citing scientific fact, neutral to the topic at hand.

You choose to support killing innocent human beings, and you choose to lie that these killings aren’t killings.  The former is a matter of your subjective values or lack thereof of value / values.  The latter is just you lying or being crazy.


Treating folks equally is not discrimination.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: First you ain’t nobody to tell me I have to acknowledge the absurd anti-woman unscientific bullshit  pro-lifer propaganda that you are spreading here with CarsomyrPlusSix .  You are promoting granting states the authority to deny  equal protection rights to women thereby placing women below that of men and an unborn fetus? You are a goon. END2208031636


It's not like it's a secret, dummy.  Mothers know they are ending their child's life.  That's why it's such a hard decision for them.  

The only thing I am promoting is reality because you keep denying it.  You want to make abortion be seen like a tonsillectomy.  It's not.  It's ending a human life.  The least you can do is acknowledge it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I don’t give two shits about your respiratory system obsession.


NFBW: Because my science is better than your science, You have summed up you science only once thusly:_* “They have their own body, their own genetic code, etc - they are distinct, and they are "someone else."*_”

They do not have functioning lungs, they can’t live without blood being supplied by “someone else”. Your science ignored that reality so your science ain’t science because of that, Having DNA dies not identify the moment that hunan life begins. Being able to breathe scientifically without emotion is a huge part of visible humanness that all living breathing human beings who make choices as best they can bring humans - DNA has nothing to do with answering the questions in the mystery of life and because you say so means even less than that. END2208031719


----------



## beagle9

postman said:


> Funny how once those distinct organisms enter the world, republicans turn their back on them.  Whether it's WIC, or healthcare, or school lunches, republicans no longer care what happens to the unborn, once they're born.


You want dependency, Republicans want standard's and a meritocracy society not dependency... It is the parent's or parent who is responsible for their actions, and it is the parent's or parent who is responsible to raise their children up in the right way regardless of how poor they might be (been done for centuries upon centuries), and it is their responsibility to accept their choices made in life, and not kill their babies whether unborn or born.

Government can help some, but its not best to do so under Democrat leadership, because they exploit everything, and breed dependency for nefarious reason's.


----------



## beagle9

Care4all said:


> The founding father's believed they were human beings forming, from the get go.  But they did not believe the fetus had life, in the sense of personhood under the law where government had jurisdiction under the law, until quickening....until the baby stirred or kicked inside the mother, which is around 20 weeks gestation....before such, the mother to be alone, ruled alone.


Government doesn't want jurisdiction of a woman's womb nor does it want to interfere in her choice's as to whether she gets pregnant or not. It's only when genocide becomes a grave issue concerning the snuffing out of unborn babies because a reckless individual couldn't control themselves, and therefore thinks that the government is some sort of hitman that they can get to enter their womb in order to snuff out their unborn baby for them, and this way it clears their conscious of any wrong doing because government says that it was ok to kill their unborn babies. So whatever government says, then it's ok to these mindless drone's.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Mothers know they are ending their child's life.


Have you interviewed all or read somewhere to see if they consider terminating their pregnancy as premeditated contract murder of a human being as CarsomyrPlusSix calls it? Or do they see themselves legitimately terminating a biological organism that is not a human being or human life until it is born or close to the significant moment..


----------



## beagle9

postman said:


> Stopping an unplanned pregnancy, whether by contraception, the morning after pill, chemical abortion or mechanical abortion (all before reaching viability) is a medical decision, not a moral one.  Nobody has the right to tell somebody else that they have to do something with their body, that they choose not to do.
> 
> It's almost a form of slavery, culminating with (pun intended) forced labor.


And a citizen hasn't the right to think that it can drag government or anyone else into their choice's made in life, but that's exactly what has been going on in it all


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Have you interviewed all or read somewhere to see if they consider terminating their pregnancy as premeditated contract murder of a human being as CarsomyrPlusSix calls it? Or do they see themselves legitimately terminating a biological organism that is not a human being or human life until it is born or close to the significant moment..


They cry about it.  They know what they are doing.  You do too.


----------



## meaner gene

beagle9 said:


> You want dependency, Republicans want standard's and a meritocracy society not dependency... It is the parent's or parent who is responsible for their actions, and it is the parent's or parent who is responsible to raise their children up in the right way regardless of how poor they might be (been done for centuries upon centuries), and it is their responsibility to accept their choices made in life, and not kill their babies whether unborn or born.


There can be a number of reasons a parent or parents decide that for whatever reason, it would be detrimental to themselves, the health of the other, detrimental to their other children, or even the quality of life of an additional child.  

You want to override that decision, and force them to go through the possibly lethal risks of pregnancy, and other impacts upon the mother.  She might face uncovered medical expenses, unpaid leave, and loss of functionality.

What happened to small government?  where it keeps it's hands off peoples private lives.


----------



## Care4all

beagle9 said:


> Government doesn't want jurisdiction of a woman's womb nor does it want to interfere in her choice's as to whether she gets pregnant or not. It's only when genocide becomes a grave issue concerning the snuffing out of unborn babies because a reckless individual couldn't control themselves, and therefore thinks that the government is some sort of hitman that they can get to enter their womb in order to snuff out their unborn baby for them, and this way it clears their conscious of any wrong doing because government says that it was ok to kill their unborn babies. So whatever government says, then it's ok to these mindless drone's.


Nope!

The question is:  who should be making the decision about their own pregnancy, whether planned or not, the person pregnant, or the government who know nothing of your own situation?

My answer is, I trust in the woman to know her own medical, financial, and mental stress circumstances, and to do what she believes is best under her situation, and do not trust the government to be able to make that decision for her or force her to do what they want and not what she believes is best for all involved.  How dare they even try!

She may make a wrong decision in the eyes of others, but it is her decision to make, at least early on in her pregnancy imo.


----------



## beagle9

meaner gene said:


> There can be a number of reasons a parent or parents decide that for whatever reason, it would be detrimental to themselves, the health of the other, detrimental to their other children, or even the quality of life of an additional child.
> 
> You want to override that decision, and force them to go through the possibly lethal risks of pregnancy, and other impacts upon the mother.  She might face uncovered medical expenses, unpaid leave, and loss of functionality.
> 
> What happened to small government?  where it keeps it's hands off peoples private lives.


Stop assigning things to republican's or conservatives in order to argue your bull crap created. No one wants to interfere with anyone's live's as long as they are not being immoral, evil, reckless, lawbreaking or anything that undermines a CIVILIZED SOCIETY. That's the dilemma you on the left are faced with, otherwise you want the freedom to undermine CIVILIZED SOCIETY by engaging in uncivilized activities, and civilized society rejects that want that you have to include them in it.


----------



## BackAgain

Care4all said:


> Nope!
> 
> The question is:  who should be making the decision about their own pregnancy, whether planned or not, the person pregnant, or the government who know nothing of your own situation?
> 
> My answer is, I trust in the woman to know her own medical, financial, and mental stress circumstances, and to do what she believes is best under her situation, and do not trust the government to be able to make that decision for her or force her to do what they want and not what she believes is best for all involved.  How dare they even try!
> 
> She may make a wrong decision in the eyes of others, but it is her decision to make, at least early on in her pregnancy imo.


Wrong question. I’ll tell you the only valid question:

Who should be protecting the preborn from the wholesale slaughter we call “abortion?”  

Now, I will provide the one correct answer:  That would be *all* of us.


----------



## beagle9

Care4all said:


> Nope!
> 
> The question is:  who should be making the decision about their own pregnancy, whether planned or not, the person pregnant, or the government who know nothing of your own situation?
> 
> My answer is, I trust in the woman to know her own medical, financial, and mental stress circumstances, and to do what she believes is best under her situation, and do not trust the government to be able to make that decision for her or force her to do what they want and not what she believes is best for all involved.  How dare they even try!
> 
> She may make a wrong decision in the eyes of others, but it is her decision to make, at least early on in her pregnancy imo.


So you disagree with late term abortion or abortion after a heartbeat is detected etc ? I noticed your conscious kicked in for a second there, now why did it do that ?


----------



## beagle9

BackAgain said:


> Wrong question. I’ll tell you the only valid question:
> 
> Who should be protecting the preborn from the wholesale slaughter we call “abortion?”
> 
> Now, I will provide the one correct answer:  That would be *all* of us.


They ought to be able to relate to that answer, because wasn't it them that said it takes a village to raise a child ? Wasn't it them that said people's children were no longer theirs ? Ad nauseam, Ad nauseam...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> They cry about it.


NFBW: So no. You made it all up. You know nothing. They may cry they may not. They may feel they made a private health decision and it is none of your fucking business ding. I agree with the latter. It’s none of your business if a woman cries about something that has no detrimental effect on you and how you live your life. So buck up goon. Get your slimy authoritarian paws off every child bearing aged woman in the country,  END2208031944


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> So no. You made it all up. You know nothing. They may cry they may not. They may feel they made a private health decision and it is none of your fucking business ding. I agree with the latter. It’s none of your business if a woman cries about something that has no detrimental effect on you and how you live your life. So buck up goon. Get your slimy authoritarian paws off every child bearing aged woman in the country,  END2208031944


Losing control means losing the debate, so it is that you are losing in the rational common sense arena of thoughts and decency concerning the subject, otherwise as is evidenced in your heated rhetoric being spewed now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain said:


> Who should be protecting the preborn from the wholesale slaughter we call “abortion?”


NFBW: No one should be protecting a biological part of a woman from the woman during the early stages of pregnancy.  When it can be separated and becomes a human being like the mother was at her birth, protect the hell out of that newborn infant. END2208031949


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No one should be protecting a biological part of a woman


Young human beings are not “part of their mothers.”

The claims is insane on its face.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: So no. You made it all up. You know nothing. They may cry they may not. They may feel they made a private health decision and it is none of your fucking business ding. I agree with the latter. It’s none of your business if a woman cries about something that has no detrimental effect on you and how you live your life. So buck up goon. Get your slimy authoritarian paws off every child bearing aged woman in the country,  END2208031944


Tell that to the states and SCOTUS.  Cause crying to me about it won't change diddly squat.  But when you do, you might want to take the honest approach instead of all the BS you made up so you could sleep at night.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Young human beings are not “part of their mothers.”


NFBW: Then if they are separated from their mothers they will continue to develop and there is no issue about ending a life. Your argument is absurd. END2208032050


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Then if they are separated from their mothers they will continue to develop and there is no issue about ending a life. Your argument is absurd. END2208032050


You are a moron.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Tell that to the states and SCOTUS.


NFBW: why? they didn’t write that women cry. You did. END2208032058


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Young human beings are not “part of their mothers.”





ding said:


> You are a moron



NFBW  Explain why. If a fetus is not part of their mother why can’t they be separated at any stage after conception. END2208032104


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW  Explain why. If a fetus is not part of their mother why can’t they be separated at any stage after conception. END2208032104


Whether they are inside the mom or outside the mom doesn’t change the essence of what they are.


----------



## ding

All pregnancies start with a new human life: a tiny one-celled organism who grows and develops throughout the pregnancy until birth and then continues to develop throughout their life-span.


----------



## ding

Abortion ends pregnancies which end human lives.  That is reality.


----------



## ding

For parents suffering a miscarriage or stillbirth, there is pain and grief. Others may not understand why they are so upset. Their pain is validated with the knowledge of a life lost. These parents did not just lose a clump of skin cells that floated away in the breeze, they lost a living human being…their child.  A woman considering an abortion also needs to understand that the consequences will be a life lost. 





__





						Does Ending a Pregnancy End a Human Life? - True Care Women's Resource Center
					

Read more about Does Ending a Pregnancy End a Human Life? in this post. True Care Women's Resource Center offers free pregnancy services in Casper, WY.




					truecarecasper.org


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> a tiny one-celled organism who grows and develops throughout the pregnancy


NFBW: always attached to the mother and part of her biological functions - oxygen and nutrients in : carbon dioxide and waste out through the mom. What part of a fetus being a part of the mother don’t you get?  END2208032117


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: always attached to the mother and part of her biological functions - oxygen and nutrients in : carbon dioxide and waste out through the mom. What part of a fetus being a part of the mother don’t you get?  END2208032117


The part where you think that means it's not a new living genetically distinct human being in the earliest stage of the human life cycle whose life will be ended if aborted.


----------



## ding

Perhaps the loss of this tiny human organism is an acceptable solution to a woman in a difficult situation. She deserves to know and understand the facts before making that decision because she is the one who will have to live with her choice the rest of her life.  And perhaps she also may need to understand why she hurts and allow herself to grieve.  The choice she makes is not easy and should never be minimized.





__





						Does Ending a Pregnancy End a Human Life? - True Care Women's Resource Center
					

Read more about Does Ending a Pregnancy End a Human Life? in this post. True Care Women's Resource Center offers free pregnancy services in Casper, WY.




					truecarecasper.org


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> A woman considering an abortion also needs to understand that the consequences will be a life lost.


NFBW: Yes, a potential human life lost.As I’ve told you before.

NFBW2207282115-#3,997     “I support a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. That right is based on her autonomous natural right to control what happens in her body.* I know full well that when she chooses to terminate a developing human organism in her womb it ends the natural birth and life of a potential human being.*​
 Abortion ends the natural birth and life of a potential human being.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208032117-#4,290    “What part of a fetus being a part of the mother don’t you get?”



ding said:


> The part where you think that means it's not a new living genetically distinct human being in the earliest stage of the human life cycle whose life will be ended if aborted.



*NFBW:* A fertilized embryo is a new living attached part of a pregnant woman’s physicality and anatomy that is a genetically distinct human organism in the earliest stage of the human life cycle. It is clear and understood by me that a woman’s decision to remove the developing aforementioned part of her body through the process of abortion, a potential individual human life will be ended when it is aborted.  It is not immoral, murder, homicide genocide or a threat to civil society to remove a developing human organism that is attached and reliant upon and therefore part of woman’s own body if a woman decides to terminate it prior to viability if separated. END2208032342


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: always attached to the mother and part of her biological functions - oxygen and nutrients in : carbon dioxide and waste out through the mom. What part of a fetus being a part of the mother don’t you get?  END2208032117


The retarded part where you confirm you flunked science by calling a distinct human being with his or her own body "part of the mother," which is completely stupid and objectively false.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> A fertilized embryo


...

Why are you throwing sperm cells at embryos?  Pro-tip, it doesn't do anything.


----------



## Care4all

BackAgain said:


> Wrong question. I’ll tell you the only valid question:
> 
> Who should be protecting the preborn from the wholesale slaughter we call “abortion?”
> 
> Now, I will provide the one correct answer:  That would be *all* of us.


Nope.  You know nothing about her or future baby.  It is not your uninformed decision that should ever be forced on her.  Period.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW:  Why are you throwing inane questions at me now Kansas Loser Guy? 



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Why are you throwing sperm cells at embryos? Pro-tip, it doesn't do anything.



NFBW: A fertilized embryo is past the sperm assault but is referred to as the “*potential* beginnings of a human being.” Not an actual human being.

At the time of fertilization the ovum contains the potential beginnings of a human being. 





__





						Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!
					

NFBW: So no. You made it all up. You know nothing. They may cry they may not. They may feel they made a private health decision and it is none of your fucking business ding. I agree with the latter. It’s none of your business if a woman cries about something that has no detrimental effect on you...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




As cell division takes place the cells of the blastoderm (embryonic disk) gradually form three layers from which all the body structures develop. The ectoderm(outer layer) gives rise to the epidermis of the skin and its appendages, and to the nervous system. The mesoderm (middle layer) develops into muscle, connective tissue, the circulatory organs, circulating lymph and blood cells, endothelial tissues within the closed vessels and cavities, and the epithelium portion of the urogenital system. From the endoderm (internal layer) are derived those portions not arising from the ectoderm, the liver, the pancreas, and the lu

END2208040537


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> A fertilized embryo is


Nonsense bullshit.

You can't "fertilize" an embryo.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW:  Making American Taliban happy after devastating loss in Kansas . .

*NFBW:* At t*he time of fertilization as cell division takes place the cells of the blastoderm (embryonic disk) gradually form three layers from which all the body structures of a new living biological process become temporarily, functionally and physically an *attached part of a pregnant woman’s physicality and anatomy that is a genetically distinct human organism in the earliest stage of the human life cycle. It is clear and understood by me that a woman’s decision to remove the developing aforementioned part of her body through the process of abortion, a potential individual human life will be ended when it is aborted. It is not immoral, murder, homicide genocide or a threat to civil society to remove a developing human organism that is attached and reliant upon and therefore part of woman’s own body if a woman decides to terminate it prior to viability if separated. END2208032342

There you go CarsomyrPlusSix Kansas Loser Guy   END2208040556


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW:  Making American Taliban happy after devastating loss in Kansas . .


Hey, idiot?

You still can't fertilize an embryo.

You are undereducated and overopinionated.

Do you need some help?

In sexually reproducing vivaparous mammals like _Homo sapiens _("human beings," aka, that thing you are, need to clarify everything with you, clearly) fertilization creates a new organism in the zygote stage of life.  If we are to be most strict and technical, the embryo stage of life begins after the zygote stage of life and before the fetal stage.  P.S. you are also a _Homo sapiens_ in a "stage of life" and will be until you die.


Fertilization of an egg cell by the sperm cell already occurred well before this point, after which the egg cell and the sperm cell are fused into that new human being in the zygote stage of life.  After this, after fertilization is done, there is no more egg cell and no more sperm cell.

It is not long before the first mitosis and the new human being is comprised of two cells.  And then 4.  And so on.


You cannot FERTILIZE an Homo sapiens in the embryo stage of life by any stretch of the imagination.   Sperm cells would do nothing if you put them next to an embryo, nor would you expect them to.   If you sloshed semen (and thus sperm cells) on your face right now, you would not be a "fertilized NotfooledbyW."  This is patently and comically ridiculous.  I do not know why you are being cartoonish.


Neither, if we are generous to you and creative in stretching definitions, is an embryo a crop that you could grow in the ground fertilized with manure, even figurative manure like the nonsense you type.





NotfooledbyW said:


> It is clear and understood by me


What is clear is that nothing is clear to you and nothing is understood by you.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Yes, a potential human life lost.As I’ve told you before.
> 
> NFBW2207282115-#3,997     “I support a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. That right is based on her autonomous natural right to control what happens in her body.* I know full well that when she chooses to terminate a developing human organism in her womb it ends the natural birth and life of a potential human being.*​
> Abortion ends the natural birth and life of a potential human being.


Incorrect a human with potential.  

You are minimizing the choice.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208032117-#4,290    “What part of a fetus being a part of the mother don’t you get?”
> 
> 
> 
> *NFBW:* A fertilized embryo is a new living attached part of a pregnant woman’s physicality and anatomy that is a genetically distinct human organism in the earliest stage of the human life cycle. It is clear and understood by me that a woman’s decision to remove the developing aforementioned part of her body through the process of abortion, a potential individual human life will be ended when it is aborted.  It is not immoral, murder, homicide genocide or a threat to civil society to remove a developing human organism that is attached and reliant upon and therefore part of woman’s own body if a woman decides to terminate it prior to viability if separated. END2208032342


It isn't a potential life.  It is a living human being.  You are minimizing abortion; sugar coating it so to speak.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW:  Why are you throwing inane questions at me now Kansas Loser Guy?
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW: A fertilized embryo is past the sperm assault but is referred to as the “*potential* beginnings of a human being.” Not an actual human being.
> 
> At the time of fertilization the ovum contains the potential beginnings of a human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!
> 
> 
> NFBW: So no. You made it all up. You know nothing. They may cry they may not. They may feel they made a private health decision and it is none of your fucking business ding. I agree with the latter. It’s none of your business if a woman cries about something that has no detrimental effect on you...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As cell division takes place the cells of the blastoderm (embryonic disk) gradually form three layers from which all the body structures develop. The ectoderm(outer layer) gives rise to the epidermis of the skin and its appendages, and to the nervous system. The mesoderm (middle layer) develops into muscle, connective tissue, the circulatory organs, circulating lymph and blood cells, endothelial tissues within the closed vessels and cavities, and the epithelium portion of the urogenital system. From the endoderm (internal layer) are derived those portions not arising from the ectoderm, the liver, the pancreas, and the lu
> 
> END2208040537


You are playing words games for the express purpose of minimizing the consequences of an abortion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> P.S. you are also a _Homo sapiens_ in a "stage of life" and will be until you die.


*NFBW*: You, ding beagle9 and I are _Homo sapiens_ currently in a "stage of life" that is not remotely similar to one of the many earliest stages of life when we were all a *temporary part of a woman’s body *and dependent on that woman for a supply of life sustaining nourishment, oxygenated blood, and removal of carbon dioxide and waste.

We are all *postpartum human beings* experiencing the mysteries of all life together.

NFBW2207230010-#3,817    “bring into being" - Spoken when Jesus walked the earth - partus "act of giving birth, childbirth," from parere "to give birth to, bring into being"​​History and Etymology for postpartum - from the Latin phrase post partum "after childbirth," from post "after" + partum, accusative of partus "act of giving birth, childbirth," from parere "to give birth to, bring into being"​​*NFBW*: The fatal flaw in CarsomyrPlusSix ’s  entire argument is the following false premise:

CarsomyrPlusSix220803-#4,280 “Young human beings are not “part of their mothers.”​​END2208040837


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: You, ding beagle9 and I are _Homo sapiens_ currently in a "stage of life" that is not remotely similar to one of the many earliest stages of life when we were all a *temporary part of a woman’s body *and dependent on that woman for a supply of life sustaining nourishment, oxygenated blood, and removal of carbon dioxide and waste.
> 
> We are all *postpartum human beings* experiencing the mysteries of all life together.
> 
> NFBW2207230010-#3,817    “bring into being" - Spoken when Jesus walked the earth - partus "act of giving birth, childbirth," from parere "to give birth to, bring into being"​​History and Etymology for postpartum - from the Latin phrase post partum "after childbirth," from post "after" + partum, accusative of partus "act of giving birth, childbirth," from parere "to give birth to, bring into being"​​*NFBW*: The fatal flaw in CarsomyrPlusSix ’s  entire argument is the following false premise:
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220803-#4,280 “Young human beings are not “part of their mothers.”​​END2208040837


You are minimizing the consequences of abortion.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> You are minimizing the consequences of abortion.


Also, the existence of the jointly made temporary organ, the placenta, makes short work of his “part of the mother’s body” stupidity.

Moreover, he is now asserting “post-partum” as though this is meaningful.  Saying the same thing a different way doesn’t change anything - we already knew he believed in the magical personhood cave.


----------



## ding

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Also, the existence of the jointly made temporary organ, the placenta, makes short work of his “part of the mother’s body” stupidity.
> 
> Moreover, he is now asserting “post-partum” as though this is meaningful.  Saying the same thing a different way doesn’t change anything - we already knew he believed in the magical personhood cave.


He's throwing mud against a wall in hope some of it will stick.  The fact that he looks for new and "creative" ways to avoid saying abortion ends a human life is evidence that he knows he has lost.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You are minimizing the consequences of abortion.



The difference between a human fetal organism experiencing life in the womb as a biological part of one of millions of women alive today and a postpartum human being experiencing the mysteries of all life together is a major material difference in kind, not one of many significant differences between all the numerous stages of human development over a lifetime from fertilization to death.

For that fact the action by a woman who makes a choice to terminate her fetus by a safe medical procedure has zero consequences to civil society as a whole. She violates no living human being’s right to life property and pursuit of happiness. So what are the consequences to society that need to be stopped?   END2208041135


----------



## BackAgain

Care4all said:


> Nope.  You know nothing about her or future baby.  It is not your uninformed decision that should ever be forced on her.  Period.


Wrong. I know the future baby won’t be a future baby if it’s life is snuffed out inside the womb.

And, albeit inconsistent in my logic, I do recognize the tragic need for *some* exceptions. Even so, our wholesale slaughter of the preborn is larger and more repulsive that the holocaust and Mao and Stalin combined. And we have been standing idly by doing nothing about it.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> The difference between a human fetal organism experiencing life in the womb as a biological part of one of millions of women alive today and a postpartum human being experiencing the mysteries of all life together is a major material difference in kind, not one of many minor differences between all the numerous stages of human development over a lifetime from fertilization to death.
> 
> For that fact the action by a woman who makes a choice to terminate her fetus by a safe medical procedure has zero consequences to civil society as a whole. She violates no living human being’s right to life property and pursuit of happiness. So what are the consequences to society ttat need to be stopped?   END2208041135


Dude, save your rationalizations for yourself.  No one is buying them.  You are intentionally and knowingly minimizing the consequences of abortion.


----------



## Care4all

BackAgain said:


> Wrong. I know the future baby won’t be a future baby if it’s life is snuffed out inside the womb.
> 
> And, albeit inconsistent in my logic, I do recognize the tragic need for *some* exceptions. Even so, our wholesale slaughter of the preborn is larger and more repulsive that the holocaust and Mao and Stalin combined. And we have been standing idly by doing nothing about it.


When you get pregnant, you get to make this very hard and complicated decision, for yourself.  Government should not decide for you, without knowing a single thing about your own situation.

Govt should not even know, you are pregnant early on....let alone forcing you to take the risks of pregnancy, when they don't even know them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Also, the existence of the jointly made temporary organ, the placenta, makes short work of his “part of the mother’s body” stupidity





ding said:


> Dude, save your rationalizations for yourself.


NFBW: It is not rationalization that a fetal organism, including a placenta is part of the woman during her pregnancy. That is a fact. An undeniable fact. END2208041228


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> She violates no living human being’s right to life property and pursuit of happiness.


Monstrous and insane lie.

Abortion victims were living human beings.

They accordingly have a human right to life which is being violated.  You can attempt to justify this violation, but you are not entitled to lie to do so.


----------



## BackAgain

Care4all said:


> When you get pregnant, you get to make this very hard and complicated decision, for yourself.  Government should not decide for you, without knowing a single thing about your own situation.
> 
> Govt should not even know, you are pregnant early on....let alone forcing you to take the risks of pregnancy, when they don't even know them.


The standard lib comeback. 🙄 As empty now as it’s always been. 

First, males don’t get pregnant. But *all* people (male and female) have a voice in saving human life. 

Government isn’t seeking to make your decisions. Government only seeks (in some cases) to make decisions on behalf of the ones who can’t speak for themselves. 

Liberal ideology on the topic of abortion always tries to paint the dire, bleak picture that anybody is seeking to impose shit on women.  It’s a bullshit construct. And it’s not working anymore. It’s been exposed. 

The right to life isn’t something left up to just the mother carrying the child. Society gets a say in it too.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Monstrous and insane lie.


NFBW: That coming from a postpartum human being who was separated at birth from his momma’s body, and in that moment of separation began oxygenating his own blood now denands that I believe the utter absurdity that he was never a part of his mother’s body: 

CarsomyrPlusSix220803-#4,280 “Young human beings are not “part of their mothers.”​
END2208041353


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> now denands that I believe the utter absurdity that he was never a part of his mother’s body:



I do, in fact, insist, under penalty of mockery and derisive laughter, that you stop spewing scientific illiteracy claiming that I was ever a “part of my mothers body.”

Part of my first cell was part of my mother’s body.  When I was one cell, at the beginning of my life, I was already not a part of her body anymore.  

Point in fact, she had already cast off that egg cell prior to fertilization - otherwise it could not have been fertilized.

You flunk Biology, friendo.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Abortion victims were living human beings.


NFBW: That is your flawed unscientific political opinion and nothing more because you refuse to accept the scientific biological physiological fact that so called “abortion victims” are part of woman’s body when that medical procedure is performed. END2208041404


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> When I was one cell, at the beginning of my life, I was already not a part of her body anymore.


NFBW: if what you say is true pure logic and reason tells me you were ready to be separated and removed from your momma’s body at that moment without a developed brain tough guy,  Science tells me all further cell growth, splitting, tissue forming what have you, etc would cease and that would be that. You snd your unique dna spend eternity in a landfill in NJ somewhere. But I will admit it could be possible if you ever voted for Trump that a team of Qanon scientists kept your two cells alive and brought you to viability but forgot to develop your brain. YES that could be possible. Highly improbable but possible I guess. END2208042420


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: That is your flawed unscientific political opinion and nothing more


That is scientific fact.

You are uneducated and your lack of knowledge combined with your willful ignorance renders you incompetent to continue this debate.

You just state insane falsehoods.

Our lifespan begins at fertilization that is unassailable and indisputable textbook scientific fact.  Again, we do not change species mid-lifespan, that is ludicrous, such a thing would not, could not be possible.  You deny these realities all you want, it’s like denying gravity or that the earth is an ellipsoid, or that 2+2=4.  

Your words are not even valid as opinion, they are just profoundly stupid error.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> That is scientific fact.


NFBW: Then show me your scientific fact that a viable human being exists beginning approximately between seven and nine months prior to a fetus being able to oxygenate its own blood without being hooked up, encapsulated and part of it’s  living breathing eating shitting peeing laughing crying mother’s body. You and little ding have shown me nothing so far. END2208041458


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You just state insane falsehoods.


NFBW: be specific,  oh highly educated ONE-Wan Kenobi.

 END-2208041504.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Our lifespan begins at fertilization that is unassailable and indisputable textbook scientific fact.


NFBW: Great. I am not disputing that. END2208042510


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> we do not change species mid-lifespan,


NFBW: Yes, we never change species from fertilization unto death.  END2208041513


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> show me your scientific fact that a viable human being


Moving the goalposts fallacy. 

Viability is not relevant nor the topic at hand, so try to be intellectually honest if you are capable of ever doing that.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Great. I am not disputing that. END2208042510


Then you recognize that the unborn are alive.


NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Yes, we never change species from fertilization unto death.  END2208041513


Then you recognize that the unborn are human beings and not a member some other species.

So then, you recognize that they are living human beings.

So stop disputing that they are living human beings, as now we have established this is utterly incomprehensible for you to do this.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Then you recognize that the unborn are alive.


I never accused the developing human organisms that are temporarily part of a pregnant woman’s body to not be a living organism. They are alive thanks to receiving and using oxygenated blood from someone else. It does not oxygenate its own blood, END2208041712


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Then you recognize that the unborn are human beings and not a member some other species



*NFBW*: Here is my position and you are dancing around it telling me what you think I think:  _An “unborn” is a genetically distinct human organism in the earliest stage of the human life cycle. It is clear and understood by me that a woman’s decision to remove the developing aforementioned part of her body through the process of abortion, a potential individual human life will be ended. _

I recognize just as every scientist does, It is an undeveloped human being prior to birth as expressed in this statement;  every bit of it is human:

NFBW2208040556-#4,300    “At the time of fertilization as cell division takes place the cells of the blastoderm (embryonic disk) gradually form three layers from which all the body structures of a new living biological process become temporarily, functionally and physically an attached part of a pregnant woman’s physicality and anatomy that is a genetically distinct human organism in the earliest stage of the human life cycle. It is clear and understood by me that a woman’s decision to remove the developing aforementioned part of her body through the process of abortion, a potential individual human life will be ended when it is aborted. It is not immoral, murder, homicide genocide or a threat to civil society to remove a developing human organism that is attached and reliant upon and therefore part of woman’s own body if a woman decides to terminate it prior to viability if separated.”​
NFBW: There I do not see myself as a separate human being like I am right now when I was hooked up to my mother and we had a private relationship that, even at the time a life tone ago, was none of your business or @ding’s business.  END2208041736


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> It is clear and understood by me that a woman’s decision to remove the developing aforementioned part of her body through the process of abortion, a potential individual human life will be ended when it is aborted.


No.  The life of a human being is ended.  “Potential” has nothing to do with it.  No, you do not understand.



NotfooledbyW said:


> It is not immoral, murder, homicide genocide or a threat to civil society


It is homicide by definition.  If a society permits this, human rights abuse, it is never civil, but savage, and should be destroyed.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: It is not rationalization that a fetal organism, including a placenta is part of the woman during her pregnancy. That is a fact. An undeniable fact. END2208041228


It most certainly is a rationalization when you use it to argue that abortion is not ending the life of a new genetically distinct person who has never existed before and will never exist again.


----------



## ding

Care4all said:


> When you get pregnant, you get to make this very hard and complicated decision, for yourself. Government should not decide for you, without knowing a single thing about your own situation.


I don't necessarily disagree.  However it is important to have all of the information to fully understand the consequence of that choice.  One being that she would be ending the life a genetically distinct new human being who has never existed before and will never exist again.  Anything less and she will not be working from all of the facts.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: That coming from a postpartum human being who was separated at birth from his momma’s body, and in that moment of separation began oxygenating his own blood now denands that I believe the utter absurdity that he was never a part of his mother’s body:
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220803-#4,280 “Young human beings are not “part of their mothers.”​
> END2208041353


This is you trying to minimize the consequences of abortion.  Abortion ends the life of a genetically distinct new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.  Say it with me, brother!


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: That is your flawed unscientific political opinion and nothing more because you refuse to accept the scientific biological physiological fact that so called “abortion victims” are part of woman’s body when that medical procedure is performed. END2208041404


DNA says otherwise.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: if what you say is true pure logic and reason tells me you were ready to be separated and removed from your momma’s body at that moment without a developed brain tough guy,  Science tells me all further cell growth, splitting, tissue forming what have you, etc would cease and that would be that. You snd your unique dna spend eternity in a landfill in NJ somewhere. But I will admit it could be possible if you ever voted for Trump that a team of Qanon scientists kept your two cells alive and brought you to viability but forgot to develop your brain. YES that could be possible. Highly improbable but possible I guess. END2208042420


You show your true motivation when you start spouting political ideology.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: Here is my position and you are dancing around it telling me what you think I think: _An “unborn” is a genetically distinct human organism in the earliest stage of the human life cycle. It is clear and understood by me that a woman’s decision to remove the developing aforementioned part of her body through the process of abortion, a potential individual human life will be ended._


Still incorrect but you are getting closer.  It's not a potential human life.  It is an actual human in the early stages of its human life cycle.  You are trying to minimize the consequences of abortion by incorrectly stating that abortion does not end a human life.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Then show me your scientific fact that a viable human being exists beginning approximately between seven and nine months prior to a fetus being able to oxygenate its own blood without being hooked up, encapsulated and part of it’s  living breathing eating shitting peeing laughing crying mother’s body. You and little ding have shown me nothing so far. END2208041458


Two different arguments.  The question of viability outside of the womb in no way affects the humanness of the new genetically distinct human being inside the womb.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Rules Of Engagement From A Pro Choice Republican "

* Hard Legs Without Legal Interest **


airplanemechanic said:


> Why do you liberals not give the men any say so? It takes two to create a baby, why does the woman get 100% of the decision whether or not to abort, yet if she wants to keep it and the man doesn't, he still has to pay child support for 18 years? If he wants to keep it and she doesn't, tough luck. She can kill it, according to ya'll.
> 
> Why do liberals hate men and not give them a say?


What the fuck is a liberal ?

The liberal versus conservative paradigm is intellectual buffoonery - Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments .

As the fetus has not met a birth requirement for equal protection , it is private property of the mother .

Consent to have sex is not consent to conceive or to delivery . 

If a male does not wish to willfully transfer its private property semen to a female , then keep it zipped .

If for some reason a male feels that its private property semen was forcibly removed , then they can carry their behinds down to the local magistrate and claim rape , so that they may not have to pay child support .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Till Death Due Us Part "

* Dear Psychopomp Help Us To Pass On Our Genetic Identity Forever **


ding said:


> Still incorrect but you are getting closer.  It's not a potential human life.  It is an actual human in the early stages of its human life cycle.  You are trying to minimize the consequences of abortion by incorrectly stating that abortion does not end a human life.


The number one reason for a hue mammon life ending is being alive in the first place so go whimper to your gawd .


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Till Death Due Us Part "
> 
> * Dear Psychopomp Help Us To Pass On Our Genetic Identity Forever **
> 
> The number one reason for a hue mammon life ending is being alive in the first place so go whimper to your gawd .


That's nice.


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> it is private property of the mother


You mean like slaves were the private property of their owners?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> It's not a potential human life.


NFBW: Sez you and the pro/life Taliban propaganda machine, not scientists. 


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The life of a human being is ended.


Provide the scientific evidence that proves that.

It is acceptable by a non-Taliban ruled society for a woman to privately choose to terminate an underdeveloped potential human being that is using oxygenated blood from a woman who has been oxygenating her own blood normally for at least 18 years. So an aborted fetus is a potential human being that is not quite there yet. END2208042214


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Sez you and the pro/life Taliban propaganda machine, not scientists.


Says every embryology textbook ever written.  You are trying to minimize the consequences of abortion.  Abortion ends the life of a living, genetically distinct human being.  Say it with me.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> It is acceptable by a non-Taliban ruled society for a woman to privately choose to terminate an underdeveloped potential human being that is using oxygenated blood from a woman who has been oxygenating her own blood normally for at least 18 years. So an aborted fetus is a potential human being that is not quite there yet. END2208042214


This may very well be the most convoluted post in the history of convoluted posts.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Provide the scientific evidence


Every embryology textbook ever written.  DNA.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I Two different arguments. The question of viability outside of the womb in no way affects the humanness of the new genetically distinct human being inside the womb.


NFBW; Prior to the discovery of DNA When life began at quickening nothing has changed. Life begins at viability not a unique genetic code.


ding said:


> Every embryology textbook ever written.  DNA.


NFBW: Viability according to science determines when human life actually begins. It used to be 28 weeks now it is down to 24 weeks for preemies if parents have a spare $100k laying around to keep them alive

Even when receiving the most advanced treatment possible, the vulnerability of a 22-week preemie is acute. The skin is thinner than paper, the lungs may be three or more months away from being able to take in air on their own and the brain, which is still forming basic structures, bleeds easily.​​







						Abortion, Science and Post-Roe America
					

Overturning Roe won't stop States from tying abortion access to fetal viability.




					www.newsweek.com
				


​To develop properly, a preemie needs to bond to the mother through touch, smell and hearing—but enveloped in tubes inside a small pod with tightly controlled temperature and air, that's often impossible. "We can't jeopardize the infant's health or stability to allow for that bonding," says Dr. Katherine Kosiv, a pediatric cardiologist at Yale Medical School.​​The fact that exactly one preemie ever has been saved at 21 weeks doesn't lead many experts to predict that similar feats will become commonplace. It's hard to find any experts who think viability will be pushed down to 20 weeks in the foreseeable future, given the severe immaturity of virtually every organ and piece of tissue in a fetus that young. "There's definitely a kind of biological barrier below about 22 weeks, and it seems to be insurmountable by current technology," says Dr. John Wyatt, a neonatal physician and professor of ethics and perinatology at University College, London.​The Limits of Viability​These efforts require maintaining teams of experts, and the cost of caring for a single very-premature baby typically runs to more than $100,000, with a typical NICU handling 20 or more babies at once. Such advanced NICUs are beyond the reach of most hospitals. The huge variation in survival rates of extreme preemies among hospitals reflects the differences in that investment. The University of Alabama at Birmingham operates a NICU with a staff of 350, while many other hospitals have no NICU at all.​​It's no wonder. At 22 weeks, the brain has just barely formed the cortex—the part that confers higher thought—and the brain cells are only beginning to form the first of the 100 trillion connections they would normally make while still safe and comfortable in a quiet, dark womb.​
*NFBW*: Your DNA argument is a religion driven bastardized interpretation of scientific data and discovery. END2208041158


----------



## Care4all

BackAgain said:


> The standard lib comeback. 🙄 As empty now as it’s always been.
> 
> First, males don’t get pregnant. But *all* people (male and female) have a voice in saving human life.
> 
> Government isn’t seeking to make your decisions. Government only seeks (in some cases) to make decisions on behalf of the ones who can’t speak for themselves.
> 
> Liberal ideology on the topic of abortion always tries to paint the dire, bleak picture that anybody is seeking to impose shit on women.  It’s a bullshit construct. And it’s not working anymore. It’s been exposed.
> 
> The right to life isn’t something left up to just the mother carrying the child. Society gets a say in it too.


They do, later on in development of the fetus have a stake in it.  But not in the early stage.  And not in any medical decision for a later stage should you be involved.

But nooooo, you think MAN Knows best.....but you are wrong, in every circumstance and women, are getting physically harmed, because of controlling assholes who know nothing about your medical condition or the next girls medical condition.....

Kansas vote, shows you this is not just a "liberal" thing......  YOU need to stop your nonsense, and let those involved, decide.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain said:


> Society gets a say in it too.


NFBW: Why? Society is not harmed and would not ever know if a young girl or woman’s private health and medical records were kept confidential as they should.

And why do you get to demand a right to life for something that is not breathing, THE START OF LIFE as I know it does require breathing air INTO ONE’s OWN LUNGS and letting the universe know Goddam well you are here and are looking for a tit to suck on.

I am HERE. I was a  Zygote too for a spell and I hereby declare out of respect for my mom that she had the right to choose to terminate me while I was an unseparable part of her flesh and blood life. SHE WAS MY Creator ding CarsomyrPlusSix beagle9    .Your God and your society did not create physical or material me. It was my mom. I am eternal, nothing can terminate the true self in me.  And your DNA science cannot prove I do not exist. END2208050623


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW; Prior to the discovery of DNA When life began at quickening nothing has changed. Life begins at viability not a unique genetic code.


Life never began at the quickening.  Life has always began exactly where it began; after fertilization.

This is you trying to minimize the consequences of abortion so you can feel better about yourself.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Viability according to science determines when human life actually begins.


Incorrect.  Whether inside the womb or outside the womb, the essence doesn't change.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Every embryology textbook ever written. DNA.


Every single textbook that you provided points to an indisputable fact that fertilization of an egg is the “beginning“ of a human life. That science does not assert or conjure up proof that the  “beginning” of a unique one of a kind human life in any of its earliest stages while part of a woman’s body has the same physical, mental capability and  civil rights equal to the mothers capabilities and civil rights as well as rights and capabilities a human baby does receive from society when it exits the womb.

Do you know when that separation moment began for you ding ?  It was when DNA programmed you to begin your life as a human being as your own self and your first desire in life was probably to begin nourishing yourself through your mouth instead of your belly button. Are you still eating ding  with your belly button? END2208050708


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" E Pluribus Unum Is Credo For A Republic Based On Individualism "

* Female Chattel Are No Longer Yearn Property **


ding said:


> You mean like slaves were the private property of their owners?


A fetus is private property of the mother more in the sense of self ownership from principles individualism .

Enslavement of hue mammon presumes sapient beings whose self ownership and self determination are being deprived .

Prior to entering into a social civil contract to improve ones quality of life and opportunity for survival , one is subject to the natural freedoms and moral relativism in nature .

A law exists because there is a force or entity capable or issuing a retort or reprise for its violation .

Thus , protection of negative liberties or endowment of positive liberties exist only within the domain and realms of such institutions .

Perspectivism asserts agaiinst epistomological absolutes however , also , that not all interpretations are equally valid .

One perspective is that a social civil agreement for an institution based on individualism is more valid than nearly any other .


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Every single textbook that you provided points to an indisputable fact that fertilization of an egg is the “beginning“ of a human life. That science does not assert or conjure up proof that the  “beginning” of a unique one of a kind human life in any of its earliest stages while part of a woman’s body has the same physical, mental capability and  civil rights equal to the mothers capabilities and civil rights as well as rights and capabilities a human baby does receive from society when it exits the womb.
> 
> Do you know when that separation moment began for you ding ?  It was when DNA programmed you to begin your life as a human being as your own self and your first desire in life was probably to begin nourishing yourself through your mouth instead of your belly button. Are you still eating ding  with your belly button? END2208050708


The beginning is life, dummy.  You are playing word games so as to minimize the consequence of abortion.


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" E Pluribus Unum Is Credo For A Republic Based On Individualism "
> 
> * Female Chattel Are No Longer Yearn Property **
> 
> A fetus is private property of the mother more in the sense of self ownership from principles individualism .
> 
> Enslavement of hue mammon presumes sapient beings whose self ownership and self determination are being deprived .
> 
> Prior to entering into a social civil contract to improve ones quality of life and opportunity for survival , one is subject to the natural freedoms and moral relativism in nature .
> 
> A law exists because there is a force or entity capable or issuing a retort or reprise for its violation .
> 
> Thus , protection of negative liberties or endowment of positive liberties exist only within the domain and realms of such institutions .
> 
> Perspectivism asserts agaiinst epistomological absolutes however , also , that not all interpretations are equally valid .
> 
> One perspective is that a social civil agreement for an institution based on individualism is more valid than nearly any other .


That's nice.  Tell it to SCOTUS.


----------



## BackAgain

Care4all said:


> They do, later on in development of the fetus have a stake in it.  But not in the early stage.


That’s the usual contention. It’s false. 


Care4all said:


> And not in any medical decision for a later stage should you be involved.


That depends on the meaning of “medical decision.”


Care4all said:


> But nooooo, you think MAN Knows best.....



Not what I’ve maintained at all. 


Care4all said:


> but you are wrong,


No I’m not. I’m right. You are the one who is wrong. 


Care4all said:


> in every circumstance and women, are getting physically harmed, because of controlling assholes who know nothing about your medical condition or the next girls medical condition.....


Again. Depends on what is meant by “medical condition.”  And your _ad hominem_ type invective doesn’t support your position even a tiny bit. 


Care4all said:


> Kansas vote, shows you this is not just a "liberal" thing......



Kansas vote is proof that the SCOTUS rightly left these decisions up to the States. 


Care4all said:


> YOU need to stop your nonsense, and let those involved, decide.


You need to stop your nonsense and let life decide.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Tracking Down The Traitorous Outlaws Of Sedition "

* Working On Shitting In Their Cereal **


ding said:


> That's nice.  Tell it to SCOTUS.


The traitors to us constitution , which by egregious contempt issued a ruling of sedition that states may implement force against implementation of us law - its 1st , 9th and 14th amendments , those arbiters of incompetence and deceit which do not understand the pretentious term right as applied in linguistic slang for correct , tell it to that scotus ?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Tracking Down The Traitorous Outlaws Of Sedition "
> 
> * Working On Shitting In Their Cereal **
> 
> The traitors to us constitution , which by egregious contempt issued a ruling of sedition that states may implement force against implementation of us law - its 1st , 9th and 14th amendments , those arbiters of incompetence and deceit which do not understand the pretentious term right as applied in linguistic slang for correct , tell it to that scotus ?


Well yes, tell it to SCOTUS, but none of that incoherent bullshit you just typed is applicable.  You and people like you who approve of the utter abuse of the 9th and the 14th to hallucinate new “rights” are at worst bootlickers for authority or petty tyrants in your own right, as well as enemies of the rule of law and the country, so it’s ironic for domestic enemies like yourself to call others seditious.

We need a national divorce to escape from people like you or a revolution to put your tyranny in its place.

I mean those are the options for Roe supporters - ignorant, insane, or actively hostile to the Constitution and the rule of law.  For their part, Kamala and Brandon are all of the above.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Life never began at the quickening. Life has always began exactly where it began; after fertilization.


Began? It’s your absurd conviction that a  one cell being with absolutely zero capability to do anything or know anything conducive to life is at the same stage of life as a newborn child who has a zillion cells that function in what is known to us to be human life. And you say it is not part of the mother. And you tell me you have scientists that back you up. Nothing could be more absurd. END2208051317


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> It’s your absurd conviction that a  one cell being with absolutely zero capability to do anything or know anything conducive to life is at the same stage of life as a newborn child


No one said that.  Read better.

Different ages, different stages of life.  We never said that stages of life don’t exist or that neonates are the same age or level of development as zygotes.  This is a straw man logical fallacy on your part, due to idiocy or dishonesty.

The difference is that we believe in equality - respecting human rights regardless of the human’s age - whereas you believe in arbitrary discrimination.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Began? It’s your absurd conviction that a  one cell being with absolutely zero capability to do anything or know anything conducive to life is at the same stage of life as a newborn child who has a zillion cells that function in what is known to us to be human life. And you say it is not part of the mother. And you tell me you have scientists that back you up. Nothing could be more absurd. END2208051317


I never made that comparison.  

Without a doubt it is 100% a new, living, genetically distinct human being.  A life that you would casually end without ever being honest about it.


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Tracking Down The Traitorous Outlaws Of Sedition "
> 
> * Working On Shitting In Their Cereal **
> 
> The traitors to us constitution , which by egregious contempt issued a ruling of sedition that states may implement force against implementation of us law - its 1st , 9th and 14th amendments , those arbiters of incompetence and deceit which do not understand the pretentious term right as applied in linguistic slang for correct , tell it to that scotus ?


You should form as lynch mob.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Dealing With Despotic Enemies Foreign And Domestic "

* When Criminals Hide Behind Traitors **


ding said:


> You should form as lynch mob.


A grand jury is good by me .

It is still allowed in the us .


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Dealing With Despotic Enemies Foreign And Domestic "
> 
> * When Criminals Hide Behind Traitors **
> 
> A grand jury is good by me .
> 
> It is still allowed in the us .


That would be quite the precedent.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Constitutional Neophyte Traitors Supporting Sedition of SCROTUS "

* Mirrors Of Reflection Shoved Way Up Their Ass So They Can See Themselves **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Well yes, tell it to SCOTUS, but none of that incoherent bullshit you just typed is applicable.  You and people like you who approve of the utter abuse of the 9th and the 14th to hallucinate new “rights” are at worst bootlickers for authority or petty tyrants in your own right, as well as enemies of the rule of law and the country, so it’s ironic for domestic enemies like yourself to call others seditious.
> 
> We need a national divorce to escape from people like you or a revolution to put your tyranny in its place.
> 
> I mean those are the options for Roe supporters - ignorant, insane, or actively hostile to the Constitution and the rule of law.  For their part, Kamala and Brandon are all of the above.


Compared to traitors such as yourself who support sedition by scotus ?

There is nothing ambiguous or fabricated about a state and the constitutional protections it includes being comprised of citizens and that citizens must be born therefore birth is required for equal protection .

I am a citizen which has met the birth requirement , and a zef has not so tough shit , shut up and salute the flag !

As for the shit for brains fabrication of 10th amendment state wrights as populism for democracy as tyranny by majority that stands against this republic based based on individual liberty and protections of negative liberty - to be left alone by other individuals and by a state , except where individuals are disparaging the negative liberties of other individuals which are entitled to equal protections , the boot licking traitors are clearly in your mob .


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Constitutional Neophyte Traitors Supporting Sedition of SCROTUS "
> 
> * Mirrors Of Reflection Shoved Way Up Their Ass So They Can See Themselves **
> 
> Compared to traitors such as yourself who support sedition by scotus ?


SCOTUS can overturn previous rulings by SCOTUS.  That isn’t “sedition.”

You’re a lunatic.



Monk-Eye said:


> There is nothing ambiguous or fabricated about a state and the constitutional protections it includes being comprised of citizens and that citizens must be born therefore birth is required for equal protection .


Non-citizens are still human beings - you can’t legally murder an illegal alien.

Oops, there went your whole diatribe of nonsense.




Monk-Eye said:


> I am a citizen which has met the birth requirement , and a zef has not so tough shit , shut up and salute the flag !


Yeah, if your hateful stupidity calling those humans you want dead dehumanizing slurs was representative of the American flag, I would burn every American flag I saw.  It isn’t.

The Declaration of Independence was about (against) people like you.


----------



## San Souci

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Fangoria Goofs "
> 
> * Aborting Dead On Arrival **
> 
> Your delusions that some psychopath wanting to kill their own healthy offspring just for the hell of it make you a ghoul .
> 
> Roe v Wade substituted viability in lieu of a live birth requirement for equal protection and ruled that state interest could begin in 3rd trimester and could proscribed abortion from that point onward .
> 
> The sanctimonious psychopaths who adhere to an egocentric myopia of anthropocentric delusion that hue mammon life is to be religiously dictated from conception were also too deceitful to understand Roe v Wade and they insidiously usurped us constitution as traitors with a scotus that has committed sedition .


Abortion is Murder. And selling Stem Cells is Ghoulish. Planned Butcherhood does both. For PROFIT.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Sanctimonious Song Of Traitors Remains The Same With Ignorance And Deceit "

* SCROTUS Over Ruled To Commit Sedition **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> SCOTUS can overturn previous rulings by SCOTUS.  That isn’t “sedition.”


Just as any potentate or despot which usurped us constitution and directed force against implementation of us law , scotus committed sedition .

** Needs A Bib To Be Fed The Obvious **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You’re a lunatic.
> Non-citizens are still human beings - you can’t legally murder an illegal alien.\
> Oops, there went your whole diatribe of nonsense.


Non-citizens which have been born are entitled to equal protection ; it is not wise to be arrogant and them prove how categorically ignorant you are .

** Allegiance To The Republic Over Enemies Foreign And Domestic **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Yeah, if your hateful stupidity calling those humans you want dead dehumanizing slurs was representative of the American flag, I would burn every American flag I saw.  It isn’t.


Candid categorization of traitors and purveyors of sedition will continue to be forwarded here .

** Half Wit Ideology Wrapped In Aggrandized Allegiance **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The Declaration of Independence was about (against) people like you.


The declaration of independence indicates that all men are created equal , that surreptitiously implie women are not created equal -- see us 19th .

The etymology of person is per ( countable by census - hence born ) and son ( male ) , such that by letter of law in us 14th - any person born or naturalized implies that women are not citizens .

The credo of this republic is e pluribus unum that aspires for individualism , independence and protection of negative liberties .

The liberal versus conservative paradigm is intellectual buffoonery that causes mental retardation of society .


----------



## Monk-Eye

"* Macabre Of Waste Not Without A Valid Basis For Empathy Based On Sufferng "

* Biology Can Graphic And Grotesque **


San Souci said:


> Abortion is Murder. And selling Stem Cells is Ghoulish. Planned Butcherhood does both. For PROFIT.


Stem cells are undifferentiated cells capable of being used to regenerate tissue and cells to improve the quality of life in those already born and entitled to equal protection .

** Disingenuous Debase Accusations Of Murder  **

A state interest is not in when life begins , or whether life exists at all ; a state interest is in whether a wright to life exists . 

A fetus has not met a birth requirement to receive constitutional protections that would include a wright to life and any sentenced to death is no longer entitled to a wright to life , albeit the wright is removed by due process and necessary contingency for having removed a wright to life of another .


----------



## San Souci

Monk-Eye said:


> "* Macabre Of Waste Not Without A Valid Basis For Empathy Based On Sufferng "
> 
> * Biology Can Graphic And Grotesque **
> 
> Stem cells are undifferentiated cells capable of being used to regenerate tissue and cells to improve the quality of life in those already born and entitled to equal protection .
> 
> ** Disingenuous Debase Accusations Of Murder  **
> 
> A state interest is not in when life begins , or whether life exists at all ; a state interest is in whether a wright to life exists .
> 
> A fetus has not met a birth requirement to receive constitutional protections that would include a wright to life and any sentenced to death is no longer entitled to a wright to life , albeit the wright is removed by due process and necessary contingency for having removed a wright to life of another .


Murdering babies and selling their stem cells is Ghoulish.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I never made that comparison.





NotfooledbyW said:


> It’s your absurd conviction that a one cell being with absolutely zero capability to do anything or know anything conducive to life is at the same stage of life as a newborn child who has a zillion cells that function in what is known to us to be human life.


NFBW: it is not a comparison. It is your conviction. It’s your firmly held belief and absurd opinion, that a one cell being with absolutely zero capability to do anything or know anything conducive to life is at the same stage of life as a newborn child breathing on its own or with modern medical knowledge and technology. You say a human being is created at that zap of fertilization. And if a woman was able to abort that one cell being she is committing the same degree of murder as if she took an axe to you and chopped you to shreds which of course ended your life. That is absurd. If a woman terminates a fertilized egg - it’s not murder of a human or ending a human life because that human organism is not developed to what a human life is. - breathing on its own and oxygenating its own blood. Or capable of it around 24 to 28 weeks into a pregnancy. END2208052312


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The difference is that we believe in equality - respecting human rights regardless of the human’s age -



 NFBW: Every human I’ve ever known including myself and in all legal documents such as when we humans start collecting social security, is based on age calculated from the first day that we all took our first breath and began oxygenating our own blood.

Prior to that moment every fetus has no rights whatsoever except those that are passed through the consent of the living breathing human  body that the fetus is part of for the first 24 to 28 weeks of pregnancy.
END2208060059


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> you can’t legally murder an illegal alien.


*NFBW*: A pregnant illegal alien in Mississippi according to the Supreme Court could deliberately and wantonly murder an innocent human being in her body according to a 2018 Mississippi law that ONLY bans abortions after 15 weeks which was the basis of the case that the U.S. Supreme Court used to overturn Roe v. Wade.  In New York Trump’s Suoreme Court endorses legal murder of a fetus up to 28 weejks after conception .



ding said:


> Without a doubt it is 100% a new, living, genetically distinct human being.  A life that you would casually end without ever being honest about it.



*NFBW*: Do you both accept or reject the following ‘absurd  science’  ?????



> Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. *If this first cell *or any subsequent configuration of cells *perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions *to this rule in the field of human biology.”   James Bopp



*NFBW:* There are *no known exceptions ( *according to ding ‘s devoted and incessant citing of the distinguished devout Roman Catholic scientist James Bopp who is not a scientist )  to *murdering a one cell individual being* that was formed at the instant of conception.

Trump’s Suorene Court is the first court of supreme law justices in a majority who endorse the deliberate murder of an innocent ‘human being” as long as the murder has been sanctioned and encoded into state law by a state legislative body or direct vote of a majority in a state.  murder by majority rule is the supreme law of the land..
I 


johngaltshrugged said:


> Bravo for a well thought & articulated reading of the leaked opinion as this simply returns the question to voters.


NFBW:  murder by majority rule is ok with you too I see.



Chuz Life said:


> This anti-abort respectfully disagrees.
> I am just starting to dissect the leaked document, myself. So far, the gist of it is that the SCOTUS intends to overturn Roe and to do so in such a way to leave it up to each State Lawmakers to independently decide the legality of abortion in their State.
> 
> That is but a tiny step in the right direction.
> What the SCOTUS could have done and SHOULD have done it Deal with the issue of "personhood" and when personhood begins, Head on and then explicitly tie their decision to the 14th Amendment where it clearly says that "all persons (regardless of age or stage of development" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws



*NFBW*: Thanks. It helps to have a firebrand mouthpiece of the American Taliban Tribe explain why SCOTUS fails to uphold the 100% unassailable James Bopp science and fails to hold mothers accountable for murdering their unique human one of a kind babies at the stage of conception plus five or so seconds and for the remainder of the pregnancy.




rightnow909 said:


> LMAO
> 
> at this point (at the snowflakes disintegrating... as they always do when you speak of ending child murder...)



*NFBW*: Are you happy that Trump’s SCOTUS Sanctions murder when a majority in any given state sanctions murder by making murder of a one cell fertilized human egg legal in the laws of the state.

END: 2208060724


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Rules Of Engagement From A Pro Choice Republican "
> 
> * Hard Legs Without Legal Interest **
> 
> What the fuck is a liberal ?
> 
> The liberal versus conservative paradigm is intellectual buffoonery - Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments .
> 
> As the fetus has not met a birth requirement for equal protection , it is private property of the mother .
> 
> Consent to have sex is not consent to conceive or to delivery .
> 
> If a male does not wish to willfully transfer its private property semen to a female , then keep it zipped .
> 
> If for some reason a male feels that its private property semen was forcibly removed , then they can carry their behinds down to the local magistrate and claim rape , so that they may not have to pay child support .


Are you stupid or something ?? What kind of convoluted bull crap do you think the posters on this site are so gullible in your mind to believe ?? Why make such a fool of yourself like this ?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Every human I’ve ever known including myself and in all legal documents such as when we humans start collecting social security, is based on age calculated from the first day that we all took our first breath and began oxygenating our own blood.
> 
> Prior to that moment every fetus has no rights whatsoever except those that are passed through the consent of the living breathing human  body that the fetus is part of for the first 24 to 28 weeks of pregnancy.
> END2208060059


You keep focusing on your first breath idea, otherwise in order to somehow justify your thinking that society should just go about doing anything that it's demented unGodly anti-rational thinking going on in their reckless live's should be.

Well society doesn't want to continue down these chaotic road's, and you know why that is ?? It's because they've experienced the pain and suffering that it has all brought them, and so even a child learns a very important lesson once touches a hot eye on the stove, that they are to make dang sure that they avoid that hot eye at all cost in the future. Why is it that somewhere along the way adult's are somehow convinced to touch that hot stove eye again by people like you ??? It's really amazing when think about it.


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> Thank you for proving my point that you are a liar and you are a horrible human being for dehumanizing human life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
> 
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> 
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)



Repeat your crap A HUNDRED TIMES 

NO ONE CARES


----------



## flan327

beagle9 said:


> You keep focusing on your first breath idea, otherwise in order to somehow justify your thinking that society should just go about doing anything that it's demented unGodly anti-rational thinking going on in their reckless live's should be.
> 
> Well society doesn't want to continue down these chaotic road's, and you know why that is ?? It's because they've experienced the pain and suffering that it has all brought them, and so even a child learns a very important lesson once touches a hot eye on the stove, that they are to make dang sure that they avoid that hot eye at all cost in the future. Why is it that somewhere along the way adult's are somehow convinced to touch that hot stove eye again by people like you ??? It's really amazing when think about it.


A hot EYE?


----------



## flan327

San Souci said:


> Abortion is Murder. And selling Stem Cells is Ghoulish. Planned Butcherhood does both. For PROFIT.


How many TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN PREGNANT?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Well society doesn't want to continue down these chaotic road's, and you know why that is ?? It's because they've experienced the pain and suffering that it has all brought them,


*NFBW*: When a pregnant woman privately has a medical procedure to terminate her unwanted pregnancy, what harm is it to you or any part of society what she does  with her own body?  Define the harm. END2208060822


----------



## NotfooledbyW

flan327 said:


> Repeat your crap A HUNDRED TIMES


NFBW: You are correct. @ding’s cycle of human life chart does not show the existence of a pregnant woman and a placenta as if they do not exist. The fetus grows in @ding’s chart while floating in some kind of Catholic heaven preparing to make entry into the material world with it’s fetal rights ablazing far exceeding a value  over a pregnant woman’s natural right to control her own body  END2208060838


----------



## flan327

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are correct. @ding’s cycle of human life chart does not show the existence of a pregnant woman and a placenta as if they do not exist. The fetus grows in @ding’s chart while floating in some kind of Catholic heaven preparing to make entry into the material world with it’s fetal rights ablazing far exceeding a value  over a pregnant woman’s natural right to control her own body  END2208060838


Is English your first language?

Because I CANNOT READ YOUR POST


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Without a doubt it is 100% a new, living, genetically distinct human being.


NFBW: Do you know how ridiculous and absurd it is to announce to the public that one human cell right after fertilization is a living human being.   END2208060851


----------



## flan327

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Do you know how ridiculous and absurd it is to announce to thecpubluc that one human cell right after fertilization is living human being  END2208060851


I think I agree
But I can’t understand gibberish


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Here On Constitutional Principles And Not A Partisan Popularity Contest "

* Confused By Example **


beagle9 said:


> Are you stupid or something ?? What kind of convoluted bull crap do you think the posters on this site are so gullible in your mind to believe ?? Why make such a fool of yourself like this ?


Thus far many have been gullible enough to join in as traitors in support of sedition by scotus .

The public at large has been negligently and purposely deprived of informed consent regarding blackmun's " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest ... not .. prior to live birth . " by which to establish a valid consensus .

No legal community or system of information should be allowed to exercise such stupidity and deceit .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

flan327 said:


> e I CANNOT READ YOUR POST


Allow me to make it so you can






@ding’s cycle of human life chart see above does not show the existence of a pregnant woman during the fertilized egg and fetus stage of life insude the womb.  I added the box.



In the chart and in the anti-choice argument The fetus grows in @ding’s chart  in basically thin air. The pregnant woman
 has no part in development of the fetus.

ITS as if the fetus grows apart  from the mother while floating in some kind of Catholic heaven { ding  is Catholic)

And then comes into the world when human rights actually begin ..

..preparing to make entry into the material world with it’s fetal rights ablazing far exceeding a value over a pregnant woman’s natural right to control her own body

Meaning the woman’s natural right to control  her body is subordinate in the anti/choice argument  to a ‘one cell being - a fertilized egg that they say is a human being at that initial stage on the chart as being a fertilized egg.

SAYING A HUMAN FERTILIZED EGG IS A HUMAN BEING is absolutely absurd.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: it is not a comparison. It is your conviction. It’s your firmly held belief and absurd opinion, that a one cell being with absolutely zero capability to do anything or know anything conducive to life is at the same stage of life as a newborn child breathing on its own or with modern medical knowledge and technology. You say a human being is created at that zap of fertilization. And if a woman was able to abort that one cell being she is committing the same degree of murder as if she took an axe to you and chopped you to shreds which of course ended your life. That is absurd. If a woman terminates a fertilized egg - it’s not murder of a human or ending a human life because that human organism is not developed to what a human life is. - breathing on its own and oxygenating its own blood. Or capable of it around 24 to 28 weeks into a pregnancy. END2208052312


Like I said before we can't have THAT discussion until you acknowledge when human life begins.  So, no.  You don't know my conviction, dummy.


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> Repeat your crap A HUNDRED TIMES
> 
> NO ONE CARES


It's just science.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Do you know how ridiculous and absurd it is to announce to the public that one human cell right after fertilization is a living human being.   END2208060851


It's in every embryology textbook ever written.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Allow me to make it so you can
> 
> View attachment 678588
> 
> @ding’s cycle of human life chart see above does not show the existence of a pregnant woman during the fertilized egg and fetus stage of life insude the womb.  I added the box.
> 
> 
> 
> In the chart and in the anti-choice argument The fetus grows in @ding’s chart  in basically thin air. The pregnant woman
> has no part in development of the fetus.
> 
> ITS as if the fetus grows apart  from the mother while floating in some kind of Catholic heaven { ding  is Catholic)
> 
> And then comes into the world when human rights actually begin ..
> 
> ..preparing to make entry into the material world with it’s fetal rights ablazing far exceeding a value over a pregnant woman’s natural right to control her own body
> 
> Meaning the woman’s natural right to control  her body is subordinate in the anti/choice argument  to a ‘one cell being - a fertilized egg that they say is a human being at that initial stage on the chart as being a fertilized egg.
> 
> SAYING A HUMAN FERTILIZED EGG IS A HUMAN BEING is absolutely absurd.


It's not mine.  It's what every embryology textbook ever written teaches, dummy.


----------



## ding

Winning is fun!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Like I said before we can't have THAT discussion



NFBW: We have been having the discussion for quite some time now and demonstrate your ignorance, unpreparedness and vulnerability to the truth every time you make that wimp out post.   END2208060924


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: We have been having the discussion fir quite some time now and demonstrate your ignorance, unpreparedness and vulnerability to the truth every time you make that wimp out post.   END2208060924






> “….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”


Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ok


ding said:


> It's not mine.


You cite James Bopp - he is not a scientist in a textbook. 

*James Bopp Jr.* (born February 8, 1948)[1] is an American conservative lawyer.[2] He is most known for his work associated with election laws, anti-abortion model legislation, and campaign finance.[3]

You are a liar. You are not winning. 

You are running.   

END2208060932


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ok
> 
> You cite James Bopp - he is not a scientist in a textbook.
> 
> *James Bopp Jr.* (born February 8, 1948)[1] is an American conservative lawyer.[2] He is most known for his work associated with election laws, anti-abortion model legislation, and campaign finance.[3]
> 
> You are a liar. You are not winning.
> 
> You are running.
> 
> END2208060932






> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## NotfooledbyW

YES ding it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception and Human beings begin at conception.

it is not scientifically correct to state that a one cell fertilized egg is a human being. No scientist says that. It does  not have a brain or skin or heart   It is a fertilized egg. A human,  one cell being and part of a woman who is a human being.   END2208060948


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> YES ding it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception and Human beings begin at conception.
> 
> it is not scientifically correct to state that a one cell fertilized egg is a human being. No scientist says that. It dies not have a brain or skin or heart   It is a fertilized egg human one cell bring and part of a woman who is a human being





> “The zygote is human life….*there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”*


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> Like I said before we can't have THAT discussion until you acknowledge when human life begins.  So, no.  You don't know my conviction, dummy.


Well
Enlighten us


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


KEY WORD:

BEGIN

CAPISCH?


----------



## ding




----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> KEY WORD:
> 
> BEGIN
> 
> CAPISCH?


Yes.  Everything from the beginning to the end is human.

#winning


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> Well
> Enlighten us


That discussion can only proceed after you acknowledge that you believe a new genetically distinct human being is created after fertilization.


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> Yes.  Everything from the beginning to the end is human.
> 
> #winning


#GETHELP


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> we can't have THAT discussion until you acknowledge when human life begins.


NFBW: I’ve told you a zillion times life begins at conception when a human egg is fertilized which is not a human being. IT is a one cell human organism in that instant  that is part of a now pregnant woman’s body. IT IS NIT A HUMAN BEING when it is one cell. No scientist says it is. You are a liar.


----------



## flan327

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I’ve told you a zillion times life begins at conception when a human egg is fertilized which is not a human being. IT is a one cell human organism in that instant  that is part of a now pregnant woman’s body. IT IS NIT A HUMAN BEING when it is one cell. No scientist says it is. You are a liar.


Not
Not
Nit


----------



## flan327

flan327 said:


> Not
> NOT
> Nit


Tell us A ZILLION AND ONE


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> #GETHELP


I'm not the one who has a problem with the scientific definition of life.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I’ve told you a zillion times life begins at conception when a human egg is fertilized which is not a human being. IT is a one cell human organism in that instant  that is part of a now pregnant woman’s body. IT IS NIT A HUMAN BEING when it is one cell. No scientist says it is. You are a liar.






> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

#stillwinning


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: Are you happy that Trump’s SCOTUS Sanctions murder when a majority in any given state sanctions murder by making murder of a one cell fertilized human egg legal in the laws of the state.


Not gonna mince words... You're kind of garbage, pal.  This is either trolling, stupidity, or stupid trolling, or trolling stupidity.

*SCOTUS is respecting the Constitution.*  The Constitution doesn't let SCOTUS have any say on abortion whatsoever, because they are part of the federal government, and there is no mention of this topic in the text.

The federal government can AND SHOULD ban abortion on all federal territory, and ideally the socialist trash infesting our government would be thrown out and that would happen, and still, SCOTUS would have no say in it, because the Constitution lets Congress set the criminal code on federal territory.  Not in the states though.

I'm sorry you don't like the Constitution or following the rule of law, but I'm not actually sorry.


So, how do you think we'll answer this dumb question?  As already established SCOTUS isn't sanctioning anything - they have no lawful authority to say otherwise.  

Are we happy the barbaric trash comprising the majority of voters in Calfornia and New York are our countrymen?  No.  

Can we make them behave like civilized people?  Sure, but it's going to require a Constitutional Amendment over their objection, and maybe then the national guard or the military.  Whatever it takes.  Or a national divorce, so they can just fuck off.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Every human I’ve ever known including myself and in all legal documents such as when we humans start collecting social security, is based on age calculated from the first day that we all took our first breath and began oxygenating our own blood.


Appeal to bureaucracy isn't an established logical fallacy, but you are certainly doing your best to mainstream it as one.

"Oh, we can't discuss changing this government policy, the paperwork would be hard.  Waaaah."



NotfooledbyW said:


> Prior to that moment every fetus has no rights whatsoever


Every human being has unalienable rights from the moment they are created.  We are created at the beginning of our lifespan.  When was that again?  Oh yeah.


----------



## ding

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Every human being has unalienable rights from the moment they are created. We are created at the beginning of our lifespan.


He denies they are human beings so that he doesn't have to consider their moral and legal rights.  To him there is nothing immoral about ending their lives and denying any consideration of their rights.  That's why he keeps making ridiculous arguments.  He knows that if he concedes this point he has lost the argument because he has no moral or legal basis for denying their right to life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Every human being has unalienable rights


A fetus in the womb is not a human being yet. It is a start. that is what science tells us. One human cell with no brain and no heart and no skin abd no longs is human but not a human being yet, and it is a part of another human being for uo to nine months.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> A fetus in the womb is not a human being yet. It is a start. that is what science tells us. One human cell with no brain and no heart and no skin abd no longs is human but not a human being yet, and it is a part of another human being for uo to nine months.






> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> He denies they are human beings so that he doesn't have to consider their moral and legal rights.


I deny a one cell living human organism is a human being because that is a conclusion that is absurd on a scientific basis. when made on a religious basis it can make sense and you are free to follow your conscience in  America. Based on science my conscience is clear as mother Bart’s pure white skin.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> A fetus in the womb is not a human being yet. It is a start. that is what science tells us. One human cell with no brain and no heart and no skin abd no longs is human but not a human being yet, and it is a part of another human being for uo to nine months.


So you don't have to consider the morality of ending their lives, right?  Or even consider their rights, right?  Because you believe it's not immoral to kill them or disregard their rights because they aren't human beings, right?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I deny a one cell living human organism is a human being because that is a conclusion that is absurd on a scientific basis. when made on a religious basis it can make sense and you are free to follow your conscience in  America. Based on science my conscience is clear as mother Bart’s pure white skin.


Because you believe it's  not immoral to kill them or disregard their rights because they aren't human beings, right?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


Yes they begin as one human cell with no brain. What’s your point


ding said:


> Because you believe it's not immoral to kill them or disregard their rights because they aren't human beings, right?


WRONG. I’m not killing anybody and it’s none of my secular humanist business what goes on inside a woman’s body when she causes no harm to a viable human being inside or out.    A one celled being is not a viable human being and it’s part of the body that is growing it and no one else. That is the end of that. If it’s an unwanted growth it’s up to her to deal with prior to viability and then I say after viability is possible it is killing a human being unless in self- defense  just like you and me.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes they begin as one human cell with no brain. What’s your point


The point is they are human beings.  



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> WRONG. I’m not killing anybody and it’s none of my secular humanist business what goes on inside a woman’s body when she causes no harm to a viable human being inside or out. A one celled being is not a viable human being and it’s part of the body that is growing it and no one else. That is the end of that. If it’s an unwanted growth it’s up to her to deal with prior to viability and then I say it is killing a human being unless in self- defense just like you and me.


Like I said.... you don't see it as immoral to end their life because you don't believe they are human beings.  And you don't believe it is immoral to deny consideration of their rights because you don't believe they are human beings.

Right?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> A fetus in the womb is not a human being yet.


You already admitted otherwise.


**********
Me: "Our lifespan begins at fertilization that is unassailable and indisputable textbook scientific fact."


NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Great. I am not disputing that. END2208042510



Me: "we do not change species mid-lifespan"


NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Yes, we never change species from fertilization unto death.  END2208041513



You admit our species _Homo sapiens_, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> I'm not the one who has a problem with the scientific definition of life.


Life OUTSIDE THE WOMB

DUMBO


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> Like I said.... you don't see it as immoral to end their life because you don't believe they are human beings.  And you don't believe it is immoral to deny consideration of their rights because you don't believe they are human beings.
> 
> Right?


POTENTIAL 

CAPISCH?


----------



## flan327

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Not gonna mince words... You're kind of garbage, pal.  This is either trolling, stupidity, or stupid trolling, or trolling stupidity.
> 
> *SCOTUS is respecting the Constitution.*  The Constitution doesn't let SCOTUS have any say on abortion whatsoever, because they are part of the federal government, and there is no mention of this topic in the text.
> 
> The federal government can AND SHOULD ban abortion on all federal territory, and ideally the socialist trash infesting our government would be thrown out and that would happen, and still, SCOTUS would have no say in it, because the Constitution lets Congress set the criminal code on federal territory.  Not in the states though.
> 
> I'm sorry you don't like the Constitution or following the rule of law, but I'm not actually sorry.
> 
> 
> So, how do you think we'll answer this dumb question?  As already established SCOTUS isn't sanctioning anything - they have no lawful authority to say otherwise.
> 
> Are we happy the barbaric trash comprising the majority of voters in Calfornia and New York are our countrymen?  No.
> 
> Can we make them behave like civilized people?  Sure, but it's going to require a Constitutional Amendment over their objection, and maybe then the national guard or the military.  Whatever it takes.  Or a national divorce, so they can just fuck off.


You first

FRAK OFF


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> Life OUTSIDE THE WOMB
> 
> DUMBO


So you believe it's not immoral to end their lives because they aren't human beings?  And you believe it's not immoral to not consider their right to life because they aren't human beings?

Is that correct?


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> POTENTIAL
> 
> CAPISCH?


A human being with potential.  Not a potential human being.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> Life OUTSIDE THE WOMB


Whether inside the womb or outside the womb, the essence doesn't change.


----------



## dblack

ding said:


> Whether inside the womb or outside the womb, the essence doesn't change.


Bull fucking shit. If it's inside someone else's body it's none of your goddamned fucking business. Mind your own house. Stay out of mine.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

dblack said:


> Bull fucking shit. If it's inside someone else's body it's none of your goddamned fucking business. Mind your own house. Stay out of mine.


No matter the location of your kid, you don't get to abuse or neglect them or hurt them on purpose, like killing them.

Lots of pieces of shit hurt their kids in their house.

It's all of our business, and your attitude is fucked in the head.


----------



## dblack

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No matter the location of your kid, you don't get to abuse or neglect them or hurt them on purpose, like killing them.


Fuck you. Stay out of my crotch.


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Lots of pieces of shit hurt their kids in their house.
> 
> It's all of our business, and your attitude is fucked in the head.


Busybody statists who want to get one everyone else's business. MYOB.


----------



## San Souci

flan327 said:


> How many TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN PREGNANT?


I bet some of these Feminazis put notches on their belt for every murdered baby.


----------



## ding

dblack said:


> Bull fucking shit. If it's inside someone else's body it's none of your goddamned fucking business. Mind your own house. Stay out of mine.


Tell it to SCOTUS.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

dblack said:


> Fuck you. Stay out of my crotch.


No, I don't want to fuck you, and I want nothing to do with your crotch.

Just don't kill anyone else like a monstrous piece of shit, and we're good.

If you ARE or BECOME a monstrous piece of shit, then we need to put you in a cell where you can't hurt anyone else and so your victim has justice.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Some scumbag is violently attacking a pregnant woman and you see it.
You're supposed to "mind your own business" and ignore it?
I can't express how much contempt I have for a coward like that, "minding his own business."

As to what's inside a woman's body, it's a person, a biological, real person.  Scott Peterson is in prison for murdering his unborn son, Connor.   So are lots of other evil murderers of unborn children.


----------



## dblack

Some people want government running everyfuckthing. Including procreation.


----------



## flan327

ding said:


> So you believe it's not immoral to end their lives because they aren't human beings?  And you believe it's not immoral to not consider their right to life because they aren't human beings?
> 
> Is that correct?


It’s like beating my head against a BRICK WALL 

PLEASE GET HELP


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

flan327 said:


> It’s like beating my head against a BRICK WALL
> 
> PLEASE GET HELP


Your failure to understand the definition of the word "begin" and apply it correctly means that your head is a thick as said brick wall.

You're utterly incoherent while saying others need psychological assistance - mind that plank in your eye.


----------



## BackAgain

flan327 said:


> It’s like beating my head against a BRICK WALL
> 
> PLEASE GET HELP


Fran ^ isn’t too good with those word thingies. 

Let’s try again. 

When does human life BEGIN?


----------



## flan327

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Your failure to understand the definition of the word "begin" and apply it correctly means that your head is a thick as said brick wall.
> 
> You're utterly incoherent while saying others need psychological assistance - mind that plank in your eye.


Post reported


----------



## BackAgain

flan327 said:


> Post reported


Fran’s middle name may be Karen?


----------



## ding

flan327 said:


> It’s like beating my head against a BRICK WALL
> 
> PLEASE GET HELP


So you believe it's not immoral to end their lives because they aren't human beings? And you believe it's not immoral to not consider their right to life because they aren't human beings?

Is that correct?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

flan327 said:


> Post reported


Buddy, if your "GET HELP" "brick wall" shtick didn't get you in trouble, reminding you that your shit still stinks won't get me in trouble.

Seriously, like, you jumped in here with that and namecalling and apparently not knowing what the word "begins" even means.  

What else do you want, serious discussion?  If so, be serious and say something that has any substance to reply to, at all.  If not, well then the presumption of bad faith we already all have is accurate.


----------



## flan327

BackAgain said:


> Fran’s middle name may be Karen?


No one HERE is named Fran

Are you DRUNK?


----------



## flan327

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Buddy, if your "GET HELP" "brick wall" shtick didn't get you in trouble, reminding you that your shit still stinks won't get me in trouble.
> 
> Seriously, like, you jumped in here with that and namecalling and apparently not knowing what the word "begins" even means.
> 
> What else do you want, serious discussion?  If so, be serious and say something that has any substance to reply to, at all.  If not, well then the presumption of bad faith we already all have is accurate.


LOLOLOLOL 

Troll be funny


----------



## flan327

dblack said:


> Some people want government running everyfuckthing. Including procreation.


Like TRUMPETEERS


----------



## BackAgain

flan327 said:


> No one HERE is named Fran
> 
> Are you DRUNK?


Fran: Calm down, you silly woman.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

flan327 said:


> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> Troll be funny


Okay, yeah, you're trolling and not even trying to add anything to respond to.

Cool beans.


----------



## flan327

BackAgain said:


> Fran: Calm down, you silly woman.


Are you DRUNK?

Simple question


----------



## BackAgain

flan327 said:


> Are you DRUNK?
> 
> Simple question


Stupid question, Fran. Not the same thing.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: When a pregnant woman privately has a medical procedure to terminate her unwanted pregnancy, what harm is it to you or any part of society what she does  with her own body?  Define the harm. END2208060822


The harm is when they make it societies harm by dragging society along for the ride.

Many many examples and/or the scenarios that depict exactly what I'm talking about that exist, but it's all covered up by either greed or people whom think that to shield the truth that led to the fall is a good thing, even though they see and experience the pain and fall out on a personal level from it all themselves...


----------



## flan327

flan327 said:


> Post reported


According to at least THREE stories posted this morning 

Doctors are RELUCTANT TO WORK IN STATES WHERE ABORTIONS ARE ILLEGAL


----------



## BackAgain

flan327 said:


> Post reported


Karen. It’s ok if I use your middle name, isn’t it?  😎

Take a Midol. Have a warm bubble bath.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> Bull fucking shit. If it's inside someone else's body it's none of your goddamned fucking business. Mind your own house. Stay out of mine.


You got some kind of nerve running your mouth like that to another poster, now either debate in a decent manor or go find somewhere else to run your trashy mouth in that way. No one wants to conversate with someone that acts like a petulant child if not winning the debate that is unwinnable ...

If you are losing the debate, then lose with a spec of decency involved.

That's a leftist problem these days it seems, otherwise when something doesn't go their way, then they get violent either in their word's or in their actions. People have had enough of the spoiled rotten brats acting a fool in this country.

You telling someone to stay out of your business, yet in order to engage in the act of abortion, then you have to have a complete infrastructure of doctor's, nurses, budget's, and whatever else that is needed to accomplish your desires of aborting a baby all because it's a "medical" procedure involved.

Last I checked, uhhhhh that involves a lot of people who might not want to truly be a part of that type of operation, but due to many various economic and geographical aspects involved, they might become desperate enough to work in the field because opportunity lacks severely in their mind's about job's or profession's being in abundance in their area's, wherefore they don't think that they can find their dream job, so they settle for whatever they can get, but that crazy field shouldn't be one of them because it shouldn't exist outside of a reputable hospital IMO.

If abortion hadn't have become such a thing that became an unscrupulous trend, then there would still be plenty of other opportunities out there...You just wouldn't see abortion clinics or facilities being as prevalent as they had become over the year's, and this all due to a fall in societal norms.

Just because people do something then it doesn't make that something right, but somehow this nation has lost it's way on that kind of thinking.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> Some people want government running everyfuckthing. Including procreation.


Go on and say it - Leftist want government running everything, because they don't think that they can exist without big brother watching out for them.


----------



## flan327

BackAgain said:


> Karen. It’s ok if I use your middle name, isn’t it?  😎
> 
> Take a Midol. Have a warm bubble bath.


John Belushi was ADDICTED TO DRUGS

No wonder he’s your avatar 


BackAgain said:


> I wouldn’t touch your food, Fran  😎
> 
> Bon appetit, you silly sissy.


I’m happily married

PLEASE STOP FLIRTING


----------



## beagle9

flan327 said:


> Like TRUMPETEERS


Flipping the truth isn't working out for you.

Everyone knows the difference between up and down.


----------



## BackAgain

flan327 said:


> John Belushi was ADDICTED TO DRUGS
> 
> No wonder he’s your avatar
> 
> I’m happily married
> 
> PLEASE STOP FLIRTING


News flash Fran. Belushi’s character (Blutarsky) wasn’t Belushi.  They call it “acting.”  You could even look it up. 👍

Nobody but nobody cares about your private life, Fran. Project your fantasies elsewhere.  

But, do try the Midol. 😂


----------



## flan327

beagle9 said:


> Flipping the truth isn't working out for you.
> 
> Everyone knows the difference between up and down.


Except you


----------



## beagle9

flan327 said:


> Except you


Now that was some answer..WOW... Thought long and hard for that one didn't ya ? ROTFLMBO...   You being a Democrat makes you a complete disillusioned human being, but you wear it like a badge of dishonour.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208071714   was Homo sapien when I was only one cell attached to my mother and I will be Homo sapien after I am long dead and gone. But when I was part of my mother I was not a human being. I was human in a species sense but I was not a human being. I was brought into being at birth.

NFBW2207230010-#3,817 “bring into being" - Spoken when Jesus walked the earth - partus "act of giving birth, childbirth," from parere "to give birth to, bring into being"

CarsomyrPlusSix220803-#4,280 “Young human beings are not “part of their mothers.”

CarsomyrPlusSix220804-#4,301    In sexually reproducing vivaparous mammals like Homo sapiens ("human beings," aka, that thing you are, need to clarify everything with you, clearly) fertilization creates a new organism in the zygote stage of life. If we are to be most strict and technical, the embryo stage of life begins after the zygote stage of life and before the fetal stage.

CarsomyrPlusSix220804-#4,301     P.S. you are also a Homo sapiens in a "stage of life" and will be until you die.

NFBW2208040837-#4,305     You, ding beagle9 and I are Homo sapienscurrently in a "stage of life" that is not remotely similar to one of the many earliest stages of life when we were all a temporary part of a woman’s body and dependent on that woman for a supply of life sustaining nourishment, oxygenated blood, and removal of carbon dioxide and waste.

NFBW2208040837-#4,305 We are all postpartum human beings experiencing the mysteries of all life together.

NFBW2208040837-#4,305     The fatal flaw in CarsomyrPlusSix ’s entire argument is the following false premise:

CarsomyrPlusSix220803-#4,280 “Young human beings are not “part of their mothers.”

NFBW: You have no case that terminating a pregnancy is a human being killing a human being.  CarsomyrPlusSix220803-#4,280  is absurd.    END2208071714


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208071713 I was Homo sapien when I was only one cell attached to my mother and I will be Homo sapien after I am long dead and gone. But when I was part of my mother I was not a human being. I was human in a species sense but I was not a human being. I was brought into being at birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW2207230010-#3,817 “bring into being" - Spoken when Jesus walked the earth - partus "act of giving birth, childbirth," from parere "to give birth to, bring into being"
> 
> 
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220803-#4,280 “Young human beings are not “part of their mothers.”
> 
> 
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220804-#4,301
> 
> In sexually reproducing vivaparous mammals like Homo sapiens ("human beings," aka, that thing you are, need to clarify everything with you, clearly) fertilization creates a new organism in the zygote stage of life. If we are to be most strict and technical, the embryo stage of life begins after the zygote stage of life and before the fetal stage.
> 
> 
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220804-#4,301
> 
> P.S. you are also a Homo sapiens in a "stage of life" and will be until you die.
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW2208040837-#4,305     You, ding beagle9 and I are Homo sapienscurrently in a "stage of life" that is not remotely similar to one of the many earliest stages of life when we were all a temporary part of a woman’s body and dependent on that woman for a supply of life sustaining nourishment, oxygenated blood, and removal of carbon dioxide and waste.
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW2208040837-#4,305 We are all postpartum human beingsexperiencing the mysteries of all life together.
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW2208040837-#4,305     The fatal flaw in CarsomyrPlusSix ’s entire argument is the following false premise:
> 
> 
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220803-#4,280 “Young human beings are not “part of their mothers.”
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW: You have no case that terminating a pregnancy is a human being killing a human being.  CarsomyrPlusSix220803-#4,280  is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> END2208071713


Do you realize that your entire position on this topic is you trying to promote young women (instead of them being level headed, having better self control, proper thinking, caretaking traits, rational minded, moral minded, anti-destructive, and loving life and being for life), you would rather want them instead to be (anti-everything above), and this is because of why ??

What's in it for you to steer society towards anarchy, chaos, and continued mayhem that ends in the total destruction of live's and the unborn babies live's ????

Are you some kind of sick human being that has no ethic's or moral's about yourself ?? Think about it..


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You admit our species _Homo sapiens_, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.



NFBW: The record shows otherwise.  You are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208060822-#4,377 When a pregnant woman privately has a medical procedure to terminate her unwanted pregnancy, what harm is it to you or any part of society what she does with her own body? Define the harm.

beagle9220807-#4,447 “The harm is when they make it societies harm by dragging society along for the ride.”

*NFBW*: Again I ask: what harm is it to you or any part of society what she does with her own body? Define the harm.

It is mostly harmful in perception only  to a minority of Christian extremist church lady society.  Why is that?.   Most Christian’s, and non-Christian’s see more harm done by extremist church ladies like yourself for stepping on religious freedom and on human rights in the name of Jesus.  You are detrimental to a free society church lady.   END2308072053


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208060822-#4,377 When a pregnant woman privately has a medical procedure to terminate her unwanted pregnancy, what harm is it to you or any part of society what she does with her own body? Define the harm.
> 
> beagle9220807-#4,447 “The harm is when they make it societies harm by dragging society along for the ride.”
> 
> *NFBW*: Again I ask: what harm is it to you or any part of society what she does with her own body? Define the harm.
> 
> It is mostly harmful in perception only  to a minority of Christian extremist church lady society.  Why is that?.   Most Christian’s, and non-Christian’s see more harm done by extremist church ladies like yourself for stepping on religious freedom and on human rights in the name of Jesus.  You are detrimental to a free society church lady.   END2308072053


Church lady eh ? So now you want to really get stupid on this site, but all the while trying to act as if you are some sort of scholar or scientific college professor with your attempt at the lay outs of your post in which you hope suggest that you are intelligent and educated, yet when all your bull crap is defeated you begin talking like the degenerate fool that you really are. I'm glad you finally cracked, just so everyone can see what their actually dealing with here, and how not to take someone like you seriously at all.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Church lady eh ?


Are you really not a church lady?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you really not a church lady?


Are you really not a human being ? I'd say of course you aren't, because human beings protect their own specie's instead of eradicating them at every opportunity they get. Are you sure you ain't a NAZI ? If you say no, then I'd say you ain't far from one. Just go on and put on the uniform and be done with it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208061038-#4,410    “A fetus in the womb is not a human being yet. It is a start. that is what science tells us. One human cell with no brain and no heart and no skin and no lungs is human but not a human being yet, and it is a part of another human being for uo to nine months.

CarsomyrPlusSix220806-#4,418    “You admit our species Homo sapiens, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.”

NFBW: A fetus in the womb is part of the lifespan of individuals of the Homo Sapiens species. A fetus in the womb is part of its mother and therefore is not a separate individual human being,



beagle9 said:


> Are you really not a human being ?



NFBW: No. I have been a human being ever since the day I was born.

END2208072337


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208061038-#4,410    “A fetus in the womb is not a human being yet. It is a start. that is what science tells us. One human cell with no brain and no heart and no skin and no lungs is human but not a human being yet, and it is a part of another human being for uo to nine months.
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220806-#4,418    “You admit our species Homo sapiens, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.”
> 
> NFBW: A fetus in the womb is part of the lifespan of individuals of the Homo Sapiens species. A fetus in the womb is part of its mother and therefore is not a separate individual human being,
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW: No. I have been a human being ever since the day I was born.
> 
> END2208072337


You mean since the day you were conceived right ? We know, we know that you have your scientific analogies to throw at us next, but at any stage in the game you are human not a cat, not a dog, a turtle, a snake (debatable), a bird and well you get the picture.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW22080400  The fatally flawed attempt at a purely scientific argument that a one celled “x” individual, during the first few moments of conception is a human being that has capability, just like every human being that breathes the air of life today and has in the past and will in the future; and therefore is guaranteed all “human being rights” the exact  same as its potential mother   . . . .   is patently  absurd.

NFBW2208072337-#4,464    “No. I have been a human being ever since the day I was born.

beagle220807-#4,465    You mean since the day you were conceived right?”

*NFBW*: No. “born” I did not stutter.

*NFBW*: Are humans created in the image of God beagle9 ding CarsomyrPlusSix  ?? . . .  to have dominion over a cat, a dog, a turtle, a snake, a bird . . .  well you get the picture.?????  Please answer the question.

*NFBW*: In that flash point moment when I was conceived beagle9 ding CarsomyrPlusSix  I did not have a brain, a heart, a hand, or a pair of lungs or skin and I was a one celled part of an actual human being who had at least billions celled being, at ten years minimum with advanced experience functioning in life and having the capability to actuate his or her dominion over every other species of life on earth until the day they die.

Do you beagle9 ding CarsomyrPlusSix concur that the paragraph immediately above, can be scientifically established to be true? If you disagree please post an explanation of such a disagreement.
END22080400


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208080823

CarsomyrPlusSix220806-#4,418 “You admit our species Homo sapiens, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.”

*NFBW*: Because you CarsomyrPlusSix along with ding and beagle9  posit that a woman who terminates a growth that is part of her body is the killing of a human being, you are accusing such a woman of murdering a human being,  therefore you are making her act a criminal case are you not?

*NFBW*: In all murder cases there must be a victim so the burden is on you to prove a pregnant woman murders a human being when she has an abortion.

Your argument is that  "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization which is a one-celled being and must not be murdered from that point on.

So to prosecute a woman for murdering the one-celled human being that attaches itself to her body you wouid have to prove it was a human being to start with.  You would have to use an MRI to do that in court as ding points out that DNA can prove the victim is a human being. But is DNA enough?

ding220513-#247    It's DNA that determines and identifies us as unique, specific human beings.   . . .  That's why they use DNA and not MRI's of brains in criminal cases as evidence      END220513-#247

*NFBW*: in the criminal cases of every woman who has an abortion of the one-celled growth on her uterus you wouid have to prove the growth inside her body is beyond a shadow of a doubt a human being. The MRi of a one microscopic one living human cell would not show that an abortion victim had a brain.

You are therefore going into court to convince a jury that Jane Roe murdered a human being that did not have a brain at the time of the murder. THAT IS ABSURD,    END2208080823


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW22080400 The fatally flawed attempt at a purely scientific argument that a one celled “x” individual, during the first few moments of conception is a human being that has capability, just like every human being that breathes the air of life today and has in the past and will in the future; and therefore is guaranteed all “human being rights” the exact same as its potential mother . . . . is patently absurd.


I don't believe anyone has made that argument.  

You believe it's not immoral to end their lives because they aren't human beings. And you believe it's not immoral to not consider their right to life because they aren't human beings.  

The discussion of precedence of rights can't begin until you acknowledge abortion ends the life of a human being.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208080823
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220806-#4,418 “You admit our species Homo sapiens, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.”
> 
> *NFBW*: Because you CarsomyrPlusSix along with ding and beagle9  posit that a woman who terminates a growth that is part of her body is the killing of a human being, you are accusing such a woman of murdering a human being,  therefore you are making her act a criminal case are you not?
> 
> *NFBW*: In all murder cases there must be a victim so the burden is on you to prove a pregnant woman murders a human being when she has an abortion.
> 
> Your argument is that  "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization which is a one-celled being and must not be murdered from that point on.
> 
> So to prosecute a woman for murdering the one-celled human being that attaches itself to her body you wouid have to prove it was a human being to start with.  You would have to use an MRI to do that in court as ding points out that DNA can prove the victim is a human being. But is DNA enough?
> 
> ding220513-#247    It's DNA that determines and identifies us as unique, specific human beings.   . . .  That's why they use DNA and not MRI's of brains in criminal cases as evidence      END220513-#247
> 
> *NFBW*: in the criminal cases of every woman who has an abortion of the one-celled growth on her uterus you wouid have to prove the growth inside her body is beyond a shadow of a doubt a human being. The MRi of a one microscopic one living human cell would not show that an abortion victim had a brain.
> 
> You are therefore going into court to convince a jury that Jane Roe murdered a human being that did not have a brain at the time of the murder. THAT IS ABSURD,    END2208080823


Again... You believe it's not immoral to end their lives because they aren't human beings. And you believe it's not immoral to not consider their right to life because they aren't human beings.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You believe it's not immoral to end their lives because they aren't human beings.


NFBW: A one-celled existence is not a human being. There is no morality involved because that one celled existence is a private matter between the one-celled existence without a brain and the woman’s body that it attached itself to and feeds off her as a part of her for nine months of her life.  It is immoral of you to insert your nose into the uterus of a woman unknown to you. You’re fucking sick. END2208080932


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: A one-celled existence is not a human being. There is no morality involved because that one celled existence is a private matter between the one-celled existence without a brain and the woman’s body that is attached itself to her and plans to be a part of her for nine months of her life.  It is immoral of you To insert your nose into the uterus of a woman unknown to you. You’re fucking sick. END2208080932


Again... You believe it's not immoral to end their lives because you believe they aren't human beings. And you believe it's not immoral to not consider their right to life because you believe they aren't human beings.

Science disagrees with you.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Again... You believe it's not immoral to end their lives because you believe they aren't human beings.


NFBW: Because they are not human beings and no science says they are. And you’re only argument is that you know what I believe or don’t believe about morality has to be what you say it is, that means you have absolutely no argument in this matter. You only have rote and antiabortion propaganda provided by religious zealots like beagle9 .
END2208080938


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding  of course Human beings begin at conception but they are not human beings until birth or can survive outside the womb. Your language skills are pathetic


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Because they are not human beings and no science says they are. And you’re only argument is that you know what I believe or don’t believe about morality has to be what you say it is, that means you have absolutely no argument in this matter. You only have rote and antiabortion propaganda provided by religious zealots like beagle9 .
> END2208080938


Embryology textbooks teach otherwise.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding  of course Human beings begin at conception but they are not human beings until birth or can survive outside the womb. Your language skills are pathetic


You are contradicting yourself now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You are contradicting yourself now.


NFBW: Do you understand what scientists mean when they say Human beings *begin* at conception when referring to a one-celled existing thing. The one-celled existing thing is human of course by virtue of its parents and the human uterus to which it has attached itself and needs to feed off. It means it is not a human being yet. Only an idiot would say that a one-celled existence is a human being which is what you are arguing right now. END2208980954


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Do you understand what scientists mean when they say Human beings *begin* at conception when referring to a one-celled existing thing. The one-celled existing thing is human of course by virtue of its parents and the human uterus to which it has attached itself and needs to feed off. It means it is not a human being yet. Only an idiot would say that a one-celled existence is a human being which is what you are arguing right now. END2208980954


Yes, I do understand what they mean.  They mean exactly what they are saying and what empirical evidence proves; that after fertilization a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.  One that has never existed before and will never exist again.  



> "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...."


Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Yes, I do understand what they mean. They mean exactly what they are saying and what empirical evidence proves; that after fertilization a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.


NFBW: Then it is like a one celled frog egg  that is dropped into a pond and has all it needs to become a pollywog and swim around on its own until it takes its first breath and becomes a frog. Are human scientists saying that about a human fertilized egg? If they are abortion is not an issue. 
And of course a frog egg is not a tadpole and a tadpole is not a frog.  But those stages of development are all amphibians and vertebrates of the order Anura.
END2208081019


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208080823
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220806-#4,418 “You admit our species Homo sapiens, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.”
> 
> *NFBW*: Because you CarsomyrPlusSix along with ding and beagle9  posit that a woman who terminates a growth that is part of her body


No, we have nothing to say about "growths that are part of her body."

This is about pregnancy.  None of what you just said applies.  Your kid's body is not your body.  Your kid is not a "growth."  Stop saying dumb and flagrantly incorrect things.



NotfooledbyW said:


> you are accusing such a woman of murdering a human being,


They commit homicide by definition, and this should be criminalized as murder.



NotfooledbyW said:


> therefore you are making her act a criminal case are you not?
> 
> *NFBW*: In all murder cases there must be a victim so the burden is on you to prove a pregnant woman murders a human being when she has an abortion.


If you can perceive reality and read and write English and are not completely ignorant of grade school level biology, you know and can communicate the fact that abortion is the homicide of an innocent human being.




NotfooledbyW said:


> you wouid have to prove it was a human being to start with


I do not need to prove already proven and well-established indisputable scientific fact.  Open a textbook and stop being stupid.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: The record shows otherwise.  You are a liar.


Oh fuck right off.  You are just trolling.

Read your own words.  "The record" i.e. my quotes of your posts in this exchange shows exactly that.  You now directly contradict yourself and lie while projecting.

It is plain that you won't even own your own words, so your posts are just bad faith noise.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Read your own words. "The record" i.e. my quotes of your posts in this exchange shows exactly that.


NFBW: No it does not. I am re-posting everything. You are a liar. END2208081202


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Your kid's body is not your body. Your kid is not a "growth."


NFBW: Then a woman’s kid does not need her to grow. I’m talking about a one-cell existence without a brain attached to a woman’s uterus. You have no business of what’s going on in there. When you call at one cell existence a kid you are absurd. END2208081204


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> do not need to prove already proven and well-established indisputable scientific fact.


NFBW: you do not have one single scientist in the history of mankind who will say that it is an indisputable scientific fact that a one-cell organism, with a unique DNA,  inside a woman’s body that does not have a brain, skin, heart, lungs or stomach is a human being that can be murdered by the person to which  that one-celled organism has attach itself. Scientists call it a start which it is - a start. It us not a human being because human beings have a brain. An actual brain. Not a potent brain. END2208081215


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> abortion is the homicide of an innocent human being.


We are talking about one human cell with a unique DNA that does not have a brain. And you call that a human being. You are worse than absurd - you are a liar. Human beings have to have a brain to be one. END2208081220


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No it does not. I am re-posting everything. You are a liar. END2208081202


You are a troll and your pathetic mewling does not alter the fact that, by your own words, you are undone.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Human beings have to have a brain to be one. END2208081220



If that were true, then you surely wouldn’t count.


But no, your membership in Homo sapiens is not determined by “having a brain.”  While a mature human being having permanent brain damage is death, being a young human being who is still developing said organ is decidedly not dead, OR THEY COULD NOT DEVELOP ANY ORGANS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> a young human being who is still developing said organ is decidedly not dead,


NFBW: I am not saying that a one cell organism is dead. You are a very confused human being. I’m saying it does not have a brain and therefore is not a human being. A brain damaged  person later in life was a human being and forever will be.  A Human one-cell organism three days after conception does not have a brain, and while it is a human substance , it is not a human being, it is not a human being that can be murdered according to the laws written by human beings with fellow human beings with brains and who oxygenate their own blood. Now if you know of a society of one cell beings who are capable of murdering each other and pass laws against it let me know what sci-fi movie you were watching. I will take a look. But until then let’s stick to reality and the truth and the facts. A one-celled substance that is part of a woman’s body for  survival It’s not a human being as you are and I am here. My mother brought me into being, yes for nine months in her womb. But I became a human being when her and I were separated and no longer a part of each other physically. END2208081301


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> I’m saying it does not have a brain and therefore is not a human being.



Which is not any part of the definition of being a human being.  They are still living organisms of the species Homo sapiens as a matter of objective scientific fact, and the common use term for members of Homo sapiens is “human” or “human being.”  Period.

You are asserting this made-up arbitrary standard, but it is not the standard.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> human being.


Human  Beings do not need a brain or ability to oxygenate their own blood according to CarsomyrPlusSix



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Which is not any part of the definition of being a human being.




NFBW: It certainly does when you seek murder charges against the mother for the death of a one-cell it that has no brain when she has a doctor terminate her own pregnancy? END2208081448


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You are asserting this made-up arbitrary standard, but it is not the standard.26.


NFBW: What do you mean?      made-up standard. 

My standard is ‘happy birthday’ celebrating the day of birth. 

Your standard is “happy conception day“ celebrating the moment of conception and “no brain” being.  END2208081503


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix220808-#4,479     “Your kid is not a "growth."

NFBW: You are telling me that a one-celled organism with no brain is a kid. Here is the definition of a kid.

Definition of kid​(Entry 1 of 4)
1: a young person  kids in high school especially  : CHILD a  married couple with two kids—often used as a generalized reference to one especially younger or less experienced the kid on the pro golf tour you poor kid


NFBW: why do you have to abuse language to make a point. END2208081796


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW22080400  The fatally flawed attempt at a purely scientific argument that a one celled “x” individual, during the first few moments of conception is a human being that has capability, just like every human being that breathes the air of life today and has in the past and will in the future; and therefore is guaranteed all “human being rights” the exact  same as its potential mother   . . . .   is patently  absurd.
> 
> NFBW2208072337-#4,464    “No. I have been a human being ever since the day I was born.
> 
> beagle220807-#4,465    You mean since the day you were conceived right?”
> 
> *NFBW*: No. “born” I did not stutter.
> 
> *NFBW*: Are humans created in the image of God beagle9 ding CarsomyrPlusSix  ?? . . .  to have dominion over a cat, a dog, a turtle, a snake, a bird . . .  well you get the picture.?????  Please answer the question.
> 
> *NFBW*: In that flash point moment when I was conceived beagle9 ding CarsomyrPlusSix  I did not have a brain, a heart, a hand, or a pair of lungs or skin and I was a one celled part of an actual human being who had at least billions celled being, at ten years minimum with advanced experience functioning in life and having the capability to actuate his or her dominion over every other species of life on earth until the day they die.
> 
> Do you beagle9 ding CarsomyrPlusSix concur that the paragraph immediately above, can be scientifically established to be true? If you disagree please post an explanation of such a disagreement.
> END22080400


Why do you keep dodging the post where I and other's spoke plainly on why you hold the positions that you do ?

You want anarchy and I'm guessing an anarchist type SOCIETY, otherwise that has no boundaries, and so it just begs the question "why is that" one wonder's ?

Having a society that is able to self control itself, promote moral's and decency (hopefully in a larger degree),or otherwise in everything it does, also one that work's hard, plays hard, creates, and love's the Lord God as it's guiding light, and shuns the devil the accuser of the breatheren who does so for evil purposes when he is in control of a willing spirit is instead a better SOCIETY when it rebukes evil..

That is IMO the best formula for a society as is evidenced in the past to be achiever's and believer's. Although flawed yes, but the best outweighed the flaw's by leaps and bounds therefore creating a great nation over those many good year's.

A new problem has since arisen over time, and this problem seeks to challenge everything this nation has ever achieved... Who is this problem today ? It is the leftist who are attempting to force their ways upon the good people of this nation, and are using government in hopes to do so. That has become a new problem, not an old problem these days.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 22080-#4,492     “Why do you keep dodging the post where I and other's spoke plainly on why you hold the positions that you do ?”

NFBW: Why do you think?  It’s because you are responding to my post but you address absolutely nothing that I wrote. 

You appear to be obsessed with pushing a Christian solution to everything including the problem when women and girls spread their legs out of Christian wedlock and the whole of American society is going to hell because of that. And you want to blame me for all that because I believe all pregnant women have a right to choose to continue or end a pregnancy that is taking place in her own body. END2208081903


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9 22080-#4,492     “Why do you keep dodging the post where I and other's spoke plainly on why you hold the positions that you do ?”
> 
> NFBW: Why do you think?  It’s because you are responding to my post but you address absolutely nothing that I wrote.
> 
> You appear to be obsessed with pushing a Christian solution to everything including the problem when women and girls spread their legs out of Christian wedlock and the whole of American society is going to hell because of that. And you want to blame me for all that because I believe all pregnant women have a right to choose to continue or end a pregnancy that is taking place in her own body. END2208081903


Why is she ending it ? That's the moral delema faced that everyone seems to deflect from or skirt on the issue.

Like I said we want to promote a CIVILIZED SOCIETY, not a deranged one that is being coddled by demon's telling these poor people that whatever they do is A-ok, but then later they find that it was not ok or that they were lied to but the damage is done. Are you one to lie to these people if decide to do the unthinkable, and therefore setting them up for a lifetime of regret ??


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Why is she ending it ? T


It’s none of your business.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Like I said we want to promote a CIVILIZED SOCIETY


NFBW: who is the “we” that wants to promote a civilized society?  END2208082006


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Are you one to lie to these people if decide to do the unthinkable, and therefore setting them up for a lifetime of regret ??


NFBW I don’t tell any woman unbeknownst to me what to decide with regard to a pregnancy. END2208082012


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix220808-#4,486   “your membership in Homo sapiens is not determined by “having a brain.””

NFBW: I am above my dog in the animal kingdom because I have a brain that is bigger and better than her brain. It’s odd that you think Homo Sapiens that dont have brains could dominate a dog as smart as my dog is. END2208082040


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> It’s none of your business.


If it involves taxpayer monies, and infrastructure built and supported indirectly by taxpayer's money,  without transparency, then yes it is in every voter's interest to stop a trend that has cost them in the billion's over the year's, and not to forget to mention the lives lost, and the mother's grief afterwards.


NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: who is the “we” that wants to promote a civilized society?  END2208082006


None of your business.... ROTFLMBO


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW I don’t tell any woman unbeknownst to me what to decide with regard to a pregnancy. END2208082012


Telling them indirectly is the same thing DUH... lol


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix220808-#4,486   “your membership in Homo sapiens is not determined by “having a brain.””
> 
> NFBW: I am above my dog in the animal kingdom because I have a brain that is bigger and better than her brain. It’s odd that you think Homo Sapiens that dont have brains could dominate a dog as smart as my dog is. END2208082040


Above your dog ? With opinions like you have, uhhhhh are you sure about that ?? lol


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix220804-#4,320  Our lifespan begins at fertilization that is unassailable and indisputable textbook scientific fact.

NFBW2208042510-#4,323    “Great. I am not disputing that.

CarsomyrPlusSix220806-#4,418   “You admit our species Homo sapiens, aka "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.”

NFBW: In post #4320 there is no mention of “human beings”   ….    I did not dispute #4320  in #4323 because there is no mention of “human beings” in #4320.

But in #4418 CarsomyrPlusSix lies outright and with malice by telling me that I admitted that  "human beings" have lifespans that begin at fertilization.”  Fertilization produces a one-celled version of ourselves.that I do not admit is a human being that can be murdered by a woman who gives it life, 

CarsomyrPlusSix is a liar.  END2208082154


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Then it is like a one celled frog egg  that is dropped into a pond and has all it needs to become a pollywog and swim around on its own until it takes its first breath and becomes a frog. Are human scientists saying that about a human fertilized egg? If they are abortion is not an issue.
> And of course a frog egg is not a tadpole and a tadpole is not a frog.  But those stages of development are all amphibians and vertebrates of the order Anura.
> END2208081019


You should make that argument with every state legislature.  Be sure to let them know that since it's not a human being you believe it's not immoral to kill it.  And since it's not a human being they don't need to worry about dismissing their right to life.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Then it is like a one celled frog egg  that is dropped into a pond and has all it needs to become a pollywog and swim around on its own until it takes its first breath and becomes a frog. Are human scientists saying that about a human fertilized egg? If they are abortion is not an issue.
> And of course a frog egg is not a tadpole and a tadpole is not a frog.  But those stages of development are all amphibians and vertebrates of the order Anura.
> END2208081019


Since you don't believe it's a human you probably believe it would be ok for you to use it's skin to make a small lamp shade, right?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: you do not have one single scientist in the history of mankind who will say that it is an indisputable scientific fact that a one-cell organism, with a unique DNA, inside a woman’s body that does not have a brain, skin, heart, lungs or stomach is a human being





> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> of course Human beings begin at conception


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Since you don't believe it's a human you probably believe it would be ok for you to use it's skin to make a small lamp shade, right?


NFBW: Nope. I don’t believe it is a ‘human being” because it cannot oxygenate its own blood. The skin cells are human so your attempt at an attack against me is repulsive. An aborted fetus’s skin should not be used to make lampshades. END2208082226


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Nope. I don’t believe it is a ‘human being” because it cannot oxygenate its own blood. The skin cells are human so your attempt at an attack against me is repulsive. An aborted fetus’s skin should not be used to make lampshades. END2208082226


You don't believe it because it's easier for you to kill it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding is a liar by ommission  sick pathetic ding 

….that can be murdered by the person to which that one-celled organism has attach itself.”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You don't believe it because it's easier for you to kill it.


Kill whom?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


>


Di you know what ‘begins’ means?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding is a liar by ommission  sick pathetic ding
> 
> ….that can be murdered by the person to which that one-celled organism has attach itself.”


You can't believe it's murder because you don't believe it's a human being.  You could make a lamp shade out of it's skin and according to your beliefs there would be nothing wrong with doing so.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Kill whom?


According to you no one is being killed because a baby in the womb isn't a human being.  You could roast and eat it and there would be nothing wrong with it in your eyes.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Di you know what ‘begins’ means?


Apparently.... according to you it means a baby in the womb isn't a human being and you could make a mobile from it's body parts and there would be nothing wrong with that because it's not a human being.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> According to you no one is being killed because a baby in the womb isn't a human being.


NFBW: If a woman terminates a pregnancy prior to viability of a fetus is she committing murder of a viable human being and should be prosecuted? END2208082300


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: If a woman terminates a pregnancy prior to viability of a fetus is she committing murder of a viable human being and should be prosecuted? END2208082300


Not based on your beliefs.  According to your beliefs you could kill it and sell its body parts and  there would be nothing wrong with it since you don't believe its a human being.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

So, ding why can’t you answer this question?

NFBW2208082300-#4,515   “If a woman terminates a pregnancy prior to viability of a fetus is she committing murder of a viable human being and should be prosecuted?”


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> So, ding why can’t you answer this question?
> 
> NFBW: If a woman terminates a pregnancy prior to viability of a fetus is she committing murder of a viable human being and should be prosecuted? END2208082300


I've been answering it using your beliefs and logic.  According to you it wouldn't be homicide as the baby in the womb isn't a human being.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

So, ding why can’t you answer this question?

NFBW2208082300-#4,515 “If a woman terminates a pregnancy prior to viability of a fetus is she committing murder of a viable human being and should be prosecuted?”


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> So, ding why can’t you answer this question?
> 
> NFBW2208082300-#4,515 “If a woman terminates a pregnancy prior to viability of a fetus is she committing murder of a viable human being and should be prosecuted?”


I have answered it.  According to you it wouldn't be homicide as the baby in the womb isn't a human being.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I have answered it.


You are a liar. Answer the question. Di you agree with me that a woman should not be prosecuted for terminating her pregnancy prior to viability?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. Answer the question. Di you agree with me that a woman should not be prosecuted for terminating her pregnancy prior to viability?


I answered like four times.  According to your ridiculous beliefs a baby in the womb isn't a human being so you can do anything you want to it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I answered like four times. A


NFBW: No you are a squishy worm on the topic. The decision of whether a woman who terminates her pregnancy is a murderess is up to the voters. END2208082342

Ding220718-#2,388 A new genetically distinct human being comes into existence at conception. Because it will be up to the states and/or Congress to decide.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> According to your ridiculous beliefs a baby in the womb isn't a human being


According to definition of a baby it is a human being even while in the womb after 24 to 28 weeks so you are a liar.

Definition of baby​ (Entry 1 of 3)
1a(1): an extremely young childespecially  : INFANT


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You should make that argument with every state legislature. Be sure to let them know that since it's not a human being you believe it's not immoral to kill it.


NFBW: Are there any states that have decided it is murder for a woman to terminate her own pregnancy?  And if a woman commits murder by aborting a fetus in her own body by traveling to a pro-choice state she should be charged with murder when she returns to her Christian run state  shouldn’t she?

Arizona does not consider a human one cell organism to be a human being until after fifteen weeks, Mom can terminate a growing organism that is part of her body  for fifteen weeks after conception and much later than that if she can travel to another state.

In most abortion banning states, women cannot be prosecuted for having an abortion,. Why is that ding if it is murder?
END2208090211


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No you are a squishy worm on the topic. The decision of whether a woman who terminates her pregnancy is a murderess is up to the voters. END2208082342
> 
> Ding220718-#2,388 A new genetically distinct human being comes into existence at conception. Because it will be up to the states and/or Congress to decide.


See I did answer it, dummy.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> According to definition of a baby it is a human being even while in the womb after 24 to 28 weeks so you are a liar.
> 
> Definition of baby​(Entry 1 of 3)
> 1a(1): an extremely young childespecially  : INFANT


And according to you isn't a human being.  Babies in wombs are human beings, you monster.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Are there any states that have decided it is murder for a woman to terminate her own pregnancy?  And if a woman commits murder by aborting a fetus in her own body by traveling to a pro-choice state she should be charged with murder when she returns to her Christian run state  shouldn’t she?
> 
> Arizona does not consider a human one cell organism to be a human being until after fifteen weeks, Mom can terminate a growing organism that is part of her body  for fifteen weeks after conception and much later than that if she can travel to another state.
> 
> In most abortion banning states, women cannot be prosecuted for having an abortion,. Why is that ding if it is murder?
> END2208090211


I'd love to discuss this with you after you acknowledge that abortion ends a human life, but you are a monster and deny their humanness.


----------



## ding

> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220720-#3,739 “This is a science and legal rights argument.

ding220721-#3,754   This isn't a religious issue.

NFBW: Another set of lies by ding

“This bill is just another bill that regulates abortion, which is baby murder, that it says if you do this, if you fulfill this requirement, you can still murder your baby,” Indiana state Rep. John Jacob said during the debate.​​







						Republicans turn on each other amid post-Roe chaos
					

Red state lawmakers are mired in partisan infighting and struggling to agree on how far to go.




					www.politico.com
				


​*“There is still time to turn back to God before it’s too late and repent, and I will still pray for repentance for this chamber.”*​​END2208090754


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: A Brainless heartless lungless skinless absolutely nothing in the form of a Human being begins at conception but ding refuses to take a stand on whether a woman’s decision to abort a brainless non-breathing organism that is part of her body during pregnancy should be charged with murder. The gutless worm that he is. END2208090803


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> See I did answer it, dummy


Ding220718-#2,388 A new genetically distinct human being comes into existence at conception. Because it will be up to the states and/or Congress to decide.

NFBW: I believe thus far all 50 states have decided that a woman is not committing murder if she aborts a brainless living organism that is living inside her womb.

NFBW: Therefore I must assume that you agree with the states and me that a woman should not be charged with murder when she aborts a non-viable fetus in her own body. Is my assumption correct?  END2208090736


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding220720-#3,739 “This is a science and legal rights argument.
> 
> ding220721-#3,754   This isn't a religious issue.


Correct.  100%



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: A Brainless heartless lungless skinless absolutely nothing in the form of a Human being begins at conception but ding refuses to take a stand on whether a woman’s decision to abort a brainless non-breathing organism that is part of her body during pregnancy should be charged with murder. The gutless worm that he is. END2208090803


Incorrect.


> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Ding220718-#2,388 A new genetically distinct human being comes into existence at conception. Because it will be up to the states and/or Congress to decide.
> 
> NFBW: I believe thus far all 50 states have decided that a woman is not committing murder if she aborts a brainless living organism that is living inside her womb.
> 
> NFBW: Therefore I must assume that you agree with the states and me that a woman should not be charged with murder when she aborts a non-viable fetus in her own body. Is my assumption correct?  END2208090736


I couldn't begin to have this conversation with you until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life.  Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You can't believe it's murder




NFBW:  I don’t believe it is murder prior to viability at about 24 - 28 weeks.  I’m glad you don’t either ding.  It shows that I have been right all along to have a rightwing Catholic agree that aborting a human organism when it cannot oxygenate its own blood is not murder. END2208091039


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I couldn't begin to have this conversation with you until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life.



NFBW: When you agree that a woman should not be charged with murder if she aborts a fetus prior to viability I wonder why you are obsessed with the notion that abortion prior to viability ends a human life. END2208081052


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW:  I don’t believe it is murder prior to viability at about 24 - 28 weeks.  I’m glad you don’t either ding.  It shows that I have been right all along to have a rightwing Catholic agree that aborting a human organism when it cannot oxygenate its own blood is not murder. END2208091039


The only things I have told you I believe is that a generically distinct new human being comes into existence after fertilization, SCOTUS has ruled there is no constitutional right for abortion and that states will write abortion laws.  Other than that anything else you claim I believe is false.  

I couldn't begin to have a conversation on this with you until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life.  Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: When you agree that a woman should not be charged with murder if she aborts a fetus prior to viability I wonder why you are obsessed with the notion that abortion prior to viability ends a human life. END2208081052


The only things I have told you I believe is that a generically distinct new human being comes into existence after fertilization, SCOTUS has ruled there is no constitutional right for abortion and that states will write abortion laws. Other than that anything else you claim I believe is false.

I couldn't begin to have a conversation on this with you until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life. Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> The only things I have told you I believe


NFBW: I have come to understand that you stand for nothing with regard to fetal rights to life.
You are just a worm, a squirmy meaningless worm needlessly making it more difficult for the less privileged women to get a safe and legal abortion if they live where right wing Christians own and operate a state. You’re doing it for votes. You’re doing it to keep the conservative Trump base riled up for votes.  beagle9  and CarsomyrPlusSix are true believers, you a just a political hack.  END2208091607


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.


NFBW: What are the consequences of abortion, prior to viability, to society in your opinion? END2208081648


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I have come to understand that you stand for nothing with regard to fetal rights to life.
> You are just a worm, a squirmy meaningless worm needlessly making it more difficult for the less privileged women to get a safe and legal abortion if they live where right wing Christians own and operate a state. You’re doing it for votes. You’re doing it to keep the conservative Trump base riled up for votes.  beagle9  and CarsomyrPlusSix are true believers, you a just a political hack.  END2208091607


What does less privileged or poor etc have to do with any of this ?? I got an idea for the less privileged and poor in the world, and here it is - knowing that they are in that way, then why don't they keep their legs closed until they either pull themselves up by their bootstrap's, get their life in order, and try to use sound judgement about their lives before giving into their lust or giving into a silver tongued devil that could give a crap less about her and her life after he scores a night with her ???

Time for people to get CIVILIZED again, and stop with the vicious cycle's they have since succumb too. And you need to stop trying to feed them your Jim Jones'cocktail of bull crap that endangers or destroys their live's forever.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: What are the consequences of abortion, prior to viability, to society in your opinion? END2208081648


If you got to ask that, then you aren't qualified to even discuss these important issue's, otherwise you are just a snake attempting to whoo or lure your prey into some sort of idiocy, and this so you can poison their mind's.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I have come to understand that you stand for nothing with regard to fetal rights to life.
> You are just a worm, a squirmy meaningless worm needlessly making it more difficult for the less privileged women to get a safe and legal abortion if they live where right wing Christians own and operate a state. You’re doing it for votes. You’re doing it to keep the conservative Trump base riled up for votes.  beagle9  and CarsomyrPlusSix are true believers, you a just a political hack.  END2208091607


I haven't told you my beliefs on mother versus child rights so you can't possibly know my beliefs on mother versus child rights.  You only think you know., but you don't.  You might be surprised.  But you will never know because it would be illogical to discuss rights with someone who does not recognize the rights of both parties.  

But I couldn't begin to have a conversation on this with you until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life. Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: What are the consequences of abortion, prior to viability, to society in your opinion? END2208081648


The ending of a human life.  Sometimes literally being torn limb from limb.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ChemEngineer

Pro-murderers, abortionists have the message that if you're poor, without the means and capability, you should not have children. Kill those unborn babies from such unfit, poor mothers.
The hell with "You shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law."
One woman's word suffices for their "due process of the law."  However if a man kills that unborn baby without HER say-so, he goes to prison for murder. Take Scott Peterson for example.


----------



## Concerned American

ChemEngineer said:


> Take Scott Peterson for example.


Are you defending Scott Peterson?  He is a cold-blooded murderer of two innocent people.  He should never see the light of day as a free man again.  He was lucky the liberals overturned his death sentence.


----------



## BackAgain

Concerned American said:


> Are you defending Scott Peterson?  He is a cold-blooded murderer of two innocent people.  He should never see the light of day as a free man again.  He was lucky the liberals overturned his death sentence.


I don’t think he said a single thing in defense of Scott Peterson. 

Color me confused.


----------



## beagle9

Concerned American said:


> Are you defending Scott Peterson?  He is a cold-blooded murderer of two innocent people.  He should never see the light of day as a free man again.  He was lucky the liberals overturned his death sentence.


No he wasn't defending Scott, but rather he was just using the situation to show how he got charged with mother and her unborn child's murder in which was correct.


----------



## Concerned American

BackAgain said:


> I don’t think he said a single thing in defense of Scott Peterson.
> 
> Color me confused.


Maybe I misconstrued his meaning.  *However if a man kills that unborn baby without HER say-so, he goes to prison for murder.  Take Scott Peterson for example.  *That statement seems to be an attempt to justify Scott Peterson's murdering of Laci and Connor.  I think it is a poor example of defending a pro-life stance.


----------



## BackAgain

beagle9 said:


> No he wasn't defending Scott, but rather he was just using the situation to show how he got charged with mother and her unborn child's murder in which was correct.


That was my read on it, too.


----------



## beagle9

BackAgain said:


> That was my read in it, too.


Yep


----------



## BackAgain

Concerned American said:


> Maybe I misconstrued his meaning.  *However if a man kills that unborn baby without HER say-so, he goes to prison for murder.  Take Scott Peterson for example.  *That statement seems to be an attempt to justify Scott Peterson's murdering of Laci and Connor.  I think it is a poor example of defending a pro-life stance.


Again, I think what he was saying is that the pregnant woman has been legally allowed to do the deed; but if a man does it, society recognizes it as murder. 

I have chatted with ChemEngineer and am having a good time reading his own book. So I’m fairly sure you did just misunderstand.


----------



## ChemEngineer

BackAgain said:


> Again, I think what he was saying is that the pregnant woman has been legally allowed to do the deed; but if a man does it, society recognizes it as murder.
> 
> I have chatted with ChemEngineer and am having a good time reading his own book. So I’m fairly sure you (Concerned (sick) American) did just misunderstand.



Intentionally he "misunderstood".  That's why he is on my Ignore List. He belongs on yours as well.  Reading anything he and his ilk post is a gross waste of time and energy.
Womans Right Fraud

Thank you for the compliments of my book.  The Five Star review it garnered from The Book Commentary was more effusive than anything I would dare say about it.  The reviewer called it "pure genius," a stunning compliment to me, at least.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I haven't told you my beliefs on mother versus child rights



NFBW:  So what? Who cares. You believe Christian voters in Christianized Trump states get to tell all women to eat your shit based on your convoluted interpretation of embryology text books and when your highness ding is challenged  you demand a fifth grader “pinky swear” type gimmick to hide behind. You have one major belief - its white Christian conservatives living in the Christian NATION of America are always right and everybody else is always wrong. But way too many white Christian conservatives in American have converted to Trumpism and there ain’t nuthin right about that. Your beliefs on mother versus child rights are disingenuous at least but overall pure religious bullshit covered in scientific terms. END2208100122


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChemEngineer said:


> my Ignore List.


NFBW: It’s how freedom living and loving American Christians and all the beautiful beliefs about existence recognize an intellectual coward  on this message board. ChemEngineer  ‘s ignore list could be longer than Mashmont ‘s . Serious cowards those two. 2208200153


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

You call reading literal text in English literally “convoluted interpretation,” chuckles.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Cause and effect is literally the basis for science.



*NFBW*:  What is the scientific cause of consciousness CarsomyrPlusSix in a 24 week old human brain?




CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You call reading literal text in English literally “convoluted interpretation,” chuckles.



*NFBW*:  the literal text scientifically basically says a one celled human organism is the *start* of a new individual DNA identifiable human being’s physical body common in all mammals. You and ding drop the “scientific “start” qualifier by insisting the one-celled human organism is at that moment  while having no brain, *a human being not the start of development into becoming a human being with consciousness and brain capabilities* that separates human beings from all other mammals, END2208100806


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*:  What is the scientific cause of consciousness CarsomyrPlusSix in a 24 week old human brain?


Irrelevant, as already noted.

That's your moronic obsession.

You are conflating your arbitrary and subjective desires for the standard for legal personhood with actual scientific terms which are objective and care not one whit for your opinions.



NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*:  the literal text scientifically basically says a one celled human organism is the *start* of a new individual DNA identifiable human being’s physical body common in all mammals.


The start of an organism's lifespan means that the organism is present.  That organism in this case is called a human, or human being.

You are intellectually and generally dishonest when you claim otherwise, and when you claim you have not directly contradicted yourself.  *You do not stand by your own words, so stop wasting everyone's time.*



NotfooledbyW said:


> You and ding drop the “scientific “start”


*The start of an organism's lifespan is the start.*

I don't know what imbecilic games you're playing here, and I don't care.

I can only assume you do not know what "start" means.

Here is an example.  When you press "Start" on your Nintendo Entertainment System (assuming you have power, have plugged in the device, loaded your Mario Brothers cartridge, and turned it on), you have the START of one playthrough of Mario Brothers.  You might not beat world 8-4, you might die 3 times to the first goomba, maybe you run out the timer 3 times without even moving, but you are now playing the game nevertheless, until you run out of life and your game is over.

At the start of an organism's lifespan, you have a _young _organism.  Fucking duh.

No, you do not have a mature, adult organism, again, fucking duh.

The species of that organism was already set at creation.  Your game of Mario Brothers is not going to suddenly become Doom 64 - the NES hardware can't play that, the n64 cartridge doesn't fit, etc.




NotfooledbyW said:


> while having no brain


Irrelevant.



NotfooledbyW said:


> *consciousness and brain capabilities*


Your arbitrary desires for what should constitute a legal person.  I do not agree with you, hatemongering bigot.

A temporary lack of something that will develop or return given time (and parental support to which kids are entitled) is no reasonable basis for your prejudicial political whims. 

You may as well say that anyone sleeping is fair game to be shot in the head, that that wouldn't be murder, because "sleeping humans aren't people."  It would be just as dumb and just as arbitrary.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: see post #4,558 because it sets up the following question for you CarsomyrPlusSix regarding a pregnant woman being charged with murder if she has the medical capability to abort and terminate the one-celled “human being” you claim it is exactly when a “human being” consists of one cell with the biological/Neurological impossibility of having its own consciousness. 

NFBW2207181221-#2,361 Is there really empirical scientific evidence @ding that proves that a human being is formed at the moment of conception?

If so why does the new Ohio abortion ban decide that a woman is carrying a human being not before we can hear fetal heart activity that can be detected as late as six weeks into a pregnancy. Six weeks to murder a human being with equal rights as the mother.
Why can a state allow the murder of a human being just because we cannot detect a beating heart when you tell us ding that there is scientific evidence that human beings are created at conception which keenly lines up with Catholic doctrine. END2207181221

END2208100836


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208100848 Bringing out intellectual bullying by CarsomyrPlusSix    -  mentioning  human consciousness makes CarsomyrPlusSix very irritable and angry.

CarsomyrPlusSix220810-#4,559    “The start of an organism's lifespan means that the organism is present”

*NFBW: *That is not a scientific fact at all. The physical presence is there but there is no scientific evidence of human consciousness. END2208100848


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW:  So what? Who cares. You believe Christian voters in Christianized Trump states get to tell all women to eat your shit based on your convoluted interpretation of embryology text books and when your highness ding is challenged  you demand a fifth grader “pinky swear” type gimmick to hide behind. You have one major belief - its white Christian conservatives living in the Christian NATION of America are always right and everybody else is always wrong. But way too many white Christian conservatives in American have converted to Trumpism and there ain’t nuthin right about that. Your beliefs on mother versus child rights are disingenuous at least but overall pure religious bullshit covered in scientific terms. END2208100122


You don't know what I believe.  You are swinging at windmills again, Don Quixote.  

So you can't possibly know my beliefs on mother versus child rights. You only think you know., but you don't. You might be surprised. But you will never know because it would be illogical to discuss rights with someone who does not recognize the rights of both parties.

But I couldn't begin to have a conversation on this with you until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life. Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*:  What is the scientific cause of consciousness CarsomyrPlusSix in a 24 week old human brain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NFBW*:  the literal text scientifically basically says a one celled human organism is the *start* of a new individual DNA identifiable human being’s physical body common in all mammals. You and ding drop the “scientific “start” qualifier by insisting the one-celled human organism is at that moment  while having no brain, *a human being not the start of development into becoming a human being with consciousness and brain capabilities* that separates human beings from all other mammals, END2208100806


Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.


> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: see post #4,558 because it sets up the following question for you @CarsomyrPlusSix regarding a pregnant woman being charged with murder if she has the medical capability to abort and terminate the one-celled “human being” you claim it is exactly when a “human being” consists of one cell with the biological/Neurological impossibility of having its own consciousness.


That's up to each state to decide.  But your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207181221-#2,361 Is there really empirical scientific evidence @ding that proves that a human being is formed at the moment of conception?


Yes.  It's called DNA.  Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> If so why does the new Ohio abortion ban decide that a woman is carrying a human being not before we can hear fetal heart activity that can be detected as late as six weeks into a pregnancy. Six weeks to murder a human being with equal rights as the mother.
> Why can a state allow the murder of a human being just because we cannot detect a beating heart when you tell us ding that there is scientific evidence that human beings are created at conception which keenly lines up with Catholic doctrine. END2207181221


That's up to each state to decide.

Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208100848 Bringing out intellectual bullying by CarsomyrPlusSix    -  mentioning  human consciousness makes CarsomyrPlusSix very irritable and angry.
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix220810-#4,559    “The start of an organism's lifespan means that the organism is present”
> 
> *NFBW: *That is not a scientific fact at all. The physical presence is there but there is no scientific evidence of human consciousness. END2208100848


Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix220810-#4,559   “The species of that organism was already set at creation.”

*NFBW*: Do you accept there are spiritual nonphysical aspects of creation CarsomyrPlusSix  END2208100936


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208100848 Bringing out intellectual bullying by CarsomyrPlusSix    -  mentioning  human consciousness makes CarsomyrPlusSix very irritable and angry.



I’m tired of your idiotic self-contradictory schtick.  It’s bad enough to deal with people that directly contradict the other party without any thoughtful rebuttal or effort whatsoever, as you assuredly do, but moreover you are not even trying to be internally consistent.



NotfooledbyW said:


> no scientific evidence of human consciousness. END2208100848


Which is not relevant when noting that the young Homo sapiens, the human being, is alive.



NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix220810-#4,559   “The species of that organism was already set at creation.”
> 
> *NFBW*: Do you accept there are spiritual nonphysical aspects of creation CarsomyrPlusSix  END2208100936


Why would I?  I am an atheist, though I think seeing the behavior of other atheists especially on social media is making me think perhaps agnosticism is the way to go, and the movement is only from "I do not think gods exist" to, "I don't think we can know if gods exist."

The atheist community is full of utterly toxic anti-theists who don't believe in freedom of religion or freedom of speech or just freedom in general.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208100848-#4,561
no scientific evidence of human consciousness.

CarsomyrPlusSix220810-#4,559
“The species of that organism was already set at creation


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> When you press "Start" on your Nintendo Entertainment System (assuming you have power, have plugged in the device, loaded your Mario Brothers cartridge, and turned it on), you have the START of one playthrough of Mario Brothers.


NFBW: When I press start on a Nintendo I am playing a game created by human beings who are alive with advanced brains, then is manufactured by tool using humans with brains, then transported to me by an entire network of human beings with brains. Not seeing how the start of a game that I can abort if I own it applies to accusing a woman who terminates a brainless growth that is part of her body is a murderess and must be prosecuted as if she murdered a human being that actually has a brain.  END2208101339


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> The only things I have told you I believe is that a generically distinct new human being comes into existence after fertilization, SCOTUS has ruled there is no constitutional right for abortion and that states will write abortion laws. Other than that anything else you claim I believe is false.
> 
> I couldn't begin to have a conversation on this with you until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life. Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.
> 
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization



I think it's interesting that you, ding, seem to have a moral compass.  You seem to have opinions based on "right and wrong".

I find that interesting given that you normally are a massive troll who seems to thrive on hatred.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I think it's interesting that you, ding, seem to have a moral compass.  You seem to have opinions based on "right and wrong".
> 
> I find that interesting given that you normally are a massive troll who seems to thrive on hatred.


Most people are complex.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*NFBW*: Most people are complex, a one-celled person immediately after conception with no brain or consciousness is not complex.

*CarsomyrPlusSix*-#4,559 “The start of an organism's lifespan means that the organism is present”

*NFBW2208100848*-#4,561  That is not a scientific fact at all. The physical presence is there but there is no scientific evidence of human consciousness.

*CarsomyrPlusSix*-#4,569 “Which is not relevant when noting that the young Homo sapiens, the human being, is alive”

*NFBW:*  Human cultures and societies are  very complex and made of a very broad and mixed diversity of individual human beings who have consciousness, free will and ability to do amazing human things that other animals in the animal kingdom cannot do.

In that context  are you ding and CarsomyrPlusSix advanced “beings” of some higher order that you get to decide the relevance of me and many other human beings questioning if the physical presence of living human matter, with a new unique individual DNA in a one-cell living organism, is a living “human being” in the cultural and societal sense when we know scientifically that a one-cell being of the human species has no consciousness, free will or the ability to do anything?

That is my nice way of asking authoritarian-minded individuals, one Catholic and one atheist who in the fuck do you think you are.

You may respond to either version because your motion to deny the relevance of my argument had been overruled by the massive absurdity of it all.  END2208101646


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Most people are complex.
> 
> 
> 
> *CarsomyrPlusSix*-#4,559 “The start of an organism's lifespan means that the organism is present”
> 
> *NFBW2208100848*-#4,561  That is not a scientific fact at all. The physical presence is there but there is no scientific evidence of human consciousness.
> 
> *CarsomyrPlusSix*-#4,569 “Which is not relevant when noting that the young Homo sapiens, the human being, is alive”
> 
> *NFBW:*  Human cultures and societies are  very complex and made of a very broad and mixed diversity of individual human beings who have consciousness, free will and ability to do amazing human things that other animals in the animal kingdom cannot do.
> 
> In that context  are you ding and CarsomyrPlusSix advanced “beings” of some higher order that you get to decide the relevance of me and many other human beings questioning if the physical presence of living human matter, with a new unique individual DNA in a one-cell living organism, is a living “human being” in the cultural and societal sense when we know scientifically that a one-cell being of the human species has no consciousness, free will or the ability to do anything?
> 
> That is my nice way of asking authoritarian-minded individuals, one Catholic and one atheist who in the fuck do you think you are.
> 
> You may respond to either version because yiur motion to deny relevance had been overruled by the massive absurdity of it.
> 
> END2208101646


Who am I to believe that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization?  A rational person.

I haven't discussed anything else with you.

Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*CarsomyrPlusSix*-#4,559 “The start of an organism's lifespan means that the organism is present”

*NFBW2208100848*-#4,561 That is not a scientific fact at all. The physical presence is there but there is no scientific evidence of human consciousness.

*CarsomyrPlusSix*-#4,569 “Which is not relevant when noting that the young Homo sapiens, the human being, is alive”

*NFBW2208101646*-#4,573    Human cultures and societies are very complex and made of a very broad and mixed diversity of individual human beings who have consciousness, free will and ability to do amazing human things that other animals in the animal kingdom cannot do.

In that context are you @ding and @CarsomyrPlusSix advanced “beings” of some higher order that you get to decide the relevance of me and many other human beings questioning if the physical presence of living human matter, with a new unique individual DNA in a one-cell living organism, is a living “human being” in the cultural and societal sense when we know scientifically that a one-cell being of the human species has no consciousness, free will or the ability to do anything?

*ding 220810-*#4,574      “Who am I to believe that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization? A rational person.

*NFBW*: ding claims to be a rational person after opining that the one-celled organism that comes into existence after fertilization is “a human being” . This ding opinion is based upon the lie that Dr. Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. has established just that as a scientific fact.   the doctor actually says he believes “Human beings *begin* at conception.”

ding is not a rational person in this post.

ding is a liar. The scientific judgment that human beings begin at conception is plausible but ding ‘s version of Dr. Shettles’ word is that a one-celled organism tcomes into a existence immediately after fertilization and it is “a human being” already formed   —- is a lie.  END2208101743


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: @ding claims to be a rational person after opining that the one-celled organism that comes into existence after fertilization is “a human being” . This @ding opinion is based upon the lie that Dr. Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. has established just that as a scientific fact. the doctor actually says he believes “Human beings *begin* at conception.”
> 
> @ding is not a rational person in this post.
> 
> @ding is a liar. The scientific judgment that human beings begin at conception is plausible but @ding ‘s version of Dr. Shettles’ word is that a one-celled organism tcomes into a existence immediately after fertilization and it is “a human being” already formed —- is a lie. END2208101743


Every embryology textbook teaches that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization.

Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW:  So what? Who cares. You believe Christian voters in Christianized Trump states get to tell all women to eat your shit based on your convoluted interpretation of embryology text books and when your highness ding is challenged  you demand a fifth grader “pinky swear” type gimmick to hide behind. You have one major belief - its white Christian conservatives living in the Christian NATION of America are always right and everybody else is always wrong. But way too many white Christian conservatives in American have converted to Trumpism and there ain’t nuthin right about that. Your beliefs on mother versus child rights are disingenuous at least but overall pure religious bullshit covered in scientific terms. END2208100122


Sounds like a worried leftist that you are, otherwise meaning that your leftist Utopic fantasy land might be caving in on you all now. Triggered much ? TDS causes that.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Most people are complex.



So is your position on abortion founded on your deep Christian faith?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Every embryology textbook teaches that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization.
> 
> Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.
> 
> 
> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization



It would be really cool if you knew where babies came from.  But it appears you missed that day in health class.


----------



## beagle9

Cardinal Carminative said:


> So is your position on abortion founded on your deep Christian faith?


It's founded on promoting a CIVILIZED SOCIETY. Christian values are a plus, and they are a necessity in creating a civilized society.


----------



## beagle9

Cardinal Carminative said:


> It would be really cool if you knew where babies came from.  But it appears you missed that day in health class.


Is this a real post ? Bawaahahahahawahawaaaahaaaaawahhaaaaawahaeaaahaaaaaaaawww... Can't be .... ROTFLMBO


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> So is your position on abortion founded on your deep Christian faith?


What's my position on abortion?


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> It would be really cool if you knew where babies came from.  But it appears you missed that day in health class.


Cool story.  



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Christian values are a plus


Why don’t you practice some?

Do you know why my sister, my niece and my niece’s daughter were in the White House today?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Cool story.
> 
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



At least we know you do NOT support the right of women to choose how their own bodies are used.

You don't seem familiar with the role of the woman in the whole process.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> At least we know you do NOT support the right of women to choose how their own bodies are used.
> 
> You don't seem familiar with the role of the woman in the whole process.


You know that how?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> What's my position on abortion?



Life begins at conception.  At least that is what it sounds like.

Normally that's an indicator of a Christian or religious belief system.  I doubt you will confess it one way or the other, but that's usually why people take a "hardline" against women's bodily autonomy.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

beagle9 said:


> Is this a real post ? Bawaahahahahawahawaaaahaaaaawahhaaaaawahaeaaahaaaaaaaawww... Can't be .... ROTFLMBO



Are you a real "special needs student"?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why don’t you practice some?
> 
> Do you know why my sister, my niece and my niece’s daughter were in the White House today?View attachment 680443View attachment 680444View attachment 680445


Was it to get an abortion?


----------



## BackAgain

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Life begins at conception.  At least that is what it sounds like.
> 
> Normally that's an indicator of a Christian or religious belief system.  I doubt you will confess it one way or the other, but that's usually why people take a "hardline" against women's bodily autonomy.


Yeah. The nerve of people to believe that life is the higher value in competing interests. Or is it “privacy?”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Absent Federal laws on abortion, that will be up to each state to decide for itself.





ding said:


> That's for legislators to decide.





ding said:


> Legislators are free to decide anything they want.





ding said:


> believe abortion is a human rights issue and anyone who weighs the rights of the mother and child must acknowledge that abortion is ending a human life. Anything less does not properly weigh the rights.





ding said:


> Abortion laws. It's up to the states to decide the laws they will write.





ding said:


> That's up to each state to decide.





ding said:


> What's my position on abortion?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You know that how?



If a woman wants an abortion you would call that murder per your earlier claims.   Presumably you would then ask for the full force of American justice to be levied against her for that crime.  As such you would dictate, based on your personal religious beliefs about 'life', that she either have the child or be punished as a murderer.

If I am mistaken in any point on this line, please point out exactly where I am in error.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

BackAgain said:


> Yeah. The nerve of people to believe that life is the higher value in competing interests. Or is it “privacy?”



Why does the life of the fetus outweigh the entire life of the mother?


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Life begins at conception. At least that is what it sounds like.


That is correct.  And what does an abortion do? 


Cardinal Carminative said:


> Normally that's an indicator of a Christian or religious belief system. I doubt you will confess it one way or the other, but that's usually why people take a "hardline" against women's bodily autonomy.


Actually it's based on empirical scientific evidence.  DNA.



> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”


Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30



> “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”


Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.



> “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”


Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)



> “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



> “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”


Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.



> “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”


Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co



> “The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)



> “In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”


Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144



> “The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”


Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55



> “The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world.”


DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584



> “The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”


Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419



> “A zygote (a single fertilized egg cell) represents the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life.”


Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53



> “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”


Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3



> “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”


Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943



> “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”


Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974



> “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”


Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3



> “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”


Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.



> “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”


Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.



> “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo..”


Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.



> “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”


The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> If a woman wants an abortion you would call that murder per your earlier claims.   Presumably you would then ask for the full force of American justice to be levied against her for that crime.  As such you would dictate, based on your personal religious beliefs about 'life', that she either have the child or be punished as a murderer.
> 
> If I am mistaken in any point on this line, please point out exactly where I am in error.


You know this how?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> That is correct.  And what does an abortion do?



The key in this part of the conversation is thus:  DOES life begin at conception?  To be quite honest I don't think it matters either way.  I have no religious stake in it (as I suspect you do) so I have no need to arbitrarily define the beginning of "life" and I know how babies are made so I know that a woman's body is REQUIRED for the entire process of fertilization-->actual birth so I'm going to automatically give precedence to the wishes of the FULLY FORMED HUMAN BEING in the entire conversation.



ding said:


> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
> 
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.



It is amazing to me how many scientific articles you can cite here so quickly...but when it comes to earth science (you know...the stuff petroleum engineers deal with in part) you couldn't muster more than a couple of random things.  

(That's OK...I know you're obviously more focused on your religious faith than your fake "engineering" job, so you put more effort into supporting your religious faith.  That's cool.)


----------



## BackAgain

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Why does the life of the fetus outweigh the entire life of the mother?


Who said it does?  Why would some temporary inconvenience to a mother outweigh the preborn human’s right to life?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You know this how?



I asked where I made an error.  Point it out.

I explained the chain of reasoning.  I understand you religious types don't go in much for "reasoning" so I hope you'll take a bit of time to try here.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> The key in this part of the conversation is thus: DOES life begin at conception? To be quite honest I don't think it matters either way. I have no religious stake in it (as I suspect you do) so I have no need to arbitrarily define the beginning of "life" and I know how babies are made so I know that a woman's body is REQUIRED for the entire process of fertilization-->actual birth so I'm going to automatically give precedence to the wishes of the FULLY FORMED HUMAN BEING in the entire conversation.


It would be arbitrary to define life at any other point than after fertilization as that is literally when a new life has begun.  



Cardinal Carminative said:


> It is amazing to me how many scientific articles you can cite here so quickly...but when it comes to earth science (you know...the stuff petroleum engineers deal with in part) you couldn't muster more than a couple of random things.
> 
> (That's OK...I know you're obviously more focused on your religious faith than your fake "engineering" job, so you put more effort into supporting your religious faith. That's cool.)


Cool story.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Was it to get an abortion?


So you don’t know? Get your nose out of women’s uterus’s and you might realize the good things that just happened for our veterans because of Joe my sister and Democrats in Congress.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I asked where I made an error.  Point it out.
> 
> I explained the chain of reasoning.  I understand you religious types don't go in much for "reasoning" so I hope you'll take a bit of time to try here.


Your error occurred when you assumed you knew what I believed.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> So you don’t know? Get your nose out of women’s uterus’s and you might realize the good things that just happened for our veterans because of Joe my sister and Democrats in Congress.


So no abortions then?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Actually it's based on empirical scientific evidence. DNA.


Actuslly it’s based on lying about what scientists actually say.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> So no abortions then?


My niece hugged Joe, after her remarks,   what kind of hate bubble do you live in?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Actuslly it’s based on lying about what scientists actually say.


Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.


> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> My niece hugged Joe, after her remarks,   what kind of hate bubble do you live in?


That's nice.  I'm not a mind reader.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> That's nice. I'm not a mind reader.


You don’t have to be.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> You don’t have to be.


Maybe next time don't ask the question guess what did three females do today in a thread on abortion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You know that how?



Maybe Cardinal Carminative saw your cycle of life chart where the fetus develops while floating in thin air .. 






The fetus is not associated with a woman carrying it and it just starts growing after fertilization with no acknowledgment of the moment of birth.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why don’t you practice some?
> 
> Do you know why my sister, my niece and my niece’s daughter were in the White House today?View attachment 680443View attachment 680444View attachment 680445


No ... Why ?? Practice some eh ? Tell me oh wise one, what am I doing wrong ?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Maybe Cardinal Carminative saw your cycle of life chart where the fetus develops while floating in thin air ..
> 
> View attachment 680501
> 
> The fetus is not associated with a woman carrying it and it just starts growing after fertilization with no acknowledgment of the moment of birth.


Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence after fertilization.  It's just science.  

It's convenient for you to dismiss the science because you believe if you deny they are human then it isn't immoral to kill them or dismiss their right to life.  You want to play king.  Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again.  Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors.  It's dishonest and ghoulish.  



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## beagle9

ding said:


> You know this how?


No one wants to prosecute any of these mis-led women for past or recent abortion's, and basically calling them murderers, only that they just stop the deplorable action and realize that they are actually ending their babies life in which if doing so or wanting to do so without a medical or without a damned good reasoning for it, uhhhh should come with stern consequences, but not with actual murder charges placed upon the woman who was undoubtedly duped or brainwashed over the year's gone by in order to do such a thing, and then somehow think it is right.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*CarsomyrPlusSix*-#4,559 “The start of an organism's lifespan means that the organism is present”

*NFBW2208100848*-#4,561 That is not a scientific fact at all. The physical presence is there but there is no scientific evidence of human consciousness.

*CarsomyrPlusSix*-#4,569 “Which is not relevant when noting that the young Homo sapiens, the human being, is alive”

*NFBW2208101646*-#4,573 Human cultures and societies are very complex and made of a very broad and mixed diversity of individual human beings who have consciousness, free will and ability to do amazing human things that other animals in the animal kingdom cannot do.

*ding*-#4,574 “Who am I to believe that a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence after fertilization? A rational person.

*NFBW*: Why did you ding CarsomyrPlusSix ignore the context I presented on the question of when human life begins based upon the cultural and societal reality of what being human is?

Does the physical presence of living human matter, with a new unique individual DNA in a one-cell living organism, make it a sacred living “human being” in the cultural and societal sense mentioned above cause us to have no choice but to grant it the same right to life and protection as thise human beings that are born?

Or does the scientific biological fact that a one-cell being of the human species has no consciousness, free will or the ability to do anything mean it’s right to life is derived solely at the discretion of the woman who is sustaining its life?  END2208102150


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> they are actually ending their babies life i


NFBW: Ending the life of a human being is murder. END2208102158


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208100848-#4,561 That is not a scientific fact at all. The physical presence is there but there is no scientific evidence of human consciousness.


That's an arbitrary distinction.  The existence of a new, living, genetically distinct human being isn't arbitrary.  It's literally the point in time when it became alive and human.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208101646-#4,573 Human cultures and societies are very complex and made of a very broad and mixed diversity of individual human beings who have consciousness, free will and ability to do amazing human things that other animals in the animal kingdom cannot do.


And has nothing whatsoever to do with when a new, genetically distinct human being becomes alive.  Abortion is intended to kill that life.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: Why did you ignore the context I presented on the question of when human life begins based upon the cultural and societal reality of what being human is?


Because... Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence after fertilization. It's just science.

It's convenient for you to dismiss the science because you believe if you deny they are human then it isn't immoral to kill them or dismiss their right to life. You want to play king. Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Does the physical presence of living human matter, with a new unique individual DNA in a one-cell living organism, make it a sacred living “human being” in the cultural and societal sense mentioned above deserve the same right to life and protection as thise human beings that are born?


If you admit that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human being has come into existence and is alive, we can discuss that.  



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Or dies the scientific biological fact that a one-cell being of the human species has no consciousness, free will or the ability to do anything mean it’s right to life is derived solely at the discretion of the woman who is sustaining its life?


If you admit that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human being has come into existence and is alive, we can discuss that.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Ending a life of a human being is murder. END2208102158


Which is apparently the only reason you deny that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human has come alive.  Abortion is intended to kill that life.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Ending the life of a human being is murder. END2208102158


Well yes, but it's more like involuntary unborn baby slaughter in the case of a woman thinking after being groomed and brainwashed to think that it's ok to discard her unborn child like it's a piece of trash she just throws away into a trash can so she can hurry back into the game of sexual promiscuity without consequence. 

This is why we create laws and rules in a CIVILIZED SOCIETY, otherwise so such a thing doesn't go on in society without some kind of re-education program given, and maybe even a fine of some sort levied in order to let a mother know that what she has done when violating the law concerning the discarding of her unborn baby without a medical cause or review is not acceptable in civilized society. 

The abortionist should be fined a huge fine also, with even a threat of jail time if found to be aiding and abetting these women by helping them to abort their unborn, and worse doing so by her using the doctor as a birth control device instead of using normal birth control prior to the act of having unprotected sex.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*beagle9*-#4,612   No one wants to prosecute any of these mis-led women for past or recent abortion's, and basically calling them murderers, only that they just stop the deplorable action and realize that *they are actually ending their babies life *in which if doing so or wanting to do so without a medical or without a damned good reasoning for it, uhhhh should come with stern consequences, *but not with actual murder charges* placed upon the woman

*NFBW2208102158*-#4,614      Ending the life of a human being is murder. END2208102158

*ding220810*-#4,620 “Which is apparently the only reason you deny that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human has come alive. Abortion is intended to kill that life.”

*beagle9*-#4,621   “Well yes, but it's more like involuntary unborn baby slaughter”

*NFBW*:  My support for a woman to be able to choose to continue or end a pregnancy is based on my secular humanist respect for women as equals to men and no respect for what some Christians opine that sacred life begins at conception. I believe sacred life begins at viability and it should not be a matter that is to be determined by expecting politicians to vote in it. That is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. END2208110026


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

ding220810-#4,620 “Which is apparently the only reason you deny that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human has come alive. Abortion is intended to kill that life.”

beagle9-#4,621 “Well yes, but it's more like involuntary unborn baby slaughter”

NFBW: Ending the life of a human being is murder.

Ending the life of a one-celled growth that is attached to a uterus is not murder.

Ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder or inhuman or immoral or a violation  of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????
ClaireH
BackAgain airplanemechanic
ding beagle9 BS Filter Meister Lysistrata
San Souci eagle1462010
@ChemicalEngineer 
CarsomyrPlusSix 
END2208110742


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: My support for a woman to be able to choose to continue or end a pregnancy is based on my secular humanist respect for women as equals to men and no respect for what some Christians opine that sacred life begins at conception. I believe sacred life begins at viability and it should not be a matter that is to be determined by expecting politicians to vote in it. That is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. END2208110026


But the reason you deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization is because it's easier for you to dismiss their death and right to life if you don't see them as human beings.  

You want to play king. Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Ending the life of a one-celled growth that is attached to a uterus is not murder.


You are literally proving my point that the only reason you see it that way is because it's easier for you to dismiss their death and right to life if you don't see them as human beings.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????


It's extremely clear that the reason you dehumanize human life is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.  

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Ending the life of a human being is murder.


So according to you abortion would be murder if it ended the life of a human being, right?



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: You want to play king ding .  People do acknowledge that they understand that getting a Tonsillectomy, appendectomy or gall bladder removed is literally ending the life of living, genetically distinct Tonsils, gall bladder or appendix that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your maximizing  the consequences of simple safe private surgical procedure for the removal of an unwanted part of the human body does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.END2208110905


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> It would be arbitrary to define life at any other point than after fertilization as that is literally when a new life has begun.



So long as you ignore the life of the woman who is carrying the fetus that would NOT BE VIABLE WITHOUT HER then I guess we're all good here.



ding said:


> Cool story.



So this is how I tell when a hit lands.  OK. Thanks.

What sect of Christianity are you a member of?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cardinal Carminative said:


> What sect of Christianity are you a member of?


NFBW: He is of the Christian sect that believes life begins at ejaculation. He’s been taught that when A man shoots a 0.5 human being sperm cell anywhere outside of a vagina and out of wedlock it is a sin against God. But he’s not calling for laws to be established by state legislatures that forbid ejaculation into one’s hand because it prevents a God-given human life from being created   - that is ding   END2208110954


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You want to play king ding .  People do acknowledge that they understand that getting a Tonsillectomy, appendectomy or gall bladder removed is literally ending the life of living, genetically distinct Tonsils, gall bladder or appendix that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your maximizing  the consequences of simple safe private surgical procedure for the removal of an unwanted part of the human body does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.END2208110905


Tonsils, gall bladder and appendix are not human beings.  They are parts of a human being and have the exact same genetic markings as the human being they are removed from.

What it means to be king is to rule by decree.  Which is what you are doing when you arbitrarily deny humanness and life. 

Equating a new, genetically distinct human being to a body part is literally minimizing the consequence of abortion and is ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> So long as you ignore the life of the woman who is carrying the fetus that would NOT BE VIABLE WITHOUT HER then I guess we're all good here.


You are skipping steps.  First you must acknowledge that abortion literally ends the life of a new genetically distinct human being.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: He is of the Christian sect that believes life begins at ejaculation. He’s been taught that when A man shoots a 0.5 human being sperm cell anywhere outside of a vagina and out of wedlock it is a sin against God. But he’s not calling for laws to be established by state legislatures that forbid ejaculation into one’s hand because it prevents a God-given human life from being created   - that is ding   END2208110954


Incorrect.  Beyond life begins after fertilization, SCOTUS ruling that abortion is not a constitutional right and states will write abortion laws, you don't know what I believe.  



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> So this is how I tell when a hit lands. OK. Thanks.
> 
> What sect of Christianity are you a member of?


Incorrect.  That was how you could tell I wasn't phased by your trying to make this personal by telling lies.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: He is of the Christian sect that believes life begins at ejaculation. He’s been taught that when A man shoots a 0.5 human being sperm cell anywhere outside of a vagina and out of wedlock it is a sin against God. But he’s not calling for laws to be established by state legislatures that forbid ejaculation into one’s hand because it prevents a God-given human life from being created   - that is ding   END2208110954


Better than thinking unborn babies are medical waste like you.  The Tribe had spoken.  You lost.


----------



## BackAgain

Non of the pro-Abortion scumbags have made a dent on this thread against the obvious questions posed about abortion. 

The big tell is that they can’t even admit that life begins at conception.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Not a Monkeys Uncle said:


> Are you Catholic?





ding said:


> A very very very bad Catholic, yes







irosie91 said:


> Catholics do the same in INDIA





ding said:


> The "_one true_ church"





ding said:


> I was a member of the Catholic Church long before the clique rejected me.





eagle1462010 said:


> Better than thinking unborn babies are medical waste l


NFBW: Please define your understanding of the scientific definition of an unborn baby. END2208111050


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Incorrect


NFBW; Are you telling me that the Catholic Church does not teach that contraception interferes with the plan of God  for each individual human soul he creates and plans to create in the family of humanity at conception?  END2208111057


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain said:


> … the obvious questions posed about abortion.


NFBW: And what questions are those? END2208111100


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> you don't know what I believe.


NFBW: because you are squishy as a worm afraid to disclose your beliefs to all of us outside of your dark safe place. END2208111104


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Incorrect.  That was how you could tell I wasn't phased by your trying to make this personal by telling lies.



Cool story, bro.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> , you don't know what I believe.



Perhaps you can tell us what you believe.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: because you are squishy as a worm afraid to disclose your beliefs to all of us outside of your dark safe place. END2208111104



People like ding love to play coy with stuff.  

I rather assume (based in part on a few other things I've read by ding) that he is somewhat religious.  This probably explains the fact that he can cite about a billion articles about the start of "life" but can barely speak coherently about his own supposed field (he claimed elsewhere to be a petroleum engineer).

One can learn a lot about someone when they try so hard to hide who they really are.  I wonder why Ding wouldn't want to talk more about his religious thoughts.  Presumably they are important to him and represent "truth", so why play shy?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization



^^^This is fun to see.  There's another poster elsewhere who loves to talk about support for Christian miracles.  He LOVES to go on and on about the bona fides of his favorite authors who say the things he agrees with (he also has nasty names for those he disagrees with).

Note how ding here loving cites this author (something he can't actually do in the earth sciences where he spent most of his "career") and he is SURE to tell us what is IMPORTANT about this person and why we should BELIEVE HIM.

This is called "appeal to authority".  Too bad ding lacks education sufficient to realize this is a big red flag.  He doesn't understand how easily we can all see the limits of his education.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

eagle1462010 said:


> Better than thinking unborn babies are medical waste like you.



What logic failure in your brain leads you to draw that conclusion?  You know it can be that people are against abortion but think that it's a choice that ONLY THE WOMAN CARRYING THE FETUS has a right to have an opinion on.

Personally I'm against abortion so I vote for better social safety nets and better welfare systems.  

Other people go straight to dictator-for-life decreeing what all his women are allowed to do.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

BackAgain said:


> Non of the pro-Abortion



There aren't any pro-abortion folks.  I've never met any.  

What you might be thinking of are "people who value bodily autonomy".  



BackAgain said:


> scumbags



Well, dictators like you *(taliban types) who want to tell women what they do with their bodies are usually scumbags.




BackAgain said:


> have made a dent on this thread against the obvious questions posed about abortion.



Obvious questions?  Oh my!  Tell us most brilliant of people, what are the "obvious" questions?  Maybe the biggest question is:

What is your faith and why do you think you have the right to force it on other people?




BackAgain said:


> The big tell is that they can’t even admit that life begins at conception.



Let's say it does.  Who cares?  If it can't live without the mother's body then it really doesn't much matter does it?

The only reason all this matters is because your religious position.  That's fine,  because *YOU DON'T EVER HAVE TO GET AN ABORTION IF YOU ARE AGAINST IT.*

In fact, I'm anti-abortion, too!  I don't like abortion.  So I vote for improved social safety net and welfare systems and easier access to healthcare.

In other words I'm trying to be part of the solution, not a mouth-breathing neckbearded incel with less than 3 teeth in his head (you know....YOU)


----------



## BackAgain

Cardinal Carminative said:


> There aren't any pro-abortion folks.  I've never met any.
> 
> What you might be thinking of are "people who value bodily autonomy".



No no. You’re just relabeling the pro abortion types. And your trying to convert their pro abortion stance into something less offensive sounding. But it’s false advertising by you. It is indeed entirely pro abortion. 


Cardinal Carminative said:


> Well, dictators like you *(taliban types) who want to tell women what they do with their bodies are usually scumbags.


No no. You are the scumbag fascists who think you can decide who may live and who may be slaughtered. You’re maybe even worse than the Taliban. 


Cardinal Carminative said:


> Obvious questions?  Oh my!  Tell us most brilliant of people, what are the "obvious" questions?  Maybe the biggest question is:


You already missed it. You moron. 


Cardinal Carminative said:


> What is your faith


Assuming I have one. And why would that be of interest to you?  Wait wait. Don’t tell me. You’re one of the morons who assumes that only a religious person can place value in human life.  


Cardinal Carminative said:


> and why do you think you have the right to force it on other people?


Why do you think you. Abe the right to force death on anybody?


Cardinal Carminative said:


> Let's say it does.  Who cares?  If it can't live without the mother's body then it really doesn't much matter does it?


Not to you. You pro abortionists never care about human life. 



Cardinal Carminative said:


> The only reason all this matters is because your religious position.



That’s just you talking out of your massively ignorant ass again. 


Cardinal Carminative said:


> That's fine,  because *YOU DON'T EVER HAVE TO GET AN ABORTION IF YOU ARE AGAINST IT.*


*Obviously, and you are not allowed to have one regardless of your beliefs. I am guessing you’re a male. Despite what your fellow libtards claim, only women can ever be pregnant. *


Cardinal Carminative said:


> In fact, I'm anti-abortion, too!  I



Billshit. You’re a fulsome pro death advocate. 


Cardinal Carminative said:


> don't like abortion.


Sure. 


Cardinal Carminative said:


> So I vote for improved social safety net and welfare systems and easier access to healthcare.


Nobody cares what else you vote for. You vote for abortion. That’s the topic. 


Cardinal Carminative said:


> In other words I'm trying to be part of the solution,



Not even trying at all. Folks like you are the problem. 


Cardinal Carminative said:


> not a mouth-breathing neckbearded incel


So? Shave then. 


Cardinal Carminative said:


> with less than 3 teeth in his head (you know....YOU)


Nope. You’re mental images are as stupid as you are.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW; Are you telling me that the Catholic Church does not teach that contraception interferes with the plan of God  for each individual human soul he creates and plans to create in the family of humanity at conception?  END2208111057


No idea what they are teaching today.  I haven't heard them say one word about it.  What does that matter?  Prior to fertilization a new human being has not come into existence.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: because you are squishy as a worm afraid to disclose your beliefs to all of us outside of your dark safe place. END2208111104


Incorrect.  It's because it would be illogical to discuss that with someone who takes the position that life does not begin after fertilization for no other reason than it makes them feel uncomfortable morally.  Abortion is designed to end a human life.  That's literally its purpose.  Until you can admit that there's no reason to discuss rights.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Perhaps you can tell us what you believe.


That depends.  Do you believe abortion ends a human life?


----------



## BackAgain

ding said:


> That depends.  Do you believe abortion ends a human life?


I believe he will find it expedient to evade the question.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> *beagle9*-#4,612   No one wants to prosecute any of these mis-led women for past or recent abortion's, and basically calling them murderers, only that they just stop the deplorable action and realize that *they are actually ending their babies life *in which if doing so or wanting to do so without a medical or without a damned good reasoning for it, uhhhh should come with stern consequences, *but not with actual murder charges* placed upon the woman
> 
> *NFBW2208102158*-#4,614      Ending the life of a human being is murder. END2208102158
> 
> *ding220810*-#4,620 “Which is apparently the only reason you deny that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human has come alive. Abortion is intended to kill that life.”
> 
> *beagle9*-#4,621   “Well yes, but it's more like involuntary unborn baby slaughter”
> 
> *NFBW*:  My support for a woman to be able to choose to continue or end a pregnancy is based on my secular humanist respect for women as equals to men and no respect for what some Christians opine that sacred life begins at conception. I believe sacred life begins at viability and it should not be a matter that is to be determined by expecting politicians to vote in it. That is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. END2208110026


You want a chaotic and anarchists type of free do as you please if it makes you feel good society. Pure and simple..... You have no care about anyone but yourself, and this is proven in your own word's spoken.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding230811-#4,624   “But the reason you deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive *after* fertilization”

*NFBW*: Another seriously deadly flaw in your argument ding CarsomyrPlusSix beagle9  is the fact *that I do not deny *the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive *after* fertilization. I  have maintained forever that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive *after* fertilization somewhere in the range of 24 to 28 weeks following conception.  END2208112310


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding 220719-#3,671      “As much as you wish it weren't alive and human, that's exactly what it is and that's exactly how science has categorized it.”

NFBW: You are a liar ding . The one-celled organism that forms as part of a woman’s body immediately after fertilization is alive. I Have been clear on that since the beginning of this and all discussion on the women’s choice issue. END2208120149


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220719-#3,651  220719-#3,659    “The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. That's what they say.”

NFBW: The human development continuum CarsomyrPlusSix that begins after fertilization ding and ends in death beagle9 has one major line of demarcation that you all have chosen to ignore. It is the ultimate in “difference” between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage. It is not a difference of personhood. It is a difference of development to the milestone of viability and capability and consciousness and environment of the new unique individual.

Based on that scientific, spiritual  and easily recognized and observable fact by cognizant human beings, the death or end of the non-viable human formation of cells prior to viability is not subject to the same legal and/ or moral penalty as the death after viability if terminated by another including the mother. Prior to viability the decision to continue or end a pregnancy is a private matter and all human societies and governments should respect that privacy and sacred right.  END2208120636


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Another seriously deadly flaw in your argument @ding @CarsomyrPlusSix @beagle9 is the fact *that I do not deny *the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive *after* fertilization. I have maintained forever that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive *after* fertilization somewhere in the range of 24 to 28 weeks following conception.


That's you denying a new, genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization, dummy.

You deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization because it's easier for you to kill them and dismiss their right to life if you don't see them as living human beings.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> There aren't any pro-abortion folks. I've never met any.
> 
> What you might be thinking of are "people who value bodily autonomy".


Sure you have.  The pro-abortion folks are the ones who won't acknowledge that abortion ends the life of a living human being. NotfooledbyW is a textbook example of a pro-abortionist.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar @ding . The one-celled organism that forms as part of a woman’s body immediately after fertilization is alive. I Have been clear on that since the beginning of this and all discussion on the women’s choice issue.


And yet you refuse to admit that abortion ends the life of a living human being.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: The human development continuum @CarsomyrPlusSix that begins after fertilization @ding and ends in death @beagle9 has one major line of demarcation that you all have chosen to ignore. It is the ultimate in “difference” between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage. It is not a difference of personhood. It is a difference of development to the milestone of viability and capability and consciousness and environment of the new unique individual.
> 
> Based on that scientific, spiritual and easily recognized and observable fact by cognizant human beings, the death or end of the non-viable human formation of cells prior to viability is not subject to the same legal and/ or moral penalty as the death after viability if terminated by another including the mother. Prior to viability the decision to continue or end a pregnancy is a private matter and all human societies and governments should respect that privacy and sacred right.


I couldn't begin to have a conversation with you on mother versus child rights until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life.  It would be illogical to discuss that with someone who takes the position that life does not begin after fertilization for no other reason than it makes them feel uncomfortable morally. Abortion is designed to end a human life. That's literally its purpose. Until you can admit that there's no reason to discuss rights.

Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization.

It's extremely clear that the reason you are playing word games in your dehumanization of human life is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Sure you have.  The pro-abortion folks are the ones who won't acknowledge that abortion ends the life of a living human being. NotfooledbyW is a textbook example of a pro-abortionist.



That isn't the defintion.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> That isn't the defintion.


That's the behavior that identifies them.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> That isn't the defintion.


Do you believe women considering an abortion should understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> That's the behavior that identifies them.



You are still wrong, though.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You are still wrong, though.


Is that because you don't believe abortion ends the life of a living human being?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Do you believe women considering an abortion should understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again?



Who cares?

I'm serious.  I'm a guy.  I don't have any say whatsoever.  It isn't my body.  

Is it yours?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Is that because you don't believe abortion ends the life of a living human being?



No, it's because I understand how english works you dimbulb.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Who cares?
> 
> I'm serious.  I'm a guy.  I don't have any say whatsoever.  It isn't my body.
> 
> Is it yours?


Women who want to make an informed decision on whether or not they get an abortion.  That's who should care.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> No, it's because I understand how english works you dimbulb.


Your evasion in answering the question says otherwise.


----------



## ding

People who are pro-abortion deny abortion kills a living human being.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Is it yours?


No.  But the life being ended isn't hers either.  The least she can do is be honest about what she is doing.  You people can't be honest about it.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> No.  But the life being ended isn't hers either.



Then that fetus should just gestate somewhere else then!



ding said:


> The least she can do is be honest about what she is doing.  You people can't be honest about it.



OK.  So she's ending a unique "life".  Granted it isn't actually a fully human life yet because it is NOT viable outside of her body and as such really isn't quite in the same league as a toddler, but so what?

How about we agree that the fetus should have the RIGHT to gestate wherever it wants to so long as it has the fully informed permission of the woman whose womb they will inhabit.

Would you be happier then?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> People who are pro-abortion deny abortion kills a living human being.



That isn't the definition.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Then that fetus should just gestate somewhere else then!


That sounds like something a pro-abortionist would say.


Cardinal Carminative said:


> OK. So she's ending a unique "life". Granted it isn't actually a fully human life yet because it is NOT viable outside of her body and as such really isn't quite in the same league as a toddler, but so what?


Of course it's fully human.



> Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.


Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> How about we agree that the fetus should have the RIGHT to gestate wherever it wants to so long as it has the fully informed permission of the woman whose womb they will inhabit.
> 
> Would you be happier then?


I couldn't begin to have a conversation with you on mother versus child rights until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life. It would be illogical to discuss that with someone who takes the position that life does not begin after fertilization for no other reason than it makes them feel uncomfortable morally. Abortion is designed to end a human life. That's literally its purpose. Until you can admit that there's no reason to discuss rights.

Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> That isn't the definition.


Denying that abortion ends the life of a living human being is the behavior which defines pro-abortionists.

The fact that you can't admit that abortion ends a human life is what makes you pro-abortion.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Cardinal Carminative , do you believe women considering an abortion should understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being



If I agree to this will you then agree to Federal tax breaks for dependents _in the womb?_ 



ding said:


> ; one that has never existed before and will never exist again?



This particular phrase reads very "emotionally".  It is how I know this is a passion for you that is probably more faith-based.

I find it so interesting that you are SO worked up over abortion because it sounds like you have a moral compass.

Someone with a moral compass is usually not as repellent a human being as you appear to be so it's a bit confusing.

Either that or you are just another of a million billion Christian hypocrites who doesn't know anything about their faith except the bits they pick and choose like a giant buffet of hypocrisy.

You sit here in judgement of women like some giant pharisee.  You know the jots and tittles of this or that rule but you lack an overall understanding of the spirit of the rules.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Denying that abortion ends the life of a living human being is the behavior which defines pro-abortionists.



Wrong.


----------



## dblack

ding said:


> Cardinal Carminative , do you believe women considering an abortion should understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again?


The question is whether a person is present. A legal person with rights.

But let's dispense with the fake argument. This is about punishing "loose" women. Nothing gets conservatives salivating more.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208120955 Scientifically speaking The one-celled organism that forms as part of a woman’s body immediately after fertilization is alive and if the mother terminates it prior to viability it dies, it is dead, kaput, over, life ended, finished  that human DNA will never exist in the universe again.

NFBW2208120149-#4,654    The one-celled organism that forms as part of a woman’s body immediately after fertilization is alive.

NFBW2208120636-#4,655 Based on that scientific, spiritual and easily recognized and observable fact by cognizant human beings, the death or end of the non-viable human formation of cells prior to viability is not subject to the same legal and/ or moral penalty as the death after viability if terminated by another including the mother.

ding220812-#4,658      And yet you refuse to admit that abortion ends the life of a living human being.

NFBW: But I have in NFBW-#4,654  & NFBW-#4,655 @ding - it is in writing.

In fact I use your source who informs us that each point along the human life continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point.

ding220719-#3,641    Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."  Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland

I am saying ding The one-celled organism that forms . . . after fertilization is alive with the full human properties that are appropriate at that point per Dr. William Reville  and is wired in according to the newly formed unique DNA codes that come after conception.

I have it in writing that the non-viable human formation of cells prior to viability are all alive and exist in a living stage of the human development continuum that begins after fertilization. I have said this continuum as defined by Dr. William Reville, will die, will be a death at whatever stage of development it is in  . . . if terminated by another human being including the mother.

Therefore ding you are a liar. And beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix  have attached their ideological contempt for women’s reproductive rights to the propaganda of a serial and ruthless liar.
END2208120955


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> I couldn't begin to have a conversation with you on mother versus child rights until



...until you begin to understand it isn't your call.




ding said:


> you acknowledge abortion ends a human life.



Well, that's easy enough to solve.  The fetus can just gestate somewhere other than that particular woman. Right?  I mean that IS how it all works, right?

Until you can acknowledge that:

1. Women are integrally involved in the whole fetus scene
2. Women are human beings

we can't really have a conversation.





ding said:


> It would be illogical to discuss that with someone who takes the position that life does not begin after fertilization for no other reason than it makes them feel uncomfortable morally.



I'm not uncomfortable morally.  I simply don't CARE either way.  

*IT.ISN'T.MY.CHOICE.*

Do you understand that point?  


The fetus cannot exist outside of the woman for all intents and purposes so who cares what the "status" of the fertilized cell cluster is???





ding said:


> Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again.



and if they do so, will it be ok for them to get an abortion?




ding said:


> Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



"ghoulish".  


Why don't you come clean and tell us what your religious stake in all this is as well?  

You CAN be honest about your faith, right?


----------



## ding

ding said:


> Do you believe women considering an abortion should understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again?





Cardinal Carminative said:


> Who cares?





ding said:


> Women who want to make an informed decision on whether or not they get an abortion. That's who should care.


Cardinal Carminative , do you still believe women considering an abortion shouldn't care if they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a human being?  Wouldn't understanding that be important information to consider in making their choice?

That's why you are pro-abortion and not pro-choice.  You don't want to provide all the information so they can make informed choices.  That's ghoulish behavior.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Denying that abortion ends the life of a living human being is the behavior which defines pro-abortionists.
> 
> The fact that you can't admit that abortion ends a human life is what makes you pro-abortion.



It is all making sense now:



ding said:


> It makes me proud to be a Catholic.




Your dedication to the pro-life (anti-choice) movement is clearly a part of your Catholic faith.

But lying and attacking people senselessly on a forum is just being "you".  

Your faith seems pretty hollow.  You sit in judgement of others but don't ever sit and judge yourself.


You are a fierce defender of the faith!  While you troll mercilessly, attack other people, lie about them.   But you are not going to have to answer to God about the abortion topic.  On that you are pure as the driven snow.

Talk about "Cafeteria Catholic".


Now here's an important point:  I'm an atheist so I fail to share your faith with you.  I don't begrudge you your faith (except insofar as yours appears mostly surficial), but do be honest and clear.  Your points are religious in nature.  That's fair enough.  Your faith is yours to have.

But do remember:  *we know you by the fruit you bear*.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> If I agree to this will you then agree to Federal tax breaks for dependents _in the womb?_


Isn't a woman having all the facts at her disposal to make an informed decision enough of a reason for you to agree?


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> This particular phrase reads very "emotionally". It is how I know this is a passion for you that is probably more faith-based.


Incorrect.  It's based 100% on science.  After fertilization a new, genetically distinct human being has come alive; one that has never existed before and will never exist again.  



> “The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world.”


DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Incorrect.  It's based 100% on science.



Incorrect.  It is based on your Catholic faith which you then support via science.

But, again, it doesn't really matter one way or the other.  If one doesn't have a magical religious belief it is a pretty simple issue to parse.

It devolves down totally to the choice of the woman whose body it is.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I find it so interesting that you are SO worked up over abortion because it sounds like you have a moral compass.


I'm not worked up on abortion.  I'm worked up on truth.  If I were worked up on abortion, I'd be denying science like you and W.  Rather than being honest about what abortion is you try to minimize it, soften it.  That's what worked up looks like.  Abortion ends a human life.  That is reality.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I couldn't begin to have a conversation with you on mother versus child rights





Cardinal Carminative said:


> If I agree to this will you then agree to Federal tax breaks for dependents _in the womb?_



hey Cardinal Carminative before you make a deal with ding please rest post NFBW-#4,679 $$$$$


ding is a fraud and a liar.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> I'm not worked up on abortion.



You're a Catholic.  OF COURSE YOU ARE!  LOL.

Remember:  even in the Catholic Bible there's a 10 Commandments.




ding said:


> I'm worked up on truth.  If I were worked up on abortion, I'd be denying science like you and W.  Rather than being honest about what abortion is you try to minimize it, soften it.  That's what worked up looks like.  Abortion ends a human life.  That is reality.



You are a Catholic pro-lifer.  That is reality.

It's YOUR faith.  Not ours.

As a Catholic *YOU SHOULD NEVER GET AN ABORTION.*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding is a fraud and a liar.



Oh I already figured that out.

But it's fun when someone hides their Catholic faith.  It's funny because he's such a repellent liar and tool *but now we learn he's got a moral compass that makes some things bad because God told him it was.*

God apparently forgot to tell ding that he shouldn't be a troll bastard prick.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Incorrect.  It is based on your Catholic faith which you then support via science.
> 
> But, again, it doesn't really matter one way or the other.  If one doesn't have a magical religious belief it is a pretty simple issue to parse.
> 
> It devolves down totally to the choice of the woman whose body it is.


Incorrect.  I literally just showed you the science.  Genetically distinct mean just that.  Here's another quote from another embryology book to back it up.  



> “… Conception confers life and makes you one of a kind. Unless you have an identical twin, there is virtually no chance, in the natural course of things, that there will be “another you” – not even if mankind were to persist for billions of years.”


Shettles, Landrum, M.D., Rorvik, David, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, page 36, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You are a Catholic pro-lifer.  That is reality.
> 
> It's YOUR faith.  Not ours.
> 
> As a Catholic *YOU SHOULD NEVER GET AN ABORTION.*


You know this how?


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> It devolves down totally to the choice of the woman whose body it is.


I couldn't possibly begin to have a conversation with you on mother versus child rights until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life. It would be illogical to discuss that with someone who takes the position that life does not begin after fertilization for no other reason than it makes them feel uncomfortable morally. Abortion is designed to end a human life. That's literally its purpose. Until you can admit that there's no reason to discuss rights.

Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization.

It's extremely clear that the reason you are playing word games in your dehumanization of human life is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Someone with a moral compass is usually not as repellent a human being as you appear to be so it's a bit confusing.


Look at you making this personal.  Bless your heart.  

Given you deny science so you can see yourself as moral, it's ironic that you would question my moral compass because I accept science.  Your denial of the science is  proves you believe abortion is morally wrong.  Because if you didn't believe abortion was morally wrong you would have no cause to deny the science.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Either that or you are just another of a million billion Christian hypocrites who doesn't know anything about their faith except the bits they pick and choose like a giant buffet of hypocrisy.


Or I am just stating reality.  Abortion ends a human life.  That is reality.  There's no reason to sugar coat it and try to make it something it's not.  Because the more you continue to do so, the more you prove you believe abortion is morally wrong.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You sit here in judgement of women like some giant pharisee. You know the jots and tittles of this or that rule but you lack an overall understanding of the spirit of the rules.


You are wrong about that too.  I haven't judged anyone.  All I have tried to do is establish the basis for a rights discussion.  I haven't had a rights discussion.  So there's no way you can know what my judgement is.  The only thing I have said on that subject is that the states will decide.  I haven't expressed an opinion one way or another on what I believe they should decide.  So there's no way you can know my thoughts on that.  Because I haven't told them to you yet.  

And I most certainly do understand the spirit of the rules.  Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth which is what I have been doing.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Wrong.


You don't want women to have all of the information.   

You don't want women to make informed choices. 

That's why you are pro-abortion.   

That's why you are not pro-choice.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cardinal Carminative said:


> But it's fun when someone hides their Catholic faith.


ding is misrepresenting the science of Embryology to present the CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of HUMANAE VITAE as having been confirmed by science.,

There is nothing truthful or scientific about his foundational point that the one-celled glop of alive human material that forms “boom” as Coach Madden would say,  is equivalent in societal value to himself as a human being. 

The truth is that the only way a one-cell glop of hunan matter can be equal in value as a human being  to its mother is if the creation of the new individual being is simultaneously the creation of it’s soul by the anthropomorphic god of the universe and and of Catholic mythology who as the Supremacist of all beings is creating the individual soul to have a relationship with him or her as designed in their proper sexual orientation. 

I Think @ding’s Catholic upbringing conflicts with his stated lust fir truth had him confused  - He can’t baLance Catholic dogma with a genuine search for universal truth as a sincere and humble human being in absolute awe if the universe in which we were born. ding is a control freak and needs to give it up.,


----------



## ding

dblack said:


> The question is whether a person is present. A legal person with rights.
> 
> But let's dispense with the fake argument. This is about punishing "loose" women. Nothing gets conservatives salivating more.


That will be for the states to decide.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

L


ding said:


> . I haven't had a rights discussion.


You absolutely have. Every woman’s reproductive rights are subject to the whims and Biblical desires of red states with predominantly Christian lawmakers That have been granted the authority by authoritarian voting citizens like you to seize control of every fertile woman’s uterus who lives in their state.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> ...until you begin to understand it isn't your call.


Actually, it's the states call.  I'm just being honest about what abortion is; the ending of a human life.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Well, that's easy enough to solve. The fetus can just gestate somewhere other than that particular woman. Right? I mean that IS how it all works, right?
> 
> Until you can acknowledge that:
> 
> 1. Women are integrally involved in the whole fetus scene
> 2. Women are human beings
> 
> we can't really have a conversation.


You don't want women to have all of the information. You don't want women to make informed choices.  That's why you are pro-abortion. That's why you are not pro-choice.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You don't want women to have all of the information.



Do you think women are incapable of understanding the events around an abortion?  Thank GOD they have YOU to explain it to them!!!



ding said:


> You don't want women to make informed choices.



Yeah, Catholics are DEFINITELY leaders in women making choices.



ding said:


> That's why you are pro-abortion.



Lying for God again??  Do you realize that you are committing a SIN?

If you lie anymore I will know you are secretly MOCKING CHRISTIANITY.



ding said:


> That's why you are not pro-choice.



Ooops! Another lie!  Hiya rqvening wolf!

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits."


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You don't want women to have all of the information. You don't want women to make informed choices.  That's why you are pro-abortion. That's why you are not pro-choice.



More lies from the Ravening Wolf!

The fake Catholic!

You can know him by the fruit he bears!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You are wrong about that too.  I haven't judged anyone.



Another lie!  Ravening wolf opens his mouth and out pops yet more lies!

What about the people you called "ghouls" who think differently from you?  Not a judgement?

LOL.





ding said:


> All I have tried to do is establish the basis for a rights discussion.



And lie



ding said:


> So there's no way you can know my thoughts on that.  Because I haven't told them to you yet.



Yes I do.

Wanna know how?



ding said:


> It makes me proud to be a Catholic.


^^^THAT.

Now you can tell me you don't agree with the Catholic Church on this topic, but clearly you DO.

And those who disagree with you are "ghouls" per your own claims.

ERGO:  you are yet another boring god-botherer who thinks his fake religion that he barely comprehends or understands is all he really needs to tell women what they can and can't do.

You know, I wouldn't mock your "faith" if you weren't such a repellent troll.

you even CROW about pissing people off.  You set up an entire thread dedicated to listing off the people you've made mad.

That's not "Christian"...that's 100% troll.

Your faith is a joke.

You are a joke.

Lies lies lies lies.  Do you think God will reward you for your lies?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> People who are pro-abortion deny abortion kills a living human being.


NFBW: In your science driven survey by a reputable survey organization they must have information about what is considered a pro-abortion person. And when pro-abortion respondents are asked what happens when they have an abortion is it assumed by your pollster that they do not know that a pregnant woman will most likely give birth to a living human being if everything goes well if they do not have an abortion. 

Something is amiss unless you think women are really stupid about their reproductive anatomy and functions..

I have too much respect for women to generalize them in that way. END2208121229


----------



## dblack

ding said:


> That will be for the states to decide.


No, it's for me to decide. Fuck your "state".


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

dblack said:


> No, it's for me to decide. Fuck your "state".



The "States decide" gambit is the easiest, most dishonest approach.  If we are tasked with taking a stand on human bodily autonomy and rights of women we can't allow people to simply say "The states must decide" because you KNOW that the person saying that wants his or her state to decide AGAINST IT.  They just realize that polling all 300million Americans might result in too many people who don't share their religious beliefs.

That's the thing about this whole debate.  ding and others are PERFECTLY FREE to believe as they wish!  Their faith is secure!  They are free to have it.

What they are NOT free to do is *force that faith on other people who are not them*.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220812-4,692    “Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again”

 NFBW: Let’s call it Ding’s Dingbat Form. A woman gets pregnant in Mississippi so she goes to a clinic to get an abortion. She fills out a Ding’s Dingbat form which has only one yes or no question:

“Do you acknowledge that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again? “

IF she checks yes they send the form to you ding so you can sign off on it and she gets her safe legal abortion in her hometown and for all but an aborted fetus - life goes on?

If she checks “no” what happens then? Are  you going to run mandatory embryology indoctrination camps with your wall of embryologist textbooks and jars of aborted fetusses until she caves and by giving birth. END2208121317


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I'm not uncomfortable morally. I simply don't CARE either way.
> 
> *IT.ISN'T.MY.CHOICE.*
> 
> Do you understand that point?
> 
> 
> The fetus cannot exist outside of the woman for all intents and purposes so who cares what the "status" of the fertilized cell cluster is???


Sure you are.  That's why you can't be honest about what abortion is.  It's because you believe you are a moral person and that killing is wrong that you have rationalized that abortion isn't killing.  


Cardinal Carminative said:


> and if they do so, will it be ok for them to get an abortion?


That's not up to either of us. But one would hope they understood the magnitude of their decision.  You and W certainly don't.  



Cardinal Carminative said:


> "ghoulish".
> 
> 
> Why don't you come clean and tell us what your religious stake in all this is as well?
> 
> You CAN be honest about your faith, right?


My religion plays no part in this at all.  It's a human issue, not a religious issue.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> The "States decide" gambit is the easiest, most dishonest approach.  If we are tasked with taking a stand on human bodily autonomy and rights of women we can't allow people to simply say "The states must decide" because you KNOW that the person saying that wants his or her state to decide AGAINST IT.  They just realize that polling all 300million Americans might result in too many people who don't share their religious beliefs.
> 
> That's the thing about this whole debate.  ding and others are PERFECTLY FREE to believe as they wish!  Their faith is secure!  They are free to have it.
> 
> What they are NOT free to do is *force that faith on other people who are not them*.


The states are deciding.  That's a fact.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding220812-4,692    “Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again”
> 
> NFBW: Let’s call it Ding’s Dingbat Form. A woman gets pregnant in Mississippi so she goes to a clinic to get an abortion. She fills out a Ding’s Dingbat form which has only one yes or no question:
> 
> “Do you acknowledge that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again? “
> 
> IF she checks yes they send the form to you ding so you can sign off on it and she gets her safe legal abortion in her hometown and for all but an aborted fetus - life goes on?
> 
> If she checks “no” what happens then? Are  you going to run mandatory embryology indoctrination camps with your wall of embryologist textbooks and jars of aborted fetusses until she caves and by giving birth. END2208121317


Sounds better than being ignorant about it.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> It is all making sense now:


That's nice.


Cardinal Carminative said:


> Your dedication to the pro-life (anti-choice) movement is clearly a part of your Catholic faith.
> 
> But lying and attacking people senselessly on a forum is just being "you".
> 
> Your faith seems pretty hollow. You sit in judgement of others but don't ever sit and judge yourself.
> 
> 
> You are a fierce defender of the faith! While you troll mercilessly, attack other people, lie about them. But you are not going to have to answer to God about the abortion topic. On that you are pure as the driven snow.
> 
> Talk about "Cafeteria Catholic".


Incorrect.  Abortion is a human issue.  Abortion isn't a religious issue. 


Cardinal Carminative said:


> Now here's an important point: I'm an atheist so I fail to share your faith with you. I don't begrudge you your faith (except insofar as yours appears mostly surficial), but do be honest and clear. Your points are religious in nature. That's fair enough. Your faith is yours to have.
> 
> But do remember: *we know you by the fruit you bear*.


Incorrect again.  My point has only been about when science says a new human being comes into existence.  I don't know how you could have missed it.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Incorrect.  It is based on your Catholic faith which you then support via science.
> 
> But, again, it doesn't really matter one way or the other.  If one doesn't have a magical religious belief it is a pretty simple issue to parse.
> 
> It devolves down totally to the choice of the woman whose body it is.


My point is a very focused and narrow point.  Human life begins after fertilization.  Abortion ends a human life.  It's just science.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You're a Catholic.  OF COURSE YOU ARE!  LOL. Remember:  even in the Catholic Bible there's a 10 Commandments. You are a Catholic pro-lifer.  That is reality. It's YOUR faith.  Not ours. As a Catholic *YOU SHOULD NEVER GET AN ABORTION. *


Stereotype much?

You wouldn't be saying that if you knew my thoughts on abortion.  But you don't.  You only know my thoughts on when life begins.  That's it. 

You have a background in science, right?  What do you believe science says about when life begins?


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Oh I already figured that out.
> 
> But it's fun when someone hides their Catholic faith.  It's funny because he's such a repellent liar and tool *but now we learn he's got a moral compass that makes some things bad because God told him it was.*
> 
> God apparently forgot to tell ding that he shouldn't be a troll bastard prick.


When did I hide my faith?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding is misrepresenting the science of Embryology to present the CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of HUMANAE VITAE as having been confirmed by science.,
> 
> There is nothing truthful or scientific about his foundational point that the one-celled glop of alive human material that forms “boom” as Coach Madden would say,  is equivalent in societal value to himself as a human being.
> 
> The truth is that the only way a one-cell glop of hunan matter can be equal in value as a human being  to its mother is if the creation of the new individual being is simultaneously the creation of it’s soul by the anthropomorphic god of the universe and and of Catholic mythology who as the Supremacist of all beings is creating the individual soul to have a relationship with him or her as designed in their proper sexual orientation.
> 
> I Think @ding’s Catholic upbringing conflicts with his stated lust fir truth had him confused  - He can’t baLance Catholic dogma with a genuine search for universal truth as a sincere and humble human being in absolute awe if the universe in which we were born. ding is a control freak and needs to give it up.,


Incorrect. Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization.

It's extremely clear that the reason you are playing word games in your dehumanization of human life is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.

You deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization because it's easier for you to kill them and dismiss their right to life if you don't see them as living human beings.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> L
> 
> You absolutely have. Every woman’s reproductive rights are subject to the whims and Biblical desires of red states with predominantly Christian lawmakers That have been granted the authority by authoritarian voting citizens like you to seize control of every fertile woman’s uterus who lives in their state.


Incorrect.  We follow the constitution in this country.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Do you think women are incapable of understanding the events around an abortion? Thank GOD they have YOU to explain it to them!!!


You and W don't seem to be capable of it.  Neither of you can admit to abortion is ending the life of a human being.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Yeah, Catholics are DEFINITELY leaders in women making choices.


That's nice.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Lying for God again?? Do you realize that you are committing a SIN?
> 
> If you lie anymore I will know you are secretly MOCKING CHRISTIANITY.


No, I'm not lying.  But lying isn't a sin, dummy.  Bearing false witness is a sin.  I can tell you that that dress doesn't make you look fat and it wouldn't be a sin even though it's a lie.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Ooops! Another lie! Hiya rqvening wolf!
> 
> “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits."


I know it's hard for you to accept but as long as you continue to minimize the consequences of abortion you aren't providing the full picture.  But it's the motivation for your failure to be honest that harms you.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> More lies from the Ravening Wolf!
> 
> The fake Catholic!
> 
> You can know him by the fruit he bears!


It's true.  I'm a bad Catholic.  I own it.  But you don't want women to have all of the information. You don't want women to make informed choices. That's why you are pro-abortion. That's why you are not pro-choice.


----------



## dblack

ding is dingin'!


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: In your science driven survey by a reputable survey organization they must have information about what is considered a pro-abortion person. And when pro-abortion respondents are asked what happens when they have an abortion is it assumed by your pollster that they do not know that a pregnant woman will most likely give birth to a living human being if everything goes well if they do not have an abortion.
> 
> Something is amiss unless you think women are really stupid about their reproductive anatomy and functions..
> 
> I have too much respect for women to generalize them in that way. END2208121229


Yeah, I can tell how much respect you have for women the way keep important information away from them.  You aren't for choice.  You are for abortion.


----------



## ding

dblack said:


> No, it's for me to decide. Fuck your "state".


It's going to be decided by each state one way or another whether you like it or not.  That's a fact.  That is reality.


----------



## ding

dblack said:


> ding is dingin'!


Do you believe that abortion ends a human life?


----------



## beagle9

Bottom line in all of this, is that we should promote a CIVILIZED SOCIETY, and having sex outside of marriage with the wrong guy, and then seeking a medical procedure that would end the life of a human being somewhere along the way as a form of birth control isn't only wrong, but it's highly uncivilized.

We shouldn't have ever entertained or tolerated the wicked bull crap, much less allowed it to grow into some sort of normalized trend that has hooked hundreds of thousands of women into thinking that destroying life is somehow ok, when in fact they have been duped into thinking that to destroy the life of their unborn child is something in the effect of changing a pair of jeans.

The toleration of a lot of sinful things has since ensnared many people, and it is forcing them into an uncivilized life of terrible choices and regrets, but the left is estatic over the tragic results, and worse it just keeps doubling down no matter how much misery is generated out of it all. Bottom line is it's evil to promote abortion as a means of birth control. Period.


----------



## dblack

ding said:


> It's going to be decided by each state one way or another whether you like it or not.  That's a fact.  That is reality.


Yes. I'm sure you've been jerking off since the decision came down. But statists can suck my ass.


----------



## Concerned American

beagle9 said:


> Bottom line in all of this, is that we should promote a CIVILIZED SOCIETY, and having sex outside of marriage with the wrong guy, and then seeking a medical procedure that would end the life of a human being somewhere along the way as a form of birth control isn't only wrong, but it's highly uncivilized.
> 
> We shouldn't have ever entertained or tolerated the wicked bull crap, much less allowed it to grow into some sort of normalized trend that has hooked hundreds of thousands of women into thinking that destroying life is somehow ok, when in fact they have been duped into thinking that to destroy the life of their unborn child is something in the effect of changing a pair of jeans.
> 
> The toleration of a lot of sinful things has since ensnared many people, and it is forcing them into an uncivilized life of terrible choices and regrets, but the left is estatic over the tragic results, and worse it just keeps doubling down no matter how much misery is generated out of it all. Bottom line is it's evil to promote abortion as a means of birth control. Period.


And then these murderers have the gall to call themselves "mothers."  Mothers don't murder their offspring, they give life.


----------



## ding

dblack said:


> Yes. I'm sure you've been jerking off since the decision came down. But statists can suck my ass.


Why do you believe I've been jerking off since the decision came down?

Good thing I'm not a statist.  I would have had to take a hard pass on the sucking the ass thing.  But if I were a statist I would have pointed out that since we have been jerking off since the decision came down, you are the one who is having to suck ass right now.


----------



## ding

dblack said:


> Yes. I'm sure you've been jerking off since the decision came down. But statists can suck my ass.


Do you believe that abortion ends a human life?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding 220812-#4,709     “It's because you believe you are a moral person and that killing is wrong that you have rationalized that abortion isn't killing

NFBW: I am a very moral person who places a higher value on viable human life and all human life that has experienced breathing the air of our universe and has experienced consciousness at some point in the human life cycle than you ding do.

I do not sell out the soul of my fellow viable human beings who have reproductive organs for the betterment of my particular political ideology as you do ding.

I have never believed that an abortion does not put a stop to human life and does not cause a lving human organism to die. I’m telling you again right now that the abortion procedure means a new individual human being with unique DNA will not be born. Abortion prior to  28 weeks kills all chances of that developing  human organism that is part of a woman’s body to develop into a viable human being. But the choice not to deliver a new human being lies with the woman who carries it. THERE IS ZERO moral choices for the rest of society to make on the issue. If the woman who terminates is of a religion that forbids abortion and she does it anyway, then the consequences of her religious immorality, sin if you will, are between the woman and her church and her God not me.  END2208121901


----------



## dblack

ding said:


> Do you believe that abortion ends a human life?


That depends, of course, on your _very special_ definition of human life. But it's irrelevant. If it's inside someone else's body, it's none of my business. But, apparently, you think it's yours. The government should reign supreme in all things, even procreation.

Speaking of definitions, when I say statist, I mean someone who thinks the purpose of government is force their values on others.


----------



## beagle9

Concerned American said:


> And then these murderers have the gall to call themselves "mothers."  Mothers don't murder their offspring, they give life.


Hmmm......Won't call the mother's murderers if they were brainwashed by whoever the evil promoter's of such a thing might be over time (somehow normalizing it).....So in a sense did they actually know without a doubt that to have a doctor remove their unborn child (in which they actually gave the doctor permission to do), that it would ensure that the unborn baby would "die" before coming out of the mother's womb "alive" ?? Was it something they undoubtedly could not totally comprehend before the event took place or could they ??

To remove your unborn baby by violent means is as uncivilized an act as most civilized human beings have ever heard of, but somehow leftist were able to convince women that it was an ok thing to do, and that they shouldn't let anyone tell them otherwise. The grooming of SOCIETY over the year's has led to a lot of uncivilized activities.. It's really a sin and a shame what has taken place over the year's.

We must return to promoting a healthy civilized society before we lose this nation completely, and lose it to uncivilized anarchy and chaos being promoted as if it is somehow normal these days.


----------



## dblack

Government that presumes it has the power to stop you from having an abortion, has the power to force you to get one. Just depends on who's running things at the time.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I am a very moral person who places a higher value on viable human life and all human life that has experienced breathing the air of our universe and has experienced consciousness at some point in the human life cycle than you @ding do.


Then you only value some human life based upon an arbitrary designation.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I do not sell out the soul of my fellow viable human beings who have reproductive organs for the betterment of my particular political ideology as you do @ding.


I kind of think you do as all I have argued so far is when life begins.  You are the one who dogmatically rejects science for some arbitrary designation that aligns with your political party.  I've done no such thing.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> Government that presumes it has the power to stop you from having an abortion, has the power to force you to get one. Just depends on who's running things at the time





dblack said:


> Government that presumes it has the power to stop you from having an abortion, has the power to force you to get one. Just depends on who's running things at the time.


The federal government doesn't presume it has the power to stop anyone from doing anything, only that it won't allow the citizen's to drag it into a rabbit hole in which a few wicked minded people want to take it down.........Otherwise it won't do anything without it freely being agreed upon by them (the feds) and a union (being the citizen's of the United States) on whole, so thank goodness that as a whole it doesn't want it to promote abortion at the federal level, and the federal government shouldn't want too without the people's of all state's complete support, so back to the individual state's it goes. No more hiding this bull crap under a presumed federal invisible shield.

So the Fed's by order of the court has sent the issue back to the state's, and if a state engages in the promotion of uncivilized activities, then let's see how long its official's will remain in power by their majorities come vote time.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I have never believed that an abortion does not put a stop to human life and does not cause a lving human organism to die.


You are so close here, but even that falls short as the only correct way to see it is abortion ends a human life.  Anything less minimizes the consequences of abortion.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I’m telling you again right now that the abortion procedure means a new individual human being with unique DNA will not be born.


That's an odd way of saying it will die.  Almost like something  a shifty lawyer or politician would say.  Abortion ends a human life.  That is reality.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> The federal government doesn't presume it has the power to stop anyone from doing anything,


Yeah, the state vs federal thing doesn't matter. Neither should have that kind of power.  .


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Abortion prior to 28 weeks kills all chances of that developing human organism that is part of a woman’s body to develop into a viable human being. But the choice not to deliver a new human being lies with the woman who carries it. THERE IS ZERO moral choices for the rest of society to make on the issue. If the woman who terminates is of a religion that forbids abortion and she does it anyway, then the consequences of her religious immorality, sin if you will, are between the woman and her church and her God not me.


It's already a human being.  A living one.  Abortion ends that life.  Abortion is killing.


----------



## beagle9

ding said:


> That's an odd way of saying it will die.  Almost like something  a shifty lawyer or politician would say.  Abortion ends a human life.  That is reality.


He basically pulled a Bill Clinton with that one... lol.

You know - It depends on what the definition of "is" "is". lol


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> No, I'm not lying.  But lying isn't a sin, dummy.



Thou shalt not bear false witness.  That is what you do literally all the time.

But I bet your sect has a special definition of “witness” that gets you off on a technicality.

Your religion is SUCH A JOKE.  




ding said:


> Bearing false witness is a sin.  I can tell you that that dress doesn't make you look fat and it wouldn't be a sin even though it's a lie.


----------



## ding

dblack said:


> Government that presumes it has the power to stop you from having an abortion, has the power to force you to get one. Just depends on who's running things at the time.


You can make an even better argument that a government that has the power to allow abortions has the power to force abortions.  As a government that allows abortions has already demoralized abortion whereas a government which doesn't allow abortions, hasn't.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Thou shalt not bear false witness. That is what you do literally all the time.
> 
> But I bet your sect has a special definition of “witness” that gets you off on a technicality.
> 
> Your religion is SUCH A JOKE.


Cool story, ma'am.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> Yeah, the state vs federal thing doesn't matter. Neither should have that kind of power.  .


Someone has to have a say in what the citizen's might want, so the state's being independent of one another should be able to promote (within the law of course), what their citizen's want to represent them in their state. 

Remember now "WITHIN THE LAW". Once abortion is outlawed in a state, and the people agree, then the state law shouldn't be abused by anyone in the state.... If don't like it, then freely move to another state where uncivilized activities are allowed, and are allowed with the ok of that government.


----------



## dblack

ding said:


> You can make an even better argument that a government that has the power to allow ...


LOL!!!
The "power to allow"???

Is that really how you see government? Of course it is.


----------



## ding

dblack said:


> That depends, of course, on your _very special_ definition of human life. But it's irrelevant. If it's inside someone else's body, it's none of my business. But, apparently, you think it's yours. The government should reign supreme in all things, even procreation.
> 
> Speaking of definitions, when I say statist, I mean someone who thinks the purpose of government is force their values on others.


So you mean to tell me you can't tell the difference between something that's alive and something that isn't?


----------



## ding

dblack said:


> LOL!!!
> The "power to allow"???
> 
> Is that really how you see government? Of course it is.


I see government as a necessary evil.


----------



## ding

dblack said:


> Yeah, the state vs federal thing doesn't matter. Neither should have that kind of power.  .


You are crying over spilled milk.  It's not going back into the bowl.  Get over it.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> Someone has to have a say in what the citizen's might want ...


No, no, no. This is precisely what I reject about the prevailing political philosophies of both parties. 


beagle9 said:


> Remember now "WITHIN THE LAW". Once abortion is outlawed in a state, and the people agree, then the state law shouldn't be abused by anyone in the state.... If don't like it, then freely move to another state where uncivilized activities are allowed, and are allowed with the ok of that government.


I appreciate the general value of decentralization, I'm with you there. But I don't think that fundamental rights should depend on which state you are in.


----------



## dblack

ding said:


> I see government as a necessary evil.


You know what *the power to allow" is? It's nothing. No government power required at all. But it tells me something about how you see government. It presumes that government already has the universal power to prohibit, and what it chooses not to prohibit, it "allows". Or perhaps requires.

A government that "allows" is against everything I understand about being an American. Which is something like "the government can't get in my face without a damned good reason".


----------



## ding

dblack said:


> You know what *the power to allow" is? It's nothing. No government power required at all. But it tells me something about how you see government. It presumes that government already has the universal power to prohibit, and what it chooses not to prohibit, it "allows".


Not in the context of it use to be illegal.  Being legal is closer to forced abortions than being illegal is.


----------



## dblack

ding said:


> So you mean to tell me you can't tell the difference between something that's alive and something that isn't?


Ah . So is that your definition "human life"? Something that's alive? Is that it? Care to get more specific? I can work with that, but I'll warn you, it will lead to some pretty ridiculous places.


----------



## ding

dblack said:


> Ah . So is that your definition "human life"? Something that's alive? Is that it? Care to get more specific? I can work with that, but I'll warn you, it will lead to some pretty ridiculous places.


Human life begins after fertilization and ends at death.  It's what is taught in every embryology textbook.  It's just science.


----------



## dblack

ding said:


> Human life begins after fertilization and ends at death.  It's what is taught in every embryology textbook.  It's just science.


Ok.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> No, no, no. This is precisely what I reject about the prevailing political philosophies of both parties.
> 
> I appreciate the general value of decentralization, I'm with you there. But I don't think that fundamental rights should depend on which state you are in.


1. Yes, yes, yes if the people in a majority (within the law), want their representative's to enforce the laws within their state, then they best do so. 

2. It's no political theory or philosophy, it's just basic understandings of what the citizen's of the state do want regarding some simple fundamental rules and understandings of the laws, and the expectations that the state will comply (within the laws of the state) if need be.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding 220812-#4,726     “Do you believe that abortion ends a human life?”

NFBW: When a woman has an abortion ding prior to 28 weeks after conception she is ending the living biological continuum as defined by Dr. William Reville; meaning the potential for a fully developed human life to be born, comes to an end.

ding220719-#3,641 Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. So  William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland  END2208132315


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220812-#4,739   “the only correct way to see it is abortion ends a human life.”

NFBW: The more scientifically correct way to say it ding relative to the topic of abortion is to say abortion ends a not viable human life, but you can’t allow reality disturb your distorted translation  of cherry picked : scientific facts. END2208130009


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220812-#4,739 “the only correct way to see it is abortion ends a human life.”

NFBW: Actually ding the scientifically correct way to see it is abortion ends a not viable human life when the procedure is performed prior to 24 weeks after conception.  END2208130644


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: Question for BS Filter and ding - 

Has the Medical Science community of doctors and scientists determined a time frame following human conception where the developing human being inside the womb reaches a stage of development commonly referred to as viability? 

And how many weeks of gestation are required during the period from beginning as a one-celled fertilized egg to becoming a millions celled viable fetus who is capable of living outside the womb and surviving beyond tens of thousands of dollars and weeks and months of intensive hospital care?  END2208130743


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Actually ding the scientifically correct way to see it is abortion ends a not viable human life when the procedure is performed prior to 24 weeks after conception.  END2208130644


Still minimizing the consequences of abortion, I see.

Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization.

The reason you are playing word games in your dehumanization of human life is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.

You deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization because it's easier for you to kill them and dismiss their right to life if you don't see them as living human beings.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Question for BS Filter and ding -
> 
> Has the Medical Science community of doctors and scientists determined a time frame following human conception where the developing human being inside the womb reaches a stage of development commonly referred to as viability?
> 
> And how many weeks of gestation are required during the period from beginning as a one-celled fertilized egg to becoming a millions celled viable fetus who is capable of living outside the womb and surviving beyond tens of thousands of dollars and weeks and months of intensive hospital care?  END2208130743


That's part of the mother's rights versus the child's rights discussion.  I couldn't possibly begin to have a conversation with you on mother versus child rights until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life. It would be illogical to discuss that with someone who takes the position that life does not begin after fertilization for no other reason than it makes them feel uncomfortable morally. Abortion is designed to end a human life. That's literally its purpose. Until you can admit that there's no reason to discuss rights.

Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization.

It's extremely clear that the reason you are playing word games in your dehumanization of human life is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: When a woman has an abortion @ding prior to 28 weeks after conception she is ending the living biological continuum as defined by Dr. William Reville; meaning the potential for a fully developed human life to be born, comes to an end.


Incorrect.  It means the baby in the womb dies.  The purpose of an abortion is to end a human life.

Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: The more scientifically correct way to say it @ding relative to the topic of abortion is to say abortion ends a not viable human life, but you can’t allow reality disturb your distorted translation of cherry picked : scientific facts. END2208130009


Says the guy who minimizes the consequences of abortion at every turn because he can't bear believing he supports killing a human being.  

Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding 220812-#4,726 “Do you believe that abortion ends a human life?”

NFBW2208132315-#4,759     “ When a woman has an abortion prior to 28 weeks after conception she is ending the living biological continuum as defined by Dr. William Reville; meaning the potential for a fully developed human life to be born, comes to an end.

ding220813-#4,765    “Incorrect. It means the baby in the womb dies. The purpose of an abortion is to end a human life.”

NFBW: You are a liar ding  I have already stated that abortion terminates what you unscientifically refer to as a baby in the womb and kills it - it dies and therefore it is dead. And it’s unique human DNA will never exist in the universe again in the human condition of being alive. 

NFBW2208120955-#4,679    Scientifically speaking The one-celled organism that forms as part of a woman’s body immediately after fertilization is alive and if the mother terminates it prior to viability it dies, it is dead, kaput, over, life ended, finished that human DNA will never exist in the universe again.

NFBW: You are a liar ding / you really need to stick with truth and facts if you wish to be scientific here. END2208130841


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Question for BS Filter and ding -
> 
> Has the Medical Science community of doctors and scientists determined a time frame following human conception where the developing human being inside the womb reaches a stage of development commonly referred to as viability?
> 
> And how many weeks of gestation are required during the period from beginning as a one-celled fertilized egg to becoming a millions celled viable fetus who is capable of living outside the womb and surviving beyond tens of thousands of dollars and weeks and months of intensive hospital care?  END2208130743


You using terms and method's to suggest that a woman can now just end her pregnancy by way of modern medicine is correct because she can, but it still doesn't make it right that she would opt for such a thing to take place or occur.

What did women do for thousands of years about their pregnancies ?? They did nothing because they knew that the decent and right thing to do was to have their babies and not kill them while still in their wombs. We've become more and more evil minded over the year's, and we are using knowledge to do evil things instead of good things these days.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ding220813-#4,765       “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny;   Human beings begin at conception.”     Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization

NFBW: Are you ever going to show me ding a quote from Dr. Landrum B. Shettles where he states the absurd unscientific non-fact that “viable human beings begin at conception” that your interpretation of his words mean? END2208130856


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You using terms and method's to suggest that a woman can now just end her pregnancy by way of modern medicine


No I’m not. That is an incoherent and stupid reply to what I write and believe to be true.. When I have time I will explain your stupidity. Stay tuned.


----------



## BS Filter

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Question for BS Filter and ding -
> 
> Has the Medical Science community of doctors and scientists determined a time frame following human conception where the developing human being inside the womb reaches a stage of development commonly referred to as viability?
> 
> And how many weeks of gestation are required during the period from beginning as a one-celled fertilized egg to becoming a millions celled viable fetus who is capable of living outside the womb and surviving beyond tens of thousands of dollars and weeks and months of intensive hospital care?  END2208130743


Doesn't matter.  People have a Constitutional right to their beliefs.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> No I’m not. That is an incoherent and stupid reply to what I write and believe to be true.. When I have time I will explain your stupidity. Stay tuned.


You keep dodging or ignoring my position on promoting a CIVILIZED SOCIETY with laws and rules in which are a vital part of having and running a civilized society.. Why ?

Because it takes away your cherry picking of science, and the ways in which you attempt to use it in order to justify living in a uncivilized SOCIETY where people can do anything they want no matter what the fall out or consequences are. Any sane American knows the games being played now, but you hope that your wicked wisdom somehow will win the day for your wicked follower's.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Because it takes away your cherry picking of science, and the ways in which you attempt to use it in order to justify living in a uncivilized SOCIETY where people can do anything they want no matter what the fall out or consequences are


I am not ignoring your talk about civilization.

I am ignoring you because you’re full of shit when you start accusing me of things that you have absolutely no way of knowing - Religion has warped your mind and that is your problem not mine. I am not opposed to religion most people do not allow religion to warp their minds

I’m glad to hear you don’t want women who have an abortion not to be charged with murder.


----------



## dblack

BS Filter said:


> Doesn't matter.  People have a Constitutional right to their beliefs.


Yup. As long as they don't force those beliefs on others.


----------



## BS Filter

dblack said:


> Yup. As long as they don't force those beliefs on others.


You mean like CRT and letting men use the women's restroom.  Never had anyone force me to go to church.


----------



## dblack

BS Filter said:


> You mean like CRT and letting men use the women's restroom.  Never had anyone force me to go to church.


Yes. The purpose of government is to protect our liberty, not bully people you don't like. Not to force others to follow your values.


----------



## BS Filter

dblack said:


> Yes. The purpose of government is to protect our liberty, not bully people you don't like. Not to force others to follow your values.


Agree.


----------



## dblack

BS Filter said:


> Agree.


Sure you do.


----------



## BS Filter

dblack said:


> Sure you do.


I do.  Do you?


----------



## dblack

BS Filter said:


> I do.  Do you?


I've read your posts. You're no libertarian. Just a run-of-the-mill reactionary.


----------



## BS Filter

dblack said:


> I've read your posts. You're no libertarian. Just a run-of-the-mill reactionary.


Where did I claim to be a libertarian?


----------



## eagle1462010

BS Filter said:


> Where did I claim to be a libertarian?


Ask her about how she wants the voting system in this country...


----------



## eagle1462010

Life has Value.  Taking life is barbarism.  The entire question is when life begins?  And we rank with North Korea and China on this issue.  Many states have had enough.  Dont like it?  Carry your butt back to blue shitholes


----------



## dblack

BS Filter said:


> Where did I claim to be a libertarian?


You claimed to agree with the statement: "The purpose of government is to protect our liberty, not bully people you don't like. Not to force others to follow your values". 
I don't believe you.


----------



## BS Filter

dblack


dblack said:


> You claimed to agree with the statement: "The purpose of government is to protect our liberty, not bully people you don't like. Not to force others to follow your values".
> I don't believe you.


well, I cant help you with that.  As a "libertarian", you will understand my right to my beliefs whether you believe me or not. Right?


----------



## dblack

BS Filter said:


> dblack
> 
> well, I cant help you with that.  As a "libertarian", you will understand my right to my beliefs whether you believe me or not. Right?


As long as you don't force them on others. I think we went over this.


----------



## BS Filter

dblack said:


> As long as you don't force them on others. I think we went over this.


I have never forced my beliefs on anyone.  I've told you that. Are you hard of hearing?


----------



## dblack

BS Filter said:


> I have never forced my beliefs on anyone.  I've told you that. Are you hard of hearing?


You advocating for using the government to force your views on others. Call it what you want. This very topic is an example.


----------



## BS Filter

dblack said:


> You advocating for using the government to force your views on others. Call it what you want. This very topic is an example.


Do you obey traffic laws?


----------



## dblack

BS Filter said:


> Do you obey traffic laws?


Ahh.... not the dodging begins. I'll pass.


----------



## BS Filter

dblack said:


> Ahh.... not the dodging begins. I'll pass.


Of course you'll pass.  Common sense always wins.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208132315-#4,759 “ When a woman has an abortion prior to 28 weeks after conception she is ending the living biological continuum as defined by Dr. William Reville; meaning the potential for a fully developed human life to be born, comes to an end.


In other words what was alive is now dead because it was killed.  Don't be afraid to say what really happens.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar @ding I have already stated that abortion terminates what you unscientifically refer to as a baby in the womb and kills it - it dies and therefore it is dead. And it’s unique human DNA will never exist in the universe again in the human condition of being alive.


It doesn't just die.  It's killed.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208120955-#4,679 Scientifically speaking The one-celled organism that forms as part of a woman’s body immediately after fertilization is alive and if the mother terminates it prior to viability it dies, it is dead, kaput, over, life ended, finished that human DNA will never exist in the universe again.


There's no need to soften abortion.  Abortion ends the life of a living human being.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar @ding / you really need to stick with truth and facts if you wish to be scientific here.


The irony is off the charts.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Are you ever going to show me @ding a quote from Dr. Landrum B. Shettles where he states the absurd unscientific non-fact that “viable human beings begin at conception” that your interpretation of his words mean?


You should write an embryology textbook.  

You remind me of Donald Trump.  He too tried to rewrite things for his own benefit.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW , Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization.  That's the science.  Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination.  The reason you are playing word games with viability is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.  

You deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization because it's easier for you to kill them and dismiss their right to life if you don't see them as living human beings.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW if you want to discuss killing them, let's discuss killing them.  But I'm going to need you to man up to what you are advocating.  You are advocating ending a human life.  You don't need to couch it or soften it.  So let's discuss killing them ok?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> I am not ignoring your talk about civilization.
> 
> I am ignoring you because you’re full of shit when you start accusing me of things that you have absolutely no way of knowing - Religion has warped your mind and that is your problem not mine. I am not opposed to religion most people do not allow religion to warp their minds
> 
> I’m glad to hear you don’t want women who have an abortion not to be charged with murder





ding said:


> In other words what was alive is now dead because it was killed.  Don't be afraid to say what really happens.


Yes because if it wasn't alive, then it wouldn't continue the process of development. So you are absolutely correct that it is alive. If the body saw that it was no longer alive, then it would begin the rejection process of the now dead human in it's stages of development that is no longer moving towards full development, and ultimately the birth canal.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You are advocating ending a human life.


You are a double liar. I am advocating #1 a woman’s right to decide  #2 to terminate and end a not viable human life.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a double liar. I am advocating #1 a woman’s right to decide  #2 to terminate and end a not viable human life.


Because it's OK to kill it before your so called "viability" date?  Because it's not really human before that date?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.


So one day before your so called viability date, it's not murder to kill it?  And 1 day after your so called viability date, it is murder to kill it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> So one day before your so called viability date, it's not murder to kill it? And 1 day after your so called viability date, it is murder to kill it?


NFBW: Yes, as a human being It’s none of my business what a woman does with her body prior to 28 weeks after conception., But after that when a fetus is viable sufficient enough to survive outside the womb, it makes common sense to me that the decision to abort should be made prior to viability. So abortion should be legal prior to viability. After viability abortion should not be legal except to save the life of the woman., Fifty years of Roe vs Wade is sufficient precedent of law on just that. the third trimester, after fetal viability—government could regulate and even ban abortion to further its interest in the potentiality of life, but it must safeguard the patient’s life and health.

In other words, Roe firmly established the core constitutional principle that government cannot ban abortion prior to viability, and could only regulate it before viability in ways that help pregnant people.

States can do their murder stuff after viability. I Support that as long as life of the mother cones first and in thise cases should not be regarded as murder any different than self defense. END2208132350


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Because it's OK to kill it before your so called "viability"


NFBW: You are a liar. I do not advocate for abortion. I advocate for choice., if every woman who gets pregnant chooses to carry her baby to natural birth I wouid be happy as hell to see that. But that decision has to happen in private without government intrusion or coercion other than providing facts based information on preventing pregnancy devoted to making abortion rare.

And viability is not “so-called”  asshole scientist wannabee ding - it is a scientific fact. A one cell fertilized egg is not viable and the developments that occur insude the womb remain not viable for up to 28 weeks. That Is scientific fact. END2208140016


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagle1462010 said:


> The entire question is when life begins?


Viable life begins at 28 weeks.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding 220718-#2,403   As for the legality of abortion... that's up to each state to decide. I don't have a problem with this.

ding220813-#4,798     @NotfooledbyW if you want to discuss killing them, let's discuss killing them.

NFBW: what’s to discuss? You have no opinion on the legality of killing a human organism by abortion.  In ding-#2,403 you are ok with abortion being legal, so killing whatever you want to call it ding is ok with you.

I on the other hand want a federal law that says killing whatever you want to call it after 28 weeks should not be legal. States must ban abortion after 28 weeks,  You are ok with killing whatever you want to call it if a state decides to kill viable whatever you want to call it’s.  END2208140049


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Yes, as a human being It’s none of my business what a woman does with her body prior to 28 weeks after conception., But after that when a fetus is viable sufficient enough to survive outside the womb, it makes common sense to me that the decision to abort should be made prior to viability. So abortion should be legal prior to viability. After viability abortion should not be legal except to save the life of the woman., Fifty years of Roe vs Wade is sufficient precedent of law on just that. the third trimester, after fetal viability—government could regulate and even ban abortion to further its interest in the potentiality of life, but it must safeguard the patient’s life and health.
> 
> In other words, Roe firmly established the core constitutional principle that government cannot ban abortion prior to viability, and could only regulate it before viability in ways that help pregnant people.
> 
> States can do their murder stuff after viability. I Support that as long as life of the mother cones first and in thise cases should not be regarded as murder any different than self defense. END2208132350


Sorry bud, but the feds are out of it. It goes back to the state's no matter how much you attempt to keep your Fed's hands in it. I see your angle now. You for some reason want to keep the feds involved, and you want this why ??


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Yes, as a human being It’s none of my business what a woman does with her body prior to 28 weeks after conception., But after that when a fetus is viable sufficient enough to survive outside the womb, it makes common sense to me that the decision to abort should be made prior to viability. So abortion should be legal prior to viability. After viability abortion should not be legal except to save the life of the woman., Fifty years of Roe vs Wade is sufficient precedent of law on just that. the third trimester, after fetal viability—government could regulate and even ban abortion to further its interest in the potentiality of life, but it must safeguard the patient’s life and health.
> 
> In other words, Roe firmly established the core constitutional principle that government cannot ban abortion prior to viability, and could only regulate it before viability in ways that help pregnant people.
> 
> States can do their murder stuff after viability. I Support that as long as life of the mother cones first and in thise cases should not be regarded as murder any different than self defense. END2208132350


So just to be clear, you believe abortion is murder 1 day after your so called "viability" date.

What is it called 1 day prior to your so called "viability" date when the human life is killed?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar. I do not advocate for abortion. I advocate for choice., if every woman who gets pregnant chooses to carry her baby to natural birth I wouid be happy as hell to see that. But that decision has to happen in private without government intrusion or coercion other than providing facts based information on preventing pregnancy devoted to making abortion rare.
> 
> And viability is not “so-called”  asshole scientist wannabee ding - it is a scientific fact. A one cell fertilized egg is not viable and the developments that occur insude the womb remain not viable for up to 28 weeks. That Is scientific fact. END2208140016


But it's OK if you killed a human being in the womb 1 day before your so called viability date, right?  Because it's not really a human being if it can't live outside of the mother, right?  So what is it?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: what’s to discuss? You have no opinion on the legality of killing a human organism by abortion.  In ding-#2,403 you are ok with abortion being legal, so killing whatever you want to call it ding is ok with you.
> 
> I on the other hand want a federal law that says killing whatever you want to call it after 28 weeks should not be legal. States must ban abortion after 28 weeks,  You are ok with killing whatever you want to call it if a state decides to kill viable whatever you want to call it’s.  END2208140049


Is it ok to pull their limbs off to get them out 1 day before your so called viability date?

Because that's how they do it at that age.

I haven't told you my opinion on the legality of abortion yet, dummy.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Viable life begins at 28 weeks.


Is there a material difference to the fetus whether he is aborted prior to or after your so called viability date?  I mean it's a live one minute and dead the next, right?  Either way, right?  You are jumping through a lot of unnecessary hoops and using convoluted logic to try to make abortion moral.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220812-#4,709 “. . . . you have rationalized  that abortion isn't killing.”

NFBW: I have not rationalized that abortion isn't killing a living developing human organism, therefore you ding are a liar.

ding220814-#4,808    “So just to be clear, you believe abortion is murder 1 day after your so called "viability" date.”

NFBW: Absolutely yes,  …   Members and inhabitants of civil society have a right to create and enforce laws and rules based upon scientific knowledge about the material world in which we live with as much reason as fallible human beings have the capability to apply to such things as when the mystery of human life (not animal life) begins.

I accept a general civil consensus by all viable human beings that a pregnant woman surrenders and loses her right to terminate the human unique life she carries inside her body around the time that it is feasible at 28 weeks that a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb with or without the assistance of medically trained caring human beings equipped with all medical technology available.

Yes indeed ding abortion after 28 weeks is murder unless the life of the already viable human being is at  stake or is deemed mentally unfit to be charged with that severe of a crime. In the case of rape or incest when a victim can demonstate the circumstances should extend her more time it could fall into the category of justifiable homicide. END2208140951


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Unkotare211221-#30   “What stage of development a person is at is no justification for killing unless you accept the notion that it's 'ok' to kill a 20 year old, but not a 40 year old.”

NFBW: That is some plenty crappy logic Unkotare since never in the history of womankind has there been either a 20 year old or a 40 year old living inside of a human being of the female gender,  without the ability to oxygenate their own blood .END2208141831


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220814-#4,811      “Is there a material difference to the fetus whether he is aborted prior to or after your so called viability date? I mean it's a live one minute and dead the next, right?”

NFBW: RIGHT. What about it, ding  ?  It dies when a woman decides to quit supplying oxygen to its blood which is her business and none of your business ding up to a time when her fetus can survive outside her womb. END2208142142


----------



## NotfooledbyW

END2208150136 No Christian mortal  being should kill a one cell being who has been created by God

ding220814-#4,810      “Is it ok to pull their limbs off to get them out 1 day before your so called viability date”

NFBW: Yes, because the fetus is not viable when that procedure is required.,

Is it OK ding for mostly white Christian males to impose laws based on a religious belief that viability of a human life is not when a human right to life begins. White Christian males who hold state public office push laws that enforce  a religious belief that human life begins in one single cell at conception because that one cell is the start of a unique individual who is at that moment created by God.

You were asked this before:

NFBW2207242333-#3,863   Do you really believe ding that religious political hacks, mostly white Christian males, are the one’s who should be imposing their religious perspective on women and young girls who get pregnant and find out white Christian men are deciding what they can and cannot do with their body. And health? END2208150136


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220814-#4,810      “Is it ok to pull their limbs off to get them out 1 day before your so called viability date”

NFBW: Out of what ding  ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW-#4,654 The one-celled organism that forms as part of a woman’s body immediately after fertilization is alive.

NFBW : . . . . And it is human. It is a nonviable human being ding when it is only one cell. It has no skin bone brain heart lungs or limbs. Therefore it has no limbs to rip off does it ding ????   Later, when it has limbs it is still a not-viable human being - it is still not viable. Nothing has changed morally or legally for the would be mother of a viable human being if she did not get an abortion.

ding-#4,810 “Is it ok to pull their limbs off to get them out 1 day before your so called viability date?”

NFBW: So what is your point? Are you  trying to do some kind of horror flick shaming? Science is facts. Fact is: non-viable at one second and not viable at 20 weeks.

Since you don’t have science ding you have become hysterical. END2208151016


----------



## Friends

Every teenage girl and every woman who has an abortion is pregnant with a child she does not want to raise. What are we going to do with all these unwanted children? I do not see so called "pro life" people lining up to adopt them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Friends said:


> Every teenage girl and every woman who has an abortion is pregnant with a child she does not want to raise. What are we going to do with all these unwanted children? I do not see so called "pro life" people lining up to adopt them.


NFBW: States with laws that ban legal safe abortion as a medical procedure that a woman can obtain in another state as it is right now, do so for political/religious ideology not to protect innocent life. 

If the states were attempting to prevent abortion the woman wouid be charged with murder and arrested if she tries to return home after an out of state procedure that murdered her child. 

The white evangelical Christian and Catholic zealots (a minority among all Christians) hold disproportionate political power nationally the way our government is set up., They want total ban on abortion nationwide for religious reasons which means full term and delivery pregnancy will be forced on all woman to conform to the hard right Christian nationalistic authoritarianism that has been spearheaded and triumphant at the Supreme Court mostly by Donald Trump’s rise to power by his shameful narcissistic personal ambition and greed. 

MAGA pro-life Republican riffraff from the billionaires who market greed as a virtue to the lowest dumbest penniless MAGA hat wearing goober will spend billions to lobby for lower taxes and millions to promote Trumpism but will not spend a nickel  to create  a trust fund for every child born in poverty to get a nutritional start in life and an equal shot at education and proper medical care.right now but they want to force woman to give birth to a child when She has no means to support ii. 

Such is the values of Trumpism.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Cardinal Carminative said:


> ...until you begin to understand it isn't your call.


Needless homicides of the innocent and helpless are surely any decent person’s call, and we’re calling it like it is and trying to stop this bullshit.



Cardinal Carminative said:


> Well, that's easy enough to solve.  The fetus can just gestate somewhere other than that particular woman. Right?  I mean that IS how it all works, right?


I’m sorry you flunked Biology but no actually mom can’t do that without ruthlessly killing her own kid, to whom she owes parental responsibility.  It’s that ruthlessly killing part we are not terribly fond of.



Cardinal Carminative said:


> Until you can acknowledge that:
> 
> 1. Women are integrally involved in the whole fetus scene
> 2. Women are human beings


Women are involved in pregnancy, duh.
Women are human beings, duh.

Abortion victims are also human beings.  Also duh, and obvious, and indisputable, and you should just accept it and move on.  Just acknowledge that you do not believe in any kind of human rights, only government privileges, and you’re hardcore enough that you want government to deny the privilege to live or have your killing punished by law to anyone you hate and want dead.



Cardinal Carminative said:


> I'm not uncomfortable morally.  I simply don't CARE either way.
> 
> *IT.ISN'T.MY.CHOICE.*
> 
> Do you understand that point?


So I guess you would be pro-slavery then as well as pro-abortion.  It isn’t your choice, you would say, so it isn’t your business, you’re not getting abducted and forced to pick cotton, so just let other people go to the market and buy non-people.  I mean, that kind of apathy isn’t going to be interpreted as racist or in support of slave markets.  Wait, yes, yes it would.


Cardinal Carminative said:


> "ghoulish"


Literal ghouls are less monstrous then abortionists.



Cardinal Carminative said:


> Why don't you come clean and tell us what your religious stake in all this is as well?
> 
> You CAN be honest about your faith, right?


I can speak for myself and be honest.  I don’t have one.

Oops.  There went your argument via hate boner against “sky fairy.”


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding220814-#4,811      “Is there a material difference to the fetus whether he is aborted prior to or after your so called viability date? I mean it's a live one minute and dead the next, right?”
> 
> NFBW: RIGHT. What about it, ding  ?  It dies when a woman decides to quit supplying oxygen to its blood which is her business and none of your business ding up to a time when her fetus can survive outside her womb. END2208142142


Uncivilized corrupt society is what you speak of here, and the left love's uncivilized SOCIETY where anything goes. Sick people.


----------



## beagle9

Friends said:


> Every teenage girl and every woman who has an abortion is pregnant with a child she does not want to raise. What are we going to do with all these unwanted children? I do not see so called "pro life" people lining up to adopt them.


Start a campaign of abstinence before marriage, and let that rule the day once again.... Bring back decent and ethical courtships that hopefully will give the children a solid family structure that will ensure their success in life.

Killing unborn babies because one decides they didn't want a baby, and yet this takes place after allowing the unborn baby to develope to a certain level is sick. So why do they do this ? Is it in hopes to hook the man, but when that doesn't work then just get a sick so called doctor to just rip it out of her womb limb by limb by an abortion ??

This nation needs a serious revival, because it has gone off the deep in long ago.


----------



## Friends

beagle9 said:


> Start a campaign of abstinence before marriage, and let that rule the day once again.... Bring back decent and ethical courtships that hopefully will give the children a solid family structure that will ensure their success in life.
> 
> Killing unborn babies because one decides they didn't want a baby, and yet this takes place after allowing the unborn baby to develope to a certain level is sick. So why do they do this ? Is it in hopes to hook the man, but when that doesn't work then just get a sick so called doctor to just rip it out of her womb limb by limb by an abortion ??
> 
> This nation needs a serious revival, because it has gone off the deep in long ago.


There actually are females who enjoy casual sex and sexual variety. Most females do not. They should be told that their desire to wait for marriage is the right decision. Right now they are made to feel that there is something wrong with them. They need to know that they are not alone, and that many males still want to marry virgins.


----------



## beagle9

Friends said:


> There actually are females who enjoy casual sex and sexual variety. Most females do not. They should be told that their desire to wait for marriage is the right decision. Right now they are made to feel that there is something wrong with them. They need to know that they are not alone, and that many males still want to marry virgins.


Many males don't mind marrying women who've had a failed relationship, and therefore are willing to start again. The virgin thing isn't that important, but it helps if kid's haven't come into play yet, otherwise when the courtship begins, but if they have kids then there are plenty of guy's looking for a good woman to court and marry with kids, and the kid's should be a plus if the man is a real man and not a damned dog or POC.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Literal ghouls are less monstrous then abortionists.



Then you should NEVER get an abortion!



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Oops.  There went your argument via hate boner against “sky fairy.”



I actually don't hate religion per se.  What I DO hate are hateful people like ding who want to be bastards but then when it suits them they are God fearing Catholics who know right and wrong and can figure out WHO IS DOING WRONG.

He's showing us the rotting fruit that is his "soul".


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Friends said:


> There actually are females who enjoy casual sex and sexual variety.



They will be weeded out in Gilead!





Friends said:


> They should be told that their desire to wait for marriage is the right decision.




And I'm sure they want a big man to tell them.  



Friends said:


> Right now they are made to feel that there is something wrong with them. They need to know that they are not alone, and that many males still want to marry virgins.



Oh, you're an incel.  Got it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,820   “Abortion victims are also human beings.”

NFBW: An aborted fetus is not a viable human being and definitely not an autonomous human being.  It’s would be mother has autonomy over it’s continued existence, not you CarsomyrPlusSix . You can take your nose out of uteruses of women you do not know CarsomyrPlusSix . Jesus dude? Who do you think you are? END2208152105


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,820  “mom can’t do that without ruthlessly killing her own kid, to whom she owes parental responsibility.”

NFBW: Is that a Taliban law CarsomyrPlusSix that every women getting pregnant by accident, rape or incest owes the not viable development attached to her uterus parental responsibility? END2208152138


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,820    “Just acknowledge that you do not believe in any kind of human rights, only government privileges”

NFBW: Is having autonomy over one’s body and private health decisions and family planning a human right or a government privilege CarsomyrPlusSix ?????


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208151037 is it a sin to be ding or CarsomyrPlusSix or beagle9 in America?

Religion   Christian: *Catholic*  divorced Mark S. Gietzen is an American anti-abortion and conservative political activist. He lives in Wichita, Kansas, United States. He is the chairman and founder of the group Kansas Coalition for Life. Since 2004, he has served continuously as the elected President of The Kansas Republican Assembly, a state affiliate of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies.



Mark Gietzen, 2011.

Gietzen is the director of the Christian Singles Information-exchange[24] and was employed as a Boeing procurement quality auditor.[30] He wrote a book titled Is it a Sin for a Christian to Be a Registered Democrat in America Today?[31] and discussed it on a segment of the June 25, 2001 broadcast of Hannity and Colmes.[32]

ding 220814-#4,810    “I haven't told you my opinion on the legality of abortion yet,”

NFBW: We already know ding that your male dominated authoritarian Catholicism induced opinion on the legality of abortion is against reproductive freedom for women. We know you support state lawmakers like big time ‘Jesus on his sleeve’ Mark S. Gietzen who write a book wondering if it is a
sin to be a registered Democrat in his Christian Nation of America. END2208151037


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Absolutely yes, … Members and inhabitants of civil society have a right to create and enforce laws and rules based upon scientific knowledge about the material world in which we live with as much reason as fallible human beings have the capability to apply to such things as when the mystery of human life (not animal life) begins.


Yep.  That's what the states are doing.  But there's no mystery to when human life begins.  It's just science.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I have not rationalized that abortion isn't killing a living developing human organism, therefore you @ding are a liar.


According to you it's murder.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I accept a general civil consensus by all viable human beings that a pregnant woman surrenders and loses her right to terminate the human unique life she carries inside her body around the time that it is feasible at 28 weeks that a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb with or without the assistance of medically trained caring human beings equipped with all medical technology available.


The state legislatures will decide.  You will accept what you get.  We all will.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes indeed @ding abortion after 28 weeks is murder unless the life of the already viable human being is at stake or is deemed mentally unfit to be charged with that severe of a crime. In the case of rape or incest when a victim can demonstate the circumstances should extend her more time it could fall into the category of justifiable homicide.


According to you it's murder before 28 weeks.  



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: RIGHT. What about it, @ding ? It dies when a woman decides to quit supplying oxygen to its blood which is her business and none of your business @ding up to a time when her fetus can survive outside her womb. END2208142142


Actually the states will decide.  In some states the woman can decide.  In others, she won't. 

But materially there is no difference a human being's life is being ended either way.



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.





> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Yes, because the fetus is not viable when that procedure is required.,


Materially there is no difference. A human being's life is being ended either way.



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.





> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Is it OK @ding for mostly white Christian males to impose laws based on a religious belief that viability of a human life is not when a human right to life begins. White Christian males who hold state public office push laws that enforce a religious belief that human life begins in one single cell at conception because that one cell is the start of a unique individual who is at that moment created by God.


If that's what you believe is being done you should take them to court.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2207242333-#3,863 Do you really believe @ding that religious political hacks, mostly white Christian males, are the one’s who should be imposing their religious perspective on women and young girls who get pregnant and find out white Christian men are deciding what they can and cannot do with their body. And health? END2208150136


I believe society is deciding.  Just as you said it should decide.  Some decisions you might agree with and some you might not.  But everyone including you will abide by their decisions because you don't have any other option.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding220814-#4,810      “Is it ok to pull their limbs off to get them out 1 day before your so called viability date”
> 
> NFBW: Out of what ding  ?


Off of their body.  How do you think they get 28 week babies out of the mother in those abortions, dummy?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW : . . . . And it is human. It is a nonviable human being @ding when it is only one cell. It has no skin bone brain heart lungs or limbs. Therefore it has no limbs to rip off does it @ding ???? Later, when it has limbs it is still a not-viable human being - it is still not viable. Nothing has changed morally or legally for the would be mother of a viable human being if she did not get an abortion.


And according to you murder.



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.





> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: So what is your point? Are you trying to do some kind of horror flick shaming? Science is facts. Fact is: non-viable at one second and not viable at 20 weeks.


My point is you are kind of a monster.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding 220815-#4,831   “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

NFBW: Actually that is deniable because of the significant scientific fact that the  human being lifespan that begins at conception is not a viable human being when it consists of only one cell. Human beings have 30 trillion.

Scientists have come a long way in estimating the number of cells in the average human body. Most recent estimates put the number of cells at around 30 trillion. Written out, that’s 30,000,000,000,000!​​NFBW: So by scientific counting a just conceived human being is 29,999,999,999,999 cells shy of being an adult human being like you and me ding  END2208152318


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Since you don’t have science @ding you have become hysterical. END2208151016


Incorrect.  Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization. That's the science. Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination. The reason you are playing word games with viability is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.

You deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization because it's easier for you to kill them and dismiss their right to life if you don't see them as living human beings.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Actually that is deniable because of the significant scientific fact that the human being lifespan that begins at conception is not a viable human being when it consists of only one cell. Human beings have 30 trillion.
> 
> Scientists have come a long way in estimating the number of cells in the average human body. Most recent estimates put the number of cells at around 30 trillion. Written out, that’s 30,000,000,000,000!END2208152318


Incorrect again.  Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization. That's the science. Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination. The reason you are playing word games with viability is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.

You deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization because it's easier for you to kill them and dismiss their right to life if you don't see them as living human beings.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: An aborted fetus is not a viable human being and definitely not an autonomous human being. It’s would be mother has autonomy over it’s continued existence, not you @CarsomyrPlusSix . You can take your nose out of uteruses of women you do not know @CarsomyrPlusSix . Jesus dude? Who do you think you are? END2208152105


An aborted fetus is not viable because of the abortion, dummy.

A new study demonstrates that human embryos autonomously direct their own development from the very earliest moments of life—even when they are not in their mothers’ wombs.









						Science, Embryonic Autonomy, and the Question of When Life Begins
					

A new study demonstrates that human embryos autonomously direct their own development from the very earliest moments of life—even when they are not in their mothers’ wombs.




					www.thepublicdiscourse.com
				






> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


NotfooledbyW said:
NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: We already know @ding that your male dominated authoritarian Catholicism induced opinion on the legality of abortion is against reproductive freedom for women. We know you support state lawmakers like big time ‘Jesus on his sleeve’ Mark S. Gietzen who write a book wondering if it is a
> sin to be a registered Democrat in his Christian Nation of America. END2208151037


If that's what you believe take it to court.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization

NotfooledbyW said:
NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220815-#4,843   Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination.


NFBW: What “role” I do not argue that viability plays a role in that mystical moment of conception when a new genetically distinct one celled human being comes into existence, The impossibility of viability if that new unique cell is a biological scientific statement fact that the one-celled organism will be dependent upon a woman’s viability for up to 28 weeks before it may obtain its own autonomous viability and be capable of oxygenating its own blood. END2208152347


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: We already know @ding that your male dominated authoritarian Catholicism induced opinion on the legality of abortion is against reproductive freedom for women. We know you support state lawmakers like big time ‘Jesus on his sleeve’ Mark S. Gietzen who write a book wondering if it is a
> sin to be a registered Democrat in his Christian Nation of America. END2208151037


Actually you don't.  You just think you do.  



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.





> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding220815-#4,843   Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination.
> 
> 
> NFBW: What “role” I do not argue that viability plays a role in that mystical moment of conception when a new genetically distinct one celled human being comes into existence, The impossibility of viability if that new unique cell is a biological scientific statement fact that the one-celled organism will be dependent upon a woman’s viability for up to 28 weeks before it may obtain its own autonomous viability and be capable of oxygenating its own blood. END2208152347



You already have said all you need to say...



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.





> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW2208160051   Is ending a human life always murder or ain’t it? If it ain’t what are all you choice deniers bitching about?

Ding220815-#4,848     You already have said all you need to say...

NFBW: How so ding ??!!!

NFBW220810-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

NFBW: Ending the life of a human being is murder. That is a fact.  Ending the life of a not viable human being by the would be mother is not murder when society agrees that it is not.

But I told you that already ding , so you are a liar.

ding220808-#4,512        “You can't believe it's murder”

ding220809-#4,535 “I couldn't begin to have this conversation with you until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life.”

NFBW220809-#4,536  “I don’t believe it is murder prior to viability at about 24 - 28 weeks. I’m glad you don’t either ding. It shows that I have been right all along to have a rightwing Catholic agree that aborting a human organism when it cannot oxygenate its own blood is not murder.”

NFBW320809-#4,537      “When you agree that a woman should not be charged with murder if she aborts a fetus prior to viability I wonder why you are obsessed with the notion that abortion prior to viability ends a human life. END2208081052

Cardinal Carminative220810-#4,592    “If a woman wants an abortion you would call that murder”

NFBW: ding asks Cardinal Carminative . . .

ding220810-#4,595     “You know this how?”

Beagle9220810-#4,612   No one wants to prosecute any of these mis-led women for past or recent abortion's, and basically calling them murderers, only that they just stop the deplorable action and realize that they are actually ending their babies life.”

NFBW: I was attempting to infirm beagle9   that ending a life is what defines murder.

NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

ding220814-#4,808    “So just to be clear, you believe abortion is murder 1 day after your so called "viability" date.”  END2208160051


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> According to you it's murder before 28 weeks.


NFBW: You are a liar. I am on record agreeing with you ding and beagle9 . It’s CarsomyrPlusSix the atheist who says an abortion of a not viable human being by its would be mother is murder.

NFBW320809-#4,537      “When you agree that a woman should not be charged with murder if she aborts a fetus prior to viability I wonder why you are obsessed with the notion that abortion prior to viability ends a human life. END2208160119


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ding211221-#61 It's no longer conjecture when a human life begins.

NFBW220718-#2,361 Is there really empirical scientific evidence @ding that proves that a human being is formed at the moment of conception?

NFBW: Human life begins as one cell. Is that correct CarsomyrPlusSix ?????

A human being at the adult stage of development is 30 trillion. Do you believe that ding ????

If science becomes advanced to a point that an unwanted conception could be easily and immediately terminated after a couple finishes having sex and are smoking their cigarettes. They are done,  they get a notification on their mobile phone that conception has begun and should they want to terminate the one celled human being before it splits and the pregnancy begins, it  simply requires taking a pill that kills the one celled human being within hours of taking the pill. Would that be ending a human beings life ding @Beagle CarsomyrPlusSix requiring you to oppose such technology for all women nationwide?  END2208160226


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,820   “So I guess you would be pro-slavery then as well as pro-abortion.”

NFBW: NO. CarsomyrPlusSix I am opposed to slavery because BLM and as a white European American,  BLM and historical slavery are absolutely my business.

 It is a scientific fact that a fully developed black African adult male or female abducted by fully developed adult slave traders to be sold to a fully developed white European adult male plantation owner on American soil were all viable human beings consisting of 30 trillion human cells each.

As a viable adult human being able to observe the inhumane behavior of southern plantation slave owners and consisting of 30 trillion human cells myself I have a moral obligation to all 30 trillion-celled human beings to be treated fully by my civil society as I would want myself and my children and parents to be treated,  Therefore CarsomyrPlusSix I oppose slavery  and support Black Lives Matter and their quest for social Justice that has not been fully achieved since slavery was ended during the  Cuvil War.

I am pro-choice also scientifically because a new human being at conception is a one-celled undeveloped human being that exists inside a 30 trillion-celled human body that is a private matter unbeknownst to me or ding or beagle9 when conception occurs. It’s the privacy as well as the woman’s autonomy over her own body that causes me to treat all viable adult 30 trillion-celled females as I wouid want society to treat my daughters when they became young women and so forth. 

As a 30-trillion celled adult human member of American society I have no moral obligation to a one-celled unfunctional non-viable brainless skinless limbless human being until it develops (when the mother wants it) to a stage of development when it can survive outside the womb. when a fetus becomes trillions of cells and viable she or he becomes my business equivalent  to its mother., But the life of the mother always comes first 
END2208160647


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW220810-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.
> 
> NFBW: Ending the life of a human being is murder. That is a fact.
> 
> NFBW220809-#4,536 “I don’t believe it is murder prior to viability at about 24 - 28 weeks. I’m glad you don’t either ding. It shows that I have been right all along to have a rightwing Catholic agree that aborting a human organism when it cannot oxygenate its own blood is not murder.”
> 
> NFBW320809-#4,537 “When you agree that a woman should not be charged with murder if she aborts a fetus prior to viability I wonder why you are obsessed with the notion that abortion prior to viability ends a human life. END2208081052


Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization. That's the science. Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination. The reason you are playing word games with viability is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.

You deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization because it's easier for you to kill them and dismiss their right to life if you don't see them as living human beings.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Ending the life of a human being is murder. That is a fact.


----------



## ding

> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization

Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization. That's the science. Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination. The reason you are playing word games with viability is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.



NotfooledbyW said:


> I am on record agreeing with you @ding





NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Ending the life of a human being is murder. That is a fact.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Ding211221-#61 It's no longer conjecture when a human life begins.
> 
> NFBW220718-#2,361 Is there really empirical scientific evidence @ding that proves that a human being is formed at the moment of conception?
> 
> NFBW: Human life begins as one cell. Is that correct CarsomyrPlusSix ?????
> 
> A human being at the adult stage of development is 30 trillion. Do you believe that ding ????
> 
> If science becomes advanced to a point that an unwanted conception could be easily and immediately terminated after a couple finishes having sex and are smoking their cigarettes. They are done,  they get a notification on their mobile phone that conception has begun and should they want to terminate the one celled human being before it splits and the pregnancy begins, it  simply requires taking a pill that kills the one celled human being within hours of taking the pill. Would that be ending a human beings life ding @Beagle CarsomyrPlusSix requiring you to oppose such technology for all women nationwide?  END2208160226


You deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization because it's easier for you to kill them and dismiss their right to life if you don't see them as living human beings.

Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Ending the life of a human being is murder. That is a fact.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I am pro-choice also scientifically because a new human being at conception is a one-celled undeveloped human being that exists inside a 30 trillion-celled human body that is a private matter unbeknownst to me or @ding or @beagle9 when conception occurs. It’s the privacy as well as the woman’s autonomy over her own body that cause me to treat all viable adult 30 trillion-celled females as I wouid want society to treat me. As a 30-trillion celled adult human member of American society I have no moral obligation to a one-celled unfunctional non-viable brainless skinless limbless human being until it develops when the mother wants it to a stage of development when it can survive outside the womb.,END2208160646


You can't even admit you are killing human beings.  



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Ending the life of a human being is murder. That is a fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization
> 
> Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization. That's the science. Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination. The reason you are playing word games with viability is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.



NFBW320809-#4,537 “When you agree that a woman should not be charged with murder if she aborts a fetus prior to viability I wonder why you are obsessed with the notion that abortion prior to viability ends a human life. END2208160119

NFBW: Since you agree with me in the fullest ding that a woman is not committing murder, nor should a woman be charged with murder if she aborts a fetus prior to viability;  and in the other hand, _*that it is murder*_ if she has an abortion after viability because viability matters, - why you are so goddam obsessed with the notion that abortion prior to viability ends a human life?

Are you ever going to answer me that ding ?????  END2208160710


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW320809-#4,537 “When you agree that a woman should not be charged with murder if she aborts a fetus prior to viability I wonder why you are obsessed with the notion that abortion prior to viability ends a human life. END2208160119
> 
> NFBW: Since you agree with me in the fullest ding that a woman is not committing murder, nor should a woman be charged with murder if she aborts a fetus prior to viability;  and in the other hand, _*that it is murder*_ if she has an abortion after viability because viability matters, - why you are so goddam obsessed with the notion that abortion prior to viability ends a human life?
> 
> Are you ever going to answer me that ding ?????  END2208160710


That's for the states to decide.



> “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Ending the life of a human being is murder. That is a fact.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW

*The Autonomy of the Embryo*

If we define organismal autonomy to mean freedom from external control, it turns out that we can identify precisely when an embryo satisfies the definition of autonomy: from the very beginning. A recent study published by Marta N. Shahbazi and colleagues from the UK demonstrates that this newly formed cell knows what to do post-conception _regardless of whether or not it receives signals from a host uterus_. Shahbazi and colleagues demonstrate in their study that a fertilized egg—also known as a zygote, the “product of conception,” the early embryo, or one of many other descriptive terms—*is an autonomous living being. *This one little cell, with its complete genetic content, can _and does_ begin to divide and to grow, even in an experimental dish in an incubator in the closet space of some unmarked lab.









						Science, Embryonic Autonomy, and the Question of When Life Begins
					

A new study demonstrates that human embryos autonomously direct their own development from the very earliest moments of life—even when they are not in their mothers’ wombs.




					www.thepublicdiscourse.com


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Then you should NEVER get an abortion!


What a useless reply.

“Well gosh, if you think rapists are that bad, just don’t rape anyone.”






Cardinal Carminative said:


> I actually don't hate religion per se.  What I DO hate are hateful people like


Yourself?

A self-evident militantly zealous atheist who hates one group his fellow human beings so much he claims to and at best actually does just not care if they are violently killed?

Please do hate yourself, hatemonger.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,820   “Abortion victims are also human beings.”
> 
> NFBW: An aborted fetus is not a viable human being and definitely not an autonomous human being.  It’s would be mother has autonomy over it’s continued existence, not you CarsomyrPlusSix . You can take your nose out of uteruses of women you do not know CarsomyrPlusSix . Jesus dude? Who do you think you are? END2208152105



You are a drooling imbecile, a liar, a troll, an imbecilic liar, a lying troll, an imbecilic troll, or a lying imbecilic troll.

I said they are human beings, you bring up “viability,” which is nothing I mentioned, nothing I care about, and totally irrelevant.

You bring up “autonomy,” and again, this nonsense concept, irrelevant in law, that you imbeciles use as a euphemism for your lust for mass slaughter has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and it isn’t an adjective I used, or care about.

So you set up your own thing to argue against, a position I don’t take, and don’t care about; which means you didn’t reply, respond, or even try to refute one bit of what I said, yet I get this notification.  In the technical sense, sure, a monkey rolling his face on the keyboard and somehow clicking to send it is a “reply,” too - and the monkey’s output would be more intellligent, salient, coherent, and welcome.  It might by crazy random chance even be something of an on-point reply - which I never get from you.

I said they are human beings because they are _objectively_ living member of the species _Homo sapiens_ and have been since fertilization, where the lifespan of sexually reproducing organisms like humans begins.
This is not something you can refute, it is indeed something you already conceded on a point by point basis, yet you continue to badger me by taking one post and sending me 7000 notifications and mentions to read your tripe.  No thanks I have no interest in taking inventory of your drooling mess.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Czernobog180122-#1   “To insist that a person give up their bodily autonomy for nine months during an expensive, invasive, often life threatening procedure is immoral, unethical, and illegal.”

NFBW: Answer me this ding - Because you claim autonomy and right to life only matters after that split second for a one-celled brainless skinless limbless boneless bloodless heartless human being that has just impregnated a thirty-trillion-celled woman’s ovum, and is preparing for its nine month incubation, growth and development program of its own, you are saying there is zero risk to the thirty-trillion-celled human being’s lIfe, liberty and pursuit of happiness when she hands her autonomy over to the autonomy of the one-celled brainless skinless limbless boneless bloodless heartless human being who absolutely needs her body blood and nourishment to incubate inside her?

Are you guaranteeing as a man ding who will never experience growing a 7.5 pound human being inside you that the one-celled human being will not harm or kill the thirty-trillion-celled human being if she goes for it because the government says she had to?

I want your guarantee ding the woman will survive the ordeal of pregnancy each and every time. END2208160903


----------



## ChemEngineer

ding said:


> That is correct.  And what does an abortion do?
> 
> Actually it's based on empirical scientific evidence.  DNA.
> 
> 
> Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
> 
> 
> Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
> 
> 
> Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
> 
> 
> Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
> 
> 
> Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co
> 
> 
> James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
> 
> 
> Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144
> 
> 
> Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
> 
> 
> DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584
> 
> 
> Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
> 
> 
> Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53
> 
> 
> Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
> 
> 
> Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
> 
> 
> Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
> 
> 
> Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
> 
> 
> Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
> 
> 
> Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.
> 
> 
> Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
> 
> 
> The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18



*There you go with your scientificalness, confusing all the Dimocrats......*


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Czernobog180122-#1   “To insist that a person give up their bodily autonomy for nine months during an expensive, invasive, often life threatening procedure is immoral, unethical, and illegal.”
> 
> NFBW: Answer me this ding - Because you claim autonomy and right to life only matters after that split second for a one-celled brainless skinless limbless boneless bloodless heartless human being that has just impregnated a thirty-trillion-celled woman’s ovum, and is preparing for its nine month incubation, growth and development program of its own, you are saying there is zero risk to the thirty-trillion-celled human being’s lIfe, liberty and pursuit of happiness when she hands her autonomy over to the autonomy of the one-celled brainless skinless limbless boneless bloodless heartless human being who absolutely needs her body blood and nourishment to incubate inside her?


Pregnancy doesn’t magically begin at fertilization, nitwit.  You can’t “impregnate” an “ovum.”



NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you guaranteeing as a man ding who will never experience growing a 7.5 pound human being inside you that the one-celled human being will not harm or kill the thirty-trillion-celled human being if she goes for it because the government says she had to?


I guarantee you with absolute certainty, 100%, that the helpless and innocent kid while in the womb will neither harm or kill their mom.  You blaming them for any harm that might befall their mom is absurd and stupid.  The mom and dad caused the pregnancy, they caused any harm that results from pregnancy.  The kid can’t harm anyone.

So yes, absolute guarantee.  Full stop.


----------



## ChemEngineer

My niece was physically unable to have a child. She and her husband had to travel to Russia, twice, to adopt babies there and bring them back to America because there are no "unwanted" babies for adoption here. This is the reply to the insistent LIE  Dimocrats make, "WHO is going to raise them!!!"

1. After a baby is born, grandparents, parents, and yes Mothers, take on their responsibilities and love their flesh and blood. Is that so difficult? Only if you are vile, hateful Dimocrat.

2.  My dear friend's son had a child out of wedlock and since both parents were unfit, the baby was put up for adoption and a lovely couple across the country, in Virginia, came out to California to take it back home and love it dearly.  This too exposes the lie of Dimocrats.  There are no "unwanted babies."


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,864   “The kid can’t harm anyone.”

NFBW: As of  this date in history - No wonan will ever die or be injured as a result of carrying a pregnancy to full term. Thank You  CarsomyrPlusSix . 

In 2020, 861 women were identified as having died of maternal causes in the United States, compared with 754 in 2019 (3)​​NFBW great to know from this date on zero women will die of maternal causes. CarsomyrPlusSix guarantees it. END2208161000


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> What a useless reply.



No, it's actually the ONLY POSITION THAT COUNTS HERE.

If you don't like abortion:  DON'T GET ONE.

Otherwise, unless you are the one about to "crap out the baby" you have exactly ZERO says in the topic.


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Yourself?



It's too complex to explain to simpletons like yourself so I will save myself the time and just laugh at you.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> A self-evident militantly zealous atheist



You might think that from what you read here.  In all actuality I don't normally attack religion.  I did so here because ding asked me to do so by his actions.  

In reality most of my friends are Christians and there's actually a lot of good in Christianity.  It can be a great impetus for people to do good.  And in reality I don't begrudge anyone their faith so long as they don't use it to harm others.

But if one has the Christian faith then they are held to Luke 6:31.  So if they treat others poorly they are saying to the world that they wish to be treated poorly.  It's their faith, their GOD who commands it.




CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Please do hate yourself, hatemonger.



I hope I have explained myself sufficiently here.  I guess your response will tell the tale.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ChemEngineer said:


> Only if you are vile, hateful Dimocrat.
> 
> 2.  My dear friend's son had a child out of wedlock and since both parents were unfit, the baby was put up for adoption and a lovely couple across the country, in Virginia, came out to California to take it back home and love it dearly.  This too exposes the lie of Dimocrats.  There are no "unwanted babies."



OF COURSE THERE ARE UNWANTED BABIES!!!  We see them every day being murdered on the street by police.  We see them abandoned to decaying schools and inner city poverty as the "good people" run away to the suburbs.  We see them in the caravans coming up to our southern border where we either ignore them or put them in cages.  There are lots and lots and lots of unwanted babies all over the world that we bomb day and night.  There are lots and lots and lots of unwanted babies.

Unwanted by Conservative "Values" Voters who want to withhold welfare, fight against healthcare reform, who want more guns in society, who think Blue Lives Matter more than Black Lives.

A LOT of unwanted babies out there.

Don't act like the Right actually cares about ANY of them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> This one little cell, with its complete genetic content, can _and does_ begin to divide and to grow, even in an experimental dish in an incubator in the closet space of some unmarked lab.


NFBW: actually then ding the person or persons in the lab who provide the experimental dish have the personal autonomy over the one little cell with his complete genetic content as they watch it and assist him in its effort to divide and grow into a viable human being. 

personal autonomy - self-directing freedom and especially moral independencepersonal autonomy​​This one little cell has biological autonomy that cones in nature with all living beings.

 END2208161052


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,864   “The kid can’t harm anyone.”
> 
> NFBW: As of  this date in history - No wonan will ever die or be injured as a result of carrying a pregnancy to full term. Thank You  CarsomyrPlusSix .



Well I don’t know what a “wonan” is, and most pro-aborts in 2022 don’t know what a “woman”is anymore, anyway.  Sanity has long ago left the left.

But funny enough, you absolute *buffoon*, I didn’t say pregnancy never has complications or that mothers never get injured or die, now did I?

Maybe you should read it again, without the lens of stupidity.

I _said_ that the kid will not cause that harm.  If it happens at all, which is rare.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Cardinal Carminative said:


> No, it's actually the ONLY POSITION THAT COUNTS HERE.
> 
> If you don't like abortion:  DON'T GET ONE.
> 
> Otherwise, unless you are the one about to "crap out the baby" you have exactly ZERO says in the topic.


Well, that isn’t the case anymore in the United States.  Sad for you.

But good for reason and justice and equality.  Because we ought to have a say about violence in our own states and our own communities, and we ought to lock up pieces of shit who kill for money.

“If you don’t like rape, don’t rape anyone” isn’t good enough.

“If you don’t like robbery, don’t rob anyone” isn’t good enough.

It sure as shit isn’t good enough for contract killing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I said they are human beings


NFBW: Actually atheist hillbilly, a one celled human being at and immediately following The process of fertilization which involves a sperm fusing with an ovum, is properly defined not as a human being, but can be defined as a human being as you wish with the qualifications  that it is not viable  outside of the woman’s body for about 28 weeks of pregnancy. It’s mandatory knowledge for all participants in a discussion  about when human life begins. END2208161205


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> But good for reason and justice and equality.  Because we ought to have a say about violence in our own states and our own communities, and we ought to lock up pieces of shit who kill for money.



Your faith does not get to rule America.  Sorry if you were confused about that.  

If you want a theocracy I recommend Afghanistan.  They treat women in a way more in line with your views I assume.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> “If you don’t like robbery, don’t rob anyone” isn’t good enough.
> 
> It sure as shit isn’t good enough for contract killing.



If you don't understand the differences then I'm afraid I can't help you.  Perhaps when mom and dad have "The conversation" with you and you learn where babies come from you'll come to a different conclusion.  Or not.  (Religious zealots like yourself are seldom moved by information).


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Actually atheist hillbilly, a one celled human being at and immediately following The process of fertilization which involves a sperm fusing with an ovum,


The human being in the zygote stage of life is a human being.



NotfooledbyW said:


> with the qualifications


Without qualifications.

Certainly without any as arbitrary, irrelevant, or useless as the ones you try to bring into it.


----------



## Blues Man

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The human being in the zygote stage of life is a human being.
> 
> 
> Without qualifications.
> 
> Certainly without any as arbitrary, irrelevant, or useless as the ones you try to bring into it.


So what?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The human being in the zygote stage of life is a human being.Without qualifications.


We are not allowed to mention the fact that “non-viability is at many stages of life as a qualification of human beings  but you are allowed to mention “the zygote stage of life” as  a qualification of human beings.

You are one authoritarian weird ass atheist hillbilly.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Your faith


Don’t have one of those.



Cardinal Carminative said:


> If you want a theocracy


Neither that, nor militant state atheism, which has always been the commie way of doing things and as the left goes even further left and hardcore authoritarian, not surprising to see you lot going more and more Stalin.



Cardinal Carminative said:


> They treat women in a way more in line with your views I assume.


My view is that all human beings are equal and all human beings have rights, like the right to life.  You disagree with equality and human rights.



Cardinal Carminative said:


> If you don't understand the differences then I'm afraid I can't help you.


There isn’t a relevant difference.  If you hated another group as much as you hated the unborn you’d promote violence against them and deny their humanity instead.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix
> 
> We are not allowed to mention the fact that “non-viability is at many stages of life as a qualification of human beings  but you are allowed to mention “the zygote stage of life” as  a qualification of human beings.
> 
> You are one authoritarian weird ass atheist hillbilly.


Your continued obsession with surfactant is worrisome.  One wonders if you have some kind of fetish for pulmonary surfactant and use it as your lube or something.  Nevertheless, feel free to keep your creepy kink to yourself, and stop bringing it up every time we’re talking about whether or not a human is a human (they are) and if a living human is alive (they are).


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Don’t have one of those.



Then why do you want to control women's bodies for them?  Usually that's due to religious conviction.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Neither that, nor militant state atheism, which has always been the commie way of doing things and as the left goes even further left and hardcore authoritarian, not surprising to see you lot going more and more Stalin.



At least I'm not forcing women to give birth against their wishes.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> My view is that all human beings are equal and all human beings have rights, like the right to life.  You disagree with equality and human rights.



LOL.  Sure you do.  Sure you do.  Is that why you think those who disagree with you are "Stalin"?



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> There isn’t a relevant difference.  If you hated another group as much as you hated the unborn you’d promote violence against them and deny their humanity instead.



You aren't very smart.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Then why do you want to control women's bodies for them?


I don’t, and you have no reason to think otherwise, let alone say something so absurd.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I don’t, and you have no reason to think otherwise, let alone say something so absurd.



LOL.

You aren't very bright are you?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Cardinal Carminative said:


> LOL.
> 
> You aren't very bright are you?


Looking in the mirror, imbecile?

Because the abolition of abortion has nothing to do with “controlling bodies.”  Pro-tip since you need the help: your kid’s body isn’t your body, your kid isn’t your property.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Looking in the mirror, imbecile?
> 
> Because the abolition of abortion has nothing to do with “controlling bodies.”



Wait until mommy and daddy have the talk with you and find out where babies come from.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Pro-tip since you need the help: your kid’s body isn’t your body, your kid isn’t your property.



Guess what:  women aren't YOUR property either.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Guess what:  women aren't YOUR property either.


Irrelevant and useless stupidity.

I don’t want you to go smash some random store clerk’s head in, I want laws against you attacking others - that doesn’t mean I think you’re my “property,” moron.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Irrelevant and useless stupidity.



Is it?  Again, wait until mommy and daddy have the talk with you.  Then you will know where babies come from.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I don’t want you to go smash some random store clerk’s head in, I want laws against you attacking others - that doesn’t mean I think you’re my “property,” moron.



But you see, unlike you, I actually have talked to women!  I'm not an incel like you.  I'm married and the whole thing!  So I know a lot more stuff about how the world works in regards to women than you do.  

Maybe you should talk to women before you go thinking you have ANY right whatsoever to spout your "opinion" on what they can and can't do with their bodies when it doesn't impact YOU in the slightest.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,820   “Abortion victims are also human beings.”
> 
> NFBW: An aborted fetus is not a viable human being and definitely not an autonomous human being.  It’s would be mother has autonomy over it’s continued existence, not you CarsomyrPlusSix . You can take your nose out of uteruses of women you do not know CarsomyrPlusSix . Jesus dude? Who do you think you are? END2208152105


Civilized society or not ? Which do you prefer ?


----------



## beagle9

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Is it?  Again, wait until mommy and daddy have the talk with you.  Then you will know where babies come from.
> 
> 
> 
> But you see, unlike you, I actually have talked to women!  I'm not an incel like you.  I'm married and the whole thing!  So I know a lot more stuff about how the world works in regards to women than you do.
> 
> Maybe you should talk to women before you go thinking you have ANY right whatsoever to spout your "opinion" on what they can and can't do with their bodies when it doesn't impact YOU in the slightest.


Civilized society or uncivilized SOCIETY, which do you prefer ?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding 220815-#4,831   “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”
> 
> NFBW: Actually that is deniable because of the significant scientific fact that the  human being lifespan that begins at conception is not a viable human being when it consists of only one cell. Human beings have 30 trillion.
> 
> Scientists have come a long way in estimating the number of cells in the average human body. Most recent estimates put the number of cells at around 30 trillion. Written out, that’s 30,000,000,000,000!​​NFBW: So by scientific counting a just conceived human being is 29,999,999,999,999 cells shy of being an adult human being like you and me ding  END2208152318


What will that one cell create or what does it represent  ? 

A dog ?
A cat ?
A goat ?
A horse ?
A chicken ?
A mouse ?
What ?

Answer - A HUMAN..... End of lesson.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Answer - A HUMAN..... End of lesson.


That is my answer too, it takes 28 weeks to create a viable human. Until then all the cells belong to the human to which they are attached., Do you have a point?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,878    “we’re talking about whether or not a human is a human (they are) and if a living human is alive (they are).”

NFBW: Yes a human is a human. And yes if a living human is alive they are alive. You are right. I ABSOLUTELY agree with you. You are plenty smart for an atheist hillbilly. But if you want to be smarter you need to learn the major difference between a living human who is viable outside the womb and a living human that is not viable inside the womb END2208162244


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is my answer too, it takes 28 weeks to create a viable human. Until then all the cells belong to the human to which they are attached., Do you have a point?


My point is this, otherwise being that it is the begining of the life development stages of a human being or the beginning of the human process, then it needs to be respected and handled with the most gentleness of care and with the utmost of importance, and not instead discarded like some kind of trash that was put there by a mistake that one made when opening her leg's up without any care about the consequences that are known to result from engaging in unprotected sex that then leads to uncivilized lustful activities, otherwise that involve the most intimate act humans can engage in together when causing a pregnancy to occur out of it next to her surprise ???... 

Sadly these things are taken for granite due to the downgrading or devaluing of the engagement in which places it into a category that one could label as a "fit of lust" that brings about consequences in which the woman ends up regretting terribly her decision making from that point on in dealing with those consequences.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220815-#4,832    “According to you it's murder.”

NFBW: .abortion prior to 28 weeks is not murder. abortion after 28 weeks is murder. All abortion kills whatever you wish to call it ding and abortion prevents a viably developed unique one of a kind human being from being born END2208162355


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Is it?  Again, wait until mommy and daddy have the talk with you.  Then you will know where babies come from.
> 
> 
> 
> But you see, unlike you, I actually have talked to women!  I'm not an incel like you.  I'm married and the whole thing!  So I know a lot more stuff about how the world works in regards to women than you do.
> 
> Maybe you should talk to women before you go thinking you have ANY right whatsoever to spout your "opinion" on what they can and can't do with their bodies when it doesn't impact YOU in the slightest.


It’s amazing that you don’t realize you’re the raging sexist here when you say bigoted stupidity like this.

Wait, no, it’s clear you are a moron and this is all you are capable of.  Amazement withdrawn.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> My point is this, otherwise being that it is the begining of the life development stages of a human being or the beginning of the human process, then it needs to be respected and handled with the most gentleness of care and with the utmost of importance,


NFBW: Why don’t you want the would be mother who aborts the not viable human being that you refer to in the above quote being charged with murder beagle9 since her intent is easily proven in your mind and the minds of all American Taliban that these mothers have decided to murder a human baby in a most cruel and violent way.

ding is wishy-washy on the pro-life stance on murder while the atheist hillbilly CarsomyrPlusSix is very clear to show off his set of Taliban balls that aborting even a one-celled hunan being is murder committed by a murderess.

CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,479   “abortion is the homicide of an innocent human being.”

CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,479    “They commit homicide by definition, and this should be criminalized as murder.”

ding220808-#4,512        “You can't believe it's murder”

ding220809-#4,535      “I couldn't begin to have this conversation with you until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life.”

NFBW220809-#4,536  “I don’t believe it is murder prior to viability at about 24 - 28 weeks. I’m glad you don’t either ding. It shows that I have been right all along to have a rightwing Catholic agree that aborting a human organism when it cannot oxygenate its own blood is not murder.”

NFBW220809-#4,537      “When you agree that a woman should not be charged with murder if she aborts a fetus prior to viability I wonder why you are obsessed with the notion that abortion prior to viability ends a human life.

ding220814-#4,808    “So just to be clear, you believe abortion is murder 1 day after your so called "viability" date.”

ding220815-#4,832    “According to you it's murder.”

NFBW: If this is all so scientific and morally clear beagle9 why such a big disparity and disagreement amongst all you anti-choice Taliban on the crime of murdering a not viable bsby while it is still  in the womb. ?????  END2208170827


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> abortion is the homicide of an innocent human being.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> They commit homicide by definition, and this should be criminalized as murder.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> My view is that all human beings are equal


NFBW: We have a hillbilly atheist so bad at math that he ludicrously asserts that a human being who consists of one cell is equal to a thirty trillion-celled human being, You can’t take the hillbilly out of an atheist I see. END2208170994


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> It’s amazing that you don’t realize you’re the raging sexist here when you say bigoted stupidity like this.



It is, isn't it?  



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Wait, no, it’s clear you are a moron and this is all you are capable of.  Amazement withdrawn.



Thanks.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Beagle9-#4,888    What will that one cell create . . . . 

Beagle9-#4,888   Answer - A HUMAN..... 

NFBW:  When you ask beagle9 “what does that one cell “bring into being” or create@ , are you saying essentially that a human being does not exist in a one-celled living human organism due the fact that it has not been created yet?   END2208171132


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> anti-choice Taliban


What a mealy-mouth, lying-piece-of-shit troll take you have, but what else could we expect from pro-abort filth?

You on the authoritarian left *abhor* choice.

And the Taliban sure do hate killing the innocent that’s like their main feature.  Amazing critical thinking on your part.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: We have a hillbilly atheist so bad at math that he ludicrously asserts that a human being who consists of one cell is equal to a thirty trillion-celled human being, You can’t take the hillbilly out of an atheist I see. END2208170994


Hey moron, when you hear “all men are created equal,” do you think Thomas Jefferson was asserting that a 4 year old and a 72 year old human are literally the same?

Because that isn’t how this works, not that a moron could possibly grasp that.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> What a mealy-mouth, lying-piece-of-shit troll take you have, but what else could we expect from pro-abort filth?
> 
> You on the authoritarian left *abhor* choice.
> 
> And the Taliban sure do hate killing the innocent that’s like their main feature.  Amazing critical thinking on your part.



"amazing critical thinking on your part".

Projection-o-matic.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Cardinal Carminative said:


> "amazing critical thinking on your part".
> 
> Projection-o-matic.


No rebuttal once again from the “don’t like rape, don’t rape anyone” guy.

Why are you even still here when you have no arguments whatsoever, just to bark impotently like a chained neutered chihuahua in the corner?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No rebuttal once again from the “don’t like rape, don’t rape anyone” guy.



There was a rebuttal there, but you are too dim to understand.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Why are you even still here when you have no arguments whatsoever,



I do, but you aren't smart enough to understand them.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> just to bark impotently like a chained neutered chihuahua in the corner?



Your sexual proclivities are of no interest to me.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> What will that one cell create or what does it represent ?


NFBW: Good question. In a civilized society the future of that one cell should be up to the woman that created it in private with her doctor. If she decides to terminate that one cell the answer to your question is nothing. Abortion terminates a poteny human being not an actual viable human being.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

beagle9 said:


> What will that one cell create or what does it represent  ?
> 
> A dog ?
> A cat ?
> A goat ?
> A horse ?
> A chicken ?
> A mouse ?
> What ?
> 
> Answer - A HUMAN..... End of lesson.



And what else is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED for that to happen?

(Hint:  it has breasts and a vagina and it's also a fully formed human).


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Cardinal Carminative said:


> There was a rebuttal there, but you are too dim to understand.


No, there wasn’t - you’re just a drooling imbecile.  

You would have to establish why aggressive violence isn’t the same / similar to other aggressive violence.  “It’s different, because I say so” doesn’t do that.  Doesn’t even come close.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No, there wasn’t - you’re just a drooling imbecile.



Yeah, sure, and YOU can tell.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You would have to establish why aggressive violence isn’t the same / similar to other aggressive violence.



Uh oh....are you one of those "ZAP" Libertarians?



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> “It’s different, because I say so” doesn’t do that.  Doesn’t even come close.



LOL.  You would have to be a lot more educated.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Yeah, sure, and YOU can tell.


Yeah, I see a lot of you people.  It’s rare to find a pro-abort with an IQ larger than my shoe size, and you’re not one of them.

Now cease your pathetic yips.  You add nothing to any debate - you lack the equipment let alone the aptitude.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Yeah, I see a lot of you people.



Don't worry, those of us with actual educations and who can breathe with our mouths closed are NOT a threat to you.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> It’s rare to find a pro-abort



I'm not pro-abortion.  In fact I'm rather anti-abortion.  I just understand that fixing it...REALLY fixing it, will require we have a better social safety net.  

Since I've got such great education I was able to get a good job and I can afford to pay more in taxes.  Folks like you won't be impacted because usually the lowest income people aren't tasked with helping out.  But we'll all be there to help YOU out.




CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> with an IQ larger than my shoe size, and you’re not one of them.



All I need is an IQ higher than yours.  And that's a REALLY easy mark.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Now cease your pathetic yips.  You add nothing to any debate - you lack the equipment let alone the aptitude.



You DO realize this post is nothing but you kvetching.  If you are taking people to task for not adding anything make sure to look in a mirror.

(Assuming you have one there in the trailer.  Sometimes you methhead trailer dwelling mouth breathers break those things stumbling around the double-wide)


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cardinal Carminative said:


> (Hint: it has breasts and a vagina and it's also a fully formed human).


On this subject we are not supposed to refer to human beings as viable or not viable and fully formed  and not fully formed because it introduces the question whether a not viable but potential human being never having experienced consciousness  and unable to oxygenate its own blood can be murdered by its would be mother. So viability language has been banned by CarsomyrPlusSix from these discussions until right wing propaganda writers can come  up with a response.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ding211221-#61    It's no longer conjecture when a human life begins.

NFBW: For once ding may be right, It’s the majority of radical rightwing white Christian nationalist state legislators who have determined that life begins when a heartbeat is detected at around six weeks. IT’s not as ding says the one-celled human being starts the lifespan of a hunan being.at conception. 

There are nine states that have passed legislation that would essentially ban abortion by the sixth week of pregnancy, *referred to by anti-abortion proponents as “heartbeat” and sometimes “fetal heartbeat” legislation.* Around week six of a pregnancy a heartbeat typically occurs, *but neither “fetal” nor “heartbeat” are appropriate terms.*​
The president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Dr Ted Anderson said *“What is interpreted as a heartbeat in these bills is actually electrically induced flickering of a portion of the fetal tissue that will become the heart as the embryo develops.”* The ACOG has come out against this type of legislation telling the Guardian it’s misleading and* the “arbitrary” bans are not reflective of fetal development or science.*​​*








						What states other than Texas have a 6-week abortion ban?
					

The US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision decided to deny an emergency appeal to a new Texas law effectively banning abortions at 6 weeks. Texas is not alone.




					en.as.com
				



*​​*According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research organization, the states that have banned abortion at six weeks include;Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.*​​North Dakota was the first state to enact a ban on abortion at six weeks in 2013. Iowa became the second in 2018. Courts blocked both laws for being unconstitutional, but the *6-week bans have kept coming — and their numbers have skyrocketed.*


*Mississippi *enacted a 6-week ban in 2019 — but a federal court blocked it from going into effect.
*Kentucky, Ohio, *and* Georgia *also enacted 6-week bans in 2019; federal courts blocked all of them from going into effect.  
Politicians in many other states — including *Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, *and*West Virginia — *have introduced or considered 6-week bans.
END2208172319


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ding211221-#61 It's no longer conjecture when a human life begins.​
NFBW: ding sez…….. life begins when legislators sez it begins.

ding220721-#3,744 “Absent Federal laws on abortion, that will be up to each state to decide for itself”​
So the “conjecture is over” in the “heartbeat” that isn’t really a “heartbeat” states

Most states are “life begins at viability” (CarsomyrPlusSix loathes the word ) states.

Viability: The point at which a fetus can sustain survival outside the uterus. Determined based on the fetus’s developmental progress and may vary by pregnancy. A fetus generally reaches viability between 24 and 28 weeks LMP.​
THEN There are the nine “conception”   states:
​44 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.​
9 states ban abortion.
4 states ban abortion at 6 weeks LMP.
1 state bans abortion at 15 weeks LMP.
9 states ban abortion at 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks postfertilization in state law) on the unscientific grounds that a fetus can feel pain at that point.
4 states ban abortion at 24 weeks LMP.
17 states impose a ban at viability.
1 state imposes a ban in the third trimester (beginning at 25 weeks LMP)
State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy

NFBW: It is no longer conjecture when a human life begins according to the ding  method. It begins within a range of Zero minutes at conception to 28 weeks at viability. END2208180041


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> On this subject we are not supposed to refer to human beings as viable or not viable


You can do what you want, it’s just oh so fucking irrelevant, and “potential” has nothing to do with anything, so you display your ignorance and uselessness when you go on about such bullshit.

I don’t need to come up with talking points to counter irrelevant bullshit - they’re your tangents, it would be on you to prove they were somehow relevant, which you cannot do.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Viability  -  CarsomyrPlusSix220818-#4,912    “it’s just oh so fucking irrelevant,”

NFBW: that’s odd because 31 states ban abortion at *viability* or within the timeframe that *viability* occurs.?

9 states ban abortion.
4 states ban abortion at 6 weeks LMP.
1 state bans abortion at 15 weeks LMP.
9 states ban abortion at 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks postfertilization in state law) on the unscientific grounds that a fetus can feel pain at that point.
4 states ban abortion at 24 weeks LMP.
*17 states impose a ban at viability.*
1 state imposes a ban in the third trimester (beginning at 25 weeks LMP)
State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy
END2208180149


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Viability  -  CarsomyrPlusSix220818-#4,912    “it’s just oh so fucking irrelevant,”
> 
> NFBW: that’s odd because 31 states ban abortion at *viability* or within the timeframe that *viability* occurs.?
> 
> 9 states ban abortion.
> 4 states ban abortion at 6 weeks LMP.
> 1 state bans abortion at 15 weeks LMP.
> 9 states ban abortion at 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks postfertilization in state law) on the unscientific grounds that a fetus can feel pain at that point.
> 4 states ban abortion at 24 weeks LMP.
> *17 states impose a ban at viability.*
> 1 state imposes a ban in the third trimester (beginning at 25 weeks LMP)
> State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy
> END2208180149


Roe and Casey set that assbackwards arbitrary standard.  Roe is gone, Casey is gone.

Yawn.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,914    “Roe and Casey set that assbackwards arbitrary standard. Roe is gone, Casey is gone.”

NFBW: Roe is not gone in 31 states.  Plus, NO state indicts a woman to your standard CarsomyrPlusSix who murders a newly conceived one-celled human being at any stage of its development in the womb.  You are 0 for 50 CarsomyrPlusSix , a real fucking loser .   Maybe it’s the company you keep that atheists reslly need to be wary of:

Mark S. Gietzen is an American anti-abortion and conservative political activist. He lives in Wichita, Kansas, United States. He is the chairman and founder of the group Kansas Coalition for Life. Since 2004, he has served continuously as the elected President of The Kansas Republican Assembly, a state affiliate of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies.​


Mark Gietzen, 2011.​​Gietzen is the director of the Christian Singles Information-exchange[24] and was employed as a Boeing procurement quality auditor.[30] He wrote a book titled Is it a Sin for a Christian to Be a Registered Democrat in America Today?[31] and discussed it on a segment of the June 25, 2001 broadcast of Hannity and Colmes.[32]​
The Catholic and white Christian nationalist in cahoots with Trump diehard evangelicals Gietzen will restrict your right to be a law abiding atheist CarsomyrPlusSix if he can take the rights of a woman to control her own body by making her own health and life decisionS by deciding to cease contributing to the growth in her body before it becomes a viable human being as established in ROE END2208180825


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,914
> 
> NFBW: Roe is not gone in 31 states.


They can set their standards however they want, which means Roe is gone, you consummate retard.  Dobbs happened.  Sorry, but eat shit, go back for seconds, and accept the reality that Roe is gone and abortion “rights” aren’t a thing anymore.



NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix , a real fucking loser


I can’t help but notice the irony of a pro-abort who doubtlessly advocates for culling Down’s syndrome kids while being this fucking retarded.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> They can set their standards however they want, which means Roe is gone,


NFBW: 31 states keep Roe’s viability standards - only an idiot would celebrate as if Roe is gone.

what is gone is pro-life politicians having a cultural wedge issue now that the pro-life Bible toting knuckle dragging zealots  can see that putting Catholic religious zealots on the Supreme Court did nothing to protect the life of the not viable unborn.  The American Taliban in black robes punted and now Trump’s Republican  politicians are confronted with the true political reality that 2/3 of the country are pro-choice and but for gerrymandering will never again control the Senate and potentially never build a majority in the House. Between Trump’s electors crimes, vote interference crimes, too secret documents crimes - The Dobbs decision is the power ball jackpot winner for America and the Dems. Trump’s three SCOTUS picks created chaos and we the people know exactly who is to blame for your chaos. END2208181640


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix220808-#241  “In case it wasn't yet clear, the FBI are now the enemies of the United States. The entire bureau needs to go”

NFBW: That is a peculiar position for someone who claims to be an atheist of such high Biblical Christian moral character as a fighter for extreme law and order for not viable potential humans that exist in a womb to demand that we deliberately and intentionally descend our nation of laws of and for viable human beings into the chaos and violence of the anarchy we saw on January 6 out of blind submission and loyalty to Donald Trump who is above the law in CarsomyrPlusSix ’s hillbilly brain. It is a brain that is not wired correctly or not plugged in to reality. END2208190249


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix220808-#241  “In case it wasn't yet clear, the FBI are now the enemies of the United States. The entire bureau needs to go”



Defund and eliminate the corrupt FBI.

As for you, kindly auto-fornicate, retarded troll.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix220818-#4,919
“Defund and eliminate the corrupt FBI.”

Why are you such a stickler for law and order inside the the dark wet privacy of an individual woman’s womb, yet oppose all or any law and order being applied to a former president who told a violent mob that chanted “hang Mike Pence” as they attacked our Capitol and lawmakers that he loves them. TRUMP LOVES VIOLENT HUMANS.   You oppose CarsomyrPlusSix law and order among viable human beings and crave law and order for the not viable human beings inside a womb.

Can you explain your absurd contradiction?  END2208190329


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix220818-#4,919
> “Defund and eliminate the corrupt FBI.”
> 
> Why are you such a stickler for law and order inside the the dark wet privacy of an individual woman’s womb, yet oppose all or any law and order being applied to a former president who told a violent mob that chanted “hang Mike Pence” as they attacked our Capitol and lawmakers that he loves them. TRUMP LOVES VIOLENT HUMANS.   You oppose CarsomyrPlusSix law and order among viable human beings and crave law and order for the not viable human beings inside a womb.
> 
> Can you explain your absurd contradiction?  END2208190329


Alternatively, you could shut the fuck up about this irrelevant tangent.  Your Trump derangement is not my concern.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Why don’t you want the would be mother who aborts the not viable human being that you refer to in the above quote being charged with murder beagle9 since her intent is easily proven in your mind and the minds of all American Taliban that these mothers have decided to murder a human baby in a most cruel and violent way.
> 
> ding is wishy-washy on the pro-life stance on murder while the atheist hillbilly CarsomyrPlusSix is very clear to show off his set of Taliban balls that aborting even a one-celled hunan being is murder committed by a murderess.
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,479   “abortion is the homicide of an innocent human being.”
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix-#4,479    “They commit homicide by definition, and this should be criminalized as murder.”
> 
> ding220808-#4,512        “You can't believe it's murder”
> 
> ding220809-#4,535      “I couldn't begin to have this conversation with you until you acknowledge abortion ends a human life.”
> 
> NFBW220809-#4,536  “I don’t believe it is murder prior to viability at about 24 - 28 weeks. I’m glad you don’t either ding. It shows that I have been right all along to have a rightwing Catholic agree that aborting a human organism when it cannot oxygenate its own blood is not murder.”
> 
> NFBW220809-#4,537      “When you agree that a woman should not be charged with murder if she aborts a fetus prior to viability I wonder why you are obsessed with the notion that abortion prior to viability ends a human life.
> 
> ding220814-#4,808    “So just to be clear, you believe abortion is murder 1 day after your so called "viability" date.”
> 
> ding220815-#4,832    “According to you it's murder.”
> 
> NFBW: If this is all so scientific and morally clear beagle9 why such a big disparity and disagreement amongst all you anti-choice Taliban on the crime of murdering a not viable bsby while it is still  in the womb. ?????  END2208170827


I answered you sometime ago, but you act as if I didn't even though you responded to the post..  Duh.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix220818-#4,919
> “Defund and eliminate the corrupt FBI.”
> 
> Why are you such a stickler for law and order inside the the dark wet privacy of an individual woman’s womb, yet oppose all or any law and order being applied to a former president who told a violent mob that chanted “hang Mike Pence” as they attacked our Capitol and lawmakers that he loves them. TRUMP LOVES VIOLENT HUMANS.   You oppose CarsomyrPlusSix law and order among viable human beings and crave law and order for the not viable human beings inside a womb.
> 
> Can you explain your absurd contradiction?  END2208190329


Why do you lie like this ???


----------



## beagle9

Cardinal Carminative said:


> And what else is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED for that to happen?
> 
> (Hint:  it has breasts and a vagina and it's also a fully formed human).


Huh ?? Care to keep your post in context for the class ? Everyone knows how a human is conceived within the act of love between a male and female/man and a woman, and soooooooooo your point was what then ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Why do you lie like this ???


Could you please be bothered to express what in the referenced post you are challenging me to be a lie. Describe the lie.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> I answered you sometime ago, but you act as if I didn't even though you responded to the post.. Duh.


I do not believe you answered the “why the disparity” question beagle9 .  I believe you are confused.

NFBW: If this is all so scientific and morally clear beagle9 why such a big disparity and disagreement amongst all you anti-choice Taliban on the crime of murdering a not viable bsby while it is still in the womb. ?????​
END2208200920


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

beagle9 said:


> Huh ?? Care to keep your post in context for the class ? Everyone knows how a human is conceived within the act of love between a male and female/man and a woman, and soooooooooo your point was what then ?



Try reading the thread for context.  Thanks!


----------



## beagle9

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Try reading the thread for context.  Thanks!


Best you stay out of post you don't know the context being talked about or rather being used within the conversation on the topic at hand. Kind of makes you look stupid trying to make someone else look stupid..


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> I do not believe you answered the “why the disparity” question beagle9 .  I believe you are confused.
> 
> NFBW: If this is all so scientific and morally clear beagle9 why such a big disparity and disagreement amongst all you anti-choice Taliban on the crime of murdering a not viable bsby while it is still in the womb. ?????​
> END2208200920


You don't believe ? ROTFLMBO... Well I'm not going backwards because you lose track of the conversation trying to dart around while moving the goal post or muddying the water in an attempt to act as if your bull crap is finally viable at 4,928 post.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Could you please be bothered to express what in the referenced post you are challenging me to be a lie. Describe the lie.


Why don't you post the entire quote for context instead of what you did when responded ?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Quality Of Life Determinants And Nothing To Do With Prurience "

* Rib Bone Romance Movies Surmise From Cuckoo Clocks **


beagle9 said:


> Huh ?? Care to keep your post in context for the class ? Everyone knows how a human is conceived within the act of love between a male and female/man and a woman, and soooooooooo your point was what then ?


Wow , that is very bold of you to equate every circumstance of coitus with an " act of love " .


** Proving Private Claims For Valid Damages **

In supreme court response to texas' civil prosecution laws indicated that a plaintiff must demonstrate valid damages .

A neighbor would not be able to demonstrate valid damages upon discovering that another neighbor received an abortion .

A legal guardian may be able to demonstrate valid damages upon discovering that a practitioner issued an abortion without receiving its authorized consent .


** Keeping It Zipped Else Report Private Property Theft Near Rape **

Would a male be able to demonstrate valid damages upon discovering that a female sought an abortion ?

A fetus has not met a birth requirement for equal protection and is private property of the mother and any paternal interests are dispatched when private property semen is transferred to the female with consent of will .

While conceding to rape as illegitimate impregnation , there is a vast swath of males with missed perceptions that consent of a female to conjugate includes consent to deliver if impregnation occurs .

If the private property semen is transferred to the female without consent of will by the male , then the male must file an assault charge .


** Mythical Late Term Abortion Seeker Psychopath Versus Commonplace Just Cause Medical Treatment **









						Explainer: Can abortion pills overcome U.S. state bans?
					

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's June 24 ruling eliminating the nationwide right to abortion that it had recognized nearly 50 years ago in its landmark Roe v. Wade decision, demand for abortion pills, which can be prescribed through online telemedicine visits, will likely rise. However...




					www.reuters.com
				



_In a medication abortion, a patient takes a drug called mifepristone, also known as RU-486, followed by a second drug called misoprostol, to end a pregnancy rather than having a surgical procedure. Over half of abortions in the United States are medication abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy research group._









						Induction of second trimester abortion (12-20 weeks) with mifepristone and misoprostol: a review of 386 consecutive cases - PubMed
					

The combination of 200 mg mifepristone and vaginally administered misoprostol is a safe, effective and noninvasive regimen for termination of pregnancy between 12 and 20 weeks.




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				



*Conclusion: *The combination of 200 mg mifepristone and vaginally administered misoprostol is a safe, effective and noninvasive regimen for termination of pregnancy between 12 and 20 weeks.









						Medication Abortion
					






					www.guttmacher.org
				




*Medication Abortion**STATE**MUST BE PROVIDED BY A LICENSED PHYSICIAN*​*COMPLETE OR PARTIAL BAN*​*PRESCRIBING CLINICIAN MUST BE IN THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF PATIENT*​


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Quality Of Life Determinants And Nothing To Do With Prurience "
> 
> * Rib Bone Romance Movies Surmise From Cuckoo Clocks **
> 
> Wow , that is very bold of you to equate every circumstance of coitus with an " act of love " .
> 
> 
> ** Proving Private Claims For Valid Damages **
> 
> In supreme court response to texas' civil prosecution laws indicated that a plaintiff must demonstrate valid damages .
> 
> A neighbor would not be able to demonstrate valid damages upon discovering that another neighbor received an abortion .
> 
> A legal guardian may be able to demonstrate valid damages upon discovering that a practitioner issued an abortion without receiving its authorized consent .
> 
> 
> ** Keeping It Zipped Else Report Private Property Theft Near Rape **
> 
> Would a male be able to demonstrate valid damages upon discovering that a female sought an abortion ?
> 
> A fetus has not met a birth requirement for equal protection and is private property of the mother and any paternal interests are dispatched when private property semen is transferred to the female with consent of will .
> 
> While conceding to rape as illegitimate impregnation , there is a vast swath of males with missed perceptions that consent of a female to conjugate includes consent to deliver if impregnation occurs .
> 
> If the private property semen is transferred to the female without consent of will by the male , then the male must file an assault charge .
> 
> 
> ** Mythical Late Term Abortion Seeker Psychopath Versus Commonplace Just Cause Medical Treatment **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explainer: Can abortion pills overcome U.S. state bans?
> 
> 
> Following the U.S. Supreme Court's June 24 ruling eliminating the nationwide right to abortion that it had recognized nearly 50 years ago in its landmark Roe v. Wade decision, demand for abortion pills, which can be prescribed through online telemedicine visits, will likely rise. However...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In a medication abortion, a patient takes a drug called mifepristone, also known as RU-486, followed by a second drug called misoprostol, to end a pregnancy rather than having a surgical procedure. Over half of abortions in the United States are medication abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy research group._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Induction of second trimester abortion (12-20 weeks) with mifepristone and misoprostol: a review of 386 consecutive cases - PubMed
> 
> 
> The combination of 200 mg mifepristone and vaginally administered misoprostol is a safe, effective and noninvasive regimen for termination of pregnancy between 12 and 20 weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion: *The combination of 200 mg mifepristone and vaginally administered misoprostol is a safe, effective and noninvasive regimen for termination of pregnancy between 12 and 20 weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medication Abortion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guttmacher.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Medication Abortion**STATE**MUST BE PROVIDED BY A LICENSED PHYSICIAN*​*COMPLETE OR PARTIAL BAN*​*PRESCRIBING CLINICIAN MUST BE IN THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF PATIENT*​


So you are saying that one of the participants or maybe both are just having animal sex where as there is truly no love involved, otherwise they are so much like animal's in that moment that a pregnancy results from it, but he's long gone, and she's off to the abortion clinic when she finds out months later that her pregnancy she hoped to win him over with (although it didn't), has to go....So it's off the use abortion as a means of birth control.

It has to stop, and people need to get back to being CIVILIZED instead of acting like animal's.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Statistical Signification Of Specific Situations Relative With To The Majority Of Justifications "

* Comparative Statistics **


beagle9 said:


> So you are saying that one of the participants or maybe both are just having animal sex where as there is truly no love involved, otherwise they are so much like animal's in that moment that a pregnancy results from it, but he's long gone, and she's off to the abortion clinic when she finds out months later that her pregnancy she hoped to win him over with (although it didn't), has to go....So it's off the use abortion as a means of birth control.
> 
> It has to stop, and people need to get back to being CIVILIZED instead of acting like animal's.


Oh , interesting .

Question 1 :   At approximately how many weeks of development do you suppose the average female whom fails to trap a man then seeks an abortion ?

Question 2 :  Which would you believe is more frequently occurring , the trapping of a man followed by abortion , or bride kidnapping followed by abortion ?









						Bride kidnapping - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_In most nations, *bride kidnapping is considered a sex crime because of the implied element of rape,* rather than a valid form of marriage. _
...
_In some cases, the woman cooperates with or accedes to the kidnapping, typically in an effort to save face for herself or her parents. In many jurisdictions, this used to be encouraged by so-called marry-your-rapist laws. Even in countries where the practice is against the law, if judicial enforcement is weak, customary law ("traditional practices") may prevail._


** Willful Ignorance Of Emergency Medical Requirements And Individual Liberty To Determine Self Ownership Through Fitness **

Several suppositions have been applied in legislation for determining public policy on abortion :  conception at 0 weeks , a heart beat at 6 weeks , a quickening at 15 weeks , a sentience at 20 weeks , a viability at 24 weeks .

Question 3 :  After how many weeks of development do you suppose abortion should be outlawed for emergency medical requirements ?

Question 3 a :   A fetus has a heartbeat , while the placenta is becoming detached and the fetus will die in utero ; should public policy be to discharge the woman with significant risk of hemorrhage , until the fetus is dead - anywhere from hours to days , or have an abortion performed immediately ?

Question 4 :  At approximately how many weeks of development do you suppose abortion should be outlawed for fetal abnormalities ?









						Diagnosis of Birth Defects | CDC
					

Birth defects can be diagnosed during pregnancy or after the baby is born, depending on the specific type of birth defect.




					www.cdc.gov
				



_First trimester screening is a combination of tests completed between weeks 11 and 13 of pregnancy. It is used to look for certain birth defects related to the baby’s heart or chromosomal disorders, such as Down syndrome. This screen includes a maternal blood test and an ultrasound.

Second trimester screening tests are completed between weeks 15 and 20 of pregnancy. They are used to look for certain birth defects in the baby.
Second trimester screening tests include a maternal serum screen and a comprehensive ultrasound evaluation of the baby looking for the presence of structural anomalies (also known as an anomaly ultrasound)._


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Statistical Signification Of Specific Situations Relative With To The Majority Of Justifications "
> 
> * Comparative Statistics **
> 
> Oh , interesting .
> 
> Question 1 :   At approximately how many weeks of development do you suppose the average female whom fails to trap a man then seeks an abortion ?
> 
> Question 2 :  Which would you believe is more frequently occurring , the trapping of a man followed by abortion , or bride kidnapping followed by abortion ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bride kidnapping - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In most nations, *bride kidnapping is considered a sex crime because of the implied element of rape,* rather than a valid form of marriage. _
> ...
> _In some cases, the woman cooperates with or accedes to the kidnapping, typically in an effort to save face for herself or her parents. In many jurisdictions, this used to be encouraged by so-called marry-your-rapist laws. Even in countries where the practice is against the law, if judicial enforcement is weak, customary law ("traditional practices") may prevail._
> 
> 
> ** Willful Ignorance Of Emergency Medical Requirements And Individual Liberty To Determine Self Ownership Through Fitness **
> 
> Several suppositions have been applied in legislation for determining public policy on abortion :  conception at 0 weeks , a heart beat at 6 weeks , a quickening at 15 weeks , a sentience at 20 weeks , a viability at 24 weeks .
> 
> Question 3 :  After how many weeks of development do you suppose abortion should be outlawed for emergency medical requirements ?
> 
> Question 3 a :   A fetus has a heartbeat , while the placenta is becoming detached and the fetus will die in utero ; should public policy be to discharge the woman with significant risk of hemorrhage , until the fetus is dead - anywhere from hours to days , or have an abortion performed immediately ?
> 
> Question 4 :  At approximately how many weeks of development do you suppose abortion should be outlawed for fetal abnormalities ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diagnosis of Birth Defects | CDC
> 
> 
> Birth defects can be diagnosed during pregnancy or after the baby is born, depending on the specific type of birth defect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cdc.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _First trimester screening is a combination of tests completed between weeks 11 and 13 of pregnancy. It is used to look for certain birth defects related to the baby’s heart or chromosomal disorders, such as Down syndrome. This screen includes a maternal blood test and an ultrasound.
> 
> Second trimester screening tests are completed between weeks 15 and 20 of pregnancy. They are used to look for certain birth defects in the baby.
> Second trimester screening tests include a maternal serum screen and a comprehensive ultrasound evaluation of the baby looking for the presence of structural anomalies (also known as an anomaly ultrasound)._


In the case of entrapment, however many weeks it takes if that's what's actually going on.

In the case of forced rape, the female should immediately seek medical attention in order to stop the potential of the rape from producing a pregnancy. That solves the case of rape and incest, and the perp goes to prison where he belongs for a long time when she files charges against him for such a thing once an investigation is complete. 

In the case of fear to report, then the female should make sure she's safe by going quickly to a safe house, and then law enforcement whenever it's safe to do so, but that shouldn't be after she's begun the process of the development of a pregnancy week's and week's afterwards, otherwise unless she was being forced by her fear's of her perp to do so in such cases. 

In any case the perp should pay a price for putting an individual through something like that once found out about. The penalty should be severe as a deterrent to make future perps and intimidators to think twice before thinking that they can try such things without the consequences of punishment coming their way.

We have to have deterrents in order to maintain civilized society. All issues can be discussed for future solutions, and keeping civilized society in play will lead the nation hopefully back to the light someday.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Limiting Reasons For Applying Simplified Solutions To Diverse Situations With Complex Conditions Base On Deontology Irrespective Of Consequentialism "

* Expanding Narrow Scope For Outlaw Abortion Based On Precarious Incidence With Low Probability **


beagle9 said:


> In the case of entrapment, however many weeks it takes if that's what's actually going on.


Question 5 :  How much time should a man be given to claim that a woman confiscated his private property semen without his willful consent for purposes of becoming impregnated so as to avoid child support payments ?

Question 6 :  Would a higher availability of pregnancy tests reduce the time before an abortion is sought and performed ?



beagle9 said:


> In the case of forced rape, the female should immediately seek medical attention in order to stop the potential of the rape from producing a pregnancy. That solves the case of rape and incest, and the perp goes to prison where he belongs for a long time when she files charges against him for such a thing once an investigation is complete.


Question 7 :  Is an ability to seek an abortion without reporting a sexual assault encouraging less self effacing situations versus protracted confrontation through prosecution , or encouraging less reports of sexual assault , or encouraging more sexual assaults ?


** Propositions To Curtail Conjugal Exchange With Pregnancy Test Market Compulsions **


beagle9 said:


> In the case of fear to report, then the female should make sure she's safe by going quickly to a safe house, and then law enforcement whenever it's safe to do so, but that shouldn't be after she's begun the process of the development of a pregnancy week's and week's afterwards, otherwise unless she was being forced by her fear's of her perp to do so in such cases.


Question 8 :   At which point of hue mammon development do you expect any abortion to be outlawed and correlated with which exceptions :  at zygote conception at 0 weeks ? , at embryo heart beat at 6 weeks ? at fetus quickening at 15 weeks ? at sentience at 20 weeks ? at viability at 24 weeks ? at prior to birth ?  for sexual assault ?   for incest ?   for adultery ?  for fetal abnormality by type ?


** Narrow Wing Scope Of The Genetic Continuance Business Of Whose Who **


beagle9 said:


> In any case the perp should pay a price for putting an individual through something like that once found out about. The penalty should be severe as a deterrent to make future perps and intimidators to think twice before thinking that they can try such things without the consequences of punishment coming their way.


Question 9 :  Given principles of individualism where self ownership includes free roam , free association and progeny , for sexual assault , would sterilization of a male be within the limits of applicable law according to us 8th amendment ?


** Moral Relativism In Nature Includes Cruelty Along With Providence **


beagle9 said:


> We have to have deterrents in order to maintain civilized society. All issues can be discussed for future solutions, and keeping civilized society in play will lead the nation hopefully back to the light someday.


Question 10 :  Given an after life as a metaphor for genetic continuance , and given insistence for genetic continuance for hue mammon kind as an altruism is an insistence for the metaphor of eternal life , so is insistence that every instance on assurance of every hue mammon kind from the point of conception a necessary inclusion in an altruism that insists on eternal life for hue mammon kind ?


** Medicinal Induction To 20 Weeks **









						Do Existing State Abortion Laws Apply to Mifepristone (RU-486)?
					






					www.aclu.org
				



_In general, *mifepristone should not be administered until the legal prerequisites imposed by the biased counseling law have been met.* For a list of state biased counseling laws that impose a waiting period, see Table I. For a list of state laws that mandate counseling without a waiting period, see __Table II._


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Limiting Reasons For Applying Simplified Solutions To Diverse Situations With Complex Conditions Base On Deontology Irrespective Of Consequentialism "
> 
> * Expanding Narrow Scope For Outlaw Abortion Based On Precarious Incidence With Low Probability **
> 
> Question 5 :  How much time should a man be given to claim that a woman confiscated his private property semen without his willful consent for purposes of becoming impregnated so as to avoid child support payments ?
> 
> Question 6 :  Would a higher availability of pregnancy tests reduce the time before an abortion is sought and performed ?
> 
> 
> Question 7 :  Is an ability to seek an abortion without reporting a sexual assault encouraging less self effacing situations versus protracted confrontation through prosecution , or encouraging less reports of sexual assault , or encouraging more sexual assaults ?
> 
> 
> ** Propositions To Curtail Conjugal Exchange With Pregnancy Test Market Compulsions **
> 
> Question 8 :   At which point of hue mammon development do you expect any abortion to be outlawed and correlated with which exceptions :  at zygote conception at 0 weeks ? , at embryo heart beat at 6 weeks ? at fetus quickening at 15 weeks ? at sentience at 20 weeks ? at viability at 24 weeks ? at prior to birth ?  for sexual assault ?   for incest ?   for adultery ?  for fetal abnormality by type ?
> 
> 
> ** Narrow Wing Scope Of The Genetic Continuance Business Of Whose Who **
> 
> Question 9 :  Given principles of individualism where self ownership includes free roam , free association and progeny , for sexual assault , would sterilization of a male be within the limits of applicable law according to us 8th amendment ?
> 
> 
> ** Moral Relativism In Nature Includes Cruelty Along With Providence **
> 
> Question 10 :  Given an after life as a metaphor for genetic continuance , and given insistence for genetic continuance for hue mammon kind as an altruism is an insistence for the metaphor of eternal life , so is insistence that every instance on assurance of every hue mammon kind from the point of conception a necessary inclusion in an altruism that insists on eternal life for hue mammon kind ?
> 
> 
> ** Medicinal Induction To 20 Weeks **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Existing State Abortion Laws Apply to Mifepristone (RU-486)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aclu.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In general, *mifepristone should not be administered until the legal prerequisites imposed by the biased counseling law have been met.* For a list of state biased counseling laws that impose a waiting period, see Table I. For a list of state laws that mandate counseling without a waiting period, see __Table II._


You are making a complete idiot of yourself... Please stop... lol 

And to think that you actually wrote all that after your first idiotic question is astonishing really... ROTFLMBO.

You people don't want solutions, you just want excuses to do what you keep doing or promoting.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Penchant For Applying Stateful References "

*  Links Fore Fulcrum Leverage In Other Media **


beagle9 said:


> You are making a complete idiot of yourself... Please stop... lol
> 
> And to think that you actually wrote all that after your first idiotic question is astonishing really... ROTFLMBO.
> 
> You people don't want solutions, you just want excuses to do what you keep doing or promoting.


Not all is lost as links can be embedded in other media with ease - Coffee Table Circulations :  Select Post Collection Off Monk-Eye Compositions .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> People who are pro-abortion deny abortion kills a living human being.


ding is a liar. I am pro-choice because every woman unbeknownst to me who chooses to get a legal abortion under the precedent of Roe vs Wade is not killing a viable living human being. That fact that what is part of her physical viable being is not viable when an abortion is legally performed makes her decision none of my business. It is not pro-abortion to defend the right to choose whether to have one or not. I am pro-whatever a woman choose to do with her own body in private.

Ding’s Catholicism is the source of his Christian police state activism that is harming tens of thousands of woman with every one of his hateful, hurtful posts in support of a Catholic police state by majority rule. END2208241020


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> That's hilarious.  I played golf with a retired district judge and his wife yesterday.  We had a great time.  He's black and she is white.
> 
> Did I mention he was a Republican?



Wow.  You are really important and you know important people.

Did you tell them how much money you have?  You know, like you like to brag about on here?






						Zone1 - Why do you need gods?
					

No, you can make up even MORE stuff with your imagination.  At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit.  If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> The reason you are playing word games with viability is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life.


NFBW: Why is the reference to the scientific fact that a fetus is not viable even with modern medical technology to survive outside a woman’s body before 22 weeks, a word game? What makes speaking truth ding a word game in that Catholic biased mind of yours? END2208310955


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> People who are pro-abortion deny abortion kills a living human being.



That isn't the definition.  In order to be "pro-anything" one must actively push FOR it.  Not just "accept" it.

If you punch me in the nose, that does not mean I am "pro-broken nose". 

I don't like abortion and want it ended.  The only difference between our positions (you anti-choice, me pro choice) is that I know the way to eliminate abortion is to make society better for all.  Improved welfare, economic improvement, easy access to healthcare, improved education, etc.

So I fight abortion by voting my conscience for a better social safetynet. 

You just call people names.


At least one of us actually believes in something.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding is a liar. I am pro-choice because every woman unbeknownst to me who chooses to get a legal abortion under the precedent of Roe vs Wade is not killing a viable living human being.


Viability only matters to you, surfactant masturbator.  



NotfooledbyW said:


> It is not pro-abortion


Shut up and stop lying, pro-abort.


NotfooledbyW said:


> I am pro-whatever a woman choose to do with her own body in private.



Irrelevant non-sequitur.  Your kid’s body isn’t your body, moronic pro-abort.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding continues to run away leaving a trail of emoticons in his wake…. Spooked by a word  “viability”  . . . . 

NFBW: What makes speaking truth ding a word game in that Catholic biased mind of yours? END2208310955


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Cardinal Carminative said:


> That isn't the definition.  In order to be "pro-anything" one must actively push FOR it.  Not just "accept" it.


Moronic stupidity.

If you argued for slavery to be legal, we would call you pro-slavery and be correct.




Cardinal Carminative said:


> I don't like abortion and want it ended.  The only difference between our positions (you anti-choice, me pro choice)


No one is anti-choice, pro-abort moron.



Cardinal Carminative said:


> is that I know the way to eliminate abortion is to make society better for all.


Fuck your socialism, pro-abort.  Fuck your society.



Cardinal Carminative said:


> At least one of us actually believes in something.


We believe in human rights.  You believe in violating them all.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> If you argued for slavery to be legal, we would call you pro-slavery


NFBW: That is because slavery involves an entire gun toting pro-slavery society with advanced weaponry made up of organized viable human beings who choose to overpower viable human beings living in a society defended by primitive weapons who cannot defend themselves from being taken away as slaves. 

A woman’s right to terminate a not viable human being from growing inside her own body into one is not comparable to viable humans taking other viable humans as slaves. Only people stupid enough to vote for Trump are stupid enough to make an argument that slavery is akin to abortion. END2208311043


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: That is because slavery involves an entire gun toting pro-slavery society with advanced weaponry made up of organized viable human beings who choose to overpower viable human beings living in a society defended by primitive weapons who cannot defend themselves from being taken away as slaves.



Irrelevant, pro-abort filth. 

You hate the unborn - you dehumanize them, want them denied legal personhood, and want them to be killed on a whim.  You lie and consider them property.

You have the exact same mentality of a slaver or genocider.

Your arbitrary justifications for your irrational hatred are just that, arbitrary.


NotfooledbyW said:


> A woman’s right to terminate



Does not exist.



NotfooledbyW said:


> slavery is akin to abortion. END2208311043


They are not 1:1. Slaves can escape.  The dead are just dead.

What you support, filth, is worse than slavery.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> slavery is akin to abortion. END2208311043


NFBW: I said Only a fool believes that slavery is akin to abortion. You are misquoting me - you are a liar. 


CarsomyrPlusSix     “They are not 1:1. Slaves can escape. The dead are just dead.”

NFBW: A not viable fetus can’t do anything and has no consciousness of what escape means. It has no rights apart from its mother who has the right to stop it from growing inside her body.  A slave owner does not have that right. END2208311227


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I said Only a fool believes that slavery is akin to abortion


Yeah, which is why you are so wrong.

You reduce human beings to subhuman property on the basis of your irrational bigotry.  It is almost the same thing, but you hate the unborn more than slavers hated slaves, and the harm inflicted per your desire is worse.

To whatever extent legal slavery and legal abortion are dissimilar, despite being directly analogous, the differences do not help you - legal abortion is worse, pro-abort *filth*.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You reduce human beings to subhuman property


NFBW: No. You are a liar. You elevate one cell with a new human DNA at the moment of fertilization to be a human being. A human being at viability consists of thirty trillion cells. You are so far off because you are an idiot. END2208311310


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No. You are a liar.



Shut up, pro-abort filth. You are the liar.


NotfooledbyW said:


> You elevate one cell with a new human DNA at the moment of fertilization to be a human being.


There is no “elevation” in noting that a human being is a human being, you moronic liar.

You instead claim they are subhuman property, because you are a hateful, stupid, ignorant bigot.

But no, they are human beings as we all are from fertilization until death.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> There is no “elevation” in noting that a human being is a human being


NFBW: Why are you exactly like ding and other woman hating fascists who refuse to admit that there is a huge difference between a not viable human being inside woman’s body and a viable human being toward the end of pregnancy . A one-celled human being and a thirty trillion cell human  being are not of the same legal or moral status, physical capability or having the consciousness that makes you and I a human being.  END2208311409


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> woman hating fascists


Oh _shut *up*_, drooling retard. 

You can be and assuredly are filth, you can be and assuredly are stupid, but you can refrain from staggeringly dishonest comments like this.

Treating women the same as anyone else is equality, not hate.  You're pathetic.



NotfooledbyW said:


> refuse to admit that there is a huge difference between a not viable human being inside woman’s body and a viable human being


Age, retard.  That's it.  Age.  That doesn't change the humanity of the younger human. That doesn't change the value of their life.

But then I believe in equality, because I'm not bigoted filth like you.





NotfooledbyW said:


> makes you and I a human being.  END2208311409


You?  Human being?  I'm not giving you that much credit, filth. 

You are far too stupid and inhumane. 

And since you only value current sapience, which you clearly lack, by your own definition it would be fine to hire someone to clean your clock.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Treating women the same as anyone else is equality, not hate


NFBW: You are a liar. Here is explicitly why you are a liar. (1) You force pregnancy on a pregnant woman against her will but you do not force pregnancy on the man who is responsible for causing it.. (2) A not viable fetus is not “anyone” unless the woman decides to let it grow to full term.  (3) You reduce a thirty trillion cell woman as an equal to a one cell fertilized egg that has no brain no lungs and no heart 

ALL because you want white Christian Republicans to have political power at all levels of government in the US of A because you are stupid at best, stupid racist at worst. END2208311538


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> That's it. Age. That doesn't change the humanity of the younger human. That doesn't change the value of their life.



NFBW: The society I was born into records my age from the moment I took my first breath and began oxygenating my own blood to the moment I stop breathing and no longer have the capability to oxygenate my own blood.

 Are you telling me that I must agree with your absurd woman hating demand that when I was a one cell glop on a uterus, I had a right to use my mother’s body to continue growing against her will if she had a reason to end me. I don’t believe I was anything to put that kind of demand on my mother. END2208311555


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You? Human being? I'm not giving you that much credit, filth.


NFBW: Because you are a deplorable NAZI fascist Trump Christian sympathizer when you don’t regard your political opponents to be human beings although they clearly are. You use fake defense of a one celled egg to justify the rationale to send political or religious opponents who are viable human beings to the gas chambers. OK NAZI we see where you stand.. END2208311603


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You can be and assuredly are filth,


NFBW: it is quite clear that your religious and political bias brings you to believe 2/3 of all voting age Americans are subhuman filth simply because they believe that what goes on inside a woman’s body is her choice when it comes to experiencing a pregnancy.

It gives me great well being and dignity of conscience to know that I am not with the fascist lawless Trump leaning whitish Republican minority who want to subject all women to the Roman Catholic Church’s belief that human life begins at conception. END2208311650


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> And since you only value current sapience,


NFBW: You are a liar and here is explicitly why you are a liar.

With regard to fetal viability at 22 weeks I value the physiological capability to oxygenate fetal blood because lungs heart and brain have reached the stage of development to survive and further develop outside the womb. Sapience has nothing to do with it because the child from the moment of birth has a lot of learning about the world and society to which he or she has become a member. END2208311804


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar.


Projection, filth.


NotfooledbyW said:


> You force pregnancy on a pregnant woman against her will


Retarded lie.  I don’t support forcing anyone to make kids, just requiring parents to provide for the kids they have already created.



NotfooledbyW said:


> but you do not force pregnancy on the man who is responsible for causing it..


Biologically impossible, drooling moron, also both parties are objectively and equally responsible for the procreation.  But clearly your stupid misandrist ass paradoxically thinks women are just beneath responsibility… which actually means *you* are the one who implies their inferiority.  Fun times with hypocrisy.



NotfooledbyW said:


> 2) A not viable fetus is not “anyone”


Stupid lie from someone too dumb to count as “someone.”  A bag of hammers would have more useful and intellectual replies than you.



NotfooledbyW said:


> ALL because you want white Christian Republicans


I want human rights protected and I want equality.  Sure won’t get that from the socialists.




NotfooledbyW said:


> stupid racist at worst. END2208311538


Oh shut your stupid filth mouth at this point… calling anyone “racist” for just disagreeing with you.  Pathetic and transparent.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> who want to subject all women to the Roman Catholic Church’s belief that human life begins at conception


Everyone sane should be attending reality here on planet Earth where it is textbook scientific fact that human life begins at fertilization - that obviously leaves you out, deranged bigot.

Your posts imply rabid foam spewing with every sentence.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> eality here on planet Earth where it is textbook scientific fact that human life begins at fertilization -


NFBW: where is this textbook reality that viable human life begins at fertilization? END2208312842


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I don’t support forcing anyone to make kids,


You are a liar and here is explicitly why you are a liar:   I wrote “You force pregnancy on a pregnant woman against her will” … I didn’t say anything about forcing the woman to get  pregnant. You want to force her to continue with an unwanted pregnancy when it is none of your business because you think the Government and Jesus owns her body, not her.  END2208311850


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Mind Your Own Sanctimonious Retarded Business "

* Individual Choices When Facing Complications **


NotfooledbyW said:


> ding
> 
> NFBW: You are a liar and here is explicitly why you are a liar.
> 
> With regard to fetal viability at 22 weeks I value the physiological capability to oxygenate fetal blood because lungs heart and brain have reached the stage of development to survive and further develop outside the womb. Sapience has nothing to do with it because the child from the moment of birth has a lot of learning about the world and society to which he or she has become a member. END2208311804


Birth is required for citizenship and therefore birth is required for equal protection and any citizen has legal standing for an equal protection violation civil wrights suit to send the idiotic dobbs decision straight back to scotus .

Roe V Wade substituted post natural viability ( estimated at approximately 24 - 28 weeks ) in lieu of a live birth requirement and ruled that states could proscribe abortion in 3rd trimester , but that was not good enough for the ant-choice uniform fetish psychopaths , who now support sedition by scotus against us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments by its dobbs decision and scotus should be charged .









						Parents of Extremely Premature Babies Face an Impossible Choice (Published 2020)
					

New technologies are making it possible for children to survive ever-earlier births. But who should decide when to fight for survival?




					www.nytimes.com
				



_Babies born earlier than the first day of the 22nd week are generally too immature to be successfully treated with intensive care and have almost no chance of survival. In such cases, clinicians will simply let the parents hold the baby immediately after birth until he or she dies, which often happens within minutes. This is called comfort or palliative care, akin to a very short hospice._










						What to Expect When You Have an Extremely Premature Infant
					






					myhealth.alberta.ca
				



*Chances of survival*footnote1footnote2

Weeks of pregnancySurvival rates23
Nearly 2 to 3 out of 10 survived (about 7 to 8 out of 10 died)24
5 out of 10 survived (5 out of 10 died)25
Nearly 8 out of 10 survived (about 2 out of 10 died)


Chances of having problems


Weeks of pregnancy, or birth weight
Number of infants who had problems later on
Weight less than 1000 g (2 lb)
Up to 4 out of 10 had one or more moderate or severe problems by the time they were age 8. footnote3 These problems included intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, blindness, and deafness.
23 to 25 weeks
At age 2½, about 3 out of 10 had one or more of the severe problems listed above. footnote4 This means that about 7 out of 10 did *not* get these problems. At age 6, about 5 out of 10 children born at these early ages were more likely than other children to have attention problems, behaviour problems, and problems adjusting to school. footnote5
25 to 26 weeks
Nearly 4 out of 10 had problems at age 19, including problems with hearing, sight, intellectual disability, and having a job. footnote6 This means that more than 6 out of 10 did not have these problems.
For a tool that can help estimate the outcome for babies born at 22 to 25 weeks of age, go to

www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/cdbpm/pp/prog_epbo/epbo_case.cfm









						Premature birth - Symptoms and causes
					






					www.mayoclinic.org
				











						Developmental Delays in Children
					

When should your child learn to crawl, talk, and potty-train? Learn what is normal, and how to recognize early signs of developmental delays.




					www.webmd.com
				











						Long-term health effects of premature birth
					

March of Dimes leads the fight for the health of all moms and babies. We use research, advocacy, and education to give every baby the best possible start.




					www.marchofdimes.org


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> both parties are objectively and equally responsible for the procreation.


NFBW: Actually that is true except when it’s rape or incest. So If the pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted they have the right to end it before 28 weeks - It is none of your business to force the woman to carry it to full term when the male is not affected by your desire to use the state to control and punish women based or your religious and political beliefs. END2208311907


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> calling anyone “racist” for just disagreeing with you


NFBW: You are a racist because you didnt take long as a newbie to join the ranks of the racists who post here: 



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> BLM / Antifa pieces of shit,


END2208311926


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a racist because you didnt take long as a newbie to join the ranks of the racists who post here:
> 
> 
> END2208311926


BLM supporters are pieces of shit.  

All lives matter.
Antifa are terrorists who should be shot, not just pieces of shit.

Go fuck yourself, filth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> BLM supporters are pieces of shit.


NFBW: what does a BLM supporter do to be a piece of shit in your racist most hateful weak brain? END2208312127


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: what does a BLM supporter do to be a piece of shit


Supporting that horrible organization, filth.

Apparently being sane and opposing delusional rioters and looters protesting nonexistent “racism” is racist to you, but let’s be real, retards like you just throw out negative buzzwords with nothing approaching thought let alone critical thought or self-reflection.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> opposing delusional rioters and looters


NFBW: I supported the 2020 BLM peaceful protests  against officer Derek Chauvin’s murder of George Floyd and strongly oppose rioters and looters who had nothing to do with the BLM organization. So it’s clear CarsomyrPlusSix , you are a racist Trump voter AND Woman hater. END2208312249


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Supporting that horrible organization, filth.


NFBW: What is horrible about an organization that promotes the idea that Black Lives Matter? END2208312335


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Because you are a deplorable NAZI fascist Trump Christian sympathizer when you don’t regard your political opponents to be human beings although they clearly are. You use fake defense of a one celled egg to justify the rationale to send political or religious opponents who are viable human beings to the gas chambers. OK NAZI we see where you stand.. END2208311603


There's no end to your bull crap.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: What is horrible about an organization that promotes the idea that Black Lives Matter? END2208312335


All live's matter you dunder head.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar and here is explicitly why you are a liar:   I wrote “You force pregnancy on a pregnant woman against her will” … I didn’t say anything about forcing the woman to get  pregnant. You want to force her to continue with an unwanted pregnancy when it is none of your business because you think the Government and Jesus owns her body, not her.  END2208311850


No one can force anyone who has the inkling or a speck of common sense about all the birth control that's out there. There is absolutely no reason for a pregnancy to develope within a female when she has options to make sure that she doesn't get pregnant to start with. After reaching that milestone in advances over the year's, it should have outdated the use of abortion's, and put them on the heep piles of long ago outdated history. But nooooo somehow abortion is being kept alive for what ?? Political reason's, evilness, what ? It's not like you Democrat's to fight advances in society, so what's up ???


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> All live's matter you dunder head.


NFBW: Then you have no problem supporting the BLM organization just like millions of other white Americans do? To CarsomyrPlusSix the full blown racist, you are a piece of shit. Why would I be a dunderhead when I agree with you that all lives matter? 

 So let’s get all lives up to the same level of protection from law enforcement and our Justice system as white lives do - 

Convicting Derek Chauvin and the McMichaels of murder and hate crimes is a great start. 

Just like convicting this asshole is a great start.

LEFTY RIOTER  - during the CHAUVIN protest on May30 Martin J. Engelhart looted stores, and took part in a beating






Martin J. Engelhart, 21, Madison, was charged July 16 with looting two shoe stores at East Towne Mall and taking part in beating a man who had tried to stop the looting of a State Street shop earlier the same night.

Keeping track: Over 50 people facing felony charges in vandalism, looting, violence during protests

A criminal complaint charges Engelhart with substantial battery as party to a crime, two counts of burglary as party to a crime and one count of attempted burglary as party to a crime, all felonies, for events he is accused of taking part in May 30, the first night of protests that began Downtown. He was also charged with criminal damage to property a party to a crime and bail jumping, both misdemeanors.

On Aug. 5, he was charged in a separate complaint with another count of felony burglary as party to a crime.

END2209010620


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> No one can force anyone who has the inkling or a speck of common sense about all the birth control that's out there.


NFBW: You are a liar and here is explicitly why you are a liar: The Trump SCOTUS just ruled that religious majorities in state legislatures shall be permitted to pass laws according to the majority religious beliefs of elected lawmakers within such states that force pregnancy to full term on women. 

There is no punishment however against the male partner who Injected an unwanted pregnancy into the woman in most cases when the male is the one pressuring the woman to have sex, even unprotected sex.

 The Trump Supreme Court has thus violated equal Justice under the law for the female gender of US citizens by forcing all pregnancies to full term against the will of the woman. END2209010655


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why would I be a dunderhead when I agree with you that all lives matter?


But you don’t agree that all lives matter you absolute piece of filth.  You categorically reject the human right to life and support mass homicide, mass homicide which disproportionately targets black babies.

Which a fucktarded intersectionalist like you - if you had any sanity, brain power, or consistency- would have to recognize as an actual real world example of the “systemic racism” you imagine everywhere else.  So by your own standard, filth, you are racist filth.  You support the systemic, disproportionate slaughter of black lives.

Your utter hypocrisy is contemptible.  Go take a long fuck yourself off a short pier.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> But you don’t agree that all lives matter you absolute piece of filth.


NFBW: You are a liar. All human lives born into our universe matter - I am devoted to that. 

You do not consider me to be human just like a fascist NAZI who doesn’t consider Jews to be human so you have no standing to lie about what I believe. You are a fascist you are the ugliest of ugly Americans.  END2209011913


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You categorically reject the human right to life and support mass homicide, mass homicide


Where are the indicted and convicted mass murderers in America from the past 100 years of which you speak. As a Republican I assume you support being sure America’s mass murderers have access with little restraints to be the best and most heavily armed mass murderers in the world even the most racist ones like Dylan Roof.  

https://www.the-sun.com › news › 1955593Who is Dylann Roof and what did he do? - The US Sun​Dec 11, 2020 · Dylann Storm Roof killed nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Where are the indicted and convicted mass murderers in America from the past 100 years of which you speak.


Shut up, pro-abort filth, you want the mass slaughter to be legal and I want to fix it.  You know full well but you have no integrity and no honesty.  You are the lowest of the low.



NotfooledbyW said:


> As a Republican I assume you support being sure America’s mass murderers have access with little restraints to be the best and most heavily armed mass murderers


I don’t know what you mean, please translate from your native retard into something coherent.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> . All human lives born into our universe matter


So with your bigoted caveat you confirm that lives don’t matter to you.

“All lives (except for those I hate and want dead)” is not “all lives.”

QED, you are wrong, and go fuck yourself you inhuman hatemongering shit stain.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> So with your bigoted caveat you confirm that lives don’t matter to you.
> 
> “All lives (except for those I hate and want dead)” is not “all lives.”


NFBW: There are no lives besides all the persons who have become separated and alive from their mother. I am so sorry that the Supreme Court let you down by not declaring the unviable unborn to be persons. Your religious law does not apply to anyone except the people who believe in your particular religion. So quit trying to shove your religion down everybody else’s throat it’s un-American  END2208011108


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> There are no lives besides all the persons who have become separated and alive from their mother.


Objectively, scientifically false.

You are a demonstrably insane person completely divorced from reality and you should be committed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> don’t know what you mean,


https://www.the-sun.com › news › 1955593Who is Dylann Roof and what did he do? - The US Sun​Dec 11, 2020 · Dylann Storm Roof killed nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina

NFBW: you want mass murderers to easily obtain the tools they want to mass murder in the most efficient way don’t you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> you want the mass slaughter to be legal


If you are going to fix mass murder you must start by indicting the mass murderers you claim exists.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> : you want mass murderers to easily obtain the tools they want to mass murder in the most efficient way don’t you?


Oh, so you just generally hate individual human rights and freedom and want your enemies to be helpless and disarmed.

Got it.  Psycho authoritarian sociopath gonna sociopath.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Oh, so you just generally hate individual human rights and freedom


NFBW: You are a liar. Between you and I, you  do not respect the human rights and freedom of women. You are fighting for the personhood rights of a one-celled fertilized human egg. You are giving that brainless heartless spineless lungless one celled ‘being’ full rights and autonomy over the 30 trillion celled pregnant woman that it needs for continued growth and survival prior to viability. You do not seek human rights or equality for women. Woman have value to you and the state only as a reproductive tool. It’s a form of slavery that you seek when you give the state the authority to control a woman’s body. You are for absurdity. END2209012115


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Between you and I, you  do not respect the human rights and freedom of women.


You are a liar and a drooling imbecile.

 Banning abortion does not interfere in anyway with the rights and freedoms of anyone, including women.



NotfooledbyW said:


> You are fighting for the personhood rights of a one-celled fertilized human egg.


I believe in equality and protecting the human rights of all human beings.  

That said, is no such thing as a “fertilized human egg” you absolute bumblefuck retard.  Wouldn’t it be nice if someone would learn some basic biology before they mouth off?  It’s clear learning even the basics isn’t in your wheelhouse though.



NotfooledbyW said:


> It’s a form of slavery that you seek when you give the state the authority to control a woman’s body.


Refraining from violence against other human beings isn’t slavery, you psychopath.

Seek mental help.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Banning abortion does not interfere in anyway with the rights and freedoms of anyone, including women.


NFBW: What planet do you live on. You are forcing women to give up eight months of freedom to serve a brainless heartless non-breathing zygote when it is none of your fucking business what goes on inside  her body. END2209013239


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> no such thing as a “fertilized human egg” you absolute bumblefuck retard.


NFBW: Really🐓?

Egg cell fact #1: The egg is one of the biggest cells in the body.​Eggs are larger than any other cell in the human body, at about 100 microns (or millionths of a meter) in diameter, about the same as a strand of hair. That means you could, in theory, see an egg cell with the naked eye. The fact is that egg cells are about 4 times the size of skin cells—and about 20 times the size of sperm!

Egg cell fact #2: Human eggs are full of instructions.​Unlike birds or reptiles, whose eggs are full of food, mammals don’t develop on their own—they get a cushy uterus and a placenta with plenty of nutrients. So what’s filling up that huge egg cell?

Here’s what we do know: human eggs contain lots of RNA, which transfers genetic code out of the nucleus of a cell, preventing the DNA from having to leave the nucleus. The RNA in an egg cell has a few jobs: it help the egg’s nucleus fuse with a sperm’s during fertilization, it guides the fertilized eggs through its initial cell divisions, and it tells the cells inside a developing embryo—which are all the same, at first—how to specialize, and what kind of cell they need to become.

And the fact is that egg cells need a lot of energy, especially after they’re fertilized and they start dividing and developing. So we know, also, that human eggs contain lots of mitochondria, which anyone who paid attention in 8th grade biology should recognize as the powerhouse of the cell—they convert oxygen and nutrients into chemical energy.

Egg cell fact #3: An egg doesn’t live very long after ovulation.​Once released—a process known as ovulation, which usually occurs around 2 weeks after the first day of your period—an egg cell has a pretty short life span. First, it’s pulled in by the finger-like appendages at the end of the fallopian tube, through which it travels down into the uterus over a period of 12–24 hours.

In the case of unprotected sex around the time of ovulation, the fallopian tube becomes the venue for fertilization, and the fertilized egg will implant in the uterus. But if no fertilization occurs within that 24-hour period, the egg disintegrates. It’ll later be shed—along with endometrial tissue, vaginal secretions, cervical mucus, and blood—during the menstrual period, as the body gets ready for a new cycle of ovulation.
Egg cell fact #4: We’re born with all the eggs we’ll ever have.​
Most of the cells in our body “regenerate,” or get cleared out and replaced by younger, healthier ones, throughout our lives. The one exception is your eggs. Those—all 1–2 million of them—were born with you, and they’ve been enduring the elements, so to speak, ever since. In fact, egg cells are actually created in utero, at just nine weeks after conception. That means that the egg that created you was inside your mother—when shewas inside your grandmother. Whoa.

This can be troublesome for your eggs. As egg cells age, they’re more likely to contain genetic abnormalities—mistakes in their DNA—that happen during the division process. Since DNA is like an instruction manual for our cells, any damage to your DNA can prevent that cell from doing what it’s supposed to do—which, in the case of the egg cell, is make a healthy baby. That’s why instances of infertility, miscarriage, and genetic disorders like Down syndrome increase so dramatically with the mother’s age.

Learn more about the importance of the age of the egg.

There’s good news, though:

Egg cell fact #5: Freezing eggs doesn’t affect how likely they are to result in a pregnancy.​Egg freezing works because it allows a woman to preserve her eggs while they’re still healthy and plentiful, and use them to attempt a pregnancy later. The fact is that egg cells remain just as likely to result in a pregnancy after they’re frozen and thawed as they were at the time they were frozen—allowing a 40-year-old woman to use her 30-year-old eggs, which are much more likely to result in a healthy pregnancy. This is confirmed by several studies, including a large study published this September, that conclude that frozen and “fresh” eggs result in essentially equal embryo quality, pregnancy rates, and live birth rates.

NFBW: CarsomyrPlusSix is an ignorant pompous ass fascist END2209012234


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Refraining from violence against other human beings isn’t slavery, you psychopath.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Objectively, scientifically false.


You seek to enslave CarsomyrPlusSix all pregnant women to serve the but one of a million egg cells that happens to get fertilized from the moment of fertilization on. 

Fertilization keeps the egg cell  from being flushed down the toilet in a puddle of menstrual blood that happens every month to fertile females for most of their lives.. 

You are demanding that a fertilized human egg cell be given personhood rights which must have autonomy over the rights of the impregnated woman in which the one fertilized egg cell resides. That demand is absurd. END2209012328


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar and here is explicitly why you are a liar: The Trump SCOTUS just ruled that religious majorities in state legislatures shall be permitted to pass laws according to the majority religious beliefs of elected lawmakers within such states that force pregnancy to full term on women.
> 
> There is no punishment however against the male partner who Injected an unwanted pregnancy into the woman in most cases when the male is the one pressuring the woman to have sex, even unprotected sex.
> 
> The Trump Supreme Court has thus violated equal Justice under the law for the female gender of US citizens by forcing all pregnancies to full term against the will of the woman. END2209010655


You think that you are smartly contending with these post, when in fact you miss the boat completely.  Swimming around in the swamp water must be something you like, because you stay wallowing around in it like the old mud sucking fish that you are. Nobody-is-fooled-by-your-antics.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> You seek to enslave CarsomyrPlusSix all pregnant women to serve the but one of a million egg cells that happens to get fertilized from the moment of fertilization on.
> 
> Fertilization keeps the egg cell  from being flushed down the toilet in a puddle of menstrual blood that happens every month to fertile females for most of their lives..
> 
> You are demanding that a fertilized human egg cell be given personhood rights which must have autonomy over the rights of the impregnated woman in which the one fertilized egg cell resides. That demand is absurd. END2209012328


You have jumped on this egg cell thing like it's the end all be all to the conversation when in fact it's no where close to contending with the issue that has been out of control for way to long, otherwise an issue that gave re-birth to the mindset of a (sic) scientific human experimentationalist like Joseph Mengele the Nazi terrorist from hell.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar. All human lives born into our universe matter - I am devoted to that.
> 
> You do not consider me to be human just like a fascist NAZI who doesn’t consider Jews to be human so you have no standing to lie about what I believe. You are a fascist you are the ugliest of ugly Americans.  END2209011913


Can you prove your assertions about the poster or are you just making crap up and lying in hopes to win your unwinnable arguing ??


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> A one-celled human being and a thirty trillion cell human being are not of the same legal or moral status, physical capability or having the consciousness th*at makes you and I a human being.* END2208311409





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You? Human being? I'm not giving you that much credit, filth.





NotfooledbyW said:


> You do not consider me to be human





beagle9 said:


> Can you prove your assertions about the poster



NFBW: Yes beagle9 your fascist pal CarsomyrPlusSix put in writing that he does not consider me to be a human being. He is not much different than a typical anti-Semitic NAZI,


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You have jumped on this egg cell thing like it's the end all be all to the conversation


NFBW: The basis of ding and CarsomyrPlusSix argument is the Catholic teaching that life begins at conception. A human being at the moment of conception scientifically would be a human being that consists of one cell that has no brain, no heart, no skin no eyes, no ears, no mouth, no lungs, no hands, no feet and no consciousness. That argument on a scientific level is absurd because we human beings are made up of thirty trillion cells. To argue that a one cell human being must have  more rights than a thirty trillion cell human being is also absurd. I don’t see any reason to accept an absurd argument to deprive a pregnant woman of a right that pregnant wonan have had for fifty years. Religion can be absurd but science cannot be absurd, not even for one thirty trillionth of a second. END2209020137


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> .  So by your own standard, filth, you are racist filth.  You support the systemic, disproportionate slaughter of black lives.




NFBW: I vote for politicians 100% of the time  that nine out of ten black voters choose to represent us in our government. Do you CarsomyrPlusSix honestly believe that nine out of ten black voters choose politicians who are disproportionately slaughtering black Americans right before their eyes?   END2209020157


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Yes beagle9 your fascist pal CarsomyrPlusSix put in writing that he does not consider me to be a human being. He is not much different than a typical anti-Semitic NAZI,


And what did you say about the poster ? I read something you said, but somehow you are the victim now eh ? LOL.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I vote for politicians 100% of the time  that nine out of ten black voters choose to represent us in our government. Do you CarsomyrPlusSix honestly believe that nine out of ten black voters choose politicians who are disproportionately slaughtering black Americans right before their eyes?   END2209020157


9 out of 10 black voter's vote Democrat, and that is a major problem for black voter's because they (including you) are brainwashed sheep.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you CarsomyrPlusSix honestly believe that nine out of ten black voters choose politicians who are disproportionately slaughtering black Americans right before their eyes?


It is statistically true that most black folks vote for the Democrats that run and ruin the cities they live in and disproportionately target them for death through abortion.  If any of these  claim that “Black Lives Matter” to them, they are liars and one should tell them that early and often, to their face.

Let’s not generalize though. Not all black people are this fucking stupid though.

Democrats assume they are entitled to black folks’ votes appropriate of nothing and insult them and call them horrible racist names if they don’t vote for them - which is objectively racial essentialism and utter hypocrisy, but that is what you people are - it’s what you do.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: The basis of ding and CarsomyrPlusSix argument is the Catholic teaching that life begins at conception.


Open a science textbook, fucking retard.

Chapter 1, introductory coursework.

I am not Catholic, I paid attention in science class and if a lot of Christians have beliefs that align with scientific fact, good for them.  Just one more reason why your hate boner for the religious is unreasonable bullshit.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Yes beagle9 your fascist pal CarsomyrPlusSix put in writing that he does not consider me to be a human being. He is not much different than a typical anti-Semitic NAZI,


Because you are a hatemongering psychopath.

You are hardly a reasonable human being, you want innocent human beings to be killed for your hate.  Which means YOU are the Nazi analogue, filth.  Just like them you believe in dehumanization and targeting those you hate with death.

And I wouldn’t credit you with anything, especially humanity.  There is no baseline assumptions for you of common decency or common sense.  You’re just despicable filth.

But not for any arbitrary reasons.  Not for any demographics about you I could not know on the anonymous internet.  It is what you have done - it is what you have said.  And yes, I judge you harshly for your hatemongering and vindictive dishonesty, filth, as you deserve.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You have jumped on this egg cell thing


NFBW: I see ding thinks this science is 😄. . . . . 
For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell. After 30 hours or so, it divides from one cell into two. Some 15 hours later, the two cells divide to become four. And at the end of 3 days, the fertilized egg cell has become a berry-like structure made up of 16 cells. This structure is called a morula, which is Latin for mulberry.​​







						Cell division - Health Video: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
					

For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell. After 30 hours or so, it divides from one cell into two. Some 15 hours later, the two cells divide to become four. And




					medlineplus.gov
				


​During the first 8 or 9 days after conception, the cells that will eventually form the embryo continue to divide. At the same time, the hollow structure in which they have arranged themselves, called a blastocyst, is slowly carried toward the uterus by tiny hair-like structures in the fallopian tube, called cilia.​​The blastocyst, though only the size of a pinhead, is actually composed of hundreds of cells. During the critically important process of implantation, the blastocyst must attach itself to the lining of the uterus or the pregnancy will not survive.​​If we take a closer look at the uterus, you can see that the blastocyst actually buries itself in the lining of the uterus, where it will be able to get nourishment from the mother’s blood supply.​​NFBW: To ding a Catholic, and to CarsomyrPlusSix who is not a Catholic,  the ten days of biological cell splitting process, described above, is a human being with no brain and no heart that must be given a *politically driven civil right* to subjugate the impregnated woman to its survival by depriving her of a choice to protect the health and economic liberty of the thirty trillion cells that make her a fertile female human being. 

No choice equals the denial of liberty for every fertile thirty trillion celled female human being for the sake of granting full civil personhood rights to a biological process as a result of sexual relationship between a thirty trillion celled male and female who are not necessarily planning on the sex resulting in creating a new human being for the universe. 

ding and CarsomyrPlusSix support denial of liberty to a pregnant woman but absolutely no denial of liberty to the male who makes her pregnant. These religious chauvinists like all male Republicans have no respect for women as equals. END2209020815


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I see ding thinks this science is 😄. . . . .
> For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell.​


A human being in the zygote stage of life is not an “egg,” you fucktarded psychopath.

Just shut up and go away.  You know nothing about biology.  You are absolutely ignorant and thus not educationally equipped to have this conversation and your mental potential to learn the salient subject matter is inferior to that of a bag of hammers, or a jar of mayonnaise.

The egg and sperm are both gone after fertilization.  That’s what fertilization is, what it does, consumes and combines the egg and sperm.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> A human being in the zygote stage of life is not an “egg,” you fucktarded psychopath.


NFBW: You are a liar and here is explicitly why you are a liar: I never suggested that a zygote is a an egg or an egg cell.



NotfooledbyW said:


> You are fighting for the personhood rights of a one-celled fertilized human egg. You are giving that brainless heartless spineless lungless one celled ‘being’ full rights and autonomy over the 30 trillion celled pregnant woman that it needs for continued growth and survival prior to viability.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> That said, is no such thing as a “fertilized human egg” you absolute bumblefuck retard. Wouldn’t it be nice if someone would learn some basic biology before they mouth off? It’s clear learning even the basics isn’t in your wheelhouse though.




NFBW: as you can see you in fact were aware in the above posts that my reference to a human egg was in fact a reference to the single cells that females have in the monthly process known as ovulation .

*Ovulation* is the release of eggs from the ovaries. In women, this event occurs when the ovarian folliclesrupture and release the secondary oocyte ovarian cells.[1] After ovulation, during the luteal phase, the egg will be available to be fertilized by sperm. In addition, the uterine lining (endometrium) is thickened to be able to receive a fertilized egg. If no conception occurs, the uterine lining as well as the egg will be shed during menstruation.[2]​​NFBW: You CarsomyrPlusSix called me an absolute bumblefuck retard because you suffer from being ignorant of biological reality when you stated the lie that there is no such thing as a “fertilized human egg” .

Now that you realize the absolute ignorance of that claim you attempt to slither back under your rock by trying to claim that I called a zygote an egg. 

You are a liar with no moral principles. An essy mark for a Trump to brainwash for the white authoritarian Christian political cult designed to destroy American democracy- so pleasing to Putin

END2209021004


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar and here is explicitly why you are a liar: I never suggested that a zygote is a an egg or an egg cell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW: as you can see you in fact were aware in the above posts that my reference to a human egg was in fact a reference to the single cells that females have in the monthly pricess known as ovulation .
> 
> *Ovulation* is the release of eggs from the ovaries. In women, this event occurs when the ovarian folliclesrupture and release the secondary oocyte ovarian cells.[1] After ovulation, during the luteal phase, the egg will be available to be fertilized by sperm. In addition, the uterine lining (endometrium) is thickened to be able to receive a fertilized egg. If no conception occurs, the uterine lining as well as the egg will be shed during menstruation.[2]​​NFBW: You CarsomyrPlusSix called me an absolute bumblefuck retard because you suffer from being ignorant of biological reality when you stated the lie that ttere is no such thing as a “fertilized human egg” .
> 
> Now tgat you realize the absolute ignorance of that claim you attempt to slither back under your rock by trying to claim that I called a zygote an egg.
> 
> You are a liar with no moral principles. An essy mark for Trump to brainwash for his white authoritarian Christian political cult designed to destroy American democracy- so pleasing to Putin
> 
> END2209021004


*I quoted you,* you anencephalic lickspittle.

You are a fundamentally dishonest, sniveling little worm.  I think “filth” was too kind by far.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I quoted you,


NFBW: You are a liar and here is explicitly why you are a liar.. . . .  You cannot find a post where I can be quoted as saying or hinting or suggesting that a zygote is an egg. You are lying when you claim to be quoting me - absent an actual quote. You don’t even have anything close to quote from me to copy. END2209021031


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The egg and sperm are both gone after fertilization.


NFBW: You wrote   “That said, is no such thing as a “fertilized human egg” you absolute bumblefuck retard” 

You are a liar. It is commonly referred to as a fertilized egg everywhere . . . .  









The Cells Start to Divide​6/9 
The *fertilized egg* starts growing fast, dividing into many cells. It leaves the fallopian tube and enters the uterus 3 to 4 days after fertilization. In rare cases, the fertilized egg attaches to the fallopian tube. This is called a tubal pregnancy or ectopic pregnancy and is a danger to the mother.








						Conception Timeline -- From Egg to Embryo
					

Conception, the beginning of life.  Explore the amazing journey from egg to embryo.




					www.webmd.com
				




NFBW: CarsomyrPlusSix is anabsolute bumblefuck retard” END2209021047


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar


Fuck you, lying piece of shit, I quoted you.

Read your own words and take responsibility for your own words, or don’t.

Since you won’t stand by anything you say, your words are meaningless noise.  You are noise.


----------



## ding

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Fuck you, lying piece of shit, I quoted you.
> 
> Read your own words and take responsibility for your own words, or don’t.
> 
> Since you won’t stand by anything you say, your words are meaningless noise.  You are noise.


He probably works for an abortion clinic.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> He probably works for an abortion clinic.


Maybe.

I mean at this point it’s clear that thing is probably responsible for a lot of death.

It is possible that it is too poor to have contributed to funds to kill innocent human beings, and I hope that is the case, but it seems likely that that thing belongs in a cell where it can’t hurt anyone else.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> He probably works for an abortion clinic.


NFBW: You are a liar. I do not support abortion in my personal life and personally I would never work for an abortion clinic. So you can quit lying ding about me any time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Read your own words


I have and I have never said that a zygote is an egg or that a zygote is a fertilized egg. That means you are a liar.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> I have


Then read where I quoted you saying it, you stupid fuck, and shut up already.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Then read where I quoted you saying it,


You are a liar. You have no quote by me saying that a zygote is an egg cell.  If you think you have it  -  cite it with your reply.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I mean at this point it’s clear that thing is probably responsible for a lot of death.


And whose death do you accuse me of being responsible for?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. You have no quote by me saying that a zygote is an egg cell.  If you think you have it  -  cite it with your reply.


Fuck you, you called human beings in the zygote stage of life “fertilized eggs,” which is what I said you said, and quoted you as saying.

Eat shit.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar. I do not support abortion in my personal life and personally I would never work for an abortion clinic. So you can quit lying ding about me any time.


You don't support abortion in your personal life eh ? But, but, but you do support abortion in your business life maybe or in your political life maybe ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You don't support abortion in your personal life eh ? But, but, but you do support abortion in your business life maybe or in your political life maybe ?


NFBW: None of the above. I do not support abortion for any reason because as a secular humanist I believe viable humans have an obligation to make the precious experience of human existence among all viable humans     as perfect as possible. When a man and women partake of the pleasure of sex without concern that the woman can get pregnant falls short of seeking human perfection or enlightened existence as a common goal. I am not responsible for what other people do when they fall short in the pursuit of enlightenment as long as they do not violate the life and property and liberty of other viable human beings going about the business of life. END2209021615


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Fuck you, you called human beings in the zygote stage of life “fertilized eggs,” which is what I said you said, and quoted you as saying.
> 
> Eat shit.


WHERE? What Post?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: None of the above. I do not support abortion for any reason because as a secular humanist I believe viable humans have an obligation to make the precious experience of human existence among all viable humans     as perfect as possible. When a man and women partake of the pleasure of sex without concern that the woman can get pregnant falls short of seeking human perfection or enlightened existence as a common goal. I am not responsible for what other people do when they fall short in the pursuit of enlightenment as long as they do not violate the life and property and liberty of other viable human beings going about the business of life. END2209021615


I've said this over and over, and I'll ask you again - Do you want to live in a civilized society or an uncivilized SOCIETY? If you choose the first instead of the second, then let's promote life whether it be's growing in the womb or after being removed from the womb alive ok ??


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9220901-#4,991   “You have jumped on this egg cell thing”

NFBW: I see ding thinks this science is funny.

. . . . .  medlineplus.gov : “For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell.” Cell division - Health Video: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia


CarsomyrPlusSix220902-#5,015  “Fuck you, you called human beings in the zygote stage of life “fertilized eggs,” which is what I said you said, and quoted you as saying.   Eat shit.”

NFBW: You are a liar in #5015 because I was citing MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia saying “For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell.”      You are a liar because it’s obvious yiu were an idiot when  you wrote



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> That said, is no such thing as a “fertilized human egg” you absolute bumblefuck retard.


END2209022104


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Do you want to live in a civilized society


I live in a civilized society where freedom of religion has protected me and freedom loving civilized viable human beings from religious fanatics like you for half a century. But now the Trump American Catholic Taliban on the Supreme Court are posing a real threat to freedom of religion in a civilized society when they chose to let religious majorities in states decide that life begins in a one-cell brainless heartless fertilized human egg, which idiot CarsomyrPlusSix stupidly claimed there is no such thing. END2209022116


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Do you want to live in a civilized society or an uncivilized SOCIETY?





beagle9 said:


> let's promote life whether it be's growing in the womb or after being removed from the womb alive ok ??


No. My Conscience, spiritual belief  and common sense commit me to defending the civil and public right to life and freedom of viable human beings. What goes on inside the womb prior to the capability and the viability of the fetus is not my business and it is not the business of any religious fanatic or any religion dominated state body of legislators. END2209022141


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> … life begins in a one-cell brainless heartless fertilized human egg…


“I didn’t say it, even though you quoted me saying it, but here I am doubling down and saying it again, but if ever you mention it, I didn’t say it!"

You’re a troll. 

No one is legitimately this stupid and dishonest.  Pure bad faith on your part.

Fuck right off.


----------



## Orangecat

A new human life begins at conception. It can begin at no other time. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a dimwitted moron.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You’re a troll.


NFBW: You're a liar. I correctly quoted a medical encyclopedia referring to a one celled fertilized egg during the first few hours after conception. The zygote stage comes  days later.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Orangecat said:


> A new human life begins at conception. It can begin at no other time. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a dimwitted moron.


NFBW: I agree., It becomes a potential viable human being at about 24 weeks after conception . END2209022206


----------



## Orangecat

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I agree., It becomes a potential viable human being at about 24 weeks after conception . END2209022206


Are you saying you're pro-choice up to 24 weeks?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Orangecat said:


> Are you saying you're pro-choice up to 24 weeks?


Yes


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> life begins in a one-cell brainless heartless fertilized human egg, which idiot @CarsomyrPlusSix stupidly claimed there is no such thing.





Orangecat said:


> A new human life begins at conception.



NFBW: Could you explain to CarsomyrPlusSix that conception is what happens to a human one cell egg that has no brain and no heart Orangecat for many days after fertilization. The moron says human females do not have eggs that need to be fertilized for a new life to begin. END2209030021


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> . The moron says human females do not have eggs that need to be fertilized for a new life to begin. END2209030021



Stop lying, you absolute drooling retard.

Fertilization occurs and the egg cell and sperm cell combine to become a new human being in the zygote stage of life.

You call this human being an “egg,” like fertilization _hasn’t_ occurred and the egg still exists, and you deny that this human being is a living member of our species.

You say you don’t, subfilth scum, but you have been quoted as saying exactly that, so your lies are meaningless and pathetic.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> I live in a civilized society where freedom of religion has protected me and freedom loving civilized viable human beings from religious fanatics like you for half a century. But now the Trump American Catholic Taliban on the Supreme Court are posing a real threat to freedom of religion in a civilized society when they chose to let religious majorities in states decide that life begins in a one-cell brainless heartless fertilized human egg, which idiot CarsomyrPlusSix stupidly claimed there is no such thing. END2209022116


If you can look at the method's used to remove an unborn baby from the womb at different stages of development, and all because of various reason's given in which are not justifiable in doing so, and you can call this living in a CIVILIZED SOCIETY (?), then you got mental issue's that definitely need to be evaluated by professionals that want to understand how the human psych can become this demented and confused in life. Good luck with your evaluation.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. My Conscience, spiritual belief  and common sense commit me to defending the civil and public right to life and freedom of viable human beings. What goes on inside the womb prior to the capability and the viability of the fetus is not my business and it is not the business of any religious fanatic or any religion dominated state body of legislators. END2209022141


You calling a person (a religious fanatic), for promoting life, and then for promoting civilized society that promotes responsible action's by the citizen's who are creating life upon God giving them the tools in order to do so is simply hilarious 🤣.......... You being an adult (I'm guessing), should be knowledgeable about the citizen's having been made knowledgeable about such things through proper education and the upholding of a civilized society as best that it can, otherwise prior to making a decision to do what is necessary to create a new life by their action's taken in which could easily bring about such a thing, so it is highly disingenuous on your part to be calling someone names, and this because you should know better about these things, but for political or other reason's you act as if you don't and therefore attempt to distract with your adolescent petty name calling.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> your adolescent petty name calling.


NFBW: It’s not petty. The combined *fanatical religious-like power* derived from *Trump’s power crazed narcissism* with a loud and unique sizable minority of *white Protestant and Catholic Professed Christian  european-ish nationalistic faction *hidden behind the shield of *Jesus Christ’s innate spiritual and cosmic genuine goodness *has released destructive forces in America that is opposed to American religious freedom and the positive functioning of elected self government by the will of the majority of the multicultural civilized society that America is and shall further become.. It’s the MAGA infectious  parasite that is eating the Republican Party alive and it must be brought under control like any serious disease to prevent the narcissistic collapse of America into a Putin like destructive authoritarian political and state run religious existence. END2209030726


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Fertilization occurs and the egg cell and sperm cell combine to become a new human being in the zygote stage of life.



NFBW: Here is what I posted;

. . . . . medlineplus.gov : “For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell.” Cell division - Health Video: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia​
HERE IS WHAT CarsomyrPlusSix wrote Last Thursday at 8:28 PM  in Post #4,986 about the phrase “fertilized human egg” That l used once upon a time.;

That said, is no such thing as a “fertilized human egg” you absolute bumblefuck retard.​
NFBW: We now clearly see CarsomyrPlusSix was forced to admit there is such a thing scientists and common folk refer to as a fertilized human egg  END2209030751


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW220901-#4,985  “You are fighting for the personhood rights of a one-celled fertilized human egg.”


HERE IS WHAT CarsomyrPlusSix wrote Last Thursday at 8:28 PM in Post #4,986 about the phrase “fertilized human egg” That l used once upon a time.;

That said, is no such thing as a “fertilized human egg” you absolute bumblefuck retard.

NFBW: but the truth is CarsomyrPlusSix there is such a thing referred to as a  “fertilized human egg” …  . . . . . medlineplus.gov : “For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell.” Cell division - Health Video: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

And you are advocating CarsomyrPlusSix applying legal personhood to that one cell fertilized egg including in its original 12 hours of existence which was my point you refuse to address on this particular matter. END2209030818


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix[/USER] was forced to admit there is such a thing scientists and common folk refer to as a fertilized human egg  END2209030751​


There is no such thing no matter what you or your fellow drooling retards say.  

I could never “admit” such abject nonsense, scum.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix220903-#5,030   “Fertilization occurs and the egg cell and sperm cell combine to become a new human being in the zygote stage of life.”

NFBW: How many hours does it take ( perhaps ding can tell you ) for the fertilized human egg cell to travel up the Fallopian tube from the moment of conception until it reaches the uterus where it can embed itself in the lining of the uterus in order to begin receiving nourishment and oxygen from its mother’s blood?

Do you ding beagle9 CarsomyrPlusSix advocate applying full civil rights of personhood to the fertilized human egg as it makes that journey from the fallopian tube to the uterus, END2209030854


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix220903-#5,030
  “Fertilization occurs and the egg cell and sperm cell combine.. . .  “

NFBW: that event produces what becomes biologically, medically and scientifically known as a fertilized human egg that must make it to the uterus in order to develop into a human being.

CarsomyrPlusSix220903-#5,036  “There is no such thing no matter what you or your fellow drooling retards say.    I could never “admit” such abject nonsense, scum.”

NFBW: let’s stick to scientific references to things and avoid your religious perspective of things in the spirit of Americans having the right of freedom from religion if they choose that path.

That’s the way ding wants it and everybody here must adhere to ding ‘s rules  END2209030928


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> The Cells Start to Divide​6/9
> The *fertilized egg* starts growing fast, dividing into many cells. It leaves the fallopian tube and enters the uterus 3 to 4 days after fertilization. In rare cases, the fertilized egg attaches to the fallopian tube. This is called a tubal pregnancy or ectopic pregnancy and is a danger to the mother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conception Timeline -- From Egg to Embryo
> 
> 
> Conception, the beginning of life.  Explore the amazing journey from egg to embryo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.webmd.com





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> There is no such thing……


OK.  You are deep into the MAGA cult


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> known as a fertilized human egg


No, you abject fucktard troll.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> OK.  You are deep into the MAGA cult


Why is it that you won't answer my questions about civilized verses uncivilized ? Are you afraid to address it because it will expose your radicalism on these issue's ??


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*: Do You think Jews can have and participate in a civilized society. If Jews can, I can. We are of one mind on when human life begins and science backs us up. END2208021805





NotfooledbyW said:


> Why do you keep substituting your harsh choice of words for the normal words that civilized human beings use to discuss matters of reproduction and women’s health.





NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: who is the “we” that wants to promote a civilized society? END2208082006





NotfooledbyW said:


> I am not ignoring your talk about civilization.
> 
> I am ignoring you because you’re full of shit when you start accusing me of things that you have absolutely no way of knowing - Religion has warped your mind and that is your problem not mine. I am not opposed to religion most people do not allow religion to warp their minds
> 
> I’m glad to hear you don’t want women who have an abortion not to be charged with murder





NotfooledbyW said:


> I accept a general civil consensus by all viable human beings that a pregnant woman surrenders and loses her right to terminate the human unique life she carries inside her body around the time that it is feasible at 28 weeks that a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb with or without the assistance of medically trained caring human beings equipped with all medical technology available.





NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Good question. In a civilized society the future of that one cell should be up to the woman that created it in private with her doctor.





NotfooledbyW said:


> I live in a civilized society where freedom of religion has protected me and freedom loving civilized viable human beings from religious fanatics





NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: It’s not petty. The combined *fanatical religious-like power* derived from *Trump’s power crazed narcissism* with a loud and unique sizable minority of *white Protestant and Catholic Professed Christian european-ish nationalistic faction *hidden behind the shield of *Jesus Christ’s innate spiritual and cosmic genuine goodness *has released destructive forces in America that is opposed to American religious freedom and the positive functioning of elected self government by the will of the majority of the multicultural civilized society that America is and shall further become..





beagle9 said:


> Why is it that you won't answer my questions about civilized verses uncivilized ? Are you afraid to address it because it will expose your radicalism on these issue's ??



NFBW: apparently you can’t handle my discussions on civilization


----------



## Orangecat

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: It’s not petty. The combined *fanatical religious-like power* derived from *Trump’s power crazed narcissism* with a loud and unique sizable minority of *white Protestant and Catholic Professed Christian  european-ish nationalistic faction *hidden behind the shield of *Jesus Christ’s innate spiritual and cosmic genuine goodness *has released destructive forces in America that is opposed to American religious freedom and the positive functioning of elected self government by the will of the majority of the multicultural civilized society that America is and shall further become.. It’s the MAGA infectious  parasite that is eating the Republican Party alive and it must be brought under control like any serious disease to prevent the narcissistic collapse of America into a Putin like destructive authoritarian political and state run religious existence. END2209030726


What a pantload. Joe would be proud.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Orangecat said:


> What a pantload


Is that your idea of refuting any of it. Typical MAGA fail. No it’s true that Trump got the republican nomination with his big win in Iowa after meeting with all the white nationalist hillbilly Christians who had gathered in Iowa by promising those poor Christian persecuted victims that if they nominated him he would give them power.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: apparently you can’t handle my discussions on civilization


Well your definition of civilized is being interpreted by me and probably other's here as rather you promoting an uncivilized SOCIETY, otherwise where ethic's and rules are non-exsistent. It's because your stances on these issue's definitely promote an uncivilized SOCIETY instead of a civilized one.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> It becomes a potential viable human being at about 24 weeks after conception .




ding  took a moment to communicate by emoticon his disagreement with the above. All  I can figure is ding must believe a human fetus is viable from the moment conception through 23 weeks which Isabel is on scientific is it scientific expert on human life can get


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Is that your idea of refuting any of it. Typical MAGA fail. No it’s true that Trump got the republican nomination with his big win in Iowa after meeting with all the white nationalist hillbilly Christians who had gathered in Iowa by promising those poor Christian persecuted victims that if they nominated him he would give them power.


Look, you can hide behind your uncivilized discourse all you want, but in reality you and your ilk have brought about the uncivilization or undoing of a once CIVILIZED SOCIETY for the most part, and this by taking society backwards instead of forwards. Many times when society gets it wrong, it has the ability to correct itself, but people like you fight to keep the wrong in society intact, but hide behind your created spin as if to suggest that you are the one's helping when instead you are the one's regressing and holding society back.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Well your definition of civilized is being interpreted by me …



Do you think Jewish people are civilized? Do you think the good Christian people of Kansas, many of them to keep the freedom for women to choose in the Kansas constitution are not fit to live in your version of civilization


----------



## Orangecat

NotfooledbyW said:


> Is that your idea of refuting any of it.


No, that's my way of calling it shit.
I'll assume that was a question.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you think Jewish people are civilized? Do you think the good Christian people of Kansas, many of them to keep the freedom for women to choose in the Kansas constitution are not fit to live in your version of civilization


Pro-abort filth are not civilized.

They must be made so.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Pro-abort filth are not civilized.
> 
> They must be made so.


How do you plan to civilize pro-choice Jewish  Americans who believe life begins with first breath. Gas em if they don’t comply with your religion?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Orangecat said:


> No, that's my way of calling it shit.


Same effect - you can’t refute a word of it .


----------



## Orangecat

NotfooledbyW said:


> Same effect - you can’t refute a word of it .


It's a fool's errand to attempt to refute the childishly naive opinions of a useful idiot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Orangecat said:


> It's a fool's errand to attempt to refute


When you can’t refute anyrhing so it’s safer not to try. There is no intellectual ability required for your style of posting - most people with intellectual ability will not try to hide your lack of it the way you do.


----------



## Orangecat

NotfooledbyW said:


> When you can’t refute anyrhing so it’s safer not to try. There is no intellectual ability required for your style of posting - most people with intellectual ability will not try to hide your lack of it the way you do.


Have an adult read that back to you and see if you can figure out how stupid you sound when triggered.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> people like you fight to keep the wrong in society intact


NFBW: No Fighting for a woman’s right to choose to have a safe legal abortion is not wrong. It is wrong to deny all women that right based on your demand that law abiding Americans must comply with your minority Biblical vision of proper civilized behavior END2209031340


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Orangecat said:


> Have an adult read that back to you


Don’t need to because you cannot tell me why?


----------



## Rigby5

beagle9 said:


> Look, you can hide behind your uncivilized discourse all you want, but in reality you and your ilk have brought about the uncivilization or undoing of a once CIVILIZED SOCIETY for the most part, and this by taking society backwards instead of forwards. Many times when society gets it wrong, it has the ability to correct itself, but people like you fight to keep the wrong in society intact, but hide behind your created spin as if to suggest that you are the one's helping when instead you are the one's regressing and holding society back.



But what is more civilized or not?
Seems to me that we do not value life much at all, the way we lie, illegally invade, cause deliberate starvation like Shock and Awe, imprison with the war on drugs, etc.
So then to me the anti abortion people have a secret agenda that essentially is to keep women pregnant and barefoot, in the kitchen.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you think Jewish people are civilized? Do you think the good Christian people of Kansas, many of them to keep the freedom for women to choose in the Kansas constitution are not fit to live in your version of civilization


Is there nothing that you can't spin ?? That's just it though, you leftist live in a weird universe where up is down and down is up, otherwise totally ace backwards from most of normal thinking society, but you'll defend your spin to the end.


----------



## beagle9

Rigby5 said:


> But what is more civilized or not?
> Seems to me that we do not value life much at all, the way we lie, illegally invade, cause deliberate starvation like Shock and Awe, imprison with the war on drugs, etc.
> So then to me the anti abortion people have a secret agenda that essentially is to keep women pregnant and barefoot, in the kitchen.


Should a normal thinking society respond to such bull crap as what you just wrote ? Nope, because that's what it knows is that what you wrote is just pure bull crap.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No Fighting for a woman’s right to choose to have a safe legal abortion is not wrong. It is wrong to deny all women that right based on your demand that law abiding Americans must comply with your minority Biblical vision of proper civilized behavior END2209031340


Pffft... Women thinking that they can be irresponsible in their choice's, and then go in search of a butcher to fix their stupidity is as uncivilized as it gets. Time to rejoin civilized society, and begin to act like human beings instead of animals again. Courting, dating, and finding out if one is compatible with the other is a great way to start a relationship that leads towards responsible action's by both parties involved. Why this has somehow gotten so foreign to people anymore has a reason. Hollyweird I believe is at the center of this universe, and it needs to be regulated. That's right REGULATED.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> How do you plan to civilize pro-choice Jewish  Americans who believe life begins with first breath


Pass laws that don’t agree with their stupid magical thinking, since life begins at fertilization.  Enforce those laws without regard to their stupid magical thinking.


----------



## Orangecat

NotfooledbyW said:


> Don’t need to because you cannot tell me why?


Coherent English, please.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Orangecat said:


> Coherent English, please


What for? You are not engaged in a discussion in any language..


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Women thinking that they can be irresponsible in their choice's,


NFBW: What is it to you, oh perfect Jesus lovin’ Bible totin, Trump votin’ civilized human.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> since life begins at fertilization.


NFBW: Not viable life for 24 weeks. Have you forgotten already? END2209031820.


----------



## TNHarley

I'm as pro choice as they come.
I think what they did was right. 
The constitution is more important than emotion


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Not viable life


Irrelevant.  Who gives a shit?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: What is it to you, oh perfect Jesus lovin’ Bible totin, Trump votin’ civilized human.


And proud of it demon..


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Irrelevant. Who gives a shit?


Why is viability around 24 weeks. .irrelevant and conception relevant. A Fetus becomes viable when it has a brain. A Fertilized human egg has no brain for a couple weeks after conception. You are saying the newly fertilized egg is a human being who does not have a brain. I guess you could argue that Trump voters don’t have brains and they are protected


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> A Fertilized human egg has no brain for a couple weeks after conception.


There is no such thing as a “human fertilized egg,” you worse-than-worthless, inhuman piece of shit.

Consequently you can make whatever claims you want about the anatomy of this nonexistent thing you have created.




NotfooledbyW said:


> You are saying the newly fertilized egg is a human being who does not have a brain.


No, I would never say anything this retarded, as fertilization means that the egg is gone.

Clearly you’re fair game for an abortion yourself, by this metric.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> And proud of it demon..


When you are proud of voting for an insurrectionist sore loser president you can’t know what being proud is.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> When you are proud of voting for an insurrectionist sore loser president you can’t know what being proud is.


Get help for your TDS, we keep telling you but you won't listen..


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Get help for your TDS, we keep telling you but you won't listen..


NFBW: I expect there were people similar to CarsomyrPlusSix and I your current self in the 1930s who believed  they had found the man to make the nation of their birth “GREAT AGAIN” so in which case they told the German people who were alarmed by the vast multitude falling into the cult of nationalistic personality that they suffered from a disorder labeled HDS - Hitler Derangement Syndrome.

I shall never cease my resistance against the anti-freedom , authoritarian white nationalist Trump/Christian cult seizing total absolute power in America. END2209041008


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ Look at this fucking lunatic go.

Meanwhile he supports the mass slaughter of innocent human beings, human beings he dehumanizes through diminutive and scientifically inaccurate language, for purely arbitrary reasons, like a slaver or a fucking Nazi.

Stop projecting, subfilth scumbag.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> fertilization means that the egg is gone.


NFBW: No. You are an absolutely moronic idiot for spewing out that absolutely stupid remark with so much hatred against viable humanity.

 The fertilized egg must travel from the fallopian tube to the uterus after immediate hardening of the single egg cell’s outer lining to prevent another one of the millions of sperm cells from getting in.. it’s still an egg cell when it makes it to the uterus 12 hours after conception. The fertilized egg must make it to the uterus in order to get implanted there to receive nourishment and oxygen from its mothers blood.

medlineplus.gov : “For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell.” Cell division - Health Video: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

A fertilized egg is also referred to as a zygote , you dumb ass. The egg cell/zygote phase of  conception is where the egg and sperm join to form a single cell that lasts about four days.  The fertilized egg cell zygote contains a full set of chromosomes, with 23 from the egg and 23 from the sperm. After four days in the conception phase the single fertilized egg cell splits rapidly to become a blastocyst and then an embryo.

There is no error on my part to refer to the start of a new human life during the first four days in the conception stage as a fertilized human egg cell or fertilized egg that has no brain, heart or lung like every living human being on earth outside the womb has.

If a woman decides to terminate that process in her own body it is not our civil government’s business to interfere. She is not killing a human being when the stage of development does not have its own brain or consciousness of self.  END2309041345


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No.


Yes, you fucking retard.




NotfooledbyW said:


> The fertilized egg


There is no such thing, you fucking retard.

Not in Homo sapiens.  We do not lay eggs.  Maybe you think you are a chicken, as you certainly have an intellect more on par with one.



NotfooledbyW said:


> it’s still an egg cell


No, you fucking retard.




NotfooledbyW said:


> The fertilized egg must make it to the uterus in order to get implanted there


Human beings in the zygote stage of life are not “eggs.”

The egg and sperm were used to make the new human being.  They are both gone.

Human beings in the zygote stage of life do not implant.
Human beings in the blastocyst stage of life which comes later after many, many rounds of mitosis implant.
Human beings in the blastocyst stage of life are also not “eggs.”


NotfooledbyW said:


> “There is no error on my part to refer to the start of a new human life during the first four days in the conception stage as a fertilized human egg


Yes there is, drooling retard, as this is objectively false disinformation.

Common use is no defense of stupidity.  It is still scientifically incorrect and could not ever be correct no matter how many idiots parrot this illogical nonsense.

Moreover, it is plain that to most of you filth, this disinformation is intentional dehumanization.  Bigotry.



NotfooledbyW said:


> If a woman decides to terminate that process in her own body


… then the murderous **** needs to die in a prison cell.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> We do not lay eggs.


NFBW: didn’t say we do, But the human female is born with 7 million eggs -

Know much about eggs? If you're like many women and men, you know more about the eggs that come in a carton than the ones a woman's body makes. That's too bad. As cells go, human eggs are truly amazing. Keep clicking as Dr. Randi Epstein, author of the new book Get Me Out: A History of Childbirth from the Garden of Eden to the Sperm Bank, shares nine fascinating facts about eggs.​Maybe that's one reason why eggs are worth so much more than sperm. An egg donor might make several hundred dollars for a single egg. A man might earn only a few hundred dollars per ejaculation - which translates into a pittance for each sperm cell​​Young women have plenty of healthy eggs. In fact, about 90 percent of the eggs of a 21-year-old woman are viable. Only about 10 percent of the eggs of a 41-year-old woman might be viable. That's why some young women are having their eggs extracted and frozen - just in case it takes a while to find Mr. Right.​​







						Human eggs: 9 fascinating facts
					

You won't believe how much magic is packed into such tiny cells




					www.cbsnews.com
				


​In ancient times, people figured that the "life force" was contained inside sperm. Now we know that the eggs run the show. In addition to supplying half the genes of the baby-to-be, eggs have the power to rev up the sperm-egg union. The egg's DNA dangles in its center, held together by a set of spindles (think cobweb).​​​CarsomyrPlusSix ”… then the murderous **** needs to die in a prison cell.​
NFBW: for terminating a brainless, heartless, lungless growth in her own body she does not want.   

I understand why you feel compelled to side with the brainless life form - you are not far removed from it.

END2209041700


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> The fertilized egg must travel from the fallopian tube to the uterus





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> There is no such thing, you fucking retard


NFBW: You are stupid. -
​*Implantation*​Once it gets into the uterus, *the fertilized egg *attaches to the endometrium, the lining of the uterus which is known as implantation and the cells keep dividing.









						The human fertilization process: Fertilization of an egg
					

Human fertilization happens when a sperm cell successfully fuses with an egg cell, fertilizing the egg, which is then known as a zygote.




					goodwillivf.com
				





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> That said, is no such thing as a “fertilized human egg” you absolute bumblefuck retard.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Not all black people are this fucking stupid though.


NFBW: Just nine out of ten who voted for Biden.




CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> There is no such thing as a “human fertilized egg,” you worse-than-worthless, inhuman piece of shit.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Meanwhile he supports the mass slaughter of innocent human beings, human beings he dehumanizes through diminutive and *scientifically inaccurate language,*


NFBW: Scientific accurate language is “Once it gets into the uterus, *the fertilized egg *attaches to the endometrium… “   …. That Scientific accurate language is used on a website used by women who want to be pregnant and have a baby. There is no dehumanizing going on. CarsomyrPlusSix is a lunatic MAGA hate infested racist on top of being scientifically ignorant.

Once it gets into the uterus, *the fertilized egg *attaches to the endometrium, the lining of the uterus which is known as implantation and the cells keep dividing.   The human fertilization process: Fertilization of an egg​​NFBW: It should be noted that contraception that prevents a fertilzed egg from being implanted in the uterus to a woman hater like CarsomyrPlusSix is murder. - and every woman in the pill must be investigated for murder. . All women will have to submit their menstrual fluid to Detective CarsomyrPlusSix to verify if a fertilized egg as been denied implantation /  murder of a brainless human egg.,
END2209050018


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Look at this fucking lunatic go


Apparently Trump featured Tim Cusanelli,




a Jan6 rioter, at his white grievance rally in PA on Saturday and will pardon the Hitler wannabee who told a Trump appointed judge that when he attacked the Capitol on Jan6 he didn’t know Congress people meet there.









						Why did Trump choose to showcase a Nazi sympathizer as Jan. 6 prisoner at Pennsylvania rally: CNN reporter asks
					

Among the people who spoke at Donald Trump's rally on Saturday was a woman named Cynthia, who spoke out on the plight of her nephew who attended the Jan. 6 attack on Congress. It turns out, however, her nephew is a Nazi sympathizer. The larger question, however, is how he became Trump's...




					www.rawstory.com
				




Judge didn’t buy it .., Hitler Jr is still in jail
END2209050131


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are stupid. -
> ​*Implantation*​Once it gets into the uterus, *the fertilized egg *attaches to the endometrium,


No.  A human being in the blastocyst stage of life is not an "egg" you fucking retarded piece of shit.  If we were oviparous, there would be a structure you could still call an egg, but the germinal disc, which is the analogue to the "egg cell" in oviparous organisms, itself would be gone after fertilization, fused with the sperm, and that analogue would exist inside the hard fibrous structure that is also called an egg.  We don't lay eggs, though, egg boy.  

Any of you asshats conflating this outer egg structure that exists as a protective structure housing oviparous creatures with the organism itself, particularly in vivaparous creatures that don't lay eggs, is a liar, a moron, or a lying moron.

This isn't debatable.  Anyone saying otherwise doesn't understand embryology at even the most basic level.





NotfooledbyW said:


> That Scientific accurate language


Is objectively false and inaccurate... it is retarded stupidity.  Learn basic biology and stop being stupid if you can, filth. 

Rhetorical request, I know you are so deficient that learning anything on even the most basic level is an impossibility.  The best you can do is just shut your retarded mouth and go away.



NotfooledbyW said:


> ​NFBW: It should be noted that contraception that prevents a fertilzed egg from being implanted


After fertilization the egg cell is gone and the sperm cell is gone.  Zygotes can't implant, moron.

The blastocyst stage is after the egg cell has been gone for a long time after many, many rounds of mitotic division, and the egg cell was gone with fertilization.

You are an imbecile beyond all imbeciles.  Take a long walk off a short pier, water optional.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I expect there were people similar to CarsomyrPlusSix and I your current self in the 1930s who believed  they had found the man to make the nation of their birth “GREAT AGAIN” so in which case they told the German people who were alarmed by the vast multitude falling into the cult of nationalistic personality that they suffered from a disorder labeled HDS - Hitler Derangement Syndrome.
> 
> I shall never cease my resistance against the anti-freedom , authoritarian white nationalist Trump/Christian cult seizing total absolute power in America. END2209041008


List one policy or position held by Trump that made him an equal to Hitler... We'll be waiting patiently.... Oh and go deep into detail on the policy, and tell us why it is a policy of evil or why you think Trump is evil as Hitler was. Thanks


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: For the record the abortion wedge issue is used by Americans who are predominantly white, Catholic or Protestant Christian’s that have an authoritarian nature. A classic example here is the white Catholic authoritarian nationalist poster heard from often named Mashmont.. Keep this reality in mind when addressing the following stream of the abortion  conversation.

NFBW220904-#5,072   “When you are proud beagle9 of voting for an insurrectionist sore loser president you can’t know what being proud is.”

NFBW: The failure of Trump’s white Christian followers to concede they lost the 2020 election because Biden had millions more votes than Trump did is a threat to democracy which manifests itself in the culture war issue of abortion .

beagle9220904-#5,073    “Get help for your TDS, we keep telling you but you won't listen..”

NFBW: Trump supporters (the passionate culture war ones like @beagle & CarsomyrPlusSix cannot express a rational honest and sober defense for supporting a sore loser who lit the flames of political violence on Jan6 to overturn their loss so they accuse the winners of a free and fair ejection of having a mental disorder which is a baseless claim used to run from a legitimate debate,,

NFBW220904-#5,074     “I expect there were people similar to CarsomyrPlusSix and your current self beagle9 in the 1930s who believed they had found the man to make the nation of their birth “GREAT AGAIN” so in which case they told the German people who were alarmed by the vast multitude falling into the cult of nationalistic personality that they suffered from a disorder labeled HDS - Hitler Derangement Syndrome.

NFBW; Just in case you didn’t catch it I mentioned the 1930s for a reason   I’ll clarify that by revising it to read early 1930s to mean the early stages of Hitler’s rise to power.

beagle9220905-#5,082   “List one policy or position held by Trump that made him an equal to Hitler.”

Trump and his followers are no equal to Hitler and his hypnotized followers  - yet. But the roots of fascism are seeded into the ground.

My point is not about matching Trump policy to Hitler policy, It is about the similarity of the Germans who landed under the hypnotic spell  of Hitler’s to thise white Christian nationalists who have sold their souls to an authoritarian minded leader who fortunately was cut short of becoming an American version  of Hitler when his first coup attempt failed on Jan6  on two seiarate fronts - one peaceful / one violent and mobocracy in actions. COPY?  END3309050808


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: For the record the abortion wedge issue is used by Americans who are predominantly white, Catholic or Protestant Christian’s that have an authoritarian nature. A classic example here is the white Catholic authoritarian nationalist poster heard from often named Mashmont.. Keep this reality in mind when addressing the following stream of the abortion  conversation.
> 
> NFBW220904-#5,072   “When you are proud beagle9 of voting for an insurrectionist sore loser president you can’t know what being proud is.”
> 
> NFBW: The failure of Trump’s white Christian followers to concede they lost the 2020 election because Biden had millions more votes than Trump did is a threat to democracy which manifests itself in the culture war issue of abortion .
> 
> beagle9220904-#5,073    “Get help for your TDS, we keep telling you but you won't listen..”
> 
> NFBW: Trump supporters (the passionate culture war ones like @beagle & CarsomyrPlusSix cannot express a rational honest and sober defense for supporting a sore loser who lit the flames of political violence on Jan6 to overturn their loss so they accuse the winners of a free and fair ejection of having a mental disorder which is a baseless claim used to run from a legitimate debate,,
> 
> NFBW220904-#5,074     “I expect there were people similar to CarsomyrPlusSix and your current self beagle9 in the 1930s who believed they had found the man to make the nation of their birth “GREAT AGAIN” so in which case they told the German people who were alarmed by the vast multitude falling into the cult of nationalistic personality that they suffered from a disorder labeled HDS - Hitler Derangement Syndrome.
> 
> NFBW; Just in case you didn’t catch it I mentioned the 1930s for a reason   I’ll clarify that by revising it to read early 1839s to mean the early stages of Hitler’s rise to power.
> 
> beagle9220905-#5,082   “List one policy or position held by Trump that made him an equal to Hitler.”
> 
> My point is not about matching Trump policy to Hitler policy, It is about the similarity of the Germans who landed under the hypnotic spell  of Hitler’s to thise white Christian nationalists who have sold their souls to an authoritarian minded leader who fortunately was cut short of becoming an American version  of Hitler when his first coup attempt failed on Jan6  on two seiarate fronts - one peaceful / one violent and mobocracy in actions. COPY?  END3309050808


I don’t even like Trump and voted for someone else in the primaries.  Compared to someone vile like Hillary or the absolute objective shitfest of incompetence and failure that has been Biden’s presidency, Trump can’t help but look good by comparison to anyone rational.  Anyone living in a state where Hillary or Biden had any chance of winning electoral votes had incredible moral and rational pressure to vote for anyone who was the next most likely to win.  Anyone comfortable in a red state could not worry about it, vote third party, vote write-in or not vote at all.  But stopping Hillary was essential, and Biden’s in less than two years has wreaked incomparable damage on the republic, damage that we will _never_ recover from.

You are just a lunatic talking out of your ass on completely unrelated things.  This topic isn’t about your derangement or your conspiracy theories.

Trump did nothing impeachment worthy, and he incited no violence.  Your claims are completely divorced from reality.  You are at least consistent about being a fundamentally dishonest piece of shit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Trump did nothing i


You will take your devotion to the Trumpism cult of personality to the grave solely on the basis of the three Catholic American Taliban judges he got onto the Supreme Court who overturned Roe vs Wade to allow states to seize the bodies 0f women in a power grab to take control of their fertilized egg production;

Trump couid bludgeon your healthy happy 90 year old grandmother to death with a ball peen hammer right before your eyes  and would not be wrong because you think he is saving millions of fertilized human eggs from cruel and unusual death for his   triple Catholic anti/abortion SCOTUS packing. END2209050834


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> After fertilization the egg cell is gone and the sperm cell is gone. Zygotes can't implant, moron.



For your education / idiot: 









						What Is a Zygote?
					

A zygote is formed when a sperm fertilizes an egg. The single-celled zygote soon becomes an embryo. Learn more about this early stage of pregnancy.




					www.verywellfamily.com
				




What Is a Zygote?​A zygote, also known as a fertilized ovum *or fertilized egg*, is the union of a sperm cell and an egg cell. The zygote begins as a single cell but divides rapidly in the days following fertilization. The zygote’s single cell contains all of the 46 necessary chromosomes, getting 23 from the sperm and 23 from the egg.

The zygote phase is brief, lasting only about four days. Around the fifth day, the mass of cells becomes known as a blastocyst. The embryo develops from the blastocyst.
How Zygotes Form​In order for reproduction to take place, a single sperm cell must penetrate the outer surface of an egg in a process known as fertilization. During a healthy reproductive cycle, a single egg cell is released from the follicle into the fallopian tube at ovulation.

If sperm are present, thousands will attempt to penetrate this single egg cell. Once a single sperm has broken through the outer surface, a zygote is formed. Chemical changes in the surface of the egg prevent other sperm from entering.1


When a Zygote Becomes an Embryo​Zygotes divide through a process known as mitosis, in which each cell doubles (one cell becomes two, two becomes four, and so on). This two-week stage is known as the germinal period of development and covers the time of fertilization (also called conception) to the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterus.


The sperm cell contains paternal genetic information while the egg cell contains maternal genetic information. Because each cell contains half of the genetic material, each cell is known as a haploid cell. When these two haploid cells join, they form a single diploid cell that contains all necessary chromosomes.


The zygote then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus. As it travels, its cells rapidly divide and it becomes a blastocyst. Once in the uterus, the blastocyst must implant in the lining in order to obtain the nourishment it needs to grow and survive.


The embryonic period of development lasts from two weeks after conception through the eighth week, during which time the organism is known as an embryo.1 At the ninth week post-conception, the fetal period begins. From this point until birth, the organism is known as a fetus.


A Note About Conception​Conception occurs when an egg is fertilized, but pregnancy does not actually begin until a blastocyst implants into the uterus. It’s not usually possible to know whether fertilization has occurred at this early stage, considered week 3 of pregnancy. Symptoms and pregnancy hormone levels are usually not notable until week 4 or 5.
Zygotes in Twinning​Identical twins are monozygotic. With monozygotic twins, one egg is fertilized and one zygote is formed, but at the blastocyst phase, it splits to form two embryos. Monozygotic twins share the same genetic material.


Fraternal twins, on the other hand, are dizygotic, which means that two eggs are fertilized resulting in two zygotes. Those two zygotes go on to develop into two embryos. Unlike monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins do not share identical genes.



Potential Challenges​Not all zygotes make it to the next stage of prenatal development. Researchers estimate that 30% to 70% of all naturally occurring conceptions fail either before or at the time of implantation. Researchers suspect these losses are connected to abnormalities. In cases of recurrent miscarriage, a parental chromosomal anomaly is often to blame.3


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> For your education / idiot:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is a Zygote?
> 
> 
> A zygote is formed when a sperm fertilizes an egg. The single-celled zygote soon becomes an embryo. Learn more about this early stage of pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.verywellfamily.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is a Zygote?​A zygote, also known as a fertilized ovum *or fertilized egg*, is the union of a sperm cell and an egg cell. The zygote begins as a single cell but divides rapidly in the days following fertilization. The zygote’s single cell contains all of the 46 necessary chromosomes, getting 23 from the sperm and 23 from the egg.
> 
> The zygote phase is brief, lasting only about four days. Around the fifth day, the mass of cells becomes known as a blastocyst. The embryo develops from the blastocyst.
> How Zygotes Form​In order for reproduction to take place, a single sperm cell must penetrate the outer surface of an egg in a process known as fertilization. During a healthy reproductive cycle, a single egg cell is released from the follicle into the fallopian tube at ovulation.
> 
> If sperm are present, thousands will attempt to penetrate this single egg cell. Once a single sperm has broken through the outer surface, a zygote is formed. Chemical changes in the surface of the egg prevent other sperm from entering.1
> 
> 
> When a Zygote Becomes an Embryo​Zygotes divide through a process known as mitosis, in which each cell doubles (one cell becomes two, two becomes four, and so on). This two-week stage is known as the germinal period of development and covers the time of fertilization (also called conception) to the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterus.
> 
> 
> The sperm cell contains paternal genetic information while the egg cell contains maternal genetic information. Because each cell contains half of the genetic material, each cell is known as a haploid cell. When these two haploid cells join, they form a single diploid cell that contains all necessary chromosomes.
> 
> 
> The zygote then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus. As it travels, its cells rapidly divide and it becomes a blastocyst. Once in the uterus, the blastocyst must implant in the lining in order to obtain the nourishment it needs to grow and survive.
> 
> 
> The embryonic period of development lasts from two weeks after conception through the eighth week, during which time the organism is known as an embryo.1 At the ninth week post-conception, the fetal period begins. From this point until birth, the organism is known as a fetus.
> 
> 
> A Note About Conception​Conception occurs when an egg is fertilized, but pregnancy does not actually begin until a blastocyst implants into the uterus. It’s not usually possible to know whether fertilization has occurred at this early stage, considered week 3 of pregnancy. Symptoms and pregnancy hormone levels are usually not notable until week 4 or 5.
> Zygotes in Twinning​Identical twins are monozygotic. With monozygotic twins, one egg is fertilized and one zygote is formed, but at the blastocyst phase, it splits to form two embryos. Monozygotic twins share the same genetic material.
> 
> 
> Fraternal twins, on the other hand, are dizygotic, which means that two eggs are fertilized resulting in two zygotes. Those two zygotes go on to develop into two embryos. Unlike monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins do not share identical genes.
> 
> 
> 
> Potential Challenges​Not all zygotes make it to the next stage of prenatal development. Researchers estimate that 30% to 70% of all naturally occurring conceptions fail either before or at the time of implantation. Researchers suspect these losses are connected to abnormalities. In cases of recurrent miscarriage, a parental chromosomal anomaly is often to blame.3


So you lied when you tried to label Trump and his followers the same as Hitler and his followers. You are a dishonest poster who is a leftist attempting to use your word soup's to try and politicize every issue by sewing confusion for your cult's benefit.. We got it. So from here on out know this, that we see exactly what you are doing, and what kind of dishonest poster that you are. The devil was smart also, but he wasn't smart enough, so always remember that, otherwise if you have any sense left to rationalize it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Any of you asshats conflating this outer egg structure that exists as a protective structure housing oviparous creatures with the organism itself, particularly in vivaparous creatures that don't lay eggs, is a liar, a moron, or a lying moron.


You are a liar. I am not confused or conflating that at all ..  

The website is called the biology dictionary/ it defines the travel of the little egg to implantation /    “ with help of cilia (little “hairs”) that contract, and *move the egg* into the uterus. Since *the egg *has to shed off the zona pellucida, *it can now implant itself into the inner lining of the uterus* called the _endometrium_.









						Blastocyst - Definition, Implantation Timeline and Quiz | Biology Dictionary
					

A blastocyst forms when a fertilized egg is in its second phase of growth. This takes place from days five to nine after fertilization.




					biologydictionary.net
				




Biology Dictionary​Biology is the study of living things. It is broken down into many fields, reflecting the complexity of life from the atoms and molecules of biochemistry to the interactions of millions of organisms in ecology. This biology dictionary is here to help you learn about all sorts of biology terms, principles, and life forms. Search by individual topic using the alphabetized menu below, or search by field of study using the menu on the left.​

This all takes place on the fifth day post-fertilization, after which the blastocyst travels down the fallopian tube. This is made possible with the help of cilia (little “hairs”) that contract, and move the egg into the uterus. Since the egg has to shed off the zona pellucida, it can now implant itself into the inner lining of the uterus called the _endometrium_. The microvilli on the surface of the trophoblast cells will adhere to the epithelial cells of the uterus through glycoproteins. Once they adhere, the fertilized egg and uterine lining can no longer be flushed out during the menstrual cycle.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Catholic American Taliban


Sorry you hate competent, literate members of the Supreme Court, you daft ****.

But not sorry.





NotfooledbyW said:


> packing


LOL.

Can you use ANY words or concepts correctly?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> So you lied when you tried to label Trump and his followers the same as Hitler and his followers.


No you are ignoring everything I explained  in #5,086  and you are lying now that you read it. I neVer  wrote that Hitler and Trump / Nazis and MAGA are the same.  They are both authoritarian. NAZI’s achieved full blown evil destruction government fascism .MAGA failed once but remain a threat to become full blown fascist if not stopped again, 



Trump said he would Pardon this NAZI who attacked the Capitol for TRUMP on JAN6.

 Tim Cusanelli,







a Jan6 rioter

Are you ok with that?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> For your education / idiot:


No, what we have here, retard, is the distinction between an expert in the field - myself - and a very stupid layman using dumbed down language for laymen and relying on quoting websites as opposed to having HAD an education.

Your own quoted text contradicts itself and proves why “egg” is a misnomer.  Which, personally, is not something I look for in a source when making an argument, but you are  mentally (and possibly in many other ways) retarded, so this may explain the discrepancy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> expert in the field - myself -


CONGRATULATIONS You are AN ARROGANT EXPERT ASSHOLE.  we all can’t be experts in everything -  the fertilized egg makes it to the lining of the uterus in two stages / the zygote and the blastocyst where it is hatched.

Yes it’s ok for we lay people to say hatched as expressed on pro-life websites.

Passage to the Uterine Wall​It takes about seven days for the blastocyst to find its way to the mammalian womb. Some drastic steps are taken in making this journey. Once a sperm enters an egg, a tough membrane called the _zona pellucida_forms around it that is impenetrable to other sperm. This is a protective mechanism against multiple sperms penetrating it. For reference, for any female egg there are between 40 million to 1.2 billion sperm cells competing for it in a single ejaculation. While this shield is helpful, it is not compatible with the growth of the new embryo. Therefore, the egg sheds off the zona pellucida between days five and seven as it begins to differentiate. This starts a rearrangement of cells on the outside and inside of the egg, and the eventual blastocyst forms.


The official name for the process that forms the internal cavity of the blastocyst is cavitation. The fluid is pushed inward by the outer cell layer, and junctions between the cells are formed to pull the cells together to keep the fluid inside the cavity. The trophoblast forms right under the zona pellucida. As its Greek roots imply, the trophoblast layer will “nourish” the growing embryo when it becomes the placenta. Meanwhile, the zona pellucida begins to break down. The growth and division of the blastula stretch and contract the rigid zona pellucida. *This is when a sort of “mini birth” occurs. The zona pellucida will split on the side opposite the embryonic pole and “hatch,” or release, the blastocyst.* Upon hatching at the end of day five, the blastocyst is ready to find its new place.  END2209050955


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> our own quoted text contradicts itself and proves why “egg” is a misnomer


NFBW: Where? Now that we know you are some kind of infallible expert on the millions of fertilized women’s eggs that you demand belong to you, you need to be more specific when you file a complaint against me. END22091008


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> the fertilized egg makes it to the lining of the uterus in two stages


There is no such thing in humans, so it cannot “make it to the uterus” or do anything else.

The blastocyst is not an “egg.”

The egg cell was a thing but is gone after fertilization.  By the time implantation is possible it is long since gone.

The funniest thing about this is that in the depths of your stupidity, having bypassed the actual endpoint for the egg cell and calling a blastocyst an “egg,” you have no reasonable cut-off point for ceasing to call the Homo sapiens an “egg.”  By your retarded metric, you must think everyone is still an “egg.”  Oh, to be as stupid as you… how awful it must be.  Pitiable wretch.

 I think it is possible that your mental handicap is entirely purposeful and vindictive, that your ideology and fundamental dishonesty have rendered yourself functionally brain damaged beneath sapience.

Nevertheless as you stand corrected and vindictively reject scientific fact and reality, the exact origins of this deficiency on your part matter less than the fact that you continue to spew this noxious stupidity.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> millions of fertilized women’s eggs


Zero exist.

Zero is the maximum number that could ever exist.

2 million or more is much larger than zero, retard.

Shut up already.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW:  Do yiu consider your expertise CarsomyrPlusSix to be on a par with Scott Gilbert, the Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology emeritus at Swarthmore College, is the author of the standard textbook of developmental biology.

If so what are your works?





A human fetus at six to seven weeks of gestation. lunarcaustic via Flickr, CC BY
Several possible options​Scott Gilbert, the Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology emeritus at Swarthmore College, is the author of the standard textbook of developmental biology. He has identified as many as five developmental stages that, from a biological perspective, are all plausible beginning points for human life. Biology, as science knows it now, can tell these stages apart, but cannot determine at which one of these stages life begins.

The first of these stages is fertilization in the egg duct, when a zygote is formed with the full human genetic material. But almost every cell in everyone’s body contains that person’s complete DNA sequence. If genetic material alone makes a potential human being, then when we shed skin cells – as we do all the time – we are severing potential human beings.

The second plausible stage is called gastrulation, which happens about two weeks after fertilization. At that point, the embryo loses the ability to form identical twins – or triplets or more. The embryo therefore becomes a biological individual but not necessarily a human individual.

The third possible stage is at 24 to 27 weeks of pregnancy, when the characteristic human-specific brain-wave pattern emerges in the fetus’s brain. Disappearance of this pattern is part of the legal standard for human death; by symmetry, perhaps its appearance could be taken to mark the beginning of human life.

The fourth possible stage, which is the one endorsed in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the United States, is viability, when a fetus typically becomes viable outside the uterus with the help of available medical technology. With the technology that we have today, that stage is reached at about 24 weeks.

The final possibility is birth itself.









						Defining when human life begins is not a question science can answer – it's a question of politics and ethical values
					

Some people seeking to influence public opinion about abortion rights claim the science is clear. It’s not, and that means abortion remains a political question – not a biological one.




					theconversation.com
				




The overall point is that biology does not determine when human life begins. It is a question that can only be answered by appealing to our values, examining what we take to be human.

Perhaps biologists of the future will learn more. Until then, when human life begins during fetal developments is a question for philosophers and theologians. And policies based on an answer to that question will remain up to politicians – and judges.
This is an updated version of an article originally published Sept. 1, 2021.

Philosophy
Politics
Biology
Pregnancy
Abortion
Science
Roe v Wade
Fetal development
US Supreme Court
Abortion rights
human embryos
Life
right to life
Fetus
human development
Conception
Fertilization
Women's right to choose
Abortion restrictions
US abortion law
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Dobbs v. Jackson
END2209051025


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW:  Do yiu consider your expertise CarsomyrPlusSix to be on a par with Scott Gilbert,


Par?

No, he is clearly inferior to me, as he does not know the textbook scientific fact that life begins at fertilization.

Anyone who passes Bio101 is more educated than this fool.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No, he is clearly inferior to me, as he does not know the textbook scientific fact that life begins at fertilization.


What makes you think he does not know that life begins at fertilization because that is obvious and there is no dispute that the fertilized egg and the unfertilized egg are in the basic biological sense as being alive. The position that most biologists do not take is that personhood begins at conception.

Do you accept the science that the human specific electroencephalogram pattern is detected about week 24 to 28 after conception and it marks the physiological beginnings of consciousness.?  END2209051123


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The egg cell was a thing but is gone after fertilization.


So when the egg cell “thing” disappears because it’s been fertilized, so whatever it becomes does not have a brain, does it? if a lay person refers to the glop of cells that become part of the uterus as a fertilized egg what is the difference, a zygote, a blastocyst , an embryo does not have a brain.  Yet you want me to believe that a brainless thing is a human being and a person. . You are being absurd.,


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> No you are ignoring everything I explained  in #5,086  and you are lying now that you read it. I neVer  wrote that Hitler and Trump / Nazis and MAGA are the same.  They are both authoritarian. NAZI’s achieved full blown evil destruction government fascism .MAGA failed once but remain a threat to become full blown fascist if not stopped again,
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said he would Pardon this NAZI who attacked the Capitol for TRUMP on JAN6.
> 
> Tim Cusanelli,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a Jan6 rioter
> 
> Are you ok with that?


Lying some more eh ? Is that all you have is spin and lie's in hopes to fortify your positions taken ??


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> So when the egg cell “thing” disappears because it’s been fertilized, so whatever it becomes does not have a brain, does it? if a lay person refers to the glop of cells that become part of the uterus as a fertilized egg what is the difference, a zygote, a blastocyst , an embryo does not have a brain.  Yet you want me to believe that a brainless thing is a human being and a person. . You are being absurd.,


It is a human being, as it will develope into nothing other than a human being during the developmental stages. If you kill the process, therefore killing the human, then you have killed the human being in process.


----------



## Flash

NotfooledbyW said:


> For your education / idiot:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is a Zygote?
> 
> 
> A zygote is formed when a sperm fertilizes an egg. The single-celled zygote soon becomes an embryo. Learn more about this early stage of pregnancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.verywellfamily.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Is a Zygote?​A zygote, also known as a fertilized ovum *or fertilized egg*, is the union of a sperm cell and an egg cell. The zygote begins as a single cell but divides rapidly in the days following fertilization. The zygote’s single cell contains all of the 46 necessary chromosomes, getting 23 from the sperm and 23 from the egg.
> 
> The zygote phase is brief, lasting only about four days. Around the fifth day, the mass of cells becomes known as a blastocyst. The embryo develops from the blastocyst.
> How Zygotes Form​In order for reproduction to take place, a single sperm cell must penetrate the outer surface of an egg in a process known as fertilization. During a healthy reproductive cycle, a single egg cell is released from the follicle into the fallopian tube at ovulation.
> 
> If sperm are present, thousands will attempt to penetrate this single egg cell. Once a single sperm has broken through the outer surface, a zygote is formed. Chemical changes in the surface of the egg prevent other sperm from entering.1
> 
> 
> When a Zygote Becomes an Embryo​Zygotes divide through a process known as mitosis, in which each cell doubles (one cell becomes two, two becomes four, and so on). This two-week stage is known as the germinal period of development and covers the time of fertilization (also called conception) to the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterus.
> 
> 
> The sperm cell contains paternal genetic information while the egg cell contains maternal genetic information. Because each cell contains half of the genetic material, each cell is known as a haploid cell. When these two haploid cells join, they form a single diploid cell that contains all necessary chromosomes.
> 
> 
> The zygote then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus. As it travels, its cells rapidly divide and it becomes a blastocyst. Once in the uterus, the blastocyst must implant in the lining in order to obtain the nourishment it needs to grow and survive.
> 
> 
> The embryonic period of development lasts from two weeks after conception through the eighth week, during which time the organism is known as an embryo.1 At the ninth week post-conception, the fetal period begins. From this point until birth, the organism is known as a fetus.
> 
> 
> A Note About Conception​Conception occurs when an egg is fertilized, but pregnancy does not actually begin until a blastocyst implants into the uterus. It’s not usually possible to know whether fertilization has occurred at this early stage, considered week 3 of pregnancy. Symptoms and pregnancy hormone levels are usually not notable until week 4 or 5.
> Zygotes in Twinning​Identical twins are monozygotic. With monozygotic twins, one egg is fertilized and one zygote is formed, but at the blastocyst phase, it splits to form two embryos. Monozygotic twins share the same genetic material.
> 
> 
> Fraternal twins, on the other hand, are dizygotic, which means that two eggs are fertilized resulting in two zygotes. Those two zygotes go on to develop into two embryos. Unlike monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins do not share identical genes.
> 
> 
> 
> Potential Challenges​Not all zygotes make it to the next stage of prenatal development. Researchers estimate that 30% to 70% of all naturally occurring conceptions fail either before or at the time of implantation. Researchers suspect these losses are connected to abnormalities. In cases of recurrent miscarriage, a parental chromosomal anomaly is often to blame.3


You dumbass Libtards don't know any more about Biology than you know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.

By the time a woman finds out she is pregnant the child is long pass the zygote stage of development.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

> Flash220905-#5,102 “By the time a woman finds out she is pregnant the child is long pass the zygote stage of development.


When a woman finds out she is pregnant who does not want to be pregnant it is
because the active and living cell dividing process that began with the fertilization of her egg by at least one sperm cell from her partner and that fertilized egg has implanted itself into the lining of her uterus.

When you refer to that brainless heartless biological process as a child you have left the realm of biological science. I wonder Flash  why picky assed CarsomyrPlusSix does not call you out for your ignorance from expert biologist’s point of view..Perhaps he appreciates your reverence for the Confederate Flag and the traitors to the Constitution who flew it. END2209060611


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> and that fertilized egg has implanted itself


Shut the fuck up already, brainless troll.

Homo sapiens in the blastocyst stage of life are not “eggs.” You know this yet you keep saying it just to be a stupid asshole.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

> beagle9220906-#5,101 “It is a human being, as it will develop into nothing other than a human being during the developmental stages. If you kill the process, therefore killing the human, then you have killed the human being in process.”


NFBW: Does the “earliest development process” have it’s own exceptional human brain ( beagle9 CarsomyrPlusSix or Flash the Confederate holy warrior ) that is managing the functionality and success rate of the process?  Do you agree that the process begins as one fertilized egg that has the capacity to grow itself by DNA structured cell division that is programmed and organized by a new DNA code when and if certain biological conditions are provided . Those conditions include a viable human being with a uterus and a brain able to provide nourishment, oxygenated blood and removal of waste. END2209060652


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Homo sapiens in the blastocyst stage of life are not “eggs.”



NFBW It is not a  “baby” or “child”  yet you do not object to usage of those terms during this discussion..

It is a development process” that does not have it’s own exceptional human brain that is managing the functionality and success rate of the process?  So whether it’s called a fertilized egg cell, a zygote, a blastocyst  or an embryo or a fetus there is a relatively long period of weeks when it does not have its own brain or separate individual detectable brain waves

Do you agree CarsomyrPlusSix that the pregnancy process begins as one fertilized egg that has the capacity to grow itself by DNA structured cell division that is programmed and organized by a new DNA code when and if certain biological conditions are provided . Those conditions include a viable human being with a uterus and a brain able to provide nourishment, oxygenated blood and removal of waste. END2209060714


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Homo sapiens in the blastocyst stage of life are not “eggs.”



NFBW: Bullshit! You are a liar. A MAGA pro-Trump judge, anti-woman LIAR.

The blastocyst is the final stage of a fertilized egg cell splitting process that “hatches” in the uterus.









						Blastocyst: Definition, Stage & Implantation
					

A blastocyst is an early-stage embryo. It’s an important part of the process that leads to pregnancy. Blastocysts implant in the endometrium.




					my.clevelandclinic.org
				


​The blastocyst stage of a fertilized egg is especially important for in vitro fertilization (IVF).​​A blastocyst is a ball of cells that forms early in a pregnancy, about five to six days after a sperm fertilizes an egg. It implants in your uterine wall, eventually becoming the embryo and then the fetus.​​The blastocyst stage is an extremely important part of embryonic and fetal development. If the blastocyst doesn’t implant in the person's endometrium, pregnancy will not occur.​​For implantation to occur, hormones trigger a process called hatching. *The blastocyst sheds its clear outer membrane. Hatching occurs one to three days after a blastocyst enters their uterus.*​​NFBW: definition of hatch; to bring forth from the egg.  The embryo is brought forth fro the blastocyst cluster of cells girmed as  an egg,   END2209060941


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> the blastocyst stage of life are not “eggs.”



bullshit - You are no highly educated biologist - You are a typical deplorable MAGALIAR.

Shafei RA, Syrkasheva AG, Romanov AY, Makarova NP, Dolgushina NV, Semenova ML. [Blastocyst Hatching in Humans]. Ontogenez. 2017 Jan-Feb;48(1):8-20. Russian. PMID: 30272915.​​Abstract   The human oocyte is surrounded by the zona pellucida—an elastic, transparent extracellular matrix consisting of specific glycoproteins. *The zona pellucida is preserved after fertilization and surrounds the developing human embryo for a few days. *The *embryo needs to get out of the zona pellucida before implantation *to establish cell contacts between the trophectoderm and endometrial epithelium. *The release of the embryo from the zona pellucida is carried out at the stage of the blastocyst and called zona hatching. *​​*During zona hatching the blastocyst breaks the zona pellucida and performs active movements to escape *through a gap formed in the zona. While microscopic description of zone hatching is well known, biochemical and cytological basis of zone hatching remains poorly understood. The break of the zona pellucida occurs under the influence of two forces: mechanical pressure of the growing blastocyst on the zone and chemical dissolution of the zone material with secreted lytic enzymes. There is only one paper (Sathananthan et al., 2003), which describes the specialized cells in the trophectoderm that locally dissolve the zona pellucida, promoting the emergence of the hole for blastocyst release. Taking into account the singleness of the paper and the absence of further development of this subject by the authors in the following decade, the existence of specialized cells for zone hatching should be assumed with great care. Lytic enzymes, secreted by cells of the trophectoderm for dissolving the zona pellucida, are different. Depending on the species of the mammal, different classes of proteases participate in the zone hatching process: serine proteases, cysteine proteases, metalloproteinases. Proteases, secreted by human trophectoderm, are not described. The mechanisms of the active movement during blastocyst hatching are investigated to a lesser degree. Only the involvement of the cytoskeleton of trophectoderm cells in the mechanism of blastocyst compression was shown, and the participation of desmosomes in the coordinated change in the form of trophectoderm cells during compression is suggested. This review summarizes literature data on the possible mechanisms of zone hatching in the development of human embryos, obtained in experiments in vitro, as well as in animal models.  [Blastocyst Hatching in Humans] - PubMed​What does a hatching blastocyst look like?​





EGGS HATCH YOU DUMBASS    END2209061022


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Bullshit! You are a liar. A MAGA pro-Trump judge, anti-woman LIAR.


Fuck yourself with a rusty pole, retarded filth.




NotfooledbyW said:


> The blastocyst is the final stage of a fertilized egg cell splitting process that “hatches” in the uterus.


*Objectively false!  *Pure bad faith.  You are a _disgusting _moronic troll.

You know nothing about Biology and your layman attempts are doomed to failure from both a lack of effort and being wildly mentally deficient.

Rusty pole.

Now what else... oh Jesus Haploid Christ.... really?  REALLY?!

THE ZONA PELLUCIDA IS NOT AN _EGGSHELL_, _DUMBASS_.

*JAGGED *RUSTY POLE.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> THE ZONA PELLUCIDA IS NOT AN _EGGSHELL_,


Didn’t say it was you deplorable MAGA liar fake biologist. All fertilized eggs hatch at some point when whatever type of protective layer where the being inside has to get out. It is not a hardened shell like a chicken egg in humans. It is a temporary soft clear outer membrane that protects the human fertilized egg until implantation into the wall of the uterus. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> *The blastocyst sheds its clear outer membrane. Hatching occurs one to three days after a blastocyst enters their uterus.*


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Didn’t say it was you deplorable MAGA liar fake biologist.


Shut the fuck up, you lying piece of shit.

You literally just did.

Jagged. Rusty. Pole.



NotfooledbyW said:


> All fertilized eggs hatch


We are not chickens, you pathetically stupid fuck.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> We are not chickens, you pathetically stupid fuck.


NFBW:  EXACTLY, We are not chickens,  but we spend several days in an egg until hatched. We have to. Just like the chicken the human fertilized egg  contains essential chemicals for the oocyte/developing embryo to survive before being attached to its mother and becoming part of the breathing eating drinking thinking peeing pooping anatomical system that is made up of thirty trillion cells and has at least about 12 years experience and conscious of the universe we all live in.

The human oocyte is surrounded by the zona pellucida—an elastic, transparent extracellular matrix consisting of specific glycoproteins. *The zona pellucida is preserved after fertilization and surrounds the developing human embryo for a few days. *The *embryo needs to get out of the zona pellucida before implantation *to establish cell contacts between the trophectoderm and endometrial epithelium. *The release of the embryo from the zona pellucida is carried out at the stage of the blastocyst and called zona hatching.*​​*END2209061223*​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You literally just did.


I NEVER SAID the zona pellucida is an eggshell like the eggshell of a chicken.  You are a liar,


----------



## GreenBean

TemplarKormac said:


> Exists before conception, during pregnancy, and after birth.
> 
> Abortion is a woman who willingly had unprotected sex acknowledging they 1) acted irresponsibly in the first place, and 2) would shirk the responsibility if forced to follow through with their pregnancy.
> 
> The simplest thing you can ask a man and a woman to do is to weigh the consequences of their actions.
> 
> Condoms, contraceptives. Everything is there to help prevent a pregnancy from ever happening.


Any Port In A Storm was my mantra as a horny young man.  The majority of 'love-sick' stiff dicks with raging hormones most likely share the same blind drive. You can ask a man and / or woman to " weigh the consequences of their actions"  but in most cases it will fall on deaf ears - instinct rules.  The female drive differs and the burden of  contraception generally lies there


----------



## GreenBean

Flash said:


> You dumbass Libtards don't know any more about Biology than you know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.
> 
> By the time a woman finds out she is pregnant the child is long pass the zygote stage of development.


They parrot the same ruse en masse - "follow the science"  but they also en masse lack scientific objectivity 

Scientific objectivity is a attribute which should NEVER be, influenced by  value judgments, political bias ,  personal interests and so on. Without objectivity scientific data is useless at worst suspect at least - I've yet to see a libtard scientist, researcher  or wanna be endorse ANY theory or data that does not support their warped libtard bias


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Sanctimonious Authoritarian Cry Babies "

* Blast Zone **


beagle9 said:


> It is a human being, as it will develope into nothing other than a human being during the developmental stages. If you kill the process, therefore killing the human, then you have killed the human being in process.


Don't get down range mo fo .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220914-#932    “Somebody is having a hissy fit because Roe v Wade got overturned.”

NFBW: ding is the science guy when it comes to when human life begins.

ding210222-#4  “Modern science was born in the Catholic Church” the   . . . . The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life”

Ding220813-#4,765       “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny;   Human beings begin at conception.”     Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D.

NFBW: Poor thing ding has no response to my fundamental agreement with Dr Shettles there.

Entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view on the value of earliest stages of human life there are universally accepted scientific methods that indicates that human embryos from the one-cell sperm and egg fusion stage forward are indeed alive and developing individuals of the human species and that science should not be in dispute.

NFBW: Not sure what ding considers to be a hissy fit but I wouid rather hear his answer to the following questions.

Back to Lindsay Graham. Scientific minds tell us biological life begins in one cell at conception. The Senator places no value on that new individual cell until it develops for fifteen weeks. Therefore the Lindsay Graham Abortion Law (LGAL)  grants a window of opportunity for a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy as a matter of her personal choice. 



Either a one cell fertilized human egg has the same value at the instant of conception and all the way to fifteen weeks or it doesn’t..



(1) Why the 15 week ban if the value of human life is not present at conception?



(2)   - why not 24 weeks when a fetus might be consistently viable outside the womb as has been precedent for fifty years? 



(3) Why can Republicans like Graham defy science and be pro-life, but Democrats and most pro-choice Americans are to be called Baby Killers for ignoring the same “conception” science but using “viability” science and placing value on fetus life at 24 to 28 weeks?

END2209142043


----------



## ding




----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


>


NFBW: Pretty much sums up the disarray  and speechlessness the GOP has thankfully fallen into since Dobbs. The CATHOLIC dominated SCOTUS could not overturn the importance and legitimacy of ROE v WADE nationwide plus political buffoons like Lindsay Graham wanting to nationalize white Christian opposition to abortion at 15 weeks by allowing babies to be “murdered” just for a shorter official period of time than the fifty years of precedent based on actual viability allows. END2209142159


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> It is a human being, as it will develope into nothing other than a human being during the developmental stages.


Here is my opinion on the matter: 

Entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view on the value of earliest stages of human life there are universally accepted scientific methods that indicates that human embryos from the one-cell sperm and egg fusion stage forward are indeed alive and developing individuals of the human species and that science should not be in dispute.

Why do you disagree with that?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> SCOTUS could not overturn the importance and legitimacy of ROE v WADE


It never had any “legitimacy.”

It certainly was an “important” note in government overreach and tyranny, but now it’s consigned to the dustbin of history.

Get fucked.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> It certainly was an “important” note in government overreach and tyranny,



NFBW: Roe v Wade was bipartisan government fundamental law underreach that became fifty years of settled law guaranteeing freedom of choice regarding reproductive rights for millions of woman. The ruling suppressed the abject historic tyranny of the white-centric, male-centric Protestant Catholic merger of rightwing ultra -conservative Christian religionists who are wealthy and powerful and single-mindedly opposed to the founding freedom of and from religion principle of separation of church and state..

The Catholic packed Supreme Court by Trump, the Federalist Society and other dark political money overreached big time with Dobbs in the worst political season and the entire white right political Christian Trumpism & Ginny Thimas wing of conservatism is dazed and confused and off course that is  hopefully on the verge of crashing on the rock of political reality.

thus we get posts like this:



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Get fucked.



END2209150207


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Roe v Wade was bipartisan government fundamental law underreach


It was tyrannical assumption of federal power by a group of corrupt men in robes who abandoned their duty to uphold the Constitution.



NotfooledbyW said:


> freedom of choice


Lie, abortion has nothing to with freedom of choice.

You scum just want needless violence and death.



NotfooledbyW said:


> regarding reproductive rights


Please put these fictional "rights" in quotation marks, as they have never existed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Trump You scum just want needless violence and death.



NFBW: Are you good with and supportive of needless violence and death up to fifteen weeks after gestation as proposed by South Carolina ‘s Trump minnie-me, US Senator.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has introduced a bill to create a federal ban on abortions *at 15 weeks* in an attempt to force Republicans to adopt a partywide consensus on the issue.​
END2209150255


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Lie, abortion has nothing to with freedom of choice.


NFBW: abortion is an optional medical procedure that is available to every woman who regards her private health decisions including early terminating an unwanted pregnancy to be a matter of privacy and bodily autonomy in accordance with her right to life, liberty and freedom from harm  which no state shall abridge.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Please put these fictional "rights" in quotation marks, as they have never existed.


NFBW: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property*, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

END2209150743


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: abortion is an optional medical procedure



Stop lying, retard.  Contract killing is not “medicine,” it is just maliciously inflicting the harm of death on a third party for money.


NotfooledbyW said:


> private health decisions


Completely irrelevant non sequitur, retard.



NotfooledbyW said:


> bodily autonomy


Not a right.  Not a relevant or recognized concept in the United States.



NotfooledbyW said:


> in accordance with her right to life, liberty and freedom from harm which no state shall abridge.


You do not and cannot have the right to kill other human beings in cold blood, filth. 

The right to life is not enumerated as a constitutional right.  It should be, despite being obvious, as it would shut down your hateful and stupid mewling once and for all.



NotfooledbyW said:


> “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property*, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


Well then, self-immolating retard, the unborn are being killed without due process, so I guess your “interpretation” from illiteracy insists that abortion be banned.

I agree with you - the thing you said accidentally which defeats yourself utterly anyway - in spirit, little buddy, but the 5th doesn’t make abortion illegal already, just like how it didn’t make slavery illegal.  

We need a another new amendment.  We can use the 13th as a template, nice and simple.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Contract killing is not “medicine,” it is just maliciously inflicting the harm of death on a third party for money.



NFBW: Please put your fictional "third party” in quotation marks, as no such person exists or is mentioned as a protected citizen that can be harmed or put to death within the US Constitution. Perhaps ding knows where it’s written.   END2209150804


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Please put your fictional "third party” in quotation marks


I’m sorry you are this hateful and stupid, bigoted Nazi-adjacent filth, but your hate has no basis in reality and I will not indulge your delusions.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix-#5,126 “Contract killing is not “medicine,” it is just maliciously inflicting the harm of death on a third party for money.”

Ray_from_Cleveland220905-#764     “Are you going to deny that your party is the party of baby killers?”

Ray_from_Cleveland220907-#797    “The Dobbs ruling simply stated there was no constitutional protection for abortions, and I totally agree with that.”

NFBW: Weird thing CarsomyrPlusSix is that Ray From Cleveland is pro-choice  except for late term just prior to actual birth?

NFBW220908-#844   The states are falsely granted by SCOTUS the authority to assign constitutional personhood rights, by means of banning a medical procedure, to preserve a non-existent right to a one cell fertilizated egg that begins to divide cells and grow inside a fallopian tube inside a woman’s body without their being any reference to such reproductive rights for a fertilized egg mentioned in the Constitution.

A woman has a natural right to privacy with no government intrusion and or interference in her sexual and reproductive behavior in the privacy of her home.,

Yet you argue that reproductive privacy rights for a woman do not exist if it’s not written in the Constitution, and then you turn right around and tell me that states have the authority to ban the medical procedure of abortion to protect the individual personhood right to life of a one-celled fertilized egg the split fucking second that a sperm cell breaks to through the outer wall of an egg cell in a Fallopian tube and the biological reproductive process called pregnancy begins. 

There is nothing in the Constitution @Ray From Cleveland regarding protection of civil and human right to the continued growth and development of a human egg cell that becomes fertilized.

P Why do you make one argument against the 30 trillion cell woman because her right to termibate a pregnancy is not directly written in the Constitution, and then you make a second argument in favor of one fertilized egg cell being considered a human being and an individual person that is to be protected from a woman who does not plan to continue her unwanted pregnancy and seeks to legally and safely terminate it? 

The second argument is not written in the Constitution either, but you agree with SCOTUS that the state government can grant personhood rights to a fertilized one cell egg and deny a woman her privacy right and natural right to control the health well being and pursuit of happiness within her own body. 

Why Ray, is a one cell fertilized egg allowed to become basically a fully viable born human being 28 to 40 weeks before they actually are developed sufficiently to actually be one? END2209080746

NFBW: The above response applies to you as well CarsomyrPlusSix since both you and Ray From Cleveland make the same error granting personhood to a one-celled fertilized egg that is not covered in the US Constitution and never will be.

END2209150836


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

I see you’re still so insipidly retarded as to continue to call human beings “eggs.”

Just make your figurative self-immolation literal at this point.  You would be more useful and more intelligent as ashes.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I’m sorry you are this hateful and stupid, bigoted Nazi-adjacent filth, but your hate has no basis in reality and I will not indulge your delusions.





NotfooledbyW said:


> Please put your fictional "third party” in quotation marks, as no such person exists or is mentioned as a protected citizen that can be harmed or put to death within the US Constitution.


NFBW: I’m sorry you can’t put your fictional "third party” in quotation marks if it causes you to spew right wing hate and then run like a chicken with its head cut off  - Say high to ding as you run away together dazed and confused.  Perhaps ClaireH is not so fearful  - We shall see  END2209150854


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> see you’re still so insipidly retarded as to continue to call human beings “eggs.”


I have never called a human being an egg. You are a liar. Pathetic sick desperate liar


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> I have never called a human being an egg. You are a liar. Pathetic sick desperate liar


Do note that “more useful” is not useful.  Neither you nor your worse-than-waste remains have utility in any form and should not be allowed poison the Earth or hurt humanity after you are gone.  

Your radical absolute stupid might somehow infect others and should be contained in something like a Kryptonian phantom zone until such time as such a dangerous evil could be destroyed outright.

Meanwhile you and anyone else can note that lying about your own quoted and quotable words is just pathetic dishonest trolling.  I assume this is part of your trolling schtick, to blatantly lie about what you literally just said, bad faith, it’s called gaslighting.

It doesn’t work on those who are wise to your bullshit though.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I see you’re still so insipidly retarded as to continue to call human beings “eggs.”



NFBW: A one celled egg that is fused with a sperm cell is not a human being

Here is what I wrote that promoted your “running away” desperate lie.

The above response applies to you as well CarsomyrPlusSix since both you and Ray From Cleveland make the same error granting personhood *to a one-celled fertilized egg *that is not covered in the US Constitution and never will be.​​NFBW: There is a critical stage in every pregnancy when the one cell human egg is fused with a human sperm and has not split or begun the process of cell division, 

You and ding and Ray From Cleveland and ClaireH are assigning Constitutional personhood to that one cell fertilized egg the instant it happens - are you all not?

END2209150922


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: A one celled egg that is fused with a sperm cell is not a human being


If the fusion has occurred, there is no egg cell and there is no sperm cell, yes, that _human being_ in the zygote stage of life is a _human being_, you drooling imbecile.  He or she isn’t some other species when his or her parents are likewise _human beings._

This has been explained well beyond ad nauseum.

But you can go ahead and think of yourself as an “egg,” retard.  

What you think doesn’t align with reality on anything else and couldn’t matter less anyway.


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: A one celled egg that is fused with a sperm cell is not a human being
> 
> Here is what I wrote that promoted your “running away” desperate lie.
> 
> The above response applies to you as well CarsomyrPlusSix since both you and Ray From Cleveland make the same error granting personhood *to a one-celled fertilized egg *that is not covered in the US Constitution and never will be.​​NFBW: There is a critical stage in every pregnancy when the one cell human egg is fused with a human sperm and has not split or begun the process of cell division,
> 
> You and ding and Ray From Cleveland and ClaireH are assigning Constitutional personhood to that one cell fertilized egg the instant it happens - are you all not?
> 
> END2209150922


Why is a murder suspect charged with two crimes, two separate charges, when he or she murders a pregnant woman? Let’s start there for any attempt at an honest discussion. 

Do not try to mislead readers with your posturing that lacks reality. I am not here to waste anyone’s time, how about your motive? 

When the time comes that technology proves that a murder victim was indeed pregnant during her first trimester, there will continue to be 2 separate criminal charges.

By that time however, abortion will not even be a discussion other than a thing of the past. Currently, there is no need for an abortion within the US as a birth control measure. The uninformed will eventually become informed regarding solutions such as Plan B (not to be confused with the “abortion pill-2 different things with Plan B used as directed prior to fertilizeration-available without a prescription and no parental permission is required and available at all chain drug stores within the US). 

The abortion issue will be outdated with public release of new preventative measures. It still pays off, unfortunately, for politicians to play in to arguing the issue to obtain votes. 

Voters in general need to read more to keep abreast of new technology and other helpful information and it’s a shame more do not. As most readers know it’s so easy to to obtain scientific research info… all current studies available in a daily email/inbox format. All it takes is signing up- most orgs  at no charge or with a limit of 5 to 6 articles monthly. More voters will eventually rely on their own research of primary documents and not use some middleman spewing half truths/half propaganda. Time will tell of course.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> Why is a murder suspect charged with two crimes, two separate charges, when he or she murders a pregnant woman?


NFBW: that’s simple. I do not advocate freedom of choice for a non-pregnant individual to terminate another person’s pregnancy because it cannot be that individual’s decision to put an end to a potential human bring’s life. Freedom of choice apologies ONLY to a pregnant person. 

And when a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy she chooses a licensed doctor to safely perform it. When an individual attacks and kills her unborn it is not an elective medical procedure - it is murder of a human being if the woman dies and it is murder of an unborn potential human being when a person causes a pregnant woman to miscarry or cause a premature birth that end in death.  END2209151528


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> The abortion issue will be outdated with public release of new preventative measures.


Go for it. I have stated that I oppose abortion and after my second kid - I got snipped because as a man I thought I should take responsibility and not put the burden in my wife. But for all the woman out there unrelated to me in any way - what they do with their health and  their bodies is not my business nor is it the business of any church or state. 

But I will love  to see the day when woman won’t need to ever have to decide to terminate an unwanted pregnancy ever again  . . , but it’s not here yet. Until such time get your nose and state officials creepy laws out of every fertile woman’s uterus. It’s none of your business.


----------



## Blaster

NotfooledbyW said:


> But I will live to see the day when woman won’t need to ever have to decide to terminate an unwanted pregnancy . . , but it’s not here yet. Until such time get your nose and state officials out of every fertile woman’s uterus


Birth control pills are effective and affordable.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Blaster said:


> Birth control pills are effective and affordable.


GREAT - end abortion by making sure every fertile female have them when they need them.and all are safe to use.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> Currently, there is no need for an abortion within the US as a birth control measure.


NFBW: Why do you support the government being involved in a woman’s health decision then?


----------



## Blaster

NotfooledbyW said:


> GREAT - end abortion by making sure every fertile female have them when they need them.and all are safe to use.


Birth control pills are safe and effective.


----------



## Blaster

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Why do you support the government being involved in a woman’s health decision then?


I'm not and that is why SCOTUS should never have made Roe v Wade a law.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Blaster said:


> I'm not and that is why SCOTUS should never have made Roe v Wade a law.


Are you confused? The reason for Roe v Wade was to prevent state governments from making woman’s health decisions for them.


----------



## Blaster

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you confused? The reason for Roe v Wade was to prevent state governments from making woman’s health decisions for them.


So you'd rather have the federal government make those decisions.   You really are obtuse.


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> Go for it. I have stated that I oppose abortion and after my second kid - I got snipped because as a man I thought I should take responsibility and not put the burden in my wife. But for all the woman out there unrelated to me in any way - what they do with their health and  their bodies is not my business nor is it the business of any church or state.
> 
> But I will love  to see the day when woman won’t need to ever have to decide to terminate an unwanted pregnancy ever again  . . , but it’s not here yet. Until such time get your nose and state officials creepy laws out of every fertile woman’s uterus. It’s none of your business.


If you don't see the complete disconnect between your 2 statements: "I oppose abortion after my second kid" and "what they do with their health and their bodies" (which factually is incorrect in the most obvious way -the growing life is NOT the woman's life) there is little motivation for me to further respond. Spinning wheels and the like.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> there is little motivation for me to further respond


You make no sense as you run away. How do get clarification on what you just posted. I See no disconnect other than you may have misread the post you were responding to.

I oppose abortion in my personal life and that is why I had a vasectomy after my second kid.,


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> (which factually is incorrect in the most obvious way -the growing life is NOT the woman's life)



NFBW: Where do you get your facts? Jesus speak to you on this? ? Can the growing life harm the mother’s life in any way?

Can you personally guarantee to every woman that absolutely no pain or harm will come to her if she chooses not to terminate the growing life inside her and give birth to an unplanned child?

What makes you believe that your claim that the growing life is NOT the woman's life when the growing life cannot realistically survive on its own until 24 weeks of development have passed. 

I believe after 24 weeks the growing life still in the womb is no longer the woman’s life based on viability. Can you prove me wrong Ms “FACTUAL” ClaireH  ??? 

END2209152121


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Where do you get your facts?


Seems like from reality on the planet Earth where the science of Biology is a widely known thing.

You don’t live there.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> Added note: If you are trying to imply that a majority of Republic cans and conservatives back Graham’s leadership at this late date (his expiration date is up) you couldn’t be more wrong.


NFBW: I say what I think. I do not imply things. I think the majority of US Senate Republicans are dazed and confused by what Graham is trying to do. 

I’m more interested in why GRAHAM would go on National TV to declare the Republican Party accepts nationwide abortion being Legal through fifteen weeks? It is important because it shows Graham dies not accept anti-abortion scientific propaganda that life begins at conception. END2209152145


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> science of Biology


“the growing life is NOT the woman's life”

NFBW;  ClaireH says her expression, “the growing life is NOT the woman's life” is factual.

So what makes that emotional expression  of a belief “factual” CarsomyrPlusSix  ???

END2209152152


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> “the growing life is NOT the woman's life”
> 
> NFBW;  ClaireH says her expression, “the growing life is NOT the woman's life” is factual.


Yes, the young human being - who is the offspring of the mother - is not the mother.

This is obvious scientific fact, you delusional fuckwit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Yes, the young human being - who is the offspring of the mother - is not the mothe



NFBW: That is not what ClaireH was saying.

What forces you to lie so easily?

The growing life is NOT the mother is true.

“the growing life is NOT the woman's life” per ClaireH

“the growing life is NOT the woman's life“ is nonsense because the growing life can have no life scientifically prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy unless it has the woman’s life supporting it.

FACT: the young human being’s life is and is part of, and wholly dependent upon it’s mother’s life until it can be alive on its own when separated fully from it’s mother.,it is scientifically referred to as viability. 


END2209160325


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Blaster said:


> So you'd rather have the federal government make those decisions.


NFBW: No. You are embarrassingly confused  Blaster .

Roe vs Wade was a guarantee that became settled law for fifty years, that there is a lnatural and implicit right to privacy under the 14th Amendment when a women experiences an unwanted pregnancy she can choose to terminate her pregnancy by a legal and safe medical procedure known as abortion.

Roe  v Wade forbid Federal and State and local government from intervening in a woman’s private decisions she can make with regard to pregnancy.  END2209160401


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: That is not what ClaireH was saying.



Stop lying.


NotfooledbyW said:


> What forces you to lie so easily?


Stop projecting.



NotfooledbyW said:


> The growing life is NOT the mother is true.
> 
> “the growing life is NOT the woman's life”


There is no distinction to be had here, you consummate buffoon.



NotfooledbyW said:


> the growing life can have no life scientifically prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy


Objectively false, you fucking retard.  Open a science textbook.  Learn English first.

Life begins at fertilization.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Objectively false,



NFBW;,I am not wrong to point out that a fetus cannot survive without extreme physical impairment prior to 24 weeks of development within the womb without nutrients and oxygenated blood from it’s mother. You have confirmed CarsomyrPlusSix the truth of that in the following post:



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> They need some oxygen and nutrients from that blood, the addition of which the mother already naturally has the inclination to intake for their sake.



NFBW: AND I thank you when you manage albeit rarely to express  truth and facts in your post..

END2209160438


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Stop lying.


You rewrote what claire wrote? 

Why did you do that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> There is no distinction to be had here, you consummate buffoon.



Then why did you change it CarsomyrPlusSix from what ClaireH actually wrote in the first place?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Life begins at fertilization


NFBW: I agree as explained earlier. 

Entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view on the value of earliest stages of human life there are universally accepted scientific methods that indicates that human embryos from the one-cell sperm and egg fusion stage forward are indeed alive and developing individuals of the human species and that science should not be in dispute.​
NFBW: So what is your point CarsomyrPlusSix  ???


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW; Prior to the discovery of DNA When life began at quickening nothing has changed. Life begins at viability not a unique genetic code.
> 
> NFBW: Viability according to science determines when human life actually begins. It used to be 28 weeks now it is down to 24 weeks for preemies if parents have a spare $100k laying around to keep them alive
> 
> Even when receiving the most advanced treatment possible, the vulnerability of a 22-week preemie is acute. The skin is thinner than paper, the lungs may be three or more months away from being able to take in air on their own and the brain, which is still forming basic structures, bleeds easily.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion, Science and Post-Roe America
> 
> 
> Overturning Roe won't stop States from tying abortion access to fetal viability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​To develop properly, a preemie needs to bond to the mother through touch, smell and hearing—but enveloped in tubes inside a small pod with tightly controlled temperature and air, that's often impossible. "We can't jeopardize the infant's health or stability to allow for that bonding," says Dr. Katherine Kosiv, a pediatric cardiologist at Yale Medical School.​​The fact that exactly one preemie ever has been saved at 21 weeks doesn't lead many experts to predict that similar feats will become commonplace. It's hard to find any experts who think viability will be pushed down to 20 weeks in the foreseeable future, given the severe immaturity of virtually every organ and piece of tissue in a fetus that young. "There's definitely a kind of biological barrier below about 22 weeks, and it seems to be insurmountable by current technology," says Dr. John Wyatt, a neonatal physician and professor of ethics and perinatology at University College, London.​The Limits of Viability​These efforts require maintaining teams of experts, and the cost of caring for a single very-premature baby typically runs to more than $100,000, with a typical NICU handling 20 or more babies at once. Such advanced NICUs are beyond the reach of most hospitals. The huge variation in survival rates of extreme preemies among hospitals reflects the differences in that investment. The University of Alabama at Birmingham operates a NICU with a staff of 350, while many other hospitals have no NICU at all.​​It's no wonder. At 22 weeks, the brain has just barely formed the cortex—the part that confers higher thought—and the brain cells are only beginning to form the first of the 100 trillion connections they would normally make while still safe and comfortable in a quiet, dark womb.​
> *NFBW*: Your DNA argument is a religion driven bastardized interpretation of scientific data and discovery. END2208041158





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Objectively false, you fucking retard.


NFBW: See above: 24 weeks appears to be the earliest a fetus can survive being separated from its mother.  END2209160510


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Life begins at fertilization.


NFBW: Why does Lindsay Graham propose that valued human fetal life begins specifically after 15 weeks from fertilization which is nine weeks sooner than practical viability when separated from  it’s mother?  END 2209160550


----------



## Blaster

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No. You are embarrassingly confused  Blaster .
> 
> Roe vs Wade was a guarantee that became settled law for fifty years, that there is a lnatural and implicit right to privacy under the 14th Amendment when a women experiences an unwanted pregnancy she can choose to terminate her pregnancy by a legal and safe medical procedure known as abortion.
> 
> Roe  v Wade forbid Federal and State and local government from intervening in a woman’s private decisions she can make with regard to pregnancy.  END2209160401


Abortion was never a constitutional right.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW;,I am not wrong to point out that a fetus cannot survive without extreme physical impairment prior to 24 weeks of development within the womb without nutrients and oxygenated blood from it’s mother.


Irrelevant to the point at hand.  You are claiming they are _not alive_, you stupid fuck.  And now you’re going to lie and say you didn’t say that, because you’re a useless waste of time and a troll, but your words have plain meaning and you’re claiming they do not have a life that they are just part of their mother, presumably over your fucking retarded surfactant fetish.

And your stupid ass not only fisked like hell, you spread it out over countless replies, spamming me with your useless nonsense.

Nothing else you said was coherent or salient so that’s fine, nothing else needs quoting or reply.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You are claiming they are _not alive_,


NFBW: YOU CarsomyrPlusSix  ARE A LIAR - I affirm again and again that *prior to potential viability,* the fertilized egg and all subsequent growth is biologically alive.

A new life's biological beginning must make it to the wall of the uterus and be implanted to receive nourishment and oxygen from the mother.  it is alive with a new individual DNA when it makes the journey from the Fallopian tube where it was fertilized, to the wall of the uterus where it must become implanted to continue to live and grow. It is dependent upon the mother’s organism to make that journey. THE NEW LIFE cannot get to the uterus on its own. 

I believe that as a society that our moral obligations to the new life begins at 24 weeks when the new life is physically able to surive if separated from its mother..That is when a new life becomes legally one of us - viable living human beings.

END2209160947


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Irrelevant to the point at hand.


NFBW220816-#5,156 - “I am not wrong to point out that a fetus cannot survive without extreme physical impairment prior to 24 weeks of development within the womb without nutrients and oxygenated blood from it’s mother.”​
NFBW:  Your dishonesty is also exposed whenever you use the same trick that posters like ding and Correll use when they and you realize I am right .  you cry “irrelevant to the point”  -  The similarities are uncanny.  END2209161014


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> You make no sense as you run away. How do get clarification on what you just posted. I See no disconnect other than you may have misread the post you were responding to.
> 
> I oppose abortion in my personal life and that is why I had a vasectomy after my second kid.,


Why do you oppose abortion? This will be most telling and please tell the truth. I understand it was after your second child so why, what changed for you exactly?

Here’s a tip for you as well, your effort to goad people into responding to you by comments such as “as you run away” is immature (think grade school level) but you’re certainly not the only poster on this board who does it. I only call people out when it’s been directed at me, unless I see some type of ignorance that just can’t be left alone, as the actions and inactions of bystanders always matter. Feel
free to call me out any time I try to goad other posters into responding to my posts, in which btw comes off as a weakness and reduces your worth in the discussion. Thanks


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Blaster said:


> Abortion was never a constitutional right.


A woman’s right to vote was not an original Constitutional right. They had to fight to get it.,

The 14th Amendment covers a right to privacy for a woman getting a medical procedure when there is no harm to any other person involved. Roe v Wade provided settled law potecting women from governments abridgment from government intrusion into their reproductive privacy. Ii should not have been so recklessly undone to please a white conservative extremist religious minority as the Trump SCOTUS has done. END220916-1043


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: That is not what ClaireH was saying.
> 
> What forces you to lie so easily?
> 
> The growing life is NOT the mother is true.
> 
> “the growing life is NOT the woman's life” per ClaireH
> 
> “the growing life is NOT the woman's life“ is nonsense because the growing life can have no life scientifically prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy unless it has the woman’s life supporting it.
> 
> FACT: the young human being’s life is and is part of, and wholly dependent upon it’s mother’s life until it can be alive on its own when separated fully from it’s mother.,it is scientifically referred to as viability.
> 
> 
> END2209160325


Excuse me I would like to speak for myself Mr. -hold on what is your name again I’m on my phone I need to scroll -oh,not fooled by W lol are you fooled by X, how about Z?

That was exactly what I was saying the mother’s life is separate from the baby’s life. Please try to keep up and don’t ever speak for me again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> responding to you by comments such as “as you run away”


You dump your point, tell me you are right and Ibam wrong and sum it all up that you are gonna run away..

I don’t want you to run away before an honest discussion can run its course -


----------



## ClaireH

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Yes, the young human being - who is the offspring of the mother - is not the mother.
> 
> This is obvious scientific fact, you delusional fuckwit.


This poster is an obvious troll so I’m pretty much done because he has resorted to begging other posters to respond to him- a sure sign the discussion is over. NFBW needs to get a hat and be at least honest beggar lol 

Sorry to all honest and decent beggars who frequent this board. Leftists with blurred vision: I am not joking about homeless people in any shape or form so don’t try to change the meaning of my words or joke. It is only meant as a personal slam against that other poster and that is all lol


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> Why do you oppose abortion?


I do not support abortion in my personal life because as a secular humanist I believe *viable humans have an obligation to make the precious experience of human existence among all viable humans as perfect as possible.* When a man and women partake of the pleasure of sex without concern that the woman can get pregnant *falls short of seeking human perfection or enlightened existence as a common goal*. 

I am not responsible for what other people do when they fall short in the pursuit of enlightenment as long as they do not violate the life and property and liberty of other viable human beings going about the business of life. END2209161055


----------



## Blaster

NotfooledbyW said:


> A woman’s right to vote was not an original Constitutional right. They had to fight to get it.,
> 
> The 14th Amendment covers a right to privacy for a woman getting a medical procedure when there is no harm to any other person involved. Roe v Wade provided settled law potecting women from governments abridgment from government intrusion into their reproductive privacy. Ii should not have been so recklessly undone to please a white conservative extremist religious minority as the Trump SCOTUS has done. END220916-1043


A religious minority?  Do you believe there is an atheist majority?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> . It is only meant as a personal slam


Your lack of respect for honest discourse based on facts is duly noted.

Thank you for summing up your posting purpose and style as personally slamming posters when you cannot find fault with their facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Blaster said:


> A religious minority? Do you believe there is an atheist majority?


Nope. Anti abortion Christians who celebrate the striking down of Roe v Wade and voted for Trump to pack the Supreme Court with Catholics are a minority among religious Americans. Noting to do with atheists.


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> I do not support abortion in my personal life because as a secular humanist I believe *viable humans have an obligation to make the precious experience of human existence among all viable humans as perfect as possible.* When a man and women partake of the pleasure of sex without concern that the woman can get pregnant *falls short of seeking human perfection or enlightened existence as a common goal*.
> 
> I am not responsible for what other people do when they fall short in the pursuit of enlightenment as long as they do not violate the life and property and liberty of other viable human beings going about the business of life. END2209161055


We obviously have of our definitional differences of perfection and with pursuing enlightenment. Let’s go with your term human perfection, even better. Perfection is attained through growth and life supporting entities. This encompasses all of life. There is no middle ground by the way you either support life or you do not you either support growth and understanding or you do not. 

Your idea of perfection supports death by choice. There is no perfection in the act of dying and there is definitely no perfection going on in the world of killing a developing life form, particularly human life. You will never convince any reader to support your views with your ending a human life on purpose analogy. That is what you’re trying to do I assume, to change minds or to have other posters come in and support your argument? Where are your supporters? Your island is your of your own making.

You never answer the question why are you now against abortion-you have either changed your argument as in doing a 180° turn or you are intentionally deceptive.


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your lack of respect for honest discourse based on facts is duly noted.
> 
> Thank you for summing up your posting purpose and style as personally slamming posters when you cannot find fault with their facts.


I am honest about my actions and words. I am absolutely straight up and wear my intentions on my sleeve. If you are offended by my statement for you to stop with the “as you run away” BS and that you appear to beg posters to keep responding to you, please correct me where I’m wrong in my assessment. I used your words specifically, no ad-libbing like you did when you told another poster about what I had said which was totally the opposite of what I had said.


----------



## Blaster

NotfooledbyW said:


> Nope. Anti abortion Christians who celebrate the striking down of Roe v Wade and voted for Trump to pack the Supreme Court with Catholics are a minority among religious Americans. Noting to do with atheists.


Why are you being disrespectful to Catholics?  You do know that there are other religions that are pro-life.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: YOU CarsomyrPlusSix  ARE A LIAR - I affirm again and again that *prior to potential viability,* the fertilized egg and all subsequent growth is biologically alive.



And yet you claim they are “the mother’s life.”

Which is stupid and contradictory.  Fuck yourself, I’m done with your trolling time-wasting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> And yet you claim they are “the mother’s life.”


NFBW: I have made it consistently and perfectly clear that a fertilized human egg is alive from the first instant of conception through whatever stage of development a potential new life is in, however it is wholly dependent upon its mother’s  life to continue to develop towards that splendid moment when the new living being’s life will be fully capable of sustaining its own life when it is separated biologically from its mother Hopefully in a new relationship with his or her mother outside of her womb. END2209161221


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> And yet you claim they are “the mother’s life.”
> 
> Which is stupid and contradictory. Fuck yourself, I’m done with your trolling time-wasting.



Contradictory to what? It would help if you attempted to read my post instead of looking at phrases out of context and detached from their meaning and rolling it into some vulgar adversarial mindless excuse for your laziness.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Blaster said:


> Why are you being disrespectful to Catholics? You do know that there are other religions that are pro-life.


I am not at all disrespectful of Catholics. According to polls half of Catholics in America are pro-choice. Our president is a Catholic who is pro-choice. The three Catholic judges that Trump appointed are not reflective of Christianity and Judaism and other religious believers in America on the abortion issue. They made the unprecedented ruling to overturn settled law because I believe they are sympathetic to the anti-abortion, anti-choice cause of a Trump loving minority of white evangelical Christians and about half of all practicing Catholics and the profound political power in votes they bring to the Republican Party’s political fortunes and power.


----------



## Blaster

NotfooledbyW said:


> I am not at all disrespectful of Catholics. According to polls half of Catholics in America are pro-choice. Our president is a Catholic who is pro-choice. The three catholic judges that Trump appointed are not reflective of Christianity and Judaism and other religious believers in America on the abortion issue. They made the unprecedented ruling to overturn settled law because I believe they are sympathetic to the anti-abortion, anti-choice cause of a Trump loving minority of white evangelical Christians and about half of all practicing Catholics.


You are full of crap as usual.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Blaster said:


> You are full of crap as usual.


You did not expect a sound meaningful deeply factual and analytical answer did you?


----------



## Blaster

NotfooledbyW said:


> You did not expect a sound meaningful deeply factual and analytical answer did you?


Your meandering comments are a cure for insomnia.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> fertilized human egg


Not again.  Just shut up, retard.  You are not capable of this conversation.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> please correct me where I’m wrong in my assessment.


How can I when you informed the entire forum many posts ago that you have no intention of staying engaged with me because you very early decided that you are right and I am wrong etc etc etc . 





ClaireH said:


> you are offended by my statement for you to stop with the “as you run away” BS and that you appear to beg posters to keep responding to you, please correct me




However, attending to business at hand As per your request for correction. 

First, you need to acknowledge that I am not offended at all, not in the slightest, that you have requested me to stop with the “as you run away” BS Because if you do run away it’s actually an anticipated outcome from my perspective when my arguments and facts are unassailable.  And pointing to the fact that you plan to disengage pointing out a fact and nothing more. 

Secondly I am not begging for your response. I Thought a post from you had some substance and a conversation with w woman I assume on reproductive rights couid be fruitful. I guess I can never know unless you decide to start over. If you don’t I could care less what you do.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Not again. Just shut up, retard. You are not capable of this conversation.


Yet I am not in the club finding excuses to run away.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Not again.


Are you saying there is no such thing as a fertilized human egg?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you saying there is no such thing as a fertilized human egg?


As someone educated in scientific fact and oriented to reality and as someone who has already pointed this fact out to you beyond beyond ad nauseum, you noxiously stupid troll, no, human beings are not eggs.  Human beings do not lay eggs.  Fertilization consumes an egg and a sperm cell.  Consumes.  They are gone after fertilization.

You are beneath contempt and incapable of reason.  Slither off.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> human beings are not eggs.


Idiot. I am not saying human beings are eggs.

I an using common language used in the medical profession.


Humans like most mammals begin life when an egg is fertilized. The biological event  is commonly referred to as involving a fertilized egg for the first few days.You are an asshole to complain about such trivial shit.


Implantation: Moving to the Uterus​​The fertilized egg stays in the fallopian tube for about 3 to 4 days. But within 24 hours of being fertilized, it starts dividing fast into many cells. It keeps dividing as it moves slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Its next job is to attach to the lining of uterus. This is called implantation   Pregnancy and conception​


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW
> 
> Idiot. I am not saying human beings are eggs.



Shut the fuck up, moron.  

You are repeatedly calling human beings “eggs.” If you don’t know that, you are even dumber than I already thought.



NotfooledbyW said:


> The biological event  is commonly referred to as involving a fertilized egg for the first few days.


A human being in the zygote stage of life is not an “egg.”  There is no stage of life when a human being is an “egg.”


----------



## Blaster




----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> A human being in the zygote stage of life is not an “egg.” There is no stage of life when a human being is an “egg.”


You are full of shit according to Britannica;


Zygote, fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete ( sperm ). zygote | Definition, Development, Example, & Facts | Britannica www.britannica.com/science/zygote


zygote 
/ˈzaɪˌgoʊt/
noun
plural zygotes
[count] biology

: a cell that is formed when an egg and a sperm combine : a fertilized egg









						Zygote Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary
					

ZYGOTE meaning: a cell that is formed when an egg and a sperm combine a fertilized egg




					britannica.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> A human being in the zygote stage of life is not an “egg.” There is no stage of life when a human being is an “egg.”



IA zygote is a fertilized ovum. That is a fertilized egg.

You can see for yourself ClaireH that I am right and CarsomyrPlusSix is wrong.

zygote​[zi´gōt]
the cell resulting from union of a male and a female gamete; the fertilized ovum




Development of the zygote. _A,_ A sperm enters the ovum. _B,_ The 23 chromosomes from the sperm mingle with the 23 chromosomes from the ovum, restoring the diploid number to 46. _C,_ The fertilized ovum, now called a zygote, is ready for the first mitotic cell division. From McKinney et al., 2000.









						zygote
					

Definition of zygote in the Medical Dictionary by The Free Dictionary




					medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
				




_C,_ The fertilized ovum, now called a zygote,


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are full of shit


A Homo sapiens - human being - in the zygote stage of life is not an “egg.”

You may as well call them a “sperm,” that would be just as wrong.

You are a retard.

You can Google disinformation for laymen until you are blue in the face, it won’t be a substitute for an education and knowing what fertilization is on even the most basic level.  You don’t know that eggs and sperm fuse and create a new organism.  This is like 5th grade level knowledge, and you lack it.

It is willful, vindictive ignorance at this point.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> A Homo sapiens - human being - in the zygote stage of life is not an “egg.”


Just citing dictionaries  -   You can’t cite anything 





Image: liveactionnews.org

A zygote, also known as a fertilized ovum or fertilized egg, is the union of a sperm cell and an egg cell. 
What Is a Zygote? Stages of Conception and Early Pregnancy​www.verywellfamily.com/what-is-a-zygote-2796031


NFBW; You are a fraud and so full of shut I’ll bet ClaireH can smell you. 


Zygote / also known as a fertilized ovum or fertilized egg 

Zygote */ also known as *a fertilized ovum or fertilized egg


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You don’t know that eggs and sperm fuse and create a new organism.


You are a liar and an idiot. It’s not eggs (plural) There is only one egg involved when it is fertilized by a single sperm, The sperm and egg fuse to become a fertilized egg, also called a zygote.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Stop calling human beings “eggs,” fucktard. 

If all you can do is spew this noxious stupidity and then lie that you haven’t been spewing it, don’t bother tagging me, there’s nothing more to respond to.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> It’s not eggs (plural)


You cannot be serious with this bullshit.

More than one human being has been created in history.   The plural of sperm is sperm.

Sperm cells and egg cells fuse. 

Yes, only one sperm cell fertilizes the one egg cell in each individual human’s creation.  Fucking duh.  And once fertilization has occurred you don’t have an egg cell or a sperm cell.  Acknowledge this reality and move on, or just stop talking.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: A one celled egg that is fused with a sperm cell is not a human being
> 
> Here is what I wrote that promoted your “running away” desperate lie.
> 
> The above response applies to you as well CarsomyrPlusSix since both you and Ray From Cleveland make the same error granting personhood *to a one-celled fertilized egg *that is not covered in the US Constitution and never will be.​​NFBW: There is a critical stage in every pregnancy when the one cell human egg is fused with a human sperm and has not split or begun the process of cell division,
> 
> You and ding and Ray From Cleveland and ClaireH are assigning Constitutional personhood to that one cell fertilized egg the instant it happens - are you all not?
> 
> END2209150922


The fact that these processes come from human beings getting together as God had intended, otherwise to procreate together makes it no doubt a human function that creates a human being as a result of.

It is none other than a human miracle on it's way to becoming a human being if the process or development isn't interrupted by a human hand, otherwise that thinks for some reason that it has the right to end a human being developing in the womb of a woman in which God had empowered in trust to then protect the miracle that is the new human being now developing in her womb.

Best have a very good reason for ending a pregnancy other than it being one of selfishness and one of self loathing.

Civilized society or uncivilized SOCIETY ??? It's our choice in what type of SOCIETY we live in and stand by. Things have gone way to far.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Why do you support the government being involved in a woman’s health decision then?


Your language used here makes you highly suspect of working for the DNC thus promoting their agenda. Health decision??? How convenient.... Pffft.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You can Google disinformation for laymen


What disinformation results for writing arguments using laymen’s terms ? ZI am a layman with regard to reproductive biology just like mostly everybody else here. Zygote and fertilized egg as a definition is commonly used and accepted by medical professionals, biologists abd laymen alike. There is no disinformation involved. 



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You cannot be serious with this bullshit.
> 
> More than one human being has been created in history. The plural of sperm is sperm.
> 
> Sperm cells and egg cells fuse


Your statement was erroneous as written.




CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You don’t know that eggs and sperm fuse and create a new organism.



You wrote that multiple eggs and sperm fuse and create *a* new organism. A new organism is singular. Only one egg is involved to create a new organism.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> I am a layman with regard to reproductive biology just like mostly everybody else here.


I am not.

So stop spewing your retardation.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Your language used here makes you highly suspect of working for the DNC


I’m not a Democrat. I belong to no Party and definitely do not work for the DNC.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I am not.


Yes you are a highly educated biologist or whatever you claim to be but on the subject of women’s freedom of choice on reproductive matters you are a fucking deplorable moron who lies a lot as documented,


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes you are a highly educated biologist or whatever you claim to be but on the subject of women’s freedom of choice on reproductive matters


I don’t know why you bring up unrelated and nebulous concepts that you don’t understand.  

Freedom of choice has nothing to do with women specifically anymore than it does to
men as it is an economic concept, and hiring someone to do violence upon others is not something that has ever belonged on even the most free of markets.

I’m well educated in biology as has been demonstrated, and this is absolutely part of my basis in opposing needless violence against innocent human beings.

Inhuman pro-abort filth like you just lie, and lie, because you can’t defend the horror you enabled.  Be honest with yourself and others for a change and just try to work on some kind of logical and moral defense for attacking and killing innocent human beings.  

It’s indefensible, but that is the obligation you have taken by being pro-abort filth.


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW220816-#5,156 - “I am not wrong to point out that a fetus cannot survive without extreme physical impairment prior to 24 weeks of development within the womb without nutrients and oxygenated blood from it’s mother.”​
> NFBW:  Your dishonesty is also exposed whenever you use the same trick that posters like ding and Correll use when they and you realize I am right .  you cry “irrelevant to the point”  -  The similarities are uncanny.  END2209161014


So NFBW-Your "points" are exactly like the following scenario: let's say the current topic that we're discussing was not about abortion but was about whether or not an orange really appears orange in color. So, throughout the discussion you continue to say, or yell out maybe, "But it is a fruit! It is a f-r-u-i-t it is a FrUit etc." 

As you see, your argument lacks any substance. By the way, an orange is really orange, otherwise it would be called purple.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> your argument lacks any substance


On topic,  this part of my argument is factual and true as posted: 

NFBW220816-#5,156 - “I am not wrong to point out that a fetus cannot survive without extreme physical impairment prior to 24 weeks of development within the womb without nutrients and oxygenated blood from it’s mother.”​​NFBW: If you think I am wrong,  please explain in your response why I am wrong. 

If you think I am right,  say so, and I will explain  the relevance of viability to why I think it is appropriate for society to value a new life in the womb at 24 weeks versus CarsomyrPlusSix demand that society value life at the one cell zygote stage (which in laymen’s terms Is a one cell egg) while it is still in the fallopian tube. END2209162153


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> and I will explain the relevance of viability


Viability is irrelevant.  It just means you have surfactant in lungs so that you can breathe.

Life begins at fertilization.  This is scientific fact.  Learn it.  Adopt reality already.



NotfooledbyW said:


> to why I think it is appropriate for society to value a new life in the womb at 24 weeks versus CarsomyrPlusSix demand that society value life at the one cell zygote stage  while it is still in the fallopian tube. END2209162153


I think it is appropriate for a civilization to believe in equality and treat all human life as worthy of protection.

You want a barbaric uncivilized society to be discriminatory against some human beings to the point of legal contracted homicide against them.  Your hate is no better and no different than a slaveholder or a concentration camp commander.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You don’t need to be religious to not support violence against innocent human beings, you fucktarded scumbag.


NFBW: But you need religion to assign sanctity of life to a one cell brainless heartless zygote residing in a fallopian tube of a woman who is about to find out that she is pregnant.

Scientists do not assign value to a one cell brainless zygote because it would not be scientific to do so. The Constitution values human life at birth.

Lindsay Graham says we should value new life at 15 weeks. CarsomyrPlusSix and Graham are 15 weeks apart on when to value human life.

Myself and Graham are only six weeks apart.

It all shows there is no scientific basis for CarsomyrPlusSix to accuse a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy of murdering a person of equal value to the pregnant woman. It is very absurd. END2209152245


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Viability is irrelevant. It just means you have surfactant in lungs so that you can breathe.


NFBW:   then deliver the babies before 15 weeks when Graham the Trump Republican says it’s ok to murder unborn babies. Just remove the surfactant from the lungs and let them  breathe if viability is irrelevant. END2209162255


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: But you need religion to assign sanctity of life to a one cell brainless heartless zygote residing in a fallopian tube of a woman who is about to find out that she is pregnant.


No, you don’t need religion to value the lives of other human beings, you brainless heartless piece of shit.

You just don’t, because you are vile.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No, you don’t need religion to value the lives of other human beings,


NFBW: Of course you don’t.  But you need religion to assign sanctity of life to a one cell brainless heartless zygote residing in a fallopian tube of a woman who is about to find out that she is pregnant. Thats what I wrote. Can you respond to that or are you just going to have a conversation with yourself from here on out? END2209170130


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Inhuman pro-abort filth like you


I am not pro-abort. I am pro-choice that enables women to terminate a pregnancy within 24 weeks from when a zygote is formed in her  fallopian tube. A one celled zygote is not a human being..A one celled zygote is  zygote. Scientists do not refer to a zygote as a human being.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No, you don’t need religion to value the lives of other human beings,


NFBW: All believers in religion are or were viable human beings..All believers in science are or were viable human beings. All believers in science and religion are or were viable human beings. All writers and readers of the US Constitution are or were viable human beings when they wrote it or when they read it.. . . .  There is no requirement in science to value the lives of other human beings whether the lives are viable or not viable..There is a requirement in the US Constitution to value the lives of other viable human beings. There is no requirement in the US Constitution to value the lives of not viable human beings. There is a requirement in the religion of Catholicism and other religions to value the lives of both viable and not viable human brings from the moment of conception. 

Can any viable human being claire ding Ray From Cleveland Correll etc discover and find anything not true in the paragraph above? 

END2209170400


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Of course you don’t.


Great.  Then shut the fuck up with your stupid lies?  Oh wait, no, you immediately repeat yourself like the waste of oxygen you are.



NotfooledbyW said:


> But you need religion to assign sanctity of life to a one cell brainless heartless zygote



No you drooling fucktard.  You do not not need to be religious at all to value the lives of your fellow human beings.

I get that you’re hatemongering filth who denies the humanity and life of abortion victims, but that doesn’t make your bigoted stupidity reality.  You can’t speak English.  You type words and don’t know what your own words mean, then you lie about what you literally just said. Fuck off and preferably spontaneously combust.  And then we can call you a “combusted egg.”


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> I am not pro-abort.


Shut up, pro-abort filth.


NotfooledbyW said:


> I am pro-choice


Freedom of choice has nothing to do with your support for legal contract killing.




NotfooledbyW said:


> A one celled zygote is not a human being..


Objectively false.  You are retarded.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: But you need religion to assign sanctity of life to a one cell brainless heartless zygote residing in a fallopian tube of a woman who is about to find out that she is pregnant.
> 
> Scientists do not assign value to a one cell brainless zygote because it would not be scientific to do so. The Constitution values human life at birth.
> 
> Lindsay Graham says we should value new life at 15 weeks. CarsomyrPlusSix and Graham are 15 weeks apart on when to value human life.
> 
> Myself and Graham are only six weeks apart.
> 
> It all shows there is no scientific basis for CarsomyrPlusSix to accuse a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy of murdering a person of equal value to the pregnant woman. It is very absurd. END2209152245


Look, if you would just understand that people in a CIVILIZED SOCIETY live by law's and rule's, otherwise things that have been broken badly in what once stood as a CIVILIZED SOCIETY not so long ago. So if you would want the law's and rule's to be re-enforced instead of destroyed or confused even further, then you would allow for the rule's to be rewritten in support of, and then enforced in order to promote a more CIVILIZED SOCIETY that promotes life, embraces life, and love's life when it is found to be growing within the female's body after fertilization is complete.

Making it easy to disreguard life (so easily), has led this NATION off of a cliff where it is barely hanging on. Need to get a grip, and think about what you're adamantly arguing for, and how it's been so horribly abused in your name as a supporter of.

Need to replant it into the minds of young women that "consequences" are great for one's careless action's, otherwise they shouldn't want a lifetime of regret over their careless action's, and also it isn't worth following trend's and a death loving culture down into the pitts of hell when all is said and done.

Have to restart somewhere, otherwise making sense of one's purpose upon the earth, and it isn't supporting a death cult that had taken their so called "Planned Parenthood" term to the extreme opposite of what that term should actually stand for or mean.


----------



## dblack

No


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Making it easy to disreguard life (so easily), has led this NATION off of a cliff where it is barely hanging on.


NFBW: In the British colonies when America was being founded, abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening which was somewhere between 16 to 24 weeks. At 24 weeks, viability of the fetus was the original accepted moral restriction on abortion during the birth of our nation end through the early 1800s. Abortion was not widespread banned until after the 1860s

Well then beagle9 your moral Jesus driven histrionics are what is over the cliff when you assign Rio v Wade as the primary cause of sexual debauchery in post 1950s “Leave it  to Beaver” America. END220917092


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: In the British colonies when America was being founded, abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening which was somewhere between 16 to 24 weeks.


This is before microscopy and cell theory, let alone ultrasound.

They didn’t know when life begins then.  Quickening was the first physical manifestation they could note.

In science and medicine, we no longer even consider quickening as a positive sign of pregnancy, just a presumptive one.  It is known that life begins at fertilization.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> It is known that life begins at fertilization.


NFBW: it is universal and indisputable fact that the life that begins at fertilization.
is not viable until about 24 weeks according to the most modern science and technology at keeping premature babies alive outside the womb.

Our founding fathers and our founding generation applied traditional laws and common sense to set 16 to 24 weeks as the period of time that a new developing unborn potential citizen of the colonies needed to become a viable human being. END2209171027

PS: There is no requirement in the US Constitution to value the lives of not viable human beings.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: it is universal and indisputable fact that the life that begins at fertilization.


Cool, thanks for recognizing you're wrong, now scurry off.



NotfooledbyW said:


> is not viable until about 24 weeks


Completely irrelevant.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: In the British colonies when America was being founded, abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening which was somewhere between 16 to 24 weeks. At 24 weeks, viability of the fetus was the original accepted moral restriction on abortion during the birth of our nation end through the early 1800s. Abortion was not widespread banned until after the 1860s
> 
> Well then beagle9 your moral Jesus driven histrionics are what is over the cliff when you assign Rio v Wade as the primary cause of sexual debauchery in post 1950s “Leave it  to Beaver” America. END220917092


So what you are after, and you won't get it hopefully, is for the federal government to be forced by you to inject itself into the abortion issue upon your side, otherwise in order to squash any non-support for the out of control open ended abortion issue.

Not only are you leftist wanting a government boot on the neck of the people concerning their pro-life stance, but you also want it on the necks of the people based upon a miriad of issue's in which people are dealing with as a negative in their live's, and guess what, that boot has not worked as is proven over time.

Time to kick the controversial issue's back to the state's, and let the people decide by a majority in their state's what they want. The Fed's aren't the end all to the issue's, because if they were they would be communist Marxist dictators ohh wait.

The federal government should have never taken on these issue's in a political way, otherwise in order to force people against their will to accept the abusive things in which they have been forced to accept for political reasons in order to pander to the fringe minority...... These issue's have huge mountains of evidence to prove how wrong the Fed's were when it believed that they were doing the right thing but weren't always right, otherwise when they (by strong evidence of now), were doing the exact opposite of the right thing in regards to the people of this nation (who oppose the recklessness and unorthodoxed bull crap in which it has been proven now to be pushing)... The Fed's refused to lend an ear to those it should have been representing......Instead without looking at the fall outs from it all or ignoring it for political reason's, many problems have since developed in a huge way.

The people need representation not lie's and pandering by a political class that has become authoritarian and dictator's for a fringe minority of voter's.

Now don't go trying to claim that the issue's that have been settled by the court's, and have since been proven to work is what is being rehashed or considered to be rehashed somehow here, because it is not. We are talking unsettled issues that have been highly controversial, abusive, and are not accepted by the majority of citizen's, but somehow have been pushed down the throat's of the American people by a government that is out of control in trying to be politically correct, and therefore panderers to a small percentage of fringe whiner's on everything or for those who have been brainwashed to believe that the sky is falling because certain individuals are telling them that.


----------



## ClaireH

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> This is before microscopy and cell theory, let alone ultrasound.
> 
> They didn’t know when life begins then.  Quickening was the first physical manifestation they could note.
> 
> In science and medicine, we no longer even consider quickening as a positive sign of pregnancy, just a presumptive one.  It is known that life begins at fertilization.


Exceptional points, kudos to you CPS, and as technology continues there will be more evidence of how much pain can be felt, unfortunately,  experiments about that very thing (likely going on now) about how a baby still in the womb in early stages can feel pain. Society will change medical theories into concrete evidence as we increase our knowledge base, and not limited to the current topic of discussion of course.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> as technology continues there will be more evidence of how much pain can be felt, unfortunately, experiments about that very thing (likely going on now) about how a baby still in the womb in early stages can feel pain.


NFBW: What is your argument right here? Prior to a stage in a pregnancy where a fetus is able to feel pain should it still be legal for a pregnant woman to choose to terminate the pregnancy as Lindsey Graham set forth his scientifically deduced theory to determine thar abortion should be safe and legal up until 15 weeks. END2209171202


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Completely irrelevant.


NFBW: Why is viability irrelevant? END2209171224


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Cool, thanks for recognizing you're wrong, now scurry off.


NFBW: Now you have resorted to performing a contextdectomy on my statements. 

Di you see the word “the” in the half statement you cited? 

NFBW: it is universal and indisputable fact that *the* life that begins at fertilization.


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: What is your argument right here? Prior to a stage in a pregnancy where a fetus is able to feel pain should it still be legal for a pregnant woman to choose to terminate the pregnancy as Lindsey Graham set forth his scientifically deduced theory to determine thar abortion should be safe and legal up until 15 weeks. END2209171202


Stop trying to change the orange into being coined purple. I don’t like to waste my time on here, so sorry move on. Oh, and by all means feel free to do your normal about “the only reason people won’t talk to me is because they’re afraid of me in someway and are running off” lol sure thing buddy!


----------



## Billo_Really

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


And with that, the Republican Party!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> I don’t like to waste my time on here, so sorry move on.


NFBW: duly noted. You do not have time to define your argument precisely and defend it.

You were asked: Prior to a stage in a pregnancy where a fetus is able to feel pain should it still be legal for a pregnant woman to choose to terminate the pregnancy

When you have time can you define your argument more precisely?

I’ll keep an open file and wait for your response.  END2209171243


----------



## BackAgain

Billo_Really said:


> And with that, the Republican Party!


Lol. 

When dildo_really verbalizes ^ his wishful thinking, he is always kind of funny, in a pathetic way.


----------



## Billo_Really

BackAgain said:


> Lol.
> 
> When dildo_really verbalizes ^ his wishful thinking, he is always kind of funny, in a pathetic way.


What do you mean "kind of"...?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Not only are you leftist wanting a government boot on the neck of the people concerning their pro-life stance,


NFBW: How does protecting a woman’s right to make a private decision between her and her doctor on whether to terminate her pregnancy, put a boot on your neck beagle9 ?  Is your life, liberty and property affected or harmed in any way when a pregnancy is terminated? END2209171350


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: duly noted. You do not have time to define your argument precisely and defend it.
> 
> You were asked: Prior to a stage in a pregnancy where a fetus is able to feel pain should it still be legal for a pregnant woman to choose to terminate the pregnancy
> 
> When you have time can you define your argument more precisely?
> 
> I’ll keep an open file and wait for your response.  END2209171243


Your ice thin argument that you continue to restate over and over to the point of ad nauseam, that you only consider abortions to be wrong if the baby can live by his or her self, outside of the womb. Yes? So, what say you about babies post birth, would die without human intervention? Do you know the numbers I’m talking about? Your argument cannot be one way and not the other since you are stuck on viability.


We should conduct a broad-based survey across the US to determine how many people who have been born and currently living would have preferred that no medical intervention occurred at the time of delivery when they weren’t breathing on their own and needing their lungs cleared. Your foolish argument is bogus.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: it is universal and indisputable fact that the life that begins at fertilization is not viable until about 24 weeks after fertilization based upon survivability outside the womb.

It is an indisputable fact that there is no way a state government can guarantee that every woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy will not suffer harm if she carries it to term.

So what gives the state the authority to keep a woman from preventing harm to her body by getting an abortion prior to the time that a fetus can be considered viable to live outside of the womb?





ClaireH said:


> Your ice thin argument that you continue to restate over and over to the point of ad nauseam, that you only consider abortions to be wrong if the baby can live by his or her self, outside of the womb. Yes? So, what say you about babies post birth, would die without human intervention? Do you know the numbers I’m talking about? Your argument cannot be one way and not the other since you are stuck on viability.
> 
> 
> We should conduct a broad-based survey across the US to determine how many people who have been born and currently living would have preferred that no medical intervention occurred at the time of delivery when they weren’t breathing on their own and needing their lungs cleared. Your foolish argument is bogus



All that and still no response to the following question



NotfooledbyW said:


> Prior to a stage in a pregnancy where a fetus is able to feel pain should it still be legal for a pregnant woman to choose to terminate the pregnancy


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> you only consider abortions to be wrong if the baby can live by his or her self, outside of the womb. Yes?


No. I consider abortion to be none of my business and no business of the federal government and no business of any state government when a potentially viable human being is not being terminated. 

Abortion is wrong to be used as a careless form of birth control if  other methods are available. Society should do all it can to make abortion rare and only when it comes from the advice of a doctor or in rare cases of rape or incest. But it is absurd in my opinion to have decisions about terminating pregnancies determined by political voters and the politicians they vote into power. END2209172234


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> So, what say you about babies post birth, would die without human intervention?


Other than stillbirth, if a post-birth preterm baby with life threatening complication who is placed into the care of preterm medical professionals - that child is viable to me. The  professionals should do whatever it take to save the lives  of these babies.     Neonatal intensive care units have saved a lot of lives and they should continue to do so. END2209172424


.s 
preterm baby might not meet growth or development milestones at the same rate as full term babies. This is normal. Preterm babies usually catch up to full-term babies developmentally by the age of two years.

Some premature birth complications can’t be prevented. However, neonatal intensive care units have saved a lot of lives and they will continue to do so. You can be confident tha


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> We should conduct a broad-based survey across the US to determine how many people who have been born and currently living would have preferred that no medical intervention occurred at the time of delivery when they weren’t breathing on their own and needing their lungs cleared. Your foolish argument is bogus.


NFBW: For the record  I am fully supportive of medical intervention at the time of delivery when newborn babies are not breathing on their own and needing their lungs cleared or anything else they need.

There is no way to understand what this line of attack from ClaireH is about.


ClaireH said:


> you are stuck on viability.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> you are stuck on viability.


NFBW: Actually all fifty states are now voter determinant on the question of when ‘valuable’ human life begins. Is a pregnant woman biologically reproducing a ‘valuable’ human life from the instant of fertilization per CarsomyrPlusSix and the religious right or when her body and the new potential being she is carrying reaches a biological stage of development when an unborn being can survive on its own outside of the womb which is the opinion of a broader not necessarily unified coalition where 2 out of 3 voters roughly are. 

ClaireH220914-#933  Mitch McConnell said about Graham’s bill: "I think every Republican senator running this year in these contested races has an answer as to how they feel about the issue," McConnell said. He said most GOP senators prefer having the issue dealt with by the states, rather than at the federal level. "So I leave it up to our candidates who are quite capable of handling this issue to determine for them what their response is."

ClaireH220914-#933   I, and many others, agree with this stance.

NFBW: I am hoping ClaireH has time to tell me if her agreement with ole Mitch’s GOP Stance means that she is agnostic on the issue of when valuable new human life begins because many states say it is at six weeks, Dobbs was based on 15 weeks, Blue States remain at 24 to 28 weeks based on viability.  END2209180841


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Actually all fifty states are now voter determinant on the question of when ‘valuable’ human life begins. Is a pregnant woman biologically reproducing a ‘valuable’ human life from the instant of fertilization per CarsomyrPlusSix and the religious right or when her body and the new potential being


I despise your hatemongering bigotry here.

“Potential being.”  You are despicable.  They are human beings.  They can be no other species, you acknowledged this already, and yet you say “potential being.”

I believe in human rights and equality.

You believe in hate and discrimination. You believe in the legality of killing those you deem inferior for your petty and arbitrary reasons.  

Fuck you and anyone rotten like you who tries to play these games of deeming some humans “valuable” and others subhuman and marked for killing.

It’s the same game as slavers and genociders.


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: it is universal and indisputable fact that the life that begins at fertilization is not viable until about 24 weeks after fertilization based upon survivability outside the womb.
> 
> It is an indisputable fact that there is no way a state government can guarantee that every woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy will not suffer harm if she carries it to term.
> 
> So what gives the state the authority to keep a woman from preventing harm to her body by getting an abortion prior to the time that a fetus can be considered viable to live outside of the womb?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that and still no response to the following question


Your main intention on this thread is to play word games and to distract, including repetitive statements about what Graham stated and pretending that his bill statement is representative of all conservatives. I gave you evidence of what McConnell said about Graham’s support for the bill- he rejected it fully yet that doesn’t seem to be acceptable to you as legitimate evidence? Use better judgment to allow for all facts not just your own narrowed interpretation of a subset of the facts.

Your regurgitated talking points have been taken down one by one by several posters, including me. You can continue of course to pretend to not know that your argument has been defeated. When you read someone’s counter response, you only see what you want to see and ignore the information that has defeated your own argument. You are severely myopic, get your eyes checked.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> It is an indisputable fact that there is no way a state government can guarantee that every woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy will not suffer harm if she carries it to term.
> 
> So what gives the state the authority to keep a woman from preventing harm to her body by getting an abortion prior to the time that a fetus can be considered viable to live outside of the womb?





ClaireH said:


> Your main intention on this thread is to play word games and to distract,



Actually I am asking questions that I don’t see being asked a lot of conservatives. That’s all. When they don’t answer I like to figure out and understand why. 

So what gives the state the authority to keep a woman from preventing harm to her body by getting an abortion prior to the time that a fetus can be considered viable to live outside of the womb?


----------



## ClaireH

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I despise your hatemongering bigotry here.
> 
> “Potential being.”  You are despicable.  They are human beings.  They can be no other species, you acknowledged this already, and yet you say “potential being.”
> 
> I believe in human rights and equality.
> 
> You believe in hate and discrimination. You believe in the legality of killing those you deem inferior for your petty and arbitrary reasons.
> 
> Fuck you and anyone rotten like you who tries to play these games of deeming some humans “valuable” and others subhuman and marked for killing.
> 
> It’s the same game as slavers and genociders.


I’m under the impression NFBW is expressing suppressed guilt about considering aborting their second child. Unless, oh no…I’m not even going to postulate another possibility in case I’m wrong. So, assuming my first conclusion is correct, there likely is a bit of turmoil every time he looks into his child’s face and thinks about how close he or she was to not even being born. It’s understandable that
he’s trying to rationalize that a baby isn’t really a baby until it can live on its own outside of the womb, which as you know is beyond delivery point for most of us, but he ignored that fact when I asked him about it- shocker! 

This circular thinker going nowhere has tested my patience, way more so than facilitating a class of middle school students! Lol 

Thanks for your information by the way about details I didn’t know regarding the development of a baby!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> Your regurgitated talking points have been taken down one by one by several posters, including me.


No one has taken down this point

NFBW: it is universal and indisputable fact that the life that begins at fertilization is not viable until about 24 weeks after fertilization based upon survivability outside the womb.​​The fundamental basis for Roe v Wade being  viability,  @Carsonomy and ding do not defeat my arguments by declaring viability irrelevant.  That is absurd, And you are not the referee in this discussion .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> I’m under the impression NFBW is expressing suppressed guilt about considering aborting their second child.


You are a liar - I never considered aborting our second child, My decision to get a vasectomy was based on preventing my wife from getting pregnant again because She and I would never consider aborting a not viable potential human being unless advised by a doctor it was necessary to do so.

Why do you have time to lie but no time to answer questions?

Do you accept it is universal and indisputable fact that the life that begins at fertilization is not viable until about 24 weeks after fertilization based upon survivability outside the womb.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> every time he looks into his child’s face


My second child’s face is strongly pro-choice as is my first. She gave me  a granddaughter and a grandson they live in Texas. My Daughter is a medical professional and my 17 year old grandaughter just came to the DC area to attend a premed planning conference
 at the University of Maryland. Afterward I got to spend a couple days with her. I never brought up politics - but she did. It was after Dobbs -She hates ABBOTT  Her first words were  WTF on Dobbs   we talked all politics after that    -   the future of America is in the best of hands with young pro-choice pro-freedom Americans like her.


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar - I never considered aborting our second child, My decision to get a vasectomy was based on preventing my wife from getting pregnant again because She and I would never consider aborting a not viable potential human being unless advised by a doctor it was necessary to do so.
> 
> Why do you have time to lie but no time to answer questions?
> 
> Do you accept it is universal and indisputable fact that the life that begins at fertilization is not viable until about 24 weeks after fertilization based upon survivability outside the womb.


Heads up: your “viability goal post” at 24 weeks needs to moved for factual basis alone,  to include all babies having their lungs cleared following delivery or they they suffocate. Plus, you’re wrong- see below.

Ah! As you were regurgitating I am at fault for not checking your repetitive timeframe of 24 weeks. 22 weeks.  I advise that if you’re going to stick on something you might check to see if it’s actually a valid statement.  Technology will continue to improve and I will say the likelihood that it will be moved to 20 weeks will be an eventuality.  We continue to have significant improvement over prenatal care: natural nutrients and vitamins focusing on mental development enhancing the development of the baby.









						Babies born at 22 weeks 'can now survive'
					

Guidance says improvements in care mean extremely premature babies now have a better survival chance.



					www.bbc.com
				




I am sorry I stated something that wasn’t true about your personal history. I did so from missing your comment about having a vasectomy. A liar? I am not. Lying would have required knowledge that what I said was false and that was not the case, so maybe you should apologize in that respect


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> Heads up: your “viability goal post” at 24 weeks needs to moved for factual basis alone, to include all babies having their lungs cleared following delivery or they they suffocate. Plus, you’re wrong- see below.


Any newborn that doctors believe are developed sufficient to survive to a reasonable healthy life are viable. It’s the doc’s call. .It is not the religious right white Trump voters in Mississippi who should make the call that a fetus has more rights than it’s mother until it reaches viability.


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> Any newborn that doctors believe are developed sufficient to survive to a reasonable healthy life are viable. It’s the doc’s call. .It is not the religious right white Trump voters in Mississippi who should make the call that a fetus has more rights that it’s mother until it reaches viability.


True state rights supporters recognize that their party might not always call the shots. Your focus on “religious right white Trump voters” in Mississippi, well that’s kind of a given considering the demographics right? People have the right to move if they don’t like what’s happening and they cannot change what’s happening in their state. Many things can be changed statewide, but requires a majority of support along with a lot of time spent, contacts made, and persistence in order to get anything accomplished. I’m a huge states rights supporter, and your posts read  like you might be more along the lines of a biased states rights supporter


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I believe abortion is a human rights issue. Religion doesn't enter into it.



NFBW: I believe it is a human rights issue too. It is human rights for the pregnant woman (First Person) for the first 24 weeks. There is no (second person) prior to viability  to recieve individual human rights when the second person cannot survive if removed from the womb of the first person / pregnant woman.

ClaireH220722-#3,807     “If the baby and pregnant mother were to actually share the same life, they could never be separated.”

The second person shares the same brain heart and lungs of the mother keeping it alive while developing the capability to be separated from the mother. It’s how human reproductive biology works. What you write ClaireH is quite absurd. END2209181946


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Religion Of Secular Humanism Raving Mad Authoritarian Anthropocentric Socialists Communists "

* Sounds Like Personal Decision Financial Problems **


ClaireH said:


> Heads up: your “viability goal post” at 24 weeks needs to moved for factual basis alone,  to include all babies having their lungs cleared following delivery or they they suffocate. Plus, you’re wrong- see below.
> 
> Ah! As you were regurgitating I am at fault for not checking your repetitive timeframe of 24 weeks. 22 weeks.  I advise that if you’re going to stick on something you might check to see if it’s actually a valid statement.  Technology will continue to improve and I will say the likelihood that it will be moved to 20 weeks will be an eventuality.  We continue to have significant improvement over prenatal care: natural nutrients and vitamins focusing on mental development enhancing the development of the baby.


A live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen and natural viability in roe versus wade - cast aside by imbeciles - was judicial activism setting a compromise whereby abortions without cause could be proscribed by a state in third trimester .

A 24 weeks time line is for sufficient time to disposition congenital anomalies with the fetus , while abortion beyond natural viability is expected for urgent incidents .

A 24 weeks time line is a median approximation to avoid financial obligations for anomalies , even if private organizations intend to fund the neonatal care and or extensive expenses from anomalies .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> True state rights supporters recognize that their party might not always call the shots.


Nfbw: That is why it is so absurd to have some states deny reproductive rights to women based on the Christian voter political machinery that is run by mostly white conservative religious people END2209190045


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Any newborn that doctors believe are developed sufficient to survive to a reasonable healthy life are viable. It’s the doc’s call. .It is not the religious right white Trump voters in Mississippi who should make the call that a fetus has more rights than it’s mother until it reaches viability.


Oh so now you are going all racist on us eh ? Figures..


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Oh so now you are going all racist on us eh ? Figures..


NFBW: I didn’t go to racism. You did.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Any newborn that doctors believe are developed sufficient to survive to a reasonable healthy life are viable. It’s the doc’s call. .It is not the religious right white Trump voters in Mississippi who should make the call that a fetus has more rights than it’s mother until it reaches viability.



NFBW: It is a fact that the religious right white Trump voters in Mississippi were the constituency pushing SCOTUS to end 50 years reproductive rights for women in that thar red religious Trump state and all the other ones except Kansas. Why when white religious Christian Trump voters get their way with Trump’s white Catholic packed Supreme Court that became an extension of the GOP Legislature in 2021 that you think the problem from that political activated court causes is also racist.  Very interesting concern coming from you beagle9  I will look into it. END2209190709


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> Oh so now you are going all racist on us eh ? Figures..


He is a vile hatemonger with the mentality of a slaver or a Nazi, so it figures.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> Your focus on “religious right white Trump voters” in Mississippi, well that’s kind of a given considering the demographics right?



NFBW: The absurd political religious right drive to extend full human and US citizen rights immediately at fertilization to the one cell zygote while it is still in a Fallopian tube and about 24 weeks from full viability, factually has been  the primary focus and function of the American religious right white Trump voters in Mississippi and elsewhere in similarly populated states.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> He is a vile hatemonger with the mentality of a slaver or a Nazi, so it figures.



NFBW: And that is the typical argument one gets for posting fact against white religious right fiction and absurdities on this message board. CarsomyrPlusSix has never refuted or taken down anything I say. His contribution to this discussion is limited to vile and bitter character assassination as seen above. simply the truth END2209190757


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> . CarsomyrPlusSix has never refuted or taken down anything I say.


Please refrain from lying. 

No refutation?  You have nothing, not a single statement of substance or argument that I haven’t left in smoldering ashes.

All you do now - all you have left - is that you just keep stammering the same already debunked lies or totally irrelevant non-sequiturs, over and over.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> A liar? I am not. Lying would have required knowledge that what I said was false


As I understand the art of lying, if you state something that you have no way of knowing if it is true or not specifically as an act of aggression against another, it is a lie. And the person doing it is a liar.

You stated as if it was a fact that I had considered aborting my second child. There is no way you could have knowledge of that unless I stated it here or somewhere else where you could cite it.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> As I understand the art of lying, if you state something that you have no way of knowing if it is true or not specifically as an act of aggression against another, it is a lie.


Aggression?

You support aggressive violence against innocent human beings who you view as subhuman and lacking their own life - you claim they are part of their mother’s life, at complete odds with scientific reality here on planet Earth.

And of course that doesn’t go far enough as a description, this isn’t mere assault or robbery or rape, this is homicide, you support them being killed because _you *hate* them for their arbitrary factor of not having enough surfactant._

There are Klansmen who are less hateful than you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You have nothing, not a single statement of substance or argument that I haven’t left in smoldering ashes.


Like what?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You support aggressive violence against innocent human beings


NFBW: You are a liar. I support a woman’s private right to choose to terminate her own pregnancy because there is no constitutional right to life to a potential viable human being that has not developed to the point of being viable.  You are on. END2209190855


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar.


You are a liar, including in this statement.


NotfooledbyW said:


> I support a woman’s private right to choose


You support aggressive violence against innocent human beings because you hate them and either want them dead or at least don’t give two shits about their lives or their rights, which is just as bad, and it is why you are pro-abort filth.


NotfooledbyW said:


> viable


Again, your hatemongering is based entirely on the arbitrary factor of having adequate surfactant or not.  This is no better or different than hating some random innocents for their skin color or anything else.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> human beings who you view as subhuman and lacking their own life - you claim they are part of their mother’s life, at complete odds with scientific reality here on planet Eart


A 15 week fetal human being is absolutely scientifically, biologically, commonsensically,
indisputably, morally, humanly substantively. economically, Constitutionally a part of its mother Part of its mother’s life. It can kill her for Christ sake

A 15 week fetus cannot survive without being part of its mother and the deepest truth to the fact that a pegnant woman is carrying inside of her an organism that is very much a part of her, is that as it develops that organism can increasingly harm and even kill her. Or do you dispute that?

I will repeat using your terminology so not to be distracted by your bullshit semantics:  can an unborn human life harm or kill the woman who carries it inside her.

Your matches are wet. END2209190913


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Again, your hatemongering is based entirely on the arbitrary factor of having adequate surfactant or not.


You are either a liar or a biology dunce.

You claim a one celled zygote is a human being. That is at least 20 some trillion human cells short of being viable you effing biological dimwit.  END2209190919


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> A 15 week fetal human being is absolutely... a part of its mother.


In no sense whatsoever, you delusional retard.

Open a science book at some point in your life.



NotfooledbyW said:


> as it develops that organism can increasingly harm and even kill her


You are _insane _to make this claim.  The helpless and innocent organism can take no actions whatsoever and has no responsibility for the pregnancy.  They can't harm or kill anyone or anything.

You are a rotten piece of garbage who talks out of at least three sides of his mouth at the same time.  Absolute filth, zero integrity or consistency.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> You claim a one celled zygote is a human being. That is at least 20 some trillion human cells short of being viable you effing biological dimwit.  END2209190919


I know that a living human being is alive and a human being.

You claim not to know this basic scientific fact, and you just might be brain damaged or retarded enough to think that you are correct, but your delusional belief is at odds with scientific reality.

And again you double down on your surfactant fetish.  Just go get some artificial surfactant and jerk yourself off with it - spare everyone else, freak.


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> No one has taken down this point
> 
> NFBW: it is universal and indisputable fact that the life that begins at fertilization is not viable until about 24 weeks after fertilization based upon survivability outside the womb.​​The fundamental basis for Roe v Wade being  viability,  @Carsonomy and ding do not defeat my arguments by declaring viability irrelevant.  That is absurd, And you are not the referee in this discussion .


You are still attempting to deceive readers after you were given medically updated information. It’s the same as if I were to continue to state that your second child was almost aborted and learning you had a vasectomy and I would continue to state that your second child almost was aborted.  I apologized for misunderstanding your words and admitted that I was misinformed. I did not mean to spread a falsehood and instantly stopped after learning. Unlike you, you choose to carry-on with your lying about 24 weeks liability. Google it if you won’t read my sources, it’s no longer 24 weeks non-reader.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> lying about 24 weeks liability.


Monk-Eye had the best response to that. It’s an approximation. it’s certainly never going down to 15 weeks when brain development is far from complete. 




Monk-Eye said:


> A 24 weeks time line is a median approximation


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I know that a living human being is alive and a human being.
> 
> You claim not to know this basic scientific fact, and you just might be brain damaged or retarded enough to think that you are correct, but your delusional belief is at odds with scientific reality.
> 
> And again you double down on your surfactant fetish. Just go get some artificial surfactant and jerk yourself off with it - spare everyone else, freak


I know what you regard as a one cell living human being cannot  become a fully developed human without becoming part of an already viable human being and in that process can harm or kill her.  That is my point that you consistently avoid with generic responses such;
​I know that a living human being is alive and a human being”​
That is a pathetic statement of cold moldy mush  No there there.because that human being is a part of the mother and can kill her.


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> Monk-Eye had the best response to that. It’s an approximation. it’s certainly never going down to 15 weeks when brain development is far from complete.


Personally, I tend to avoid using the word “never”. Do you realize the kind of time frame that references? As in, 1,000 years from now would be included, and beyond. We have no idea what type of scientific advancements will be created within 10 years from now, certainly hard to make any claim to knowing beyond that point unless one is a top expert in a given field. Even then…. I read once that even a specialized expert in a certain field will never know more than 1% of all knowledge in that given field if he or she were to study day and night his or her whole life.

Technology is increasing at a rapid speed that is equivalent to four times the former rate of growth in the 80’s. It has been reported that technology is currently doubling every 6 months. Given that the rate of incoming public info has significantly increased (quadrupled) since 1980, it is logical to believe that it will “soon” (relatively speaking) be every 4 months that technological know-how will be doubling. Never say never


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> I know what you regard as a one cell living human being


_What reality and science *know* to be,_ you insufferable twit.



NotfooledbyW said:


> and in that process can harm or kill her.


Wrong, you delusional, deceitful freak.



NotfooledbyW said:


> because that human being is a part of the mother​


Objectively false, and stupid.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> What reality and science *know* to be,


There is no credible scientist who says that an alive zygot at the one cell stage of development has the same right to life as a 30 trillion cell human being. And that is what you is a scientific fact. It is not . You are a stupid hunan being. LINDSAY Graham says majes him believe right to life starts a 15 weeks.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Objectively false, and stupid.


No. If a fetus is not part of the woman who carries it how can it kill her. You cannot answer that so you don’t.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Wrong, you delusional, deceitful freak.


Does the phrase “to save the life of the mother” mean anything to you, idiot.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no credible scientist who says that an alive zygot at the one cell stage of development has the same right to life as a 30 trillion cell human being.


*_TNG double facepalm*_

You *fucking* retarded piece of *shit*.

Science doesn’t say anything about “right to life.”

That is _philosophy_. That is _*ethics*_.

Something you _lack_, _clearly_, and that is why you are pro-abort filth.

Moreover actually protecting rights is a matter of law and politics - *subjective.

Science is objective.*

And science _*does*_ inform us that the living Homo sapiens is alive and is an organism of the species Homo sapiens (“human beings”) and that life begins at fertilization and that zygote is the first stage of life after fertilization.  There is no credible or plausible alternative to any of those facts.  Everything I just said is pure textbook.  Introductory and basic fact, unassailable and universal.

Universal - so when I say “us,” I mean educated and sane people who are oriented to reality on Earth, not deranged moronic inhuman filth like you.  Clearly you are allergic to facts and truth.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Does the phrase “to save the life of the mother” mean anything to you, idiot.


In those EXCEEDINGLY RARE cases, you sit here and lie that those are the fault and responsibility of a helpless, innocent, sleeping minor?  That a being who cannot take any action at all is “hurting” or “killing” someone else?

I reiterate my previous comment about rusty poles, you sick fuck.  Feel free to search back for it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> And science _*does*_ inform us that the living Homo sapiens is alive and is an organism of the species Homo sapiens (“human beings”) and that life begins at fertilization and that zygote is the first stage of life after fertilization. There is no credible or plausible alternative to any of those facts. Everything I just said is pure textbook. Introductory and basic fact, unassailable and universal.


And I agree with that science.  I don’t agree that a pregnant woman is murdering a new individual human being prior to about 24 weeks of pregnancy when that fetus is not developed to a point where it can survive without being a part of her anatomy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> In those EXCEEDINGLY RARE cases, you sit here and lie that those are the fault and responsibility of a helpless, innocent, sleeping minor?


How can in any case can a fetus not be a part of a mother’s life if it can kill her. 

when you say a fetus is not a part of the mother’s life that is about as stupid as any person can say about the abortion issue.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> And I agree with that science.


Whaleshit.


NotfooledbyW said:


> I don’t agree that a pregnant woman is murdering a new individual human being


They are committing homicide, period.
That homicide is aggressive, period.
That homicide is premeditated, period.

In all other cases premeditated aggressive homicides are prosecuted as murder.  This inconsistency is not something you can begin to justify.



NotfooledbyW said:


> where it can survive without being a part of her anatomy.


We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> They are committing homicide, period


Based on what? It’s part of her body.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Based on what? It’s part of her body.


Based on the objective reality that they are attacking and killing a human being, a human being that is objectively NOT a part of their body, you fucking delusional moron.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.


NFBW: I Was. Damn near killed her on the way out I was told. Breech birth. Mom had four more after me. I was absolutely part of mom’s anatomy until I was born without her life and her anatomy for nine months from my embryo days on I would not be here. 

You are the most ignorant highly educated biologist I’ve ever read if you claim that a fetus is not temporarily a part of its mother’s life and part of her living functioning human anatomy. END2209191526


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I Was.


No, you weren’t.  Retard.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Damn near killed her on the way out I was told. Breech birth.


Irrelevant.  And you can feel all the guilt you want over something you weren’t responsible for, I don’t give two shits about your well-being, emotional or otherwise.



NotfooledbyW said:


> you claim that a fetus is not temporarily a part of its mother’s life and part of her living functioning human anatomy.


Please learn basic scientific fact.  Please come back to reality.

Actually again, this is disingenuous, I don’t care, you’re a crazy piece of shit and you can stay crazy and ignorant.  You will anyway no matter what I do, batshit moron.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Based on the objective reality that they are attacking and killing a human being, a human being that is objectively NOT a part of their body, you fucking delusional moron.


Think about it you effing moron. When you abort the fetal underdeveloped human organism it dies. Separation too soon causes death of the fetus. There is a connection and a relationship linking the mother to the 14 1/2 week fetus. If that link is broken the fetus dies. When the fetus stops being a part of the mother’s life it dies..

If the 15 week fetus is not part of the mother’s life giving organism it dies. If what you say were true CarsomyrPlusSix that there are two separate lives in a pregnancy prior to 24 week there would be no ending of any life following an abortion. The fetus would not die when separated from the mother if it is no part of the mother in the first place.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Irrelevant.


we know you are beaten when you have to go there. 

.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Please learn basic scientific fact.


This is reality and I have explained why:

A fetus is temporarily a part of its mother’s life and part of her living functioning human anatomy. That gives her autonomy over the fetus that should not be interfered with by any government.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Whaleshit.


No. I agree with the science you cited..every last word..


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> And you can feel all the guilt you want over something you weren’t responsible for, I


I don’t say a fetus is responsible for killing the woman giving birth to it.. The one cell zygote dies not initiate the process that can kill any woman who gets impregnated if it goes to full term  The zygote cannot be responsible if the mother dies in the process. It’s the *process* stupid. 
Trump 


NotfooledbyW said:


> I know what you regard as a one cell living human being cannot become a fully developed human without becoming part of an already viable human being and in that *process can harm or kill her.*


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Nostra said:


> Can't wait to watch heads explode (and not babies) if this comes to fruition.



Instead of exploding heads you got exploding numbers of voting aged women pissed off at Republicans for treating them as nothing more than no privacy forced baby breeding shit.

“The threat to abortion rights used to be theoretical, but people now understand and believe the real impact — that candidates want to ban abortion and can ban abortion — and they are scared.” - Jenny Lawson, president of Planned Parenthood Votes


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Religion Of Secular Humanism Raving Mad Authoritarian Anthropocentric Socialists Communists "
> 
> * Sounds Like Personal Decision Financial Problems **
> 
> A live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen and natural viability in roe versus wade - cast aside by imbeciles - was judicial activism setting a compromise whereby abortions without cause could be proscribed by a state in third trimester .
> 
> A 24 weeks time line is for sufficient time to disposition congenital anomalies with the fetus , while abortion beyond natural viability is expected for urgent incidents .
> 
> A 24 weeks time line is a median approximation to avoid financial obligations for anomalies , even if private organizations intend to fund the neonatal care and or extensive expenses from anomalies .


Anomalies eh ? Oh so the goal post shift's yet again. When will you leftist learn that this issue is as simple as the decision to either have a CIVILIZED SOCIETY or not ?? All these technicalities running this way and that way are nothing but deflections, deflections, and deflections ???

Until a society is looked at as a whole body, otherwise in which to prescribe the correct medicine to treat the whole body with, then the body will just die a slow agonizing death as each section fails off slowly. Leftist don't have the degree of intellect to prescribe the correct medicine needed as is proven over and over these days to heal or help anything.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Instead of exploding heads you got exploding numbers of voting aged women pissed off at Republicans for treating them as nothing more than no privacy forced baby breeding shit.
> 
> “The threat to abortion rights used to be theoretical, but people now understand and believe the real impact — that candidates want to ban abortion and can ban abortion — and they are scared.” - Jenny Lawson, president of Planned Parenthood Votes


Bull crap is all you spew with your out of control TDS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Leftist don't have the degree of intellect to prescribe the correct medicine needed as is proven over and over these days to heal or help anything.


NFBW: 2 out 3 Americans Do not think Roe v Wade should have been overturned. 

But your Trump + Jesus will civilize America preaching against abortion rights beagle9 is lost on young women including young Republican woman. 

It also found that young female voters were overwhelmingly opposed to the _Dobbs _decision. Just 18 percent of those polled supported it, while 76 percent opposed it.​​







						Poll: Young voters more motivated after Dobbs decision
					

The survey from NextGen showed a jump in young voter motivation since March.




					www.politico.com
				


​That was even true among young Republican women: In that subset, 36 percent supported the _Dobbs _ruling and 57 percent opposed it,​​When your white old gray beards and blue-haired guns n bible tribe dies off there won’t be much of any young folks in the woke generation to replace them. I’ll take the next Gen civilization over Trump and nasty CarsomyrPlusSix civilization every day of the week.  END2209200114


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: 2 out 3 Americans Do not think Roe v Wade should have been overturned.
> 
> But your Trump + Jesus will civilize America preaching against abortion rights beagle9 is lost on young women including young Republican woman.
> 
> It also found that young female voters were overwhelmingly opposed to the _Dobbs _decision. Just 18 percent of those polled supported it, while 76 percent opposed it.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poll: Young voters more motivated after Dobbs decision
> 
> 
> The survey from NextGen showed a jump in young voter motivation since March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​That was even true among young Republican women: In that subset, 36 percent supported the _Dobbs _ruling and 57 percent opposed it,​​When your white old gray beards and blue-haired guns n bible tribe dies off there won’t be much of any young folks in the woke generation to replace them. I’ll take the next Gen civilization over Trump and nasty CarsomyrPlusSix civilization every day of the week.  END2209200114


You'll take the next generation eh ? Why(?), Is it because you think that they might be just gullible and stupid enough to make someone like you their king ??? Uhhh I think that you might be thinking way to highly of yourself and way to cynical of those you want as your dipsticks.. lol


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You'll take the next generation eh ?


Absolutely. they reject the authoritarian white religious right Trumpism and that is good for America END2209200231


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> “The threat to abortion rights used to be theoretical, but people now understand and believe the real impact — that candidates want to ban abortion and can ban abortion — and they are scared.” - Jenny Lawson, president of Planned Parenthood Votes



Hopefully Jenny Lawson is scared.  Every member of that mass-murdering scum organization should die in prison.  Fucking vile.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> I don’t say a fetus is responsible for killing the woman giving birth to it.


Shut the fuck up you fucking liar.

You JUST SAID THAT. I’m done with your games.

FYAD.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You JUST SAID THAT. I’m done


Run and hide with ClaireH and ding .   I said the “process”  the biological “process” of pregnancy can kill the mother and would be responsible for her death / not the one cell zygotes or any stage of developed being after that .   You are stupid and entirely wrong and only stupid and entirely wrong colossal morons think they can lie before quitting and declare themselves done.  Idiot! END2209200637


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You JUST SAID THAT. I’m done


I said what you didn’t cut and paste  liar



NotfooledbyW said:


> I don’t say a fetus is responsible for killing the woman giving birth to it.. The one cell zygote does not initiate the process that can kill any woman who gets impregnated if it goes to full term The zygote cannot be responsible if the mother dies in the process. It’s the *process* stupid.



You are such a dork - you have no response to the full paragraph.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Hopefully Jenny Lawson is scared. Every member of that mass-murdering scum organization should die in prison. Fucking vile.


NFBW: If there is any mass murdering going on Trump and all Trump Republican lawmakers who do not make laws that criminalize the woman who murders a one celled zygote prior to giving that zygote US citizen a chance to go full term in every single pregnant woman, is a mass murderere too., When Republicans ban abortion in a state but permit a woman to go to another state to mass murder their zygotes and then come back home to go on with their lives as mass murdering mothers - well that is supporting mass murder as well and too fucking weak to do anything to stop it except inflict hardship on the poorest of woman who cannot afford to travel to do their mass murdering in another state where it is a right to abort the zygote for 24 weeks as it was when American colonies aborted the relationship with a king in the 18th century.  END2209200706


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You'll take the next generation eh ? Why(?), Is it because you think that they might be just gullible and stupid enough to make someone like you their king ???


No. That can’t be it. I told you 35 and younger reject authoritarians like all you religious right anti-abortion Trump supporting people. That means they oppose all tyranny and would reject any king.


----------



## ding

He mad.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Freak Farms For The Weirdos To Help Them Feel Superior "

* Categorical Goof Balls With Dictatorial Penchant **


beagle9 said:


> Anomalies eh ? Oh so the goal post shift's yet again. When will you leftist learn that this issue is as simple as the decision to either have a CIVILIZED SOCIETY or not ?? All these technicalities running this way and that way are nothing but deflections, deflections, and deflections ???
> 
> Until a society is looked at as a whole body, otherwise in which to prescribe the correct medicine to treat the whole body with, then the body will just die a slow agonizing death as each section fails off slowly. Leftist don't have the degree of intellect to prescribe the correct medicine needed as is proven over and over these days to heal or help anything.


Few would characterize myself a leftist rather than a pro-choice republican whom despises the traitors who support the sedition against us 1st , 9th and 14th amendments implemented by scotus through he idiocy of its dobbs decision .

The dementia of your perspective is on par with horror film clowns whose sanctimonious psychotics dictating macabre fantasies of hell as heaven on earth posit a short term goal of reducing abortion for down syndrome by 50% .

Here is a freak for you to carry to term and keep for life , since you are far from realistic about the depravity in nature and are insolent to understand such choices for quality of life are entitled to individuals determining their own fates that are not to be decided by you or a state .














						Miscarriage, loss and grief
					






					www.marchofdimes.org
				



_Miscarriage (also called early pregnancy loss) is when a baby dies in the womb (uterus) before 20 weeks of pregnancy. For women who know they’re pregnant, about 10 to 15 in 100 pregnancies (10 to 15 percent) end in miscarriage. Most miscarriages happen in the first trimester before the 12th week of pregnancy. Miscarriage in the second trimester (between 13 and 19 weeks) happens in 1 to 5 in 100 (1 to 5 percent) pregnancies._









						Placental Abruption
					

Placental abruption is when your placenta detaches from your uterine wall before birth. Learn about placental abruption symptoms, its effects and its treatment.




					www.marchofdimes.org
				



_Placental abruption can cause anemia and life threatening complications for a pregnant person.  If it’s not diagnosed and treated immediately there can be hemorrhage and blood clotting complications for both, the baby and the pregnant person. _









						They ended wanted pregnancies. Post-Roe, they face new pain.
					

Ashley Lefebvre hugs her unborn daughter’s urn each night.  Sarah Halsey treasures the tiny hat worn by her baby who lived just 38 minutes.  Abi Frazier moved away from her home with a furnished nursery.




					news.yahoo.com
				



_It’s a side of abortion seldom discussed in national debates — the termination of pregnancies because of fetal anomalies or other often-fatal medical problems. These terminations often happen in the second trimester, when women have already picked out names, bought baby clothes and felt kicking in their wombs. They’re far different from the most common abortions, performed earlier in pregnancies.

Women say these terminations for medical reasons don’t feel like a choice — instead they are forced upon them by the condition of the fetus they carry. And the constant drumbeat of new abortion bans, rulings and news since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade has reopened raw wounds. Such abortions were already shrouded in secrecy and guilt, the women say. They fear the path will be even tougher for those who follow.

There are no recent statistics on the frequency of terminations for fetal anomalies — including genetic or chromosomal abnormalities — in the U.S., but experts say it’s a small percentage of total procedures. They typically occur later than the 93% of abortions performed at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy.''_


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Run and hide with ClaireH and ding .


There is nothing to hide from, you piece of shit liar.



NotfooledbyW said:


> I said the “process”  the biological “process” of pregnancy can kill the mother



“*I *was.
*Damn near killed her on the way out*.”

"No there there.because* that human being* is a part of the mother and *can kill her*."

Wrong in your claims about being "a part of the mother," wrong about the claim that the unborn human being "can kill," now you're lying you said it.  But you said it.  You can lie about it, but it just shows everyone what _a spineless, sniveling little worm you are._

Now fuck right off, troll.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> *Damn near killed her on the way out*.”


The way out is the “process” of birth  stupid”


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> The way out is the “process” of birth  stupid”


You said you nearly killed your mother.  

There is no other way to interpret that, other than you are claiming that unborn human beings are to blame for any harm of pregnancy, which is absurd.

You assigning agency and responsibility directly contradicts any claim you have about their inferiority or non-human status, not that you even realize this, as you say these mutually exclusive and directly contradictory things simultaneously.  

There is no consistency, coherence, or integrity in anything you say.

In other words: fuck off, troll.


----------



## ClaireH

NotfooledbyW said:


> Run and hide with ClaireH and ding .   I said the “process”  the biological “process” of pregnancy can kill the mother and would be responsible for her death / not the one cell zygotes or any stage of developed being after that .   You are stupid and entirely wrong and only stupid and entirely wrong colossal morons think they can lie before quitting and declare themselves done.  Idiot! END2209200637


Stop begging for posters to come back and participate in your circular argument. If you do continue to add my name in your thread I’ll block you to avoid seeing your desperation. I don’t like desperation in any shape or form. It’s annoying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Wrong in your claims about being "a part of the mother,"


why is a fetus not a part of the mother.


NotfooledbyW said:


> Damn near killed her on the way out I was told. Breech birth.





NotfooledbyW said:


> Damn near killed her on the way out I was told. Breech birth.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> wrong about the claim that the unborn human being "can kill," now you're lying you said it. But you said it.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You said you nearly killed your mother.



You are a liar. The two statement you were referring to is “Damn near killed her on the way out. Breech birth

It did not say “I damn near killed her on the way out. Breech birth.”

You therefore are a liar based on the capital letter of the word “damn” and the period at the end” makes it very clear that I was not referring to myself as being responsible for damn near killing my mother. It’s clear I was talking about the process because the next two words after the first sentence was “breech birth.“ It was the process of a goddamn breach birth that damn near killed my mother. So you can try to lie and then use that as a threat to run away because you’re a phony and a fraud and you’re ridiculous and absurd. You’re absolutely absolutely a disgrace to the pro-life movement. Some of them at least have the sense to know not to lie about was written on the forum like this.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> why is a fetus not a part of the mother.


Why are you not a unicorn, asshole?

Same reason.  Reality doesn’t work that way, as evidenced by scientific examination.



NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. The two statement you were referring to is “Damn near killed her on the way out. Breech birth
> 
> It did not say “I damn near killed her on the way out. Breech birth.”


Same thing, no distinction to be had within the English language or logic, go fuck yourself, troll.

You have been quoted saying unborn kids could hurt or kill their mother.  Don’t like it? Too bad.  Try a gasoline bath as a way of making yourself feel better and then have a nice long drag on a cigarette.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Same thing, no distinction to be had within the English language


you are a liar.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> you are a liar.


Projection, lying troll filth.  Need a match?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You have been quoted saying unborn kids could hurt or kill their mother.



A developing fetus can hurt a pregnant woman - prior to and during birth. You lied and said that I said the developing fetus is responsible for the death of the mother. You are a liar. It is the biological process of pregnancy and childbirth that can kill the mother. The fetus as far as we know did not choose to be there or design the process. So there is no way the fetus can be responsible for the death of its mother.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Projection,


Your lies are in writing. What you call my lies are pure fantasies on your part. It’s all written down. You shouldn’t lie on posts  that you can’t delete


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> Stop begging f





ClaireH said:


> Stop begging


I am not begging for anything. You’ve run away and I could care less. If you can answer some of the questions I’ve asked , then welcome back. Until then keep your head down and put your “likes“ on that CarsomyrPlusSix lying pig.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> He mad


Oh wow! ding was able to string two words together


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH said:


> If you do continue to add my name in your thread I’ll block you to avoid seeing your desperation.


Evangelicalism is the primary form of Protestantism in America, and the main religious group in the country, ahead of Catholics (21 percent) and traditional Protestants.

Which one are you. Or none of the above? 

Just curious - when you have time to honestly engage I will be glad to welcome you back.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Shut the fuck up you fucking liar.
> 
> You JUST SAID THAT. I’m done with your games.
> 
> FYAD.


Where did I say a fetus is responsible for killing its mother.  A fetus has no capability  to be responsible for anything - it has not made a choice to do or not do anything. How can it be responsible if pregnancy that it was part of Kills it’s mother.?

I Don’t recall but if I did come into the world assbackward as I was told there was no procedures manual at my disposal to get turned around the right way


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> A developing fetus can hurt a pregnant woman - prior to and during birth.


Thank you for repeating the thing that you said you never said.  Now go do what I told you with the gasoline so I never have to see another bit of your bullshit.

Be warm for the rest of your life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Thank you for repeating the thing


Are you still believing that a developing fetus  cannot kill a woman during the process of childbirth? The process would be responsible. idiot.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you still believing that a developing fetus  cannot kill a woman during the process of childbirth? The process would be responsible. idiot.


You.  Fucking.  Fuck.

You are quadrupling down on blatantly and directly contradicting yourself then lying about never contradicting yourself.  


Shut up.  Go away.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Shut up. Go away.


It’s not me who is avoiding your turn to state and confirm your position.

Are you still believing that a developing fetus cannot kill a woman during the process of childbirth? The process would be responsible. idiot.​


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> It’s not me who is avoiding your turn to state and confirm your position.


UNBORN KIDS ARE OBJECTIVELY INNOCENT - NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY HARM OF PREGNANCY AND CAN TAKE NO ACTIONS WHATSOEVER, SO WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIE ABOUT THEM BEING “PART OF THEIR MOTHER” OR “A PROCESS,” THEY DO NO ACTIONS. 

HARMING IS AN ACTION.  KILLING IS AN ACTION.  _THEY CAN’T TAKE ACTIONS_ WHILE RESTING HELPLESSLY IN THE PLACE THEIR PARENTS PUT THEM.

*YOU.  ARE.  A.  DROOLING.  RETARD.


Now fuck off.*


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> developing fetus can hurt a pregnant woman - prior to and during birth. You lied and said that I said the developing fetus is responsible for the death of the mother. You are a liar. It is the biological process of pregnancy and childbirth that can kill the mother. The fetus as far as we know did not choose to be there or design the process. So there is no way the fetus can be responsible for the death of its mother.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> UNBORN KIDS ARE OBJECTIVELY INNOCENT - NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY HARM OF PREGNANCY



a developing fetus is innocent of any wrongdoing in the event a developing fetus kills the mother at childbirth  

So we agree - the fetus is innocent and it can harm and even kill its mother.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. That can’t be it. I told you 35 and younger reject authoritarians like all you religious right anti-abortion Trump supporting people. That means they oppose all tyranny and would reject any king.


Yeah well, we shall see just how strong your side really isn't in the coming election's, so you best come up with a place to cry over your failure's. You gonna need lot's of tissues for those Biden loving tear's come November.


----------



## beagle9

D


NotfooledbyW said:


> a developing fetus is innocent of any wrongdoing in the event a developing fetus kills the mother at childbirth
> 
> So we agree - the fetus is innocent and it can harm and even kill its mother.


Dumb points you keep making, but oh well... ROTFLMBO 😂


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> in the event a developing fetus kills the mother at childbirth


Fuck you.  They can’t kill anyone, retard.



NotfooledbyW said:


> So we agree - the fetus is innocent and it can harm and even kill its mother.


Fuck you.  You can’t agree with basic reality for 5 seconds, so just shuffle off this coil already, since you can’t stand it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Dumb points you keep making,


Every point I make has been easily sustained so factually powerful that the white right religious and political opposition either run away completely or waste pixels with endless meaningless and stupid rejoinders such as the one above and one’s like this 


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Fuck you. You can’t agree with basic reality for 5 seconds, so just shuffle off this coil already, since you can’t stand it.


If a highly educated biologist has been reduced to that beagle9 why are you still posting in that loser’s shadow. Jesus cannot help you with this you should know. END2209210700


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Welcome to the ignore list, trash.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Fuck you. They can’t kill anyone, retard.


NFBW: They are not responsible as I’ve said over and over but that you choose to ignore.  Actually a full term fetus’ size and need for oxygenated blood during the biological process of pregnancy is the factor contributing to harm or death to its mother. The fetus being a temporary part of it’s mothers biological functions and anatomy can cause maternal sepis to arise due to prolonged labor and ruptured membranes.

Sepsis is also known as blood poisoning. It is the body’s over-enthusiastic inflammatory reaction to infection. It can be deadly and kills millions yearly. Though more common in developing countries, it can occur anywhere. It can be cause’s  by pregnancy related infections and even unrelated ones such as pneumonia.​*One third of women with this complication die and most of those who survive will have to live with organ dysfunction.* Women with influenza and HIV (as well as other infections) are at a higher risk. Severe sepsis can lead to septic shock, which can cause mental disorders and widespread organ damage.​
Hypertension can lead to stroke for anyone. However, a woman's chances of experiencing a stroke is increased by pregnancy and can continue even during the postpartum period. Ischemic stroke occurs when a blood vessel that transmits blood to the brain is blocked by a blood clot or other blockage.​​​


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.



NFBW: If a developing fetus is not part of its mother’s blood vessels anatomy (heart lungs arteries and veins) up until birth as you so ignorantly claim CarsomyrPlusSix , how does Amniotic Fluid Embolism cause the death of a mother from fetal hair or blood cells entering the bloodstream of its mother and kill her.


*Amniotic Fluid Embolism*​It is rare, but seriously life threatening. It occurs when the amniotic fluid and/or fetal material such as baby’s hair or skin cells, enters the bloodstream of the mother. It could occur at any time from pre-labor to postpartum, but usually occurs during childbirth and the immediate postpartum period.​​It is impossible to prevent as it develops suddenly and rapidly. Symptoms include sudden low blood pressure, fluid in the lungs, heart failure, heart rate irregularities, seizures, sudden anxiety, chills, bleeding and fetal distress.​​Amniotic fluid is thought to enter the mother’s bloodstream through the placenta and causes the sudden collapse of the cardiorespiratory system and clotting of the mother’s blood. It is estimated to be present in 1 to 12 of 100,000 pregnancies globally. The possibility of maternal mortality is estimated at 80 percent.​​It increases the risk of brain injury for those that survive, but for the most part, death occurs within an hour of the presence of symptoms.​​You need to go into hiding with ClaireH  You are no challenge for me.


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Welcome to the ignore list, trash.


NFBW: Another notch on the grip of my truth gun



NotfooledbyW said:


> Can the growing life harm the mother’s life in any way?
> 
> Can you personally guarantee to every woman that absolutely no pain or harm will come to her if she chooses not to terminate the growing life inside her and give birth to an unplanned child?





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> you claim they are part of their mother’s life, at complete odds with scientific reality



NFBW: If a five year old child picks up a loaded hand gun and shoots and kills his mother, the child was a part and contributing factor in the death of its mother. The child is not responsible

It’s the same with a fetus being a contributing factor in its mother’s death. There is no responsibility on behalf of a fetus.  END2209210820


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Imagine being such an obnoxious and unreasonable piece of shit, so flagrantly obvious in his direct self-contradiction and immediate denial of his own quoted words and their plain English meaning, that you render it impossible for anyone to view you as anything but background noise, spewing nonsense in pure bad faith that you will contradict in 5 minutes time and will not support.

Then imagine declaring victory whenever anyone turns on the noise-cancelling headphones.

What a pitiable creature.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> direct self-contradiction and immediate denial of his own quoted words


Simple. You are a liar. There is no contradiction and subsequent denial of any of my words that are written. If you think they are cut and paste them and give an explanation to exactly what you believe is the contradiction. But only use exactly what is written, exactly, do not add your own words to mine Just you saying it’s a contradiction means nothing. And you lied about what I said. I never said the fetus was responsible for killing the mother it is impossible for a fetus to be responsible for killing his mother but its physical presence inside the womb causes all kinds of biological complications that can harm and kill every mother.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Then imagine declaring victory whenever anyone turns on the noise-cancelling headphones.


Turning on the noise canceling headphones in this case is running away and hiding basically because you’re out of lies


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Freak Farms For The Weirdos To Help Them Feel Superior "
> 
> * Categorical Goof Balls With Dictatorial Penchant **
> 
> Few would characterize myself a leftist rather than a pro-choice republican whom despises the traitors who support the sedition against us 1st , 9th and 14th amendments implemented by scotus through he idiocy of its dobbs decision .
> 
> The dementia of your perspective is on par with horror film clowns whose sanctimonious psychotics dictating macabre fantasies of hell as heaven on earth posit a short term goal of reducing abortion for down syndrome by 50% .
> 
> Here is a freak for you to carry to term and keep for life , since you are far from realistic about the depravity in nature and are insolent to understand such choices for quality of life are entitled to individuals determining their own fates that are not to be decided by you or a state .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miscarriage, loss and grief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.marchofdimes.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Miscarriage (also called early pregnancy loss) is when a baby dies in the womb (uterus) before 20 weeks of pregnancy. For women who know they’re pregnant, about 10 to 15 in 100 pregnancies (10 to 15 percent) end in miscarriage. Most miscarriages happen in the first trimester before the 12th week of pregnancy. Miscarriage in the second trimester (between 13 and 19 weeks) happens in 1 to 5 in 100 (1 to 5 percent) pregnancies._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Placental Abruption
> 
> 
> Placental abruption is when your placenta detaches from your uterine wall before birth. Learn about placental abruption symptoms, its effects and its treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.marchofdimes.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Placental abruption can cause anemia and life threatening complications for a pregnant person.  If it’s not diagnosed and treated immediately there can be hemorrhage and blood clotting complications for both, the baby and the pregnant person. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ended wanted pregnancies. Post-Roe, they face new pain.
> 
> 
> Ashley Lefebvre hugs her unborn daughter’s urn each night.  Sarah Halsey treasures the tiny hat worn by her baby who lived just 38 minutes.  Abi Frazier moved away from her home with a furnished nursery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _It’s a side of abortion seldom discussed in national debates — the termination of pregnancies because of fetal anomalies or other often-fatal medical problems. These terminations often happen in the second trimester, when women have already picked out names, bought baby clothes and felt kicking in their wombs. They’re far different from the most common abortions, performed earlier in pregnancies.
> 
> Women say these terminations for medical reasons don’t feel like a choice — instead they are forced upon them by the condition of the fetus they carry. And the constant drumbeat of new abortion bans, rulings and news since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade has reopened raw wounds. Such abortions were already shrouded in secrecy and guilt, the women say. They fear the path will be even tougher for those who follow.
> 
> There are no recent statistics on the frequency of terminations for fetal anomalies — including genetic or chromosomal abnormalities — in the U.S., but experts say it’s a small percentage of total procedures. They typically occur later than the 93% of abortions performed at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy.''_


Nice try, but if you think that the past abortion numbers fit into such categories or represent your alledged compassionate cries and possible lie's over the unique and specific cases or issue's that are listed, (otherwise as if they somehow are talking about the bulk of the abortion's that were or should have been allowed), then I got some land in AZ to sell to you.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: They are not responsible as I’ve said over and over but that you choose to ignore.  Actually a full term fetus’ size and need for oxygenated blood during the biological process of pregnancy is the factor contributing to harm or death to its mother. The fetus being a temporary part of it’s mothers biological functions and anatomy can cause maternal sepis to arise due to prolonged labor and ruptured membranes.
> 
> Sepsis is also known as blood poisoning. It is the body’s over-enthusiastic inflammatory reaction to infection. It can be deadly and kills millions yearly. Though more common in developing countries, it can occur anywhere. It can be cause’s  by pregnancy related infections and even unrelated ones such as pneumonia.​*One third of women with this complication die and most of those who survive will have to live with organ dysfunction.* Women with influenza and HIV (as well as other infections) are at a higher risk. Severe sepsis can lead to septic shock, which can cause mental disorders and widespread organ damage.​
> Hypertension can lead to stroke for anyone. However, a woman's chances of experiencing a stroke is increased by pregnancy and can continue even during the postpartum period. Ischemic stroke occurs when a blood vessel that transmits blood to the brain is blocked by a blood clot or other blockage.​​​
> 
> NFBW: If a developing fetus is not part of its mother’s blood vessels anatomy (heart lungs arteries and veins) up until birth as you so ignorantly claim CarsomyrPlusSix , how does Amniotic Fluid Embolism cause the death of a mother from fetal hair or blood cells entering the bloodstream of its mother and kill her.
> 
> 
> *Amniotic Fluid Embolism*​It is rare, but seriously life threatening. It occurs when the amniotic fluid and/or fetal material such as baby’s hair or skin cells, enters the bloodstream of the mother. It could occur at any time from pre-labor to postpartum, but usually occurs during childbirth and the immediate postpartum period.​​It is impossible to prevent as it develops suddenly and rapidly. Symptoms include sudden low blood pressure, fluid in the lungs, heart failure, heart rate irregularities, seizures, sudden anxiety, chills, bleeding and fetal distress.​​Amniotic fluid is thought to enter the mother’s bloodstream through the placenta and causes the sudden collapse of the cardiorespiratory system and clotting of the mother’s blood. It is estimated to be present in 1 to 12 of 100,000 pregnancies globally. The possibility of maternal mortality is estimated at 80 percent.​​It increases the risk of brain injury for those that survive, but for the most part, death occurs within an hour of the presence of symptoms.​​You need to go into hiding with ClaireH  You are no challenge for me.
> 
> NFBW: Another notch on the grip of my truth gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW: If a five year old child picks up a loaded hand gun and shoots and kills his mother, the child was a part and contributing factor in the death of its mother. The child is not responsible
> 
> It’s the same with a fetus being a contributing factor in its mother’s death. There is no responsibility on behalf of a fetus.  END2209210820


Ok so what's your purpose in going down these ignorant to the conversation road's ? Oh I know, it's because everytime you get backed into a corner, then you come up with some different angle in hopes to win the debate. The entire issue is simple really - either a doctor diagnoses a situation as being dangerous to the mother during her pregnancy, and the unborn baby has died or is dying due to an underlying condition where as the life of the mother is threatened, then a proper medical decision will be made to perform a DNC in order to abort the pregnancy in which is threatening the mother of the unborn child in which is in serious decline, otherwise it is determined to be a terminal/fatal condition.

Using abortion for birth control is a sick disgusting practice that has brought shame upon the medical community in which takes an oath to protect life. Being hit men or women for irresponsible acts that end up causing a medical field graduate to become a Joseph Mengele is a sad stain on American society. It's uncivilized.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Ok so what's your purpose


NFBW: To get Americans posting here who want white Christian state lawmakers in severely red states to take away a pregnant woman’s access to a medical procedure to terminate a condition that can harm or kill her, to either tell the truth or run away and hide. So far those who believe a one-cell zygote should have more right to life than the pregnant woman refuse to tell the truth and prefer to run away..Do you have any truth @Beagle ?  Di you agree with CarsomyrPlusSix that a fetus is not part of its mother’s anatomy and the fetus is not part of any biological process that can harm or kill its mother? END22092/0125


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> Ok so what's your purpose in going down these ignorant to the conversation road's ?


His purpose is to troll through fundamental dishonesty and vindictive performative retardation and self-contradiction.

He is a poster of 100% bad faith.



beagle9 said:


> Oh I know, it's because everytime you get backed into a corner, then you come up with some different angle in hopes to win the debate.


It’s worse than that.  He doesn’t just try to come up with a new angle, you can literally corner him in a rhetorical back alley, his back to the walls of all the things he has already said, and then he’ll just say, “nuh-unh, those walls aren’t actually there, I never said that, and your bullets can’t hurt me, I’m made of Kevlar and I have a force field.”

He’s like that asshole kid on the playground who won’t follow the rules of any game or coherent sense of continuity in the make-believe everyone else is playing.  Everyone else is playing say, a ninja turtle, and he wants to play his own OC self-insert OP Mary Sue who can one-shot Shredder.

But these childish antics have no place in debate.  If you get caught in contradiction, someone with integrity will adapt by conceding the point, learning and starting over.  Someone with zero integrity will just indulge in denial of reality and shifting the goalposts wildly to irrelevant things that were never part of the discussion as a distraction.

But this doesn’t actually work - it’s obvious, transparent bullshit.



beagle9 said:


> The entire issue is simple really - either a doctor diagnoses a situation as being dangerous to the mother during her pregnancy, and the unborn baby has died or is dying due to an underlying condition where as the life of the mother is threatened, then a proper medical decision will be made to perform a DNC in order to abort the pregnancy in which is threatening the mother of the unborn child in which is in serious decline, otherwise it is determined to be a terminal/fatal condition.


These situations are very rare.  I accept medical triage to save the patient who can be saved, but physicians should never stop trying to save both patients in a pregnancy unless it is known there is nothing they can do.



beagle9 said:


> Using abortion for birth control is a sick disgusting practice that has brought shame upon the medical community in which takes an oath to protect life. Being hit men or women for irresponsible acts that end up causing a medical field graduate to become a Joseph Mengele is a sad stain on American society. It's uncivilized.


They are barbaric monsters, yes.  They are hit men.  They should die in prison, every last one of them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> 15 week fetal human being is absolutely scientifically, biologically, commonsensically,
> indisputably, morally, humanly substantively. economically, Constitutionally a part of its mother Part of its mother’s life. It can kill her for Christ sake
> 
> A 15 week fetus cannot survive without being part of its mother and the deepest truth to the fact that a pegnant woman is carrying inside of her an organism that is very much a part of her, is that as it develops that organism can increasingly harm and even kill her. Or do you dispute that?
> 
> I will repeat using your terminology so not to be distracted by your bullshit semantics: can an unborn human life harm or kill the woman who carries it inside her.





beagle9 said:


> The entire issue is simple really - either a doctor diagnoses a situation as being dangerous to the mother during her pregnancy, and the unborn baby has died or is dying due to an underlying condition where as the life of the mother is threatened, then a proper medical decision will be made to perform a DNC in order to abort the pregnancy in which is threatening the mother of the unborn child in which is in serious decline, otherwise it is determined to be a terminal/fatal condition.


NFBW: Do you agree with me or do you agree with CarsomyrPlusSix Who put in writing that a fetus is not part of a pregnancy, a fetus is not part of a woman’s anatomy while inside the womb and therefore since it’s not part of a pregnancy the fetus can do no harm to his mother.? END2209220758


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> UNBORN KIDS ARE OBJECTIVELY INNOCENT - NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY HARM OF PREGNANCY AND CAN TAKE NO ACTIONS WHATSOEVER, SO WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIE ABOUT THEM BEING “PART OF THEIR MOTHER” OR “A PROCESS,” THEY DO NO ACTIONS.
> 
> HARMING IS AN ACTION. KILLING IS AN ACTION. _THEY CAN’T TAKE ACTIONS_ WHILE RESTING HELPLESSLY IN THE PLACE THEIR PARENTS PUT THEM.





NotfooledbyW said:


> a developing fetus is innocent of any wrongdoing in the event a developing fetus kills the mother at childbirth





beagle9 said:


> Dumb points you keep making





NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: If a developing fetus is not part of its mother’s blood vessels anatomy (heart lungs arteries and veins) up until birth as you so ignorantly claim @CarsomyrPlusSix , how does Amniotic Fluid Embolism cause the death of a mother from fetal hair or blood cells entering the bloodstream of its mother and kill her





NotfooledbyW said:


> It’s the same with a fetus being a contributing factor in its mother’s death. There is no responsibility on behalf of a fetus. END2209210820





beagle9 said:


> Oh I know, it's because everytime you get backed into a corner, then you come up with some different angle in hopes to win the debate.


NFBW:
Answer me this. Is the developing fetus “doing” its developing by its own choice? The answer is no. But if the developing fetus prior to or during birth harms or kills the mother, is the fetus part of an “action“? The answer is yes.

Now look at the messages above. The fraudulent, disingenuous, flat out liar that CarsomyrPlusSix  is, twisted my words to say that I said the fetus is “taking action“ to kill its mother. That is a lie. Any normal comprehension of human language sees that as a lie. CarsomyrPlusSix Is a liar.

 The issue is you need to ask yourself beagle9 whether or not “to continue to develop as a temporary part of a pregnant woman’s pregnancy is an action that has severe consequences knowable when a woman finds out she is pregnant and wishes to protect herself from harm.  END2209220821


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> you can literally corner him in a rhetorical back alley,


I see the chief abortion liar can’t face me directly so he complains to @beagle and her where he can find friendly acceptance to his campaign of lies about abortion.

The only way cars can back me into an alley is through various forms of lying.

One specific form of his lies or two and JACK his personal biased interpretation of what is in writing. 

He claims that I said a fetus “takes action” to Harm or kill its mother. That is a absolute lie. I maintain that a fetus is part of pregnancy and that’s the one on willful action of developing inside the womb can harm or kill  the mother.

Jesus is not going to like beagle9  that you commiserate with liars only because they are part of your tribe.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I accept medical triage to save the patient who can be saved,


Murder is murder dude. If a one cell zygote has a right to life equal to that of its mother  it cannot be murdered to save the life of the mother. If you say a fully developed zygote can be murdered by a doctor you are acknowledging the one cell zygote’s life has less value than it’s mother.


----------



## Redfish

OK, lets review.  What the supreme court ruling said was that abortion is NOT a federal constitutional issue and therefore should be settled by the voters in each state.   THAT IS ALL IT SAID, IT DID NOT OVERTURN ROE V WADE.   It merely sent the issue back to the states where is always belonged.   So let the voters decide,  why are you libs so scared of the voters in your states?   Cal and NY will always be abortion mills, so will other blue states.  So WTF are you so scared of?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Redfish said:


> OK, lets review.  What the supreme court ruling said was that abortion is NOT a federal constitutional issue and therefore should be settled by the voters in each state.   THAT IS ALL IT SAID, IT DID NOT OVERTURN ROE V WADE.   It merely sent the issue back to the states where is always belonged.   So let the voters decide,  why are you libs so scared of the voters in your states?   Cal and NY will always be abortion mills, so will other blue states.  So WTF are you so scared of?


I mean Roe created a federal constitutional right that isn’t remotely supported by the Constitution.

Dobbs corrected that mistake, noting that there never has been and never was a federal Constitutional right and there is no justification in the Constitution for creating one. 

That *is* overturning, it was baseless and stupid and should have been overturned, it is fantastic that Roe is gone.

Which means that yes, per the 10th Amendment, the matter is up to the people of each state, and federal politicians should shut up about abortion aside from 1) banning it in federal territory, 2) continuing to vote for literate, non-activist SCOTUS members who will  keep Dobbs in place and hopeful overturn more “privacy” bullshit lies, and 3) voting for a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion nationwide.


----------



## Redfish

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I mean Roe created a federal constitutional right that isn’t remotely supported by the Constitution.
> 
> Dobbs corrected that mistake, noting that there never has been and never was a federal Constitutional right and there is no justification in the Constitution for creating one.
> 
> That *is* overturning, it was baseless and stupid and should have been overturned, it is fantastic that Roe is gone.
> 
> Which means that yes, per the 10th Amendment, the matter is up to the people of each state, and federal politicians should shut up about abortion aside from 1) banning it in federal territory, 2) continuing to vote for literate, non-activist SCOTUS members who will  keep Dobbs in place and hopeful overturn more “privacy” bullshit lies, and 3) voting for a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion nationwide.


its a terminology issue here.   It was not overturned, it was deemed improper constitutionally and legally.   Overturning it would have made abortion illegal nationally.  The SC did not do that, abortion is still legal unless specific states ban it.   may be splitting hairs, but that's sometimes necessary.   another way to say it is that the SC declared Roe null and void.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Redfish said:


> its a terminology issue here.   It was not overturned, it was deemed improper constitutionally and legally.   Overturning it would have made abortion illegal nationally.  The SC did not do that, abortion is still legal unless specific states ban it.   may be splitting hairs, but that's sometimes necessary.   another way to say it is that the SC declared Roe null and void.


No, because before Roe was handed out, it wasn’t illegal nationally.  It was illegal or not state by state.  Overturning it did declare it null and void, yes, which is why it went back to the states.  In theory they could have overturned it in a different way, by creating a federal right to life and thus banning abortion (which is supported by the Declaration of Independence but not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution), but either way it would still be called “overturning.”

This is a semantics or terminology disagreement, we both understand what Dobbs did and didn’t do and we both approve of the result.


----------



## Redfish

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No, because before Roe was handed out, it wasn’t illegal nationally.  It was illegal or not state by state.  Overturning it did declare it null and void, yes, which is why it went back to the states.  In theory they could have overturned it in a different way, by creating a federal right to life and thus banning abortion (which is supported by the Declaration of Independence but not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution), but either way it would still be called “overturning.”
> 
> This is a semantics or terminology disagreement, we both understand what Dobbs did and didn’t do and we both approve of the result.


OK, sure


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I mean Roe created a federal constitutional right that isn’t remotely supported by the Constitution.


That is true only if you believe that a woman does not have a right to get a medical procedure to prevent harm or even death to her life. The constitution guarantees every woman a right to life. It does not give the same right to a one cell zygote until it develops toward readiness to become viable at birth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Redfish said:


> What the supreme court ruling said was that abortion is NOT a federal constitutional issue and therefore should be settled by the voters in each state.


When it comes to individual rights that are not specifically called out in the Constitution the general protection of those rights fall to the principle that the government shall do no harm. If a woman with an unwanted pregnancy decides she wants to avoid the risks of pregnancy and get a medical procedure to terminate the development of the fetus before it can harm her, I don’t see how state governments have the authority to  force a pregnant woman to be harmed.

It has to be unconstitutional and absurd that Supreme Court justices could actually rule that in certain states where a white Christianity dominated voting bloc is the norm - the voters get to decide that the government can indeed force a woman to accept harm to her own body which includes  death . END2209221310


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you have any truth @Beagle ? Do you agree with @CarsomyrPlusSix that a fetus is not part of its mother’s anatomy and the fetus is not part of any biological process that can harm or kill its mother?


you say beagle9  you disagree with me so explain  why you think a fetus is not part of its mother’s anatomy and the fetus is not part of any biological process that can harm or kill its mother?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> I see the chief abortion liar can’t face me directly so he complains to @beagle and her where he can find friendly acceptance to his campaign of lies about abortion.
> 
> The only way cars can back me into an alley is through various forms of lying.
> 
> One specific form of his lies or two and JACK his personal biased interpretation of what is in writing.
> 
> He claims that I said a fetus “takes action” to Harm or kill its mother. That is a absolute lie. I maintain that a fetus is part of pregnancy and that’s the one on willful action of developing inside the womb can harm or kill  the mother.
> 
> Jesus is not going to like beagle9  that you commiserate with liars only because they are part of your tribe.


Pure gibberish is all you sling here, and yes the other's are absolutely right not to entertain your bull crap for too long, because their IQ steady loses points by wasting their time with your dumb ace. You are a political hack attempting to salvage the midterm's by use of the abortion issue that's already been settled, and you and the terminal TDS whiner's aren't going to change that settled issue one iota. Now go pound sand ....


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> you say beagle9  you disagree with me so explain  why you think a fetus is not part of its mother’s anatomy and the fetus is not part of any biological process that can harm or kill its mother?


It doesn't have to be explained in any certain term's, otherwise you have a mother who is pregnant, and her unborn child is perfectly healthy, but then for some irresponsible reason that has been building up, she just decides that she doesn't want the child (a HUMAN being), that's growing inside of her, so she thinks to herself hmmmmmmmmmm ya know, I could get a so called procedure that would end the life of the child growing inside of my body. Yeah that's what I'm going to do she says, so next she goes in search of a procedure that will end the life of her pregnancy, and ultimately end the life of her unborn child.

The saddest thing is that there are actually practicing physicians that took an oath to protect life, then going out and violating that oath by getting involved in the death cult.


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I mean Roe created a federal constitutional right that isn’t remotely supported by the Constitution.
> 
> Dobbs corrected that mistake, noting that there never has been and never was a federal Constitutional right and there is no justification in the Constitution for creating one.
> 
> That *is* overturning, it was baseless and stupid and should have been overturned, it is fantastic that Roe is gone.
> 
> Which means that yes, per the 10th Amendment, the matter is up to the people of each state, and federal politicians should shut up about abortion aside from 1) banning it in federal territory, 2) continuing to vote for literate, non-activist SCOTUS members who will  keep Dobbs in place and hopeful overturn more “privacy” bullshit lies, and 3) voting for a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion nationwide.


The issue seems to be this - No one likes to look as if they are doing something wrong, so when everyone is forced by government to accept the thing that only some (once a few, but then multiplying into many over the year's), are now wrongfully and readily engaging in, then it cloak's the one's engaging in the thing that is wrong when government gets involved, otherwise government causes an appearance that suggest everyone agrees as if what is done is right, yet only if it forces everyone to agree with it.

Let's say that a state is engaging in what most people see as very unethical wrongful deeds, otherwise that are allowed in that state.

Then if you have 3 state's surrounding that state in which doesn't allow that wrong to go on in their state, then what happens next maybe ?

1. It shine's the spotlight on that state, and the wrong that is being allowing to go on there. They hate that.

The negative result's are next.
2. If the people living within the state aren't engaging in the wrong, and so they as individual's haven't decided to allow the wrong to go on if they have a say in it, then they might want to exit the state in search of state's that aren't willfully allowing the wrong to go on in the other state's next door to them.

3. Loss of citizen's, revenue, and respect will be the result of the spotlight shinning brightly on the one state that is engaging in what most people think is wrongful deeds and policies, otherwise if all these other state's aren't drug into it somehow with them by the force of the Federal government operating outside of it's purpose and boundaries when engaging in such a way.

This is why there is this great struggle by those who want to force all state's to conform under pressure of the Federal government, to then remove the spotlight from them by placing it on all the state's across the board equally for this type of wrong, otherwise as if they were these willing and freely compliant states also, but in retrospect it was by the gun point of a federal government that forced them to succumb to a minority of individuals who gathered themselves into group's in order to fool the Fed's by appearing larger than they are, and forcing the feds into using a blanketing or rather a broad brush on it's enemies by making them think that it's these most powerful, and one's that many in number will somehow hurt the government officials chances of being re-elected if the government doesn't help to cover up the bull crap by lumping everyone into the mix equally through the use of force and/or through intimidation..

Individualism should be supported in America, and character as well, not blanketing and painting everything with a broad brush.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> Pure gibberish is all you sling here, and yes the other's are absolutely right not to entertain your bull crap for too long, because their IQ steady loses points by wasting their time with your dumb ace. You are a political hack attempting to salvage the midterm's by use of the abortion issue that's already been settled, and you and the terminal TDS whiner's aren't going to change that settled issue one iota. Now go pound sand ....



Like I can deal with pro-aborts, and I can even deal somewhat with particularly nasty pro-aborts, but extreme hatemongering is insufferable and then you add on the constant goalpost shifting non-sequiturs and constant self-contradicting lies.

I will simply say again, any harm of pregnancy is inflicted upon the mother by the mother and the father and that’s it.  The kid is not responsible and the kid cannot take actions, so claiming the kid can “harm” or “kill” the mom is not just intellectually dishonest, it is literally insane.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Others Skulk Around Its Implications And Repeat Tripe "

* Dobbs Is Sedition And Intellectual Dumbfound **


Redfish said:


> its a terminology issue here.   It was not overturned, it was deemed improper constitutionally and legally.   Overturning it would have made abortion illegal nationally.  The SC did not do that, abortion is still legal unless specific states ban it.   may be splitting hairs, but that's sometimes necessary.   another way to say it is that the SC declared Roe null and void.








						Notice For Public Record :  Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests
					

" Notice For Public Record :  Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests "  * Negative Liberties Represent Protections Independence Individualism *  Prologue :   Below is a set of posted tweets intend to establish which wrights , not...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				









						Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade
					

" Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade "  * On Behalf Of Pro Choice Republican Constitutionalism *  The next nominee for us supreme court should be asked to explain the following statement from justice blackmun whom...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				









						Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion
					

" Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is Under Sedition By States As A Result Of US Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion  "  * Constitutional Originalism Versus Judicial Activism *  Blackmun wrote this - ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Practical And Pragmatic About Moral Relativism Of Nature "

* Compassionate Indifference For None Of Yearn Interests **


beagle9 said:


> Nice try, but if you think that the past abortion numbers fit into such categories or represent your alledged compassionate cries and possible lie's over the unique and specific cases or issue's that are listed, (otherwise as if they somehow are talking about the bulk of the abortion's that were or should have been allowed), then I got some land in AZ to sell to you.


Perhaps you could use some tweets .

You might get 100 years and somehow see empathy for mortality from an immortal perspective ! An over populated planet and taxpayers are forced to fund ABSTINENCE ONLY FAMILY PLANNING by sanctimonious disciples whose excuse for poverty from over population is they are communists !

The mandated debt of fetal abnormalities is not to be dictated by individuals which are delusional about the literal meaning in the metaphors of an after life , a chance for eternal life , a life to come , reincarnation , etc . as other than passing on ones genetic identity .

As a pro-choice REPUBLICAN , all i see are #TRAITORS who support #SEDITION by #SCOTUS for its #DOBBS decision . By US 14th amendment , birth is required for citizenship and , by induction and #ROEVWADE LOGICALLY , OF COURSE deduction , birth is required for equal protection !


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> The saddest thing is that there are actually practicing physicians that took an oath to protect life, then going out and violating that oath by getting involved in the death cult.


NFBW: Practicing physicians do not share your religious belief that a one cell zygote is a equal in value to a fully viable human being. It’s your definition of life that is meaningless in the real world outside of your white rightwing Christian Trump voter world. 

You are not making a valid point.

END2209222005


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Monk-Eye said:


> As a pro-choice REPUBLICAN…,



I hope pro-choice Republicans recognize the need to vote pro-choice candidates nationwide in November. It’s important to put an end to the threat of pro-Trump autocracy:theocracy now that we have seen where Trump’s three Catholic SCOTUS picks are headed and now we know Ginny Thomas    had a role in the insurrection to keep Orange Jesus on the throne.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> any harm of pregnancy is inflicted upon the mother by the mother


NFBW: A pregnant woman can prevent harm to her body and life if she lives in New York. 

A pregnant woman cannot prevent harm to her body and life if she lives in Texas. 

The harm inflicted on the mother if she cannot travel to a free state is on Texas because of its ban on the medical procedure that would prevent harm to her body and life. 

END2209222052


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> any harm of pregnancy is inflicted upon the mother by the mother and the father and that’s it.


NFBW: After the sperm donation that father can do zero harm to the mother during her pregnancy.  CarsomyrPlusSix is really stupid about pregnancy and how it can harm  a woman’s health and life. 

END2209222103


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The kid is not responsible and the kid cannot take actions, so claiming the kid can “harm” or “kill” the mom is not just intellectually dishonest, it is literally insane.


NFBW: The kid is inside the body of a woman and in that position as it increases in size it can harm or kill its mother. There is nothing dishonest about that. END2209222129


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> Practicing physicians do not share your religious belief that a one cell zygote is a equal in value to a fully viable human being.


NFBW: Is it your argument beagle9 that practicing physicians who perform abortions share your religious belief that a one cell zygote is a equal in value to a fully viable human being. What is the basis of your disagreement? END2209222135


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Monk-Eye said:


> An over populated planet and taxpayers are forced to fund ABSTINENCE ONLY FAMILY PLANNING by sanctimonious disciples whose excuse for poverty from over population is they are communists !


Overpopulation is a myth, and you’re just dumb enough to believe it.  But you’re right on one thing - taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for any sex education or any education or any family planning.


Monk-Eye said:


> The mandated debt of fetal abnormalities is not to be dictated by individuals which are delusional about the literal meaning in the metaphors of an after life , a chance for eternal life , a life to come , reincarnation , etc . as other than passing on ones genetic identity .


You just want to cull the disabled, don’t you, you sicko?



Monk-Eye said:


> As a pro-choice REPUBLICAN , all i see are #TRAITORS


That’s probably because you’re retarded.



Monk-Eye said:


> who support #SEDITION by #SCOTUS


You don’t know what that word means - your claim is patently absurd and laughably stupid.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> you have a mother who is pregnant, and her unborn child is perfectly healthy, but then for some irresponsible reason that has been building up, she just decides that she doesn't want the child (a HUMAN being), that's growing inside of her, so she thinks to herself hmmmmmmmmmm ya know, I could get a so called procedure that would end the life of the child growing inside of my body.


NFBW: Why is what a woman decides to do about a collection of cells growing inside her body any of your business? END2209220953


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Why is what a woman decides to do about a collection of cells growing inside her body any of your business? END2209220953



NFBW: beagle9 Disagrees with a question which is absurd so I will ask again: 

Why is what a woman decides to do about a collection of cells growing inside her body any of your business beagle9 ? END2209232104


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Why is what a woman decides to do about a collection of cells growing inside her body any of your business? END2209220953


Call it what you want Libby, and you can even join up with Stacey Abrams to suggest that the heartbeat is being manufactured by "the man" in hopes to control a woman's body. ROTFLMBO..

How damned ludicrous or a crock of bull crap is that ?? You ought to hold your head in shame for shilling for the Democrat's like you do.. Pathetic.

What about prostitution? You all have been allowing that to exist forever, but hey the next thing you know "her body" isn't her body, but rather it belongs to the State when they lock her ace up for selling that body. 

Thought her body was her's, but it appears that it only belongs to her if she chooses to use it in a way that they might approve of. So if she decides to end the pregnancy in which harbor's a beautiful little child within, then the state back's her choice one hundred percent eh, but if she wants to sell her body, then it's off with her head eh ?? ROTFLMBO 😂


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> Call it what you want Libby, and you can even join up with Stacey Abrams to suggest that the heartbeat is being manufactured by "the man" in hopes to control a woman's body. ROTFLMBO..
> 
> How damned ludicrous or a crock of bull crap is that ?? You ought to hold your head in shame for shilling for the Democrat's like you do.. Pathetic.
> 
> What about prostitution? You all have been allowing that to exist forever, but hey the next thing you know "her body" isn't her body, but rather it belongs to the State when they lock her ace up for selling that body.
> 
> Thought her body was her's, but it appears that it only belongs to her if she chooses to use it in a way that they might approve of. So if she decides to end the pregnancy in which harbor's a beautiful little child within, then the state back's her choice one hundred percent eh, but if she wants to sell her body, then it's off with her head eh ?? ROTFLMBO 😂


The audacity of that inhuman devolved cancerous clump of cells with negative intelligence thinking itself superior to the unborn.

The answer to Clumpy’s question is that it is very much our business when anyone, man or woman, attacks and kills another human being in coldblooded aggression.  

Clumpy may as well argue it “isn’t our business” if someone were to shoot Clumpy to death unprovoked, and yet, shitty as he is, vile as he is, Clumpy is still ostensibly a human being and Clumpy still has rights - even if its primary activity is to troll while abusing the first amendment right to free speech to call for killing others and violating their human right to life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> How damned ludicrous or a crock of bull crap is that ??



There remains this question anti-legal abortion crusader refuses to answer: 

Why is what a woman decides to do about a collection of cells growing inside her body any of your business?

The question is why the refusal.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The answer to Clumpy’s question is that it is very much our business when anyone, man or woman, attacks and kills another human being in coldblooded aggression.




FACT (A)  When you write “attacks and kills another human being” you are referring to two separate human beings are you not? PERSON ONE and PERSON TWO. An attacker and a victim. 

FACT (B)   One of the two human beings is a viable human being and the second human being involved is not a viable human being.

FACT (C) There is no act of murder when there is no murdered body of a once viable human being produced as evidence or credible proof that the second human being was viable and became part of the general human family of mankind.

A B and C means you beagle9 etc are making up an excuse and nonexistent crime of murder to make your invasion into the privacy of a newly impregnated woman your business. That is a fraudulent lie mostly based religion and it has severe consequences for viable human beings who cannot obtain medical services to prevent harm to themselves o
Up to and including loss of a viable human beings life.

END2209230026


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> if she decides to end the pregnancy in which harbor's a beautiful little child within,


No state or federal law recognizes a one cell zygote or limited cell fetus as a “beautiful little child” that can be murdered by a woman prior to a concept of it’s viability.

It is why ding wrote the following false statement:



ding said:


> Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination.



END2209240050


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> There remains this question anti-legal abortion crusader refuses to answer:
> 
> Why is what a woman decides to do about a collection of cells growing inside her body any of your business?
> 
> The question is why the refusal.


It should be anybody's business when the moral code's of mankind and nature are being broken. To sit back and do or say nothing is aching for chaos and mayhem to become the norm in what was once a CIVILIZED SOCIETY to a large degree.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> No state or federal law recognizes a one cell zygote or limited cell fetus as a “beautiful little child” that can be murdered by a woman prior to a concept of it’s viability.
> 
> It is why ding wrote the following false statement:
> 
> 
> 
> END2209240050


Beautiful little child is referring to the little precious life that is growing beautifully within. How one thinks to just go down and have that life just snuffed out for one's selfish reasoning is a sickening thing. How a medical field graduate seeks to then accommodate such a thing, uhhh well is another sickening thing. Be pro-life, then you can't lose.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

I see from your quotes that Clumpy still has no rebuttal for anything. 

Oh well, guess I’m not missing out on anything by skipping out on that endless font of retardation.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" More Impotence From Neophyte Trolls With Poor Education And Over Aggrandized Self Worth "

* Too Arrogant To Care And Too Stupid To Anticipate **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Overpopulation is a myth, and you’re just dumb enough to believe it.  But you’re right on one thing - taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for any sex education or any education or any family planning.


The dullards are those who blubber about climate change , pollution , carrying capacity , extinction and limited resources without making a correlation between those and the gluttony of hue mammon over population in a closed system .

I may be correct about something but being right or left is piss poor diction as neither are valid connotations for correct or incorrect .

** Personality Disorders Of Wanna Be Dictators In Clown Suits **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You just want to cull the disabled, don’t you, you sicko?


The decision to proceed or to terminate a pregnancy based on fetal abnormalities is to be decided by the individual and not a bunch of sanctimonious haughty horror genre clowns .

** Go Brag About It To Mother Nature **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> That’s probably because you’re retarded.


An afterlife , life to come , reincarnation , being born again , transmutation of soles , etc are metaphors with for passing on ones genetic identity through offspring so that another , both literally and figuratively as themselves , may have an opportunity to experience the sentience , sapience and introspection that is afforded as life , where failure to do so in perpetuity is ascribed the metaphors of final judgement and eternal damnation .

** Whatever You Say Punk Bitch Nobody **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You don’t know what that word means - your claim is patently absurd and laughably stupid.


Those who attend understand and it is a matter of time before enough have heard and know .






						Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion
					

" Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is Under Sedition By States As A Result Of US Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion  "  * Constitutional Originalism Versus Judicial Activism *  Blackmun wrote this - ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: BackAgain asks a rationally setup question and then irrationally mandates that we all accept the only answer per his conclusion.. Thr answer is no.

The following is a perfect example of the acceptance of irrationality by Conservative Americans fused to each other by the absolute irrationality of Trumpism, MAGA, Pro-Lifers,  White Christian Nationalists, Stop-the-Steal Election Deniers,   including Q-Anon.

BackAgain220422-#90  “I believe we have a disconnect. Just because the Constitution doesn’t say we have a right to privacy, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a right to privacy. If we say it is a corollary to our right to be secure in our own homes (a right we do have, explicitly), then I have no objection to a claim that a right to privacy may be Constitutionally protected. But that’s not the end of the inquiry.

At least one additional question comes to mind immediately if we have a right to be secure in our own homes, let’s ask: secure from whom or from what? I suggest that it was intended to mean “secure from government intrusion.” The Constitution can be resorted to against improper government acts (like a warrantless wiretap). Sure, we may have a right against invasion of that security (or privacy) by the actions of individuals, too. But the latter right isn’t a Constitutionally protected right. It is a lawful right. But the Constitution isn’t the right shield to address that latter violation.

This is akin to the right to free speech. The Government isn’t allowed to deny us our right to free speech (with some very limited exceptions). But that doesn’t mean that the idiots at Twitter can’t deny you free speech on their service.

So, let’s get back to abortion “rights.” To the extent that it is largely predicated on a “right” to “privacy,” and the right to privacy is part of some penumbra of our right to be secure in our persons and in our our homes, then do we have a right to murder a person in the privacy of our own homes? (By the way, the answer of clearly “no.”) “

END2209240751


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Fails To Explain All Of Nature And Ignores The Messages From Its Maker"

* Apex Predator Wants To Disregard Basic Realities **


NotfooledbyW said:


> Beautiful little child is referring to the little precious life that is growing beautifully within. How one thinks to just go down and have that life just snuffed out for one's selfish reasoning is a sickening thing. How a medical field graduate seeks to then accommodate such a thing, uhhh well is another sickening thing. Be pro-life, then you can't lose.











						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
				



_Infanticide is disturbingly common in nature. It's typically committed by males that take over a pride or pack and kill whatever babies are present to make room for the ones they plan to father.

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. If they're raising babies that have a poor chance of surviving anyway, why make a pointless investment of time, resources and calories trying to keep them alive? Better to cut their losses, bag the babies and wait for a better season to breed.

When there were at least three assisting males in the troop, the researchers found, the survival rate for infants was an impressive 75%; when there were two or fewer males, the number fell to 42%. When a mother-to-be was the only gestating female in a group, the baby she gave birth to had an 80% chance of surviving at least three months. When there were two or more pregnancies, that forecast plunged to just 20%. "Births must be spaced by three months or more," the authors wrote, "in order to allow efficient helping behavior."_


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The audacity of that inhuman devolved cancerous clump of cells with negative intelligence thinking itself superior to the unborn.


NFBW: That is an excellent example of pro-life irrationality contained in a lie.

For documented evidence of MAGA Politics of irrationality Click Post #5,372    END2209240809


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Empathy For The Inchoate "

* Inquiring Minds Want To Know **


beagle9 said:


> It should be anybody's business when the moral code's of mankind and nature are being broken. To sit back and do or say nothing is aching for chaos and mayhem to become the norm in what was once a CIVILIZED SOCIETY to a large degree.


Oh due tell us , what is the moral code of nature ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> To sit back and do or say nothing is aching for chaos and mayhem to become the norm in what was once a CIVILIZED SOCIETY to a large degree.


NFBW:  When a woman terminates her pregnancy in the privacy of her family and a medical professional there is no effect on the civilization of mankind because no viable “person” is intentionally and or legally being terminated.  Why is it your business beagle9 ?  What motivates you to stick your Christian nose into everybody else’s business when they cause no harm to you and no damage to civilization. An example of Damage to civilians and civilization was the US Invasion of Iraq in 2003. Did you protest in the streets as I did before Bush launched it?  END2209240830


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Moral Relativism Of Nature Versus Legal Positivism Of State Institution "

* Perspectivism For A Republic To Safeguard Individualism "*


NotfooledbyW said:


> So, let’s get back to abortion “rights.” To the extent that it is largely predicated on a “right” to “privacy,” and the right to privacy is part of some penumbra of our right to be secure in our persons and in our our homes, then do we have a right to murder a person in the privacy of our own homes? (By the way, the answer of clearly “no.”) “
> END2209240751


Though they were told for over 30 years that a wright to privacy was incidental and not principle to the basis for pro-choice public policy and for the basis of roe v wade decision , the pro-choice leadership remained complacent , arrogant and dismissive in refusing to adopt the actual constitutional basis that does not require stare decisis or precedent -
Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade .

To secure a position for a wright to privacy one must exclude / prohibit state interests by assuring equal protection of negative liberties - among those entitled by a birth requirement to receive it , and state interests are restricted to safety and security and not culpable to populism of democracy as tyranny by majority or tyranny by minority .

This should help -





						Notice For Public Record :  Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests
					

" Notice For Public Record :  Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests "  * Negative Liberties Represent Protections Independence Individualism *  Prologue :   Below is a set of posted tweets intend to establish which wrights , not...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Small Changes In Initial Conditions "

* Pet Peeve Crux Of Insufficient Vernacular **


NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW:  When a woman terminates her pregnancy in the privacy of her family and a medical professional there is no effect on the civilization of mankind because no viable “person” is intentionally and or legally being terminated.  Why is it your business beagle9 ?  What motivates you to stick your Christian nose into everybody else’s business when they cause no harm to you and no damage to civilization. An example of Damage to civilians and civilization was the US Invasion of Iraq in 2003. Did you protest in the streets as I did before Bush launched it?  END2209240830


An etymology of the term per son indicates a meaning of countable by census and male .

By declaration of independence , all men are created equal , thereby surreptitiously implying that women are not , which is corroborated by us 19th amendment .

Thus by us 14th amendment , any person may become a citizen implies that women are not categorically citizens of the us .

The credo of republic is e pluribus unum that is based in individualism and a correct annotation to replace the term person is individual , that also clarifies the birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen .

The anti-choice traitors seek to usurp a birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen by modifying the definition of a per son in title 1 section 8 of us code to include the pre-born ,


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" More Impotence From Neophyte Trolls With Poor Education And Over Aggrandized Self Worth "
> 
> * Too Arrogant To Care And Too Stupid To Anticipate **
> 
> The dullards are those who blubber about climate change , pollution , carrying capacity , extinction and limited resources without making a correlation between those and the gluttony of hue mammon over population in a closed system .
> 
> I may be correct about something but being right or left is piss poor diction as neither are valid connotations for correct or incorrect .
> 
> ** Personality Disorders Of Wanna Be Dictators In Clown Suits **
> 
> The decision to proceed or to terminate a pregnancy based on fetal abnormalities is to be decided by the individual and not a bunch of sanctimonious haughty horror genre clowns .
> 
> ** Go Brag About It To Mother Nature **
> 
> An afterlife , life to come , reincarnation , being born again , transmutation of soles , etc are metaphors with for passing on ones genetic identity through offspring so that another , both literally and figuratively as themselves , may have an opportunity to experience the sentience , sapience and introspection that is afforded as life , where failure to do so in perpetuity is ascribed the metaphors of final judgement and eternal damnation .
> 
> ** Whatever You Say Punk Bitch Nobody **
> 
> Those who attend understand and it is a matter of time before enough have heard and know .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion
> 
> 
> " Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is Under Sedition By States As A Result Of US Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion  "  * Constitutional Originalism Versus Judicial Activism *  Blackmun wrote this - ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com


Your words above - The decision to proceed or to terminate pregnancy based on fetal abnormalities is to be decided by the individual and not a bunch of sanctimonious haughty horror genre clowns .

It is to be decided by the medical community in which the mother would happily agree if something is wrong.

Well if the radical leftist would have stayed inside their box regarding the matter of abnormalties, and regarding the danger to the mother in order to justify aborting the pregnancy, then intervention by rational minded people on the matter wouldn't have ever occurred. But the leftist Democrat party couldn't stand it, so they had to break into the outer boundaries of their screwed up thinking, and started taking something that was a medical procedure that was justified by the medical community when using it in a proper and ethical way as was needed, and they deformed it into something that became a sick and abused thing.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> Your words above - The decision to proceed or to terminate pregnancy based on fetal abnormalities is to be decided by the individual and not a bunch of sanctimonious haughty horror genre clowns .
> 
> It is to be decided by the medical community in which the mother would happily agree if something is wrong.
> 
> Well if the radical leftist would have stayed inside their box regarding the matter of abnormalties, and regarding the danger to the mother in order to justify aborting the pregnancy, then intervention by rational minded people on the matter wouldn't have ever occurred. But the leftist Democrat party couldn't stand it, so they had to break into the outer boundaries of their screwed up thinking, and started taking something that was a medical procedure that was justified by the medical community when using it in a proper and ethical way as was needed, and they deformed it into something that became a sick and abused thing.


I’m sorry but I can’t stop laughing at the guy who calls human rights “Hue mammon wrights” enough to make a serious reply, but good for you for trying.

And like, realizing the guy is making an appeal to human rights while advocating for killing the disabled because of their disabilities, like then I realize this isn’t just a clown, this is an evil clown, twisted, and quite probably insane.

We shouldn’t kill any humans just because they’re going to die or because they have an abnormality.  Everyone is different but we all have a human right to life that should not be violated, and it is violated when others attack and kill us.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> But the leftist Democrat party couldn't stand it, so they had to break into the outer boundaries of their screwed up thinking, and started taking something that was a medical procedure that was justified by the medical community when using it in a proper and ethical way as was needed, and they deformed it into something that became a sick and abused thing.


it is a private and proper medical procedure whether the non-viable fetus is normal or not. Your attack on the Democratic left is based on the irrationality of the American political right.  END2209241031.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> we all have a human right to life that should not be violated, and it is violated when others attack and kill us.


 NFBW: You are a viable human being referring to “us” .   Not viable human beings are not us. That is you motivated by hatred to be irrational on the question of what is us. END2209241255


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I’m sorry but I can’t stop laughing at the guy who calls human rights “Hue mammon wrights” enough to make a serious reply, but good for you for trying.
> 
> And like, realizing the guy is making an appeal to human rights while advocating for killing the disabled because of their disabilities, like then I realize this isn’t just a clown, this is an evil clown, twisted, and quite probably insane.
> 
> We shouldn’t kill any humans just because they’re going to die or because they have an abnormality.  Everyone is different but we all have a human right to life that should not be violated, and it is violated when others attack and kill us.


Agree, but what I'm talking about is in the extreme medical situations only. That's when intervention is needed to make decisions accordingly by medical professionals, and this would be in which to save the mother if that is a case in question. Other than that if a pregnancy is allowed to get started under consensual circumstances, then it shouldn't be stopped in a bid to control baby making by irresponsible lustful humans that haven't the slightest capacity or sense to use birth control when having sex. The thing is this also, the medical community shouldn't have ever allowed itself to be dragged into that sinful world, otherwise where it is being used as contract killer's who are hired to fix mistakes that are made by people who just don't give a dam.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> it is a private and proper medical procedure whether the non-viable fetus is normal or not. Your attack on the Democratic left is based on the irrationality of the American political right.  END2209241031.


And you are one sick puppy.. Get help.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> And you are one sick puppy.. Get help.


NFBW: That is not a rational argument. That is a very flawed irrational opinion which means nothing in the rational and moral world.  Based upon all facts of the matter and the reality you are the one in favor of forcing physical and mental harm and the potential of needless death of viable women you know nothing about because of your sick perversion of the teachings of Jesus and for the politics of irrational fear and hate that has infiltrated the Republican Party. END2209241759


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Earning Self Validating Compensation By Overcoming Informed Consent Ineptitude "

* Will Won Can Make Wall Standards **


beagle9 said:


> Your words above - The decision to proceed or to terminate pregnancy based on fetal abnormalities is to be decided by the individual and not a bunch of sanctimonious haughty horror genre clowns .
> 
> It is to be decided by the medical community in which the mother would happily agree if something is wrong.
> 
> Well if the radical leftist would have stayed inside their box regarding the matter of abnormalties, and regarding the danger to the mother in order to justify aborting the pregnancy, then intervention by rational minded people on the matter wouldn't have ever occurred.


Intervention by rational minded people is occurring in courts each day based on case claims for necessary liberties to manage life crisis imperatives in pursuit of happiness .

So one may conclude that principles of individualism are agreeable where its terms and depictions can be competently applied ?

From us 9th and 10th , equal protection of negative liberties is a non enumerated wright of the people and state interests beyond safety and security in protection of negative liberties are prohibited .

A state interest is prohibited from providing equal protection of negative liberties for any which has not met a birth requirement that is required of citizens .

A theory on principles of individualism includes self ownership and self determination :  where self ownership expects free roam , free association and progeny ; and , where self determination expects private property , willful intents by contract made valid with informed consent .

Without constitutional protections , any of either a zygote , an embryo , or a fetus is are private property of the mother .

Allegory of us republic credo , e pluribus unum , expects individualism and independence through equal protection of negative liberties .

Allegory of us republic credo , e pluribus unum , expects individualism and independence through equal protection of negative liberties , among those entitled to equal protection of negative liberty through equitable doctrine of live birth requirement to become a citizen .

** Disparaging Pragmatic Resolution While Devising Expletive Excelsior Generalizations **


beagle9 said:


> But the leftist Democrat party couldn't stand it, so they had to break into the outer boundaries of their screwed up thinking, and started taking something that was a medical procedure that was justified by the medical community when using it in a proper and ethical way as was needed, and they deformed it into something that became a sick and abused thing.


Partisan politics is very much like an adversarial debate so devised that each pundit presents only extremes of contrasting opinion .


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: That is not a rational argument. That is a very flawed irrational opinion which means nothing in the rational and moral world.  Based upon all facts of the matter and the reality you are the one in favor of forcing physical and mental harm and the potential of needless death of viable women you know nothing about because of your sick perversion of the teachings of Jesus and for the politics of irrational fear and hate that has infiltrated the Republican Party. END2209241759


I just love it when I bring out the crazy in you all... ROTFLMBO... Got some other stupid bull crap you want to add ? Please do.. lol


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> I just love it when I bring out the crazy in you all... ROTFLMBO... Got some other stupid bull crap you want to add ? Please do.. lol


His obsession with viability is unreal.

It’s just so much stupid garbage from this guy. He is a never ending font of it.


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> His obsession with viability is unreal.
> 
> It’s just so much stupid garbage from this guy. He is a never ending font of it.


He's shilling for the Democrat's, so failure to him is not an option. We are the one's that are wasting our time putting up with him, but someone has to do it.. ROTFLMBO 😂


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> I just love it when I bring out the crazy in you all...


Define what you consider to be crazy. 


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> His obsession with viability is unreal.


There is no facts based argument or significant thought from either of you. Viability is significant because a fetus that is not developed sufficient enough to join the society in which we viable humans live, cannot be murdered by its mother. END2209242242


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Define what you consider to be crazy.
> 
> There is no facts based argument or significant thought from either of you. Viability is significant because a fetus that is not developed sufficient enough to join the society in which we viable humans live, cannot be murdered by its mother. END2209242242


You just defined it.

Your attempt to focus us on one aspect of the issue while denying the part where we challenge you to a debate regarding ethics, moral's, and uncivilized verse's civilized on the issue is noted... You won't debate that aspect of it, but why ? Because if you did it would counter your own bull crap, and then make you agree that giving it back to the state's to decide was the right thing for the government to do.

The government is to represent all citizen's, and not just the left and it's whining perpetual petulant bull crap.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You





beagle9 said:


> Your attempt to focus us on one aspect of the issue while denying the part where we challenge you to a debate regarding ethics, moral's, and uncivilized verse's civilized on the issue is noted...


What is uncivilized about a woman who in private terminates a pregnancy? You don’t know anything about it. No person you know is harmed. There is no uncivilized or effect  on civilization one way or the other. That is my answer. We are talking about a pregnant woman making decisions about her own health and well being here. It really has nothing to do with the civilization of mankind in general. No viable person is harmed. END2209240410


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> You just defined it.
> 
> Your attempt to focus us on one aspect of the issue while denying the part where we challenge you to a debate regarding ethics, moral's, and uncivilized verse's civilized on the issue is noted... You won't debate that aspect of it, but why ? Because if you did it would counter your own bull crap, and then make you agree that giving it back to the state's to decide was the right thing for the government to do.
> 
> The government is to represent all citizen's, and not just the left and it's whining perpetual petulant bull crap.


Viability is again completely irrelevant.

Your current ability to breathe doesn’t make you alive, it doesn’t make you a human being, and it doesn’t make you a person, either. 

 Current legal personhood occurs at birth, but current legal personhood is discriminatory bullshit and we can change the fucking law.  This stark raving fucktard is basically arguing that the law is correct because it is the law, which doesn’t remotely account for the times and locations where many born humans weren’t given legal personhood.

Moreover, anyone who reads back through the history of this thread - and I would pity any such suffering soul having to read his drivel - can easily notice that this fucktard only started blathering about “viability” once he was backed into a corner over his stupid fucktard lies.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Define what you consider to be crazy.
> 
> There is no facts based argument or significant thought from either of you. Viability is significant because a fetus that is not developed sufficient enough to join the society in which we viable humans live, cannot be murdered by its mother. END2209242242


You just defined it.

Your attempt to focus us on one aspect of the issue while denying the part where we challenge you to a debate regarding ethics, moral's, and uncivilized verse's civilized on the issue, and you won't debate that aspect of it. Why ? Because if you did it would counter your own bull crap, and then make you agree that giving it back to the state's to decide was the right thing for the government to do.

The government is to represent all citizen's, and not just the left and it's whining perpetual petulant bull crap


NotfooledbyW said:


> What is uncivilized about a woman who in private terminates a pregnancy? You don’t know anything about it. No person you know is harmed. There is no uncivilized or effect  on civilization one way or the other. That is my answer. We are talking about a pregnant woman making decisions about her own health and well being here. It really has nothing to do with the civilization of mankind in general. No viable person is harmed. END2209240410


You just keep making a fool of yourself. Get help.


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Viability is again completely irrelevant.
> 
> Your current ability to breathe doesn’t make you alive, it doesn’t make you a human being, and it doesn’t make you a person, either.
> 
> Current legal personhood occurs at birth, but current legal personhood is discriminatory bullshit and we can change the fucking law.  This stark raving fucktard is basically arguing that the law is correct because it is the law, which doesn’t remotely account for the times and locations where many born humans weren’t given legal personhood.
> 
> Moreover, anyone who reads back through the history of this thread - and I would pity any such suffering soul having to read his drivel - can easily notice that this fucktard only started blathering about “viability” once he was backed into a corner over his stupid fucktard lies.


Yep, moving the goal post when caught is a favorite leftist tactic for sure. Done seen it thousands's upon thousands's of times here. He's definitely not unique in doing it, so it's an easily followed pattern.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Big Bend Texas said:


> Science tells us humans are not fully developed until somewhere around age 25-28. Does that somehow justify killing anyone up to age 28 without any need for justification.
> 
> What is creepy right down to it's core are the arguments you are making to dehumanize the unborn to justify killing them at will.





NotfooledbyW said:


> Still avoiding the biological concept of viability outside the womb I see.





Big Bend Texas said:


> Viability outside the womb is irrelevant, that is not a requirement for being human.





beagle9 said:


> Yep, moving the goal post when caught is a favorite leftist tactic for sure.



NFBW: One thing to count on always is when  viability is referenced the anti-abortion fanatics demand it cannot be used against them. They have no argument without being irrational and lost against it.  Why shouid I open with viability when it causes absurdists to flee every time. END2209250852


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: One thing to count on always is when  viability is referenced the anti-abortion fanatics demand it cannot be used against them. They have no argument without being irrational and lost against it.  Why shouid I open with viability when it causes absurdists to flee every time. END2209250852


Uh try again... ROTFLMBO..... No stop because it's not working.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> Uh try again... ROTFLMBO..... No stop because it's not working.


There is no rational reason to care about having lungs with adequate surfactant.

First of all, it is arbitrary - as technology improves, adequacy changes - younger and younger premature infants can survive.  Technology is theoretically possible that could make viability before lungs even exist or for the entire duration of the pregnancy.

Second of all, “all men are created equal” and natural human rights do not have any selective, arbitrary standard - just creation.  We are created at fertilization, the beginning of our lifespan.

Personhood should not therefore be set at some arbitrary point thereafter.  We always have our human rights from creation until death.  If we’re just going to set arbitrary standards, then personhood should begin at fertilization and end at death or whenever the former person expresses pro-abortion beliefs.  I like that one best if we’re going to be arbitrary and petty as it least it targets a more deserving group - hatemongers instead of the innocent - and not for something outside of their control like their demographics.

Rejecting someone’s bullshit goalpost moving isn’t running away, it’s running at them head on, sword in hand, screaming.  And then when they for the thousandth time cannot defend their logical fallacies and won’t stand by them and will just deflect to another, you rhetorically bisect their torso and leave them to bleed out, whilst ignoring their mewling.

They can act like Monty Python’s black knight all they want and claim it’s merely a flesh wound, but it just looks pathetic.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> We are created at fertilization, the beginning of our lifespan.


NFBW: We are not created ‘viable, at fertilization, and from that point forward, in pure biological terms, in order to acquire a lifespan we must spend the first 24 weeks of our lifespan dividing and multiplying cells after the first division by becoming a part of our mother’s biological system.

The interpretation of civil laws regarding rights and lawful status of the developing organism is not provided in nature or answered by science.

I believe it boils down to our ability as viable human beings to rationally decide the legal status of the ‘unviable stage of our lifespan’ to be primarily and steadfastly in favor of rights to the viable woman who is impregnated whether she has become pregnant intentionally or not. END2209250950


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> We always have our human rights from creation until death.


NFBW: How so? See post #5,399  There is a conflict of rights between the not viable fetus and the viable mother for about 24 weeks after fertilization. END2209251023


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> L   . legal personhood occurs at birth,


NFBW:


beagle9 said:


> it's not working.


You have no rational rejoinder.  When CarsomyrPlusSix says “legal personhood occurs at birth” he is conceding the pro-choice point that ‘viability’  is the key distinction established by the Constitution as to the moment when legal life begins in the United States of America. The failure of the TALIBAN Trump judges on the SCOTUS to recognize the legal affirmation that personhood does not begin at fertilization underscores the absolute absurdity of overturning Roe versus Wade in order to protect the legal right to life of not viable human beings when the Constitution has not established that right. THEY  absolutely ignored the crux of the matter in the constitution with THE  Dobbs decision. END2209251202


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> L   . legal personhood occurs at birth,





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> This stark raving fucktard is basically arguing that the law is correct because it is the law,


NFBW: The law is suitable and reasonable because rational humans have determined that the mother is the higher form of human life than a one cell zygote and a decision to terminate a pregnancy prior to “quickening” or modern scientific “viability” belongs to the private discretion of the pregnant woman not to irrational Taliban religious fanatics who want religious state lawmakers to decide. END2209251241


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Whether inside the womb or outside the womb, the essence doesn't change.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Current legal personhood occurs at birth,



NFBW: The essence of viability based legal status does change at birth.  END2209251416


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: We are not created ‘viable, at fertilization, and from that point forward, in pure biological terms, in order to acquire a lifespan we must spend the first 24 weeks of our lifespan dividing and multiplying cells after the first division by becoming a part of our mother’s biological system.
> 
> The interpretation of civil laws regarding rights and lawful status of the developing organism is not provided in nature or answered by science.
> 
> I believe it boils down to our ability as viable human beings to rationally decide the legal status of the ‘unviable stage of our lifespan’ to be primarily and steadfastly in favor of rights to the viable woman who is impregnated whether she has become pregnant intentionally or not. END2209250950


Again with the so called scientific bull crap, when the issue is purely about what Roe-V-Wade opened the door for, and what it slowly morphed into. When that happened it was time to take a look see back at everything that has transpired since, the I'll effects of it, the damages it has caused, and how it was slowly turning us into an uncivilized SOCIETY. We have to change gears whenever things are going bad, and that's exactly what we've done.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: The law is suitable and reasonable because rational humans have determined that the mother is the higher form of human life than a one cell zygote and a decision to terminate a pregnancy prior to “quickening” or modern scientific “viability” belongs to the private discretion of the pregnant woman not to irrational Taliban religious fanatics who want religious state lawmakers to decide. END2209251241


You run your mouth, yet you ignore all the fall out and destruction it has since caused, so that makes you part of the problem and not part of the solution.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW:
> 
> You have no rational rejoinder.  When CarsomyrPlusSix says “legal personhood occurs at birth” he is conceding the pro-choice point that ‘viability’  is the key distinction established by the Constitution as to the moment when legal life begins in the United States of America. The failure of the TALIBAN Trump judges on the SCOTUS to recognize the legal affirmation that personhood does not begin at fertilization underscores the absolute absurdity of overturning Roe versus Wade in order to protect the legal right to life of not viable human beings when the Constitution has not established that right. THEY  absolutely ignored the crux of the matter in the constitution with THE  Dobbs decision. END2209251202


Show us your law degree please.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> Again with the so called scientific bull crap, when the issue is purely about what Roe-V-Wade opened the door for, and what it slowly morphed into. When that happened it was time to take a look see back at everything that has transpired since, the I'll effects of it, the damages it has caused, and how it was slowly turning us into an uncivilized SOCIETY. We have to change gears whenever things are going bad, and that's exactly what we've done.


We *are *created at fertilization.

Viability remains irrelevant, and in all of his imbecilic facerolling-on-the-keyboard ranting, fucktard boy there had no rebuttal to that reality.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> Show us your law degree please.


He can't show his basic common sense or basic logic degree.

Case in point, Carsomyr +6 "conceded" nothing, Carsomyr noted that CURRENT discriminatory and shitty personhood law is one way, and that we can fix that.

And of course, fucktard boy - with his perpetual Republican derangement syndrome, as evidenced by his handle, just repurposed for ORANGE MAN BAD stupidity - takes that as an argument that the status quo is correct because it is the status quo, and me knowing what the status quo IS means I agree with it and concede it is correct.

By this metric, anyone who knew slavery existed "conceded" that it was correct, and would always be correct, and slavery is still legal right now because it was legal.  You can't know what the problem is to argue against it, you have to argue against it without understanding what you are arguing against, otherwise you agree it's correct.  Sure.  That makes sense.  _He's not crazy at all!_

Again, he hasn't the slightest bit of sanity, common sense, or coherent logic.

_Dobbs _is the law of the land.  Maybe he can go cry about it some more.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Again the scientific bull crap, when the issue is purely about what Roe-V-Wade opened the door for, and what it slowly morphed into. When that happened it was time to take a look see back at everything that has transpired since, the I'll effects of it, the damages it has caused, and how it was slowly turning us into an uncivilized SOCIETY.


NFBW: We have not turned into an uncivilized society. We are more civilized today than we were when ROE was decided. The invasion of Iraq and Trumpism culminating in Jan6 were backslides from civilization by America but that’s about it. END2209251447


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Show us your law degree please.


I don’t need a law degree to present facts on a message board.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You run your mouth, yet you ignore all the fall out and destruction it has since caused, s


What fall out and destruction are you talking about?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Viability remains irrelevant,


NFBW: What else can you say when you cannot explain why I am wrong that viability is the moral legal and scientific core of every reason a woman should be able to choose to  terminate a pregnancy before the fetus could be viable outside the womb. 2209251505


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> We *are *created at fertilization.


NFBW: The irrefutable fact is that we are created at fertilization but are not potentially viable to survive outside the womb for about 24 weeks. 2209251520


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: We have not turned into an uncivilized society. We are more civilized today than we were when ROE was decided. The invasion of Iraq and Trumpism culminating in Jan6 were backslides from civilization by America but that’s about it. END2209251447


Had to throw that Trump stuff in there with a little J6 on the side, otherwise trying to stay relevant on an abortion topic eh ? ROTFLMBO 😂


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: The irrefutable fact is that we are created at fertilization but are not potentially viable to survive outside the womb for about 24 weeks. 2209251520


And during those 24 weeks, is it that the little developing human is being targeted by it's leftist mother for termination, and this is all due to multiple ridiculous notions that somehow begins telling her that she is doing what's right, and all because of the evil confusing leftist trending voices whispering evil lies into her head ? Are you one of those voice's ??


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> being targeted by it's leftist mother for termination,


NFBW: Not a left right issue except to right wing Taliban sympathizers I guess. Can you provide stats that only leftist mothers get abortions. I would guess that most are apolitical. END2209251723


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Had to throw that Trump stuff in there with a little J6 on the side


Do you think the J6 attack was civilized behavior by Trump’s supporters?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> We *are *created at fertilization.


That is nice. You have a keen sense of the obvious.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Not a left right issue except to right wing Taliban sympathizers I guess. Can you provide stats that only leftist mothers get abortions. I would guess that most are apolitical. END2209251723


Christian conservative mother's aren't getting them, so who does that leave ?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you think the J6 attack was civilized behavior by Trump’s supporters?


Stay on topic.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Stay on topic.


You brought in the idea that civilization is being destroyed by abortion.  It’s not abortion that caused Jab6.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> You brought in the idea that civilization is being destroyed by abortion.  It’s not abortion that caused Jab6.


Can you quote me expressing that idea ? Thanks.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> No one wants to interfere with anyone's live's as long as they are not being immoral, evil, reckless, lawbreaking or anything that undermines a CIVILIZED SOCIETY. That's the dilemma you on the left are faced with, otherwise you want the freedom to undermine CIVILIZED SOCIETY by engaging in uncivilized activities, and civilized society rejects that want that you have to include them in it.





beagle9 said:


> It's founded on promoting a CIVILIZED SOCIETY. Christian values are a plus, and they are a necessity in creating a civilized society.





beagle9 said:


> This is why we create laws and rules in a CIVILIZED SOCIETY,





beagle9 said:


> To remove your unborn baby by violent means is as uncivilized an act as most civilized human beings have ever heard of, but somehow leftist were able to convince women that it was an ok thing to do, and that they shouldn't let anyone tell them otherwise. The grooming of SOCIETY over the year's has led to a lot of uncivilized activities.. It's really a sin and a shame what has taken place over the year's.





beagle9 said:


> We must return to promoting a healthy civilized society before we lose this nation completely, and lose it to uncivilized anarchy and chaos being promoted as if it is somehow normal these days.





beagle9 said:


> You keep dodging or ignoring my position on promoting a CIVILIZED SOCIETY with laws and rules in which are a vital part of having and running a civilized society..





beagle9 said:


> Because it takes away your cherry picking of science, and the ways in which you attempt to use it in order to justify living in a uncivilized SOCIETY where people can do anything they want no matter what the fall out or consequences are





beagle9 said:


> Civilized society or uncivilized SOCIETY, which do you prefer ?





beagle9 said:


> and you can call this living in a CIVILIZED SOCIETY (?)





beagle9 said:


> You calling a person (a religious fanatic), for promoting life, and then for promoting civilized society that promotes responsible action's by the citizen's who are creating life upon God giving them the tools in order to do so is simply hilarious





beagle9 said:


> Why is it that you won't answer my questions about civilized verses uncivilized ?





beagle9 said:


> you promoting an uncivilized SOCIETY, otherwise where ethic's and rules are non-exsistent. It's because your stances on these issue's definitely promote an uncivilized SOCIETY instead of a civilized one.





beagle9 said:


> Pffft... Women thinking that they can be irresponsible in their choice's, and then go in search of a butcher to fix their stupidity is as uncivilized as it gets.





beagle9 said:


> Time to rejoin civilized society, and begin to act like human beings instead of animals again.





beagle9 said:


> Look, if you would just understand that people in a CIVILIZED SOCIETY live by law's and rule's, otherwise things that have been broken badly in what once stood as a CIVILIZED SOCIETY not so long ago.





beagle9 said:


> So if you would want the law's and rule's to be re-enforced instead of destroyed or confused even further, then you would allow for the rule's to be rewritten in support of, and then enforced in order to promote a more CIVILIZED SOCIETY that promotes life, embraces life, and love's life when it is found to be growing within the female's body after fertilization is complete.





beagle9 said:


> Making it easy to disreguard life (so easily), has led this NATION off of a cliff where it is barely hanging on.





beagle9 said:


> Need to replant it into the minds of young women that "consequences" are great for one's careless action's, otherwise they shouldn't want a lifetime of regret over their careless action's, and also it isn't worth following trend's and a death loving culture down into the pitts of hell when all is said and done.





beagle9 said:


> Now put down the bong, and rejoin civilized society if at all possible.





beagle9 said:


> It should be anybody's business when the moral code's of mankind and nature are being broken. To sit back and do or say nothing is aching for chaos and mayhem to become the norm in what was once a CIVILIZED SOCIETY to a large degree.





beagle9 said:


> the issue while denying the part where we challenge you to a debate regarding ethics, moral's, and uncivilized verse's civilized on the issue,





beagle9 said:


> Christian conservative mother's aren't getting them, so who does that leave ?





beagle9 said:


> Can you quote me expressing that idea ? Thanks.


Yes    And there is more


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> No one wants to interfere with anyone's live's as long as they are not being immoral, evil, reckless, lawbreaking or anything that undermines a CIVILIZED SOCIETY.


NFBW: Dobbs interferes with every pregnant woman’s life  because it gives white Christian nationalists Trump voters the power of coercion to interfere when they control state legislatures and  statehouses simply because they have reproductive organs and get pregnant.  END2209260759


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Trump Christian conservative mother's aren't getting them, so who does that leave ?


NFBW: You have no way of knowing that to be true so that statement is a lie. You are a liar.

What I am wrestling with in the wake of abortion rights being overturned is the fundamental tension between Southerners like me, and conservative white women like my childhood friend, who quietly take advantage of abortion rights while helping abolish them.​​Put simply, there's a lot of hypocrisy down here, and I no longer know how to feel about it. It dawned on me this summer that in my experience, anti-choice women access abortion care at the same rates as everyone else I know. Indeed, the women in my own life who I witnessed most frequently seek elective abortions have also been the women who present themselves as "good" conservative Christians. Who, I now wonder, have I really been keeping abortion secret for all this time?​
The white, conservative Southern women who asked me to keep their abortions secret​
Statistics are hard to come by on this issue, but what we do know about abortion access proves my experiences are likely representative of a broad trend. To determine how often anti-choice women are accessing the care they claim to revile, we have only to look at some hard facts and (I hope) familiar numbers: worldwide, 1 in 4 women have had an abortion. Almost a third of pregnancies miscarry, and eight percent have complications that can threaten the life of the parent or child. As for sexual violence, that happens in the U.S. literally once every minute, totaling half a million victims per year. Statistically, there is no way these overwhelming numbers don't reach into conservative families.​
END2209250836


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain220422-#90   “So, let’s get back to abortion “rights.” To the extent that it is largely predicated on a “right” to “privacy,” and the right to privacy is part of some penumbra of our right to be secure in our persons and in our our homes, then do we have a right to murder a person in the privacy of our own homes? (By the way, the answer of clearly “no.”) “

Vegasgiants220422-#93  - “There is no person other than the mother in a abortion”

CarsomyrPlusSix-#-5,393 “Current legal personhood occurs at birth”

NFBW: CarsomyrPlusSix confirms what Vegasgiants pointed out to BackAgain  earlier in a Constitutional subjects thread to be true.

Do you agree beagle9 that there is no person constitutionally speaking other than the mother and her doctor in an abortion procedure as Vegasgiants and CarsomyrPlusSix agree that is the case? END2209260912


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes    And there is more


ROTFLMBO.... Your point ??? That's a lot of stuff you haven't addressed properly, so please do list more.. Wait nah forget it, because we wouldn't get a straight answer out of you if we depended on it.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Dobbs interferes with every pregnant woman’s life  because it gives white Christian nationalists Trump voters the power of coercion to interfere when they control state legislatures and  statehouses simply because they have reproductive organs and get pregnant.  END2209260759


That's your fear's, but you can't prove them as a reality... They're just word's is all.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> That's your fear's, but you can't prove them as a reality...


NFBW: The proof is all the fact that all the Taliban states shutting down access to the reproductive healthcare of abortion in their states. END2209262051


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Can you quote me expressing that idea ? Thanks.





beagle9 said:


> ROTFLMBO.... Your point ???


NFBW: You asked if I could quote you expressing you constant preaching that Democrats support of “choice” on abortion undermines civilization, so I did and now you have no clue what to say about it: END2209262102


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Overwhelmed By Us 1st Amendment Establishment Clause 9th 10th 14th Violations "

* Sum Rows Of How Dues Maybe **


NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: How so? See post #5,399  There is a conflict of rights between the not viable fetus and the viable mother for about 24 weeks after fertilization. END2209251023


Appearing to want a standard for state interests from a point of conception zygote at 0 weeks , such collectivists posit determinism by deontology through a writ of dictum from state coffers - against determinism of consequentialism by equal protection of negative liberties for independence of individuals , while asserting a distinct form of biological system is in existence .

Equitable doctrine stipulates state interests are prohibited beyond safety and security for equal protection of negative liberties among those individuals entitled by a live birth requirement of a citizen .

Appearing to want a standard for state interests from a point of heart beat embryo at 8 weeks , such collectivists posit determinism by deontology through a writ of dictum from state coffers - against determinism of consequentialism by equal protection of negative liberties for independence of individuals , while asserting a distinct form of biological system is in existence .

Equitable doctrine stipulates state interests are prohibited beyond safety and security for equal protection of negative liberties among those individuals entitled by a live birth requirement of a citizen .

Appearing to want a standard for state interests from a point of feet us at 15 weeks , such collectivists posit determinism by deontology through a writ of dictum from state coffers - against determinism of consequentialism by equal protection of negative liberties for independence of individuals , while asserting a quickening of sentience .

Equitable doctrine stipulates state interests are prohibited beyond safety and security for equal protection of negative liberties among those individuals entitled by a live birth requirement of a citizen .

Appearing to want a standard for state interests from a point of sentience at 20 weeks , such collectivists posit determinism by deontology through a writ of dictum from state coffers - against determinism of consequentialism by equal protection of negative liberties for independence of individuals , while asserting sentience and costs for resuscitation .

Equitable doctrine stipulates state interests are prohibited beyond safety and security for equal protection of negative liberties among those individuals entitled by a live birth requirement of a citizen .

Appearing to want a standard for state interests from a point of viability at 24 weeks , such collectivists posit determinism by deontology through a writ of dictum from state coffers - against determinism of consequentialism by equal protection of negative liberties for independence of individuals , while asserting an imminent live birth with sufficient potential for survival .

Equitable doctrine stipulates state interests are prohibited beyond safety and security for equal protection of negative liberties among those individuals entitled by a live birth requirement of a citizen .

Appearing to want a standard for state interests from a point of live birth , such Individualists posit determinism through consequentialism by equal protection of negative liberties for independence of individuals , while asserting an equitable doctrine through a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen .

In generality , abortions occurring prior to 15 weeks represent nearly all abortions without medical necessity , ultrasounds begin around 13 weeks with 15 to 20 weeks when fetal anomalies are identified and 24 weeks is a better delimiter , while 24 weeks to parturition addresses fetal or maternal anomalies .

In generality , the cutoffs indicated above are maintained by public nature , as after 15 weeks abortion for fetal anomalies has remained a medical community standard of public policy , without provocation for a state to issue magistrates for enforcement , and medical necessities include an agreement for well being based on informed consent between the medical facilities and the individual patient .


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: The proof is all the fact that all the Taliban states shutting down access to the reproductive healthcare of abortion in their states. END2209262051


That's their prerogative, and that's their statesman and woman's decision's. Go pound sand.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> That's their prerogative, and that's their statesman and woman's decision's. Go pound sand.


“Taliban states.”

Lol.

What a fuckin’ retard.

Ah yes… the Taliban, known for their vigorous defense of innocent human lives…


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Christian conservative mother's aren't getting them, so who does that leave ?





NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You have no way of knowing that to be true so that statement is a lie. You are a liar.



NFBW: You lied again beagle9


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> That's their prerogative, and that's their statesman and woman's decision's.


NFBW: It is the state’s prerogative to ban a medical procedure in order to coerce women to subject their reproductive organs to the will of the voters in a state and suffer bodily harm and or death in to please Jesus believers. That governmental coercion is based on the rights of unborn persons that are not protected by tHE US Constitution.  That is based upon the Dobbs ruling which determined that reproductive rights do not exist in the Constitution. It is absurd to rule that abortion rights do not exist because not mentioned in the Constitution But a zygote has a right to be carried full term despite no mention in the Constitution. END2209280135


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: It is the state’s prerogative to ban a medical procedure in order to coerce women to subject their reproductive organs to the will of the voters in a state and suffer bodily harm and or death in to please Jesus believers. That governmental coercion is based on the rights of unborn persons that are not protected by tHE US Constitution.  That is based upon the Dobbs ruling which determined that reproductive rights do not exist in the Constitution. It is absurd to rule that abortion rights do not exist because not mentioned in the Constitution But a zygote has a right to be carried full term despite no mention in the Constitution. END2209280135


It was only a matter of time before you were backed into a corner on your foolery, and judging by the read above you have reached critical mass on showing us just how fool you actually are.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> It was only a matter of time before you were backed into a corner on your foolery, and judging by the read above you have reached critical mass on showing us just how fool you actually are.


This moron thinks Dobbs banned abortion nationwide?

I wish, but SCOTUS really can’t or shouldn’t do that.  And they didn’t.  What should have happened is that Madison should have included the right to life and property explicitly in the Bill of Rights as enumerated rights.

And now we must correct his oversight since the unforeseeably monstrous socialist party has no respect for either.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> This moron thinks Dobbs banned abortion nationwide?
> 
> I wish, but SCOTUS really can’t or shouldn’t do that.  And they didn’t.  What should have happened is that Madison should have included the right to life and property explicitly in the Bill of Rights as enumerated rights.
> 
> And now we must correct his oversight since the unforeseeably monstrous socialist party has no respect for either.


Ironic, of course, that the socialist party in question is wearing the skin-suit of Madison’s Democratic-Republican Party.


----------



## ClaireH

Future (not hundreds of years from now but a mere 40) research scientists, human biologists, and specialists from multiple fields unknown currently, will ponder for hours upon end the following quandary: In 2022 the people were led by politically motivated people in control to consider whether or not abortion should be used as a birth control measure.

There will be no doubt that 2022 continued to live out outdated options, as if no better options were readily available to anyone who had 40 dollars -Plan B available at box chain drugstores all over the country- NOT to be confused with abortion pill. Those females in financial dire straights without 40 dollars can borrow the money from someone. There is no legitimate reason that abortion is STILL being used unless a mother’s life is at risk, rape or incest has occurred.

From Planned Parenthood’s site (keep in mind this org also refers women to abortion sites) : Plan B One-Step usually costs about $40-$50. Next Choice One Dose, Take Action, and My Way generally cost less — about $15-$45. You can also order a generic brand called AfterPill online for $20 + $5 shipping. (AfterPill can’t be shipped quick enough to use if you need a morning-after pill right now, but you can buy it and put it in your medicine cabinet in case you need it in the future.)






						Emergency Contraception Plan B
					






					www.plannedparenthood.org
				




The fact that so many voters, large majority on the far left, who actually believe this is some legitimate option of birth control- as if it were merely choosing to remove a spare rib remains mind-boggling.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...new-combo-pill-may-prevent-pregnancy-for-days

Nature: New compound for male contraceptive pill​








						Nature: New compound for male contraceptive pill
					

In a new article spells out an innovative strategy that has led to the discovery of a natural compound as a safe, effective and reversible male contraceptive agent in pre-clinical animal models. Despite tremendous efforts over the past decades, the progress in developing non-hormonal male...



					www.sciencedaily.com
				




Don’t be led around by  profiteer politicians who bank on acquiring votes… motives count.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> thinks Dobbs banned abortion nationwide?


NFBW: I don’t think Dobbs did that. They can’t because the Constitution won’t allow it because personhood does not start a conception as the Catholics on the court have been brainwashed to believes 

Meanwhile CarsomyrPlusSix do you hope an actual “baby killer”  becomes a Republican Senator from Georgia instead of a good man who has not knocked a girlfriend up and paid her to terminate it? 


Trump-endorsed candidate Herschel Walker has staked out his position as a no-compromise anti-abortion candidate in his run against incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock.​​However, The Daily Beast is now reportingthat Walker once paid for an abortion for a former girlfriend, who literally kept the receipts for it and is now sharing them with reporters.​​







						Herschel Walker paid for a girlfriend's abortion -- and she kept the actual receipts: report
					

Trump-endorsed candidate Herschel Walker has staked out his position as a no-compromise anti-abortion candidate in his run against incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock.However, The Daily Beast is now reporting that Walker once paid for an abortion for a former girlfriend, who literally kept the...




					www.rawstory.com
				


​The woman, who asked not to be identified by the publication, told The Daily Beast that Walker urged her to get an abortion after she got pregnant in 2009, and that she got him to reimburse her for the procedure.​​Trump-endorsed candidate Herschel Walker has staked out his position as a no-compromise anti-abortion candidate in his run against incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock.​​"She supported these claims with a $575 receipt from the abortion clinic, a 'get well' card from Walker, and a bank deposit receipt that included an image of a signed $700 personal check from Walker," the publication writes. "The woman said there was a $125 difference because she 'ball-parked' the cost of an abortion after Googling the procedure and added on expenses such as travel and recovery costs."​​​


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I don’t think Dobbs did that. They can’t because the Constitution won’t allow it because personhood does not start a conception as the Catholics on the court have been brainwashed to believes
> 
> Meanwhile CarsomyrPlusSix do you hope an actual “baby killer”  becomes a Republican Senator from Georgia instead of a good man who has not knocked a girlfriend up and paid her to terminate it?
> 
> 
> Trump-endorsed candidate Herschel Walker has staked out his position as a no-compromise anti-abortion candidate in his run against incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock.​​However, The Daily Beast is now reportingthat Walker once paid for an abortion for a former girlfriend, who literally kept the receipts for it and is now sharing them with reporters.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herschel Walker paid for a girlfriend's abortion -- and she kept the actual receipts: report
> 
> 
> Trump-endorsed candidate Herschel Walker has staked out his position as a no-compromise anti-abortion candidate in his run against incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock.However, The Daily Beast is now reporting that Walker once paid for an abortion for a former girlfriend, who literally kept the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rawstory.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​The woman, who asked not to be identified by the publication, told The Daily Beast that Walker urged her to get an abortion after she got pregnant in 2009, and that she got him to reimburse her for the procedure.​​Trump-endorsed candidate Herschel Walker has staked out his position as a no-compromise anti-abortion candidate in his run against incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock.​​"She supported these claims with a $575 receipt from the abortion clinic, a 'get well' card from Walker, and a bank deposit receipt that included an image of a signed $700 personal check from Walker," the publication writes. "The woman said there was a $125 difference because she 'ball-parked' the cost of an abortion after Googling the procedure and added on expenses such as travel and recovery costs."​​​


Y'all would dig up the devil if you have too, otherwise in order to get your way, but yes if Walker done this, and then in the same light forgot to use it as his testimony of why he regrets advocating for such a thing if true, and this before moving on to being reinvented on the issue, then people might look at him as being hypocritical on the issue.

However if he regrets the position he once had on the issue (sort of like people being highly regretful of being a Democrat before fighting as a new Republican for the right causes), then who is to use their old ignorances in life as a way to condemn them ????

The main thing is that what was done was realized finally that it was wrong, and after that a person can use it as a testimony on how they were once wrong on a certain issue or upon their actions upon an issue that was realized over time or by instruction that it was wrong.

Something's are embarrassing, so even though a person moves on, and they understand their wrong, they then become advocates to teach other's that it's not good to travel down those paths in life. Doesn't make them hypocrites as long as they don't repeat the offense again while telling other's to not do the same in life. If it weren't this way, then there wouldn't be any redemption for sin, and that's what the devil wants human beings to believe.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Always great to see the transparent tactics of the leftoid filth like this douchebag - who based on that screenname has been a raging dickbag online about politics since the early oughts - who want their pro-abortion anytime for any reason monsters like this "Reverend" Warnock to win and promote this authoritarian garbage at the Senate _where they specifically have no power to do any such thing _to fixate on someone...

They drop this "October Surprise" bullshit with no time to vet it, from an anonymous source, with hearsay and circumstantial evidence, and they want you to not vote for the guy who will implement pro-life policy because he might have killed someone, when Warnock is already responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths _and wants to be responsible for more.  _Worse, this monster wants to make the American people pay for it with their taxes, which if you want to see an _actual_ *insurrection*, that's how you'll fucking get one.

So yeah, if someone did this awful thing and was honest about it, but worked the rest of their lives against abortion, I would never feel safe around them because they are a dangerous killer, and I would never trust them, but at least that's something towards earning some grace and a measure of redemption, especially if they accomplished something significant with their public speaking, activism, and / or political career.  If Walker did this, he belongs in prison along with his supposed ex-girlfriend.  If.  And even still, such a person is better to be in office than fucking Warnock, _because then you just have to compare which *monster *is worse._


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> that's something towards earning some grace and a measure of redemption,


Redemption and grace from whom?


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Always great to see the transparent tactics of the leftoid filth like this douchebag - who based on that screenname has been a raging dickbag online about politics since the early oughts - who want their pro-abortion anytime for any reason monsters like this "Reverend" Warnock to win and promote this authoritarian garbage at the Senate _where they specifically have no power to do any such thing _to fixate on someone...
> 
> They drop this "October Surprise" bullshit with no time to vet it, from an anonymous source, with hearsay and circumstantial evidence, and they want you to not vote for the guy who will implement pro-life policy because he might have killed someone, when Warnock is already responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths _and wants to be responsible for more.  _Worse, this monster wants to make the American people pay for it with their taxes, which if you want to see an _actual_ *insurrection*, that's how you'll fucking get one.
> 
> So yeah, if someone did this awful thing and was honest about it, but worked the rest of their lives against abortion, I would never feel safe around them because they are a dangerous killer, and I would never trust them, but at least that's something towards earning some grace and a measure of redemption, especially if they accomplished something significant with their public speaking, activism, and / or political career.  If Walker did this, he belongs in prison along with his supposed ex-girlfriend.  If.  And even still, such a person is better to be in office than fucking Warnock, _because then you just have to compare which *monster *is worse._


Wonder how along the pregnancy was ? Many people back in the 60s and seventies were brainwashed to believe that certain things were ok and cool because of trend's or worse they figured it was an ok thing because everyone seemingly was doing it.

Let's hope that people like Walker who may have fell into the trap, realized his wrong, and dug his way back out, otherwise given that his stance is now pro-life, and better yet his policies are conservative, so I say give him a chance if he's sincere. Like you say this Waynick guy is way worse, so hopefully the people choose the right person.

The Publican/tax collector and a Pharisee went into the temple to pray, and the Pharisee boasted within his prayer to the Lord, but the publican couldn't even lift his head up, and therefore humbled himself in his prayer's before the Lord as he prayed in shame of his past sins committed. Who do you think was lifted up in their prayer's that day ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 220810-#4,580   Christian values are a plus, and they are a necessity in creating a civilized society.

NFBW: That FYI Ray From Cleveland is a Republican anti-abortion voter being a threat to democracy. 

I live in a civilized society that is based on the rule of law. Secular, blindfolded to religion, law that has nothing to do with beagle9 ‘s Christian  values. Do you agree? END2211090846


----------



## healthmyths

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9 220810-#4,580   Christian values are a plus, and they are a necessity in creating a civilized society.
> 
> NFBW: That FYI Ray From Cleveland is a Republican anti-abortion voter being a threat to democracy.
> 
> I live in a civilized society that is based on the rule of law. Secular, blindfolded to religion, law that has nothing to do with beagle9 ‘s Christian  values. Do you agree? END2211090846


I deal in facts.  
The facts are if women are responsible for their own bodies and a woman driver kills another person she is responsible right?  
Then why would these responsible women have unprotected sex for a few moments pleasure at the expense of over 60  million human beings not responsible?
But much of  your point is again validation of the responsibility of these women who evidently aren't capable so at least the law should be passed to sterilize irresponsible women after their first Abortion.  What actually as statistics proof is that ...
About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously.





						Repeat Abortion, Repeat Unintended Pregnancy, Repeated and Misguided Government Policies
					

About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones...




					www.guttmacher.org
				



Guttmacher’s latest available figures are from 2020, when it says there were 930,160 abortions nationwide, up from 916,460 in 2019.








						What the data says about abortion in the U.S.
					

Here is a look at the most recent available data about abortion from sources other than public opinion surveys.




					www.pewresearch.org
				



So half of 930,160 abortions were done by women who've killed babies before.
Women making a request for a 2nd abortion should be sterilized as they ARE NOT responsible and therefore prevent them  from future deaths. 
And they should be HAPPY about that because they aren't KILLING another human and they are not
giving up their right to their body.  We would NOT give a gun to a person that has killed two people before
would we?  So why allow irresponsible women to have the right to killing humans?


----------



## Stann

healthmyths said:


> I deal in facts.
> The facts are if women are responsible for their own bodies and a woman driver kills another person she is responsible right?
> Then why would these responsible women have unprotected sex for a few moments pleasure at the expense of over 60  million human beings not responsible?
> But much of  your point is again validation of the responsibility of these women who evidently aren't capable so at least the law should be passed to sterilize irresponsible women after their first Abortion.  What actually as statistics proof is that ...
> About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeat Abortion, Repeat Unintended Pregnancy, Repeated and Misguided Government Policies
> 
> 
> About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guttmacher.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guttmacher’s latest available figures are from 2020, when it says there were 930,160 abortions nationwide, up from 916,460 in 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the data says about abortion in the U.S.
> 
> 
> Here is a look at the most recent available data about abortion from sources other than public opinion surveys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pewresearch.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So half of 930,160 abortions were done by women who've killed babies before.
> Women making a request for a 2nd abortion should be sterilized as they ARE NOT responsible and therefore prevent them  from future deaths.
> And they should be HAPPY about that because they aren't KILLING another human and they are not
> giving up their right to their body.  We would NOT give a gun to a person that has killed two people before
> would we?  So why allow irresponsible women to have the right to killing humans?


Your simplistic and over critical assessment of abortion is an insult to all women. Women know what they're doing. An abortion can never be a crime no matter what kind of laws you put in place trying to regulate it. The government and the courts have no right to interfere with this process. Talk about government overreach, this is the ultimate.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Stann said:


> An abortion can never be a crime


Already is, retard.  Get fucked.


----------



## miketx

Stann said:


> Your simplistic and over critical assessment of abortion is an insult to all women. Women know what they're doing. An abortion can never be a crime no matter what kind of laws you put in place trying to regulate it. The government and the courts have no right to interfere with this process. Talk about government overreach, this is the ultimate.


Another heinous butcher has spake!


----------



## healthmyths

Stann said:


> Your simplistic and over critical assessment of abortion is an insult to all women. Women know what they're doing. An abortion can never be a crime no matter what kind of laws you put in place trying to regulate it. The government and the courts have no right to interfere with this process. Talk about government overreach, this is the ultimate.


So why did over half the abortions by this knowledgable women be done by women who had a previous abortion?
Are they that stupid?  If so why would we want any offspring of such dumb irresponsible women?
It is an insult yes... but not all women!  Women that are responsible enough NOT to succumb to sexual desires of the moment KNOWING full well that killing another human maybe the result of their few moments of pleasure.  To me that is not an insult.
That is acknowledging that at least some if not many women are smart enough not to be suckered in by some horny man.
You are defending the male when you say I'm insulting the women.  Again I'm insulting the dumb women that kill another human.
Please tell me the difference between a woman who drives a car that kills another human and a woman who has sex frivolously only to kill another human.  I remind you of the statistics...less the 5% of abortions are done due to incest/rape or health of the mother.
All of which are understandable.  But this crap about a woman's right to her body means she can literally kill another human is wrong!


----------



## ChemEngineer

"If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the bus?" - Garrison Keillor, speaking to women who promote killing innocent, unborn babies, whose fathers have NO SAY whether their child will be supported by them for 18 years, or thrown into the garbage


----------



## healthmyths

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You have no way of knowing that to be true so that statement is a lie. You are a liar.
> 
> What I am wrestling with in the wake of abortion rights being overturned is the fundamental tension between Southerners like me, and conservative white women like my childhood friend, who quietly take advantage of abortion rights while helping abolish them.​​Put simply, there's a lot of hypocrisy down here, and I no longer know how to feel about it. It dawned on me this summer that in my experience, anti-choice women access abortion care at the same rates as everyone else I know. Indeed, the women in my own life who I witnessed most frequently seek elective abortions have also been the women who present themselves as "good" conservative Christians. Who, I now wonder, have I really been keeping abortion secret for all this time?​
> The white, conservative Southern women who asked me to keep their abortions secret​
> Statistics are hard to come by on this issue, but what we do know about abortion access proves my experiences are likely representative of a broad trend. To determine how often anti-choice women are accessing the care they claim to revile, we have only to look at some hard facts and (I hope) familiar numbers: worldwide, 1 in 4 women have had an abortion. Almost a third of pregnancies miscarry, and eight percent have complications that can threaten the life of the parent or child. As for sexual violence, that happens in the U.S. literally once every minute, totaling half a million victims per year. Statistically, there is no way these overwhelming numbers don't reach into conservative families.​
> END2209250836


What is the source for your above facts?
Here are MY FACTS supported with links..

A) the fallacy regarding Rape, incest and health of the mother justifies killing babies.
Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute    








						Rape and incest account for hardly any abortions. So why are they now a focus?
					

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest.



					www.usatoday.com
				



1.5% of 62,507,884 or  937,618 babies killed.
Now as far as a woman's health:4% of abortions are due to health of the mother.  U.S. Abortion Statistics
B) The remaining 94.5% of the 62,507,884 lives lost since 1973 are  because of the woman making her own decision.  





						Repeat Abortion, Repeat Unintended Pregnancy, Repeated and Misguided Government Policies
					

About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones...




					www.guttmacher.org


----------



## ChemEngineer

My friend, healthmyths, Leftists do not utilize facts, nor common sense.  They don't even give a rip about history.  All they know is clinging to power and arrogance and condescension and putting their boot in your face.
Evil is like that.


----------



## Stann

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Already is, retard.  Get fucked.


Maybe some ridiculous red states can charge that but it never is a crime it's part of life like birth and death and everything else.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Stann said:


> Maybe some ridiculous red states can charge that


Yes, we press criminal charges for this crime.  

Which means it is a crime, imbecile, whether you like it or not.


----------



## miketx

Stann said:


> Maybe some ridiculous red states can charge that but it never is a crime it's part of life like birth and death and everything else.


Killing your child is not part of life you evil butchering fiend. You need to burn in hell.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> Maybe some ridiculous red states can charge that but it never is a crime it's part of life like birth and death and everything else.


That's the beautiful thing about the 10th amendment.......it's up to the people to decide, not the government.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

miketx said:


> Killing your child


NFBW: No pregnant woman is “killing a child” when she devised to terminates a fetus attached to her own uterus. It’s no one’s business but hers. Get over yourself with your Christo-super-religious fascism. END2211091222


----------



## healthmyths

ChemEngineer said:


> My friend, healthmyths, Leftists do not utilize facts, nor common sense.  They don't even give a rip about history.  All they know is clinging to power and arrogance and condescension and putting their boot in your face.
> Evil is like that.
> 
> View attachment 723130


You are 100% right!  Hopefully though some of those that waiver and have been so grossly mislead by the MSM might find the facts I'm sharing helpful... but sadly you are right about the leftist/EVangelistas/socialistic/on-size-fits-all mentality!


----------



## healthmyths

Stann said:


> Maybe some ridiculous red states can charge that but it never is a crime it's part of life like birth and death and everything else.


So if a mass shooter kills a relative of yours would you say it wasn't a crime because the shooter was responsible for his own actions?
What is the difference between a woman who has had an abortion, didn't learn from her first experience and goes for another abortion?
Please explain the difference as I'd like to understand how if the woman is responsible for her own body, why would she have unprotected sex?  As that's the ONLY way she can get pregnant as 95.5% of abortions were NOT because the woman was a victim of incest,rape or health issues.  Why do 50% of abortions are done by woman who have had a previous abortion?  Are they not responsible for their actions?





						Repeat Abortion, Repeat Unintended Pregnancy, Repeated and Misguided Government Policies
					

About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones...




					www.guttmacher.org


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

healthmyths said:


> So if a mass shooter kills a relative of yours would you say it wasn't a crime because the shooter was responsible for his own actions?
> What is the difference between a woman who has had an abortion, didn't learn from her first experience and goes for another abortion?
> Please explain the difference as I'd like to understand how if the woman is responsible for her own body, why would she have unprotected sex?  As that's the ONLY way she can get pregnant as 95.5% of abortions were NOT because the woman was a victim of incest,rape or health issues.  Why do 50% of abortions are done by woman who have had a previous abortion?  Are they not responsible for their actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeat Abortion, Repeat Unintended Pregnancy, Repeated and Misguided Government Policies
> 
> 
> About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guttmacher.org


Tch.  Using biased pro-life sources like the Guttmacher Institute.


----------



## miketx

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No pregnant woman is “killing a child” when she devised to terminates a fetus attached to her own uterus. It’s no one’s business but hers. Get over yourself with your Christo-super-religious fascism. END2211091222


Another lying butcher. Hey butcher, when a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the killer charged with a double homicide? Lol. You're evil vile scum.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

miketx said:


> You're evil vile scum.


He really is.  Just the absolute worst, even as far as scum goes.


----------



## ChemEngineer

miketx said:


> Another lying butcher. Hey butcher, when a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the killer charged with a double homicide? Lol. You're evil vile scum.



Scott Peterson was only charged with murdering his wife and unborn son, Conner, after Conner's body washed ashore. Not Lacey's body, Conner's. This puts to lie "my body, my choice".  In the same way, men in prison for murdering unborn babies also show the lie of these butchers.

God bless Conner and Lacey.


----------



## Stann

Delldude said:


> That's the beautiful thing about the 10th amendment.......it's up to the people to decide, not the government.


Yes and the people are deciding overwhelmingly to reject abortion laws. It's the business of the woman no one else's


----------



## miketx

Stann said:


> Yes and the people are deciding overwhelmingly to reject abortion laws. It's the business of the woman no one else's


Another butcher comes out.


----------



## Stann

healthmyths said:


> So if a mass shooter kills a relative of yours would you say it wasn't a crime because the shooter was responsible for his own actions?
> What is the difference between a woman who has had an abortion, didn't learn from her first experience and goes for another abortion?
> Please explain the difference as I'd like to understand how if the woman is responsible for her own body, why would she have unprotected sex?  As that's the ONLY way she can get pregnant as 95.5% of abortions were NOT because the woman was a victim of incest,rape or health issues.  Why do 50% of abortions are done by woman who have had a previous abortion?  Are they not responsible for their actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeat Abortion, Repeat Unintended Pregnancy, Repeated and Misguided Government Policies
> 
> 
> About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guttmacher.org


You people can't even deal with a couple million undocumented immigrants what are you going to do with six 60 million unwanted babies many of them but terrible deformities and practically nonviable. Hope you're ready to fund even more unrelated mothers and even more juvenile delinquents if they survive.


----------



## miketx

Stann said:


> You people can't even deal with a couple million undocumented immigrants what are you going to do with six 60 million unwanted babies many of them but terrible deformities and practically nonviable. Hope you're ready to fund even more unrelated mothers and even more juvenile delinquents if they survive.


Perhaps the irresponsible sluts you bed should buy birth control products.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Delldude


miketx said:


> Hey butcher, when a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the killer charged with a double homicide?


You are an idiot. Only the woman herself can terminate what is attached to her uterus. Some complete fucking stranger can’t just murder Her and whatever is attached to her uterus


----------



## miketx

NotfooledbyW said:


> Delldude
> 
> You are an idiot. Only the woman herself can terminate what is attached to her uterus. Some complete fucking stranger can’t just murder Her and whatever is attached to her uterus


This is loon gold right here! The most insane comment ever on this forum.


----------



## healthmyths

Stann said:


> You people can't even deal with a couple million undocumented immigrants what are you going to do with six 60 million unwanted babies many of them but terrible deformities and practically nonviable. Hope you're ready to fund even more unrelated mothers and even more juvenile delinquents if they survive.


Hey... do you know what you are saying?
Here is the to be president ENCOURAGING people to break the law!  Break the law and surge to the border!
*"I would, in fact, make sure that there is, we immediate surge to the border, "*

And then you make the total ignorant statement :_many of them but terrible deformities and practically nonviable._
Where is your proof?
About 1 in every 150 live births has a chromosomal abnormality that causes an abnormal phenotype in the fetus or neonate.








						Abortion for Fetal Genetic Abnormalities: Type of Abnormality and Gestational Age at Diagnosis
					

Background  Advances in genetic screening can identify patients at high risk for common genetic conditions early in pregnancy and can facilitate early diagnosis and early abortion. Less common abnormalities might only be diagnosed with invasive ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				



That works out to 0.6667%.  So of the "six 60 million" not sure what that number is you wrote.. 
but lets take the total of abortions since 1973 or 63,459,781 times 0.667% and that doesn't make "MANY"!!!
So it's OK to kill 63 million humans because we'd have 423,065 deformed not around!  
So it's OK for a woman who's made a mistake of pleasure the first time to make the same dumb ass decision,
i.e. for a few moments of pleasure kill another person?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Senora Bocelli was advised by her physician to abort her baby as it had serious problems.
She refused and promised to love her child, irrespective of imperfections.
Thus she gave birth to..... Andrea Bocelli, world famous opera tenor.
There is a lesson for every Democrat with blood on their hands.


----------



## healthmyths

ChemEngineer said:


> Senora Bocelli was advised by her physician to abort her baby as it had serious problems.
> She refused and promised to love her child, irrespective of imperfections.
> Thus she gave birth to..... Andrea Bocelli, world famous opera tenor.
> There is a lesson for every Democrat with blood on their hands.


Very good point!  Thank you!


----------



## beagle9

Stann said:


> You people can't even deal with a couple million undocumented immigrants what are you going to do with six 60 million unwanted babies many of them but terrible deformities and practically nonviable. Hope you're ready to fund even more unrelated mothers and even more juvenile delinquents if they survive.


So you are an anti-populationist  ??.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

miketx said:


> This is loon gold right here! The most insane comment ever on this forum.


Why would it not be murder of two human beings if someone murders a pregnant woman.


----------



## miketx

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why would it not be murder of two human beings if someone murders a pregnant woman.


Now this pos tries to deflect and pretend.


----------



## miketx




----------



## NotfooledbyW

miketx said:


> Now this pos tries to deflect and pretend.


NFBW: Pretend what? You are the one who can’t answer the question?

NFBW: Why would it not be murder of two human beings if someone murders a pregnant woman.   . . .  .  I answered your question.

miketx:  when a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the killer charged with a double homicide?

NFBW: Only the woman herself can terminate what is attached to her uterus. Some complete fucking stranger can’t just murder her and whatever is attached to her uterus.


----------



## Delldude

Stann said:


> Yes and the people are deciding overwhelmingly to reject abortion laws. It's the business of the woman no one else's


You better do a fact check because you are terribly wrong.
If it's the business of the woman and no one else, why did you people cede this decision over the federal government?


Stann said:


> You people can't even deal with a couple million undocumented immigrants what are you going to do with six 60 million unwanted babies many of them but terrible deformities and practically nonviable. Hope you're ready to fund even more unrelated mothers and even more juvenile delinquents if they survive.


Look at the bright side, your 'coupla million' undocumented illegal alien immigrants all are looking for work. They can all get jobs baby sitting all those 60 million unwanted babies....I'm sure the left would be willing to create an undocumented illegal alien entitlement program for baby sitters.

I'm going out on a limb here and would like to see the stats where many of these 'unwanted' babies are terribly deformed.

We already have unrelated mothers with juvy children shooting everybody on their streets....ask the dem controlled cities about their murder rates.


----------



## Delldude

NotfooledbyW said:


> Delldude
> 
> You are an idiot. Only the woman herself can terminate what is attached to her uterus. Some complete fucking stranger can’t just murder Her and whatever is attached to her uterus


Pssst....

State Fetal Homicide Laws​
Currently, at least *38* states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least *29* states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women


----------



## miketx

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Pretend what? You are the one who can’t answer the question?
> 
> NFBW: Why would it not be murder of two human beings if someone murders a pregnant woman.   . . .  .  I answered your question.
> 
> miketx:  when a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the killer charged with a double homicide?
> 
> NFBW: Only the woman herself can terminate what is attached to her uterus. Some complete fucking stranger can’t just murder her and whatever is attached to her uterus.


Heinous butcher.


----------



## miketx

Row vs Wade.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Delldude said:


> State Fetal Homicide Laws


What is your point?  The laws are crimes against pregnant women by others. The laws are against pregnant women who decide to terminate their own pregnancy. 


miketx said:


> Heinous butcher.


Stupid incoherent person


----------



## miketx

NotfooledbyW said:


> What is your point?  The laws are crimes against pregnant women by others. The laws are against pregnant women who decide to terminate their own pregnancy.
> 
> Stupid incoherent person


Baby killer.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

miketx said:


> when a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the killer charged with a double homicide?


Because it should be murder if two or more with twins and triplets etc? Are you stupid or something to ask such a stupid question. The killer is not killing him or herself and the fetus (potential viable human being) attached to the living, breathing viable woman who is with child.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

miketx said:


> Baby killer.


Is the following Trump voter, MAGA goon, blinded by the right on every issue except abortion, in your opinion a ‘baby killing butcher?

RFC220906-#792 Ray From Cleveland 
“Abortion always comes down to "if it's a baby or not" argument. As far as abortion goes, it's none of my business what a person does.”

END2211100237 Seattle


----------



## Lisa558

To the poster who says that murdering unborn babies is not a crime, then why is a murderer of a pregnant woman charged with TWO counts of murder?


----------



## miketx

NotfooledbyW said:


> Is the following Trump voter, MAGA goon, blinded by the right on every issue except abortion, in your opinion a ‘baby killing butcher?
> 
> RFC220906-#792 Ray From Cleveland
> “Abortion always comes down to "if it's a baby or not" argument. As far as abortion goes, it's none of my business what a person does.”
> 
> END2211100237 Seattle


Butcher.


----------



## Lisa558

NotfooledbyW said:


> What is your point?  The laws are crimes against pregnant women by others. The laws are against pregnant women who decide to terminate their own pregnancy.


Nope. The laws are that if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with two counts of homicide.


----------



## miketx

Lisa558 said:


> Nope. The laws are that if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with two counts of homicide.


That's right, but the communist butcher likes to pretend, obfuscate and lie, like all communists.


----------



## Lisa558

miketx said:


> That's right, but the communist butcher likes to pretend, obfuscate and lie, like all communists.


Yup. When Petersen killed his wife and unborn child, he was charged and convicted of two counts of murder. That was in liberal California.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

So RetardedBitchofW's hot take is that you literally can't kill a pregnant woman and her baby?

They are immortal apparently.

Who got ahold of the Dragonballs and made that one, because news to me.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Lisa558 said:


> Nope. The laws are that if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with two counts of homicide.


That is exactly what I said and it should be. Two charges - one for murdering a woman and one for murdering a fetus that the woman has a right to carry to full term when that is what she decides to do with her own body. It’s her body and nobody has a right to murder her or what may be attached to her body. 

On the other hand I also agree with Trump voter Ray From Cleveland that it is none of anyone else’s business what a woman decides to do with her own body if she had an unwanted pregnancy. 

RFC220906-#792 Ray From Cleveland “Abortion always comes down to "if it's a baby or not" argument. As far as abortion goes, it's none of my business what a person does.”

END2211100520


----------



## healthmyths

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is exactly what I said and it should be. Two charges - one for murdering a woman and one for murdering a fetus that the woman has a right to carry to full term when that is what she decides to do with her own body. It’s her body and nobody has a right to murder her or what may be attached to her body.
> 
> On the other hand I also agree with Trump voter Ray From Cleveland that it is none of anyone else’s business what a woman decides to do with her own body if she had an unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> RFC220906-#792 Ray From Cleveland “Abortion always comes down to "if it's a baby or not" argument. As far as abortion goes, it's none of my business what a person does.”
> 
> END2211100520


Question: if...it is "_none of anyone else’s business what a woman decides to do with her own body if she had an unwanted pregnancy._"...  why do almost all states have laws like to drive on roads people have to have a license?
To me it's nobody's business that I have a driver's license.
So why is driving require the government to authorize me to drive?  It's none of their or anyone else's business?


----------



## Lisa558

healthmyths said:


> Question: if...it is "_none of anyone else’s business what a woman decides to do with her own body if she had an unwanted pregnancy._"...  why do almost all states have laws like to drive on roads people have to have a license?
> To me it's nobody's business that I have a driver's license.
> So why is driving require the government to authorize me to drive?  It's none of their or anyone else's business?


The answer is: because your action can or will impact the life of another.

Same as with abortion.


----------



## healthmyths

Lisa558 said:


> The answer is: because your action can or will impact the life of another.
> 
> Same as with abortion.


So does that mean you believe the killing of an unwanted human is ok?


----------



## Lisa558

healthmyths said:


> So does that mean you believe the killing of an unwanted human is ok?


You missed my point. Read what I said.


----------



## healthmyths

Lisa558 said:


> You missed my point. Read what I said.


This is what you wrote: "_The answer is: because your action can or will impact the life of another.
Same as with abortion."_
There is NO point made.  Committing an abortion means terminating a life, impacting.  NOT committing an abortion impacts a life.
Either way "impacting" a life.  My question was: 
"_So does that mean you believe the killing of an unwanted human is ok?"_
 Which is it?  Do you believe impacting a life by termination or by not termination?  Pretty simple!


----------



## Lisa558

healthmyths said:


> This is what you wrote: "_The answer is: because your action can or will impact the life of another.
> Same as with abortion."_
> There is NO point made.  Committing an abortion means terminating a life, impacting.  NOT committing an abortion impacts a life.
> Either way "impacting" a life.  My question was:
> "_So does that mean you believe the killing of an unwanted human is ok?"_
> Which is it?  Do you believe impacting a life by termination or by not termination?  Pretty simple!


You still are missing my point. I’m saying that driving 
 impacts someone else’s life, just as abortion does. That‘s why both should have restrictive laws. Aborting a baby definitely impacts someone’s life.

We need common sense regulations: abortion up to the first 12 or 16 weeks, and after that only in the case if the mother’s life is in danger.


----------



## healthmyths

Lisa558 said:


> You still are missing my point. I’m saying that driving
> impacts someone else’s life, just as abortion does. That‘s why both should have restrictive laws. Aborting a baby definitely impacts someone’s life.
> 
> We need common sense regulations: abortion up to the first 12 or 16 weeks, and after that only in the case if the mother’s life is in danger.


No I wasn't missing the point as your comment was not clear.
But NOW I understand and to my simple mind, this is your position.
It is OK for a woman to be irresponsible by getting pregnant again and again!
FACTS which you never supplied!
Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and
less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute    Rape and incest account for hardly any abortions. So why are they now a focus?
Now as far as a woman's health: 4% of abortions are due to health of the mother.  U.S. Abortion Statistics
and about half of all U.S. women having an abortion *have had one previously.*





						Repeat Abortion, Repeat Unintended Pregnancy, Repeated and Misguided Government Policies
					

About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones...




					www.guttmacher.org
				



So if you've had an abortion before, I think the law should be OK...the next abortion is your last abortion as you are not responsible for your body and therefore you are NOT a responsible person to ever be a mother as you let your few minutes of pleasure control your future!
Think for a minute... how many women would NOT have sex which is the way it was 100 years ago because 
irresponsible behavior which people like you condone WAS NOT condoned!


----------



## Lisa558

healthmyths said:


> No I wasn't missing the point as your comment was not clear.
> But NOW I understand and to my simple mind, this is your position.
> It is OK for a woman to be irresponsible by getting pregnant again and again!
> FACTS which you never supplied!
> Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and
> less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute    Rape and incest account for hardly any abortions. So why are they now a focus?
> Now as far as a woman's health: 4% of abortions are due to health of the mother.  U.S. Abortion Statistics
> and about half of all U.S. women having an abortion *have had one previously.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeat Abortion, Repeat Unintended Pregnancy, Repeated and Misguided Government Policies
> 
> 
> About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guttmacher.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you've had an abortion before, I think the law should be OK...the next abortion is your last abortion as you are not responsible for your body and therefore you are NOT a responsible person to ever be a mother as you let your few minutes of pleasure control your future!
> Think for a minute... how many women would NOT have sex which is the way it was 100 years ago because
> irresponsible behavior which people like you condone WAS NOT condoned!


I’ve never said it’s OK for irresponsible women to get pregnant again and again. I’d be for sterilization the next time they show up for an abortion (unless they were raped). Will never happen though.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> Think for a minute... how many women would NOT have sex which is the way it was 100 years ago because irresponsible behavior which people like you condone WAS NOT condoned!


NFBW: 100 years ago women of color could not become members of Congress to help fix the wrongs of this country. Now they are, so Trump and cult company want them to go back to where they came from (not Europe of course)  …. healthmyths agrees with Trump’s racist tweet against politicians of color and specifically women. 

healthmyths 190730-#34 This is exactly the supposedly "racist" tweet:  "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done."​​A) NO where did he talk about SENDING!!! He said why don't they go back... freely... no forcing..​​B) Why don't they fix their places from which they came...Detroit, Somalia...etc...​​C) HE asked them to come back and show us how it is done!​​So where is the "RACISM" in that tweet? NO WHERE! Trump was being an honest person who was pointing out what the Bible said in Matthew 7:5.​​"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.””​
END2211100722 Seattle


----------



## tahuyaman

Weird.


----------



## healthmyths

Lisa558 said:


> I’ve never said it’s OK for irresponsible women to get pregnant again and again. I’d be for sterilization the next time they show up for an abortion (unless they were raped). Will never happen though.


I agree with you!  It will never happen like you said.  While we are so critical of our ancestors 100 years ago, 
mothers put the fear of SEX before marriage in most of their daughters AND before abortions.  But after 1973
our civilization took a turn for more uncivilized behavior as women were no longer fearful of getting pregnant by having pre-marital sex.  I'm also not excusing MEN!  They are assholes for their irresponsibility also.  Again my Dad was extremely vivid and strict regarding pre-marital sex... but that was 60 years ago!


----------



## Delldude

NotfooledbyW said:


> What is your point?  The laws are crimes against pregnant women by others. The laws are against pregnant women who decide to terminate their own pregnancy.
> 
> Stupid incoherent person



Like you said, previously:



NotfooledbyW said:


> Delldude
> 
> You are an idiot. Only the woman herself can terminate what is attached to her uterus.* Some complete fucking stranger can’t just murder Her and whatever is attached to her uterus*


----------



## healthmyths

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: 100 years ago women of color could not become members of Congress to help fix the wrongs of this country. Now they are, so Trump and cult company want them to go back to where they came from (not Europe of course)  …. healthmyths agrees with Trump’s racist tweet against politicians of color and specifically women.
> 
> healthmyths 190730-#34 This is exactly the supposedly "racist" tweet:  "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done."​​A) NO where did he talk about SENDING!!! He said why don't they go back... freely... no forcing..​​B) Why don't they fix their places from which they came...Detroit, Somalia...etc...​​C) HE asked them to come back and show us how it is done!​​So where is the "RACISM" in that tweet? NO WHERE! Trump was being an honest person who was pointing out what the Bible said in Matthew 7:5.​​"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.””​
> END2211100722 Seattle


Just to be clear... the biased NFBW: took the statement by Trump and perverted it "_so Trump and cult company want them to go back to where they came from"_:  And Trump as you pointed out NEVER said.
But NFBW and their uninformed ilk believed every negative news about Trump and people like me because of the attached proof!  
MSM donated 96% to Hillary in 2016, when she lost they spent 4 years reporting biased, negative news about Trump and then donated 90% to Biden in 2020.  
Media Trump Hatred Shows In 92% Negative Coverage Of His Presidency: Study​








						Media Trump Hatred Shows In 92% Negative Coverage Of His Presidency: Study
					

The big TV networks don't hide their contempt for President Trump. So it's no surprise a new study shows 92% of the media's Trump coverage is negative.




					www.investors.com
				



For this reason and other observations of the partiality of the majority of the MSM I made an effort such as the attached to document the BIASED MSM!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> Just to be clear... the biased NFBW: took the statement by Trump and perverted it "_so Trump and cult company want them to go back to where they came from"_: And Trump as you pointed out NEVER said.


Trump said “go back” -  as I understand it that means he wants them to “go back” .

Now if you are arguing that Trump does not “want” black women members of Congress to leave Congress and go back to where there came from you will make that case of what it is you think racist Trump ‘wants’ the black women he singled out to do if he does not want them to go back to someplace else.

Is Trump telling double abortionist male Herschel Walker to go back to wherever he came from?

END2211100845 SEATTLE


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> But NFBW and their uninformed ilk believed every negative news about Trump and people like me because of the attached proof!


NFBW: Actually I only needed  to read Trump’s tweet:

"Why don't they* go back* and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done."​​There ain’t enough lipstick to put on the racist pig Trump’s filthy lips. But congrats for trying. 

END2211100855 Seattle 
​​


----------



## healthmyths

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Actually I only needed  to read Trump’s tweet:
> 
> "Why don't they* go back* and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done."​​There ain’t enough lipstick to put on the racist pig Trump’s filthy lips. But congrats for trying.
> 
> END2211100855 Seattle
> ​​


Hey  I didn't see YOU giving any of your salary to charity as Trump did which only 2 other presidents have done!





						Trump-O-Meter:  | PolitiFact
					






					www.politifact.com
				



And UNLIKE you I don't see any substantiation for your totally erroneous and lying comments!
WHERE is your proof Trump is "racist"?  You have no proof of that then you have of having a high school diploma!


----------



## ChemEngineer

beagle9 said:


> So you are an anti-populationist  ??.



Stann is bitter and hateful.  He's crying because his period is late.





Wanting to murder innocent, unborn babies can't be described any other way.   If a law were proposed allowing abortions, up to 8 weeks, for rape and incest, the baby-killing lobby would never support it.  They want cruel, elective murders, any time for any reason.  Sentient unborn babies suffer horribly when they are poisoned by strong saline solution, or their bodies are torn apart with instruments to draw them out.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> Hey I didn't see YOU giving any of your salary to charity as Trump did which only 2 other presidents have done!


I see you cannot explain what I asked you to explain which is what did trump mean when he told black female congress persons to go back to where they came from.


----------



## healthmyths

NotfooledbyW said:


> I see you cannot explain what I asked you to explain which is what did trump mean when he told black female congress persons to go back to where they came from.


Of course you CAN"T see because you are wearing blinders. NOW once here is what Trump SAID!
NOT what you heard.  See you are like the illegal immigrants.  They heard this from your Führer and as a result America has had 





						CBP Enforcement Statistics Fiscal Year 2023
					

Securing America's Borders



					www.cbp.gov
				




_"I would, in fact, make sure that there is, we immediate surge to the border, _"



So this is what Trump actually said:
Mr. Trump added: 
_“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done._”








						Trump Tells Congresswomen to ‘Go Back’ to the Countries They Came From (Published 2019)
					

The attack, which was widely established as a racist trope, appeared to be meant for four progressive freshmen who have clashed with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Only one was born outside the United States.




					www.nytimes.com
				



BUT the biased NYTimes as part of the group that gave Hillary 96% of their donations, she lost they spent 92% of time with negative news and then donated 90% to Biden... So consequently people with ear muffs on like you were never told in the headlines... like this one from NYT!
Trump Tells Congresswomen to ‘Go Back’ to the Countries They Came From​BUT did they put this in the headline which you believed?  Trump went on to say.....
_“*Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. 
Then come back and show us how it is done.*_”
Because the MSM is biased as the attached attests but again YOU idiots never look at the facts!!!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> NOW once here is what Trump SAID!
> NOT what you heard.



_“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done._”

NFBW: I hear exactly what Mr. Trump said. And why exactly is Trump asking for black women in Congress to quit their jobs and go back to their own country?

Trump is a racist and so are you for trying to cover for the racist pig that you support.

END2211101514 Portland


----------



## healthmyths

NotfooledbyW said:


> _“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done._”
> 
> NFBW: I hear exactly what Mr. Trump said. And why exactly is Trump asking for black women in Congress to quit their jobs and go back to their own country?
> 
> Trump is a racist and so are you for trying to cover for the racist pig that you support.
> 
> END2211101514 Portland


YOU are lying!  He never asked them _"to quit their jobs"!!!_
Not only that but the BIASED MSM made up words!
Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

“_So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run,” the president wrote.
“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” he added. “Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!_”








						Trump tells Dem congresswomen: Go back where you came from
					

Later in the day, the president doubles down on his attacks.




					www.politico.com
				




HEY LIAR!!!  Where in the above exact words did Trump tell them to _"to quit their jobs"???
YOU ARE a LIAR. 
_I've proved exactly what Trump said but like the BIASED MSM you have LIED!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> YOU are lying! He never asked them _"to quit their jobs"!!!_


NFBW: If they “go back” to the “shithole countries” in Trump’s racist mind where they came from, they can’t be in Congress, now can they?

Every white Supremacist Trump  supporter knows what “why don’t they go back” to their shitholes means. You are so kind to our most racist president ever and the white Supremacists who adore the guy. why is that?

END2211101745


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> HEY LIAR!!! Where in the above exact words did Trump tell them to _"to quit their jobs"???_


NFBW: You posted it. “_These places need your help badly, *you can’t leave fast enough.* I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!_”

Tell me healthmyths how these Congresswomen keep their jobs if they leave the country? Can you do that? 

END2211101820


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” he added. “Then come back and show us how it is done.


healthmyths 190730-#34   A) NO where did he talk about SENDING!!! He said why don't they go back... freely... no forcing..

According to Trump and healthmyths they don’t belong here unless they go back and demonstrate they can make shitholes into diamonds and then come back and show how to do it.


----------



## healthmyths

NotfooledbyW said:


> healthmyths 190730-#34   A) NO where did he talk about SENDING!!! He said why don't they go back... freely... no forcing..
> 
> According to Trump and healthmyths they don’t belong here unless they go back and demonstrate they can make shitholes into diamonds and then come back and show how to do it.


And according to YOU!!! _"According to Trump and healthmyths they don’t belong here unless they go back and demonstrate they can make shitholes into diamonds and then come back and show how to do it."_

As usual you are ADDING YOUR own idiocy! NO where did Trump say "make shit holes into diamonds"  
Why are you doing that?  YOU are adding your own words.  NEVER did Trump use the words "SHIT HOLES"!
When will you learn that readers of your comments totally dismiss them because the TEXT that Trump said is written already!
AGAIN AND AGAIN...I've had to copy exactly what Trump said AND NOT what you and the biased MSM want you the dummies to
think!  HERE again are the exact words!
Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

“_So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run,_” the president wrote.
“_Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” he added. “Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!_”








						Trump tells Dem congresswomen: Go back where you came from
					

Later in the day, the president doubles down on his attacks.




					www.politico.com
				




So Dummy!!!!  Where is the word "shit holes"?  
But you know what really is shameful is YOU share that attitude of these "progressive Democrats"!  You hate America don't you?
Why don't you go and live in Russia, or Cuba or Venezuela, or Iran, or China?  Why if you agree with these hateful Democrats are you here?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> the BIASED MSM made up words!





healthmyths said:


> NO where did Trump say "make shit holes into diamonds"



Trump’s racism is pronounced over his lifetime.

According to the aide, when the group came to discussing immigration from Africa, Trump asked why America would want immigrants from "all these shithole countries" and that the U.S. should have more people coming in from places like Norway.​​


healthmyths said:


> Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” he added. “Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough.



NFBW: Trump refers to totally broken and crime infested places as shithole countries.  And he wanted the squad to go back to those totally broken and crime infested places to fix them before coming back. Yes turn shitholes into diamonds is fair. You object because you are a racist.


healthmyths said:


> “_Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” he added. “Then come back and show us how it is done. _


Trump wants the SQUAD to “go back” . . . .  Nuff Said    Trump is a racist for saying any black American should “go back” to where they came from. Trump’s mouth is a racist shithole.


healthmyths said:


> HERE again are the exact words!



 black congresswomen  “_Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,”_

NFBW: Thank you for posting Trump’s racist comments - we should not forget what a big racist  Trump is.

END2211102021


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> You hate America don't you?


No. I love America - started with nothing - turned a high school diploma into enough paid for rental properties to retire now very comfortably.  I’m getting up in years but still ride my human powered bike a hundred miles - or my motorcycle all day in the mountains -  no LazyBoy for me.

But mostly this old Guy genuinely LOVES America’s young people who voted in the Midterms overwhelmingly for the SQUAD Dems against all you racist,  homophobe, anti-choice, anti-democracy, anti-environment, white Christian nationalist Trump Republicans. 

Voters between the ages of 18 and 29 cast their ballots in favor of Democrats 63 percent of the time in the 2022 elections, exit polling datafound.​​







						Exit Poll: Generation Z, Millennials Break Big for Democrats
					

Voters between the ages of 18 and 29 cast their ballot in favor of Democrats 63 percent of the time, exit polling data found.




					www.breitbart.com
				


​Data from NBC exit polls found that the demographic, comprised of Generation Z and the Millennials, voted 63 percent for Democrats and just 35 percent for the Republicans.​​NFBW: as a Trump MAGA moron you must hate where America is headed with the next generation turning out two to one against white right wing Trump extremism. You have no future for your old white male fearmongering extremism if voting trends the way it did this week. 

END2211102121


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> I've had to copy exactly what Trump said





healthmyths said:


> *Why don’t they go back* and help fix *the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”*



Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the other members of the "Squad" were re-elected Tuesday, cruising to victory in their deep-blue congressional districts by wide margins.​​The Associated Press has called the races for Ocasio-Cortez, as well as Reps. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Cori Bush, D-Mo., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.​​Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley and Tlaib were born in the United States

Omar was the only original member of the Squad who is a naturalized citizen from Somalia at age 13.
​Rashida Tlaib, currently serving as the Democratic Representative for Michigan’s 13th District, is a fighter. As a life-long Detroiter, and one of the first Muslim-Americans, as well as the first Palestinian-American woman, ever elected to the United States Congress,​​(Take note here Papageorgio and let me know if you think Tlaib is working class and represents working class in Congress)​​Tlaib advocates for issues that affect the working-class. Feeling that interactions with voters are her “comfort zone,” Tlaib says she is always thinking of her constituents and where she came from.​​Rashida Harbi Elabed was born on July 24, 1976 as *the oldest of 14 children* to Harbi Elabed and Fatima in southwest Detroit. Both her parents immigrated to the United States. Her father, *born in East Jerusalem, moved to Nicaragua *before emigrating to the United States; her mother came from a small town in *Palestine*. Tlaib grew up speaking Arabic at home and learned English as a second language.​​(Take note here Lisa558 do you think Tlaib is some kind of an irresponsible pro-abortion whore because she is a Democrat?)​​She sometimes acted as a third parent, helping her parents change the diapers and take care of her younger siblings while also juggling homework and school activities. Both of her parents worked extremely hard—they each spent time working on the assembly line at the Ford Motor Company’s Flat Rock Assembly Plant—to provide for the family, but it was not always easy and Tlaib and her family experienced poverty growing up.​​Tlaib became the first person in her family to graduate high school. She received her B.A. from Wayne State University in 1998 and her J.D. from Western Michigan University in 2004. She married Fayez Tlaib in 1998, and the couple had two sons. When they divorced in 2015, Tlaib kept her married name.​

NFBW: Why does Trump ask only black Congresswomen to leave the multi-racial constituents that voted for them to represent them in Congress to “go back” to the “broken and crime infested places from which they came”?

You are avoiding this question as well?

When you read Rashida Tlaib’s bio above you can see her parents came from *East Jerusalem, Nicaragua and Palestine. *

So which country should Congresswoman Tlaib leave her job, her family, her constituents, her Mosque, her country to go back to fix to satisfy you and Trump that she is worthy to be here in America?

I believe *East Jerusalem, and Palestine. *are in Israel, should she go back there and convert to Judaism or what?

END2211110417 Portland


----------



## ChemEngineer

healthmyths said:


> And according to YOU!!! _"According to Trump and healthmyths they don’t belong here unless they go back and demonstrate they can make shitholes into diamonds and then come back and show how to do it."_
> 
> As usual you are ADDING YOUR own idiocy! NO where did Trump say "make shit holes into diamonds"
> Why are you doing that?  YOU are adding your own words.  NEVER did Trump use the words "SHIT HOLES"!
> When will you learn that readers of your comments totally dismiss them because the TEXT that Trump said is written already!
> AGAIN AND AGAIN...I've had to copy exactly what Trump said AND NOT what you and the biased MSM want you the dummies to
> think!  HERE again are the exact words!
> Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”
> 
> “_So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run,_” the president wrote.
> “_Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” he added. “Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!_”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump tells Dem congresswomen: Go back where you came from
> 
> 
> Later in the day, the president doubles down on his attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Dummy!!!!  Where is the word "shit holes"?
> But you know what really is shameful is YOU share that attitude of these "progressive Democrats"!  You hate America don't you?
> Why don't you go and live in Russia, or Cuba or Venezuela, or Iran, or China?  Why if you agree with these hateful Democrats are you here?



Leftists like NotFooled are constantly putting their words into others' mouths and then blaming others for the words the Leftists so hatefully and dishonestly attributed to them.  "So you're saying..."  *No, I did NOT say that, you pathological liar.*


----------



## healthmyths

NotfooledbyW said:


> Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the other members of the "Squad" were re-elected Tuesday, cruising to victory in their deep-blue congressional districts by wide margins.​​The Associated Press has called the races for Ocasio-Cortez, as well as Reps. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Cori Bush, D-Mo., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.​​Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley and Tlaib were born in the United States
> 
> Omar was the only original member of the Squad who is a naturalized citizen from Somalia at age 13.
> ​Rashida Tlaib, currently serving as the Democratic Representative for Michigan’s 13th District, is a fighter. As a life-long Detroiter, and one of the first Muslim-Americans, as well as the first Palestinian-American woman, ever elected to the United States Congress,​​(Take note here Papageorgio and let me know if you think Tlaib is working class and represents working class in Congress)​​Tlaib advocates for issues that affect the working-class. Feeling that interactions with voters are her “comfort zone,” Tlaib says she is always thinking of her constituents and where she came from.​​Rashida Harbi Elabed was born on July 24, 1976 as *the oldest of 14 children* to Harbi Elabed and Fatima in southwest Detroit. Both her parents immigrated to the United States. Her father, *born in East Jerusalem, moved to Nicaragua *before emigrating to the United States; her mother came from a small town in *Palestine*. Tlaib grew up speaking Arabic at home and learned English as a second language.​​(Take note here Lisa558 do you think Tlaib is some kind of an irresponsible pro-abortion whore because she is a Democrat?)​​She sometimes acted as a third parent, helping her parents change the diapers and take care of her younger siblings while also juggling homework and school activities. Both of her parents worked extremely hard—they each spent time working on the assembly line at the Ford Motor Company’s Flat Rock Assembly Plant—to provide for the family, but it was not always easy and Tlaib and her family experienced poverty growing up.​​Tlaib became the first person in her family to graduate high school. She received her B.A. from Wayne State University in 1998 and her J.D. from Western Michigan University in 2004. She married Fayez Tlaib in 1998, and the couple had two sons. When they divorced in 2015, Tlaib kept her married name.​
> 
> NFBW: Why does Trump ask only black Congresswomen to leave the multi-racial constituents that voted for them to represent them in Congress to “go back” to the “broken and crime infested places from which they came”?
> 
> You are avoiding this question as well?
> 
> When you read Rashida Tlaib’s bio above you can see her parents came from *East Jerusalem, Nicaragua and Palestine. *
> 
> So which country should Congresswoman Tlaib leave her job, her family, her constituents, her Mosque, her country to go back to fix to satisfy you and Trump that she is worthy to be here in America?
> 
> I believe *East Jerusalem, and Palestine. *are in Israel, should she go back there and convert to Judaism or what?
> 
> END2211110417 Portland


OK again let's dissect the following Trump statement:
Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

_“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run,” the president wrote.
“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” he added. “Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”_








						Trump tells Dem congresswomen: Go back where you came from
					

Later in the day, the president doubles down on his attacks.




					www.politico.com
				




A) where in all the above words does the word "Black"  appear?
B) *Ilhan Omar*  and her family first came to the US as refugees from *Somalia in 1997*
C) The first *Palestinian*-American woman to serve in Congress. Born and raised in Detroit, Michigan, *Ms Tlaib* is the daughter of *Palestinian immigrant parents*. *Her grandmother still lives in the West Bank.*
You wrote: _When you read Rashida Tlaib’s bio above you can see her parents came from East Jerusalem, Nicaragua and Palestine."_
East Jerusalem IS in Palestine and officially governed by the *Palestine Liberation Organization*, it claims the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.  
D)  Ocasio-Cortez  Her father was born in the Bronx to a Puerto Rican family her mother was born in Puerto Rico.








						AOC, Omar, Pressley, Tlaib: Who are 'the squad' of congresswomen?
					

Who are the four US congresswomen who President Trump told to "go back" to their countries?



					www.bbc.com
				




*Somalia*,  as the country of 10.8 million continues to experience political and economic instability, its people are increasingly living outside of Somalia.
*Palestine*, NOT controlled by Israel but officially the State of Palestine, is a state located in Western Asia. Officially governed by the *Palestine Liberation Organization, *it claims the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, There's a high threat of civil unrest in the Palestinian Territories. International events and political developments may lead to protests and demonstrations, which can turn violent.
*Puerto Rico* has dreadful crime statistics, 








						Is Puerto Rico a safe place to live if you are running a startup?
					

Answer (1 of 4): Puerto Rico has dreadful crime statistics, but that is somewhat misleading as it is not spread out evenly. Most newcomer entrepreneurs to the island end up in Dorado, Condado, or Palmas, which are reasonably safe.  As with most urban places in the world, you need to be aware and ...




					www.quora.com
				




NOW I kept the best for LAST!!!
NFBW: _Why does Trump ask only black Congresswomen to leave the multi-racial constituents that voted for them to represent them in Congress to “go back” to the “broken and crime infested places from which they came_”?
_You are avoiding this question as well?_
First of all are you saying ALL the members of the "Squad" are black?  Really you think AOC is black?  OH wait.... you are quoting
AOC's comments....!  RIGHT!!!


Trump tells Dem congresswomen: Go back where you came from
_President Donald Trump,* jumping into the middle of a feud among House Democrats,* called out progressive congresswomen in xenophobic terms on Sunday, saying, “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”_
First of all what are the_ "xenophobic terms"?_
Secondly... *what was the feud among house DEMOCRATS between the "SQUAD"?*
"Ocasio-Cortez calls Pelosi’s ‘singling out’ of Democratic women of color ‘disrespectful’"​


			https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/politics/ocasio-cortez-pelosi-singling-out
		

But over the past week, it’s remarks that *Pelosi herself made that appears to have angered a group of four lawmakers *– shorthandedly referred to on Capitol Hill as a “the squad” – which includes Ocasio-Cortez.
Ocasio-Cortez made the remarks in an interview with The Washington Post late Wednesday *after a day of heightened tensions between Pelosi and House Democrats. *
“*But the persistent singling out … it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful … the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color,*” she added.








						Ocasio-Cortez accuses Pelosi of ‘persistent singling out’ of women of color: It’s ‘outright disrespectful’
					

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) of repeatedly singling out newly elected women of color in the House, saying that the veteran congresswoman&#8217…




					thehill.com
				




So it's OK for Pelosi to attack elected women of color...?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Why is this thread now about RetardedBitchofW’s orange man bad spam?

We get it, whoever is or was or might be the Republican President or nominee is always worse than Hitler to you and you will rant incessantly about it. 

Why don’t you just make a blog instead of blathering endlessly about what a mean ol’ racist someone not related to the thread topic is?


----------



## hadit

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Why is this thread now about RetardedBitchofW’s orange man bad spam?
> 
> We get it, whoever is or was or might be the Republican President or nominee is always worse than Hitler to you and you will rant incessantly about it.
> 
> Why don’t you just make a blog instead of blathering endlessly about what a mean ol’ racist someone not related to the thread topic is?


It's the democrat MO. "You Republicans need to nominate this guy. We like him, he's not the other guy". That lasts until they actually nominate the guy, then they start with the hate.


----------



## healthmyths

hadit said:


> It's the democrat MO. "You Republicans need to nominate this guy. We like him, he's not the other guy". That lasts until they actually nominate the guy, then they start with the hate.


Democrats spend tens of millions amplifying far-right candidates in nine states​The practice by some campaigns and outside groups this year has divided Democrats, with some in the party complaining that such tactics are risky and could result in the election of candidates who pose serious threats to democracy​Democrats have spent nearly $19 million across eight states in primaries this year amplifying far-right Republican candidates who have questioned or denied the validity of the 2020 election, according to a Washington Post analysis, interfering in GOP contests to elevate rivals they see as easier to defeat in November, even as those candidates have promoted false or baseless claims.


			https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/12/democrats-interfere-republican-primaries/


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> A) where in all the above words does the word "Black" appear?


NFBW: Women of color will do as well. NOT WHITE will do as well. Somolia and Palestine are in Africa 

Enslaved West Africans were forced to go to Puerto Rico by the Spaniards during the 1500s. By 1530, over half of the Spanish territory’s population hailed from Africa.​​Racists, white Supremacists standard line for centuries is ‘send them back to Africa, and you want to give Trump a Brownie Button for not saying ‘send’ or ‘black’  ? You are a pathetic defender of yours and Trump’s demented disgusting racism. 

END2211110747


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChemEngineer said:


> Leftists like NotFooled are constantly putting their words into others' mouths


NFBW: You are a liar. I have used Trump’s exact words on this exchange with healthmyths and he keeps defending that racist ‘send back’ to ‘where they came from ‘ remark with more racism and lunacy. He is doing just fine. 

END2211110755


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Why is this thread now about RetardedBitchofW’s orange man bad spam?


NFBW: OVERTURNING ROE VS WADE Exposed that white Christian nationalism has made its way to the Supreme Court through three of Trump’s picks and that political blunder by Republicans has shocked MAGA morons due to a rather poor showing in the midterms and the great results in Michigan putting freedom of choice into the Michigan Constitution. 😃  You MAGA racists and general fearmongering nere-do-wells cannot get ‘er done at the voting booth. . Not Sending the squad back to Africa and or Puerto Rico anytime soon, or giving full hunan rights to fertilized human eggs. what’s next, a violent Jan6 for Michigan?

ITS ALL RELATED.

END221111089


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> orange man bad


Why you ask?

"Young Kin (now that’s an interesting take. Sounds Chinese, doesn’t it?) in Virginia couldn’t have won without me," wrote Trump.


----------



## healthmyths

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar. I have used Trump’s exact words on this exchange with healthmyths and he keeps defending that racist ‘send back’ to ‘where they came from ‘ remark with more racism and lunacy. He is doing just fine.
> 
> END2211110755


AND these are the exact words from Trump!  Where did he say "*SEND THEM BACK"???*
“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run,” the president wrote.
“*Why don’t **they go back and help fix the totally broken* and crime infested places from which they came,” he added. “Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”








						Trump tells Dem congresswomen: Go back where you came from
					

Later in the day, the president doubles down on his attacks.




					www.politico.com
				




YOU dumb ass!  WHERE IN THE EXACT WORDS Trump spoke did he say "*SEND THEM BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM"*????
WHERE ???  WHY do dummies like you NOT realize that exact words have meaning!
Trump NEVER said "_Send them back"!_!!  GEEZ how stupid!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Why is this thread now about


NFBW: I am glad to be on your political enemies list with the men and women of the FBI. 

CarsomyrPlusSix220808-#241  “In case it wasn't yet clear, the FBI are now the enemies of the United States. The entire bureau needs to go​​END2211110858


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> YOU dumb ass! WHERE IN THE EXACT WORDS Trump spoke did he say "*SEND THEM BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM"*????


If you were capable of reading comprehension  you would realize I am not quoiting Trump there. I am referring to the racist signature line in general that all you racists enjoy using when dog whistling 

“. I have used Trump’s exact words on this exchange with healthmyths and he keeps defending that racist ‘send back’ to ‘where they came from ‘ remark with more racism and lunacy.”​​I have cited Trump’s cute use of asking a question to dogwhistle to his racist fan club and you know I have.


----------



## healthmyths

NotfooledbyW said:


> If you were capable of reading comprehension  you would realize I am not quoiting Trump there. I am referring to the racist signature line in general that all you racists enjoy using when dog whistling
> 
> “. I have used Trump’s exact words on this exchange with healthmyths and he keeps defending that racist ‘send back’ to ‘where they came from ‘ remark with more racism and lunacy.”​​I have cited Trump’s cute use of asking a question to dogwhistle to his racist fan club and you know I have.


"quoiting"??? 
"Dog whistle"???/  OH so now you are changing your position.  You are proven wrong that Trump said:
YOU dumb ass! WHERE IN TRUMP's EXACT WORDS did he say "*SEND THEM BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM"*????
WHERE ??? WHY do dummies like you NOT realize that exact words have meaning!
Trump NEVER said "_*Send them back"*!_!! GEEZ how stupid!
How about this assumption... Based on your comments...,
you hate Americans!
You hate democracies.
You are a chinese communist lover that would have your mother and father executed for the well being of the State!
The below is you!


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" False Narrative Supported By Legal Censure And A Fee Press "

* More Anti-Choice Blowing It Out The Ass Mindless Constitutionalism Rhetoric **


Delldude said:


> That's the beautiful thing about the 10th amendment.......it's up to the people to decide, not the government.


State interests in protecting a wright to life of a zygote , or embryo , or fetus are prohibited , as live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen , and any citizen is entitled to legal standing against state interests in prohibiting abortion base on a violation of equal protection by equitable doctrine .

In lieu of a live birth requirement , roe v wade court substituted natural viability for an ability of a fetus to survive an imminent live birth , which roe v wade court referred to as a " potential life " ,  upon which roe v wade court ruled that states interests could begin in third trimester and could then proscribe abortion .

That is the actual constitutional basis for abortion and the roe v wade decision , whereas the scotus committed sedition against us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments , while traitors to us republic support its dobbs decision . 

Though state interests are prohibited from protecting a wright to life of a zef that has not met a live birth requirement for equal protection to receive it , a us 10th amendment also states " or to the people " which means a direct populous vote .


----------



## flan327

eagle7-31 said:


> Hey genius. Abortion will not be banned, just a matter for states, but left wing liars will  act like its the end of the world.


Post reported


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

flan327 said:


> Post reported


Lol, who gives a fuck, ye lousy ****?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why would it not be murder of two human beings if someone murders a pregnant woman.


It is the murder of two human beings if someone murders a pregnant lady.


----------



## Delldude

flan327 said:


> Post reported


Go for two.....


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> WHY do dummies like you NOT realize that exact words have meaning!
> Trump NEVER said "_*Send them back"*!_!! GEEZ how stupid!


NFBW:, Trump’s exact words shows his intent was to communicate to his racist supporters that he wanted four women of color in Congress to leave their homes, families and jobs in Congress to “go back” to the shithole countries that he thinks “they came from.”

Can you come with something opposite to that, that your deplorable racist ex-president could have meant by “go back” ?

END2211111422


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> It is the murder of two human beings if someone murders a pregnant lady.


Exactly. I agree. what is your point?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagle7-31 said:


> Hey genius. Abortion will not be banned, just a matter for states, but left wing liars will act like its the end of the world.


It should not be banned in white Christian nationalist states because it violates religious and conscience freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

healthmyths said:


> Trump NEVER said "_Send them back"!_!! GEEZ how stupid!


NFBW: Trump asked  “_Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken_ and crime infested places from which they came” . 

All four of the women of color in Congress that Trump verbally attacked were already living in the place they came from by the time they were legal age adults. They are all born here or became naturalized citizens of the United States of America. Where are they supposed to go back to healthmyths ? 
END2211111530


----------



## beagle9

healthmyths said:


> Question: if...it is "_none of anyone else’s business what a woman decides to do with her own body if she had an unwanted pregnancy._"...  why do almost all states have laws like to drive on roads people have to have a license?
> To me it's nobody's business that I have a driver's license.
> So why is driving require the government to authorize me to drive?  It's none of their or anyone else's business?


Better yet why should government be involved in regulating a woman when it comes to selling her body in an exchange for sexual favor ? That seems far less sinister than just allowing a woman to take a developing life that is growing inside of her, and then destroying that life with bad reasoning..  Otherwise a reason like she just can't handle the thought of carrying a baby to term, and it all because she felt like it was a mistake when she had unprotected sex knowing full well what the results would be. 

At least the sex worker knows what she has to do as a professional to keep from getting pregnant when she engages in her job. 

It all goes back to having a CIVILIZED organized civilization/society that in each thing the right thing is done no matter what it is, and a common sense approach is given to everything by standard's that are ethical, reasonable, and sustainable.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 221111-#5,544  “It all goes back to having a CIVILIZED organized civilization/society that in each thing the right thing is done no matter what it is, and a common sense approach is given to everything by standard's that are ethical, reasonable, and sustainable.”


beagle9 221009-#5,444   “Let's hope that people like Walker who may have fell into the trap, realized his wrong, and dug his way back out, otherwise given that his stance is now pro-life, and better yet his policies are conservative, so I say give him a chance if he's sincere. Like you say this Waynick guy is way worse, so hopefully the people choose the right person.


NFBW: Why should anyone listen to you when seeking a common sense approach be given to everything by standard's that are ethical, reasonable, and sustainable on abortion?

For US Senate, You favor a man who has knocked up women and then paid the women he was using to pleasure himself to terminate the potential human life his immoral, unreasonable, unChristian behavior produced, over a man of Christian faith who has never terminated a potential human life that he was personally responsible for creating.

You are a lunatic if you think you will lead us to a more moral and civilized society than we already have..

END2211111919


----------



## beagle9

Lisa558 said:


> I’ve never said it’s OK for irresponsible women to get pregnant again and again. I’d be for sterilization the next time they show up for an abortion (unless they were raped). Will never happen though.


If not sterilization, then at the least they should be required to undergo a procedure that will insure they can't get pregnant again, otherwise until they have the procedure reversed.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9 221111-#5,544  “It all goes back to having a CIVILIZED organized civilization/society that in each thing the right thing is done no matter what it is, and a common sense approach is given to everything by standard's that are ethical, reasonable, and sustainable.”
> 
> 
> beagle9 221009-#5,444   “Let's hope that people like Walker who may have fell into the trap, realized his wrong, and dug his way back out, otherwise given that his stance is now pro-life, and better yet his policies are conservative, so I say give him a chance if he's sincere. Like you say this Waynick guy is way worse, so hopefully the people choose the right person.
> 
> 
> NFBW: Why should anyone listen to you when seeking a common sense approach be given to everything by standard's that are ethical, reasonable, and sustainable on abortion?
> 
> For US Senate, You favor a man who has knocked up women and then paid the women he was using to pleasure himself to terminate the potential human life his immoral, unreasonable, unChristian behavior produced, over a man of Christian faith who has never terminated a potential human life that he was personally responsible for creating.
> 
> You are a lunatic if you think you will lead us to a more moral and civilized society than we already have..
> 
> END2211111919


To start with the charges against Walker haven't been established in a court of law, so they could be political in hopes to knock him out of the running just like it was against Herman Cain and other high profile candidates that were running when such things came about, but even if it were that he (back in the day), was living a sinful lifestyle that brought about such sinful thing's, are you one to suggest that no sinner could ever change, and therefore afterwards become a Christian who would be against the sins that they were prone to commiting as a sinner before being saved ? What planet do you live on by suggesting or attempting to tell us that there are perfect humans that can occupy these job's for us, otherwise who have never done anything wrong ????

Now if he's hiding something like that, and if he were to be elected, and then he began doing thing's that proves he hasn't changed or is a bad person, then shame on us for not being strong enough to pull the levers in which would oust him from power immediately, and give the seat to someone more humbled and deserving.

That's been our problem for along time now, otherwise that we think or rather we are led to believe that if a person gain's power, then it's over until the next election cycle no matter what, but that just shows how weak we've become as an electorate over the year's.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the other members of the "Squad" were re-elected Tuesday, cruising to victory in their deep-blue congressional districts by wide margins.​​The Associated Press has called the races for Ocasio-Cortez, as well as Reps. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Cori Bush, D-Mo., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.​​Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley and Tlaib were born in the United States
> 
> Omar was the only original member of the Squad who is a naturalized citizen from Somalia at age 13.
> ​Rashida Tlaib, currently serving as the Democratic Representative for Michigan’s 13th District, is a fighter. As a life-long Detroiter, and one of the first Muslim-Americans, as well as the first Palestinian-American woman, ever elected to the United States Congress,​​(Take note here Papageorgio and let me know if you think Tlaib is working class and represents working class in Congress)​​Tlaib advocates for issues that affect the working-class. Feeling that interactions with voters are her “comfort zone,” Tlaib says she is always thinking of her constituents and where she came from.​​Rashida Harbi Elabed was born on July 24, 1976 as *the oldest of 14 children* to Harbi Elabed and Fatima in southwest Detroit. Both her parents immigrated to the United States. Her father, *born in East Jerusalem, moved to Nicaragua *before emigrating to the United States; her mother came from a small town in *Palestine*. Tlaib grew up speaking Arabic at home and learned English as a second language.​​(Take note here Lisa558 do you think Tlaib is some kind of an irresponsible pro-abortion whore because she is a Democrat?)​​She sometimes acted as a third parent, helping her parents change the diapers and take care of her younger siblings while also juggling homework and school activities. Both of her parents worked extremely hard—they each spent time working on the assembly line at the Ford Motor Company’s Flat Rock Assembly Plant—to provide for the family, but it was not always easy and Tlaib and her family experienced poverty growing up.​​Tlaib became the first person in her family to graduate high school. She received her B.A. from Wayne State University in 1998 and her J.D. from Western Michigan University in 2004. She married Fayez Tlaib in 1998, and the couple had two sons. When they divorced in 2015, Tlaib kept her married name.​
> 
> NFBW: Why does Trump ask only black Congresswomen to leave the multi-racial constituents that voted for them to represent them in Congress to “go back” to the “broken and crime infested places from which they came”?
> 
> You are avoiding this question as well?
> 
> When you read Rashida Tlaib’s bio above you can see her parents came from *East Jerusalem, Nicaragua and Palestine. *
> 
> So which country should Congresswoman Tlaib leave her job, her family, her constituents, her Mosque, her country to go back to fix to satisfy you and Trump that she is worthy to be here in America?
> 
> I believe *East Jerusalem, and Palestine. *are in Israel, should she go back there and convert to Judaism or what?
> 
> END2211110417 Portland


Interesting post....... They should only be judged by their actions as representative's, and never upon their religion, race or country of origin, otherwise if they are legal American citizens, and they are qualified to be in their Jobs as American citizens. The fact's that have been brought to light on Omar should have disqualified her to be serving in the job in which she has somehow acquired , but the other's I think have not been representing their state's well, yet somehow they keep winning?? Something wrong with that picture. Might be that the state has become lopsided with voter's who aren't qualified to make better informed decisions or the possibility of fraudulent activities exist in the state.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Exactly. I agree. what is your point?


Point being, is that I'm asking what changes if a woman decides to take the life of that which is human, developing, and/or is living within her ?? If she does what's right, then a beautiful little human being will develope as a result. 

This would happen after she owns up to her responsibilities upon becoming pregnant, otherwise by her clear choice or even within her recklessness all due to her lack of responsibility shown when allowing herself to become pregnant outside of wedlock, she still does what's right afterwards.

Yes she has the power and independent responsibility to not get pregnant (especially with all the birth control that is available). This way she doesn't need to visit a butcher clinic to somehow end the lifecycle in which she allowed to get started inside of her, and this being all due to her lack in judgement or her recklessness for a quick moment in time.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Technicalities Of Legal Constructs Versus Over Generalization Of Legal Status "

* Empathy Requires Sentience For Suffering As Illegitimate Aggression **


Lisa558 said:


> To the poster who says that murdering unborn babies is not a crime, then why is a murderer of a pregnant woman charged with TWO counts of murder?


A punishment for a crime of animal cruelty does not stipulate constitutional protections for the animal , and a death penalty arises from a double entendre of equitable doctrine where by removing a wright to life of another one removes their own wright to life - albeit by due process , and an animal , as a zef , is without constitutional protections and capital punishment cannot be applied .









						Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_"          _*(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section. *"


** Without Informed Consent With Or Without Intent Punishment Options **

A fetus not having met a live birth requirement is without constitutional protections and is private property of the mother , and any perceived offenses against the fetus are in fact offenses against the mother , whereby penalties appropriate for the nature of any crime may be applied as prescribed by law .









						Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_" Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is *guilty of a separate offense* under this section.
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, *the punishment *for that *separate offense *is the *same *as the punishment provided under Federal law *for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.*
          (B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—
               (i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
               (ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
          (C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby *intentionally* kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for *intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being*.
*(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.*
(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following: _
<SNIP>
*(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
     (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
     (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
     (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.*
_(d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. "_


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Beagle9221111-#5,549   Point being, is that I'm asking . . . .

NFBW: The reality is you are not simply asking women to behave in a certain way - lead by example and education sort of thing  - you and the religious right community to which you belong are petitioning the government through the politicians you select to use the force of law to ban a medical procedure that does prevent harm to the women that choose to have it done to their body. 

You are sticking your Christian nose into a place where it should not be stuck in a free society.

You shouid listen to a Trump supporter :

RFC220906-#792 Ray From Cleveland
“Abortion always comes down to "if it's a baby or not" argument. As far as abortion goes, it's none of my business what a person does.”

NFBW: Just sayin’

END2211120610 PORTLAND


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> The poll’s results also dispel the narrative that Latinos are realigning toward the Republican Party. “That simply did not materialize in this election,” said


NFBW: I find interesting that OhPleaseJustQuit took the time to read the above and indicate that he does not agree. On what basis do we have his disagreement I wonder? How about self-induced or Trumpism-induced ignorance is all I can think of right now.

END2211120623 Portland


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I find interesting that OhPleaseJustQuit took the time to read the above and indicate that he does not agree. On what basis do we have his disagreement I wonder? How about self-induced or Trumpism-induced ignorance is all I can think of right now.
> 
> END2211120623 Portland



Wow!  I'm very impressed by how clever you thought you sounded saying that.

However, no points for spelling or grammar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 221112-#5,548   The fact's that have been brought to light on Omar should have disqualified her to be serving in the job in which she has somehow acquired . . . 

NFBW: What facts are those? 

End2211120641 Portland


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OPJQ2224-#184 @OhPleaseJustQuit  “The way to drastically cut down on abortions is to sterilize all leftist women”

NFBW: Let me ask you beagle9  Are you at ease and at peace with Jesus having this self-induced or Trumpism-induced ignorant fascist in yours and Herschel Walker’s political party? 

END2211120708 Portland


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

NotfooledbyW said:


> OPJQ2224-#184 @OhPleaseJustQuit  “The way to drastically cut down on abortions is to sterilize all leftist women”
> 
> NFBW: Let me ask you beagle9  Are you at ease and at peace with Jesus having this self-induced or Trumpism-induced ignorant fascist in yours and Herschel Walker’s political party?
> 
> END2211120708 Portland



You're funny.

Entertain us more.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> You're funny.


NFBW: Are you going to have Herschel Walker sterilized in your abortion reduction program? 
END2211120739 Portland


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Are you going to have Herschel Walker sterilized in your abortion reduction program?
> END2211120739 Portland



If he decides to have an abortion, you bet your ignorant ass!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> If he decides to have an abortion, you bet your ignorant ass!


NFBW: Men don’t actually have abortions - Walker just knocks up woman but is a Trumpism gentleman so he is responsible enough to pay for them. So would you have men who knock up women and pay to abort the life they create be sterilized?

END2211120751 Portland


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Men don’t actually have abortions - Walker just knocks up woman but is a Trumpism gentleman so he is responsible enough to pay for them. So would you have men who knock up women and pay to abort the life they create be sterilized?
> 
> END2211120751 Portland













































.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Deontological Versus Consequentialism Event Outcome Speculations "

* Neglecting To Extol Carnal Knowledge While Exclaiming Innocence **


beagle9 said:


> Point being, is that I'm asking what changes if a woman decides to take the life of that which is human, developing, and/or is living within her ?? If she does what's right, then a beautiful little human being will develope as a result.


Witnessing news of behavior by the hue mammon ape , how is an objective observer supposed to consider a petition for defacto claim to an entitlement of protection as an absolute innocent , when canines incur a proclivity for veracity as a carnivore ?

** Hormones Compulsions Ignorant Deductions Conflicting With Prudent Decisions **


beagle9 said:


> This would happen after she owns up to her responsibilities upon becoming pregnant, otherwise by her clear choice or even within her recklessness all due to her lack of responsibility shown when allowing herself to become pregnant outside of wedlock, she still does what's right afterwards.


One can brow beat the sybarite all day long for not being an ascetic , however a republican for a republic with a credo of e pluribus unum espouses independence as individualism through equal protection of negative liberties , where individuals are accountable for themselves and to themselves for self ownership through genetic perpetuity .

** Childish Idealism Demanding Malicious Compliance With Bureaucracy And Abandonment Over Individualism **


beagle9 said:


> Yes she has the power and independent responsibility to not get pregnant (especially with all the birth control that is available). This way she doesn't need to visit a butcher clinic to somehow end the lifecycle in which she allowed to get started inside of her, and this being all due to her lack in judgement or her recklessness for a quick moment in time.


Suppose a dystopian aberration were to occur , perhaps through an anomaly of development such as a genetic affliction , that markedly affects the quality of life for all involved ?

The public nature of the hue mammon ape is that an election for abortion post 15 weeks occurs " with cause " and based on maternal or fetal health , whereas abortions post 15 weeks do not occur because a psychopath thought it would be thrilling to kill its offspring .

Perhaps abortion post 15 weeks " with cause " is amenable to your perspective , which would leave abortions " without cause " prior to 15 weeks as objectionable , even though fetal development prior to 15 weeks is well before an onset of sentience .

** Bottom Line Write Off Stupor Relative In Who Would Be The Wiser **

Sentience is a prerequisite for conscientious objection as mind , which could be supposed to be a valid basis for representation of a fetus by proxy from empathy for suffering .

While your principles of ethic maintain an exception from exploitation of the hue mammon ape even prior to a physical capacity for sentience , do your principles of ethic maintain an exception from exploitation of all sentient beings based on empathy for suffering ?

From your principles of ethic , which determines whether a sentient being can be made or allowed to suffer from the hue mammon ape ?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Beagle9221111-#5,549   Point being, is that I'm asking . . . .
> 
> NFBW: The reality is you are not simply asking women to behave in a certain way - lead by example and education sort of thing  - you and the religious right community to which you belong are petitioning the government through the politicians you select to use the force of law to ban a medical procedure that does prevent harm to the women that choose to have it done to their body.
> 
> You are sticking your Christian nose into a place where it should not be stuck in a free society.
> 
> You shouid listen to a Trump supporter :
> 
> RFC220906-#792 Ray From Cleveland
> “Abortion always comes down to "if it's a baby or not" argument. As far as abortion goes, it's none of my business what a person does.”
> 
> NFBW: Just sayin’
> 
> END2211120610 PORTLAND


Nope, not sticking my nose in to anything that isn't my business, but when you leftist try to get government in which is taking my tax dollars to somehow make abortion a law or right that is protected by government, otherwise that will ultimately be paid for, sponsored or associated with our tax dollars given, then it crosses a line.

The supreme court got it right, where as it represents all the citizen's of this country, and not just the knucklehead's that want special treatment and privileges above and beyond the rest of the citizen's or worse wants the taxpayer's to subsidize their tragic activities and scheme's.


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Deontological Versus Consequentialism Event Outcome Speculations "
> 
> * Neglecting To Extol Carnal Knowledge While Exclaiming Innocence **
> 
> Witnessing news of behavior by the hue mammon ape , how is an objective observer supposed to consider a petition for defacto claim to an entitlement of protection as an absolute innocent , when canines incur a proclivity for veracity as a carnivore ?
> 
> ** Hormones Compulsions Ignorant Deductions Conflicting With Prudent Decisions **
> 
> One can brow beat the sybarite all day long for not being an ascetic , however a republican for a republic with a credo of e pluribus unum espouses independence as individualism through equal protection of negative liberties , where individuals are accountable for themselves and to themselves for self ownership through genetic perpetuity .
> 
> ** Childish Idealism Demanding Malicious Compliance With Bureaucracy And Abandonment Over Individualism **
> 
> Suppose a dystopian aberration were to occur , perhaps through an anomaly of development such as a genetic affliction , that markedly affects the quality of life for all involved ?
> 
> The public nature of the hue mammon ape is that an election for abortion post 15 weeks occurs " with cause " and based on maternal or fetal health , whereas abortions post 15 weeks do not occur because a psychopath thought it would be thrilling to kill its offspring .
> 
> Perhaps abortion post 15 weeks " with cause " is amenable to your perspective , which would leave abortions " without cause " prior to 15 weeks as objectionable , even though fetal development prior to 15 weeks is well before an onset of sentience .
> 
> ** Bottom Line Write Off Stupor Relative In Who Would Be The Wiser **
> 
> Sentience is a prerequisite for conscientious objection as mind , which could be supposed to be a valid basis for representation of a fetus by proxy from empathy for suffering .
> 
> While your principles of ethic maintain an exception from exploitation of the hue mammon ape even prior to a physical capacity for sentience , do your principles of ethic maintain an exception from exploitation of all sentient beings based on empathy for suffering ?
> 
> From your principles of ethic , which determines whether a sentient being can be made or allowed to suffer from the hue mammon ape ?


You calling a fetus a hue mammon ape ??


----------



## ClaireH

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Deontological Versus Consequentialism Event Outcome Speculations "
> 
> * Neglecting To Extol Carnal Knowledge While Exclaiming Innocence **
> 
> Witnessing news of behavior by the hue mammon ape , how is an objective observer supposed to consider a petition for defacto claim to an entitlement of protection as an absolute innocent , when canines incur a proclivity for veracity as a carnivore ?
> 
> ** Hormones Compulsions Ignorant Deductions Conflicting With Prudent Decisions **
> 
> One can brow beat the sybarite all day long for not being an ascetic , however a republican for a republic with a credo of e pluribus unum espouses independence as individualism through equal protection of negative liberties , where individuals are accountable for themselves and to themselves for self ownership through genetic perpetuity .
> 
> ** Childish Idealism Demanding Malicious Compliance With Bureaucracy And Abandonment Over Individualism **
> 
> Suppose a dystopian aberration were to occur , perhaps through an anomaly of development such as a genetic affliction , that markedly affects the quality of life for all involved ?
> 
> The public nature of the hue mammon ape is that an election for abortion post 15 weeks occurs " with cause " and based on maternal or fetal health , whereas abortions post 15 weeks do not occur because a psychopath thought it would be thrilling to kill its offspring .
> 
> Perhaps abortion post 15 weeks " with cause " is amenable to your perspective , which would leave abortions " without cause " prior to 15 weeks as objectionable , even though fetal development prior to 15 weeks is well before an onset of sentience .
> 
> ** Bottom Line Write Off Stupor Relative In Who Would Be The Wiser **
> 
> Sentience is a prerequisite for conscientious objection as mind , which could be supposed to be a valid basis for representation of a fetus by proxy from empathy for suffering .
> 
> While your principles of ethic maintain an exception from exploitation of the hue mammon ape even prior to a physical capacity for sentience , do your principles of ethic maintain an exception from exploitation of all sentient beings based on empathy for suffering ?
> 
> From your principles of ethic , which determines whether a sentient being can be made or allowed to suffer from the hue mammon ape ?


In response to your statement: “even though fetal development prior to 15 weeks is well before an onset of sentience” the following study comparison is valid and needed in the discussion:

“Four hypotheses have been proposed regarding structures or functions necessary for pain perception: 1) cortical necessity after 24 weeks gestation (RCOG 2010; SMFM et al. 2021; Stanojevic et al. 2021); 2) cortical subplate beginning at 12 weeks gestation; (Derbyshire and Bockmann 2020); 3) brainstem and thalamus (Brusseau 2008; Merker 2007; Sekulic et al. 2016), which are present after 7–8 weeks gestation (Derbyshire 2006, 2008); and 4) the onset of fetal consciousness, estimated at varying gestational ages (Lee et al. 2005).”

Hypothesis 2
*Cortical subplate (>12 weeks)*

“*The second hypothesis holds that the cortical subplate is the minimum structure necessary for the fetus to feel pain as early as 12 weeks gestation. In 2020, 10 years after the RCOG report was released, a review on fetal pain by Derbyshire and Bockmann stated that, based on existing research, the potential for fetal pain exists once thalamic projections reach the subplate beginning at 12 weeks gestation. *This study is of particular significance as Derbyshire, a principal author of the 2010 RCOG report, previously held that fetal pain was not structurally possible until 24 weeks gestation, and was unlikely to be functionally possible until birth. Subplate innervation beginning at 12 weeks raises the possibility of fetal pain perception in the first trimester resulting in what RCOG states could represent a “rawer, more primitive, form of pain or suffering” (2010, 6) before full maturation of the cortex which does not occur until postnatal life (Kadić and Kurjak 2018).”

Fetal Pain in the First Trimester 

As technology continues to improve exponentially, it will not be long now that the public will have solid knowledge that experts were way off with their many decades old premise that a fully developed cortex is necessary for pain to be detected by a fetus, which should soon be removed from the 4 hypothesis possibilities. 

I believe you subscribe to hypothesis 1 with referencing “15 weeks sentience”?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Negative Liberties Of Protection Versus Positive Liberties Of Endowment "

* Maintaining Cost Elements Of Public Health Infrastructure For Commerce **


beagle9 said:


> Nope, not sticking my nose in to anything that isn't my business, but when you leftist try to get government in which is taking my tax dollars to somehow make abortion a law or right that is protected by government, otherwise that will ultimately be paid for, sponsored or associated with our tax dollars given, then it crosses a line.
> 
> The supreme court got it right, where as it represents all the citizen's of this country, and not just the knucklehead's that want special treatment and privileges above and beyond the rest of the citizen's or worse wants the taxpayer's to subsidize their tragic activities and scheme's.


A distinction between direct taxation versus indirect taxation is at issue .

A direct tax is a capitation tax , a head tax , based on private property holdings of an individual , which is a tax to be apportioned as near as is possible for the direct benefit of those being taxed , as principle , where property tax is a common example .

An indirect tax is currency exchange tax , a commerce tax , to provision civil infrastructure for facilitating commerce , which is a tax to be apportioned indirectly for the benefit of those being taxed .

A claim that apportioning a direct tax for abortion violates equal protection of negative liberties would have standing for a direct tax where an equal apportionment of benefit to those being taxed could not be established.

A claim that apportioning an indirect tax for abortion violates an equal protection of negative liberties would not have standing for an indirect tax where an unequal apportionment of benefit to those being tax could be established .


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Negative Liberties Of Protection Versus Positive Liberties Of Endowment "
> 
> * Maintaining Cost Elements Of Public Health Infrastructure For Commerce **
> 
> A distinction between direct taxation versus indirect taxation is at issue .
> 
> A direct tax is a capitation tax , a head tax , based on private property holdings of an individual , which is a tax to be apportioned as near as is possible for the direct benefit of those being taxed , as principle , where property tax is a common example .
> 
> An indirect tax is currency exchange tax , a commerce tax , to provision civil infrastructure for facilitating commerce , which is a tax to be apportioned indirectly for the benefit of those being taxed .
> 
> A claim that apportioning a direct tax for abortion violates equal protection of negative liberties would have standing for a direct tax where an equal apportionment of benefit to those being taxed could not be established.
> 
> A claim that apportioning an indirect tax for abortion violates an equal protection of negative liberties would not have standing for an indirect tax where an unequal apportionment of benefit to those being tax could be established .


So your assessment is that no taxation should be allowed to support or subsidize abortion by way of any tax levied on the citizen's by order of government, and so it is an issue for the state's to deal with as far as promoting a CIVILIZED decorum and society within each state as it so chooses correct ? 

By putting it back to the state's, it places the issue closer to the voter's choice's, because the citizen's of a state are far more better at holding their government officials accountable than the citizen's are at holding the federal government accountable.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Nope, not sticking my nose in to anything that isn't my business, but when you leftist try to get government in which is taking my tax dollars to somehow make abortion a law or right that is protected by government, otherwise that will ultimately be paid for, sponsored or associated with our tax dollars given, then it crosses a line.


A woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body including during pregnancy has nothing to do with tax dollars. It is a natural right.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

NotfooledbyW said:


> A woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body including during pregnancy has nothing to do with tax dollars. It is a natural right.



And she had damn well better not expect me to pay for anything SHE CHOOSES to do with her body.

This is why I no longer use Amazon.  It's a pain in the ass but I will not give a dime to a company that subsidizes child murder.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Men don’t actually have abortions - Walker just knocks up woman but is a Trumpism gentleman so he is responsible enough to pay for them. So would you have men who knock up women and pay to abort the life they create be sterilized?
> 
> END2211120751 Portland



Except for the fact there is no evidence Walker did anything like that.  You're making assumptions on one persons claim.


----------



## beagle9

D


OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> And she had damn well better not expect me to pay for anything SHE CHOOSES to do with her body.
> 
> This is why I no longer use Amazon.  It's a pain in the ass but I will not give a dime to a company that subsidizes child murder.


Didn't know this... Thanks


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Except for the fact there is no evidence Walker did anything like that.  You're making assumptions on one persons claim.



They're incredibly good at that.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

beagle9 said:


> D
> 
> Didn't know this... Thanks



They pledged up to $4K each to get abortions for their employees.

NOT

ONE

DIME

OF

MY

MONEY

WILL

GO

TO

MURDERING

CHILDREN.

*FUCK AMAZON UP THE ASS!*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NotfooledbyW said:


> Beagle9221111-#5,549   Point being, is that I'm asking . . . .
> 
> NFBW: The reality is you are not simply asking women to behave in a certain way - lead by example and education sort of thing  - you and the religious right community to which you belong are petitioning the government through the politicians you select to use the force of law to ban a medical procedure that does prevent harm to the women that choose to have it done to their body.
> 
> You are sticking your Christian nose into a place where it should not be stuck in a free society.
> 
> You shouid listen to a Trump supporter :
> 
> RFC220906-#792 Ray From Cleveland
> “Abortion always comes down to "if it's a baby or not" argument. As far as abortion goes, it's none of my business what a person does.”
> 
> NFBW: Just sayin’
> 
> END2211120610 PORTLAND



So what's the point of bringing my opinion into it?  It is none of my business what a person does because personal decisions are just that--personal. 

However I support the Roe ruling because abortion is not constitutionally protected.  It's not in the document, it was never discussed by the authors, it was a bad ruling back in the 70's when it was made. 

Just because I feel abortion is none of my business doesn't mean I approve of it.  It means we are all held accountable for our own decisions.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Ethical Considerations For Those Without Constitutional Protections "

* Look Neurons Are Firing Red Herring **


ClaireH said:


> In response to your statement: “even though fetal development prior to 15 weeks is well before an onset of sentience” the following study comparison is valid and needed in the discussion:
> 
> “Four hypotheses have been proposed regarding structures or functions necessary for pain perception: 1) cortical necessity after 24 weeks gestation (RCOG 2010; SMFM et al. 2021; Stanojevic et al. 2021); 2) cortical subplate beginning at 12 weeks gestation; (Derbyshire and Bockmann 2020); 3) brainstem and thalamus (Brusseau 2008; Merker 2007; Sekulic et al. 2016), which are present after 7–8 weeks gestation (Derbyshire 2006, 2008); and 4) the onset of fetal consciousness, estimated at varying gestational ages (Lee et al. 2005).”
> 
> Hypothesis 2
> *Cortical subplate (>12 weeks)*
> 
> “*The second hypothesis holds that the cortical subplate is the minimum structure necessary for the fetus to feel pain as early as 12 weeks gestation. In 2020, 10 years after the RCOG report was released, a review on fetal pain by Derbyshire and Bockmann stated that, based on existing research, the potential for fetal pain exists once thalamic projections reach the subplate beginning at 12 weeks gestation. *This study is of particular significance as Derbyshire, a principal author of the 2010 RCOG report, previously held that fetal pain was not structurally possible until 24 weeks gestation, and was unlikely to be functionally possible until birth. Subplate innervation beginning at 12 weeks raises the possibility of fetal pain perception in the first trimester resulting in what RCOG states could represent a “rawer, more primitive, form of pain or suffering” (2010, 6) before full maturation of the cortex which does not occur until postnatal life (Kadić and Kurjak 2018).”
> 
> Fetal Pain in the First Trimester
> 
> As technology continues to improve exponentially, it will not be long now that the public will have solid knowledge that experts were way off with their many decades old premise that a fully developed cortex is necessary for pain to be detected by a fetus, which should soon be removed from the 4 hypothesis possibilities.
> 
> I believe you subscribe to hypothesis 1 with referencing “15 weeks sentience”?


An autonomic nervous system does not establish sentience .

A 15 weeks is a reference to when fetal abnormalities are often discovered by ultrasound , usually between 13 through 20 weeks ; 15 weeks is also when genetic diagnostics such as amniocentesis may typically be administered , though microvili testing may be available as early as 8 weeks .









						Fetal Pain
					

Context Proposed federal legislation would require physicians to inform women seeking abortions at 20 or more weeks after fertilization that the fetus feels pain and to offer anesthesia administered directly to the fetus. This article examines whether a fetus feels pain and if so, whether safe...




					jamanetwork.com
				



*Evidence Synthesis*_ Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. *Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, *while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony._


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Abortion Is Not A Tenth Amendment Issue And Scotus Dobbs Decision Is Sedition Supported By Traitors To Us Republic "

* Populism For Democracy As Tyranny By Majority Against Principles Of Individualism Can Go Fuck Itself **


beagle9 said:


> So your assessment is that no taxation should be allowed to support or subsidize abortion by way of any tax levied on the citizen's by order of government, and so it is an issue for the state's to deal with as far as promoting a CIVILIZED decorum and society within each state as it so chooses correct ?
> 
> By putting it back to the state's, it places the issue closer to the voter's choice's, because the citizen's of a state are far more better at holding their government officials accountable than the citizen's are at holding the federal government accountable.


The principles of individualism reject federalism and statistism .

Those claiming to be anti-federalists but embracing statistism to over ride the principles of individualism are nothing more than the same authoritarian despots they supposedly claim to reject .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Hue Mammon Taxonomy "

* Going Ape Shit **


beagle9 said:


> You calling a fetus a hue mammon ape ??











						Humans and other Great Apes
					

Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.




					australian.museum
				



_*Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.*_
_Humans are primates, and are classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea)._
_This ape group can be further subdivided into the Great Apes and Lesser Apes. Humans have bodies that are genetically and structurally very similar to those of the Great Apes and so we are classified in the Great Apes sub-group which is also known as the hominids (Family Hominidae)._










						Hominidae - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_The *Hominidae* (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as the *great apes*[note 1] or *hominids* (/ˈhɒmɪnɪdz/), are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo (the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan); Gorilla (the eastern and western gorilla); *Pan** (the chimpanzee and the bonobo); and Homo, of which only modern humans remain.*__*[1]*_


----------



## ClaireH

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Ethical Considerations For Those Without Constitutional Protections "
> 
> * Look Neurons Are Firing Red Herring **
> 
> An autonomic nervous system does not establish sentience .
> 
> A 15 weeks is a reference to when fetal abnormalities are often discovered by ultrasound , usually between 13 through 20 weeks ; 15 weeks is also when genetic diagnostics such as amniocentesis may typically be administered , though microvili testing may be available as early as 8 weeks .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fetal Pain
> 
> 
> Context Proposed federal legislation would require physicians to inform women seeking abortions at 20 or more weeks after fertilization that the fetus feels pain and to offer anesthesia administered directly to the fetus. This article examines whether a fetus feels pain and if so, whether safe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jamanetwork.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Evidence Synthesis*_ Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. *Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, *while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony._


Do you agree that what is known today, in all areas of science, medicine, and technology is about half of what will be known in 6 months? This is factual info not my opinion btw. How can you claim that what we know today about fetal development and precise knowledge of sentience is even close to what we’ll know relatively soon, within a lifetime? Humans have come along way within 500 years, and we will cover the same amount of information within possibly the next 5 years. An amazing time to be alive if we didn’t have sealed patents and shysters at the helm. Overall, humans are still in an “advanced stage of uprights” having too much information on our hands and too little know how about how to utilize the info ethically. 

Humans living in 2022 will not be considered much differently than priests and apothecaries of 500 years ago recommending 3 x day bloodletting for a headache. Current times will be marked by future observers as an unnecessarily extended primitive period, particularly in fields like “cancer treatments” including crude chemotherapy and radiation. Talk about decades outdated now.

It is the same for fetal development and you are wrong to imply nothing will change in knowledge, if that’s your opinion. We weren’t right 500 years ago, and we’re still not right about many important problems and solutions, but getting closer.


----------



## beagle9

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> They pledged up to $4K each to get abortions for their employees.
> 
> NOT
> 
> ONE
> 
> DIME
> 
> OF
> 
> MY
> 
> MONEY
> 
> WILL
> 
> GO
> 
> TO
> 
> MURDERING
> 
> CHILDREN.
> 
> *FUCK AMAZON UP THE ASS!*


Woke corporation's have got to be the most pathetic corrupt brainwashed pieces of crap this nation has ever in it's short history has had to deal with.

Hopefully boycotts work, because it's the only way to stop the bull crap before it's to late. Time to support platforms that coincide with our value's and morals in life. We're not perfect no one is, but good grief the walls to hell are getting greasier and greasier if we don't stop the madness of supporting anything gone woke. Toleration out of convenience has gotten this COUNTRY where it is today. Won't be good come judgement day.


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Hue Mammon Taxonomy "
> 
> * Going Ape Shit **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and other Great Apes
> 
> 
> Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> australian.museum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes.*_
> _Humans are primates, and are classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea)._
> _This ape group can be further subdivided into the Great Apes and Lesser Apes. Humans have bodies that are genetically and structurally very similar to those of the Great Apes and so we are classified in the Great Apes sub-group which is also known as the hominids (Family Hominidae)._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hominidae - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The *Hominidae* (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as the *great apes*[note 1] or *hominids* (/ˈhɒmɪnɪdz/), are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo (the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan); Gorilla (the eastern and western gorilla); *Pan** (the chimpanzee and the bonobo); and Homo, of which only modern humans remain.*__*[1]*_


So you are into Darwinism... Got it.... No sense in discussing anything with someone that can't figure out why there are still ape's and other primate's in the wild, but humans were somehow supposed to have evolved or transcended from them in an evolutionary transformative way ... ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## NotfooledbyW

RFC2212-#5,573 Ray From Cleveland  “So what's the point of bringing my opinion into it?

NFBW: Your opinion is the legal reason that your secondary “politically biased” opinion is erroneous and not Constitutional because it is driven by religious zealotry ( @Beagle ) instead of Constitutional legal precedence and foundation.

RFC2212-#5,573  Ray From Cleveland  It is none of my business what a person does because personal decisions are just that--personal.

NFBW: You are absolutely correct. A woman’s personal decision is private and personal when it comes to what to do about an unwanted pregnancy. The court ruled it was a private, basically a personal matter prior to viability of the fetus outside the womb,  and that ruling lasted for fifty years.

But here you contradict yourself to put party over the abortion rights of women when you claim it is not a private personal matter because abortion is not addressed in the Constitution.

RFC2212-#5,573  Ray From Cleveland However I support the Roe ruling because abortion is not constitutionally protected.      It's not in the document, it was never discussed by the authors, it was a bad ruling back in the 70's when it was made.

NFBW: I’m hoping you stand by your primary opinion that what a woman does during pregnancy is her own business and none of your business and not the business of any system of government or organized religion.

You cannot hold both because what you call a bad ruling of the 70s was actually decided based on the right to privacy that every law abiding citizen gets, including pregnant women. Right to privacy is mentioned in the Constitution.

So which is it?

END2211121825 Florence


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> RFC2212-#5,573 Ray From Cleveland  “So what's the point of bringing my opinion into it?
> 
> NFBW: Your opinion is the legal reason that your secondary “politically biased” opinion is erroneous and not Constitutional because it is driven by religious zealotry ( @Beagle ) instead of Constitutional legal precedence and foundation.
> 
> RFC2212-#5,573  Ray From Cleveland  It is none of my business what a person does because personal decisions are just that--personal.
> 
> NFBW: You are absolutely correct. A woman’s personal decision is private and personal when it comes to what to do about an unwanted pregnancy. The court ruled it was a private, basically a personal matter prior to viability of the fetus outside the womb,  and that ruling lasted for fifty years.
> 
> But here you contradict yourself to put party over the abortion rights of women when you claim it is not a private personal matter because abortion is not addressed in the Constitution.
> 
> RFC2212-#5,573  Ray From Cleveland However I support the Roe ruling because abortion is not constitutionally protected.      It's not in the document, it was never discussed by the authors, it was a bad ruling back in the 70's when it was made.
> 
> NFBW: I’m hoping you stand by your primary opinion that what a woman does during pregnancy is her own business and none of your business and not the business of any system of government or organized religion.
> 
> You cannot hold both because what you call a bad ruling of the 70s was actually decided based on the right to privacy that every law abiding citizen gets, including pregnant women. Right to privacy is mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> So which is it?
> 
> END2211121825 Florence


Right to privacy eh ? ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Pffft, is there any such thing, now that the evil minion's of Lucifer himself are running all these high tech platforms that are learning everything they can about each and everyone of you ? Go cry your right to privacy to Lucifer, and see how much attention you get.... lol


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Right to privacy eh ? ROTFLMBO


When the Supreme Court first decided _Roe v. Wade_, the Court used the right to privacy, as derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, and extended the right to encompass an individual’s right to have an abortion: "This right of privacy . . . founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."   right to privacy​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Go cry your right to privacy to Lucifer, and see how much attention you get.... lol


I do not believe in supernatural beings. The right to privacy is in the 14th Amendment. There is no personhood right in the Constitution.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

beagle9 said:


> Woke corporation's have got to be the most pathetic corrupt brainwashed pieces of crap this nation has ever in it's short history has had to deal with.
> 
> Hopefully boycotts work, because it's the only way to stop the bull crap before it's to late. Time to support platforms that coincide with our value's and morals in life. We're not perfect no one is, but good grief the walls to hell are getting greasier and greasier if we don't stop the madness of supporting anything gone woke. Toleration out of convenience has gotten this COUNTRY where it is today. Won't be good come judgement day.



I don't care if my boycott works.  

I do care that I'm not paying for child murder.  I sleep better at night knowing I'm not killing innocent babies.

Call me selfish.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

RFC221113-#58 Ray From Cleveland     All BS. Government handouts, which the Communists rely heavily upon got the younger vote.

Flash220717-#21 Flash   “Blacks have this filthy ass entitlement mentality that the stupid White Guilt Libtards have brainwashed them with.

Correll210928-#584 Correll   “We Cons win this war, and you've seen what our America looks like. You get to live and have your rights and have a nice society to live in.          The Leftards win, the will turn this country into a violent, Turd World shithole, and possibly KILL YOU

NFBW: Are we at war in America between Commies who want a free ride and Capitalists who are fed up with doing all the work and giving it to the commies or is it a bit more complex than that?

END2211130254


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> When the Supreme Court first decided _Roe v. Wade_, the Court used the right to privacy, as derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, and extended the right to encompass an individual’s right to have an abortion: "This right of privacy . . . founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."   right to privacy​


Oh so you are going with the perceived notion that this country will honor "right to privacy", otherwise even after the left is destroying the concept in order to push their agenda down the throat's of the Americans after they've destroyed the Americans "right to privacy" as it pertains to anything else ??


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Beagle9221113-#5,586 beagle9  “Oh so you are going with the perceived notion that this country will honor "right to privacy", otherwise even after the left is destroying the concept in order to push their agenda down the throat's of the Americans after they've destroyed the Americans "right to privacy" as it pertains to anything else ??”

NFBW: There are no violations of privacy rights by the government going on except
in states that have been granted authority by the Trump Catholics on the Supreme Court to invade the privacy of women who are menstruating and who live in Catholic controlled American Taliban States where the right to reproductive privacy prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy is not protected.

END2211130555


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Naturalism A'Priori Projection Pragmatic About Phenomenology "

* Existentialism Of Protein Ribbons Or Eccentric Over Lords **


beagle9 said:


> So you are into Darwinism... Got it.... No sense in discussing anything with someone that can't figure out why there are still ape's and other primate's in the wild, but humans were somehow supposed to have evolved or transcended from them in an evolutionary transformative way ... ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


A declaration for creation in full form to invoke a premise for altruism and superiority for public policy methods is peculiar .

Would phantom bodies bursting from Precambrian - Wikipedia dreams be an example of creation in full form ?

Would extraterrestrial life forms capable of assimilating celestial gardens be an example of creation in full form ?

Would extraterrestrial life forms capable of assimilating celestial gardens be an example of whichever a gawd is supposed to represent , as itself , to those making an allusion to it ?






						Strange Coincidence Of 365 - Evolution Or Extraterrestrials ?
					

" Strange Coincidence Of 365 - Evolution Or Extraterrestrials ?  "  * Random Luck Or A Intentional Sign *  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/365_(number)  It is the smallest number which has more than one expression as a sum of consecutive square numbers: 10x10 + 11x11 + 12x12 = 13x13 + 14x14 = 365



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll210928-#584 Correll “We Cons win this war, and you've seen what our America looks like. You get to live and have your rights and have a nice society to live in. The Leftards win, they[sp] will turn this country into a violent, Turd World shithole, and possibly KILL YOU. 

NFBW: Do you agree with your fellow conservative Correll that you conservatives need to win a war against liberals which then, according to the midterm elections this year,  that means white Evangelical Christian Protestants and Catholic Republicans must defeat in combat two out of three American women who voted liberal to preserve abortion rights including having those rights enshrined in state constitutions like Michigan and Kansas. 

END2211130796


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NotfooledbyW said:


> RFC221113-#58 Ray From Cleveland     All BS. Government handouts, which the Communists rely heavily upon got the younger vote.
> 
> Flash220717-#21 Flash   “Blacks have this filthy ass entitlement mentality that the stupid White Guilt Libtards have brainwashed them with.
> 
> Correll210928-#584 Correll   “We Cons win this war, and you've seen what our America looks like. You get to live and have your rights and have a nice society to live in.          The Leftards win, the will turn this country into a violent, Turd World shithole, and possibly KILL YOU
> 
> NFBW: Are we at war in America between Commies who want a free ride and Capitalists who are fed up with doing all the work and giving it to the commies or is it a bit more complex than that?
> 
> END2211130254



That's pretty much the bottom line.  It's why I've been saying for the last couple of years the only way to save this country is to divide it in half.  Each side gets one, write their own constitutions, build  wall to stop the left from sneaking into our country, and there will be virtually nothing to fight about any longer.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NotfooledbyW said:


> When the Supreme Court first decided _Roe v. Wade_, the Court used the right to privacy, as derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, and extended the right to encompass an individual’s right to have an abortion: "This right of privacy . . . founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."   right to privacy​



How is it a violation of the right to privacy?  Any woman can get an abortion and not tell a soul about it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NotfooledbyW said:


> RFC2212-#5,573 Ray From Cleveland  “So what's the point of bringing my opinion into it?
> 
> NFBW: Your opinion is the legal reason that your secondary “politically biased” opinion is erroneous and not Constitutional because it is driven by religious zealotry ( @Beagle ) instead of Constitutional legal precedence and foundation.
> 
> RFC2212-#5,573  Ray From Cleveland  It is none of my business what a person does because personal decisions are just that--personal.
> 
> NFBW: You are absolutely correct. A woman’s personal decision is private and personal when it comes to what to do about an unwanted pregnancy. The court ruled it was a private, basically a personal matter prior to viability of the fetus outside the womb,  and that ruling lasted for fifty years.
> 
> But here you contradict yourself to put party over the abortion rights of women when you claim it is not a private personal matter because abortion is not addressed in the Constitution.
> 
> RFC2212-#5,573  Ray From Cleveland However I support the Roe ruling because abortion is not constitutionally protected.      It's not in the document, it was never discussed by the authors, it was a bad ruling back in the 70's when it was made.
> 
> NFBW: I’m hoping you stand by your primary opinion that what a woman does during pregnancy is her own business and none of your business and not the business of any system of government or organized religion.
> 
> You cannot hold both because what you call a bad ruling of the 70s was actually decided based on the right to privacy that every law abiding citizen gets, including pregnant women. Right to privacy is mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> So which is it?
> 
> END2211121825 Florence



As far as I'm concerned government should not be involved with abortion decisions, but that's contingent on how people of a state decide to vote.  It should not be constitutionally protected because what that does is force the people of a state to not have a say-so on the matter.  People of a state should be able to write their own laws.  I feel the same way about gay marriages.  It should be a state issue and not a constitutional one because the document doesn't even mention marriage yet alone address it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

RFC221113-#5,592 Ray From Cleveland ”As far as I'm concerned government should not be involved with abortion decisions, but that's contingent on how people of a state decide to vote. It should not be constitutionally protected because what that does is force the people of a state to not have a say-so on the matter. People of a state should be able to write their own laws.”

People of a state are able to write their own laws unless the law infringes upon the natural and inferred rights that individuals are given in the Constitution. 

It is actually egregious to see the supreme court decide the states can ban a medical procedure that can prevent pregnant women from harm. No state government is allowed according to the constitution to do harm to an individual unless they are breaking a law.

You are right the government should not be involved in deciding that a woman cannot prevent harm to her body by Forcing her to carry a pregnancy to full-term against her will.

END2211131128


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Official State Of Information Negligence "

* Disingenuous Orchestrators Waging Against Competence **


NotfooledbyW said:


> I do not believe in supernatural beings. The right to privacy is in the 14th Amendment. There is no personhood right in the Constitution.


A wright to privacy is based on us 9th amendment , however to get to us 9th amendment , one must prohibit state interests in us 10th amendment .

A state interest in us 10th amendment is prohibited because live birth is a requirement for equal protection with a citizen by us 14th amendment .

A wright to privacy is incidental and not principle to the constitutional basis for roe v wade and abortion .

An explanation of blackmun's " logically , of course , a legitimate state interest .. not ... prior to live birth . " and " potential life " as an ability to survive an imminent live birth , from roe v wade opinion , has been provided to pro choice leadership , to politicians , to jurisprudence and to the fee press for more than 25 years and they continue to ignore it to the extent of allowing scotus to commit sedition against us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments with its dobbs decision .






						Notice For Public Record :  Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests
					

" Notice For Public Record :  Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests "  * Negative Liberties Represent Protections Independence Individualism *  Prologue :   Below is a set of posted tweets intend to establish which wrights , not...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> RFC221113-#5,592 Ray From Cleveland ”As far as I'm concerned government should not be involved with abortion decisions, but that's contingent on how people of a state decide to vote. It should not be constitutionally protected because what that does is force the people of a state to not have a say-so on the matter. People of a state should be able to write their own laws.”
> 
> People of a state are able to write their own laws unless the law infringes upon the natural and inferred rights that individuals are given in the Constitution.
> 
> It is actually egregious to see the supreme court decide the states can ban a medical procedure that can prevent pregnant women from harm. No state government is allowed according to the constitution to do harm to an individual unless they are breaking a law.
> 
> You are right the government should not be involved in deciding that a woman cannot prevent harm to her body by Forcing her to carry a pregnancy to full-term against her will.
> 
> END2211131128


It is actually egregious to see the supreme court decide the states can ban a medical procedure that can prevent pregnant women from harm.  ???? 

You have got to be kidding me right ?.. You actually went there because you run your mouth so much that eventually you go stupid.. lol.
What exactly does a pregnancy pose as a risk to a woman's health ? Absolutely none if both the woman and her developing child are healthy and growing together in Harmony. Abortion is what harm's the mother mentally, and worse ends the life of the healthy growing human inside of the woman.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> What exactly does a pregnancy pose as a risk to a woman's health ?


NFBW: Can you guarantee that every woman    or girl who gets pregnant and is forced by the government and white Trump worshipping Christians to carry an unwanted pregnancy full term, is at zero risk of harm including risk of death? 

END2211131828


----------



## NotfooledbyW

TGLRD221113-#2 TroglocratsRdumb   “The Republicans are the mainstream people who make America a functional country.”

NFBW: Apparently not according to the Red Whimper of the mid-terms

TGLRD220625-#4 TroglocratsRdumb    “The hot new issue is abortion abortion abortion”

NFBW: If Putin and Trump are to regain control of shaping the minds of mainstream white traditional Americans in order to overcome the direction  the majority of voters are actually going on the reproductive rights of women, the future propaganda will  have to figure out how to convince the Trump/Putin useful idiot white evangelical Catholics and Protestants MAGA voter base of the Republican Party that abortion rights are in the Bible and Herschel Walker did his proper Christian duty to God to abort the non-viable fetuses which were the result of recreational sex and fully compensate his victims for it.

And because you are MAGA strong against abortion bans TroglocratsRdumb   I nominate you to get the revamped abortion  MAGA propaganda ball rolling for Trump and Putin.

TGLRD220920-#26  TroglocratsRdumb “I am against Abortion Bans.

END2211140214


----------



## NotfooledbyW

TGLRD190721-#71  TroglocratsRdumb     “Christians are not welcomed in the Democratic Party.”

NFBW: FYI Pro-Choice Christians, both Catholics Protestants of all colors and sexual orientations are not only welcome in the Democratic Party, they make up the majority of its members which includes all the Presidents since the first Catholic was elected President in 1960.


TGLRD220920-#26 @TroglocratsRdumb “I am against Abortion Bans.”

NFBW: I take it you are pro-choice so why don’t you vote for people who respect and will protect the reproductive rights of women. 

END2211140259


----------



## NotfooledbyW

RFC221113-#5,591     How is it a violation of the right to privacy? Any woman can get an abortion and not tell a soul about it.

NFBW: That is nonsense Ray From Cleveland : 


46 states and the District of Columbia require hospitals, facilities and physicians providing abortions to submit regular and confidential reports to the state.
8 states require providers to indicate the method of payment, such as insurance or self-pay, for the procedure.
28 states require providers to report postabortion complications.
16 states require providers to give some information about the patient's reason for seeking the procedure.
10 states ask whether the abortion was performed because of a threat to the patient's health or life.
7 states ask whether the abortion was performed because of rape or incest.
15 states ask whether the abortion was performed because of a diagnosed fetal abnormality.

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-reporting-religion 
9 states ask whether the abortion was performed for other reasons (e.g. the patient's economic or familial circumstances).

6 states require providers to report whether the fetus was viable.
14 states require providers to indicate if the state mandates for abortion counseling and parental involvement were satisfied.
9 states require providers to report whether state-mandated counseling was provided.
14 states require providers to report whether state requirements for parental involvement were met.

END2211140349


----------



## NotfooledbyW

RFC221113-#5,590 Ray From Cleveland    “That's pretty much the bottom line. It's why I've been saying for the last couple of years the only way to save this country is to divide it in half. Each side gets one, write their own constitutions, build wall to stop the left from sneaking into our country, and there will be virtually nothing to fight about any longer.

NFBW: Putin would love that to happen don’t you think?  Just like he loved seeing Trump incite Jan6  and then behave poorly when his people were attacking his own government.

Which half do you think Pence will decide to keep his family safe in? Trump America or the actual original and real America with actual cities with large populations.

Former Vice President Mike Pence said then-President Donald Trump "endangered me and my family and everyone at the Capitol building" with his words and actions during the Jan. 6 riot in 2021.​​







						Mike Pence Says Trump’s January 6 Actions ‘Endangered Me and My Family’ | National Review
					

‘It was clear he decided to be part of the problem,’ Pence said.



					www.nationalreview.com
				


​Pence's statement came during an interview with ABC's David Muir, parts of which were released Sunday and parts of which are to be released Monday.​​Pence was the target of Trump's vitriol that day - and afterward - because he declined to take action to block the certification of Joe Biden's election as the nation's next president. During the height of the melee inside and outside the Capitol, Trump tweeted: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution."​​Asked about that tweet by Muir, Pence said: "It angered me, but I turned to my daughter, who was standing nearby, and I said, 'It doesn't take courage to break the law. It takes courage to uphold the law.'"​​Pence, whose memoir "So Help Me God" is being released this week, added: "The president's words were reckless. It was clear he decided to be part of the problem."​​END2211140747


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

NotfooledbyW said:


> TGLRD221113-#2 TroglocratsRdumb   “The Republicans are the mainstream people who make America a functional country.”
> 
> NFBW: Apparently not according to the Red Whimper of the mid-terms
> 
> TGLRD220625-#4 TroglocratsRdumb    “The hot new issue is abortion abortion abortion”
> 
> NFBW: If Putin and Trump are to regain control of shaping the minds of mainstream white traditional Americans in order to overcome the direction  the majority of voters are actually going on the reproductive rights of women, the future propaganda will  have to figure out how to convince the Trump/Putin useful idiot white evangelical Catholics and Protestants MAGA voter base of the Republican Party that abortion rights are in the Bible and Herschel Walker did his proper Christian duty to God to abort the non-viable fetuses which were the result of recreational sex and fully compensate his victims for it.
> 
> And because you are MAGA strong against abortion bans TroglocratsRdumb   I nominate you to get the revamped abortion  MAGA propaganda ball rolling for Trump and Putin.
> 
> TGLRD220920-#26  TroglocratsRdumb “I am against Abortion Bans.
> 
> END2211140214


wow the left wingers sure are some angry bigots nowadays
what happened to the peace and love liberals?
they made some sense
the woksters are about hate and cultural division
they are not about unity and love or equality and justice
it's steady drum beat of hate from the left nowadays


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

NotfooledbyW said:


> TGLRD190721-#71  TroglocratsRdumb     “Christians are not welcomed in the Democratic Party.”
> 
> NFBW: FYI Pro-Choice Christians, both Catholics Protestants of all colors and sexual orientations are not only welcome in the Democratic Party, they make up the majority of its members which includes all the Presidents since the first Catholic was elected President in 1960.
> 
> 
> TGLRD220920-#26 @TroglocratsRdumb “I am against Abortion Bans.”
> 
> NFBW: I take it you are pro-choice so why don’t you vote for people who respect and will protect the reproductive rights of women.
> 
> END2211140259


it's an important issue for me
however, saying that, it is a basic moral issue
left wingers believe that only one life is involved
it shows their crass inhumanity


----------



## NotfooledbyW

TGLRD221114-#5,602   left wingers believe that only one life is involved

NFBW: I believe there are at least two lives involved in each and every pregnancy. What makes you say I lack humanity just because I don’t vote according to your right wing religion’s moral dictates?

END2211141943


----------



## flan327

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> wow the left wingers sure are some angry bigots nowadays
> what happened to the peace and love liberals?
> they made some sense
> the woksters are about hate and cultural division
> they are not about unity and love or equality and justice
> it's steady drum beat of hate from the left nowadays


Why do you insist on LYING?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

flan327 said:


> Why do you insist on LYING?


No lies detected in the quoted post.


----------



## flan327

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No lies detected in the quoted post.


And yet another LIE


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

flan327 said:


> And yet another LIE


You’re not too bright, are you friendo.

Bless your heart.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

RFC221114-#97 Ray From Cleveland What I said is it's not constitutionally protected.

NFBW: Yes you say that here: 

RFC2212-#5,573  However I support the Roe ruling because abortion is not constitutionally protected.     It's not in the document, it was never discussed by the authors, it was a bad ruling back in the 70's when it was made.

NFBW: You support the Dobbs overturn of the Roe decision which allows states to ban the abortion procedure because abortion is not protected in the Constitution. 

NFBW221114-#95    You are saying an individual law abiding woman does not have a right to a safe medical procedure because the procedure is not addressed in the Constitution.

NFBW: Do you not agree with this . . .  “an individual law abiding woman does not have a right to a safe medical procedure because the procedure is not addressed in the Constitution? 

END2211142149


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Can you guarantee that every woman    or girl who gets pregnant and is forced by the government and white Trump worshipping Christians to carry an unwanted pregnancy full term, is at zero risk of harm including risk of death?
> 
> END2211131828


Finally you've proven here just how stupid you truly are... It's going to be hot where you and your fellow hellion's might be going, otherwise if'n you don't change your ways fast.


----------



## beagle9

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> wow the left wingers sure are some angry bigots nowadays
> what happened to the peace and love liberals?
> they made some sense
> the woksters are about hate and cultural division
> they are not about unity and love or equality and justice
> it's steady drum beat of hate from the left nowadays


They are in protect their hive mode, otherwise they are swarming like a bunch of ground Bee's after being stepped on.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221114-#5,609     Finally you've proven here just how stupid you truly are...

NFBW: The only thing proven is you were asked a question that you have refused to answer because the only answer proves you to be a liar and you are wrong. You cannot guarantee in any case that every woman who gets pregnant will suffer zero harm.

Jesus is not fond of liars as he is the embodiment for truth for those who seeketh  it. You and TroglocratsRdumb are avoiding truth and therefore pissing Jesus off. Good thing for you two chohorts in lies, there is no hell.

So why did you avoid answering my question in response to your answer that there is  absolutely no harm to come to a healthy woman in a healthy pregnancy. What about a woman who has health risks?

Beagle9-#5,595  What exactly does a pregnancy pose as a risk to a woman's health? *Absolutely none i*f both the woman and her developing child are healthy and growing together in Harmony.​​NFBW221113-#5,596  : “*Can you guarantee that every woman or girl who gets pregnant and is forced by the government and white Trump worshipping Christians to carry an unwanted pregnancy full term, is at zero risk of harm including risk of death?”*​
NFBW: We all know you cannot guarantee any such thing so you wallow in the Trump hate slop swamp with your fellow hate-monger TroglocratsRdumb who decides who are Christians and who are not even though he himself said he is opposed to abortion bans.

TGLRD190721-#71 TroglocratsRdumb “Christians are not welcomed in the Democratic Party.”​​NFBW221114-#5,598 :  FYI Pro-Choice Christians, both Catholics Protestants of all colors and sexual orientations are not only welcome in the Democratic Party, they make up the majority of its members which includes all the Presidents since the first Catholic was elected President in 1960.​​TGLRD220920-#26 @TroglocratsRdumb “I am against Abortion Bans.”​​NFBW: Do you see the way Ray From Cleveland how the white Christian dictate that the state ban the medical procedure of abortion produces undesired physical emotional and financial harm to every woman who chooses not to accept the risk of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to full term?

And that government harm to women is pushed by authoritarian do-gooders immersed in Trumpism who control the destiny of the Republican Party. Tulsi Gabbard cannot save your Republican Party from the 30 million beagle9 ’s that will decide it’s fate. The Beagle9’s are old white and dying off with no GenX Y or Z multicultural accepting voting population to replace them. 

END2211150250
​


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221114-#5,609     Finally you've proven here just how stupid you truly are...
> 
> NFBW: The only thing proven is you were asked a question that you have refused to answer because the only answer proves you to be a liar and you are wrong. You cannot guarantee in any case that every woman who gets pregnant will suffer zero harm.
> 
> Jesus is not fond of liars as he is the embodiment for truth for those who seeketh  it. You and TroglocratsRdumb are avoiding truth and therefore pissing Jesus off. Good thing for you two chohorts in lies, there is no hell.
> 
> So why did you avoid answering my question in response to your answer that there is  absolutely no harm to come to a healthy woman in a healthy pregnancy. What about a woman who has health risks?
> 
> Beagle9-#5,595  What exactly does a pregnancy pose as a risk to a woman's health? *Absolutely none i*f both the woman and her developing child are healthy and growing together in Harmony.​​NFBW221113-#5,596  : “*Can you guarantee that every woman or girl who gets pregnant and is forced by the government and white Trump worshipping Christians to carry an unwanted pregnancy full term, is at zero risk of harm including risk of death?”*​
> NFBW: We all know you cannot guarantee any such thing so you wallow in the Trump hate slop swamp with your fellow hate-monger TroglocratsRdumb who decides who are Christians and who are not even though he himself said he is opposed to abortion bans.
> 
> TGLRD190721-#71 TroglocratsRdumb “Christians are not welcomed in the Democratic Party.”​​NFBW221114-#5,598 :  FYI Pro-Choice Christians, both Catholics Protestants of all colors and sexual orientations are not only welcome in the Democratic Party, they make up the majority of its members which includes all the Presidents since the first Catholic was elected President in 1960.​​TGLRD220920-#26 @TroglocratsRdumb “I am against Abortion Bans.”​​NFBW: Do you see the way Ray From Cleveland how the white Christian dictate that the state ban the medical procedure of abortion produces undesired physical emotional and financial harm to every woman who chooses not to accept the risk of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to full term?
> 
> And that government harm to women is pushed by authoritarian do-gooders immersed in Trumpism who control the destiny of the Republican Party. Tulsi Gabbard cannot save your Republican Party from the 30 million beagle9 ’s that will decide it’s fate. The Beagle9’s are old white and dying off with no GenX Y or Z multicultural accepting voting population to replace them.
> 
> END2211150250
> ​


The Democrat Party is based on hate.
That is why the Democrat Party is full of hate groups.
Democrats lie about everything all of the time.
The Democrat Party is a dangerous totalitarian cult.
You are one of their obedient delusional members.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> The Democrat Party is based on hate.
> That is why the Democrat Party is full of hate groups.
> Democrats lie about everything all of the time.
> The Democrat Party is a dangerous totalitarian cult.
> You are one of their obedient delusional members.


That hatemongering inhuman filth is just projecting.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" What Useful Experience Is "

* Standard Mantra For Political Adversaries Add Resonance For Volume **


TroglocratsRdumb said:


> The Democrat Party is based on hate.
> That is why the Democrat Party is full of hate groups.
> Democrats lie about everything all of the time.
> The Democrat Party is a dangerous totalitarian cult.
> You are one of their obedient delusional members.


The _____ Party is based on hate .
That is why the _____ Party is full of hate groups .
The ______ Party lies about everything all of the time .
The _____ Party is a dangerous totalitarian cult .
You are one of their obedient delusional members .

** Entropy Rates Bemoaning Life Duration Travails **


TroglocratsRdumb said:


> it's an important issue for me
> however, saying that, it is a basic moral issue
> left wingers believe that only one life is involved
> it shows their crass inhumanity


Why would anyone on a left or a right have reason to exemplify crass inhumanity ?

In the opinion of a republican for a republic with a credo of e pluribus unum , whom espouses independence as individualism , through an equal protection of negative liberties , pro choice includes public choice for capital punishment as well as public choice for abortion .

A state interest is not concerned with when biological life begins , or whether biological life exists at all in the case of a death sentence as capital punishment , rather a state interest is concerned with whether a wright to life exists .

A zygote , or embryo , or fetus has not met a live birth requirement to receive equal protections with a citizen and " Logically , of course , ... " a state interest is prohibited in protecting a wright to life of a zef which has not met a birth requirement to receive it .

Any sentenced to death as capital punishment has had its wright to life removed , albeit by due process , albeit with a contingency of double meaning from equitable doctrine that by removing a wright to life of another one removes their own wright to life .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

TGLRD220520-#1  TroglocratsRdumb Stopping hate crimes is a good goal.

TGLRD221115-#5,612 TroglocratsRdumb   “The Democrat Party is based on hate.”

NFBW: What does “based on hate” specifically involve?

CarsomyrPlusSix220808-#241 CarsomyrPlusSix “In case it wasn't yet clear, the FBI are now the enemies of the United States. The entire bureau needs to go”

NFBW: Do you think what CarsomyrPlusSix says about the FBI is based on hate? 

END2211150528


----------



## NotfooledbyW

TGLRD221115-#5,612 TroglocratsRdumb “The Democrat Party is based on hate.”

NFBW: Is it ok to hate ignorance because I actually do hate the following ignorance by a poster who claims to be a highly educated biologist.

Cplus6220919-#5,280 CarsomyrPlusSix “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”

NFBW: And then there is this doozy 

Correll210305-#948  Correll    “If I honestly believe it, then I am telling the truth as I see it, when I say that.“

END2211150645 Mendocino


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Hey BitchofW:

We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

You saying otherwise means you ARE, undeniably, a drooling retard.

The possible relevance of you bringing this up again: no one could know, especially not your brainless ass.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221115-#5,617 CarsomyrPlusSix We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

NFBW: Why do you call a woman a murderess if she has a legal medical procedure to remove it?  You know separate it from her body. 

END2211150708


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NotfooledbyW said:


> RFC221114-#97 Ray From Cleveland What I said is it's not constitutionally protected.
> 
> NFBW: Yes you say that here:
> 
> RFC2212-#5,573  However I support the Roe ruling because abortion is not constitutionally protected.     It's not in the document, it was never discussed by the authors, it was a bad ruling back in the 70's when it was made.
> 
> NFBW: You support the Dobbs overturn of the Roe decision which allows states to ban the abortion procedure because abortion is not protected in the Constitution.
> 
> NFBW221114-#95    You are saying an individual law abiding woman does not have a right to a safe medical procedure because the procedure is not addressed in the Constitution.
> 
> NFBW: Do you not agree with this . . .  “an individual law abiding woman does not have a right to a safe medical procedure because the procedure is not addressed in the Constitution?
> 
> END2211142149



The problem in our country is we allowed leftist judges to insert things in the Constitution that were never there.  You can't make something protected by the Constitution simply because by not being protected you believe it will lead to all kinds of terrible things.  There are people that believe abortion is the most terrible thing we can do.  But unless you write a constitutional amendment, the Constitution does not prohibit abortions either.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NotfooledbyW said:


> RFC221113-#5,590 Ray From Cleveland    “That's pretty much the bottom line. It's why I've been saying for the last couple of years the only way to save this country is to divide it in half. Each side gets one, write their own constitutions, build wall to stop the left from sneaking into our country, and there will be virtually nothing to fight about any longer.
> 
> NFBW: Putin would love that to happen don’t you think?  Just like he loved seeing Trump incite Jan6  and then behave poorly when his people were attacking his own government.
> 
> Which half do you think Pence will decide to keep his family safe in? Trump America or the actual original and real America with actual cities with large populations.
> 
> Former Vice President Mike Pence said then-President Donald Trump "endangered me and my family and everyone at the Capitol building" with his words and actions during the Jan. 6 riot in 2021.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike Pence Says Trump’s January 6 Actions ‘Endangered Me and My Family’ | National Review
> 
> 
> ‘It was clear he decided to be part of the problem,’ Pence said.
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalreview.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​Pence's statement came during an interview with ABC's David Muir, parts of which were released Sunday and parts of which are to be released Monday.​​Pence was the target of Trump's vitriol that day - and afterward - because he declined to take action to block the certification of Joe Biden's election as the nation's next president. During the height of the melee inside and outside the Capitol, Trump tweeted: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution."​​Asked about that tweet by Muir, Pence said: "It angered me, but I turned to my daughter, who was standing nearby, and I said, 'It doesn't take courage to break the law. It takes courage to uphold the law.'"​​Pence, whose memoir "So Help Me God" is being released this week, added: "The president's words were reckless. It was clear he decided to be part of the problem."​​END2211140747



I could care less a about what Pence thinks.  I didn't like the guy from day one and thought he was an awful choice by Trump.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NotfooledbyW said:


> RFC221113-#5,591     How is it a violation of the right to privacy? Any woman can get an abortion and not tell a soul about it.
> 
> NFBW: That is nonsense Ray From Cleveland :
> 
> 
> 46 states and the District of Columbia require hospitals, facilities and physicians providing abortions to submit regular and confidential reports to the state.
> 8 states require providers to indicate the method of payment, such as insurance or self-pay, for the procedure.
> 28 states require providers to report postabortion complications.
> 16 states require providers to give some information about the patient's reason for seeking the procedure.
> 10 states ask whether the abortion was performed because of a threat to the patient's health or life.
> 7 states ask whether the abortion was performed because of rape or incest.
> 15 states ask whether the abortion was performed because of a diagnosed fetal abnormality.
> 
> https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-reporting-religion
> 9 states ask whether the abortion was performed for other reasons (e.g. the patient's economic or familial circumstances).
> 
> 6 states require providers to report whether the fetus was viable.
> 14 states require providers to indicate if the state mandates for abortion counseling and parental involvement were satisfied.
> 9 states require providers to report whether state-mandated counseling was provided.
> 14 states require providers to report whether state requirements for parental involvement were met.
> 
> END2211140349



Brilliant.   So why don't we just outlaw all medical procedures under the right to privacy?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I could care less a about what Pence thinks. I didn't like the guy from day one and thought he was an awful choice by Trump.


I am asking you what you think not what Pence thinks about splitting the country in half.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NotfooledbyW said:


> RFC221113-#5,592 Ray From Cleveland ”As far as I'm concerned government should not be involved with abortion decisions, but that's contingent on how people of a state decide to vote. It should not be constitutionally protected because what that does is force the people of a state to not have a say-so on the matter. People of a state should be able to write their own laws.”
> 
> People of a state are able to write their own laws unless the law infringes upon the natural and inferred rights that individuals are given in the Constitution.
> 
> It is actually egregious to see the supreme court decide the states can ban a medical procedure that can prevent pregnant women from harm. No state government is allowed according to the constitution to do harm to an individual unless they are breaking a law.
> 
> You are right the government should not be involved in deciding that a woman cannot prevent harm to her body by Forcing her to carry a pregnancy to full-term against her will.
> 
> END2211131128



Really?  Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it says that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Brilliant. So why don't we just outlaw all medical procedures under the right to privacy?


Because your political party wants the government to put its nose up into every menstruating female uterus to dictate to them what they are to use it for.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

NotfooledbyW said:


> Because your political party wants the government to put its nose up into every menstruating female uterus to dictate to them what they are to use it for.


Abortion is not a hot issue for me.
However, it does show us that there are heatless inhuman soulless people in our world who should not be breeding.
It is probably good for the human gene pool for soulless people to voluntarily be removing themselves from the gene pool.
Can you imagine how much better humanity would be if Hilter was aborted, or Pelosi, Biden, Obama, Hillary, Bill, Schumer, Fetterman, AOC...........


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221114-#5,609     Finally you've proven here just how stupid you truly are...
> 
> NFBW: The only thing proven is you were asked a question that you have refused to answer because the only answer proves you to be a liar and you are wrong. You cannot guarantee in any case that every woman who gets pregnant will suffer zero harm.
> 
> Jesus is not fond of liars as he is the embodiment for truth for those who seeketh  it. You and TroglocratsRdumb are avoiding truth and therefore pissing Jesus off. Good thing for you two chohorts in lies, there is no hell.
> 
> So why did you avoid answering my question in response to your answer that there is  absolutely no harm to come to a healthy woman in a healthy pregnancy. What about a woman who has health risks?
> 
> Beagle9-#5,595  What exactly does a pregnancy pose as a risk to a woman's health? *Absolutely none i*f both the woman and her developing child are healthy and growing together in Harmony.​​NFBW221113-#5,596  : “*Can you guarantee that every woman or girl who gets pregnant and is forced by the government and white Trump worshipping Christians to carry an unwanted pregnancy full term, is at zero risk of harm including risk of death?”*​
> NFBW: We all know you cannot guarantee any such thing so you wallow in the Trump hate slop swamp with your fellow hate-monger TroglocratsRdumb who decides who are Christians and who are not even though he himself said he is opposed to abortion bans.
> 
> TGLRD190721-#71 TroglocratsRdumb “Christians are not welcomed in the Democratic Party.”​​NFBW221114-#5,598 :  FYI Pro-Choice Christians, both Catholics Protestants of all colors and sexual orientations are not only welcome in the Democratic Party, they make up the majority of its members which includes all the Presidents since the first Catholic was elected President in 1960.​​TGLRD220920-#26 @TroglocratsRdumb “I am against Abortion Bans.”​​NFBW: Do you see the way Ray From Cleveland how the white Christian dictate that the state ban the medical procedure of abortion produces undesired physical emotional and financial harm to every woman who chooses not to accept the risk of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to full term?
> 
> And that government harm to women is pushed by authoritarian do-gooders immersed in Trumpism who control the destiny of the Republican Party. Tulsi Gabbard cannot save your Republican Party from the 30 million beagle9 ’s that will decide it’s fate. The Beagle9’s are old white and dying off with no GenX Y or Z multicultural accepting voting population to replace them.
> 
> END2211150250
> ​


And he moves the goal post again... LOL 

I'm tired of making touch downs, and running up the score on you.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Us Political Clown Show Stupor In Basic Understanding For Civics And Political Science "

* No Pity For Pathetic Incompetence Of Arrogant Justices Exercising Mental Retardation **


Ray From Cleveland said:


> The problem in our country is we allowed leftist judges to insert things in the Constitution that were never there.  You can't make something protected by the Constitution simply because by not being protected you believe it will lead to all kinds of terrible things.  There are people that believe abortion is the most terrible thing we can do.  But unless you write a constitutional amendment, the Constitution does not prohibit abortions either.


The dobbs decision is sedition against us 1st , 9th and 14th amendments .

The only thing inserted into the constitution a failed understanding that a state interest is prohibited in protecting a wright to life of a zygote , or embryo , or fetus which has not met a birth requirement to receive it .

The roe v wade decision and majority opinion of blackmun was related by the statement ,  " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest ... not ... prior to live birth . " , where in lieu of a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen natural viability was substitute , based on an ability to survive an imminent birth that was referred to as a " potential life " .

On behalf or anti-choice traitors , all eat toe dealt the sedition of a dumbfounded dobbs decision to the pro-choice leadership , its administrators , its political advocates , its fee press and jurisprudence at large , as a severe scolding for its ridiculous incompetence .

Below are the words of a constitutional degenerate and traitor to us republic credo of e pluribus unum !

Why would any need to explain a " Logically , of course " statement to a supreme court justice ?









						Read Justice Alito's initial draft abortion opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade
					

Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion.




					www.politico.com
				



_Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most critical line was drawn at roughly the end oft he second trimester, which, at the time, corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought to achieve “viability,” ic., the ability to survive outside the womb. Although the Court acknowledged that *States had a legitimate interest in protecting “potential life,” it found that this interest could not justify any restriction on previability abortions.* *The Court did not explain the basis for this line,* and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe's reasoning. One prominent constitutional scholar wrote that he “would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court endfed) up drafting”if he were “a legislator,” but *his assessment of Roe was memorable and brutal: Roe was “not constitutional law” at all and gave almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”*_


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" What Useful Experience Is "
> 
> * Standard Mantra For Political Adversaries Add Resonance For Volume **
> 
> The _____ Party is based on hate .
> That is why the _____ Party is full of hate groups .
> The ______ Party lies about everything all of the time .
> The _____ Party is a dangerous totalitarian cult .
> You are one of their obedient delusional members .
> 
> ** Entropy Rates Bemoaning Life Duration Travails **
> 
> Why would anyone on a left or a right have reason to exemplify crass inhumanity ?
> 
> In the opinion of a republican for a republic with a credo of e pluribus unum , whom espouses independence as individualism , through an equal protection of negative liberties , pro choice includes public choice for capital punishment as well as public choice for abortion .
> 
> A state interest is not concerned with when biological life begins , or whether biological life exists at all in the case of a death sentence as capital punishment , rather a state interest is concerned with whether a wright to life exists .
> 
> A zygote , or embryo , or fetus has not met a live birth requirement to receive equal protections with a citizen and " Logically , of course , ... " a state interest is prohibited in protecting a wright to life of a zef which has not met a birth requirement to receive it .
> 
> Any sentenced to death as capital punishment has had its wright to life removed , albeit by due process , albeit with a contingency of double meaning from equitable doctrine that by removing a wright to life of another one removes their own wright to life .


Back in the day people had enough sense to know that if a person murdered a pregnant woman, the that person is charged with two deaths not one. What you all are trying to say is that in a case where a woman doesn't want her baby, then the above reasoning changes. So a murderer can't kill the mother and her unborn baby without being charged also for the killing of her baby, but the mother can kill the baby by way of her given reasoning, and this regardless of what that reasoning is yet this is somehow correct ????

Something is very twisted in the logic found in this stuff, otherwise it doesn't make sense, because the unborn baby is being killed in both cases.

You all can't get beyond that no matter how hard you try.

Ok, for all women that were brainwashed to believe that it was ok to abort their babies based on whatever reasoning given, I say that they are immune to prosecution because it was sanctioned by the state as being a legal thing to get an abortion, but if laws are changed then it would be best that abortion's aren't to be something that is used for birth control or abortion's aren't taking place because a woman wants to get pregnant, and then she has a thought come over her that if she has that baby, then her selfish lifestyle just might be ruined.

No self respecting doctor or nurse should ever seek employment at a place that violates their oath that tells them to help sustain life not kill it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Really? Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it says that.



NFBW: The entire Constitution says that.  It says the law abiding citizen is sovereign over his or her own personal liberty. That applies to pregnant women as well.

The constitution is intentionally flexible in general. It offers a concrete set of core values to help guide any proposed changes or interpretations. The goal is to offer citizens of the United States safety, to protect their rights, and to ensure any one entity doesn’t control the government at any time.​​RFC221114-#5,619    “The problem in our country is we allowed leftist judges to insert things in the Constitution that were never there.

NFBW: That is blatantly false.

The reality is that in 1973, Roe vs. Wade was decided by a Court that was comprised of a majority of justices who were nominated by Republican presidents.​​The vote on Roe vs. Wade was 7-2. Those justices supporting the case’s pro-choice outcome were as follows, including the president nominating each and the president’s party affiliation:​
Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R)
Warren Burger (Nixon, R)
William Douglas (FDR, D)
William Brennan (Eisenhower, R)
Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R)
Thurgood Marshall (LBJ, D)
Lewis Powell (Nixon, R)








						Roe v. Wade Was Decided By A Republican-Nominated Supreme Court
					

Roe v. Wade Was Decided By A Republican-Nominated Supreme Court




					www.huffpost.com
				


​Those dissenting on Roe vs. Wade — only two – and both were not Republican-president-nominated to the Court:​
Byron White (Kennedy, D)
William Rehnquist (Nixon, R; chief justice under Reagan, R)
Nixon nominated four justices. Three concurred on Roe vs. Wade— arguably a decisive factor in the outcome of the case.​​The bottom line is that Democratic presidents did not nominate the Supreme Court that produced the Roe vs. Wadeoutcome that many evangelical Christians believe a Trump/Republican presidency will reverse.​​Reality: A Supreme Court dominated by Republican-nominated justices produced Roe vs. Wade.​​NFBW: You can quit your lie anytime Ray From Cleveland

END2211151842


----------



## NotfooledbyW

APM220703-#15 airplanemechanic       "Being for the security of a whores womb, the right of a woman to conceive and abort babies shall not be infringed."      When you see that amendment, call me. *Then you'll have a right to kill your baby.*

APM220502-#2 airplanemechanic “Thank God. Nowhere in the constitution does it make abortion legal. This should be up to the states.”

NFBW: Why did you thank God airplanemechanic for the Dobbs decision  If every woman is a whore who conceives and aborts her baby in Mississippi, why is she not a whore if she had a legal abortion in   Michigan where the voters decided 2 to 1 that a woman’s right to be a whore, conceive a baby and then kill it, is a constitutional right?

RFC221114-#97 Ray From Cleveland    it's a states right issue as it should be.

NFBW: IF Alito and Thomas and Ray From Cleveland are correct that legal abortion is up to the voters to be decided in each state then there is no baby being killed by whores when they get an abortion as airplanemechanic insists. That means Dobbs did nothing to protect every whore’s baby?

Dobbs has fucked up the Republican Party by exposing that white male Republicans favor taking away the reproductive rights of women and backlash against a white male dominated political party by women two to one in favor of freedom does not bode well for a Party that Trump has decided to continue driving it into the ground.

END2211151014


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Flash said:  That is great news if true.

Dragonlady229502-#11     “For whom. Not for women who depend on these rights. “

This will be the end of Republicans. Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.

Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected? This will be puppy shit in comparison. Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.

Nostra220502-#3 Nostra   Can't wait to watch heads explode (and not babies) if this comes to fruition.

Nostra220502-#12     For some unknown reason you think all women support killing babies. They don't , Dumbass.

NFBW: The Catholic Church Dobbs decision will be regarded as the moment that the white male anti-abortion Christian dominated Republican Party began to suffocate and die under the weight of being vehemently opposed to all the ‘viable’ humans who want to keep their fundamental and basic individual human rights and not be subjected to white male authoritarian lawless rule as exemplified during the reign of the cult master Donald J Trump.

It’s great to be a real person and a true law and Constitution abiding American of any religion culture sex and race these days. 

Trump and Alito and Thomas have killed 240 years of white Christian dominance in America since Washington Adams Jefferson and Madison liberated the minds and consciences of all people created equal were given  freedom of and from religion. The new order was designed and granted to all who followed those great partially woke founding fathers.

White Republican males will have no cudgel like the word “abortion” and “baby killer” that can be used politically to achieve other corrupt abusive and terrible fiscal policy ends through a major political party that really only had power through its alleged  White American Christian moral and patriotic superiority by demonizing  women being free to control their own bodies.

Huge mistake here from pro choice white male Republican Ray I From Cleveland     has been made for decades

RFC2212-#5,573  It is none of my business what a person does because personal decisions are just that--personal.

RFC2212-#5,573  However I support the Roe ruling because abortion is not constitutionally protected.

END2211160557  Carmel


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221115-#5,628   .. the unborn baby is being killed in both cases.     You all can't get beyond that no matter how hard you try.

NFBW: The unborn baby has a right to life only through its mother’s individual natural right to life when the fetus by natural biological necessity is part of its mother.

A complete stranger or estranged partner or a person in a relationship with a pregnant woman has no right to terminate or cause harm to the woman or to the fetus/potential human being inside her.

The potential mother however has a different relationship and concern with regard to the fetus than does the stranger.

It is part of her body which as an individual in a free society she is sovereign over what is to be done with a potential new life.  A pregnant women according to the Constitution has sovereignty over her body at all times. It is not lost in any way shape or form when woman, for any reason, becomes impregnated by a man.

You all can't get beyond that no matter how hard you try to push your peculiar Jesus beliefs on everyone else.

END2211160759  Carmel by the Sea


----------



## NotfooledbyW

RFC221115-#102 Ray From Cleveland   If you want abortion constitutionally protected then you need to petition your representatives to create a constitutional amendment and see if they can get it passed.

A women’s right to control her body is originally constitutionally protected. What is not constitutionally protected is the rights of the unborn. You have its assbackwards Ray From Cleveland - if you want to ban the medical procedure of abortion that protects the not viable life of a new person from the moment of conception - you need to petition your representatives to create a constitutional amendment and see if they can get it passed.

END2211160919


----------



## NotfooledbyW

B. Kidd221115-#33 B. Kidd   It's regional Slavic vs. Slavic bloodletting.    The U.S. has no reason to be involved.

B. Kidd221019-#7 B. Kidd    “Dimm's have paid for over $100+ million in campaign abortion ads.     Yet, abortion does not even fall in the top 3 issues of independent women voters!!     How stupid is this??


NFBW: Have you assessed the TrumpRepub political shellacking in the mid-terms that you got for rallying behind the Republican white Christian male ‘_domination of women anti-abortion policy_’ that 2 out of 3 voting women were pissed off about?

And when you combine that political suicide against freedom of choice with pro-Putin foreign policy on Ukraine against the defense of democratic nations in favor of an authoritarian dictator flailing about in an attempt to seize EUROPEAN land by ethnic cleansing an entire nation of white Christian’s, it’s no wonder your only explanation can be is that the mid-term elections were stolen from you as well.

END2211161432


----------



## B. Kidd

NotfooledbyW said:


> B. Kidd221115-#33 B. Kidd   It's regional Slavic vs. Slavic bloodletting.    The U.S. has no reason to be involved.
> 
> B. Kidd221019-#7 B. Kidd    “Dimm's have paid for over $100+ million in campaign abortion ads.     Yet, abortion does not even fall in the top 3 issues of independent women voters!!     How stupid is this??
> 
> 
> NFBW: Have you assessed the TrumpRepub political shellacking in the mid-terms that you got for rallying behind the Republican white Christian male ‘_domination of women anti-abortion policy_’ that 2 out of 3 voting women were pissed off about?
> 
> And when you combine that political suicide against freedom of choice with pro-Putin foreign policy on Ukraine against the defense of democratic nations in favor of an authoritarian dictator flailing about in an attempt to seize EUROPEAN land by ethnic cleansing an entire nation of white Christian’s, it’s no wonder your only explanation can be is that the mid-term elections were stolen from you as well.
> 
> END2211161432



I underestimated that when it comes to the typical American woman voter, 'that hell hath no fury like a pussy scorned!'.

So what?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> B. Kidd221115-#33 B. Kidd   It's regional Slavic vs. Slavic bloodletting.    The U.S. has no reason to be involved.
> 
> B. Kidd221019-#7 B. Kidd    “Dimm's have paid for over $100+ million in campaign abortion ads.     Yet, abortion does not even fall in the top 3 issues of independent women voters!!     How stupid is this??
> 
> 
> NFBW: Have you assessed the TrumpRepub political shellacking in the mid-terms that you got for rallying behind the Republican white Christian male ‘_domination of women anti-abortion policy_’ that 2 out of 3 voting women were pissed off about?
> 
> And when you combine that political suicide against freedom of choice with pro-Putin foreign policy on Ukraine against the defense of democratic nations in favor of an authoritarian dictator flailing about in an attempt to seize EUROPEAN land by ethnic cleansing an entire nation of white Christian’s, it’s no wonder your only explanation can be is that the mid-term elections were stolen from you as well.
> 
> END2211161432


Hell is going to be hot boy, so be ready when you find yourself begging and pleading to God to spare you from the hell fire. Your wicked wisdom won't work when you finally meet the maker/creator, so keep practicing your bull crap if you want, and this no matter how fruitless a task it will be. Oh and listen closely, NO ONE IS LISTENING TO YOUR RAMBLINGS, SO SAVE YOURSELF THE THOUGHTS THAT YOU ARE SOMEHOW INFORMING THE PUBLIC AND SAVING THEM, BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE LOST SOUL YOURSELF THAT NEEDS HELP.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

B. Kidd221116-#5,635   “I underestimated that when it comes to the typical American woman voter, 'that hell hath no fury like a pussy scorned!'.    So what?”

NFBW: So what are you going to do B. Kidd when the Republican Party continues on it’s death spiral that DJT put it on by alienating 2 out of 3 women of all age groups as well as young voters at the same ratio which includes young white males who actually respect women, as Rightwing pundit  here Ray From Cleveland confirmed? 

RFC221112-#50    “Sure. The Democrats got 63% of the vote of young voters over the 35% Republicans got. Almost a two-to-one ratio. Young voters considered to be 30 and under, the prime age for people repaying college loans.​
END2211161530


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> B. Kidd221116-#5,635   “I underestimated that when it comes to the typical American woman voter, 'that hell hath no fury like a pussy scorned!'.    So what?”
> 
> NFBW: So what are you going to do B. Kidd when the Republican Party continues on it’s death spiral that DJT put it on by alienating 2 out of 3 women of all age groups as well as young voters at the same ratio which includes young white males who actually respect women, as Rightwing pundit  here Ray From Cleveland confirmed?
> 
> RFC221112-#50    “Sure. The Democrats got 63% of the vote of young voters over the 35% Republicans got. Almost a two-to-one ratio. Young voters considered to be 30 and under, the prime age for people repaying college loans.​
> END2211161530


The young voter's of today (not all, but the one's you aspire too), are undoubtedly some of the most uneducated brainwashed minion's on this planet. The good Lord might have mercy upon them because they surely no not what they do. But for you it will be a whole different story come time for the judgement, so be ready boy to own up to your choices made in life. Best to just repent and change your ways, but I'm not going to hold my breath.


----------



## B. Kidd

beagle9 said:


> The young voter's of today (not all, but the one's you aspire too), are undoubtedly some of the most uneducated brainwashed minion's on this planet. The good Lord might have mercy upon them because they surely no not what they do. But for you it will be a whole different story come time for the judgement, so be ready boy to own up to your choices made in life. Best to just repent and change your ways, but I'm not going to hold my breath.



The young'un's are still waiting for their student debt payoff.
Meantime, come Jan. 1st, they'll all be in default as Covid Grace period falls by the wayside!

Merry XMAS college urchins, and have a very happy NEW YEAR!!


----------



## beautress

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Us Political Clown Show Stupor In Basic Understanding For Civics And Political Science "
> 
> * No Pity For Pathetic Incompetence Of Arrogant Justices Exercising Mental Retardation **
> 
> The dobbs decision is sedition against us 1st , 9th and 14th amendments .
> 
> The only thing inserted into the constitution a failed understanding that a state interest is prohibited in protecting a wright to life of a zygote , or embryo , or* fetus which has not met a birth requirement* to receive it .
> 
> The roe v wade decision and majority opinion of blackmun was related by the statement ,  " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest ... not ... prior to live birth . " , where in lieu of a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen natural viability was substitute , based on an ability to survive an imminent birth that was referred to as a " potential life " .
> 
> On behalf or anti-choice traitors , all eat toe dealt the sedition of a dumbfounded dobbs decision to the pro-choice leadership , its administrators , its political advocates , its fee press and jurisprudence at large , as a severe scolding for its ridiculous incompetence .
> 
> Below are the words of a constitutional degenerate and traitor to us republic credo of e pluribus unum !
> 
> Why would any need to explain a " Logically , of course " statement to a supreme court justice ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read Justice Alito's initial draft abortion opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade
> 
> 
> Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most critical line was drawn at roughly the end oft he second trimester, which, at the time, corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought to achieve “viability,” ic., the ability to survive outside the womb. Although the Court acknowledged that *States had a legitimate interest in protecting “potential life,” it found that this interest could not justify any restriction on previability abortions.* *The Court did not explain the basis for this line,* and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe's reasoning. One prominent constitutional scholar wrote that he “would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court endfed) up drafting”if he were “a legislator,” but *his assessment of Roe was memorable and brutal: Roe was “not constitutional law” at all and gave almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”*_


I don't recall seeing the words "fetus which has not met a birth requirement" in the Constitution. What article of the Constitution did you see those words in?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beautress221116-#5,640   “I don't recall seeing the words "fetus which has not met a birth requirement" in the Constitution. What article of the Constitution did you see those words in?”


NFBW: Monk-Eye didn’t tell you that the words "fetus which has not met a birth requirement" are actually written in the Constitution. 

Monk-Eye is saying that …. 


Monk-Eye said:


> The only thing inserted into the constitution a failed understanding that a state interest is prohibited in protecting a wright to life of a zygote , or embryo , or fetus which has not met a birth requirement to receive it .


NFBW: he is saying as I interpret it, that the Catholic Trump Justices on the Supreme Court inserted and actually moved the citizenship requirement in the Constitution from actual birth to the religious Catholic moment of conception to allow states to ban the procedure of abortion based on the rediculous concept that a majority can vote to stop a pregnant woman from having a medical procedure to end it. 

He is correct. You suffer a misunderstanding of what a woman’s right to reproductive freedom actually is. 

END22111616438 Carmel by the Sea


----------



## beautress

NotfooledbyW said:


> beautress221116-#5,640   “I don't recall seeing the words "fetus which has not met a birth requirement" in the Constitution. What article of the Constitution did you see those words in?”
> 
> 
> NFBW: Monk-Eye didn’t tell you that the words "fetus which has not met a birth requirement" are actually written in the Constitution.
> 
> Monk-Eye is saying that ….
> 
> NFBW: he is saying as I interpret it, that the Catholic Trump Justices on the Supreme Court inserted and actually moved the citizenship requirement in the Constitution from actual birth to the religious Catholic moment of conception to allow states to ban the procedure of abortion based on the rediculous concept that a majority can vote to stop a pregnant woman from having a medical procedure to end it.
> 
> He is correct. You suffer a misunderstanding of what a woman’s right to reproductive freedom actually is.
> 
> END22111616438 Carmel by the Sea


I suffer no such misunderstanding of what a woman's right to reproduce freedom actually is.
Actually, it's you who isn't understanding the Constitution.

A woman has the right to choose birth control methods such as birth control pills, condoms, contraceptive foam, morning after pill, etc. Why should the taxpayers pay her $2,000 fee for a surgical procedure that would hack a future American citizen into a dozen pieces, when it would cause pain to the unborn? And why would a government extract tax money from people's religions that oppose abortion, trampling the first amendment on all taxpayers of born again persons or Roman Catholic believers? Since there are 330,000,000 Americans at this point, that's close to half the population paying for something they think is sacrilege? Do tell why the all-out planned murder of a helpless fetus does not have a right to life.

By the way, those who enable someone to have an abortion to absolve paying the price for a child are destroying several souls. (1) Their own for enabling a murder (2) the would-be killer mom (3)  The father of the unborn and his parents if they gouge him into leaving her to fight for herself and her child (4) The surgeon and staff profiting from the abortion, and (5) her parents are on high alert for negligence in not providing their innocent daughter with a chaperone who would let nobody take advantage of her up to the age of 18 years old.

Satan rules in the world of abortion. The number of abortions equaled the number of live births in the United States a few years back, but I haven't tracked recent statistics on abortions in America or elsewhere. I am emphasizing that it is wrong to force religious people to pay for millions of abortions to the diminishment of their right to believe that God banishes murder of human beings in the Mosaic commandments. The first stage in reproduction of a human being is the union of a sperm and an egg inside a woman's body in the minutes and hours following coitus. The final stage in human life is death. Taking away the life of anyone during the first stage to the final is unacceptable for those who are against abortions that disable a family's line. Our founders thought there was more to human life than hardship with taxes to a sucking object half a world away. And that's what I think.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beautress221117-#5,642  beautress “Why should the taxpayers pay her $2,000 fee for a surgical procedure that would hack a future American citizen into a dozen pieces, when it would cause pain to the unborn?”

NFBW: Thank you for advising that you believe the unborn are potential human beings but not protected citizens while they remain attached to a woman’s uterus and part of the mother’s biological functions and anatomy. You are closer to the truth than ding when you say they are future American citizens who would be protected by the Constitution when they are born. The rights of the unborn are derived through the mother to which the unborn are attached and part of.

ding220723-#3,823 ding   “A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being. It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Every stage along the continuum is fully human and has the appropriate human characteristics for that stage of the human life cycle. Learn some science.”​​Why do you think you and ding differ on the obvious fact that there is such a defined status and distinction between an actualized human being having been born and a potential human being while being carried in the womb?

END2211170630


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> beautress221117-#5,642  beautress “Why should the taxpayers pay her $2,000 fee for a surgical procedure that would hack a future American citizen into a dozen pieces, when it would cause pain to the unborn?”
> 
> NFBW: Thank you for advising that you believe the unborn are potential human beings but not protected citizens while they remain attached to a woman’s uterus and part of the mother’s biological functions and anatomy. You are closer to the truth than ding when you say they are future American citizens who would be protected by the Constitution when they are born. The rights of the unborn are derived through the mother to which the unborn are attached and part of.
> 
> ding220723-#3,823 ding   “A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being. It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Every stage along the continuum is fully human and has the appropriate human characteristics for that stage of the human life cycle. Learn some science.”​​Why do you think you and ding differ on the obvious fact that there is such a defined status and distinction between an actualized human being having been born and a potential human being being carried in the womb?
> 
> END2211170630


tl/dr


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beautress221117-#5,642        I am emphasizing that it is wrong to force religious people to pay for millions of abortions to the diminishment of their right to believe that God banishes murder of human beiings in the Mosaic commandments. The first stage in reproduction of a human being is the union of a sperm and an egg inside a woman's body in the minutes and hours following coitus. The final stage in human life is death. Taking away the life of anyone during the first stage to the final is unacceptable for those who are against abortions that disable a family's line.

NFBW: Religious people are not forced to have abortions which if the government coerced that it would definitely be a violation of the separation of church and state. However how the government spends our tax dollars is what representative government is all about. If your issue fails to succeed in Congress and lawmaking you are not exempted from paying your taxes based on a minuscule fraction of what you don’t like the way it is being spent.

Can you explain how living in a ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesars’ democratic republic that spends a portion of its money on something your religious beliefs opposes actually and harmfully diminishes your personal *individual right to believe that God banishes murder of human beiings in the Mosaic commandments. *

Can you explain the actual harm being done to you as if my opposition to the US invasion of Iraq entitled me to be exempt from paying taxes on any funding that financed that Republican white evangelical Christian induced anti-Muslim travesty?

I live in a democracy so I don’t always get my way when it comes to matters of conscience and tax dollars.

END2211170705


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding190504-#9      In it's simplest form the Bible tells us that God created existence, man is a product of that creation, that everything that was created is good and that man should go forth and be fruitful.

NFBW: In the case when an American citizen does not believe in the Bible or that God created their existence, and then you preach that man can only be truly happy when he worships the creator is that you being scientific or religious?

What qualifies you to tell me I can’t be happy unless I believe what you believe.

It is based upon your religious belief that God authored the Holy Bible and that is how God in this case a fatherly figure communicates with his created objects of which as one, you have chosen to worship him. That worship and Theocratic paternal belief system you embrace blurs your claimed devotion to science when you claim that natural law protects the fertilized human  egg from being overridden by the natural law rights of the woman who gets pregnant for any reason.

Therefore your opposition  to a woman’s natural law right to control her own body is  based on your religious view and has absolutely nothing to do with science or any type of fundamental understanding of gender neutral natural law.

2211171302


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ClaireH220722-#3,807 ClaireH  “If the baby and pregnant mother were to actually share the same life, they could never be separated.”

NFBW: Prior to birth the unborn needs to share the life of its mother to survive. Prior to it developing to a stage of viability capable of breathing on its own an unborn child will die if separated from its mother. 

So what was your absurd statement supposed to mean? The reality is a fetus can be separated from its mother. 

END2211172004


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" First Three Words And Equitable Doctrine "

* To Be A Citizen Requires Birth As Does Equal Protection **


beautress said:


> I don't recall seeing the words "fetus which has not met a birth requirement" in the Constitution. What article of the Constitution did you see those words in?


Us scotus committed sedition against the letter of law , in particular sedition against its literal definition in law .









						Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_*All persons born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, *are citizens of *the United States and *of* the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor* shall any State *deprive any person* of life, liberty, or property, *without due process of law*; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the *equal protection of the laws*.









						1 U.S. Code § 8 -  “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				



_(a)  In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, *the words “person”,* “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include *every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is** born alive *at any stage of development.


** Declaration Of Independence Of A Republic With E Pluribus Unum Creed Is Faux Pas **

A republic with a credo of e-pluribus unum promotes independence as individualism through equal protection of negative liberties .

Us declaration of independence relates that all men are created equal , which surreptitiously relates by doctrine women are not created equal with men .

Before 2002 , when person was defined in us code , politicians were bantered by etymology that the term person literally translates as " per " , thus countable by census and " son " , male and an archaic reference to a homunculus .


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding190504-#9      In it's simplest form the Bible tells us that God created existence, man is a product of that creation, that everything that was created is good and that man should go forth and be fruitful.
> 
> NFBW: In the case when an American citizen does not believe in the Bible or that God created their existence, and then you preach that man can only be truly happy when he worships the creator is that you being scientific or religious?
> 
> What qualifies you to tell me I can’t be happy unless I believe what you believe.
> 
> It is based upon your religious belief that God authored the Holy Bible and that is how God in this case a fatherly figure communicates with his created objects of which as one, you have chosen to worship him. That worship and Theocratic paternal belief system you embrace blurs your claimed devotion to science when you claim that natural law protects the fertilized human  egg from being overridden by the natural law rights of the woman who gets pregnant for any reason.
> 
> Therefore your opposition  to a woman’s natural law right to control her own body is  based on your religious view and has absolutely nothing to do with science or any type of fundamental understanding of gender neutral natural law.
> 
> 2211171302


I really wish you would stop insinuating that I have made a religious argument against abortion. 

Abortion is a human rights issue.  Not a religious issue.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Unprincipled Arrogance Of Reservation By Apex Predators " 

* Well Beyond Not Being Concerned With The Only Legal Interests That Matter **


beagle9 said:


> Back in the day people had enough sense to know that if a person murdered a pregnant woman, the that person is charged with two deaths not one. What you all are trying to say is that in a case where a woman doesn't want her baby, then the above reasoning changes. So a murderer can't kill the mother and her unborn baby without being charged also for the killing of her baby, but the mother can kill the baby by way of her given reasoning, and this regardless of what that reasoning is yet this is somehow correct ????
> 
> Something is very twisted in the logic found in this stuff, otherwise it doesn't make sense, because the unborn baby is being killed in both cases.
> 
> You all can't get beyond that no matter how hard you try.


As a fetus is without constitutional protections , it is private property of the mother , by virtue of self ownership through progeny from principles of individualism .

Any act of illegitimate aggression , whether unintentional or intentional , which causes injury or death to a fetus is an offense against the mother and a punishment for the act can be the same as if the injury or death had happened to the mother .

A clear distinction between legitimate versus illegitimate aggression is informed consent , and because the mother provides consent for an abortion an act of abortion is legitimate , whether or not an abortion is perceived as aggression .


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Monk-Eye said:


> As a fetus is without constitutional protections , it is private property of the mother


Human beings are never property.

One civil war and 3 amendments didn’t settle this for you, hope you don’t need another war but we clearly need another amendment at least for hateful scum like you.


Monk-Eye said:


> Any act of illegitimate aggression


Aggression is never legitimate and always grounds for criminal charges.

Like abortion - it is always needless premeditated aggressive violence against an innocent human being intentional resulting in their death - a homicide done in cold blood.



Monk-Eye said:


> informed consent


The mother doesn’t have the kid’s interests at heart by definition if she is hiring someone to kill the kid, so the mother isn’t fit to give any such thing.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> I really wish you would stop insinuating that I have made a religious argument against abortion.
> 
> Abortion is a human rights issue.  Not a religious issue.


Lying is all that douchebag knows how to do.


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Unprincipled Arrogance Of Reservation By Apex Predators "
> 
> * Well Beyond Not Being Concerned With The Only Legal Interests That Matter **
> 
> As a fetus is without constitutional protections , it is private property of the mother , by virtue of self ownership through progeny from principles of individualism .
> 
> Any act of illegitimate aggression , whether unintentional or intentional , which causes injury or death to a fetus is an offense against the mother and a punishment for the act can be the same as if the injury or death had happened to the mother .
> 
> A clear distinction between legitimate versus illegitimate aggression is informed consent , and because the mother provides consent for an abortion , an act of abortion is legitimate , whether  or not an abortion is perceived as aggression .


That will be up to each state to decide for itself.


----------



## beautress

Monk-Eye said:


> *" First Three Words And Equitable Doctrine "*​
> ** To Be A Citizen Requires Birth As Does Equal Protection **
> 
> Us scotus committed sedition against the letter of law , in particular sedition against its literal definition in law .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*All persons born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, *are citizens of *the United States and *of* the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor* shall any State *deprive any person* of life, liberty, or property, *without due process of law*; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the *equal protection of the laws*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 U.S. Code § 8 -  “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _(a)  In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, *the words “person”,* “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include *every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is** born alive *at any stage of development.
> 
> 
> ** Declaration Of Independence Of A Republic With E Pluribus Unum Creed Is Faux Pas **
> 
> A republic with a credo of e-pluribus unum promotes independence as individualism through equal protection of negative liberties .
> 
> Us declaration of independence relates that all men are created equal , which surreptitiously relates by doctrine women are not created equal with men .
> 
> Before 2002 , when person was defined in us code , politicians were bantered by etymology that the term person literally translates as " per " , thus countable by census and " son " , male and an archaic reference to a homunculus .


(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various​administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, *the words “person”,* “human being”, “child”, and “individual”,​shall include *every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is** born alive *at any stage of development.​​Then do tell me, when a man kills a woman and she is pregnant, the law has repeatedly accused the killer of two murders. Again and again. Society does not care for people who commit multiple murders. No matter how hard you try, you cannot convince science that an unborn child is a separate entity, because after a zygote embeds itself into the mother's womb, it is already a human being. It is what it is. And as a human being, it has certain rights, namely LIFE. The judicial procedures are correct. And under the microscope, that 2-cell zygote has a dna that is like no other in the world of 8 billion people. The fetux is a human being and it is not its mother. It is an individual person, not to be confused with its mother. The DNA says it all. And DNA was discovered by Watson and Crick of Great Britain many years ago. At the time, it seemed phenomenal, but it is the truth. From the time the zygote embeds itself into its host mother, until death, it is a human being, and a separate person from its mom. Shouldn't all human beings have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Yeah, it does. Our Constitution says it does, and the courts have spoken time and time again, if you kill a pregnant woman, you have killed two people and will be incarcerated with other serial killers. Nature and science is full of surprises to Neanderthals.  
​


----------



## beautress

NotfooledbyW said:


> beautress221116-#5,640   “I don't recall seeing the words "fetus which has not met a birth requirement" in the Constitution. What article of the Constitution did you see those words in?”
> 
> 
> NFBW: Monk-Eye didn’t tell you that the words "fetus which has not met a birth requirement" are actually written in the Constitution.
> 
> Monk-Eye is saying that ….
> 
> NFBW: he is saying as I interpret it, that the Catholic Trump Justices on the Supreme Court inserted and actually moved the citizenship requirement in the Constitution from actual birth to the religious Catholic moment of conception to allow states to ban the procedure of abortion based on the rediculous concept that a majority can vote to stop a pregnant woman from having a medical procedure to end it.
> 
> He is correct. You suffer a misunderstanding of what a woman’s right to reproductive freedom actually is.
> 
> END22111616438 Carmel by the Sea


Reproductive freedom starts in the bedroom, doll. It ends when a human being is conceived. Back when those "lawful words" were written, Watson and Crick had not delivered its truths about DNA yet. It soon became apparent no two people on earth have the same DNA with the exception of twins born from the same zygote.


			https://stmuscholars.org/watson-and-crick-the-discovery-of-the-dna-structure/
		


Before Watson and Crick, we have the biblical references of life being known by God before its mother knows, according to the Psalms. Today's hospitals can determine if a murdered woman is with child with tests born of science. My Dad taught science and math. In his science class, he had a short introduction that went something like this: "Science is the study of God's wonderful universe." The Bible backs up science. Men trying to get out of the financial end of child rearing are the antithesis to the good of the new human being's very life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221118-#5,649 ding       I really wish you would stop insinuating that I have made a religious argument against abortion.     Abortion is a human rights issue. Not a religious issue.

I do not insinuate that you are making a religious argument against abortion. I am saying that the argument against reproductive rights for all women no matter where they live, is coming directly from the political right (Trumpism) in this country which is exclusively driven by and financed by mostly white Christians, both Catholic and Protestant.

The claim that it is instead simply a scientific settled human rights issue for a fertilized egg to have the same human rights as a fully developed pregnant woman, has no moral power in secular society without God as creator being involved. And the idea being pushed by some on the religious right that science tells us mere mortals on this beautiful planet of earth, that a fertilized egg has the same human rights as the human being that is born of the gender with a lifetime of human eggs as part of her anatomy.

Science makes no judgment on the human rights issue between the mother and the unborn child. - The Catholic Church expresses an opinion that fertilized eggs are God’s creation in order to have a relationship with every new created human being, making it a sin to interfere and destroy that personal creation between God and the unborn. You want to make that “sin” argument by taking God and religion out if it, but you can’t really intellectually honestly pull it off.

ding200129-#668    I think you are ignoring the influence that Christianity played. From education to law to values and principles Christianity touched every aspect of colonial life.​​I told you back then the same as I’m telling you right now, I am not and will not ever ignore the influence Christianity played in the creation of America. I find it most interesting that it is you ding on the issue of reproductive rights for women, that you are the one downplaying the role of Christianity in the cause that you have politically taken up against a women’s human right to choice on the matter of giving birth to a new dna unique human being or not inside her belly. 

END2211180756


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221118-#5,653 ding   That will be up to each state to decide for itself.

NFBW: Then it is not a human rights issue. The human right of a pregnant woman to have a medical procedure that does no harm  to a separate person who is a citizen here or a visitor from another jurisdiction should not be decided by an election process. It should specifically and definitely not be decided to be taken away by particularly militant and energetic voters from a particular segment of a religious faith because they dominate in the name of their religion within a particular state.

END2211180903


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221118-#5,649     Abortion is a human rights issue. Not a religious issue.

NFBW: do you actually think a doctor who conscientiously objects to performing abortions does so based upon respect for a woman’s human right to make a medical decision affecting her body and her life or out the fact that he is devoted to the Catholic Church and the government of the  Vatican.


“Hospitals need more than just economic success. They need to recognize the *divine value of human life.* We need to rediscover what the role of the physician is,” he said. “As Christians, we understand that our task is to heal and repair the human person, but not to have the arrogance to think that we can change and transform it. *We are not here to change human nature. No, we have to respect that as a gift from God.”*

A Catholic doctor’s right to conscientiously object to medical procedures that conflict with his or her faith was a topic of discussion at a recent conference for Catholic physicians meeting in Rome.

The 26th World Congress of Catholic Physicians was put on Sept. 15–17 by the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, which represents 120,000 members in 80 Catholic medical associations across the continents and is the only organization of physicians recognized by the Vatican.

END2211180952


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Beautress221118-#5,655 beautress      Reproductive freedom starts in the bedroom, doll. It ends when a human being is conceived.

Why does it end at conception? Please explain.

END2211281018


----------



## beautress

NotfooledbyW said:


> Beautress221118-#5,655 beautress      Reproductive freedom starts in the bedroom, doll. It ends when a human being is conceived.
> 
> Why does it end at conception? Please explain.
> 
> END2211281018


Because if an embryo is a human being you must not kill it unless the mother was raped or would die if she carried a baby to its birth. We tried "reproductive freedom." That baloney killed a million kids a year and more if the abortion was not recorded. Vanity does not rule over life in a civilized society. DNA proves that a life like no other is on the way, even if it is a part of the mother's body. Having the baby means a human being is being treated properly. Killing it is a travesty, and I cannot change that. Abortion on demand proves only one thing, that it was mercilessly killed and its right to life has been taken advantage of because the baby cannot defend itself from paid assassins. And that's what I think about the needless destruction of a life that is blessed.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Unprincipled Arrogance Of Reservation By Apex Predators " 

* Well Beyond Not Being Concerned With The Only Legal Interests That Matter **



beautress said:


> (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various​administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, *the words “person”,* “human being”, “child”, and “individual”,​shall include *every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is** born alive *at any stage of development.​​Then do tell me, when a man kills a woman and she is pregnant, the law has repeatedly accused the killer of two murders. Again and again. Society does not care for people who commit multiple murders. No matter how hard you try, you cannot convince science that an unborn child is a separate entity, because after a zygote embeds itself into the mother's womb, it is already a human being. It is what it is. And as a human being, it has certain rights, namely LIFE. The judicial procedures are correct. And under the microscope, that 2-cell zygote has a dna that is like no other in the world of 8 billion people. The fetux is a human being and it is not its mother. It is an individual person, not to be confused with its mother. The DNA says it all. And DNA was discovered by Watson and Crick of Great Britain many years ago. At the time, it seemed phenomenal, but it is the truth. From the time the zygote embeds itself into its host mother, until death, it is a human being, and a separate person from its mom. Shouldn't all human beings have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Yeah, it does. Our Constitution says it does, and the courts have spoken time and time again, if you kill a pregnant woman, you have killed two people and will be incarcerated with other serial killers. Nature and science is full of surprises to Neanderthals.


As a fetus is without constitutional protections , it is private property of the mother , by virtue of self ownership through progeny from principles of individualism .

Any act of illegitimate aggression , whether unintentional or intentional , which causes injury or death to a fetus is an offense against the mother and a punishment for the act can be the same as if the injury or death had happened to the mother .

A clear distinction between legitimate versus illegitimate aggression is informed consent , and because the mother provides consent for an abortion an act of abortion is legitimate , whether or not an abortion is perceived as aggression .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Arrogance Of Deceit Perpetrated By Traitors To US Republic "

* Keep Watching Gonna Humiliate All Eat Toe **


ding said:


> That will be up to each state to decide for itself.


Only by sedition of us 1st , 9th and 14th amendments .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Shit Talkers Making Sure To Censure The Actual Constitutional Basis For Abortion "

* Traitors To Us Constitution And E Pluribus Unum Us Republic Credo **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Human beings are never property.


So says you as a traitor to self ownership which is entitled to individuals per principles of individualism .

** Dumb Shit Not Worth A Reply **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> One civil war and 3 amendments didn’t settle this for you, hope you don’t need another war but we clearly need another amendment at least for hateful scum like you.



** Non Aggression Principles Acronym Indicative Of Taking A Nap In Reason **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Aggression is never legitimate and always grounds for criminal charges.


That is another idiotic assumption , as by principles of non violence , by definition violence is illegitimate aggression , while self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

To presume that all aggression is illegitimate is blathering stupidity .

" Go fuck yourself ! " , how is that for legitimate aggression ?






						Does Non Violence Principles Correct Non Aggression Principles Lexicon ?
					

"Does Non Violence Principles Correct Non Aggression Principles Lexicon ? "  * Definition Buy Explanation *  Social systems include allowable limits of aggression ; thus , by definition , violence is illegitimate aggression .  This is a call to correctly annotate an understanding for terms .  A...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




** Drivel Of Neophytes Perpetrating Ignorance Of Nature **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Like abortion - it is always needless premeditated aggressive violence against an innocent human being intentional resulting in their death - a homicide done in cold blood.
> 
> The mother doesn’t have the kid’s interests at heart by definition if she is hiring someone to kill the kid, so the mother isn’t fit to give any such thing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Beautress221118-#5,660 beautress Because if an embryo is a human being you must not kill    it unless the mother was raped or would die if she carried a baby to its birth.

NFBW: Am embryo is not a human being with any individual right to continue its development beyond the will of it’s life sustaining host, the mother. That is unless of course the mother has a religious belief that her body and what happens to it belongs to God. That is the case with you I presume. So don’t have an abortion.

END2211181538


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Beautress221118-#5,660  beautress 
    We tried "reproductive freedom." That baloney killed a million kids a year and more if the abortion was not recorded.

NFBW: Reproductive freedom has killed a high number of not-viable fetuses as a private matter between a pregnant woman and her doctor. No kids were killed. So there is no harm to civil society or to you or to your freedom to believe whatever you want about God and his relationship with a fertilized human egg that CarsomyrPlusSix insists is not a part of its mother.

END2211181612


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221118-#5,651 @CarsomyrPlusSix 
Like abortion - it is always needless premeditated aggressive violence against *an innocent human *being intentional resulting in their death - a homicide done in cold blood.

NFBW: How then can it be CarsomyrPlusSix that beautress is ok with cold blooded murderous aggression against an innocent human being that is being carried by a woman who was impregnated as a result of rape or incest or a woman who could die during the process of natural birth? The unborn you contend is always an innocent human being no matter what circumstances brings it into being or if it’s mother suffers consequences during the birthing process. 

beautress221118-#5,660 beautress   Because if an embryo is a human being you must not kill it unless the mother was raped or would die if she carried a baby to its birth.

END2211181636


----------



## NotfooledbyW

jgalt221118-#17  johngaltshrugged     Any point after a human heartbeat is detected is a late term abortion.

NFBW: And who are you?

Pregnancy is often described in three segments called trimesters:​

First trimester: conception through week 12
Second trimester: week 13 to 26 of pregnancy
Third trimester: week 27 until the end of pregnancy, anywhere from 38 to 42 weeks for a full-term delivery
“Late-term” is a medical term used to describe the very end of a pregnancy, after it has reached “full term,” from week 41 onward. Abortions can’t and don’t happen in these late stages of pregnancy.​​So, you can see how describing second-term abortions as “late-term” abortions is misleading and imprecise. In fact, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) has made it clear that a “late-term abortion” has no medical meaning.​
What percentage of abortions are late-term (second-term) abortions?​According to data from the CDC, the vast majority, or 91%, of abortions take place during the first trimester of pregnancy. Of the remaining 9% of abortions that happen after the first trimester:​​
7.7% happen between weeks 14 and 20
1.2% happen at or after week 21
Second-term abortions require specialized care, and only 16% of abortion providers in the U.S. offer services up until week 24 of pregnancy. There are 43 states with laws that restrict how far into pregnancy an abortion can be provided. The latest point in pregnancy that you can have an abortion in the U.S. is 24 weeks.​​Abortions in the third trimester are extremely rare and happen only in extreme circumstances, usually when there are fetal problems that aren’t compatible with life.​​
ClaireH211222-#116  ClaireH     As the embryo grows, it develops a heartbeat (22 days after fertilization), its own circulatory system, and its own organs.


NFBW: When a cardiac electrical activity is detected at six weeks the potential human being is still a part of its mother. It is not capable of surviving without the life-support of the mother. If the mother does not want to take the risk of delivering a new person into the world she has the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. It’s a basic human right that is not canceled because an ultrasound can pick up a flutter of electrical signals in an six week embryo.

A good article on the heartbeat issue:

But according to experts, the term “fetal heartbeat” is misleading and medically inaccurate.​​“While the heart does begin to develop at around six weeks, at this point the heart as we know it does not yet exist,” said Dr. Ian Fraser Golding, a pediatric and fetal cardiologist at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego.​​Instead, at six weeks, the embryo will develop a tube that generates sporadic electrical impulses that eventually coordinate into rhythmic pulses, he said. (Six weeks of pregnancy is closer to four weeks of actual development, because pregnancy is measured from the first day of a woman’s last period, before she is actually pregnant.)​​That’s far from a fully formed heart, with four chambers and valves that pump blood throughout the body.​​The correct medical term for what’s observed at this point is “cardiac activity,” said Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington Medicine.​​“It’s not until about 10 weeks that there is an actual structure that has four tubes and connects to the lungs and major vascular system like we would think of as a heart,” she said.​​It’s around 10 weeks of pregnancy that the embryo becomes a fetus. It remains a fetus until birth.​​But defining a heartbeat is tricky even after 10 weeks, said Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB/GYN who spoke on behalf of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, because the heart continues to develop over the course of the pregnancy.​​It’s not until around 17 to 20 weeks, when the four chambers of the heart have developed and can be detected on an ultrasound, that the term heartbeat is accurate, according to ACOG.​
*An emotional touchpoint *​While what exists at six weeks isn’t a beating heart, pregnant people hear _something_ during an ultrasound early in pregnancy.​​Medically speaking, when I put a stethoscope against a patient’s heart, that ‘lub dub’ sound is made by the opening and closing of the cardiac valve,” Verma said. “At six weeks, those valves don’t exist.”​​In fact, the sound pregnant people hear during ultrasounds at six weeks is entirely manufactured by the ultrasound machine, Verma said. “It’s an electrical pulse that’s translated into the sound we’re hearing from the ultrasound machine.”​​What’s more, the electrical pulse from the embryo almost always can be detected only by using a transvaginal ultrasound, and it doesn’t yet show up on an ultrasound of the mother’s abdomen.​​But that’s where how doctors talk to patients comes in, Verma said. Although she wouldn’t consider any embryo at six weeks to have a heartbeat, she said doctors use language that patients can connect with, which often isn’t medical language, and that the use of the language in a doctor’s office plays an important role in how doctors communicate with patients.​​For example, two doctors speaking to each other would use the term “myocardial infarction,” whereas a doctor speaking with a patient would use the term “heart attack.”​​“I think it’s OK for people with a desired pregnancy to go in at six weeks and see that flickering and feel connected to that as a heartbeat,” Verma said. “There’s no issue with using the term ‘heartbeat’ on its own. The issue is using that incorrect term to regulate the practice of medicine and impose these artificial time frames to regulate abortion. At the end of the day, an abortion is a decision that should be made between a patient and their health care provider.”​​Prager said the language and technology used during pregnancy, even in the doctor’s office, was designed for people who want to continue their pregnancies.​​







						‘Heartbeat bills’: Is there a fetal heartbeat at six weeks of pregnancy?
					

The term "fetal heartbeat" is medically inaccurate and misleading, experts say.




					www.nbcnews.com
				


​“If you are invested in the pregnancy, you want to anthropomorphize that pregnancy as soon as possible, and that’s a heartbeat for people,” Prager said.​​END2211281126 Newport Beach


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Beautress221118-#5,660    DNA proves that a life like no other is on the way, even if it is a part of the mother's body.

NFBW: A life like no other who is on the way,
is a part of the mother's body.

Cplus6221115-#5,617     “Hey BitchofW:  We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

Cplus6220919-#5,280   “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”

NFBW: A life like no other who is on the way, is NEVER a part of the mother's body CarsomyrPlusSix says. 

NFBW: beautress is correct. CarsomyrPlusSix is a Trumpism retard.  it is absolute true that DNA proves that a life like no other is on the way, (a potential human life) even if it is a part of the mother's body.

END2211182358


----------



## NotfooledbyW

night_son220502-#15     “Normal (and I mean that in every sense of the word) human beings do not condone the mass murder of unborn children.

NFBW: The midterms decided that “Normal (and I mean that in every sense of the word) human beings do not consider a private decision between a woman and her doctor to be anyone else’s business and very explicitly the mid-terms certified that normal  people do not consider an abortion to be murder of any sort let alone mass murder. 

END2211190318


----------



## NotfooledbyW

L2814.220502-#120  lantern2814  You don’t have the support of HALF the women in the country with your up to the moment of birth abortion. Enjoy that Republican landslide in the midterms.

NFBW: Looks like you were correct lantern2814  according to the midterms and the special vote in Kansas, normal American woman support a woman’s right to choose at a ratio of six to four. Most women are offended at white Republican males and their white male dominated women who are fully indoctrinated into white Trumpism Christianity who seek to use government to use its power to seize control of every uterus in the country that gets a human  embryo attached to it. Congratulations on the Dobbs decision death spiral of white Trump Christianity taking down the entire Republican Party with it on the way down. Overreach is a bitch!

END2211190353


----------



## beautress

NotfooledbyW said:


> Beautress221118-#5,660    DNA proves that a life like no other is on the way, even if it is a part of the mother's body.
> 
> NFBW: A life like no other who is on the way,
> is a part of the mother's body.
> 
> Cplus6221115-#5,617     “Hey BitchofW:  We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”
> 
> Cplus6220919-#5,280   “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”
> 
> NFBW: A life like no other who is on the way, is NEVER a part of the mother's body CarsomyrPlusSix says.
> 
> NFBW: beautress is correct. CarsomyrPlusSix is a Trumpism retard.  it is absolute true that DNA proves that a life like no other is on the way, (a potential human life) even if it is a part of the mother's body.
> 
> END2211182358


DNA is very technical proof that the baby is a separate person from its mother from the time it is an embryo to the time that it is born. An assassin who murders a woman with child gets sent up for extra time for the unborn child. Two lives matter twice as much as one according to past legal decisions. Furthermore, a creep who murders a woman is gambling that she isn't with child, and untoward gambling is lower than snake snot since in a Casino, one can lose one's family's home to pay a gambling debt if he is not the winner. The gambling business makes a lot of money on people addicted to the hope they will win when their chance of winning could be one in a million. Gambling must support expensive real estate, enrich owners, and give enough small wins to support the one in a million who wins a million dollars. That said, people who lived 4 thousand years ago knew that it took a long time for a sex act to produce a baby, but that it was definitely there because God knew before the mother did that the person was there. And they knew that person may not look a thing like its mother or the father for that matter. In 1953, Watson and Crick studied human DNA, and after all those years our current knowledge is that each successful mating produces a child that has dna that is unlike either parent's because half of each person's dna is unexpressed as a survival method should plan one fails in any part of that person. The unexpressed gene is still part of the baby and may not be expressed for generations to come. And several generations later, many people have no way of knowing what their 12th preceding generation looked like nor the color of their eyes, hair, skin, etc.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221118-#5,649 ding       I really wish you would stop insinuating that I have made a religious argument against abortion.     Abortion is a human rights issue. Not a religious issue.
> 
> I do not insinuate that you are making a religious argument against abortion. I am saying that the argument against reproductive rights for all women no matter where they live, is coming directly from the political right (Trumpism) in this country which is exclusively driven by and financed by mostly white Christians, both Catholic and Protestant.
> 
> The claim that it is instead simply a scientific settled human rights issue for a fertilized egg to have the same human rights as a fully developed pregnant woman, has no moral power in secular society without God as creator being involved. And the idea being pushed by some on the religious right that science tells us mere mortals on this beautiful planet of earth, that a fertilized egg has the same human rights as the human being that is born of the gender with a lifetime of human eggs as part of her anatomy.
> 
> Science makes no judgment on the human rights issue between the mother and the unborn child. - The Catholic Church expresses an opinion that fertilized eggs are God’s creation in order to have a relationship with every new created human being, making it a sin to interfere and destroy that personal creation between God and the unborn. You want to make that “sin” argument by taking God and religion out if it, but you can’t really intellectually honestly pull it off.
> 
> ding200129-#668    I think you are ignoring the influence that Christianity played. From education to law to values and principles Christianity touched every aspect of colonial life.​​I told you back then the same as I’m telling you right now, I am not and will not ever ignore the influence Christianity played in the creation of America. I find it most interesting that it is you ding on the issue of reproductive rights for women, that you are the one downplaying the role of Christianity in the cause that you have politically taken up against a women’s human right to choice on the matter of giving birth to a new dna unique human being or not inside her belly.
> 
> END2211180756


No religious argument was made in overturning Roe v Wade. Read the decision.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221118-#5,653 ding   That will be up to each state to decide for itself.
> 
> NFBW: Then it is not a human rights issue. The human right of a pregnant woman to have a medical procedure that does no harm  to a separate person who is a citizen here or a visitor from another jurisdiction should not be decided by an election process. It should specifically and definitely not be decided to be taken away by particularly militant and energetic voters from a particular segment of a religious faith because they dominate in the name of their religion within a particular state.
> 
> END2211180903


No religious argument was made in overturning Roe v Wade. Read the decision.


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Arrogance Of Deceit Perpetrated By Traitors To US Republic "
> 
> * Keep Watching Gonna Humiliate All Eat Toe **
> 
> Only by sedition of us 1st , 9th and 14th amendments .


Incorrect. Per the constitution. Read the ruling.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" When Put Me Foot To Foot All See The Willfully Ignorant "

* Logical Fallacy Of Squabbler Appeal To Authority **


ding said:


> Incorrect. Per the constitution. Read the ruling.


The dobbs ruling is blathering , dumbfounded , idiocy and overt sedition against 1st , 9th and 14th us amendments .

Every us citizen and individual , by virtue of having been born , has legal standing to prohibit state interests in protecting a wright to life of a zygote , or embryo , or fetus which has not met a live birth requirement to receive a wright to life through equal protection .

The dobbs ruling violates precepts of us republic credo from e pluribus unum that espouses independence as individualism through equal protection of negative liberties among those which have met a live birth requirement to receive them .

A live birth is synonymous with an individual , hence with individualism , by logical induction and deduction .


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" When Put Me Foot To Foot All See The Willfully Ignorant "
> 
> * Logical Fallacy Of Squabbler Appeal To Authority **
> 
> The dobbs ruling is blathering , dumbfounded , idiocy and overt sedition against 1st , 9th and 14th us amendments .
> 
> Every us citizen and individual , by virtue of having been born , has legal standing to prohibit state interests in protecting a wright to life of a zygote , or embryo , or fetus which has not met a live birth requirement to receive a wright to life through equal protection .
> 
> The dobbs ruling violates precepts of us republic credo from e pluribus unum that espouses independence as individualism through equal protection of negative liberties among those which have met a live birth requirement to receive them .
> 
> Individualism is synonymous with a live birth requirement .


Take it up with the Supreme Court.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Dobbs Decision Violates Establishment Clause By Logical Deduction "

* No Difference Bet **


ding said:


> No religious argument was made in overturning Roe v Wade. Read the decision.


There is not a difference between religion and creed and a creed with edicts of tenets that violate the principles of non violence and individualism are not entitled to an exception as a religion under us 1st amendment .

The establishment clause of us 1st amendment has been violated , as a legitimate state interest is not concerned with when life begins , or whether life exists at all as in the case of a death sentence as capital punishment , rather a state is concerned with whether a wright to life exists .

A ZEF has not met a live birth requirement to receive equal protection and is therefore without constitutional protections that includes a wright to life .

Any sentenced to death as capital punishment has had their wright to life removed , albeit by due process , albeit through a double entendre from equitable doctrine , that by removing a wright to life of another a perpetrator removes their own wright to life .

Fetal protection laws explicitly state that a death penalty cannot be applied because a ZEF is without constitutional protections .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Public Squares Of Media Outlets "

* Working On It **


ding said:


> Take it up with the Supreme Court.


A consensus that dobbs is a public disgrace is step one .

Sedition charges should be filed by the justice department , as well .


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Dobbs Decision Violates Establishment Clause By Logical Deduction "
> 
> * No Difference Bet **
> 
> There is not a difference between religion and creed and a creed with edicts of tenets that violate the principles of non violence and individualism are not entitled to an exception as a religion under us 1st amendment .
> 
> The establishment clause of us 1st amendment has been violated , as a legitimate state interest is not concerned with when life begins , or whether life exists at all as in the case of a death sentence as capital punishment , rather a state is concerned with whether a wright to life exists .
> 
> A ZEF has not met a live birth requirement to receive equal protection and is therefore without constitutional protections that includes a wright to life .
> 
> Any sentenced to death as capital punishment has had their wright to life removed , albeit by due process , albeit through a double entendre from equitable doctrine , that by removing a wright to life of another a perpetrator removes their own wright to life .
> 
> Fetal protection laws explicitly state that a death penalty cannot be applied because a ZEF is without constitutional protections .


Again… No religious argument was made in overturning Roe v Wade. Read the decision.


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Public Squares Of Media Outlets "
> 
> * Working On It **
> 
> A consensus that dobbs is a public disgrace is step one .
> 
> Sedition charges should be filed by the justice department , as well .


Good luck with that.


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Unprincipled Arrogance Of Reservation By Apex Predators "
> 
> * Well Beyond Not Being Concerned With The Only Legal Interests That Matter **
> 
> As a fetus is without constitutional protections , it is private property of the mother , by virtue of self ownership through progeny from principles of individualism .
> 
> Any act of illegitimate aggression , whether unintentional or intentional , which causes injury or death to a fetus is an offense against the mother and a punishment for the act can be the same as if the injury or death had happened to the mother .
> 
> A clear distinction between legitimate versus illegitimate aggression is informed consent , and because the mother provides consent for an abortion an act of abortion is legitimate , whether or not an abortion is perceived as aggression .


Can't get beyond the life of the fetus being a human life also can you ??  Your attributing the act of murder of a mother and her baby therefore being an offense against the mother mainly is simply ridiculous...... Over the many year's that cases have been settled on the issue, the mother and child within her are seen as two separate live's that were slaughtered, so the charges are appropriate in the person being charged with both the mother and child having lost their lives in the event...... Period............its not just the mother who was with child being somehow by the courts interpreted as one losing just her life in the event, but it is always interpreted as two live's being lost in the event. The courts didn't say "hey let's just go ahead and charge the perp with two live's anyway, although we see it as one life being lost. See how ridiculous you sound ?


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Shit Talkers Making Sure To Censure The Actual Constitutional Basis For Abortion "
> 
> * Traitors To Us Constitution And E Pluribus Unum Us Republic Credo **
> 
> So says you as a traitor to self ownership which is entitled to individuals per principles of individualism .
> 
> ** Dumb Shit Not Worth A Reply *
> 
> 
> * Non Aggression Principles Acronym Indicative Of Taking A Nap In Reason **
> 
> That is another idiotic assumption , as by principles of non violence , by definition violence is illegitimate aggression , while self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .
> 
> To presume that all aggression is illegitimate is blathering stupidity .
> 
> " Go fuck yourself ! " , how is that for legitimate aggression ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Non Violence Principles Correct Non Aggression Principles Lexicon ?
> 
> 
> "Does Non Violence Principles Correct Non Aggression Principles Lexicon ? "  * Definition Buy Explanation *  Social systems include allowable limits of aggression ; thus , by definition , violence is illegitimate aggression .  This is a call to correctly annotate an understanding for terms .  A...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** Drivel Of Neophytes Perpetrating Ignorance Of Nature **


Your wicked wisdom won't prevail over those who have Godly wisdom. Fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221119-#5,672    “No religious argument was made in overturning Roe v Wade.”

NFBW: I make no case that a religious argument was made in the courtroom to overturn Roe v Wade.  Of course the case was decided in Dobbs as a states rights issue to stick with the Constitution.

ding221118-#5,653    That will be up to each state to decide for itself.

NFBW: What I said was as follows, to which you have not responded. 

NFBW221118-#5,656     I am saying that the argument against reproductive rights for all women no matter where they live, is coming directly from the political right (Trumpism) in this country *which is exclusively driven by and financed by mostly white Christians, *both Catholic and Protestant.​​NFBW: I will wait to see if you are able and willing to respond specifically to the above. Do you refute that which is underlined above?

END2211191003 Laguna Beach


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Non Nomian Final Valuation Of Hue Mammon Kind By No Name Will One Make A Law "

* Absolved And Not Worried About Pompous Pretenses **


beagle9 said:


> Your wicked wisdom won't prevail over those who have Godly wisdom. Fact.


So says you , an antinomian heretic .

Surah 47:4
_So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if God had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], _*but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of God - never will He waste their deeds.*


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Ad Nausea Definitely Not Ridiculous "

* Live Birth Requirement For Equal Protection Is Perfect Constitutional Originalism **


beagle9 said:


> Can't get beyond the life of the fetus being a human life also can you ??  Your attributing the act of murder of a mother and her baby therefore being an offense against the mother mainly is simply ridiculous...... Over the many year's that cases have been settled on the issue, the mother and child within her are seen as two separate live's that were slaughtered, so the charges are appropriate in the person being charged with both the mother and child having lost their lives in the event...... Period............its not just the mother who was with child being somehow by the courts interpreted as one losing just her life in the event, but it is always interpreted as two live's being lost in the event. The courts didn't say "hey let's just go ahead and charge the perp with two live's anyway, although we see it as one life being lost. See how ridiculous you sound ?


Get beyond it ? 

I am far beyond it as anyone can tell .


----------



## beautress

Calling the SCOTUS decision to turn this matter over to the state and not the feds shows that individual states should have been given the power over abortions in their states, and not the federal government. Whether or not people can get an abortion is intensely a state issue and not a fed issue. The SCOTUS simply turned over the power not to the federal government, but to the local states. It's just that simple. It was not abolished at all, unless the state says so, not the feds. It is and always should have been a state's right of governance.  If the issue makes you wild eyed, you need to take to the state legislature if you have a petition or can show the majority of the people in your state are pro-abortion, and not pro-life. Now, the federal courts do not have to take on a state's rights issue, where it should have been placed by the former court who misplaced states rights decision-making issues. For years, pro-lifers have had to pay through the nose for what they feel is unfair, which is the taking of human life from someone in the initial stages of life which is borne out in the womb. It is a state's right to decide the whats and wherefores of abortion, not the federal government. It's just that simple. The current SCOTUS merely corrected the maelstrom about who pays for what in abortion as a local resolution.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> No religious argument was made in overturning Roe v Wade. Read the decision.



DudleySmith220529-#3,586     “Some keep babbling about 'states' rights' here; it's still murder just because the Fed is out of the game. It's a distinction without a difference.”

ding220719-#3,592     Is it a distinction without a difference? I can see how one might view it that way but each branch of government has a different job to do. SCOTUS did their job by kicking it back to the states to decide how to handle abortion. It remains to be seen if the federal legislature will enact federal legislation. But SCOTUS was correct in telling the state and federal legislatures to do your job. It's not the court's job to write laws. So for me it is not a distinction without a difference. It's a wake up.

NFBW: Perhaps you can explain ding how the DOBBS decision settled a human rights issue when it eradicated a right of viable humans (depending on gender and where they live) in order to allow states to ban a medical procedure that religious cultural Christian proponents consi der to be murder of a person as yet not born but having the same human rights as all of us who are born? 

By ditching human rights of pregnant women to give states authority to decide by election whether a fetus has a right to life, the Dobbs decision essentially is condoning murder of a fetus if the voters in a state are like Papageorgio and most Americans similar to his reasoning: 

PapaG221024-#397    “I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, I have stated it many times and I am against abortion, it is a wrong decision and women should be told tne mental and physical aspects so they can make an informed decision, but I *can’t decide what other people do with their lives, that is between them and their god.* ”​​END2211191247


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221119-#5,672    “No religious argument was made in overturning Roe v Wade.”

NFBW: Why does very faithful Christian ( beautress ) bless the Dobbs decision as a conscientious objector to abortion related taxes issue based on religious principles then? 

beautress221119-#5,686  For years, pro-lifers have had to pay through the nose for what they feel is unfair, which is the taking of human life from someone in the initial stages of life which is borne out in the womb.

END2211191304


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> DudleySmith220529-#3,586     “Some keep babbling about 'states' rights' here; it's still murder just because the Fed is out of the game. It's a distinction without a difference.”
> 
> ding220719-#3,592     Is it a distinction without a difference? I can see how one might view it that way but each branch of government has a different job to do. SCOTUS did their job by kicking it back to the states to decide how to handle abortion. It remains to be seen if the federal legislature will enact federal legislation. But SCOTUS was correct in telling the state and federal legislatures to do your job. It's not the court's job to write laws. So for me it is not a distinction without a difference. It's a wake up.
> 
> NFBW: Perhaps you can explain ding how the DOBBS decision settled a human rights issue when it eradicated a right of viable humans (depending on gender and where they live) in order to allow states to ban a medical procedure that religious cultural Christian proponents consi der to be murder of a person as yet not born but having the same human rights as all of us who are born?
> 
> By ditching human rights of pregnant women to give states authority to decide by election whether a fetus has a right to life, the Dobbs decision essentially is condoning murder of a fetus if the voters in a state are like Papageorgio and most Americans similar to his reasoning:
> 
> PapaG221024-#397    “I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, I have stated it many times and I am against abortion, it is a wrong decision and women should be told tne mental and physical aspects so they can make an informed decision, but I *can’t decide what other people do with their lives, that is between them and their god.* ”​​END2211191247


If you couldn’t understand the explanation of roles and responsibilities - that were listed in the post you responded too - I’m not certain you would understand it if I told them to you again.


----------



## BackAgain

Monk-Eye said:


> The dobbs ruling is blathering , dumbfounded , idiocy and overt sedition against 1st , 9th and 14th us amendments .



No. It isn’t. 

Monkey shouldn’t talk about all the many many things it absolutely doesn’t understand. At all.


----------



## Papageorgio

NotfooledbyW said:


> DudleySmith220529-#3,586     “Some keep babbling about 'states' rights' here; it's still murder just because the Fed is out of the game. It's a distinction without a difference.”
> 
> ding220719-#3,592     Is it a distinction without a difference? I can see how one might view it that way but each branch of government has a different job to do. SCOTUS did their job by kicking it back to the states to decide how to handle abortion. It remains to be seen if the federal legislature will enact federal legislation. But SCOTUS was correct in telling the state and federal legislatures to do your job. It's not the court's job to write laws. So for me it is not a distinction without a difference. It's a wake up.
> 
> NFBW: Perhaps you can explain ding how the DOBBS decision settled a human rights issue when it eradicated a right of viable humans (depending on gender and where they live) in order to allow states to ban a medical procedure that religious cultural Christian proponents consi der to be murder of a person as yet not born but having the same human rights as all of us who are born?
> 
> By ditching human rights of pregnant women to give states authority to decide by election whether a fetus has a right to life, the Dobbs decision essentially is condoning murder of a fetus if the voters in a state are like Papageorgio and most Americans similar to his reasoning:
> 
> PapaG221024-#397    “I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, I have stated it many times and I am against abortion, it is a wrong decision and women should be told tne mental and physical aspects so they can make an informed decision, but I *can’t decide what other people do with their lives, that is between them and their god.* ”​​END2211191247


And ding has the right to believe the way he does, and I support his view 100%.


----------



## San Souci

Dragonlady said:


> For whom.  Not for women who depend on these rights.
> 
> This will be the end of Republicans.  Women will NOT stand for this and there are 8 million more women voters than men.
> 
> Remember how pissed off women were when Trump was elected?  This will be puppy shit in comparison.  Kiss all chance of a win at the mid-terms goodbye.


Baby murder is not a right. Only Feminazis believe that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beautress221129-#5,671   DNA is very technical proof that the baby is a separate person from its mother from the time it is an embryo to the time that it is born.

NFBW: I agree the DNA codes discovered in fertilized human eggs confirms a separate individual potential person exists that will die when the mother chooses to terminate her pregnancy. And I agree with what you said here: 

Beautress221118-#5,660  DNA proves that a life like no other is on the way, even if *it is a part of the mother's body.*​
NFBW: You and I agree that a fetus is a part of the mothers body which causes CarsomyrPlusSix to  react as follows: 

Cplus6221115-#5,617   Hey BitchofW:  We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”​​Cplus6220919-#5,280   “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”beautress​
NFBW: The potential new human being at conception has separate and unique DNA while up to its first normal nine months of development until birth it is part of its mother’s body. Do you agree with that statement beautress ?

END2211191946


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Non Nomian Final Valuation Of Hue Mammon Kind By No Name Will One Make A Law "
> 
> * Absolved And Not Worried About Pompous Pretenses **
> 
> So says you , an antinomian heretic .
> 
> Surah 47:4
> _So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if God had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], _*but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of God - never will He waste their deeds.*


You make claims that have no merit, but I'll give you a chance - Give me an example that I am this heretic you so charge me with above. I'll be waiting.


----------



## beagle9

San Souci said:


> Baby murder is not a right. Only Feminazis believe that.


Agree, because no matter what the circumstances are that pro-abortionist consider, the fact is that everything is exploited, so what they haven't been able to control is the fact that abortion's are being performed for disgusting reasoning, and yes developed humans at certain stages have been killed by abortion doctor's, otherwise who do such things because they are under some sort of belief that just because abortion was made legal, that all abortion's were made legal. It has become one of the most egregious abused allowances that has ever been allowed in this country, and the numbers of aborted babies scream to us that we have done very wrong in a big way.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221118-#5,689  If you couldn’t understand the explanation of roles and responsibilities - that were listed in the post you responded too - I’m not certain you would understand it if I told them to you again.

NFBW: This is the post I responded to:

ding220719-#3,592  each branch of government has a different job to do. SCOTUS did their job by kicking it back to the states to decide how to handle abortion. It remains to be seen if the federal legislature will enact federal legislation. But SCOTUS was correct in telling the state and federal legislatures to do your job. It's not the court's job to write laws.

NFBW: The roles and responsibilities of the branches of government are not what you were asked to explain.

You were asked to explain this: you can start with what is in bold.

NFBW221118-#5,687 *Perhaps you can explain @ding how the DOBBS decision settled a human rights issue when it eradicated a right of viable humans *(depending on gender and where they live) in order to allow states to ban a medical procedure that religious cultural Christian proponents consider to be murder of a person as yet not born but having the same human rights as all of us who are born?​​By ditching human rights of pregnant women to give states authority to decide by election whether a fetus has a right to life, the Dobbs decision essentially is condoning murder of a fetus if the voters in a state are like 👍 Papageorgio and most Americans similar to his reasoning:​​PapaG221024-#397 “I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, I have stated it many times and I am against abortion, it is a wrong decision and women should be told tne mental and physical aspects so they can make an informed decision, *but I can’t decide what other people do with their lives, that is between them and their god. ”*​​NFBW: The Dobbs decision does not protect the human rights of a fertilized human egg and any developing being from that time of conception until it is fit to leave the womb at birth, does it  ding?  

 Why do you say it is a human rights issue for the court when all they did was take a right to have a medical procedure away from pregnant women because white Christian political activists have an opinion on the street behaving like a lynch mob going after Mike Pence,  It was not a decision that the abortion procedure is murder or it is not murder of the unborn according to the whims of the voters in each state. But the unborn have no right above the rights of the mother which makes the Dobbs decision absurd.

END2211192347 Santa Ana


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221118-#5,689  If you couldn’t understand the explanation of roles and responsibilities - that were listed in the post you responded too - I’m not certain you would understand it if I told them to you again.
> 
> NFBW: This is the post I responded to:
> 
> ding220719-#3,592  each branch of government has a different job to do. SCOTUS did their job by kicking it back to the states to decide how to handle abortion. It remains to be seen if the federal legislature will enact federal legislation. But SCOTUS was correct in telling the state and federal legislatures to do your job. It's not the court's job to write laws.
> 
> NFBW: The roles and responsibilities of the branches of government are not what you were asked to explain.
> 
> You were asked to explain this: you can start with what is in bold.
> 
> NFBW221118-#5,687 *Perhaps you can explain @ding how the DOBBS decision settled a human rights issue when it eradicated a right of viable humans *(depending on gender and where they live) in order to allow states to ban a medical procedure that religious cultural Christian proponents consider to be murder of a person as yet not born but having the same human rights as all of us who are born?​​By ditching human rights of pregnant women to give states authority to decide by election whether a fetus has a right to life, the Dobbs decision essentially is condoning murder of a fetus if the voters in a state are like 👍 Papageorgio and most Americans similar to his reasoning:​​PapaG221024-#397 “I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, I have stated it many times and I am against abortion, it is a wrong decision and women should be told tne mental and physical aspects so they can make an informed decision, *but I can’t decide what other people do with their lives, that is between them and their god. ”*​​NFBW: The Dobbs decision does not protect the human rights of a fertilized human egg and any developing being from that time of conception until it is fit to leave the womb at birth, does it  ding?
> 
> Why do you say it is a human rights issue for the court when all they did was take a right to have a medical procedure away from pregnant women because white Christian political activists have an opinion on the street behaving like a lynch mob going after Mike Pence,  It was not a decision that the abortion procedure is murder or it is not murder of the unborn according to the whims of the voters in each state. But the unborn have no right above the rights of the mother which makes the Dobbs decision absurd.
> 
> END2211192347 Santa Ana


It settled it by their doing their. It’s now the job of legislators to write laws.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

San Souci said:


> Baby murder is not a right. Only Feminazis believe that.


When Herschel Walker needs that right he certainly believes in killing the sport fucking unwanted babies he made. But you would not vote for the candidate who never paid to murder a baby he fathered? You would vote for an actual loose sex baby murderer to represent you in the United States Senate. Why is that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221120-#5,697      It settled it by their doing their. It’s now the job of legislators to write laws.

NFBW: You must mean the Catholic dominated Trump Reagan Bush judges on the SCOTUS rather “unsettled IT” big time. And It has exposed the glass jaw of the Republican Party by causing the big time losses for the white anti-abortion Christian nationalists (cult of Trumpism) that control the direction that the anti-government, anti-freedom, anti-democracy Republican Party is headed. The glass jaw was very effectively cracked by the vote in Kansas and the midterms where Trumpism and white Christian anti-woman choice nationalism lost.

If you had accepted reality, the human rights issue was settled in the Supreme Court with fifty years of precedence behind it. What was not settled was equal human rights for a fertilized egg and approximately 24 weeks of biological prenatal growth attached to a pregnant woman’s uterus as the perceived human beings that white Christian anti-abortion nationalists have been agitating for over the past five decades.

Now that at least five Catholics own the Supreme Court thanks to Trump you say with absolute absurdity that Congress now must settle a human rights issue for the unborn that the Supreme Court allegedly settled.

And that is not absurd enough, you want reality to become that if Democrats were to make baby murder the law of the land that the white Christian anti-democracy , rule of law nationalists, are going to quit agitating to their only un-democratic place - The Trump Catholic Supreme Court.  Or they won’t double down on Jan6 insurrection because they are religious fanatics who have to have their way to please their God and save America from baby murdering liberal ruin.

Nothing is settled ding , you are being absurd and your party is broken over demanding human rights for a fertilized egg.

END2211200707 Huntington Beach


----------



## Monk-Eye

" Representatives Of Opinions Orchestrated By Traitors And Clowns "

* Johnny Come Lately To Quibble And Start Again *


BackAgain said:


> No. It isn’t.
> 
> Monkey shouldn’t talk about all the many many things it absolutely doesn’t understand. At all.


So states the trifling assertions from the " damned dirty apes " .


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> When Herschel Walker needs that right he certainly believes in killing the sport fucking unwanted babies he made. But you would not vote for the candidate who never paid to murder a baby he fathered? You would vote for an actual loose sex baby murderer to represent you in the United States Senate. Why is that?


Everything is political with you, and so your cover is blown.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Local Despots Tyrants And Traitors Against Us Republic Credo Of E Pluribus Unum "

* Anti-federatlists Embracing Tyranny By Majority With Statistism Over Individualism "*


beautress said:


> Calling the SCOTUS decision to turn this matter over to the state and not the feds shows that individual states should have been given the power over abortions in their states, and not the federal government. Whether or not people can get an abortion is intensely a state issue and not a fed issue. The SCOTUS simply turned over the power not to the federal government, but to the local states. It's just that simple. It was not abolished at all, unless the state says so, not the feds. It is and always should have been a state's right of governance.  If the issue makes you wild eyed, you need to take to the state legislature if you have a petition or can show the majority of the people in your state are pro-abortion, and not pro-life. Now, the federal courts do not have to take on a state's rights issue, where it should have been placed by the former court who misplaced states rights decision-making issues. For years, pro-lifers have had to pay through the nose for what they feel is unfair, which is the taking of human life from someone in the initial stages of life which is borne out in the womb. It is a state's right to decide the whats and wherefores of abortion, not the federal government. It's just that simple. The current SCOTUS merely corrected the maelstrom about who pays for what in abortion as a local resolution.


A claim that the decision for abortion is no longer in federal hands and granted to the states are words of traitors and the impetus of dumbfounded sedition against us 1st , 9th and 14th amendments by scotus .

As a state is comprised of citizens on whose behalf its interests lay , without which a state does not exist , and as constitutional protections of a citizen are instantiated with a live birth requirement , a live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen .

The federal government and states of us republic are to establish individualism , and federal government protecting the individuals of the people against the insidious degeneracy of statistists pandering democracy as tyranny by majority to over ride an equal protection of negative liberties among those having met a live birth requirement to receive them is not federalism , it is individualism !


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Promoting Deceit While Censuring More Valid Reason "

* Logical Fallacies Appeal To Authority **


ding said:


> It settled it by their doing their. It’s now the job of legislators to write laws.


It remains the role of traitors and sedition of scotus to force the issue .

The job of legislators is not to write unconstitutional laws against abortion which is supported by traitors for the implementation of force against us 1st , 9th and 14th amendment that is occurring through sedition by scotus .


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Local Despots Tyrants And Traitors Against Us Republic Credo Of E Pluribus Unum "
> 
> * Anti-federatlists Embracing Tyranny By Majority With Statistism Over Individualism "*
> 
> A claim that the decision for abortion is no longer in federal hands and granted to the states are words of traitors and the impetus of dumbfounded sedition against us 1st , 9th and 14th amendments by scotus .
> 
> As a state is comprised of citizens on whose behalf its interests lay , without which a state does not exist , and as constitutional protections of a citizen are instantiated with a live birth requirement , a live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen .
> 
> The federal government and states of us republic are to establish individualism , and federal government protecting the individuals of the people against the insidious degeneracy of statistists pandering democracy as tyranny by majority to over ride an equal protection of negative liberties among those having met a live birth requirement to receive them is not federalism , it is individualism !


All your words depend on the issue's at hand, so it doesn't apply to just anything. Otherwise we would be way worse off than we are now in a country going MAD.


----------



## BackAgain

Monk-Eye said:


> " Representatives Of Opinions Orchestrated By Traitors And Clowns "
> 
> * Johnny Come Lately To Quibble And Start Again *
> 
> So states the trifling assertions from the " damned dirty apes " .


State your own asshole assertions. But do try to make use of coherent English for a refreshing change of pace.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Everything is political with you, and so your cover is blown.


Not hiding anything - Actually Dobbs blew your white Christian nationalist cover forcing your religion on the civil society. I’m laughing at you doubling down on stupid politics.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220724-#3,855 “I believe that after fertilization the zygote is a living human being in the earliest stage of its human life cycle.”

NFBW220724-#3,856      So what gives you the right ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted by elected lawmakers to pass laws restricting abortion to force women to become mothers because terminating a pregnancy is killing your “belief” as to when human life begins?

ding220724-#3,857     “Because it's just science. It's not emotion.”

NFBW: What ‘science’ proves that “the earliest stages of the entire human life cycle that is the result of conception” has a civil human right to develop full term to the first breaths of life, if such continued development is in opposition to the decision of the mother?

END2211202204


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221120-#5,697      It settled it by their doing their. It’s now the job of legislators to write laws.
> 
> NFBW: You must mean the Catholic dominated Trump Reagan Bush judges on the SCOTUS rather “unsettled IT” big time. And It has exposed the glass jaw of the Republican Party by causing the big time losses for the white anti-abortion Christian nationalists (cult of Trumpism) that control the direction that the anti-government, anti-freedom, anti-democracy Republican Party is headed. The glass jaw was very effectively cracked by the vote in Kansas and the midterms where Trumpism and white Christian anti-woman choice nationalism lost.
> 
> If you had accepted reality, the human rights issue was settled in the Supreme Court with fifty years of precedence behind it. What was not settled was equal human rights for a fertilized egg and approximately 24 weeks of biological prenatal growth attached to a pregnant woman’s uterus as the perceived human beings that white Christian anti-abortion nationalists have been agitating for over the past five decades.
> 
> Now that at least five Catholics own the Supreme Court thanks to Trump you say with absolute absurdity that Congress now must settle a human rights issue for the unborn that the Supreme Court allegedly settled.
> 
> And that is not absurd enough, you want reality to become that if Democrats were to make baby murder the law of the land that the white Christian anti-democracy , rule of law nationalists, are going to quit agitating to their only un-democratic place - The Trump Catholic Supreme Court.  Or they won’t double down on Jan6 insurrection because they are religious fanatics who have to have their way to please their God and save America from baby murdering liberal ruin.
> 
> Nothing is settled ding , you are being absurd and your party is broken over demanding human rights for a fertilized egg.
> 
> END2211200707 Huntington Beach


Nope. SCOTUS did their job. Now it’s time for legislatures to do theirs.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding220724-#3,855 “I believe that after fertilization the zygote is a living human being in the earliest stage of its human life cycle.”
> 
> NFBW220724-#3,856      So what gives you the right ding to unilaterally insist that your “belief” must be the only one accepted by elected lawmakers to pass laws restricting abortion to force women to become mothers because terminating a pregnancy is killing your “belief” as to when human life begins?
> 
> ding220724-#3,857     “Because it's just science. It's not emotion.”
> 
> NFBW: What ‘science’ proves that “the earliest stages of the entire human life cycle that is the result of conception” has a civil human right to develop full term to the first breaths of life, if such continued development is in opposition to the decision of the mother?
> 
> END2211202204


Take it up with SCOTUS and state legislators.


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Promoting Deceit While Censuring More Valid Reason "
> 
> * Logical Fallacies Appeal To Authority **
> 
> It remains the role of traitors and sedition of scotus to force the issue .
> 
> The job of legislators is not to write unconstitutional laws against abortion which is supported by traitors for the implementation of force against us 1st , 9th and 14th amendment that is occurring through sedition by scotus .


Sounds like you should form a mob and do something about it.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Pro Choice Republican For A Republic Based On Individualism "

* Not Mad Rather Red Blue Jersey Populism For Whimsical Perspectives **


beagle9 said:


> All your words depend on the issue's at hand, so it doesn't apply to just anything. Otherwise we would be way worse off than we are now in a country going MAD.


Libertarianism and authoritarianism are political science antonyms .

A negative wright is any law written as a proscription against an authoritarian action of government that provides a negative liberty from government , that is by extrapolation , no action by government is a non action by government is a negative action by government and thus a negative liberty - to be left alone by government - is acquired .

A positive wright is any law written as a prescription for an authoritarian action of government to provide negative liberties or positive liberties to individuals or to a collection of individuals .

While negative liberties are protections for independence through individualism , positive liberties are endowments for dependence and collectivism .

By definition , a libertarianism edict is for negative wrights to establish negative liberties with respect to government , however as an antonym of authoritarianism , a libertarianism edict is not for positive wrights to provide negative liberties between individuals and is not for positive wrights to provide positive liberties to individuals or to a collection of individuals .

As nature is based in moral relativism , to improve ones chances for survival and for quality of life ,  one exchanges natural freedoms for membership in a social civil contract according to a constitution ; a wright exists because there is a greater individual capable of issuing a retort or a reprise for a violation of the wright .

A republican for a republic could mean anything , perhaps a representative government decided by a subset of a population or demographic based on anything including minimum wealth or status .

Us republic credo of e pluribus unum promotes independence as individualism through equal protection of negative liberties .

Individualism necessarily includes a live birth requirement to become an individual .

The terms negative wright , positive wright , negative liberty , positive liberty have a relationship with independence , dependence , individualism , collectivism , protections , endowments , principles of non violence , principles of non aggression and principles of individualism , and can be applied in general , and are not limited to the issue of abortion .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Petty Pathetic Needle "

* Pearls Before Populism Swine **


ding said:


> Sounds like you should form a mob and do something about it.


No doubt members of a repugnican party are more interested in exercising and emphasizing populism as tyranny by majority to override and disparage principles of independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties .


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Petty Pathetic Needle "
> 
> * Pearls Before Populism Swine **
> 
> No doubt members of a repugnican party are more interested in exercising and emphasizing populism as tyranny by majority to override and disparage principles of independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties .


If it makes you that upset you should do something about it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Indpndnt220509-#1,580  Indeependent    No Orthodox Jew wants abortion to be illegal.

ding220730-#4,060 ding   “It's only the job of science to inform society when it is scientifically alive and genetically distinct.”

NFBW: American Dem voting Jews have their religion and science and politics aligned . 

Rightwing white Christian nationalist MAGA anti-abortion voters like ding beagle9 beautress  do not have their religion aligned with science or functional rational politics. 

Science teaches that what we humans normally refer to as human life amongst ourselves being viable self-acting humans, is scientifically and biologically contingent upon a pre-born  person being physically formed sufficiently to make a once in a lifetime, spark of life switch at a moment when the individual persons’ time in the natural universe comes into being and the switch is pulled. *It comes with first breath as in Jewish spiritual belief for thousands of years *when the fetal shunts are functionally modified or eliminated, enabling independent life.

Science describes the physiological flip of the switch: 

Formation of the human heart involves complex biological k look signals, interactions, specification of myocardial progenitor cells, and heart tube looping. To facilitate survival in the hypoxemic intrauterine environment, the fetus possesses structural, physiological, and functional cardiovascular adaptations that are fundamentally different from the neonate. 

The Transitional Heart: From Early Embryonic and Fetal Development to Neonatal Life - PubMed

At birth, upon separation from the placental circulation, the neonatal cardiovascular system takes over responsibility of vital processes for survival. 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.

ding and the rest of Christian religion driven MAGA/Trumpi’s white voters are stubbornly averse to science on the legality of the medical procedure of abortion. 

Indeependent is MAGA but is aligned with science on abortion. Dobbs is destroying his political reality right before our very eyes. 

Indpndnt220915-#6  Indeependent   “Anyone willing to pay for an abortion should be allowed to abort”

END2211210631


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Indpndnt220509-#1,580  Indeependent    No Orthodox Jew wants abortion to be illegal.
> 
> ding220730-#4,060 ding   “It's only the job of science to inform society when it is scientifically alive and genetically distinct.”
> 
> NFBW: American Dem voting Jews have their religion and science and politics aligned .
> 
> Rightwing white Christian nationalist MAGA anti-abortion voters like ding beagle9 beautress  do not have their religion aligned with science or functional rational politics.
> 
> Science teaches that what we humans normally refer to as human life amongst ourselves being viable self-acting humans, is scientifically and biologically contingent upon a pre-born  person being physically formed sufficiently to make a once in a lifetime, spark of life switch at a moment when the individual persons’ time in the natural universe comes into being and the switch is pulled. *It comes with first breath as in Jewish spiritual belief for thousands of years *when the fetal shunts are functionally modified or eliminated, enabling independent life.
> 
> Science describes the physiological flip of the switch:
> 
> Formation of the human heart involves complex biological k look signals, interactions, specification of myocardial progenitor cells, and heart tube looping. To facilitate survival in the hypoxemic intrauterine environment, the fetus possesses structural, physiological, and functional cardiovascular adaptations that are fundamentally different from the neonate.
> 
> The Transitional Heart: From Early Embryonic and Fetal Development to Neonatal Life - PubMed
> 
> At birth, upon separation from the placental circulation, the neonatal cardiovascular system takes over responsibility of vital processes for survival. 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.
> 
> ding and the rest of Christian religion driven MAGA/Trumpi’s white voters are stubbornly averse to science on the legality of the medical procedure of abortion.
> 
> Indeependent is MAGA but is aligned with science on abortion. Dobbs is destroying his political reality right before our very eyes.
> 
> Indpndnt220915-#6  Indeependent   “Anyone willing to pay for an abortion should be allowed to abort”
> 
> END2211210631


Abortion is a human rights issue. Not a religious issue.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Outright Lying Through Convenience Of Playing Ignorant "

* Wishful Thinking Of Selling Dissociation With Religion Bull Shit **


ding said:


> Abortion is a human rights issue. Not a religious issue.


That religion is only theistic is a false assertion , and there is not a difference between a religion and a creed , by whichever edicts and tenets comprise it .

A legitimate state interest is not in whether life exists , or whether life exists at all , rather a state interest is only concerned with whether a wright to life exists .

As when life begins is being asserted to outlaw abortion , rather than whether a wright to life exists , and since a ZEF has not met a birth requirement to receive equal protection that would include a wright to life . the establishment clause from us 1st amendment is being violated by the creed of a religion .

Non violence principles are the basis for public policy and not non aggression principles .


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Outright Lying Through Convenience Of Playing Ignorant "
> 
> * Wishful Thinking Of Selling Dissociation With Religion Bull Shit **
> 
> That religion is only theistic is a false assertion , and there is not a difference between a religion and a creed , by whichever edicts and tenets comprise it .
> 
> A legitimate state interest is not in whether life exists , or whether life exists at all , rather a state is concerned with whether a wright to life exists .
> 
> As when life begins is being asserted to outlaw abortion , rather than whether a wright to life exists , and since a ZEF has not met a birth requirement to receive equal protection that would include a wright to life . the establishment clause from us 1st amendment is being violated the creed of a religion .
> 
> Non violence is the basis for public policy and not non aggression principles .


Abortion is a human rights issue.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Laughing At Wares Sufficient For Dullards "

* Extraterrestrials Mocking Sanctimonious Arrogance Of Apex Predators **


ding said:


> Abortion is a human rights issue.


Yeah , abortion is a hue mammon wrights issue of those which have been born and therefore have constitutional protections and it is being disparaged and prohibited by violation of us 1st amendment establishment clause .


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Laughing At Wares Sufficient For Dullards "
> 
> * Extraterrestrials Mocking Sanctimonious Arrogance Of Apex Predators **
> 
> Yeah , abortion is a hue mammon wrights issue of those which have been born and therefore have constitutional protections and it is being disparaged and prohibited by violation of us 1st amendment establishment clause .


That’s for the states to decide.


----------



## San Souci

NotfooledbyW said:


> When Herschel Walker needs that right he certainly believes in killing the sport fucking unwanted babies he made. But you would not vote for the candidate who never paid to murder a baby he fathered? You would vote for an actual loose sex baby murderer to represent you in the United States Senate. Why is that?


What has Walker to do with baby murdering Feminazis?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

San Souci said:


> What has Walker to do with baby murdering Feminazis?


If you think abortion is murdering a baby well  then  HW pays his sport fucks to murder his babies and it appears to be fine with you


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Female National Socialists For A German State Of Germans "

* Cult Of Personality With Guided Opinions From Traitorous Buffoons **


NotfooledbyW said:


> If you think abortion is murdering a baby well  then  HW pays his sport fucks to murder his babies and it appears to be fine with you


The walker is an errand boy whom fits the suit and is amenable to financial and ideological culpability and kleptocracy of his master crackers who will determine and create public policy to be rubber stamped for partisan politics by its political science simpleton .


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Not hiding anything - Actually Dobbs blew your white Christian nationalist cover forcing your religion on the civil society. I’m laughing at you doubling down on stupid politics.


Your cover is also blown that you are a big time racist, and worse you are probably a white pandering one. ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> If you think abortion is murdering a baby well  then  HW pays his sport fucks to murder his babies and it appears to be fine with you


It hasn't been proven, but you run with anyway because you are purely a partisan hack.


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Female National Socialists For A German State Of Germans "
> 
> * Cult Of Personality With Guided Opinions From Traitorous Buffoons **
> 
> The walker is an errand boy whom fits the suit and is amenable to financial and ideological culpability and kleptocracy of his master crackers who will determine and create public policy to be rubber stamped for partisan politics by its political science simpleton .


So basically your trying to say he's to dumb to be doing it all by him whittle wonesome, God bwess your whittle soul. lol... You're just another knuckleheaded Biden who needs to be guided over the tree in question... ROTFLMBO 🤣 🤣🤣


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> It hasn't been proven, but you run with anyway because you are purely a partisan hack.


He admitted the check was his for the amount of the abortion plus other expenses and the woman has a kid from him he didn’t want murdered before it was borm


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Your cover is also blown that you are a big time racist,


how am I a racist?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> how am I a racist?


White this, white that, white this, white that. No need to focus on a person's color, but a lot of y'all can't help yourselves can you ???


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> He admitted the check was his for the amount of the abortion plus other expenses and the woman has a kid from him he didn’t want murdered before it was born.


He admitted it eh ? We'll just put your little link showing him admitting it please.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Georgia U.S. Senate candidate Herschel Walker confirmed in an interview that aired Monday morning the $700 check a woman claims he wrote to her to pay for an abortion is indeed his check. The former football star denied, however, paying for an abortion, telling NBC News of the check, “I have no idea what that could be for.” What You Need To Know
Walker admits check given to abortion accuser is his​www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2022/10/17



A woman who asked not to be identified out of privacy concerns told The Daily Beast that after she and Walker conceived a child while they were dating in 2009 he urged her to get an abortion. The woman said she had the procedure and that Walker reimbursed her for it.

She supported these claims with a $575 receipt from the abortion clinic, a “get well” card from Walker, and a bank deposit receipt that included an image of a signed $700 personal check from Walker.

The woman said there was a $125 difference because she “ball-parked” the cost of an abortion after Googling the procedure and added on expenses such as travel and recovery costs.

Additionally, The Daily Beast independently corroborated details of the woman’s claims with a close friend she told at the time and who, according to the woman and the friend, took care of her in the days after the procedure.









						‘Pro-Life’ Herschel Walker Paid for Girlfriend’s Abortion
					

The woman has receipts—and a “get well” card she says the football star, now a Senate candidate, sent her.



					www.thedailybeast.com
				




NFBW: He admitted the check was his for the amount of the abortion plus other expenses and the woman has a kid from him he didn’t want murdered before it was born.

Beagle9221122-#5,729  beagle9   “He admitted it eh ? We'll just put your little link showing him admitting it please.”


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Georgia U.S. Senate candidate Herschel Walker confirmed in an interview that aired Monday morning the $700 check a woman claims he wrote to her to pay for an abortion is indeed his check. The former football star denied, however, paying for an abortion, telling NBC News of the check, “I have no idea what that could be for.” What You Need To Know
> Walker admits check given to abortion accuser is his​www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2022/10/17


Was the check wrote out to the abortion clinic for services or is it her just saying what it was intended for ??


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Was the check wrote out to the abortion clinic for services or is it her just saying what it was intended for ??


The check was reimbursement right after she had the abortion. *The woman who later gave birth to one of Walker’s loose sex babies produce A receipt showing her payment for the procedure, along with a get-well card from Walker and her bank deposit records showing the image of a $700 personal check from Walker dated five days after the abortion receipt.*


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> A receipt showing her payment for the procedure, along with a get-well card from Walker and her bank deposit records showing the image of a $700 personal check from Walker dated five days after the abortion receipt.





beagle9 said:


> Was the check wrote out to the abortion clinic for services or is it her just saying what it was intended for ??


NFBW: why do you stick up for an unrepentant liar who apparently can’t keep his dick in his pants because he can afford to pay for an abortion when he knocks his girlfriends up? 

And then he lies that he sent the check five days after she had the abortion saying she was the mother of the child that she abirtedc

Yet another apparent lie is rocking the *Herschel Walker* campaign. The Republican candidate for a U.S. Senate seat from Georgia is now claiming the $700 check he sent to the mother of one of his four children was not for an abortion but that he sent it because “she’s the mother of my child.”

As many were quick to point out, when he wrote the check allegedly paid for the abortion he had not had any other children with that particular woman. Only years later did he have a child with her, one he also urged her to abort.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Know Where Land Corner Stone "

* Knot Not Head **


beagle9 said:


> So basically your trying to say he's to dumb to be doing it all by him whittle wonesome, God bwess your whittle soul. lol... You're just another knuckleheaded Biden who needs to be guided over the tree in question... ROTFLMBO 🤣 🤣🤣


In which venue would such a scholastic tribute be indulged by academia ?

The social science research network is an online journal where any individual can submit an abstract and body of work to be sent out for independent review to determined whether the submission is scholastic , that is collegiate and accepted into the online journal .

Assimilation and articulation of these treatises is not entertained by the fee press news feeds whimpering about viewer comments .

The fee press attempts to maintain credibility with the public by deferring to officially sanctioned story lines and positions while casually facilitating acceptance of an audience bias .

The pariahs of peretto principle want to private privateer but cannot pivot profit without exclusive proprietorship over content , while direct links are tactically distributed .

The discussion boards offer free speech as stones for builders and , more often than not , begin with a want to secure free speech for the public .

As a tribute and a consequence of public facility of private platforms , fame is available , while fortune must be found elsewhere .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Clarifying Over Generalized Garble "

* Logical Fallacy Of Discredit By Association With A Scapegoat **


beagle9 said:


> So basically your trying to say he's to dumb to be doing it all by him whittle wonesome, God bwess your whittle soul. lol... You're just another knuckleheaded Biden who needs to be guided over the tree in question... ROTFLMBO 🤣 🤣🤣


Your comments appear to presume that because this republican promotes choice for abortion based on the foundations of us republic that the singular position automatically makes this republican a get your bid en hook line and sinker supporter .

The get your bid en is a phenomenological indicator of us kleptocracy , where bureaucracy and free market capitalism engage in selective endowment and manipulation of the money supply .

What is a likelihood that billionaires mushing about wanting tax breaks are also the beneficiaries of huge government contracts - Public Private Trust ?

The who , what , where , when and how questions for which this moniker is seeking answers about get your bid en policies is which industries , or trades , or skills , are americans receiving from the globalists and how does it affect us national gross domestic product and us standards of living .

Again , concerns of this republican also promote the american school of economics and it is absurd that the thread at the following link was not at least relocated , and it is ironic that the thread was closed because it had nothing to do with congress , which it obviously should - Globalism Of Neoclassical Economics Versus Nationalism Of American School Of Economics .

** Reiteration Of The Same **

This moniker represents the republican position for a republic with a credo of e pluribus unum that expects independence as individualism , with equal protection of negative liberties .

Individualism necessarily implies a live birth requirement for equal protection of negative liberties .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6220922-#5,341 CarsomyrPlusSix   “I mean Roe created a federal constitutional right that isn’t remotely supported by the Constitution.”

NFBW: Have you ever considered the reality that a woman’s autonomy over her entire body including reproductive organs is a basic human right that needs no creation or sanction by a government because it is a private not a civil matter as well as a natural right.

END 2211221313


----------



## ChemEngineer

THIS is NOT "a woman's body."   It is the body of an innocent baby, with a father who has no rights according to murdering abortionists, unless the "mother" chooses to have it then he pays child support for 18 years.
Meanwhile men languish in prison for murdering unborn babies but no woman does.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChemE221122-#5,737 ChemEngineer    THIS is NOT "a woman's body."

NFBW: When a woman dies during childbirth who’s body is buried six foot under or cremated?

END2211221617


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChemE221122-#5,737 ChemEngineer THIS is NOT "a woman's body."

NFBW: Does a woman have autonomy over her own body prior to and after being pregnant?

END2211221646


----------



## beagle9

ChemEngineer said:


> THIS is NOT "a woman's body."   It is the body of an innocent baby, with a father who has no rights according to murdering abortionists, unless the "mother" chooses to have it then he pays child support for 18 years.
> Meanwhile men languish in prison for murdering unborn babies but no woman does.
> 
> View attachment 729534


Amazing stuff.... Wow.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChemE221122-#5,737 ChemEngineer THIS is NOT "a woman's body."
> 
> NFBW: Does a woman have autonomy over her own body prior to and after being pregnant?
> 
> END2211221646


Prior to I'd say yes of course she does, but after she decides to get pregnant and then she does get pregnant, then at that point she becomes responsible for the pregnancy in which she has allowed. So she becomes pregnant with a human being/slowly developing child in her life (what an awesome blessing it is). 

Becoming responsible doesn't mean to kill that child because she at some point becomes fearful of the lie's and brainwashing going on today, wherefore she then succumbs to the thinking that to abort will be better than to go forward with the miracle of birth, and the birthing of her beautiful child. An uncivilized SOCIETY is what begins the processes of bad THOUGHTS and twisted thinking. 

We can do better than this.


----------



## San Souci

NotfooledbyW said:


> If you think abortion is murdering a baby well  then  HW pays his sport fucks to murder his babies and it appears to be fine with you


And just who PROVED that? Another lying Gold Digger? These "Me To" women are all liars. And it seems they NEVER go after Dems.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChemE221122-#5,737 ChemEngineer THIS is NOT "a woman's body."

NFBW221122-#5,739     Does a woman have autonomy over her own body prior to and after being pregnant?

beagle9221122-#5,741 beagle9   Prior to I'd say yes of course she does, but after she decides to get pregnant and then she does get pregnant, then at that point she becomes responsible for the pregnancy in which she has allowed.

NFBW: In your Christian world you are saying  that the very split second of conception a woman ceases to have autonomy over her own body. If you insist that whenever a woman becomes pregnant she no longer has autonomy over her own body. If the pregnancy is planned and wanted, then the autonomy issue is moot.

When a woman faces an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy according to you, she loses the autonomy over her own body. She loses personal freedom.

So the serious question for you beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix ding ,  what entity is it that assumes autonomy over her body? Is it, The fertilized egg? The sperm donor? The state of Arkansas, or any other, white Christian state that bans the medical procedure of abortion???? The Catholic Church? A pediatric hospital? ding ‘s scientists?

When freedom is taken away from an individual who is born with reproductive organs, some person or association of persons must have authority to take it. Who are they?  Do you want hate infested assholes like CarsomyrPlusSix to have autonomy over women who get pregnant and don’t want to be forced to carry it to full term? 

END2211222331


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChemE221122-#5,737    THIS is NOT "a woman's body." It is the body of an innocent baby


NFBW: The entire body and life of a woman at 24 or so years of age who becomes pregnant becomes the body of an innocent baby when one of her eggs gets fertilized. 

END2211230015


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChemE221122-#5,737 ChemEngineer THIS is NOT "a woman's body."
> 
> NFBW221122-#5,739     Does a woman have autonomy over her own body prior to and after being pregnant?
> 
> beagle9221122-#5,741 beagle9   Prior to I'd say yes of course she does, but after she decides to get pregnant and then she does get pregnant, then at that point she becomes responsible for the pregnancy in which she has allowed.
> 
> NFBW: In your Christian world you are saying  that the very split second of conception a woman ceases to have autonomy over her own body. If you insist that whenever a woman becomes pregnant she no longer has autonomy over her own body. If the pregnancy is planned and wanted, then the autonomy issue is moot.
> 
> When a woman faces an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy according to you, she loses the autonomy over her own body. She loses personal freedom.
> 
> So the serious question for you beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix ding ,  what entity is it that assumes autonomy over her body? Is it, The fertilized egg? The sperm donor? The state of Arkansas, or any other, white Christian state that bans the medical procedure of abortion???? The Catholic Church? A pediatric hospital? ding ‘s scientists?
> 
> When freedom is taken away from an individual who is born with reproductive organs, some person or association of persons must have authority to take it. Who are they?  Do you want hate infested assholes like CarsomyrPlusSix to have autonomy over women who get pregnant and don’t want to be forced to carry it to full term?
> 
> END2211222331


That’s up to the legislators to decide.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> So the serious question for you beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix ding ,  what entity is it that assumes autonomy over her body?


No one, you fucking retard.  The kid's body isn't her body, so she doesn't own the kid, she can't kill the kid.  "Autonomy" is irrelevant.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Is it, The fertilized egg?


There is no such thing as a human "fertilized egg," you fucking retard.



NotfooledbyW said:


> The sperm donor?


Oh fuck you, retard.



NotfooledbyW said:


> The state of Arkansas, or any other, white


Racist piece of shit.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Christian


Fuck you, zealot hatemonger.



NotfooledbyW said:


> medical procedure of abortion


Does not compute, bloodthirsty supporter of contract killing.



NotfooledbyW said:


> When freedom is taken away from an individual who is born with reproductive organs


Irrelevant non sequitur, fucking retard.  Banning abortion doesn't take away anyone's freedom.

You're useless bigoted filth, and you're too stupid to learn even the slightest thing.  If you're a troll and you don't believe this stupidity, then you should just fuck off.  
If you're actually this stupid, I'm sorry, you are the poster child for why abortion should be legal, making a eugenics argument for culling the most mentally inferior humans so they cannot infest the species.  Still, I won't accept that argument, as innocent young human beings have a chance to NOT be as godawful and evil and stupid as you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221122-#5,743      So the serious question for you beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix ding , what entity is it that assumes autonomy over her body?

beagle9221122-#5,741 beagle9      Prior to [egg fertilization] I'd say yes of course she does, [have autonomy over her own body]

ding 221123-#5,745 ding    “That’s up to the legislators to decide.”

Cplus6221123-#5,746  CarsomyrPlusSix No one, you fucking retard. The kid's body isn't her body, so she doesn't own the kid, she can't kill the kid. "Autonomy" is irrelevant.

NFBW: A pregnant woman is committing no crime or harm to another person when one of her eggs becomes fertilized and she decides to prevent continued development. Therefore when she uses the autonomy over her own body to choose to terminate her own pregnancy she continues to not commit a  crime or harm to another person. 

However we see ding insisting  that federal lawnakers and/ or legislators in states where an anti-abortion electorate of mostly white Christian voters are in control of state government affairs, are the association or agency that assumes or must assume autonomy over a woman’s body when her body begins to oxygenate and nourish one of her eggs that has become fertilized. 

Out of the blue ding insists any abortion minded pregnant woman is committing harm to another person and must be dealt with as if she is committing a crime against the fertilized egg being oxygenated and nourished by her own body, in such a way that her autonomy over her own body must be withdrawn temporarily by the government. 

ding220512-#309  ding   That the fertilized egg is a human being. And not just any human being but one that has never existed before and will never exist again.​
Another abortion foe CarsomyrPlusSix chimes in insisting no one, as in no human agency, person, entity, individual or government institution has authority to dismiss the a woman’s natural law autonomy but she cannot interfere in the natural law autonomy of a newly fertilized egg. We have a stalemate with no remedy.

This poster CarsomyrPlusSix   relies on absurdity in his arguments such as the above idea that no existing human entity assumes autonomy over a woman when she unexpectedly and unplanned ends up with a fertilized egg moving into her uterus as a natural biological reproductive function that only happens as part of a woman’s body. 

If no human agency has autonomy over a pregnant woman’s body then what does have authority to tell her no - you cannot terminate your pregnancy by legal and safe medical procedures, then what can? 

Perhaps only beagle9 is right without saying it exactly The ONLY agency that had autonomy over a human woman before during and after pregnancy is a supernatural agency such as God who communicates through Representative government on earth such as found in Catholicism. 

In which case ding is wrong to violate the constitutional concept of separation of church and state. And CarsomyrPlusSix has no standing to place a limit on the autonomy of God over all human beings. And ChemEngineer has not weighed in as if yet. 

END2211230902


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Another abortion foe CarsomyrPlusSix chimes in insisting no one, as in no human agency, person, entity, individual or government institution has authority to dismiss the a woman’s natural law autonomy but she cannot interfere in the natural law autonomy of a newly fertilized egg.


Liar, I explicitly condemned your fucking retardation in referring to a human being as an "egg" and I had no comment about "autonomy" other than the FACT that the concept is completely irrelevant to hiring contract killers or attacking others, doing aggressive violence, as is the case in every abortion.

You have no rebuttal.  You have no ability or intention of debating.

You are a waste of not only my time, but the supply of oxygen in the universe.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221122-#5,743      So the serious question for you beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix ding , what entity is it that assumes autonomy over her body?

Cplus6221123-#5,746  CarsomyrPlusSix *No one*, you fucking retard.

NFBW221123-#5,747     Another abortion foe CarsomyrPlusSix chimes in insisting *no one,  *

 Cplus6221123-#5,748  Liar,

NFBW: I asked ( #5,743 ) what entity is it that assumes autonomy over an impregnated woman’s body.

You replied ( #5,746 ) CarsomyrPlusSix   “*No one*” to my question of who assumes autonomy over an impregnated woman’s body.

I then commented ( #5,747 ) “Another abortion foe CarsomyrPlusSix chimes in insisting *no one” . . . .*”has authority to dismiss a woman’s natural law autonomy. 

You accuse me of lying in ( #5,747 )

So what where how and why do you say that I lied?

END2211231106


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

You raging fucktard….

No one interferes with anyone’s “autonomy” by banning abortion - in much the same way that no one interferes with the operation of anyone’s unicorn ranch by banning abortion - because yours is an irrelevant nonsensical non sequitur.

Your bullshit tangent has nothing to do with whether or not you are allowed to own and then kill other human beings.  It is dismissed very simply - whether or not you own yourself or can control yourself is not material to the discussion of whether or not you can own someone else and can kill them on a whim.

Period.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Out of the blue @ding insists any abortion minded pregnant woman is committing harm to another person and must be dealt with as if she is committing a crime against the fertilized egg being oxygenated and nourished by her own body, in such a way that her autonomy over her own body must be withdrawn temporarily by the government.


I’d really appreciate it if you would stop misstating what I said. It’s why I don’t like having conversations with you. 

You said you like eating roasted fetus. See how that works?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> I’d really appreciate it if you would stop misstating what I said. It’s why I don’t like having conversations with you.



Seriously.  This asshole is attributing comments to me about “autonomy” and “fertilized eggs” when I only put these things in quotes because the former is irrelevant and the latter doesn’t even exist when it comes to the sexual reproduction of human beings and other viviparous species.

It’s not like this is ambiguous or somehow confusing - he is doing this on purpose.

So yes, I do recall his clear statement of how much he enjoys being a cannibal.


----------



## ding

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Seriously.  This asshole is attributing comments to me about “autonomy” and “fertilized eggs” when I only put these things in quotes because the former is irrelevant and the latter doesn’t even exist when it comes to the sexual reproduction of human beings and other viviparous species.
> 
> It’s not like this is ambiguous or somehow confusing - he is doing this on purpose.
> 
> So yes, I do recall his clear statement of how much he enjoys being a cannibal.


He doesn’t believe it’s cannibalism because it’s not a human being until after birth. He said so.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221123-#5,751     I’d really appreciate it if you would stop misstating what I said.


NFBW: Have you ever ding expressed an opinion that any abortion minded pregnant woman is committing harm to another person if she requests that her doctor terminate her pregnancy and goes ahead with that medical procedure.

END2211231237


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: FYI 

Cplus6221123-#5,752 @CarsomyrPlusSix  . . .  “the latter “*[fertilized egg]* “doesn’t even exist when it comes to the sexual reproduction of human beings and other viviparous species.”

alang1216 said: alang1216    “What does science say about the relative value of an adult human being vs a *fertilized egg*?”

ding220512-#309    “That the *fertilized egg* is a human being. And not just any human being but one that has never existed before and will never exist again.”

END2211231249


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: Have you ever insisted ding that any pro- abortion minded pregnant woman is committing *harm to another person* if she terminates her pregnancy. Is killing an undeveloped human being in her own womb something something that must be stopped by legislators - state or federal.

ding220723-#3,843 ding  “If you can't be honest that abortion is killing a human life, you don't deserve to be able to kill that human life. Man up.”

END2211231301


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221123-#5,751     I’d really appreciate it if you would stop misstating what I said.
> 
> 
> NFBW: Have you ever ding expressed an opinion that any abortion minded pregnant woman is committing harm to another person if she requests that her doctor terminate her pregnancy and goes ahead with that medical procedure.
> 
> END2211231237


You should probably start with an apology and promise to never do it again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding 221123-#5,753 “He doesn’t believe it’s cannibalism because it’s not a human being until after birth. He said so”

NFBW: I believe what Ray From Cleveland believes: 

RFC2212-#5,573 @Ray From Cleveland  It is none of my business what a person does because personal decisions are just that--personal.”

NFBW: I also believe in my personal life that aborting a fetus is killing what science refers to as a developing human being and I would never do a Herschel Walker and pay a woman to have an abortion as a result of sport fucking morality. 

This is my personal ethics on abortion: 

NFBW220819-#301

CommunistFront said:  “Those are your personal religious beliefs.”

NFBW220819-#301     “No. I decided to get a vasectomy after my second child because I did not want my wife to get pregnant again because I do not personally believe in aborting a not viable fetus even though that right rightfully exists, because I am a secular humanist and anti communist in case you might be wondering about that, But as a secular humanist American, my most valued freedom in America is freedom from religion which includes freedom from being a Christian. Therefore I do not impose my conscience and choice of values on any other law abiding American specifically on the private matter of keeping or terminating a pregnancy prior to fetal viability,  Freedom from religion is the foundation for every woman to have her reproductive rights protected by the Constitution not taken away as ding Mashmont and CarsomyrPlusSix want their states and all states to do. They are perverts to the Constitution.”

END2211231337


----------



## GMCGeneral

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding 221123-#5,753 “He doesn’t believe it’s cannibalism because it’s not a human being until after birth. He said so”
> 
> NFBW: I believe what Ray From Cleveland believes:
> 
> RFC2212-#5,573 @Ray From Cleveland  It is none of my business what a person does because personal decisions are just that--personal.”
> 
> NFBW: I also believe in my personal life that aborting a fetus is killing what science refers to as a developing human being and I would never do a Herschel Walker and pay a woman to have an abortion as a result of sport fucking morality.
> 
> This is my personal ethics on abortion:
> 
> NFBW220819-#301
> 
> CommunistFront said:  “Those are your personal religious beliefs.”
> 
> NFBW220819-#301     “No. I decided to get a vasectomy after my second child because I did not want my wife to get pregnant again because I do not personally believe in aborting a not viable fetus even though that right rightfully exists, because I am a secular humanist and anti communist in case you might be wondering about that, But as a secular humanist American, my most valued freedom in America is freedom from religion which includes freedom from being a Christian. Therefore I do not impose my conscience and choice of values on any other law abiding American specifically on the private matter of keeping or terminating a pregnancy prior to fetal viability,  Freedom from religion is the foundation for every woman to have her reproductive rights protected by the Constitution not taken away as ding Mashmont and CarsomyrPlusSix want their states and all states to do. They are perverts to the Constitution.”
> 
> END2211231337


Then look forward to eternity in the Lake of Fire since you willingly reject G-d's love gift of Salvation.  You WILL bow the knee!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

GMCGeneral-#5,759 GMCGeneral  “Then look forward to eternity in the Lake of Fire since you willingly reject G-d's love gift of Salvation. You WILL bow the knee!”

GMCG221024-#24  GMCGeneral  .  . “God will send you to Hell for killing your baby unless you repent.”

NFBW: Do you get your obvious *need to control women’s bodies *even when they are  unbeknownst to you,  from scientific research, Christian family values upbringing, or an awakening after a life of selfishness materialism and greed didn’t pay off for you?

protectionist221024-#289  protectionist It is not a matter of controlling a woman's body. It is a matter of *controlling the body and life of the person being born*, and saving them from the murderous trashbags who would try to kill them.

NFBW: Don’t you have to go through the woman who is pregnant to get to seizing  *control of the body and the life of the person being born *somehow? Not seeing how you control the life of the unborn if a woman exercises her right to terminate her pregnancy without taking control of what a pregnant woman can and cannot do by government coercion and control.

As ding says it’s up to the legislators to decide what a pregnant woman can and cannot do with the development of a new unique human being that is part of the woman in the womb, until birth.

END2211231526


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> GMCGeneral-#5,759 GMCGeneral  “Then look forward to eternity in the Lake of Fire since you willingly reject G-d's love gift of Salvation. You WILL bow the knee!”
> 
> GMCG221024-#24  GMCGeneral  .  . “God will send you to Hell for killing your baby unless you repent.”
> 
> NFBW: Do you get your obvious *need to control women’s bodies *even when they are  unbeknownst to you,  from scientific research, Christian family values upbringing, or an awakening after a life of selfishness materialism and greed didn’t pay off for you?
> 
> protectionist221024-#289  protectionist It is not a matter of controlling a woman's body. It is a matter of *controlling the body and life of the person being born*, and saving them from the murderous trashbags who would try to kill them.
> 
> NFBW: Don’t you have to go through the woman who is pregnant to get to seizing  *control of the body and the life of the person being born *somehow? Not seeing how you control the life of the unborn if a woman exercises her right to terminate her pregnancy without taking control of what a pregnant woman can and cannot do by government coercion and control.
> 
> As ding says it’s up to the legislators to decide what a pregnant woman can and cannot do with the development of a new unique human being that is part of the woman in the womb, until birth.
> 
> END2211231526


That’s not an apology and that’s not what I said.

NotfooledbyW said he likes ketchup on his roasted fetus.

Now we are even.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221123-#5,760       As ding says    *it’s up to the legislators *to decide what a pregnant woman can and cannot do with the development *of a new unique human being that is part of the woman in the womb*, until birth.

ding221123-#5,761  *that’s not what I said.*

ding 221123-#5,745      “*That’s up to the legislators to decide.”

ding221123-#5,761  that’s not what I said.*

ding220724-#3,849  *That's for legislators to decide.*

ding221123-#5,761  *that’s not what I said.*

ding220718-#2,387     it's a good thing that state and federal governments *address abortion with legislation.*

ding221123-#5,761  *that’s not what I said.*

ding 220721-#3,743    SCOTUS ruled that abortion is not a constitutional right. So it will be *up to state or federal legislators *to balance the rights of the mother and child

ding221123-#5,761  *that’s not what I said.*

ding220730-#4,047    SCOTUS ruled abortion isn't a constitutionally protected right based upon the Constitution.  *The science on when life begins will inform legislators in writing laws.*

ding221123-#5,761  *that’s not what I said.*

NFBW: What do you mean when you say So it will be up to state or federal legislators to balance the rights of the mother and child?

I understand that you mean *it’s up to the legislators *to decide what a pregnant woman can and cannot do with the developing fetus that is part of her body. Where am I wrong?

END2211231737


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> That’s not an apology and that’s not what I said.


NFBW: Why would need to apologize for this


NFBW221123-#5,760 As ding says  *it’s up to the legislators *to decide what a pregnant woman can and cannot do with the development *of a new unique human being that is part of the woman in the womb*, until birth.

NFBW: You said it. Don’t you remember in the afternoon  what you wrote in the morning?

ding 221123-#5,745 “*That’s up to the legislators to decide.”*

END2211231933


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Why would need to apologize for this
> 
> 
> NFBW221123-#5,760 As ding says  *it’s up to the legislators *to decide what a pregnant woman can and cannot do with the development *of a new unique human being that is part of the woman in the womb*, until birth.
> 
> NFBW: You said it. Don’t you remember in the afternoon  what you wrote in the morning?
> 
> ding 221123-#5,745 “*That’s up to the legislators to decide.”*
> 
> END2211231933


For continuing to misstate me. If you use the reply feature you won’t need to summarize what I wrote.  Because your summaries suck. 

Now apologize and stop doing it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> That’s not an apology and that’s not what I said



ding220801-#4,143     The only things you know about my beliefs are life begins after fertilization, SCOTUS ruled their is no constitutional right for abortion and that state and/or federal legislators will now have to do their jobs.

NFBW221123-#5,760     As ding says it’s up to the legislators to decide what a pregnant woman can and cannot do with the development of a new unique human being that is part of the woman in the womb, until birth.

NFBW: I believe the science is certain that human life begins at conception and both science and biological reality is that unborn human life is not practically viable to live outside the womb until around 24 weeks. I understand the reality that SCOTUS ruled their is no constitutional right for abortion and that state legislators in white Christian politically controlled Republican states are banning the abortion procedure from the moment of conception to as much as 15 weeks. Democrat controlled states are protecting the right of women to have an abortion by enshrining that right in their respective state constitutions. 

Correct me if I’m wrong ding whether you believe the life that begins at fertilization is a human being and if the woman who conceived that human being chooses to terminate that human being is a murderer and needs to be stopped by state legislators to save babies from being murdered by their mother? 

END2211232014


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> For continuing to misstate me. If you use the reply feature you won’t need to summarize what I wrote. Because your summaries suck.


NFBW: I will apologize only if you can explain what was a misquote in this summary of your position.

NFBW221123-#5,760     As ding says it’s up to the legislators to decide what a pregnant woman can and cannot do with the development of a new unique human being that is part of the woman in the womb, until birth.

What are you objecting to other than the absurd whining that it is a summary?

You have often said it’s up to the legislators to decide. They are deciding what a pregnant woman can and cannot do when pregnant, right? You have often described a fertilized egg as a new unique human being while it is attached to the woman’s uterus and that new unique human being you believe should be left to develop in the womb until natural or assisted birth.

When you call me a liar or dishonest you at least owe me an explanation of what you think I’m lying about?

Why is that too much to ask?

END2211233034


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> If you use the reply feature you won’t need to summarize what I wrote.


This is a direct quote not a summary that is linked to the actual post by post number. 


ding220801-#4,143     The only things you know about my beliefs are life begins after fertilization, SCOTUS ruled their is no constitutional right for abortion and that state and/or federal legislators will now have to do their jobs.

The job of those legislators is to tell women what to do with their bodies when they become pregnant is it not? 

END2211232048


----------



## protectionist

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Don’t you have to go through the woman who is pregnant to get to seizing  *control of the body and the life of the person being born *somehow? Not seeing how you control the life of the unborn if a woman exercises her right to terminate her pregnancy without taking control of what a pregnant woman can and cannot do by government coercion and control.


There IS NO _"right to terminate her pregnancy"_ because that is simply murder.  To grant her that right is to say that not allowing a living person to murder another living person by having a law against murder, is government coercion and control.

Yes, that's right.  We have a law which coerces us and controls us from murdering people.  And it is only murderers who object to it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding181015-#357    “It is a states right issue. It is also a human rights issue. *My expectation is that abortion will be seen as wrong. I want it to come to a vote of the people*. That's what makes it conservative. Chicken shit supporters of abortion don't want it to come to a vote. That's what makes it liberal.”

Now that, California, Vermont, and Michigan all voted to amend their constitutions to protect abortion rights in the midterms and Kansas did the same earlier, tell us  ding is abortion “right” now that the people In KANSAS MICHIGAN VERMONT and CALIFORNIA have spoken or do you think white Christian voters in those states had their elections stolen by baby killiers?

END2211232327


----------



## NotfooledbyW

protectionist221123-#5,768 @protectionist There IS NO "right to terminate her pregnancy"because that is simply murder.

NFBW: When you believe such arrogant religious bullshit that you have the authority from God to tell a woman what she has to do when she becomes pregnant and if she does not obey you call her a murderer.

Then atop that there is this absurd SCOTUS decision that whether or not abortion is murder is to be decided by the voters. It’s nuts.

ding181015-#357 ding    “It is a states right issue. It is also a human rights issue. My expectation is that abortion will be seen as wrong. I want it to come to a vote of the people. That's what makes it conservative. Chicken shit supporters of abortion don't want it to come to a vote. That's what makes it liberal.”

END2211240054


----------



## GMCGeneral

NotfooledbyW said:


> protectionist221123-#5,768 There IS NO "right to terminate her pregnancy"because that is simply murder.
> 
> NFBW: When you believe such arrogant religious bullshit that you have the authority from God to tell a woman what she has to do when she becomes pregnant and if she dies not obey you call her a murderer.
> 
> Then atop that there is this absurd SCOTUS decision that whether or not abortion is murder is to be decided by the voters. It’s nuts.
> 
> ding181015-#357    “It is a states right issue. It is also a human rights issue. My expectation is that abortion will be seen as wrong. I want it to come to a vote of the people. That's what makes it conservative. Chicken shit supporters of abortion don't want it to come to a vote. That's what makes it liberal.”
> 
> END2211240054


Your problem, as a far Left Communist, is you are unwilling to submit to the Holy G-d. Psalm 14:1 describes you perfectly:  "The *FOOL* in his heart says 'there is no G-d'".  Plus, the concepts of duty, obligation, honor, loyalty (unless it's to Big Daddy Government) are completely lost on you.


----------



## protectionist

NotfooledbyW said:


> protectionist221123-#5,768 @protectionist There IS NO "right to terminate her pregnancy"because that is simply murder.
> 
> NFBW: When you believe such arrogant religious bullshit that you have the authority from God to tell a woman what she has to do when she becomes pregnant and if she does not obey you call her a murderer.
> 
> Then atop that there is this absurd SCOTUS decision that whether or not abortion is murder is to be decided by the voters. It’s nuts.
> 
> ding181015-#357 ding    “It is a states right issue. It is also a human rights issue. My expectation is that abortion will be seen as wrong. I want it to come to a vote of the people. That's what makes it conservative. Chicken shit supporters of abortion don't want it to come to a vote. That's what makes it liberal.”
> 
> END2211240054


I don't think it's from God > the authority to tell women to not murder their preborn children. The authority comes from the American people, who voted for Donald Trump, who selected 3 people to join the SCOTUS, who decided against abortion. 

Anybody doesnt like it, there's Syria, Uganda, China, Haiti.  Bon voyage.


----------



## protectionist

NotfooledbyW said:


> Now that, California, Vermont, and Michigan all voted to amend their constitutions to protect abortion rights in the midterms and Kansas did the same earlier, tell us  ding is abortion “right” now that the people In KANSAS MICHIGAN VERMONT and CALIFORNIA have spoken or do you think white Christian voters in those states had their elections stolen by baby killiers?
> 
> END2211232327


The very fact that you bring it up, indicates YOU aren't entirely dismissing the possibility.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

GMCGeneral-#68  GMCGeneral    Obongo was never my president. I would hope for a long and agonizing death for him, Moochelle, and their America hating brats.

NFBW: Something to be thankful for today. You are on @ding’s losing side - not mine.

Jesus what’s become of your flock?

END2211240130


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ABS161120-#93  ABikerSailor   “Me? I still take the Bible's view of it, and look to when God created Adam and Eve. They weren't "alive" or "human" until they took their first breath.”

GMCG221024-#24 GMCGeneral . . “God will send you to Hell for killing your baby unless you repent.”

ding161129-#99      “I can respect your opinion while still disagreeing with it.”

NFBW: Which of the two *religious opinions* on a woman’s right to abort, terminate, kill, murder (however you wish to phrase it) *a new genetically distinct human being that has come into existence at conception, A human being in its earliest stage of the human life cycle, but a human being nonetheless. One that has never existed before and will never exist again *do you respect more ding? 

END221124Tday0858


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChemE221122-#5,737 ChemEngineer THIS is NOT "a woman's body."
> 
> NFBW221122-#5,739     Does a woman have autonomy over her own body prior to and after being pregnant?
> 
> beagle9221122-#5,741 beagle9   Prior to I'd say yes of course she does, but after she decides to get pregnant and then she does get pregnant, then at that point she becomes responsible for the pregnancy in which she has allowed.
> 
> NFBW: In your Christian world you are saying  that the very split second of conception a woman ceases to have autonomy over her own body. If you insist that whenever a woman becomes pregnant she no longer has autonomy over her own body. If the pregnancy is planned and wanted, then the autonomy issue is moot.
> 
> When a woman faces an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy according to you, she loses the autonomy over her own body. She loses personal freedom.
> 
> So the serious question for you beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix ding ,  what entity is it that assumes autonomy over her body? Is it, The fertilized egg? The sperm donor? The state of Arkansas, or any other, white Christian state that bans the medical procedure of abortion???? The Catholic Church? A pediatric hospital? ding ‘s scientists?
> 
> When freedom is taken away from an individual who is born with reproductive organs, some person or association of persons must have authority to take it. Who are they?  Do you want hate infested assholes like CarsomyrPlusSix to have autonomy over women who get pregnant and don’t want to be forced to carry it to full term?
> 
> END2211222331


You babble so much that it's virtually ridiculous to even answer some of your idiotic responses, but here goes something.

Yes, once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her perceived notion or perceived right to kill that child after the child starts developing in her body. It is an evil thing if she does so, but many are brainwashed by liberalism or leftist think that gives them the idea that it's ok to have a baby destroyed within them, and worse because they aren't faithful enough to understand that if they give birth that it is a blessing not a burden onto them. Infact that child usually becomes the strongest Allie they've ever had on this earth. It's best to be civilized instead of becoming barbarian's in this life. The left has become barbaric.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221124-#5,776   Yes, once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her perceived notion or perceived right to kill that child after the child starts developing in her body.

 NFBW: Let’s pretend that you beagle9 understand the reality that you live in a secularized governing nation based on rule of law, equal human rights for those of us born or naturalized here, and most importantly freedom of conscience being the foundational ideals that makes America great, not one brand of religion. 

So pretending you understand that reality you say, ‘_once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her right to decide not to carry her pregnancy to full term and deliver that child to this beautiful world we all share with one another’ _so my question for you is  - on who’s or what authority are you demanding that all women give up the right to terminate her own pregnancy? 

END2211241510


----------



## protectionist

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221124-#5,776   Yes, once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her perceived notion or perceived right to kill that child after the child starts developing in her body.
> 
> NFBW: Let’s pretend that you beagle9 understand the reality that you live in a secularized governing nation based on rule of law, equal human rights for those of us born or naturalized here, and most importantly freedom of conscience being the foundational ideals that makes America great, not one brand of religion.
> 
> So pretending you understand that reality you say, ‘_once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her right to decide not to carry her pregnancy to full term and deliver that child to this beautiful world we all share with one another’ _so my question for you is  - on who’s or what authority are you demanding that all women give up the right to terminate her own pregnancy?
> 
> END2211241510


On the authority of the American people, as it should be in a democracy. There are barbaric countries in the world one could move to, if they really wanted to live like that. Gives me the creeps just to think about it.

Let's not forget that ALL the people who support late term abortion, are alive and able to mouth off about it, because at one point, their mothers chose LIFE FOR THEM, not abortion.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221124-#5,776   Yes, once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her perceived notion or perceived right to kill that child after the child starts developing in her body.
> 
> NFBW: Let’s pretend that you beagle9 understand the reality that you live in a secularized governing nation based on rule of law, equal human rights for those of us born or naturalized here, and most importantly freedom of conscience being the foundational ideals that makes America great, not one brand of religion.
> 
> So pretending you understand that reality you say, ‘_once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her right to decide not to carry her pregnancy to full term and deliver that child to this beautiful world we all share with one another’ _so my question for you is  - on who’s or what authority are you demanding that all women give up the right to terminate her own pregnancy?
> 
> END2211241510


It's called being CIVILIZED, otherwise where laws are created by our own knowledge of right and wrong in which was given to us by God himself. Who are you to think that you can ignore righteousness and created law based upon moral's and standard's that were set forth in good conscious by the good citizen's who had found good in the laws and rules that were created by the people ???

Oh and I caught how you tried to change the words up in hopes to trip me up. Didn't work.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Protectionist221124-#5,778  On the authority of the American people, as it should be in a democracy.

NFBW: The American people consists of people, some of whom insist abortion is murdering an innocent human being. Some say the pregnant woman has autonomy over her own body and choosing to terminate her own pregnancy is not killing a viable human being and it is therefore a private matter. Some say they would not have an abortion but what other people do with their private lives is none of their business.

All these people live under a Constitution that is silent on abortion but is not silent on when human beings acquire the protections and rights of the Constitution. And in the real world we all must accept that the mere is only one person during pregnancy who has passed the human stage of life that is being born. She has Constitutional rights and equal protections. The unborn have rights only through the rights of the mother.

END2211242328


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221124-#5,777     So pretending you understand that reality you say, ‘once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her right to decide not to carry her pregnancy to full term and deliver that child to this beautiful world we all share with one another’ so my question for you is - on who’s or what authority are you demanding that all women give up the right to terminate her own pregnancy?

beagle9221124-#5,779 beagle9     It's called being CIVILIZED, otherwise where laws are created by our own knowledge of right and wrong in which was given to us by God himself.

NFBW: being CIVILIZED is not an authority?

So I will ask again:  So pretending you understand that reality in post  #5,777 you say, “*once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her perceived notion or perceived right to kill that child after the child starts developing in her body”*
which also can also be phrased ‘_*once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her right to decide not to carry her pregnancy to full term and not deliver that potential “child” to this beautiful world we all share with one another*_’

The question for you again beagle9 on who’s or what authority are you demanding that all women give up the right to terminate her own pregnancy?

If your “authority” is an anthropomorphic supernatural being who communicates to people like you through a book known as the Holy Bible then you should just come out and say so.

If that is not the case, then you need to come up with the ‘authority’ that can legitimately and constitutionally require that all women give up the right to terminate their own pregnancies?

END2211250044


----------



## NotfooledbyW

protectionist-#5,772     I don't think it's from God > the authority to tell women to not murder their preborn children. The authority comes from the American people, who voted for Donald Trump, who selected 3 people to join the SCOTUS, who decided against abortion.

NFBW: SCOTUS did not decide against abortion. No person meeting the birth requirement in the Constitution exists in the Constitution that is harmed by a pregnant woman who terminates her pregnancy. So they did what they could to allow states to harm women with unwanted pregnancies by depriving them of a right, in the state where they live, to a medical procedure if a majority of a state’s voters elect enough lawmakers to enact such a ban.

END2211250356




Ding 220719-#3,600  ding  “. . . that ruling did not rule on the legality of abortion only that abortion isn't a constitutional right.”


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding181015-#357    “It is a states right issue. It is also a human rights issue. *My expectation is that abortion will be seen as wrong. I want it to come to a vote of the people*. That's what makes it conservative. Chicken shit supporters of abortion don't want it to come to a vote. That's what makes it liberal.”
> 
> Now that, California, Vermont, and Michigan all voted to amend their constitutions to protect abortion rights in the midterms and Kansas did the same earlier, tell us  ding is abortion “right” now that the people In KANSAS MICHIGAN VERMONT and CALIFORNIA have spoken or do you think white Christian voters in those states had their elections stolen by baby killiers?
> 
> END2211232327


I’m fine with each deciding for itself.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding220801-#4,143     The only things you know about my beliefs are life begins after fertilization, SCOTUS ruled their is no constitutional right for abortion and that state and/or federal legislators will now have to do their jobs.
> 
> NFBW221123-#5,760     As ding says it’s up to the legislators to decide what a pregnant woman can and cannot do with the development of a new unique human being that is part of the woman in the womb, until birth.
> 
> NFBW: I believe the science is certain that human life begins at conception and both science and biological reality is that unborn human life is not practically viable to live outside the womb until around 24 weeks. I understand the reality that SCOTUS ruled their is no constitutional right for abortion and that state legislators in white Christian politically controlled Republican states are banning the abortion procedure from the moment of conception to as much as 15 weeks. Democrat controlled states are protecting the right of women to have an abortion by enshrining that right in their respective state constitutions.
> 
> Correct me if I’m wrong ding whether you believe the life that begins at fertilization is a human being and if the woman who conceived that human being chooses to terminate that human being is a murderer and needs to be stopped by state legislators to save babies from being murdered by their mother?
> 
> END2211232014


That’s up to the states to decide.

Do you have a problem with each state deciding?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Protectionist221124-#5,778  On the authority of the American people, as it should be in a democracy.
> 
> NFBW: The American people consists of people, some of whom insist abortion is murdering an innocent human being. Some say the pregnant woman has autonomy over her own body and choosing to terminate her own pregnancy is not killing a viable human being and it is therefore a private matter. Some say they would not have an abortion but what other people do with their private lives is none of their business.
> 
> All these people live under a Constitution that is silent on abortion but is not silent on when human beings acquire the protections and rights of the Constitution. And in the real world we all must accept that the mere is only one person during pregnancy who has passed the human stage of life that is being born. She has Constitutional rights and equal protections. The unborn have rights only through the rights of the mother.
> 
> END2211242328


The constitution certainly does protect the right to life of the living and of the unborn. Why ?  Because it's a living human being (although in developing stages) also... 

So the constitution does because it is a human life that is developing in the womb, and it's not to be removed and killed by another human being upon the order of such a thing to be done by another human being, unless the life of the mother is in grave danger from the pregnancy.


----------



## beagle9

ding said:


> That’s up to the states to decide.
> 
> Do you have a problem with each state deciding?


Yes he does, because people like him see the federal government as their dictator puppet on a string, and they want total control of those strings for every issue.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW221124-#5,777     So pretending you understand that reality you say, ‘once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her right to decide not to carry her pregnancy to full term and deliver that child to this beautiful world we all share with one another’ so my question for you is - on who’s or what authority are you demanding that all women give up the right to terminate her own pregnancy?
> 
> beagle9221124-#5,779 beagle9     It's called being CIVILIZED, otherwise where laws are created by our own knowledge of right and wrong in which was given to us by God himself.
> 
> NFBW: being CIVILIZED is not an authority?
> 
> So I will ask again:  So pretending you understand that reality in post  #5,777 you say, “*once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her perceived notion or perceived right to kill that child after the child starts developing in her body”*
> which also can also be phrased ‘_*once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her right to decide not to carry her pregnancy to full term and not deliver that potential “child” to this beautiful world we all share with one another*_’
> 
> The question for you again beagle9 on who’s or what authority are you demanding that all women give up the right to terminate her own pregnancy?
> 
> If your “authority” is an anthropomorphic supernatural being who communicates to people like you through a book known as the Holy Bible then you should just come out and say so.
> 
> If that is not the case, then you need to come up with the ‘authority’ that can legitimately and constitutionally require that all women give up the right to terminate their own pregnancies?
> 
> END2211250044


The authority or authorities are the majority who choose to live in a CIVILIZED SOCIETY that is guided by God who blesses us when we are good, otherwise America has been birthed by those who are calling themselves the new born society that has since given themselves the name American's, wherefore we were developing a nation from a new motherland in which we since had named her "America"....... 

It is one that was being developed prior to the birthing of a nation or rather prior to the naming of it, and then after it's birth and it's given name, it has since stood for hundreds of years forward now....

Once it was born and developed fully, it was also found that it had given birth to law and order by order of the men and women who believe and agree with a higher authority that certain things are evil and wrong, and therefore they knew that it needed to be controlled in a righteous way through law and order that was given unto it by these men and women who were enlightened and inspired by God. 

So these new born American's set forth to control the wrong headed tendencies or the bad apples, and to fight against the action's of what they perceive as being this wrong in every way that it raises it's ugly head.

Thank God America wasn't aborted before she showed the potential that she has now shown over the hundreds of years of her existence now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221125-#5,784     “Do you have a problem with each state deciding?”

NFBW: To answer your question ding , I do not have a problem with each state deciding completely opposite and contradictory remedies to the legal, moral and political human rights aspect of the Dobbs decision by a Trump appointed Catholic dominated Supreme Court.

When beagle9 answered for me, you emoji jumped for joy when your fellow white Christian conservative Trump supporting authoritarian reproductive rights foe made a statement about me that is not true or factual it makes it clear I am not dealing with honest posters on a message board that to be fruitful requires honesty on both sides.

beagle9221125-#5,786    “Yes he does, because people like him see the federal government as their dictator puppet on a string, and they want total control of those strings for every issue.”

NFBW: The Trump Catholic dominated highest and final court in the land shit itself by openly deciding in favor of mob rule for white Christian anti-abortion MISSISSIPPIANS but leaving the door open for multicultural progressive states like Michigan Kansas Vermont NewYork California etc to decide against imposing Catholic morality mob rule on women by restraining them from making reproductive health decisions in privacy with their doctors. 

SCOTUS did not rule on the legality of abortion or the status of the rights of the unborn, I like to hope they did not because sux Catholic judges on that court know they can’t?

Ding 220719-#3,600   “They seem to want to rehash *Dobbs v Jackson *more than anything else. Seems like a waste of time as that ruling *did not rule on the legality of abortion* only that abortion isn't a constitutional right.”

END2211251035


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221125-#5,784     “Do you have a problem with each state deciding?”
> 
> NFBW: To answer your question ding , I do not have a problem with each state deciding completely opposite and contradictory remedies to the legal, moral and political human rights aspect of the Dobbs decision by a Trump appointed Catholic dominated Supreme Court.
> 
> When beagle9 answered for me, you emoji jumped for joy when your fellow white Christian conservative Trump supporting authoritarian reproductive rights foe made a statement about me that is not true or factual it makes it clear I am not dealing with honest posters on a message board that to be fruitful requires honesty on both sides.
> 
> beagle9221125-#5,786    “Yes he does, because people like him see the federal government as their dictator puppet on a string, and they want total control of those strings for every issue.”
> 
> NFBW: The Trump Catholic dominated highest and final court in the land shit itself by openly deciding in favor of mob rule for white Christian anti-abortion MISSISSIPPIANS but leaving the door open for multicultural Prigressive states like Michigan Kansas Vermont NewYork California etc to decide against imposing Catholic morality mob rule on women by restraining them from making reproductive health decisions in the privacy with their doctors. SCOTUS did not rule on the legality of abortion or the status of the rights of the unborn I like to hope they did not because sux Catholic judges on that court know they can’t?
> 
> Ding 220719-#3,600   “They seem to want to rehash *Dobbs v Jackson *more than anything else. Seems like a waste of time as that ruling *did not rule on the legality of abortion* only that abortion isn't a constitutional right.”
> 
> END2211251035


Sounds like you prefer equality through uniformity. And that you really do have a problem with states not deciding the way you want them to decide.


----------



## ding

I’m fine with states deciding no matter what their decision.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I’m fine with states deciding no matter what their decision.


NFBW: States that protect reproductive rights and freedom are therefore not destroying civilization by condoning the killing of innocent unborn babies or violating the human rights of a fertilized egg by terminating or killing the subsequent natural biological development of a unique living human being while attached to a uterus for approximately 24 weeks during pregnancy. 

Do you agree? 

END2211251057


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: States that protect reproductive rights and freedom are therefore not destroying civilization by condoning the killing of innocent unborn babies or violating the human rights of a fertilized egg by terminating or killing the subsequent natural biological development of a unique living human being while attached to a uterus for approximately 24 weeks during pregnancy.
> 
> Do you agree?
> 
> END2211251057


Doesn’t matter what I believe.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221125-#5,792    Doesn’t matter what I believe.

NFBW: Why does it not matter if you vote for a politician who also believes with you the following;

ding220512-#309    That the fertilized egg is a human being. And not just any human being but one that has never existed before and will never exist again.

NFBW: Do you vote? If you have the opportunity ding would you vote for the political party and its politicians who agreed with your incomplete statement that the fertilized egg is a human being?

And if your belief achieved a majority It politically creates the opportunity for politicians to pass laws to your liking that the medical practice of aborting, killing a human being, must be banned?

On the other hand do you vote against the political party and its politicians who believe the more accurate scientific reality that a fertilized human egg is a not a viable human being for up to 24 weeks of pregnancy therefore the more scientific minded politicians would pass laws that protect a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy because fertilized eggs are not protected in the Constitution and the abortion procedure is not mentioned?

END2211250021


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221125-#5,792    Doesn’t matter what I believe.
> 
> NFBW: Why does it not matter if you vote for a politician who also believes with you the following;
> 
> ding220512-#309    That the fertilized egg is a human being. And not just any human being but one that has never existed before and will never exist again.
> 
> NFBW: Do you vote? If you have the opportunity ding would you vote for the political party and its politicians who agreed with your incomplete statement that the fertilized egg is a human being?
> 
> And if your belief achieved a majority It politically creates the opportunity for politicians to pass laws to your liking that the medical practice of aborting, killing a human being, must be banned?
> 
> On the other hand do you vote against the political party and its politicians who believe the more accurate scientific reality that a fertilized human egg is a not a viable human being for up to 24 weeks of pregnancy therefore the more scientific minded politicians would pass laws that protect a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy because fertilized eggs are not protected in the Constitution and the abortion procedure is not mentioned?
> 
> END2211250021


I’m not a single issue voter.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I’m not a single issue voter.


Democrats and Republicans are not single issue political parties and politicians.

If the state you live in puts the option of legal abortion vs banning abortion as a single issue for the entire state in a special vote which way would you vote.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Democrats and Republicans are not single issue political parties and politicians.
> 
> If the state you live in puts the option of legal abortion vs banning abortion as a single issue for the entire state which way would you vote.


I only discuss that with people who acknowledge that abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct human being.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221125-#5,796      I only discuss that with people who acknowledge that abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct human being. 

NFBW: Are you being sued or something thing? 

What about discussing that with me who acknowledges that abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct not viable human being if performed prior to up to 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. You should because that is a more scientifically accurate and therefore acceptable description of the issue. 

END2211251324


----------



## Indeependent

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221125-#5,796      I only discuss that with people who acknowledge that abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct human being.
> 
> NFBW: Are you being sued or something thing?
> 
> What about discussing that with me who acknowledges that abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct not viable human being if performed prior to up to 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. You should because that is a more scientifically accurate and therefore acceptable description of the issue.
> 
> END2211251324


That's like saying that if a 20 year old is deprived of food for a month, that 20 year old will die.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221125-#5,796      I only discuss that with people who acknowledge that abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct human being.
> 
> NFBW: Are you being sued or something thing?
> 
> What about discussing that with me who acknowledges that abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct not viable human being if performed prior to up to 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. You should because that is a more scientifically accurate and therefore acceptable description of the issue.
> 
> END2211251324


No. It would be idiotic to have a right’s discussion with someone whose core belief is that there are no rights other than the mother’s rights.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221125-#5,792    Doesn’t matter what I believe.

NFBW: I believe abortion is wrong. But if Herschel Walker wants to knock women up and pay to abort their genetically unique babies prior to viability that they create together it’s none of my business and definitely not the business of politicians like Walker when they get elected to positions of authority.

ding181015-#357 “*My expectation is that abortion will be seen as wrong. I want it to come to a vote of the people.* 

We both believe abortion is wrong but the  difference is you want unqualified hypocrites like Walker voted into the United States so the Republican Party can gain control and force every American to learn that not only abortion is wrong but it “ends the life of a new genetically distinct human being” and the government has the authority when base on majority rule to ban abortion which would force all impregnated women by law to assume the risk and financial hardship that pregnancy can cause when carried to full term. 

END2211251450


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221125-#5,799   “No. It would be idiotic to have a right’s discussion with someone whose core belief is that there are no rights other than the mother’s rights”

NFBW: A fertilized egg from the moment of conception in the form of a *not viable *human being that is alive and developing prior to birth is protected by the same constitutional rights of the mother that she has had  since she was born on US Soil.  According to the Constitution a newly born, human being acquires it’s own individual rights on the day he or she is born just like his or her mother. 

Sorry ding it is up to you to define and describe rights you believe apply to a fertilized egg in a secular nation of laws that derive from our Constitution. If you think there are some constitutional rights being violated against a fetus, when a woman chooses in private to terminate her own pregnancy,  I will listen .

Since you can’t do that I understand why it would be idiotic to have a rights discussion based on constitutional laws. 

I understand that Catholic doctrine teaches that it is a sin to terminate a pregnancy because the fetus is created by God who seeks to have a relationship with each and every human being that he mysteriously creates including those that end in miscarriage to women who are heartbroken by this phenomenon of God’s will and love. 

But religious doctrine is no part of the Constitution and specifically Catholic belief has no part because Catholics delegations were not present along with the rational theism that went into its writing. 

If you can’t handle the truth that Constitutional rights begin at birth ding as a core belief you might as well be refusing to discuss things with anyone who does not have a core belief that the earth is flat. 

What do you fear? 

END2211251613


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221125-#5,799   “No. It would be idiotic to have a right’s discussion with someone whose core belief is that there are no rights other than the mother’s rights”
> 
> NFBW: A fertilized egg from the moment of conception in the form of a *not viable *human being that is alive and developing prior to birth is protected by the same constitutional rights of the mother that she has had  since she was born on US Soil.  According to the Constitution a newly born, human being acquires it’s own individual rights on the day he or she is born just like his or her mother.
> 
> Sorry ding it is up to you to define and describe rights you believe apply to a fertilized egg in a secular nation of laws that derive from our Constitution. If you think there are some constitutional rights being violated against a fetus, when a woman chooses in private to terminate her own pregnancy,  I will listen .
> 
> Since you can’t do that I understand why it would be idiotic to have a rights discussion based on constitutional laws.
> 
> I understand that Catholic doctrine teaches that it is a sin to terminate a pregnancy because the fetus is created by God who seeks to have a relationship with each and every human being that he mysteriously creates including those that end in miscarriage to women who are heartbroken by this phenomenon of God’s will and love.
> 
> But religious doctrine is no part of the Constitution and specifically Catholic belief has no part because Catholics delegations were not present along with the rational theism that went into its writing.
> 
> If you can’t handle the truth that Constitutional rights begin at birth ding as a core belief you might as well be refusing to discuss things with anyone who does not have a core belief that the earth is flat.
> 
> 
> END2211251613


Again… it would be idiotic to have a rights discussion with some like you. You have already made up your mind that abortion doesn’t end a human life. Your argument is that it’s not a human being so it has no human rights.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221125-#5,802  You have already made up your mind that abortion doesn’t end a human life

NFBW: Nonsense! I explicitly told you ding  I believe abortion ends a human life. IT IS A FACT THAT “ *abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct not viable human being”*

NFBW221125-#5,797  What about discussing that with me who acknowledges that *abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct not viable human being *if performed prior to up to 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.

ding220812-#4,739 ding “the only correct way to see it is abortion ends a human life.”

NFBW220813-#4,761  Actually ding the scientifically correct way to say it, *is abortion ends a not viable human life* when the procedure is performed prior to 24 weeks after conception.”

END2211251757


----------



## beagle9

ding said:


> Sounds like you prefer equality through uniformity. And that you really do have a problem with states not deciding the way you want them to decide.


He's the authoritarian, but tries to hide it with his wicked wisdom.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221125-#5,792    Doesn’t matter what I believe.
> 
> NFBW: I believe abortion is wrong. But if Herschel Walker wants to knock women up and pay to abort their genetically unique babies prior to viability that they create together it’s none of my business and definitely not the business of politicians like Walker when they get elected to positions of authority.
> 
> ding181015-#357 “*My expectation is that abortion will be seen as wrong. I want it to come to a vote of the people.*
> 
> We both believe abortion is wrong but the  difference is you want unqualified hypocrites like Walker voted into the United States so the Republican Party can gain control and force every American to learn that not only abortion is wrong but it “ends the life of a new genetically distinct human being” and the government has the authority when base on majority rule to ban abortion which would force all impregnated women by law to assume the risk and financial hardship that pregnancy can cause when carried to full term.
> 
> END2211251450


Liar


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Liar


Please identify the lie so I can respond. Nothing I said is a lie.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> Liar


The gall of this person.  Indeed.  He doesn't believe abortion is wrong.  He doesn't believe abortion victims are human beings.  

He won't be honest about one word of what he says.  You can literally quote something he just said and he'll pretend he didn't say it.  He's absolute scum.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221125-#5,802  You have already made up your mind that abortion doesn’t end a human life
> 
> NFBW: Nonsense! I explicitly told you ding  I believe abortion ends a human life. IT IS A FACT THAT “ *abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct not viable human being”*
> 
> NFBW221125-#5,797  What about discussing that with me who acknowledges that *abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct not viable human being *if performed prior to up to 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
> 
> ding220812-#4,739 ding “the only correct way to see it is abortion ends a human life.”
> 
> NFBW220813-#4,761  Actually ding the scientifically correct way to say it, *is abortion ends a not viable human life* when the procedure is performed prior to 24 weeks after conception.”
> 
> END2211251757


Viability is your way of denying humanness. You said it’s wrong to end the life of a human being.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Viability is LITERALLY just having an arbitrary amount of surfactant in your lungs which is sufficient for CURRENT Neonatal ICU equipment to help keep you alive.

Imagine science fiction medical equipment that can sustain the life of much, much younger human beings.

Up to and including a science fiction artificial womb environment that will entirely allow for blastocyst implantation and then gestation - unlikely but not impossible.

Since viability is a moving target which CAN move all the way to the beginning of the lifespan anyway... why not just skip to that inevitability and drop the arbitrary standard?  We already know that human life begins at fertilization.  There is no dispute of this fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221125-#5,808      “Viability is your way of denying humanness.”

NFBW: But the truth is I do not deny humanness. I have never denied humanness. I am a rational theist accepting basic ‘earth is spherical’ science (round to the layman) orbiting around the sun. Viability  is a physical, identifying and material milestone on the overall lifespan of being human. VIABILITY IS SCIENTIFIC REALITY that cannot be swept away by fits of religious and/or political zealotry when the anti-abortion fanatic’s irrational mind has zig-zagged on so many twists and turns it reaches a dead end.

ding190913-#867      “A religious zealot is someone who goes around saying the beliefs of others are wrong and their beliefs are right.

NFBW220727-#3,944 “per the most widely used textbook on human embryology.”

ding220727-#3,947 “It's just science.”

NFBW220727-#3,949     As a secular humanist agnostic myself, my argument on maternal vs fetal natural law rights however is based on the exact same “science” that was presented by Robert P. George who is a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic who is considered by the most conservative of the rightwing of Christendom to be America’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.

Robert P. George wrote in the NYTimes A Distinct Human OrganismNovember 22, 2005

“the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.

The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete -- though, of course, immature -- human organism.”

NFBW220727-#3,949  I apply RPGeorge’s definition “immature -- human organism” as a fair and scientific definition of the developing human in the womb of every pregnant woman to which I argue the immature human organism, when it depends on receiving oxygenated blood from the living breathing fully developed human being that carries it, may be terminated because the would be mother has a right in good conscience to decide what happens to her health, and pursuit of her mental and economic well being as a citizen of the United States of America under the protection of the Constitution. The immature fetus prior to ability of viable separation from its mother has rights secondary and subordinate to its breathing and nourishment source - *The pregnant woman. 

NFBW: That is a pregnant woman with a living immature organism that is a human being, a human life inside her, that reaches potential viability at about 22 weeks. I DO NOT DENY ONE IOTA of the being inside a pregnant woman’s body being human  ding     -   You are in fact a liar. 

END2211252251*


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221125-#5,808      “Viability is your way of denying humanness.”
> 
> NFBW: But the truth is I do not deny humanness. I have never denied humanness. I am a rational theist accepting basic ‘earth is spherical’ science (round to the layman) orbiting around the sun. Viability  is a physical, identifying and material milestone on the overall lifespan of being human. VIABILITY IS SCIENTIFIC REALITY that cannot be swept away by fits of religious and/or political zealotry when the anti-abortion fanatic’s irrational mind has zig-zagged on so many twists and turns it reaches a dead end.
> 
> ding190913-#867      “A religious zealot is someone who goes around saying the beliefs of others are wrong and their beliefs are right.
> 
> NFBW220727-#3,944 “per the most widely used textbook on human embryology.”
> 
> ding220727-#3,947 “It's just science.”
> 
> NFBW220727-#3,949     As a secular humanist agnostic myself, my argument on maternal vs fetal natural law rights however is based on the exact same “science” that was presented by Robert P. George who is a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic who is considered by the most conservative of the rightwing of Christendom to be America’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.
> 
> Robert P. George wrote in the NYTimes A Distinct Human OrganismNovember 22, 2005
> 
> “the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.
> 
> The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete -- though, of course, immature -- human organism.”
> 
> NFBW220727-#3,949  I apply RPGeorge’s definition “immature -- human organism” as a fair and scientific definition of the developing human in the womb of every pregnant woman to which I argue the immature human organism, when it depends on receiving oxygenated blood from the living breathing fully developed human being that carries it, may be terminated because the would be mother has a right in good conscience to decide what happens to her health, and pursuit of her mental and economic well being as a citizen of the United States of America under the protection of the Constitution. The immature fetus prior to ability of viable separation from its mother has rights secondary and subordinate to its breathing and nourishment source - *The pregnant woman.
> 
> NFBW: That is a pregnant woman with a living immature organism that is a human being, a human life inside her, that reaches potential viability at about 22 weeks. I DO NOT DENY ONE IOTA of the being inside a pregnant woman’s body being human  ding     -   You are in fact a liar.
> 
> END2211252251*


You arrive at your conclusions by working backwards. What will it take to allow abortions to continue? The same thing it takes to ease your conscience of ending a human life. Denying it is fully human and undeserving of rights.

You know it’s wrong to end a human life so you concoct a class that is less than a human being to rationalize away your support of ending human lives.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Please identify the lie so I can respond. Nothing I said is a lie.


Easy - You believe abortion is wrong ? Liar...... After who knows how many post you have submitted in the contrary (defending it), that leaves you as a LIAR.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221125-#5,811     “You arrive at your conclusions by working backwards. What will it take to allow abortions to continue? The same thing it takes to ease your conscience of ending a human life. Denying it is fully human and undeserving of rights.

You know it’s wrong to end a human life so you concoct a class that is less than a human being to rationalize away your support of ending human lives.”

NFBW: Are you ding trying to be my therapist, probation officer or priest?

I can assure you I need none of your psycho/spiritual/meddling babble. Give Herschsl Walker a call. I want zero abortions to happen tomorrow. I have never been involved in a relationship that required an abortion. My conscience is clear - just found out last week my youngest of three daughters is pregnant. It will be hers and husbands first, young professionals just married a little over a year ago. They will move back to Virginia from California to have  the new human being near her mom and dad. I’m retired now, my wife has some time to go and my role is to be their day care because our daughter wants to continue with her career. I am overjoyed at my role. My three daughters are all pro-choice, I have three  grandsons and one grandaughter, don’t know what the new one will be and I can assure you there are no guilty consciences in my family or on me for believing women we know nothing about should have privacy from government intrusion in reproductive matters and freedom to make the decision.

Can you get yourself to a factual and honest discussion ding  and bring beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix with you?

END2211260049


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9222126-#5,812   Easy - You believe abortion is wrong ? Liar...... After who knows how many post you have submitted in the contrary (defending it), that leaves you as a LIAR.

NFBW: Do you think a poster who is not a liberal is a liar if he says he is against abortion personally but its up people to decide to do it. 

PapaG220820-#104 “I’m against abortion however after educating a woman on the risks both mentally and physically it is up to them but I am not for abortion.. . , “

NFBW: That sums up my position on abortion  and freedom of choice to have one. 

END2211260138


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221125-#5,811     “You arrive at your conclusions by working backwards. What will it take to allow abortions to continue? The same thing it takes to ease your conscience of ending a human life. Denying it is fully human and undeserving of rights.
> 
> You know it’s wrong to end a human life so you concoct a class that is less than a human being to rationalize away your support of ending human lives.”
> 
> NFBW: Are you ding trying to be my therapist, probation officer or priest?
> 
> I can assure you I need none of your psycho/spiritual/meddling babble. Give Herschsl Walker a call. I want zero abortions to happen tomorrow. I have never been involved in a relationship that required an abortion. My conscience is clear - just found out last week my youngest of three daughters is pregnant. It will be hers and husbands first, young professionals just married a little over a year ago. They will move back to Virginia from California to have  the new human being near her mom and dad. I’m retired now, my wife has some time to go and my role is to be their day care because our daughter wants to continue with her career. I am overjoyed at my role. My three daughters are all pro-choice, I have three  grandsons and one grandaughter, don’t know what the new one will be and I can assure you there are no guilty consciences in my family or on me for believing women we know nothing about should have privacy from government intrusion in reproductive matters and freedom to make the decision.
> 
> Can you get yourself to a factual and honest discussion ding  and bring beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix with you?
> 
> END2211260049


Having a rights discussion with someone who doesn’t recognize their rights because he doesn’t recognize they are human beings would be a waste of time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221126-#5,815     “Having a rights discussion with someone who doesn’t recognize their rights because he doesn’t recognize they are human beings would be a waste of time.”

NFBW: Is that because you ding as a Catholic first and as an American second and a scientist third are divinely privileged to have the only and righteous answer to the critical question: who or what is a constitutional person? who are the “people” in the Constitution? 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​
NFBW: Do you agree with the following? 

The Constitution implicitly recognizes that politics cannot, and should not, attempt to spiritually transform man or turn the world into a terrestrial paradise.​​The Truths They Held: The Christian and Natural Law: American Constitution​​The more limited goal of politics is to *arrange the material circumstances of man's* life to mitigate the effects of evil so that he can pursue virtue and, *in so doing, achieve the ultimate happines*s which lies beyond politics. T*he primacy of the person*, unthinkable without the foundation of Christian truth, defines the very order of the Constitution.​​NFBW: Your self imposed waste-of-time calculated excuse to slink away from our discussion has to be based on some kind of  divine revelation that you have resolved the Roe v Wade Riddle first by dissolving the scientific aspect of lack of viability in intellectual acid, and then by declaration that the not-viable person trumps the inalienable rights of the viable one when it is between the following two persons. 

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?​
NFBW: The Catholic authoritarian in you ding always shows up when you need to walk away from a discussion. 

END2211260932


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CPlus6221125-#5,807  CarsomyrPlusSix The gall of this person. Indeed. He doesn't believe abortion is wrong.    He doesn't believe abortion victims are human beings.

NFBW: You ding and beagle9 can quit lying about me anytime. I believe abortion is wrong. Just like forcing your beliefs on others causing no harm to you in privacy is wrong. 

The unborn not-viable person in the following Roe v Wade Riddle is a human being in my view and should be considered as such pursuant to further discussion. 

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

END2211261002


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9222126-#5,812   Easy - You believe abortion is wrong ? Liar...... After who knows how many post you have submitted in the contrary (defending it), that leaves you as a LIAR.
> 
> NFBW: Do you think a poster who is not a liberal is a liar if he says he is against abortion personally but its up people to decide to do it.
> 
> PapaG220820-#104 “I’m against abortion however after educating a woman on the risks both mentally and physically it is up to them but I am not for abortion.. . , “
> 
> NFBW: That sums up my position on abortion  and freedom of choice to have one.
> 
> END2211260138


By your logic, it could be that if one twist and turn hard enough (like you have done here), then not only should there be freedom of choice in killing one's unborn child, but why the speed limits, the drinking rules, the regulation's on anything, why not just live and let live right ??  Garantee if people like you could make the decisions, we would have total chaos and then anarchy at epic levels in people's live's within just a few years. Gotta have filter's in place to make sure that the air doesn't get to dirty. That's called being CIVILIZED.


----------



## BackAgain

beagle9 said:


> By your logic, it could be that if one twist and turn hard enough (like you have done here), then not only should there be freedom of choice in killing one's unborn child, but why the speed limits, the drinking rules, the regulation's on anything, why not just live and let live right ??  Garantee if people like you could make the decisions, we would have total chaos and then anarchy at epic levels in people's live's within just a few years. Gotta have filter's in place to make sure that the air doesn't get to dirty. That's called being CIVILIZED.


It’s worse. By certain twists and turns of alleged logic, some people would seek to justify killing babies after they are born. 

And why stop there?  Talking care of old people (especially the very sick and infirm) poses a burden on a family, too, as well as on society. So, just label them as “no longer viable” and put them down.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> but why the speed limits, the drinking rules, the regulation's on anything, why not just live and let live right


You are stupid - glad you are a Trumper on @ding’s side 

I LL Answer  AFTER THE BUCKEYE GAME


----------



## beagle9

BackAgain said:


> It’s worse. By certain twists and turns of alleged logic, some people would seek to justify killing babies after they are born.
> 
> And why stop there?  Talking care of old people (especially the very sick and infirm) poses a burden on a family, too, as well as on society. So, just label them as “no longer viable” and put them down.


Exactly, but they love to say "it doesn't end with the anti-abortionist", but I say that it never ends with them. They are the one's constantly pushing their agenda on the unsuspecting people who end up being appalled at their bull crap once they see it and know it, but they wickedly put in place their demon's to fight like hell for their ground gained.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9-#5,818  “not only should there be freedom of choice in killing one's unborn child, but why the speed limits, the drinking rules, the regulation's on anything, why not just live and let live right ??

NFBW: speeding laws have nothing to do with one person using another person’s body for nine months. 

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

What is your answer @beagle ?

END2211261434


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Naturalism Wagering Public Behavior Is Not In Need Of Ascetic Sycophants "

* More Bid Autonomic Response Mind Less Propaganda Pictures **


ChemEngineer said:


> THIS is NOT "a woman's body."   It is the body of an innocent baby, with a father who has no rights according to murdering abortionists, unless the "mother" chooses to have it then he pays child support for 18 years.
> Meanwhile men languish in prison for murdering unborn babies but no woman does.
> 
> View attachment 729534


What should be done with parts of a fetus which had been miscarried or of lost fortune ?

The images refer to 19 weeks and 24 weeks , has a medical report been provided for the purpose of the abortion , as were genetic or physical anomalies or cause for abortion of the fetus provided ?

Given abortion prior to 15 weeks without cause , abortion post 15 weeks with cause for quality of life in the pursuit of life , liberty and happiness , is dismissed without address by disingenuous , dishonest , disreputable , traitorous , purveyors of illegitimate aggression against the principles of individualism upon which this republic is founded .


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9-#5,818  “not only should there be freedom of choice in killing one's unborn child, but why the speed limits, the drinking rules, the regulation's on anything, why not just live and let live right ??
> 
> NFBW: speeding laws have nothing to do with one person using another person’s body for nine months.
> 
> If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?
> 
> What is your answer @beagle ?
> 
> END2211261434


Listen you, don't you ever cut my post up like that again, otherwise to make it look like I'm starting out with me saying or advocating for freedom in the choice for a woman to get an abortion. If you do, then you are reported, and hopefully censured by the mods.


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Naturalism Wagering Public Behavior Is Not In Need Of Ascetic Sycophants "
> 
> * More Bid Autonomic Response Mind Less Propaganda Pictures **
> 
> What should be done with parts of a fetus which had been miscarried or of lost fortune ?
> 
> The images refer to 19 weeks and 24 weeks , has a medical report been provided for the purpose of the abortion , as were genetic or physical anomalies or cause for abortion of the fetus provided ?
> 
> Given abortion prior to 15 weeks without cause , abortion post 15 weeks with cause for quality of life in the pursuit of life , liberty and happiness , is dismissed without address by disingenuous , dishonest , disreputable , traitorous , purveyors of illegitimate aggression against the principles of individualism upon which this republic is founded .


All your fancy smancy word salad's won't work on anyone with a smidgen of intelligence. Good luck on continuing to make a fool of yourself.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Listen you, don't you ever cut my post up like that again,


NFBW: The link to your post is right there. Anyone with half a brain would know I’m taking your stupid point down and stomping all over it.

MY logic for support for freedom of choice is ironclad and it does not mean I’m in favor of not having any laws for anything leading to the collapse of civilization.

READ ding ‘s posts - he does have half a brain at times. You are stupid. It’s why you cannot respond to this:

The unborn not-viable person in the following Roe v Wade Riddle is a human being in my view and should be considered as such pursuant to further discussion.

If two persons, both being human beings, are *contesting the use of one person’s body,* does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly *use of the other persons body?

What other laws are out there were on one person wanting to live inside another persons body and have a constitutional right to do so for nine months.*

END2211261656


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Forlorn Ode To Genetic Perpetuity "

* Keep It Zipped Or Wrapped Hound Dog **


ChemEngineer said:


> THIS is NOT "a woman's body."   It is the body of an innocent baby, with a father who has no rights according to murdering abortionists, unless the "mother" chooses to have it then he pays child support for 18 years.


If some would be father disagrees that his private property , his gametes ( game meets ) , or his semen ( sea men ) , were provided without his informed consent , then at the time of the incident the would be father must file sexual assault charges  , which could be used for relief from child support .

As a zygote , or embryo , or fetus is without constitutional protections for not having met a birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen , a zef is the private property of the mother .

** Sycophants Sanctimonious Psychosis Wants Quixotic Satisfaction **


ChemEngineer said:


> Meanwhile men languish in prison for murdering unborn babies but no woman does.


By definition , murder is unlawful killing , which means that it is false for any to claim that abortion is murder when it is not unlawful killing .

A state is comprised of citizens and an instantiation of citizenship and constitutional protections are concomitant with a live birth requirement , as per us 14th amendment  , and consequently a live birth is required for equal protection with any citizen whom must be born .

In title 1 section 8 of us code the definition of a person is limited to a live birth , and  the dumbfounded blunder of scotus dobbs decision usurped an equitable doctrine requirement for equal protection with a citizen that is a live birth requirement by us 14th amendment .

And yet there are zealous pundits proposing aggressive measures to amend the definition of a person in title 1 section 8 of us code to somehow include a zygote , or an embryo , or a fetus , to force " per son " to fit us 14th equal protection of persons clause ; such are traitors who promote sedition of us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments .

A republic with a credo of e pluribus unum espouses independence as individualism through equal protection of negative liberties between individuals .

The principles of legal positivism relate there is not a necessary correlation between morality and law , while principles of perspectivism reject epistemological absolutes and accept that not all perspectives are equally valid and that no perspective is independent of other perspectives .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9-#5,818     By your logic, it could be that if one twist and turn hard enough (like you have done here), then * “not only should there be freedom of choice in killing one's unborn child, but why the speed limits, the drinking rules, the regulation's on anything, why not just live and let live right ??*

NFBW: You are a liar beagle9 my logic dies not on abortion rights has no connection or impact on the speed limits, the drinking rules, or the regulation's on anything other than abortion . 

Why the lies!   HERE’s my logic again. Do you see a flaw in it?

The unborn not-viable person in the following Roe v Wade Riddle is a human being in my view and should be considered as such pursuant to further discussion. 

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

END2211261709


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Monk-Eye221126-#5,827   “And yet there are zealous pundits proposing aggressive measures to amend the definition of a person to somehow include a zygote , or embryo , or fetus ; such are traitors promoting sedition of us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments”

NFBW: Do you support a personhood  amendment in the Constitution beagle9  so wicked liberals could not kill unborn babies in all states and territories?

END2211261717


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Per Son In The Homunculus Hood "

* Rubber Booties **


NotfooledbyW said:


> Monk-Eye221126-#5,827   “And yet there are zealous pundits proposing aggressive measures to amend the definition of a person to somehow include a zygote , or embryo , or fetus ; such are traitors promoting sedition of us 14th , 9th and 1st amendments”
> 
> NFBW: Do you support a personhood  amendment in the Constitution beagle9  so wicked liberals could not kill unborn babies in all states and territories?
> 
> END2211261717


Expectations would be that any success occurring in a person hood movement is a consequence from continued public ignorance of a live birth requirement for citizenship and equitable doctrine .

In years prior to 2002 politicians were bantered to understand that by diction of us constitution and from etymology of the term person , as the term person translates directly to countable by census and male , as women are not persons , then therefore by letter of law , women are not lawful citizens of the united states .

The preamble to us constitution relates that all men are created equal which surreptitiously implies that women are not equal and us 19th amendment is empirical evidence where female does not equate with per son .

An e pluribus unum credo of us republic expects independence as individualism and the term person should be replaced with the term individual to correct a patriarchal faux pas , and to more succinctly address a perspective of those seeking to ignore that to become an individual also requires live birth .

** Ha New Man Homo Mun Etymology **






						Homunculus - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_The concept has roots in preformationism as well as earlier folklore and alchemic traditions._






						mun - Wiktionary
					






					en.wiktionary.org
				












						Hanuman - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						Beginning of human personhood - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						Great ape personhood - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: The link to your post is right there. Anyone with half a brain would know I’m taking your stupid point down and stomping all over it.
> 
> MY logic for support for freedom of choice is ironclad and it does not mean I’m in favor of not having any laws for anything leading to the collapse of civilization.
> 
> READ ding ‘s posts - he does have half a brain at times. You are stupid. It’s why you cannot respond to this:
> 
> The unborn not-viable person in the following Roe v Wade Riddle is a human being in my view and should be considered as such pursuant to further discussion.
> 
> If two persons, both being human beings, are *contesting the use of one person’s body,* does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly *use of the other persons body?
> 
> What other laws are out there were on one person wanting to live inside another persons body and have a constitutional right to do so for nine months.*
> 
> END2211261656


Both contesting the one body ? ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Are you freaking serious ? 😂

So tell me ole wicked wiseman, why would the unborn baby be contesting the body it is using to survive in ??? And why would the woman think that there is some sort of contest between the two ??

Better be careful who you are calling stupid, because it is you who keeps on running that mouth until the true stupid falls out of it. Oh and don't try to kiss ace with ding as if that is supposed to get other posters to side with you against me. You do a good enough job on your own without attempting to drag someone else along with you're ignorant ace. 😂


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Both contesting the one body ? ROTFLMBO


See what I mean about you being stupid. 

If two persons, both being human beings, are *contesting the use of one person’s body,* does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly *use of the other persons body?

they are contesting the use of one person’s body,

Both are not contesting the one body you idiot.

END2211261931*


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> So tell me ole wicked wiseman, why would the unborn baby be contesting the body it is using to survive in ???


NFBW: The unborn baby is not contesting the body you moron. 

The question is If two persons are *contesting the use of one person’s body, *does one person’s right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy *use of the other persons body?

What is your answer to the question?*

END2211262016


----------



## NotfooledbyW

If two persons, both being human beings, are *contesting the use of one person’s body,*does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly *use of the other persons body?*


beagle9 said:


> And why would the woman think that there is some sort of contest between the two ??


If the unborn child “person” has a constitutional right to life but has to “use” another “persons” body to be alive does the used body “person” have the right to refuse the other person’s “use” of her body?

Just answer the question. 

END221126END


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> See what I mean about you being stupid.
> 
> If two persons, both being human beings, are *contesting the use of one person’s body,* does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly *use of the other persons body?
> 
> they are contesting the use of one person’s body,
> 
> Both are not contesting the one body you idiot.
> 
> END2211261931*


Contesting as if the baby is equal in that contest... ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: The unborn baby is not contesting the body you moron.
> 
> The question is If two persons are *contesting the use of one person’s body, *does one person’s right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy *use of the other persons body?
> 
> What is your answer to the question?*
> 
> END2211262016


Answer such an idiotic question ? I think not.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9-#5,835 “Contesting as if the baby is equal in that contest... “

NFBW: Does that mean the unborn person  is not equal to the born person who has the body that the unborn person uses to survive? 

END2211262217


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9-#5,835 “Contesting as if the baby is equal in that contest... “
> 
> NFBW: Does that mean the unborn person  is not equal to the born person who has the body that the unborn person uses to survive?
> 
> END2211262217


No it means that they aren't struggling for the same body, otherwise as if the mother is on some type of high risk adventure where if she gets scared then she'll just call on a Hitman to take that risk away and maybe for a few dollars extra that would next fall into Play.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221126-#5,836    Answer such an idiotic question ? I think not.

NFBW: D0 you believe that actual and legal personhood starts at conception beagle9 

END2211262235


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221126-#5,836    Answer such an idiotic question ? I think not.
> 
> NFBW: D0 you believe that actual and legal personhood starts at conception beagle9
> 
> END2211262235


Irrelevant to the issue, otherwise I believe that women shouldn't be killing their unborn period, and it's all because they are being brainwashed by leftist dogma or propaganda that encourages them to just do so by leftist ideology. Not good.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221127-#5,838    “No it means that they aren't struggling for the same body, otherwise as if the mother is on some type of high risk adventure where if she gets scared then she'll just call on a Hitman to take that risk away and maybe for a few dollars extra that would next fall into Play.”

NFBW: They are not struggling for the same body beagle9 .  ROE v Wade had to be based upon the Constitution in some way. Christians object that ROE v Wade illegitimately made it legal to kill unborn persons in the name of Reproductive freedom. Christians dread that ROE v Wade abrogates a necessary religious restraint against evil that each of us as a human being has a fundamental duty and responsibility to all other human beings. And God demands that duty applies to unborn human beings as it does to born human beings.

The problem for Christians such as you beagle9 is the Constitution is specifically is written for born human beings.

Do you see the dilemma that Roe v Wade settled fifty years ago: The ROE V Wade riddle?

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

The pushy Christian answer picks the person who must use another persons body for nine months before such a person can be born. But we do not live under a Christian constitution.

The strict originalist constitutional answer picks the only person it can be - the person with the body needing to be used. The pregnant woman. The person already beyond the stage of being born.

The mothers right to decide in private to give birth and life or not to give to birth and life to the unborn human being, clearly and unequivocally trumps the right to life of the unborn human being in strict interpretation and compliance with the Constitution.

Therefore there is an originalist constitutional case to be made that each of us as a human being has a fundamental duty and responsibility to all other human beings with the exception of human beings prior to their ability to be born. And there is no evil or breakdown in civilization or in religious terms “sin” when we agree the mother’s right to choose in private the life or death of her own unborn child trumps the right to life of the unborn child when we follow the Constitution.

END2211270007


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Answer such an idiotic question ? I think not.


by all your posts in support of white Christian civilization nationalism your answer  is yes as I see it. If you disagree let me know. 

If two persons, both being human beings, are *contesting the use of one person’s body,*does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly *use of the other persons body?*


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> by all your posts in support of white Christian civilization nationalism your answer  is yes as I see it. If you disagree let me know.
> 
> If two persons, both being human beings, are *contesting the use of one person’s body,*does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly *use of the other persons body?*


Your new twist gets more and more bizarre, and it makes one wonder to what radical links will you go to in order to try and justify the act of an unborn human being getting murdered for the most lame excuses given ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> The problem for Christians such as you @beagle9 is the Constitution is specifically is written for born human beings.



NFBW: Do you agree beagle9  the Constitution is specifically written for born human beings? 

END2211270217


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221127-#5,843    Your new twist gets more and more bizarre, and it makes one wonder to what radical links will you go to in order to try and justify the act of an unborn human being getting murdered for the most lame excuses given ?

NFBW: Where has it been established that 
even if a fetus is a person recognized by the Constitution, which it is not, does a woman  necessarily have a legal duty to keep it in her body when she finds out that other person has been there for almost six weeks? 

If one state Constitution resolves the matter that a pregnant woman does not have a legal duty to keep the unborn human being in her body prior to that human being living in her body for 22 weeks it is not murder in that state to have or perform the medical procedure of abortion. 

ding221125-#5,783 ding    “I’m fine with each deciding for itself.”

NFBW: I am not justifying murder when I say “I’m fine with each state deciding for itself that a pregnant woman does not have a legal duty to keep the unborn human being in her body when she finds out that other person has been there for almost six weeks and wants to stay for seven and a half months before leaving.

Niether ding or myself is required to justify as you say beagle9 the “act of an unborn human being getting murdered” in a state where no murder of an unborn human being is being committed. There is no murder in need of justification. 

So WTF are you accusing ding and me of justifying something that only exists inside your white Christian nationalist head? 

End2211270453


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Votto221005-#36    The issue is natural rights.

NFBW: On all issues do you agree Votto the Constitution is specifically written to protect natural rights for *born* human beings? The constitution does not protect any rights for the unborn as a person, except being protected through the rights of the mother.

Where do you stand on the ROE V WADE riddle?

Do you see the dilemma that Roe v Wade settled fifty years ago: The ROE V Wade riddle?

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

END2211270609


----------



## NotfooledbyW

TemplarKormac said:


> This thread is still alive?


very much so. Where do you stand on Roe v Wade Being overturned since the GOP Trump botched pink puddle debacle?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Do you agree beagle9  the Constitution is specifically written for born human beings?
> 
> END2211270217


*The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment* to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.

Cannot "DEPRIVE" (means) "ANY" person of "LIFE" (and once here), of their liberty or of their "pursuit of happiness".

An unborn child is a human being regardless of it being unborn yet, and therefore it is a "person" in it's pre-birthed stages, especially as the little one is notably developing into being none other than a person/human being as detected by the modernization of our medical technology (ultra-sounds), and etc, otherwise where the gender of the human being is discovered along with other important health information about the little person while developing inside the mother.

So why are there no hearings that determine if a woman is justified to abort a perfectly healthy developing person/human being (with a doctor summoned as a witness), before they destroy the Life of a perfectly healthy developing person/human being in the womb ? Is the child being denied "due process of law", before the mother decided to use abortion as her form of birth control after the fact or down the line during the various developmental stages ??


----------



## NotfooledbyW

TK220511-#2,987  TemplarKormac   The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning.

NFBW: Both are human before during and after the medical procedure of abortion.   ding has a similar boilerplate word game.

The ROE V Wade human rights riddle?

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

END2211270706


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Votto221005-#36    The issue is natural rights.
> 
> NFBW: On all issues do you agree Votto the Constitution is specifically written to protect natural rights for *born* human beings? The constitution does not protect any rights for the unborn as a person, except being protected through the rights of the mother.
> 
> Where do you stand on the ROE V WADE riddle?
> 
> Do you see the dilemma that Roe v Wade settled fifty years ago: The ROE V Wade riddle?
> 
> If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?
> 
> END2211270609


Roe-V-Wade wasn't settled correctly or it never would have been overturned, otherwise after years of abuse that took place (after it was supposedly settled by the imperfect judges), that didn't understand at the time that their rulling left way to many doors unlocked for the evilness of the generations to just boastfully and arrogantly walk through.

Otherwise it was a bad ruling that was evident after year's of death to the unborn that posed absolutely no threat to the mother's health or her life, yet the child was destroyed out of convenience.

Due process of the law should have been afforded the unborn child in a pre-birth "hearing" that should have been required to have taken place, otherwise that would determine the validity of the claim of an abortion request in which is to then require evidence that the pregnancy had to be aborted, even though it was at various stages where a request is then made....

The evidence must include a physician's determination that the child is a danger to the mother's health, and therefore should be aborted before placing the mother in jeopardy of possibly losing her life or giving birth to a severely deformed child that would not be able to survive outside the womb. 

An ultrasound should also be added into evidence that establishes the child's heartbeat, it's features, and other such important information concerning the developmental stages prior to the determination or ruling granted or not granted..


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Beagle9-#5,850   Due process of the law should have been afforded the unborn child in a pre-birth "hearing" that should have been required to have taken place,

The court has no constitutional authority to give due process of the law to an unborn child. Judges cannot create a second person that does not exist in the Constitution. But if they did create the second person during a pregnancy, there is a conflict of rights that has to go to the mother. That is why and what ROE V Wade settled.

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

END2211270820


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221127-#5,848  beagle9   “The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any *person* of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.”

NFBW: The very same document you cite in the paragraph above defines explicitly how every reference to “persons and people” within the sacred humanist document must be interpreted to mean:

“All *persons born or naturalized* in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”​
NFBW: And in the same post beagle9 you explain to the readers and of course ding why the states are not supposed to write laws that deprive pregnant women ( I assume you consider them persons) of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if they are doing no harm to the life liberty and pursuit of happiness to any other person as recognized in the Constitution per the above.

beagle9221127-#5,848   Cannot "DEPRIVE" (means) "ANY" person of "LIFE" (and once here), of their liberty or of their "pursuit of happiness".

NFBW: Thank you.

END2211271059


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Votto220727-#1  Votto   “Apparently, Justice Roberts was actively campaigning amongst the conservative justices to allow Roe vs. Wade to stand, but *all that ended as democrats leaked the story* that SCOTUS was about to overturn it.”

NFBW: maybe not ehh?

END2211271119


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221127-#5,843    Your new twist gets more and more bizarre, and it makes one wonder to what radical links will you go to in order to try and justify the act of an unborn human being getting murdered for the most lame excuses given ?
> 
> NFBW: Where has it been established that
> even if a fetus is a person recognized by the Constitution, which it is not, does a woman  necessarily have a legal duty to keep it in her body when she finds out that other person has been there for almost six weeks?
> 
> If one state Constitution resolves the matter that a pregnant woman does not have a legal duty to keep the unborn human being in her body prior to that human being living in her body for 22 weeks it is not murder in that state to have or perform the medical procedure of abortion.
> 
> ding221125-#5,783 ding    “I’m fine with each deciding for itself.”
> 
> NFBW: I am not justifying murder when I say “I’m fine with each state deciding for itself that a pregnant woman does not have a legal duty to keep the unborn human being in her body when she finds out that other person has been there for almost six weeks and wants to stay for seven and a half months before leaving.
> 
> Niether ding or myself is required to justify as you say beagle9 the “act of an unborn human being getting murdered” in a state where no murder of an unborn human being is being committed. There is no murder in need of justification.
> 
> So WTF are you accusing ding and me of justifying something that only exists inside your white Christian nationalist head?
> 
> End2211270453


Please stop speaking on my behalf. It’s rude.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: The link to your post is right there. Anyone with half a brain would know I’m taking your stupid point down and stomping all over it.
> 
> MY logic for support for freedom of choice is ironclad and it does not mean I’m in favor of not having any laws for anything leading to the collapse of civilization.
> 
> READ ding ‘s posts - he does have half a brain at times. You are stupid. It’s why you cannot respond to this:
> 
> The unborn not-viable person in the following Roe v Wade Riddle is a human being in my view and should be considered as such pursuant to further discussion.
> 
> If two persons, both being human beings, are *contesting the use of one person’s body,* does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly *use of the other persons body?
> 
> What other laws are out there were on one person wanting to live inside another persons body and have a constitutional right to do so for nine months.*
> 
> END2211261656


Textbook example of the dunning effect.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Textbook example of the dunning effect.


NFBW: Did you say this ding ?

ding221125-#5,783 ding “I’m fine with each deciding for itself.”

NFBW: Plenty of states are legalizing every woman’s right to kill unborn human beings when that unborn human being needs to use a woman’s body for eight to nine months in order to survive. 

You say (  ding221125-#5,783  ) you are fine with each state making killing unborn human beings legal which means you are fine with pregnant women deciding to kill the unborn human being that is alive and trying to survive while attached to her uterus.  You never describe the alleged misrepresentation so maybe you will make an attempt somehow soon. 

END2211271325


----------



## TemplarKormac

NotfooledbyW said:


> very much so. Where do you stand on Roe v Wade Being overturned since the GOP Trump botched pink puddle debacle?


I stand by the decision. If that meant sacrificing any hope of winning the Senate, so be it.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" American School Of Economics Aristocrats And Globalism Foreign Policy Nuisance Nuance "

* Citizenship For Granted Immigration Repatriation Debacle Closed Windows **


TemplarKormac said:


> I stand by the decision. If that meant sacrificing any hope of winning the Senate, so be it.


As a republican for a republic with a credo of e pluribus unum that espouses independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties among individuals entitled by live birth to receive them , the dobbs decision by scotus surmounts to sedition for its directive that states may issue force against implementation of us law - that law being us 14th , 9th , 1st and 10th us constitutional amendments .

The dobbs decision of sedition by scotus is supported by traitors , whether with ignorance , or whether with malice .


----------



## ChemEngineer

*Christians overwhelmingly oppose abortion on demand, for any reason.*
*Our wise Founding Fathers were Christians.  They would be appalled at today's murderous Democrats.*

“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.” – Daniel Webster

IF WE AND OUR POSTERITY SHALL BE TRUE TO THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, IF WE AND THEY SHALL LIVE ALWAYS IN THE FEAR OF GOD AND SHALL RESPECT HIS COMMANDMENTS, IF WE AND THEY SHALL MAINTAIN JUST MORAL SENTIMENTS AND SUCH CONSCIENTIOUS CONVICTIONS OF DUTY AS SHALL CONTROL THE HEART AND LIFE, WE MAY HAVE THE HIGHEST HOPES OF THE FUTURE FORTUNES OF OUR COUNTRY. OUR COUNTRY WILL GO ON PROSPERING. – Daniel Webster

“Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” – William Penn


“Our Constitution was made only for a religious people. It is wholly inappropriate for the government of any other.” - John Adams

“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.” – Alexis de Toqueville [Not a Founding Father, though he spoke like one]

“No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty, apart from the moral precepts of the Christian religion applied and accepted by all the classes. Should our republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed.” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Founding Father

“The Christian religion, in its purity is the basis and the source of all genuine freedom in government.” – Noah Webster

“[The adoption of the Constitution] will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs.” – George Washington

“The Christian religion is above all… the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.” – John Adams

“The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young gentlemen could unite …the general principles of Christianity.” – John Adams


----------



## NotfooledbyW

TK221127-#5,857  TemplarKormac  I stand by the decision. If that meant sacrificing any hope of winning the Senate, so be it.

NFBW: Not taking the Senate is the least of it. You have a white Christian nationalism voter base that turns off a lot of women, and they (Christian Right) are who are in control of the Republican Party primaries. They are picking embarrassing candidates like Herschel Walker.

That Trump loyal voter base is comprised of (A) not quite half of all American Catholics that are not attracting younger pro-life believers. (B) Bible Belt and rural areas mostly white evangelical Protestant Christians who are devout and loyal Republican voters no matter what. Black Christian evangelicals are 90% Dem voters who would not be caught dead voting with their white Christian brothers and sisters who voted for Trump. 

So the Dobbs Decision has diminished the Republican Party’s financial, corporate elites ability to win elections as the Christian coalition of large numbers of middle class paycheck to paycheck voters cannot be lured to vote for Republican pro-life candidates as easily for a wedge issue for Jesus as it was in the past.

END2211272806


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> TK220511-#2,987  TemplarKormac   The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning.
> 
> NFBW: Both are human before during and after the medical procedure of abortion.   ding has a similar boilerplate word game.
> 
> The ROE V Wade human rights riddle?
> 
> If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?
> 
> END2211270706



Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.

As such, most states as well as the Federal Government had recognized the fetus as human, regardless if born or not.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Reflections Of Uniform Fetish Hypocrisy Grandeur "

* With Held Judgement Set Aside Missed Fortune By Example **


ChemEngineer said:


> *Christians overwhelmingly oppose abortion on demand, for any reason.*
> *Our wise Founding Fathers were Christians.  They would be appalled at today's murderous Democrats.*
> 
> “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.” – Daniel Webster
> 
> IF WE AND OUR POSTERITY SHALL BE TRUE TO THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, IF WE AND THEY SHALL LIVE ALWAYS IN THE FEAR OF GOD AND SHALL RESPECT HIS COMMANDMENTS, IF WE AND THEY SHALL MAINTAIN JUST MORAL SENTIMENTS AND SUCH CONSCIENTIOUS CONVICTIONS OF DUTY AS SHALL CONTROL THE HEART AND LIFE, WE MAY HAVE THE HIGHEST HOPES OF THE FUTURE FORTUNES OF OUR COUNTRY. OUR COUNTRY WILL GO ON PROSPERING. – Daniel Webster
> 
> “Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” – William Penn
> 
> 
> “Our Constitution was made only for a religious people. It is wholly inappropriate for the government of any other.” - John Adams
> 
> “The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.” – Alexis de Toqueville [Not a Founding Father, though he spoke like one]
> 
> “No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty, apart from the moral precepts of the Christian religion applied and accepted by all the classes. Should our republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed.” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Founding Father
> 
> “The Christian religion, in its purity is the basis and the source of all genuine freedom in government.” – Noah Webster
> 
> “[The adoption of the Constitution] will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs.” – George Washington
> 
> “The Christian religion is above all… the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.” – John Adams
> 
> “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young gentlemen could unite …the general principles of Christianity.” – John Adams


The national right ( sic ) to life does not provide a public position about life as it regards the death penalty as capital punishment , even as its website pledges to support life from the point of conception to the end of natural life .

Apparently the national right ( sic ) to life declines to weigh in on whether its organization perceives capital punishment as a natural death .

Alternatively , the catholic church maintains a position opposing both abortion and the death penalty as capital punishment .

Explain the difference between the catholic position and that of the national right ( sic ) to life on a death penalty as capital punishment , and relate as to which position is more consistent with christian ethos for forgiveness and antinomianism .

** Reflexive Games **

The principles of antinomianism include paradox by a tenet of antinomian creed , which is a claim that " by no name will a law be made " that presupposes absolution occurs when all laws are removed and conformance with all laws occurs through an intrinsic quality of personal volition .

** Reiteration Fore The Seine **

A legitimate state interest is not concerned with when biological life exists , or whether biological life exists at all , rather a legitimate state interest is in whether a wright to life exists .

A zef has not met a live birth requirement , that is required to become a citizen , and a zef is therefore not entitled to receive equal protection , that would include a wright to life ; and , any sentenced to death as capital punishment has had its wright to life removed , albeit by due process , albeit with a necessary contingency on a double meaning that by removing a wright to life of another one removes their own wright to life .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm221127-#5,861 HeyNorm     Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.

NFBW: 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 with 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. 

END2211272020


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> HeyNorm221127-#5,861 HeyNorm     Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.
> 
> NFBW: 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 with 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.
> 
> END2211272020



“Who is the child”. A child is a person. A person is protected under state, federal and constitutional law.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Beagle9-#5,850   Due process of the law should have been afforded the unborn child in a pre-birth "hearing" that should have been required to have taken place,
> 
> *The court has no constitutional authority to give due process of the law to an unborn child.* Judges cannot create a second person that does not exist in the Constitution. But if they did create the second person during a pregnancy, there is a conflict of rights that has to go to the mother. That is why and what ROE V Wade settled.
> 
> If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?
> 
> END2211270820


OMG dude, are you really this stupid ?? The courts certainly can figure out a way to give due process (just like they do with anything else they choose to reside over), and it can do so due to a very unique situation that has arisen in which has left most American's just stupified over, and it can do this in order to ascertain whether or not the reasoning behind an unborn child about to be killed is going to be a rational decision or possibly not one in the concerns of a child/tiny human being that is about to be destroyed or killed because a woman might be using the aborting process as a form of birth control. 

In order to remain civilized, we must look at these matters in a very eye opening way, just like we've done over the year's looking back on many other unique surprise's that we've had to just jump up out of no where within the culture's, and that which had also challenged every part of our concious through out time as we've known it as well.

Don't ever say never, because you'll end up eating those words.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm221127-#5,864 HeyNorm  “Who is the child”. A child is a person.

NFBW: Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?

HeyNorm221127-#5,861    Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.

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.

The Roe v Wade Riddle​If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?​
End2211271106


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> HeyNorm221127-#5,864 HeyNorm  “Who is the child”. A child is a person.
> 
> NFBW: Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?
> 
> HeyNorm221127-#5,861    Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.
> 
> 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 tgere is only one born person 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.
> 
> The Roe v Wade Riddle​If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?​
> End2211271106



Your posts are incredibly difficult to read.

Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

But since the phrase was used in such a manner, then the speaker must believe it to be a person.

Now you want me to believe that it is a person, but not “person enough” to have protection of our laws.

This appears the same justification the white slave owners had as well. “My slave is a human, but property non the less and may be destroyed at my whim”.

Not a good look to say the least.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> HeyNorm221127-#5,864 HeyNorm  “Who is the child”. A child is a person.
> 
> NFBW: Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?
> 
> HeyNorm221127-#5,861    Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.
> 
> 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.
> 
> The Roe v Wade Riddle​If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?​
> End2211271106


Withdrawals life support to a human being that's "not capable of being born" ??? How many abortion's do you think falls into your column of said unborn babies being removed because they weren't capable of being born ????


----------



## beagle9

HeyNorm said:


> Your posts are incredibly difficult to read.
> 
> Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.
> 
> But since the phrase was used in such a manner, then the speaker must believe it to be a person.
> 
> Now you want me to believe that it is a person, but not “person enough” to have protection of our laws.
> 
> This appears the same justification the white slave owners had as well. “My slave is a human, but property non the less and may be destroyed at my whim”.
> 
> Not a good look to say the least.


Difficult to read because he's full of it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm221128-#5,867   Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

NFBW: Most intentionally pregnant people, like my youngest highly educated pro-choice, young medical professional woman and daughter just informed her mother and me that she is going to have a baby. It’s her first child and pregnancy

Using a loving expression does not grant the brainless heartless zygote embryo fetus she has “invited into her belly” to use her biologically functioning anatomy to sustain its life for the next seven and a half months of her life.

NFBW: FORtheRECORD Here is what went down betwixt you, me and the fencepost, others posters thus far:

TK220511-#2,987  TemplarKormac   “The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning”

NFBW221127-#5,849     Both are human before during and after the medical procedure of abortion.

The ROE V Wade human rights riddle?
If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

HeyNorm221127-#5,861 HeyNorm   “Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.”

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.

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.

HeyNorm221127-#5,864   “Who is the child”. A child is a person. A person is protected under state, federal and constitutional law.

NFBW221127-#5,866   “Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?

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.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867   Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

But since the phrase was used in such a manner, then the speaker must believe it to be a person.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867   Now you want me to believe that it is a person, but not “person enough” to have protection of our laws.

NFBW: I do not want you to believe anything of the sort. I believe the above ( NFBW221127-#5,849 ) and see no need to get into a semantics or wordology distraction such as that.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867  This appears the same justification the white slave owners had as well. “My slave is a human, but property non the less and may be destroyed at my whim”.

NFBW. Jefferson and other founding father slave owners were not women for sure, and not being required by the state to give slaves the use of their bodies for nine months so I fail to see the relevance to this chapter  of this discussion except to place an object o  the tracks to derail it, For now can we bring it back oto the ROE v Wade Riddle? The Constitutional rights conflict between mother and unborn child with respect to this . . . All *persons born *or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”  and this

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

Slavery has nothing to do with the rights of the two persons, one recognized and viable  and one not and unborn, going through the reproduction process under the multitude of societal processes and challenges and rewards of being human.

END2211280315


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> HeyNorm221128-#5,867   Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.
> 
> NFBW: Most intentionally pregnant people, like my youngest highly educated pro-choice, young medical professional woman and daughter just informed her mother and me that she is going to have a baby. It’s her first child and pregnancy
> 
> Using a loving expression does not grant the brainless heartless zygote embryo fetus she has “invited into her belly” to use her biologically functioning anatomy to sustain its life for the next seven and a half months of her life.
> 
> NFBW: FORtheRECORD Here is what went down betwixt you, me and the fencepost, others posters thus far:
> 
> TK220511-#2,987  TemplarKormac   “The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning”
> 
> NFBW221127-#5,849     Both are human before during and after the medical procedure of abortion.
> 
> The ROE V Wade human rights riddle?
> If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?
> 
> HeyNorm221127-#5,861 HeyNorm   “Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.”
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> HeyNorm221127-#5,864   “Who is the child”. A child is a person. A person is protected under state, federal and constitutional law.
> 
> NFBW221127-#5,866   “Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?
> 
> 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.
> 
> HeyNorm221128-#5,867   Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.
> 
> But since the phrase was used in such a manner, then the speaker must believe it to be a person.
> 
> HeyNorm221128-#5,867   Now you want me to believe that it is a person, but not “person enough” to have protection of our laws.
> 
> NFBW: I do not want you to believe anything if the sort. I believe the above ( NFBW221127-#5,849 )and see no needs to get into a semantics or wordology distraction such as that.
> 
> HeyNorm221128-#5,867  This appears the same justification the white slave owners had as well. “My slave is a human, but property non the less and may be destroyed at my whim”.
> 
> NFBW. Jefferson and other founding father shave owners were not women for sure, and not being required by the state to give slaves the use of their bodies for nine months so I fail to see the relevance to this pagade of this discussion except to olacevsobb nb etching in the tracks to derail it, FIr now can we bring it back to the ROE v Wade Ruddle? The Constitutional rights conflict between mother and child with respect to this . . . All *persons born *or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof  and this
> 
> If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?
> 
> Slavery has nothing to do with the rights of the two persons, one recognized and viable  and one not and unborn, going through the reproduction process under the multitude of societal processes and challenges and rewards of being human.
> 
> END2211280315


Nothing but wicked goobly goop you constantly spew in hopes to win your argument.... Good grief.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> Nothing but wicked goobly goop you constantly spew in hopes to win your argument.... Good grief.


This asshole is brainless and heartless and his ability to consume oxygen is not in question but the utility of the oxygen use is not only nil, but negative.  So is that still “viable?”  Hard to say, but I lean no.

Comparing the withdrawal of futile life support to the braindead to what is objectively hiring a contract killer to kill your own kid is beyond demented and obviously wrong on its face.  Denying that literally hiring a contract killer is not killing and that a contract killer is not a killer is beyond retarded, it is insane.


----------



## HeyNorm

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> This asshole is brainless and heartless and his ability to consume oxygen is not in question but the utility of the oxygen use is not only nil, but negative.  So is that still “viable?”  Hard to say, but I lean no.
> 
> Comparing the withdrawal of futile life support to the braindead to what is objectively hiring a contract killer to kill your own kid is beyond demented and obviously wrong on its face.  Denying that literally hiring a contract killer is not killing and that a contract killer is not a killer is beyond retarded, it is insane.



My favorite part of his rant was when I brought up the fact that his/her mindset was the same as slave owners to their slaves.

It’s response? That slave owners were males! I guess I need to expect such nonsense.

But it is the same mindset as the Nazi’s used to kill Jews and other groups they felt were Human, but not human enough to be allowed life. And, the fact is, there were indeed female Nazi’s. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## miketx

NotfooledbyW said:


> HeyNorm221127-#5,861 HeyNorm     Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.
> 
> NFBW: 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 with 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.
> 
> END2211272020


Butcher.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Addressing The Missed Perceptions "

* Red Herring That Make No Sense **


HeyNorm said:


> My favorite part of his rant was when I brought up the fact that his/her mindset was the same as slave owners to their slaves.
> 
> It’s response? That slave owners were males! I guess I need to expect such nonsense.
> 
> But it is the same mindset as the Nazi’s used to kill Jews and other groups they felt were Human, but not human enough to be allowed life. And, the fact is, there were indeed female Nazi’s. 🤦‍♂️


Due process is entitled to have the life support removed of any whom has completed a live birth to receive equal protection that would include a wright to life .

Sentience is a minimal requirement for conscientious objection and empathy for suffering as a valid basis to represent an other by proxy , and yet those seeking to outlaw abortion propose to do so long before sentience is possible , and abortions  that occur when sentience would be possible occur for fetal or maternal anomalies , which is completely ignored by the sanctimonious anti-choice sycophant .

An association of abortion with slavery is ridiculous because a slave has been born and moreover a slave is sentience and capable of suffering that represents a valid basis for empathy and representation by legal proxy .

By principles of individualism , one cannot exchange self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) to pay a debt incurred by self determination ( private property , willful intents by contract ) , such that slavery is not allowed .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix220808-#241  “In case it wasn't yet clear, the FBI are now the enemies of the United States. The entire bureau needs to go”

NFBW: We know simply from this that CarsomyrPlusSix is not a rational human being.

Cplus6221115-#5,617   “Hey BitchofW:  We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

Cplus6220919-#5,280   “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”

NFBW: We know from the two above and the next one below that Cplus6 is not only irrational but also an easily recognizable liar.

CPlus6221128-#5,872 Comparing the withdrawal of futile life support to the braindead to what is objectively hiring a contract killer to kill your own kid is beyond demented and obviously wrong on its face.

NFBW: The confirmation that Cplus6 is an irrational liar comes from the obvious irrationality of concluding that the entire FBI must go because a former president who plotted to anoint himself president after losing an attempt to win reelection - then steals top secret document from the people to keep as souvenirs along with the love letters from the murderous dictator he fell in love with while in office.

I realize the power of true love can make anyone irrational but stealing government property is stealing and the DOJ has every right to take stolen materials back and prosecuted if need be. 

The lies in Cplus6’s opinion are just as easily proven because Cplus6 knows full well that he is lying every time he says  “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” .

And then he complains if a mother decides in private to end the use of her body as life support to another person by having a medical procedure to have it removed. Cplus6 supports states blocking a pregnant woman from having the unborn person removed but tells us the unborn is never a part of another persons body. IT IS A LIE. Cplus6 is an irrational liar.

Furthermore pursuant to this discussion, When two persons, *both being alive human beings ding *are contesting the use of one fully developed person’s body, the one person’s right to continue developing into full human life while being a part of another person’s body has no constitutional rights to automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly “*use” of the other persons “body” for necessary valuable life support. *

The life support a mother gives during pregnancy to a developing human being is not comparable to the futile technological man-made life support given to a brain dead person and subsequent withdrawn.

It is not surprising that Cplus6 used the *futile life support system* as an equal and fair comparison to the *biologically beneficial life support* that keep a fetus alive during a pregnancy and causes death when the fetus is no longer part of its mother’s anatomy.

But Cplus6 has been proven to be an irrational liar who supports government regulation over the reproductive organs of women’s bodies so that figures.

END2211280813


----------



## HeyNorm

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Addressing The Missed Perceptions "
> 
> * Red Herring That Make No Sense **
> 
> Due process is entitled to have the life support removed of any whom has completed a live birth to receive equal protection that would include a wright to life .
> 
> Sentience is a minimal requirement for conscientious objection and empathy for suffering as a valid basis to represent an other by proxy , and yet those seeking to outlaw abortion propose to do so long before sentience is possible , and abortions  that occur when sentience would be possible occur for fetal or maternal anomalies , which is completely ignored by the sanctimonious anti-choice sycophant .
> 
> An association of abortion with slavery is ridiculous because a slave has been born and moreover a slave is sentience and capable of suffering that represents a valid basis for empathy and representation by legal proxy .
> 
> By principles of individualism , one cannot exchange self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) to pay a debt incurred by self determination ( private property , willful intents by contract ) , such that slavery is not allowed .



The association with slavery might indeed be ridiculous, I would absolutely agree if that were the comparison. It was the mindset of those arguing that a fetus can be destroyed because they are less “human”, then they, was the comparison. As was also the case of the Nazi German. And please don’t forget, I was addressing a poster who made a statement assigning personhood to the child pre birth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Monk-Eye said:


> An association of abortion with slavery is ridiculous because a slave has been born


NFBW: NUFF said right there, Jesus H Christ this message board is crawling with the most ignorant human beings alive all of whom think they can elect a government to be moral and medically smart enough to force their sustained ignorance and lies into the private health decisions of pregnant women nationwide. 

END2211280921


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm said:


> It was the mindset of those arguing that a fetus can be destroyed because they are less “human”, then they, was the comparison.



NFBW: Being less human is not part of my argument so Why did you pull up your boilerplate to challenge me?

HERE IS what formed your reply:

The Roe v Wade Riddle

If two persons, *both being human beings*, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (*human being*) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

MAYBE YOU AND CarsomyrPlusSix were high-fiving and premature ejaculating all over each other a bit too early 

So do you want to have an informed intelligent discussion with me or just circle jerk with the dingbats who vote for anti-abortion anti-women Republicans and losers like Trump.

END2211280936


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Being less human is not part of my argument so Why did you pull up your boilerplate to challenge me?
> 
> HERE IS what formed your reply:
> 
> The Roe v Wade Riddle
> 
> If two persons, *both being human beings*, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (*human being*) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?
> 
> MAYBE YOU AND CarsomyrPlusSix were high-fiving and premature ejaculating all over each other a bit too early
> 
> So do you want to have an informed intelligent discussion with me or just circle jerk with the dingbats who vote for anti-abortion anti-women Republicans and losers like Trump.
> 
> END2211280936



Oh, I absolutely do. And use of a court ruling that has been overturned seems a bit silly, especially considering that one of the justices that voted in favor of it considered it poorly conceived.

Now, be specific as to how these two individuals are somehow battling for the use of a body when one consented to the use? Did the other one commit a fraud to get the mother to agree?


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Did you say this ding ?
> 
> ding221125-#5,783 ding “I’m fine with each deciding for itself.”
> 
> NFBW: Plenty of states are legalizing every woman’s right to kill unborn human beings when that unborn human being needs to use a woman’s body for eight to nine months in order to survive.
> 
> You say (  ding221125-#5,783  ) you are fine with each state making killing unborn human beings legal which means you are fine with pregnant women deciding to kill the unborn human being that is alive and trying to survive while attached to her uterus.  You never describe the alleged misrepresentation so maybe you will make an attempt somehow soon.
> 
> END2211271325


Your leap in logic is astounding.  Please stop stating your assumptions of what I say means and implying that’s what I must believe.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Both are human before during and after the medical procedure of abortion. @ding has a similar boilerplate word game.


The only one playing word games is you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm221127-#5,880   “Now, be specific as to how these two individuals are somehow battling for the use of a body when one consented to the use?”

NFBW: The unborn human being is not who is battling the US Citizen human being. A fertilized egg and subsequent fetus is not the plaintiff. A nationwide coalition comprised mostly of white, European ethnically Catholic and protestant Christians who predominantly vote for republican politicians, have assigned themselves to be the plaintiff on the unborn human beings behalf.

are you HeyNorm with me so far?

END2211281059


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Furthermore pursuant to this discussion, When two persons, *both being alive human beings @ding *are contesting the use of one fully developed person’s body, the one person’s right to continue developing into full human life while being a part of another person’s body has no constitutional rights to automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly “*use” of the other persons “body” for necessary valuable life support. *


I haven’t told you what I believe because I won’t discuss that with someone who denies abortion ends a human life. Please stop stating what you believe I believe as if it were fact. How many times do I need to keep asking you to stop misstating what I say. Use the quote function to accurately quote me and leave it at that.


----------



## miketx

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix220808-#241  “In case it wasn't yet clear, the FBI are now the enemies of the United States. The entire bureau needs to go”
> 
> NFBW: We know simply from this that CarsomyrPlusSix is not a rational human being.
> 
> Cplus6221115-#5,617   “Hey BitchofW:  We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”
> 
> Cplus6220919-#5,280   “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”
> 
> NFBW: We know from the two above and the next one below that Cplus6 is not only irrational but also an easily recognizable liar.
> 
> CPlus6221128-#5,872 Comparing the withdrawal of futile life support to the braindead to what is objectively hiring a contract killer to kill your own kid is beyond demented and obviously wrong on its face.
> 
> NFBW: The confirmation that Cplus6 is an irrational liar comes from the obvious irrationality of concluding that the entire FBI must go because a former president who plotted to anoint himself president after losing an attempt to win reelection - then steals top secret document from the people to keep as souvenirs along with the love letters from the murderous dictator he fell in love with while in office.
> 
> I realize the power of true love can make anyone irrational but stealing government property is stealing and the DOJ has every right to take stolen materials back and prosecuted if need be.
> 
> The lies in Cplus6’s opinion are just as easily proven because Cplus6 knows full well that he is lying every time he says  “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” .
> 
> And then he complains if a mother decides in private to end the use of her body as life support to another person by having a medical procedure to have it removed. Cplus6 supports states blocking a pregnant woman from having the unborn person removed but tells us the unborn is never a part of another persons body. IT IS A LIE. Cplus6 is an irrational liar.
> 
> Furthermore pursuant to this discussion, When two persons, *both being alive human beings ding *are contesting the use of one fully developed person’s body, the one person’s right to continue developing into full human life while being a part of another person’s body has no constitutional rights to automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly “*use” of the other persons “body” for necessary valuable life support. *
> 
> The life support a mother gives during pregnancy to a developing human being is not comparable to the futile technological man-made life support given to a brain dead person and subsequent withdrawn.
> 
> It is not surprising that Cplus6 used the *futile life support system* as an equal and fair comparison to the *biologically beneficial life support* that keep a fetus alive during a pregnancy and causes death when the fetus is no longer part of its mother’s anatomy.
> 
> But Cplus6 has been proven to be an irrational liar who supports government regulation over the reproductive organs of women’s bodies so that figures.
> 
> END2211280813


Liar.


----------



## miketx

NotfooledbyW said:


> HeyNorm221127-#5,880   “Now, be specific as to how these two individuals are somehow battling for the use of a body when one consented to the use?”
> 
> NFBW: The unborn human being is not who is battling the US Citizen human being. A fertilized egg and subsequent fetus is not the plaintiff. A nationwide coalition comprised mostly of white, European ethnically Catholic and protestant Christians who predominantly vote for republican politicians, have assigned themselves to be the plaintiff on the unborn human beings behalf.
> 
> are you HeyNorm with me so far?
> 
> END2211281059


Butcher.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I haven’t told you what I believe because I won’t discuss that with someone who denies abortion ends a human life.


NFBW: Abortion ends a human life you can quote me on that anytime now 

The issue is 

When two persons, *both being alive human beings ding *are contesting the use of one fully developed person’s body, the one person’s right to continue developing into full human life while being a part of another person’s body has no constitutional rights to automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly “*use” of the other persons “body” for necessary valuable life support.*

The life support a mother gives during pregnancy to a developing human being is not comparable to the futile technological man-made life support given to a brain dead person and subsequent withdrawn.

It is not surprising that Cplus6 used the futile life support system as an equal and fair comparison to the biologically beneficial life support that keep a fetus alive during a pregnancy and *causes death when the fetus is no longer part of its mother’s anatomy.*

Abortion causes a human life to die. That is why I personally oppose it in my relationships for my entire life but it is none of my fucking business what Herschel Walker and all his fucking pregnant girlfriends do about it. It is never my business or the government’s business. 

Does miketx ever refer to Herschel Walker as the Republican Pro-life butcher? 

I’ll have to research that some day? 

END2211281140


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.





NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Abortion ends a human life you can quote me on that anytime now


Ok. I will.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221128-#5,884 ding    “I haven’t told you what I believe because I won’t discuss that with someone who denies abortion ends a human life.”

NFBW221128-#5,887    “Abortion *ends a human life *you can quote me on that anytime now “ 

NFBW: The issue has been for a while now as follows:

When two persons, *both being alive human beings*  are contesting the use of one fully developed person’s body, the one person’s right to continue developing into full human life while being a part of another person’s body has no constitutional rights to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly “use” of the other persons “body” for necessary valuable life support.

END2211281151


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> When two persons, *both being alive human beings @ding *are contesting the use of one fully developed person’s body, the one person’s right to continue developing into full human life while being a part of another person’s body has no constitutional rights to automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly “*use” of the other persons “body” for necessary valuable life support.*


That’s up to the legislators to determine. That is the reality of the situation.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> The life support a mother gives during pregnancy to a developing human being is not comparable to the futile technological man-made life support given to a brain dead person and subsequent withdrawn.


Except one is at the beginning of their life and the other is at the end of their life.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> It is not surprising that Cplus6 used the futile life support system as an equal and fair comparison to the biologically beneficial life support that keep a fetus alive during a pregnancy and *causes death when the fetus is no longer part of its mother’s anatomy.*


No idea who that is.  But it seems to me that comparing life saving procedures to extend a human life to life ending procedures to end a human life doesn’t help your case.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Abortion causes a human life to die. That is why I personally oppose it in my relationships for my entire life but it is none of my fucking business what Herschel Walker and all his fucking pregnant girlfriends do about it. It is never my business or the government’s business.


OK but it’s not up to you to decide. Or me for that matter.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Does @miketx ever refer to Herschel Walker as the Republican Pro-life butcher?
> 
> I’ll have to research that some day?


No idea.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221128-#5,890   “That’s up to the legislators to determine. That is the reality of the situation.” 

NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

NFBW: Do you agree ding that ending the life of a human being is murder or a form of homicide? 

And do you believe there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay  alive? 

END221128-1210


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Do you agree @ding that ending the life of a human being is murder or a form of homicide?


Technically.  Yes. But again… with regards to abortion, that’s up to the states to decide.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> And do you believe there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay alive?


I believe the competing interests are why a rights discussion needs to be held at the federal level. Absent that it will be held at the state level.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221128-#5,893  ding “OK but it’s not up to you to decide. Or me for that matter.”   

NFBW: The only person having the constitutional liberty and natural law right to privately decide to withdraw the use of her body from another individual human being who needs to use her body for nine months to survive. The decision is hers. She has equal autonomy with all other human beings born or naturalized in the United States of America over what happens to her body. 

It is nobody’s business but the woman’s in privacy with her family and doctors. There is no interest of any government agency being in the room with the woman, her family and medical professionals. 

END2211281245


----------



## miketx

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Abortion ends a human life you can quote me on that anytime now
> 
> The issue is
> 
> When two persons, *both being alive human beings ding *are contesting the use of one fully developed person’s body, the one person’s right to continue developing into full human life while being a part of another person’s body has no constitutional rights to automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly “*use” of the other persons “body” for necessary valuable life support.*
> 
> The life support a mother gives during pregnancy to a developing human being is not comparable to the futile technological man-made life support given to a brain dead person and subsequent withdrawn.
> 
> It is not surprising that Cplus6 used the futile life support system as an equal and fair comparison to the biologically beneficial life support that keep a fetus alive during a pregnancy and *causes death when the fetus is no longer part of its mother’s anatomy.*
> 
> Abortion causes a human life to die. That is why I personally oppose it in my relationships for my entire life but it is none of my fucking business what Herschel Walker and all his fucking pregnant girlfriends do about it. It is never my business or the government’s business.
> 
> Does miketx ever refer to Herschel Walker as the Republican Pro-life butcher?
> 
> I’ll have to research that some day?
> 
> END2211281140


Of course, everytime I talk to him I call Herschel a butcher. Why do you ask, butcher? Oh, next leftard mindless deflection.


----------



## hadit

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> They pledged up to $4K each to get abortions for their employees.
> 
> NOT
> 
> ONE
> 
> DIME
> 
> OF
> 
> MY
> 
> MONEY
> 
> WILL
> 
> GO
> 
> TO
> 
> MURDERING
> 
> CHILDREN.
> 
> *FUCK AMAZON UP THE ASS!*


And, of course, no one is asking Amazon how much they pay for childbirth. You know, children living.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

hadit said:


> And, of course, no one is asking Amazon how much they pay for childbirth. You know, children living.



Tell that to the unborn baby.  I'm sure it will make it a lot less painful to be dismembered and have its skull crushed. 

"Oh. look how much money Amazon is saving itself by killing me!  I guess that means I need to just die quietly."


.


----------



## hadit

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Tell that to the unborn baby.  I'm sure it will make it a lot less painful to be dismembered and have its skull crushed.
> 
> "Oh. look how much money Amazon is saving itself by killing me!  I guess that means I need to just die quietly."
> 
> 
> .


And that's one big reason why abortion is so popular, we don't have children screaming as they're ripped apart. It's all done inside the mother's body, so they can pretend it's all antiseptic and no one gets hurt.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: The only person having the constitutional liberty and natural law right to privately decide to withdraw the use of her body from another individual human being who needs to use her body for nine months to survive. The decision is hers. She has equal autonomy with all other human beings born or naturalized in the United States of America over what happens to her body.
> 
> It is nobody’s business but the woman’s in privacy with her family and doctors. There is no interest of any government agency being in the room with the woman, her family and medical professionals.


SCOTUS decided otherwise.


----------



## hadit

ding said:


> SCOTUS decided otherwise.


There are many areas in which the government intrudes into our lives. Try to buy heroin legally on the street. Buy tobacco and give it to a minor. Have a cop stop your car and you not be wearing a seatbelt. Heck, even freedoms explicitly stated in the Constitution, such as the right to bear arms, gets limited.


----------



## ding

hadit said:


> There are many areas in which the government intrudes into our lives. Try to buy heroin legally on the street. Buy tobacco and give it to a minor. Have a cop stop your car and you not be wearing a seatbelt. Heck, even freedoms explicitly stated in the Constitution, such as the right to bear arms, gets limited.


Government is a necessary evil.  If men were angels there would be no need for government.


----------



## ChemEngineer

A baby's heart begins beating at 6 weeks of development. 
A beating heart is the first thing a medical doctor checks to see if the person 
is alive.  It is.  Deal with that, hateful abortionists. You can't get around it
except with lies and wordplay.  Like Putin calling his attack "A Special Military Operation."


----------



## dblack

ChemEngineer said:


> A baby's heart begins beating at 6 weeks of development.
> A beating heart is the first thing a medical doctor checks to see if the person
> is alive.  It is.  Deal with that, hateful abortionists. You can't get around it
> except with lies and wordplay.  Like Putin calling his attack "A Special Military Operation."


"The Ministry of Reproduction".


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221128-#5,897 ding  “I believe the competing interests are why a rights discussion needs to be held at the federal level. Absent that it will be held at the state level”

NFBW: Yes Christian religious zealots on one side like beagle9 a protestant and Mashmont a Catholic. On the other side Woman who expect freedom and autonomy over their own bodies because of these words in the Constitution.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”​​END2211281505


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChemE221128-#5,906  “A baby's heart begins beating at 6 weeks of development. “

NFBW: Can a doctor hear the actual physical pumping of blood with a stethoscope or is it high tech machine picking up electric signals from a tube in an area where an  actual heart with muscles and chambers will develop?

A beating heart does not negate a woman's natural right to bodily autonomy when she decides not to have another human use her heart to develop a fully functioning heart of its own. 

END2211281514


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221128-#5,905  Government is a necessary evil. If men were angels there would be no need for government.

NFBW: When a pregnant woman unknown to you ding and in the privacy of her family and doctor, decided to terminate the human life that needs to use her body for nine months during the past fifty years, did she harm you or any other person anywhere on earth. You sound as if you consider a woman who terminates a pregnancy to be doing something harmful that causes what you call necessary government evil.  

Although in a perfect world you and your intrusive government preferences on abortion would not even know that it happened. The unnecessary evil is in Christian religion dominated states where voters push lawmakers to ban abortion in their states to have control of women’s reproductive organs aligned with their beliefs about life hell and Jesus.

END2211281547


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Non-citizens have human rights.

You can’t just shoot an illegal alien on sight and not go to prison for murder.

Oops, there went that asshole’s entire pretense of an argument.

Maybe citizenship should be bestowed at the beginning of life… but personhood definitely should to protect the innocent against pieces of inhuman dogshit like him.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221128-#5,905  Government is a necessary evil. If men were angels there would be no need for government.
> 
> NFBW: When a pregnant woman unknown to you ding and in the privacy of her family and doctor, decided to terminate the human life that needs to use her body for nine months during the past fifty years, did she harm you or any other person anywhere on earth. You sound as if you consider a woman who terminates a pregnancy to be doing something harmful that causes what you call necessary government evil.
> 
> Although in a perfect world you and your intrusive government preferences on abortion would not even know that it happened. The unnecessary evil is in Christian religion dominated states where voters push lawmakers to ban abortion in their states to have control of women’s reproductive organs aligned with their beliefs about life hell and Jesus.
> 
> END2211281547


So much of what you say here is untrue. But it’s not worth arguing about because it has nothing to do with the competing interests at play that need to be weighed. You want to skip the weighing and go straight to treating human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChemE221128-#5,906  “A baby's heart begins beating at 6 weeks of development. “
> 
> NFBW: Can a doctor hear the actual physical pumping of blood with a stethoscope or is it high tech machine picking up electric signals from a tube in an area where an  actual heart with muscles and chambers will develop?
> 
> A beating heart does not negate a woman's natural right to bodily autonomy when she decides not to have another human use her heart to develop a fully functioning heart of its own.
> 
> END2211281514



Bullshit.

If she didn't want the little heart growing in her, she should have kept her legs together.  If she does not understand that, she is functionally not intelligent enough to be trusted to control  her own reproductive processes and must be sterilized.

Anything beyond that is sophistry.

Bottom line -- I love living in a state where we do not kill unborn children and no amount of pseudointellectual bullshit that comes out of your mouth will ever change that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221128-#5,911 CarsomyrPlusSix Non-citizens have human rights.  You can’t just shoot an illegal alien on sight and not go to prison for murder.    Oops, there went that asshole’s entire pretense of an argument.

NFBW: Where has my pretense of an argument gone? I have no argument that involves an illegal alien or visitor to America who needs to use a woman’s body for nine months to be developed enough to breathe on their own. 

END2211281753


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221009-#4,535   Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.

What are the consequences to you and or society when a woman has a legal abortion in private therefore stopping another person from using her body to be alive for nine months prior to being born. What is her crime and what is the crime of the doctor or pharmaceutical that performs the procedure to remove the human person that is using her body for life support. The Constitutional rights questions for the pregnant woman who decides to abort her fetus is what is the harm. Can you define it ding. 

END2211281911


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

NotfooledbyW, I'd like to know where you stand on Hilary Clinton's "It takes a village to raise a child" statement.  

Do you agree?


.


----------



## ChemEngineer




----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> This asshole is brainless and heartless and his ability to consume oxygen is not in question but the utility of the oxygen use is not only nil, but negative.  So is that still “viable?”  Hard to say, but I lean no.
> 
> Comparing the withdrawal of futile life support to the braindead to what is objectively hiring a contract killer to kill your own kid is beyond demented and obviously wrong on its face.  Denying that literally hiring a contract killer is not killing and that a contract killer is not a killer is beyond retarded, it is insane.


I like how they try to make it all seem like necessary procedure's somehow due to the baby is somehow a threat to the mother's life. Very, and I mean very few cases are legitimate danger's to the mother, but it must be that they figure that they can adopt that number in cases, and then work to apply it to all cases whenever challenged.

Got to watch these slippery eal's, because they can be real slimy in their thinking.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

beagle9 said:


> I like how they try to make it all seem like necessary procedure's somehow due to the baby is somehow a threat to the mother's life. Very, and I mean very few cases are legitimate danger's to the mother, but it must be that they figure that they can adopt that number in cases, and then work to apply it to all cases whenever challenged.
> 
> Got to watch these slippery eal's, because they can be real slimy in their thinking.



They actually want to convince us that pregnancy is a *dangerous medical condition*!  GASP!!!!!!!!!!

I personally have known three women who have given birth, two of them multiple times, without even a midwife in attendance, much less a doctor!  It is a cute little expediency for them to try to convince you that the baby in a woman's womb is a dire threat!  A vicious little killer!  It's hilarious to watch them try to pull off that silly shit!

It's very sexist, IMHO, to try to take away from a woman her ownership of the birth process.  Disgusting, from those who want to convince us that they are *feminists*.  What a fucking joke.


.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: NUFF said right there, Jesus H Christ this message board is crawling with the most ignorant human beings alive all of whom think they can elect a government to be moral and medically smart enough to force their sustained ignorance and lies into the private health decisions of pregnant women nationwide.
> 
> END2211280921


Spoken well by a devilish human being. You make you god satan proud.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221009-#4,535   Your attempt to minimize the consequences of abortion is dishonest and ghoulish.
> 
> What are the consequences to you and or society when a woman has a legal abortion in private therefore stopping another person from using her body to be alive for nine months prior to being born. What is her crime and what is the crime of the doctor or pharmaceutical that performs the procedure to remove the human person that is using her body for life support. The Constitutional rights questions for the pregnant woman who decides to abort her fetus is what is the harm. Can you define it ding.
> 
> END2211281911


The consequence I was speaking about was ending a human life.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Yes Christian religious zealots on one side like @beagle9 a protestant and @Mashmont a Catholic. On the other side Woman who expect freedom and autonomy over their own bodies because of these words in the Constitution.


Again… So much of what you say here is untrue. But it’s not worth arguing about because it has nothing to do with the competing interests at play that need to be weighed. You want to skip the weighing and go straight to treating human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> HeyNorm221127-#5,880   “Now, be specific as to how these two individuals are somehow battling for the use of a body when one consented to the use?”
> 
> NFBW: The unborn human being is not who is battling the US Citizen human being. A fertilized egg and subsequent fetus is not the plaintiff. A nationwide coalition comprised mostly of white, European ethnically Catholic and protestant Christians who predominantly vote for republican politicians, have assigned themselves to be the plaintiff on the unborn human beings behalf.
> 
> are you HeyNorm with me so far?
> 
> END2211281059



No, explain. You state that two are struggling over a single body. Can’t really be described like that when the woman granted the use of her body to the child.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

HeyNorm said:


> No, explain. You state that two are struggling over a single body. Can’t really be described like that when the woman granted the use of her body to the child.



They really want us to believe that women are so ignorant these days that they can't figure out something so simple.

Are they?  I haven't hung out with leftists for a long time.  Are they really that ignorant?


.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OPJQ221128-#5,916 OhPleaseJustQuit
NotfooledbyW, I'd like to know where you stand on Hilary Clinton's "It takes a village to raise a child" statement.   Do you agree?

NFBW: I agree with actual HRC quotes from her book,  yes   If that is what you mean?



> The simple message of It Takes a Village is as relevant as ever: We are all in this together.


NFBW: horrifying isn’t it for you hate filled scared as shit fascists isn’t it?



> We need to understand that there is no formula for how women should lead their lives. that is why we must respect the choices that each woman makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to realize her God-given potential.



More quotes from   Hillary Rodham Clinton, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us



> Home is a child's first and most important classroom.



They [parents] can resist the impulse to "prove" their love by showering children with things they do not need and give them precisous time and attention instead.

First, we parents have to back up school authority and quit making excuses for our kids when they misbehave.

Parenthood has the power to redefine every aspect of life - marriage, work, relationships with family and friends. Those helpless bundles of power and promise that come into our world show us our true selves- who we are, who we are not, who we wish we could be.

The episodic, reactive, almost frantic pace of what is broadcast makes children feel and act frantic and shortens their attention spans and their patience for activities that take time and problems that don't yield immediate solutions.

Knowing what to expect next gives

forward-thinking teachers and school administrators across the country are creating a whole range of alternatives to cookie-cutter teaching and evaluation methods, such as the use of student portfolios and exhibitions in addition to conventional exams to assess students' progress.

. . .standards are for: They establish what children should know, not

we are living in an interdependent world where what our children hear, see, feel, and learn will affect how they grow up and who they turn out to be.

In times of profound and overwhelming social change like the present, however, extreme views hold out the appeal of simplicity. By ignoring the complexity of the forces that shape our personal and collective circumstances, they offer us scapegoats. Yet they fail to provide a viable pathway from the cold war to the global village.

Anti-government rhetoric appears to offer a vision of greater efficiency, self-reliance, and personal freedom. (For obvious reasons, it also usually enjoys greater financial backing and better organized support.) Unfortunately, this rhetoric ignores what has historically been most valuable about our skepticism toward government—the emphasis it places on personal responsibility from all citizens. Instead, it argues against the excesses of government but not against those of the marketplace, where there is great power to disrupt the lives of workers, families, and communities. It even argues against the basic protections government extends to the well-being of individuals, families, and communities, without offering an alternative way of safeguarding them. *In fact, its extreme case against government, often including intense personal attacks on government officials and political leaders, is designed not just to restrain government but to advance narrow religious, political, and economic agendas.*

ding above bold is for you. Anti-abortion extremism is all part of that

Let us admit that some government programs and personnel are efficient and effective, and others are not. Let us acknowledge that when it comes to the treatment of children, some individuals are evil, neglectful, or incompetent, but others are trying to do the best they can against daunting odds and deserve not our contempt but the help only we—through our government—can provide. Let us stop stereotyping government and individuals as absolute villains or absolute saviors, and recognize that each must be part of the solution. Let us use government, as we have in the past, to further the common good.

Our strength, in other words, has rested in our determination to reject simplistic absolutes and to redefine and revitalize a productive middle ground, relinquishing outdated solutions and embracing new approaches. As President Lincoln said in his time, 'The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.

Making the decision to have a child—it’s wondrous. It is to decide forever to have your heart go walking around outside your body. Hillary Rodham Clinton, It Takes a Village


greenP220921-#22  greenerpastures “One example is abortion. It really pains me to know all those children created by God are being destroyed and no one will ever know that person (etc). Then again, it is the people who don't feel badly about that that we should worry about---

NFBW:  You know greenerpastures there’s billions of born children who need the best villages that advanced rational wise human beings can bestow upon them. Why not take advice from every person who at least spends some time thinking about it.

The defectors leader of the Republican political machines is having lunch in his palace with a racist anti-Semitic White supremacy leader and ye  - do you think the suffering of children around the world was the topic of discussion?

END2211282050


----------



## HeyNorm

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> They really want us to believe that women are so ignorant these days that they can't figure out something so simple.
> 
> Are they?  I haven't hung out with leftists for a long time.  Are they really that ignorant?
> 
> 
> .


It does understand that we all are given the right to undertake things that are potentially dangerous and deadly. Happens all the time.

His question is absurd at its base.

If you jump out of an airplane with a parachute, of your own free will, the outcome can be really good, or really bad, but the outcome, rather good or bad is yours. If the chute doesn’t open? Well, that’s the result of your choosing.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> OPJQ221128-#5,916 OhPleaseJustQuit
> NotfooledbyW, I'd like to know where you stand on Hilary Clinton's "It takes a village to raise a child" statement.   Do you agree?
> 
> NFBW: I agree with actual HRC quotes from her book,  yes   If that is what you mean?
> 
> 
> NFBW: horrifying isn’t it for you hate filled scared as shit fascists isn’t it?
> 
> 
> 
> More quotes from   Hillary Rodham Clinton, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us
> 
> Home is a child's first and most
> 
> They [parents] can resist the impulse to "prove" their love by showering children with things they do not need and give them precisous time and attention instead.
> 
> First, we parents have to back up school authority and quit making excuses for our kids when they misbehave.
> 
> Parenthood has the power to redefine every aspect of life - marriage, work, relationships with family and friends. Those helpless bundles of power and promise that come into our world show us our true selves- who we are, who we are not, who we wish we could be.
> 
> The episodic, reactive, almost frantic pace of what is broadcast makes children feel and act frantic and shortens their attention spans and their patience for activities that take time and problems that don't yield immediate solutions.
> 
> Knowing what to expect next gives
> 
> forward-thinking teachers and school administrators across the country are creating a whole range of alternatives to cookie-cutter teaching and evaluation methods, such as the use of student portfolios and exhibitions in addition to conventional exams to assess students' progress.
> 
> . . .standards are for: They establish what children should know, not
> 
> we are living in an interdependent world where what our children hear, see, feel, and learn will affect how they grow up and who they turn out to be.
> 
> In times of profound and overwhelming social change like the present, however, extreme views hold out the appeal of simplicity. By ignoring the complexity of the forces that shape our personal and collective circumstances, they offer us scapegoats. Yet they fail to provide a viable pathway from the cold war to the global village.
> 
> Anti-government rhetoric appears to offer a vision of greater efficiency, self-reliance, and personal freedom. (For obvious reasons, it also usually enjoys greater financial backing and better organized support.) Unfortunately, this rhetoric ignores what has historically been most valuable about our skepticism toward government—the emphasis it places on personal responsibility from all citizens. Instead, it argues against the excesses of government but not against those of the marketplace, where there is great power to disrupt the lives of workers, families, and communities. It even argues against the basic protections government extends to the well-being of individuals, families, and communities, without offering an alternative way of safeguarding them. *In fact, its extreme case against government, often including intense personal attacks on government officials and political leaders, is designed not just to restrain government but to advance narrow religious, political, and economic agendas.*
> 
> ding above bold is for you. Anti-abortion extremism is all part of that
> 
> Let us admit that some government programs and personnel are efficient and effective, and others are not. Let us acknowledge that when it comes to the treatment of children, some individuals are evil, neglectful, or incompetent, but others are trying to do the best they can against daunting odds and deserve not our contempt but the help only we—through our government—can provide. Let us stop stereotyping government and individuals as absolute villains or absolute saviors, and recognize that each must be part of the solution. Let us use government, as we have in the past, to further the common good.
> 
> Our strength, in other words, has rested in our determination to reject simplistic absolutes and to redefine and revitalize a productive middle ground, relinquishing outdated solutions and embracing new approaches. As President Lincoln said in his time, 'The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.
> 
> Making the decision to have a child—it’s wondrous. It is to decide forever to have your heart go walking around outside your body. Hillary Rodham Clinton, It Takes a Village
> 
> 
> greenP220921-#22  greenerpastures “One example is abortion. It really pains me to know all those children created by God are being destroyed and no one will ever know that person (etc). Then again, it is the people who don't feel badly about that that we should worry about---
> 
> NFBW:  You know greenerpastures there’s billions of born children who need the best villages that advanced rational wise human beings can bestow upon them. Why not take advice from every person who at least spends some time thinking about it.
> 
> The defectors leader of the Republican political machines is having lunch in his palace with a racist anti-Semitic White supremacy leader and ye  - do you think the suffering of children around the world was the topic of discussion?
> 
> END2211282050


You are insane if you believe I am going to sort through your formatting obsession.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

I


ding said:


> You are insane if you believe I am going to sort through your formatting obsession.


I don’t care what excuses you are so great at coming up with.

I just wanted you to read this part 

Anti-government rhetoric appears to offer a vision of greater efficiency, self-reliance, and personal freedom. (For obvious reasons, it also usually enjoys greater financial backing and better organized support.) Unfortunately, this rhetoric ignores what has historically been most valuable about our skepticism toward government—the emphasis it places on personal responsibility from all citizens. Instead, it argues against the excesses of government but not against those of the marketplace, where there is great power to disrupt the lives of workers, families, and communities. It even argues against the basic protections government extends to the well-being of individuals, families, and communities, without offering an alternative way of safeguarding them. *In fact, its extreme case against government, often including intense personal attacks on government officials and political leaders, is designed not just to restrain government but to advance narrow religious, political, and economic agendas.*

ding above bold is for you. Anti-abortion extremism is all part of that


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221128-#5,921    The consequence I was speaking about was ending a human life.

NFBW: Knowing The circumstances of a born human being ending the life of an unborn human being when the latter is using the former’s body to sustain its life, yes the consequence of pregnancy termination is the death of a human being before it is born. What are the consequences of a private abortion to society as a whole and you in particular.

Have you heard what Trump’s Catholic dinner guest Nick Fuentes said about abortion and Jim Crow laws and Jewish people. ?

END2211283128


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221128-#5,921    The consequence I was speaking about was ending a human life.
> 
> NFBW: Knowing The circumstances of a born human being ending the life of an unborn human being when the latter is using the former’s body to sustain its life, yes the consequence of pregnancy termination is the death of a human being before it is born. What is the consequences a private abortion to society as a whole and you in particular.
> 
> Have you heard what Trump’s dinner guest Nick Fuentes said about abortion and Jim Crow laws and a Jewish people. ?
> 
> END2211283128



You work so hard in your attempt to  make murder sound civilized.


.


----------



## Indeependent

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221128-#5,921    The consequence I was speaking about was ending a human life.
> 
> NFBW: Knowing The circumstances of a born human being ending the life of an unborn human being when the latter is using the former’s body to sustain its life, yes the consequence of pregnancy termination is the death of a human being before it is born. What are the consequences of a private abortion to society as a whole and you in particular.
> 
> Have you heard what Trump’s Catholic dinner guest Nick Fuentes said about abortion and Jim Crow laws and Jewish people. ?
> 
> END2211283128


Have you heard what the Squad has been saying about Jews?


----------



## BackAgain

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> You work so hard in your attempt to  make murder sound civilized.
> 
> 
> .


Leftards deny that it is akin to murder by denying that it is a unique human life. 

Their other favorite dodge is that it is (maybe) a unique life — but it isn’t a “person” until birth and the CONSTITUTIONAL “right to life” is only accorded to “persons.”

To liberals, words have no fixed meaning.


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221128-#5,921    The consequence I was speaking about was ending a human life.
> 
> NFBW: Knowing The circumstances of a born human being ending the life of an unborn human being when the latter is using the former’s body to sustain its life, yes the consequence of pregnancy termination is the death of a human being before it is born. What are the consequences of a private abortion to society as a whole and you in particular.
> 
> Have you heard what Trump’s Catholic dinner guest Nick Fuentes said about abortion and Jim Crow laws and Jewish people. ?
> 
> END2211283128



Hmmm, even a born infant uses the body of another to sustain life. So how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?


----------



## HeyNorm

BackAgain said:


> Leftards deny that it is akin to murder by denying that it is a unique human life.
> 
> Their other favorite dodge is that it is (maybe) a unique life — but it isn’t a “person” until birth and the CONSTITUTIONAL “right to life” is only accorded to “persons.”
> 
> To liberals, words have no fixed meaning.



I do love watching themselves look as evil as possible while twisting themselves into knots.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

OPJQ221128-#5,930     You work so hard in your attempt to make murder sound civilized. 



NFBW: There was no murder involved for the past fifty years and there is no murder involved in any of the states after Dobbs. There has been no effect on civilization one way or the other. 



When Herschel Walkers’ knocked up women got abortions in private what was the effect on civilization? Republicans think a former football player who fucks around with lots of women and kills the babies he makes is so fucking civilized he should be a US Senator even though dumber than a doorknob. 



END2211282151


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I
> 
> I don’t care what excuses you are so great at coming up with.
> 
> I just wanted you to read this part
> 
> Anti-government rhetoric appears to offer a vision of greater efficiency, self-reliance, and personal freedom. (For obvious reasons, it also usually enjoys greater financial backing and better organized support.) Unfortunately, this rhetoric ignores what has historically been most valuable about our skepticism toward government—the emphasis it places on personal responsibility from all citizens. Instead, it argues against the excesses of government but not against those of the marketplace, where there is great power to disrupt the lives of workers, families, and communities. It even argues against the basic protections government extends to the well-being of individuals, families, and communities, without offering an alternative way of safeguarding them. *In fact, its extreme case against government, often including intense personal attacks on government officials and political leaders, is designed not just to restrain government but to advance narrow religious, political, and economic agendas.*
> 
> ding above bold is for you. Anti-abortion extremism is all part of that


The sentiment that government is a necessary evil and that if men were angels there would be no need of government were widely held beliefs of our founding fathers. It’s a huge leap from that position to extremism of any flavor.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221128-#5,936 ding   The sentiment that government is a necessary evil and that if men were angels there would be no need of government were widely held beliefs of our founding fathers. It’s a huge leap from that position to extremism of any flavor.

Hillary Clinton wrote: *In fact, its extreme case against government, often including intense personal attacks on government officials and political leaders, is designed not just to restrain government but to advance narrow religious, political, and economic agendas.*

NFBW: If one is a woman in a Trump Christian state that banned women’s access to an abortion, I’d say based on election results in Kansas Michigan etc where reproductive rights were on the voting machines, most women, younger women are voting against religious extremism in the Republican Party whether they think they will ever need an abortion in their future or not.

But you cannot see it because you have Christian religion bias that does not allow you to see right wing religion as nothing but a positive driver of successful behaviors which Western Civilization was built upon.

ding220127-#617     I don’t see how that changes the fact that we were founded as a Christian nation based upon Christian values and principles. Not religious dogma per se but the successful behaviors which Western Civilization was built upon.

We were not founded as a Christian nation ding in any way shape or form. Extremism and intolerance in the name of God was to our founders one of the most serious threats to their vision for America. 

END22110034


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm221128-#5,933 HeyNorm  Hmmm, even a born infant uses the body of another to sustain life. So how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?

NFBW: When they become citizens at birth as it has always been. See this phrase from the Constitution “*All persons born or naturalized in the United States”* or prior to 24th week of pregnancy when the capability to be born has been developed.

beagle9221127-#5,848 beagle9 “The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.”

NFBW: The very same document you cite in the paragraph above defines explicitly how every reference to “persons and people” within the sacred humanist document must be interpreted to mean:

*“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

NFBW: And in the same post beagle9 you explain to the readers and of course ding why the states are not supposed to write laws that deprive pregnant women ( I assume you consider them persons) of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if they are doing no harm to the life liberty and pursuit of happiness to any other person as recognized in the Constitution per the above.

END2211290119


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Blind Babbling Out Their Ass "

* Hue Mammon Includes Any Mammal **


BackAgain said:


> Leftards deny that it is akin to murder by denying that it is a unique human life.
> 
> Their other favorite dodge is that it is (maybe) a unique life — but it isn’t a “person” until birth and the CONSTITUTIONAL “right to life” is only accorded to “persons.”
> 
> To liberals, words have no fixed meaning.


The arrogance of the apex predator , hue mammon ape , is amazing .

A per son means male and countable by census , and aside from including females as a back door abuse of its literal meaning , a per son is clarified in title 1 section 8 of us code , though it is little more than a reiteration of the obvious live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen .

Thus , the sanctimonious , anti-choice sycophants , with the pathetic arrogance of damned dirty apes , support the dumbfounded sedition of scoty by its dobbs decision and are nothing more than traitors to us constitution and to its republic .

The liberal versus conservative paradigm is intellectual buffoonery that causes mental retardation in society , and not being an example of a degenerate , political science neophyte would be a good start to correct its stupidity .


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> HeyNorm221128-#5,933 HeyNorm  Hmmm, even a born infant uses the body of another to sustain life. So how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?
> 
> NFBW: When they become citizens at birth as it has always been. See this phrase from the Constitution “*All persons born or naturalized in the United States”* or prior to 24th week of pregnancy when the capability to be born has been developed.
> 
> beagle9221127-#5,848 beagle9 “The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.”
> 
> NFBW: The very same document you cite in the paragraph above defines explicitly how every reference to “persons and people” within the sacred humanist document must be interpreted to mean:
> 
> *“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
> 
> NFBW: And in the same post beagle9 you explain to the readers and of course ding why the states are not supposed to write laws that deprive pregnant women ( I assume you consider them persons) of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if they are doing no harm to the life liberty and pursuit of happiness to any other person as recognized in the Constitution per the above.
> 
> END2211290119



Got it. So killing those not born in this country is fine by you because when asked when life is to be protected you stated quite clearly that only those born or naturalized in this country have this right.

You crack me up.

So fetal homicide laws are now unconstitutional? That is, after all, you’re argument, correct?


----------



## BackAgain

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Blind Babbling Out Their Ass "
> 
> * Hue Mammon Includes Any Mammal **
> 
> The arrogance of the apex predator , hue mammon ape , is amazing .
> 
> A per son means male and countable by census , and aside from including females as a back door abuse of its literal meaning , a per son is clarified in title 1 section 8 of us code , though it is little more than a reiteration of the obvious live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen .
> 
> Thus , the sanctimonious , anti-choice sycophants , with the pathetic arrogance of damned dirty apes , support the dumbfounded sedition of scoty by its dobbs decision and are nothing more than traitors to us constitution and to its republic .
> 
> The liberal versus conservative paradigm is intellectual buffoonery that causes mental retardation in society , and not being an example of a degenerate , political science neophyte would be a good start to correct its stupidity .


Do you type with your butt cheeks?  I ask because I know you talk out of your ass, but also because you have several weird notions of spelling.

Your effort to appear erudite fails because you’re a retard and for other reasons.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

HeyNorm said:


> Got it. So killing those not born in this country is fine by you because when asked when life is to be protected you stated quite clearly that only those born or naturalized in this country have this right.
> 
> You crack me up.
> 
> So fetal homicide laws are now unconstitutional? That is, after all, you’re argument, correct?


And, don't forget, this means illegal aliens do not have a right to life by this fucking idiot's standards.  Because there are no human rights, only citizen privileges, only what is given to you by government.  Again, according to this fucking idiot.

... and no one else, because he doesn't understand the topic he is "debating" at all.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm222129-#5,940 HeyNorm   “Got it. So killing those not born in this country is fine by you.. . . . “

NFBW: No. It is not ‘fine’ by me in my personal life to kill the “unborn”  or as you say the “not born in this country” and I have explained it to the religious oppressors of the already born women many times.

Your problem Mr. Norm is that you don’t appear to have the cerebral capacity to keep more than one of my posts in your mind more than one at a time. I have seen that mental condition occur quite often in posts primarily of those who are MAGA and thus aligned politically if not religiously to Christians both Protestant and Catholic who are fully falsely convinced that Jesus’ Father from a place called Heaven is who as the ONE and only true GOD who created America in the 1780s as the new chosen nation. Therefore America was created by white Christian’s, for white European of Western Civilization fame like Nick Fuentes,  therefore modern day Christians of all colors have a duty to keep America Christian. We must as Americans thank and please the God White Christian nationalists believe created America in the first place. Keep it a Christian Nation is Christian and American patriotic duty. 

Trump energized this Christian Nation fallacy to win the GOP nomination in 2015.  Here is an example ding and beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix of the type of *Catholic *Trump invited to Mar-A-Lago for a luncheon during our American Thanksgiving week a week ago. 

JTA220629 TRUMP’s Tday lunch guest at the Trumpism Florida Palace JUNE 2022

JTA) — In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist leader and influential figure among the rightmost flank of the Republican Party, told his followers that “Jews stood in the way” of Catholic Supreme Court Justices who “were put on the court to overturn” the 1973 decision that guaranteed the right to an abortion in the United States.

Fuentes, who founded the America First Political Action Committee and the”groyper army,” a radical fringe group, made the comments on his website’s livestream on Friday, according to Right Wing Watch. He added “we need a government of Christians” and “Jewish people can be here, but they can’t make our laws.” 

Nick Fuentes, white nationalist with GOP ties, says ‘Jews stood in the way’ of Roe v. Wade’s end - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

“If Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Jewish woman, didn’t die last year, so that Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic woman, could be appointed to the bench, we would still have Roe v. Wade,” Fuentes said. “Now you tell me that this is a Judeo-Christian country… You tell me that it doesn’t matter that we have a lot of Jewish people in government.”

Extremism trackers like the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center have long classified Fuentes as a hate group leader who advocates antisemitism and Holocaust denial, in addition to racist and nativist ideologies. His YouTube channel was previously banned for hate speech.

Yet several Republican elected officials were featured speakers at Fuentes’ AFPAC conference in February, including sitting members of Congress Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona; Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin; and Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (who was censured by her state Republican party for her appearance at the conference). When they were confronted with Fuentes’ views after their conference appearances, all four declined to condemn Fuentes or his organization. Gosar previously hosted a fundraiser with Fuentes.

Fuentes’ antisemitic comments mirror similar expressions from “traditional Catholic” groups, who generally believe all Jews are enemies of Christianity. Most interpretations of Jewish law permit abortion access in some form.

The seeds of the current conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court were planted when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote on then-President Obama’s Jewish nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016, as a replacement for conservative Catholic Antonin Scalia, instead holding the spot for Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, to fill with conservative Christian Neil Gorsuch (who was raised Catholic but later attended an Episcopal church). 

The supermajority was then solidified in fall 2020 when Ginsburg died, opening up a new spot for then-President Trump to fill with the Catholic Barrett in the waning months of his administration. Two members of the current liberal minority on the Court are Jewish; one, Justice Stephen Breyer, is retiring at the conclusion of this term.  ENDJTA220629-Fuentes

END221129-0944


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> HeyNorm222129-#5,940 HeyNorm   “Got it. So killing those not born in this country is fine by you.. . . . “
> 
> NFBW: No. It is not ‘fine’ by me in my personal life to kill the “unborn”  or as you say the “not born in this country” and I have explained it to the religious oppressors of the already born women many times.
> 
> Your problem Mr. Norm is that you don’t appear to have the cerebral capacity to keep more than one of my posts in your mind more than one at a time. I have seen that mental condition occur quite often in posts primarily of those who are MAGA and thus aligned politically if not religiously to Christians both Protestant and Catholic who are fully falsely convinced that Jesus’ Father from a place called Heaven is who as the ONE and only true GOD who created America in the 1780s as the new chosen nation. Therefore America was created by white Christian’s, for white European of Western Civilization fame like Nick Fuentes,  therefore modern day Christians of all colors have a duty to keep America Christian. We must as Americans thank and please the God White Christian nationalists believe created America in the first place. Keep it a Christian Nation is Christian and American patriotic duty.
> 
> Trump energized this Christian Nation fallacy to win the GOP nomination in 2015.  Here is an example ding and beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix of the type of *Catholic *Trump invited to Mar-A-Lago for a luncheon during our American Thanksgiving week a week ago.
> 
> JTA220629 TRUMP’s Tday lunch guest at the Trumpism Florida Palace JUNE 2022
> 
> JTA) — In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist leader and influential figure among the rightmost flank of the Republican Party, told his followers that “Jews stood in the way” of Catholic Supreme Court Justices who “were put on the court to overturn” the 1973 decision that guaranteed the right to an abortion in the United States.
> 
> Fuentes, who founded the America First Political Action Committee and the”groyper army,” a radical fringe group, made the comments on his website’s livestream on Friday, according to Right Wing Watch. He added “we need a government of Christians” and “Jewish people can be here, but they can’t make our laws.”
> 
> Nick Fuentes, white nationalist with GOP ties, says ‘Jews stood in the way’ of Roe v. Wade’s end - Jewish Telegraphic Agency
> 
> “If Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Jewish woman, didn’t die last year, so that Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic woman, could be appointed to the bench, we would still have Roe v. Wade,” Fuentes said. “Now you tell me that this is a Judeo-Christian country… You tell me that it doesn’t matter that we have a lot of Jewish people in government.”
> 
> Extremism trackers like the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center have long classified Fuentes as a hate group leader who advocates antisemitism and Holocaust denial, in addition to racist and nativist ideologies. His YouTube channel was previously banned for hate speech.
> 
> Yet several Republican elected officials were featured speakers at Fuentes’ AFPAC conference in February, including sitting members of Congress Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona; Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin; and Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (who was censured by her state Republican party for her appearance at the conference). When they were confronted with Fuentes’ views after their conference appearances, all four declined to condemn Fuentes or his organization. Gosar previously hosted a fundraiser with Fuentes.
> 
> Fuentes’ antisemitic comments mirror similar expressions from “traditional Catholic” groups, who generally believe all Jews are enemies of Christianity. Most interpretations of Jewish law permit abortion access in some form.
> 
> The seeds of the current conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court were planted when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote on then-President Obama’s Jewish nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016, as a replacement for conservative Catholic Antonin Scalia, instead holding the spot for Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, to fill with conservative Christian Neil Gorsuch (who was raised Catholic but later attended an Episcopal church).
> 
> The supermajority was then solidified in fall 2020 when Ginsburg died, opening up a new spot for then-President Trump to fill with the Catholic Barrett in the waning months of his administration. Two members of the current liberal minority on the Court are Jewish; one, Justice Stephen Breyer, is retiring at the conclusion of this term.  ENDJTA220629-Fuentes
> 
> END221129-0944



I spefically asked when a human attained the riight to live, and you replied that only United States citizens and those  obtaining citizenship have this right. 

You have shown your true colors. Deal with it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm221127-#5,861  As such, most states as well as the Federal Government had recognized the fetus as human, regardless if born or not.

NFBW: I am sorry HeyNorm that you misunderstand me. Me, myself, and I recognize the fetus as human regardless, whether or not, it is born, not viable, or unborn from the exact moment that a new human being is conceived until the moment when hopefully a long living human being dies. Are we clear on this?

END2211291052


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> HeyNorm221127-#5,861  As such, most states as well as the Federal Government had recognized the fetus as human, regardless if born or not.
> 
> NFBW: I am sorry HeyNorm that you misunderstand me. Me, myself, and I recognize the fetus as human regardless, whether or not, it is born, not viable, or unborn from the exact moment that a new human being is conceived until the moment when hopefully a long living human being dies. Are we clear on this?
> 
> END2211291052



Ok, so you recognize the fetus as human life and it requires the same protection as all living Human beings.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: FORtheRECORD


HeyNorm221127-#5,864   “Who is the child”. A child is a person. A person is protected under state, federal and constitutional law.

NFBW221127-#5,866   “Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

NFBW: Most intentionally pregnant people, like my youngest highly educated pro-choice, young medical professional woman and daughter just informed her mother and me that she is going to have a baby. It’s her first child and pregnancy

Using a loving expression does not grant the brainless heartless zygote embryo fetus she has “invited into her belly” to use her biologically functioning anatomy to sustain its life for the next seven and a half months of her life.

NFBW: FORtheRECORD Here is what went down betwixt you, me and the fencepost, others posters thus far:

TK220511-#2,987 @TemplarKormac “The baby is only human when the mother wants it. Such utter pomposity and arrogance defy science and all reasoning”

NFBW221127-#5,849 Both are human before during and after the medical procedure of abortion.

The ROE V Wade human rights riddle?
If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

HeyNorm221127-#5,861 HeyNorm “Um, not true. If it were the fetal homicide laws would be overturned. The killer can be charged whether the mother wanted the child or not.”

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.

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.

HeyNorm221127-#5,864 “Who is the child”. A child is a person. A person is protected under state, federal and constitutional law.

NFBW221127-#5,866 “Have you ever heard the expression “My wife is with child” which is another way of saying “My wife is pregnant.” Sorry I didn’t know you were are one of the fussy ones. Are you pro-choice?

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.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 Yes, I have heard the expression “with child”. The expression has meaning. Those using it believes it to be “a child”. There are many many ways of expressing the same without granting it personhood.

But since the phrase was used in such a manner, then the speaker must believe it to be a person.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 Now you want me to believe that it is a person, but not “person enough” to have protection of our laws.

NFBW: I do not want you to believe anything of the sort. I believe the above ( NFBW221127-#5,849 ) and see no need to get into a semantics or wordology distraction such as that.

HeyNorm221128-#5,867 This appears the same justification the white slave owners had as well. “My slave is a human, but property non the less and may be destroyed at my whim”.

NFBW. Jefferson and other founding father slave owners were not women for sure, and not being required by the state to give slaves the use of their bodies for nine months so I fail to see the relevance to this chapter of this discussion except to place an object o the tracks to derail it, For now can we bring it back oto the ROE v Wade Riddle? The Constitutional rights conflict between mother and unborn child with respect to this . . . All *persons born *or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and this

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

Slavery has nothing to do with the rights of the two persons, one recognized and viable and one not and unborn, going through the reproduction process under the multitude of societal processes and challenges and rewards of being human.



HeyNorm said:


> I specifically asked when a human attained the right to live, and you replied that only United States citizens and those obtaining citizenship have this right.



NFBW: you must be talking about the following post:

HeyNorm221128-#5,933 HeyNorm Hmmm, even a born infant uses the body of another to sustain life. So how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?

NFBW: This was my answer.

NFBW221128-#5,938     “When they become citizens at birth as it has always been. See this phrase from the Constitution “*All persons born or naturalized in the United States”* or prior to 24th week of pregnancy when the capability to be born has been developed.

NFBW: So as you can see my answer to your question “how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?” was a LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL ONE which you are unable to refute.

IF you have a private copy of a Catholic US Constitution that says a child has a right to life the moment He or She is conceived and created by Gid, then I missed it somehow and could you please provide a link to it.

END2211291157


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm221128-#5,933 HeyNorm Hmmm, even a born infant uses the body of another to sustain life. So how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?

NFBW221128-#5,938 “When they become citizens at birth as it has always been. See this phrase from the Constitution “*All persons born or naturalized in the United States”* or prior to 24th week of pregnancy when the capability to be born has been developed.

NFBW221129-#5,947   So as you can see my answer to your question “how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?” was a LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL ONE which you are unable to refute.

HeyNorm222129-#5,940   “So fetal homicide laws are now unconstitutional? That is, after all, you’re argument, correct?”

NFBW: That is not correct.

Fetal Homicide Laws are constitutional because the pregnant woman has a right to life and liberty and 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 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.”

NFBW: That is all easily understood as true if  you ever decide to pay attention strictly to the Constitution.

END2211291448


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm221129-#5,944   HeyNorm       I specifically asked when a human attained the right to live, and you replied that only United States citizens and those obtaining citizenship have this right. “

NFBW: No you specifically asked;

HeyNorm221128-#5,933 HeyNorm Hmmm, even a born infant uses the body of another to sustain life. So how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?

NFBW: Your question was two parts joined with the conjunction “So” in reference to a born infant that uses the body of another to sustain life. 

In the United States all humans who are already “born infants” have a right to life at birth. A “born infant” uses the body of its mother normally to sustain life but by virtue of having the zero hour birth date and becoming a US Citizen, if need be, we as society have a duty to protect them and get what they need for survival. A Birth of a new human being is a public event and is recorded publicly and may be celebrated publicly as well since it takes a village.

 When you asked me how old must a “child” be before it attains the right to live” I answered by repeating what the Constitution says because prior to separation from its birth mother, it’s right to live passes through her individual autonomous inherent privacy right to give or deny her consent to have her body used by another person for nine month in order to survive and have its own birthday.

END2211291540


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221129-#5,942  CarsomyrPlusSix        So fetal homicide laws are now unconstitutional? That is, after all, your argument, correct?

NFBW: NO. NOT AT ALL.

Fetal Homicide Laws are constitutional because the pregnant woman has a right to life and liberty and 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 in her body 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.”

NFBW: That is all easily understood as true if you ever decide to pay attention strictly to the Constitution.

END2211291552


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221128-#5,936 ding   The sentiment that government is a necessary evil and that if men were angels there would be no need of government were widely held beliefs of our founding fathers. It’s a huge leap from that position to extremism of any flavor.
> 
> Hillary Clinton wrote: *In fact, its extreme case against government, often including intense personal attacks on government officials and political leaders, is designed not just to restrain government but to advance narrow religious, political, and economic agendas.*
> 
> NFBW: If one is a woman in a Trump Christian state that banned women’s access to an abortion, I’d say based on election results in Kansas Michigan etc where reproductive rights were on the voting machines, most women, younger women are voting against religious extremism in the Republican Party whether they think they will ever need an abortion in their future or not.
> 
> But you cannot see it because you have Christian religion bias that does not allow you to see right wing religion as nothing but a positive driver of successful behaviors which Western Civilization was built upon.
> 
> ding220127-#617     I don’t see how that changes the fact that we were founded as a Christian nation based upon Christian values and principles. Not religious dogma per se but the successful behaviors which Western Civilization was built upon.
> 
> We were not founded as a Christian nation ding in any way shape or form. Extremism and intolerance in the name of God was to our founders one of the most serious threats to their vision for America.
> 
> END22110034


Again… abortion isn’t a religious issue. It’s a human rights issue.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> HeyNorm222129-#5,940 HeyNorm   “Got it. So killing those not born in this country is fine by you.. . . . “
> 
> NFBW: No. It is not ‘fine’ by me in my personal life to kill the “unborn”  or as you say the “not born in this country” and I have explained it to the religious oppressors of the already born women many times.
> 
> Your problem Mr. Norm is that you don’t appear to have the cerebral capacity to keep more than one of my posts in your mind more than one at a time. I have seen that mental condition occur quite often in posts primarily of those who are MAGA and thus aligned politically if not religiously to Christians both Protestant and Catholic who are fully falsely convinced that Jesus’ Father from a place called Heaven is who as the ONE and only true GOD who created America in the 1780s as the new chosen nation. Therefore America was created by white Christian’s, for white European of Western Civilization fame like Nick Fuentes,  therefore modern day Christians of all colors have a duty to keep America Christian. We must as Americans thank and please the God White Christian nationalists believe created America in the first place. Keep it a Christian Nation is Christian and American patriotic duty.
> 
> Trump energized this Christian Nation fallacy to win the GOP nomination in 2015.  Here is an example ding and beagle9 and CarsomyrPlusSix of the type of *Catholic *Trump invited to Mar-A-Lago for a luncheon during our American Thanksgiving week a week ago.
> 
> JTA220629 TRUMP’s Tday lunch guest at the Trumpism Florida Palace JUNE 2022
> 
> JTA) — In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist leader and influential figure among the rightmost flank of the Republican Party, told his followers that “Jews stood in the way” of Catholic Supreme Court Justices who “were put on the court to overturn” the 1973 decision that guaranteed the right to an abortion in the United States.
> 
> Fuentes, who founded the America First Political Action Committee and the”groyper army,” a radical fringe group, made the comments on his website’s livestream on Friday, according to Right Wing Watch. He added “we need a government of Christians” and “Jewish people can be here, but they can’t make our laws.”
> 
> Nick Fuentes, white nationalist with GOP ties, says ‘Jews stood in the way’ of Roe v. Wade’s end - Jewish Telegraphic Agency
> 
> “If Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Jewish woman, didn’t die last year, so that Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic woman, could be appointed to the bench, we would still have Roe v. Wade,” Fuentes said. “Now you tell me that this is a Judeo-Christian country… You tell me that it doesn’t matter that we have a lot of Jewish people in government.”
> 
> Extremism trackers like the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center have long classified Fuentes as a hate group leader who advocates antisemitism and Holocaust denial, in addition to racist and nativist ideologies. His YouTube channel was previously banned for hate speech.
> 
> Yet several Republican elected officials were featured speakers at Fuentes’ AFPAC conference in February, including sitting members of Congress Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona; Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin; and Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (who was censured by her state Republican party for her appearance at the conference). When they were confronted with Fuentes’ views after their conference appearances, all four declined to condemn Fuentes or his organization. Gosar previously hosted a fundraiser with Fuentes.
> 
> Fuentes’ antisemitic comments mirror similar expressions from “traditional Catholic” groups, who generally believe all Jews are enemies of Christianity. Most interpretations of Jewish law permit abortion access in some form.
> 
> The seeds of the current conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court were planted when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote on then-President Obama’s Jewish nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016, as a replacement for conservative Catholic Antonin Scalia, instead holding the spot for Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, to fill with conservative Christian Neil Gorsuch (who was raised Catholic but later attended an Episcopal church).
> 
> The supermajority was then solidified in fall 2020 when Ginsburg died, opening up a new spot for then-President Trump to fill with the Catholic Barrett in the waning months of his administration. Two members of the current liberal minority on the Court are Jewish; one, Justice Stephen Breyer, is retiring at the conclusion of this term.  ENDJTA220629-Fuentes
> 
> END221129-0944


Again… abortion isn’t a religious issue. Abortion is a human rights issue.


----------



## ding

HeyNorm said:


> Ok, so you recognize the fetus as human life and it requires the same protection as all living Human beings.


It took a lot of hard work but he did finally change his mind that it’s a human life but not one he would afford any rights too. He believes that human life in the womb can be disposed of at the will of its owner prior to viability.  It was hilarious watching him change his beliefs without changing his support for abortion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Again… abortion isn’t a religious issue. It’s a human rights issue.


Are you some kind of supreme Catholic ayatollah sent from god issuing a decree as to what is a religious issue and what is a human rights issue. Who the fuck do you think you are?

Yes, abortion is a human rights issue between unborn human beings on one side seeking the right to use another human beings body for nine months in order to become a born human being  vs born women who  seek the right to control what happens to their bodies when a pregnancy happens.

The unborn have not petitioned the government to intervene on their behalf so a broad coalition known as the Republican Party has taken up the cause of the unborn and is driven by mostly white religious zealotry such as we see here in posts by Mashmont pushing for Catholic rule and beagle9 pushing from the Protestant side.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you some kind of supreme Catholic ayatollah sent from god issuing a decree as to what is a religious issue and what is a human rights issue. Who the fuck do you think you are?
> 
> Yes, abortion is a human rights issue between unborn human beings on one side seeking the right to use another human beings body for nine months in order to become a born human being  vs born women who  seek the right to control what happens to their bodies when a pregnancy happens.
> 
> The unborn have not petitioned the government to intervene on their behalf so a broad coalition known as the Republican Party has taken up the cause of the unborn and is driven by mostly white
> religious zealotry such as we see here in posts by Mashmont pushing for Catholic rule and beagle9 pushing from the Protestant side.


No. Abortion isn’t a religious issue.  Abortion is a human rights issue. And no matter how hard you try to make this about religion it won’t change the fact that abortion is a human rights issue.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> It took a lot of hard work but he did finally change his mind that it’s a human life but not one he would afford any rights too.


I have always said it’s human exactly the same as the scientists you cite, however it is not my duty or obligation to the unborn to force full term pregnancy on a woman I have no relationship with to say she has no right to do what she wants to do in the privacy of her home and her doctors office with her own body if she becomes pregnant. 

I am opposed to abortion in my own personal life and you goddamn well know it so you are a liar.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I have always said it’s human exactly the same as the scientists you cite, however it is not my duty or obligation to the unborn to force full term pregnancy on a woman I have no relationship with to say she has no right to do what she wants to do in the privacy of her home and her doctors office with her own body if she becomes pregnant.
> 
> I am opposed to abortion in my own personal life and you goddamn well know it so you are a liar.


Actually you didn’t.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.


And then there’s this.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221129-#5,958  ding   “And then there’s this.”

NFBW2208102158-#4,614   “Ending the life of a human being is murder.”

NFBW: There is what?  Here is my full comment on that which is absolutely consistent with every message I have posted. 

NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

ding220810-#4,620 “Which is apparently the only reason you deny that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human has come alive. Abortion is intended to kill that life.”

beagle9-#4,621 “Well yes, but it's more like involuntary unborn baby slaughter”

NFBW220811-#4,623   Ending the life of a human being is murder.

Ending the life of a one-celled growth that is attached to a uterus is not murder.

Ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????

ClaireH

BackAgain airplanemechanic

ding beagle9 BS Filter Meister Lysistrata

San Souci eagle1462010

@ChemicalEngineer 

CarsomyrPlusSix 

END2211291751


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221129-#5,958  ding   “And then there’s this.”
> 
> NFBW2208102158-#4,614   “Ending the life of a human being is murder.”
> 
> NFBW: There is what?  Here is my full comment on that which is absolutely consistent with every message I have posted.
> 
> NFBW2208102158-#4,614 Ending the life of a human being is murder.
> 
> ding220810-#4,620 “Which is apparently the only reason you deny that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human has come alive. Abortion is intended to kill that life.”
> 
> beagle9-#4,621 “Well yes, but it's more like involuntary unborn baby slaughter”
> 
> NFBW220811-#4,623   Ending the life of a human being is murder.
> 
> Ending the life of a one-celled growth that is attached to a uterus is not murder.
> 
> Ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????
> 
> ClaireH
> 
> BackAgain airplanemechanic
> 
> ding beagle9 BS Filter Meister Lysistrata
> 
> San Souci eagle1462010
> 
> @ChemicalEngineer
> 
> CarsomyrPlusSix
> 
> END2211291751


According to your own words ending a human life is murder and abortion ends a human life.


----------



## beagle9

HeyNorm said:


> Hmmm, even a born infant uses the body of another to sustain life. So how old must a child be before it attains the right to live?


It retains that right immediately after conception. 

It's the mother that is then tasked with nurturing and growing that beautiful child that is developing within her. 

She must change her eating habits, watch her medicine intake, control her extracurricular activities by watching her stress levels, straining, and just overall health choices made. 

A pregnancy is a joyous event that should make a woman glow with pride and revel in humbleness, otherwise because she has become the bearer of a new soul that will eagerly burst into the world via the miracle of birth.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Abortion ends a human life you can quote me on that anytime now


See?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Universal Scale Of Exploitation From Inchoate To Sapient "

* Begging The Question Rather Than Resolving The Disparities **


HeyNorm said:


> Got it. So killing those not born in this country is fine by you because when asked when life is to be protected you stated quite clearly that only those born or naturalized in this country have this right.
> 
> You crack me up.
> 
> So fetal homicide laws are now unconstitutional? That is, after all, you’re argument, correct?


The fetal homicide law would be unconstitutional if it were to include the death penalty as capital punishment , because a fetus does not have a wright to life by which a perpetrator would lose its own wright to life by equitable doctrine .

The fetal homicide law would be unconstitutional if the mother or any given consent to by the mother were prosecuted for participating in or for performing an abortion .

The fetal homicide law relates the penalty for an injury or death to a fetus based on intent and penalties can be appropriate for the act , and any offenses would in fact be against the mother whom has constitutional protections . 

The fetal homicide law does not confer constitutional protections to a fetus any more than constitutional protections are afforded to animals , though one can be prosecuted for an act of animal cruelty based on a capacity for an animal to suffer cruelty , that necessarily presumes sentience as a prerequisite .

The fools claiming that 15 weeks fetus are suffering pain is a lie and abortions post 15 weeks are for fetal or maternal anomalies , and while the fetus is without constitutional protections for not having met a birth requirement , measures to minimize or prevent suffering during abortion procedures remains an ethical concern .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Not Science Just More Dumb Shit From Sanctimonious Carnivores "

* Entitled To Valid Claims Of Mind And Not Preformation Hubris **


beagle9 said:


> It retains that right immediately after conception.


An extraterrestrial as an apex predator willing to exploit hue mammon for food or slave labor would more greatly appreciate a hue mammon which understood a universal scale of exploitation and offered empathy for all that suffer , while understanding that on a universal scale of exploitation an ethical conflict based on suffering does not exist for those incapable of sentience .

The supposition that an inchoate fetus , without a capacity for sentience , is cognizant and capable of issuing conscientious objection is a lie .

An argument for a homunculus is arcane and absurd , in that it presupposes cognizance from the point of conception , as its sin mythology lunatics continue to foster the mundane homunculus assertion with a heartbeat standard .


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Not Science Just More Dumb Shit From Sanctimonious Carnivores "
> 
> * Entitled To Valid Claims Of Mind And Not Preformation Hubris **
> 
> An extraterrestrial as an apex predator willing to exploit hue mammon for food or slave labor would more greatly appreciate a hue mammon which understood a universal scale of exploitation and offered empathy for all that suffer , while understanding that on a universal scale of exploitation an ethical conflict based on suffering does not exist for those incapable of sentience .
> 
> The supposition that an inchoate fetus , without a capacity for sentience , is cognizant and capable of issuing conscientious objection is a lie .
> 
> An argument for a homunculus is arcane and absurd , in that it presupposes cognizance from the point of conception , as its sin mythology lunatics continue to foster the mundane homunculus assertion with a heartbeat standard .


The ultrasound challenges your bull crap, because the mother See's her beautiful child in her womb, and it definitely makes her aware that to do anything to harm or kill that beautiful child would be a great and sinful thing.  Thank God technology found people like you and your cohort's out for whom attempt to separate child and mother with unholy lies and unholy influences that would somehow convince a woman that she should take her babies life if she just doesn't want it. Shame on you and those who rally for you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> According to your own words ending a human life is murder and abortion ends a human life.


NFBW: No. You are a liar. That is not according to all my words. I make a clear distinction between ending a _*viable*_ human being which is murder, if not in self defense or in combat while in the service of the country. I told you last August that ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder. 

Here are all my words again: 

NFBW220811-#4,623 Ending the life of a human being is murder.

Ending the life of a one-celled growth that is attached to a uterus is not murder.

Ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????

NFBW: You are a liar. 

END2211292016


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No. You are a liar. That is not according to all my words. I make a clear distinction between ending a _*viable*_ human being which is murder, if not in self defense or in combat while in the service of the country. I told you last August that ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder.
> 
> Here are all my words again:
> 
> NFBW220811-#4,623 Ending the life of a human being is murder.
> 
> Ending the life of a one-celled growth that is attached to a uterus is not murder.
> 
> Ending the life of a nonviable human being that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood is not murder or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????
> 
> NFBW: You are a liar.
> 
> END2211292016


They don’t abort one cell organisms. They abort human beings. They don’t even know they are pregnant at that point. And you still can’t bring yourself to admit abortion ends a human life because you think they are aborting cells instead of humans.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> They don’t abort one cell organisms. They abort human beings. They don’t even know they are pregnant at that point. And you still can’t bring yourself to admit abortion ends a human life because you think they are aborting cells instead of humans.


Nevermind that - unless you believe in a soul and are correct in doing so, which is unknowable - humans ARE just cells.

All biological organisms are just cells.

Except for the ones that are unicellular their entirely lifespan - they are just not “cells” because that word is plural.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Abortion ends a human life you can quote me on that anytime now





NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW220811-#4,623 Ending the life of a human being is murder.


You have quite the dilemma.


----------



## ding

Apparently a human life in the womb isn’t a human being. I guess he believes it’s a monkey or something.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221128-#5,895    “And do you believe there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay alive?”

ding221128-#5,897   I believe the competing interests are why a rights discussion needs to be held at the federal level. Absent that it will be held at the state level.

NFBW221128-#5,908    Yes Christian religious zealots on one side like beagle9 protestant and Mashmont a Catholic. On the other side Woman who expect freedom and autonomy over their own bodies because of these words in the Constitution.

ding221128-#5,912  So much of what you say here is untrue. But it’s not worth arguing about because it has nothing to do with the competing interests at play that need to be weighed.

NFBW: I told you the competing interests on the anti-abortion side are Christian religious zealots like beagle9 a protestant and Mashmont a Catholic and Nick Fuentes, Trump’s lunchtime guest last week. You say it’s not true. It’s pretty clear who are on the pro-abortion, reproductive freedom side. Do you know who is the competing interest on the anti-abortion side?

And are you certain that there is no *constitutional human rights* distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay alive? 

If you continue claiming a pregnant woman and the fetus in her body have equal human rights protected by the Constitution don’t you think you need to show us where the unborn’s right to life is referenced? 

END2211292130


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You have quite the dilemma


Yes, what can I do about your lying. 

What I write in full has been reposted - yet you continue cutting off my entire point.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes, what can I do about your lying.
> 
> What I write in full has been reposted - yet you continue cutting off my entire point.


It’s linked to the post.  That’s how the quote feature works. 

There are no caveats or exceptions for ending a human life.  According to your own words it’s murder.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221129-#5,967 ding   “They don’t abort one cell organisms. They abort human beings.

NFBW: So what is your point?  This is about the rights of pregnant women.  Woman are not demanding a right to terminate a viable human being.

I agree a one cell organism is a human being. So what? It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Oh that’s what you say too.

ding220723-#3,823 “A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being. It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Every stage along the continuum is fully human and has the appropriate human characteristics for that stage of the human life cycle. Learn some science.”

I’m glad you agree with me that all human beings are on a fully human continuum which scientifically means for the first 22 weeks there is no science that says the human being on the continuum can survive without the life support of the mother which means what I explained to beagle9

NFBW221127-#5,841     The problem for Christians such as you beagle9 is the Constitution is specifically written for born human beings.

Do you see the dilemma that Roe v Wade settled fifty years ago: The ROE V Wade riddle?

If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?

The pushy Christian answer picks the person who must use another persons body for nine months before such a person can be born. But we do not live under a Christian constitution.

The strict originalist constitutional answer picks the only person it can be - the person with the body needing to be used. The pregnant woman. The person already beyond the stage of being born.

The mothers right to decide in private to give birth and life or not to give to birth and life to the unborn human being, clearly and unequivocally trumps the right to life of the unborn human being in strict interpretation and compliance with the Constitution.

Therefore there is an originalist constitutional case to be made that each of us as a human being has a fundamental duty and responsibility to all other human beings with the exception of human beings prior to their ability to be born. And there is no evil or breakdown in civilization or in religious terms “sin” when we agree the mother’s right to choose in private the life or death of her own unborn child trumps the right to life of the unborn child when we follow the Constitution.

END22113327


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221129-#5,967 ding   “They don’t abort one cell organisms. They abort human beings.
> 
> NFBW: So what is your point?  This is about the rights of pregnant women.  Woman are not demanding a right to terminate a viable human being.
> 
> I agree a one cell organism is a human being. So what? It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Oh that’s what you say too.
> 
> ding220723-#3,823 “A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being. It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Every stage along the continuum is fully human and has the appropriate human characteristics for that stage of the human life cycle. Learn some science.”
> 
> I’m glad you agree with me that all human beings are on a fully human continuum which scientifically means for the first 22 weeks there is no science that says the human being on the continuum can survive without the life support of the mother which means what I explained to beagle9
> 
> NFBW221127-#5,841     The problem for Christians such as you beagle9 is the Constitution is specifically written for born human beings.
> 
> Do you see the dilemma that Roe v Wade settled fifty years ago: The ROE V Wade riddle?
> 
> If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?
> 
> The pushy Christian answer picks the person who must use another persons body for nine months before such a person can be born. But we do not live under a Christian constitution.
> 
> The strict originalist constitutional answer picks the only person it can be - the person with the body needing to be used. The pregnant woman. The person already beyond the stage of being born.
> 
> The mothers right to decide in private to give birth and life or not to give to birth and life to the unborn human being, clearly and unequivocally trumps the right to life of the unborn human being in strict interpretation and compliance with the Constitution.
> 
> Therefore there is an originalist constitutional case to be made that each of us as a human being has a fundamental duty and responsibility to all other human beings with the exception of human beings prior to their ability to be born. And there is no evil or breakdown in civilization or in religious terms “sin” when we agree the mother’s right to choose in private the life or death of her own unborn child trumps the right to life of the unborn child when we follow the Constitution.
> 
> END22113327


My point is you have been all over the map.


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW221128-#5,895    “And do you believe there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay alive?”
> 
> ding221128-#5,897   I believe the competing interests are why a rights discussion needs to be held at the federal level. Absent that it will be held at the state level.
> 
> NFBW221128-#5,908    Yes Christian religious zealots on one side like beagle9 protestant and Mashmont a Catholic. On the other side Woman who expect freedom and autonomy over their own bodies because of these words in the Constitution.
> 
> ding221128-#5,912  So much of what you say here is untrue. But it’s not worth arguing about because it has nothing to do with the competing interests at play that need to be weighed.
> 
> NFBW: I told you the competing interests on the anti-abortion side are Christian religious zealots like beagle9 a protestant and Mashmont a Catholic and Nick Fuentes, Trump’s lunchtime guest last week. You say it’s not true. It’s pretty clear who are on the pro-abortion, reproductive freedom side. Do you know who is the competing interest on the anti-abortion side?
> 
> And are you certain that there is no *constitutional human rights* distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay alive?
> 
> If you continue claiming a pregnant woman and the fetus in her body have equal human rights protected by the Constitution don’t you think you need to show us where the unborn’s right to life is referenced?
> 
> END2211292130



Another mistake. It is the rare fetus that requires 9 months gestation to survive. 

Another oops. 

And, even after birth, an infant require outside source(s) to survive. 

Oops x 2


----------



## HeyNorm

ding said:


> My point is you have been all over the map.


When you are looking to justify the taking of an innocent life, ya kinda need to be all over the map.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221128-#5,895 “And do you believe there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay alive?”

HeyNorm221130-#5,976     Another mistake. It is the rare fetus that requires 9 months gestation to survive.

Human gestational length averages 38 weeks (8.74 months) from conception. However, pregnancy is customarily measured from the date of the last menstrual period — about 2 weeks before conception. By this scale, pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, or 9.20 months.

NFBW: Off by 0.26 months and you can’t be bothered to answer the question ding is hiding from?   

do you HeyNorm believe there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for 8.74 months in order to stay alive?”

END2211300032


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm221129-#5,977     When you are looking to justify the taking of an innocent life, ya kinda need to be all over the map.

NFBW: I am not looking to taking any human being’s life born or unborn and you cannot believe much that comes out of that one’s mouth.

On what basis do you support your
state legislators passing a law that bans abortion after the first 22 weeks of pregnancy of a woman who has no relationship  to you whatsoever?

END2211300055


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

HeyNorm said:


> When you are looking to justify the taking of an innocent life, ya kinda need to be all over the map.


 Correct - homicide of the innocent is utterly indefensible.  His task is impossible, so like most pro-aborts he flails and fumbles at a hopeless cause.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding220810-#4,620 “Which is apparently the only reason you deny that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human has come alive. Abortion is intended to kill that life.”

NFBW220810-#4,622     My support for a woman to be able to choose to continue or end a pregnancy is based on my secular humanist respect for women as equals to men and no respect for what some Christians opine that sacred life begins at conception. I believe sacred life begins at viability and it should not be a matter that is to be determined by expecting politicians to vote on it. That is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. END2208110026

NFBW220811-#4,623  *Ending the life of a* *nonviable human being* that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood *is not murder *or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????

ding220811-#4,624    But the reason you deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization is because it's easier for you to dismiss their death and right to life if you don't see them as human beings.
You want to play king. Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.

NFBW: ding knew my point on murder back in August. He is hard up for  distraction to not know I argued that abortion was murder when a fetus reached viability at 22 weeks.  If a woman does not choose to abort by a viability date then she needs a medical resson such as her life is in danger.

ding220814-#4,808    So just to be clear, *you believe abortion is murder 1 day after your so called "viability" dat*e.      What is it called 1 day prior to your so called "viability" date when the human life is killed?

NFBW:  We can’t trust anything ding writes to be honest  - he is throwing crap at the wall after engaging a little.

END2221300200


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Correct - homicide of the innocent is utterly indefensible.  His task is impossible, so like most pro-aborts he flails and fumbles at a hopeless cause.


Yep, and we've seen the horrid pictures of little babies that have been ripped from their mother's wombs, otherwise that were healthy developing little babies/human beings with all their tiny little human beings features such as their heartbeat's, eyes, ears, feet, toes, and etc, otherwise as such to be identified with, but NFBW is trying to justify somehow a so callled doctor being free to just do a monstrous thing as if we as a CIVILIZED people would always ignore that monstrous thing because of his wicked way of justifying these monstrous things.  To remain CIVILIZED we must act civilized, otherwise we are not civilized. An uncivilized person attempts to justify uncivilized Acts.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding220810-#4,620 “Which is apparently the only reason you deny that after fertilization a new, genetically distinct human has come alive. Abortion is intended to kill that life.”
> 
> NFBW220810-#4,622     My support for a woman to be able to choose to continue or end a pregnancy is based on my secular humanist respect for women as equals to men and no respect for what some Christians opine that sacred life begins at conception. I believe sacred life begins at viability and it should not be a matter that is to be determined by expecting politicians to vote in it. That is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. END2208110026
> 
> NFBW220811-#4,623  *Ending the life of a* *nonviable human being* that has never had a conscious thought and is fully Incapable of oxygenating its own blood *is not murder *or inhuman or immoral or a violation of a non-existent unborn right. Am I clear ???????
> 
> ding220811-#4,624    But the reason you deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization is because it's easier for you to dismiss their death and right to life if you don't see them as human beings.
> You want to play king. Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.


I like how you placed ding's words at the end of your post, otherwise maybe in hopes that after someone read them they would accidentally give a thumbs up to the post as if it were ding's post somehow by mistake ????  

After reading those words at the end, one might forget that it was your post that was posted because of the long words written by ding you stuck at the end. Is this some form of posting trickery that you use, otherwise by posting the way that you do ?? How does ding's words get posted in the context or positioning that you posted them without your response coming next ?? Shouldn't it be that you use the quote function to highlight what you are fixing to respond too, and then your response comes next or after that ??


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> one might forget



Go  read it now    It’s proof ding has been lying again    My views are clear and consistent 

  1 Abortion is murder after viability  : not murder before viability  unless to save the life of the mother which I  most cases it would be under Jewish law. 

  2 Abortion kills a human being sometimes when it is in the embryonic stage and sometimes when it is in the  The Fetal Stage of Pregnancy  the embryo or fetus dies during an abortion  but the woman’s right to terminate superseded the right of the unborn  priir to viability 

3  I agree in General with Jewish doctrine on abortion: 

Jewish law does not consider the fetus to be a being with a soul until it is born. It does not have personhood. Furthermore, before 40 days, some poskim, or deciders of Jewish law, have a low bar for allowing an abortion.

The Talmud, in Yevamos 69b, cites the view of Rav Hisda that “until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being.” 

If there is a threat to a woman’s life, the safety of the mother takes precedence over continuing the pregnancy at any stage. 

END2211300333


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> homicide of the innocent


What is miscarriage?  What sin could possibly cause the innocent individual human being to die in the womb.


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW221128-#5,895 “And do you believe there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for nine months in order to stay alive?”
> 
> HeyNorm221130-#5,976     Another mistake. It is the rare fetus that requires 9 months gestation to survive.
> 
> Human gestational length averages 38 weeks (8.74 months) from conception. However, pregnancy is customarily measured from the date of the last menstrual period — about 2 weeks before conception. By this scale, pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, or 9.20 months.
> 
> NFBW: Off by 0.26 months and you can’t be bothered to answer the question ding is hiding from?
> 
> do you HeyNorm believe there is no constitutional human rights distinction between a human being who is pregnant and a human being who needs to use the pregnant human being‘s body for 8.74 months in order to stay alive?”
> 
> END2211300032



That is the average gestation period. But it is rare for the pre born to require that length of time to survive. Most would survive if birth happened well before then. 

And………


----------



## HeyNorm

beagle9 said:


> Yep, and we've seen the horrid pictures of little babies that have been ripped from their mother's wombs, otherwise that were healthy developing little babies/human beings with all their tiny little human beings features such as their heartbeat's, eyes, ears, feet, toes, and etc, otherwise as such to be identified with, but NFBW is trying to justify somehow a so callled doctor being free to just do a monstrous thing as if we as a CIVILIZED people would always ignore that monstrous thing because of his wicked way of justifying these monstrous things.  To remain CIVILIZED we must act civilized, otherwise we are not civilized. An uncivilized person attempts to justify uncivilized Acts.



Great response. 

Ding asked, if abortion is wrong on the day of viability, what do you call it on the day before viability?

No answer from him, just deflection. 

I would think it would fall under the civil right standard known as “similarly situated”. The difference in one day could not be so great as to grant life on one date, and deny it on the next.


----------



## HeyNorm

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Not Science Just More Dumb Shit From Sanctimonious Carnivores "
> 
> * Entitled To Valid Claims Of Mind And Not Preformation Hubris **
> 
> An extraterrestrial as an apex predator willing to exploit hue mammon for food or slave labor would more greatly appreciate a hue mammon which understood a universal scale of exploitation and offered empathy for all that suffer , while understanding that on a universal scale of exploitation an ethical conflict based on suffering does not exist for those incapable of sentience .
> 
> The supposition that an inchoate fetus , without a capacity for sentience , is cognizant and capable of issuing conscientious objection is a lie .
> 
> An argument for a homunculus is arcane and absurd , in that it presupposes cognizance from the point of conception , as its sin mythology lunatics continue to foster the mundane homunculus assertion with a heartbeat standard .



Wait, what? The fetus exploits the mother?

How so?

The mother willingly participated (except for rape) in the creation, with full knowledge.  How can anyone say that is in anyway exploitation? It is what the mother agreed to. 

🤦‍♂️


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Little Girls With Hurt Feelings For Dysfunctional Baby Dolls "

* More Gawd Talk For From Vain Beasts **


beagle9 said:


> The ultrasound challenges your bull crap, because the mother See's her beautiful child in her womb, and it definitely makes her aware that to do anything to harm or kill that beautiful child would be a great and sinful thing.  Thank God technology found people like you and your cohort's out for whom attempt to separate child and mother with unholy lies and unholy influences that would somehow convince a woman that she should take her babies life if she just doesn't want it. Shame on you and those who rally for you.


As ultrasounds usually begin around 13 weeks , while fetal abnormalities become evident through to 20 weeks , where at 24 weeks natural viability which is supposed to account for the diagnostic and procedures .

Thus the ultrasound challenges your bull crap , because neither the mother , nor society , may see a beautiful child in her womb , rather perhaps there may be seen another missed fortune among an infinitude of others for which some manifestation of creation has optioned to allow .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Milking Adipose Tissue Becoming Gorge Ass "

* Self Ownership Maternal Private Property **


HeyNorm said:


> Wait, what? The fetus exploits the mother?


The supposition in Roe v. Wade getting overturned!! is whether an extraterrestrial , also an apex predator , would decide whether to enslave or eat hue mammon apes based on whether hue mammon apes adopted a universal criteria for exploitation , wherein empathy for sentient beings is made a valid criteria for exclusion from exploitation , wherein empathy for beings without sentience is made an invalid criteria for exclusion from exploitation .

** Absolute Dependence Versus Cooperative Independence **


HeyNorm said:


> How so?
> The mother willingly participated (except for rape) in the creation, with full knowledge.  How can anyone say that is in anyway exploitation? It is what the mother agreed to.
> 🤦‍♂️


Self ownership through progeny is the responsibility of the individual and not to be dictated or determined by a collective majority for populism and democracy as tyranny by majority .

This us republic maintains a credo of e pluribus unum which espouses independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties among those entitled by live birth to receive them .

Individualism necessarily precludes the individual .


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Monk-Eye said:


> The supposition in Roe v. Wade getting overturned!! is whether an extraterrestrial , also an apex predator , would decide whether to enslave or eat hue mammon apes based on whether hue mammon apes adopted a universal criteria for exploitation , wherein empathy for sentient beings is made a valid criteria for exclusion from exploitation , wherein empathy for beings without sentience is made an invalid criteria for exclusion from exploitation .


You are a never ending supply of quotes proving your own insanity.

This one may be your most insane rambling yet.

Extraterrestrial hue mammons?  What?

Yeah no, I've read Roe and I've read Dobbs.  Roe was nonsense, it was always nonsense, sorry you're so attached to insane nonsense, but keep it out of the law, thanks. 
One thing that neither any SCOTUS ruling ever nor the Constitution ever mentions is "extraterrestrial hue mammons."

Roe cited a fictional "right to privacy" and hallucinated that this fictional right had a penumbra, a shadow right, which meant that you can kill your own kid just because, and it was always in the Constitution, just because of course it was.  This garbage nonsense stands repealed as it should have been.  Nothing based on this "right to privacy" has any legitimacy whatsoever, and all of it, not just Roe, should be repealed immediately.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Keep Telling Yourselves That While Being Dressed Up In Clown Attire "

* Working On That Ego Death **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You are a never ending supply of quotes proving your own insanity.
> This one may be your most insane rambling yet.
> Extraterrestrial hue mammons?  What?


The naturalism camp is taunting the creation in full form camp whether its adherents would intend to refer to an extraterrestrial as gawd .

** Ewes Guise Have A Compelling Problem Of Formidable Adversary **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Yeah no, I've read Roe and I've read Dobbs.  Roe was nonsense, it was always nonsense, sorry you're so attached to insane nonsense, but keep it out of the law, thanks.
> One thing that neither any SCOTUS ruling ever nor the Constitution ever mentions is "extraterrestrial hue mammons."
> 
> Roe cited a fictional "right to privacy" and hallucinated that this fictional right had a penumbra, a shadow right, which meant that you can kill your own kid just because, and it was always in the Constitution, just because of course it was.  This garbage nonsense stands repealed as it should have been.  Nothing based on this "right to privacy" has any legitimacy whatsoever, and all of it, not just Roe, should be repealed immediately.


This moniker has been explaining the obvious consistency of roe with us constitution for more than 25 years , and it is clear and evident to any other than a traitor to principles of individualism for which us republic credo of e pluribus unum expects .

The decision of dobbs is sedition , however how could the dumbfounded conclusions of scotus in dobbs be faulted entirely for its stupidity that is rampant throughout jurisprudence , throughout political institutions and throughout facilitators of the fee press ?

Any citizen has legal standing to prohibit state interests in protecting a wright to life of a zef which has not met a live birth requirement , that is required of a citizen , that is therefore required for equal protection .

Those facts are clearly evident and would be common public knowledge had institutions , pro choice for abortion , had simply followed a simply directive to  " Demand Any Nomination For Us Supreme Court Justice Explain Blackmun ' Logically Of Course ' Statement From Roe V Wade " .

That all eat toe was able to ignorantly claim that " potential life " did not have anything to do with an ability to survive an imminent birth , after relating that roe did not explain why it did not apply in 1st and 2nd trimesters , and after failing to intimate a " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest ... not .. prior to live birth . " is a despicable and pathetically dumbfounded conclusion !

But hey , if the prochoice trope is too incompetent to submit the filing on my behalf , even though off the record concurrence with the deductions has been offered , expect to see it just the same .

A wright to privacy arises as incidental to the actual constitutional basis for roe v wade , because once state interests are prohibited from protecting a wright to life of a zef , as a zef has not met a birth requirement to receive equal protection with a citizen is the principle constitutional basis for abortion , then us 10th amendment as applied supposes us 9th amendment for equal protection of negative liberties , which ensures that populism and democracy as tyranny by majority do not prevail over principles of individualism expected of us republic -
Notice For Public Record :  Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests !


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Monk-Eye said:


> obvious consistency


Bullshit.  Roe had no basis in the Constitution whatsoever.



Monk-Eye said:


> it is clear and evident to any other than a traitor to principles of individualism


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



Monk-Eye said:


> The decision of dobbs is sedition


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



Monk-Eye said:


> zef


Hatemongering slur - just more retardation from a known retard.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: i know what makes ding hide. ding is not a woman and women who get an abortion are not behaving the way his Catholic perspective on the universe demands.

ding220811-#4,624 *Women should* acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again.

NFBW: When ding attacks me, often times based on one lie or the other,  this unique brand of Catholic is attacking women as well for failing to live up to his God, the FATHER’s standards.

JESUS000000   “For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever, amen.”

ding220811-#4,624     Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.

NFBW: Shaming women by Catholic men who will never go through what only a woman can go through most times to please their man really sucks.

JESUS000000 But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

END22110939


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Monk-Eye said:


> populism and democracy as tyranny by majority do not prevail over principles of individualism expected of us republic -


NFBW: Trumpism Christian populism failed to achieve a ballot box victory in 2020 but the stench of the tyranny of that minority will stink up the Catholic dominated SCOTUS for a long time to come until challenged by principled individuals who honor law and the CONSTITUTION and reproductive rights are restored in each and every state for women.

End2211300954


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: i know what makes ding hide. ding is not a woman and women who get an abortion are not behaving the way his Catholic perspective on the universe demands.
> 
> ding220811-#4,624 *Women should* acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again.
> 
> NFBW: When ding attacks me, often times based on one lie or the other,  this unique brand of Catholic is attacking women as well for failing to live up to his God, the FATHER’s standards.
> 
> JESUS000000   “For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever, amen.”
> 
> ding220811-#4,624     Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish.
> 
> NFBW: Shaming women by Catholic men who will never go through what only a woman can go through most times to please their man really sucks.
> 
> JESUS000000 But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?
> 
> END22110939


You’re beef isn’t with me. It’s with SCOTUS, state legislators and religion. 

That the basis for your beliefs were not well thought out is your fault not mine. That’s why your story keeps changing and you are all over the map.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


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


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

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

END2211301008


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW  Are you using a pregnant woman’s body, right now as you rant and rage, in order to be alive?
> 
> If not where do you and @beagle and ding and HeyNorm get the authority to speak for the unborn individuals who are using a pregnant woman’s body fur nine months to survive? Where hotshot where?
> 
> END2211301008


Your beef is with SCOTUS and state legislators, bro.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You’re beef isn’t with me. It’s with SCOTUS, state legislators and religion.
> 
> That the basis for your beliefs were not well thought out is your fault not mine. That’s why your story keeps changing and you are all over the map.


see ding is running away to hide again by posting trash that has no argumentative value.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> see ding is running away to hide again by posting trash that has no argumentative value.


I’m stating reality.  You are having a fit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Your beef is with SCOTUS and state legislators, bro.


NFBW: No my beef is against religious fakirs who support states passing laws that restrict the fundament individual right of women who want them preserved and not taken away  - and that be you .

Thats one of several boilerplates you bring out while lacing up your sneakers getting resdy to run away because you can’t tell us where you and @beagle and @CarsoHeyNorm get the authority to speak for the unborn individuals who are using a pregnant woman’s body for nine months to survive? Where hotshot where?

END2211301019


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No my beef is against religious fakirs who support states passing laws that restrict the fundament individual right of women who want them preserved and not taken away  - and that be you .
> 
> Thats one of several boilerplates you bring out while lacing up your sneakers getting resdy to run away because you can’t tell us where you and @beagle and @CarsoHeyNorm get the authority to speak for the unborn individuals who are using a pregnant woman’s body for nine months to survive? Where hotshot where?
> 
> END2211301019


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


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I’m stating reality.


no my beef is with you. SCOTUS IS NIT HERE You are.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> no my beef is with you. SCOTUS IS NIT HERE You are.


But you are arguing that abortion is a constitutional right. SCOTUS ruled that it’s not. So your beef is with them. I on the other hand don’t need to argue that abortion isn’t a right because that is reality.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> That’s up to each state to decide


HAS SCOTUS EVER MADE A WRONG DECISION BEFORE - Dobbs can be overturned and then it’s not a states rights issue


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> HAS SCOTUS EVER MADE A WRONG DECISION BEFORE - Dobbs can be overturned and then it’s not a states rights issue


I think until SCOTUS reverses their decision their decision stands.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> But you are arguing that abortion is a constitutional right. SCOTUS ruled that it’s not. So your beef is with them. I on the other hand don’t need to argue that abortion isn’t a right because that is reality.


Indeed.  They are arguing from a paradigm that is dead and buried. 

Roe was insupportable, unsustainable nonsense and now it's gone and good riddance.  The feds have no jurisdiction to set the criminal code for the states, only for federal territory.

The feds should immediately ban abortion on all military bases and in Washington DC, etc, but they have no say over what Texas or Florida etc does.  The 10th Amendment was never repealed... as much as these lefttards like to pretend it was.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> But you are arguing that abortion is a constitutional right.



NFBW:    No I’m not  Pay attention  It’s not a states rights issue based on something not addressed in the Constitution that should be settled by majority rule. 

END2211301032


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW:    No I’m not  Pay attention  It’s not a states rights issue based on something not addressed in the Constitution that should be settled by majority rule.
> 
> END2211301032


So you are arguing abortion isn’t a constitutional right?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> I’m stating reality. You are having a fit.


NFBE: Then tell me the reality of the authority that you have been given to speak for the unborn  full well knowing that the unborn who are using another persons body in the present moment have no way to communicate with you in the reality of the physical universe. 

And then you can tell me about the reality of the harm that comes to you or society if a woman in private aborts the other person who is using her body to survive long enough to complete its gestation or fetal stage of being human and alive   ..  you too HeyNorm 

END221130


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBE: Then tell me the reality of the authority that you have been given to speak for the unborn  full well knowing that the unborn who are using another persons body in the present moment have no way to communicate with you in the reality of the physical universe.
> 
> And then you can tell me about the reality of the harm that comes to you or society if a woman in private aborts the other person who is using her body to survive long enough to complete its gestation or fetal stage of being human and alive   ..  you too HeyNorm
> 
> END221130


The authority rests with the states.


----------



## ding

We have made progress today as NotfooledbyW has admitted that he doesn’t believe abortion is a constitutional right.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> The authority rests with the states.


Yup, 10th Amendment.

The Constitution is silent on this topic, Congress has no authority to set the criminal code for non-federal jurisdictions.

And again this fucking **** is talking about the harm done to "society" when an innocent human being is killed... it's like... _you dipshit - who gives a fuck about "society?"_ Especially any concept of "society" he wants - such monstrous "societies" should be burned to the ground.  

Criminal law isn't based on the harm violence does to "society" at large it is about the aggressive violation of individual human rights, as occurs in every needless and intentional homicide.  The individual human being is killed in violation of his or her human right to life and their murderer should go to prison until their death - that is about justice for the victim's sake, and prevention of harm to future victims.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> So you are arguing abortion isn’t a constitutional right?


NFBW: It’s a natural human right and an inferred Constitutional right to privacy and equal protection because of the situation that exists between two competing individuals and their fundamental rights.

As in Jewish religion the granted human right defers to the most viable person in this case to the pregnant woman. It’s her body it’s her decision not the state of Mississippi? END2211301054


----------



## Jaxson

ding said:


> We have made progress today as NotfooledbyW has admitted that he doesn’t believe abortion is a constitutional right.


Abortion should fall under the separation of church and state.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> We have made progress today as @NotfooledbyW has admitted that he doesn’t believe abortion is a constitutional right.


on what authority do you speak for the unborn ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Jaxson said:


> Abortion should fall under the separation of church and state.


That is why I suspect ding , sort of a Catholic   won’t say what authority has been granted to him to speak for the unborn.
END2211301101


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW  Are you using a pregnant woman’s body, right now as you rant and rage, in order to be alive?
> 
> If not where do you and @beagle and ding and HeyNorm get the authority to speak for the unborn individuals who are using a pregnant woman’s body fur nine months to survive? Where hotshot where?
> 
> END2211301008



The defense of the defenseless is noble, each and every time. 

The attack on the defenseless is evil, each and every time. 

A society that embraces the above is called civilized


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

"On what authority do you speak for the unborn?" this fucking insane dumpster fire asks...

Do I have (or need) special "authority to speak for" all the other humans I assume don't want to be murdered, who I would also like protected against needless violence?  And who, if they were murdered, I would likewise want their murderer prosecuted and put in a prison cell until they die?  Because I want laws against murder - I do, I know, I'm weird that way.  But I didn't ask every random human if they wanted to get shot in the face before just assuming we needed laws against shooting them in their faces... maybe I need to get special "authority" first.

Unless this retarded **** says all murder laws are inappropriate, he hasn't a leg to stand on, and if he did, he would at least be consistent, if vile and insane.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> The authority rests with the states.


On what authority does the government speak for the unborn while they are using another person body to exist at all? It’s not granted in the Constitution right?

All persons *born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The unborn are not born the last heard.


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBE: Then tell me the reality of the authority that you have been given to speak for the unborn  full well knowing that the unborn who are using another persons body in the present moment have no way to communicate with you in the reality of the physical universe.
> 
> And then you can tell me about the reality of the harm that comes to you or society if a woman in private aborts the other person who is using her body to survive long enough to complete its gestation or fetal stage of being human and alive   ..  you too HeyNorm
> 
> END221130



What is strikingly different from a fetus, 1 day before the end of gestation and the day successful gestation is complete?


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> On what authority does the government speak for the unborn while they are using another person body to exist at all? It’s not granted in the Constitution right?
> 
> All persons *born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
> 
> The unborn are not born the last heard.



And this means what? Illegal aliens can be killed?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

HeyNorm said:


> And this means what? Illegal aliens can be killed?


This is what he is saying yes - he is saying that non-citizens are not people and thus cannot be murdered, as they have no rights and there is no basis in law to protect them from harm.

That's not even a reductio ad Hitlerum, it's literally the meaning of what he is typing.


----------



## HeyNorm

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> This is what he is saying yes - he is saying that non-citizens are not people and thus cannot be murdered, as they have no rights and there is no basis in law to protect them from harm.
> 
> That's not even a reductio ad Hitlerum, it's literally the meaning of what he is typing.



They do indeed like to argue as though they believed in the teaching of the John Birch society and Adolph Hitler.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm said:


> And this means what? Illegal aliens can be killed?


NEVER because they are born so they have the same fundamental human rights as citizens all of them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm said:


> They do indeed like to argue as though they believed in the teaching of the John Birch society and Adolph Hitler.


I am opposed to granting fascist theocratic government state authority to force full term pregnancy on women against their will, and sometimes against their need.

TGAT BE YOU


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> NEVER because they are born so they have the same fundamental human rights as citizens all of them.



Your definitions change like the wind. 

You claim one thing, then backtrack to fit your narritive.


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> I am opposed to granting fascist theocratic government state authority to force full term pregnancy on women against their will, and sometimes against their need.
> 
> TGAT BE YOU


I am completely in agreement, but you are speaking of rape, which is illegal already.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: It’s a natural human right and an inferred Constitutional right to privacy and equal protection because of the situation that exists between two competing individuals and their fundamental rights.
> 
> As in Jewish religion the granted human right defers to the most viable person in this case to the pregnant woman. It’s her body it’s her decision not the state of Mississippi? END2211301054


SCOTUS just ruled that it isn’t.

And you are all over the map again.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is why I suspect ding , sort of a Catholic   won’t say what authority has been granted to him to speak for the unborn.
> END2211301101


I have none, dummy. And I already stated the authority.  The states.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> On what authority does the government speak for the unborn while they are using another person body to exist at all? It’s not granted in the Constitution right?
> 
> All persons *born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
> 
> The unborn are not born the last heard.


The constitution.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221130-#6,020    On what authority does the government speak for the unborn while they are using another person body to exist at all?

ding221130-#6,031  The constitution.

NFBW: When and how does the Constitution itself speak. It says nothing about the unborn. It is a document of the born, by the born, and for the born. That’s the reality ding  !!!!! 

NFBW: What authority has been given to anti-abortion activists to speak on behalf of the unborn when they claim that the unborn want the government to intervene on their behalf against the will of a pregnant woman who wants to have a medical procedure that separates the unborn from a pregnant woman’s body? 

END2211301311


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW221130-#6,020    On what authority does the government speak for the unborn while they are using another person body to exist at all?
> 
> ding221130-#6,031  The constitution.
> 
> NFBW: When and how does the Constitution itself speak. It says nothing about the unborn. It is a document of the born, by the born, and for the born. That’s the reality ding  !!!!!
> 
> NFBW: What authority has been given to anti-abortion activists to speak on behalf of the unborn when they claim that the unborn want the government to intervene on their behalf against the will of a pregnant woman who wants to have a medical procedure that separates the unborn from a pregnant woman’s body?
> 
> END2211301311


The 10th amendment. 

*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people*.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> The 10th amendment.
> 
> *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people*.


The Constitution’s silence is explicitly why it is a 10th Amendment matter… as anyone who didn’t flunk civics already knows.


----------



## BackAgain

Some rights, like the right to vote, are reserved to citizens. 

Other rights, like the right to a fair trial by a jury of one’s peers, aren’t reserved to citizens but to all people here in America. 

The Constitution isn’t exactly a puzzle box. Most of the things it says are clear and easily understandable. Some things may require a bit of interpretation. But the fact that it’s not ok to kill a foreign national isn’t open to any valid question. 

Liberals are easily confused.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221130-#6,033    The 10th amendment. 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

NFBW: Here is the part of the constitution defines what “the people” are. 

_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”_

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

END2211301343


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^
A bunch of incomprehensible gobbledegook, with no legal weight or relevance to the topic at hand.

Granted this could be a boilerplate response to anything this asshat says…

But yeah.  Each state has its own constitution and its own way to amend that state constitution and the people of each state will vote on politicians - and, in some states amendments - accordingly to pass laws those states are allowed to pass by their constitutions.

If a matter isn’t federal, the states can set laws about it one way or the other.  Abortion is not banned by the Constitution nor protected - the Constitution is silent.  Full stop.  That’s all that need be said.

It means that Congress has no power to pass laws lording over the jurisdiction of the states one way or the other and to do so would be flagrantly unconstitutional and tyrannnical.  It means state legislatures may pass laws banning these homicides with criminal penalty, because they set the criminal law codes within their own jurisdiction.

Basic respect for human rights and ideas like equality and just basic humanity, civility, and decency actually demand the states do so.  But then there are states full of barbaric filth, like California, whose people have no decency, humanity, or civility.


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221130-#6,033    The 10th amendment.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> NFBW: Here is the part of the constitution defines what “the people” are.
> 
> _All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”_
> 
> The interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and incursion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.
> 
> END2211301343



Unless she was raped, the above does not apply, unless you are of the opinion that women should not have the right to have sex because they are inferior intellectually.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

HeyNorm said:


> Unless she was raped, the above does not apply, unless you are of the opinion that women should not have the right to have sex because they are inferior intellectually.


It is quite the magic trick these leftoids attempt when calling others sexist while they want special treatment based on sex and their opponents want equality.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221130-#6,034  The Constitution’s silence is explicitly why it is a 10th Amendment matter…

NFBW: The Constitution is not silent on the lawful definition of what a “person” who has protected rights including enumerated and unenumerated rights under the constitution in fact are.

*All persons born or naturalized in the United States*

please note a person must be born to be naturalized. 

A pregnant woman has (and had the last one for fifty years) the following unenumerated rights as a citizen of the United States 

Unenumerated (unwritten) rights include the right to travel, privacy, autonomy, dignity, and the right to have an abortion. 

An unborn human living inside another separate person has none of those unenumerated rights granted to them by the Constitution. 

END2211301413


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221130-#6,034  The Constitution’s silence is explicitly why it is a 10th Amendment matter…
> 
> NFBW: The Constitution is not silent on the lawful definition of what a “person” who has protected rights including enumerated and unenumerated rights under the constitution in fact are.
> 
> *All persons born or naturalized in the United States*
> 
> please note a person must be born to be naturalized.
> 
> A pregnant woman has (and had the last one for fifty years) the following unenumerated rights as a citizen of the United States
> 
> Unenumerated (unwritten) rights include the right to travel, privacy, autonomy, dignity, and the right to have an abortion.
> 
> An unborn human living inside another separate person has none of those unenumerated rights granted to them by the Constitution.
> 
> END2211301413



……..and neither do illegal aliens. Right?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

So anyway, whatever this retard called “W’s bitchboy” or something just said, the Constitution remains silent on this topic and there is no right to abortion, as a matter of objective fact, the Constitution is written in plain English and you can Google for a full text link in seconds and read it for yourself if you somehow didn’t already know that.

And yeah, if the right to life and personhood only extends to citizens, then keep this insane person away from anyplace with a lot of illegals.  I mean, yeah, I think they should be deported, but I don’t think they’re kill on sight like “W’s bitchboy” over here.  He’s kind of extreme, this psychopath, but it makes sense given how much he hates the unborn and wants them all dead.

Hopefully he’s on a watchlist for being a danger to others.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm said:


> and neither do illegal aliens. Right?


ILLEGAL ALIENS are born - -all basic human rights and laws apply to them  - can you stop making absurd arguments?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> And yeah, if the right to life and personhood only extends to citizens


It extends to all born human beings   Even brain dead ones like you


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ He repeatedly asserts the clause about citizenship (currently) requiring birth… and then says that because they’re not citizens under the Constitution it’s okay to kill them… and then has no valid response when noting that illegal aliens are also not citizens.

Nothing in the Constitution says that we cannot have fetal personhood by law.

It just says that anyone born here is automatically a citizen.  Citizenship is not the same as personhood.

His logical fallacy is large enough to fly the Spruce Goose through, and he is still repeating the same bullshit.

His civics illiteracy is ABSOLUTE.

His logic is nil.  He has no argument.  And no sanity.


----------



## HeyNorm

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^ He repeatedly asserts the clause about citizenship (currently) requiring birth… and then says that because they’re not citizens under the Constitution it’s okay to kill them… and then has no valid response when noting that illegal aliens are also not citizens.
> 
> Nothing in the Constitution says that we cannot have fetal personhood by law.
> 
> It just says that anyone born here is automatically a citizen.  Citizenship is not the same as personhood.
> 
> His logical fallacy is large enough to fly the Spruce Goose through, and he is still repeating the same bullshit.
> 
> His civics illiteracy is ABSOLUTE.
> 
> His logic is nil.  He has no argument.  And no sanity.



And I have asked, what the remarkable difference there is from the day before full gestation and the day full gestation is complete and it is born?

Crickets.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221130-#6,033    The 10th amendment.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> NFBW: Here is the part of the constitution defines what “the people” are.
> 
> _All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”_
> 
> The interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and incursion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.
> 
> END2211301343


SCOTUS and the states disagree.


----------



## BackAgain

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^
> A bunch of incomprehensible gobbledegook, with no legal weight or relevance to the topic at hand


What is?


----------



## ding

HeyNorm said:


> And I have asked, what the remarkable difference there is from the day before full gestation and the day full gestation is complete and it is born?
> 
> Crickets.


I’ll add that even after birth babies can’t provide for themselves and are not viable without assistance. So I guess it’s ok to snuff them out according to his viability logic.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

BackAgain said:


> What is?


Have to click unignore.   May as well temporarily remove it from the list to participate fully in the rhetorical group curbstomp of its stupidity once and for all.

So W’s bitchboy over here says that since all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, then that means:

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

Now.  What does that have to do with a goddamn thing?  Nothing.  It’s gobbledygook.

There is no “right to autonomy.”
Who even knows what it is blathering about when it says “right to inviobility” - but the human being who is a potential abortion victim certainly has a human right to life.
Harm to public is irrelevant.
Harm to society is irrelevant.

Aggressive violence against individual humans in violation of their natural human right to life is relevant, and that is what every contract killing - every abortion - objectively is.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm221130-#6,046     “And I have asked, what the remarkable difference there is from the day before full gestation and the day full gestation is complete and it is born?”

ding220814-#4,811      “Is there a material difference to the fetus whether he is aborted prior to or after your so called viability date? I mean it's a live one minute and dead the next, right?”

NFBW220814-#4,814       RIGHT. What about it, ding ? It dies when a woman decides to quit supplying oxygen to its blood which is her business and none of your business ding up to a time when her fetus can survive outside her womb.

NFBW221113-#4,803      Yes, as a human being It’s none of my business what a woman does with her body prior to 28 weeks after conception., But after that when a fetus is viable sufficient enough to survive outside the womb, it makes common sense to me that the decision to abort should be made prior to viability. So abortion should be legal prior to viability. After viability abortion should not be legal except to save the life of the woman., Fifty years of Roe vs Wade is sufficient precedent of law on just that. the third trimester, after fetal viability—government could regulate and even ban abortion to further its interest in the potentiality of life, but it must safeguard the patient’s life and health.

In other words, Roe firmly established the core constitutional principle that government cannot ban abortion prior to viability, and could only regulate it before viability in ways that help pregnant people.

States can do their murder stuff after viability. I Support that as long as life of the mother cones first and in thise cases should not be regarded as murder any different than self defense.

NFBW: To answer your question HeyNorm - What is the remarkable difference from the day before full gestation and the day full gestation is complete and it is born?”

There is no remarkable or material difference to the fetus whether it is aborted prior to or after the settled arbitrary viability date? A human fetus before and after a viability legal date is a living human being up to and after the fetal stage of development as part of a woman’s body. 

It’s a legal milestone for all us born persons and specifically pregnant people and their doctors to decide by a certain time to terminate the pregnancy. As I said earlier a pregnant woman who just simply does not want to go full term certainly should make the decision weeks and weeks prior to an average and safe time that a fetus could survive on its own biological functions when separated CarsomyrPlusSix from being part of its mother. 

CHIRP! CHIRP!

END2211301628


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> What does that have to do with a goddamn thing?


Why are Christian organizations pushing for a personhood amendment in the constitution? If what I says has nothing to do with a goddamn thing.


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> HeyNorm221130-#6,046     “And I have asked, what the remarkable difference there is from the day before full gestation and the day full gestation is complete and it is born?”
> 
> ding220814-#4,811      “Is there a material difference to the fetus whether he is aborted prior to or after your so called viability date? I mean it's a live one minute and dead the next, right?”
> 
> NFBW220814-#4,814       RIGHT. What about it, ding ? It dies when a woman decides to quit supplying oxygen to its blood which is her business and none of your business ding up to a time when her fetus can survive outside her womb.
> 
> NFBW221113-#4,803      Yes, as a human being It’s none of my business what a woman does with her body prior to 28 weeks after conception., But after that when a fetus is viable sufficient enough to survive outside the womb, it makes common sense to me that the decision to abort should be made prior to viability. So abortion should be legal prior to viability. After viability abortion should not be legal except to save the life of the woman., Fifty years of Roe vs Wade is sufficient precedent of law on just that. the third trimester, after fetal viability—government could regulate and even ban abortion to further its interest in the potentiality of life, but it must safeguard the patient’s life and health.
> 
> In other words, Roe firmly established the core constitutional principle that government cannot ban abortion prior to viability, and could only regulate it before viability in ways that help pregnant people.
> 
> States can do their murder stuff after viability. I Support that as long as life of the mother cones first and in thise cases should not be regarded as murder any different than self defense.
> 
> NFBW: To answer your question HeyNorm - What is the remarkable difference from the day before full gestation and the day full gestation is complete and it is born?”
> 
> There is no remarkable or material difference to the fetus whether it is aborted prior to or after the settled arbitrary viability date? A human fetus before and after a viability legal date is a living human being up to and after the fetal stage of development as part of a woman’s body.
> 
> It’s a legal milestone for all us born persons and specifically pregnant people and their doctors to decide by a certain time to terminate the pregnancy. As I said earlier a pregnant woman who just simply does not want to go full term certainly should make the decision weeks and weeks prior to an average and safe time that a fetus could survive on its own biological functions when separated CarsomyrPlusSix from being part of its mother.
> 
> CHIRP! CHIRP!
> 
> END2211301628



Interesting. The remarkable difference at viability is only a decision that the mother makes?

So at one moment the fetus should be allowed to continue, and moments before it is appropriate to kill it?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why are Christian organizations pushing for a personhood amendment in the constitution?


Because that is the correct and moral thing to do for us to stop having a status quo amenable to hatemongering pieces of filth like you, an ideological cousin to slavers and fascist genociders, you rotten inhuman incomprehensible garbage waste of any and all resources you consume?

Maybe that is why.

Because equality and human rights matter to some people who aren’t refuse like you.  That is also why.



NotfooledbyW said:


> If what I says has nothing to do with a goddamn thing.


Nothing you said had any relevance to anything or referenced anything coherent at all.  I talked about each thing you said in that post piece by piece.  You offer no rebuttal to these points because you have none, and you are too chickenshit to even pretend to try.


----------



## BackAgain

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Have to click unignore.   May as well temporarily remove it from the list to participate fully in the rhetorical group curbstomp of its stupidity once and for all.
> 
> So W’s bitchboy over here says that since all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, then that means:
> 
> “The interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and incursion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.”
> 
> Now.  What does that have to do with a goddamn thing?  Nothing.  It’s gobbledygook.
> 
> There is no “right to autonomy.”
> Who even knows what it is blathering about when it says “right to inviobility” - but the human being who is a potential abortion victim certainly has a human right to life.
> Harm to public is irrelevant.
> Harm to society is irrelevant.
> 
> Aggressive violence against individual humans in violation of their natural human right to life is relevant, and that is what every contract killing - every abortion - objectively is.


I saw your use of ^. But I failed to notice the jump in the post number count. You are right. I would have to take someone on “ignore” off of it. And on balance, I have to say I’d rather not. 😁


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> but the human being who is a potential abortion victim certainly has a human right to life.


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

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

Do atheists have super communicative powers to hear from the fetus community telling you that they seek to sue pregnant women for the right to use the pregnant bodies until birth in all cases? 

As an atheist you don’t have a higher authority in your life that tells you that unborn life is sacred. I asked you what authority you have to speak for the unborn and you just say you don’t need any.

END2211301734


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW220814-#4,814 RIGHT. What about it, ding ? It dies when a woman decides to quit supplying oxygen to its blood which is her business and none of your business ding up to a time when her fetus can survive outside her womb.


You said it was murder to end a human life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

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

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

Does Dobbs disagree with that ding ?

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

END2211301758


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You said it was murder to end a human life


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

END2211301607


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Milking Adipose Tissue Becoming Gorge Ass "
> 
> * Self Ownership Maternal Private Property **
> 
> The supposition in Roe v. Wade getting overturned!! is whether an extraterrestrial , also an apex predator , would decide whether to enslave or eat hue mammon apes based on whether hue mammon apes adopted a universal criteria for exploitation , wherein empathy for sentient beings is made a valid criteria for exclusion from exploitation , wherein empathy for beings without sentience is made an invalid criteria for exclusion from exploitation .
> 
> ** Absolute Dependence Versus Cooperative Independence **
> 
> Self ownership through progeny is the responsibility of the individual and not to be dictated or determined by a collective majority for populism and democracy as tyranny by majority .
> 
> This us republic maintains a credo of e pluribus unum which espouses independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties among those entitled by live birth to receive them .
> 
> Individualism necessarily precludes the individual .


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.

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


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW  Are you using a pregnant woman’s body, right now as you rant and rage, in order to be alive?
> 
> If not where do you and @beagle and ding and HeyNorm get the authority to speak for the unborn individuals who are using a pregnant woman’s body fur nine months to survive? Where hotshot where?
> 
> END2211301008


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


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: A Catholic majority in SCOTUS ruled to end fifty years of precedent but you are a liar that the ruling shows the constitutionally disagree that the interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and coercion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.
> 
> Does Dobbs disagree with that ding ?
> 
> But you really are lying when you say states disagree with that too. Did you see what happened in Michigan and Kansas to name a few.
> 
> END2211301758


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


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> It is murder to end a human life except in self-defense. I have also said it is not murder to end a not viable human life and there are no or very few states passing laws saying it is murder by the mother. So what is your point. Abortion of a not viable human being when they are in the embryonic stage of development is not murder. Never said it was.
> 
> END2211301607


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


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


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


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



NotfooledbyW said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

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


----------



## HeyNorm

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

Sex education has been in schools for decades

Birth control is readily available. 

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

Smh 🤦‍♂️


----------



## NotfooledbyW

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

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

Cplus6221115-#5,617    “Hey BitchofW:  We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

Cplus6220919-#5,280   “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”

END2211302125


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221130-#6,064 CarsomyrPlusSix   There is no conflict. The kid has a right to life.
> 
> NFBW: What does the mother have to do with the right to life of a kid if the kid is not part of the woman’s body?


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

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


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221115-#5,617 “Hey BitchofW: We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

Cplus6220919-#5,280 “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”

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

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

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

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

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

END2211132209


----------



## NotfooledbyW

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

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

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

END2211302307


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


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


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

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



NotfooledbyW said:


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


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

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


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


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


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

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




NotfooledbyW said:


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


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



NotfooledbyW said:


> there is a safe medical procedure


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

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

Now go *fuck off* and expire.


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221115-#5,617 “Hey BitchofW: We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”
> 
> Cplus6220919-#5,280 “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”
> 
> Cplus6221130-#6,064 There is no conflict. The kid has a right to life.
> 
> NFBW221130-#6,067     What does the mother have to do with the right to life of a kid if the kid is not part of the woman’s body?
> 
> Cplus6221130-#6,068 CarsomyrPlusSix    You don't attack and kill other human beings in violation of their right to life, you stupid fuck.
> 
> NFBW. You are correct when you say I don’t attack and kill other human beings. But I asked you, what does the mother have to do with the right to life of a kid if the kid is not part of the woman’s body?
> 
> The fact that I don’t attack and kill other human beings and the mother has nothing to do with the right to life of the kid. I too have nothing to do with the kid just like the mother. So why do you attack me the way you do? I have nothing to do with both the kid and the mother.
> 
> END2211132209



kid = personhood. 

Case closed

The advocation of the kids death makes you complicit. 

End of story Adolph.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

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

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

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

viable kid = viable personhood = rights established through Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

(15) Because finally, the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the Declaration of Rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basic and foundation of government, it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. [James Madison, Section 15 of A Memorial and Remonstrance, June 20, 1785, frequently misquoted to imply religion as the basis of gov't]​​NFBW: I love living in my beloved Virginia, the birthplace of freedom from religion, and freedom of conscience that pregnant women have here and most important freedom from authoritarian fascistic assholes such as CarsomyrPlusSix who cannot have ten words of civil discourse on the matters being discussed by the rest of us here.

END2211300433


----------



## NotfooledbyW

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

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

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

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

Does Dobbs disagree with that ding ?

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

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

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

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

END2212010548


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: FORtheRECORD Here’s what what went down: ding
> 
> *NFBW221130-**#6,036*    The interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and coercion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.
> 
> *ding221130-#6,047 *SCOTUS and the states disagree.
> 
> *NFBW221130-**#6,058 *    A Catholic majority in SCOTUS ruled to end fifty years of precedent but you are a liar that the ruling shows they constitutionally disagree that the interest that the mother (citizen) has in protecting her bodily integrity and protecting her reproductive autonomy from government intrusion and coercion etc., outweighs her fetus’ right of inviolability unless what she does in a private family and health environment causes harm to the public and society when she does it.
> 
> Does Dobbs disagree with that ding ?
> 
> But you really are lying when you say states disagree with that too. Did you see what happened in Michigan and Kansas to name a few.
> 
> *ding221130-**#6,062*     You misunderstand. The states agree that it is their job to write laws on abortion. The states agree with the 10th amendment and the states accept SCOTUS’ ruling.
> 
> NFBW: I wrote a brief summary of my views on the human rights of the conflicting interests ( CarsomyrPlusSix says there are none )  as we have been discussing.  Your response  was:  “SCOTUS and the states disagree”
> 
> I have acknowledged that the DOBBS ruling kicked the can to the states but I want to know from you if anything in DOBBS runs counter to what I wrote in Post*-**#6,036*
> 
> END2212010548



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

Your words betrayed your true self


----------



## NotfooledbyW

HeyNorm said:


> You just assigned the being personhood


Where


----------



## HeyNorm

NotfooledbyW said:


> Where


Post 6074. 

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

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


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Sanctimonious Whiny Bitching Punks "

* Political Science Neophytes Bragging About Being Dumbfounded **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Bullshit.  Roe had no basis in the Constitution whatsoever.


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

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


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


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


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

** Exemplifying Shit For Brains With An Arrogant Loud Mouth **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


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


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

** Perspectives From Childish Retarded Mental Degenerates **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Hatemongering slur - just more retardation from a known retard.


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


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Lies Offered By Traitors "

* Enemies Foreign And Domestic **


ding said:


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


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


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" On The Nature Of Nature *

* Self Officiated Perspective For Civility Based On Whim **


beagle9 said:


> 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 **


beagle9 said:


> 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

NotfooledbyW said:


> 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.




NotfooledbyW said:


> 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.



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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.



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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.



NotfooledbyW said:


> *to deny* *a fundamental right of at least privacy *


Does not exist / could not relate to the abortion issue


NotfooledbyW said:


> *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.




NotfooledbyW said:


> 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

Monk-Eye said:


> *" 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.


Monk-Eye said:


> ** 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.



Monk-Eye said:


> ** 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.



Monk-Eye said:


> ** 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 **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> 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

*NFBW*221201-#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

*Cplus6*221201-#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. “

*NFBW*221201-#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.

*Cplus6*221201-#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

*NFBW*221201-#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.



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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:



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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._



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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?



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW*221201-#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
> 
> *Cplus6*221201-#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. “
> 
> *NFBW*221201-#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.
> 
> *Cplus6*221201-#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
> 
> *NFBW*221201-#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.



NotfooledbyW said:


> It does not say…


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

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


NotfooledbyW said:


> The Constitution does not say anything about


No shit.  10th Amendment.



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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.



NotfooledbyW said:


> The constitution does not say a single word about


10th Amendment.



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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.



NotfooledbyW said:


> 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

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> 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

NotfooledbyW said:


> 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

NotfooledbyW said:


> 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

ding said:


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



And he argues it’s not?????

🤦‍♂️


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> …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

HeyNorm said:


> 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.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


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


Indeed.

If there is a god who created the universe and / or supervises and controls it still, or not, I do not know, and it doesn’t matter.

A new human being is created at fertilization, and regardless of any divine, there are two human beings responsible for that event, they created life, and they will be held responsible by law in any just civilization.

Of course, W’s Bitchboy and his ilk hate justice, hate civilization, and hate equality.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221202-#6,095  The stupidity above in summary:     Humans lay eggs

NFBW: I have never said “humans lay eggs” CarsomyrPlusSix has no reputable argument even in hiding so he lies about mine.

I agree with one of your anti-human rights co-conspirators to put Catholics on SCOTUS appointed by Trump to remove a natural human right all women have to make medical decisions regarding their own body in the privacy of their own lives in order to pursue happiness as she sees fit when it causes zero zilch nada HARM to any other born person in the universe we born people all share together.

Resnic220626-#58  Resnic As soon as the sperm fertizes the egg it's a person.

Resnic220626-#58  “If you have an abortion it's killing a child. “

NFBW: and here’s ding another fertilized egg in the alleged adult human continuum stage of life who like me and CarsomyrPlusSix was blessed with a mother who did not kill us before we were born. 

ding220513-#309  That the fertilized egg is a human being. And not just any human being but one that has never existed before and will never exist


 NFBW221202-#6,094  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.

Cleveland Clinic: The female reproductive system provides several functions. _The ovaries produce the egg cells, _called the ova or oocytes. The oocytes are then transported to the fallopian tube where fertilization by a sperm may occur. The fertilized egg then moves to the uterus, where the uterine lining has thickened in response to the normal hormones of the reproductive cycle. Once in the uterus, the fertilized egg can implant into thickened outerine lining and continue to develop. If implantation does not take place, the uterine lining is shed as menstrual flow. In addition, the female reproductive system producesfemale sex hormones that maintain the reproductive cycle.​See full list on my.clevelandclinic.org



NotfooledbyW said:


> You are full of shit according to Britannica;
> 
> 
> Zygote, fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete ( sperm ). zygote | Definition, Development, Example, & Facts | Britannica www.britannica.com/science/zygote


END2212020950


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221202-#6,095  The stupidity above in summary:     Humans lay eggs
> 
> NFBW: I have never said “humans lay eggs” CarsomyrPlusSix has no reputable argument even in hiding so he lies about mine.
> 
> I agree with one of your anti-human rights co-conspirators to put Catholics on SCOTUS appointed by Trump to remove a natural human right all women have to make medical decisions regarding their own body in the privacy of their own lives in order to pursue happiness as she sees fit when it causes zero zilch nada HARM to any other born person in the universe we born people all share together.
> 
> Resnic220626-#58  Resnic As soon as the sperm fertizes the egg it's a person.
> 
> Resnic220626-#58  “If you have an abortion it's killing a child. “
> 
> NFBW: and here’s ding another fertilized egg in the alleged adult human continuum stage of life who like me and CarsomyrPlusSix was blessed with a mother who did not kill us before we were born.
> 
> ding220513-#309  That the fertilized egg is a human being. And not just any human being but one that has never existed before and will never exist
> 
> 
> NFBW221202-#6,094  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.
> 
> Cleveland Clinic: The female reproductive system provides several functions. _The ovaries produce the egg cells, _called the ova or oocytes. The oocytes are then transported to the fallopian tube where fertilization by a sperm may occur. The fertilized egg then moves to the uterus, where the uterine lining has thickened in response to the normal hormones of the reproductive cycle. Once in the uterus, the fertilized egg can implant into thickened outerine lining and continue to develop. If implantation does not take place, the uterine lining is shed as menstrual flow. In addition, the female reproductive system producesfemale sex hormones that maintain the reproductive cycle.​See full list on my.clevelandclinic.org
> 
> 
> END2212020950


Who is aborting fertilized eggs?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> Who is aborting fertilized eggs?


You literally can’t “abort fertilized eggs.”

If you have a structure called an egg post fertilization, you don’t have a pregnancy, you have a species that laid an egg.  The egg cell is gone as is the sperm cell after fertilization, and the egg cell corresponds to a structure called the “marginal disc” in oviparous embryology.  

You can hit that egg with a hammer, I suppose, killing the young chicken or whatever inside it, but not quite the same thing - also we know of no egg-laying species with rights, so, morally irrelevant.

Even if I were to be charitable to the cheap seats uneducated laymen who want to call human zygotes “eggs,” despite this being incredibly stupid and indicating a failure in their education, pregnancy hasn’t even begun at that point.  

And then some of these absolute morons continue on to call human blastocysts “eggs,” and again, implantation hasn’t happened, no pregnancy, not yet.  The life of their son or daughter has already begun though.

And at that point if some moron is willing to call human blastocyst “eggs,” they may as well call human adults “eggs.”  It would make as much sense.  The raging fucktards.


So anyway, it’s absolutely clear that W’s Bitchboy insists that humans lay eggs, which is all you need to know about him.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

320 Years of History said:


> Quite simply, the time of origination and the time of birth are two different points in time.
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is both.  You are free to think that, but you are naive or ill informed by doing so.
> 
> We know all forms of life by what they are and by what they are not.  For example, we know a whale is not a fish because it cannot extract oxygen from the water in which it swims and because it's tail bones are horizontally oriented in relation to the rest of its skeleton.  We know the whale is a mammal because it has all of the defining characteristics of mammals.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite frankly, for the sake of discussing the matter at hand, I don't care what the law says.  Laws have said plenty that's been found to be inaccurately rationalized and concluded upon before.  What the law says on the matter of personhood is as far as I'm concerned irrational on the matter of personhood, not just with regard to human personhood, but also with regard to corporate personhood.
> 
> 
> Other:
> 
> What you failed to realize through all of that is that I have my own definition of what is and is not a person.  I do not accept the definitions and lines of argument you've presented because I find them unacceptable.  I don't care whether one or a million scientists think a fetus is also a human being.  I don't and that's in part what drives my views on the matter.
> 
> Can you find credible scientist who'll assert that personhood begins before birth?  Of course you can.  The fact of the matter is that there are multiple positions within science on when life begins:
> 
> Metabolic View:
> The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.
> 
> 
> Genetic View:
> The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.
> 
> 
> Embryological View:
> In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government. The implications of a belief in this view include giving support to controversial forms of contraception including the "morning after" pill and contra-gestational agents as long as they are administered during the first two weeks of pregnancy.
> 
> 
> Neurological View:
> Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.
> 
> 
> Ecological View:
> Advocates of the neurological view contend that human life begins when a developing fetus acquires humanness, a point designated by brain activity that can be described as characteristically human. But if this developing fetus is separated from its mother at an early stage, regardless of the state of neural development, the fetus will be unable to sustain life on its own. The total dependence of the developing fetus for the majority of gestation catalyzed the formation of another view of when human life begins. The ecological/technological view of when human life begins designates this point when an individual can exist separately from the environment in which it was dependent for development (i.e., its mother's womb).
> 
> 
> Philosopher's Conundrum:
> There are philosophers, although not very many, who would dare to make the stance that a fetus nor an infant is a human being because it does not possess a consciousness of itself. This of course means that neither a zygote nor an embryo is a person either. Michael Tooley is one of these philosophers who describes his perspective in the article "Abortion and Infanticide." Essentially he argues that abortion and infanticide are really no different, if you support one, then you must support the other. His argument is that in order to claim that an adult has the right to live and an embryo or a fetus does not, one must be able to identify some moment where the moral status of the organism in question changes. There is nothing inherent about birth that it should automatically be hailed as this defining moment. A more justified moment, Tooley argues, is the moment at which the human child gains consciousness. At this moment, not at birth, should the child be considered a full fledged person, entitled to all the rights, particularly the right to life, that human adults are entitled to.
> 
> The main problem that most people find with this position on when human life begins is that it condones infanticide, arguing that infants do not have the same right to life as adult humans do. Must people reject this view of when life begins, finding it impossible to support a view that logically leads to the conclusion that infanticide is acceptable. Tooley, however, argues that this rejection of his perspective is based on a purely emotional response to the idea of infanticide and not on logic or reasoning.
> Historically, the question of when human life begins was answered by a progression that was initiated by edicts on abortion which were governed by the popular notions of moral acceptability. These popular notions were decrees put forth by God, delivered to the populous through religious texts. Modern technological innovations of the twentieth century have reversed the order of this progression; contemporary scholars often address the question of when human life begins by first evaluating scientific data. The conclusions reached via the scientific method become the tools used to create popular standards of moral acceptability. These contemporary notions of moral acceptability then provide the framework for the modern abortion debate.
> 
> The temporal divergence between the progressions of thought leading to answers of when human life begins reveals a shift in the source of knowledge that is used to answer one of humanity's most puzzling questions. Prior to the twentieth century, God was humanity's source of absolute knowledge. In recent years, however, scholars have terminated the utility of God's omniscience and in its place have raised science and technology as their source of absolute knowledge. This shift is evidence for, perhaps, the most determinant factor of any argument for when human life begins. The reasons governing the variation in both historical and modern views of when life begins is largely due to a variation in moral standards.
> 
> However, understanding the basis for societal moral standards appears to be the key to discerning how to approach the question of when human life begins. Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question. One opinion is that the acquisition of humanness is a gradual phenomenon, rather than one that occurs at any particular moment. If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science.
> 
> Parting thoughts:
> The thing I find noteworthy in this discussion with you is that the question you asked is when personhood begins and I happen to think that personhood and life are not the same things.  Life clearly can and does exist without that life being a person.  A human fetus is no exception.  It is not a human being; it is a human fetus or embryo.  Is it alive enough to call it so?  Probably yes, but alive or not, it is yet a proto-human, not a human; thus it is also not a person.
> 
> Most importantly, however, that there are talented and learned folks on both sides of this issue informs me that more likely the matter isn't one well or best decided by science until such time as science agrees on a single "truth" about the matter.  You see you and and scientists you cited are arguing based on whether an embryo/fetus is alive.  In contrast my answer derives from what I think is a person/human being, which is what you asked about.
> 
> The simple fact is that I have no issue with person electing to terminate the existence of proto-person provided the proto-person belongs to the person who makes that decision.  I have no need to encourage one from doing so, but neither have I a need to discourage one from doing so.  I don't have to live with their choice.  I have enough worries of my own without having to add to them the welfare of a proto-human for which I had zero role in effecting it on the path toward becoming a person.



NFBW: the above has been bumped by me for my convenience and future reference please if interested, please have a read




ding said:


> Who is aborting fertilized eggs?


Every terminated pregnancy is aborting a _*fertilized*_ (a human only spiritual creation of life spark event)* human egg* (matter) at various stages of development on one inseparable human life continuum from conception to physical death.

Physical death, prior to the “first breath” stage of human life occurs naturally in 10 to 15 percent of pregnancies and in 100 percent of pregnancies when the pregnant persons decide to kill it in an early stage of the human continuum development at times to save the life of the mother or because a woman or girl was raped or for mental health and family planning reasons.

From the bumped post:

The simple fact is that I have no issue with person electing to terminate the existence of proto-person *provided the proto-person belongs to the person who makes that decision.* I have no need to encourage one from doing so, but neither have I a need to discourage one from doing so. I don't have to live with their choice.​
END2212021037     our pregnant kids are coming back to our area to be with us and our strong family values (opposite Herschel Walker Trumpism Christian values ) so I have to get one of our bourgeois properties painted up a finished give them a nice place to live when our daughter brings a new human being into our world and yours.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: the above has been bumped by me for my convenience and future reference please if interested, please have a read
> 
> 
> 
> Every terminated pregnancy is aborting a _*fertilized*_ (a human only spiritual creation of life spark event)* human egg* (matter) at various stages of development on one inseparable human life continuum from conception to physical death.
> 
> Physical death, prior to the “first breath” stage of human life occurs naturally in 10 to 15 percent of pregnancies and in 100 percent of pregnancies when the pregnant persons decide to kill it in an early stage of the human continuum development at times to save the life of the mother or because a woman or girl was raped or for mental health and family planning reasons.
> 
> From the bumped post:
> 
> The simple fact is that I have no issue with person electing to terminate the existence of proto-person *provided the proto-person belongs to the person who makes that decision.* I have no need to encourage one from doing so, but neither have I a need to discourage one from doing so. I don't have to live with their choice.​
> END2212021037     our pregnant kids are coming back to our area to be with us and our strong family values (opposite Herschel Walker Trumpism Christian values ) so I have to get one of our bourgeois properties painted up a finished give them a nice place to live when our daughter brings a new human being into our world and yours.


You really need to learn some science because your argument that every person aborted was a fertilized egg is ridiculous.

Be honest. The only reason you use the phrase fertilized egg is to dehumanize human life in the womb so it’s easier for you to kill.


----------



## BackAgain

ding said:


> You really need to learn some science because your argument that every person aborted was a fertilized egg is ridiculous.
> 
> Be honest. The only reason you use the phrase fertilized egg is to dehumanize human life in the womb so it’s easier for you to kill.


Every full born human who has ever been murdered was also once a “fertilized egg.” 

I think the pro death folks have no logically consistent argument to make. This is obviously why they try so hard and so often to deny basic biology and facts and logic.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Who is aborting fertilized eggs?


NFBW: here is what I asked:

NFBW221202-#6,094 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.​​NFBW: Until a human being who is born with an average of about 1.5 million eggs in her newborn body misses a period she has absolutely no reason to know that she is pregnant other than some uncomfortable physical discomfort. 

Since pregnancy happens when one of her monthly eggs is fertilized, there is nothing wrong with the way I asked my question. 

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?

So ding CarsomyrPlusSix so how can our government stop the murder or prevent harm to a citizen that our government has no way of knowing exists? 

END2211021207


----------



## ding

BackAgain said:


> Every full born human who has ever been murdered was also once a “fertilized egg.”
> 
> I think the pro death folks have no logically consistent argument to make. This is obviously why they try so hard and so often to deny basic biology and facts and logic.


Correct.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> You really need to learn some science because your argument that every person aborted was a fertilized egg is ridiculous.



He actually said that?  Wow.  Just amazing.

So an 8 or 9 month gestational age kid, the mom lives in some shithole like New York or California or exploited the way Kansas law used to be with an evil hack like George Tiller (Rest In Piss), and the mom says, “oh, doctor*, if I give birth, it will impact my emotional health, I will have the big sads!” and then they kill the kid for “medical necessity,” cough, cough…

[* only filth like one of their would be clients would call these scum “doctor”]

That kid killed at 36, 37 weeks gestational age - that kid was an “egg.”

Well that settles it then.  That stupid fucking asshole “NotFooledByW” considers eggself to be an egg.

Please refer to egg by egg’s preferred pronouns, do not misspecies egg or hurt egg’s self-image of eggself.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: here is what I asked:
> 
> NFBW221202-#6,094 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.​​NFBW: Until a human being who is born with an average of about 1.5 million eggs in her newborn body misses a period she has absolutely no reason to know that she is pregnant other than some uncomfortable physical discomfort.
> 
> Since pregnancy happens when one of her monthly eggs is fertilized, there is nothing wrong with the way I asked my question.
> 
> 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?
> 
> So ding CarsomyrPlusSix so how can our government stop the murder or prevent harm to a citizen that our government has no way of knowing exists?
> 
> END2211021207


The same exact way that states who allow abortions restrict abortions to a specific term; Through legislation and laws which have consequences if they are broken.


----------



## ding

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^
> 
> 
> He actually said that, did he?
> 
> So an 8 or 9 month gestational age kid, the mom lives in some shithole like New York or California or exploited the way Kansas law used to be with an evil hack like George Tiller (Rest In Piss), and the mom says, “oh, doctor*, if I give birth, it will impact my emotional health, I will have the big sads!” and then they kill the kid for “medical necessity,” cough, cough…
> 
> That kid was an “egg.”
> 
> Well that settles it then.  That stupid fucking asshole “NotFooledByW” considers himself to be an egg.
> 
> Please refer to egg by egg’s preferred pronouns, do not misspecies egg or hurt egg’s self-image of eggself.


It does appear that is his new tactic to avoid acknowledging that abortion ends the life of a specific human being.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> It does appear that is his new tactic to avoid acknowledging that abortion ends the life of a specific human being.


Well yeah.

Egg also claimed that egg believes all abortion victims were human beings, but it’s clear that egg was lying about that, because that is all egg ever does.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You really need to learn some science because your argument that every person aborted was a fertilized egg is ridiculous.


NFBW: when you try to shame me, it is based on your religious beliefs or philosophy, and it does not work mostly because you don’t read everything I write you pick out a little snippets

I am merely using your scientific language when I mention continuum. There is no continuum, unless an egg is fertilized, so in that sense every abortion is killing the continuum of a being created when a woman’s egg is fertilized.

That is the Roman catholic teaching that life begins at conception. When I say, abortion kills a fertilized egg it also means abortion kills what was created at conception, but you can quit your shame game because it just shows the weakness of your argument. Whatever the hell that argument is. 

ding220723-#3,823 “A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being. It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Every stage along the _*continuum*_ is fully human and has the appropriate human characteristics for that stage of the human life cycle. Learn some science.”

NFBW: The Catholic anti/abort fallacy.



NFBW221202-#6,094 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.

END2212022216


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: when you try to shame me, it is based on your religious beliefs or philosophy, and it does not work mostly because you don’t read everything I write you pick out a little snippets
> 
> I am merely using your scientific language when I mention continuum. There is no continuum, unless an egg is fertilized, so in that sense every abortion is killing the continuum of a being created when a woman’s egg is fertilized.
> 
> That is the Roman catholic teaching that life begins at conception. When I say, abortion kills a fertilized egg it also means abortion kills what was created at conception, but you can quit your shame game because it just shows the weakness of your argument. Whatever the hell that argument is.
> 
> ding220723-#3,823 “A child in the womb is not a latent or potential human being. It is a human being in the earliest stages of the human life cycle which begins after fertilization and ends at death. Every stage along the _*continuum*_ is fully human and has the appropriate human characteristics for that stage of the human life cycle. Learn some science.”
> 
> NFBW: The Catholic anti/abort fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> NFBW221202-#6,094 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.
> 
> END2212022216


You are using it very poorly if you have concluded that women are aborting fertilized eggs.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> You are using it very poorly if you have concluded that women are aborting fertilized eggs.


Egg thinks that we are all eggs and in order to live our best egg and not have an eggstenstial crisis, some eggs have to crack and make a few omelettes out of other eggs, but that’s okay, it’s not eggicide if egg says so, when egg says so.

Life begins at fertilization, fact.
The sperm cell and egg cell are *consumed* in the combination process to create the new living organism, fact.
The new organism is the same species as its parents (barring some extreme mutation speciation event), again, fact.

Ergo, post-fertilization you have a living member of the species Homo sapiens, organisms called “human beings,” not an egg, whatever this dipshit says.  And the only process they still need to go through is called LIFE and AGING, which we all do until we fucking die.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> It does appear that is his new tactic to avoid acknowledging that abortion ends the life of a specific human being.


 NFBW: Really. Ny words say otherwise:


NotfooledbyW said:


> Physical death, prior to the “first breath” stage of human life occurs naturally in 10 to 15 percent of pregnancies and in 100 percent of pregnancies *when the pregnant persons decide to kill it in an early stage of the human continuum development *at times to save the life of the mother or because a woman or girl was raped or for mental health and family planning reasons.



Every terminated pregnancy is aborting a _*fertilized*_(a human only spiritual creation of life spark event)*human egg* (matter) at various stages of development on *one inseparable human life continuum from conception to physical death.*

I wonder if lying assholes can reply to that and answer this question that they must be avoiding with their liars club Circle jerk. 

NFBW: The Catholic anti/abort fallacy.



NFBW221202-#6,094 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.

NFBW: its why  @beagle holds on opinion opposed to abortion, but does not think a woman who kills the human being in her belly after one of her millions of eggs has been fertilized and the human being continuum and I agree fully with all of that 

END2212021233


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You are using it very poorly if you have concluded that women are aborting fertilized eggs.


My statement is much longer than “concluded that women are aborting fertilized eggs” so you are a liar and a filthy one at that using it to take away the autonomy of all the women in this country for your religious political beliefs


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ 
I don’t think Egg is even trying to type in English anymore.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I don’t think Egg is even trying to type in English anymore.


answer this question 

NFBW: The Catholic anti/abort fallacy.

You too ding 

NFBW221202-#6,094 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.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^
TL;DR


----------



## ding

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^
> I don’t think Egg is even trying to type in English anymore.


Your posts are eggcelent.


----------



## ding

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^
> TL;DR


He doesn’t understand the science.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> He doesn’t understand the science.


NFBW: You are circle jerking with someone who says a fertilized human egg, that starts the human being on the lifespan continuum of development until death, was never part of its mother’s body. And you want to say that I do not understand science you’re an idiot.

Cplus6221115-#5,617

Hey Bitch off:  We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

Cplus6220919-#5,280   “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”

END2212020231


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are circle jerking with someone who says a fertilized human egg, that starts the human being on the lifespan continuum of development until death, was never part of its mother’s body. And you want to say that I do not understand science you’re an idiot.
> 
> Cplus6221115-#5,617
> 
> Hey Bitch off:  We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”
> 
> Cplus6220919-#5,280   “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”
> 
> END2212020231


You don’t understand science. You made that clear when you argued human life doesn’t begin at conception and reaffirmed it when you said fertilized eggs are being aborted.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> You don’t understand science. You made that clear when you argued human life doesn’t begin at conception and reaffirmed it when you said fertilized eggs are being aborted.


This INSANE motherfucker is still pretending that the newly made human being is “part of his or her mother’s body?”

HOW?  ON WHAT BASIS?

Where the FUCK did Egg flunk out of elementary school?

There are two organisms in a standard pregnancy (not twins, triplets, etc), mother and offspring, and each have their own body. Neither body is by any metric “part of” the body of the other.  That notion is objectively false and terminally stupid. 

This is bedrock textbook obvious known and established scientific fact.  It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed.

_LEARN WHAT A PLACENTA IS_ you DUMB FUCK.  

Just lunacy.  Completely unhinged.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: FORtheRECORD  I wonder how many of the 2Iron cult of Trumpism agnostic hillbilly pro-abort-byAR15 anti-intelligence goon voters make up the firrreverTuurrrump  wing of the Republican Party these ever so glorious ‘Biden won /Trump lost’  (and then really L-O-S-T it ) days.

*2Iron220131-**#153*    “Ya know, I don't give a shit about abortions, yada, yada.... but if it fucks over the left, I just couldn't be more of an advocate of whatever is causing those filthy parasites to lose their shit. Color me religious if it fucks them in the ass. Watching them suffer is pure ecstasy”

*2Iron221122-**#23*   “Abortion is only important to fat, lazy (ironically, mostly unfuckable) sluts. We don't need that vote.... some things are worth walking away from....





credit 2Iron221122-#23 two_iron coathanger cartoon above

*ding 220725*-3,911 “I don't know how any reasonable person can see it any other way.... Abortion is literally ending the life of a living, genetically distinct human being.”

NFBW: because you are not reasonable, honest  or scientific at all ding .

*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,

_ding221202-__#6,125_ You don’t understand science. You made that clear when you argued human life doesn’t begin at conception and reaffirmed it when you said fertilized eggs are being aborted.

NFBW: But I have never used three words  “aborted fertilized eggs” with an intent to diminish the human essence of the unborn. I use them  as part and inclusively of the creation of a new human lifespan from conception to death.

You on the other hand ding engage in the foolhardy unscientific act of telling me that as if you know that I have personal responsibility and shame, a guilty conscience for Christ sake, for believing it is not murdershe is not subject to homicide law when a pregnant woman unbeknownst to me *kills the unborn human* life that she would naturally sustain for a total of nine months if she were to decide not to kill the unborn human being .

Yes,    “ *KILL the unborn human being”  s thousand fucking times I say it , *while in an immature embryonic or fetal stage of development as part of the human lifespan continuum from conception to death .

I and the government should have no say in the matter. Nuethet do you. .


NFBW: also  FORtheRECORD  “immature human organism” such as a fetus that is not separated biologically from its mother  is a scientific term to describe an unborn human being as opposed to an immature human adolescent that is breathing air with its own lungs and was separated at birth from his or her mother.

*NFBW220727-**#3,944 *“per the most widely used textbook on human embryology.

*ding220727-**#3,947* “It's just science.”

*NFBW220727-*_*#3,949*_  As a secular humanist agnostic myself, my argument on maternal vs fetal natural law rights however is based on the exact same “science” that was presented by Robert P. George who is a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic who is considered by the most conservative of the rightwing of Christendom to be America’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.

*Robert P. George* wrote in the NYTimes A Distinct Human Organism   November 22, 2005

“the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.

The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a *distinct and complete -- though, of course, immature -- human organism.”

NFBW220727-**#3,949*   I apply RPGeorge’s definition “immature -- human organism” as a fair and scientific definition of the developing human in the womb of every pregnant woman to which I argue the immature human organism, when it depends on receiving oxygenated blood from the living breathing fully developed human being that carries it, may be terminated because the would be mother has a right in good conscience to decide what happens to her health, and pursuit of her mental and economic well being as a citizen of the United States of America under the protection of the Constitution. The immature fetus prior to ability of viable separation from its mother had rights secondary and subordinate to its breathing and nourishment source - The pregnant woman.

See  ding  -#3,792 3,911 #121


*NFBW #3,917 *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.”

END2212039403


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ TL;DR

Word salad not responding on point to anything.
Incoherent mess.

Not one bit of explanation about how two different bodies - the mother and the kid, two distinct organisms with their own bodies - could  EVER be PART of the same body.

Pure deranged magical thinking.  No rationality and nothing to debate.


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


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


You can't get by the uncivilized fact that a woman going into a "family planning facility" pffft, to then hire a desensitized cold hearted monster who is supposed to take an oath to protect life and not take life, to then perform a horrendous act within her body, and worse it is an act that involves the dismemberment of a viable human being in order to extract it from the woman's body on demand is a pretty sick thing, yet here you are using the wickedest wisdom that you can muster up in order to somehow justify the thing. Pretty amazing really.


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" On The Nature Of Nature *
> 
> * Self Officiated Perspective For Civility Based On Whim **
> 
> 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 **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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._


Surely you struggle, but it is entertaining to watch that struggle.


----------



## HeyNorm

beagle9 said:


> You can't get by the uncivilized fact that a woman going into a "family planning facility" pffft, to then hire a desensitized cold hearted monster who is supposed to take an oath to protect life and not take life, to then perform a horrendous act within her body, and worse it is an act that involves the dismemberment of a viable human being in order to extract it from the woman's body on demand is a pretty sick thing, yet here you are using the wickedest wisdom that you can muster up in order to somehow justify the thing. Pretty amazing really.



Interesting thought. If a woman doesn’t want the child, and arranges for an abortion, according to some it’s simply personal property that is being abandoned. 

Can’t anyone claim it then as there own? And if the doctor destroys it, can he not be sued for felony destruction if property?

Hmmmm


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding181015-#357  ding “My expectation is that abortion will be seen as wrong. I want it to come to a vote of the people.”


Eagle14220701-#4,120  eagle1462010    “Others are the problem and you are defending them.”


BULLDOG221008-#146 BULLDOG       Sorry buddy. That says murder. Abortion is not murder.
CPlus6221008-#148 CarsomyrPlusSix  It is premeditated and aggressive homicide, with no justification whatsoever, perpetuated against a known helpless and innocent human being - and in all other cases, that means the most severe category of murder.
NFBW: What is the problem and what is “wrong” and where are the murder charges In Alabama when a woman decides In private to terminate her pregnancy?

I only defend the right to privacy for pregnant woman because they do no harm to any born person. I in no way condone anyone who was ever charged with murder and convicted of murder, specifically anyone killing a bsby,

A women who chooses to abort her own pregnancy is not a murderer. I choose to defend that right as a man and born human being, but never in my personal life would I do a Herschal Walker on a woman for convenience.

For defending women against being reproductive *slaves*  I am called all kinds of uncivil foul  irrational hate garbage oincluding butcher and murderer of innocent human life.

All because I don’t vote against working class interests that the white right wing Jesus Party stands for. I don’t vote for the “dollar is a person & fetus is a person” Trump white Christianism Party, so I must be a baby killer.

 If I am a baby killing murderer, Herschsl Walker is ten zillion times more baby killer than me. But alas, Herschsl loves the white man’s Jesus/Savioy so he is forgiven  vote for an idiot becaus he is the right kind of BLACK CHRISTIAN who kills babies.

There is no criminal or civil liability for women who choose to have an abortion in violation of Alabama state law. Why not if she intentionally kills a human being on the following continuum:

ding180120-#410   “a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p.​
NFBW: If anyone kills an innocent hunan being except in self defense that person is a murderer.

The voters/elected non-scientists in Alabama banned abortion but the woman who directs anti or does it herself to kill a “ zygote or the subsequent stages of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call a foetus - a human being but the woman who intentional kills the human being developing as part of her body, is not charged with murder. How can that be?

NFBW: Alabama is one of the most Christian politically dominated states in the nation All abortions are considered illegal unless it's determined to be necessary to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother. There is no exception for rape or incest.

There is no criminal or civil liability for women who choose to have an abortion in violation of Alabama state law.

Statutory Definition of Legal Abortion In Alabama

All abortions are considered illegal unless it's determined to be necessary to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother. There is no exception for rape or incest.

END2212040354


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding200120-#394     Yes. It is a human. It isn't a potential human. It is a human with potential. But make no mistake, it is fully human. Science says so.

NFBW:  a More correct “yes”   . .  . It is a human. It isn't a potential viable human. It is a human with potential to become viable and much more. But make no mistake, science has no finding or concept whether or not it is fully human. Material science can’t answer that.

Ding220721-#3,742 “The right to life is not a religious issue. It's a human rights issue.

NFBW: The “right” to life of an individual immature human organism with the potential to become viable depends heavily on whether or not the one pondering this question believes as a mature enough human being, and as a matter of conscience or spiritual awakening, whether or not at conception of a new human life comes a new spiritual human being precisely at that moment.  Does the zygote have  a soul and if not, when exactly ensoulment takes place?

I believe the human being during the embryo and fetal stages on the continuum of life has individuality and a material body with one of a kind DNA. I also believe akin to many in the tradition of the Jewish Religion that a soul joins the body at birth with first breath. I  believe philosophically, it is at birth when a baby begins having state of natural law or god given human consciousness and can begin to know and feel the human spiritual concept of love.

ding is absolutely wrong. Abortion is first and foremost a spiritual and or religious issue.

END2212040920


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Example Of Crickets From Forum Sanctimonious Cowards "

* Degrees Of Irrelevance **


beagle9 said:


> You can't get by the uncivilized fact that a woman going into a "family planning facility" pffft, to then hire a desensitized cold hearted monster who is supposed to take an oath to protect life and not take life, to then perform a horrendous act within her body, and worse it is an act that involves the dismemberment of a viable human being in order to extract it from the woman's body on demand is a pretty sick thing, yet here you are using the wickedest wisdom that you can muster up in order to somehow justify the thing. Pretty amazing really.


Explain the difference between the catholic church position versus that of the national right ( sic ) to life which passively condones a death penalty as capital punishment , and relate as to which position is more consistent with christian ethos .

A state is not concerned with when biological life begins , or whether biological life exists at all , rather a state is concerned with whether a wright to life exists .

POST-#5,862


----------



## beagle9

HeyNorm said:


> Interesting thought. If a woman doesn’t want the child, and arranges for an abortion, according to some it’s simply personal property that is being abandoned.
> 
> Can’t anyone claim it then as there own? And if the doctor destroys it, can he not be sued for felony destruction if property?
> 
> Hmmmm


That's where the father or even an adoptee should be able to step in, otherwise in order to make a claim for the child (should be highly illegal to destroy/kill the child period), before sadly it is killed in the current environment.

Yes the mother would then be tasked with carrying the child to term, but she is partly involved in allowing the child to be within her to start with, so she has a responsibility to that developing child within her body.... Of course her responsibility doesn't involve the killing of that child, especially as the horrendous pictures of abortion's show just how evil that act truly is. These things can be worked out, but we've got to get the evilness out of it all.


If no one steps forward during the pregnancy, then she should still be responsible to carry the child to birth, and then the state takes over and places the child up for adoption. It is almost guaranteed that most women 99.9% would keep and raise their child if they carry that child to term, so in reality virtually none of it would end up being a burden on the state as it would be thought that it would be. Just getting the woman to become responsible is the goal (supporting her and her pregnancy with more of a moral option), where as in the end she will thank everyone after she gives birth to her friend for life or even if she allows her child to be adopted by another.

If a woman doesn't want to go through these things, then have some damned control, and use birth control that is so readily available these days. And parent's need to get the power back to control and teach their children about the coming years where they are going to have to have control whether it's the boy's or the girl's being taught the right things to do. The evil trend's of hollyweird culture and styles need to be pushed back hard against by society, because it has destroyed the nation's overall thinking in SOCIETY big time.

Pregnancies being seen by women as having some sort of sickness in SOCIETY is a very evil development in SOCIETY, therefore it is making society more and more uncivilized. The tools of destruction need to be dismantled in a very civilized way now. We must step back from the ledge we now have since found ourselves to be upon. Am I dreaming ?


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Example Of Crickets From Forum Sanctimonious Cowards "
> 
> * Degrees Of Irrelevance **
> 
> Explain the difference between the catholic church position versus that of the national right ( sic ) to life which passively condones a death penalty as capital punishment , and relate as to which position is more consistent with christian ethos .
> 
> A state is not concerned with when biological life begins , or whether biological life exists at all , rather a state is concerned with whether a wright to life exists .


You truly struggle in your wickedness..


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Bright Lights On An Establishment Clause Violation "

* Heresy And Hypocrisy Of Sanctimonious Foolishness **


beagle9 said:


> You truly struggle in your wickedness..


On the contrary , my standard is consistent and clear , while you are compelled to struggle with a standard you claim to promote but are unable to accept or implement .


----------



## HeyNorm

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Bright Lights On An Establishment Clause Violation "
> 
> * Heresy And Hypocrisy Of Sanctimonious Foolishness **
> 
> On the contrary , my standard is consistent and clear , while you are compelled to struggle with a standard you claim to promote but are unable to accept or implement .



My only question is when this “property”, that is claimed to be that of the “Mother” converts to “human”, how the mother can assert someone else somehow becomes responsible for her property?  Is there some contract that allows such conversion?


----------



## elektra




----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221204-#6,137  beagle9     You truly struggle in your wickedness..

NFBW:   ding repeatedly insists that the conflict of rights between human unborn beings when they are on the human life continuum following fertilization of an egg, but not viable if separated from its mother versus women of reproductive age, *is not about religion.*

Please note ding  that your cohort in the shameful political activity of depriving women of their reproductive rights is using a religious and extremely emotional biblical *religious* slur to describe anyone who comes down on the side of women and freedom for them to not be *slaves* to providing offspring to a civil society.

For the past 50 years with abortions being legal before 28 weeks it was of no business of yours beagle9 or ding to force what either one of you believe about religion on the whole of society.

That is because the woman does no harm to society or to you if she terminates a pregnancy in private.


Wickedness, malignity, evil in thought and purpose is presented by the word poneria:​​"But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites?" (Matthew 22:18). Jesus points out the origin of all wrong: "For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed .... wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness .... all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man" (Mark 7:21-23). See Imitation of Christ, xiii, 5.  David Roberts Dungan​
​
*Copyright Statement*
These files are public domain.
*Bibliography Information*
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for 'WICKEDNESS'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". 1915.


END2212041315


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Arrogance Of A Perfect Image "

* Personification Of Little Dolls **


elektra said:


> View attachment 734585


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Bright Lights On An Establishment Clause Violation "
> 
> * Heresy And Hypocrisy Of Sanctimonious Foolishness **
> 
> On the contrary , my standard is consistent and clear , while you are compelled to struggle with a standard you claim to promote but are unable to accept or implement .


Just sticking with the traditional standard's, it's you all that have attempted to turn everything inside out and upside down.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ELEKTRA2210-#82   Focus, this is not about hershel walker

NFBW: the hell he’s  not. Walker wants a national ban on abortion because he can afford to fly the women he Fucks and knocks up to Canada to get an abortion.

Dumbass Baby killer Walker is the poster boy for white Jesusism Christian Republican hypocrisy.

END2212041436


----------



## HeyNorm

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Arrogance Of A Perfect Image "
> 
> * Personification Of Little Dolls **





Monk-Eye said:


> *" Arrogance Of A Perfect Image "
> 
> * Personification Of Little Dolls **


Self portrait?


----------



## elektra

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Arrogance Of A Perfect Image "
> 
> * Personification Of Little Dolls **


yes, I thinks  it is a bit sick, that Down Syndrome babies get aborted at about a 90% rate depending on the country. 

The testing for Down Syndrome does result in false positives, which is another tragedy in itself. .

But yea, you, you are pretty funny, but not in a funny way, too bad there was not a test for that, I am sure...


----------



## elektra

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Bright Lights On An Establishment Clause Violation "
> 
> * Heresy And Hypocrisy Of Sanctimonious Foolishness **
> 
> On the contrary , my standard is consistent and clear , while you are compelled to struggle with a standard you claim to promote but are unable to accept or implement .


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221204-#6,137  beagle9     You truly struggle in your wickedness..
> 
> NFBW:   ding repeatedly insists that the conflict of rights between human unborn beings when they are on the human life continuum following fertilization of an egg, but not viable if separated from its mother versus women of reproductive age, *is not about religion.*
> 
> Please note ding  that your cohort in the shameful political activity of depriving women of their reproductive rights is using a religious and extremely emotional biblical *religious* slur to describe anyone who comes down on the side of women and freedom for them to not be *slaves* to providing offspring to a civil society.
> 
> For the past 50 years with abortions being legal before 28 weeks it was of no business of yours beagle9 or ding to force what either one of you believe about religion on the whole of society.
> 
> That is because the woman does no harm to society or to you if she terminates a pregnancy in private.
> 
> 
> Wickedness, malignity, evil in thought and purpose is presented by the word poneria:​​"But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites?" (Matthew 22:18). Jesus points out the origin of all wrong: "For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed .... wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness .... all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man" (Mark 7:21-23). See Imitation of Christ, xiii, 5.  David Roberts Dungan​
> ​
> *Copyright Statement*
> These files are public domain.
> *Bibliography Information*
> Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for 'WICKEDNESS'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". 1915.
> 
> 
> END2212041315


So in other words we are to accept the atrocity of abortion as is based upon your supposed "privacy of a woman to use her body in any way that she pleases", but this is aside from selling it in which is a private matter also correct ?? Why do you hate the unborn child who is being ripped from a woman's body in a most henious way, and then siding with her after she created the situation (abortion used for birth control), because she can't control herself in a serious situation that requires discipline and a moral standard in order to not fall into the evil abortion trap to begin with ???

What's wrong with turning back towards the light, and this in order to keep our young folk's from ruining their live's like this ???? Are you a mad man NFBW ??


----------



## beagle9

elektra said:


> View attachment 734721


Beautiful miracle's...


----------



## elektra

beagle9 said:


> Beautiful miracle's...





thanks


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> ELEKTRA2210-#82   Focus, this is not about hershel walker
> 
> NFBW: the hell he’s  not. Walker wants a national ban on abortion because he can afford to fly the women he Fucks and knocks up to Canada to get an abortion.
> 
> Dumbass Baby killer Walker is the poster boy for white Jesusism Christian Republican hypocrisy.
> 
> END2212041436


Care to prove your assertions instead of using hearsay to further an agenda that is probably far more evil than anything you might accuse Walker of doing. 

If he done such things, and he learned that such a thing was a bad thing to do, otherwise when he was once caught up in the sinful world of fame and excess that may have been the time when he had done it, so I ask you - If he was convicted by his sins, and therefore he repented of them in order to serve his Lord and savior Jesus Christ afterwards, then who are you to use his former sins in order to convict him with them, otherwise after the alledged acts were atoned/forgiven later on in his life, (especially when you are advocating that it's alright for people to engage in what he and his lady friend was alledged to have done by her getting an abortion afterwards) ??

I know, I know, but he made her do it right ? Bull crap..... If a woman wants her child to be born, then I garantee you that the child will be born, otherwise no man is able to stop that unless he puts a gun to the woman's head, and I garantee you that doing that didn't happen. So did she get pregnant on purpose maybe, otherwise after she might have lied to say that she was using protection ? Hey anchor babies are also a thing when it comes to celebrities groupies maybe trying to score big by locking an individual in ?? So many ways to look at it, but no way to tell about what truly happened or didn't happen. So make it all political in hopes to use it to attack the entire party for fear that the party will land a majority if Walker isn't destroyed in the run off.

It's all just political with you, so don't try to be so moral and righteous when you aren't. You have an agenda, and it must hinge on these things being knocked down, so good luck with your wickedness, and let's see how far you can go.


----------



## beagle9

elektra said:


> View attachment 734723
> thanks


How any woman can see those tiny feet and etc on the ultrasound, and then allow that beautiful tiny little human being to just be ripped from her body by an unethical doctor and staff is just heartbreaking.

Amazing stuff.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> So in other words we are to accept the atrocity of abortion


If you don’t think a woman who gets an abortion should be prosecuted for murder then there is no atrocity when a woman kills a not viable human being.by removing it from her body before it becomes viable


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> If you don’t think a woman who gets an abortion should be prosecuted for murder then there is no atrocity when a woman kills a not viable human being.by removing it from her body before it becomes viable


I think that brainwashed mental people who commit acts based on false teachings shouldn't be prosecuted for murder in the case no, but after being taught better, and new laws are passed regarding such things or maybe the old ethical laws are somehow respected and supported once again, then maybe, buuuut just maybe we can slowly walk this stuff back from the cliff's that the nation had since gotten itself way to far out on a limb on.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221204-#6,147      So in other words we are to accept the atrocity (per  elektra propaganda cartoons) of abortion as is based upon your supposed "privacy of a woman to use her body in any way that she pleases", but this is aside from selling it in which is a private matter also correct ??

NFBW: Is prostitution a public act beagle9 in which an exchange of currency takes place or not? Morality aside, the government has at least a taxation interest during any public commerce between two viable human beings engaged in the oldest profession. . 

Can you assure the government that prostitutes declare their income and send the government its lawful share? And the government has an interest in controlling the  spread of venereal disease as a matter of public health. 

So in our system under the Constitution you can, even as as a good white Republican anti-abortion beagle9 Protestant Christian, choose to accept the legality and justifiable right of abortion as it is based upon the Constitutional principle of a right to the privacy of a woman to make health and family decisions in the privacy of family and medical professionals in whatever way a pregnant woman decides. 

I am an anti-abortion pro-choice rational theist myself, somewhat similar  abortion-wise, *to more than half of mass-attending Catholics who are AA-PC too*. On the other hand,  white Christian posters such as  yourself Mashmont and ding  are anti-abortion anti-choice AA-AC which I believe is due in large part to your and theirs common lack of respect for the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy in reproductive matters between her god  if she has one  her family and her doctor. 

END2212050051


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221204-#6,150      Care to prove your assertions instead of using hearsay to further an agenda that is probably far more evil than anything you might accuse Walker of doing.

NFBW: It’s a he said / she said of course but the she side has:


an acknowledgment from HW that the accuser has a child and HW is the  father.
the accuser has a canceled check from HW plus a get well card from HW and a receipt from the clinic where she underwent an abortion all within the same time frame.
The clincher for me was when asked about the check he wrote in 2009 that was made out to the accuser   HW told NBC News the check was not for a 2009 abortion it was because the accuser was the mother of a child they do have together that was born  in 2011 

HW writes a check to a woman who had an abortion at that time then HW says the 2009  check was to the same woman for child support for a kid born in 2011.

He is low life lying scum who wants to be the   first werewolf elected to the US Senate. 

END2212050232


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221204-#6,147      So in other words we are to accept the atrocity (per  elektra propaganda cartoons) of abortion as is based upon your supposed "privacy of a woman to use her body in any way that she pleases", but this is aside from selling it in which is a private matter also correct ??
> 
> NFBW: Is prostitution a public act beagle9 in which an exchange of currency takes place or not? Morality aside, the government has at least a taxation interest during any public commerce between two viable human beings engaged in the oldest profession. .
> 
> Can you assure the government that prostitutes declare their income and send the government its lawful share? And the government has an interest in controlling the  spread of venereal disease as a matter of public health.
> 
> So in our system under the Constitution you can, even as as a good white Republican anti-abortion beagle9 Protestant Christian, choose to accept the legality and justifiable right of abortion as it is based upon the Constitutional principle of a right to the privacy of a woman to make health and family decisions in the privacy of family and medical professionals in whatever way a pregnant woman decides.
> 
> I am an anti-abortion pro-choice rational theist myself, somewhat similar  abortion-wise, *to more than half of mass-attending Catholics who are AA-PC too*. On the other hand,  white Christian posters such as  yourself Mashmont and ding  are anti-abortion anti-choice AA-AC which I believe is due in large part to your and theirs common lack of respect for the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy in reproductive matters between her god  if she has one  her family and her doctor.
> 
> END2212050051


So the government is sure to get it's taxes from an abortion sale, and that makes it A-OK for the government to allow such a hideous act to go on eh ? All about those Benjamin's eh ?? Another problem is that in the normalcy of monetary exchange for most who are getting an abortion, they alledgedly aren't even spending their own money for it, but are instead using welfare in some form or fashion in order to obtain that abortion, so then abortion becomes a government subsidized thing with our tax money doesn't it ??

I mean yes you have the family that secretly or quietly pays for the embarrassment of their daughter getting pregnant, but that isn't as often as those living in POVERTY getting those abortion's I'm betting. Be some interesting stats to find out the Numbers on for sure.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221204-#6,137 @beagle9 You truly struggle in your wickedness..

NFBW221204-#6,140  ding repeatedly insists that the conflict of rights between human unborn beings when they are on the human life continuum following fertilization of an egg, but not viable if separated from its mother versus women of reproductive age, is not about religion.

NFBW: Is it your Christian religious belief system beagle9 that drives you to promote government coercion against a woman’s right to privacy even when she seeks to have a medical procedure that causes no harm to any other human being including causing no harm to you?

beagle9221204-#6,153  I think that brainwashed mental people who commit acts based on false teachings shouldn't be prosecuted for murder

NFBW: Isn’t the killing, ending the life of an innocent human being murder, beagle9 ????     It’s as if you do not consider a human fetus to be a human being in the way that the atheist CarsomyrPlusSix does.

CPlus6221008-#148   It is premeditated and aggressive homicide, with no justification whatsoever, perpetuated against a known helpless and innocent human being - and in all other cases, that means the most severe category of murder.

NFBW: Is it your Christian faith that prevents you from expecting that women who terminate their pregnancies not be prosecuted for murder?

END2212050717


----------



## elektra

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221204-#6,147      So in other words we are to accept the atrocity (per  elektra propaganda cartoons) of abortion as is based upon your supposed "privacy of a woman to use her body in any way that she pleases", but this is aside from selling it in which is a private matter also correct ??
> 
> NFBW: Is prostitution a public act beagle9 in which an exchange of currency takes place or not? Morality aside, the government has at least a taxation interest during any public commerce between two viable human beings engaged in the oldest profession. .
> 
> Can you assure the government that prostitutes declare their income and send the government its lawful share? And the government has an interest in controlling the  spread of venereal disease as a matter of public health.
> 
> So in our system under the Constitution you can, even as as a good white Republican anti-abortion beagle9 Protestant Christian, choose to accept the legality and justifiable right of abortion as it is based upon the Constitutional principle of a right to the privacy of a woman to make health and family decisions in the privacy of family and medical professionals in whatever way a pregnant woman decides.
> 
> I am an anti-abortion pro-choice rational theist myself, somewhat similar  abortion-wise, *to more than half of mass-attending Catholics who are AA-PC too*. On the other hand,  white Christian posters such as  yourself Mashmont and ding  are anti-abortion anti-choice AA-AC which I believe is due in large part to your and theirs common lack of respect for the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy in reproductive matters between her god  if she has one  her family and her doctor.
> 
> END2212050051





NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221204-#6,147      So in other words we are to accept the atrocity (per  elektra propaganda cartoons) of abortion as is based upon your supposed "privacy of a woman to use her body in any way that she pleases", but this is aside from selling it in which is a private matter also correct ??
> 
> NFBW: Is prostitution a public act beagle9 in which an exchange of currency takes place or not? Morality aside, the government has at least a taxation interest during any public commerce between two viable human beings engaged in the oldest profession. .
> 
> Can you assure the government that prostitutes declare their income and send the government its lawful share? And the government has an interest in controlling the  spread of venereal disease as a matter of public health.
> 
> So in our system under the Constitution you can, even as as a good white Republican anti-abortion beagle9 Protestant Christian, choose to accept the legality and justifiable right of abortion as it is based upon the Constitutional principle of a right to the privacy of a woman to make health and family decisions in the privacy of family and medical professionals in whatever way a pregnant woman decides.
> 
> I am an anti-abortion pro-choice rational theist myself, somewhat similar  abortion-wise, *to more than half of mass-attending Catholics who are AA-PC too*. On the other hand,  white Christian posters such as  yourself Mashmont and ding  are anti-abortion anti-choice AA-AC which I believe is due in large part to your and theirs common lack of respect for the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy in reproductive matters between her god  if she has one  her family and her doctor.
> 
> END2212050051


Ignorance, you express it well. Try to keep up, hillbilly. We here got high definition technology these days. No need for you to think aliens landed in your backyard and hence the men in black are coming. Take a deep breath Billy Jo Bob

It is just technology


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221204-#6,137 @beagle9 You truly struggle in your wickedness..
> 
> NFBW221204-#6,140  ding repeatedly insists that the conflict of rights between human unborn beings when they are on the human life continuum following fertilization of an egg, but not viable if separated from its mother versus women of reproductive age, is not about religion.
> 
> NFBW: Is it your Christian religious belief system beagle9 that drives you to promote government coercion against a woman’s right to privacy even when she seeks to have a medical procedure that causes no harm to any other human being including causing no harm to you?
> 
> beagle9221204-#6,153  I think that brainwashed mental people who commit acts based on false teachings shouldn't be prosecuted for murder
> 
> NFBW: Isn’t the killing, ending the life of an innocent human being murder, beagle9 ????     It’s as if you do not consider a human fetus to be a human being in the way that the atheist CarsomyrPlusSix does.
> 
> CPlus6221008-#148   It is premeditated and aggressive homicide, with no justification whatsoever, perpetuated against a known helpless and innocent human being - and in all other cases, that means the most severe category of murder.
> 
> NFBW: Is it your Christian faith that prevents you from expecting that women who terminate their pregnancies not be prosecuted for murder?
> 
> END2212050717


What part of brainwashed "MENTAL" people don't you understand ? They should be rehabilitated along with the system that definitely had them screwed up into thinking that the taking of the life of their unborn child was ok, otherwise in the same ways that you are advocating that it is ok for them to do as well. 

Murder is committed by murderers, and not by mentally challenged people that are coerced into thinking that taking the life of their own clump of cell's that just so happen to resemble a human being is not murder.

All such things for a court to figure out, otherwise to figure out the insanity or mentally unstableness of the individual or individual's committing the act with disregard for human life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221204-#6,137 @beagle9 You truly struggle in your wickedness..

NFBW221205-#6,157:  Is it your Christian religious belief system beagle9 that drives you to promote government coercion against a woman’s right to privacy even when she seeks to have a medical procedure that causes no harm to any other human being including causing no harm to you?

beagle9221204-#6,153 I think that brainwashed mental people who commit acts based on false teachings shouldn't be prosecuted for murder

NFBW221205-#6,157    Isn’t the killing, ending the life of an innocent human being murder, beagle9 ???? .

NFBW221205-#6,157   Is it your Christian faith that prevents you from expecting that women who terminate their pregnancies not be prosecuted for murder?

beagle9221295-#6,159 *What part of brainwashed "MENTAL" people don't you understand ?*

NFBW: What does an American who votes consistently in every national election the past sixty years have to do to qualify in your opinion to be a brainwashed "MENTAL" person as opposed to your self-fixated white European protestant religious Christian and therefore the only stable and well informed mental capacity that is right for the Christian Nation in which we all live. 

END2212051352


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221204-#6,153   . . . *maybe the old ethical laws are somehow respected and supported once again,* then maybe, buuuut just maybe we can slowly walk this stuff back from the cliff's that the nation had since gotten itself way too far out on a limb on.

NFBW: What ye olde ethical laws are you referring to good H.Walker Christian beagle9 ?????  Let’s discuss the founding era shall we?  The following string of a conversation seems to apply well here:

Coyote220626-#70  Coyote   A right to bodily autonomy would seem too obvious to be required in writing as well.

Godboy220627-#104  Godboy You’re delusional if you think the founding fathers would have supported abortion.

pknopp220627-#109  pknopp     Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900.

pknopp220627-#109   In the British colonies *abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening*.

NFBW: Do you know good Christian beagle9  what quickening meant in the ye olde ethical laws of the British colonies in the New World?

pknopp220627-#109     *   Throughout the colonial period and during the early years of the republic, the abortion situation for slave women was different than for other women. Slaves were subject to the rules of their owners, and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate pregnancies. The owners wanted their slaves to produce as many children as possible since these children belonged to the slave owners. This situation persisted until the end of the slavery era.
*pknopp is quoting the following
Abortion in early America - PubMed

NFBW: It certainly looks as if @beagle might favor bringing  back the slave owner’s ye olde law on abortion -  Its ok for free women to have one but not for the unfree!

Whaddaya think ding CarsomyrPlusSix and HeyNorm ????

END2212051543


----------



## NotfooledbyW

JGalt220828-#15  JGalt      Oh wait... This isn't about "reproductive care", is it? It's about murdering the baby.

NFBW: Oh wait. It isn’t about murder in Alabama. It’s about banning a medical
Procedure that *white extremist Christians do not like*. Just ask eagle1462010

eagle14140621-#31 eagle1462010    T “I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of the Heavens and the Earth.” I believe Jesus Christ died for our sins and is the son of God. Anyone that doesn't believe that may quite frankly Go to Hell.

Eagle14220507-#2,070  And our people will pass laws accordingly..........We in Alabama don't care if you don't like..........don't like it...........Carry your sorry butt out of here.

NFBW221204-6,132  What is the problem and what is “wrong” and where are the murder charges In Alabama when a woman decides In private to terminate her pregnancy?

NFBW221204-6,132    The voters/elected non-scientists in Alabama banned abortion but the woman who directs it or does it herself to kill a “ zygote or the subsequent stages of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call a foetus - a human being but the woman who intentional kills the human being developing as part of her body, is not charged with murder. How can that be?

NFBW: It is not murder for a woman to kill her unborn child in Alabama.

*So why would JGalt call it murder in post -#15  ??????*

END2212051839


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> If you don’t think a woman who gets an abortion should be prosecuted for murder then there is no atrocity when a woman kills a not viable human being.by removing it from her body before it becomes viable


Are you for prosecuting a person for something that is not yet a crime, although it should be ????

First the insidious problem has to be acknowledged, then it has to be
understood that something must be done by consensus there of, and then action should be taken by acquiring new law's or enforcing the old law's in hopes to slow it down, and then ultimately stop the henious atrocious activity.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221204-#6,153   . . . *maybe the old ethical laws are somehow respected and supported once again,* then maybe, buuuut just maybe we can slowly walk this stuff back from the cliff's that the nation had since gotten itself way too far out on a limb on.
> 
> NFBW: What ye olde ethical laws are you referring to good H.Walker Christian beagle9 ?????  Let’s discuss the founding era shall we?  The following string of a conversation seems to apply well here:
> 
> Coyote220626-#70  Coyote   A right to bodily autonomy would seem too obvious to be required in writing as well.
> 
> Godboy220627-#104  Godboy You’re delusional if you think the founding fathers would have supported abortion.
> 
> pknopp220627-#109  pknopp     Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900.
> 
> pknopp220627-#109   In the British colonies *abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening*.
> 
> NFBW: Do you know good Christian beagle9  what quickening meant in the ye olde ethical laws of the British colonies in the New World?
> 
> pknopp220627-#109     *   Throughout the colonial period and during the early years of the republic, the abortion situation for slave women was different than for other women. Slaves were subject to the rules of their owners, and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate pregnancies. The owners wanted their slaves to produce as many children as possible since these children belonged to the slave owners. This situation persisted until the end of the slavery era.
> *pknopp is quoting the following
> Abortion in early America - PubMed
> 
> NFBW: It certainly looks as if @beagle might favor bringing  back the slave owner’s ye olde law on abortion -  Its ok for free women to have one but not for the unfree!
> 
> Whaddaya think ding CarsomyrPlusSix and HeyNorm ????
> 
> END2212051543


You apparently resort to just about any type of insanity in order to attempt to make some sort of last gasp point on the matter, but as always you fail yet again and again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221305-#6,163     Are you for prosecuting a person for something that is not yet a crime, although it should be ????

NFBW: No. Why is a legal medical procedure that was performed for fifty years causing no harm to society or you beagle9   banned in Alabama if it is not murder to kill ( that is right ding ”kill”  ) an unborn human being in the womb? 

You say it is not a crime yet. So why did you write this?

beagle9221124-#5,776   Yes, once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her perceived notion or perceived right to kill that child after the child starts developing in her body.​
NFBW: How can a woman in your good Christian mind beagle9 lose a right of access in private to a medical procedure when there is no crime on the books based on precedent in English Common Law that her decision to terminate a human being in her womb who’s life she is sustaining as a mother would if taking the pregnancy to full term? 

END2212052151


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221305-#6,163     Are you for prosecuting a person for something that is not yet a crime, although it should be ????

NFBW: I cannot in my very good conscience, ( that ding is so concerned with) condone the denial of pregnant women having their privacy and protection against government intrusion into their reproductive decisions when no harm is done to civil society or to any other American citizen or visitor to this country.

END2212052251


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221305-#6,163     Are you for prosecuting a person for something that is not yet a crime, although it should be ????
> 
> NFBW: No. Why is a legal medical procedure that was performed for fifty years causing no harm to society or you beagle9   banned in Alabama if it is not murder to kill ( that is right ding ”kill”  ) an unborn human being in the womb?
> 
> You say it is not a crime yet. So why did you write this?
> 
> beagle9221124-#5,776   Yes, once a woman becomes pregnant with child, she loses her perceived notion or perceived right to kill that child after the child starts developing in her body.​
> NFBW: How can a woman in your good Christian mind beagle9 lose a right of access in private to a medical procedure when there is no crime on the books based on precedent in English Common Law that her decision to terminate a human being in her womb who’s life she is sustaining as a mother would if taking the pregnancy to full term?
> 
> END2212052151


A "medical procedure" ??? Pffft if that's what you want to call an abortion procedure then that's on you, but always remember that we have good medical procedures and we have bad medical procedures. Abortion is a bad medical procedure masquerading as a good one to be used only in stolen terminology by leftist like you.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221305-#6,163     Are you for prosecuting a person for something that is not yet a crime, although it should be ????
> 
> NFBW: I cannot in my very good conscience, ( that ding is so concerned with) condone the denial of pregnant women having their privacy and protection against government intrusion into their reproductive decisions when no harm is done to civil society or to any other American citizen or visitor to this country.
> 
> END2212052251


Define harm to society in full please.

Use every kind of thought necessary.

I'll give you one for starters - Abortion procedures are harmful to society be it mentally and physically in the short and long term.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221206-#6,168    “Define harm to society in full please.”

NFBW: Drinking and driving can produce harm to society because drivers on public roads expect others to drive sober and be in full control of faculties when driving a motor vehicle on a public road. Society knows when a drunk in Kentucky drives on wrong side of interstate and slams head on to a church bus killing 18 kids in a fiery crash along with some adults

The medical procedure of abortion is a private matter.and on an individual basis society and the general public know nothing about it when it takes place. There can be no harm to society when society knows nothing about it even happening. So the basics of law is to resolve harm one person inflicts upon another person and a grievance is filed  

There is no grievance between the two parties involved in an abortion.

END2212060055


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: What scientists Robert P George and Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud really say; not what ding twists them into saying.
​Ding220718-#2,388   A new genetically distinct human being comes into existence at conception. Because it will be up to the states and/or Congress to decide.​
NFBW: Please tell me ding what you meant here. I see you saying exactly what I have been saying all along except I am truthful and scientific regarding the conflict of human rights between the mother and developing human organism attached to her body that needs to use her body to continue experiencing a new human life that has come into being at conception.

This is the same exact point is it not?

A new genetically distinct human being comes into existence at conception because it will be up to the states and/or Congress to decide.

I argue very precisely; A new genetically distinct human *organism** comes into existence at conception and begins it’s *development* however it will be up to the states and/or Congress to decide the right to life status of a “*developing*” and “*distinct human organism”* vs a fully developed pregnant human being with an already established right to life by virtue of having universal societal recognition of the FACT that she was born on a specific date and she continued developing biologically into a fully developed human being.

* Robert P George is my scientific source for use of these two scientific words  *organism plus development*
​*“*Whether produced by fertilization or cloning, the *human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism* possessing all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth, as well as an active disposition to develop itself using that information.”      About the Author             Robert P. George is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. He is also a professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.​​and ……

"…human *development* begins at fertilization…" write embryologists Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud in The Developing Human (7th edition, 2003), the most widely used textbook on human embryology.​​END2212060735


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ a lot of gobbledygook from an organism that is still an Egg and will never develop


----------



## NotfooledbyW

GMCGen221024-#305  GMCGeneral  “Abortion devalues life by making human beings disposable”

So beagle9 do you agree GMCGen and that is the harm to society caused by abortions that you are looking for. 



ding221202-#6,125 by You don’t understand science. You made that clear when you argued human life doesn’t begin at conception and reaffirmed it when you said fertilized eggs are being aborted.,

NFBW: is a fertilized egg a human being ding ?  Are you saying that when a human being is being killed during abortion, the human being was not or never was a fertilized egg or not the result of egg fertilization as the beginning of a human being starting on the human lifespan continuum? 

NFBW: When ding replied to @alang he acknowledged that the fertilized egg is a human being: 

alang1216220512-#305     What does science say about the relative value of an adult human being vs a fertilized egg?

ding220513-#309    That the fertilized egg is a human being. And not just any human being but one that has never existed before and will never exist. 

NFBW: ding says I do not understand the science but he says Bullshit like* “the fertilized egg is a human being.”* And there is no scientific thinking that I have seen claiming a one cell living human organism before it splits is a human being. 

I tend to agree with Leo123 as the most scientifically accurate way to describe the beginnings of human life. 

Leo123220512-#306  It is human life that is programmed to develop into a human being. It is not one molecule it is cells that continually separate and replicate into a fully formed human being. Abortion kills that life process. 

END2212061710


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^ a lot of gobbledygook from an organism that is still an Egg and will never develop


Very impressive argument (for an idiot) that right there is.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221206-#6,168    “Define harm to society in full please.”
> 
> NFBW: Drinking and driving can produce harm to society because drivers on public roads expect others to drive sober and be in full control of faculties when driving a motor vehicle on a public road. Society knows when a drunk in Kentucky drives on wrong side of interstate and slams head on to a church bus killing 18 kids in a fiery crash along with some adults
> 
> The medical procedure of abortion is a private matter.and on an individual basis society and the general public know nothing about it when it takes place. There can be no harm to society when society knows nothing about it even happening. So the basics of law is to resolve harm one person inflicts upon another person and a grievance is filed
> 
> There is no grievance between the two parties involved in an abortion.
> 
> END2212060055


Oh so as long as the harm is being done in secret eh, then that makes it alright with you ? The harm to society is when we lose million's due to the genocide of abortion. Hitler tried to hide his henious acts upon the Jewish people by doing so as privately as it could be done, and it was so private that he had actually made people think that as long as such things were hidden then everyone could walk around as if it wasn't taking place.

You know that's the devil's credo, otherwise creep and crawl up to his victim's lap, and then slowly woooo them into his trance until he strikes like the Cobra 🐍 that he is. 

Trump was absolutely right when he tells the story of the woman who saved the snake that was wounded, and then the snake thanked her with a deadly kiss. 

Women are fooled into thinking that abortion and the killing of a developing baby in their womb, is somehow trendy and an ok thing to do, uhhhhhh up until the terrible guilt comes crashing in on them like a ton of bricks (the ones who still have a heart), and then realize what a tragic thing they have done.

Yes regardless of this bull crap you attempt to run on us here, there definitely is a huge unseen harm to SOCIETY. It is the stuff that leads to a lot of terrible things in people's live's, and it needs to stop or get under control.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ Will someone ask the fucktarded Egg - aka W’s Bitchboy - what species the kid is when a male human being has sex with a female human being?  Obviously in some cases the result is degenerate backbirth filth like Egg, but I think it’s well established in science at this point what usually happens here.

And yes, I know that having sex with a woman is not something Egg will ever understand or experience, granted…


----------



## elektra

Science, embryo, fetus, zygote, 2, 3, 4, 5, weeks, a pill, hangar, or needle

You folks are so much smarter than me, yet you can not let life be

When do it begin, a bit after you think about it, certainly before you kill it


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Muhammed220502-#52 Muhammed   Way back when R v W was decided, we really did not have the scientific knowledge to know when a person's lifespan begins. Now, via modern science, we know with 100% certainty that a human being's lifespan begins at conception.

NFBW: Say what? When and why did you not know that a human being’s lifespan begins at conception? What does science have to do with it?

END221206-2329


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Muhammed220502-#52 Muhammed   Way back when R v W was decided, we really did not have the scientific knowledge to know when a person's lifespan begins. Now, via modern science, we know with 100% certainty that a human being's lifespan begins at conception.
> 
> NFBW: Say what? When and why did you not know that a human being’s lifespan begins at conception? What does science have to do with it?
> 
> END221206-2329


So you agree, life begins at conception? Wow - Progress, ain't it good ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6220919-#5,280 “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”

Cplus6221115-#5,617 “ BitchofW: We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

Cplus6221203-#6,128  Not one bit of explanation about how two different bodies - the mother and the kid, two distinct organisms with their own bodies - could EVER be PART of the same body.

NFBW: I have always agreed with the following anti-abortion rights Taliban who is thankfully to a degree unlike you CarsomyrPlusSix being nothing but a rather dumb agitated atheist.

eagle1462010 expresses the scientific fact most perfectly than any other words I have ever seen presented here on the matter:

eagle1462010220730-#4,069 “If you don't abort him or her they become a life separate from the mother.

NFBW: Perhaps you should seek a relationship with Jesus Christ as eagle1462010 and beagle9 have found and you will become at peace with yourself  and become somewhat less of a sanctimonious Trump-like lying anti-Constitution asshole when you attack all the decent law abiding American born citizens who are both Protestant and Catholic Christian’s who believe pregnant women have a right in clean conscience to abort the alive human organism that becomes part of a woman’s body at conception by needing and using a grown female body to sustain itself until natural birth and is from birth on the same human lifespan continuum but no longer being a part of his or her mother’s body. Postnatal Postpartum speaking

But wait CarsomyrPlusSix (aka the dumbest dumbass on abortion here), If a living human organism referred to as a pregnant woman and living human organism referred to as a fetus never were part of the mother’s body then the miracle process, called fetal-maternal microchimerism could never take place.

eagle1462010 is scientifically correct on the fact that fetus and mother become two separate lives at birth leaving the shared life of nine months behind.









						Children’s cells live on in mothers
					

A baby's cells knit their way into a mother’s body.




					www.sciencenews.org
				





END2212070745


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ Bunch of irrelevant religious claptrap from a monstrous, inhuman lunatic

If your god is real, he’s an evil asshole to be fought, defied, and killed.

Two distinct bodies.  Two different organisms.      I won’t bother anymore telling an illiterate twat, especially a diseased, rotten, dripping twat to try to read a science textbook.  Because clearly, Egg can’t read.

Egg is a textbook case of vindictive, deliberate ignorance as well as hypocrisy and blatant dishonesty.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> So you agree, life begins at conception? Wow - Progress, ain't it good ?


I have never expressed a conclusion that biological human life does not begin at conception. Conception is the only biological means by which a brand new distinct human comes into being. It is the miraculous and mysterious moment the DNA programmed living human organism begins developing on the human lifespan continuum.

You should not pay attention to Catholic of sorts “ding”  … his religion permits him to bear false witness against his perceived political enemies of the Christian Nation.
ding is a liar .

You are honest beagle9 - you wear your religious identity on your sleeve. I do not agree with your opinions on abortion because most I read from you is not grounded by reason, law and facts. You are grounded in Jesus I believe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Watch your alliance the ugly CarsomyrPlusSix .

END2212070817


----------



## NotfooledbyW

nomadic5221207-#9  nomadic5 interesting that the Catholic Church went liberal in 1970, just 3 years b4 abortion was legalized in the US

And it has been a fast track downhill morally ever since

NFBW: As an apparently devout Catholic as  I presume, you must think it is quite godly and all that for the past fifty years now your Catholic political operation has somehow managed to get six Catholics on the Supreme Court.

So why are you accusing us Americans in a broad brush swipe as going downhill morally since 1970?

Back in 1970 when I was coming out of high school and began raising a family of my own. My political ideology was formed within the backdrop of the Vietnam war. The US government was getting young Americans killed who couldn’t afford to go to college and killing Vietnamese people in order to protect Catholic presidents supposedly operating an elected government in South  Vietnam, where the majority the population was not at all Catholic.

 The only major organized religion church opposed to that war alongside the liberals was the Unitarian church.

The liberals were correct in the 70s to put an end to that atrocity so I don’t need a lecture from any Catholic now about how my country is going downhill because of liberals.

And then 30 years later we had a US invasion of Iraq and again I was on the liberal side who were right again. The pope told W not to do it. The inspectors were in a wreck, resolving the WMD matter, but no, those of us opposed to the war were labeled Saddam, lovers, and Commies and faggots, and all the rest.

If this this great country ever listened  to the young people and the liberals we would be way ahead in my opinion. 10 years later, I know once again the liberals were right.

We don’t need to be run by a bunch of Catholics on the Supreme Court taking away the rights we have gained since those days in the fifties sixties and early seventies.

END221207-1518


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ Why does this vile filth prattle on so much about religion when it is irrelevant to this topic?

Yes we get it, you have endless bigotry against people who worship a good god, and you blame their religion for them disagreeing with your wicked lust for mass slaughter.

Yet one doesn’t shouldn’t need a god or a religious text to know that killing innocent human beings in cold blood is wrong.

In fact, one can evaluate the legitimacy of supposed gods and religious texts by this standard.  Does this religious text say it is okay to kill innocent human beings in cold blood?  Got it - shit religion, fuck that god, and keep a close eye on its cultists because they want to hurt you.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> nomadic5221207-#9  nomadic5 interesting that the Catholic Church went liberal in 1970, just 3 years b4 abortion was legalized in the US
> 
> And it has been a fast track downhill morally ever since
> 
> NFBW: As an apparently devout Catholic as  I presume, you must think it is quite godly and all that for the past fifty years now your Catholic political operation has somehow managed to get six Catholics on the Supreme Court.
> 
> So why are you accusing us Americans in a broad brush swipe as going downhill morally since 1970?
> 
> Back in 1970 when I was coming out of high school and began raising a family of my own. My political ideology was formed within the backdrop of the Vietnam war. The US government was getting young Americans killed who couldn’t afford to go to college and killing Vietnamese people in order to protect Catholic presidents supposedly operating an elected government in South  Vietnam, where the majority the population was not at all Catholic.
> 
> The only major organized religion church opposed to that war alongside the liberals was the Unitarian church.
> 
> The liberals were correct in the 70s to put an end to that atrocity so I don’t need a lecture from any Catholic now about how my country is going downhill because of liberals.
> 
> And then 30 years later we had a US invasion of Iraq and again I was on the liberal side who were right again. The pope told W not to do it. The inspectors were in a wreck, resolving the WMD matter, but no, those of us opposed to the war were labeled Saddam, lovers, and Commies and faggots, and all the rest.
> 
> If this this great country ever listened  to the young people and the liberals we would be way ahead in my opinion. 10 years later, I know once again the liberals were right.
> 
> We don’t need to be run by a bunch of Catholics on the Supreme Court taking away the rights we have gained since those days in the fifties sixties and early seventies.
> 
> END221207-1518


You said the Catholic priest told W not to do it eh, as in you agreed with the priest by quoting him, yet then you flip and hate Catholics eh ? You are a strange little man... LOL.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You said the Catholic priest told W not to do it eh,


Go back and check I said the Pope told W not to do it. It was public knowledge prior to the invasion started. Would you please correct your post so I can respond accordingly based on the fact of what I said.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221207-#6,184    You said the Catholic priest told W not to do it eh, as in you agreed with the priest by quoting him, yet then you flip and hate Catholics eh ? You are a strange little man... LOL

What makes you think I hate Catholics the majority of Catholics are pro-choice but object to abortion personally. Exactly my position. I love Joe Biden and he’s Catholic. He’s a good man,  a moral man. I’ve never heard that he paid some girlfriend to kill the baby like H. Walker Trump loser did. 

I told  you that. I guess you missed it. 

NFBW221205-#6,154  I am an anti-abortion pro-choice rational theist myself, somewhat similar abortion-wise, to more than half of mass-attending Catholics who are AA-PC too. On the other hand, white Christian posters such as yourself Mashmont and ding are anti-abortion anti-choice AA-AC which I believe is due in large part to your and theirs common lack of respect for the Constitution and a woman’s right to privacy in reproductive matters between her god if she has one her family and her doctor. 

The issue I raised with nomadic5 was his Catholic crusade based on his opposition to women’s freedom of choice on abortion that led him to write; 

nomadic5221207-#9 @nomadic5 “interesting that the Catholic Church went liberal in 1970, just 3 years b4 abortion was legalized in the US   . . . .  And it has been a fast track downhill morally ever since”

Can you defend the absurdity that America   is on a fast track downhill morally ever since the Roe v Wade decision was made. 

END2212071727


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

“Joe Biden is a good and moral man.”

*No one* believes this.  Literally no one.

This fucker is trolling, has already suffered terminal brain damage, or is trolling because of his terminal brain damage.

Pull the plug.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Existentialism Of Relinquishing Control To More Adequate Lexicon Descriptors "

* Lunar Ticks Group Think Confounded By Self Incrimination **


beagle9 said:


> Just sticking with the traditional standard's, it's you all that have attempted to turn everything inside out and upside down.


Is there another way of explaining paradox ?

Would it be a condition of equal protection with a citizen that populism should decree whether a death penalty of capital punishment can or can not be an option of criminal justice ?

A protection directly implies a retort , and a double meaning from equitable doctrine is that an act of illegitimate aggression by a perpetrator , which removes a wright to life of another individual , necessarily incurs reciprocity from equitable doctrine whereby the perpetrator is to have removed its own right to life , albeit by due process .

Perhaps you would agree with an opinion that populism should decree whether death as capital punishment may or may not be allowed to occur by law at a federal level , or at state level ; however , this moniker would disagree and assert that such a decree to prohibit death as capital punishment is prohibited by us constitution at a state level , or at a federal level in defense of individualism and its foundation of us republic from its e pluribus unum credo .

Would a decree that a death penalty as capital punishment not be allowed in statutes of law be a decree consistent with christian ethos , and were it remanded for meritocracy would it not violate equitable doctrine and therefore principles of non violence and individualism ?

Would a decree that a death penalty as capital punishment not be allowed in statutes of law be a decree consistent with equal protection of negative liberties among individuals entitled by a live birth requirement to receive them , and would that decree also violate a us 1st amendment establishment clause ?

** Religious Establishment Paradox Clause Violators Decide On No Name Perspective Hues **

Would a tenet to forget but not ever to forgive be consistent with a christian ethos ?
Would a tenet to forgive but not ever to forget be consistent with a christian ethos ?
Would a tenet to forget and forgive be consistent with a christian ethos ?
Would a tenet to forgive and forget be consistent with a christian ethos ?

** Selective Designation For Citizenship In Us Republic Credo Of E Pluribus Unum Espousing Independence As Individualism **

There is not a difference between the edicts and tenets of a creed and a religion , and there is not an exception in us 1st amendment for a religion with edicts and tenets of creed for illegitimate aggression as violence against individuals .

A legitimate state interest is not in when biological life exists , or whether a biological life exists at all , rather a legitimate state interest is in whether a wright to life exists ; and , a state interest is prohibited in protecting a wright to life of any entity which has not met a live birth requirement to receive equal protection of negative liberties .

A zygote , or embryo , or fetus has not met a birth requirement to receive equal protection with a citizen that would include a wright to life , and any perceived offense against a fetus is in fact an offense against the mother .

Albeit by due process and contingent upon a double meaning from equitable doctrine , a perpetrator sentenced to death for capital punishment has its wright to life removed ,  and without an ability to redeem its wright to life a perpetrator would then be subject to the conditions of moral relativism that exist in nature prior to any individual exchanging its natural freedoms for protected wrights through membership in a social civil contract as specified by a constitution .

Fetal protection laws specifically stipulate that a death penalty is not an available punishment for injury or death of a fetus , whether intentional or not intentional , which follows from a birth requirement for equal protection .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Anthropocentric Authoritarian Dictating None Of Their Fucking Business Determinism "

* Collective Populism For Violating Us Credo For Individualism With Democracy As Tyranny By Majority **


elektra said:


> yes, I thinks  it is a bit sick, that Down Syndrome babies get aborted at about a 90% rate depending on the country.
> The testing for Down Syndrome does result in false positives, which is another tragedy in itself. .
> But yea, you, you are pretty funny, but not in a funny way, too bad there was not a test for that, I am sure...


In thirty days the would be parents would be able to try again so , as far as reproductive opportunity goes , your embrace of sanctimonious anthropocentric dictates are depraved vanity used to justify illegitimate aggression against the citizen and the individual , and used to justify dumbfounded conclusions through ignorance of antinomian ethos and naturalism .

** Hue Man **


----------



## elektra

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Anthropocentric Authoritarian Dictating None Of Their Fucking Business Determinism "
> 
> * Collective Populism For Violating Us Credo For Individualism With Democracy As Tyranny By Majority **
> 
> In thirty days the parents would able to try again so , as far as reproductive opportunity goes , your dictates are depraved , bat shit crazy , illegitimate aggression against the citizen , the individual , an antinomian ethos and naturalism .
> 
> ** Hue Man **


Sad it is, that some that would be happy with a life dont get a chance cause for people like you, it is too hard, or is it you just dont like the people you dont see as normal


----------



## BackAgain

elektra said:


> Sad it is, that some that would be happy with a life dont get a chance cause for people like you, it is too hard, or is it you just dont like the people you dont see as normal


I don’t know where you got the idiot’s decoder ring. But I’m impressed you are able to Wade through his gibberish.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Avoiding And Claustrophobic "

* Assuming Far Too Much **


elektra said:


> Sad it is, that some that would be happy with a life dont get a chance cause for people like you, it is too hard, or is it you just dont like the people you dont see as normal


Stop projecting , we all set boundaries or preference .


----------



## elektra

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Avoiding And Claustrophobic "
> 
> * Assuming Far Too Much **
> 
> Stop projecting , we all set boundaries or preference .


Thank you for the weak wristed response.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Indifference To Appearance But Hostile For Personal Space "

* Attention Shoppers **


elektra said:


> Thank you for the weak wristed response.


Did you state you were enthralled with the differences ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> This fucker is trolling,




NFBW:  fetal-maternal microchimerism

Not only was a fetus a part of its mother’s body CarsomyrPlusSix has possibly learned the science of fetal-maternal microchimerism which reveals that a fetus is still a part of its mother whether carried to full term or terminated early in the pregnancy.

NFBW221207-#6,179  But wait CarsomyrPlusSix (aka the dumbest dumbass on abortion here), If a living human organism referred to as a pregnant woman and living human organism referred to as a fetus never were part of the mother’s body then the miracle process, called fetal-maternal microchimerism could never take place.

eagle1462010 is scientifically correct on the fact that fetus and mother become two separate lives at birth leaving the shared life of nine months behind.







Children’s cells live on in mothers

A baby's cells knit their way into a mother’s body.


END2212072055


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackA220722-#3,805 BackAgain     If a human zygote is a living human, with its own unique DNA, then it is deserving of the right to life. Yes or no?”

NFBW: No. Because a human zygote is using    another person’s body to be a living human zygote. The zygote’s rights, including the right to life, goes through the person being used to sustain life - It needs her consent to use her body for the full nine months to stay alive long enough to develop into a human fetus capable of being separated from the body it is using, to go through the biological process of birth.

END2212072136


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Go back and check I said the Pope told W not to do it. It was public knowledge prior to the invasion started. Would you please correct your post so I can respond accordingly based on the fact of what I said.


The pope is Catholic and a high (the highest priest), correct ?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> BackA220722-#3,805 BackAgain     If a human zygote is a living human, with its own unique DNA, then it is deserving of the right to life. Yes or no?”
> 
> NFBW: No. Because a human zygote is using    another person’s body to be a living human zygote. The zygote’s rights, including the right to life, goes through the person being used to sustain life - It needs her consent to use her body for the full nine months to stay alive long enough to develop into a human fetus capable of being separated from the body it is using, to go through the biological process of birth.
> 
> END2212072136


Human beings regardless of what stage they are in while making their way forward, are still to be held above all creation that reside within the womb or upon the earth, otherwise because they are human plain and simple. To hurt or abuse the process of a human being while in it's developmental stages in the womb is a sinful thing. Otherwise if there is no medical emergency reasoning behind the act of abortion other than it being one of an emergency, then a person is commiting sin by attempting to abort their baby outside of an emergency to do so.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221207-#6,183   ^ *Why does this vile filth prattle on so much about religion *when it is irrelevant to this topic?

NFBW: How is your interest In prenatal life based upon anything but force or power of your very own unique and individual conscience CarsomyrPlusSix ding ?????

In the following post PoliticalChic is expressing a religious conclusion. She is not expressing  a scientific or legal or secular conclusion regarding the material world

PC211201-#1  PoliticalChic From the moment of conception, every human being has inherent dignity and worth.

NFBW: Even if PC is a god hating atheist she is expressing the doctrine that precedes her conclusion which already belongs to the Catholic Church. The moment of conception is unknown to all of humanity that a human being has entered our physical world. Only to the God that created the sperm cell and the egg cell that merged together in order to have a personal relationship with a newly formed human being and knows it can give a  fertilized egg at conception the value that PC is expressing

Therefore the extremist push to force full term pregnancy on all women on the grounds that the people of a state shall not be blocked by a pregnant person from saving the life of the human organism developing inside her, is an overcrowded political playing field of persons in the millions who’s consciences are primarily influenced by the Christian religion.

You are an atheist CarsomyrPlusSix  you are the exception to most atheist views on abortion.

See this link:
Non-Religious Voters Wield Clout, Lean Heavily Democratic

Voters with no religious affiliation supported Democratic candidates and abortion rights by staggering percentages in the 2022 midterm elections.   Non-Religious Voters Wield Clout, Lean Heavily Democratic


Sam Alito confirms that humans born and developed to voting age cannot know what only God can know Constitutionally speaking: “For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..

NFBW: The Supreme Court religious conservatives decided to let religious state lawmakers pass laws in order to save civilization from women who decide to have a safe legal abortion.

Those of Jewish faith for thousands of years to the present believe that human life begins at first breath. There are not enough Jews to vote their religious belief into public policy as long as does no harm to others which is what Hewush women had under Roe v Wade.

Dobbs v Jackson handed the voters in each state knowing that many red states have fewer Jews than Blue states therefore handing the Christian majority in every red state an opportunity to rationalize that the Jewish religion leads to a decline in civilization since human beings are created by God at conception not at first breath.


*NFBW: The following exchange and @ding’s glorification of the Catholic Church is evidence that my viewpoint in all this is well documented and correct and properly human,*


beagle9220903-#5,045     “Well your definition of civilized is being interpreted by me … “

NFBW220903-#5,048    Do you think Jewish people are civilized? Do you think the good Christian people of Kansas, many of them to keep the freedom for women to choose in the Kansas constitution are not fit to live in your version of civilization


ding said:


> Who is aborting fertilized eggs?



ding210222-#4  ding    “Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life.”

END2212080941


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ Just shut up about religion.

Despite the stereotype, the stereotype they push, it is always the pro-aborts trying to bring up their thoughts about religion into these discussions about law.

If you believe the sun god needs the sacrifices of your enemies’ still-beating hearts in order to keep rising in the morning, then your freedom of religion extends only to _saying_ that it is moral and good to cut out the hearts of the people you kidnap.  Decent, moral people will use their freedom of speech to condemn your vile, barbaric religion, of course, and should you actually try to murder folks for your murder cult, you would be thrown in prison.

That is how I feel about anyone who claims that “life begins at the first breath” and tries to use this *erroneous, factually incorrect, delusional *belief to justify harming innocent human beings.  Barbaric filth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9-221208    #6,198     Human beings regardless of what stage they are in while making their way forward, are still to be held above all creation that reside within the womb or upon the earth, otherwise because they are human plain and simple.

NFBW: And if I don’t beagle9 what law or moral code am I violating? As a human being myself I have a sense of duty and moral obligation to honor the right to life of all human beings from the moment they have a natural or medically assisted birth until hopefully a long and full life comes to a natural death.

END2212082049


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221208-#6,200  CarsomyrPlusSix  Despite the stereotype, the stereotype they push, it is always the pro-aborts trying to bring up their thoughts about religion into these discussions about law.

NFBW: What law is being discussed that says a suddenly and recently conceived unborn human organism has a right to use another person’s body for nine months against the will of the other person.

Let me remind you what Catholic Justice Alito says about the law I guess you think exists.

“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​​How do you take that CarsomyrPlusSix ?????
​And then there’s Alito’s fraud in Dobbs v Jackson  re: - "Leges Henrici Primi" (or "Laws of Henry I"), which dates to around 1115 A.D.. 

See para E and K to catch the drift if Alito’s fraud.

A. Alito's opinion sneaks in a 12th-century religious penalty for abortion — not a criminal statute — citing it in a section meant to support the history of criminal punishment, and with its ecclesiastical origins neatly excised. Those who are outraged by this are now free to mock Alito, unless they'd rather have him impeached — along with the whole Dobbs majority, perhaps — for deceiving America and violating the separation of church and state.

B. Page 17 of the Dobbs slip opinion, in footnote 25, cites the legal treatise "Leges Henrici Primi" (or "Laws of Henry I"), which dates to around 1115 A.D.:

C. Even before Bracton's time, English law imposed punishment for the killing of a fetus. See Leges Henrici Primi 222–223 (L. Downer ed. 1972) (imposing penalty for any abortion and treating a woman who aborted a "quick" child "as if she were a murderess").

D. Legal historian Leslie John Downer's translation of the original 12th-century Latin text, however, reads, "_f she does this [intentionally destroys her embryo] after it is quick [animate], she shall do penance for seven years as if she were a murderess." Alito carefully clipped out the words "she shall do penance for seven years" from the quotation, between "quick" and "as."

E. Why hide those words? Unless he was sleepwalking, *Alito understood perfectly well that he was committing a gross material omission, obscuring the fact that the "penalty" in this medieval text was merely religious and penitential, not civil or criminal.* Religious "crimes" are not crimes at all, by our modern legal standards. (The Leges Henrici, at pages 222-223, mentions paying "wergeld" and "manbot," or reparations, including compensation for loss of a pregnancy, if a pregnant woman is slain by any means. But that's not "punishment for abortion," which is merely penance in the Leges.)

F. To say this is "just a footnote" is no excuse. If footnote 25 had used undisclosed material that was atheist, Islamist or Satanist in origin, people would be outraged; given the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which bans any state religion, they may be equally outraged by the court's deliberate concealment of the Christian prehistory to Dobbs. The court's majority has no right to inflict state religion on Americans, in even the slightest dose.

G. But wait, there's more. On pages 16 and 17, the Dobbs opinion bookends footnote 25 with, "We begin with the common law, under which abortion was a crime at least after 'quickening'," before moving on to common-law sources like Henry de Bracton and the statement, "English cases dating all the way back to the 13th century corroborate the treatises' statements that abortion was a crime." This all misleadingly implies that the Leges, which is certainly a treatise, criminalizes abortion under common law.

H. Then Alito crosses the Rubicon, proclaiming on page 25 that "an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973." This is fraudulent, by any analysis. If the Leges Henrici is common law, as Alito presents it, mixed in with common-law sources like Bracton, it's dishonest to say that common law has always criminalized abortion. But if Alito then wishes to backpedal and claim that the Leges, with its penance-penalty, is really canon law (i.e., church law), not common law, then two things follow: Alito falsified his argument by categorizing the Leges with common law, and he more flagrantly snuck Christian state religion into the Dobbs decision. Falsehood, either way.

I. Finally, English common law is normally understood to begin after 1066 (with the Norman Conquest) and no later than the 12th century, since King Henry II (1133-1189) is often called "Father of the Common Law." But Bracton, Alito's earliest legitimate citation for criminalizing abortion, wasn't born until around the year 1210. In short, Alito provides doctored evidence, or none at all, for his conclusory statement that the "earliest days of the common law" criminalized abortion, and creates a kind of fake history — the fiction of an ancient, continuous Anglo-American pedigree of criminalizing abortion — which supposedly supports overturning Roe.

J. Was this an unintentional mistake? That's unlikely, especially since the present author told the court, in a brief filed May 21, after the Dobbs draft leak, that the opinion failed to explain that the penalty in Leges was purely ecclesiastical. The justices paid no attention, and the error was repeated in the final June opinion.

K. Alito creates a kind of fake history — the fiction of an ancient, continuous Anglo-American pedigree of criminalizing abortion — which supposedly supports overturning Roe.

L. Oddly, the three dissenters in Dobbs failed to catch the Leges problem, and even committed a minor error on page 13 of the dissent: "Of course, the majority opinion refers [to] earlier history[;] it goes back as far as the 13th (the 13th!) century." In fact, the Leges is even older, from early in the 12th century. Their anger, perhaps, made them "miss the trees for the forest": Hyper-focused on the big-picture loss of Roe, the liberal justices missed crucial details about the Leges and state religion. Whether one is "pro-choice" or "pro-life," the truth is important._



Supreme deceit: How Alito snuck medieval state Christianity into the Dobbs opinion

David Boyle, Salon
October 13, 2022

_END2212082158_


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> He doesn’t understand the science.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9-221208    #6,198     Human beings regardless of what stage they are in while making their way forward, are still to be held above all creation that reside within the womb or upon the earth, otherwise because they are human plain and simple.
> 
> NFBW: And if I don’t beagle9 what law or moral code am I violating? As a human being myself I have a sense of duty and moral obligation to honor the right to life of all human beings from the moment they have a natural or medically assisted birth until hopefully a long and full life comes to a natural death.
> 
> END2212082049


You are a contradicting sort of fella, otherwise regardless of the human being being either born or still in the womb developing, it is still a human being, and it should be honored as such and protected as such. Period.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ Dobbs is affirming the 10th Amendment and the silence of the Constitution on the topic of abortion.

Everything else Egg said about the Dobbs decision is insane and fucking irrelevant.  
Egg's continued obsession with religion is fucking irrelevant and immaterial.


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^ Dobbs is affirming the 10th Amendment and the silence of the Constitution on the topic of abortion.
> 
> Everything else Egg said about the Dobbs decision is insane and fucking irrelevant.
> Egg's continued obsession with religion is fucking irrelevant and immaterial.


It's his go too when losing. Don't see how it helps him really, but I can see easily what he's trying to do when he attempt's to go after it. It's called desperation and a lack of respect for religion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

AATC060117 A doctor, a lawyer, and a priest are on a ship when it hits a rock and begins to sink. 'What about the women and children?' the doctor worries as the three pile into the only lifeboat. 'Screw the women and children,' the lawyer replies. 'Do you think we have time?' asks the priest.

NFBW: Alito is a highly educated Catholic on the Supreme Court. Alito said along with the Dobbs decision the following quote:

“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​​Alito sums up why I a secular humanist and Jeffersonian rational theist and  FranklinRoosevelt_FTW are mostly correct and openly honest and factual on abortion versus  ding , a Catholic on the right  ; @beagle , a Protestant ;  CarsomyrPlusSix , an atheist who sleeps on Sunday’s just like God;  are mostly wrong .

Here is what caught my attention written by FDR:

FDR220512-#3,093  FranklinRoosevelt_FTW   “And we should also hear out what women who are both for abortion and against it have to say without calling them names. Really is all about being polite everybody can hear each other out on this one.

NFBW: That is not a popular sentiment around here and I will be spending the day or two putting up *CHRIST*mas decorations,  so in the meantime, I’m asking all to read this post, and in the spirit Christmas and politeness, to read the following piece from 2006 when Dubya nominated Alito to the Supreme Court.

I realize I can’t make anyone read anything but if interested in giving understanding and politeness a try in a search for truth in a rational way please give peace a chance at least for month - by reading this:

Alito And The Catholics    BY BOOTIE COSGROVE-MATHER     JANUARY 17, 2006 / 12:14 PM / WEEKLY STANDARD
This column was written by Joseph Bottom.

Alito And The Catholics

AATC060117.a  “Since its founding, the United States has always had a source of moral vocabulary and feeling that stands at least a little apart from the marketplace and the polling booth — from both the economics of capitalism and the politics of democracy that otherwise dominate the nation.”

END2212092017


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> AATC060117 A doctor, a lawyer, and a priest are on a ship when it hits a rock and begins to sink. 'What about the women and children?' the doctor worries as the three pile into the only lifeboat. 'Screw the women and children,' the lawyer replies. 'Do you think we have time?' asks the priest.
> 
> NFBW: Alito is a highly educated Catholic on the Supreme Court. Alito said along with the Dobbs decision the following quote:
> 
> “For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​​Alito sums up why I a secular humanist and Jeffersonian rational theist and  FranklinRoosevelt_FTW are mostly correct and openly honest and factual on abortion versus  ding , a Catholic on the right  ; @beagle , a Protestant ;  CarsomyrPlusSix , an atheist who sleeps on Sunday’s just like God;  are mostly wrong .
> 
> Here is what caught my attention written by FDR:
> 
> FDR220512-#3,093  FranklinRoosevelt_FTW   “And we should also hear out what women who are both for abortion and against it have to say without calling them names. Really is all about being polite everybody can hear each other out on this one.
> 
> NFBW: That is not a popular sentiment around here and I will be spending the day or two putting up *CHRIST*mas decorations,  so in the meantime, I’m asking all to read this post, and in the spirit Christmas and politeness, to read the following piece from 2006 when Dubya nominated Alito to the Supreme Court.
> 
> I realize I can’t make anyone read anything but if interested in giving understanding and politeness a try in a search for truth in a rational way please give peace a chance at least for month - by reading this:
> 
> Alito And The Catholics    BY BOOTIE COSGROVE-MATHER     JANUARY 17, 2006 / 12:14 PM / WEEKLY STANDARD
> This column was written by Joseph Bottom.
> 
> Alito And The Catholics
> 
> AATC060117.a  “Since its founding, the United States has always had a source of moral vocabulary and feeling that stands at least a little apart from the marketplace and the polling booth — from both the economics of capitalism and the politics of democracy that otherwise dominate the nation.”
> 
> END2212092017


You don’t know what my position on abortion is.  I never told you. I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge that abortion ends a human life without justifying the ending of a human life due to the ridiculous and arbitrary viability argument.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Puffed Up And Full Of Its Self "

* Excluding Violations Of Religious Establishment Clause **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^ Just shut up about religion.
> Despite the stereotype, the stereotype they push, it is always the pro-aborts trying to bring up their thoughts about religion into these discussions about law.


There is not a difference between a religion and a creed , and the first amendment of us republic assures its citizens that government may not prevent the free expression of edicts or tenets of a creed as a religion , and there is not an exception in us first amendment for a religion with a creed of edicts or tenets to violation the equal protection of negative liberties among those entitled by a live birth requirement to receive them .

** Summations Of Demented Hue Mammon Psyche And Group Think **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> If you believe the sun god needs the sacrifices of your enemies’ still-beating hearts in order to keep rising in the morning, then your freedom of religion extends only to _saying_ that it is moral and good to cut out the hearts of the people you kidnap.  Decent, moral people will use their freedom of speech to condemn your vile, barbaric religion, of course, and should you actually try to murder folks for your murder cult, you would be thrown in prison.


Of course those fantastical allusions to proverbial hue man concepts do not have a relationship with individual liberty for abortion , except that killing of the deviant continues to occur , not based on standards of illegitimate aggression against the equal protection of negative liberties among individuals entitled by live birth requirement to receive them , rather based on sectarian supremacy by sanctimonious sin mythology lunar ticks .

** Selling After Life To The Gullible Ignorant Of Euphemism And Metaphor  **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> That is how I feel about anyone who claims that “life begins at the first breath” and tries to use this *erroneous, factually incorrect, delusional *belief to justify harming innocent human beings.  Barbaric filth.


Is the life of a caterpillar and the life of a butterfly the same ?

The term neonatal implies new ( neo ) from the sea ( natal - nautical ) .

While a first breath perspective does not include an onset of sentience , or of cognitive objection , or or of mind , it does include an arcane realism that live birth is a trial where not all survive to become individual members of society that breathes air .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221209-#6,208 ding  “You don’t know what my position on abortion is. I never told you. I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge that abortion ends a human life without justifying the ending of a human life due to the ridiculous and arbitrary viability argument.”

ding200118-#444     To argue that abortion shouldn't be illegal because women would be punished has no bearing on the immorality of abortion or the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

ding180120-#443    At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

ding: Dr William Reville180120-#443      "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.

ding: Dr. William Reville180120-#443   The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death.

ding180129-#442   Nothing has has really changed in the last 150 years.        Republicans believe that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights. That we are all created equal and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the basis for the opposition of slavery and that is the basis for the opposition to abortion.          Democrats believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. That was their basis for justifying slavery and that is their basis for justifying abortion.


ding180129-#424     And if you make performing abortions illegal, the vast majority of abortions would end.     Of course, that would be up to each state to decide, amirite?


180129-#418    What I am curious about is how many false arguments are you guys going to come up with before you accept the scientific fact that a new genetically distinct human being is created at conception?

NFBW: I know you are wrong in 180129-#418 and the millions of times you restate it for the past four years.

The scientists you cite say new a genetically distinct human “organism” is created at conception and “individual human life begins at conception” and conception is “the start of a *biological continuum* that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death.”

NFBW: What am I missing ding . It is a scientific FACT that the ‘human being’ on the biological continuum as described above  is not viable sufficiently enough to survive without the life support of another person’s biological functions of a body and female reproductive organs , that has already been past the stage of birth and is a fellow American citizen having that most significant milestone. I respect her rights as an absolute truth.

END2212090905


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221209-#6,208 ding  “You don’t know what my position on abortion is. I never told you. I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge that abortion ends a human life without justifying the ending of a human life due to the ridiculous and arbitrary viability argument.”
> 
> ding200118-#444     To argue that abortion shouldn't be illegal because women would be punished has no bearing on the immorality of abortion or the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
> 
> ding180120-#443    At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.
> 
> dingr. William Reville180120-#443      "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.
> 
> ding: Dr. William Reville180120-#443   The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death.
> 
> ding180129-#442   Nothing has has really changed in the last 150 years.        Republicans believe that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights. That we are all created equal and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the basis for the opposition of slavery and that is the basis for the opposition to abortion.          Democrats believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. That was their basis for justifying slavery and that is their basis for justifying abortion.
> 
> 
> ding180129-#424     And if you make performing abortions illegal, the vast majority of abortions would end.     Of course, that would be up to each state to decide, amirite?
> 
> 
> 180129-#418    What I am curious about is how many false arguments are you guys going to come up with before you accept the scientific fact that a new genetically distinct human being is created at conception?
> 
> NFBW: I know you are wrong in 180129-#418 and the millions of times you restate it for the past four years.
> 
> The scientists you cite say new a genetically distinct human “organism” is created at conception and “individual human life begins at conception” and conception is “the start of a *biological continuum* that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death.”
> 
> NFBW: What am I missing ding . It is a scientific FACT that the ‘human being’ on the biological continuum as described above  is not viable sufficiently enough to survive without the life support of another person’s biological functions of a body and female reproductive organs , that has already been past the stage of birth and is a fellow American citizen having that most significant milestone. I respect her rights as an absolute truth.
> 
> END2212090905


Again… you don’t know my position on abortion because I haven’t told you my position on abortion and I won’t until you unconditionally admit abortion ends a human life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Again… you don’t know my position on abortion because I haven’t told you my position on abortion and I won’t until you unconditionally admit abortion ends a human life.


NFBW: Human life *begins* at conception exactly as the Catholic Doctrine Humanae Vitae decrees. I have always agreed with that Biblical and biological scientific concept. So run away again if you don’t believe me.

END2212090938


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Human life *begins* at conception exactly as the Catholic Doctrine Humanae Vitae decrees. I have always agreed with that Biblical and biological scientific concept. So run away again if you don’t believe me.
> END2212090938


Until you unconditionally state abortion ends a human life, we have nothing to discuss.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

ding said:


> Until you unconditionally state abortion ends a human life, we have nothing to discuss.


Given what an absolute weasel Egg is, then yeah, make Egg be explicit.

Because even though words have meanings and Egg said the same thing already, Egg will lie to your face and say Egg never said any such thing and try to draw a meaningless distinction.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Just to expand on that…
We have a poster here who will state “human life begins at fertilization” which is scientifically true, while simultaneously denying that abortion victims are living humans.

So they are alive.  And human.  But they are not living humans.  Because… bullshit. 

Because an endless stream of bullshit, insults, and ranting nonsense.

It’s just all so tiring.  Makes you think - how could this blatant dishonesty _not_ be malicious trolling?  How far up your own ass would you have to be to mindlessly parrot and actually believe the propaganda of others even when it  directly contradicts factual reality, scientific knowledge, and itself. 

How can you believe two diametrically opposed things at the same time?  Has to be trolling, right?  Or are they that far gone having drunk that deeply of the koolaid?  Like something out of 1984…


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> We have a poster here who will state “human life begins at fertilization” which is scientifically true, while simultaneously denying that abortion victims are living humans.



NFBW: You are a liar CarsomyrPlusSix *I have already stated that abortion terminates what you unscientifically refer to as a baby in the womb and kills it - it dies and therefore it is dead.* And it’s unique human DNA will never exist in the universe again in the human condition of being alive.

ding 220718-#2,403 As for the legality of abortion... that's up to each state to decide. I don't have a problem with this.

ding220813-#4,798 @NotfooledbyW if you want to discuss killing them, let's discuss killing them.

NFBW220814-#4,806     what’s to discuss? You have no opinion on the legality of killing a human organism by abortion. In ding-#2,403 you are ok with abortion being legal, so killing whatever you want to call it ding is ok with you..

ding 220812-#4,726 “Do you believe that abortion ends a human life?”

NFBW2208130841-#4,767    You are a liar ding* I have already stated that abortion terminates what you unscientifically refers to as a baby in the womb and kills it - it dies and therefore it is dead*. And its unique human DNA will never exist in the universe again in the human condition of being alive. n the universe again.
NFBW2208140049-#4,806


ding220813-#4,798 @NotfooledbyW if you want to discuss killing them, let's discuss killing them.

NFBW220814-#4,806   what’s to discuss? You have no opinion on the legality of killing a human organism by abortion. In ding-#2,403 you are ok with abortion being legal, so killing whatever you want to call it ding is ok with you.

I on the other hand want a federal law that says killing whatever you want to call it after 28 weeks should not be legal. States must ban abortion after 28 weeks..

END2212091028


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar CarsomyrPlusSix *I have already stated that abortion terminates what you unscientifically refer to as a baby in the womb and kills it - it dies and therefore it is dead.* And it’s unique human DNA will never exist in the universe again in the human condition of being alive.
> 
> ding 220718-#2,403 As for the legality of abortion... that's up to each state to decide. I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> ding220813-#4,798 @NotfooledbyW if you want to discuss killing them, let's discuss killing them.
> 
> NFBW220814-#4,806     what’s to discuss? You have no opinion on the legality of killing a human organism by abortion. In ding-#2,403 you are ok with abortion being legal, so killing whatever you want to call it ding is ok with you..
> 
> ding 220812-#4,726 “Do you believe that abortion ends a human life?”
> 
> NFBW2208130841-#4,767    You are a liar ding* I have already stated that abortion terminates what you unscientifically refers to as a baby in the womb and kills it - it dies and therefore it is dead*. And its unique human DNA will never exist in the universe again in the human condition of being alive. n the universe again.
> NFBW2208140049-#4,806
> 
> 
> ding220813-#4,798 @NotfooledbyW if you want to discuss killing them, let's discuss killing them.
> 
> NFBW220814-#4,806   what’s to discuss? You have no opinion on the legality of killing a human organism by abortion. In ding-#2,403 you are ok with abortion being legal, so killing whatever you want to call it ding is ok with you.
> 
> I on the other hand want a federal law that says killing whatever you want to call it after 28 weeks should not be legal. States must ban abortion after 28 weeks..
> 
> END2212091028


tl/dr

Until you unconditionally state abortion ends a human life, we have nothing to discuss.


----------



## ding

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Given what an absolute weasel Egg is, then yeah, make Egg be explicit.
> 
> Because even though words have meanings and Egg said the same thing already, Egg will lie to your face and say Egg never said any such thing and try to draw a meaningless distinction.


He’s very slippery.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Until you unconditionally state abortion ends a human life, we have nothing to discuss.


I, NotfooledbyW  , being of sound mind and body, repeat and attest for possibly the millionth time,  that I unconditionally state that abortion ends a human life. 

I have never not believed or stated that abortion does not end a human life. 

I also believe a woman kills a human baby when she has an abortion. 

NFBW220813-#4,767 You are a liar ding* I have already stated that abortion terminates what you unscientifically refers to as a baby in the womb and kills it - it dies and therefore it is dead*. And its unique human DNA will never exist in the universe again in the human condition of being alive. n the universe again.
NFBW2208140049-#4,806



END2212081115


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I, NotfooledbyW  , being of sound mind and body, repeat and attest for possibly the millionth time,  that I unconditionally state that abortion ends a human life.
> 
> I have never not believed or stated that abortion does not end a human life.
> 
> I also believe a woman kills a human baby when she has an abortion.


Ok. Now that that has been settled… what do you want to know about my position?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ Now we ask him *how in the ever loving fuck, *having acknowledged that abortion victims are innocent and helpless human beings, can he justify violence against them…

It can’t be done.  So this should be entertaining, or it would if the dishonesty and backsliding wasn’t going to start… immediately.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Ok. Now that that has been settled… what do you want to know about my position?



ding220803-#4,286  Whether they are inside the mom or outside the mom doesn’t change the essence of what they are.

NFBW: Of course the essence of a human being at the not-viable human organism stage on the human life span continuum does not change.

I am a human being and American by virtue of being born here which grants me freedom of conscience to believe as a human being and citizen that my moral and civic duty is to have respect for all human beings that are born.

My conscience and the science that weighs in on that matter of personal decisions tell me on the matter of abortion that my duty and responsibility tells me that our duty as human beings to all other human beings extends to those having been born.

Pregnancy is a private matter until such time as the fetus practically may have a decently normal natural birth and live outside the womb. That milestone was 28 weeks in 1973 and I would agree based on medical advances to go to 24 weeks or even 22.

As you know personally, and in my personal life, I believe abortion other than to save the life of the mother is wrong, even briefly after unborn viability.

But that is what my conscience dictates to me, and has from an early age, but I do not assume the right to force my conscience on everyone else who is doing no harm to other human beings that have passed mile stone of being born, or at least viable enough to be born.

You can comment on that or walk away. It really makes no difference to me. I have no reservations or guilt about the conclusion I have reached on the policies with regard to abortion.

END2212091218


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ So after allll that whining, there is no question.

It’s just Egg stating Egg’s opinions, the same ones Egg has already spouted repeatedly.


----------



## BackAgain

Im gonna go out on a limb and say “eggsactly.”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

BackAgain said:


> Im gonna go out on a limb and say “eggsactly.”


I gave ding a chance to walk a way or comment. We’ll see what he will do. My questions will follow. Nothing is changed so I  doubt any of you anti-freedom folks will follow up any way.



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Now we ask him *how in the ever loving fuck, *having acknowledged that abortion victims are innocent and helpless human beings, can he justify violence against them…


I answered that before you asked it.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding220803-#4,286  Whether they are inside the mom or outside the mom doesn’t change the essence of what they are.
> 
> NFBW: Of course the essence of a human being at the not-viable human organism stage on the human life span continuum does not change.
> 
> I am a human being and American by virtue of being born here which grants me freedom of conscience to believe as a human being and citizen that my moral and civic duty is to have respect for all human beings that are born.
> 
> My conscience and the science that weighs in on that matter of personal decisions tell me on the matter of abortion that my duty and responsibility tells me that our duty as human beings to all other human beings extends to those having been born.
> 
> Pregnancy is a private matter until such time as the fetus practically may have a decently normal natural birth and live outside the womb. That milestone was 28 weeks in 1973 and I would agree based on medical advances to go to 24 weeks or even 22.
> 
> As you know personally, and in my personal life, I believe abortion other than to save the life of the mother is wrong, even briefly after unborn viability.
> 
> But that is what my conscience dictates to me, and has from an early age, but I do not assume the right to force my conscience on everyone else who is doing no harm to other human beings that have passed mile stone of being born, or at least viable enough to be born.
> 
> You can comment on that or walk away. It really makes no difference to me. I have no reservations or guilt about the conclusion I have reached on the policies with regard to abortion.
> 
> END2212091218


Why do I need to comment on your beliefs?  What do you want to know from me?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221209-#6,226     Why do I need to comment on your beliefs? What do you want to know from me?

NFBW: you have already more than commented on my beliefs. One of which is that my beliefs are based on a sense of guilt and shame for wanting or allowing women to kill human beings in the privacy of their own womb. I contend the act of shaming others comes from a religious point of view and in your case is Catholicism, the main Christian religion that believes a *human being* is created at conception. That does not match the scientific view that the start of the development of a human being on a lifespan continuum begins at conception.  To shame me for all edged inhumanity you say, there is no religion involved in this matter. That is not true. To shame me you say viability of the developing organism in the womb is irrelevant. That is not true. So let me ask you why is anyone’s opinion on abortion and a woman’s right to choose based on the falsehoods that religion is not involved and the reality of viability is not involved? And do you agree with CarsomyrPlusSix that a fetus is never a part of its mother? If not, why? 

END2212091531


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221209-#6,226     Why do I need to comment on your beliefs? What do you want to know from me?
> 
> NFBW: you have already more than commented on my beliefs. One of which is that my beliefs are based on a sense of guilt and shame for wanting or allowing women to kill human beings in the privacy of their own womb. I contend the act of shaming others comes from a religious point of view and in your case is Catholicism, the main Christian religion that believes a *human being* is created at conception. That does not match the scientific view that the start of the development of a human being on a lifespan continuum begins at conception.  To shame me for all edged inhumanity you say, there is no religion involved in this matter. That is not true. To shame me you say viability of the developing organism in the womb is irrelevant. That is not true. So let me ask you why is anyone’s opinion on abortion and a woman’s right to choose based on the falsehoods that religion is not involved and the reality of viability is not involved? And do you agree with CarsomyrPlusSix that a fetus is never a part of its mother? If not, why?
> 
> END2212091531


tl/dr. What do you want to know?

Hint: you are supposed to ask a question.  No one wants to hear your origin story or the fake narratives you have going on in your head.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221209-#6,226     Why do I need to comment on your beliefs? What do you want to know from me?
> 
> NFBW: you have already more than commented on my beliefs. One of which is that my beliefs are based on a sense of guilt and shame for wanting or allowing women to kill human beings in the privacy of their own womb. I contend the act of shaming others comes from a religious point of view and in your case is Catholicism, the main Christian religion that believes a *human being* is created at conception. That does not match the scientific view that the start of the development of a human being on a lifespan continuum begins at conception.  To shame me for all edged inhumanity you say, there is no religion involved in this matter. That is not true. To shame me you say viability of the developing organism in the womb is irrelevant. That is not true. So let me ask you why is anyone’s opinion on abortion and a woman’s right to choose based on the falsehoods that religion is not involved and the reality of viability is not involved? And do you agree with CarsomyrPlusSix that a fetus is never a part of its mother? If not, why?
> 
> END2212091531


FYI this didn’t alert me.  You need to use the reply feature instead.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Knowing the fact that Homo sapiens do not somehow… bud… of the bodies of their parents… understanding the basics of embryology and how our bodies are not our parents bodies and our parents bodies are not our bodies…

… these things are not somehow like, just agreeing with my opinion.

You are not entitled to your own counterfactual opinion on something objective - it is not valid for you to say that in your opinion gravity isn’t real, or that in your opinion 2+2 equals 5…


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Hint: you are supposed to ask a question.


I did. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> So let me ask you why is anyone’s opinion on abortion and a woman’s right to choose based on the falsehoods that religion is not involved and the reality of viability is not involved? And do you agree with @CarsomyrPlusSix that a fetus is never a part of its mother? If not, why?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> our bodies are not our parents bodies and our parents bodies are not our bodies…


NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE That ever

For nine months two separate bodies share one body. The older human being and the new human being. It’s a temporary situation where the new body is using the older body to stay alive. Anyone saying the following is an idiot.

Cplus6221115-#5,617    “Hey Bitch off:  We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

Cplus6220919-#5,280   “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”

IF a fetus never were part of the mother’s body then the miracle process, called fetal-maternal microchimerism could never take place.

Children’s cells live on in mothers

How do a baby's cells knit their way into a mother’s body if their separate bodies are never part of each other.

END2212091645


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Puffed Up And Full Of Its Self "
> 
> * Excluding Violations Of Religious Establishment Clause **
> 
> There is not a difference between a religion and a creed , and the first amendment of us republic assures its citizens that government may not prevent the free expression of edicts or tenets of a creed as a religion , and there is not an exception in us first amendment for a religion with a creed of edicts or tenets to violation the equal protection of negative liberties among those entitled by a live birth requirement to receive them .
> 
> ** Summations Of Demented Hue Mammon Psyche And Group Think **
> 
> Of course those fantastical allusions to proverbial hue man concepts do not have a relationship with individual liberty for abortion , except that killing of the deviant continues to occur , not based on standards of illegitimate aggression against the equal protection of negative liberties among individuals entitled by live birth requirement to receive them , rather based on sectarian supremacy by sanctimonious sin mythology lunar ticks .
> 
> ** Selling After Life To The Gullible Ignorant Of Euphemism And Metaphor  **
> 
> Is the life of a caterpillar and the life of a butterfly the same ?
> 
> The term neonatal implies new ( neo ) from the sea ( natal - nautical ) .
> 
> While a first breath perspective does not include an onset of sentience , or of cognitive objection , or or of mind , it does include an arcane realism that live birth is a trial where not all survive to become individual members of society that breathes air .


Talking about humans only here, not butterflies and caterpillars as in any type of comparison's that your wickedness can conjure up.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I did.


Never gave it a thought and don’t think it matters as it is what it is?

Your statement that abortion ends a human life was not conditional so it doesn’t matter.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Your statement that abortion ends a human life was not conditional so it doesn’t matter



In reality it does. if you believe that the scientist say that there’s a human life continuum, then it doesn’t matter.

My statement does not have to be conditional because reality sets the conditions.

Every human being, starting at conception, spends its first months developing in a state of being where it cannot survive outside the womb. 

If you want to argue that human life is a viable human being beginning at conception, and able  to survive without the use of another persons body then please make the case. Can you make the case or will you run away? That is the question

END2212091711


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ Human beings do not magically become human beings when we have adequate surfactant in our lungs for current neonatal ICU equipment.

We are just Homo sapiens and are Homo sapiens for the entirety of our lifespan.  We do not and cannot magically change species mid-lifespan.

Duh?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" When Engaging Simplicity Becomes Complex "

* Yeah But Forgot To Ask Whether Any One Cares **


ding said:


> You don’t know what my position on abortion is.  I never told you. I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge that abortion ends a human life without justifying the ending of a human life due to the ridiculous and arbitrary viability argument.



** Deontologist Decrying That Consequentialism Exists **


elektra said:


> Science, embryo, fetus, zygote, 2, 3, 4, 5, weeks, a pill, hangar, or needle
> You folks are so much smarter than me, yet you can not let life be
> When do it begin, a bit after you think about it, certainly before you kill it



** In Conflict With Predilection By Gawd Of Nature **


beagle9 said:


> Human beings regardless of what stage they are in while making their way forward, are still to be held above all creation that reside within the womb or upon the earth, otherwise because they are human plain and simple. To hurt or abuse the process of a human being while in it's developmental stages in the womb is a sinful thing. Otherwise if there is no medical emergency reasoning behind the act of abortion other than it being one of an emergency, then a person is commiting sin by attempting to abort their baby outside of an emergency to do so.


From a perspective of hue mammon , that its organic life should continue in perpetuity is an altruism , however nothing predicates that ever instance of hue mammon is required for a chance that its organic life should continue in perpetuity .

The elements of organic life began long before resurrection from entropy was manifest in a projection of existential climax .

The mantra for organic life without value for quality of opportunity seems to be that of those committing the anthropocentric sin of vanity as its religion of humanism and apex predators rejects inclusion of itself in a universal scale of exploitation .


----------



## elektra

Monk-Eye said:


> *" When Engaging Simplicity Becomes Complex "
> 
> * Yeah But Forgot To Ask Whether Any One Cares *
> 
> 
> * Deontologist Decrying That Consequentialism Exists *
> 
> 
> * In Conflict With Predilection By Gawd Of Nature **
> 
> From a perspective of hue mammon , that its organic life should continue in perpetuity is an altruism , however nothing predicates that ever instance of hue mammon is required for a chance that its organic life should continue in perpetuity .
> 
> The elements of organic life began long before resurrection from entropy was manifest in a projection of existential climax .
> 
> The mantra for organic life without value for quality of opportunity seems to be that of those committing the anthropocentric sin o


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> In reality it does. if you believe that the scientist say that there’s a human life continuum, then it doesn’t matter.
> 
> My statement does not have to be conditional because reality sets the conditions.
> 
> Every human being, starting at conception, spends its first months developing in a state of being where it cannot survive outside the womb.
> 
> If you want to argue that human life is a viable human being beginning at conception, and able  to survive without the use of another persons body then please make the case. Can you make the case or will you run away? That is the question
> 
> END2212091711


Sounds like you want to revisit your unconditional statement and add some conditions. 

Do you have anything you want discuss besides revising your unconditional statement?

You are really pissing away a golden opportunity, but it’s your mistake to make.


----------



## ding

Monk-Eye said:


> Yeah But Forgot To Ask Whether Any One Cares *


That’s nice. Considering he keeps summoning me to this thread, it’s pretty obvious he does care what I believe.


----------



## BackAgain

ding said:


> That’s nice. Considering he keeps summoning me to this thread, it’s pretty obvious he does care what I believe.


Oh heck. Don’t we all?  👍


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Is a human being a human being from fertilization - the answer can only be yes.

Are we as human beings one contiguous organism from fertilization until death?  Again, yes.

These aren’t even things up for discussion or debate.  Knowing basic scientific fact like this is just basic literacy - a precursor to even having a discussion.  Not knowing them is embarrassing. 

Actively denying them is *insane*.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ Speak of the devil… behold an example of insane mealy-mouthed self-contradictory hogwash.

To summarize Egg above: “Killing isn’t killing.  Human beings aren’t human beings.  Herpaderp.”

Replete with typos too.  

Edit: Egg deleted it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Sounds like you want to revisit your unconditional statement and add some conditions.


No. that is not true. 


NotfooledbyW said:


> If you want to argue that human life is a viable human being beginning at conception, and able to survive without the use of another persons body then please make the case. Can you make the case or will you run away? That is the question


You cannot make the case or address the question. word games is all you have.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Are we as human beings one contiguous organism from fertilization until death? Again, yes.


Is there a point that your one contiguous organism from fertilization, until dead transitions, from being not viable to viable sufficient to live outside the womb.


A human being in the womb develops from
Not-viable inadequacy to live outside the womb to viable adequacy to live outside the womb at a certain point on the human life continuum. I have said that when a woman aborts the human being prior to viability she kills it. My position on abortion is that ending a not viable fetus is not at all similar  to  a killer who kills a human being that has passed the successful birth milestone. The main point being that a woman getting an abortion is doing so in private. It is none of your extremist anti-freedom business to restrict her from doing it safely.

It’s none of your business and none of the State government’s business.

Why do you and ding think that it is.

All I keep hearing from you two  is that at the moment of conception a human being is created, and there is no difference in viability from the moment of conception until death. That is absurd. It is nuts, I tell you.

END2212091937


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. that is not true.
> 
> You cannot make the case or address the question. word games is all you have.


I already explained it. It has no bearing on anything. It doesn’t change abortion ending a human life. We already settled that. What bearing does it have on abortion?

If you are asking does viability lessen the consequence of ending a human life I don’t believe it does.

Is that all you wanted to know about my beliefs?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ all of Egg’s endless prattle above hinges on Egg holding an arbitrary standard and saying “it’s totally different, you guys, killing an innocent human being and killing an innocent human being, it’s different, trust me, because it’s different, because it is.”

To which, the obvious rhetorical reply is that the result is the same, a human being is killed, someone attacked them

Also most murderers of born humans try to keep their murder “private.” They don’t want to be known as murdering murderers.  Go figure.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Animated Dolls For The Dumbfounded "

* False Equivalent Facsimile Of Reality In Natural Events **


elektra said:


> View attachment 736986


Yeah , yeah , yeah , always the disingenuous proposition for a poster child perfect viable progeny late term abortion as a justification to outlaw abortion from conception through all stages of development .

An inchoate autonomic animal without a capacity for cognitive objection , without a capacity for mind , without a capacity for sentience , whereby empathy for suffering may be a valid basis of representation by proxy , is omitted by the disingenuous anthropocentric lunar tick traitors to us republic credo of e pluribus unum for independence as individualism .

Such traitors seek populism of democracy as tyranny by majority to implement its authoritarian dictates to disparage the equal protection of negative liberties among individuals entitled by live birth to receive them .

The lunar tick traitors to us republic offer static diversion to acknowledge that abortions performed prior to an onset of sentience , those possibly understood as occurring " without cause " ,  have nothing to do with those occurring " with cause " when sentience and suffering as an ethical consideration would be relevant .


----------



## beagle9

elektra said:


> View attachment 736986


Can you imagine a so called medical professional taking a sharp instrument, and stabbing that brain in a process to murder the unborn child we are viewing above ? How much of a henious crime is that ? Ohhhh that's right, they need that child's body for stem cells, and other valuable resale items that project veritas exposed on them. My bad.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221209-#6,246    “What bearing does it have on abortion?”

NFBW: The significance of viable vs unviable is on all of us who are not involved and are absolutely not harmed in any way, in the taking of a human life in private by a woman who is choosing not to give birth to the baby in her womb prior to viability.

You apparently have trapped an absurdity in your head that makes you think you know that any person who understands the difference between the killing of a post-birth human being and the killing of a pre-viable human being by the person that is sharing her body with it has a guiiry conscience.

ding220724-#3,861  “You have a guilty conscience”

NFBW: By your reckoning the state of California has 7,254,939 voters with guilty consciences and 3,540,634 mostly white evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics who are good with god and know no shame about anything / Jesus loves  them this this they know for the Bible tells them so that a human being is created at conception.




And


So here’s a question: are you ding involved or harmed in any way with every woman in America who terminates a pregnancy within 18 weeks of conception?  If yes, how?

END2212092310


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221209-#6,246    “What bearing does it have on abortion?”
> 
> NFBW: The significance of viable vs unviable is on all of us who are not involved and are absolutely not harmed in any way, in the taking of a human life in private by a woman who is choosing not to give birth to the baby in her womb prior to viability.
> 
> You apparently have trapped an absurdity in your head that makes you think you know that any person who understands the difference between the killing of a post-birth human being and the killing of a pre-viable human being by the person that is sharing her body with it has a guiiry conscience.
> 
> ding220724-#3,861  “You have a guilty conscience”
> 
> NFBW: By your reckoning the state of California has 7,254,939 voters with guilty consciences and 3,540,634 mostly white evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics who are good with god and know no shame about anything / Jesus loves  them this this they know for the Bible tells them so that a human being is created at conception.
> 
> View attachment 737098And
> 
> 
> So here’s a question: are you ding involved or harmed in any way with every woman in America who terminates a pregnancy within 18 weeks of of conception?  If yes, how?
> 
> END2212092310


Tl/dr

Just ask the question. I don’t need your origin story.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Just ask the question. I don’t need your origin story.


NFBW: I Answered this question:

ding221209-#6,246 “What bearing does it have on abortion?”

NFBW: Then I asked you this question:

So here’s a question: are you ding involved or harmed in any way with every woman in America who terminates a pregnancy within 18 weeks of of conception? If yes, how?

As usual you whine about format and dodge the question. Nothing new.

END2212092328


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I Answered this question:
> 
> ding221209-#6,246 “What bearing does it have on abortion?”
> 
> Then I asked you this question:
> 
> So here’s a question: are you ding involved or harmed in any way with every woman in America who terminates a pregnancy within 18 weeks of of conception? If yes, how?
> 
> As usual you whine about format and dodge the question. Nothing new.
> 
> END2212092328


Your format sucks. You are OCD.

This is a rights discussion.  My feelings don’t matter.

Ask better questions because my patience is wearing thin.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I Answered this question:
> 
> ding221209-#6,246 “What bearing does it have on abortion?”
> 
> NFBW: Then I asked you this question:
> 
> So here’s a question: are you ding involved or harmed in any way with every woman in America who terminates a pregnancy within 18 weeks of of conception? If yes, how?
> 
> As usual you whine about format and dodge the question. Nothing new.
> 
> END2212092328


Let me try to short circuit this.

What is my position on abortion with respect to the rights of the mother and child?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

How are you involved or harmed in any way by someone killing some random 47 year old you’ve never met?

You’re not.  That’s not the point, and everyone fucking knows it.  It’s a bullshit premise for a question.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221209-#6,253   “This is a rights discussion. My feelings don’t matter.”

NFBW: I did not ask ding  about your feelings  I asked if you are involved with every woman in America who has an abortion and what is the harm to your freedom, life and property when a woman terminates her own pregnancy in the first twenty weeks?

This was asked:   

NFBW221209-#6,252  “are you ding involved or harmed in any way with every woman in America who terminates a pregnancy within 18 weeks of conception? If yes, how?

END2212100240


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221210-#6,255    “How are you involved or harmed in any way by someone killing some random 47 year old you’ve never met?” 

NFBW: I am not directly as a law abiding citizen, but indirectly, I or a loved one having passed the lifespan continuum of birth, could be next if the government allows someone to remain free after killing another person, other than in self-defense or to defend public safety.

However, to the point, when a woman aborts a child she is no threat to me and my loved ones indirectly when she remains free and unpunished as it should be.

That is why the following question was asked :

NFBW221209-#6,252  “are you ding involved or harmed in any way with every woman in America who terminates a pregnancy within 18 weeks of conception? If yes, how?

NFBW: These women are not targeting random  47 year olds are they?

END2212100350


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CPlus6221209-#6,242   Is a human being a human being from fertilization - the answer can only be yes.

NFBW221209-#6,245   “Is there a point that your one contiguous organism from fertilization, until dead transitions, from being not viable to viable sufficient to live outside the womb” ?????

ZNFBW: 3000 posts later and every time a viability question is asked of ding CarsomyrPlusSix beagle9  . . .  Crickets!!!! 

END2212100417


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Viability is irrelevant.  By no metric or standard can you make it relevant.

I give zero fucks about it.  Chirp, chirp, bitch.

Also, your answer is incoherent as usual and you draw no meaningful distinction between the rando 47 yo and the abortion victim.
Which, of course you can't - there is no meaningful or relevant difference.  Neither should be murdered in violation of their human rights.

I particularly liked the part where Egg here says "it's okay to kill someone else as long as you stick to the same victim group that doesn't include me."
So if someone was only murdering black chicks, I should say, "eh, not my problem."  Good ol' Egg.  Retarded and vile in equal measure.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> CPlus6221209-#6,242   Is a human being a human being from fertilization - the answer can only be yes.
> 
> NFBW221209-#6,245   “Is there a point that your one contiguous organism from fertilization, until dead transitions, from being not viable to viable sufficient to live outside the womb” ?????
> 
> ZNFBW: 3000 posts later and every time a viability question is asked of ding CarsomyrPlusSix beagle9  . . .  Crickets!!!!
> 
> END2212100417


The human being becomes viable once the development process starts, otherwise why does it take human intervention to stop the process ?? Why can't the mother just wish her baby gone or stomp her feet and clap her hands to dis-impregnate herself ??


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Viability is irrelevant.  By no metric or standard can you make it relevant.
> 
> I give zero fucks about it.  Chirp, chirp, bitch.
> 
> Also, your answer is incoherent as usual and you draw no meaningful distinction between the rando 47 yo and the abortion victim.
> Which, of course you can't - there is no meaningful or relevant difference.  Neither should be murdered in violation of their human rights.
> 
> I particularly liked the part where Egg here says "it's okay to kill someone else as long as you stick to the same victim group that doesn't include me."
> So if someone was only murdering black chicks, I should say, "eh, not my problem."  Good ol' Egg.  Retarded and vile in equal measure.


Exactly, because he attempted to frame it as a situation of "what or how does it affect you", and your 47 year old example blew that bull crap away.


----------



## elektra

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Animated Dolls For The Dumbfounded "
> 
> * False Equivalent Facsimile Of Reality In Natural Events **
> 
> Yeah , yeah , yeah , always the disingenuous proposition for a poster child perfect viable progeny late term abortion as a justification to outlaw abortion from conception through all stages of development .
> 
> An inchoate autonomic animal without a capacity for cognitive objection , without a capacity for mind , without a capacity for sentience , whereby empathy for suffering may be a valid basis of representation by proxy , is omitted by the disingenuous anthropocentric lunar tick traitors to us republic credo of e pluribus unum for independence as individualism .
> 
> Such traitors seek populism of democracy as tyranny by majority to implement its authoritarian dictates to disparage the equal protection of negative liberties among individuals entitled by live birth to receive them .
> 
> The lunar tick traitors to us republic offer static diversion to acknowledge that abortions performed prior to an onset of sentience , those possibly understood as occurring " without cause " ,  have nothing to do with those occurring " with cause " when sentience and suffering as an ethical consideration would be relevant .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221210-#6,259 “Viability is irrelevant”

Ding221209-#6,246  “If you are asking does viability lessen the consequence of ending a human life I don’t believe it does.”

NFBW: It has in fact lessened if not eliminated criminality on a legal historical basis of criminal punishments for women who terminate their own pregnancy.

Alito sneaked a church law into Dobbs in order to rewrite a medieval era Church law to make it look like English Common Law.

Alito sneakily cited an old law that imposed punishment for the killing of a fetus and inappropriately attributed it to English Common Law. The law was Leges Henrici Primi 222–223 (L. Downer ed. 1972) (imposing penalty for any abortion and treating a woman who aborted a "quick" child "as if she were a murderess").


It actually reads   "I_f she does this [intentionally destroys her embryo] after it is quick [animate], *she shall do penance for seven years as if she were a murderess."* _

However  Alito *carefully clipped out the words* "she shall do *penance* for seven years" from the quotation, between "quick" and "as.”

The word penance ding beagle9 CarsomyrPlusSix msjrd it church law which is not supposed to be considered civil law.

I contend because I by no means am an English Common Law or Constitutional Law scholar that Alito’s little snippy Catholic fingers indicate he is hard pressed to find precedent for punishments against women who abort a quick child. 

I also contend that the term quick child is pre-ultasound legal jargon for fetal viability. Which means viability is highly relevant on crime and punishment legal standards basis for civil law.  Therefore anyone who says viability is irrelevant is a completely ignorant idiot on this topic.

END2212100849


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Traitors To Us Republic Feign Ideological Relevance "

* Collaboration Among Mutually Gullible Playground Party Dolts **


beagle9 said:


> Can you imagine a so called medical professional taking a sharp instrument, and stabbing that brain in a process to murder the unborn child we are viewing above ? How much of a henious crime is that ? Ohhhh that's right, they need that child's body for stem cells, and other valuable resale items that project veritas exposed on them. My bad.


Yeah , sure , just imagine because abortions post 15 weeks naturally occur in society " with cause " and are not depicted by the ridiculous conjecture levied by the propagandist promoted poster child , and its maniacal psychotic mother actor is a fictional character .

Whether an abortion occurs prior to 15 weeks without cause or post 15 weeks with cause , which difference does it make whether the tissues could be reclaimed to improve the quality of life for those able to suffer from it ?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221210-#6,259 “Viability is irrelevant”
> 
> Ding221209-#6,246  “If you are asking does viability lessen the consequence of ending a human life I don’t believe it does.”
> 
> NFBW: It has in fact lessened if not eliminated criminality on a legal historical basis of criminal punishments for women who terminate their own pregnancy.
> 
> Alito sneaked a church law into Dobbs in order to rewrite a medieval era Church law to make it look like English Common Law.
> 
> Alito sneakily cited an old law that imposed punishment for the killing of a fetus and inappropriately attributed it to English Common Law. The law was Leges Henrici Primi 222–223 (L. Downer ed. 1972) (imposing penalty for any abortion and treating a woman who aborted a "quick" child "as if she were a murderess").
> 
> 
> It actually reads   "I_f she does this [intentionally destroys her embryo] after it is quick [animate], *she shall do penance for seven years as if she were a murderess."* _
> 
> However  Alito *carefully clipped out the words* "she shall do *penance* for seven years" from the quotation, between "quick" and "as.”
> 
> The word penance ding beagle9 CarsomyrPlusSix msjrd it church law which is not supposed to be considered civil law.
> 
> I contend because I by no means am an English Common Law or Constitutional Law scholar that Alito’s little snippy Catholic fingers indicate he is hard pressed to find precedent for punishments against women who abort a quick child.
> 
> I also contend that the term quick child is pre-ultasound legal jargon for fetal viability. Which means viability is highly relevant on crime and punishment legal standards basis for civil law.  Therefore anyone who says viability is irrelevant is a completely ignorant idiot on this topic.
> 
> END2212100849


Viability of the developmental process is of course relevant, and the application can be applied at any times appropriate to a religious and CIVILIZED belief system. Most believe that once pregnant by choice (even if it was born of a lustful choice between two consenting individuals), then the consequences of that choice should be fulfilled once the pregnancy begins it's human development stages. This then serves as a reminder that being animalistic and careless is therefore being uncivilized (time to own up, and take responsibility for the actions that lead to what is well known before the process ever begins). 

Restraints should be made on the parts of both individual's involved, and it can easily be done if strength in character is fed instead of starved..

In order to keep order in a supposed civilized SOCIETY, we write laws and enact rule's that aid in the effects of keeping in the spirit of being a CIVILIZED people, and not instead being an animalistic people. One can break down and argue anything in the opposite, but all it does is lead to an uncivilized SOCIETY and people, just what we are seeing running rampant today.


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Traitors To Us Republic Feign Ideological Relevance "
> 
> * Collaboration Among Mutually Gullible Playground Party Dolts **
> 
> Yeah , sure , just imagine because abortions post 15 weeks naturally occur in society " with cause " and are not depicted by the ridiculous conjecture levied by the propagandist promoted poster child , and its maniacal psychotic mother actor is a fictional character .
> 
> Whether an abortion occurs prior to 15 weeks without cause or post 15 weeks with cause , which difference does it make whether the tissues could be reclaimed to improve the quality of life for those able to suffer from it ?


You are a sick man... Get help.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Grimacing Demented Clowns Show Up To Exact Life Long Abuse " 

* Ego Maniacs Hue Mammon Apes With Icon Fantasies **


elektra said:


> View attachment 737155


Should an image of a morbid freak be posted to match your efforts of deceit , as apparently you do not understand reality .






						List of fetal abnormalities - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Providing Help Self Healing Forte "

* You And The Cadaver You Rode In On **


beagle9 said:


> You are a sick man... Get help.


Would you have outlawed dissection of the hue mammon body in the dark ages ?

You is a second person accusative which upon reflection incriminates the accuser .


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

If I could give negative shits about what someone said, instead of just zero shits, I would give negative shits about Egg's retarded ranting about Catholicism and Justice Alito and church law or whatever the else Egg is rambling about.

Viability is irrelevant to me, and viability was never relevant to the Constitution - see 10th Amendment, see Dobbs.


Roe and Casey made some bullshit up which has now been shitbinned, as is appropriate.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> ding221209-#6,253   “This is a rights discussion. My feelings don’t matter.”
> 
> NFBW: I did not ask ding  about your feelings  I asked if you are involved with every woman in America who has an abortion and what is the harm to your freedom, life and property when a woman terminates her own pregnancy in the first twenty weeks?
> 
> This was asked:
> 
> NFBW221209-#6,252  “are you ding involved or harmed in any way with every woman in America who terminates a pregnancy within 18 weeks of conception? If yes, how?
> 
> END2212100240


You are wasting your opportunity.


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> CPlus6221209-#6,242   Is a human being a human being from fertilization - the answer can only be yes.
> 
> NFBW221209-#6,245   “Is there a point that your one contiguous organism from fertilization, until dead transitions, from being not viable to viable sufficient to live outside the womb” ?????
> 
> ZNFBW: 3000 posts later and every time a viability question is asked of ding CarsomyrPlusSix beagle9  . . .  Crickets!!!!
> 
> END2212100417


Ok.  You blew it. You could have asked me how I would have balanced the rights of mother and child and why. You could have asked if it was my call would I have made abortion legal or illegal. And why?  You could have asked me if I made abortion legal would I have placed a term restriction on abortion and why. 

Instead you asked a bunch of meaningless questions so you could feel better about the false narratives filling your head. 

So…. I’m done. You blew it.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Dumbfounded Jurisprudence Of Dobbs Decision Praised By Morons "

* Cowards Hiding Behind Lies And Censorship **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> If I could give negative shits about what someone said, instead of just zero shits, I would give negative shits about Egg's retarded ranting about Catholicism and Justice Alito and church law or whatever the else Egg is rambling about.
> 
> Viability is irrelevant to me, and viability was never relevant to the Constitution - see 10th Amendment, see Dobbs.
> 
> Roe and Casey made some bullshit up which has now been shitbinned, as is appropriate.


The dobbs decision is sedition against us 1st , 14th and 9th amendments and supported by traitors to the us republic and by sanctimonious degenerates .


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Monk-Eye said:


> The dobbs decision is sedition against us 1st , 14th and 9th amendments


You're an insane retard.

Dobbs is literally just following the Constitution.

Even actual bad SCOTUS rulings like Roe or Casey aren't "sedition" you stupid fuck, they're just wrong, they're not following the Constitution, that's SCOTUS failing to do its job, not "sedition against Amendments."

Because "sedition against amendments" is impossible as a concept.

The 21st Amendment wasn't "sedition" against the 18th Amendment - the 18th Amendment was shitty and a bad idea and the 21st repealed it.

The First Amendment has nothing to do with abortion.
The Ninth Amendment has nothing to do with abortion.
The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with abortion.  

Go fuck yourself with a rusty pole.


----------



## elektra

Monk-Eye said:


> Should an image of a morbid freak be posted to match your efforts of deceit , as apparently you do not understand


if you like, i guess you could post a picture of yourself


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> You are wasting your opportunity.



I have my answer from you to this question 

WHAT is the harm to your freedom, life and property when a woman terminates her own pregnancy in the first twenty weeks?

This was asked:  

NFBW221209-#6,252 “are you ding involved or harmed in any way with every woman in America who terminates a pregnancy within 18 weeks of conception? If yes, how?

Your answer is to refuse to answer and run away which means you cannot think of one thing that inflicts harm to your freedom, life and property when a woman terminates her own pregnancy in the first twenty weeks?

So your position that it’s OK  letting the states decided anything the majority wants regarding abortion, violates the Constitution if the majority can ban a medical procedure that causes no harm to that religious majority in certain states. 

I have no idea why you are on a message board if you cannot defend your stated opinion that resolving a human rights issue  is up to the majority opinion state by state. 

You are backing tyranny of a majority to take fifty years of reproductive freedom away from women but not due to harm to a single born citizen or viable human being , society as a whole or to any state that you can argue. 

So run back to your world of “I am right because I say so” and live happily ever after. 

END2212101133


----------



## ding

NotfooledbyW said:


> I have my answer from you to this question
> 
> WHAT is the harm to your freedom, life and property when a woman terminates her own pregnancy in the first twenty weeks?
> 
> This was asked:
> 
> NFBW221209-#6,252 “are you ding involved or harmed in any way with every woman in America who terminates a pregnancy within 18 weeks of conception? If yes, how?
> 
> Your answer is to refuse to answer and run away which means you cannot think of one thing that inflicts harm to your freedom, life and property when a woman terminates her own pregnancy in the first twenty weeks?
> 
> So your position that it’s OK  letting the states decided anything the majority wants regarding abortion, violates the Constitution if the majority can ban a medical procedure that causes no harm to that religious majority in certain states.
> 
> I have no idea why you are on a message board if you cannot defend your stated opinion that resolving a human rights issue  is up to the majority opinion state by state.
> 
> You are backing tyranny of a majority to take fifty years of reproductive freedom away from women but not due to harm to a single born citizen or viable human being , society as a whole or to any state that you can argue.
> 
> So run back to your world of “I am right because I say so” and live happily ever after.
> 
> END2212101133


Tl/dr. You blew it already. Bye.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> WHAT is the harm to your freedom, life and property when a woman terminates her own pregnancy in the first twenty weeks?


Irrelevant, fucktard.

The harm is to the victim.

If someone shot you in the face, right now, they're sure as shit not harming me at all.
Arguably, they're helping me and everyone else here, and probably a lot of other people, considering what a piece of shit you are.  
You're still... arguably a human being, unfortunately, with rights, despite being a loathsome piece of shit who wants your fellow human beings to be killed en masse.  
So even the helpful buckshot facelift giver would need to go to prison for murder.





NotfooledbyW said:


> So your position that it’s OK  letting the states decided anything the majority wants regarding abortion


Read the Constitution



NotfooledbyW said:


> violates the Constitution


It doesn't



NotfooledbyW said:


> ban a medical procedure


It isn't



NotfooledbyW said:


> that causes no harm


Homicide is harm, fucktard.



NotfooledbyW said:


> resolving a human rights issue


Yes, moral people oppose this human rights abuse of abortion



NotfooledbyW said:


> take fifty years of reproductive freedom away from women


Herpaderp, fake news and retardation.  No one is doing this, lunatic.





NotfooledbyW said:


> So run back to your world of “I am right because I say so” and live happily ever after.


Oh the irony.  All of your bullshit is based on "viability matters to me" and stamping your feet when others don't care about it.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Dobbs Dumbfounded Sedition Promoted By Traitors Of Us Republic Credo "

* Too Direct And Straight Forward Clearly Incriminating Insolent Liars **


CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You're an insane retard.
> Dobbs is literally just following the Constitution.
> Even actual bad SCOTUS rulings like Roe or Casey aren't "sedition" you stupid fuck, they're just wrong, they're not following the Constitution, that's SCOTUS failing to do its job, not "sedition against Amendments."
> Because "sedition against amendments" is impossible as a concept.
> The 21st Amendment wasn't "sedition" against the 18th Amendment - the 18th Amendment was shitty and a bad idea and the 21st repealed it.
> The First Amendment has nothing to do with abortion.
> The Ninth Amendment has nothing to do with abortion.
> The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with abortion.
> Go fuck yourself with a rusty pole.


Any citizen is entitled to legal standing in a claim that their equal protection is being violated , because a state interest is prohibited in protecting a wright to life of a zygote , or an embryo , or a fetus , which has not met a live birth requirement to receive it ; as live birth is required to become a citizen it is consequently required for equal protection that would include a wright to life .

Us 14th amendment specifies that a citizen must be born and " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest .. not .. prior to live birth . " - blackmun , roe v wade and an ability to survive an imminent birth , post natural viability , was implemented as judicial activism in lieu of a live birth requirement , and all eat toe maliciously and deceitfully lied in stating that the roe court did not explain .

As state interest in protecting a wright to life of a zef , us 10th amendment does not apply and us 9th amendment prevails based on equal protection of negative liberties among those entitled by live birth to receive them .

In that the equal protection violation suit has not been argued or filed is the only reason that scotus forwarded the dumbfounded and seditious decision of dobbs , which just as any other potentate , which would by authority usurp implementation us law , directed states to issue force against implementation of us 1st , 9th and 14th amendments .

As a legitimate state interest is in whether a wright to life exists , and not when organic life begins , and not in whether organic life exists at all in - the case of a death sentence as capital punishment , the prohibition of abortion violates us 1st amendment establishment clause , and the prohibition of abortion also violate principles of non violence and individualism and such edicts and tenets of creed as a religion lack an exception .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding said:


> Tl/dr. You blew it already. Bye.


Blame me for your decision to run away - Classic ding


----------



## elektra

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Dobbs Dumbfounded Sedition Promoted By Traitors Of Us Republic Credo "
> 
> * Too Direct And Straight Forward Clearly Incriminating Insolent Liars **
> 
> Any citizen is entitled to legal standing in a claim that their equal protection is being violated , because a state interest is prohibited in protecting a wright to life of a zygote ...


Zygote? Nobody aborts a zygote, there is no procedure to abort a zygote. 


Your comments sre a good reason why abortion is a procedure from the last century, ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Providing Help Self Healing Forte "
> 
> * You And The Cadaver You Rode In On **
> 
> Would you have outlawed dissection of the hue mammon body in the dark ages ?
> 
> You is a second person accusative which upon reflection incriminates the accuser .


Talk like you got some sense or don't talk at all... 😆


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

elektra said:


> Zygote? Nobody aborts a zygote, there is no procedure to abort a zygote.
> 
> 
> Your comments sre a good reason why abortion is a procedure from the last century, ignorance and stupidity.


I really am just tired of reading “wrights” and “hue mammon” and “sedition against the first amendment.”

All of these incorrect spellings and nonsense sentiments stand corrected and this rambling dude has no counterargument, just repetition.

Non-citizen humans still have human rights.  Claiming only the born warrant legal protection against violence is arbitrary and bigoted.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The harm is to the victim.


NFBW: what is your interest or harm to you or right ding to be involved in a private matter that supersedes the right of the person whose body is being used to sustain the life of the victim in a shared body situation known as pregnancy?

END2212101747


----------



## San Souci

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Seriously.  This asshole is attributing comments to me about “autonomy” and “fertilized eggs” when I only put these things in quotes because the former is irrelevant and the latter doesn’t even exist when it comes to the sexual reproduction of human beings and other viviparous species.
> 
> It’s not like this is ambiguous or somehow confusing - he is doing this on purpose.
> 
> So yes, I do recall his clear statement of how much he enjoys being a cannibal.


Tigers and Democrats eat their young.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> WNFBW: what is your interest or harm to you


Irrelevant.  Harm doesn't have to be_ to me _for me to want it to be criminal, sociopathic inhuman filth.



NotfooledbyW said:


> to be involved in a private matter


Herpaderp.  Sorry, aggressive violence against another human being means it's not just a private matter, it's everyone's business, sociopathic inhuman filth.



NotfooledbyW said:


> that supersedes the right of the person


No such rights are involved here, to be relevant.  Sorry you don't understand how rights work or what they are, retard.



NotfooledbyW said:


> shared body situation known as pregnancy?


Wrong.  Sorry you don't know what pregnancy is, retard.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221210-#6,285  Harm doesn't have to be to me for me to want it to be criminal,

NFBW: It has to be harm to somebody, as in a person. The truth is every individual person is recognized by the Constitution when they are born.  Prior to birth the human being is sharing a body and is protected through the would be mother’s human rights. Where does a fetus get its stand alone human rights CarsomyrPlusSix  ?????

END2212102151


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> It has to be harm to somebody


It is harm to someone, you bigoted trash.  The human being who is killed in cold blood.  Go fuck yourself.



NotfooledbyW said:


> sharing a body


Objectively false.  Vindictive and malicious ignorance.  Go fuck yourself.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221210-#6,285     Sorry, aggressive violence against another human being means it's not just a private matter, it's everyone's business, sociopathic inhuman filth.

NFBW: Is a natural miscarriage CarsomyrPlusSix considered a natural death of a human being? Twenty percent of pregnancies end in miscarriages.

In your un-private regulation of a woman’s reproductive organs will every woman who misses a period be required to be examined for unprotected sexual activity and/ or evidence of induced miscarriage every month?

 How does your Taliban Fetal Plan Work CarsomyrPlusSix ?????

Abortion is commonly defined as the termination of a pregnancy resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus / or following the death of the embryo or fetus. So how do you know when a woman unbeknownst to you CarsomyrPlusSix living on the opposite coast,  in a state with protected freedom of reproductive rights, has a natural abortion or an induced abortion. The forner being natural causes of death to a fetus; the latter being some form of murder in Christian Taliban America snd the subjugation of women to a status of reproductive slave.

Cplus6221130-#5,991     Roe cited a fictional "right to privacy" and hallucinated that this fictional right had a penumbra, a shadow right, which meant that you can kill your own kid just because, and it was always in the Constitution, just because of course it was.

Cplus6221130-#5,991    Nothing based on this "right to privacy" has any legitimacy whatsoever, and all of it, not just Roe, should be repealed immediately.

NFBW: Privacy is not a right to have the abortion. Privacy is the right to not have government intervene in any persons medical health and family planning decisions. It applies to male and female citizenship and every gender in between.

Therefore it is argued that the mother and fetus are involved in a symbiotic private relationship in which the mother is in possession of full authority regarding the fate of her unborn child and risks associated with a full term pregnancy. It’s her autonomy period.

A pregnant woman as an American citizen under the Constitution is protected to be an equal to all created men.  Her freedoms do not dissociate and dissolve at the blink of an eye when one of her eggs becomes fertilized at conception or any moment thereafter during Z-E-F development of the human organism with wish she is dating her body beagle9

Autonomy is not negotiable with any political  movement including American Protestant and Catholic Christian Taliban with a few atheists sprinkled in for meanness of propagandistic messaging against abortion.

The right to be free from unwanted bodily invasions and to control one’s own life is fundamental to the pregnant woman’s right to security of the person [7]. Maternal right to privacy is also supported by other concepts and rights, specifically that of autonomy.​​



__





						Loading…
					





					www.scq.ubc.ca
				


​The concept of a person’s autonomy is their right to choose how to live their own life [9]. The pregnant woman should be allowed the freedom to decide upon alternative courses of therapeutic action based on her values and beliefs [4].​​NFBW: Nuff truth said for now. Thank you for reading.the truth.  Speaking of truth intellectually gutless San Souci will you be citing a case where a Democrat has eaten its young or did you hear that from Q-non or TruthSocial  ?????    Please provide your link.

END2212110905


----------



## NotfooledbyW

When a woman unbeknownst to you San Souci misses a period following vaginal sexual intercourse with an unsnipped dude within marriage or not San Souci what is her business or duty or obligation to you so that you can be assured that she is not pregnant and therefore if a Democrat will eat her young? END2212111010


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Is a natural miscarriage CarsomyrPlusSix considered a natural death of a human being?


"Considered?"

A naturally-occurring miscarriage literally is a natural death and is often the result of genetic abnormality that dooms the poor kid.

I don't care what assholes like you consider - I care what IS.



NotfooledbyW said:


> In your un-private regulation of a woman’s reproductive organs will every woman who misses a period be required to be examined for unprotected sexual activity and/ or evidence of induced miscarriage every month?\


Natural death occurs, idiot.

We don't do a full autopsy and criminal homicide investigation on every death for born humans.

We do this when foul play is suspected.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Abortion is


A contract killing.



NotfooledbyW said:


> So how do you know when a woman unbeknownst to you CarsomyrPlusSix living on the opposite coast


How do I know when someone shoots you in your stupid fucking face, other than you blessedly shutting the fuck up and never bothering me again with your garbage parsing and nonsense prattle?
I don't know when a lot of humans get killed.  Guess it should be legal then?
You don't have a rebuttal to this, clearly, so you ignore it.



NotfooledbyW said:


> in a state with protected freedom of reproductive rights


In a state practicing a human rights abuse, like the states that used to allow slavery.  Don't worry, your shitholes will be stopped from being evil eventually.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Privacy is not a right to have the abortion.


"Privacy" has nothing to do with contract killing other than the fact that most killers want to get away with their misdeeds in secret.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Privacy is the right to not have government intervene in any persons medical health and family planning decisions.


a) There is no such constitutional right, read the document
b) Your euphemisms for "I want to kill kids" are sneaking in again, tend to that
c) Contract killing is not medicine




NotfooledbyW said:


> Therefore it is argued that the mother and fetus are involved in a symbiotic


You are retarded, ignorant filth spewing nonsense.
Mammalian embryology is not symbiosis.  All parties involved are the SAME SPECIES.



NotfooledbyW said:


> A pregnant woman as an American citizen under the Constitution is protected to be an equal to all created men.


They should be, and as such should be treated like men when they attack and kill someone, but bigots like yourself don't agree with equality.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Autonomy is not negotiable


I agree - it isn't negotiable that "autonomy" has nothing to do with this topic.  It has nothing to do with this topic as a matter of fact.

It's very simple: don't attack other humans, especially your own kids.
If you have a problem with this, fuck you, and fuck off.  Your words are noise.
If you do it anyway, you should die in a cell.  Or via execution.
No compromise, no negotiation.



NotfooledbyW said:


> right to security of the person


There is no such right, this is just your retard euphemism for killing your own kid, stolen from the frozen barbarians in Canuckistan, that vile shithole to the North.


In conclusion, you remain a nonsensical and disgusting excuse for a human being, an utter waste of everyone's time and effort as you encourage death, slavery, and inequality.  You are deplorable.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221210-#6,285  Harm doesn't have to be to me for me to want it to be criminal,
> 
> NFBW: It has to be harm to somebody, as in a person. The truth is every individual person is recognized by the Constitution when they are born.  Prior to birth the human being is sharing a body and is protected through the would be mother’s human rights. Where does a fetus get its stand alone human rights CarsomyrPlusSix  ?????
> 
> END2212102151


The fetus gets it's stand alone fetus rights from those of us who are examples of being a CIVILIZED people. Why ??? Because we are standing examples of the fact that when a fetus is nurtured, nourished, protected, and taken to it's final birth outcomes that creates another human being just like us, then we have shown that we are a CIVILIZED people who respect the miracle of life when it comes into being.

Therefore we grant those rights to that fetus because we are civilized, and we also know without a doubt that we came into being in the same exact manor that the fetus has come into being, and it sorely pains us to be expected to just stand by while a life is being ended for reason's that are unexceptable to us as a civilized SOCIETY or a CIVILIZED people...... 

Now regardless of it having to use it's host body in order to be nourished, kept safe, and monitored until the live birth maturity is reached, it should have a right to live just like it's mother was given that right to live by her mother with father to be who had created her. 

If a woman doesn't want the responsibility of getting pregnant, then they should restrain themselves from having sex until ready to get pregnant if using no contraception or make use of the contraception that is readily available in order to prevent the pregnancy in the 1st place. 

The Bible tells us that "I will not have you ignorant", so it is readily available to a CIVILIZED SOCIETY to read and then become learned by, so why would we attempt to act ignorant if we are therefore given the knowledge and material's that teach us how to be civilized instead of uncivilized whether it be in a religious situation or a secular situation ???


----------



## Rigby5

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I really am just tired of reading “wrights” and “hue mammon” and “sedition against the first amendment.”
> 
> All of these incorrect spellings and nonsense sentiments stand corrected and this rambling dude has no counterargument, just repetition.
> 
> Non-citizen humans still have human rights.  Claiming only the born warrant legal protection against violence is arbitrary and bigoted.



Wrong.
Since a fetus is harmful and dependent upon the woman, then legally the woman has total discretion to do whatever she wants.
No one else gets any say at all.


----------



## Rigby5

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Irrelevant.  Harm doesn't have to be_ to me _for me to want it to be criminal, sociopathic inhuman filth.
> 
> 
> Herpaderp.  Sorry, aggressive violence against another human being means it's not just a private matter, it's everyone's business, sociopathic inhuman filth.
> 
> 
> No such rights are involved here, to be relevant.  Sorry you don't understand how rights work or what they are, retard.
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Sorry you don't know what pregnancy is, retard.



It is not totally a private matter, but clearly the woman is the only one who gets any say at all, since it not only effects her the most, but also because she is the one with the MOST maternal interest in particular.
If anyone else tries to get involved, it is over strangers, so then is motivated by selfish and fanatical religious beliefs.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.


Nothing I said in my comment about "hue mammon" boy is wrong.

I guess you think non-citizens are all fair game for murder like they do, which just means we have one more crazed sociopath on this site.




Rigby5 said:


> Since a fetus is harmful and dependent upon the woman


"Harmful."  The kid is helpless and innocent.  They cause no harm.  You're delusional.


----------



## Rigby5

beagle9 said:


> The fetus gets it's stand alone fetus rights from those of us who are examples of being a CIVILIZED people. Why ??? Because we are standing examples of the fact that when a fetus is nurtured, nourished, protected, and taken to it's final birth outcomes that creates another human being just like us, then we have shown that we are a CIVILIZED people who respect the miracle of life when it comes into being.
> 
> Therefore we grant those rights to that fetus because we are civilized, and we also know without a doubt that we came into being in the same exact manor that the fetus has come into being, and it sorely pains us to be expected to just stand by while a life is being ended for reason's that are unexceptable to us as a civilized SOCIETY or a CIVILIZED people......
> 
> Now regardless of it having to use it's host body in order to be nourished, kept safe, and monitored until the live birth maturity is reached, it should have a right to live just like it's mother was given that right to live by her mother with father to be who had created her.
> 
> If a woman doesn't want the responsibility of getting pregnant, then they should restrain themselves from having sex until ready to get pregnant if using no contraception or make use of the contraception that is readily available in order to prevent the pregnancy in the 1st place.
> 
> The Bible tells us that "I will not have you ignorant", so it is readily available to a CIVILIZED SOCIETY to read and then become learned by, so why would we attempt to act ignorant if we are therefore given the knowledge and material's that teach us how to be civilized instead of uncivilized whether it be in a religious situation or a secular situation ???



Totally wrong.
A fetus is not sentient, so then has no value at all really.
The creation of life is not at all any sort of "miracle", but is a common biological process that not only is difficult to stop, but over population is clearly going to totally destroy our society and the entire planet unless we do things to control it.

Anyone attempting to impose their religious beliefs on others is not only wrong, but evil.


----------



## beagle9

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Since a fetus is harmful and dependent upon the woman, then legally the woman has total discretion to do whatever she wants.
> No one else gets any say at all.


A fetus is harmful eh ? You have got to be kidding me .. lol.


----------



## beagle9

Rigby5 said:


> Totally wrong.
> A fetus is not sentient, so then has no value at all really.
> The creation of life is not at all any sort of "miracle", but is a common biological process that not only is difficult to stop, but over population is clearly going to totally destroy our society and the entire planet unless we do things to control it.
> 
> Anyone attempting to impose their religious beliefs on others is not only wrong, but evil.


Says the one supporting evil.... ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Rigby5 said:


> A fetus is not sentient, so then has no value at all really.


Then neither do you.



Rigby5 said:


> over population is clearly going to totally destroy our society and the entire planet unless we do things to control it.


You first, then.  Since you're so concerned about it, feel free to get off the planet yourself rather than advocating for killing others wholesale like a fucking monster.



Rigby5 said:


> Anyone attempting to impose their religious beliefs on others is not only wrong, but evil.


I'm sorry you feel one must be religious to oppose attacking and killing others, but it's not a surprising opinion for a dangerous lunatic like yourself to have.


----------



## Rigby5

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Nothing I said in my comment about "hue mammon" boy is wrong.
> 
> I guess you think non-citizens are all fair game for murder like they do, which just means we have one more crazed sociopath on this site.
> 
> 
> 
> "Harmful."  The kid is helpless and innocent.  They cause no harm.  You're delusional.



Wrong.
I don't know what you meant specifically by your "hue mammon" reference, but in general I think materialism and greed are evil.

And you clearly are ignoring reality.
Giving birth is about the single greatest cause of death in the whole world.
{...
 If we look at long-term trends in maternal mortality – the likelihood a woman will die from pregnancy-related causes – we see that every 100th to 200th birth led to the mother’s death.
...}
But pregnancy is much more threatening than just death, because each child costs hundreds of thousands to raise, and takes away from the time and effort the rest of the family can get.

But what makes the anti-abortion people the most evil, is the fact they keep forgetting that an abortion does not at all eliminate life in any way, because the parents are going to still have the same number of children, but just delayed to after they have more financial, educational, and career stability.
Anyone who is actually religious at all should be able to realize that.


----------



## Rigby5

beagle9 said:


> Say the one supporting evil.... ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣



What "evil"?
The vast majority of all ovum die.
What does it matter which ones you choose to live, and when you decide to do it?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Rigby5 said:


> But what makes the anti-abortion people the most evil, is the fact they keep forgetting that an abortion does not at all eliminate life in any way, because the parents are going to still have the same number of children, but just delayed to after they have more financial, educational, and career stability.
> Anyone who is actually religious at all should be able to realize that.



Okay, that is the most bullshit evil vile disgusting retarded insane thing I've read on here in a while.

"Homicide doesn't take life, because we'll just make more humans."

Truly galaxy brain take over here...


Fine then - let's sum your perspective up: "human life is meaningless and you'll just be replaced anyway.  So when someone kills you, we shouldn't give a fuck, no one should go to jail, it's fine, you meant nothing, and the planet's doomed anyway so who cares.  Caring is evil."

Fuck outta here with that bullshit.  Fuck you.  Disgusting.  Awful.  Not a rational thought in your addled brain.

Why did you pro-aborts just make it your mission in life to be the worst examples of humanity possible?  Is that your ACTUAL argument?  The nonsense you are saying can't be an argument, but the idea that humans exist who are this stupid and this evil as you are - is *that *your argument that human life has no value and destroying it is fine?


----------



## Rigby5

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Then neither do you.
> 
> 
> You first, then.  Since you're so concerned about it, feel free to get off the planet yourself rather than advocating for killing others wholesale like a fucking monster.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you feel one must be religious to oppose attacking and killing others, but it's not a surprising opinion for a dangerous lunatic like yourself to have.



The fact I can reason proves I am sentient.
So far you have not used any reason, but instead have selected to defend a fetus that does not at all itself care.
That is not only irrational, but clearly religious fanaticism, which is no legal in a democratic republic.


----------



## Rigby5

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Okay, that is the most bullshit evil vile disgusting retarded insane thing I've read on here in a while.
> 
> "Homicide doesn't take life, because we'll just make more humans."
> 
> Truly galaxy brain take over here...
> 
> 
> Fine then - let's sum your perspective up: "human life is meaningless and you'll just be replaced anyway.  So when someone kills you, we shouldn't give a fuck, no one should go to jail, it's fine, you meant nothing, and the planet's doomed anyway so who cares.  Caring is evil."
> 
> Fuck outta here with that bullshit.  Fuck you.  Disgusting.  Awful.  Not a rational thought in your addled brain.
> 
> Why did you pro-aborts just make it your mission in life to be the worst examples of humanity possible?  Is that your ACTUAL argument?



A fetus is NOT a life, but just a potential life, just like all ovum and sperm.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Rigby5 said:


> The fact I can reason proves I am sentient.


Fact?  Uh, no.

CITATION NEEDED.

You've provided ZERO reason.  You seem utterly incapable of it.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Rigby5 said:


> A fetus is NOT a life


Objectively false and delusional.

Bigoted, uneducated drivel.

Read a book.


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Then neither do you.
> 
> 
> You first, then.  Since you're so concerned about it, feel free to get off the planet yourself rather than advocating for killing others wholesale like a fucking monster.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you feel one must be religious to oppose attacking and killing others, but it's not a surprising opinion for a dangerous lunatic like yourself to have.


You know, I ride around in my state, and it's simply amazing the amount of unused or unpopulated space that exist in the state. So undoubtedly he is living in a sardine packed blue metro crap hole, and has absolutely no clue as to how unpopulated this United States truly is or he's been brainwashed in a severe way by the left. I think it's the latter..... He's brainwashed so much so that he has adopted these henious thoughts about controlling the population in this country via abortion, and worse he thinks that he can control the population in the world through a process we should call "unborn genocide".


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I guess you think non-citizens are all fair game for murder like they do, which just means we have one more crazed sociopath on this site.


There are no non-viable human fetus citizens being aborted. Non-viable human fetuses are being aborted. 

Your argument is absurd.

If you remember, the constitution, grants citizenship to all human beings, who are born. Visitors to this country are obviously born people so they are protected the exact same way that a US citizen is.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> There are no non-viable human fetus citizens being aborted.


Again, you
STUPID
FUCKING
CUNTWEED

I don't give a damn about "viability" - it is arbitrary and a moving target.  Since you have no rebuttal to these criticisms, you lost that argument ages ago.



And you don't give a damn about citizenship being a metric for humanity, so why lie and pretend it's relevant?  Right - because you're a dishonest piece of shit.



NotfooledbyW said:


> If you remember, the constitution, grants citizenship to all human beings


No it fucking doesn't.  Not every born human in the world is a citizen you rotten, retarded piece of shit.


The Constitution doesn't grant rights either.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> There are no non-viable human fetus citizens being aborted.


NFBW: it is factually and objectively true that which is stated above. And why do you disagree with something that is true beagle9 ?????


NotfooledbyW said:


> Non-viable human fetuses are being aborted.


NFBW: it is factually and objectively true that which is stated above. And why do you disagree with something that is true beagle9 ?????


NotfooledbyW said:


> If you remember, the constitution, grants citizenship to all human beings, who are born


NFBW: it is factually and objectively true that the constitution, grants citizenship to all human beings, who are born on US SOIL or of US citizens as parents. And why do you disagree with something that is true beagle9 ?????


NotfooledbyW said:


> Visitors to this country are obviously born people so they are protected the exact same way that a US citizen is.


NFBW: it is factually and objectively true that which is stated above. And why do you disagree with something that is true beagle9 ?????

END2212111241


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I don't give a damn about "viability" - it is arbitrary and a moving target. Since you have no rebuttal to these criticisms, you lost that argument ages ago.


NFBW: You cannot “not give a damn about viability” in this discussion, and I will give you the because which is something you never do. It is because viability is a factual, biological material absolute point in time just like conception, and just like first breath. It is the point in time when a developing fetus on each individual basis has reached a stage in development in the human lifetime continuum that it’s life can be sustained, relatively on it’s own it when, and if it is separated from his mother.

END2212111250


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No it fucking doesn't. Not every born human in the world is a citizen you rotten, retarded piece of shit.



That’s been corrected in the subsequent post.

NFBW: it is factually and objectively true that the constitution, grants citizenship to all human beings, who are born on US SOIL or of US citizens as parents. And why do you disagree with something that is true beagle9 ?????

Although technically true, it is not practically true, but if any born human being meets the requirements, the US will grant citizenship. No human beings are excluded like under a Muslim ban.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No it fucking doesn't. Not every born human in the world is a citizen you rotten, retarded piece of shit.


I did not say every born human is a citizen. I say every boring human can be granted citizenship when compliant with all the regulations


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: it is factually and objectively true that which is stated above. And why do you disagree with something that is true beagle9 ?????
> 
> NFBW: it is factually and objectively true that which is stated above. And why do you disagree with something that is true beagle9 ?????
> 
> NFBW: it is factually and objectively true that the constitution, grants citizenship to all human beings, who are born on US SOIL or of US citizens as parents. And why do you disagree with something that is true beagle9 ?????
> 
> NFBW: it is factually and objectively true that which is stated above. And why do you disagree with something that is true beagle9 ?????
> 
> END2212111241


Truth in the ways in which you twist it, doesn't mean the same to us as it might in your twisted mind. So there's that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221211-#6,313     “Truth in the ways in which you twist it, doesn't mean the same to us as it might in your twisted mind. So there's that”

What is twisted here:  I say and approve of abortion only when non-viable human fetuses are being aborted.

 I as a civilization loving human being and as a law-abiding US citizen,  I ABSOLUTELY support a women’s right to terminate her pregnancy and have it done in a safe medical professional facility or using safe medical pharmaceuticals under supervision of her doctor.  One factor in my conclusion is that viability is the moral line that separates the intentional stopping of a fetal heartbeat from being the mother’s prerogative to being homicide. Once past the viability of the fetus with which she shares her body, she loses her prerogative to terminate her pregnancy. It is too late. 

So beagle9 I am not twisting truth when I say non-viable human fetuses are being aborted because viability and non-viability are reality. It happens. It is true. It is a fact. I cannot twist it and you cannot make truth go away because you believe in Jesus or whatever else you believe explains human existence and right and wrong.

END2212111504


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> You cannot “not give a damn about viability”


Fuck you, eat shit - I don't give a damn about viability.

 viability is irrelevant and no law in any state or any nation should care about it, abortion should just be banned.



NotfooledbyW said:


> It is because viability is a factual, biological material absolute point in time


OBJECTIVELY FALSE.

Viability is based on what Neonatal ICU machines can CURRENTLY support. 

"Absolute" my ass.  Fuck you, you retarded lying piece of shit.  It's a moving target, you have no rebuttal for this fact, just stupid denial.

Entirely arbitrary.  If we're going to make some arbitrary standard for personhood, the only correct one is one that excludes you.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> it is factually and objectively true that the constitution, grants citizenship to all human beings, who are born on US SOIL or of US citizens as parents


Fucking irrelevant to the abortion discussion.

Citizenship is not personhood.  These are two distinct concepts, you dumb fuck.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> I say and approve of abortion only when non-viable human fetuses are being aborted.


So you're bigoted filth who hates your fellow human beings for arbitrary reasons and approves of their homicide.

Already noted, ages ago.  You already stand condemned of this accurate criticism.



NotfooledbyW said:


> I as a civilization loving human being


Objectively false.



NotfooledbyW said:


> I ABSOLUTELY support a women’s right to terminate her pregnancy


QED - you are barbaric filth who promotes violence against innocent human beings



NotfooledbyW said:


> safe


Objectively false, contract killing is lethal, not safe


NotfooledbyW said:


> medical


Objectively false, contract killing is not medicine.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221211-#6,288   Is a natural miscarriage considered a natural death of a human being?

Cplus6221211-#6,290  A naturally-occurring miscarriage literally is a natural death and is often the result of genetic abnormality that dooms the poor kid.

NFBW: Given that consuming a large amount of cinnamon during early pregnancy can cause a miscarriage, if a woman misses a period and consumes a large amount of cinnamon during early pregnancy with the intent to cause a miscarriage and then has a miscarriage is she killing a human being  or is a human organism in her body dying of natural causes CarsomyrPlusSix. ?????

END2212111613


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221211-#6,288   In your un-private regulation of a woman’s reproductive organs will every woman who misses a period be required to be examined for unprotected sexual activity and/ or evidence of induced miscarriage every month?

Cplus6221211-#6,290    We don't do a full autopsy and criminal homicide investigation on every death for born humans.

NFBW: I was simply asking how you were going to manage the Taliban ZEF Protection Act. 

I Think I’ll set up a multiple choice for some of your most intelligible replies going forward:



CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You’re just a filthy bigot spewing arbitrary reasons for hating those you want dead.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Harm doesn't have to be_ to me _for me to want it to be criminal, sociopathic inhuman filth.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> sociopathic inhuman filth.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Sorry you don't know what pregnancy is, retard.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Go fuck yourself.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Go fuck yourself.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> when someone shoots you in your stupid fucking face, other than you blessedly shutting the fuck up and never bothering me again with your garbage parsing and nonsense prattle?





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> fuck you, and fuck off.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> this is just your retard euphemism for killing your own kid, stolen from the frozen barbarians in Canuckistan, that vile shithole to the North.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> you remain a nonsensical and disgusting excuse for a human being,





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> a dangerous lunatic like yourself





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> that is the most bullshit evil vile disgusting retarded insane thing





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Fuck outta here with that bullshit. Fuck you. Disgusting. Awful. Not a rational thought in your addled brain.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Objectively false and delusional.
> 
> Bigoted, uneducated drivel





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Again, you
> STUPID
> FUCKING
> CUNTWEED





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No it fucking doesn't





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Fuck you, eat shit





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Absolute" my ass. Fuck you, you retarded lying piece of shit





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Fucking irrelevant





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> you dumb fuck.





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> So you're bigoted filth





CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> you are barbaric filth


----------



## beagle9

Good stuff here..


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Given that consuming a large amount of cinnamon during early pregnancy can cause a miscarriage, if a woman misses a period and consumes a large amount of cinnamon during early pregnancy with the intent to cause a miscarriage


That’s not a natural death, that’s not even manslaughter, you’re describing a murder.

Or what _should_ be a murder in a just society that cares about human rights and values equality.

That is objectively an intentional homicide with malice aforethought.


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> That’s not a natural death, that’s not even manslaughter, you’re describing a murder.
> 
> Or what _should_ be a murder in a just society that cares about human rights and values equality.
> 
> That is objectively an intentional homicide with malice aforethought.


He is for any way of removing or ending the pregnancy, so it matters not to him how it gets done, just as long as it does, and it saves the planet. 

Pathetic.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW221211-#6,288   In your un-private regulation of a woman’s reproductive organs


Oh what the fuck ever…

I’m sorry my objection to murder has a piece of shit like you butthurt, but not actually.

This is like saying that laws against shooting others is “regulation of your shooting hand.”  No, you shouldn’t shoot other humans in aggression - it’s your hand and all, but that isn’t compelling as to why you think you should be allowed to use it to do whatever you want with it whenever you want even if you kill someone else with it…



NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I was simply asking how you were going to manage the Taliban ZEF Protection Act


And here come the bigoted slurs for those you want dead.


NotfooledbyW said:


> I Think I’ll set up a multiple choice for some of your most intelligible replies going forward:


Every one of those insults is 100% accurate, I’m afraid.

You are hateful and despicable.  Moreover you are incoherent - even if you were saying things I found agreeable, your posting style and your utter lack of reason or logic in your approach would be so obnoxious you should be dismissed and ignored for that alone.

It’s why no one wants anything to do with you, deserving pariah.


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Oh what the fuck ever…
> 
> I’m sorry my objection to murder has a piece of shit like you butthurt, but not actually.
> 
> This is like saying that laws against shooting others is “regulation of your shooting hand.”  No, you shouldn’t shoot other humans in aggression - it’s your hand and all, but that isn’t compelling as to why you think you should be allowed to use it to do whatever you want with it whenever you want even if you kill someone else with it…
> 
> 
> And here come the bigoted slurs for those you want dead.
> 
> Every one of those insults is 100% accurate, I’m afraid.
> 
> You are hateful and despicable.  Moreover you are incoherent - even if you were saying things I found agreeable, your posting style and your utter lack of reason or logic in your approach would be so obnoxious you should be dismissed and ignored for that alone.
> 
> It’s why no one wants anything to do with you, deserving pariah.


Reminds me of the conversation between Michael Knowles, and Bronte Remsik posted by me earlier. NFBW is truly struggling to try and hold onto his sanity in this debate.


----------



## Rigby5

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Fact?  Uh, no.
> 
> CITATION NEEDED.
> 
> You've provided ZERO reason.  You seem utterly incapable of it.



The fact almost all ovum and sperm die, shows we do not care about potential life, but only about sentience after the brain has produced consciousness.
That is why we do not mind turning off the artificial life support machines once someone is brain dead.


----------



## Rigby5

beagle9 said:


> You know, I ride around in my state, and it's simply amazing the amount of unused or unpopulated space that exist in the state. So undoubtedly he is living in a sardine packed blue metro crap hole, and has absolutely no clue as to how unpopulated this United States truly is or he's been brainwashed in a severe way by the left. I think it's the latter..... He's brainwashed so much so that he has adopted these henious thoughts about controlling the population in this country via abortion, and worse he thinks that he can control the population in the world through a process we should call "unborn genocide".



Wrong.
To support human beings, it takes more than just the space their house occupies.
They need over an additional 3 acres for food, textiles, etc.
And then in the long run there are at least an additional 10 acres or so of woodland needed for things like replenishing the oxygen we each breath in.
And over two thirds of the world is useless, as being too rocky, dry, cold, etc.

So the reality is that we are all in the process of extinction of not only all humans, but all life on the planet, (except maybe cockroaches).


----------



## Rigby5

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> That’s not a natural death, that’s not even manslaughter, you’re describing a murder.
> 
> Or what _should_ be a murder in a just society that cares about human rights and values equality.
> 
> That is objectively an intentional homicide with malice aforethought.


Wrong.
Abortion is legal based on "self defense", because giving birth is incredibly RISKY and DEADLY.

{...
Whilst maternal mortality has decreased significantly in recent decades, more than 300,000 women die from pregnancy every year.
by Hannah Ritchie
September 16, 2019

For most of our history, pregnancy and childbirth were dangerous for both baby and mother. If we look at long-term trends in maternal mortality – the likelihood a woman will die from pregnancy-related causes – we see that every 100th to 200th birth led to the mother’s death.
...}








						How many women die in childbirth?
					

For most of our history, pregnancy and childbirth were dangerous for both baby and mother. Whilst maternal mortality has decreased significantly in recent decades, more than 300,000 women die from pregnancy every year.




					ourworldindata.org


----------



## Rigby5

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> That’s not a natural death, that’s not even manslaughter, you’re describing a murder.
> 
> Or what _should_ be a murder in a just society that cares about human rights and values equality.
> 
> That is objectively an intentional homicide with malice aforethought.



All births beyond the number needed to replenish the parents, should die, or else they will cause total species extinction eventually.  And actually fairly soon.


----------



## Rigby5

beagle9 said:


> He is for any way of removing or ending the pregnancy, so it matters not to him how it gets done, just as long as it does, and it saves the planet.
> 
> Pathetic.



Not "saves the planet", but saves ALL THE ENTIRE HUMAN SPECIES.
Not aborting excess pregnancies can only result in total species extinction.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Abortion is legal based on "self defense"



…

Fuck you, insane lunatic.  Utterly deplorable.

The kid is helpless and innocent, they can’t harm anyone or attack anyone, we all know this, especially and including the mother.

It is deplorable to claim that an aggressive and violent attack against a helpless innocent human being could ever be “self-defense.”

ANY “harm” of pregnancy, if there even is any, is caused entirely by the mother and the father.  No one else bears any responsibility whatsoever.  The kid sure as hell isn’t responsible nor causing anything.


----------



## beagle9

Rigby5 said:


> The fact almost all ovum and sperm die, shows we do not care about potential life, but only about sentience after the brain has produced consciousness.
> That is why we do not mind turning off the artificial life support machines once someone is brain dead.


You knuckleheads will come up with just about anything possible in order to twist something into your narratives or excuses. Fail !!!!


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> …
> 
> Fuck you, insane lunatic.  Utterly deplorable.
> 
> The kid is helpless and innocent, they can’t harm anyone or attack anyone, we all know this, especially and including the mother.
> 
> It is deplorable to claim that an aggressive and violent attack against a helpless innocent human being could ever be “self-defense.”
> 
> ANY “harm” of pregnancy, if there even is any, is caused entirely by the mother and the father.  No one else bears any responsibility whatsoever.  The kid sure as hell isn’t responsible nor causing anything.


I agree with this fact based sentiment. They'll resort to anything to try and make their case. They are truly diabolical people.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221211-#6,330  ANY “harm” of pregnancy, if there even is any, is caused entirely by the mother and the father.

NFBW: Experiencing pain is harm. Limitation of one’s freedom of movement is harm. Causing one to vomit is harm. Causing economic hardship is harm. But because there are plenty a sufficient number of cases where pregnancy can cause death or other severe health problems no matter how infrequent to a woman during pregnancy; it means every woman must be permitted, it stands to reason, that every woman has a right to self protection just as all the extremist rightwing gun worshipping numbskulls in this country have a right to self protection against another person that appears to be intent on causing them harm.,

Beyond that reasoning, I and Roe v Wade Justices suffice it to say that viability is important in the self protection evaluation aspect for legal abortion  because that ruling allows for self-protection by the use of lethal force for the would be mother from the harm of pregnancy when the ZEF is not capable of sustaining it’s own life using its own bodily organs and autonomy. A woman is not taking a viable life when she does so before viability when she chooses not to assume the risk of harm from pregnancy.

In the case discussed at length on this message board where Ahmad Arberry’s life was aborted and the killers all claimed self defense in that they were potentially about to be harmed by their victim for trying to protect ‘civilization’ from harm. - but they were racists who almost got away with aborting a viable human life, but justice in this case prevailed thanks to the reality that progressives are steadily improving American society on all fronts including reproductive rights and human rights to life of viable black Americans on public streets.

I understand @beagle associates abortion rights with the evils of progressivism, but her conclusions on that run afoul of truth and objective reality.

beagle9221030-#8 @beagle9  Progressivism is the term most people associate with anti-Americanism these days, because it's a movement that wants to replace the old guard with their new form of Americanism, otherwise that will look nothing like America after all is said and done.​
If we take abortion to be justified on the basis of self-protection of the woman it is absurd of beagle9 to claim that most people associate abortion with anti-Americanism these days when looking at actual voters for irvagainst abortion rights because it just is not so.






So CarsomyrPlusSix is once again a self revealed dumbfounded anti-progress profane mouthed anti-intellectual goober when his ignorance is placed on full display by doubting that pregnancy ever causes harm to a woman who gets pregnant.

And beagle9 is always right there going atta-boy while patting him gently upon his quite empty head.

END2212120710


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ That’s a lot of needless inane faggotry on your part, sir, when I can just direct you to read what you initially quoted…

… because it contains the reply to your line of “reasoning,” aka insane bullshit retardation, in assigning responsibility for any potential harm of pregnancy *to the kid.*

And then, in the depths of your depravity, you call the kid - helpless and innocent, resting peacefully exactly where his parents put him - a villain on par with a violent attacker who must be put down with gunfire.

That is *vile*, that is *stupid*, that is *patently insane* - _all_ of these elements are STANDARD from you, *filth*.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Catholicism Rearing Caution Radical Manifests "

* Prophylaxis Versus Asceticism **


elektra said:


> Zygote? Nobody aborts a zygote, there is no procedure to abort a zygote.
> Your comments sre a good reason why abortion is a procedure from the last century, ignorance and stupidity.


The orthodox position dismisses use of any prophylaxis including birth control which prevents a zygote from attaching to the placenta .

A penchant was once conveyed to myself by an individual confessing to intentionally poke a pin hole in his condoms so as not to violate a rule of onanism when hooking up with a girl .


** Finally Something Delivered Loudly Recommended As Obvious **









						Texas state court throws out lawsuit against doctor who violated abortion law
					

The court’s ruling does not overturn the 2021 law, which banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. It also does not impact the near-total ban on abortion that went into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.




					www.texastribune.org
				



_" The court’s ruling does not overturn the 2021 law, which banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. It also does not impact the near-total ban on abortion that went into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The law, known as *Senate Bill 8, allows anyone to bring a lawsuit against someone who “aids or abets” in an abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy. *On Thursday, state District Judge Aaron Haas in Bexar County said *people who have no connection to the prohibited abortion and have not been harmed by it do not have standing to bring these lawsuits. "*_









						U.S. Supreme Court rules there’s no right to abortion, setting up Texas ban
					

The high court’s monumental ruling will have major impact on Texas, which has a trigger law banning abortions that goes into effect soon.




					www.texastribune.org
				





** Anecdote Some **









						Zygote - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_Between the stages of fertilization and implantation, the developing embryo is sometimes termed as a preimplantation-conceptus. This stage has also been referred to as the *pre-embryo* in legal discourses including relevance to the use of embryonic stem cells.[3] _


----------



## elektra

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Catholicism Rearing Caution Radical Manifests "
> 
> * Prophylaxis Versus Asceticism **
> 
> The orthodox position dismisses use of any prophylaxis including birth control which prevents a zygote from attaching to the placenta .
> 
> A penchant was once conveyed to myself by an individual confessing to intentionally poke a pin hole in his condoms so as not to violate a rule of onanism when hooking up with a girl .
> 
> 
> ** Finally Something Delivered Loudly Recommended As Obvious **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas state court throws out lawsuit against doctor who violated abortion law
> 
> 
> The court’s ruling does not overturn the 2021 law, which banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. It also does not impact the near-total ban on abortion that went into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _" The court’s ruling does not overturn the 2021 law, which banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. It also does not impact the near-total ban on abortion that went into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
> 
> The law, known as *Senate Bill 8, allows anyone to bring a lawsuit against someone who “aids or abets” in an abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy. *On Thursday, state District Judge Aaron Haas in Bexar County said *people who have no connection to the prohibited abortion and have not been harmed by it do not have standing to bring these lawsuits. "*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Supreme Court rules there’s no right to abortion, setting up Texas ban
> 
> 
> The high court’s monumental ruling will have major impact on Texas, which has a trigger law banning abortions that goes into effect soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texastribune.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** Anecdote Some **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zygote - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Between the stages of fertilization and implantation, the developing embryo is sometimes termed as a preimplantation-conceptus. This stage has also been referred to as the *pre-embryo* in legal discourses including relevance to the use of embryonic stem cells.[3] _


That is very nice, you can give us google links.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221212-#6,334   ^ That’s a lot of needless inane faggotry on your part, sir, when I can just direct you to read what you initially quoted…… because it contains the reply to your line of “reasoning,” aka insane bullshit retardation, in assigning responsibility for any potential harm of pregnancy to the kid.

NFBW: I have never assigned responsibility for any potential harm of pregnancy to the kid. Therefore your irrationality is based on a lie as most irrationalities are.

 I cannot stop you from using your concoction of lies about my arguments because you can lie and run away like a #ding has done again and again. 

I can only tell you and the readers that truthfully I do not assign responsibility to the unborn beings involved whether survived or aborted for any potential harm or death to the mother resulting from pregnancy. To do so would be absurd because it is the pregnancy that causes harm and potential death whether the kid is wanted by the parents or not. 

Pregnancy harms all women To a degree and the moment of delivery is what causes most death due to pregnancy.

It is never the kid you BABBITT.

 It’s the medical condition and separation process when a fully viable baby reaches his/her stage on the lifetime continuum and is ready to be physically extracted fron the person they were a part of for usually the better part of nine months.

 It’s called giving birth that can kill a woman if she decides to take the risk for the reward of giving birth to a new child of the universe.

You cannot argue rationally or honestly on your own behalf’s CarsomyrPlusSix snd beagle9 that an asshole like Cplus6 is humane and intelligent enough to tell millions of women that they must subject themselves to Cplus6’s craven brute ignorance by assuming the risk of pregnancy because Cplus6 thinks a fertilized egg is a child and childbirth is a walk in a  park where no danger or risk or threat can ever be found.

END2212120848


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Fresh Meet Grind Stone Scene "

* Harmonics Foar Foer Foir Four Foyr Resonance **


beagle9 said:


> Good stuff here..


The power of ideas is exemplified by the work accomplished per unit time , where work is a force applied through a distance with a specific purpose .

The excitation of electrons in orbitals to cause emission occurs at frequencies specific to the identify of an elements .


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Experiencing pain is harm. Limitation of one’s freedom of movement is harm. Causing one to vomit is harm. Causing economic hardship is harm.


Self-inflicted.  And none of this shit comes close to justifying taking someone else’s life.



NotfooledbyW said:


> every woman has a right to self protection just as all the extremist rightwing gun worshipping numbskulls in this country have a right to self protection against another person that appears to be intent on causing them harm.,





NotfooledbyW said:


> allows for self-protection





NotfooledbyW said:


> If we take abortion to be justified on the basis of self-protection​.


Oh look, this is you assigning the situation of abortion the same weight as a violent attacker warranting self-defense - a right you disparage because clearly you don’t respect human rights or the Constitution - and you repeatedly saying “self-protection.”  Exactly as I said you had, and exactly as you stupidly denied.

Which undeniably means this is you attributing potential harm of pregnancy and responsibility for that harm to the kid, exactly as I said you had, and exactly as you stupidly denied.


GG no re - feel free to emulate a samurai or something with the slightest bit of honor and disembowel yourself in disgrace now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221212-#6,334   And then, in the depths of your depravity, you call the kid - helpless and innocent, resting peacefully exactly where his parents put him - a villain on par with a violent attacker who must be put down with gunfire.

NFBW: CarsomyrPlusSix Being the dumb gun slut that he is takes the bait and self destructs his argument that woman have no right to reject the risk of pregnancy - but three white racist hillbillies dumber than a BABBITT had a right to gun down and murder a young unarmed black man who was jogging past their front yard in a public street. One thing we can count on is Cplus6 kicking his own ass during any debate here. 

END2212120915


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221212-#6,333 Experiencing pain is harm. Limitation of one’s freedom of movement is harm. Causing one to vomit is harm. Causing economic hardship is harm.

Cplus6221212-#6,339  Self-inflicted.

NFBW: I love it when CarsomyrPlusSix an avowed atheist speaks with authority like a nun teaching her class at a Catholic high school.

END2212120942


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> CarsomyrPlusSix Being the dumb gun slut that he is takes the bait and self destructs his argument that woman have no right to reject the risk of pregnancy -


Again, you confirm that you have no respect for the Constitution or human rights, like the rotten authoritarian leftist filth you are



NotfooledbyW said:


> but three white racist hillbillies


Have nothing to do with your stupidity and failure on full display here.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> I love it when… an avowed atheist speaks with authority like a nun teaching her class at a Catholic high school


Gee, it’s almost like I am aware of causal reality and in dealing with a noxious, tiresome insane person like yourself who demonstrably has never lived in reality…

… I find myself explaining basic aspects of reality in a matter of fact and firm way to someone who doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand.

Like for example, when you hurt yourself, you can’t claim self-defense when you attack someone else.  Your victim didn’t hurt you.

This shouldn’t need to be explained to any rational human with a working brain…

… which explains your need to hear this.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221211-#6,330  ANY “harm” of pregnancy, if there even is any, is caused entirely by the mother and the father.
> 
> NFBW: Experiencing pain is harm. Limitation of one’s freedom of movement is harm. Causing one to vomit is harm. Causing economic hardship is harm. But because there are plenty a sufficient number of cases where pregnancy can cause death or other severe health problems no matter how infrequent to a woman during pregnancy; it means every woman must be permitted, it stands to reason, that every woman has a right to self protection just as all the extremist rightwing gun worshipping numbskulls in this country have a right to self protection against another person that appears to be intent on causing them harm.,
> 
> Beyond that reasoning, I and Roe v Wade Justices suffice it to say that viability is important in the self protection evaluation aspect for legal abortion  because that ruling allows for self-protection by the use of lethal force for the would be mother from the harm of pregnancy when the ZEF is not capable of sustaining it’s own life using its own bodily organs and autonomy. A woman is not taking a viable life when she does so before viability when she chooses not to assume the risk of harm from pregnancy.
> 
> In the case discussed at length on this message board where Ahmad Arberry’s life was aborted and the killers all claimed self defense in that they were potentially about to be harmed by their victim for trying to protect ‘civilization’ from harm. - but they were racists who almost got away with aborting a viable human life, but justice in this case prevailed thanks to the reality that progressives are steadily improving American society on all fronts including reproductive rights and human rights to life of viable black Americans on public streets.
> 
> I understand @beagle associates abortion rights with the evils of progressivism, but her conclusions on that run afoul of truth and objective reality.
> 
> beagle9221030-#8 @beagle9  Progressivism is the term most people associate with anti-Americanism these days, because it's a movement that wants to replace the old guard with their new form of Americanism, otherwise that will look nothing like America after all is said and done.​
> If we take abortion to be justified on the basis of self-protection of the woman it is absurd of beagle9 to claim that most people associate abortion with anti-Americanism these days when looking at actual voters for irvagainst abortion rights because it just is not so.
> 
> View attachment 737989
> 
> So CarsomyrPlusSix is once again a self revealed dumbfounded anti-progress profane mouthed anti-intellectual goober when his ignorance is placed on full display by doubting that pregnancy ever causes harm to a woman who gets pregnant.
> 
> And beagle9 is always right there going atta-boy while patting him gently upon his quite empty head.
> 
> END2212120710


Do you realize what kind of idiot you have made yourself out to be here ?? You attempt all sorts of comparison's in the most outlandish ways imaginable trying to win your points, but fail big time. 

I just sit back in amazement reading your ridiculous bull crap spewed, but undoubtedly you are like a singer that thinks they have a vocal like a super star, but in reality you sound worse than Kermit the frog 🐸.... ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣🤣🤣

That's what you need, a miss piggy to straighten your ignant ace out.

Try harder.


----------



## beagle9

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Fresh Meet Grind Stone Scene "
> 
> * Harmonics Foar Foer Foir Four Foyr Resonance **
> 
> The power of ideas is exemplified by the work accomplished per unit time , where work is a force applied through a distance with a specific purpose .
> 
> The excitation of electrons in orbitals to cause emission occurs at frequencies specific to the identify of an elements .


Regardless it's the heart forming in which is creating a a human being at various stages, and to stop that process is a very cold hearted thing for a mother after knowing the process that is taking place in her body that is bringing forth a beautiful little miracle of a human life.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221212-#6,334   And then, in the depths of your depravity, you call the kid - helpless and innocent, resting peacefully exactly where his parents put him - a villain on par with a violent attacker who must be put down with gunfire.
> 
> NFBW: CarsomyrPlusSix Being the dumb gun slut that he is takes the bait and self destructs his argument that woman have no right to reject the risk of pregnancy - but three white racist hillbillies dumber than a BABBITT had a right to gun down and murder a young unarmed black man who was jogging past their front yard in a public street. One thing we can count on is Cplus6 kicking his own ass during any debate here.
> 
> END2212120915


Ahhhh there goes that liberal wielding, fast slinging race card being thrown AGAIN, otherwise when you start losing the battle you desperate knucklehead's cling to your kryptonite "THE RACE CARD". You leftist are eat up with it aren't you ?? Stay on topic boy. Race has nothing to do with abortion unless you want to discuss how many black babies have been aborted, otherwise that were targeted by Margaret Sanger.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221211-#6,330 ANY “harm” of pregnancy, if there even is any, is caused entirely by the mother and the father

NFBW: just to be clear, I am defining the harm of pregnancy as harm caused by the biological process of pregnancy, with the most severe harm, usually occurring during childbirth because of the way nature, evolution, or God, if that is your chosen belief designed it this way. The kid did not design it nor did the kid request to be created. And delivered to the world through such a violent means to a woman’s body. There is no responsibility to the kid of the kid or from the kid for the process of pregnancy and the way it works. The kid is not responsible for any harm to the woman or the father or society in anyway. Is that clear?

NFBW221212-#6,333  it stands to reason, that every woman has a right to self protection just as all the extremist rightwing gun worshipping numbskulls in this country have a right to self protection against another person that appears to be intent on causing them harm.,

NFBW: I will revise that to read    “every woman has a right to self protection from the biological process of pregnancy”   in order to make it clear to all the liars on this message board on the hillbilly front lines against abortion rights, so that a proper discussion based on facts and reality can  be had..

NFBW221212-#6,333  If we take abortion to be justified on the basis of self-protection of the woman, it is absurd of beagle9 to claim that most people associate abortion with anti-Americanism these days when looking at actual voters for or against abortion rights because it just is not so.

Cplus6221212-#6,339   Oh look, this is you assigning the situation of abortion the same weight as a violent attacker warranting self-defense  

NFBW: my argument, assigns the situation of abortion, the same weight *to a victim, who does something in self preservation* and prevention of harm to one’s self abd one‘s body. 

 I did not present an argument that the act of self-defense justifying abortion is the woman against another person who is attacking them, because this discussion is about pregnancy, and it is the process of pregnancy that causes the harm. 

You need to go find yourself a new argument CarsomyrPlusSix because as it stands yours is based on a lie which makes your entire reason to be a lie and nothing but a lie.

END2212121037


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Ahhhh there goes that liberal wielding, fast slinging race card being thrown AGAIN


Why is stating the facts about the killers of Ahmad Arberry being racist killers of a black kid playing the race card?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Race has nothing to do with abortion




I am not saying race has anything to do with abortion being linked to a right of self protection - I brought up your side’s hypocrisy of white people being for self protection against many times black or non-white persons who have been born but being opposed to a woman’s right to self protection against the biological process of pregnancy after your idiot hillbilly atheist buddy tried to tell me that pregnancy causes no harm to a pregnant woman.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Regardless it's the heart forming in which is creating a a human being at various stages


NFBW: If a heart forming is creating a human being it means the human being is not created in your words because the human being is not fully formed at that stage. So do you agree with #dings scientists who use language to describe ZEF as a developing human organism that cannot survive outside the womb..

We human beings have no obligation to human organisms that are using another human being’s bodies to survive

The Catholic Church teaches that a human being is created at conception by God which is fine if you believe that. To satisfy your belief in God don’t get an abortion. It’s easy - leave me out of your relationship with your God.

My conscience tells me exactly that. I don’t ever have to worry about getting some woman pregnant. But I cannot ever justify telling millions of women they cannot get an abortion when they do it  for self protection.

END2212121119


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221212-#6,334   ^ That’s a lot of needless inane faggotry on your part, sir, when I can just direct you to read what you initially quoted…… because it contains the reply to your line of “reasoning,” aka insane bullshit retardation, in assigning responsibility for any potential harm of pregnancy to the kid.
> 
> NFBW: I have never assigned responsibility for any potential harm of pregnancy to the kid. Therefore your irrationality is based on a lie as most irrationalities are.
> 
> I cannot stop you from using your concoction of lies about my arguments because you can lie and run away like a #ding has done again and again.
> 
> I can only tell you and the readers that truthfully I do not assign responsibility to the unborn beings involved whether survived or aborted for any potential harm or death to the mother resulting from pregnancy. To do so would be absurd because it is the pregnancy that causes harm and potential death whether the kid is wanted by the parents or not.
> 
> Pregnancy harms all women To a degree and the moment of delivery is what causes most death due to pregnancy.
> 
> It is never the kid you BABBITT.
> 
> It’s the medical condition and separation process when a fully viable baby reaches his/her stage on the lifetime continuum and is ready to be physically extracted fron the person they were a part of for usually the better part of nine months.
> 
> It’s called giving birth that can kill a woman if she decides to take the risk for the reward of giving birth to a new child of the universe.
> 
> You cannot argue rationally or honestly on your own behalf’s CarsomyrPlusSix snd beagle9 that an asshole like Cplus6 is humane and intelligent enough to tell millions of women that they must subject themselves to Cplus6’s craven brute ignorance by assuming the risk of pregnancy because Cplus6 thinks a fertilized egg is a child and childbirth is a walk in a  park where no danger or risk or threat can ever be found.
> 
> END2212120848


I got an Idea, how about people refrain from doing exactly what it takes to knowingly get pregnant if they don't want that ?? With all the birth control out there, it has to be that many of the so called accidental pregnancies possibly weren't accident's at all.

Let me explain:

So we ask ourselves what happens in these situations right ?

1. It could be that the woman thinks that she has found her knight in shining armor, but then she thinks that she may not have the personality that it takes to win him over, and to keep him, so she has the good's down below right, and then she thinks that if she can give that up, and entrap him with a pregnancy, then Viola she's hooked herself a knight in shining armor, and will begin her marriage and family with him soon.

But something happens, he tells her he doesn't want to get married, and he doesn't want a child, now what ? Should she get angry that her entrapment didn't work ? Most do if it was a failed attempt at trapping someone, and so she quickly scampers off to the abortion clinic to fix her dastardly deed, but at what stage has she allowed herself to be at ??? Otherwise what stage in her pregnancy was she at when she lowered the boom on her victim ?? No matter, because the cold hearted abortionist doctors are more than willing to accommodate her plot by fixing her problem like a fixer does.

2. The same happens with the guy going around silver tongue devilling his victim's, maybe even taking advantage of them if they aren't smart enough to resist his advances. He impregnates them one by one until he literally ruins his life because basically he's just a hit and run outlaw causing women great misery by what he does to them, and then leaves them.

Otherwise loving them and leaving them. So she goes in search of a clinic to abort her pregnancy because she found out that he was a sheep in wolf's clothing, and therefore she wants no part of anything he's done to her. Understandable, but take it out on the unborn ? It took two to agree to the act of unprotected sex, and both knows the results that may come from that when engaging in it, yet it's done in the moment of lust anyway.

Again the clinic is making it to easy for these scenario's to be fixed without educating the public against their wanting irresponsible culture of irresponsible acts, because the only way to change a culture like this, is to dismantle the very thing that enables the culture to keep carrying on in these ways to begin with.

If can't dismantle the (easy out that is being given), then restrict access enough that it only allows true medical issue's to be resolved in these places, and not instead them working as some sort of aid and abetting place in order to aid an uncivilized SOCIETY that is constantly doing uncivil things, and then it searching for such places for a quick fix afterwards.

Knowing the situations that are occuring in society, and then aiding and abetting them with a horrific way out, uhhh isn't teaching our SOCIETY anything but to instead do anything you want out there, and we'll fix it for you.

That's been the wrong message all along, and it needs to change. The system has to hold the high ground, and it should be a teacher and an influencing force to encourage people to practice what is right, and the message is that it will not participate in the things that are wrong, especially using abortion for birth control. It needs to stop, and the culture of lust and deception must change. The government must not participate in such a thing, as it should be the safe guard against creating or propping up bad cultural practices.

The SC was right to put this into the states hands, because our government should not be aiding and abetting such irresponsible activities in society, and it dam well shouldn't be making the citizen's accommodate it or worse pay for it.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: If a heart forming is creating a human being it means the human being is not created in your words because the human being is not fully formed at that stage. So do you agree with #dings scientists who use language to describe ZEF as a developing human organism that cannot survive outside the womb..
> 
> We human beings have no obligation to human organisms that are using another human being’s bodies to survive
> 
> The Catholic Church teaches that a human being is created at conception by God which is fine if you believe that. To satisfy your belief in God don’t get an abortion. It’s easy - leave me out of your relationship with your God.
> 
> My conscience tells me exactly that. I don’t ever have to worry about getting some woman pregnant. But I cannot ever justify telling millions of women they cannot get an abortion when they do it  for self protection.
> 
> END2212121119


The heart being developed is just a stage in development, it means none of the other stuff you tried to apply to it.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

The lifespan of sexually reproducing species like Homo sapiens - human beings - begins at fertilization.

It’s scientific fact whether it aligns with any particular faith or not, NotfooledbyW, you illiterate, ignorant monstrous pigfucker.

“_If your god says rape is bad, just don’t rape anyone, don’t judge me or try to limit my freedom - who I rape is my business_” - the logic of said pigfucker


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The lifespan of sexually reproducing species like Homo sapiens - human beings - begins at fertilization.
> 
> It’s scientific fact whether it aligns with any particular faith or not, NotfooledbyW, you illiterate, ignorant monstrous pigfucker.
> 
> “_If your god says rape is bad, just don’t rape anyone, don’t judge me or try to limit my freedom - who I rape is my business_” - the logic of said pigfucker


Yep it is scientific fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221212-#6,343   Like for example, when you hurt yourself, you can’t claim self-defense when you attack someone else. Your victim didn’t hurt you.

NFBW: Your argument needs to withstand all tests. Yours does not withstand the test of a rape or incest victim unless you claim a rape and incest victim is always asking for it thereby inflicting harm on themselves.

So when you say you support abortion for rape and incest because they are victims who did not inflict harm on themselves it is ok to kill a ZEF in self defense although little ZEF who,  as you say, acquired the same right to life at conception as every born human being and is the cause of none of this.

Assuming the right to kill ZEF in exceptional cases you actually give up your entire argument that ZEF has the same right to life as every human who survives birth.

You have to go for forced pregnancy by the government on even that eleven year old rape victim knowing that childbirth can cause severe damage to such a young child’s body.

That is you CarsomyrPlusSix .

END2212121146


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> The heart being developed is just a stage in development, it means none of the other stuff you tried to apply to it.


NFBW: Use proper language then and admit that you are speaking religiously and not scientifically about what you think an organism that is being developed in the womb is. 

END2212121151


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Your argument needs to withstand all tests. Yours does not withstand the test of a rape or incest victim unless you claim a rape and incest victim is always asking for it thereby inflicting harm on themselves.


You’re not arguing for a “rape exception,” intellectually dishonest… wait, no, just generally filthy lying trash with zero integrity, zero honor, zero intelligence, zero merit.

If you agree that we should ban the other 99.9x% of abortions, then we can argue “rape exceptions.”  Until then, go fuck yourself.  You don’t give two shits about rape, you sick bastard.




NotfooledbyW said:


> ZEF


Fuck you.  Eat a bullet.



NotfooledbyW said:


> forced pregnancy by the government


Non sequitur.  “The government” does not go around inseminating ladies at gunpoint, you nutjob.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221212-#6,343   Like for example, when you hurt yourself, you can’t claim self-defense when you attack someone else. Your victim didn’t hurt you.
> 
> NFBW: Your argument needs to withstand all tests. Yours does not withstand the test of a rape or incest victim unless you claim a rape and incest victim is always asking for it thereby inflicting harm on themselves.
> So when you say you support abortion for rape and incest because they are victims who did not inflict harm on themselves it is ok to kill a ZEF in self defense although little ZEF who,  as you say, squired the same right to life at conception as every born human being and is the cause of none of this.
> 
> Assuming the right to kill ZEF in exceptional cases you actually give up your entire argument that ZEF had the same right to life as every human who survives birth.
> 
> You have to go for forced pregnancy by the government on even that eleven year old rape victim knowing that childbirth can cause severe damage to such a young child’s body.
> 
> That is you CarsomyrPlusSix .
> 
> END2212121146


Rape or incest victims should have a strict time limit placed upon them in order to get the situation straightened out. Like immediately upon the report of it happening. Any victim that would allow a pregnancy to begin developing within them after such an horrendous act was committed against them, and does so by their own free will, shouldn't be accommodated to end that pregnancy at whatever stage the person decides to do so. If the pregnancy begins developing past a certain point, then it's time to switch into support of the mother with child mode, not into we are going to add to your trauma by helping you to kill this pregnancy on top of what you have been through already mode. So if the victim doesn't abort the pregnancy in it's reporting of the rape immediately, then I ask WHY ? There's no excuse in not immediately taking care of the situation after a rape or incest occurs.

Now in the case of a "fear of reporting", and a baby begins development in the body, then a support team should surround that mother, and encourage her that they will be with her every step of the way, and after birth, then the child can be put up for adoption or if she (the mother), chooses the child who is her's regardless of the circumstances, then that will be great also. Nothing but blessings to come. 

Who is to say that the child wouldn't take after the mother in attributes, appearance, and everything else, and not take after it's rapist father ? The Lord works in mysterious ways, so we know not what exist in power's beyond our naked eye. At some point faith becomes a huge part of our decision making in life. Let us try to make the right ones Amen.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Use proper language then and admit that you are speaking religiously and not scientifically about what you think an organism that is being developed in the womb is.
> 
> END2212121151


It's both religious and scientific... Duh.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221212-#6,357  If you agree that we should ban the other 99.9x% of abortions, then we can argue “rape exceptions.”

NFBW: What is there to argue about “rape exceptions” if your absolute argument is ZEF    has full and equal right to life as every born human being which is not a civil or scientific argument. Rather it is a Catholic Church organizational argument that #ding claims humanized western man thereby making v western civilization as great at it is. 

I have no reason to agree with an avowed atheist’s conscience who has adopted the Catholic Church’s spiritual laws that a human being is formed at conception, because this atheist cannot defend the absurdity of his conscience unless I accept his absurdity in advance. 

END2212121212


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You’re not arguing for a “rape exception,” intellectually dishonest… wait, no, just generally filthy lying trash with zero integrity, zero honor, zero intelligence, zero merit.
> 
> If you agree that we should ban the other 99.9x% of abortions, then we can argue “rape exceptions.”  Until then, go fuck yourself.  You don’t give two shits about rape, you sick bastard.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Eat a bullet.
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.  “The government” does not go around inseminating ladies at gunpoint, you nutjob.


Good point - The government doesn't go around inseminating at gun point... That is CORRECT. At some point society has got to get control of itself and stop expecting government to be a fix all for them in society. It has led to the break downs that we see today. But who is the government ? It is us supposedly, so how does the wrong side of us get in charge of government ??? That definitely needs to be studied and fixed, because we are a national product of what wrongful government is.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> What is there to argue about “rape exceptions” .


With you?  Nothing. 

Because you don’t want a rape exception, you’re bigoted filth who hates the unborn equally regardless of what their parents did. 

So there’s nothing to argue with you - *you don’t care about rape at all,* so I won’t indulge you in whatever fetishes or proclivities you must have, sociopath.



NotfooledbyW said:


> ZEF


Fuck you, bigoted filth.

And the rest is just your continued hate-boner against Catholics, which continues to be irrelevant.  Whatever faith you claim to be, you soulless rotten blackhearted stain on the Earth, your god is trash.

There is no merit or intellect behind anything you say.  Just fuck off.


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> With you?  Nothing.
> 
> Because you don’t want a rape exception, you’re bigoted filth who hates the unborn equally regardless of what their parents did.
> 
> So there’s nothing to argue with you - *you don’t care about rape at all,* so I won’t indulge you in whatever fetishes or proclivities you must have, sociopath.
> 
> 
> Fuck you, bigoted filth.
> 
> And the rest is just your continued hate-boner against Catholics, which continues to be irrelevant.  Whatever faith you claim to be, you soulless rotten blackhearted stain on the Earth, your god is trash.
> 
> There is no merit or intellect behind anything you say.  Just fuck off.


You seem a very smart guy, even in your crude and unorthodoxed way of saying things, or even in your getting a sharp point across when needed, so just remember that it's never to late to apply your smarts in a means of working for the Lord also (without all the cursing of course).  Glad you are for the little ones in life.

Hey, you be you though.

Ok back to the fight. lol


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> You seem a very smart guy, even in your crude and unorthodoxed way of saying things, or even in your getting a sharp point across when needed, so just remember that it's never to late to apply your smarts in a means of working for the Lord also (without all the cursing of course).  Glad you are for the little ones in life.
> 
> Hey, you be you though.
> 
> Ok back to the fight. lol



I am beyond politeness and my patience is beyond exhausted with this person.  Yes, I do believe I have _negative_ patience and tolerance for this person, because it is clear they maliciously lie and waste my time.  I know without any doubt that when I get a reply from this asshat, that it will be stupid, bigoted, difficult to read, have inconsistent and incomprehensible logic, and will invariably involve loaded, nonsensical, irrelevant questions.

They also employ these lies in the form of malodorous hatred against innocent human beings who do not deserve to be killed, claiming killing them is self-defense, saying they are not human beings, calling them parasites, using slurs, just the worst. The absolute worst.

If they were civil and argued in good faith, I could do the same in return.  I might lose my patience on occasion but we could still have a conversation.  _This person is allergic to good faith._


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221212-#6,362  So there’s nothing to argue with you - you don’t care about rape at all, so I won’t indulge you in whatever fetishes or proclivities you must have, sociopath.

NFBW: What kind of argument goes to “_you don’t care about rape at all”._ This is not the only sign of desperation you’re exposing to this forum.

Can you stick with objective facts bring up only observable truth in the construction of your arguments with an end of your bullshit commentary of what you think I  care about or don’t care about because it only weakens anything truthful that you might slip up
And say. 

END2212121326


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

When one only brings up rape to be emotionally manipulative on this topic, where rape is statistically irrelevant, when they have already established that they want abortion on demand to be legal in all cases, we know for a fact that rape is nothing more than a rhetorical pawn on a chessboard to that person.  It has no impact on their position, so why would they bring it up?

Simple.  It is a bad faith intentional logical fallacy to cease all logic and appeal only to emotion.

But no, rape accounts for such a minuscule amount of these homicides that I will not indulge that crap for a second.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221212-#6,364 CarsomyrPlusSix    I am beyond politeness and my patience is beyond exhausted with this person.

NFBW: I confront your ignorant statements head on. And they really set you off don’t they. Like this one:

Cplus6221115-#5,617   Hey Bitch off:  We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”

Cplus6220919-#5,280   “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”

NFBW: So I provided scientific proof that not only was every conceived human being, at the beginning life following conception as a human organism, are a part of their mother’s body when in the womb, but they are part of their mother’s body even after childbirth. fetal-maternal microchimerism. 


NFBW221207-#6,179 But wait CarsomyrPlusSix (aka the dumbest dumbass on abortion here), If a living human organism referred to as a pregnant woman and living human organism referred to as a fetus never were part of the mother’s body then the miracle process, called fetal-maternal microchimerism could never take place.

I Heard nothing back from Cplus6 after that regard fetal-maternal microchimerism.  Once again here is the link right after eagle1462010 agreement that ZEF is part of a woman’s body until separated at birth.

eagle1462010 is scientifically correct on the fact that fetus and mother become two separate lives at birth leaving the shared life of nine months behind.

Children’s cells live on in mothers

A baby's cells knit their way into a mother’s body.

END2212121350


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221212-#6,364 CarsomyrPlusSix    I am beyond politeness and my patience is beyond exhausted with this person.
> 
> NFBW: I confront your ignorant statements head on. And they really set you off don’t they. Like this one:
> 
> Cplus6221115-#5,617   Hey Bitch off:  We are NEVER “part of our mother’s anatomy.”
> 
> Cplus6220919-#5,280   “We are never “part of our mother’s anatomy,” drooling retard.”
> 
> NFBW: So I provided scientific proof that not only was every conceived human being, at the beginning life following conception as a human organism, are a part of their mother’s body when in the womb, but they are part of their mother’s body even after childbirth. fetal-maternal microchimerism.
> 
> 
> NFBW221207-#6,179 But wait CarsomyrPlusSix (aka the dumbest dumbass on abortion here), If a living human organism referred to as a pregnant woman and living human organism referred to as a fetus never were part of the mother’s body then the miracle process, called fetal-maternal microchimerism could never take place.
> 
> I Heard nothing back from Cplus6 after that regard fetal-maternal microchimerism.  Once again here is the link right after eagle1462010 agreement that ZEF is part of a woman’s body until separated at birth.
> 
> eagle1462010 is scientifically correct on the fact that fetus and mother become two separate lives at birth leaving the shared life of nine months behind.
> 
> Children’s cells live on in mothers
> 
> A baby's cells knit their way into a mother’s body.
> 
> END2212121350


Two separate live's no matter how you cut it once the life developmental stages begin. The spirit/soul given to the new developing human being, gives that human a distinct life that separates the human one that is residing in the womb, otherwise that is now forming separate from the identity of the mother, has begun to form it's unique distinction... The baby forming is separated from the host carrying it by a distinct and new identity/spirit/soul given to it, and this is so that it is a separate distinct human being being formed in the process, other than her nurturing and giving life protecting services to that distinct new life that is growing in her womb.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ I’m done with this dogshit NotfooledbyW and I encourage everyone else to ignore him too.

This account is an obvious and malicious troll spewing noxious hatred inbetween incomprehensible jibberish.

Part of me feels obliged to correct things being said that are just so stupidly wrong, but I’ve done more than my fair share here.


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^ I’m done with this dogshit NotfooledbyW and I encourage everyone else to ignore him too.
> 
> This account is an obvious and malicious troll spewing noxious hatred inbetween incomprehensible jibberish.
> 
> Part of me feels obliged to correct things being said that are just so stupidly wrong, but I’ve done more than my fair share here.


Can't blame ya, he has struck me wrong also, especially when he becomes desperate to make his points... LOL. He really goes stupid then. 

He's just like JoeB, two peas in a pod.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^ I’m done with this dogshit NotfooledbyW and I encourage everyone else to ignore him too.


Liars run

Fetal-maternal microchimerism got him - science gave him the runs


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> Two separate live's no matter how you cut it once the life developmental stages begin.


Yeah I mean this is just basic biology.

The presence of cells that somehow cross the placental barrier is a fascinating oddity, but this doesn’t change the fact that we have two different organisms with their own bodies.

To say otherwise is equivalent to trying to draw some kind of distinction between theoretical human cloning and normal fertilization… or to say that life cannot begin at fertilization because twinning _may_ occur.  But these outliers and possibilities do not change the fundamentals - clones would still be human beings even if created through some artificial equivalent of fertilization, like Dolly the sheep.  Twins are an example where one contiguous organism became two identical ones due to the nature of the blastocyst’s cells being totipotent - the split just causes each portion to continue mitosis to generate sufficient cells to prepare each for implantation.

Science is full of interesting phenomena.

The placenta, a jointly made temporary organ, is a place of exchange which also serves as an imperfect biological firewall to prevent things like blood cells from crossing over, since fetal and maternal blood mixing can create dangerous reactions.

If we cast off cells and they survive through any means, it is difficult and really not appropriate to say that those cells are still part of our bodies.  If one goes to the sperm bank and donates, and they freeze the semen the cells that survive the initial process can live for like 15-50 years.  Are those cells still part of your body?  No, they are cast off.

Similarly, scientists can collect a tissue sample from you and put it in a Petri dish.  This tissue sample is not part of you anymore… nor is it its own human being.  Absent some kind of currently science fiction cloning process, that tissue is not going to ever be its own human being.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The presence of cells that somehow cross the placental barrier is a fascinating oddity, but this doesn’t change the fact that we have two different organisms with their own bodies.


NFBW: That is not what CPlus6 initially wrote as part of one of his absurd arguments and I called him out on it and he exploded into a wild rant.

He argues a ZEF was *never* a part of a woman’s body - all us born humans were *never* a part of a woman’s body. 

That is absurd.  And I have never argued otherwise and against the fact that we have two different organisms with their own bodies. 

So when Cplus6 slithers to you to gain a bit of credibility he has to lie about what my arguments have been. 

END2212121635


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Two separate live's no matter how you cut it once the life developmental stages begin


NFBW: I have always maintained that as of the moment of conception there are at least two separate lives involved. Both are human lives. One is viable during the first 24 weeks, one is not viable until after 24 weeks and has a right to life the same as the mother, except to save the life of the mother.    END2212121645


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Yeah I mean this is just basic biology.
> 
> The presence of cells that somehow cross the placental barrier is a fascinating oddity, but this doesn’t change the fact that we have two different organisms with their own bodies.
> 
> To say otherwise is equivalent to trying to draw some kind of distinction between theoretical human cloning and normal fertilization… or to say that life cannot begin at fertilization because twinning _may_ occur.  But these outliers and possibilities do not change the fundamentals - clones would still be human beings even if created through some artificial equivalent of fertilization, like Dolly the sheep.  Twins are an example where one contiguous organism became two identical ones due to the nature of the blastocyst’s cells being totipotent - the split just causes each portion to continue mitosis to generate sufficient cells to prepare each for implantation.
> 
> Science is full of interesting phenomena.
> 
> The placenta, a jointly made temporary organ, is a place of exchange which also serves as an imperfect biological firewall to prevent things like blood cells from crossing over, since fetal and maternal blood mixing can create dangerous reactions.
> 
> If we cast off cells and they survive through any means, it is difficult and really not appropriate to say that those cells are still part of our bodies.  If one goes to the sperm bank and donates, and they freeze the semen the cells that survive the initial process can live for like 15-50 years.  Are those cells still part of your body?  No, they are cast off.
> 
> Similarly, scientists can collect a tissue sample from you and put it in a Petri dish.  This tissue sample is not part of you anymore… nor is it its own human being.  Absent some kind of currently science fiction cloning process, that tissue is not going to ever be its own human being.


The miracle of life, and the CREATOR who is the author of it, is simply an amazing marveled after mystery for humans to treasure and behold. As you alluded too, that it is still unknown by man the astounding complexities involved in it all, so we study it, but mostly humbly respect it in hopes to understand what it is that we are truly dealing with.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> If we cast off cells and they survive through any means, it is difficult and really not appropriate to say that those cells are still part of our bodies.


What are they if fetal cells are not part of a mother’s body but still there decades later from the time in life when a fetus was a living organism and a full part of its mother’s body


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> The placenta, a jointly made temporary organ


Why is that temporary organ not a party of a pregnant woman’s body?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I have always maintained that as of the moment of conception there are at least two separate lives involved. Both are human lives. One is viable during the first 24 weeks, one is not viable until after 24 weeks and has a right to life the same as the mother, except to save the life of the mother.    END2212121645


So just go on and be pro-life then, that way you can live a much less stressful life not worrying about whether or not you might be wrong in your pro-abortionist stance in life, because you are wrong ya know. 

Can't ride the fence, because that's a no no in the Lord's eye's. Take a stand on the side of life.  You can't go wrong.

Let the woman take her stand on the issue, but if it violates the senses regarding civility and a disregard for human life, then regulatory action is to be taken against her as it should be, and this being in regards to the innocent child growing in her wombs "safety", otherwise noting that she is supposed to be task with a naturally occurring motherhood protection order, and this is in order to protect that life just as a good mother should protect her unborn babies life instead of aborting that life. 

Maybe we should consider the option of offering a reversible long term contraception to women that don't ever want the responsibility of carrying or having a child until much older in life ?  They probably have such a thing, but undoubtedly women aren't informed or the abuser's just don't give a shite about it.

Makes one wonder how many would seek that option before getting pregnant, otherwise where as wouldn't that be better than them attempting to just get rid of their unborn baby by way of abortion, where as if she uses abortion as a method of contraception instead of being responsible in her actions prior to any pregnancy taking place ?? 

Heck like I said, reversible long term contraception probably already exist, so why is that not being set up at these clinic's prior to a woman getting pregnant if that's what they desire to do is get pregnant and then get an abortion afterwards if they feel they have too ?? 

You got clinic's trying to change a female's gender (very stupid by the way), but you don't have clinic's specifically designed for educating women about the possible option of long term contraception being implanted in order to stop a pregnancy before it happens ? 

All of it just makes no sense to me.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> that's a no no in the Lord's eye's.


I believe in the US Constitution, not government of the Lord for the Lord and by the Lord and all the people who believe in the Lord. So your Lord has no power over two out of three Americans on wanting womenfolk having reproductive rights and not have rightwing Christian governments taking over control of they do with their bodies. If your religion forbids abortion don’t get one.









Your Version of Jesus is unAmerican and on the way out -  Your embrace if Trumpism was a huge mistake.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> I believe in the US Constitution, not government of the Lord for the Lord and by the Lord and all the people who believe in the Lord. So your Lord has no power over two out of three Americans on wanting womenfolk having reproductive rights and not have rightwing Christian governments taking over control of they do with their bodies. If your religion forbids abortion don’t get one.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 738176
> 
> 
> Your Version of Jesus is unAmerican and on the way out -  Your embrace if Trumpism was a huge mistake.


Your support of killing kids in the womb along with your support for every other nasty thing the Democrat's are into, doesn't have one damned thing to do with the constitution, the Lord Jesus, secularism with some kind of order involved, and anything that requires just down right being decent.

Go pound sand you wicked human being, oh wait did I refer to you as human ? My apologies to humans, especially those still in the womb.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Your support of killing kids in the womb


I do not support killing anybody in the womb. You must be confusing me with somebody else - I support keeping your Jesus nose out of women’s uteruses because you have not presented any evidence why your nose is in there.

 You don’t think women who get an abortion should be charged with murder so who knows what all your meddling is about except hate mongering ( see CarsomyrPlusSix ) for the right wing propaganda  machine. 

Choice will be back because the Catholics on SCOTUS said it’s up to the voters. I disagree because choice is a rights issue for born women. Kansas spoke , Michigan spoke / California spoke / new generations x who believe in freedom and reject hate will never vote Republican except the dumb ones.

You are in trouble Trumpism-wise good person beagle9  .


Non-Religious Voters Wield Clout, Lean Heavily Democratic

Voters with no religious affiliation supported Democratic candidates and abortion rights by staggering percentages in the 2022 midterm elections.   https://www.huffpost.com/entry/non-religious-voters-clout-lean-democratic_n_638c4077e4b06fdc9d8e53f


Nones now equal Catholics and more than half of Catholics vote Democrat. Black and Jewish people vote. Plenty of white people vote Dem.

When you associate with vile hate-infested stupid asshole like Cplus6 you bring Jesus down with him.





your future beagle9  -   Even in Kansas.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> I do not support killing anybody in the womb. You must be confusing me with somebody else - I support keeping your Jesus nose out of women’s uteruses because you have not presented any evidence why your nose is in there.
> 
> You don’t think women who get an abortion should be charged with murder so who knows what all your meddling is about except hate mongering ( see CarsomyrPlusSix ) for the right wing propaganda  machine.
> 
> Choice will be back because the Catholics on SCOTUS said it’s up to the voters. I disagree because choice is a rights issue for born women. Kansas spoke , Michigan spoke / California spoke / new generations x who believe in freedom and reject hate will never vote Republican except the dumb ones.
> 
> You are in trouble Trumpism-wise good person beagle9  .
> 
> 
> Non-Religious Voters Wield Clout, Lean Heavily Democratic
> 
> Voters with no religious affiliation supported Democratic candidates and abortion rights by staggering percentages in the 2022 midterm elections.   https://www.huffpost.com/entry/non-religious-voters-clout-lean-democratic_n_638c4077e4b06fdc9d8e53f
> 
> 
> Nones now equal Catholics and more than half of Catholics vote Democrat. Black and Jewish people vote. Plenty of white people vote Dem.
> 
> When you associate with vile hate-infested stupid asshole like Cplus6 you bring Jesus down with him.
> View attachment 738196
> 
> your future beagle9  -   Even in Kansas.


Came right out of the gate with a lie didn't you, because the rest of your ridiculous post proved you a liar. Your own words... ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣🤣

You making excuses to allow women to destroy their child while still in the womb, uhhhhh drum role please -  is you being ok with them taking the live's of their children while still in the womb....Duh !!

And get your nose out of my car trying to give me a seatbelt ticket when I'm the only one in my car driving it. Now if I were a woman that is pregnant, then that ticket would of course be justified.. Why you might ask ? Well obviously it's because then their would be two in my car instead of one. 

My responsibility would therefore be to protect the unborn baby (especially so with the location of the baby in consideration to the location of the steering wheel). 

Oh and if I hang out with cplus6, then I'm bringing Jesus down with me eh ? 

You mean the same Jesus you just said to keep my Jesus nose out of women's uteruses with, because you say we have no right to be in there, but here you are using Jesus as a weapon by telling me that I'm bringing Jesus down with me if I hang out with others here, otherwise as if you hold Jesus in high regard in that instance... ROTFLMBO 🤣 

You truly can't make your kind of dumb up, it has to be practiced for a while. lol


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Inchoate Dreams Escape Through Sophisticated Physical States To Cognitive Sense "

* Stochastic Cold Heart Of Adaptation To Available Options **


beagle9 said:


> Regardless it's the heart forming in which is creating a a human being at various stages, and to stop that process is a very cold hearted thing for a mother after knowing the process that is taking place in her body that is bringing forth a beautiful little miracle of a human life.


A formal proposition of tautology includes particular expectations .

For example , a strong anthropic principle may stipulate that a hue mammon exists because by empirical evidence the hue mammon is capable of asserting that the hue mammon exists , for if a hue mammon did not exist the hue mammon would not be capable of asserting that hue mammon exists .

A perspective from hue mammon would be that to satisfy a strong anthropic principle in perpetuity throughout eternity is an altruism .

*By predicament , nature does not stipulate the every instance of hue mammon be required to satisfy the tautology or altruism of a strong anthropic principle .

By empirical evidence , insistence that safeguard be given to every instance of hue mammon starting with conception to satisfy a strong anthropic principle is abated .*

A preface of self is that a capacity for cognizance includes an onset of mind , as in " Do you mind ? " , and empirical evidence demonstrated by scientific method indicates that cognizance is concomitant with the onset of sentience .

The onset of sentience , whereby a public might plea to represent a fetus by proxy , does not occur anywhere near 15 weeks , before which " without cause " abortions are sought .

Abortions after 15 weeks " with cause " are sought for anomalies of health and fitness either of the mother or the fetus .

An obsessively crazed girl friend would be mother conspiring to goad a gullible male into marriage , else determined to abort a + 15 week fetus is 100% pure fiction .

If some male feels that the private private property of its semen was taken unlawfully then the male should straight way file complaints of sexual assault and theft .

If a male seeks private prosecution to prevent a female from seeking an abortion after he was informed that she is pregnant and he may be the father , if sexual assault and theft charges have not been filed by the male to relieve him of child support , the male does not have a valid interest in whether the female decides to seek an abortion .

A 15 weeks demarcation between abortions " without cause " versus abortions " with cause " depends on access to and safety in those health services .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: transcript FORtheRECORD

beagle9221212-#6,380      Your support of killing kids in the womb

NFBW221212-#6,381    I do not support killing anybody in the womb.

Beagle9221213-#6,382     Came right out of the gate with a lie didn't you, because . . . . .
Beagle9221213-#6,382  . . . . You making excuses to allow women to destroy their child while still in the womb . .  .  . Beagle9221213-#6,382 *partiii*. . is you being ok with them taking the live's of their children while still in the womb..

NFBW: You have revised the accusatory language beagle9 of your public fallacy in Post #6380 to much more truthful language in Post #6382 partiii. Such is the progress I believe I can make in your conversion to truth.

When you need to tell me beagle9 what I support, could you please save the following declaration of what I support and when making accusations and trying to shame can you make certain your accusations match this:

“I say and approve of abortion only when non-viable human fetuses are being aborted.”​
“I as a civilization loving human being and as a law-abiding US citizen, I ABSOLUTELY support a women’s right to terminate her pregnancy and have it done in a safe medical professional facility or using safe medical pharmaceuticals under supervision of her doctor. One factor in my conclusion is that viability is the moral line that separates the intentional stopping of a fetal heartbeat from being the mother’s prerogative to being homicide. Once past the viability of the fetus with which she shares her body, she loses her prerogative to terminate her pregnancy. It is too late”  NFBW221211-#6,314​​If you were honest beagle9 you will recognize that I emphatically am not ok with with women taking the live's of their *potentially viable children* while still in the womb which is roughly 24 weeks after conception.

beagle920810-#4,612  No one wants to prosecute any of these mis-led women for past or recent abortion's, and basically calling them murderers, only that they just stop the deplorable action and realize that they are actually ending their babies life in which if doing so or wanting to do so without a medical or without a damned good reasoning for it, uhhhh should come with stern consequences, but not with actual murder charges placed upon the woman who was undoubtedly duped or brainwashed over the year's gone by in order to do such a thing, and then somehow think it is right”

beagle9221204-#6,153 I think that brainwashed mental people who commit acts based on false teachings shouldn't be prosecuted for murder

NFBW: As you can see beagle9 your arguments against me are unfounded because your arguments are based on lies and half-truths about my positions. An example of that is that I support killing babies in the womb because I hate the unborn or I hate babies. Not true in any context.

Another major problem you have is a scientific/political problem. It is a deadly flaw in the entire anti-choice belief system which is why #ding and #Cplus6 ran away.

It is the lack of having certain scientific truth whereby you have asserted your individual mature human will to direct or impose limitations on pregnant women’s freedoms by authoritative order that a specific political public adopt *with no evidence *a universal plea to represent a fetus by proxy based entirely on a superstition that an early in pregnancy fetus has capability, desire and will to have its development toward birth uninterrupted by the person in control of the physical human being’s body said fetus needs to survive to achieve natural birth.

On top of your lack of any scientific evidence to anoint yourself spokesperson by proxy for a four to twenty week old embryo or fetus you have expressed your opinion that No one wants to prosecute a woman who terminates her own pregnancy for homicide.

Your have aborted your own argument beagle9  by declining to prosecute an intentional murder of a fetus. However you say against yourself that an innocent pregnant woman, although being innocent of committing murder, that very same women shouldn’t have access to safe medical procedures that would prevent harm to that woman.

END2212131112


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

^ oh look the lying piece of shit continues to lie


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^ oh look the lying piece of shit continues to lie


NFBW: Cplus6 (atheist) and beagle9 (fundagelical Protestant version) were doing  their unique irrational-speak circle jerk as follows and prior to the above.

Cplus6221212-#6,369  “I’m done with this dogshit NotfooledbyW and I encourage everyone else to ignore him too”​​beagle9221212-#6,370   Can't blame ya, he has struck me wrong also, especially when he becomes desperate to make his points... LOL. He really goes stupid then​​NFBW: So JoeB131  I did a little research to find out why the fundagelical tells the atheist that we are two peas in a pod.

I found a couple of your quotes and decided to bump them here because it looks like what we have in common, and they don’t have at all,  is a desire for rational thought being a necessity during a discussion and respect for truth and objective observable facts.

Terri4T191221-#186  Terri4Trump   Thats right, assfuck. In other words, the law must recognize the scientific FACT of human life​​JoeB131191221-#191    Except the Science doesn't say an embryo is a person...​​JoeB131191221-#191   As a practical matter, once you cross that threshold, every Tampon becomes a potential crime scene​​JoeB131220505-#1  We are on the cusp of abortion being outlawed in most of the country, and the issue once again being thrust on the national scene because of a single Supreme court ruling.​​JoeB131220505-#1 The average abortion is performed in the first 12 weeks on a person who engaged in consensual sex with a man who wasn't good father material, and contraception failed or wasn't used in the heat of the moment.​​NFBW: The anti-abortion crowd for some reason demand that we accept what they call DNA science that proves human life (with a human right to life begins at conception  No science pinpoints the exact exact stage of  development when human life begins.​​END2212140336​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^ oh look the lying piece of shit continues to lie


NFBW: “I say and approve of abortion only when non-viable human fetuses are being aborted.”

“I as a civilization loving human being and as a law-abiding US citizen, I ABSOLUTELY support a women’s right to terminate her pregnancy and have it done in a safe medical professional facility or using safe medical pharmaceuticals under supervision of her doctor. One factor in my conclusion is that viability is the moral line that separates the intentional stopping of a fetal heartbeat from being the mother’s prerogative to being homicide. Once past the viability of the fetus with which she shares her body, she loses her prerogative to terminate her pregnancy. It is too late” NFBW221211-#6,314​
NFBW: beagle9 demonstrates that he can be a rational fundagelical at times when he agrees with me and all rational people who do not regard the termination of pregnancy to be murder of an unborn innocent child: 

beagle920810-#4,612 No one wants to prosecute any of these mis-led women for past or recent abortion's, and basically calling them murderers, only that they just stop the deplorable action and realize that they are actually ending their babies life in which if doing so or wanting to do so without a medical or without a damned good reasoning for it, uhhhh should come with stern consequences, but not with actual murder charges placed upon the woman who was undoubtedly duped or brainwashed over the year's gone by in order to do such a thing, and then somehow think it is right”​​beagle9221204-#6,153 I think that brainwashed mental people who commit acts based on false teachings shouldn't be prosecuted for murder​
NFBW: So no lie there Cplus6. What lie on my part do you have convicted in that atheist mind if yours? 

END2212140801


----------



## Deplorable Yankee




----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^ oh look the lying piece of shit continues to lie


NFBW: I can see where #ding gets the idea that a religious majority has the right to pass laws that restrict the rights of those who do not share identical religious beliefs with him. *The Lord and Savior over original sin stuff is truth because a lotta people believe it to be true and that makes it true*

Ding221213-#207   If you are going to take a jab at *my Lord and Savior - who over a billion people worship along with the Father and Holy Spirit *- I’m going to make fun of your made up theology which has more holes than Swiss cheese.​
NFBW: So I see where #ding gets his Biblical  unscientific support for authoritarian government depriving women of reproductive rights by virtue of a Catholic dominated SCOTUS , but Jesus H. Christ (that’s Jesus Humanist Christ) I have no idea where atheist Cplus6 gets his extremist god/centric authoritarianism against women from?

Hope  to find out some day.

END2212140901


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^ oh look the lying piece of shit continues to lie


You caught that hypocrisy as well eh ? He's eat up with it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> You caught that hypocrisy as well eh ? He's eat up with it.


What hypocrisy?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> What hypocrisy?


I ain't going to dissect your post for you, especially when you ain't doing nothing but playing dumb like a fox when you are caught in your hypocritical bull crap. Go pound sand.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> I ain't going to dissect your post for you, especially when you ain't doing nothing but playing dumb like a fox when you are caught in your hypocritical bull crap. Go pound sand.


Basically he’s prevaricating based on his nonsensical fake semantics, his euphemisms, and his weird fixations.

He does this in a noxiously repetitive and long winded and poorly edited, incomprehensible scrawl and then berates others to reply to pointed loaded questions that often have little or nothing to do with the conversation at hand, or demand others accept his euphemisms, or make yet another rant against religion and the religious.

He will say a thing and deny the very same thing was ever said in his next post.

It is beyond toxic.


----------



## BackAgain

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> ^ oh look the lying piece of shit continues to lie


And babble.


----------



## beagle9

BackAgain said:


> And babble.


He's a slick one.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> I ain't going to dissect your post for you


You don’t have to. Just define what you think is my hypocrisy. That’s all.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> You don’t have to. Just define what you think is my hypocrisy. That’s all.


You know what it is, I haven't got to tell you, so you love to play word games huh. I read your responses to mine, and then I see your twisted angle's used, but of COURSE you are just so dumb and naive that you just can't figure out what you do when you do it, but I don't buy that bull crap for a second. 

We've all seen it in action, otherwise when we go here, then you go there, and then we go here again, then you go there again, otherwise like JoeB you got an excuse for anything......Other posters here have called you out on the same tactics you use, but then right on que you fain ignorance when convenient of course.

The problem with this format, is the original accounting of what people say needs to hold regardless of the edits done, because if the time for editing isn't up, then a person can easily go back and erase what they said or change it.

I'm going forward, now if you are done on the topic then say so or either state your newest position so we all can once again rebuttal them if need be ..


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221214-#6,397   Other posters here have called you out on the same tactics you use, but then right on que you fain ignorance when convenient of course.

NFBW: Suffice it to say you beagle9 have no idea when you complain that I use “twisted angle's” whatever the fuck a twisted angle might be. What I use is truth and consistency of reasonable and rational thought.

You need to understand that other posters like #ding and BackAgain are liars. I have to assume it is #ding and BackAgain you refer to because they go back the longest in my encounters in this thread.

I have never wavered from my conviction:

“I say and approve of abortion only when non-viable human fetuses are being aborted.”   . . . .  .  “I as a civilization loving human being and as a law-abiding US citizen, I ABSOLUTELY support a women’s right to terminate her pregnancy and have it done in a safe medical professional facility or using safe medical pharmaceuticals under supervision of her doctor. One factor in my conclusion is that viability is the moral line that separates the intentional stopping of a fetal heartbeat from being the mother’s prerogative to being homicide. Once past the viability of the fetus with which she shares her body, she loses her prerogative to terminate her pregnancy. It is too late” NFBW221211-#6,314​
NFBW: You can see by the following early excerpts that I have never used “twisted angles” in my writing. Telling the truth is not a twisted angle.

NFBW220727-#3,949   I apply RPGeorge’s definition “immature -- human organism” as a fair and scientific definition of the developing human in the womb of every pregnant woman to which I argue the immature human organism, when it depends on receiving oxygenated blood from the living breathing fully developed human being that carries it, may be terminated because the would be mother has a right in good conscience to decide what happens to her health, and pursuit of her mental and economic well being as a citizen of the United States of America under the protection of the Constitution. The immature fetus prior to ability of viable separation from its mother has rights secondary and subordinate to its breathing and nourishment source - The pregant woman.


ding-#3,792 3,911 #121

NFBW #3,917 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.”

NFBW220729-#3,601 BackAgain joins the fray    . . . .   “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
BackAgain-#3,594 “Wrong. What it guarantees is the right to life”

NFBW220729-#3,601    It guarantees the right to life to the born. You already acknowledged that fact. it only mentions born.

BackAgain #2,434 “Yes. It does mention born. But it doesn’t say that the preborn are, on such a flimsy basis, denied the right to life.”

NFBW220729-#3,601   The Constitution does not say that a living human zygote inside a woman’s body has a right to continue developing if the woman does not want it. Nor does the Constitution say that terminating a living human zygote is homicide.    . . . . .   So why do you keep making shit up about what the Constitution says?


END2212150310


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221214-#6,397   Other posters here have called you out on the same tactics you use, but then right on que you fain ignorance when convenient of course.
> 
> NFBW: Suffice it to say you beagle9 have no idea when you complain that I use “twisted angle's” whatever the fuck a twisted angle might be. What I use is truth and consistency of reasonable and rational thought.
> 
> You need to understand that other posters like #ding and BackAgain are liars. I have to assume it is #ding and BackAgain you refer to because they go back the longest in my encounters in this thread.
> 
> I have never wavered from my conviction:
> 
> “I say and approve of abortion only when non-viable human fetuses are being aborted.”   . . . .  .  “I as a civilization loving human being and as a law-abiding US citizen, I ABSOLUTELY support a women’s right to terminate her pregnancy and have it done in a safe medical professional facility or using safe medical pharmaceuticals under supervision of her doctor. One factor in my conclusion is that viability is the moral line that separates the intentional stopping of a fetal heartbeat from being the mother’s prerogative to being homicide. Once past the viability of the fetus with which she shares her body, she loses her prerogative to terminate her pregnancy. It is too late” NFBW221211-#6,314​
> NFBW: You can see by the following early excerpts that I have never used “twisted angles” in my writing. Telling the truth is not a twisted angle.
> 
> NFBW220727-#3,949   I apply RPGeorge’s definition “immature -- human organism” as a fair and scientific definition of the developing human in the womb of every pregnant woman to which I argue the immature human organism, when it depends on receiving oxygenated blood from the living breathing fully developed human being that carries it, may be terminated because the would be mother has a right in good conscience to decide what happens to her health, and pursuit of her mental and economic well being as a citizen of the United States of America under the protection of the Constitution. The immature fetus prior to ability of viable separation from its mother has rights secondary and subordinate to its breathing and nourishment source - The pregant woman.
> 
> 
> ding-#3,792 3,911 #121
> 
> NFBW #3,917 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.”
> 
> NFBW220729-#3,601 BackAgain joins the fray    . . . .   “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
> BackAgain-#3,594 “Wrong. What it guarantees is the right to life”
> 
> NFBW220729-#3,601    It guarantees the right to life to the born. You already acknowledged that fact. it only mentions born.
> 
> BackAgain #2,434 “Yes. It does mention born. But it doesn’t say that the preborn are, on such a flimsy basis, denied the right to life.”
> 
> NFBW220729-#3,601   The Constitution does not say that a living human zygote inside a woman’s body has a right to continue developing if the woman does not want it. Nor does the Constitution say that terminating a living human zygote is homicide.    . . . . .   So why do you keep making shit up about what the Constitution says?
> 
> 
> END2212150310


1st thing is, is that you arbitrarily define what YOU THINK is the line between non-viable to being viable, but you really don't know as ding has confronted you on the point successfully many times. In fact it's still not certain with you, because I've watched you wavering on the point badly, and then struggling with it, and yet you still try to act as if you are some sort of authority on it.

Other thing is that the constitution was written by men who were not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and if they were then the amendments and such throughout time wouldn't have had to be done, otherwise it's a fluid document that remains in progress.

God's higher authority is what we are ultimately to go by, because God is perfect, and we can't go wrong following him and his eternal wisdom that he has since given on to us. Following man and his fallen wisdom is folly. It is why we struggle so like we do, because man wants to be God to other men, but we are to be watchful of such evilness and goings on.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221215-#6,399      1st thing is, is that you arbitrarily define what YOU THINK is the line between non-viable to being viable, but you really don't know as ding has confronted you on the point successfully many times.

NFBW: The great thing about you beagle9 is as a Christian you are thirsty for material truth. The truth is ding has never confronted me on viability, not once. I can pull the records very easily. #ding has ordered me to not discuss viability as if he and CarsomyrPlusSix have some authority to disallow the most damming reality that reduces #ding’s and #Cplus6’s arguments to a pile of absurdities on top of a fallacy.

For your quest for material truth beagle9 ; there are four major biological and necessary milestones in the full development of the human organism on the lifespan continuum and you must agree with science here. I am but the messenger.

The fourth (death) can occur at any instant following the first and most important milestone (conception) . I hope you agree with me thus far.

Between birth and death there’s (2) viability and (3) first breath, being born , childbirth which during a normal delivery viability and first breath can occur simultaneously with viability potential.

First breath for most souls and especially for long living old souls is generally the most celebrated lifespan event in every human culture. Conception and viability are ignored but we know they are critical points in every human life.

Conception has had no or very little legal standing on the secular jurisprudence side of human civil society since humans began organizing into tribes states nation and empires ever since the First Battle at Olduvai Gorge.

Viability has had precedence in old common law so it has absolutely everything to do with the topic of this thread. It is referred to as *quickening* and the fetus was referred to as a *quickchild*.

So why do ding anf CarsomyrPlusSix forbid me from bringing it up here.

END2212150903


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Viability is a meaningless and arbitrary standard that changes as technology changes.  Before neonatal ICUs and their machines existed, viability was _the kid better be full-term or they’re probably dead._

The fucktard above has never addressed this fact, and it has been pointed out to him countless times.  He is a gutless coward and a habitual liar - truth and consistency are deathly allergies to this person.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221215-#6,401  Viability is a meaningless and arbitrary standard that changes as technology changes.

NFBW: Fetal viability is not a standard.
Viability is in each fetal individual as one exact DNA programmed point/moment on the lifetime continuum at which there is a reasonable probability that a fetus could survive ex utero with normal life expectancy when provided with realistic care that has become available to medical professionals with the appropriate provision of intensive care.

The fact of viability being an actual moment in the development in the womb, of a fetus, is the point I make. Out of the context of a supernatural anthropomorphic, being in the sky, creating a human being at conception, and by using only the laws of nature and an approximate time when it is known that viability possibly can take place, viability can best be used to settle the point in a civil society at which approximate moment the fetus becomes deserving of the exact same protection as the  ‘living being’ that would become its birthmother or adoptive parent.

Therefore in a strictly secular sense and legal framework viability is a relevant consideration in the regulation of abortion, coming to fruition as a form of political compromise that has been said,  ‘a plain reality and a non-controversial development stage that any reasonable person would acknowledge’.

The logic being that ‘once the fetus is viable, its status as a full-human being seems to be a self-evident truth. The viable fetus no longer needs to become a full-human being; it is ready to begin to live an independent life’.16 It therefore, seemingly, presents a position based on an exercise of logic, but that also allows pregnant people the chance to access abortion care up to a certain point, after which the fetus is ‘entitled’ to certain protections.​​







						Is ‘viability’ viable? Abortion, conceptual confusion and the law in England and Wales and the United States
					

Abstract. In this paper, I explore how viability, meaning the ability of the fetus to survive post-delivery, features in the law regulating abortion provision i




					academic.oup.com
				



Lavi explains that this is because the concept is often presented as a ‘plain reality and a non-controversial development stage that any reasonable person would acknowledge’.15 The logic being that ‘once the fetus is viable, its status as a full-human being seems to be a self-evident truth. The viable fetus no longer needs to become a full-human being; it is ready to begin to live an independent life’.16 It therefore, seemingly, presents a position based on an exercise of logic, but that also allows pregnant people the chance to access abortion care up to a certain point, after which the fetus is ‘entitled’ to certain protections. Later in this paper, I will review the significant criticism that is deployed against viability as a morally significant moment in fetal development and criticize the extent to which viability can be understood as a compromise in abortion regulation.​​NFBW: I understand why some Catholics cannot accept compromise on viability mentioned above. I think I can say it is true that an atheist such as yourself, C+six has to have another agenda for not taking the compromise. That is so you can call your ideological and political enemies, all sorts of vile, and civil indecent, rotten sort of things, even when they’re opposed to abortion personally, but respect the pregnant woman’s right to make her own decision. viability matters and you cannot make viability go away because you openly express so much hate against those who don’t agree with you on everything.

END2212151253


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221215-#6,399      1st thing is, is that you arbitrarily define what YOU THINK is the line between non-viable to being viable, but you really don't know as ding has confronted you on the point successfully many times.
> 
> NFBW: The great thing about you beagle9 is as a Christian you are thirsty for material truth. The truth is ding has never confronted me on viability, not once. I can pull the records very easily. #ding has ordered me to not discuss viability as if he and CarsomyrPlusSix have some authority to disallow the most damming reality that reduces #ding’s and #Cplus6’s arguments to a pile of absurdities on top of a fallacy.
> 
> For your quest for material truth beagle9 ; there are four major biological and necessary milestones in the full development of the human organism on the lifespan continuum and you must agree with science here. I am but the messenger.
> 
> The fourth (death) can occur at any instant following the first and most important milestone (conception) . I hope you agree with me thus far.
> 
> Between birth and death there’s (2) viability and (3) first breath, being born , childbirth which during a normal delivery viability and first breath can occur simultaneously with viability potential.
> 
> First breath for most souls and especially for long living old souls is generally the most celebrated lifespan event in every human culture. Conception and viability are ignored but we know they are critical points in every human life.
> 
> Conception has had no or very little legal standing on the secular jurisprudence side of human civil society since humans began organizing into tribes states nation and empires ever since the First Battle at Olduvai Gorge.
> 
> Viability has had precedence in old common law so it has absolutely everything to do with the topic of this thread. It is referred to as *quickening* and the fetus was referred to as a *quickchild*.
> 
> So why do ding anf CarsomyrPlusSix forbid me from bringing it up here.
> 
> END2212150903


As technological advances have come, it has revealed to us the many things not known before now about the pregnancy, so you're going back to bringing up or your usage of old term's or terminology is quite interesting, otherwise seeing that you act as if you are this guru on the issue. Maybe you can quote some medical terms or terminology from the middle or dark ages for us, and just add that to your struggle here.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> As technological advances have come, it has revealed to us the many things not known before now about the pregnancy, so you're going back to bringing up or your usage of old term's or terminology is quite interesting, otherwise seeing that you act as if you are this guru on the issue. Maybe you can quote some medical terms or terminology from the middle or dark ages for us, and just add that to your struggle here.


The main thing is, government needs to monitor procreation.

Biggest brother ever.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221215-#6,401  Viability is a meaningless and arbitrary standard that changes as technology changes.
> 
> NFBW: Fetal viability is not a standard.
> Viability is in each fetal individual as one exact DNA programmed point/moment on the lifetime continuum at which there is a reasonable probability that a fetus could survive ex utero with normal life expectancy when provided with realistic care that has become available to medical professionals with the appropriate provision of intensive care.
> 
> The fact of viability being an actual moment in the development in the womb, of a fetus, is the point I make. Out of the context of a supernatural anthropomorphic, being in the sky, creating a human being at conception, and by using only the laws of nature and an approximate time when it is known that viability possibly can take place, viability can best be used to settle the point in a civil society at which approximate moment the fetus becomes deserving of the exact same protection as the  ‘living being’ that would become its birthmother or adoptive parent.
> 
> Therefore in a strictly secular sense and legal framework viability is a relevant consideration in the regulation of abortion, coming to fruition as a form of political compromise that has been said,  ‘a plain reality and a non-controversial development stage that any reasonable person would acknowledge’.
> 
> The logic being that ‘once the fetus is viable, its status as a full-human being seems to be a self-evident truth. The viable fetus no longer needs to become a full-human being; it is ready to begin to live an independent life’.16 It therefore, seemingly, presents a position based on an exercise of logic, but that also allows pregnant people the chance to access abortion care up to a certain point, after which the fetus is ‘entitled’ to certain protections.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is ‘viability’ viable? Abortion, conceptual confusion and the law in England and Wales and the United States
> 
> 
> Abstract. In this paper, I explore how viability, meaning the ability of the fetus to survive post-delivery, features in the law regulating abortion provision i
> 
> 
> 
> 
> academic.oup.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lavi explains that this is because the concept is often presented as a ‘plain reality and a non-controversial development stage that any reasonable person would acknowledge’.15 The logic being that ‘once the fetus is viable, its status as a full-human being seems to be a self-evident truth. The viable fetus no longer needs to become a full-human being; it is ready to begin to live an independent life’.16 It therefore, seemingly, presents a position based on an exercise of logic, but that also allows pregnant people the chance to access abortion care up to a certain point, after which the fetus is ‘entitled’ to certain protections. Later in this paper, I will review the significant criticism that is deployed against viability as a morally significant moment in fetal development and criticize the extent to which viability can be understood as a compromise in abortion regulation.​​NFBW: I understand why some Catholics cannot accept compromise on viability mentioned above. I think I can say it is true that an atheist such as yourself, C+six has to have another agenda for not taking the compromise. That is so you can call your ideological and political enemies, all sorts of vile, and civil indecent, rotten sort of things, even when they’re opposed to abortion personally, but respect the pregnant woman’s right to make her own decision. viability matters and you cannot make viability go away because you openly express so much hate against those who don’t agree with you on everything.
> 
> END2212151253


Bottom line is why would any mother want to abort her baby ? Yes, it became trendy just like every other dark and disgusting trend has since raised it's ugly head in SOCIETY now, so I'm guessing that female pregnancy was just another target of the demon's to destroy, and they are have been successful at it too. Not only have they destroyed the holiness of pregnancy, but they've brainwashed an army of minion's to defend the act. 

Ok, I'm not saying that you are defending abortion, because it seems that in your mind you aren't, but to us when you just give blanket autonomy to the mother in order to abort her baby without proper reasoning, otherwise to be based on her supposed privacy and freedom to do so, and then we see the results of that freedom or privacy to do so, then we become appalled at what we see, and therefore give horrid witness too.

You can't sit there and say that women aren't abusing their freedom and privacy when they choose to do something heinous as aborting her child without proper medical emergency in which certainly would allow for her to do so.

Think about all the clinic's that spring up around this COUNTRY, but abortion isn't a profit driven business ?


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> The main thing is, government needs to monitor procreation.
> 
> Biggest brother ever.


No, just not promote/condone/finance at any level the acts that individual's decide to do with themselves in life, but certainly have laws that regulate the heinous activities of those who are violating themselves based upon lie's and propaganda in which makes them think that it's ok to do bad things to themselves and their unborn children.

It's called being CIVILIZED.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> No, just not promote/condone/finance at any level the acts that individual's decide to do with themselves in life, but certainly have laws that regulate the heinous activities of those who are violating themselves based upon lie's and propaganda in which makes them think that it's ok to do bad things to themselves and their unborn children.
> 
> It's called being CIVILIZED.


The thing that seperates libertarians, from so-called limited government Republicans, is exactly this: we recognize that government and laws can prevent all evil, can't prevent most evil in fact, and in most cases, shouldn't try.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> The thing that seperates libertarians, from so-called limited government Republicans, is exactly this: we recognize that government and laws can prevent all evil, can't prevent most evil in fact, and in most cases, shouldn't try.


Shouldn't try ? Hmmmm, if evil shows it face before you, then you do nothing to protect yourself or other's from that evil ?? Otherwise even if you have the power and means to do so ??

If an evil person comes on my property or anywhere for that matter, in which me and my family might be at any given time, and that evil attempt's to physically hurt us, then I probably would be forced to take severe action against that evil, otherwise before it can take action against us after it makes it's move or if it shows it's hand while attempting to make that move.

Now in the case of a woman who has been led to believe that to just dispose of her unborn baby by aborting the pregnancy without good reason, is well a little different than what I described above in the case of self defence...So what has to happen in her case, is a slow but gradual rehabilitation in her thinking in order to stop the attroccius act by helping her to understand that abortion is not the answer to her problems in life, but rather it is that she has been mentally conditioned to think that it is the quick answer to what she thinks is a problem, but it's not.

We have to rehabilitate SOCIETY, and therefore back it back down from the edge of the cliff in which it has been fooled to just hap hazzardly walk out on.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> Shouldn't try ? Hmmmm, if evil shows it face before you, then you do nothing to protect yourself or other's from that evil ?? Otherwise even if you have the power and means to do so ??


I didn't say nothing could be done. Just that, in most cases, government is not the right tool for the job. We can solve social problems without coercion.



> We have to rehabilitate SOCIETY, and therefore back it back down from the edge of the cliff in which it has been fooled to just hap hazzardly walk out on.


This. Exactly this. Government isn't there to shape society. But, sadly, both duopoly parties are all-in on "social engineering". They just have a different plan for society.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

dblack said:


> The thing that seperates libertarians, from so-called limited government Republicans, is exactly this: we recognize that government and laws can prevent all evil, can't prevent most evil in fact, and in most cases, shouldn't try.


If you support the legality of aggressive violence against innocent human beings, you aren’t a libertarian.

This is homicide - this isn’t a mere personal vice like drinking or smoking, or an area where the nanny state is protecting you from yourself like making you wear a seatbelt or something.

We’re talking about whether or not the state should prevent or punish needless aggressive violence.  Libertarians believe in non-aggression, period.

And if you don’t think the state should do that, then you don’t want any state at all, but even in an anarchocapitalist civilization people would want an entity to prevent or punish violence anyway.


----------



## dblack

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> If you support the legality of aggressive violence against innocent human beings, you aren’t a libertarian.


If you support government intrusion into another person's body - violating the most fundamental right imaginable - you have no idea what libertarian means.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

dblack said:


> If you support government intrusion into another person's body - violating the most fundamental right imaginable - you have no idea what libertarian means.


Yeah, no.

The kid’s body isn’t the mother’s body.  Telling a mom not to kill her kid isn’t any kind of “intrusion.”  You’re _ridiculous_.

The most fundamental right is the human right to life.

You support violence against innocent human beings - you support aggression, which is obviously a flagrant violation of the NAP.

I’m a libertarian.

*You are a fraud.*


----------



## dblack

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Yeah, no.
> 
> The kid’s body isn’t the mother’s body.  Telling a mom not to kill her kid isn’t any kind of “intrusion.”  You’re _ridiculous_.
> 
> The most fundamental right is the human right to life.
> 
> You support violence against innocent human beings - you support aggression, which is obviously a flagrant violation of the NAP.
> 
> I’m a libertarian.
> 
> *You are a fraud.*


You can call yourself anything you want. As long is it's clear that your version of "liberty" has no resemblance to mine. You guys literally want the government up your ass. No thanks.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

dblack said:


> You can call yourself anything you want. As long is it's clear that your version of "liberty" has no resemblance to mine. You guys literally want the government up your ass. No thanks.


Yeah, you’re kind of whackadoo if you think that laws against doing needless violence to your fellow man is “the government up your ass.”

You want anarchy.


----------



## dblack

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You want anarchy.


Nope. Just don't think government has valid jurisdiction, or a compelling interest, when it comes to the contents of my body. No matter what YOU think is in there.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

dblack said:


> Nope. Just don't think government has valid jurisdiction, or a compelling interest, when it comes to the contents of my body. No matter what YOU think is in there.


Government’s job is to protect human rights against aggression, within their jurisdiction.

If you live in that jurisdiction, say the state, or ideally after Constitutional Amendment the country, it is totally valid for that government to prevent you from attacking other human beings and / or punish you for doing so.

This affirms and protects human rights and provides justice for the victims of that violence.

You don’t even want the minimal nightwatchman state to protect life from attack - that means you are an anarchist.


----------



## dblack

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Government’s job is to protect human rights against aggression, within their jurisdiction.
> 
> If you live in that jurisdiction, say the state, or ideally after Constitutional Amendment the country, it is totally valid for that government to prevent you from attacking other human beings and / or punish you for doing so.
> 
> This affirms and protects human rights and provides justice for the victims of that violence.
> 
> You don’t even want the minimal nightwatchman state to protect life from attack - that means you are an anarchist.


You're not listening. I don't give a fuck what you think is in my body - it's just none of your business. Buzz off.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

dblack said:


> You're not listening. I don't give a fuck what you think is in my body - it's just none of your business. Buzz off.



I’m hearing, I’m listening, but the words you are saying are incoherent noise.

A kid is not his or her mom.
A kid is not the property of his or her mom.  

I don’t give a fuck if you think you should be allowed to kill kids and get away with it - you should be stopped from killing kids.

As a human being, protecting the lives of other human beings against violence is very much my business.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> I didn't say nothing could be done. Just that, in most cases, government is not the right tool for the job. We can solve social problems without coercion.
> 
> 
> This. Exactly this. Government isn't there to shape society. But, sadly, both duopoly parties are all-in on "social engineering". They just have a different plan for society.


Well without government being run by the RIGHT PEOPLE (key), then how would you suggest that we undo the bull crap that government run by the WRONG PEOPLE has screwed up so bad ???

The government structure that has been built by the people, and sports a constitution with all the sides for the people, and drum role please, is being run by the right people (key), can do marvelous fantastic things in regards to it's charter laid out for the benefiting of the nation and it's citizen's.

The problem has come where the wrong people have occupied our government, and it has turned the good people against government because it's power is being misused against the citizen's in the wrongful usage of it.

We must not give up on gaining government back, and then cleaning it up for the good of the nation, but I might be dreaming now.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> If you support government intrusion into another person's body - violating the most fundamental right imaginable - you have no idea what libertarian means.


The intrusion only comes because a person is seeking to have a ghoulish doctor of some sorts, to then reach into her body in order to pluck a little unborn child from her womb in what appears to be a terrible process, and all because she decides for some possible unfounded reason that she just don't want the child anymore ?? Regulating the purposes in which qualify a person to receive the medical procedure is absolutely necessary, and it is because of the abuse that is apparently involved in it. 

Giving people enough rope to hang themselves is not appropriate, especially if their bad tendencies are being found prevalent in such a thing in which causes them to abuse another (kill their unborn for example)..

Doctor's performing abortions anywhere, best have damned good reasoning for doing so (medical emergency or crippling life threatening deformity that is a positive diagnosis of the child not living beyond the womb if born, otherwise as is determined by a medical professional), or be fined huge fines for aborting healthy children because a woman decides to just throw a human being in the trash because she got scared.


----------



## dblack

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> I’m hearing, I’m listening, but the words you are saying are incoherent noise.


Because you're preoccupied with telling others how to live. Very "libertarian" of you.

Keep your nose out of other people's crotches.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

dblack said:


> Because you're preoccupied with telling others how to live.


Again... if you consider it some kind of unconscionable encroachment for government to tell you not to kill other human beings, if you feel like that is telling you how to live, then you are the sort of scumbag that governments need to exist to stop.

Violent douchebags like you are why we have to have police and soldiers and courts and taxes.

A libertarian wants these things kept to a minimum; you just want to be able to do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want.


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> Because you're preoccupied with telling others how to live. Very "libertarian" of you.
> 
> Keep your nose out of other people's crotches.


Depends on what they are doing with their crotches right ?? The crotch can be a deadly weapon.. 😂.. Might be one of the deadliest of them all...Might be why crotches have to be regulated (open prostitution being illegal). ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣.

Hey and that's just on crotches alone, but then when a baby begins to form due to the use of a crotch whether wrongfully used or rightfully used by a female, (and next the baby is allowed to begin development in the womb), well ok that womb should become a safe haven for that baby until it is birthed by the woman who was tasked with the overseeing of the safety for that tiny developing human being for hopefully 9 healthy months right ??

Like I said before, a woman should have to qualify her reasoning for not wanting to carry her pregnancy out before a medical board, and then the lead medical doctor on the board should either accept or deny the reasoning strictly along medical emergency lines before giving her a green light. The medical field doesn't need to be used as hit men or women that will destroy a pregnancy on a whim just because a mother to be gets cold feet for a second or two.


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Again... if you consider it some kind of unconscionable encroachment for government to tell you not to kill other human beings, if you feel like that is telling you how to live, then you are the sort of scumbag that governments need to exist to stop.
> 
> Violent douchebags like you are why we have to have police and soldiers and courts and taxes.
> 
> A libertarian wants these things kept to a minimum; you just want to be able to do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want.


Good debate going.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221215-#6,419      Well without government being run by the RIGHT PEOPLE.

NFBW: You are not “right people” in America. You don’t get to decide you have a monopoly on rightness. You accept as a matter of your religion that all mankind are born into original sin but you are the right kind of sinner because you are saved, right? 

You believe JESUS died on the cross to save you. America is not a Christian nation and it never was.  Five of our six first presidents did not believe in original sin and they did not  believe Jesus was crucified on the cross to save them from burning in hell. They were not saved in the way that you are beagle9 , so I must conclude that in your mind America’s first generation of presidents were wrong people in charge of government. 

They did not include the unborn in the Constitution from the very start. Were they wrong people to you. 

END2212152138


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221215-#6,419      Well without government being run by the RIGHT PEOPLE.
> 
> NFBW: You are not “right people” in America. You don’t get to decide you have a monopoly on rightness. You accept as a matter of your religion that all mankind are born into original sin but you are the right kind of sinner because you are saved, right?
> 
> You believe JESUS died on the cross to save you. America is not a Christian nation and it never was.  Five of our six first presidents did not believe in original sin and they did not  believe Jesus was crucified on the cross to save them from burning in hell. They were not saved in the way that you are beagle9 , so I must conclude that in your mind America’s first generation of presidents were wrong people in charge of government.
> 
> They did not include the unborn in the Constitution from the very start. Were they wrong people to you.
> 
> END2212152138


Look, you might think to yourself that Christian's aren't the right people to run or help to run something, but it should always be put to the vote, and if the Christian wins the vote, then all I can say is judge that person on their merit's and then think to yourself (how when something makes perfect rational sense, and it works), then WOW how wrong you were saying that a Christian has no place in government. Sure would be better than the irrational left occupying our government, especially with it's complete idiocy on display everytime it opens it's idiotic mouth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221215-#6,422   CarsomyrPlusSix Again... if you consider it some kind of unconscionable encroachment for government to tell you not to kill other human beings,

If the government tells a pregnant woman she cannot prevent the human being that is using her body to live and has never experienced life as a viable government protected human being then yes that is encroaching on the woman’s liberty and autonomy over her own body.

END2212152153


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> WOW how wrong you were saying that a Christian has no place in government.


I never said Christians have no place in government. I have voted for Christian presidents my entire life starting with McGovern, then Carter, Mondale, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton  Biden     All of them Christians who belong in government.

Why do you always make shit up about me?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221215-#6,422  A libertarian wants these things kept to a minimum; you just want to be able to do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want.

NFBW: We are discussing a pregnant woman  terminating her pregnancy at about an average of 15 weeks when nobody else outside who she tells knows she is pregnant. 

How is anybody doing whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want regarding the private matter of a woman being pregnant that none of us knows and is not involved in any way.?????.  You are so confused CarsomyrPlusSix . You need to snap out of it. 

END2212152243


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221215-#6,419 Well without government being run by the RIGHT PEOPLE

NFBW: When a majority of law abiding right red state people ask and force other law abiding right red state people to take a de facto religious test when selecting medical professionals to perform an abortion the pregnant woman seeking an abortion may travel to a blue state to get an abortion and then return to her red state and remain a law abiding right person the rest of her law abiding red state life.

The religious test in red states that have it, must be unconstitutional and that must be why Alito wrote the following after Dobbs v Jackson was decided against law abiding pregnant tight people who live in extremist Christian run red states.

Alito is a highly educated Catholic on the Supreme Court. Alito said:  “For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” because he must know it is not Constitutional to impose a religious test on law abiding right people just because they end up pregnant when living in a Red State.

END2212160822


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> and if the Christian wins the vote,


NFBW:  I love having Christians everywhere involved in running and defending our nation and our liberties. Black,  Asian and Hispanic Christian are among the finest and best when serving our country.

It’s just that Christians involved in good governance must resist imposing their personal religious beliefs on people who do not share a personal belief such as ding who is thankfully not in government, has been doing for at least five Catholic propagandizing years.

ding170413-#265   “Human life begins at conception.

NFBW: What #ding says is actually true, however, it is not interpreted in the same way between the Catholic Church and her believers versus secular scientists who are constitutionally enabled to guide our governments when passing laws that a secular religious neutral population must obey.

There is a scientific biological distinction of viability versus unviability that must be considered when passing laws that involve when human beings gain access to the legal protection of right to life equal to the protections granted to the mother.

#ding has long been rationalizing that viability is irrelevant and has no bearing on a fertilized egg instantly gaining a right to life at the exact moment conception occurs.

That is Catholic doctrine not scientific proven reality and has no place being imposed on the free people of all religious and not religious people who grant consent to be governed while being left alone to follow the dictates of their conscience as long as no actions are involved that will do harm to others.

END2212161001


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221215-#6,422   CarsomyrPlusSix Again... if you consider it some kind of unconscionable encroachment for government to tell you not to kill other human beings,
> 
> If the government tells a pregnant woman she cannot prevent the human being that is using her body to live and has never experienced life as a viable government protected human being then yes that is encroaching on the woman’s liberty and autonomy over her own body.
> 
> END2212152153


So it's encroachment, but so is every other law and order directive that's put out when the people begin to experience very bad things in regards to other people's activities in life. In the case of a women ignoring the ways in which not to get pregnant, and then she gets pregnant therefore allowing the pregnancy to reach a stage where there's no turning back, then it involves her killing the tiny little developing human being within her. Then we then find out that there are doctor's or medical official's that are doing monsterous procedure's in order to remove the baby at various stages.

Something has to change, because it has become a highly uncivilized thing, and worse than that it is sinful.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221215-#6,422  A libertarian wants these things kept to a minimum; you just want to be able to do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want.
> 
> NFBW: We are discussing a pregnant woman  terminating her pregnancy at about an average of 15 weeks when nobody else outside who she tells knows she is pregnant.
> 
> How is anybody doing whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want regarding the private matter of a woman being pregnant that none of us knows and is not involved in any way.?????.  You are so confused CarsomyrPlusSix . You need to snap out of it.
> 
> END2212152243


So basically what you're saying is that if sin is done out of site regardless of the effects on the mental stability of the person or person's sinning, and the effects on the health of the person(s) afterwards, then everyone is to just ignore that sin even when it sometimes encroaches outwardly whether it be in trend, unknowingly, and sneakily,  to cause harm to other's when they least expect it ? Sin doesn't have to be a direct contact thing in order to affect the psyche of other's, and the nation's mental health is at stake when it does trend outwardly.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221215-#6,422 A libertarian wants these things kept to a minimum; you just want to be able to do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want.

NFBW221215-#6,429  We are discussing a pregnant woman terminating her pregnancy at about an average of 15 weeks when nobody else outside who she tells knows she is pregnant.  . . . . . How is anybody doing whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want regarding the private matter of a woman being pregnant that none of us knows and is not involved in any way.?????.

beagle9221216-#6,433 So basically what you're saying is that if sin is done out of site. . . .

NFBW: There is no sin involved for me because I am not a Catholic or of any other religion that subscribes to the faith belief that a whole human being is created at conception. Therefore I cannot answer your question as asked beagle9 . However I support your effort to contain the “sin” that goes against your religion. So let’s say you can put the abortion industry out of business by convincing every menstruating female in the country to give every fetus a chance if they end up getting pregnant, and by getting the men like Herschel Walker to not have careless sex by knocking women up left and right with no intent of raising the kid like a good father should. If you do that I will applaud you, but don’t use government coercion to obtain your religious goals. That smacks of theocracy.

END2212161352


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221216-    #6,433     So basically what you're saying is that if sin is done out of site regardless of the effects on the mental stability of the person or person's sinning, and the effects on the health of the person(s) afterwards, then everyone is to just ignore that sin . . . . .

NFBW: When a religious person commits a sin against his or her religion that does no harm to anybody but themselves in the eyes of their chosen religious affiliations it is absolutely of no concern to me. I am more concerned about the mental health of way too many Americans who still support a racist, fascist ex-president who incited an attack on the sacred ground of democratic self-government in a violent and unconstitutional mob-rule attempt to stay in power after losing an election by a landslide.

END2212171039


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding221216-#360 ding  God’s attributes can be discovered by studying his creation. It’s not like we have no data to analyze. “

NFBW: In my study of the creation of the reproductive process of the human mammal it’s hard to fathom what the hell is going on between the God of the Scripture with the natural miscarriage death of an immaterial body while inside the viable body of a woman who does not practice the age old religion of the holy Catholic Church which I understand is an updated version of the ancient and still viable Jewish religion.

Why do Catholics believe the soul and body are created at conception when the god of the scriptures is the same god of the Jewish people who the latter have been led to believe that the soul joins the body at first breath?   

The human person is body and soul (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 362; Gen. 2:7). At death the body and soul are separated. This separation results in death to the body. Unlike the body, which can die and decay, the immaterial aspect of the human person lives on. After death, the person is in a temporary disembodied state awaiting the resurrection at the end of time. In this resurrection, even the body will ultimately be glorified and joined to the soul in a new way (Catechism, no. 366)
Catholic Scriptural Teaching on Death

” First, if a person dies in friendship with God, he goes to share in the “communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed” in heaven (cf. Catechism, no. 1023-29). Secondly, if a person dies in God’s friendship, but still “imperfectly purified,” he undergoes purification in purgatory before entering heaven (cf. Catechism, no. 1030-32). Lastly, if a person dies in a state of mortal sin, having willfully rejected God, that soul descends into hell to suffer eternal punishment (cf. Catechism, no. 1033-37).

If ding cannot clarify what’s going on here I would hope the nice Catholic Meriweather will help me understand what God is doing with sins of a human being who dies during miscarriage.

As a rational theist like Jefferson I lean toward the Jewish ‘first breath’ concept as most rational to anyone studying God’s creation.


END2212171136


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> I would hope the nice Catholic @Meriweather will help me understand what God is doing with sins of a human being who dies during miscarriage.
> 
> As a rational theist like Jefferson I lean toward the Jewish ‘first breath’ concept as most rational to anyone studying God’s creation.


 Catholics site these two Biblical verses which support life begins at conception.


“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”  (Jeremiah 1:5)
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.  (Psalm 139:13)
The basic teaching on Original Sin is that humans are born with the propensity to sin.  With two late-term miscarriages/deaths in my family, the two babies may have been born with the usual human propensity, but they returned to God before any sin could be committed.  

The Bible--nor Apostolic Tradition says one word about what happens then.  The Church said it was in limbo, (etymology meaning of being on a line with no way of figuring what happens next).  Kind of funny, that over time, "Limbo" became known as a place for babies, and the correction to the original meaning didn't take place until the 1950s or 60s.  

Therefore, the closest Catholic teaching comes is that the body of the miscarried infant returns to the earth, while his/her soul returns to God.  

My understanding of the first breath customary in Jewish teaching is that after forming Adam from the Earth, God breathed life into him.  Taking a first breath of air after birth is not the same as life being breathed into the baby.  

Arguing over what happens when may be thought provoking, but ultimately fruitless.  Catholic teaching is that life is God's greatest gift to us, and that life begins at conception.   Since life is believed to be our greatest gift, treating it as anything other than a treasure is unthinkable to those who believe both that life is the greatest gift and that it begins at conception (based on the verses in Psalms and Jeremiah).  

Hope this helps with understanding Catholic thought/beliefs.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221216-    #6,433     So basically what you're saying is that if sin is done out of site regardless of the effects on the mental stability of the person or person's sinning, and the effects on the health of the person(s) afterwards, then everyone is to just ignore that sin . . . . .
> 
> NFBW: When a religious person commits a sin against his or her religion that does no harm to anybody but themselves in the eyes of their chosen religious affiliations it is absolutely of no concern to me. I am more concerned about the mental health of way too many Americans who still support a racist, fascist ex-president who incited an attack on the sacred ground of democratic self-government in a violent and unconstitutional mob-rule attempt to stay in power after losing an election by a landslide.
> 
> END2212171039


So you think sin affects only the person involved in sin ? 

Leave Trump out of this you deflecting knucklehead.

Now you know that's a bold faced lie, but that's how you are, a bold face liar. Yep if you can sit there and come up with a stupid lie in which suggest that sin affects only the person sinning, then yep you are a LIAR. You got the devil scratching his head now, because his main thing is hoping sin has a net gain of two for one always.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221217-#6,438   So you think sin affects only the person involved in sin ?

NFBW: No. I know that a woman who is not Catholic or your brand of Christianity is not committing a sin when she decides to terminate the not viable human being that is using her body temporally to become a viable human being. So if she is Catholic or believes as Catholics do, that God creates the exact equivalent of a fully developed human being at conception then I expect it affects her and all the people involved in her life, but alas, thanks to separation of church and state it is of absolutely no concern to rational theists such as I am. There is no Satan in rational theism as well. 

END2212172227


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9221217-#6,438   So you think sin affects only the person involved in sin ?
> 
> NFBW: No. I know that a woman who is not Catholic or your brand of Christianity is not committing a sin when she decides to terminate the not viable human being that is using her body temporally to become a viable human being. So if she is Catholic or believes as Catholics do, that God creates the exact equivalent of a fully developed human being at conception then I expect it affects her and all the people involved in her life, but alas, thanks to separation of church and state it is of absolutely no concern to rational theists such as I am. There is no Satan in rational theism as well.
> 
> END2212172227


Yeah well you are a minority in your views just so you know, and no amount of MSNBC, CNN, NPR, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, or any other alledged liberal leftist enclave (prior or current) is going to swell your numbers up in real time anymore (busted). People have had it with the leftist bull crap, and that includes using abortion for birth control after the fact. That's a sick thing, but maybe not to you eh ????


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW220130-#142  “The Church is here to help us draw closer to God. Government is here to grow and protect a nation. Let each do one job well.”

NFBW: Do you consider yourself closer to God Meriweather than a Jewish woman who believes that every “*god-created* human life” begins at first breath, as opposed to your Catholic belief that every “*god-created* human life” begins at conception?

In America where Judaism has a tiny fraction of adherents when compared to the very large political coalition of anti-abortion adherents to Christianity; do you agree Meriweather that government is here to protect minority individuals like pro-choice Jews from being forced to adhere to laws a political religious majority seeks to impose on them. Is it right for majority Christians to Impose a belief that life begins at conception upon Jewish people by banning access to medical procedure that there is no reason all women should have access.,

END2212190103


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> MeriW220130-#142  “The Church is here to help us draw closer to God. Government is here to grow and protect a nation. Let each do one job well.”
> 
> NFBW: Do you consider yourself closer to God Meriweather than a Jewish woman who believes that every “*god-created* human life” begins at first breath, as opposed to your Catholic belief that every “*god-created* human life” begins at conception?
> 
> In America where Judaism has a tiny fraction of adherents when compared to the very large political coalition of anti-abortion adherents to Christianity; do you agree Meriweather that government is here to protect minority individuals like pro-choice Jews from being forced to adhere to laws a political religious majority seeks to impose on them. Is it right for majority Christians to Impose a belief that life begins at conception upon Jewish people by banning access to medical procedure that there is no reason all women should have access.,
> 
> END2212190103


ROTFLMBO 🤣.... Every god ??? ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.

You are pathetic... Not sure why anyone would entertain your idiocy here(?), but oh well people gotta waste their time on something... LOL.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: Catholics like Meriweather and beagle9  I am absolutely certsin believe that every “god-created human life” begin at conception? Why did Beagle9 misquote my words as if I was bring up polygamy and then LOL like an idiot at his/her own stupidity. I wrote: ( every “god-created human life” ) and then beagle9 revised it to read ( every god )

“MeriW220130-#142 “The Church is here to help us draw closer to God. Government is here to grow and protect a nation. Let each do one job well.””

NFBW221219-#6,441  “Do you consider yourself closer to God Meriweather than a Jewish woman who believes that every “god-created human life” begins at first breath, as opposed to your Catholic belief that every “god-created human life” begins at conception?

NFBW: I ask you then, beagle9 with a correct reading of my words; Do you consider yourself closer to God beagle9  than a Jewish woman who believes that every “*god-created* human life” begins at first bre*a*th, as opposed to your Catholic belief that every “*god-created* human life” begins at conception?

May we get a direct and honest answer from you beagle9  ?????

END2212190646


----------



## easyt65

BackAgain said:


> Is this a lock?  I don’t know. But I’m so psyched to think that the ruling allowing slaughter of innocent life — sanctioned by the United States — is about to end.


The USSC put the decision in the people's hands, allowing them to be able to decide rather than be dictated to.

This has freaked leftist sheep, who are not used to self-governance after their indoctrination, completely out...

...so much that
- The DOJ has targeted Conservatives while protecting leftist extremists and domestic terrorists

- Women's centers, pro-life HQs, and churches have been defaced, damaged, firebombed, and burned.  Over 140 churches have been burned / damaged since June.

- The DOJ has made almost zero arrests, even when a small domestic terrorist group braffed about firebombing a church on social media.  They refused to enforce laws designed to protect the lives of the Justices.

- Elected Democrats publicly threatened the lives of USSC Justices, called for violence against them, incited another attempted political assassination, undermined them, and called for actual insurrection.

- Media and politicians doxxed the Justices, put their and their families' in danger, forced several to have to relocate because if the danger.

These Democrats were criminally irresponsible, committed acts of domestic terrorism, sedition, and even treason.

Saying 'they lost their minds' doesn't even come close to describing it.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Do you consider yourself closer to God @Meriweather than a Jewish woman who believes that every “*god-created* human life” begins at first breath, as opposed to your Catholic belief that every “*god-created* human life” begins at conception?


Are you aware that many Jews consider the Almighty joining the couple in conceiving?  Further, that Jewish women are less likely than Catholic women to have an abortion; that in fact, Protestant women are less likely than Catholic women to abort?  Close friends of mine had abortions.  They did not tell me before, but were so miserable after the fact that they needed a friendly ear and arms for comfort and assurance.  

Jewish belief is that soul and body are united at first breath.  However, there is no doubt human life is still present in the womb.  When did that human life begin to grow?  At conception.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW221219-#6,441  “Do you consider yourself closer to God @Meriweather than a Jewish woman who believes that every “god-created human life” begins at first breath, as opposed to your Catholic belief that every “god-created human life” begins at conception?


Belief on when a soul enters the body has little--perhaps nothing--to do with one's relationship with the Almighty.  A better argument might be whether Jewish women are closer to God than Catholic women, as most Catholic women eat pork.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> “MeriW220130-#142 “The Church is here to help us draw closer to God. Government is here to grow and protect a nation. Let each do one job well.””


My politics are mostly Libertarian.  No good government should promote death.  No strong government needs to.   A government can be against certain behaviors without criminalizing them.  

Frankly, I see government as a cesspool.  We should be teaching our children that it is, and that every strong person needs to look within for matters of right and wrong never to government.  Government will always take that broad road the Bible warns us against, because a broad road is where they will find votes.  Telling the populace that it is okay to make weak, selfish, cowardly decisions and be a weak, cowardly, selfish people is how government stays in power.  For awhile.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> In America where Judaism has a tiny fraction of adherents when compared to the very large political coalition of anti-abortion adherents to Christianity; do you agree @Meriweather that government is here to protect minority individuals like pro-choice Jews from being forced to adhere to laws a political religious majority seeks to impose on them. Is it right for majority Christians to Impose a belief that life begins at conception upon Jewish people by banning access to medical procedure that there is no reason all women should have access.,


The government is not here to support death.  The government is not here to virtue signal either for the majority or the minority.  The federal government is here to make decisions on how this nation interacts with other nations.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Review Of Absent Minded Conclusions "

* Over Stepping Assumption Entitlement **


Meriweather said:


> Catholics site these two Biblical verses which support life begins at conception.
> 
> 
> “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”  (Jeremiah 1:5)
> For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.  (Psalm 139:13)


Reiterating an altruism from the perspective of hue mammon kind , that its genetic perpetuity and sophisticates states capable of sentience , sapience and introspection should exist through out eternity , a presumption that every instance of hue mammon kind should or must exist in perpetuity throughout eternity so that hue mammon kind may exist in perpetuity throughout eternity is false .

Hence , jeremiah 1:5 only presupposes that some find opportunity through fate while others do not , and the conjecture of magnanimity and determinism where one or some are known before being born and set apart to be appointed is a conjecture of artistic license .

As for creating an inmost being knit together in the womb would seem to imply that it is not instantaneous and that a physical capacity for sentience that is required for cognitive objection , that is to mind .

** Spheres Stirring **


Meriweather said:


> The basic teaching on Original Sin is that humans are born with the propensity to sin.  With two late-term miscarriages/deaths in my family, the two babies may have been born with the usual human propensity, but they returned to God before any sin could be committed.


Even though hue mammon apes are omnivores , the preface of carnal knowledge is that hue mammon ape also has canines and veracity of the carnivorous .

As for the syncretism of sin mythology and celestial deities , the orientation and influence of those bodies within the lives of hue mammon kind is seldom categorized as wholly deleterious , so why would the nearest and most influential celestial deity , the lunar moon , be ascribed a quality against which hue mammon must struggle against if it is to overcome mortality so as to live forever ?

** Esoteric Feat Of Souls **


Meriweather said:


> Therefore, the closest Catholic teaching comes is that the body of the miscarried infant returns to the earth, while his/her soul returns to God.


Ones soles are at the bottom of their feet .

According to the catharsis , since nothing can be separate from itself , by nature of nature how does gawd perceive choices available to those born with dysfunctional abnormalities , and how does gawd perceive a choice to abort those with dysfunctional abnormalities ?

** Turning Inside Out **


Meriweather said:


> Arguing over what happens when may be thought provoking, but ultimately fruitless.  Catholic teaching is that life is God's greatest gift to us, and that life begins at conception.   Since life is believed to be our greatest gift, treating it as anything other than a treasure is unthinkable to those who believe both that life is the greatest gift and that it begins at conception (based on the verses in Psalms and Jeremiah).
> 
> Hope this helps with understanding Catholic thought/beliefs.


The teaching that biological life began before , during and after conception would be more valid ; however , when biological life begins , or whether biological life exists at all is not in the interests of a state , rather a state interest is limited to whether an individual is entitled to a wright to life .

A zygote , or embryo , or fetus has not met a birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen and any sentenced to death has had its wright to life removed and is then subject to the natural freedoms that exist within nature and is dispatched accordingly .

Now , the catholic church does maintain a public position that abortion and capital punishment end a biological hue mammon life and are opposed to both , unlike the national right ( sic ) to life which does not maintain a public position that capital punishment is not natural death . 

Thus , as of yet , none of the sanctimonious anthropocentric sycophants for absolution of hue mammon ape from a universal scale of exploitation have provided answer as to why they are against abortion but are for capital punishment .


----------



## San Souci

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Okay, that is the most bullshit evil vile disgusting retarded insane thing I've read on here in a while.
> 
> "Homicide doesn't take life, because we'll just make more humans."
> 
> Truly galaxy brain take over here...
> 
> 
> Fine then - let's sum your perspective up: "human life is meaningless and you'll just be replaced anyway.  So when someone kills you, we shouldn't give a fuck, no one should go to jail, it's fine, you meant nothing, and the planet's doomed anyway so who cares.  Caring is evil."
> 
> Fuck outta here with that bullshit.  Fuck you.  Disgusting.  Awful.  Not a rational thought in your addled brain.
> 
> Why did you pro-aborts just make it your mission in life to be the worst examples of humanity possible?  Is that your ACTUAL argument?  The nonsense you are saying can't be an argument, but the idea that humans exist who are this stupid and this evil as you are - is *that *your argument that human life has no value and destroying it is fine?


What about birth control? Maybe these whores should use condoms.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Catholics like Meriweather and beagle9  I am absolutely certsin believe that every “god-created human life” begin at conception? Why did Beagle9 misquote my words as if I was bring up polygamy and then LOL like an idiot at his/her own stupidity. I wrote: ( every “god-created human life” ) and then beagle9 revised it to read ( every god )
> 
> “MeriW220130-#142 “The Church is here to help us draw closer to God. Government is here to grow and protect a nation. Let each do one job well.””
> 
> NFBW221219-#6,441  “Do you consider yourself closer to God Meriweather than a Jewish woman who believes that every “god-created human life” begins at first breath, as opposed to your Catholic belief that every “god-created human life” begins at conception?
> 
> NFBW: I ask you then, beagle9 with a correct reading of my words; Do you consider yourself closer to God beagle9  than a Jewish woman who believes that every “*god-created* human life” begins at first bre*a*th, as opposed to your Catholic belief that every “*god-created* human life” begins at conception?
> 
> May we get a direct and honest answer from you beagle9  ?????
> 
> END2212190646


First off you keep mis-spelling the word God, otherwise if you are referring to the great king of kings who resides upon the great white throne in heaven. You keep using the little g in describing God. It is always with a capital G to you boy.


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> First off you keep mis-spelling the word God, otherwise if you are referring to the great king of kings who resides upon the great white throne in heaven. You keep using the little g in describing God. It is always with a capital G to you boy.


Can't give a single, solitary fuck about your gawd. Keep your government out of my crotch, and mind your own fucking business.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221217-#6,437   “Therefore, the closest Catholic teaching comes is that the body of the miscarried infant returns to the earth, while his/her soul returns to God. “

NFBW: Is it possible (since you have resorted to guessing) that a Jewish woman who has a miscarriage is of the original Judeo-Christian belief that the miscarried soulless infant returns to the earth because Gid waits until birth to impart a new soul un
Into only newborn babies when they take their first breath. 

 Back in February: 

MeriW220206-#376   “*Again, not a religious belief. *A belief that life is the ideal “
^
NFBW220206-#377    I believe that life is the ideal. *I do not believe that life begins at the moment that the Catholic Church believes it begins*. I do not believe in your religion.
^
^
MeriW220206-#390  *“I believe what science tells us about the beginning of life.”    *But then, I teach science.

NFBW: Here 
 Is is the question - What science or conclusive scientific observation tells you Meriweather that that the body of the miscarried infant returns to the earth and then his/her soul returns to God? What science tells you that there is no soul in a miscarried fetus as many of the Beeñcc

END221220054


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> I believe that life is the ideal. *I do not believe that life begins at the moment that the Catholic Church believes it begins*. I do not believe in your religion.


What's your point?  It seems you are saying that unless a baby/fetus takes a breath, it is not a life.  Is that correct?   If so, it follows that your belief is whatever it is you prevent from taking its first breath, it is not yet a life.  It might have a heart beat, even brain waves, nerves that feel, but no first breath means it is not a living being?  It is more like a clump of cancer cells?  

If so, the issue I see with the philosophy is that a clump of cancer cells never has the potential of taking a breath, whereas the fetus/baby does.  Your philosophy seems to be it is okay to take the life of a human body as long as that life has no soul?  

There have always been atheists in my family.  Their belief is that there is no soul, ever, in the human body.  Many of these atheists are against abortion on the basis this is the only life available to us.  

What is your version of life as the ideal?  A life without a baby?  And how great is it you found a people of God who believes the soul joins the body at its first breath.  Your philosophy seems to be it is fine to end a life if it has no soul.  If so, your argument is not with me, it is with atheists who are against abortion.  They, too, see life starting at conception.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Populism Propaganda Poster Child Fore Crazed Zee Ease "

* Neophyte Terminology Of Disingenuous Prone Principled To Sensationalize **


BackAgain said:


> And babble.


To babble is a preposition relating a characteristic of a baby which has been born .

The us republic is based on a credo of e pluribus unum which espouses independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties among those entitled by live birth to receive them .


----------



## BackAgain

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Populism Propaganda Poster Child Fore Crazed Zee Ease "
> 
> * Neophyte Terminology Of Disingenuous Prone Principled To Sensationalize **
> 
> To babble is a preposition relating a characteristic of a baby which has been born .
> 
> The us republic is based on a credo of e pluribus unum which espouses independence as individualism with equal protection of negative liberties among those entitled by live birth to receive them .


Let’s go to the universal translator to convert your post into something coherent. 

The two holder headnotes?  Just gibberish. 

The definition of babble is ok as far as it goes. Of course, it fails to capture the modern meaning and full intent of the word. 

Your last paragraph mis-spells “US”. It ought to in fact be “U.S.” It is an otherwise incorrect statement. Our republic is *not* based on a motto. “_E Pluribus Unum,_” properly understood, refers to many individual States joining together to form one nation.  The balance of that paragraph is also way off base. 

Our republic, at least as designed, certainly respects individualism. It is the right of the individual that our Constitution most profoundly seeks to protect. It doesn’t embrace any negative liberties. Obama was simply wrong. It instead limits *government* authority in order to safeguard the liberties of the People. 

And it says exactly nothing about rights only coming to exist at birth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221220-#6,454    What's your point? It seems you are saying that unless a baby/fetus takes a breath, it is not a life. Is that correct?

NFBW: No. That is not correct . it is a life beginning at conception in a lifespan continuum until death. It is a separate individual human life that will die when a woman decides to terminate it.

I go where the following scientists go and common sense that life begins at conception: But beyond science it is a mystery for mortal humans as to exactly when *God-given or god-given l*ife begins.

NFBW221207-#6,196   I argue very precisely; A new genetically distinct human organism* comes into existence at conception and begins it’s development however it will be up to the states and/or Congress to decide the right to life status of a “developing” and “distinct human organism” vs a fully developed pregnant human being with an already established right to life by virtue of having universal societal recognition of the FACT that she was born on a specific date and she continued developing biologically into a fully developed human being.

* Robert P George is my scientific source
for use of these two scientific words organism plus development

“Whether produced by fertilization or cloning, the human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism possessing all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth, as well as an active disposition to develop itself using that information.” About the Author Robert P. George is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. He is also a professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.​and ……
"…human development begins at fertilization…" write embryologists Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud in The Developing Human (7th edition, 2003), the most widely used textbook on human embryology.​
NFBW:   To answer your question, Meriweather my point was to ask you this question that is framed in the following exchange:


NFBW220206-#377 I believe that life is the ideal. *I do not believe that life begins at the moment that the Catholic Church believes it begins*. I do not believe in your religion.
^
^
MeriW220206-#390 *“I believe what science tells us about the beginning of life.”  *But then, I teach science.

NFBW: Here Is is the question - What science or conclusive scientific observation tells you Meriweather that that the body of the miscarried infant returns to the earth and then his/her soul returns to God?

END2212291531


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> I believe that life is the ideal. *I do not believe that life begins at the moment that the Catholic Church believes it begins*. I do not believe in your religion.


So why are you telling me this?  About three-quarters to one-fifth of the world is not Catholic.   About one-fifth to one-quarter is.  You are not Catholic.  So what?  Why should I care when you believe life begins?  You are nothing to me.  What makes me something to you?  Why do you care about my beliefs?


----------



## Man of Ethics

I am sorry I am late to this conversation.

A.  One reason I support abortion ban is that it makes misandrists go really mad.

B.  One reason I oppose abortion ban is that it costs Republicans many points.  If it was not for abortion ban, we would have had Red Wave 2022.  

B. overweighs A. by a large margin.  Republicans really can not afford an abortion ban.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221220-#6,454  Many of these atheists are against abortion on the basis this is the only life available to us.

NFBW: Who are the “us” at the end of your paragraph? Is that a group that is limited to your personal relationships? 

And I’d really appreciate if you could answer my earlier question if you have an answer? 

NFBW: What science or conclusive scientific observation tells you Meriweather that that the body of the miscarried infant returns to the earth and then his/her soul returns to God?

END2212210314


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: In reference to Roe v Wade and I assume Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Meriweather wrote: 

MeriW221001-#195   Regardless, it was an Unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling. The lawyer who argued the case agrees with that, said there was no way it should have passed. 

NFBW: I don’t kniw where Meriweather git the idea that Ginsberg says Roe V Wade was unconstitutional. 

FORtheRECORD Here is what Ginsberg said: 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized the Roe v. Wade decision Saturday, stating that it overruled the democratic will by handing down a decision made by “unelected old men.”​​Justice Ginsburg: 'Unelected Old Men' Decided Roe v. Wade​​Speaking at the University of Chicago Law School, the 80 year-old justice said that the 1973 decision, together with Doe v. Bolton, which legalized abortion until the ninth month of pregnancy, was too overreaching. Ginsburg said it would have been her preference that the High Court struck down only the Texas law in question without a decision that affected other states.​​It According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Ginsburg indicated that the judicial mandate from the High Court down galvanized opposition to abortion and gave abortion opponents a symbol to target. This outcome reversed the trend toward liberalizing abortion laws throughout the country that prevailed until that time.​​“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. The justice indicated that the Supreme Court should have, instead, “put its stamp of approval on the side of change and let that change develop in the political process.”​​NFBW: Do you have the quote by Ginsberg Meriweather where she agrees Roe v Wade was unconstitutional?????

END2212210424


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Do you have the quote by Ginsberg @Meriweather where she agrees Roe v Wade was unconstitutional?????


I never mentioned Ginsberg.  That was your own conclusion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meriweather said:


> I never mentioned Ginsberg.  That was your own conclusion.


Who were you talking about then?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW220204-#670  Meriweather   “Life changing moments for President Biden: If he stood for pro-life, he might have had to give up his political life.”


NFBW: Biden is a Catholic serving a nation of people of all religions and thus serving every non-Catholics even those non-Catholics having no religion at all like your atheist husband and CarsomyrPlusSix . . . . .

To his credit Biden holds the Catholic belief that terminating a life in an unwanted pregnancy is wrong, immoral, a sin against God, but as President he cannot use the power of government to force any American to hold the Catholic belief that GOD-Given LIFE begins at conception.

Yes I say, GOD-Given LIFE as distinguished from biological life that exists in all mammals.

What separates “us” from the rest of all other mammals?

Please note I am referring to GOD-Given LIFE for a reason.  And that is because as a Catholic you must agree with this Catholic:

*Man has an immortal soul. . .  . * In his book, In the Beginning, Pope Benedict XVI affirms that the inner unity between faith and reason is reflected in the revealed story of creation and the scientific theory of evolution. Science can inform us about man’s development as a physical being, but alongside the discoveries of science the disciplines of theology and philosophy can tell us more about man: that he has an immortal soul infused by God.​​




						Do You Know What Separates Man from the Animals?
					

Fire up your imagination for a moment and imagine yo...




					www.catholic.com
				


​Therefore, man is a unity of body and spirit which makes him utterly distinct from the rest of creation. “Man is not merely an evolution but rather a revolution,” muses G.K. Chesterton.​​With this rational soul, man alone can know by his intellect, and love through his will. Unlike the animals, we can freely choose, and we can deliberate before choosing.​​Another difference is that human souls are incorruptible, which means they are immortal: death of the body is not the end for us. This potentiality to “share in God’s blessed life” for all of eternity sets us apart from animals (CCC 1).​​Made like God    In the opening chapter of the Genesis, God says: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (1:26). But what exactly is God like? And what are the particular attributes of God that we similarly possess?​​God is infinite and perfect. Therefore, to describe him we use words such as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. Although God thereby possesses power, knowledge, and love without limit, we too are able—by virtue of the spiritual powers of our will and intellect—to exercise power, obtain knowledge, and will the good of others, albeit to a finite degree. You can see these “likenesses” to God fully manifested in distinctly human activities such as artistic endeavors, academic pursuits, and charity work.​​But that’s not all. The opening to Genesis also introduces us to a theology of the body. The Church, especially through the teachings of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, teaches us that in our bodies we possess the sexual makeup through which we can enter into free, total, faithful, and fruitful union with another. This nuptial love profoundly images the free, total, faithful, and fruitful relationship between the three eternal persons of the Blessed Trinity.​​Saved by God    “Christian, recognize your dignity” commands the Catechism (1691). There is perhaps no better and direct way to recognize your dignity than by looking at a crucifix.​​“The life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” wrote St. Paul (Gal. 2:20). Just as God gave himself for Paul, so too did God suffer and die to save you. God desires for all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4); and along with God’s desire for all men to be saved is the desire inside every man and woman to be saved. As C.S. Lewis puts it, “He died not for men, but for each man. If each man had been the only man made, he would have done no less.”​​Christ’s death on the cross both proves and symbolizes our human worth in addition to God’s undying love for us. We are not only loved by God: we are redeemed by him. We are now free—with the necessary graces readily available—to fulfill God’s original plan for us: to “partake in his divine nature” and spend all of eternity perfected in the bliss of heaven.​
So do you disagree with any of that Meriweather ?????

END2212211004


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> Who were you talking about then?


I was young enough at the time the decision of Roe v Wade came down.  Just out of a US government class; had baby sisters at home.  I had two thoughts.  The first was a shrug, because, after all, who would want to end a pregnancy/end a baby's life before it was born?  The second was, Wow!  When something is not specifically spoken of in the Constitution, the decision returns to the States, it is not decided by the Supreme Court.  And I thought nothing more about it for several years.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> So do you disagree with any of that @Meriweather


My question:  How do you relate this to abortion?  That topic wasn't on the minds of anyone when they wrote their piece.  

It seems to me you wish to rationalize abortion?  I don't feel a need to rationalize "Life is our greatest gift."  It is simply my position.  What's my position to you?  Why do you care what I believe?  You keep mentioning science.  Shrug.  Look up, "How human life begins...."  You seem to want to dismiss the how and argue about the when, possibly dismissing the cells as life?  Fine.  That is your position, but it is not mine.


----------



## krichton

I agree with all the cons here.  We need to do everything in our power to be more like Russia, Iran and Afghanistan.  Womenh have too rights.  A great deal of republican women also agree.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221221-#6,466  My question: How do you relate this to abortion?

NFBW: Because the solid universal belief among humans is that we are connected by something akin to a soul. Therefore your CATHOLIC religious BELIEF that a soul is not killed during miscarriage or abortion is a material fact to our discussion of human rights related to pregnancy and abortion.

Abortion being legal or not is related to the reality that a soul or spirit or some mysterious cosmic essence (even to an atheist) is what makes human beings special and godlike and having dominion over all other life, essentially when compared to primates who give birth in the same way.

Chimpanzee birth similar to humans: study​This paper reports the mechanism of birth in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) based on the first clear, close-up video recordings of three chimpanzee births in captivity. In all three cases, the foetus emerged with an occiput anteriororientation, and the head and body rotated after the head had emerged​
MeriW221217-#6,437   “Therefore, the closest Catholic teaching comes is that the body of the miscarried infant returns to the earth, while his/her soul returns to God. “

NFBW: The anti-abortion movement has conned people into believing women are carrying what “thou shall not kill” because the living human organism in the womb has the same special mystery of human essence that can conveniently be labeled as a “soul” for matters of discussion about aborting “GOD-GIVEN LIFE.

Is a fertilized egg in a human woman’s body infused with a soul that “thou shall not kill” Immediately upon conception or at birth or at some point of development in between . .  . . I believe I argue correctly, rationally, scientifically and biologically that we mortal human beings simply ‘do not know.’

To answer your question, I cited the following hoping to glean a fresh and intellectually deeper interesting discussion with you Meriweather because you claim to be a science teacher and a Catholic whom I was told by ding that you
are articulate on both subjects.

NFBW221221-#6,464  Please note I am referring to GOD-Given LIFE for a reason. And that is because as a Catholic you must agree with this Catholic:​
Man has an immortal soul. . . . In his book, In the Beginning, Pope Benedict XVI affirms that the inner unity between faith and reason is reflected in the revealed story of creation and the scientific theory of evolution. Science can inform us about man’s development as a physical being, but alongside the discoveries of science the disciplines of theology and philosophy can tell us more about man: that he has an immortal soul infused by God.​​Do You Know What Separates Man from the Animals?​
NFBW: So just as I, myself and whatever woman I have a sexual relationship with, and as one who opposes aborting any life of whom I personally am involved in creating, I have no way of forcing you to engage in a deeper discussion regarding what I also believe to be is every *unbeknownst woman to me’s *right to choose what to do with the living human organism, life, soul or whatever you and I choose to call it inside the privacy of her own body.

I do not believe we should elect politicians who wish to pass laws taking a private choice away from every *unbeknownst woman to me *based upon my personal morality because what happens inside a woman’s body harms no living member of the human race as far as we mortal humans are capable of knowing




Meriweather said:


> The reality is that women are carrying a human life. Then it becomes a matter of priorities. What is more important than human life?



NFBW: Don’t legislate your moral priorities on women you do not know.

END2212220832


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Don’t legislate your moral priorities on women you do not know.


Let's start here.  I don't know where you got the idea that I am involved in legislation or even support legislation on this matter.  Didn't I mention my leaning is Libertarian?  My position has always been that government stuck its nose where it has no business being.  

Big Government decides it can tell women Government has the right the decide the position on abortion.  It is none of government's business--Government should go tend to the nation's business among other nations and leave the people to theirs.  

Milgram taught us that if Authority tells us it is alright to do something, no matter how cruel, two-thirds will go along with that cruel ruling being okay.  Two-thirds of the population will follow authority.  Therefore, claim authority, and then tell the populace what tradition taught was wrong is now right.  Two-thirds of the population will agree automatically because authority said so.  

*To be clear and succinct:* *My position is that government should have no position on abortion.  *Do not tell people it is right or even okay.  Do not tell the people it is wrong.  Abortion is their problem to wrestle with, because no one will be there to give them permission.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> Abortion being legal or not is related to the reality that a soul or spirit or some mysterious cosmic essence (even to an atheist) is what makes human beings special and godlike and having dominion over all other life, essentially when compared to primates who give birth in the same way.


Again, why the need to rationalize?

My position does not involve when the first heart beat occurs, the first brain wave happens, when the life can survive outside the womb, or when the soul joins the body.  

Your argument/rationalization seems to be that it is okay to end that creation as long as it is ended before this, that, or the other.  You go to great lengths to explain the soul might not be joined with the body at the time of an abortion, which makes ending the creation process okay.   Is it correct that you differentiate between ending the creation process and ending a life?

*My position:  The creation of a human life begins at conception.   God is Creator, and I choose to respect His creation no matter the stage that creation is in.  *


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: The anti-abortion movement has conned people into believing women are carrying what “thou shall not kill” because the living human organism in the womb has the same special mystery of human essence that can conveniently be labeled as a “soul” for matters of discussion about aborting “GOD-GIVEN LIFE.


Let's talk about 'cons'.  The biggest con is calling it "The right to choose."  Those who chose that namby-pandy wording did not even have the courage to say, "The right to abort."  Their position was that unstable, even in their own minds.  

Further, the government has no authority to declare abortion a 'right'.   Abortion is in the same category as suicide.  With suicide, the government no longer has a citizen to prosecute.  With abortion, government does not yet have a citizen to protect.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> I do not believe we should elect politicians


I think we both agree with the above phrase.    Where we differ, is that the last politician I would want in government is one who believes the government should have any authority about abortion at all.  Makes it difficult to find politician because most stand on one side or the other.  

I stand with neither, and therefore am frowned upon by all.  However, I will vote for the life candidate because it is also my stance that Government should not be involved in ending innocent life.  A government who involves itself in such is not a government to be trusted in other matters.  

I believe in God, our Creator, who gave each of us free will/free choice.  He gave us ideals, He taught us His Law, His way of life in the Kingdom.  Each morning each individual should wake up and call to mind Deuteronomy 30 where God outlines the choices before us:

_See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction....Choose life.  _

The other choice is open to us as well.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meriweather said:


> Let's talk about 'cons'. The biggest con is calling it "The right to choose."


I call it the right to abort. The right to kill a not viable but potentially viable human. It’s the right to choose to abort that needs be defended.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meriweather said:


> I think we both agree with the above phrase.



I do not believe we should elect politicians. . . 

I do not agree with that at all. I believe in Representative Government and most women nationally agree they have a fundamental natural law right to abort a not viable human being that is temporarily using their body to survive. I will not ever accept an authoritarian government based on a Catholic type religious belief that a fully realized God personalized human being is created at conception.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> I do not agree with that at all. I believe in Representative Government


I think you read more into what I wrote than I meant.  I, too, am fine with a representative government.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> I will not ever accept an authoritarian government based on a Catholic type religious belief that a fully realized God personalized human being is created at conception.


Is someone suggesting that you should?  Most agree upon the separation of Church and State.  I know I do--it is what is best for Church.  You seem inordinately angry with Catholics, and I see no reason to be.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221001-#150 Meriweather “The reality is that women are carrying a human life. Then it becomes a matter of priorities. What is more important than human life?”

NFBW: Human life in the womb has the same high priority of importance to me in my personal relationships that you apparently have in your personal relationships with likeminded human beings including your fellowship with members of the Catholic Church.

However, why must a pregnant woman who has no relationship to you Meriweather or who has no relationship to me, be subjected to *our personal relationship priorities *when the anti-abortion politicians that you say you vote for, make laws that removes access to private medical facilities that perform safe abortions for women who don’t have the same priorities as both of us do?

How are you not a theological authoritarian when you vote for authoritarian politicians who block free and independent access to safe and legal abortions for women who perhaps agree with Stann as expressed in the following quote?



Stann said:


> If human beings were going extinct you might have half a case. But they're not. Plus you've totally disrespected the woman involved in the equation ( which doesn't include you or your opinion ). Most abortions occur before the " human life " is recognizable as a human being and at no time is it sentient. Which is one of the main characteristics of a human being. So we are dealing with human tissue, not a human being. The potential is there but that's all.




END2212230054


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MashM220830-#1  Good Vatican City Morality Cop Mashmont wrote: “Fast forward to 2008, Democrats and their media were wildly successful in fulfilling their plans I overheard in 2003. They were right and I was wrong. They managed to crater Bush’s approval numbers for the 2004 election, but not enough to beat him, but by 2008 got them down to the 20s, and painted him as incompetent on the war. They sold the lie of WMD as fact so successfully, even Bush went along with it.”

NFBW: Trump worshipping, anti-abortion Catholics have to be the most irrational unintelligent human beings on our planet when comparing his above quote with the following Trump quote; 

TRUMP: “This will be a big week for Infrastructure. After so stupidly spending $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is now time to start investing in OUR Country!” — tweet.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump's inflated claim on costs of war

TRUMP: “I said this morning as of a couple months ago, we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East — $7 trillion. What a mistake. And — but it is what it is. This is what I took over. And we’re trying to build roads and bridges and fix bridges that are falling down. And we have a hard time getting the money. It’s crazy. But think of that as of a couple months ago, $7 trillion in the Middle East, and the Middle East is far worse now than it was 17 years ago *when they went in, and not so intelligently,* I have to say, went in.” — remarks at White House infrastructure event



NFBW210718-#2,485     This was an appropriate standard for not supporting W’s intention to start a war in Iraq

*Pope John Paul II *   In a Jan. 13 address to diplomats, the pope said, “No to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences.”

*United States Conference of Catholic Bishops   The bishops’ president, Wilton Gregory, said on Feb. 26 *that the bishops have not changed their minds since they spoke out against war last November. “To permit preemptive or preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening or hostile regimes would create deeply troubling moral and legal precedents. Based on the facts that are known, it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq.”

END2212230227


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221222-#6,474    “I will not ever accept an authoritarian government based on a Catholic type religious belief that a fully realized God personalized human being is created at conception.”
^
^
MeriW221222-#6,476  Meriweather Is someone suggesting that you should?

NFBW: Yes, The following authoritarian Protestant and/or Catholic *Trump Voters with you  are prime examples *in your ideological crusade against the natural right of free access to safe abortions for all women no matter where they live.

Mashmont220129-#231  Mashmont “When you remove religion from government, the cancer of atheism fills the void as is happening in the US. That's what the Framers failed to anticipate

Dayton3221008-#253     I'm not against Catholics though. They've been a great asset in the fight against abortion and homosexuality.

Marener221202-#6     That’s completely inaccurate. Liberals don’t care if you straight, white or Christian.         It’s just that the people who espouse these “traditional values” have a tendency to think they need to tell everyone else how to live.
^
^
Dayton3221202-#11  Dayton3  Most people need to be told how to live

NFBW: They are in your voting bloc in favor of politicians who support banning women from safe legal abortions in states where white evangelical Christians can dominate a state Capitol electorally.

END221223-0635


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: They are in your voting bloc in favor of politicians who support banning women from safe legal abortions in states where white evangelical Christians can dominate a state Capitol electorally.


Yawn.  Such a bother when people don't march lock-step with you, isn't it?  Why are you insisting everyone in America fall in line with you?  The reality is that the citizens differ on this question.  

That is why I maintain the position of removing the issue out of government entirely.  Return it to the personal realm where it should have been all along.  Government shouldn't have control over how people think; and for reasons already explained, should keep their stamp of approval to itself.


----------



## beagle9

Meriweather said:


> Yawn.  Such a bother when people don't march lock-step with you, isn't it?  Why are you insisting everyone in America fall in line with you?  The reality is that the citizens differ on this question.
> 
> That is why I maintain the position of removing the issue out of government entirely.  Return it to the personal realm where it should have been all along.  Government shouldn't have control over how people think; and for reasons already explained, should keep their stamp of approval to itself.


The same with celebrities sticking their dumb aced opinion's into politics, and virtually destroying their dumb ace career's in doing so. The matter is truly a civil matter to solve for a civilized SOCIETY or people, but we know why the left wants government involved. It's so obvious. It's the same reason it wants celebrities involved.


----------



## Meriweather

beagle9 said:


> The same with celebrities sticking their dumb aced opinion's into politics, and virtually destroying their dumb ace career's in doing so. The matter is truly a civil matter to solve for a civilized SOCIETY or people, but we know why the left wants government involved. It's so obvious. It's the same reason it wants celebrities involved.


Salient points!  Nicely stated.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221222-#6,472  I will *vote for the life candidate because it is also my stance that Governme*nt should not be involved in ending innocent life.
^
^
NFBW221223-#6,477   However why must a pregnant woman who has no relationship to you Meriweather and who has no relationship to me, be subjected to our personal relationship priorities when the anti-abortion politicians that you say you vote for, make laws that removes access to private medical facilities that perform safe abortions for women who don’t have our priorities?
^
^
MeriW221223-#305   First, if one wants an abortion, she can find a place to have it done. No one can stop them. Period.

NFBW: You have established yourself to be in cahoots with authoritarian politicians who will ban abortion clinics nationwide if they can get the voters.

The fact that you vote for authoritarian candidates that want to oppress women in all fifty states makes you a pro- authoritarian voter seeking your personal relationship principles and priorities to be the same rules for. At least you could cease denying that you are an authoritarian for truth’s sake. 

END2212230944


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> You have established yourself to be in cahoots with authoritarian politicians


If you had been paying attention, *you would know the reverse is true*.  As it is readily apparent you are talking to an In-Your-Own-Head-Meriweather, I see no reason for the actual me to continue responding to you on this matter.  Happy New Year.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meriweather said:


> If you had been paying attention, *you would know the reverse is true*. As it is readily apparent you are talking to an In-Your-Own-Head-Meriweather, I see no reason for the actual me to continue responding to you on this matter. Happy New Year.


NFBW: Actually no, I am talking to frequently irrational science teacher and CATHOLIC anti-abortion rights voter whose posts directly conflict and contradict each other which I am in the process of documenting. END2212241204


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221222-#6,472 I will vote for the life candidate because it is also my stance that Government should not be involved in ending innocent life.

 NFBW: The government is not involved in ending human life. Meriweather has provided no explanation for what she means by her absolutely absurd statement.

I argue in favor of a woman’s freedom to choose aborting the not viable living organism that is using her body brain and lungs in order to survive.

Meriweather is opposed to the freedom to choose. Rational human beings understand that when politicians hold power in Government they can eliminate a freedom of choice that causes zero harm to any other person when enough voters like Meriweather give them that mandate.

Eliminating a freedom that woman have had for fifty years because Meriweather wants the government to eliminate them is as authoritarian as it can get.

Being able to choose is freedom. Having no ability to choose is oppression by an authoritarian government that forces all women to carry every pregnancy to full term.

END2212231251


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Stann said:  That's just complicated things, these ignorant laws only hurt us all.

MeriW221223-#6,484  Meriweather  As I keep insisting, it is the government that is hurting us all.

NFBW: But you have advised nothing about the identification and nature of the harm. 

END2212231325


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221224-#6,481  Why are you insisting everyone in America fall in line with you?

NFBW: You ask me a question and then run away before I can reply.

I am not insisting that everyone in America fall in line with me. With you,  I do not have to convince you of anything because you and I already agree that in our personal relationships involving pregnancy abortion is not an options.77

Are you going to run away right after dumping a lie like that on a message board? WE’ll see.

END2212231347


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW201226-#77  Meriweather Neither President Trump nor his family are evil. Many Catholics know that President-Elect Biden long ago put aside the tenets of the Catholic faith for political reasons.

NFBW: Most, a majority of Catholics vote Democrat and for Biden and hopefully more so now that we know ten days after the above quote Trump had been plotting an insane plan to take the White House by losing the election but then organizing a violent mob to steal it from the actual winner along with other unconstitutional means on advice from a law professor  named John Eastman. 


Character matters and Meriweather ’s choice for Trump to this day nearly two
Years after the fake electors coup attempt exposes more than evidence that this won a favors religious authoritarianism to restrict access to abortion.
END2212231600


----------



## Missourian

Every time I see this thread title it makes me smile.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Missourian said:


> Every time I see this thread title it makes me smile.


Why does rightwing white Christian oppression of women make you happy?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW281223-#29 Early on my Catholic teachers pointed to how Christ taught. He avoided preaching to nations and governments; he wasn't political. My teachers pointed out that Christ taught individuals how faith/God can touch an individual life, not a nation's life, not the life of the world nor even the universe Hey Siri.

NFBW: It is interesting to note that Meriweather went from recognizing Jesus as a great humanistic teacher for individual human beings to Jesus being an anti-abortion white Christian nationalist authority focused entirely on ways the nation of America must be saved from the evils of the Democratic Party. The way to nation salvation is votes for anti-abortion Republican politicians no matter the outcome where Republicans seek to inflict upon the individual.

END2212240046


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Misso221223-#6,490 Missourian  “Every time I see this thread title it makes me smile.”

NFBW: Perhaps you should think more and giggle less because the Trump
enhanced Catholics on SCOTUS when deciding Dobbs, matches the dying GOP up to the asteroid that smashed into the earth and drove the dinosaurs into extinction. Dobbs is driving Republicanism into extinction.

Dobbs shocked the pro-freedom of choice side to wake up to the fact that the main reason the Republican Party has any clout or potency at all is due to the solidarity among mostly white anti-Roe Christians who have been working fanatically on banning abortion for fifty years and vote Republican to get that ban accomplished in a Christian Nation.

So why does Leo123 argue that Republicans are not the political party determined to ban all abortions everywhere?

CCJones221024-#282 C_Clayton_Jones   “‘Banning’ abortion is lawless government excess and overreach and should be aggressively opposed regardless one’s position on abortion”
^
^
LEO123221024-#286 Leo123   “*Nobody is banning abortion, feckless.”*

END2212240938


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> MeriW221222-#6,472 I will vote for the life candidate because it is also my stance that Government should not be involved in ending innocent life.


NFBW: Meriweather above contradicts herself in the same sentence because voting  for the Republican so called “life candidate” is active support for government intrusion into private non-harmful family planning decisions that have nothing to do with governing and law and order in a civil society such as ours where church and state are to be kept separate to the benefit of all.

END2212241222


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Meriweather above contradicts herself in the same sentence because voting  for the Republican so called “life candidate” is active support for government intrusion into private non-harmful family planning decisions that have nothing to do with governing and law and order in a civil society such as ours where church and state are to be kept separate to the benefit of all.
> 
> END2212241222


They say that a person who talks to himself is crazy right ??


----------



## Missourian

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why does rightwing white Christian oppression of women make you happy?


I joined this forum August 30, 2008.

Posted this September 6th...






						Poll:  Would you prefered to have been aborted?
					

.  Would you prefered to have been aborted?



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Been a long fight to overturn Roe... now those of us who fought the fight get to enjoy a victory that may save millions of young lives.

And there is now no chance the weasels in DC will force abortion on demand on the Several States.

It's a joyous occasion, the first Christmas post Roe... and I'm going to enjoy every second of it.


----------



## BackAgain

krichton said:


> I agree with all the cons here.  We need to do everything in our power to be more like Russia, Iran and Afghanistan.  Womenh have too rights.  A great deal of republican women also agree.


What is your native tongue?  Babble?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221223-#6,491    Why does rightwing white Christian oppression of women make you happy?

Misso080906-#1 Missourian  “Would you prefered to have been aborted?”

NFBW: It was none of my business what my mom did when I was not a viable person. It was exactly the same in 2008 when you asked that stupid question and it is still none of your business what every woman does that you did not impregnate during all the years since.

I’m taking notice that you posted that on a “religion and ethics” forum where it belongs. It is noteworthy because the anti-abortion Republicans keep telling me nowadays that it has nothing to do with religion or ethics or as matter of individual conscience.

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

END2212241623


----------



## Delldude

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW221223-#6,491 Why does rightwing white Christian oppression of women make you happy?


So leftwing suppression of women via male transgenders is ok?



ding said:


> Abortion is a human rights issue. Not a religious issue.



I bet God doesn't see it that way.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CPAC

FFI220724-#9    Trump was the keynote speaker. . . .  Should we also poll people at church and ask them if they believe in Jesus?
^
^
Misso220724-#15   The Democrats have failed to destroy President Trump using every resource at their disposal

NFBW: That was JULY.  The Hillbilly white Christians were celebrating Dobbs and they were fervently banning medical procedures where Hillbilly white Christians controlled the states. Hillbilly white Christian’s had the midterms to look forward to where Trumpism was expected to reign supreme once again. 

Sam Alito is an intellectual Catholic and not in any way a hillbilly which is why he uttered these words on Dobbs; 

“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​​Trump’s anti-abortion hillbillies will never get the significance of what Alito is saying right there . . . .

Trump did not appear to be destroyed Missourian last July but half a year later , the twice impeached loser is a farce and a sick pathetic joke ad he loses points of relevance every single day and as 2023 appears to be the year that both Trump and Putin go down into the pits of rotten human being hell. 

The Dobbs decision will be seen as Trump’s beginning of the end because he put three Catholics on the Supreme Court to keep his white hillbilly Bible base loyal. A huge mistake that was because the white hillbilly based is not big enough to hold back the multicultural politics forces that in reality are what makes America great in the first place. 

We can thank Kansas and Michigan and Meriweather ’s California for proving that.

END221224-1858 Merry Christmas.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Pro-Choice Republican Says Fuck The Queen of Spain And Her Knights Of Columbus Fucktards "

* Stupid Is As Stupid Does **


Missourian said:


> I joined this forum August 30, 2008.
> Posted this September 6th...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poll:  Would you prefered to have been aborted?
> 
> 
> .  Would you prefered to have been aborted?
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been a long fight to overturn Roe... now those of us who fought the fight get to enjoy a victory that may save millions of young lives.
> And there is now no chance the weasels in DC will force abortion on demand on the Several States.
> It's a joyous occasion, the first Christmas post Roe... and I'm going to enjoy every second of it.


Sedition by scotus for its dobbs decision is supported by traitors to us republic .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Cults Of Extraterrestrial Overlords And Celestial Deities "

* Biology Of What In Hell Are You Talking About **


Delldude said:


> So leftwing suppression of women via male transgenders is ok?
> I bet God doesn't see it that way.


The religion of secular humanism is idiocy and of that we can agree .

Does a conjecture that hue mammon was made in the image of gawd also imply that gawd eats food and shits out an asshole ?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*"  Simple Tons Of Crap " 

* Pride Of The Dumbfounded **


Missourian said:


> Every time I see this thread title it makes me smile.


The dobbs decision by scotus is not only sedition by traitors to the us republic , it will prevent americans from being able to manage illegal immigration for sovereignty of the us peoples .

The omni bus idiots have doubled down on government borrowing and spending for government contracts at contractor rates that inflated the money supply and created inflation in the cost of living for the rest of the public ; but no worries , as long as us kleptocracy thrives and theocrats get to violate us 1st amendment establishment clause , then selective endowment and trickle down poverty can be ignored .

The congress also recently held hearings on making the puta rico a state , so kiss 50 , i-ching - the holding , the melting pot - goodbye , as the numb skulls continue to turn a latin american problem into a north american problem .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Prolific Ignorance With Orwellian Clown Shoes "

* Trysts And Twists **


BackAgain said:


> Let’s go to the universal translator to convert your post into something coherent.
> The two holder headnotes?  Just gibberish.


The subsection titles are summations and sometimes added as an extra bitch slap that may appear to be idiocy to idiots who do not understand the idiom .

** Quibbling To Justify False Equivalence **


BackAgain said:


> The definition of babble is ok as far as it goes. Of course, it fails to capture the modern meaning and full intent of the word.


Propaganda works on the gullible and those biased with ignorance for buffoonery of fanaticism for their own fashion through the populism bandwagon .

** Sew Says Eye **


BackAgain said:


> Your last paragraph mis-spells “US”. It ought to in fact be “U.S.” It is an otherwise incorrect statement. Our republic is *not* based on a motto. “_E Pluribus Unum,_” properly understood, refers to many individual States joining together to form one nation.  The balance of that paragraph is also way off base.


That e pluribus unum means more than you anticipated is not diminished by quibbling from theocrats seeking to subvert it - fuck the queen of spain and the knights of columbus .

** Protections Versus Endowments **


BackAgain said:


> Our republic, at least as designed, certainly respects individualism. It is the right of the individual that our Constitution most profoundly seeks to protect. It doesn’t embrace any negative liberties.


Apparently you do not understand a difference between negative liberties , positive liberties , negative wrights and positive wrights , but that is not unusual because the us public has been fed years of intellectual buffoonery that is the conservative versus liberal paradigm .

That negative liberties are protections that can be equally protected and establish independence and individualism are the crux of us republic credo of e pluribus unum .

** No Clue Reference **


BackAgain said:


> Obama was simply wrong.


What does obama have to do with it ?

** Double Speak Nonsense From Fools Claiming Liberal Has Nothing To Do With Liberty **


BackAgain said:


> It instead limits *government* authority in order to safeguard the liberties of the People.


The terms libertarian and authoritarian are political science antonyms .

A negative wright is a law phrased as a proscription against authoritarian action by government and individuals receive negative liberties and independence with respect to government , which is espoused by libertarianism .

Alternatively , libertarianism does not espouse positive wrights that are prescriptions for authoritarian government , even when those positive wrights provide negative liberties for protection of individuals from other individuals , and especially when those positive wrights provide positive liberties of endowment .

** Simple And Direct Mockery Of Disingenuous Traitorous Fools **


BackAgain said:


> And it says exactly nothing about rights only coming to exist at birth.


A state is comprised of citizens in who a state interests lay , without who a state does not exist .

A citizen and its constitutional protections are instantiated with a live birth requirement ( us 14th amendment ) and equitable doctrine requires live birth for equal protection .


----------



## Delldude

Monk-Eye said:


> negative wrights and positive wrights



Say what??


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Wrights Replaces Rights Through Legal Positivism And Perspectivism "

* Prohibitions Versus Prescriptions For Government Action **


Delldude said:


> Say what??


A negative wright is a law written as a proscription against authoritarian action by government , whereby an individual acquires a negative liberty with respect to government , that is government is required to take no action , a non action , that by extension is a negative action , hence facilitating a negative liberty .

A positive wright is a law written as a prescription for authoritarian action by government , whereby an individual may acquire a negative liberty of protection from other individual because other individuals are required to take no action , or whereby an individual may acquire a positive liberty of endowment that requires other individuals to take action such as to provide a service or financial support .


----------



## Delldude

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Wrights Replaces Rights Through Legal Positivism And Perspectivism "
> 
> * Prohibitions Versus Prescriptions For Government Action **
> 
> A negative wright is a law written as a proscription against authoritarian action by government , whereby an individual acquires a negative liberty with respect to government , that is government is required to take no action , a non action , that by extension is a negative action , hence facilitating a negative liberty .
> 
> A positive wright is a law written as a prescription for authoritarian action by government , whereby an individual may acquire a negative liberty of protection from other individual because other individuals are required to take no action , or whereby an individual may acquire a positive liberty of endowment that requires other individuals to take action such as to provide a service or financial support .


You come across talking like you know your shit, yet you can't even correctly spell what is known as 'rights' under the constitution.

The Wright Brothers love you, man.


----------



## beagle9

Delldude said:


> You come across talking like you know your shit, yet you can't even correctly spell what is known as 'rights' under the constitution.
> 
> The Wright Brothers love you, man.


He's what they call an educated fool... Doesn't mean he's ever right, but he sounds good saying it... ROTFLMBO 🤣


----------



## DudleySmith

I'm guessing 'wrights' refers to 'woke rights', not real rights or Wright Wrights. Or maybe his Spellcheck is screwed up and came from an outsourced sub-contractor in Mumbai.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Unseating A Garb Of Baseless Arrogance "

* Tactical Measures Against Purveyors Of Slang **


Delldude said:


> You come across talking like you know your shit, yet you can't even correctly spell what is known as 'rights' under the constitution.
> The Wright Brothers love you, man.


Why did you not state " you can't even rightly spell " , rather than " you can't even correctly spell " ?

Could it be that such old english vernacular is not only antiquated but absurd ?

Consider arriving at a fork in the road and receiving a muddled direction to take a left and verbally stating " left " to confirm and then receiving a response of " right " rather than yes or correct .

The terms left and right indicate directions and neither is congruent with correct , and yet those on the " right " wish to maintain that as a pretense .

A refusal to indulge the tripe of contemporary pretenses for " natural law " and to pander to a ridiculous assertion that " right " is analogous with " correct " is not an inability to spell , rather it is a necessary and purposeful stipulation to get beyond a stupor ingrained by a dumbfounded lexicon .

A wright is a craftsman and law wrights craft laws that are more correctly referred to as wrights rather than as rights .

In mathematics , the term right ( 90 degree angle ) is more generally derived from a norm , and the term norm would be more accurate than the term right to describe writs of law , and norm would also be consistent perspectivism and legal positivism .






						Legal positivism - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_The most prominent legal positivist writer in English has been H. L. A. Hart, who, in 1958, found common usages of "positivism" as applied to law to include the contentions that:_

_laws are commands of human beings;_
_there is not any necessary relation between law and morality, that is, between law as it is and as it ought to be;_
_Historically, legal positivism is in opposition to natural law's theories of jurisprudence, with particular disagreement surrounding the natural lawyer's claim that there is a necessary connection between law and morality._







						Norm (philosophy) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



*Norms*_ are concepts (sentences) of practical import, oriented to affecting an action, rather than conceptual abstractions that describe, explain, and express. Normative sentences imply "ought-to" types of statements and assertions, in distinction to sentences that provide "is" types of statements and assertions. Common normative sentences include commands, permissions, and prohibitions; common normative abstract concepts include sincerity, justification, and honesty. A popular account of norms describes them as reasons to take action, to believe, and to feel._









						Normed vector space - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221222-#6,472 I will vote for the life candidate because it is also my stance that Government should not be involved in ending innocent life.



beagle9 said:


> They say that a person who talks to himself is crazy right ??



NFBW: Why do you vote or will vote for white Christian “life” candidates beagle9 like Trump, Abbott and DeSantis who campaign on using government force of law coercion to force all women who become pregnant to live by their male white Christian Republican standard to carry every pregnancy to full term even against the woman’s will and financial and health conditions??????

Do you know why Meriweather contradicts herself in posts and then runs away and hides??

Are you here beagle9 just to crack jokes in a circle-jerk with unintelligent clowns such as Delldude because you have no clue to explain why your own personal Christian  religious views on life in the womb are being forced upon all society that is expected to be free of government coercion on matters of individual conscience as it relates to individual liberty.

END2212260941


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221222-#6,474 “I will not ever accept an authoritarian government based on a Catholic type religious belief that a fully realized God personalized human being is created at conception.”
^
^
MeriW221222-#6,476 Meriweather Is someone suggesting that you should?
^
^
NFBW221223-#6,479  Yes, The following authoritarian Protestant and/or Catholic Trump Voters with you are prime examples in your ideological crusade against the natural right of free access to safe abortions for all women no matter where they live.
•
Mashmont220129-#231 Mashmont “When you remove religion from government, the cancer of atheism fills the void as is happening in the US. That's what the Framers failed to anticipate
•
Dayton3221008-#253 Dayton3  “I'm not against Catholics though. They've been a great asset in the fight against abortion and homosexuality.”
•
Marener221202-#6 That’s completely inaccurate. Liberals don’t care if you straight, white or Christian. It’s just that the people who espouse these “traditional values” have a tendency to think they need to tell everyone else how to live.
•^
Dayton3221202-#11 Dayton3 Most people need to be told how to live
^
^
NFBW221223-#6,479   “They are in your voting bloc in favor of politicians who support banning women from safe legal abortions in states where white evangelical Christians can dominate a state Capitol electorally.”
^
^
MeriW221224-#6,481  Meriweather  “That is why I maintain the position of removing the issue out of government entirely. Return it to the personal realm where it should have been all along. Government shouldn't have control over how people think; and for reasons already explained, should keep their stamp of approval to itself.”

NFBW: How can you teach science to young fertile minds when you have a published contradictory opinion saying you want government’s nose out of any activity taking place in a woman’s uterus but then you say you vote for “life candidates” who want the government to seize control of every uterus immediately starting at conception in order to dictate what goes on in there and continuing government control through live birth or stillbirth?

END2212261017


----------



## Delldude

Monk-Eye said:


> Why did you not state " you can't even rightly spell " , rather than " you can't even correctly spell " ?


You can't even wrightly spell.


----------



## Delldude

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you here @beagle9 just to crack jokes in a circle-jerk with unintelligent clowns such as @Delldude because you have no clue to explain why your own personal Christian religious views on life in the womb are being forced upon all society that is expected to be free of government coercion on matters of individual conscience as it relates to individual liberty.


The federal government has no business making decisions for the masses regarding abortion law. It is up to the people of each state to decide. We left England for that very same reason.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you know why @Meriweather contradicts herself in posts and then runs away and hides??


Sure, any fool understands.  First, they will tell you there is no contradiction.  Second they will inform you she is right here on the sidelines laughing at how wide you miss the mark.  Some who know me well might mention she has this strange philosophy of, *Never pursue the lie*.  As you are lying about her and her positions, there is no reason for her to continue with the discussion.  Shrug.  

Going on to the first person narrative:  

First, my position:  Life is the ideal.  Everything else comes second.

You have said life is your ideal...but then continue on with, "Except..."  If there is an exception, by definition your ideal is not life.  

That is the difference between the two of us and our positions.  My position is life is the ideal and yours is not.  

Second, my position is that government should have nothing to do with abortion, and that it stuck its nose and fingers where it does not belong.  

You believe government should give everyone permission to have an abortion.  

Third, since the government has successfully inserted itself into the abortion issue, you believe the federal government should be able to tell all the State governments that abortion should be available at all times.  

My position is that government should not be involved in abortion, but  since it is (now on the State level) I will not vote for a candidate that is in favor of ending life--be it via abortion or assisted suicide.  Why?  Because life is my greatest priority.   That position on life will not change; it is my priority, my ideal.  

Next, your attacks on me are so clumsy and ill founded, allow me to help you out.  


_Meriweather is merciless.  _
_She expects people to raise an unwanted child._
_She expects people to sacrifice their own lives for an unwanted child._
_She doesn't care if the child is lonely and miserable because their parents resent them and can't love them.  _
_She maintains the position of being against assisted suicide._
_She must want those in physical misery to continue to suffer._
_She must want those with mental health issues to continue a life of depression. _

Yes, all these are secondary to my priority, to my ideal.  You can argue such a person should be be locked in a dungeon for the remainder of her miserable life for all the misery that comes second to the gift of life.  

Have fun!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: The following exchange between beagle9 and DudleySmith is critical to the discussion here about the politics of abortion and the morality thereof. It is where DudleyS touched off a white evangelical Christian sermon from beagle9 with the phrase  “the evangelicals won't save the GOP.” 

It’s a sentiment that I believe is accurate and will come true because of the moral high ground attacks on freedom culminating in Dobbs against the backdrop of the same white evangelical Christians who supported the moral depravity of Trumpism for the tradeoff of placing a total of six Catholic conservatives on the Suoreme Court bench. That deal with the devil trade off culminated in January 6 of the same year.

beagle9221024-#5    “The nation is just experiencing the leftist agenda, and the confoolery that resides within that total agenda. It will hopefully reject the agenda's on November 8th”
^
^
DudleyS221024-#6  “. . . the evangelicals won't save the GOP.”
^
^
beagle9221024-#9     “What do you have against Christian's ? The true Christian's are the best people on this planet. They are for peace not war, and they are for living the biblical life that Christ had taught them to live. No not perfect, no not one, but the true Christian's are more apt to be right than any fake or secular citizen's when it comes to living a Christian humble and wholesome lifestyle for them and their families. •••• They are correct on their assessments concerning worldly matters when using the text to figure out the issue's and the problem's going on. •••• If anything they are hated because they speak the truth where the truth doesn't want to be heard, but when it's rejected then bad things come from the rejection of the truth (fact). •••• Hiding or running from the truth is not an option, because it will eventually catch up with those running, but at that point confession is good for the soul. Hopefully sin doesn't consume a person so badly in their rejection of the truth that it ends up destroying them before they can be helped. The evil one has had a plan to take as many as he can with him into Hell, and all due to his rebellion that got him thrown out of Heaven with the angels that followed him. ••••  No matter what happens, we are not to fear if we are saved through our repentance, and are willing to speak truth to power upon this earth.
^
^
DudleyS221024-#17 “Who said anything against Christians? Feeling guilty about something? The GOP just took them for granted, and they are on the decline as a percentage of the population, not to mention many of them weren't at all fond of the GOP, and were just voting on the abortion issue and law and order issues.”  

NFBW: White evangelical Trumpism anti ROE Christians are on trial by the voters and Kansas was the beginning of the end of Trumpism and the political clout of white anti-choice Christianity. May God Bless them with political irreversible irrelevance.

END2212261201


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Anti-Federalism Anti-Statistism Individualism Against Collectivist Authoritarian Despots "

* Deluded Dude **


Delldude said:


> The federal government has no business making decisions for the masses regarding abortion law. It is up to the people of each state to decide. We left England for that very same reason.


The state and federal government are prohibited from protecting a wright to life of a zygote , or embryo , or fetus which has not met a live birth requirement to receive equal protection with a citizen - that includes a wright to life .

That the federal government equally protects the negative liberties of individuals from illegitimate aggression by the states is not federalism , it is individualism .


----------



## BackAgain

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Prolific Ignorance With Orwellian Clown Shoes "
> 
> * Trysts And Twists **
> 
> The subsection titles are summations and sometimes added as an extra bitch slap that may appear to be idiocy to idiots who do not understand the idiom .
> 
> ** Quibbling To Justify False Equivalence **
> 
> Propaganda works on the gullible and those biased with ignorance for buffoonery of fanaticism for their own fashion through the populism bandwagon .
> 
> ** Sew Says Eye **
> 
> That e pluribus unum means more than you anticipated is not diminished by quibbling from theocrats seeking to subvert it - fuck the queen of spain and the knights of columbus .
> 
> ** Protections Versus Endowments **
> 
> Apparently you do not understand a difference between negative liberties , positive liberties , negative wrights and positive wrights , but that is not unusual because the us public has been fed years of intellectual buffoonery that is the conservative versus liberal paradigm .
> 
> That negative liberties are protections that can be equally protected and establish independence and individualism are the crux of us republic credo of e pluribus unum .
> 
> ** No Clue Reference **
> 
> What does obama have to do with it ?
> 
> ** Double Speak Nonsense From Fools Claiming Liberal Has Nothing To Do With Liberty **
> 
> The terms libertarian and authoritarian are political science antonyms .
> 
> A negative wright is a law phrased as a proscription against authoritarian action by government and individuals receive negative liberties and independence with respect to government , which is espoused by libertarianism .
> 
> Alternatively , libertarianism does not espouse positive wrights that are prescriptions for authoritarian government , even when those positive wrights provide negative liberties for protection of individuals from other individuals , and especially when those positive wrights provide positive liberties of endowment .
> 
> ** Simple And Direct Mockery Of Disingenuous Traitorous Fools **
> 
> A state is comprised of citizens in who a state interests lay , without who a state does not exist .
> 
> A citizen and its constitutional protections are instantiated with a live birth requirement ( us 14th amendment ) and equitable doctrine requires live birth for equal protection .


You could be more wrong but it would have required that you type more.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Imagine thinking you worship a good god who approves of you as you promote hatred and  violence against the weakest and most voiceless human beings.

Your god isn’t fit to drink my piss, W’s Bitch Boy.  What a vile entity you worship.  You and your trash god are unfit for civilization.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221226-#6,515   Sure, any fool understands. First, they will tell you there is no contradiction.

NFBW: But you do contradict yourself Meriweather  unless you can tell me that every given state government is not at all a government. Think about that and get back to me.

Perhaps you think wordplay like the great Delldude has engaged in the exchange that you can read below is honest. 

NFBW221226-#6,511    Are you here beagle9 just to crack jokes in a circle-jerk with unintelligent clowns such as Delldude because you have no clue to explain why your own personal Christian religious views on life in the womb are *being forced* upon all society that is expected to be free of *government coercion *on matters of individual conscience as it relates to individual liberty.
^
^
Delldude221226-#6,514   The federal government has no business making decisions for the masses regarding abortion law. It is up to the people of each state to decide. We left England for that very same reason.

NFBW: You need to grasp Meriweather what I said to @beagle that my words “*being forced”* and “*government coercion”* are applicable to all governments - state, local and federal. 

“why your own personal Christian religious views on life in the womb are *being forced* upon all society that is expected to be free of *government coercion* on matters of individual conscience.”

NFBW: So you have a contradiction Meriweather. Are you going to deal with it or run from it? that is the question. 

END2212261327


----------



## Delldude

Monk-Eye said:


> That the federal government equally protects the negative liberties of individuals from illegitimate aggression by the states is not federalism , *it is individualism*



That is what states* rights* are under the 10th amendment.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: But you do contradict yourself @Meriweather unless you can tell me that every given state government is not at all a government. Think about that and get back to me.


You are off in some kind of la-la land probably due to your own misunderstanding of what you think I said or meant.  No, I don't follow this thread or what you are saying to people.  It is not that interesting.  You seemed to want to know my thought process.  I tried my best to explain in; you did your best to make turn it into something convoluted to serve your point...introducing the "Meriweather in NotfooledbyW head", which is not even close to my own reality.  

In short, you have no interest in me and my position; your interest is in some character of your own imagination.  And that's fine, but it is not a party I care to be a part of.  It is why I am not following the thread or what you say to anyone else.  I suspect you do to them what you do to me, and I would rather meet the real them in another thread, having no interest in your imaginary characterization of them.  

Moving on... (Or, as you would have your imaginary character say, "Running away and hiding."   )


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221226-#6,520    But you do contradict yourself Meriweather unless you can tell me that every given state government is not at all a government. Think about that and get back to me.
^
^
MeriW221226-#6,522    You are off in some kind of la-la land probably due to your own misunderstanding of what you think I said or meant.

NFBW: I am going by exactly what you write and meant. You contradict yourself in the very same sentence. You say you are opposed to government dictating abortion  policy and then turn around and say you vote for politicians who will dictate abortion policy if enough of them get elected into public office. Tell me where I am misrepresenting what you have eternalized in writing.

END2212261526


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221226-#6,522   No, I don't follow this thread or what you are saying to people. It is not that interesting.

NFBW: I could care less if you don’t follow this thread. The contradictions and errors in your argument render you useless to the intellectual, rational and openly honest discussion that needs to be had from both sides. 

END2212261620


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I am going by exactly what you write and meant. You contradict yourself in the very same sentence. You say you are opposed to government dictating abortion policy and then turn around and say you vote for politicians who will dictate abortion policy if enough of them get elected into public office. Tell me where I am misrepresenting what you have eternalized in writing.


Sweetheart, it is not that difficult.  

1.  I am opposed to government having to do with abortion.  They NEVER should have gotten into in the first place.  

_Do  you understand the above?  Is it clear?  _

2.  However, government IS and HAS BEEN involved in abortion rulings.

_Do you understand point 2?  Is it clear?  Are you able to understand that the two do not contradict each other?  Point 1 tells you that I wish government had nothing to do with abortion.  Point 2 tells you that I acknowledge government has assumed authority over abortion decisions?

This is not contradictory.  What I wish were the case *IS NOT* the case.  Can you understand that noting what I wish and compare it to the reality is not contradictory?  _

A_re unable to understand this?  If you cannot, I will try one more example.  It is like saying, "I wish it were sunny today, but it is raining."  That statement is not contradictory.  It is wishing for something while acknowledging the reality.  _
3.  The reality is that elected government officials rule on abortions decisions.  I wish that were not the case.  As it is the case, the reality, my vote goes to those who rule against abortion/euthanasia and protect life.  

_Do you understand Point 3 is not contradictory?  It is like me saying, "I wish it were sunny today, but it is raining.  Therefore I will take an umbrella with me when I go for a walk outside.  I am not contradicting the facts.  I wish one thing, but the opposite is true.  _

Can't make it any plainer.  If you *still* see it as contradictory, you need to discuss such high matters with someone on your own level as clearly I am not in your league.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: I could care less i


Are you saying you care a lot, but it is possible for you to care less than you do?  Sweet!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221226-#6,525  Meriweather    1. I am opposed to government having to do with abortion. They NEVER should have gotten into in the first place.

NFBW: One at a time. Government is not in the abortion business - Elected officials in Congress at the Federal level of Government had no say in the Row v Wade decision. That was decided by a bipartisan Supreme Court as it was a woman’s rights issue that gave all Americans fifty years of precedent that abortion should be legal in all fifty states. The justices on the Sumpreme are not elected officials.

So you are wrong right out of the box, therefore your self-contradiction still stands.

END2212261957


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Advocates For Traitors Against Us Republic Barking Up An Empty Tree "

* Us 9th Amendment Rigorous Dispatch Of Tyranny By Majority Against Individualism Through Us 10th Amendment Conjectures **


Delldude said:


> That is what states* rights* are under the 10th amendment.


By principles of non violence and individualism , the normative rites of a state under us 10th amendment are to equally protect the negative liberties of individuals entitled by live birth to receive them and limited to safety and or security by eisegesis of us 9th amendment .

When one or more individuals is are violating the negative liberties of one or more other individuals and the violations are against safety and or security , a state interest exists and is not prohibited under us 10th amendment ,

The roe v wade decision ruled that in the first trimester abortion was between a doctor and a patient , as the procedures complied with safety and security constraints , whereas in the second trimester states could prescribe laws to ensure that abortion procedures were safe - from which trap laws arose , while in the third trimester post natural viability was substituted in lieu of a live birth requirement for equal protection - given an ability to survive an imminent live birth , the roe v wade court made reference to a " potential life " and ruled that a state interest could begin and that states could proscribe abortion in the third trimester except to protect the life of the mother .

Clearly the roe v wade decision is an application of state rites to provision safety and or security for equal protection of negative liberties among individuals entitled by live birth to receive them as prescribed by us 9th , 10th and 14th amendments .

The us 9th amendment stipulates equal protection of negative liberty constraints upon state interests in us 10th amendment , which protects the individual from populism of democracy as tyranny by majority , whether at a federal or at a state level , and such is the basis of this us republic from its credo of e pluribus unum that includes principles of non violence and individualism .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221226-#6,525  1. I am opposed to government having to do with abortion. They NEVER should have gotten into in the first place.

NFBW: No. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.  You tried to dictate the terms of this discussion whereas only you can be right. You asked me a loaded question and then walked away without waiting for my response.

If you want to keep all the toys to yourself because you fashion yourself as something special then I don't want to play with you. You can play by yourself or only with Republicans, I really do not care at all.,

Your last post was good though - I am responding to all your points as time permits whether or not you are interested - As I can do it for the record.

END2212262049


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Monk-Eye said:


> which protects the individual from populism of democracy as tyranny by majority


NFBW: That is exactly what all the celebrants of the Dobbs decision are for - the tyranny of the majority over pregnant women - it is simply a matter of that fact. 
END2212262053


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: That is exactly what all the celebrants of the Dobbs decision are for - the tyranny of the majority over pregnant women - it is simply a matter of that fact.
> END2212262053


“Tyranny of the majority?”

The human right to life shouldn’t be up to a vote.  Abortion should just be banned.

Freedom isn’t tyranny - you sick fuck adherent of some unspeakable putrid shit demon.


----------



## Delldude

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Advocates For Traitors Against Us Republic Barking Up An Empty Tree "
> 
> * Us 9th Amendment Rigorous Dispatch Of Tyranny By Majority Against Individualism Through Us 10th Amendment Conjectures **
> 
> By principles of non violence and individualism , the normative rites of a state under us 10th amendment are to equally protect the negative liberties of individuals entitled by live birth to receive them and limited to safety and or security by eisegesis of us 9th amendment .
> 
> When one or more individuals is are violating the negative liberties of one or more other individuals and the violations are against safety and or security , a state interest exists and is not prohibited under us 10th amendment ,
> 
> The roe v wade decision ruled that in the first trimester abortion was between a doctor and a patient , as the procedures complied with safety and security constraints , whereas in the second trimester states could prescribe laws to ensure that abortion procedures were safe - from which trap laws arose , while in the third trimester post natural viability was substituted in lieu of a live birth requirement for equal protection - given an ability to survive an imminent live birth , the roe v wade court made reference to a " potential life " and ruled that a state interest could begin and that states could proscribe abortion in the third trimester except to protect the life of the mother .
> 
> Clearly the roe v wade decision is an application of state rites to provision safety and or security for equal protection of negative liberties among individuals entitled by live birth to receive them as prescribed by us 9th , 10th and 14th amendments .
> 
> The us 9th amendment stipulates equal protection of negative liberty constraints upon state interests in us 10th amendment , which protects the individual from populism of democracy as tyranny by majority , whether at a federal or at a state level , and such is the basis of this us republic from its credo of e pluribus unum that includes principles of non violence and individualism .


Blah blah blah....10th says its up to the individual states to create law regarding abortion...........supported by SCOTUS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221226-#6,530    “That is exactly what all the celebrants of the Dobbs decision are for - the tyranny of the majority over pregnant women - it is simply a matter of that fact”
^
^
Cplus6221226-#6,531  “Tyranny of the majority?” •••• The human right to life shouldn’t be up to a vote. Abortion should just be banned.

NFBW: The human right to life following birth is already enshrined in civil society. There is no not-viable human right to life except in the minds of hate infested atheist goons such as yourself CarsomyrPlusSix and white evangelical Protestant Christian
zealots like beagle9  and theocratic white Christian Catholic nationalists like Mashmont .

So you are correct CarsomyrPlusSix to state, when you state it correctly, that a not viable human right to life shouldn’t be up to a vote because it violates the right
of the pregnant woman to decide that a full term pregnancy interferes with her life plan and whether a full term pregnancy would be harmful to her health and mental well-being.

END2212262336


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221226-#6,525 @Meriweather 1. I am opposed to government having to do with abortion. They NEVER should have gotten into in the first place.

NFBW: Roe v Wade made choice possible. The Federal Government has been steadfastly neutral. Nowhere has the Federal Government pressured pregnant women to have an abortion. To the Federal Government all matters of pregnancy are necessarily to be decided primarily between a pregnant woman and her doctor. Nowhere does the federal government intervene, impede or demand a certain outcome other than a safe facility be available when a woman decides on her own what to do about an unwanted pregnancy because it’s nobody’s business what is going on in a woman’s castle - her body. 

END2212252257


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221226-#6,525    2. However, government IS and HAS BEEN involved in *abortion rulings.*

NFBW: What rulings? ROE V Wade began when a private citizen who was pregnant sued the state of Texas and won when it made it to the Supreme Court.

On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down the Texas law banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure nationwide. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the court declared that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment.​​The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.​​







						Roe v. Wade
					

Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States.




					www.history.com
				


​In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.​​NFBW: If you truly wanted government out of making abortion decisions you would not advocate for Roe vs Wade to be overturned after fifty years of keeping governments, like the one in Texas, from sticking their nose into a woman’s uterus. Texas is your villain Meriweather if you truly want the government out of it, as you say it:

MeriW221226-#6,525  1. I am opposed to government having to do with abortion. They NEVER should have gotten into abortion in the first place.

NFBW: If you are capable of being rational you wouid realize that you are saying that Texas should not have been “having to do” with abortion in the first place so Jane Roe didn’t have to fly to Hawaii to get
A safe and legal abortion and since she could not afford that she sued
Texas.

Being irrational in writing is a bad idea..

END2212262353


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW221226-#6,525    3. The reality is that elected government officials rule on abortions decisions. I wish that were not the case. As it is the case, the reality, my vote goes to those who rule against abortion/euthanasia and protect life.

NFBW  There are no elected officials who pass laws requiring women to abort a pregnancy before it reaches full term. •••• There are only elected officials who pass laws that require a woman to carry a pregnancy full term unless she can travel to a state where no such coercive laws exist.

You are erroneously refuting your contradiction by fabricating your own fake reality opposite ia world where there was no government involvement regarding abortion so a woman simply decided with her doctor if she decides to abort her child. It was her choice to make based on natural law and having autonomy over her health and family planning.

You Meriweather oppose that privacy and freedom of choice so you for some strange reason try to claim that you oppose it because elected officials voted to make abortion legal and safe. •••• Your fabricated and erroneous blanket blame it all on elected officials for making the first move to legalize abortion is a fatal flaw in your opinion. •••• It was the Supreme Court that made abortion legal nationwide. You are wrong to try to make excuses for voting only for Republican politicians who seek to ban abortions and take away freedom of choice from women and having government force all pregnancies to go full term.

 You are irrational and contradictory with those thoughts. WHY DO IT?????

I oppose government coercion and you support government coercion.
that is the truth.

END2212270552


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW170305-#100  Meriweather  “Women do have choices, but why should taking a life be one of those choices?”

NFBW: When you vote for pro-life candidates do you think it pleases your Catholic version of God and Vatican  interpretation of “Thou Shalt not kill”’ when those politicians pass laws authorizing the government to take the choice away from pregnant women and authorize the government to force women to give birth against their will? 

END2212270700


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MeriW170305-#115 Upon conception, there are two bodies involved.

NFBW: Early on in every pregnancy, the one body that is viable is oxygenating blood for the one body that will not be viable during at least the first 24 weeks after conception. 

Do you accept that the above biological and scientific fact should be denied to be relevant in a secular society dedicated to freedom of conscience just because the Catholic religion requires its believers such as yourself Meriweather to see life as a gift from God regardless of the critical dinstiction between viable life and not-viable  life? 

END2212270741


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: What rulings? ROE V Wade began when a private citizen who was pregnant sued the state of Texas and won when it made it to the Supreme Court.


You do recognize this as government involvement?  Government making the decision?  My position is that the government should not care about abortion one way or another.  I have said this ad nauseum.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> There are only elected officials who pass laws that require a woman to carry a pregnancy full term unless


You may finally have it!  Government should not care one way or the other!  It should not be in their purview AT ALL.  It is not government business or interest the government at all, any more than it is government business to decide what color I paint my bathroom.  

IT.SHOULD.NOT.GOVERNMENT.BUSINESS.

Why can't you understand me on this point???!!


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Mass Media Marketing Parity Policy Race "

* Blah Blah Blah Babble Vacuumed Twisted Locked Tight **


Delldude said:


> Blah blah blah....
> 
> .......supported by SCOTUS.



The premise presented is legible , intelligible and credible and supported by scotus - roe v wade .

Any citizen is entitled to legal standing for a claim that prohibition of abortion by a state violates the principles of equitable doctrine , as by us 14th amendment a citizen must be born and therefore equal protection with a citizen requires birth .

The seditious act by us scotus in dobbs decision is supported by traitors to the principles of individualism which remains the foundation of this us republic .

** Scrotus Dobbs Sedition For Traitors **


Delldude said:


> 10th says its up to the individual states to create law regarding abortion....


Us 10th does not mention abortion .

The requisite determinate in us 10th amendment is whether a state is prohibited , that is proscribed ( negative wright ) , from issuing a prescription of law .

A state is prohibited from prescribing a law to protect a wright to life of a zygote , or embryo , or fetus which has not met a live birth requirement to receive equal protection with a citizen , that would include a wright to life .

A state is prohibited from prescribing a law to protect a rite to life of a zygote , or embryo , or fetus which has not met a live birth requirement to receive equal protection with a citizen , that would include a rite to life .

** Says Awl Sorts Of Things **

As designated for " to the people " in us 9th ( federal ) and " or to the people " in us 10th ( state ) is an ability of the people to determine a public policy based on populism , that is public policy can be determined through direct vote of the public .


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> You @Meriweather oppose that privacy and freedom of choice so you for some strange reason try to claim that you oppose it because elected officials voted to make abortion legal and safe. •••• Your fabricated and erroneous blanket blame it all on elected officials for making the first move to legalize abortion is a fatal flaw in your opinion. •••• It was the Supreme Court that made abortion legal nationwide. You are wrong to try to make excuses for voting only for Republican politicians who seek to ban abortions and take away freedom of choice from women and having government force all pregnancies to go full term.


Yawn.  Clearly you don't understand a word I have been saying.  The government having no say in abortion means there is more privacy, more freedom because it 

WOULD.NOT.BE..NOT.GOVERNMENT.REGULATED.AT.ALL. ​I am saying government cannot permit abortion and government cannot prevent abortion because IT IS TOTALLY OUT OF GOVERNMENT PURVIEW.

Open your eyes!  Open your mind!  My points have not been that difficult to comprehend.  Can you see what a waste of time this is for me?  



​


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> I oppose government coercion and you support government coercion.
> that is the truth.


Can you understand why I have been insisting you have created your own Meriweather in your own head and therefore why it is pointless for me to keep responding to you.  You have not heard or seen a word I have said.  All you hear is your imagination creating an argument with an imaginary Meriweather.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: When you vote for pro-life candidates do you think it pleases your Catholic version of God and Vatican interpretation of “Thou Shalt not kill”’ when those politicians pass laws authorizing the government to take the choice away from pregnant women and authorize the government to force women to give birth against their will?


Do you vote for those who support pro-abortion candidates because it pleases someone else?  

Your imaginary Meriweather is just a Vatican robot or a brainwashed Catholic?  Shrug.  I am guessing you cannot comprehend that my own life experiences and the philosophies I have been creating since I was a toddler have me voting to please no one but myself.  

*ONCE MORE*, I am saying the government gives neither approval or disapproval.  The issue isn't on the government mind or agenda one way or another.


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Imagine thinking you worship a good god who approves of you as you promote hatred and  violence against the weakest and most voiceless human beings.
> 
> Your god isn’t fit to drink my piss, W’s Bitch Boy.  What a vile entity you worship.  You and your trash god are unfit for civilization.


Satan isn't worth worshiping, yes you are correct, in fact allowing him to come into one's mind is the very thing that causes such heartless thinking and action's to take place in the mind's of his worshipers. He doesn't worship the God I know, because if he did this issue would be simple for him, otherwise he would always side with life. There are no gray area's involved. He would know exactly what to say and do.

He would help this country become a CIVILIZED SOCIETY again, and work to unravel what the leftist cabal has since created with it's lie's and brainwashing. Not sure about the time frames left, but it sure would be great to imagine once again a great God fearing nation that value's life, even when it is developing in the womb, and one that mother's take responsibility for, instead of taker's of it for reckless reasoning in which they conjure up.

Look at the mother's in Ukraine, having babies under the threat's of missile's raining down upon them. Why ? Because they haven't devolved into devil's having no care for their unborn babies over there. They cling to life while under the most extreme circumstances, but here they stub their toe and blame the unborn baby, so next they say awwwe just kill it.


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Early on in every pregnancy, the one body that is viable is oxygenating blood for the one body that will not be viable during at least the first 24 weeks after conception.


A life, a body is being created.  My priority/ideal is that life is our greatest gift. 


NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you accept that the above biological and scientific fact should be denied to be relevant in a secular society dedicated to freedom of conscience just because the Catholic religion requires its believers such as yourself @Meriweather to see life as a gift from God regardless of the critical dinstiction between viable life and not-viable life?


Yawn.  While the Catholic faith might agree with me, as I mentioned before, more Catholics have abortions than Protestants.  As you see, Catholics aren't "required" to make life their own greatest ideal.  Some make a very good point in placing salvation as their greatest ideal/priority.  Others opt for love.  For free will.  There are probably others.  

As it was brought up time and again in Catholic school...not all Saints agreed with each other, so we as Catholics should not expect to find our fellow Catholics in lockstep with one another in anything other than Christ is our redeemer.


----------



## beagle9

Meriweather said:


> You are off in some kind of la-la land probably due to your own misunderstanding of what you think I said or meant.  No, I don't follow this thread or what you are saying to people.  It is not that interesting.  You seemed to want to know my thought process.  I tried my best to explain in; you did your best to make turn it into something convoluted to serve your point...introducing the "Meriweather in NotfooledbyW head", which is not even close to my own reality.
> 
> In short, you have no interest in me and my position; your interest is in some character of your own imagination.  And that's fine, but it is not a party I care to be a part of.  It is why I am not following the thread or what you say to anyone else.  I suspect you do to them what you do to me, and I would rather meet the real them in another thread, having no interest in your imaginary characterization of them.
> 
> Moving on... (Or, as you would have your imaginary character say, "Running away and hiding."   )


You are finding out exactly how the leftist thinks..  That's awesome.


----------



## Meriweather

beagle9 said:


> You are finding out exactly how the leftist thinks.. That's awesome.


It appears that if there is no one to fight with and nothing to fight about, they start creating people in their heads.  As you might imagine, I now find myself in quite a quandary as I see creation of people as a great gift.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221227-#6,535     What rulings? ROE V Wade began when a private citizen who was pregnant sued the state of Texas and won when it made it to the Supreme Court.
^
^
MeriW221227-#6,539   You do recognize this as government involvement? Government making the decision?

NFBW: Yes I do and the only government dictatorial policy that would ever force a pregnant woman to sue the government for blocking her individual right to terminate the living yet not-viable human body attached to her uterus is a politically biased Republican controlled government because religious people vote for anti-choice Republicans in droves.

Here is where you wrote what contradicts your desire for no government involvement in a pregnant woman’s decision whether or not to go full term or end the not-viable life developing in her body.

MeriW221222-#6,472  Meriweather I will vote for the life candidate because it is also my stance that Government should not be involved in ending innocent life. A government who involves itself in such is not a government to be trusted in other matters.

NFBW: When you vote for the life candidate you are voting for government involvement in abortion. You cannot bluff your way out of the conflicting and contradictory knots you have tied yourself in.

JUST ADMIT THAT YOU DEMAND AND VOTE FOR GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT TO BLOCK A WOMAN FROM FREELY DEALING WITH HER PREGNANCY SITUATION IN THE PRIVACY OF HER PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND HER DOCTOR IN ORDER TO SAVE THE NOT VIABLE HUMAN THAT HAS BECOME A PART Of HER BODY AND PRIVATE LIFE. And your inconsistencies all melt away.


MeriW221227-#6,540  Government should not care one way or the other! It should not be in their purview AT ALL. It is not government business or interest the government at all, any more than it is government business to decide what color I paint my bathroom.

NFBW: And the you turn around and tell me you vote only for politicians who make the abortion decisions the government’s business. 

WHY? Why? Why? Do you do that? 

END2212271034


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meriweather said:


> *ONCE MORE*, I am saying the government gives neither approval or disapproval. The issue isn't on the government mind or agenda one way or another.


NFBW: That is impossible to be true. The religious right has forced all Republicans to ban abortions in red states and the religious right has therefore forced Democrats in Blue States to define and defend the reproductive rights of all women. 

You told me you vote with the religious right all the time. 

END2212371106


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meriweather said:


> Can you understand why I have been insisting you have created your own Meriweather in your own head and therefore why it is pointless for me to keep responding to you.


I am careful to debate with you based on your exact words and have created nothing at all about you and your beliefs in my own mind.

I understand you need to resort to unprovable accusatory language such as the above because there is no way for you to refute my facts and perceived interpretations that attempt to keep you in a an in depth discussion that is not tribal because I believe you and I agree more than disagree.

Our likeness centers on a personal level wherein we both value the life of the unborn exactly the same - very highly.

  Our difference lies in how we see the political role shaking out on the public square.

 I vote Democrat because I want the religious right party never holding power to ban abortion because I do not seek to impose my personal belief on the value of life on the general public out of respect fir the Constitution and individual liberty. 

When a woman finds out that she is pregnant unbeknownst to me,  my personal beliefs have no bearing on whatever decisions she makes.

You on the other vote with the religious right and therefore and at least by default are imposing your personal values on the unborn onto millions of women that have no personal relationship or obligation to you whatsoever, by subjecting them to the restrictive meddling government that the religious right intends to lord over them.

If you can dispute any of that feel free to do so directly.

END2212271152


----------



## Meriweather

NotfooledbyW said:


> If you can dispute any of that feel free to do so directly.


You seem to be under the impression that this thread is about me and that I want to talk about me.  

On the other hand, I am under the impression you are unable discuss an issue without making it about the poster.

I return to my philosophy:  _*Don't pursue the lie*_.

For these reasons, I have no interest in continuing this discussion.  I.AM.BORED.  Which you will translate (and are free to do so) as me running and hiding.  

Speaking of hiding--and in plain sight--What do I look for first when selecting a candidate?   This is your final opportunity to make this thread about me, but also the first chance for you to get at least one thing correct.  A first opportunity and a final opportunity.  

As I expect you will get it as wrong as you have gotten everything else, I'll take this moment to wish you a happy New Year.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Meriweather said:


> You seem to be under the impression that this thread is about me and that I want to talk about me.


NFBW: All I know is Meriweather doesn’t want to talk about the inconsistency that exists in this statement:

MeriW221222-#6,472 @Meriweather I will vote for the life candidate because it is also my stance that Government should not be involved in ending innocent life. A government who involves itself in such is not a government to be trusted in other matters.

END2212272105


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Delldude221226-#6,514   The federal government has no business making decisions for the masses regarding abortion law. It is up to the people of each state to decide. We left England for that very same reason.

NFBW: Your White Christian nationalist Republican people have no business imposing the Vatican’s Humanae Vitae reproduction laws on American Citizens who live under a Federal Government that is necessary to protect their freedom of conscience from Catholic and Protestant do-gooders like #Meriweather and beagle9 and the rest of the Republican anti-liberty so-called life voters and politicians.



Meriweather said:


> Frankly, I see government as a cesspool. We should be teaching our children that it is,


NFBW: What kind of teacher would imagine preaching Trumpism to young minds like that.

END2212272226


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Delldude221226-#6,514   The federal government has no business making decisions for the masses regarding abortion law. It is up to the people of each state to decide. We left England for that very same reason.
> 
> NFBW: Your White Christian nationalist Republican people have no business imposing the Vatican’s Humanae Vitae reproduction laws on American Citizens who live under a Federal Government that is necessary to protect their freedom of conscience from Catholic and Protestant do-gooders like #Meriweather and beagle9 and the rest of the Republican anti-liberty so-called life politicians.
> 
> 
> NFBW: What kind of teacher would imagine preaching Trumpism to young minds like that.
> 
> END2212272226


A better one than teaching kids to sin against God that's for sure.


----------



## Delldude

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Your White Christian nationalist Republican people have no business imposing the Vatican’s Humanae Vitae reproduction laws on American Citizens who live under a Federal Government that is necessary to protect their freedom of conscience from Catholic and Protestant do-gooders like #Meriweather and @beagle9 and the rest of the Republican anti-liberty so-called life voters and politicians.


They're going to bring back the KKK and let the dems run it again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Delldude221226-#6,514 The federal government has no business making decisions for the masses regarding abortion law. It is up to the people of each state to decide. We left England for that very same reason.
^
^
NFBW221227-#6,554  Your White Christian nationalist Republican people have no business imposing the Vatican’s Humanae Vitae reproduction laws on American Citizens who live under a Federal Government that is necessary to protect their freedom of conscience from Catholic and Protestant do-gooders like #Meriweather and beagle9 and the rest of the Republican anti-liberty so-called life politicians.
^
^
Delldude221227-#6,556   “They're going to bring back the KKK and let the dems run it again.”

NFBW: I recognize that MAGA World has white supremacists in the congregation and some were standing by for Trump, but for you to expect the multicultural inclusive and progressive Democrats would associate with  the KKK is absurd.  But absurd is the only place you can go because the mostly white Republicans even if they want to, cannot disown their KKK Kissing Kuzzins. 

MeriW221219-#6,447    “Frankly, I see government as a cesspool. We should be teaching our children that it is, “
^
^
NFBW221227-#6,554  “What kind of teacher would imagine preaching Trumpism to young minds like that.”
^
^
beagle9221227-#6,555   A better one than teaching kids to sin against God that's for sure.

NFBW: Is that an accusation beagle9  ???  I’m a rational theist like our first four presidents. I reject the concept of sinning against God let alone teaching such a ridiculous irrational concept to children.

END2212280018


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> I vote Democrat because I want the religious right party never holding power to ban abortion because I do not seek to impose my personal belief on the value of life on the general public out of respect fir the Constitution and individual liberty.


You vote for the vile collectivist socialist party with zero respect for the Constitution and zero respect for individual liberty or individual human rights because you want those human beings you hate to be killed without legal consequence.  You want those you hate denied their human rights so they can be killed on a whim.  Because you are inhuman filth, which fits with America’s collectivist socialist party.

You are also a habitual liar disoriented from reality, which makes you a natural fit with that party’s dementia-ridden standard bearer, who has no consistent principles at all other than saying whatever will get him the support of his howling collectivist mob.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221227-#6,551    “I vote Democrat because I want the religious right party never holding power to ban abortion because I do not seek to impose my personal belief on the value of life on the general public out of respect for the Constitution and individual liberty.”
^
^
Cplus6221228-#6,558   You vote for the vile collectivist socialist party with zero respect for the Constitution and zero respect for individual liberty or individual human rights because you want those human beings you hate to be killed without legal consequence.

MeriW221227-#6,552  “I return to my philosophy: Don't pursue the lie.”
^
NFBW: I have a similar cardinal rule based upon what Jesus reportedly said “seek the truth and ye shall be free” in the sense that if all sought the truth all would universally be free of the tribal differences that divide mankind.

NFBW: It’s too bad Meriweather became bored with this thread, made accusations and split, because perhaps I could convince one of the least tribal on the great abortion tribal divide to realize this thread is not about her, it’s about every poster expressing a tribal interest in the ROE v WADE TO DOBBS V JACKSON  and therefore hopefully being in pursuit of truth and recognition of the political/religious shift taking placei right now on abortion. It is a monumental shift that transcends the 50 years of tribal warfare over ROE leading to the 2020 election, the Big Lie, The Jan 6 threat to our Constitutional Democratic Republic and perhaps an arrest and conviction of the former president who put three more Catholics on the Supreme Court that threw out out ROE.

*In my book it is all tribal and all related.* AND We cannot resolve the tribal divide when told to compartmentalize our tribal differences and try to resolve them separately. We must start with abortion.

So Meriweather this is to let you know this thread is not about you. It is about the list of posters in your tribe accepting or rejecting truth.

It’s also that in my opinion you are the least tribal of all of them. Just so you know, I rate CarsomyrPlusSix the most tribal and he will  never have an interest in seeking truth about anything when and if truth hurts the tribe.

1srelluc
airplanemechanic
Alan Stallion
AMart
AquaAthena
AzogtheDefiler
BackAgain
beagle9
beautress
BlueGin
buttercup
Calypso Jones
CarsomyrPlusSix
ClaireH
Clipper
ColonelAngus
Concerned American
Correll
Dayton3
Delldude
ding
DudleySmith
eagle7-31
Esdraelon
EvilCat Breath
excalibur
Flash
Foolardi
Ghost1776
GWV5903
Hang on Sloopy
healthmyths
HereWeGoAgain
Hossfly
Indeependent
JGalt
lantern2814
Leo123
MAGA Macho Man
Man of Ethics
Mashmont
Missourian
MisterBeale
Muhammed
night_son
Nostra
Oddball
OKTexas
Osiris-ODS
PoliticalChic
Ringtone
Ropey
scruffy
Stormy Daniels
SweetSue92
task0778
TemplarKormac
Terri4Trump
TheGreatSatan
Thunderbird
Turtlesoup
two_iron
Unkotare
Weatherman2020
WelfareQueen
whitehall
yidnar

END2212281036


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> The Jan 6 threat to our Constitutional Democratic Republic


Histrionic ridiculousness.



NotfooledbyW said:


> and perhaps an arrest and conviction


Baseless and stupid partisan hackery.  You claim not to be a tribal yet you want someone you hate arrested and convicted _for nothing _because you think they lead the other tribe.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Just so you know, I rate CarsomyrPlusSix the most tribal and he will  never have an interest in seeking truth about anything when and if truth hurts the tribe.


Way to spam EVERYONE with your retarded bullshit, fam.

If there is a tribe for individual human liberty, human rights, and equality, sign me up.  Your tribe is diametrically opposed to both that set of things and honesty, so your tribe stands condemned.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221228-#6,560  CarsomyrPlusSix      If there is a tribe for individual human liberty, human rights, and equality, sign me up

 NFBW/: No sign-up for you amongst us viable human beings. You do not stand for viable human liberty, or viable human rights, or viable human equality. You sellout viable human women, and call them whores if they don’t worship Trump and thank him for the Catholic SCOTUS, for hoped for political benefit from the hyped up melodrama of standing up for the god given sanctity of Republican not and never was viable human life, and you  don’t believe in God. 

END2212290047


----------



## Delldude

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221228-#6,560  CarsomyrPlusSix      If there is a tribe for individual human liberty, human rights, and equality, sign me up
> 
> NFBW/: No sign-up for you amongst us viable human beings. You do not stand for viable human liberty, or viable human rights, or viable human equality. You sellout viable human women, and call them whores if they don’t worship Trump and thank him for the Catholic SCOTUS, for hoped for political benefit from the hyped up melodrama of standing up for the god given sanctity of Republican not and never was viable human life, and you  don’t believe in God.
> 
> END2212290047


  QAnon Holy roller.....?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Dragonlady220910-#44  As long as Republicans oppose women's rights, they're dead in the water

Delldude221107-#170 “McConnell can chirp all he wants, but a national abortion ban is as unconstitutional as RvW was.”

NFBW: Why is a national abortion ban unconstitutional Delldude  ?????

END2212290155


----------



## NotfooledbyW

1srelluc220917-#4    I'm pro-choice (with guardrails) so you can't make hay with me on that.
^
^
greenP220919-#11  “you shouldrn't be pro "choice" because what one is choosing is murder “ •••• “Let the child choose. And since "self preservation is the first law of nature" we can all assume how they would choose”

NFBW: Question for greenerpastures based upon my observation of your reprimand of 1srelluc for being pro-choice:

NFBW: It is possible that 1srelluc thinks you are a Bible Thumper because being pro-choice in the public realm does not mean one is pro-abortion in a private realm. Do you think being pro-choice for the anonymous public necessarily means one wants that choice for themselves in their private personal relationships???  

END2212290329


----------



## beagle9

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You vote for the vile collectivist socialist party with zero respect for the Constitution and zero respect for individual liberty or individual human rights because you want those human beings you hate to be killed without legal consequence.  You want those you hate denied their human rights so they can be killed on a whim.  Because you are inhuman filth, which fits with America’s collectivist socialist party.
> 
> You are also a habitual liar disoriented from reality, which makes you a natural fit with that party’s dementia-ridden standard bearer, who has no consistent principles at all other than saying whatever will get him the support of his howling collectivist mob.


He asked for it, you gave it to him.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Quick Reference Links "

* Rolling Clarity Credits **


DudleySmith said:


> I'm guessing 'wrights' refers to 'woke rights', not real rights or Wright Wrights. Or maybe his Spellcheck is screwed up and came from an outsourced sub-contractor in Mumbai.








						Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments
					

" Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments "  * Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises *  Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ?   Does...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



_Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ?_






						Left Wing Are Not Liberals They Are Extreme Authoritarians
					

" Left Wing Are Not Liberals They Are Extreme Authoritarians "  * Lying Under Cover Of Pretending To Liberate Through Domination *  The right wing outlets must ttop referring to the left as liberals and call them either authoritarians , or conservatives .  The term liberal is synonymous with...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				









						A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy
					

" A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy "  * Obfuscation Mock Heir Clock Hair *  There is little doubt regarding my disdain for a liberal versus conservative paradigm as it is as near to intellectual buffoonery as one could conceive , as the...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221227-#6,536   “I oppose government coercion and you support government coercion. ••••  that is the truth.”
••
NFBW221227-#6,551 “I vote Democrat because I want the religious right party never holding power to ban abortion *because I do not seek to impose my personal belief on the value of life on the general public out of respect for the Constitution and individual liberty.”*
^
^
Cplus6221228-#6,558 You vote for the vile collectivist socialist party
^
^
beagle9221229-#6,565l   He {NFBW} asked for it, you { CarsomyrPlusSix } gave it to him.
••
1srelluc220917-#4  1srelluc   I'm pro-choice (with guardrails) ••••
••
NFBW: I am pro-choice with guardrails outside my personal relationships and opposed to abortion within my personal relationships, which Meriweather was non-tribal enough to understand. You should be ashamed
•^
MeriW221227-#6,552 “I return to my philosophy: Don't pursue the lie.”
^
 NFBW221228-#6,559   I have a similar cardinal rule based upon what Jesus reportedly said “seek the truth and ye shall be free” in the sense that if all sought the truth all would universally be free of the tribal differences that divide mankind.

NFBW: So beagle9 why do you applaud a liar like CarsomyrPlusSix and thus bring shame for your belief in Jesus Christ who tells us to seek truth in order to be free.

END2212290907


----------



## 1srelluc

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW221227-#6,536   “I oppose government coercion and you support government coercion. ••••  that is the truth.”
> ••
> NFBW221227-#6,551 “I vote Democrat because I want the religious right party never holding power to ban abortion *because I do not seek to impose my personal belief on the value of life on the general public out of respect for the Constitution and individual liberty.”*
> ^
> ^
> Cplus6221228-#6,558 You vote for the vile collectivist socialist party
> ^
> ^
> beagle9221229-#6,565l   He {NFBW} asked for it, you { CarsomyrPlusSix } gave it to him.
> ••
> 1srelluc220917-#4  1srelluc   I'm pro-choice (with guardrails) ••••
> ••
> NFBW: I am pro-choice with guardrails outside my personal relationships and opposed to abortion within my personal relationships, which Meriweather was non-tribal enough to understand. You should be ashamed
> •^
> MeriW221227-#6,552 “I return to my philosophy: Don't pursue the lie.”
> ^
> NFBW221228-#6,559   I have a similar cardinal rule based upon what Jesus reportedly said “seek the truth and ye shall be free” in the sense that if all sought the truth all would universally be free of the tribal differences that divide mankind.
> 
> NFBW: So beagle9 why do you applaud a liar like CarsomyrPlusSix and thus bring shame for your belief in Jesus Christ who tells us to seek truth in order to be free.
> 
> END2212290907


Jeez, don't you have something better to do than post walls of text in a old-ass thread?


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW221227-#6,536   “I oppose government coercion and you support government coercion. ••••  that is the truth.”
> ••
> NFBW221227-#6,551 “I vote Democrat because I want the religious right party never holding power to ban abortion *because I do not seek to impose my personal belief on the value of life on the general public out of respect for the Constitution and individual liberty.”*
> ^
> ^
> Cplus6221228-#6,558 You vote for the vile collectivist socialist party
> ^
> ^
> beagle9221229-#6,565l   He {NFBW} asked for it, you { CarsomyrPlusSix } gave it to him.
> ••
> 1srelluc220917-#4  1srelluc   I'm pro-choice (with guardrails) ••••
> ••
> NFBW: I am pro-choice with guardrails outside my personal relationships and opposed to abortion within my personal relationships, which Meriweather was non-tribal enough to understand. You should be ashamed
> •^
> MeriW221227-#6,552 “I return to my philosophy: Don't pursue the lie.”
> ^
> NFBW221228-#6,559   I have a similar cardinal rule based upon what Jesus reportedly said “seek the truth and ye shall be free” in the sense that if all sought the truth all would universally be free of the tribal differences that divide mankind.
> 
> NFBW: So beagle9 why do you applaud a liar like CarsomyrPlusSix and thus bring shame for your belief in Jesus Christ who tells us to seek truth in order to be free.
> 
> END2212290907


Why do you utter the name of Christ who would probably say to you "depart from me for I never knew you" ?? Meaning that if you take the stand that you have taken, otherwise to allow a person with support to remove her baby in a most henious way from her body, then you truly don't know Christ or his message in life.


----------



## Delldude

NotfooledbyW said:


> Dragonlady220910-#44  As long as Republicans oppose women's rights, they're dead in the water
> 
> Delldude221107-#170 “McConnell can chirp all he wants, but a national abortion ban is as unconstitutional as RvW was.”
> 
> NFBW: Why is a national abortion ban unconstitutional Delldude  ?????
> 
> END2212290155


For the same reason allowing it was.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: So beagle9 why do you applaud a liar like CarsomyrPlusSix and thus bring shame for your belief in Jesus Christ who tells us to seek truth in order to be free.


Because I tell the truth, especially about you, you bigoted deceitful pro-abort filth who definitionally must worship a lowly “god” of killing the weakest among us for personal gain, and who from the Abrahamic religion perspective, blasphemes that the demonic, hateful filth you worship is their god.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221228-#6,560  CarsomyrPlusSix      If there is a tribe for individual human liberty, human rights, and equality, sign me up
> 
> NFBW/: No sign-up for you amongst us viable human beings.



Fuck your surfactant fetish.

Go masturbate to some industrial surfactant already and leave the rest of the sane folks to debate absent your peculiarities.


NotfooledbyW said:


> You sellout viable human women, and call them whores if they don’t worship Trump


Fucking lying piece of shit.   I’ve said no such thing.



NotfooledbyW said:


> and you  don’t believe in God.


Yet somehow I manage to be a moral human being and you are the lowliest most immoral scum on this site.  Did your awful “god” make you this way or did you make up your demonic filth “god” in your own image from your own desires?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

1srelluc221229-#6,568 Jeez, don't you have something better to do than post walls of text in a old-ass thread?

NFBW: I am pro-choice and pro-privacy for all people unbeknownst to me, churched or not, who engage in sex, recreational or not, and I see you are a rare pro-choice Republican who ignites my curiosity to see you refer to the massive white Christian nationalists Trump MAGA election denying most powerful voter bloc in American politics as BIBLE THUMPERS. I am interested in seeing how all that BIBLE THUMPING goes if Trump gets indicted and watching the Bible THUMPING Catholic driven SCOTUS contribute to the demise of the GOP along with all its unAmerucan Trumpism.

Your whining about format bores me since it shows me the mindless state with which you are engaged here, just like CarsomyrPlusSix •• If you have a mind please use it and we could have an interesting discussion being on the pro-choice side together.

END2212280951


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221229-#6,561    and you don’t believe in God.
^
^
Cplus6221229-#6,572  CarsomyrPlusSix Yet somehow I manage to be a moral human being.

NFBW: A moral person does not demand the government must force a law abiding woman to suffer government intrusion and interference into the privacy of her life preventing her from making a decision whether or not she is wiling to assume the risk of carrying an unplanned pregnancy beyond 24 weeks.

END2212292044


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: A moral person does not demand the government to force a law abiding woman to suffer Government intrusion and interference into the privacy of her life preventing her from making a decision whether or not she is wiling to assume the risk of carrying an unplanned pregnancy beyond 24 weeks.
> 
> END2212292042


A moral person must insist on laws against killing innocent human beings in cold blood, because human lives should be protected against violence.

A moral person would not call laws against such homicides “government intrusion,” only an insane might-makes-right anarchist would.

A moral person would accept responsibility for their own actions and expect the same for others - if you make a kid, take care of your kid.

You are immoral scum.


----------



## DudleySmith

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Quick Reference Links "
> 
> * Rolling Clarity Credits **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments
> 
> 
> " Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments "  * Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises *  Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ?   Does...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Left Wing Are Not Liberals They Are Extreme Authoritarians
> 
> 
> " Left Wing Are Not Liberals They Are Extreme Authoritarians "  * Lying Under Cover Of Pretending To Liberate Through Domination *  The right wing outlets must ttop referring to the left as liberals and call them either authoritarians , or conservatives .  The term liberal is synonymous with...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy
> 
> 
> " A Treatise of Legal Philosophy on Adequate Political Science Terms for Civics Pedagogy "  * Obfuscation Mock Heir Clock Hair *  There is little doubt regarding my disdain for a liberal versus conservative paradigm as it is as near to intellectual buffoonery as one could conceive , as the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com



So somebody's Spellcheck is screwed up. Damn foreigners.


----------



## Delldude

DudleySmith said:


> So somebody's Spellcheck is screwed up. Damn foreigners.


The equal Wrights guy?


----------



## DudleySmith

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW221229-#6,561    and you don’t believe in God.
> ^
> ^
> Cplus6221229-#6,572  CarsomyrPlusSix Yet somehow I manage to be a moral human being.
> 
> NFBW: A moral person does not demand the government must force a law abiding woman to suffer government intrusion and interference into the privacy of her life preventing her from making a decision whether or not she is wiling to assume the risk of carrying an unplanned pregnancy beyond 24 weeks.
> 
> END2212292044



The Govy. didn't force her to screw anybody, dumbass, that was her freedom of choice. She willingly assumed the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, dumbass. So, no, she can'tforce the state to legalize the murder of a baby for the bourgeois crime of Inconvenience.


----------



## beagle9

DudleySmith said:


> The Govy. didn't force her to screw anybody, dumbass, that was her freedom of choice. She willingly assumed the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, dumbass. So, no, she can'tforce the state to legalize the murder of a baby for the bourgeois crime of Inconvenience.


Exactly.... But think about this, not only are they attempting to add or gain back the one more thing to something they feel that they can get the government to enforce for them, rather it just goes to show the patterns in which they have used the government to overthrow their adversaries or enemies in this country for quite sometimes now (i.e.it's quite dangerous to allow certain people to highjack government), because it's all in order for them to gain total freedom no matter how that freedom looks with these malcontents.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221229-#6,574  A moral person does not demand the government must force a law abiding woman to suffer government intrusion and interference into the privacy of her life preventing her from making a decision whether or not she is wiling to assume the risk of carrying an unplanned pregnancy beyond 24 weeks.
^
^
DudleyS221229-#6,578   The Govy. didn't force her to screw anybody, dumbass, that was her freedom of choice.

NFBW: so tell me, @Dudley, why does a woman give up freedom of choice concerning her body, her health and her finances if she gets pregnant accidentally?

And then we can talk about the fact that the aforementioned woman does not care to appeal to the government to legalize abortion. Laws, dealing with abortion, when the constitution was being written, were generally in line with English common law, which intrinsically held that a pregnant woman is not required to respect the unborn inside her body until what they used to call quickening. I tie quickening to viability, because generally that occurs when it’s obvious to the rest of society that a woman is pregnant, so roe versus wade did not actually legalize abortion, as is usually most politically, but not legally claimed.  roe versus wade prevented states from banning abortion based on the right to individual privacy, which I believe should be translated as individual liberty.


END2212291147


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221229-#6,571   Because I tell the truth, especially about you, you bigoted deceitful pro-abort filth ••••

NFBW: You are a liar right there CarsomyrPlusSix. I am not pro-abort. I am pro-choice exactly the way  1srelluc is pro-choice.

You can see in the following exchange demonstrates that being pro-choice can be just a matter of what 1srelluc says is a “recoil at a politician telling them how they should go about their lives..”

Lisa558211205-#57  And here’s the thing: if the majority of the voters n those 12 states agree with the no-abortion law, then the state is meeting the wishes of the majority of its citizens

1srelluc211205-#59   The trick there is not to alienate the Independent voter many of whom, like myself, are pro-choice or really don't care about abortion at all but recoil at a politician telling them how they should go about their lives..

Being pro-choice doesn’t make anyone pro-abortion. Your vile hate puke lies are based on nothing like the mass murder of babies you got yourself all hyped up about.

END2212291930


----------



## NotfooledbyW

APM220915-#17    Funny, not a single liberal who supports abortion had a mom who had one.

I have no idea why airplanemechanic singles out liberals whose mom didn't abort them as if conservatives are never pro-choice as much as liberals may be..

Some sentient human beings believe that at the exact millisecond when a human sperm penetrates a human egg cell there is instantly created a new member of the human race who is in a state of consciousness whereby the newly created individual has that quality which make him capable of questioning and knowing his own existence. What happens if this conscious being doesn’t get too far because it mistakenly became part of a woman’s body who has a miscarriage.

airplanemechanic what happens to that human being when his or her mom has a miscarriage? Is there an impact on the unrelated entirety of civil society beyond privacy of the woman who had that experience?  

END2212292036


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW221229-#6,574  A moral person does not demand the government must force a law abiding woman to suffer government intrusion and interference into the privacy of her life preventing her from making a decision whether or not she is wiling to assume the risk of carrying an unplanned pregnancy beyond 24 weeks.
> ^
> ^
> DudleyS221229-#6,578   The Govy. didn't force her to screw anybody, dumbass, that was her freedom of choice.
> 
> NFBW: so tell me, @Dudley, why does a woman give up freedom of choice concerning her body, her health and her finances if she gets pregnant accidentally?
> 
> And then we can talk about the fact that the aforementioned woman does not care to appeal to the government to legalize abortion. Laws, dealing with abortion, when the constitution was being written, were generally in line with English common law, which intrinsically held that a pregnant woman is not required to respect the unborn inside her body until what they used to call quickening. I tie quickening to viability, because generally that occurs when it’s obvious to the rest of society that a woman is pregnant, so roe versus wade did not actually legalize abortion, as is usually most politically, but not legally claimed.  roe versus wade prevented states from banning abortion based on the right to individual privacy, which I believe should be translated as individual liberty.
> 
> 
> END2212291147


Why does a woman give up her freedom, her body, her finance's ? Because she has been gifted with a human being that is forming in her womb, otherwise a miracle from God where as she is to provide the doorway for the new unique human being to enter into the world. 

It's only temporary these things she is giving up, and even so not in total of, so how selfish and spoiled rotten are these women of today, that they would think it a super burden to participate in the cycle of life ??? I know - they are totally brainwashed by heathen's who are out to destroy America, and are exactly those who hate the process of the pregnancy in which brings in new life for which they figure could actually become their enemy (over population), if they can't kill them while in the womb 1st. That's just one aspect of it, then you have other aspects of it as well.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9221229-#6,583 Why does a woman give up her freedom, her body, her finance's ?

NFBW: That was not the question beagle9 .  I’m grateful that you make this about your religious political philosophy, but the question was precisely written:

NFBW221229-#6,580  so tell me, @Dudley, *why does a woman give up freedom of choice* concerning her body, her health and her finances if she gets pregnant accidentally?

NFBW: Are you ashamed of being opposed to freedom of choice?

END2212292222


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221229-#6,571   Because I tell the truth, especially about you, you bigoted deceitful pro-abort filth ••••
> 
> NFBW: You are a liar right there CarsomyrPlusSix. I am not pro-abort.


Shut up, lying pro-abort filth.

Freedom of choice has nothing to do with the mass contract killing you encourage and cheerlead for.

Moreover, you’ve made it abundantly clear in your general collectivist leftist authoritarian rantings that individual choice doesn’t matter one whit to you (unlike me) - you just support contract killing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221229-#6,585 Freedom of choice has nothing to do with the mass contract killing you encourage and cheerlead for.

NFBW: 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.

END2212290030


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221229-#6,585 Freedom of choice has nothing to do with the mass contract killing you encourage and cheerlead for.
> 
> NFBW: 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.
> 
> END2212290030


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.. ROTFLMBO 🤣 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221229-#6,585 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..

NFBW: 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.

Anyway I think the following is pertinent to the topic of abortion and why abortion rights is central to the reason you do not want to hear what I have to say to you. What do you think about this ?

EEFleegle220910-#1   I totally agree with this.....those on the left who demonize all Republicans and conservatives with the MAGA crowd are making a mistake..and alienating those whose support is crucial in getting rid of the MAGA/Trump/Q crowd.
It’s Dumb and Dangerous for Liberals to Conflate All Conservatives With MAGA

More and more, liberals are attempting to cast all conservatives as enemies of democracy while simultaneously casting all of their political policies as pro-democracy. The consequences of this could be disastrous.

The most blatant example occurred during Joe Biden’s prime-time “Soul of America” speech earlier this month—a speech advertised as addressing conspiracy theories, political violence, and attempts to overthrow democracy.

In this context, _*Biden talked about how “MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards,” before hastening to add, “Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose…*_” In one fell swoop, Biden conflated “

NFBW LOOKUP:   Matt Lewis  9/10/2022  Matt K. Lewis is a center-right critic of American politics and pop culture. Abortion Abortion Attacked in the US | Matt A Lewis  }

END2212391008


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll220620-#2    “Abortion should never had been decided in the courts. Now it will be dealt with by State Legislation, the way it should have been”

Correll221018-#38   “Any numbers on how big this "chistian nationalism" is?”

NFBW: It’s as big as the number of Republican voters it took the past fifty years to put six Catholics on the Supreme Court so they could decide to undo what self-identified “cultural Christian” Correll says should never have been decided in the courts in the first place.

 The Christian Nation aspect that befuddled Correll appears to be enjoying is the hope that white Christian legislators can be seated in majorities in enough states that then can pass laws forcing all wicked women who get pregnant to give birth at full term against their will. The effect of forcing birth on women is to is to ultimately please the God of the Judea Christian Bible by showing HIM that America can be returned to its original Christian Nation glory because they all are convinced that America was founded by white European Christians, for white European Christians and to be a nation run by white European Christians •••• and all good white Christians know that life begins at conception.

END2212301801


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> Good grief, not the damned book writer again



NFBW: Books are good things. Written words are important to me. Correll thinks everybody who doesn’t vote the same as he does is his enemy. I think the party Correll votes for is in poor health and the Dobbs decision means there is no cure - so death is near.

Looking at Correll ‘s words from five years ago he was politically in a better place. HE Actually thought KANSAS might have no abortions if Roe v Wade Could be overturned. Take a look:

Correll171125-#127
•
1. Basing abortion policy on "privacy" is stupid. NOt doing that would be good.
2. It would stay with the states. The national GOP would have too good of an excuse to avoid that very sticky issue.
3. Different states would have different rules based on what their citizens wanted. Kansas might have no abortion. California would probably allow abortion up to actual birth, if not then some.


evenflow1969​
Nov 25, 2017 #128
They absolutley do not want to repeal abortion. They have had a m ajority on the court for a long time. They over turn abortion and they lose their only wedghe issue. People will start voting with their wallets, that would not be good for the republican party. What reason would the churches have to back repubs if abortion was over turned.?

END2212300006


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Lakhota220502-#35 Lakhota 
•
SUPREME SHOCK LEAK: ‘DRAFT OPINION’ GUTS ROE
•
“Sad news...for women!”
^
^
Delldude220502-#56  “Good news for the unborn.” •••• “We now need a definitive ruling on when life starts.”

NFBW: I see Delldude is in communication with the unborn which has to mean Delldude can ask the unborn when life begins and he can tell us or he is lying. I’m going with the latter.

Sam Alito must not be in communication with the unborn because he is agnostic on timing which is beyond science and will tension forever to us mortal human beings one of the great mysteries of life.

Sam Alito is an intellectual Catholic and not in any way a hillbilly Christian which is why he uttered these words on Dobbs:

“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​
Trump’s anti-abortion hillbilly Christians (white Christian nationalists) will never get the significance of what Alito is saying right there . . .

END2212310946


----------



## Delldude

NotfooledbyW said:


> Lakhota220502-#35 Lakhota
> •
> SUPREME SHOCK LEAK: ‘DRAFT OPINION’ GUTS ROE
> •
> “Sad news...for women!”
> ^
> ^
> Delldude220502-#56  “Good news for the unborn.” •••• “We now need a definitive ruling on when life starts.”
> 
> NFBW: I see Delldude is in communication with the unborn which has to mean Delldude can ask the unborn when life begins and he can tell us or he is lying. I’m going with the latter.
> 
> Sam Alito must not be in communication with the unborn because he is agnostic on timing which is beyond science and will tension forever to us mortal human beings one of the great mysteries of life.
> 
> Sam Alito is an intellectual Catholic and not in any way a hillbilly Christian which is why he uttered these words on Dobbs:
> 
> “For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​
> Trump’s anti-abortion hillbilly Christians (white Christian nationalists) will never get the significance of what Alito is saying right there . . .
> 
> END2212310946


Do you talk to yourself in tongues?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Delldude said:


> Do you talk to yourself in tongues?


No. I was talking to you. Doing research on how adult allegedly mentally competent human beings are able to communicate with fertilized human eggs as they develop inside a woman’s body and why you think the government should be involved.


----------



## Delldude

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. I was talking to you. Doing research on how adult allegedly mentally competent human beings are able to communicate with fertilized human eggs as they develop inside a woman’s body and why you think the government should be involved.


You fall off your rocker?


----------



## beagle9

Delldude said:


> Do you talk to yourself in tongues?


That made me spit my coffee out... ROTFLMBO 🤣🤣


----------



## beagle9

Delldude said:


> You fall off your rocker?


He's been off of it... My opinion.. lol


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> .The Christian Nation aspect that befuddled Correll appears to be enjoying is the hope that white Christian legislators can be seated in majorities in enough states that then can pass laws forcing all wicked women who get pregnant to give birth at full term against their will.


You’re not “wicked” just for getting pregnant fucktard.

You are beyond wicked if your “will” as a mother is to kill your own son or daughter for your own selfish benefit, and if you need a law to stop you, then so be it, you should be stopped.



NotfooledbyW said:


> The effect of forcing birth on women


Yeah, this framing is delusional and insane.




NotfooledbyW said:


> and all good white Christians know that life begins at conception


All sane, educated, literate people know that life begins at conception.

This of course rules you out, you psychotic, insane, ignorant piece of shit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Delldude said:


> You fall off your rocker?



NFBW: No. I figured you can’t communicate with the unborn. So you lied.  Now I wonder why you think you can. 

So if you don’t know when life begins why can’t we just stick with English common law and go with what they used to call at “quickening” - lets move viability to 22 weeks and reverse Dobbs so Christian nationalist state governments will no longer be able to force women to take the risk of giving birth anywhere in a nation where freedom and privacy is restored to all law abiding persons. 

END2212311746


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW221230-#6,589  The Christian Nation aspect that befuddled @Correll appears to be enjoying, is the hope that white Christian legislators can be seated in majorities in enough states that then can pass laws forcing all wicked women who get pregnant to give birth at full term against their will.
^
^
Cplus6221231-#6,597  You’re not “wicked” just for getting pregnant fucktard.

NFBW: That is not what I wrote - see above. I am saying  @Correll hopes that enough white Christian legislators can be seated in enough states to pass laws that will force all wicked women who get pregnant to give birth at full term against their will.

You are a moron because you couldn’t pick up the obvious intent of my language that women who get pregnant unintentionally and want to end it are forced by white Christian nationalist controlled state governments to go full term are considered wicked by you, as well as in atheist jargon you call them pro-abort filth.

Are you in the same denial with Correll that white evangelical Christian nationalists are predominant driver behind Roe v Wade being overturned?

If you want white evangelical Christian nationalists defined take a look here:

Correll210623-#1,836   white nationalists" and "Christians" in the same sentence in order to conflate them like a good propagandist?
^
^
NFBW210624-#1,839   Are you saying there is no major voting bloc in the Trump/Republican Party that is white, Christian and nationalistic. •••• I say “white” evangelical Christians not in any derogatory sense but in a factual sense because Americans of a white evangelical Christian affiliation had an overwhelming "trust Bush" on invading Iraq and support for the Bush doctrine of offensive war and spreading Christian culture democracy among Muslim nations because it is God’s will to do so.  •••• Black evangelicals did not have that “trust Bush” syndrome that their fellow white evangelicals definitely had. •••• White Evangelicals are responsible for the disaster of invading Iraq. Black evangelicals are not. •••• Black evangelicals are not nationalistic Christians. White evangelicals are nationalistic Christians. That is a distinction you should not deny. But you deny it by trying to make that accepted reality being mentioned is religious bigotry.”

NFBW: The Big 2020 election LIE, Jan6 and then “BOOM” there comes Dobbs . Those three political events have exposed white Christian nationalism as the biggest detriment to America’s civility and continued functioning as a multicultural democratic republic. It took the loss of reproductive rights to wake so many good Americans up to a threat that we face from one small but politically powerful group of mostly white irrational Christian believers. Never thought it could happen. Thank you Trump for putting three more Catholics on the Supreme Court.

END2212311957 Let’s Go Buckeyes !


----------



## Delldude

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No. I figured you can’t communicate with the unborn. So you lied.  Now I wonder why you think you can.
> 
> So if you don’t know when life begins why can’t we just stick with English common law and go with what they used to call at “quickening” - lets move viability to 22 weeks and reverse Dobbs so Christian nationalist state governments will no longer be able to force women to take the risk of giving birth anywhere in a nation where freedom and privacy is restored to all law abiding persons.
> 
> END2212311746


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Former President Donald Trump has appeared to float the idea of running a third-party campaign if increasingly disgruntled Republican leaders don’t get behind his 2024 run for the presidency.









						Trump Appears To Float Third-Party Threat If GOP Won't Back Him
					

If Republicans lose, it'll be what they deserve for not supporting Trump, warned the author of an article the former president posted on Truth Social.




					www.huffpost.com
				




Trump signaled the possibility by posting an article on Truth Social Wednesday ― “The Coming Split,” by Dan Gelernter, in the right-wing journal American Greatness ― promoting just such an option.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW221230-#6,589  The Christian Nation aspect that befuddled @Correll appears to be enjoying, is the hope that white Christian legislators can be seated in majorities in enough states that then can pass laws forcing all wicked women who get pregnant to give birth at full term against their will.
> ^
> ^
> Cplus6221231-#6,597  You’re not “wicked” just for getting pregnant fucktard.
> 
> NFBW: That is not what I wrote - see above. I am saying  @Correll hopes that enough white Christian legislators can be seated in enough states to pass laws that will force all wicked women who get pregnant to give birth at full term against their will.
> 
> You are a moron because you couldn’t pick up the obvious intent of my language that women who get pregnant unintentionally and want to end it are forced by white Christian nationalist controlled state governments to go full term are considered wicked by you, as well as in atheist jargon you call them pro-abort filth.
> 
> Are you in the same denial with Correll that white evangelical Christian nationalists are predominant driver behind Roe v Wade being overturned?
> 
> If you want white evangelical Christian nationalists defined take a look here:
> 
> Correll210623-#1,836   white nationalists" and "Christians" in the same sentence in order to conflate them like a good propagandist?
> ^
> ^
> NFBW210624-#1,839   Are you saying there is no major voting bloc in the Trump/Republican Party that is white, Christian and nationalistic. •••• I say “white” evangelical Christians not in any derogatory sense but in a factual sense because Americans of a white evangelical Christian affiliation had an overwhelming "trust Bush" on invading Iraq and support for the Bush doctrine of offensive war and spreading Christian culture democracy among Muslim nations because it is God’s will to do so.  •••• Black evangelicals did not have that “trust Bush” syndrome that their fellow white evangelicals definitely had. •••• White Evangelicals are responsible for the disaster of invading Iraq. Black evangelicals are not. •••• Black evangelicals are not nationalistic Christians. White evangelicals are nationalistic Christians. That is a distinction you should not deny. But you deny it by trying to make that accepted reality being mentioned is religious bigotry.”
> 
> NFBW: The Big 2020 election LIE, Jan6 and then “BOOM” there comes Dobbs . Those three political events have exposed white Christian nationalism as the biggest detriment to America’s civility and continued functioning as a multicultural democratic republic. It took the loss of reproductive rights to wake so many good Americans up to a threat that we face from one small but politically powerful group of mostly white irrational Christian believers. Never thought it could happen. Thank you Trump for putting three more Catholics on the Supreme Court.
> 
> END2212311957 Let’s Go Buckeyes !


You are such a racist that it's pathetic. And then here you are attempting to act like you got some kind of sense, but then here you are a racist... lol... You just can't make this shite up folks, I swear you can't.


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Former President Donald Trump has appeared to float the idea of running a third-party campaign if increasingly disgruntled Republican leaders don’t get behind his 2024 run for the presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Appears To Float Third-Party Threat If GOP Won't Back Him
> 
> 
> If Republicans lose, it'll be what they deserve for not supporting Trump, warned the author of an article the former president posted on Truth Social.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump signaled the possibility by posting an article on Truth Social Wednesday ― “The Coming Split,” by Dan Gelernter, in the right-wing journal American Greatness ― promoting just such an option.


They'll get behind him once they come back out of their terrified shell again, and therefore realize that Trump is thee most formable foe that the radical Democrat's have ever had challenge their fake power in which they have puffed up like a blow hard hog nosed snake.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Biden is in the virgin islands golfing. Do you know that he had the latest papers, the 1.7 billion govt spending bill he signed...flown down to him on a private jet?   LOL   Well...it's only money and since we pay for it what does he care?  He's the emperor with no clothes.  by choice.   The emperor in the raincoat. flashing everyone...especially women and little girls.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Calypso221019-#16 ARE. Americans more concerned about abortion than ever? •••• APPARENTLY NOT. Someone said this will be the winning issue. •••• It's the Economy, Stupid.

NFBW: The BIG LIE - Jan6 - Dobbs has destroyed the white Anti-abortion Christian nationalist Political movement known most recently as Trumpism.
END2301011


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221025-#162 CarsomyrPlusSix   Hi, atheist conservative here. Other atheists may be zealous and religiously militant about their atheism. I just sleep in on Sundays.

Penelope221226-#3     Republicans are not Christians; they pretend to be.
^
^
Calypso221226-#11    and democrats revere satan and make no bones about it.

Calypso221231-#6,604  Biden is in the virgin islands golfing. Do you know that he had the latest papers, the 1.7 billion govt spending bill he signed...flown down to him on a private jet? LOL Well...it's only money and since we pay for it what does he care? He's the emperor with no clothes. by choice. The emperor in the raincoat. flashing everyone...especially women and little girls.

NFBW: Biden is a pro-choice Catholic President. In case you didn’t know Catholics are Christians. There are polls that suggest that more American Catholics are pro-choice than are opposed to it. 

You Calypso Jones are a serious Christian of some sort who argued above that every Christian who votes Democrat are actual persons who revere Satan. Could you explain if you are speaking for Jesus Christ when you make that accusation or is that the not-rational human being who thinks his religious beliefs makes you better smarter and of higher moral values and American patriotism than everyone else. 

I am also curious how you reconcile your association on this message board with CarsomyrPlusSix who is an avowed atheist  who probably does not believe in a boogeyman named Lucifer. FYI I vote Dem. I am a rational theist like Jefferson and I don’t believe in a biblical boogeyman. I definitely do not revere some being as irrational as Satan. 

END2301011019


----------



## Calypso Jones

When one consistently comes down on the side that opposes God's word at every opportunity then i would say it would be safe to call that person, NOT a christian.

You've asked some interesting questions and i nearly answered them.....but i started to wonder...what good would it do.


----------



## Monk-Eye

** Idiom Spells Coven Fore Individualism Inn Us Republic "

* Jocularity Tee Ball Far Wren Traitors **


DudleySmith said:


> So somebody's Spellcheck is screwed up. Damn foreigners.


There is not a difference between the edicts or tenets of a religion and a creed , and there is not an exception as a religion in us 1st amendment for a creed with edicts or tenets to violate principles of non violence or of individualism .

By principles of non violence , by definition , violence is illegitimate aggression , while self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

By principles of individualism , by definition , illegitimate aggression against individuals prohibits self ownership of free roam , of free association and of progeny , and prohibits self determination through private property and through willful intents by contract - made valid through informed consent .

To improve ones opportunity to survive and for quality of life , individuals exchange natural freedoms of moral relativism imbued by nature for membership in a social civil agreement , according to a constitution of writs , rites , writes , wrights , rights ( sic ) , that are enforced by a greater state of individuals with retort through protections or endowments ,

A state is comprised of citizens in who a state interests lay , a citizen and its constitutional writs are instantiated through a live birth requirement ( us 14th amendment ) , and by equitable doctrine , live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen , 

When individuals apply the terms negative liberties , positive liberties , negative wrights and positive wrights , then the basics of civics for presenting functional discourse in political science will become competent .

Negative liberties represent protections , independence and individualism .

Positive liberties represent endowments , dependence and collectivism .

By eisegesis , us credo of e pluribus unum expects independence though individualism with equal protection of negative liberties among those individuals entitled by live birth to receive them .






						Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments
					

" Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments "  * Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises *  Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ?   Does...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				










						Left Wing Are Not Liberals They Are Extreme Authoritarians
					

" Left Wing Are Not Liberals They Are Extreme Authoritarians "  * Lying Under Cover Of Pretending To Liberate Through Domination *  The right wing outlets must ttop referring to the left as liberals and call them either authoritarians , or conservatives .  The term liberal is synonymous with...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				










						Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion
					

" Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is Under Sedition By States As A Result Of US Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion  "  * Constitutional Originalism Versus Judicial Activism *  Blackmun wrote this - ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Dragonlady220502-#11    This will be the end of Republicans.
^
^
Calypso220505-#1,616  what does the GOP have to do with......

NFBW: before Trump the GOP - “God’s Own Party “ put three Catholics on the Supreme Court. Trump came along and put three more on it. Catholics on SCOTUS are why Roe was overturned. Trumpism is no good for America and no good for the good Catholics who would never vote for the idiot who leads it. 

Another question: Do you recognize who said this? 

“The United States of America and the European States must not marginalize Russia but build an alliance with it, not only to restart trade for the prosperity of all, but in lieu of the reconstruction of a Christian Civilization, which will be the only one able to save the world from the transhuman and medical-technical globalist monster,” 









						Archbishop Viganò pushes conspiracy theories about Ukraine and Russia in 10,000-word letter
					

Outspoken papal critic Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò released a letter Monday blaming “deep state” forces in the United States, the European Union and NATO for triggering the current war and demonizing Russia.




					www.americamagazine.org


----------



## Delldude

NotfooledbyW said:


> Dragonlady220502-#11    This will be the end of Republicans.
> ^
> ^
> Calypso220505-#1,616  what does the GOP have to do with......
> 
> NFBW: before Trump the GOP - “God’s Own Party “ put three Catholics on the Supreme Court. Trump came along and put three more on it. Catholics on SCOTUS are why Roe was overturned. Trumpism is no good for America and no good for the good Catholics who would never vote for the idiot who leads it.
> 
> Another question: Do you recognize who said this?
> 
> “The United States of America and the European States must not marginalize Russia but build an alliance with it, not only to restart trade for the prosperity of all, but in lieu of the reconstruction of a Christian Civilization, which will be the only one able to save the world from the transhuman and medical-technical globalist monster,”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archbishop Viganò pushes conspiracy theories about Ukraine and Russia in 10,000-word letter
> 
> 
> Outspoken papal critic Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò released a letter Monday blaming “deep state” forces in the United States, the European Union and NATO for triggering the current war and demonizing Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americamagazine.org


Dude, you wiggin' out on Jesus?
I'm starting to suspect Jesus has wigged out on you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Calypso230101-#414 Calypso Jones   “ArchBishop Vigano has called for this.”

NFBW: An 800 year old ArchBishop named Carlo Maria Viganò, living in a palace in the Vatican tells every free-spirited American, most of whom are not Catholics, that there cannot be liberty wherever license, vice and pride subvert God’s Commandments.

But the old fart from Italy according to Calypso Jones wants us to fast and pray for Trump’s hell raisers who invaded the Capitol on Jan6 to stop the Catholic man I voted for from being inaugurated.

Are you nuts Calypso Jones ? Why would any law abiding Americans fast and pray for criminals who tried to overturn the 2020 election for the heathen president Trump.

What this Vigano Catholic zealot had to say about Dobbs is out of touch with the reality that America is not a Christian Nation, Let alone a nation that ever gives a shit about what the Vatican says about us or reproductive rights in a country where we don’t stick our noses into other people’s business.

DECLARATION  ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION JUNE 24, THE SUPREME COURT of the United States of America, overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, healed a constitutional vulnus [wound] and at the same time restored sovereignty to the individual States after almost fifty years. The decision of the Supreme Court did not rule the “right to abortion” – as the mainstream narrative claims – but rather it has overturned its “obligatory legalization in all of the States,” returning the power to decide about the “profound moral question of abortion” to “the people and their elected representatives,” from whom​​Roe v. Wade had removed it, contrary to the dictates of the U.S. Constitution.​​Thus the attempt to intimidate the Justices of the Supreme Court, which began with the malicious leak of the draft of the decision by members of the pro-abortion lobby, has failed, just as the rhetoric of death of the Democrat left, fueled by extremist movements and groups financed by George Soros’ Open Society has also failed. And it is significant to see how violent and intolerant the reaction has been from self-styled liberals, from Barack and Michelle Obama to Hillary Clinton, from Nancy Pelosi to Chuck Schumer, from the Attorney General Merrick Garland to Joe Biden, not to mention the declarations of politicians and heads of state from across the Western world. Actually, the following ought to be enough to make people understand the importance of this decision: attacks carried out by “pro-choice” groups, assaults against pro-life organizations, the desecration of churches, scenes of hysteria on the part of supporters of the right to kill the innocent life of the unborn child, emblematically uniting members of the Democratic party financed by Planned Parenthood, which in turn is financed by the government; the Woke Left; the followers of Klaus Schwab’s globalism; members of international Freemasonry; ideologues of green change and demographic reduction; propagandists of gender theory, LGBTQ+ ideology, and rainbow flags; adherents of the church of Satan, who consider abortion as one of their “rites” of worship; those who harvest and sell human fetuses from the death clinics; those who sell “vaccines” produced by human fetuses; and those who support the pandemic farce and their grotesque train of “experts,” all of whom agree that their cultural hegemony is now threatened, a hegemony that since 1973 has caused the death of 63 million children in the United States, who have been ordered in human sacrifice to the Moloch of political correctness.The globalist world, which has made the systematic violation of the human body its own ideological flag by imposing an experimental gene treatment on the population against all scientific evidence, is now tearing its garments as it claims the right of women to bodily autonomy and the right to kill the life the mother bears in her womb. This globalist world, in which an elite group of subversive criminals has seized power and ascended to the heights of power in Nations and international institutions, has now lost control of the United States of America, thanks to a historic decision handed down by wise Justices, including the ones most recently appointed by President Donald Trump, whose commitment to the defense of the sanctity of human life has today achieved a great victory for America and for those who look to her as a model to imitate. Many American states have already declared abortion illegal, and thanks to the decision of the Supreme Court they will finally be able to recognize and protect the rights of the unborn child.​​The Vatican Press Office as well as the U.S. Bishops’ Conference are reacting to thishistoric day with a suspicious moderation, as if it is an embarrassing duty for them. Bergoglio is silent, but he was very talkative when it came to attacking Donald Trump or supporting Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Democratic candidates. His silence in the faceof the victory of the Good over the ideology of death of the world without God stillechoes the propaganda of the Bergoglian church in support of the so-called vaccines andthe Agenda 2030 of the UN, which is one of the main proponents of “reproductive health”that has been imposed on nations precisely since 1973 with Roe v. Wade.​​Nor should we forget how the Pontifical Academy for Life, founded by John Paul II, has been disfigured over the last ten years by including members who are notoriously in favor of abortion and contraception.The hatred of President Trump and the network of the deep church’s connections and interests with the deep state have brought to light, among other things, the great contradiction of the Bergoglian church, which is committed to doing business with global high finance and the pharmaceutical companies, even as economic and sexual scandals continue to emerge that involve both politicians and prelates. On the day on which the Church celebrates the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, and also the Birth of Saint John the Baptist, who “leapt in the womb” of his mother Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), the Lord has desired to grant to the United States of America the possibility of redeeming itself, ensuring that its man-made laws are coherent with the natural law impressed by the Creator in the heart of every person. And this is the essential basis that is necessary for a Nation to be blessed by Heaven.​​One Nation under God.​​I hope that the American people will know how to treasure this historic opportunity, and that they will understand that there cannot be justice anywhere the right to abortion is recognized, there cannot be peace and prosperity in a society that massacres its own children, and there cannot be liberty wherever license, vice and pride subvert God’s Commandments. + Carlo Maria Viganò,​​Archbishop Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America​​June 24, 2022​​The Most Sacred Heart of Jesus​​







						EXCLUSIVE: Archbishop Vigano’s Declaration on the Decision of the Supreme Court in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization - Crime of the Century
					

Crime of the Century EXCLUSIVE: Archbishop Vigano’s Declaration on the Decision of the Supreme Court in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization -




					crimeofthecentury2020.com
				


​END2301020150


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6221025-#162 CarsomyrPlusSix   Hi, atheist conservative here. Other atheists may be zealous and religiously militant about their atheism. I just sleep in on Sundays.
> 
> Penelope221226-#3     Republicans are not Christians; they pretend to be.
> ^
> ^
> Calypso221226-#11    and democrats revere satan and make no bones about it.
> 
> Calypso221231-#6,604  Biden is in the virgin islands golfing. Do you know that he had the latest papers, the 1.7 billion govt spending bill he signed...flown down to him on a private jet? LOL Well...it's only money and since we pay for it what does he care? He's the emperor with no clothes. by choice. The emperor in the raincoat. flashing everyone...especially women and little girls.
> 
> NFBW: Biden is a pro-choice Catholic President. In case you didn’t know Catholics are Christians. There are polls that suggest that more American Catholics are pro-choice than are opposed to it.
> 
> You Calypso Jones are a serious Christian of some sort who argued above that every Christian who votes Democrat are actual persons who revere Satan. Could you explain if you are speaking for Jesus Christ when you make that accusation or is that the not-rational human being who thinks his religious beliefs makes you better smarter and of higher moral values and American patriotism than everyone else.
> 
> I am also curious how you reconcile your association on this message board with CarsomyrPlusSix who is an avowed atheist  who probably does not believe in a boogeyman named Lucifer. FYI I vote Dem. I am a rational theist like Jefferson and I don’t believe in a biblical boogeyman. I definitely do not revere some being as irrational as Satan.
> 
> END2301011019


Biden is Catholic? The one you voted for, but then sit here ranting and raging about Catholics every chance you get ?? ROTFLMBO 🤣 🤣🤣🤣... Can't make it up folk's, you just can't.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6221212-#6,362  CarsomyrPlusSix    “And the rest is just your continued hate-boner against Catholics, •••• “
•
Beagle9230102-#6,612 beagle9  “Biden is Catholic? The one you voted for, but then sit here ranting and raging about Catholics every chance you get.”

(1) NFBW: That is not true. You would know better if you gave this post a chance:

NFBW2212-#6,207    “Alito is a highly educated Catholic on the Supreme Court. Alito said along with the Dobbs decision the following quote:”​•​“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​•​Alito sums up why I a secular humanist and Jeffersonian rational theist and FranklinRoosevelt_FTW are mostly correct and openly honest and factual on abortion versus ding , a Catholic on the right ; @beagle , a Protestant ; CarsomyrPlusSix , an atheist who sleeps on Sunday’s just like God; are mostly wrong . •••• Here is what caught my attention written by FDR:​•​FDR220512-#3,093 FranklinRoosevelt_FTW  “And we should also hear out what women who are both for abortion and against it have to say without calling them names. Really is all about being polite everybody can hear each other out on this one.​•​That is not a popular sentiment around here and I will be spending the day or two putting up CHRISTmas decorations, so in the meantime, I’m asking all to read this post, and in the spirit Christmas and politeness, to read the following piece from 2006 when Dubya nominated Alito to the Supreme Court. ••••  I realize I can’t make anyone read anything but if interested in giving understanding and politeness a try in a search for truth in a rational way please give peace a chance at least for month - by reading this:​•​Alito And The Catholics BY BOOTIE COSGROVE-MATHER JANUARY 17, 2006 / 12:14 PM / WEEKLY STANDARD​•​This column was written by Joseph Bottom​•​Alito And The Catholics  •••• AATC060117.a “Since its founding, the United States has always had a source of moral vocabulary and feeling that stands at least a little apart from the marketplace and the polling booth — from both the economics of capitalism and the politics of democracy that otherwise dominate the nation.”​
(2) NFBW : I oppose only those minority of American Catholics who want to impose their religion on me.
​NFBW221227-#6,554   Your White Christian nationalist Republican people have no business imposing the Vatican’s Humanae Vitae reproduction laws on American Citizens​​(3)  NFBW : I oppose only those in the cultural Christian minority of Catholics who embrace the ideological propaganda of white Christian nationalism
​Correll221018-#38 Correll  “Any numbers on how big this "chistian nationalism" is?”​^​^​NFBW221230-#6,589   “It’s as big as the number of Republican voters it took the past fifty years to put six Catholics on the Supreme Court​​(4)  NFBW:  As a rational theist akin to the great American rational theist President Thomas Jefferson I oppose the following Catholic condemnation of Jefferson’s and hus greatest achievements Freedom of religion which includes a right freedom from the Oppressive unenlightened Catholic Church and religious doctrine of his era.
​Catholic view   Library : The Relevance of Thomas Jefferson    ••••  The Relevance of Thomas Jefferson  •••• Jefferson's attraction for modern man has led to the development of a veritable cult whose shrine on the banks of the Potomac draws worshippers from all over the world. •••• Often it has happened in history and in life itself that a good but naive man's principles have been mercilessly exposed by time to reveal logical implications, which he would have condemned in his own lifetime. Such was notably the case with Thomas Jefferson who, bereft of the Church's wisdom and maternal protection, fell victim to false principles long ago unmasked by Revelation and true philosophy. These false principles, known collectively as liberalism, were made by Jefferson into a kind of religion, as we shall see; and in using the prestige of the presidency to advance this secular religion, Jefferson unwittingly proved himself to be the first of a long line of abusers of the highest office of the land. For the Jeffersonian mentality, despite all good intentions, leads inexorably to moral nihilism and the abortionist Supreme Court of the 1970's.​
(5)  NFBW:  A minority of Catholics including posters like ding try dismiss the political power of religion that has succeeded in overturning a bipartisan compromise on secular abortion rights in America.

ding221121-#5,715    “Abortion is a human rights issue. Not a religious issue.”​​(6)  NFBW: I Applaud Biden’s devotion to serving as President first by keeping his Catholic beliefs between him and his God and thus no attempt to impose Catholicism on the whole of society as Mashmont seejs to do.

Mashmont220117-#1   “Hi. I just joined early this morning. Catholic Trump conservative here. Pro-life. Anti birth control. I consider Trump one of the greatest presidents of all time.​
END2301020819


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Right, you hate actual Catholics who have morals and believe in a god, just like you hate moral atheists.  The key thing is that you hate moral humans who don’t believe in slaughtering the innocent as you do.

You only like immoral shitstains like yourself who worship needless death and destruction like your demonic filth piss “god.”  So Joe Biden, a man utterly devoid of sanity or principle or orientation to reality anymore in the depths of senile dementia - he is fine to you.  Nancy Pelosi, the utterly corrupt old harpy, she was ideal to you.  Saying you are a thing while believing nothing that thing is?  That is your MO down to the letter, so of course.


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws




----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6230102-#6,614 Right, you hate actual Catholics who have morals and believe in a god, just like you hate moral atheists.

NFBW: How can you be a moral atheist and patriotic American loyal to the Constitution when you sold out and uphold the anti-American, judgmental decrees put forth by a medieval brained leftover, visceral woman and gay hating authoritarian, Trump loving  Catholic Bishop living off the backs of parishioners that he openly lashes out in contempt. Big hero to you CarsomyrPlusSix ?????  Carlo Maria Viganò, who wrote of the Dobbs decision:

On the day on which the Church celebrates the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, and also the Birth of Saint John the Baptist, who “leapt in the womb” of his mother Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), the Lord has desired to grant to the United States of America the possibility of redeeming itself, ensuring that its man-made laws are coherent with the natural law impressed by the Creator in the heart of every person. And this is the essential basis that is necessary for a Nation to be blessed by Heaven. •••• One Nation under God.​​NFBW: We not a nation under anybody’s God and never were. . . Check your history books on the colonists view on Catholicism prior to the Revolutionary War
and resultant establishment of religious freedom and the very same freedom of conscience that Vigano seeks terminate with hardline Vatican religious rules

END2301021124


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: How can you be a moral atheist and patriotic American loyal to the Constitution


By opposing the corrupt tyranny of Roe vs. Wade and supporting human rights against aggression.

Moral Catholics being correct in knowing the scientific fact that life begins at conception is not a point of contention with any educated, honest person of any faith, and certainly not a point for condemnation as you employ it, you hatemongering lunatic who lusts for needless slaughter.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW230102-#6,616   How can you be a moral atheist and patriotic American loyal to the Constitution

Cplus623010-#6,617   By opposing the corrupt tyranny of Roe vs. Wade ••••

NFBW: You talk of tyranny but you can’t intelligently tie Roe v Wade to anything resembling an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution;  a usurper of sovereignty ;   a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally against his subjects:

(1) No natural law or US Constitutional right of a fetus is violated when a woman terminates the life of her own not viable fetus as an act of individual choice.

(2) a pregnant woman is not “ruling” another viable person’s life.

(3) a pregnant woman is not
a usurper of sovereignty if she has an abortion.

(4) A not viable fetus is not a subject to it’s mother as are those unfortunate viable human beings when they are forced into obedience to a king, despot, dictator or any kind of non-democratically elected leader of a state or nation.

There is no corrupt tyranny of Roe vs. Wade to be opposed. You CarsomyrPlusSix in no way can you claim to be harmed when a woman unbeknownst to you has an abortion in private with her doctor.

END2301030055


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW230102-#6,616   How can you be a moral atheist and patriotic American loyal to the Constitution
^
^
Cplus623010-#6,617 @CarsomyrPlusSix   By •••• supporting human rights against aggression.

NFBW: (1) In a secular civil society it is legitimate and morally correct and defensible for a not religious viable person to consider the not viable human organism living in another person’s womb and in one’s own womb as to having human rights only through the viable person who is providing the developmental life support as possessor of the womb being utilized.

(2) Being a Catholic and devout members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church while living in a secular civil society such as ours as it appears ding Meriweather Mashmont and Calypso Jones appear to be, it is legitimate, morally correct and imperative to consider the not viable human organism living in one’s own womb as to having equal human rights as the Catholic mother from the moment of conception thus making abirtion immoral and a sin against God.

(3) Given truth’s (1) and (2) -  an atheist like American CarsomyrPlusSix and the Italian old medieval fart Catholic Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò need to get their goddam  noses out of every not Catholic pregnant American woman’s uterus because no one’s and no government’s goddam nose has any business being in there when a uterus ain’t Catholic..

“On the day on which the Church celebrates the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, and also the Birth of Saint John the Baptist, who “leapt in the womb” of his mother Elizabeth (Luke 1:41),”  Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò​
NFBW: Anyway (Luke 1:41) appears to confirm the Jewish concept that the soul enters the body at first breath therefore human spiritual life begins at the moment of live birth. Catholicism is an offshoot of Judaism - so there’s that.

END2301030424


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ding181015-#357   My expectation is that abortion will be seen as wrong. I want it to come to a vote of the people

lennyp220802-#22 lennypartiv  This was a mistake by the voters. Hopefully the legislature steps in and corrects this by passing laws against abortion in Kansas

NFBW: I see abortion as wrong as a matter before my conscience. I see white Christian males like ding and lennypartiv who call for voters to push government coercion of fuil term pregnancy on all preheated woman against their rights of bodily autonomy and freedom of conscience to be moral depravity in the highest degree. And for that I’m supposed to have a guilty conscience.

ding220724-#3,861    “You have a guilty conscience”

NFBW: I have no such thing.

END2301030746

.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> You talk of tyranny but you can’t intelligently tie Roe v Wade to anything resembling an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution;  a usurper of sovereignty ;   a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally against his subjects


The Supreme Court of the United States flagrantly lying about the content of the United States Constitution, making up a false right, incorporating this fake right against the states, usurping power the federal government does not have, that is tyranny, by definition.

Sorry you’re so much a fucking useless, brainless retard to note this reality.



NotfooledbyW said:


> You CarsomyrPlusSix in no way can you claim to be harmed when a woman unbeknownst to you has an abortion in private with her doctor.


I certainly can’t claim that if someone shot you in your stupid fucking face it would harm me in any way.  And though you are a human being with rights - just like the humans you hate and want dead from your stupid bigotry - I think that would be the opposite of harm to me if someone did.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Given truth’s (1) and (2) -  an atheist like American CarsomyrPlusSix and the Italian old medieval fart Catholic Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò need to get their goddam  noses out of every not Catholic pregnant American woman’s uterus because no one’s and no government’s goddam nose has any business being in there when a uterus ain’t Catholic..


Our natural human rights as human beings don’t give a shit about our mother’s religious beliefs or lack thereof, you stupid inhuman bigoted trash.

Stop proselytizing for your unworthy piss god of hatred and murder, though you are clearly made in its vile image.  Stop pretending your piss god is some version of the god of Abrahamic religions, not even the worst interpretations of Allah are as monstrous as the filth you worship, fit only for a latrine as a church.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW230103-#6,618  You talk of tyranny but you can’t intelligently tie Roe v Wade to anything resembling an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution; a usurper of sovereignty ; a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally against his subjects

Cplus6230103-#6,621  The Supreme Court of the United States flagrantly lying about the content of the United States Constitution, making up a false right, incorporating this fake right against the states, usurping power the federal government does not have, that is tyranny, by definition.

NFBW: Actually you are lying CarsomyrPlusSix about the content of the Constitution because the Constitution does not say that a woman cannot terminate her own pregnancy if she wants to and have a safe place to have it lawfully done by medical professionals It is silent.

That is why white Christian dominated states in some cases are banning medical facilities and medical facilities from performing the medical procedure instead of being able to charge a woman who gets an abortion with murder of a recognized person  with a right to life and protection under the law. 

Current homicide laws are Constitutional throughout every government level based on the personhood of the killer and the victim. 

A fetus in the womb is not a person recognized in OUR civil society in any way akin to thise who  have passed the stage of development where you and I ceased to be part of our mothers body, commonly referred to as birth.,

END 2301032018


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Actually you are lying CarsomyrPlusSix about the content of the Constitution


No, I’m not, you brainless waste of oxygen.



NotfooledbyW said:


> because the Constitution does not say that a woman cannot terminate her own pregnancy


It doesn’t say anything about abortion at all, illiterate buffoon.

Read the 10th Amendment.  Then shut up in shame, or preferably self-asphyxiate.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW230103-#6,619 Given truth’s (1) and (2) - an atheist like American CarsomyrPlusSix and the Italian old medieval fart Catholic Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò need to get their goddam noses out of every not Catholic pregnant American woman’s uterus because no one’s and no government’s goddam nose has any business being in there when a uterus ain’t Catholic..

Cplus6230103-#6,622  Our natural human rights as human beings don’t give a shit about our mother’s religious beliefs or lack thereof, you stupid inhuman bigoted trash.

NFBW: You are not a fetus in your mother’s  womb. I am certain of that. So your natural human rights as a “viable” human being are not in question or under threat of being lost . So of course as a post-birth human being you may or may not give a shit what your mother’s or my mother’s religion is. I dont give a shit what your mother’s religion is. Her religion has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. Our Secular civil society as well as our Constitution do not recognize a fetus in the womb to have the same natural human rights as you and your mother. So nothing from you CarsomyrPlusSix  as anticipated. 

END2301031830


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are not a fetus in your mother’s  womb.


Irrelevant, you bigoted, stupid fuck.  All human beings have the right to life.



NotfooledbyW said:


> “viable”


Completely irrelevant, you bigoted, stupid fuck. Go jerk off with surfactant as already instructed, or preferably, drink bleach.

Nothing but useless retard noise from you once again.  Silence instead, please, silent as the grave.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Irrelevant, you bigoted, stupid fuck. All human beings have the right to life.


NFBW: On whose authority do ‘not viable’ human beings in the womb have a right to life? You have no god, no creator, no Supreme Being creating your soul making you more special than a monkey. so you have no authority. BECAUSE “YOU SAY SO” does not cut it.

Look back at the Kansas abortion special election - your hate mongering bullshit  can’t convince even a conservative state because you are nobody - you have no authority - all you can do is call 2/3 of America “abortion filth” and who the fuck knows why you decided to want government to stick its nose into a pregnant woman’s uterus during what should be a private matter between a doctor and his patient.

END2301031859


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> On whose authority do ‘not viable’ human beings in the womb have a right to life?


By what insanity do you claim “viability” means the difference between human being and property to be killed on a whim, you vile inbred slithering demonic filth?



NotfooledbyW said:


> You have no god, no creator, no Supreme Being creating your soul


I have the same a priori universal creator as everyone else, or as inherently as much soul as everyone else, no matter who is right about their supposition regarding the unknowable.

Nonetheless, every human being is created, and we are created equal.  Creation is the beginning of our lifespan.  In that sense as an individual organism, I know who my direct creators were, and I share the pair of them with two other living men.

Whether or not there is a divine is immaterial, we are here, we are humans, and humans have rights.



NotfooledbyW said:


> BECAUSE “YOU SAY SO” does not cut it.


You think your belief in your inferior to human excrement “god” of hate and murder makes your hateful bigotry more valid somehow?



NotfooledbyW said:


> and who the fuck knows why you decided to want government to stick its nose into a pregnant woman’s uterus during what should be a private matter between a doctor and his patient.


Who the fuck knows why some defective retarded drooling hatemonger like yourself thinks contract killers are “doctors,” folks who want their own kids dead are “patients,” and that homicide of the innocent is a “private matter?”

Honestly, people like you are not well.  You are fucked in the head.  You are a danger to others and you should be watched closely.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW230103-#6,618     You CarsomyrPlusSix in no way can you claim to be harmed when a woman unbeknownst to you has an abortion in private with her doctor.

Cplus6230103-#6,621  I certainly can’t claim that if someone shot you in your stupid fucking face it would harm me in any way.

Governments are supposed to exist to preserve law and order so viable human beings can pursue happiness which means they must keep one viable human being from shooting another human being by threat of prosecution and imprisonment/ loss of freedom or in worst case loss of life. 

So CarsomyrPlusSix you would be harmed if government ceased to execute its authority and purpose if they do not attempt to catch and prosecute the son of a bitch viable human being who shot me in the face. 

But if the government does not protect the not viable human organism in a womb from a private decision by it’s mother to kill it - there is zero effect on the government’s duty to keep law and order in the physical world in which viable human beings live work and play. 

It is simple logic and reasonable thinking to understand that you are no longer in your mother’s womb so you are not in danger of ever being killed in the womb by a pregnant woman subsequent to the date that you took your first breath and joined the human race.

END230103





 END230103


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Governments are supposed to exist to preserve law and order so… human beings can pursue happiness


Again, erase your retarded obsession with current ability to breathe, and yeah, governments should protect innocent human beings from aggressive harm.  Like those targeted for contract homicide because of pieces of shit like you.




NotfooledbyW said:


> which means they must keep one viable human being from shooting another human being by threat of prosecution and imprisonment/ loss of freedom or in worst case loss of life


Yeah, they should protect the right to life of the innocent.



NotfooledbyW said:


> So CarsomyrPlusSix you would be harmed if government ceased to execute its authority and purpose if they do not attempt to catch and prosecute the son of a bitch viable human being who shot me in the face.



Anyone shooting you isn’t a son of a bitch, though, they’re doing humanity a favor.  Even if they have to go to prison, they certainly aren’t harming me or anyone in this community by sparing us from hearing your hateful nonsensical prattle ever again.  It’s really a shame to even have to lock them up, maybe it would be for the best if they weren’t caught.

You can argue that you have rights and it would be wrong to kill you as long as you aren’t currently attacking anyone, but don’t dare lie and pretend that someone cleaning your filthy clock would be anything but a net positive for those who have had to suffer you or those who have yet to suffer you.

This is legitimately in good faith a deep flaw in your effort to make an argument.  It not only doesn’t impact me if you were to be killed, it would be kind of delightful.  The impact of your death is not why murder is wrong.  The knowledge of others of your existence prior to your death is not why murder is wrong.  If the supposed negative impact of your death is why your murder would be wrong, in presenting negative value and causing others to be continuously subject to your bigotry and stupidity you are actively arguing in favor of your own killing, because you are proving that it should be acceptable.  There *is* no harm there to others in that scenario.

The only valid argument you could adopt, if you want to make sense, is mine - to say that ALL human beings have basic intrinsic value and rights.  Which means that even trashy evil humans like you, who abuse their rights to spread hatred and violence, are still technically human beings with rights, like the abortion victims you disdain and despise, despite the fact that as innocent blank slates, they are objectively superior to you, you utterly meritless and morally bankrupt reprobate with no potential whatsoever.



NotfooledbyW said:


> But if the government does not protect


[objectively innocent human beings, i.e. much better than filth like you]



NotfooledbyW said:


> in the physical world


Wombs are extra-dimensional magic space and mothers do not exist in reality.  Got it.  It makes sense you would believe this, you fucking utterly incoherent lunatic.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> By what insanity do you claim “viability” means the difference between human being and property to be killed on a whim, you vile inbred slithering demonic filth?


Moving from not viable to viable does not change a fetus’ status as a human organism under development.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW230103-#6,629   Governments are supposed to exist to preserve law and order so… human beings can pursue happiness

Cplus6230103-#6,630  CarsomyrPlusSix   •••• and yeah, governments should protect innocent human beings from aggressive harm. Like those targeted for contract homicide because of pieces of shit like you

NFBW: How is the termination of a pregnancy from Herschel Walker’s sport fucking because of anything you can possibly know about me. LIAR!!

END2301040010


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW230103-#6,629    So CarsomyrPlusSix you would be harmed if government ceased to execute its authority and purpose if they do not attempt to catch and prosecute the son of a bitch viable human being who shot me in the face.
^
^
Cplus6230103-#6,630  CarsomyrPlusSix The only valid argument you could adopt, if you want to make sense, is mine - to say that ALL human beings have basic intrinsic value and rights.

NFBW: No. All human beings have basic intrinsic value and rights and one group of human beings for a nine month period, when they are pregnant, have a higher intrinsic value and rights over the specific developing human organism that is biologically attached  to her uterus.

When we leave the womb and sustain oxygenation of our own blood through our own lungs and the cord being cut, are separated physically from our mothers we aquire full intrinsic human value with rights which are reasonably restricted by our parents until around the age of eighteen..

The lawful and moral precedent for society giving pregnant woman autonomy over any human life inside her body as described above, comes from the common law of England. During the mid-eighteenth century in colonial America a concept called quickening to determine when societal respected life begins, was universally embraced. Abortion was legally and socially benign when the US Constitution was inked. Legal precedent is fixed at when life was considered to exist before the fetus was quick — which was believed to occurs in the fourth or fifth month of gestation.

END2301040154


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Moving from not viable to viable does not change a fetus’ status as a human organism under development.


I don’t speak retard, I’m sure this makes sense to you and only you, and we can leave it that way.


NotfooledbyW said:


> How is the termination of a pregnancy from Herschel Walker’s sport fucking


Again, I don’t speak retard.  Perhaps instead just stop wasting oxygen?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. All human beings have basic intrinsic value and rights


You don’t believe that for a second you lying piece of shit.




NotfooledbyW said:


> and one group of human beings for a nine month period, when they are pregnant, have a higher intrinsic value


And there we go, you are bigoted trash who doesn’t believe in equality or human rights at all.  Go to Hell, go directly to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, you won’t need it in the lake of fire where you should enjoy burning forever.

Playing favorites about who has “higher intrinsic value,” you are the most ignorant fuck imaginable, you know less than nothing about the concept of human rights.



NotfooledbyW said:


> During the mid-eighteenth century in colonial America a concept called quickening


“Life begins at quickening” is an archaic notion that predates cell theory let alone advanced microscopy and embryology, you ignorant fuck.  Amazing.  You are literally so dumb you know nothing a child who has been educated since the 1600s might maybe know.

Did you know the Earth goes around the sun?

How far back does this go?



NotfooledbyW said:


> Abortion was legally and socially benign when the US Constitution was inked.


Abortion is never mentioned in the United States Constitution.  Nothing else you say about this matters, so just fuck off.  Aforementioned bleach cocktail still recommended.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6230104-#6,635  CarsomyrPlusSix   Abortion is never mentioned in the United States Constitution.

ColonelA220710-#1 ColonelAngus  The Constitution does not mention abortion as a right. The SUPREME COURT has no justidiction to rule. It is up to the states to make their own laws.

NFBW221211-#6,288 “•• Abortion is commonly defined as the termination of a pregnancy resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus / or following the death of the embryo or fetus. So how do you know when a woman unbeknownst to you CarsomyrPlusSix living on the opposite coast, in a state with protected freedom of reproductive rights, has a natural abortion or an induced abortion. ••”

NFBW: Unlike just about every homicide, suicide and accidental or unusual unnatural death always being reported to and recorded by the government; the death of a fetus does not lead to an investigation into homicide charges against the person who intentionally contracts someone else to kill it and remove the corpse from her body?

Why do you think ColonelAngus that homicide is treated differently in our society ever since the mid-18th CENTURY to present, when the deaths of the unborn, are caused by abortion versus a person (who was born)  kills another person (who was also born) • For you too beagle9 and see Alabama

END2301042022


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW 
10th Amendment, fuck you - now go to hell where you belong, you infernal piece of guttertrash.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW230104-#6,633   “All human beings have basic intrinsic value and right”
^
^
Cplus6230104-#6,635  You don’t believe that for a second you lying piece of shit.

NFBW: Actual I do. Women who are pregnant provide the human value and human rights for the living organism that is developing inside the womb that she is providing for it.

You can disagree with that all you like but since you have no revealed religion and therefore no higher legal or ethical or moral authority to tell me that I am wrong, you are just a complete asinine idiot to make an argument that I do not believe what I believe. Who do you think you are? Why do you refuse to simply just stick to facts reason logic and science?

END2301041155


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> NotfooledbyW
> 10th Amendment, fuck you - now go to hell where you belong, you infernal piece of guttertrash.


NFBW: how about dropping the fuckYoos and spending a little more pixels CarsomyrPlusSix and communicating whatever the hell it is, you’re trying to say?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Actual I do. Women who are pregnant provide the human value and human rights for the living organism that is developing inside the womb that she is providing for it.


Thank you for providing further incontrovertible proof that you have no respect for human rights, do not believe in intrinsic human rights, do not believe in equality, and do not understand what rights even are.

You think mothers provide “rights,” and can take them away on a whim.  Those aren’t rights, then, fucktard.

You are utterly worthless to any conversation about these topics.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: how about dropping the fuckYoos and spending a little more pixels CarsomyrPlusSix and communicating whatever the hell it is, you’re trying to say?


Read the 10th Amendment and comprehend it, moron, and / or just go sodomize yourself with a rusty halberd.

You quoted me and went on about nonsense that confirmed your lack of reading comprehension.  I don’t care about your incomprehensible nonsense tangents.  I don’t care about your obsession with surfactant.  I don’t care with your nonsensical obsession with human lives only being worthy of protection when others are aware of the victim and their life…

… or your now disproven concept that murder laws are only justified because of the harm done to others when a human is killed, instead of being needed to provide justice for the victim out of respect for their intrinsic, individual human rights. 

 If a homeless old vagrant with no friends and family is killed in the woods, that is still murder and justice demands we hunt down their killer if possible.  No one is aware of the homeless old vagrant, no one’s life or wellbeing is harmed by the random old vagrant they never knew being killed, and that is completely fucking irrelevant to the injustice of them being murdered and their inherent human rights.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Read the 10th Amendment and comprehend it, moron,



NFBW: Why should I re-read the Tenth Amendment. Women have a right to privacy to keep the noses of atheists like you who hate women out of their uteruses. Woman oppression just lost in South Carolina based on privacy -   a Red State.

Cplus6221130-#6,034  The Constitution’s silence is explicitly why it is a 10th Amendment matter… as anyone who didn’t flunk civics already knows.

Cplus6221130-#5,991     Roe cited a fictional *"right to privacy"* and hallucinated that this fictional right had a penumbra, a shadow right, which meant that you can kill your own kid just because, and it was always in the Constitution, just because of course it was.

Cplus6221130-#5,991   This garbage nonsense stands repealed as it should have been.

Cplus6221130-#5,991    Nothing based on this *"right to privacy" *has any legitimacy whatsoever, and all of it, not just Roe, should be repealed immediately.


South Carolina Supreme Court Strikes Down State Abortion Ban​The South Carolina ban on abortions after cardiac activity is no more after the latest legal challenge to the state’s 2021 law proved successful.​JAMES POLLARD
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Jan 5, 2023, 11:45 AM ESTi  COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The South Carolina ban on abortions after cardiac activity is no more after the latest legal challenge to the state’s 2021 law proved successful. ••••  *The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the restrictions violate the state constitution’s right to privacy.*​
END2301051753


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Why should I re-read the Tenth Amendment.


Because you don’t understand it and think the nation doesn’t need to adhere to it, you useless fucktarded shitstain.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Women have a right to privacy


No.  Read the Constitution, idiot.

Or still, preferably, drink a lot of bleach.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: Big “right to privacy” state Supreme Court decision in the South. and part of the Bible Belt. Justice Kaye Hearn, who was involved in the decision said:

“Most women who are pregnant at six weeks do not want anyone to know, she said, and many women do not want anyone to know if they have had an abortion.  •••• “I know you’re not a woman,” she told a lawyer for the state government. “But what could be more personal than that decision?”​
Cplus6221103-#13 CarsomyrPlusSix “Because Congress has no authority in setting the criminal code of the 50 states and abortion is not (and could not be) a “Constitutional right.””
^
^
Pellinore221105-#15  Pellinore  That is incorrect. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution establishes that all federal laws (starting with the Constitution and heading down) apply to the States. A State trying to pass a law that says a federal law does not apply to them is called nullification, and that was resolved in the 1830s.  •••• The federal government is not only allowed but expected to pass federal laws defending Constitutional rights against anyone, including State legislatures, trying to abridge them. Congress has been doing this since day one, even protecting unenumerated rights (under the 9th Am.) such as the rights to vote or to privacy. There is no legal reason why they couldn't do the same for bodily autonomy, for example, and prohibit State laws from nullifying it.


NFBW: The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled today 01/05/23 that the ‘six weeks heartbeat abortion restrictions’  violate the state constitution’s right to privacy.








						South Carolina's 6-week abortion ban is unconstitutional, state Supreme Court rules
					

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The South Carolina Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the state’s six-week abortion ban, ruling it violated the state’s constitutional right to privacy. In a 3-2 vote, the state’s high court wrote, in part, “We hold that our state constitutional right to privacy extends to a...




					www.rawstory.com
				



Justice Kaye Hearn, who wrote the opinion issued Thursday, is the only woman, and the second woman to serve on the court.​







						South Carolina Constitution Includes Abortion Right, State Supreme Court Rules
					

The decision overturns the state’s six-week ban on abortion, a major victory for abortion rights in the South, where the procedure is strictly limited.




					www.nytimes.com
				


Chief Justice Donald Beatty, the second Black justice elected since Reconstruction, joined her in the opinion along with Justice John C. Few. ••••  Justice Hearn seemed to indicate some sympathy toward the abortion providers during oral arguments. She noted that the plaintiff’s side of the courtroom was all female and the state’s side was all male. Most women who are pregnant at six weeks do not want anyone to know, she said, and many women do not want anyone to know if they have had an abortion.  •••• “I know you’re not a woman,” she told a lawyer for the state government. “But what could be more personal than that decision?”​
NFBW: Why can one state give a woman reproductive freedom based on a right to privacy and another state can restrict
reproductive freedom therefore allow the state to invade a pregnant woman’s privacy

When a woman lives in a state like South Carolina where reproductive freedom exists but has a job opportunity in a white Christian dominated state that bans abortion; why  isn’t her freedom of movement and freedom of conscience interfered with if she does not want to live in a state where mostly white and mostly Christian men in state legislatures want pregnant women to submit to their religious beliefs that life and full blown human rights and personhood begins at conception?

END2301052237


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW230104-#6,638   Actual I do. Women who are pregnant provide the human value and human rights for the living organism that is developing inside the womb that she is providing for it.
^
^
Cplus6230104-#6,640  You think mothers provide “rights,” and can take them away on a whim.

 NFBW: You are a liar CarsomyrPlusSix - I wrote about the specific circumstances of “Women who are pregnant”  -  I did not say anything about “mothers” . And you as a foul mouthed atheist have zero moral authority to proclaim as you repeatedly do that “the living organism that is developing inside the womb” have the same human rights and value as the pregnant woman who sustains it. 

END2301052311


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: You are a liar CarsomyrPlusSix - I wrote about the specific circumstances of “Women who are pregnant”  -  I did not say anything about “mothers”


You fucking moron.  Women who have sexually reproduced and made offspring are mothers.  Pregnant women are mothers.  

There is no argument against this.  You are just that stupid.  Drink cyanide while sticking forks in electrical sockets.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Pregnant women are mothers.



NFBW: No. 

expectant mother​noun​: a woman who is pregnant









						Definition of EXPECTANT MOTHER
					

a woman who is pregnant… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com
				





END230106


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No.


Look you uneducated layman filth, there is no living organism on this planet that doesn’t have parent organism, and sexually reproducing organisms like humans have two.

The female parent is a mother.  The male parent is a father.  This is basic biology.  Words mean things.

Once you have created new organisms, they are your offspring and you are a parent.

Whatever laymen nonsense you spew won’t alter that reality one iota.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6230106-#6,648  CarsomyrPlusSix    “The female parent is a mother.”

NFBW: (1) Yes. And so why is your nose in an *expectant* mother’s uterus during the privacy of her pregnancy when you are not the *expectant* father. Are you a pervert or something? Who do you think you are?

NFBW: (2) Yes. And so why is your nose in an *expectant* mother’s uterus during the privacy of her pregnancy at the time and prior to the moment when the living human organism ceases to be a part of it’s mother’s body when the cord is cut and the first breaths of the viable newborn baby are recorded in a normal civil society? 

Why won’t you discuss South Carolina’s State Supreme Court’s ruling in the Constitutional right of privacy keeping abortion legal up to twenty weeks at about the time that fetal viability outside the womb comes into decision time for expectant mothers? 

END2301060993   Happy failed insurrection day for election losers like Trump and you.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes.


Good, you understand the basic concept for once.  Now stop breathing so you can end on a high note.



NotfooledbyW said:


> privacy


Irrelevant, fucktard.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Are you a pervert or something? Who do you think you are?


Someone who doesn’t like needless violence, not a piece of shit waste of oxygen fucktard like you.



NotfooledbyW said:


> ceases to be a part of it’s mother’s body


We would have to be a part of our mother’s body, EVER, to stop being part of her body.  Fuck you, troll, you will never learn basic fact, stop wasting oxygen.




NotfooledbyW said:


> Why won’t you discuss South Carolina


Because I don’t care about your constant non-sequitur change the subject bullshit that you don’t even understand and can’t relate in the first place.   Stop wasting oxygen.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Happy failed insurrection day


There was no “insurrection,” you are beyond retarded, you are genetic poison, you need to be removed from the gene pool for the good of humanity.  Your eventual death will be cause for great celebration.

Stop wasting oxygen.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Leo123230102-#1 Leo123 Trump blamed pro-lifers for 2020 election. He said: “ ••••   “It wasn’t my fault that the Republicans didn’t live up to expectations in the MidTerms. I was 233-20! *It was the ‘abortion issue,’ *poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on No Exceptions, even in the case of Rape, Incest, or Life of the Mother, that lost large numbers of Voters.”

Delldude2310102-#13 @Delldude Who holds the House?

NFBW: 20 election, denying, Jan6 insurrection supporting, MAGA
Absolutely imbecilic Trump diehard Republicans Holding the House hostage.

But alas, if you wanna blame anybody for the GOP losing the Senate and barely winning the house, you would blame Trump and the three Catholic judges that he put on the Supreme Court who fucked up and scheduled the  Dobbs decision prior to the midterms.

However, Trump is correct this time just like he was once before when he was running for president the first time and told the GOP masses that the invasion of Iraq was a big fuck up and it was based on a lie.

Trump has actually told the truth a few times.

END2301061308


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: No.
> 
> expectant mother​noun​: a woman who is pregnant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of EXPECTANT MOTHER
> 
> 
> a woman who is pregnant… See the full definition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.merriam-webster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> END230106


So you are a leftist straight out of hell eh ? 

A woman pregnant is a mother at the time of conception. 

No if and's or but's about it. 

But that's just it, you are part of the crowd that is attempting to change language, math, history, people's biological make up, otherwise by agreeing with the bull shite that they are dreaming up in their head's etc.

You know, if a poor uneducated person (that has no common sense to boot), were to read your ridiculous bull crap, then they might actually be fooled by it, but thank God there's more with good common sense than there are of those who think like you, and have no common sense atall. 

Now take this and go write one of your boring long book like post that no one gives a shite about.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9230106-#6,652  beagle9   A woman pregnant is a mother at the time of conception.   •••• No if and's or but's about it.

NFBW: Yes. She is an expectant mother. 

What is your point ? Are you banning words like “expectant” now?   I posted recent important news related to this thread. Have you anything to say about it?

The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled today 01/05/23 that the ‘six weeks heartbeat abortion restrictions’ violate the state constitution’s right to privacy.​​abortion.jpg.webp​​South Carolina's 6-week abortion ban is unconstitutional, state Supreme Court rule​​COLUMBIA, S.C. — The South Carolina Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the state’s six-week abortion ban, ruling it violated the state’s constitutional right to privacy. In a 3-2 vote, the state’s high court wrote, in part, “We hold that our state constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion.”​
END2302061923


----------



## NotfooledbyW

DGS48221009-#11   Abortion is wrong because it is the taking of a human life. The circumstances surrounding the creation of that life are not relevant, any more than they would be relevant with a small child.

NFBW: Here is a fact that has never been refuted on this thread: 

Legal Abortion is a private decision by a pregnant woman to take a *not viable* human life that is using her body, brain heart and lungs to be alive. 

Why do you always leave the pertinent qualification out when you push an agenda to have government force pregnant women carry pregnancies to full term?

You must be aware that a small child has proven to be viable outside of a womb and a 16 week fetus is biologically not capable of surviving outside of the pregnant woman’s womb where it lives. 

END2301062003


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> beagle9230106-#6,652  beagle9   A woman pregnant is a mother at the time of conception.   •••• No if and's or but's about it.
> 
> NFBW: Yes. She is an expectant mother.
> 
> What is your point ? Are you banning words like “expectant” now?   I posted recent important news related to this thread. Have you anything to say about it?
> 
> The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled today 01/05/23 that the ‘six weeks heartbeat abortion restrictions’ violate the state constitution’s right to privacy.​​abortion.jpg.webp​​South Carolina's 6-week abortion ban is unconstitutional, state Supreme Court rule​​COLUMBIA, S.C. — The South Carolina Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the state’s six-week abortion ban, ruling it violated the state’s constitutional right to privacy. In a 3-2 vote, the state’s high court wrote, in part, “We hold that our state constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion.”​
> END2302061923


Are you stupid or something, now why would I want to ban any word's ? That's something you on the left champion all the time, and not as you claim we might do who are on the right.

Nobody cares about that hillbilly hell hole down there in South Carolina, so let's move on to the next dumb bull crap lame accusation or News from your idiocy which is what ??? Don't strain yourself now.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

beagle9 said:


> Are you stupid or something, now why would I want to ban any word's ? That's something you on the left champion all the time, and not as you claim we might do who are on the right.
> 
> Nobody cares about that hillbilly hell hole down there in South Carolina, so let's move on to the next dumb bull crap lame accusation or News from your idiocy which is what ??? Don't strain yourself now.


He’s straining with laymen ignorance and trying to pretend that biology - which he hates and doesn’t understand- doesn’t exist whenever possible, especially when inconvenient to him.

In this, he literally is calling me a “liar” for calling mothers “mothers,” and I am beyond sick of his bullshit.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW: Here is a fact that has never been refuted on this thread


From a lying piece of shit allergic to facts, I doubt it.


NotfooledbyW said:


> Legal Abortion is a private decision


Legal abortion is a human rights abuse
It is a homicide.  Like most homicides, the perpetrator wants it done in secret to avoid the knowledge of others and thus any repercussions.  But of course because this is aggressive violence, “privacy” is of zero concern whatsoever.

Refuted.



NotfooledbyW said:


> by a pregnant woman to take a *not viable*


Irrelevant.  With your braindeath, we should not consider you viable at this point.

Refuted.

Corrected: 
“Legal abortion is a human rights abuse, because it aggressive violence by one human against another must be prosecuted by a just government and has no expectation of privacy whatsoever.  Abortion is when a mother hires a contract killer who then uses a variety of methods to kill her own son or daughter, which is obviously depraved and deplorable to any sensible and moral person, as individuals attacking and committing the homicide of the innocent is never morally justifiable, and moreover this perpetrator is the protector and provider for this victim, entirely responsible for providing their well-being, based upon their own action, their own choice, to commit the action that makes kids.”

There you go, you subhuman filth that ought to be loaded up on an abortion truck: the revision makes it accurate, factual, and irrefutable.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6230107-#6,656  CarsomyrPlusSix    He’s straining with laymen ignorance and trying to pretend that biology - which he hates and doesn’t understand- doesn’t exist whenever possible, especially when inconvenient to him.

NFBW: The establishment by the Supreme Court of South Carolina this past week is huge in that an *expectant mother’s* right to privacy is recognized by a God-fearing, Bible Thumping, white Christian nationalist southern state is a legitimate human right. ITS A RIGHT that no Government can deny including a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion within the limit of doing it before potential viability which can be set as early as the twentieth week of pregnancy.

beagle9230106-#6,655  beagle9    Nobody cares about that hillbilly hell hole down there in South Carolina, ••••

NFBW: Of, Course you two who are posting as members of the irrational, emotional and cruel anti-woman, American Taliban - find South Carolina *inconvenient* to be discussed among rational human beings such as myself  Thanks for the removal of any doubt that such reality may be true.

You celebrated Dobbs decision is a huge dud for you Taliban who want to beat all women into submission to your extremist white American Christian will.

You should have paid attention to what Alito said:

NFBW2212-#6,207 “Alito is a highly educated Catholic on the Supreme Court. Alito said along with the Dobbs decision the following quote:”

“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..​
END2301070840


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> It is a homicide.


NFBW:  Not considered publically to be so by Sam Alito.

“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..

Who do you think you are CarsomyrPlusSix ?????  Are you Mankind’s first Atheist Moses presenting commandments in stone from the outer reaches of primordial darkness?

You are a couple and a half centuries too late in America because if quickening and important legal language that Alito has written and a 1908  rape case in Portland Oregon.

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.​​This is devastating for Alito’s argument. Here’s why.​
What Justice Alito Can Learn From a 114-Year-Old Sex Abuse Scandal​
Recall that the leaked opinion overturns Roe v. Wade on the basis of a particular legal test: *The Constitution, it says, can only protect the right to abortion if it is “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.” *Alito recognizes that this test is actually terrible for him as of the founding because every state then in the union respected the “distinction between pre- and post-quickening abortion” and treated the former as no crime at all.​
NFBW: South Carolina’s Supreme Court just ruled that “right to privacy” covers  “right to abortion prior to quickening” same as it was legally true in all thirteen colonies when the Constitution was written .
I see why CarsomyrPlusSix and beagle9 do not want to talk about it.

END2301070856


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW:  Not considered


Words have meanings, retard.

You have conceded abortion victims are human beings.

Every killing of a human being is a homicide, by definition.

You lose, as always.  You are a perpetual loser.  You can be nothing else.

Fuck off already.  Off the mortal coil, preferably, and into the abyss where you belong.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You have conceded abortion victims are human beings.



You are leaving out that I maintain the unborn human beings have a specific legal distinction divided by *quickening; * a “distinction between pre- and post-quickening” in effect at the time of our founding and I agree that Alito is correct when he says the Constitution can only protect the right to abortion if it is *“deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.”*

A.Tang220602   Recall that the leaked opinion overturns Roe v. Wade on the basis of a particular legal test: The Constitution, it says, can only protect the right to abortion if it is “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.”​
What Justice Alito Can Learn From a 114-Year-Old Sex Abuse Scandal​
Alito recognizes that this test is actually terrible for him as of the founding because every state then in the union respected the “distinction between pre- and post-quickening abortion” and treated the former as no crime at all.​
NFBW: So quit lying about what I have conceded CarsomyrPlusSix ? Your lies disgrace all post-quick atheist human beings of a rational nature.

END2301071012


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6230107-#6,656  CarsomyrPlusSix    He’s straining with laymen ignorance and trying to pretend that biology - which he hates and doesn’t understand- doesn’t exist whenever possible, especially when inconvenient to him.

NFBW: The establishment by the Supreme Court of South Carolina this past week is huge in that an *expectant mother’s* right to privacy is recognized by a God-fearing, Bible Thumping, white Christian nationalist southern state is a legitimate human right. ITS A RIGHT that no Government can deny including a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion within the limit of doing it before potent viability which can be set as early as the twentieth week of pregnancy.


A.Tang211026   The importance of a state-law consensus is why antiabortion advocates have long rested their argument on the similar claim that when the 14th Amendment was ratified, 27 of the 37 states banned abortion throughout pregnancy. The state of Mississippi makes this claim in _Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization_, the pending case, and no fewer than five amicusbriefs repeat it. Via​​This claim is wrong, grounded on a series of historical errors. The foundational mistake is the failure to grapple with the long-standing rule that abortion was legal so long as it was performed before quickening, the first noticeable fetal movement that often occurs at 15 or 16 weeks.​https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...nd-abortion-that-originalists-should-embrace/​The concept of quickening is crucial because people understood it to represent the first sign of life. Sir William Blackstone, an 18th-century jurist whom originalists deem a “preeminent” originalist authority, wrote that *abortion is unlawful only after a “woman is quick with child” because that is when life “begins in contemplation of law.”* As historian James Mohr has explained, the “distinction between quick and unquick” pregnancies was “virtually universal” in 19th-century America.​​END2301071021


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Enough lies.  Enough archaic ignorant gobbledygook.  Enough inane faggotry.

Find a fire, hurl yourself in.  You’re dead to me, and in an ideal world, to everyone else.  You’re a troll and a waste of any possible resources.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Enough lies.  Enough archaic ignorant gobbledygook.  Enough inane faggotry.
> 
> Find a fire, hurl yourself in.  You’re dead to me, and in an ideal world, to everyone else.  You’re a troll and a waste of any possible resources.



Life begins for human beings in contemplation of secular law following a set standard of viability or quickening at around 20 weeks.

So Run and hide with the rest of the woman hating frauds then when the truth becomes inconvenient to you all.

Jesus says seek the truth and you will find LOVE    You should try it some time. it’s good advice to haters.

The concept of quickening is crucial because people understood it to represent the first sign of life. Sir William Blackstone, an 18th-century jurist whom originalists deem a “preeminent” originalist authority, wrote that *abortion is unlawful only after a “woman is quick with child” because that is when life “begins in contemplation of law.”* As historian James Mohr has explained, the “distinction between quick and unquick” pregnancies was “virtually universal” in 19th-century America.​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: #ding’s fallacies are very complex constructions but they are fallacies just the same. His belief that predominantly white and Christian state lawmakers can use *indirect* evidence from God’s creation to make laws to restrict a pregnant woman’s access to a safe legal abortion prior to viability or quickening, is founded on an elaborate scheme to blur the line between those who pursue truth based on material evidence, facts and best use of human reason known as science against those who pursue truth based upon a revealed and organized structure known as religion .

The ethics of abortion cannot be settled in our secular society, scientifically and thus truthfully and judicially by white Christian state lawmakers because they have the same unscientific prejudice against the pure scientific and biological fact that once conceived, the alive human developing organism using a woman’s body cannot survive on its own if separated from its mother. That condition is referred to as not viable if it cannot and viable if it can.

The truth needed is not when scientific biological life begins, because on abortion rights, the matter needing to be settled is when does viable life begin for human beings *in contemplation of secular law. *

ding230102-#187  To be Christian one only need to believe that* God so loved man that He chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth* and suffer death to reconcile justice with mercy.

ding230105-#14 “Technically anyone who who speaks anything that is true is speaking for God as *God is truth among other things.*”

ding230102-#160   I wouldn't believe in God either if I based my belief of God's existence on your intellectually devoid interpretation of the Bible. Good thing we have what God created to study the *indirect evidence* of God. Something you have apparently never done.

NFBW      -#4,913    Viability -
^
^
CarsomyrPlusSix220818-#4,912 “it’s just oh so fucking irrelevant,”
^
^
NFBW      -#4,913       “that’s odd because 31 states ban abortion at viability or within the timeframe that viability occurs.?

9 states ban abortion.
4 states ban abortion at 6 weeks LMP.
1 state bans abortion at 15 weeks LMP.
9 states ban abortion at 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks postfertilization in state law) on the unscientific grounds that a fetus can feel pain at that point.
4 states ban abortion at 24 weeks LMP.
17 states impose a ban at viability.
1 state imposes a ban in the third trimester (beginning at 25 weeks LMP)
State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy
It is very interesting to see that an atheist and a Catholic who are politically opposed to a woman’s reproductive right are both hellbent on driving the concept of viability out of a secular search for truth,  law and order and political consensus on a woman’s right to choose in private to terminate her own pregnancy prior to the viability of the living human organism that is developing inside her.
END2301082025


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: Voters in all five states where an abortion-rights measure was on the ballot upheld a woman's right to choose. It is possible that around half of those choice voters are Christians. #ding explains why they can vote against the authoritarian white Christian nationalist anti-choice agenda: 

ding230102-#187 To be Christian one only need to believe that* God so loved man that He chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth* and suffer death to reconcile justice with mercy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6239107-#6,660  Words have meanings, retard.

NFBW: Yes, viability is the meaningful word that defines when life begins for human beings in *contemplation of secular law. *It is a fact that biological human life begins at conception. And yes it is morally fit for a secular society to grant women who experience an unwanted pregnancy privacy time to decide to terminate their pregnancies before the fetus becomes viable. 

END2301081402


----------



## beagle9

NotfooledbyW said:


> Cplus6239107-#6,660  Words have meanings, retard.
> 
> NFBW: Yes, viability is the meaningful word that defines when life begins for human beings in *contemplation of secular law. *It is a fact that biological human life begins at conception. And yes it is morally fit for a secular society to grant women who experience an unwanted pregnancy privacy time to decide to terminate their pregnancies before the fetus becomes viable.
> 
> END2301081402


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


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Cplus6239107-#6,660 Words have meanings, retard.
^
^
NFBW230108-#6,667     Yes, viability is the meaningful word that defines when life begins for human beings in contemplation of secular law. It is a fact that biological human life begins at conception. And yes it is morally fit for a secular society to grant women who experience an unwanted pregnancy privacy time to decide to terminate their pregnancies before the fetus becomes viable. •••• END2301081402
^
^
beagle9230108-#6,668    It's funny how you keep sparring with ding, and it appears that he's been done on this subject.

NFBW: Yes, it is true #ding has run away, left the field, jumped out of the ring, flew the coop because I found the weakness in his ‘one trick pony’ elaborate scheme to intellectually “shame” pro-choice posters who vote Democrat with his bullshit “easier for you to kill them” word play tool as found in this (viability denial) exchange last August;

NFBW220815-#4,841    Actually that is deniable because of the significant scientific fact that the human being lifespan that begins at conception is not a viable human being when it consists of only one cell. Human beings have 30 trillion. •••• Scientists have come a long way in estimating the number of cells in the average human body. Most recent estimates put the number of cells at around 30 trillion. Written out, that’s 30,000,000,000,000! •••• END2208152318​^​^​ding220815-#4,843   Incorrect again. Every embryology textbook teaches that new genetically distinct human beings come into existence IMMEDIATELY after fertilization. That's the science. Viability apart from its mother plays no role in that determination. The reason you are playing word games with viability is to make it easier to kill them and dismiss their right to life. •••• You deny the science that a new genetically distinct human being comes alive after fertilization because it's easier for you to kill them and dismiss their right to life if you don't see them as living human beings. •••• Women should acknowledge that they understand that getting an abortion is literally ending the life of a new, living, genetically distinct human being; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. Your minimizing the consequences of abortion does no one any favors. It's dishonest and ghoulish. •••• “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.” Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization​
NFBW: Anyway  beagle9 thanks for catching the fact that ding and CarsomyrPlusSix run away at the very mention of the SCIENTIFIC FACT that a human being is not viable outside the womb for at least 20 weeks following conception. *Fetal viability defines when life begins for human beings in contemplation of secular law.* That fact means there is no secular civil society shame or crime when a woman in the explicit privacy that is her right, decides to end the not-viable life in the womb as a matter of choice.

END2301081154


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9 said:


> It's funny how you keep sparring with ding,


NFBW: Hilarious to the intellectually not curious crowd I am sure.

ding230102-#160  I wouldn't believe in God either if I based my belief of God's existence on your intellectually devoid interpretation of the Bible. Good thing we have what *God created to study the indirect evidence of God.* Something you have apparently never done.​
NFBW: #ding argues that he has not Catholic scientific proof that we as a secular society must accept in our collective contemplation of secular abortion law that human beings (individual persons for purposes of rights and laws) are created and therefore present at the moment of conception and the fertilized ovum are fully equal to all fetuses who survive to live birth and viability.

The legal definition of direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a key fact. On the other hand, indirect evidence, which is sometimes called circumstantial evidence, is a set of facts that, if they are true, allows a reasonable person to infer the fact in question.   •••• Know Your Evidence: The Difference Between Direct and ...www.chamberslawfirmca.com/know-your-evidence-the-difference-between-direct-and-indirect-evidence/
NFBW: So, beagle9 could you ask ding if his scientific conclusion that secular law human life begins at conception is based on direct evidence or indirect evidence from his study of God’s creation? Thanks!

END2301090032


----------



## NotfooledbyW

jgalt220614-#10  johngaltshrugged   “What sane person thinks butchering an innocent & vulnerable human being just starting their life is OK?”

NFBW: Sane people who have experienced separation from their birth mother do not butcher innocent & vulnerable human beings who are at a stage development where they are either separated or capable of being separated from their birth mother’s at about 22 weeks following conception.,

Lastamender221024-#41 Lastamender “Hispanics are conservatives.”
^
^
BrokeLoser221024-#46 @BrokeLoser   “Hmmmm…the party of filth, abortion and lawlessness has always been the party of filth, abortion and lawlessness….but hispanics have been voting for free shit and fuck whitey….Why is that suddenly changing?”

NFBW: Hispanics are hardworking, family oriented and most importantly are predominantly members of the Catholic Church. That religious affiliation on abortion should be a slam dunk for the Republican Party to welcome immigration from south of our borders who religiously agree that human right to life begins at the moment of conception..

But Republicans need all the Trumpism votes they can get from star rightwing voters like BrokeLoser being the face of the Republican Trumpism establishment.

BrokeLoser wrote about America being a nation that was founded, built, run and funded by heterosexual white Christians which of course would exclude Catholics and specifically those non-white ones who do not come from Europe.

BrokeLoser221003-#10    “Easy now...I side with Conservatives, I vote with Conservatives BUT they are the most nutless, spinless, big mouth pieces of shit that ever were. Come on man...they didn’t have the balls to keep heterosexual white Christians cool in a nation founded, built, run and funded by heterosexual white Christians. The Left has owned their sackless asses for decades....Sad but true.”

END2301080845


----------



## NotfooledbyW

beagle9230109-#470  One thing is for damned sure, and that is that you leftist aren't going to destroy your opponent's who are just as much of American's as you are, so if you hate other American's so bad then start the damned war against them already, and get it to hell out of your system once and for all.

NFBW: Let me explain why you can take your  war paint off beagle9 - The left has no need to start a war against the anti-democracy right. The right has been working its way to committing suicide since Roe vs Wade was decided in 1973. White Christian nationalists and GOP political operatives figured out a way through emotional fakery to label Democrats and liberals as baby killers. it worked by building a large voting bloc loyal to Republicans all bound together by abortion and neatly advertised as focused on the family and the Christian Coalition under a false pretense that only conservatives are pro-life.

Dobbs v Jackson put a bullet in the chamber  for the out of touch with political reality on reproductive rights for women, white Christian nationalists religious right. The white self-righteous right are eager to pull the trigger and shoot the Republican Party squarely in the head. The Grand OLDE Party will be dead within a decade or two.

“The terrible irony is that this broadly empowered faction believes that because the white majority is shrinking, democracy is dying and only they can save it, albeit by snuffing it out altogether — burning the village and all that. In the mainstreamed MAGA mindset, the true America is and always has been homogenous, strictly controlled, its mores and traditions defined by those on top. That’s hardly democracy, but it is America for sure.​​







						Is This The End?
					

As concerns about the possible end of American democracy persist, let us remember: It’s always been the end.




					www.huffpost.com
				


​The GOP sees multiracial democracy as tying its hands, literally. To see the hordes waving their arms at rallies, or brandishing flags and banners and weapons at the attempted insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, is to see them saying quite clearly: We will not be tied. Democracy for them is about absolute freedom of movement, making their own incursions wherever and whenever necessary, consequences be damned. In their minds, it is their movements that must determine all of ours. This, to them, is the American way.​​But we — Americans of the better angels, for lack of a better phrase — know better. It’s why we can’t lean into defeat, toward foregone conclusions and gloomy assumptions about the end of our own history. We have to embrace the greatest American privilege offered to all: not unchecked power, but belief in the promise of the opposite.​​It’s been said that you can’t love if you’re always bracing for impact, and the same is true of striving toward democracy — you can’t do it if you’re also waiting for a hammer to fall. Nor can we follow the MAGA/Trump warrior creed that it’s all about winning, losers go home. No: This is home for all of us, and it requires our vigorous defense, now and in the future. Because in 2023, despite what looks like evidence to the contrary, we indeed still have a future that can ― in theory ― finally break from our past.”​​
END2301100258 Save this post !!!!!!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Sassy220106-#6 SassyIrishLass “What insurrection?”

Sassy220106-#6   If you support abortion you have issues and are primarily a selfish centered individual. Unable to take personal responsibility and probably why you've failed in life

NFBW: Trump has failed in life often including in November 2020 when he became America’s sorest loser ever.

We have irrefutable direct evidence that Trump inspired, incited and caused Ashley Babbitt to come to DC on Jan6 to participate in his multiple-pronged attempts to block the US Congress from performing it’s CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION to certify the actual winner of the 2020 presidential election - the honorable Joe Biden. And now that dumb insurrectionist is dead.

There is no known evidence that a lifelong Catholic, Joe Biden fathered and then supported or wanted his potential child aborted.

So it appears SassyIrishLass you have figured out why Trump is an absolute failure of a human being and Biden is an absolute success at being a human being  literally building bridges with Republicans like Mitch McConnell

Top stories



Courier-Journal
'A legislative miracle': Joe Biden, MitchMcConnell celebrate Brent Spence deal
6 days ago
Yahoo News
As Republicans fight, Bidentouts real (and figurative) bridge building
6 days ago



FOX 5 Washington D.C.
Biden visits Kentucky withMcConnell to highlight funding for aging bridge
6 days ago



The Wall Street Journal
Joe Biden, Mitch McConnellTout Bridge Funding in Show of Bipartisanship
6 days ago

NFBW: once in a blue moon while SassyIrishLass you are right about something!

END2301101023


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NFBW: Think about it. Women had a national right to privacy to have an abortion when Trump lost in 2020 and then deliberately and intentionally without evidence marketed the BIG LIE that he had actually won.

“And yet, at least 253 key political leaders across red-state America believed or pretended to believe the lie, and 147 Republican legislators voted to overturn a legal election based on the lie.​







						Opinion: What Happened To The Truth?
					

The entire Trump presidency was rooted in lies, and those lies have added to the persistent chipping away at democracy.




					www.huffpost.com
				


White conservatives rioted at the U.S. Capitol over that lie (and then tried to lie and say antifa did it).​​I contend that it is the sanctimonious white Christian nationalist movement’s convergence with the Republican Party, following the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, and incessant use of abortion as the primary cultural wedge issue is why secular truth has become so devalued ever since the birther rode down the golden escalator like Moses coming down from the mountain of Trump Tower in 2015.

Any objections?

END2301101102


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Bad news for Republican voters

South Carolina Supreme Court ruled right to privacy protects abortion rights •••• 
Economy has lowest unemployment rate in fifty years •••• inflation coming back to 2% - Biden’s economy is bottom up recovery - recession fears fading. •••• I can buy gas outside DC for $2.99 /gal  ••••  Anti-democracy attack in Brazil tied to Republican Trump Party will drive Latino voters into the Democrat camp for good and in big numbers. 
••••
And American MuggWumps love this stuff..
Top stories



Courier-Journal
'A legislative miracle': Joe Biden, MitchMcConnell celebrate Brent Spence deal
6 days ago
New York Post
President Biden’s ‘pivot’ to the center is more of the same extremist nonsense
3 hours ago



FOX 5 Washington D.C.
Biden visits Kentucky withMcConnell to highlight funding for aging bridge
7 days ago



The Wall Street Journal
Joe Biden, Mitch McConnellTout Bridge Funding in Show of Bipartisanship
6 days ago



Cleveland Plain Dealer
Biden, McConnell bipartisan bridge: Darcy cartoon
5 days ago



Yahoo News
As Republicans fight, Bidentouts real (and figurative) bridge building
7 days ago



Washington Post
As McCarthy struggles in House, McConnell appears with Biden in Ky.
7 days ago



USA Today
'We can work together': Biden, McConnell share spotlight as House GOP fight rages
6 days ago



WHAS TV11
Biden heads to Kentucky to highlight cash for aging bridge
7 days ago



Mediaite
‘Literally Taking a Joy Ride’: Biden and McConnell Hold Rare Joint Event to Hype Infrastructure Bill...
6 days ago


----------

