Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[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 ….

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]

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]

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 *

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]

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 *

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

" 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]

" 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]

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]

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.