Intelligent Party
2022-08-20 07:12:08 UTC
How can you prohibit abortion, if you don't know the fetus is a person,
(equivalent to a grown man for argument's sakes)?
How can you allow abortion, if you don't know the fetus is a cadaver?
Because the default position is freedom.
The default position is not everything illegal, and only certain things "allowed."
This is truth. Analytics. Science. The dictates of logic and reason. If you
don't believe in the law, how can you be the perpetrator of the law the government
is, (Or as you are, through it)?
The law cannot be existant when there is not a crime identified. Abortion is
merely the most egregious example of prohibition. All prohibition is invalid,
from the war on drugs and weapons, to our public lands and sexuality, our freedom
of speech, and children's rights, and our soldier's rights to quit. From Hitler's
mass incarceration of Jews, to killing witches, - the government does not reserve
nor retain the right to kill and murder, and has no such right.
Prohibition has always been a crime against humanity, an unlawful, despicable act,
the work of a subhuman. - to keeping slaves, and punishment today - though you
contend you can't convince with reason;
Prohibition is the work of the devil, and all who practice it are damned and
condemned. They are guilty, and they deserve to die; until they repent. We hate
them, and we want them dead; until they repent. This is our country, and they
shouldn't steal it from us.
If the fetus is a cadaver, and not a grown man, then it is an immoral sin to not
abort. Illegal even, thus it could be against the law to not abort, if you don't
want a baby. You are committing an immoral sin, if you do not abort, if the fetus
is certainly a cadaver, and has no human spirit yet.
Are we ever going to all agree, on when the fetus stops being a cadaver, and has a
human spirit in it? Personally I think 17-18 weeks, and post that, it just gets
more and more likely, to the point of birth. Some reincarnated individuals don't
come into the fetus until the point of birth or perhaps cesarean section. All
religions confirm reincarnation, including Christianity and Hinduism. But in
answer to the question, I doubt it. It is apparently not a completely absolutely
scientific known at the moment. Largely speculation, when life begins. Who is
convincing or telling you or me? People have memories of the afterlife and being
in the womb. People have memories of the afterlife and coming into the baby at
the point of birth. I've read no believable accounts of people being in the
zygote at the point of conception. So unless you are materialism, and believe you
come out of an object, have no beliefs nor notions of past lifetimes and past life
regression, you must admit the Spirit comes into the gestating cadaver at an
inconsistent point some time long after conception.
Are you an athiest, deathist, materialist? What God gave you the right to impose
your opinion onto others?
You're just like, _no God_ , I'm an athiest deathist materialist, I just impose my
opinion.
So based on that criticism of imposing, _I can't_ stop somebody from aborting at
35 weeks without imposing? Or even 42? (normal gestation being 40) Haven't given
birth yet, but still changed your mind?
So we need to draw a distinction, between prohibition based on speculation and
prejudice, and prohibition of murder and other certain crimes.
And that's my whole fucking point.
If there's not a crime identified, there cannot be a law. A notion there can,
*is* a notion, that prohibition of *any sort* and against *anything* is legal.
That anything can be made illegal. So some people think 26 weeks, but they never
studied anything on abortion, or they would know no doctors abort past 20 weeks,
EVEN WHEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO. Why do we have to be under law? Why can't we be
under grace? 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks, and 10% in the
next 7. Do you think most women are sociopaths? The earliest premies have
survived at 21 weeks (maybe one out of many, many), YET the States put viability
at 23 or 24 weeks. But we CAN all agree a 35 week gestated fetus is POSSIBLY a
human baby, attached to the mother, maybe not in all instances, but at least in
SOME. That there's at least a 40% chance that's a human baby, and somebody may
die, if it is aborted.
Arbitrary prohibition is contrary to all Jurisprudence, legal science, and
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England," (which formed the foundation
of U.S. law), and much more the Christian and Jewish and Muslim Bible. What God
gave you the right to impose your opinion onto others?
How can you prohibit abortion, if you don't know the fetus is a person,
(equivalent to a grown man for argument's sakes)?
You CAN'T legally. You're unlawful.
It doesn't matter what supreme court from the U.S. to Timbuktu said you can.
They're only people. Just like you and I.
I wonder if anybody cares about that opinion of mine. What legal science or
quackery are they following if they don't?
Yet, there is a second point relevant to abortion, besides the grown man vs.
cadaver question. And that is, that you DO have a right to separate from a grown man:
For instance, if I needed a kidney, and it was not going to be available for six
months, and I was like, "bro, the doctors said I'm going to die in the next few
days, if I'm not hooked up to someone," Would you hook up to me? No, you would be
like, "sorry bro, I don't know what you're going to do."
But if I needed a kidney, and it was going to be available in two weeks, and I was
like "bro, the doctors said I'm going to die in the next few days, if I'm not
hooked up to someone," if you were my friend, you could be like, "okay, we're
going to do this. We'll sit and watch T.V., or in the hospital for two weeks."
And so then, we hooked up, and then the doctors were like, "that kidney is bad.
There's not going to be a kidney for eight months." You would be like, "uhm,
we're not going to be hooked up for eight months. We're disconnecting." And at
my funeral, they could be like "Dude! he's dead cause of you!," and you could be
like "any of you could have attached up to him for eight months (you even had a
few days to do it), but you didn't!"
This proves you have a right to detach from a grown man, and thereby the right to
detach from a fetus that is a living baby, and therefore a person, even though it
is is no longer a cadaver.
Stop just rooting for the Jets! What's your fucking point, that you don't have a
right to an abortion!
Then you could say it's the woman's fault, and it is the man's fault just as much
- though he doesn't have to be attached to the baby. And that fault is in getting
pregnant, whether or not the baby is born or aborted. As if the baby is going to
be born missing one leg, and not both i.e. aborted, or even it may be more
preferable to be aborted, than to live with one leg, especially given the reality
of reincarnation, and the reality of the bad life they'll have with poor parents.
What is a fetus loosing? Some time? Not intelligence, friends, careers, body or
property. Based on that argument I guess a born baby is just loosing time as
well. Most people aren't with infanticide. But I was presuming aborting is more
than killing a mouse, and the same as killing a person. Unless the fetus was
still only a cadaver.
You see the bodies in the movie Avatar in the incubation tanks, moving around,
with no higher consciousness in them. Just because the fetus kicked doesn't mean
it's conscious yet. It may or may not be, and
how would we know? Just speculation. You know? I don't. You can convince me?
Prohibition, and a free country are antithetical.
(equivalent to a grown man for argument's sakes)?
How can you allow abortion, if you don't know the fetus is a cadaver?
Because the default position is freedom.
The default position is not everything illegal, and only certain things "allowed."
This is truth. Analytics. Science. The dictates of logic and reason. If you
don't believe in the law, how can you be the perpetrator of the law the government
is, (Or as you are, through it)?
The law cannot be existant when there is not a crime identified. Abortion is
merely the most egregious example of prohibition. All prohibition is invalid,
from the war on drugs and weapons, to our public lands and sexuality, our freedom
of speech, and children's rights, and our soldier's rights to quit. From Hitler's
mass incarceration of Jews, to killing witches, - the government does not reserve
nor retain the right to kill and murder, and has no such right.
Prohibition has always been a crime against humanity, an unlawful, despicable act,
the work of a subhuman. - to keeping slaves, and punishment today - though you
contend you can't convince with reason;
Prohibition is the work of the devil, and all who practice it are damned and
condemned. They are guilty, and they deserve to die; until they repent. We hate
them, and we want them dead; until they repent. This is our country, and they
shouldn't steal it from us.
If the fetus is a cadaver, and not a grown man, then it is an immoral sin to not
abort. Illegal even, thus it could be against the law to not abort, if you don't
want a baby. You are committing an immoral sin, if you do not abort, if the fetus
is certainly a cadaver, and has no human spirit yet.
Are we ever going to all agree, on when the fetus stops being a cadaver, and has a
human spirit in it? Personally I think 17-18 weeks, and post that, it just gets
more and more likely, to the point of birth. Some reincarnated individuals don't
come into the fetus until the point of birth or perhaps cesarean section. All
religions confirm reincarnation, including Christianity and Hinduism. But in
answer to the question, I doubt it. It is apparently not a completely absolutely
scientific known at the moment. Largely speculation, when life begins. Who is
convincing or telling you or me? People have memories of the afterlife and being
in the womb. People have memories of the afterlife and coming into the baby at
the point of birth. I've read no believable accounts of people being in the
zygote at the point of conception. So unless you are materialism, and believe you
come out of an object, have no beliefs nor notions of past lifetimes and past life
regression, you must admit the Spirit comes into the gestating cadaver at an
inconsistent point some time long after conception.
Are you an athiest, deathist, materialist? What God gave you the right to impose
your opinion onto others?
You're just like, _no God_ , I'm an athiest deathist materialist, I just impose my
opinion.
So based on that criticism of imposing, _I can't_ stop somebody from aborting at
35 weeks without imposing? Or even 42? (normal gestation being 40) Haven't given
birth yet, but still changed your mind?
So we need to draw a distinction, between prohibition based on speculation and
prejudice, and prohibition of murder and other certain crimes.
And that's my whole fucking point.
If there's not a crime identified, there cannot be a law. A notion there can,
*is* a notion, that prohibition of *any sort* and against *anything* is legal.
That anything can be made illegal. So some people think 26 weeks, but they never
studied anything on abortion, or they would know no doctors abort past 20 weeks,
EVEN WHEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO. Why do we have to be under law? Why can't we be
under grace? 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks, and 10% in the
next 7. Do you think most women are sociopaths? The earliest premies have
survived at 21 weeks (maybe one out of many, many), YET the States put viability
at 23 or 24 weeks. But we CAN all agree a 35 week gestated fetus is POSSIBLY a
human baby, attached to the mother, maybe not in all instances, but at least in
SOME. That there's at least a 40% chance that's a human baby, and somebody may
die, if it is aborted.
Arbitrary prohibition is contrary to all Jurisprudence, legal science, and
"Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England," (which formed the foundation
of U.S. law), and much more the Christian and Jewish and Muslim Bible. What God
gave you the right to impose your opinion onto others?
How can you prohibit abortion, if you don't know the fetus is a person,
(equivalent to a grown man for argument's sakes)?
You CAN'T legally. You're unlawful.
It doesn't matter what supreme court from the U.S. to Timbuktu said you can.
They're only people. Just like you and I.
I wonder if anybody cares about that opinion of mine. What legal science or
quackery are they following if they don't?
Yet, there is a second point relevant to abortion, besides the grown man vs.
cadaver question. And that is, that you DO have a right to separate from a grown man:
For instance, if I needed a kidney, and it was not going to be available for six
months, and I was like, "bro, the doctors said I'm going to die in the next few
days, if I'm not hooked up to someone," Would you hook up to me? No, you would be
like, "sorry bro, I don't know what you're going to do."
But if I needed a kidney, and it was going to be available in two weeks, and I was
like "bro, the doctors said I'm going to die in the next few days, if I'm not
hooked up to someone," if you were my friend, you could be like, "okay, we're
going to do this. We'll sit and watch T.V., or in the hospital for two weeks."
And so then, we hooked up, and then the doctors were like, "that kidney is bad.
There's not going to be a kidney for eight months." You would be like, "uhm,
we're not going to be hooked up for eight months. We're disconnecting." And at
my funeral, they could be like "Dude! he's dead cause of you!," and you could be
like "any of you could have attached up to him for eight months (you even had a
few days to do it), but you didn't!"
This proves you have a right to detach from a grown man, and thereby the right to
detach from a fetus that is a living baby, and therefore a person, even though it
is is no longer a cadaver.
Stop just rooting for the Jets! What's your fucking point, that you don't have a
right to an abortion!
Then you could say it's the woman's fault, and it is the man's fault just as much
- though he doesn't have to be attached to the baby. And that fault is in getting
pregnant, whether or not the baby is born or aborted. As if the baby is going to
be born missing one leg, and not both i.e. aborted, or even it may be more
preferable to be aborted, than to live with one leg, especially given the reality
of reincarnation, and the reality of the bad life they'll have with poor parents.
What is a fetus loosing? Some time? Not intelligence, friends, careers, body or
property. Based on that argument I guess a born baby is just loosing time as
well. Most people aren't with infanticide. But I was presuming aborting is more
than killing a mouse, and the same as killing a person. Unless the fetus was
still only a cadaver.
You see the bodies in the movie Avatar in the incubation tanks, moving around,
with no higher consciousness in them. Just because the fetus kicked doesn't mean
it's conscious yet. It may or may not be, and
how would we know? Just speculation. You know? I don't. You can convince me?
Prohibition, and a free country are antithetical.
