An embryo is not a "baby" or a "child"

[Rudy Canoza]

It just isn't. It's a human life, and it's even a person, but it is not a full
person, and that's why a substantial majority of people have no problem with
expelling or evicting it from the uterus of a woman who doesn't want it inside her.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:32:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>It just isn't.

Yeah, it is.

And some of them are STILL taller than you!

LOL

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It is a human life and a gestating baby or pre-birth baby and we know
because just before they're born they have all the development to live
outside so they were always that baby, just as you're always an old
person and just need the time to become the old person you will be
during that part of your life.

There is no difference or separation of the life from conception to
death it's all one contiguous life and while you change while inside the
uterus you also change while outside the uterus, you keep going through
that life process until that life stops.

Which means that what ever stage of life you are in it's a continuous
development and at no point is your life something that another human
can murder.

Death caused by stupidity or negligence or callous disregard, are all
just types of murder. Self defense isn't "NOT murder" it's a conflict of
one persons RIGHTS being violated causing the other person's RIGHTS to
be violated and it's only acceptable if there was no better options that
were practical.

Democrats are the problem NOT the solution.
--
-That's karma-

[Fred J McCall]

On 6/28/2022 12:12 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode
his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 6/28/22 1:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> It just isn't.  It's a human life, and it's even a person, but it is not a
>> full person, and that's why a substantial majority of people have no problem
>> with expelling or evicting it from the uterus of a woman who doesn't want it
>> inside her.
>
> It is a human life and a gestating baby or pre-birth baby and

It's not a full rights-holding person.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Neither is a 16 year old, you stupid dwarf.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

And so many laws that are meant to protect children that aren't laws
against children doing it they are against the adult doing it with a kid
and the adult is punished like buying a gun is a law against the adult
if they sell it to a child the adult broke the law, NOT the child as
with sex with a child isn't illegal for the child it's illegal for the
adult to participate in it. The child broke no law and so they do have
the right to have sex with an adult, it's the adult who does the prison
time.

Those laws protect children they don't deprive them of RIGHTS.
--
-That's karma-

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 16:00:25 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:

>On 6/28/22 3:54 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:20:10 -0700, an incel dwarf wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/28/2022 12:12 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode
>>> his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:
>>>
>>>> On 6/28/22 1:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> It just isn't.  It's a human life, and it's even a person, but it is not a
>>>>> full person, and that's why a substantial majority of people have no problem
>>>>> with expelling or evicting it from the uterus of a woman who doesn't want it
>>>>> inside her.
>>>>
>>>> It is a human life and a gestating baby or pre-birth baby and
>>>
>>> It's not a full rights-holding person.
>>
>> Neither is a 16 year old, you stupid dwarf.
>>
>
>And so many laws that are meant to protect children

THAT is what Rudy hates.

[Scout]

On 6/28/2022 1:00 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his

scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 6/28/22 3:54 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:20:10 -0700, an incel dwarf wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/28/2022 12:12 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode
>>> his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:
>>>
>>>> On 6/28/22 1:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> It just isn't.  It's a human life, and it's even a person, but it is not a
>>>>> full person, and that's why a substantial majority of people have no problem
>>>>> with expelling or evicting it from the uterus of a woman who doesn't want it
>>>>> inside her.
>>>>
>>>> It is a human life and a gestating baby or pre-birth baby and
>>>
>>> It's not a full rights-holding person.
>>
>> Neither is a 16 year old,

Ha ha ha! HA HA HA HA HA! I see kleine klauschen "no-foreskin" Schittenkike
still thinks I see his posts. I don't.

>
> And so many laws that are meant to protect children that aren't laws against
> children doing it they are against the adult doing it with a kid and

The embryo is not a full person and does not have all the rights that a full
person has.

[Rudy Canoza]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 15:27:47 -0700, an incel dwarf wrote:

>On 6/28/2022 1:00 PM, my superior Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>> On 6/28/22 3:54 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:20:10 -0700, an incel dwarf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/28/2022 12:12 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode
>>>> his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/28/22 1:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> It just isn't.  It's a human life, and it's even a person, but it is not a
>>>>>> full person, and that's why a substantial majority of people have no problem
>>>>>> with expelling or evicting it from the uterus of a woman who doesn't want it
>>>>>> inside her.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a human life and a gestating baby or pre-birth baby and
>>>>
>>>> It's not a full rights-holding person.
>>>
>>> Neither is a 16 year old,
>
>Ha ha ha! HA HA HA HA HA! I see kleine klauschen "no-foreskin" Schittenkike
>still thinks I see his posts. I don't.

I can't help thinking about foreskins! They are my specialty!

Bring Your Cock To the Jolly Kone!!!
It's The Central Valley's Fellatio Zone!
If You're On The Left or On The Right
I'll Suck Your Cock and I Won't Bite!
Rudy Canoza Will Make Sure You Get Blown!
I'll Make You Cum and I'll Make you Moan!
On Your Cock My Skills I'll Hone!
You Know My Skills Are Quite Well Known!
Those Skills, You Know, Are Unconcealed!
I've Sucked Every Cock In Bakersfield!
Watch Me Work That Hardened Bone!
I'm Right On Top Of The Skull Fuck Throne™!

[Scout]

"Fred J McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NvIuK.46353$f81....@fx43.iad...

True, that doesn't happen until you're 21...

But mothers and other people can still be convicted of child abuse even
thought the child is not a "full rights-holding person"

So what's your point? That we should be free to kill and abuse children?

[Fred J McCall]

That evicting an embryo from a uterus does not violate its rights.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Yes, killing it does, dwarf.

[Alan Bond]

On 6/29/2022 8:25 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his

scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> An embryo is not a "slave"

red herring

> or to be killed as punishment for a crime where the

No one said the embryo has committed any crime. The issue is that in some
cases, it resides in the uterus of a woman who doesn't want it there. It
violates the woman's right to force her to keep it there. No one forces you to
keep a cancerous tumor inside your body.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It akin to turning off the electricity with no notice at a home... for
non payment where the person living there is on a breathing machine that
stops working without the electric.

It's murder. Be it man slaughter or inconmpetence or callous disreguard
for human life or a hate crime, it's still murder.

These days people go to prison for killing a dog or an embrypo of a Bald
Eagle... but NOT a huamn life?

Can you make an embryo a slave, can you make a BLACK embryo a Black
SLAVE? If NOT than under what part of the Constitution's delegated
powers can you kill that same BLACK embryo?

--
-That's karma-

[Fred J McCall]

On 6/29/2022 9:22 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his

scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 6/29/22 9:47 AM, Fred J McCall wrote:
>> On 6/29/2022 3:42 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Fred J McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:NvIuK.46353$f81....@fx43.iad...
>>>> On 6/28/2022 12:12 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/28/22 1:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> It just isn't.  It's a human life, and it's even a person, but it is not a
>>>>>> full person, and that's why a substantial majority of people have no
>>>>>> problem with expelling or evicting it from the uterus of a woman who
>>>>>> doesn't want it inside her.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a human life and a gestating baby or pre-birth baby and
>>>>
>>>> It's not a full rights-holding person.
>>>
>>> True, that doesn't happen until you're 21...
>>>
>>> But mothers and other people can still be convicted of child abuse even
>>> thought the child is not a "full rights-holding person"
>>>
>>> So what's your point?
>>
>> That evicting an embryo from a uterus does not violate its rights.
>

> It [sic] akin to turning off the electricity with no notice at a home

It not.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/29/22 10:37 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 16:00:25 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> in alt.atheism with message-id

> There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion -
> she wants it.
>
> There is only one reason for a woman not to get an abortion
> - she doesn't want it.

The same goes for driving their 3 children in car seats into the lake
doesn't it?

They wanted to kill them... or didn't do that because they didn't want
to kill them.

Post birth abortion laws pursued by Democrats tell the true story, the
Democrats are duplicitous and want to kill human life no matter where it
is, inside a uterus or NOT. The reason is just as irrelevant to
Democrats as whether those lives they kill are inside or outside the
uterus, because it's all about the killing of a human life NOT where it
is when they kill it.

I'm all for people NOT making any embryo's if they don't want children.
A woman that doesn't want kids shouldn't get pregnant... I agree.

But they have ways to do that without killing a human life. Just as
there are ways to NOT drive a car into a lake to kill your three
children. A mother can admit she is NOT able to care for the kids
properly and put them up for adoption and there are several ways to do
that. Some people have times in their life when they have mental
instability and the answer to solving that instability isn't to compound
it by killing a human life. It is more often than not, a problem in the
head of the person contemplating killing a human life as the solution to
a problem, a problem in their own head that they themselves created.

Killing someone else doesn't unwind the problem, it compounds the
problem. SO many women who had abortions are like the walking wounded
and suffer differing shades of what looks like PTSD from their
life/or/death trauma.




--
-That's karma-

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:40:24 -0700, an incel dwarf typed:

>It [sic] not.

It is.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It's is...

--
-That's karma-

[AlleyCat]

On 6/29/2022 10:27 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode

Your analogy is bullshit. This is proved.

[Dwayne]

In article <_f%uK.345342$JVi.3...@fx17.iad>

Terminating a zygote is no different than entering a school
playground and crushing the skull of a six-year-old with a
baseball bat.

Same result.

MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Subject: Re: An embryo is not a "baby" or a "child"
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-
limbaugh,alt.society.libe
ralism,alt.atheism,alt.fu
n,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.guns
References: <EWGuK.193469$ssF....@fx14.iad>
<ZoIuK.268148$X_i....@fx18.iad>
<NvIuK.46353$f81....@fx43.iad> <t9hbt7$1dm7f$2...@dont-email.me>
<PJYuK.313828$70j.2...@fx16.iad>
<S__uK.226384$ntj.1...@fx15.iad>
From: Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <S__uK.226384$ntj.1...@fx15.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <_f%uK.345342$JVi.3...@fx17.iad>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL
headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly.
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:40:24 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 2450

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/29/2022 12:28 PM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 250lb 5'3" morbidly obese
convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:

It is not comparable in any way, Blowjob.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:34:44 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>playground and crushing the skull of a six-year-old with a
>>baseball bat.
>>
>>Same result.
>

>It is not comparable in any way

It's exactly the same.

>Blowjob?

You get that runny discharge cleared up yet?

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 15:27:47 -0700, Scout
<me4gu...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:

>The embryo is not a full person and does not have all the rights that a full
>person has.

It has those rights but cannot exercise all of them yet.

Swill
--
Lock 'im up!

[Rudy Canoza]

No, it simply doesn't have them yet. Certain rights do not attach to a person
until a certain age or stage of development.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/29/2022 4:19 PM, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell <d...@shit.invalid>, HIV+
cocksucker and convicted child molester, stupidly bawled and lied:

> Show me that in the constitution.

That kind of thing isn't in a constitution, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell,
nor would it ever be. Educated people know that, Jack-off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell.

[Don Kresch]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 12:43:05 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:

>Killing someone else doesn't unwind the problem, it compounds the
>problem. SO many women who had abortions are like the walking wounded
>and suffer differing shades of what looks like PTSD from their
>life/or/death trauma.

So many people regret getting married.

Should we ban marriage?


Don
aa#51
o- DNRC
Jedi Slackmaster

[Scout]

"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
news:iebqbh144cuntl7bu...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 21:28:10 +0200 (CEST), Dwayne
> <dwa...@heinz.com> in alt.abortion with message-id

> <fbcd374a2aac9963...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <_f%uK.345342$JVi.3...@fx17.iad>
>>Rudy socked up as Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/29/2022 9:22 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
>>> rode his
>>> scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and
>>> lied:
>>>
>>> > On 6/29/22 9:47 AM, Fred J McCall wrote:
>>> >> On 6/29/2022 3:42 AM, Scout wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "Fred J McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >>> news:NvIuK.46353$f81....@fx43.iad...
>>> >>>> On 6/28/2022 12:12 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged
>>> >>>> fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a
>>> >>>> helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> On 6/28/22 1:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>>> >>>>>> It just isn't. It's a human life, and it's even a person, but

>>> >>>>>> it is not a
>>> >>>>>> full person, and that's why a substantial majority of people have
>>> >>>>>> no
>>> >>>>>> problem with expelling or evicting it from the uterus of a woman
>>> >>>>>> who
>>> >>>>>> doesn't want it inside her.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> It is a human life and a gestating baby or pre-birth baby and
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> It's not a full rights-holding person.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> True, that doesn't happen until you're 21...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> But mothers and other people can still be convicted of child abuse
>>> >>> even
>>> >>> thought the child is not a "full rights-holding person"
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So what's your point?
>>> >>
>>> >> That evicting an embryo from a uterus does not violate its rights.
>>> >
>>> > It [sic] akin to turning off the electricity with no notice at a home
>>>
>>> It not.
>>
>>Terminating a zygote is no different than entering a school
>>playground and crushing the skull of a six-year-old with a
>>baseball bat.
>>
>>Same result.
>>
>

> A six year old does not demand the life support system of a
> specific individual in order to live. Whether that
> individual wishes to be involved or not.

But you did volunteer. You had sex didn't you?

[%]

On 2022-06-29 9:57 p.m., Attila wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 19:07:13 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> Not true.
>
> Things a person can do that a fetus cannot:
>
> Be claimed on an income tax return
> Qualify a driver for a carpool lane
> Buy any insurance
> Be counted in a census
> Own property
> be a citizen
> Inherit anything
>
i'm not allowed any of that either

[%]

On 2022-06-29 9:58 p.m., Attila wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 17:19:56 -0600, Somebody too
> <nu...@biz.invalid> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <vfnpbh5ar46he0420...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:15:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>> Show me that in the constitution.
>

> Show me where the Constitution even addresses the existence
> of a fetus in any way.
>
the first sentence

[%]

On 2022-06-30 7:49 a.m., Attila wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:56:27 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> Elaborate.
>
i beg your pardon

[%]

On 2022-06-30 7:52 a.m., Attila wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:55:31 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> You must not be a citizen of any country, You cannot own
> property? You cannot inherit? You cannot buy insurance?
> You do not pay income tax?
>
yes that's true

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/30/22 10:49 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:56:27 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <XMWdnf4uk4MWNiD_...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-06-29 9:58 p.m., Attila wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 17:19:56 -0600, Somebody too
>>> <nu...@biz.invalid> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <vfnpbh5ar46he0420...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:15:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/29/2022 4:07 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 15:27:47 -0700, Scout
>>>>>> <me4gu...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The embryo is not a full person and does not have all the rights that a full
>>>>>>> person has.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has those rights but cannot exercise all of them yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it simply doesn't have them yet. Certain rights do not attach to a person
>>>>> until a certain age or stage of development.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Show me that in the constitution.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, *nor be deprived of life, liberty* , or property,
*without due process of law* ; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.

A person is a human life. And we can now say that the life of a person
begins at conception, and is continuous until death. There are stages of
life but they are still the same unique DNA of that individual life
until it ends with death. That life is what LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT
of happiness/PROPERTY is protected and it isn't limited to life outside
the uterus, so what isn't enumerated is which human life, but rather is
inclusive of all human life within the jurisdiction of the United States.

The Government uses DNA in Court rooms to identify persons and their DNA
is the same from conception to death when the DNA breaks down. Which
means if DNA can be used in a court to convict someone in due process...
then the DNA has to be accepted to identify that person from conception
to death and it can't partially correct, it has to be correct all the
time. Meaning that at anytime you take the DNA and test it in a persons
life it tracks to them today, if not then it's NOT accurate evidence for
a court room to use, and DNA evidence is no longer acceptable as it once
was as scientific proof of who someone is.

There is at least one place where human life is protected and it's
enumerated in the actual Constitution. It does ever say Geriatric
person in the Constitution so the stages of life aren't broken down and
addressed separately... they are all together from Conception to Zygote
to death, the one thing that is protected is called human life.

I know of others like the 14th and 13th Amendments that also protect the
human life and the Liberty of that human life.

>>>
>>> Show me where the Constitution even addresses the existence
>>> of a fetus in any way.

*Preamble*
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, *provide for the*
*common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings*
*of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity* , do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.

*Our posterity are the fetus'* and the preamble is a mission statement
for the Constitution to tell us what is trying to be accomplished by the
Constitution and the United States.

You can't secure blessings for a NON human life in a uterus that never
was because it was killed with an abortion. Which means they planned on
human lives being born and that means they are protected the same as the
human lives that already have been born. Because they are our
posterity. And you can't pass on what have to created if you kill the
heirs of it. Which means they recognized the fetus' as our posterity.


--
-That's karma-

[Jay Santos]

On 6/30/2022 8:34 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his

scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 6/30/22 10:49 AM, Attila wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:56:27 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>> <XMWdnf4uk4MWNiD_...@giganews.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-06-29 9:58 p.m., Attila wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 17:19:56 -0600, Somebody too
>>>> <nu...@biz.invalid> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>> <vfnpbh5ar46he0420...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:15:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/29/2022 4:07 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 15:27:47 -0700, Scout
>>>>>>> <me4gu...@centurylink.removeme.this2.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The embryo is not a full person and does not have all the rights that a
>>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>>> person has.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has those rights but cannot exercise all of them yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it simply doesn't have them yet.  Certain rights do not attach to a
>>>>>> person until a certain age or stage of development.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Show me that in the constitution.

There is no need to show that in the Constitution. It's simply a fact, and it's
a fact that is independent of our or any other constitution. Constitutions do
not "grant" or "confer" rights. Constitutions may, or may not, expressly
*secure* rights. The rights precede *any* constitution or government. People —
fucking morons — who say "show me that in the Constitution" are getting it
backward. We don't have rights "because" they're in the constitution — we have
constitutions because we have rights.

>
> Amendment V
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,

Here's #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty blabbering about the Constitution again, when he
knows nothing about it. #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty is the dumbest, most worthless
motherfucker ever to pollute a Usenet newsgroup. As dumb as he is, even he
knows that's true. That's why he never disputes it.

--
#REamMeUpTheAssSnotty is The Dumbest Motherfucker In Usenet®.

[%]

On 2022-06-30 10:49 a.m., Attila wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 08:07:45 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
> perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic

> Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
> general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
> ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this

> Constitution for the United States of America."
>

> Nothing there about a fetus.
>
we the people

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Posterity... are all fetus' at some point in their life.

--
-That's karma-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/30/22 2:00 PM, % wrote:

Our Posterity... will all be fetus' at some point in their human life.

Which means fetus' are also the intended recipients of the BLESSINGS OF
LIBERTY. But how can they be secured and ordained those blessings of
liberty if they are being killed?

The obvious logic and conclusion is that you have to be alive to receive
the blessings of liberty. Which means the idea of killing a human life
in the uterus is no where to be found in the U.S. Constitution because
it's NOT what the Document was established to achieve.

What Union would consider the murder of their own posterity to be a more
perfect union? It's an obvious error when someone says that killing
human babies is OK but killing baby seals is against the law and that
that makes us a more perfect Union.


--
-That's karma-

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 08:30:57 -0700, Alan Bond <bond...@ifx.net>
wrote:

>No one said the embryo has committed any crime. The issue is that in some
>cases, it resides in the uterus of a woman who doesn't want it there. It
>violates the woman's right to force her to keep it there. No one forces you to
>keep a cancerous tumor inside your body.

A fetus is not a cancerous tumor. If she didn't want the foetus to be
there, she should have used birth control up to and including an
aspirin held tightly between her knees.

[governo...@gmail.com]

What, in the first sentence of the Constitution, addresses the rights
or existence of the fetus?

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:57:10 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>Not true.
>
>Things a person can do that a fetus cannot:
>
>Be claimed on an income tax return
>Qualify a driver for a carpool lane
>Buy any insurance
>Be counted in a census
>Own property
>be a citizen
>Inherit anything

Where do you get 'not true'? You just demonstrated my point.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:47:26 -0700, Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/29/2022 3:42 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Fred J McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:NvIuK.46353$f81....@fx43.iad...

>>> On 6/28/2022 12:12 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode

>>>> It is a human life and a gestating baby or pre-birth baby and
>>>
>>> It's not a full rights-holding person.
>>
>> True, that doesn't happen until you're 21...
>>
>> But mothers and other people can still be convicted of child abuse even thought
>> the child is not a "full rights-holding person"
>>
>> So what's your point?
>
>That evicting an embryo from a uterus does not violate its rights.

It violates all of them if it results in the embryo's death.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:40:24 -0700, Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> It [sic] akin to turning off the electricity with no notice at a home
>
>It not.

Sometimes Snotty's stupidity is painful to watch.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 09:14:31 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>If you have an auto accident should you get prompt medical
>treatment or should you simply be left alone since you did
>volunteer to ride in the vehicle didn't you?
>
>If an unwanted pregnancy results from sex there is a simple,
>safe and inexpensive medical treatment available.

Birth control is even safer, and less expensive. How much is an
abortion? How much is a case of condoms?

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:49:38 -0500, Don Kresch <no...@nospam.com>
wrote:

--
Lock 'im up!

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:00:29 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Nothing there about a fetus.
>>
>we the people

A fetus isn't a person.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:52:17 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>Where is the requirement that every individual must exist?

Consider the right to life to be one of the unenumerated ones.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:56:28 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:10:42 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>in alt.atheism with message-id

>In the partial list that follows.

Again, that list illustrates my point. It doesn't invalidate it.

A person can do things a fetus cannot because a fetus, though it has
rights, is unable exercise those rights.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:58:25 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>There are circumstances under which birth control is
>difficult or impossible plus everything is subject to
>failure.

No, there aren't. If birth control is "difficult" or "impossible",
don't fuck. That's simple enough isn't it?

And anyway, in what possible situations would birth control be
difficult or impossible?

[Stephen Boudreaux, MD]

On 7/1/2022 7:40 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his

scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 6/30/22 3:31 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

>> On 6/30/22 3:03 PM, Attila wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 12:08:06 -0400, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

>>>
>>>> On 6/30/22 10:52 AM, Attila wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:55:31 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id

>>>>> You must not be a citizen of any country,  You cannot own
>>>>> property?  You cannot inherit?  You cannot buy insurance?
>>>>> You do not pay income tax?
>>>>>

>>>> And yet when you are born you inherit that and pay the tax and you owned
>>>> it in a trust all along while gestating until you are born... isn't that
>>>> what happened to that Anna Nichole baby...
>>>> https://www.thethings.com/will-anna-nicole-smith-daughter-get-her-money/
>>>
>>> But live birth is required.
>>
>>
>
> You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because

No, that's bullshit, as is *everything* you say about the law or the
Constitution. If your ancestor (who did something and achieved something)
leaves something to you (who did nothing and achieved nothing), and you're
already dead, then your heirs can inherit it, unless the will stipulates that it
goes to someone else.

You never know a fucking thing you're bullshitting about.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 7/1/22 1:58 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 19:17:24 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
> in alt.abortion with message-id

> There are circumstances under which birth control is
> difficult or impossible plus everything is subject to
> failure.
>

Democrats hate the death penalty because the courts get it wrong on
occasion... but then why allow abortion when abortion can only get it
right on occasions when it fails.






--
-That's karma-

[Rudy Canoza]

[that brain-damaged shit-bucket's insane set of newsgroups repaired]

On 7/1/2022 10:59 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:12:59 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <8n3ubh53tlr8lgkes...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:55:34 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You destroy human life whenever you wash your hands.

Bullshit.

>>
>> Cite.
>>
>>> Should all warts be protected since they are all human life?
>>
>> They aren't.
>
> Of course they are.

Bullshit. "Human life" means "a human being." It doesn't mean a few odd cells
from *some* human being. A wart is not a human being. It is some dependent
cells *on* a human being, and the wart will never become a human being.

A wart is not human life.

Your analogy is bullshit because you are bullshit.

[Rudy Canoza]

[that brain-damaged shit-bucket's insane set of newsgroups repaired]

On 7/1/2022 11:09 AM, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric
no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:12:13 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <5l3ubhd2hsg94d76t...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:03:12 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Say a woman is pregnant and her husband has a will leaving X
>>> to her child. A certain amount goes to her and the
>>> remainder goes to a foundation. If she has a miscarriage no
>>> child ever existed and that X goes to the foundation. If
>>> the child is born alive and immediately dies that X would go
>>> to it's mother as it's nearest relative.
>>>
>>> Any inheritance, trust, or any other provisions are
>>> provisional and dependent upon live birth occurring in order
>>> to be valid.
>>
>> In that case, it would make sense for the mother to inherit if the
>> child is miscarried.
>
> The law does not work that way.

You don't have a fucking clue how the law works, you impotent geriatric
shitworm. You're not a lawyer and you're not even an educated layman.

[%]

On 2022-07-01 10:58 a.m., Attila wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:04:45 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <h73ubh1fmumet5mbv...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:52:17 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Where is the requirement that every individual must exist?
>>
>> Consider the right to life to be one of the unenumerated ones.
>

> Enforced how and under what conditions?
>
> If you need a blood transfusion to live can you force me to
> supply you?
>
>
yes

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/1/2022 11:21 AM, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric

no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:19:56 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
> in alt.abortion with message-id

> <d24ubh59ijj5fp4ak...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:58:25 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There are circumstances under which birth control is
>>> difficult or impossible plus everything is subject to
>>> failure.
>>
>> No, there aren't. If birth control is "difficult" or "impossible",
>> don't fuck. That's simple enough isn't it?
>

> Sometimes the woman has no choice.

>
>>
>> And anyway, in what possible situations would birth control be
>> difficult or impossible?
>

> A 280 pound drunk husband who uses his fist to insure his
> wife doesn't resist or complain. Or a 12 year old girl who
> is in no position to stop her father or some other male
> relative.
>
> Or a father who rents out his daughter to raise drug money.
>
> Or some guy who slips a drug into the drink of his date and
> she doesn't even know what is happening.

Excludes 99.99% of all abortions. We don't make policy based on extremely rare
exceptions.

[%]

On 2022-07-01 11:57 a.m., Attila wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:28:36 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> I don't think so. There are no laws that require this.
>
> I can sit and eat a hamburger while watching you starve to
> death and I have violated no law.
>
> And I can kill you for breaking into my house looking for
> food.
>
i think you're a little lost in your comparisons ,
you can't have sex with your hamburger or the person you shot ,
that was looking for food

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/1/2022 12:07 PM, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric

no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:10:54 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <notg...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <PMGvK.164511$9j2.1...@fx33.iad> wrote:
>
>> [that brain-damaged shit-bucket's insane set of newsgroups repaired]
>>
>> On 7/1/2022 10:59 AM, Attila wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:12:59 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <8n3ubh53tlr8lgkes...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:55:34 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You destroy human life whenever you wash your hands.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Cite.
>>>>
>>>>> Should all warts be protected since they are all human life?
>>>>
>>>> They aren't.
>>>
>>> Of course they are.
>>
>> Bullshit. "Human life" means "a human being."
>

> You are confusing the term "human" when used as an adjective
> and used as a noun.

"Human life" means "a human being."

>
>> It doesn't mean a few odd cells
>>from *some* human being. A wart is not a human being.
>

> I said a wart is human,

It isn't.

>> It is some dependent
>> cells *on* a human being, and the wart will never become a human being.
>

> Considering cloning that may or may not be true.

You can't clone a complete human being from a few wart cells.

>>
>> A wart is not human life.
>

> I said it is human life.

It isn't. "Human life" is "a human being."

>
>>
>> Your analogy is bullshit because you are bullshit.
>

> Thank you for showing me to be the worthless lump of bullshit that I am.

My pleasure.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/1/2022 12:13 PM, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric

no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:21:26 -0700, Rudy Canoza

> <notg...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> I never said I was a lawyer but

You don't know a fucking thing about how the law works.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/1/2022 12:25 PM, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric

no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:29:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <notg...@gmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id

> To hear the anti-abortion hysteria one would think almost
> every pregnant woman is running around looking for an
> abortion and

Millions are done every year. Pregnancies resulting from rape or incest are a
few thousand at most.

WE don't make public policy from rare exceptions.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 7/1/22 2:44 PM, Somebody too wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:03:51 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:00:29 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Nothing there about a fetus.
>>>>
>>> we the people
>>
>> A fetus isn't a person.
>>

> Define "person"
>

Is person-hood born, or is it inherent in human life?

Are Black Slaves "persons" because the Democrats in the 1860's didn't
seem to believe they were.

If a Black Slave is a person, then is a free Black's fetus a slave in a
Black uterus or a "person"? Or is it still a Black slave?

Because they have to be a "free person" or they're property and a slave
and if the fetus isn't a free person then it's owned and can be killed
by the owner and it's a gestating slave.

If they are "property and a slave" I redirect your attention to
Amendment 13...

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a*
*punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted*
, *shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their*
*jurisdiction*


It sort of makes the owner of the uterus, a slave owner which is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL according to Amendment 13 whether the fetus is or isn't
a BLACK FETUS because it becomes a separate human life and DNA that is
property claimed to be owned by the person who produced it or the owner
who chose to breed his/her human slaves.

But if a man pays for the Pregnancy and pays child support doesn't the
man then own the fetus and the slave that it's gestated into?

The founding documents say we are "created" equal NOT born equal. We are
created at conception and then gestate 9 months, and then we're born
here in America as citizens which is NOT born equal but they were
created equal to someone who is naturalized. Which means we had to be
"persons" from Conception like all others who were "created equal as
persons". We can't be made persons later if we aren't permitted to live
but we can be citizens later. Because while we are NOT ever all citizens
we are all equally "persons" apparently at creation.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are *created*
*equal* , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
*unalienable Rights* , that *among these are Life* , *Liberty* and the
pursuit of Happiness."


Amendment XIV Section 1.
" *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."



We are created equal and we can't be denied equal protection, nor shall
any State deprive *any person* of *life* , liberty, or property,
*without due process* of law...

That also denies the States the power to allow or legalize abortion.

Which means the United States (FEDERAL Govt.) has no power delegated to
it to regulate or allow or deny abortion, and the states can't deprive
any "person" of life without due process which means the States can't
engage in abortion in any way, shape or payment system.


It's beginning to look like it's bad news for Democrat if the
Constitution is enforced.


--
-That's karma-

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/1/2022 8:03 AM, governor.shit-4-braincell lied:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:00:29 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Nothing there about a fetus.
>>>
>> we the people
>
> A fetus isn't a person.

A human fetus *is* a person. Passing through the birth canal does not confer
personhood.

A human fetus is not a *complete* person.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 12:51:08 -0700, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course it is, you silly dwarf.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 7/1/22 2:57 PM, Attila wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:28:36 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> I don't think so. There are no laws that require this.
>

Imagine you shot some child... they die you get the death penalty,
you're forced with the threat of death by LETHAL INJECTION law... to
give the blood they need to save that child which is your blood type or
you'll be tried for murder and get the death penalty.

Which would mean you can make your free choice that no law says you have
to do it, only they say if you don't we will be putting a needle in your
arm. It really doesn't seem like a free choice does it?

> I can sit and eat a hamburger while watching you starve to
> death and I have violated no law.

True... starvation is a long slow process and not an emergency until
it's allowed to get to a critical point... but if you're stranded on a
wrecked boat and you do that, you might get some prison time for it.

>
> And I can kill you for breaking into my house looking for
> food.

The circumstances would be the defining part of that option.

Self defense isn't a license to kill it's still illegal until you show
it was really self defense to the people doing the investigating and the
prosecution. In your house or where ever, murder is still illegal and
there's a fine line between murder and self defense.

It might be someone you baited into the house with the intention of
murdering them for personal gain of some kind... A jury might not call
it self defense like they did for Rittenhouse who was running away and
was only confronting people attempting to kill him first as he struggled
to get away.

--
-That's karma-

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/1/2022 3:13 PM, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric

no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 12:31:14 -0700, Rudy Canoza

> <notg...@gmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id

> There are far more live births than abortions every year.

Irrelevant.

Why did your side call the overturn of Roe a "great victory for white life"?

[%]

On 2022-07-01 3:22 p.m., Attila wrote:
>
> Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
>
> Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
> and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.

you mentioned hamburger first

[%]

On 2022-07-01 3:35 p.m., Attila wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 17:03:22 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <viJvK.384214$J0r9....@fx11.iad> wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/22 2:57 PM, Attila wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:28:36 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <8sGdnewZU4dLoSL_...@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-07-01 10:58 a.m., Attila wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:04:45 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>> <h73ubh1fmumet5mbv...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:52:17 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where is the requirement that every individual must exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider the right to life to be one of the unenumerated ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enforced how and under what conditions?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you need a blood transfusion to live can you force me to
>>>>> supply you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> yes
>>>
>>> I don't think so. There are no laws that require this.
>>>
>>
>> Imagine you shot some child... they die you get the death penalty,
>

> That would be an accident or a proactive action. It is not
> the same as requiring me to do anything.

>
>> you're forced with the threat of death by LETHAL INJECTION law... to
>> give the blood they need to save that child which is your blood type or
>> you'll be tried for murder and get the death penalty.
>

> No law requires a person to provide a part of their body for
> the benefit of another person.

>
>>
>> Which would mean you can make your free choice that no law says you have
>> to do it, only they say if you don't we will be putting a needle in your
>> arm. It really doesn't seem like a free choice does it?
>

> Why would I be executed? What law would I have broken? In
> fact, if someone was injured and I attempted to help I would
> be open to a lawsuit for possibly making things worse.

>
>
>>> I can sit and eat a hamburger while watching you starve to
>>> death and I have violated no law.
>>
>> True... starvation is a long slow process and not an emergency until
>> it's allowed to get to a critical point... but if you're stranded on a
>> wrecked boat and you do that, you might get some prison time for it.
>

> That would require specific circumstances - such as taking
> food provided for the benefit of the group at large. No law
> would require me to share what I personally had.

>
>>
>>>
>>> And I can kill you for breaking into my house looking for
>>> food.
>>
>>
>>
>> The circumstances would be the defining part of that option.
>

> Not really. If I kill someone who broke into my house I am
> not breaking any law, especially if I was afraid of being
> attacked.

>
>>
>> Self defense isn't a license to kill it's still illegal until you show
>> it was really self defense to the people doing the investigating and the
>> prosecution. In your house or where ever, murder is still illegal and
>> there's a fine line between murder and self defense.
>

> Where I alive there is a stand your ground law. If they are
> there without my permission they are dead meat.

>
>>
>> It might be someone you baited into the house with the intention of
>> murdering them for personal gain of some kind... A jury might not call
>> it self defense like they did for Rittenhouse who was running away and
>> was only confronting people attempting to kill him first as he struggled
>> to get away.
>

> He was not in his home confronting someone who broke in and
> was there without his permission.
>
> I took a gun safety course from a police officer who said
> he, his wife, and his two teen-aged children all slept with
> loaded pistols within reach and anyone who broke into his
> house would not live to leave it. All four of them were
> trained to shoot to kill.
>
what a terrible way to live and sometimes i'm too lazy to lock the doors

[Michael Christ]

Attila is starving for understanding. You should give him an apple.





Michael Christ

--
Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are."

"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance of God."

"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul and mind. An abomination."

"Compromise will condemn you."

"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."

"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."

"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to
know that?"

"The way of truth is the testimony of life."

"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."

"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."

"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all
live, by faith."

"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."

"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."

"You cannot be free with guilt in your heart."

"Priority is everything."

"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."

"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander
it or to place it where it truly belongs."

"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."

"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to
an ignorant straw man."

"Wait, rest, be still, and know."

"No man can wash his own hands!!!"

"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say,
and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."

The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the
obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"

"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."

"Man is not the centre of being."

"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature."

"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/1/2022 3:44 PM, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric

no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 12:10:12 -0700, Rudy Canoza

> <notg...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <pEHvK.384211$J0r9....@fx11.iad> wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/2022 12:07 PM, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:
>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:10:54 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <notg...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <PMGvK.164511$9j2.1...@fx33.iad> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [that brain-damaged shit-bucket's insane set of newsgroups repaired]
>>>>
>>>> On 7/1/2022 10:59 AM, Attila wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:12:59 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>> <8n3ubh53tlr8lgkes...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:55:34 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You destroy human life whenever you wash your hands.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should all warts be protected since they are all human life?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They aren't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they are.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. "Human life" means "a human being."
>>>
>>> You are confusing the term "human" when used as an adjective
>>> and used as a noun.
>>
>> "Human life" means "a human being."
>

> No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

>>
>>>
>>>> It doesn't mean a few odd cells
>>> >from *some* human being. A wart is not a human being.
>>>
>>> I said a wart is human,
>>
>> It isn't.
>

> It isn't rat or horse.

Rats and horses can get warts.

A human wart contains human cells. It is not "human life." Human life is a
human being.


>
>
>>

>>>> It is some dependent
>>>> cells *on* a human being, and the wart will never become a human being.
>>>
>>> Considering cloning that may or may not be true.
>>
>> You can't clone a complete human being from a few wart cells.
>

> Did you ever hear of Dolly?

Not cloned from wart cells.

>>
>>>>
>>>> A wart is not human life.
>>>
>>> I said it is human life.
>>
>> It isn't. "Human life" is "a human being."
>

> Show me that definition.

It is common knowledge.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your analogy is bullshit because you are bullshit.
>>>
>>> Thank you for showing me to be the worthless lump of bullshit that I am.
>>
>> My pleasure.
>

> You can kick my geriatric lying ass.

And I do.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 13:58:27 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:04:45 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>in alt.atheism with message-id

><h73ubh1fmumet5mbv...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:52:17 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Where is the requirement that every individual must exist?
>>
>>Consider the right to life to be one of the unenumerated ones.
>

>Enforced how and under what conditions?

Kill somebody and tell us what happened.

>If you need a blood transfusion to live can you force me to
>supply you?

Donating blood doesn't kill you.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 18:35:42 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>>Imagine you shot some child... they die you get the death penalty,
>

>That would be an accident or a proactive action. It is not
>the same as requiring me to do anything.
>

>>you're forced with the threat of death by LETHAL INJECTION law... to
>>give the blood they need to save that child which is your blood type or
>>you'll be tried for murder and get the death penalty.
>

>No law requires a person to provide a part of their body for
>the benefit of another person.

Congratulations! You successfully changed the subject. We were
talking about a right to life in the context of not killing another
person.

Stick to that, ok?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/1/2022 6:03 PM, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric

no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 17:45:52 -0700, Rudy Canoza

> <notg...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> I really enjoy it when you prove

you to be a complete fucking moron.

>>

A wart is not human life.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It is some dependent
>>>>>> cells *on* a human being, and the wart will never become a human being.
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering cloning that may or may not be true.
>>>>
>>>> You can't clone a complete human being from a few wart cells.
>>>
>>> Did you ever hear of Dolly?
>>
>> Not cloned from wart cells.
>

> You clipped the

bullshit. Yes, I did.

Dolly was not cloned from sheep warts.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A wart is not human life.
>>>>>
>>>>> I said it is human life.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't. "Human life" is "a human being."
>>>
>>> Show me that definition.
>>
>> It is common knowledge.
>

> Can't do it can you.

It is done.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your analogy is bullshit because you are bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for showing me to be the worthless lump of bullshit that I am.
>>>>
>>>> My pleasure.
>>>
>>> You can kick my geriatric lying ass.
>>
>> And I do.
>

> More ass kicking.

Yep.

[Matt Singer]

Not what he asked. The answer is "no," you can not force anyone to donate blood
for you.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 12:44:21 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:03:51 -0400, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>

>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:00:29 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Nothing there about a fetus.
>>>>
>>>we the people
>>
>>A fetus isn't a person.
>>

>Define "person"

Someone with a personality.

[%]

i did a little bit but they all starve when i'm here ,
there's too little of me

[%]

On 2022-07-01 5:49 p.m., Attila wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 16:47:22 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> It was a random choice. Whatever is needed is irrelevant.
>
including the woman

[%]

On 2022-07-01 5:51 p.m., Attila wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 16:49:10 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> He is a realest. He lives with reality on the job every
> day.
>
he's paranoid

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 14:12:57 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>>A person can do things a fetus cannot because a fetus, though it has
>>rights, is unable exercise those rights.
>>
>
>A one minute old baby has certain legal rights that exist
>even though it is unable to exercise those rights. If the
>baby dies immediately the results are totally different than
>if no live birth ever occurred.

We're not talking about babies, we're talking about fetuses.

You're trying to change the subject *again*.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

They're not Jews, they're Utermensch, right?

That make you feel better, you goose-stepping fuck?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 7/1/22 8:51 PM, Attila wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 16:49:10 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> He is a realest. He lives with reality on the job every
> day.
>

Ignoring the outside world is like playing Russian Roulette.

Being prepared for many kinds of disaster in a DEMOCRAT run world of
FAILED POLICIES, is no different than preparing for retirement in a
FUNCTIONING normal society where Democrats and LEFTISTS can't get a foot
in the door to hold power.

Why do people live that terrible life of panic to keep money safe for
retirement when money is just a tool for trading and eating each day.

My retirement overlapped with my preparing for Democrats failed
policies.... And it may yet come to be that my preparing for DEMOCRATS
FAILURE will be my only retirement when the DEMOCRATS destroy the
monetary system and the economy.

What was that old saying about putting all your eggs in on basket?

--
-That's karma-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 7/1/22 9:39 PM, Somebody too wrote:

> Define personality.
>
Unique DNA and environmental attributes.... creating a person that is
uniquely different in time and space who will never be duplicated
because the combination of DNA and environmental and personal
experiences changes them and allows them the experience of life within
in that unique environment.

It starts at conception when the two different parents DNA combinations
come together to create one person and then all the chemical make up of
food drugs and other inputs begin to change their cellular make-up and
cellular memory from that first cell and it changes with ... and it
compounds and progressively changes the person until the day they die.


Ever wonder why identical twins or triplets have different personalities
and may look alike but really aren't?

"Twins can be either monozygotic ('identical'), meaning that they
develop from one zygote, which splits and forms two embryos, or
dizygotic ('non-identical' or 'fraternal'), meaning that each twin
develops from a separate egg "


The environmental inputs and that's why drug addicted moms have Crack
babies and healthy moms have healthy babies. It's the environmental
inputs that change the human life in the uterus while it's in the uterus
and that changes it for life and can damage it for life. But it may
cause mental issues while in the uterus making it a person because it's
personality is being shaped by the parents and the life around it and
that all contributed to the personality from that point of conception
on... for the rest of the embryo/fetus' or babies life which includes
after it's born and "called a PERSON BY DEMOCRATS" who claimed it wasn't
a person when they kill them.


Welcome to being a DEMOCRAT... till death do you part.

--
-That's karma-

[Alan Bond]

On 7/2/2022 9:56 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his
scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> There seems to be confusion as to what is a CIVIL LIBERTY and what is a "RIGHT"

There's no confusion on the part of educated and literate people. The only
confusion is on the part of brain-damaged retarded shit pails like you.

[Jay Santos]

On 7/2/2022 1:57 AM, KWills wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:40:27 -0400, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

>
> [...]
>
>> You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>> you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>> property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>> for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>> longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>> You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>> priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>> RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
>
> But, as you know, there is no human life in the uterus.
>

That's bullshit. It is "human life," it is *a* human life — a human being — and
it is a person. The question is, is it a complete person with all the rights
that a complete person has? In particular, does it have a right not to be
forcibly evicted from the uterus of a woman who doesn't want it there? The vast
majority of people say "no." Hartung and #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty are utterly
incapable of making a case that the majority is wrong, and in fact, neither one
of them believes in or has any "reverence" for life. What they want to do is
punish women and control them.

--
Hartung is always wrong, about everything. This is not in rational dispute.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 7/2/22 11:13 AM, Somebody too wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 01:04:30 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:02:08 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>> in alt.atheism with message-id

>> I am. A woman is being forced to provide her body as a life
>> support system to another person if you consider a fetus as
>> a person. She should not be forced to do this.
>>


If you are never going to get pregnant then another remedy is at hand
called tubal ligation. Or any number of other non surgical birth
controls...

>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.

I say it does, you can't kill a person because they make your life
inconvenient.

You have to feed your baby after you give birth... or you go to prison
for neglect when they die.


>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>> is easily remedied.

How was that medical condition created? Was it the fault of others, what
if we have to scrape her off the pavement and take her to the emergency
room and hook her up to life support regardless of the question of who
pays for it other than her? Is that my responsibility or hers? But yet
the law says that I have give away an HOUR of my time at work or
hundreds of hours in taxes to pay for it? Is her 9 months of time worth
more than my nine months of time to pay taxes?



> No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything.


Well it's NOT force it's respecting the RIGHT of others... to their own
life isn't it? I have my time confiscated as tax and she has hers
confiscated as a tax in kind, being gestation vessel to the next
generation of tax payers.

Or you could apply that same scenario to my paying taxes and/or her
paying taxes for kids to go to school, if she has an abortion why is she
paying money and losing hours of her labor for her to educate those
children that aren't even hers because she killed her kids before they
were born and produced no new taxpayers...?


So why does she pay the school tax if she can't be forced to do so by
confiscation of her labor or to gestate a child for paying future taxes.
What is the difference when both school and pregnancy are at their core
costing her time/labor, one is the time to work to pay the tax and the
other is time to carry a life in her uterus which as a surrogate, could
create a good taxable income to pay for children to attend Government
schools. I suggest that the woman gets a tax credit for giving birth. It
is only fair.

It looks to me that what goes around comes around and by taxing me for
schools I don't have kids in, the Government is bleeding me of my
time/labor converted to taxes, which makes me think that if her
time/labor is consumed by Government laws or mandates that she is no
longer special is she.

She's *just another battery in the MATRIX*


Welcome to reality...





--
-That's karma-

[Rudy Canoza]

[that brain-damaged retarded shit-bucket's insane set of newsgroups repaired]

On 7/2/2022 11:20 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 11:25:43 -0400, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

>
>>
>>> On 2022-07-01 3:22 p.m., Attila wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do not work with them but oppose everything they attempt.
>>>>
>>>> Abortion should be like any other medical procedure
>>>> and be the decision of the patient and the doctor.
>>>

>> Then they can pay for it too... and there are limitations to accepted
>> surgery, especially "elective" surgeries. Those that kill excessive
>> numbers of patients are not legal for Doctors to perform.
>
> Abortion is safe and kills few patients. It is included in
> some health plans. It is far safer than pregnancy,

That's correct. It's also a phony issue. People who oppose abortion do not do
so out of safety concerns. When they start waving abortion mortality and
morbidity data around, it's nothing but an attempt at diversion.

Here are the facts:

"The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United
States"

Abstract

Objective: To assess the safety of abortion compared with childbirth.

Methods: We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal
induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance
System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we
searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and
childbirth.

Results: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live
neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to
induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent
comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related
complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

Conclusion: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk
of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that
with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth
exceeds that with abortion.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/

Abortion is safer than childbirth. This is not in rational dispute. But it's
also a phony issue, for multiple reasons.

[Rudy Canoza]

[that brain-damaged retarded shit-bucket's insane set of newsgroups repaired]

On 7/2/2022 11:26 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 14:04:58 -0400, > #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

>
>> On 7/2/22 4:57 AM, KWills wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:40:27 -0400, > #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>>>> you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>>>> property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>>>> for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>>>> longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>>>> You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>>>> priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>>>> RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
>>>
>>> But, as you know, there is no human life in the uterus.
>>>
>>

>> You want to kill it, you have prove it.
>>
>> Human Life doesn't need to prove it exists, you need to prove it doesn't.
>
> Based upon what?
>
> Where is the requirement that every possible individual [sic] must
> exist?

That's a straw man and a red herring. No one arguing here about abortion has
said that every individual *person* must exist. ['individual' is not a noun;
it's an adjective]

There actually *is* a utilitarian argument, which is complete bullshit, that we
"ought" to increase the number of happy sentient beings, including animals. The
thinking is that the universe is "better off" the more happy beings there are in
it. That's bullshit because the universe itself does not have an individual
welfare, so the universe cannot be "better off" in one state than in another, by
definition. Now, some individual human persons, who are the only beings that
can care about things like that, may feel that they, personally, are better off
the more happy beings there are in existence, but that's irrational and
nonsensical. *If* beings come into existence, then you should want them to be
as happy as possible, but there's no reason that more beings "ought" to come
into existence in the first place. We just want whatever beings who do come to
exist to be as happy as possible.

Now, it's pretty rare to find a person — a human being — who wishes he had never
been born. You can find suicidal people who *no longer* wish to exist, but at
some point in their lives, they were happy enough to be alive. They do regret
the overall fact of their existence; they just no longer wish to live. With
that in mind, thinking regarding only the welfare of any conceived person — and
the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/developing child *is*, of course, a person —
then you can make a case that that person *ought* to finish developing and be
born. The problem is you can't limit your moral consideration to only that
person. You have to give moral consideration to the wishes of the woman who has
that person developing inside her, and who may not want that person there. The
woman has fully legitimate welfare interests of her own, and if you're a moral
person, i.e. a person who is able and *obliged* to give moral consideration to
the interests of others, then you may not morally disregard her interests.

Here's the question from which Hartung continues to run screaming in terror,
because he knows he can't rationally, coherently and persuasively answer it:
does the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus have a "right" to remain in the uterus
of a woman who doesn't want it there? A very large majority of people say "no,"
and Hartung can't show them to be wrong; he merely asserts, without any kind of
coherent argument, that they are.

[Don Kresch]

On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 14:41:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:

>On 7/2/22 11:13 AM, Somebody too wrote:

>>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.
>
>I say it does, you can't kill a person because they make your life
>inconvenient.

Lovely strawman.

>You have to feed your baby after you give birth

No, you don't. You can give up the custodianship.

>>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>>> is easily remedied.
>
>How was that medical condition created?

How was a broken bone playing football created?

Are you going to be consistent and say that no sports injuries
can be fixed? Because if you don't say that: you're a hypocrite.


Don
aa#51
o- DNRC
Jedi Slackmaster

[%]

On 2022-07-02 3:25 p.m., Attila wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:59:59 -0600, Somebody too
> <nu...@biz.invalid> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <qc51chpkuv23q83ls...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 14:25:03 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 09:13:27 -0600, Somebody too
>>> <nu...@biz.invalid> in alt.atheism with message-id

>>> <n3o0ch5hvkb12hbho...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 01:04:30 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:02:08 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id

>>>>> I am. A woman is being forced to provide her body as a life
>>>>> support system to another person if you consider a fetus as
>>>>> a person. She should not be forced to do this.
>>>>>

>>>>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.
>>>>>

>>>>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>>>>> is easily remedied.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything.
>>>

>>> If a woman cannot freely have a choice as to whether or not
>>> to terminate her pregnancy but is prevented by law from
>>> terminating it that is forcing her to complete a process
>>> that is a danger to her health and life against her will.
>>>
>>> That includes using the law to deny her access to the proper
>>> medical facilities.
>>
>>
>> Then move where it's legal.
>
> Why should I? Advocating for a woman's right to choose does
> not mean I am personally involved.
>
so you do it just to bitch

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 19:39:29 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>Define personality.

Something you don't have.

Swill
--

Republican congressman Andrew Clyde (GA):
"You know, if you didn't know the tv footage was video from
January 6, you'd actually think it was a normal tourist visit."

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 09:13:27 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>>If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>>is easily remedied.
>
>
>No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything.

A fetus is not a person but also is not a parasite, cyst or tumor.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 18:08:33 -0700, Matt Singer <out.o...@wyebur.con>
wrote:

It was a stupid and no sequitur question.

[%]

On 2022-07-03 12:35 a.m., Attila wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 15:32:37 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> I do it to defend what I see as a right every woman has.
> What is your excuse for being here?
>
i have friends here i come to see how they are ,
not jut so i can bitch about what women do ,
you tell me men have no say in it but then ,
you stick your nose in it either you're not a man or ,
the rules you make up don't apply to you

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/3/2022 12:35 AM, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric

no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 15:32:37 -0700, % <purse...@gmail.com>
> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <Z_ednfva3rUbWl3_...@giganews.com> wrote:
>

>> On 2022-07-02 3:25 p.m., demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

>>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:59:59 -0600, Somebody too
>>> <nu...@biz.invalid> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <qc51chpkuv23q83ls...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 14:25:03 -0400, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 09:13:27 -0600, Somebody too
>>>>> <nu...@biz.invalid> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>> <n3o0ch5hvkb12hbho...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 01:04:30 -0400, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:02:08 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>>>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>> <v46vbh1pesih7cmll...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 18:35:42 -0400, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

> I do it to defend what I see as a right every woman has.

No, you don't. You don't believe in rights.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 7/2/22 5:24 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 14:41:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On 7/2/22 11:13 AM, Somebody too wrote:
>
>>>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.
>>
>> I say it does, you can't kill a person because they make your life
>> inconvenient.
>
> Lovely strawman.
>
>
>> You have to feed your baby after you give birth
>
> No, you don't. You can give up the custodianship.
>

Yes you do because if you give-up the parental roll you are no longer
able to call it your baby. It's NO longer your responsibility so you
don't have to feed a baby that isn't yours and you can let other babies
starve... but I think they can also arrest you for allowing other babies
to starve while you watch.

It starts to get into crimes against humanity... or mental illness issues.

>
>>>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>>>> is easily remedied.
>>
>> How was that medical condition created?
>
> How was a broken bone playing football created?

Accidental or by force by other players. Could be either way, who chose
for you to play the game?

Were you forced to be there? Are the injuries life threatening, is there
a reason to risk surgery to improve the outcome? What if the Doctor says
I can go in and grind on the bone and do multiple surgeries on that bone
to fit it back to be the same and add more bone where it is too
splintered but you'll never throw a ball again and I'll have to take the
piece of bone from your leg which will weaken the leg bone.


What you have is a lot of risk and the broken bone can never be
"unbroken" so it will always be too weak to perform at 100% for sports.

Like a woman trying to undo a pregnancy, it may solve some issued like
feeding a baby and create others and the woman did make the decision to
play the game, and if she didn't then that's a crime and time for prison
for someone but killing a baby doesn't make the crime go away or reverse
the broken persons injuries.

Once again you have a case of NOT being able to unring the bell, someone
made a decision and they end up paying for it and the victim in a crime
can't always be made whole by convicting the guilty party when that
decision is made for the woman. But again the human life in the uterus
isn't the guilty party and is essentially a victim the same as the woman
that was attacked. If we kill the life in the uterus why wouldn't we
kill the woman too, which is what the Cults of the RADICALIZED MUSLIMS
DO. A woman who is raped is stoned to death.

They abort the baby by killing all the victims? Is that what Democrats
want, yes radicalized Democrat feminists and abortionists are radical
LGBTQ cult members and yes they do threaten the Supreme Court Justices
and the rest of us like the radical Muslim cults do....

It sound's like Democrats are traveling down the same path as the Muslim
Terrorists.

I say it's NOT that the woman has to raise the child but killing it in
the uterus is NOT erasing that the human life was created. That human
life did live on planet earth and you can only kill that HUMAN LIFE
once. But you have to live it every day for the rest of your life if you
kill a human life.

>
> Are you going to be consistent and say that no sports injuries
> can be fixed? Because if you don't say that: you're a hypocrite.

I got to this point and see I was consistent, I didn't say that NO
sports injury could be fixed I said some create more risk than the
repair is worth and some can't be fixed and some simply increase side
effects of things like cancer or sterility and create new problems and
that killing a human life that was NOT guilty of a crime will never
unring the bell and the damage done by the crime committed against them
or make the fact they they willingly created a life go away. SO yes I
say killing the human life that is innocent is an injury that can't be
fixed, just like all murder creates injuries that can't be fixed because
you can never bring the dead back from that. Neither the physical or
mental damage from pregnancy can be fixed like it never happened because
it did and attempting to erase it by killing the human life in he uterus
only compounds the injury both mentally and physically.

*Democrat Policy is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

Of course you could stone to death the mother and human life in the
uterus. If no one really wants the pregnancy.
--
-That's karma-

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/2/2022 3:25 PM, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric

no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:59:59 -0600, Somebody too
> <nu...@biz.invalid> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <qc51chpkuv23q83ls...@4ax.com> wrote:
>

>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 14:25:03 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 09:13:27 -0600, Somebody too
>>> <nu...@biz.invalid> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <n3o0ch5hvkb12hbho...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 01:04:30 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:02:08 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>> <v46vbh1pesih7cmll...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>> I am. A woman is being forced to provide her body as a life
>>>>> support system to another person if you consider a fetus as
>>>>> a person. She should not be forced to do this.
>>>>>

>>>>> Under no other conditions does this requirement exist.
>>>>>

>>>>> If a fetus is not a person she has a medical condition that
>>>>> is easily remedied.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything.
>>>
>>> If a woman cannot freely have a choice as to whether or not
>>> to terminate her pregnancy but is prevented by law from
>>> terminating it that is forcing her to complete a process
>>> that is a danger to her health and life against her will.
>>>
>>> That includes using the law to deny her access to the proper
>>> medical facilities.
>>
>>
>> Then move where it's legal.
>
> Why should I? Advocating for a woman's right to choose

You're not advocating for choice.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/3/2022 12:39 AM, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric

no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2022 20:09:57 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <bhn1chp9ul8g4vf4o...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 18:08:33 -0700, Matt Singer <out.o...@wyebur.con>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/1/2022 5:59 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 13:58:27 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 11:04:45 -0400, governo...@gmail.com
>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>> <h73ubh1fmumet5mbv...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 01:52:17 -0400, demonstrating his own futility once again, the geriatric no-testosterone imbecile came back with still more stupidity and futility:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where is the requirement that every individual must exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider the right to life to be one of the unenumerated ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enforced how and under what conditions?
>>>>
>>>> Kill somebody and tell us what happened.
>>>>
>>>>> If you need a blood transfusion to live can you force me to
>>>>> supply you?
>>>>
>>>> Donating blood doesn't kill you.
>>>
>>> Not what he asked. The answer is "no," you can not force anyone to donate blood
>>> for you.
>>
>> It was a stupid and no sequitur question.
>>
>> Swill
>

> Meaning it points out something you would prefer

It points out nothing.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Well it sort of does mean you're ANTI AMERICAN if you're NOT looking to
either support the Constitution or to correct an error in it.

And if there is no Abortion in the Constitution what are you trying to
correct, and if you have evidence that a human life in the uterus isn't
alive and isn't protected equal to the Women who engaged in sex to
create that life.... you should be enlightening us as to how and where
the Constitution is wrong. So that we can make it more perfect if you
are correct. But looking for a home that better satisfies your needs,
isn't bad advise either.


--
-That's karma-

[Duane D La Motte]

On 7/3/2022 9:52 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his

scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

>

#ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty doesn't know a thing about the Constitution.

Advocating for the ability of women to obtain an abortion is not "anti
American." Only a brain-damaged retarded shit pail would say something like that.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Killing human life is ANTI AMERICAN.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. 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.

Tell us what crimes the human life inside the uterus has committed?

Where is the due process?

To ignore the required due process is ANTI AMERICAN.

It makes abortion ANTI American.

On the other hand if you can prove your hypothesis that a human life in
a uterus is NOT alive or a person... abortion might be pro American.
Which is a PARADOX since it's making it pro American to terminate
Americans who would be born citizens... before they can be citizens with
the right to NOT be terminated. Making the rest of the Constitution
that's about RIGHTS and LIFE and LIBERTY and being a citizen and
creating a more perfect Union all useless drivel because GOVERNMENT can
then select all Aryan Race children to live past birth if you wish to go
there. Once you decide a human life in the uterus has no rights and
health care can be mandated or denied by government that has power over
health care.

It means the Social Credit Score puts you as a second class citizen if
you're Black or if the powers that be, decide you don't have you
thinking aligned with theirs.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate" -Cool Hand Luke-

Get your mind right....
--
-That's karma-

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 13:58:08 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:

>On 7/3/22 12:54 PM, Rudy the dwarf wrote:

>> Advocating for the ability of women to obtain an abortion is not "anti
>> American."  Only a brain-damaged retarded shit pail would say something
>> like that.
>
>Killing human life is ANTI AMERICAN.

We already know that Rudy is anti-American.

He's so fucking stupid, he doesn't understand the original purpose of
the Senate.

I know, I know. Even a fourth-grader should know this.

But The Dwarf doesn't think States should be represented at all.

That's just ONE example of how stupid he is.

Real Americans don't advocate killing defenseless human beings for the
sake of convenience. Period.

Real Americans don't conjure up fake terms like "women's health" or
"reproductive choice" as euphemisms for killing babies.

Rudy isn't a real American, and never can be. Even if there WASN'T a
height requirement.

[the late Mark Wieber]

On 7/3/2022 10:58 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his

Americans killed a couple of million Vietnamese and Iraqis, you stupid
brain-damaged retarded shit-pail.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 14:48:29 -0700, an incel dwarf wrote:

>Americans killed a couple of million Vietnamese and Iraqis, you stupid
>brain-damaged retarded shit-pail.

You're next dwarf. It'll be a mercy killing. LOL

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 16:23:16 -0600, Somebody too <nu...@biz.invalid>
wrote:

>Abortion is not war. Damn these liberals are dumb.

And Rudy INSISTS on demonstrating that he can be more dumb TODAY than
he was YESTERDAY.

He never disappoints! LOL