Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hint: you are supposed to ask a question.

I did.

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]

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]

" 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]

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]

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 *

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 *

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 *

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]

" 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]

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]

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.