Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[NotfooledbyW]

That’s not a sentence.

NFBW: That was a sentence and it still is:

NFBW230309-#7,503 • I take it from your attempt to avoid answering a relevant question and/or my point, you are unable to explain what harm comes to you BackAgain when a woman does something in the privacy of her own bedroom and in the privacy of a medical office with her family and doctors.​

​

NFBW: Are you still unable to explain what harm comes to you when a woman does something in the privacy of her own bedroom and in the privacy of a medical office with her family and doctors?

END2303100903

​

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: Just wondering.

Ok. About what are you wondering?. And what does it have to do with the discussion?

beagle9 is on your team depriving women of having autonomy over their own bodies. You’ll get it if you want it.

Although this ^ quote fragment wasn’t addressed to me, I will reply anyway.

I deny your autonomy to use your own body to commit murder. So, what else do you have?

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: That was a sentence and it still is:

It sure as hell was not.

NFBW230309-#7,503 • I take it from your attempt to avoid answering a relevant question and/or my point, you are unable to explain what harm comes to you BackAgain when a woman does something in the privacy of her own bedroom and in the privacy of a medical office with her family and doctors.​

Already answered.

​

NFBW: Are you still unable to explain what harm comes to you when a woman does something in the privacy of her own bedroom and in the privacy of a medical office with her family and doctors?

Already answered.

END2303100903

​

End of your ability to post coherently.

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW230309-#7,498 Then your logic takes you to a point where she doesn’t have a right to life if she chooses not to assume the risk of pregnancy when she does so earlier than a point when a fetus has a brain.

BackAgain230309-#7,499 • Not what I said and not what logic leads to.

NFBW: BackAgain failed to respond to my post 7498 by complaining that he did not say a woman does not have a right to life.

I was not saying that BackAgain said it. It is clear I said his logic takes him to a point where a woman does not have a right to life. Of course BackAgain wont say a woman has no right to life but he demands every woman shall not be able to preserve her right to life by terminating her pregnancy early on because abortion at a safe medical facility or pharmaceutical abortifacients should be banned at the will of white Christian voters

END2303100143

You were wrong. No part of my logic leads to your claimed “conclusion.”

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW230309-#7,498 • in that you and society, as a whole, has a duty to protect a human being who has never had a brain and a conscious thought.

BackAgain230309-#7,499 • You’re allowed to take that position. That you do so doesn’t make it reasonable, accurate of justified.

NFBW: For the sake of your argument BackAgain tell the readers and me why any society of conscious capable human beings as a whole, has a duty to protect a human (living in privacy of womb) organism that has never had a physically developed brain capable of actually having a conscious thought.

Your entirely arbitrary dividing line in that “for the sake of the argument” question is rejected. Again, at conception it is a unique human life. Whether or not its brain has yet developed doesn’t change that fact.

Also, where it is (ie, inside the privacy of the womb) is irrelevant. If you’re inside the privacy of your own home, you aren’t allowed to commit murder anymore than in a public square. So the location is of no significance.

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: I am talking about your expressed celebration of the unjustifiable oppression and basically religious persecution of pregnant women when their pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted as shown in this exchange on this thread that you were psyched to start:

Well then you are lying. I’m engaged in no celebration at all. And I’m not seeking any oppression. That’s your dishonest hyperbole. And I’m not talking about any persecution. That’s your dishonest hyperbole. And my argument has nothing at all to do with religion. That’s your dishonest claim.

Psyched to start? Wtf are you babbling about now? I started a thread. That’s all. Can you perhaps just state your opinions and cite facts and logic which can then be discussed? Or are you somehow compelled to forever just rant and babble?

Lakhota220502-#35 Lakhota
SUPREME SHOCK LEAK: ‘DRAFT OPINION’ GUTS ROE
Sad news...for women!

BackAgain220502-#40 Excellent news for all people

Thanks for repeating Lakhota’s opinion and my answer to it. You made a compelling point doing so.

 

[BackAgain]

bodecea220503-#505 bodecea • Males telling women what to do with their bodies.

BackAgain220503-#509 • The law deciding that murder is wrong

NFBW: Do you BackAgain want to charge Amanda Zurawski with murdering a fetus when it had a heartbeat in Texas in violation of Texas heartbeat laws that you celebrate being on the books.

Amanda Zurawski was nearly 18 weeks pregnant when her doctor diagnosed her with an “incompetent cervix,” which made her sick, but she was still stable and the fetus had a heartbeat. Texas Law meant there was nothing her doctors could do except wait for her to go into labor. Zurawski “developed chills and started shivering, and by the time she got home, she had a temperature of 101 degrees and was not responding to her husband’s questions — all signs of sepsis,” Finally the hospital agreed to induce labor on a baby that would die shortly after birth.

Is that murder to you BackAgain ?

Amand’s infection persisted, landing her in the intensive care unit and causing severe scar tissue to develop in her uterus and fallopian tubes. One of her fallopian tubes remains closed and non-functional.

I am for abolishing the Texas Heartbeat law and getting white Texas Christian Republicans in that government off of Texas women’s uteruses before they actually kill a woman that does not have the means to good medical services and can’t afford to leave the state to get it.

What say you BackAgain ?

END2303100848

Your gibberish is difficult to wade through, due to your continuing resistance to properly using the quote function, NotFooledByReality.

If you had the ability or willingness to actually follow our conversation, you would already know that my position absolutely makes exceptions (in a variety of instance) to any abortion prohibition law.

So your question, here, as they often are, is meaningless.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Again, at conception it is a unique human life. Whether or not its brain has yet developed doesn’t change that fact.

Yes every conception produces a new unique human life that for about six months is incapable of being alive on it own.

What makes you think you can tell a complete stranger that she has to carry that new conceived life to full term and assume the risk of injury or death. If she dies not what harms gone to you? Are you afraid she will come and kill you next. What is it?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If you had the ability or willingness to actually follow our conversation, you would already know that my position absolutely makes exceptions (in a variety of instance) to any abortion prohibition law.

I follow it. You say human protected life begins at conception but you want to decide when it’s ok to kill it because you are ???????? The one who decides such things ?? that do not harm you in any way?

You simply want to meddle in strangers’ reproductive decisions for what reason who can figure.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes every conception produces a new unique human life that for about six months is incapable of being alive on it own.

It is alive. The fact that it requires a biological life-support system is also a completely irrational “dividing line” upon which to predicate a justification for denying that particular life the right to continue.

What makes you think you can tell a complete stranger that she has to carry that new conceived life to full term and assume the risk of injury or death.

False premise. If there is a genuine risk to the life of the mother, as I already said, then that can be one of the exceptions to a law prohibiting abortions. I see what you’re doing. You’re focusing on the ambiguous nature of the word “risk.” But, it’s a petty quibble. We all take risks every day which could end our lives. (An imminent or undeniable risk isn’t the same as a generalized risk.)

If she dies not what harms gone to you?

What?

Are you afraid she will come and kill you next. What is it?

If you can put your effort into posing an intelligible question (yours is not) then I would be pleased to try to answer it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Your gibberish is difficult to wade through,

NFBW: Fairly straightforward this is,

I am for abolishing the Texas Heartbeat law and getting white Texas Christian Republicans in that government off of Texas women’s uteruses before they actually kill a woman that does not have the means to good medical services and can’t afford to leave the state to get it.

What say you BackAgain ?


My position is clear regarding Amanda and on the public record. What is yours?

 

[BackAgain]

I follow it. You say human protected life begins at conception but you want to decide when it’s ok to kill it because you are ???????? The one who decides such things ?? that do not harm you in any way?

You don’t seem to follow it at all. You persist in asking “what harm comes to me” as though that’s a meaningful question. It isn’t. There are already laws on the books that prohibit all manner of things. Like assault. A person is not allowed to use physical force upon another which cause injury.

If some Joe Blow hits some other poor bastard with a baseball bat, causing physical injury tk that poor bastard, it may not harm me physically. So why does the law prohibit it? Because it injures the victim.

You simply want to meddle in strangers’ reproductive decisions for what reason who can figure.

False. That’s your bias speaking, not me. Am I “meddling in your right” to swing your fist if I support a law that forbids you to do so in dangerously close proximity to others? Nope. I’m not meddling at all. Even if I’m not in the immediate dangerous vicinity of your swinging fist, the law is there to put you on notice to refrain from such behavior.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It is alive. The fact that it requires a biological life-support system is also a completely irrational “dividing line” upon which to predicate a justification for denying that particular life the right to continue.

WHY do I have a duty as part of the human race, society and being human to protect not viable human life in its early stage of development

I told you why we as a society protect all human life that has passed the stage of birth. What makes it necessary and the only ethical answer to treat human unborn the same as humans who have been born?

Please tell me.

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: Fairly straightforward this is,

Maybe. You’re not a good judge so far of what is or isn’t straightforward.

I am for abolishing the Texas Heartbeat law

That’s a position. So far, so good. And?

and getting white Texas Christian Republicans in that government off of Texas women’s uteruses before they actually kill a woman that does not have the means to good medical services and can’t afford to leave the state to get it.

Your “position” assumes that, by crafting a law that protects the right to life of a developing human being in the womb, the Texas legislators are somehow “on” the womb of pregnant women. Your assumption is false. And, again, to whatever extent the law fails to allow at least exceptions for the life of the mother, I don’t support it. I maintain such exceptions are needed. I’ve posted that pint repeatedly. You insist on ignoring it for some reason.

What say you BackAgain ?

Just answered. ^

My position is clear regarding Amanda and on the public record. What is yours?

Just answered.

I support a law that prohibits abortion on demand especially for the sake of convenience. But, again, my position does allow for a variety of exceptions and the actual (not vague or imaginary) “risk” to the life or health of the mother is on my previously noted set of exceptions.

 

[BackAgain]

WHY do I have a duty as part of the human race, society and being human to protect not viable human life in its early stage of development

I told you why we as a society protect all human life that has passed the stage of birth. What makes it necessary and the only ethical answer to treat human unborn the same as humans who have been born?

Please tell me.

I have already explained all this. I can’t compel you to understand things you simply don’t understand or won’t understand.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You persist in asking “what harm comes to me” as though that’s a meaningful question. It isn’t.

NFBW: You want to restrict a woman’s liberty and freedom every time conception occurs in her reproductive organs, commonly called private parts. In this country to restrict someone’s liberty you need to at least cite the harm they are causing to other persons or to yourself. So what harm cones to you or me or anybody else when a stranger decides to terminate her pregnancy? END2303101342

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I have already explained all this.

Well then explain it again or tell me the post # where you think you explained it..

WHY do I have a duty as part of the human race, society and being human to protect not viable human life in its early stage of development?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I have already explained all this.

NFBW: How would you explain the need for civic societal duty to protect the unborn from being aborted by its mother to a pregnant Jewish woman who believes according to her religion that life begins at birth? What makes you right and Judaism wrong .

END2303101429

 

[BackAgain]

NFBW: You want to restrict a woman’s liberty and freedom every time conception occurs in her reproductive organs, commonly called private parts. In this country to restrict someone’s liberty you need to at least cite the harm they are causing to other persons or to yourself. So what harm cones to you or me or anybody else when a stranger decides to terminate her pregnancy? END2303101342

Again, false. I want to try to save lives.

You object.

 

[BackAgain]

Well then explain it again or tell me the post # where you think you explained it..

WHY do I have a duty as part of the human race, society and being human to protect not viable human life in its early stage of development?

Nope. Trace the conversation back. It’s so easy to do even you could handle it. But this time, maybe don’t gloss over the answer.

I’ve grown tired of your petulance.