Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You personally believe it begins at first breath you say, so you have basically said what independent thinker is saying you have said, and that is that you really think that a woman should have the right to choose at any given time in her pregnancy, otherwise to abort along the development chain if she so chooses. He actually tricked or tripped you up into admitting it.That is because “saving baby fetus movement” agitators like Saint CarsomyrPlusSix have given the demand that we regard the beginning of life, sanctity of life, at conception. I personally believe it begins at first breath as it’s found in Judaism, but that’s not science. Therefore I believe we human beings as a secular society have an interest in protecting life in the womb as a matter of science. Science can tell us when a fetus has an individual capability to be conscious. That does not change the fact that the constitution has a live birth requirement for the right to life to begin for each and everyone of us.
Photoshopped. And if it isn't photoshopped how do you know that what we are seeing in that picture can't grow out of that situation, and become a very gifted individual that will teach other's how to be empathetic, compassionate, and loving caring individuals in their live's, otherwise instead of these narcissistic, greed loving sick human beings who now think that debauchery is something normal to celebrate instead of life itself." Traitors For Sedition "
* Disingenuous Buffoonery *
You keep it inside you !
You carry it term !
You keep it for life !
Even fair-minded and intelligent juries can still make mistakes.
You personally believe it begins at first breath you say,
The alito is not gifted on this issue , as the fee press , jurisprudence at large , abortion choice , abortion anti-choice and political pundits , he is pathetically , disgracefully , ignorant , if not purposely deceitful of us constitution !Photoshopped. And if it isn't photoshopped how do you know that what we are seeing in that picture can't grow out of that situation, and become a very gifted individual that will teach other's how to be empathetic, compassionate, and loving caring individuals in their live's, otherwise instead of these narcissistic, greed loving sick human beings who now think that debauchery is something normal to celebrate instead of life itself.
www.usmessageboard.com
Just a bunch of disgraceful pathetic embarrassments that need to be humiliated for their negligence and incompetence in not providing sufficient informed consent to the public at large !
No! The state has the right to regulate what I do on public streets and highways to protect me from harm.
A woman who decides to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, does so in private as matters of health are intended to be.
If I was worried about my skull, being crushed in a rollover, I can wear a helmet. I have that freedom of choice. A woman who lives in a republican red state, who is worried about the risk of harm pain and potential death from her unwanted pregnancy going full term, has lost that freedom of choice.
It is a fallacy to declare that the states have a right to force gestation on a woman, causing her physical mental and financial harm by banning her access to an abortion.
You watching lite beer commercials ?Amazing how such a complex issue can be viewed in only one way by both sides.
This thread and all the back-and-and forth (looking very much like a lite-beer commercial) with nobody listening (just screaming) is a true testament to the arrogant component of human nature.
I am going to report the thread and request it be put in the B.S. forum.
It is certainly no discussion about the constitution.
"Logically" a person's Constitutional rights should begin when their fucking life does and not just when the Government or Society can not justify the denial of their basic human rights any longer.
It is certainly no discussion about the constitution.
It’s the live birth requirement and the 14th Amendment where a state cannot abridge the privilege of avoiding harm and potential death by carrying a fetus full term.I know you mean to include backup for your assertion that this is a fallacy or that such a condition exists in general.
The 14th amendment states that "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.
In that equal protection with a citizen requires live birth , states are prohibited from protecting a wright to life of any which has not met a live birth requirement to receive it , and states are therefore prohibited from proscribing abortion
It is a fallacy to declare that the states have a right to force gestation on a woman, causing her physical mental and financial harm by banning her access to an abortion.
I know you mean to include backup for your assertion that this is a fallacy or that such a condition exists in general. ••>•• Can you please include it. This would be the argument you are making and the supporting documentation.
It’s the live birth requirement and the 14th Amendment where a state cannot abridge the privilege of avoiding harm and potential death by carrying a fetus full term.
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."
Or perhaps 15 week brainless fetuses are not members of the universal personhood of human beings with brains who can read the US Constitution and see that the word “born ” is used with no mention that life is protected prior to birth.democrats are desperate for legal abortion to hold down the black population the welfare roles are taking money needed for the war in ukraine
Life is life regardless of what stage of development it is in boy. When you do certain things to stop a life be it after birth or within the developmental stages, then you are stopping a life cycle from existing whether it is within a womb or without.Tell me beagle9 @HikerGuy CarsomyrPlusSix that the Constitution does not have a live birth stipulation that individuals living under it’s jurisdiction have rights from the moment they are born. It says nothing about individuals having a right to life at the moment of conception,
You are expressing a fallacy with the contention that the 14th Anendment says what Chuz Life fabricated in post #3 where hec imagines that it says "all persons (regardless of age or stage of development" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."
THE CONSTITUTION I READ SAYS “BORN”
We are not BORN in nature until we have a functional individual brain and birth happens nine months or so after conception.
Can Chuz Life rewrite the Constitution because he thinks he’s a Saint who is Saving Baby Fetus,
nf.23.06.15 #9,231
hkrgy.23.06.18 #9,309
nf.23.06.18 #9,312
chzlf.22.05.16 #3
nf.23.06.18 #9,313
Life is life regardless of what stage of development it is in boy. When you do certain things to stop a life be it after birth or within the developmental stages, then you are stopping a life cycle from existing whether it is within a womb or without.
The Constitution does not have any such text. You're an insane and evil liar.Tell me beagle9 @HikerGuy CarsomyrPlusSix that the Constitution does not have a live birth stipulation that individuals living under it’s jurisdiction have rights from the moment they are born
It says nothing about a right to life at all other than by implication in the 5th.It says nothing about individuals having a right to life at the moment of conception
Tell me beagle9 @HikerGuy CarsomyrPlusSix that the Constitution does not have a live birth stipulation that individuals living under it’s jurisdiction have rights from the moment they are born. It says nothing about individuals having a right to life at the moment of conception,
You are expressing a fallacy with the contention that the 14th Anendment says what Chuz Life fabricated in post #3 where hec imagines that it says "all persons (regardless of age or stage of development" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."
THE CONSTITUTION I READ SAYS “BORN”
We are not BORN in nature until we have a functional individual brain and birth happens nine months or so after conception.
Can Chuz Life rewrite the Constitution because he thinks he’s a Saint who is Saving Baby Fetus,
nf.23.06.15 #9,231
hkrgy.23.06.18 #9,309
nf.23.06.18 #9,312
chzlf.22.05.16 #3
nf.23.06.18 #9,313
o life is not life according to the Constitution.
It says nothing about individuals having a right to life at the moment of conception,
The Declaration of Independence is where the right to life is noted, natural and unalienable, and bestowed upon human beings at their creation.
