Discussion:
Foetuses can be called 'unborn humans' for Arizona abortion vote
(too old to reply)
Leroy N. Soetoro
2024-08-18 01:14:08 UTC
Permalink
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go

Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn human
being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote on
abortion in November.

Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
but the state's top court said the wording did not break impartiality
rules.

America has been locked in a bitter debate over reproductive freedoms
after the US Supreme Court rescinded the nationwide right to abortion two
years ago.

On 5 November, the issue will again be in the spotlight, when Arizona and
other states vote on whether to add a woman's right to an abortion to
their own constitutions.

The group Arizona for Abortion Access said voters would be "subjected to
biased, politically-charged words developed not by experts but by anti-
abortion special interests".

It added it was "deeply disappointed" by the decision of the state supreme
court, which sided with state Republican lawmakers.

One of those Republicans, House Speaker Ben Toma, hailed the ruling as
"correct", the Associated Press reported, and said the move was designed
to aid voters' understanding.

The court - whose judges were appointed by Republicans - has promised to
release a full opinion later, AP added.

Women in Arizona are currently prevented from terminating a pregnancy
after 15 weeks, with some exceptions, as a result of legislation brought
by the Republicans in 2022.

That law was passed after the US Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v Wade: a
landmark ruling which rescinded the nationwide right to abortion and set
in train a nationwide debate over reproductive rights.

In Arizona specifically, this reached a head earlier this year when state
lawmakers battled over a 160-year law that would have almost totally
banned abortions, without exceptions in instances of rape and incest.

The state supreme court ruled in April the legislation dating from 1864
could be enforced. The move was briefly hailed as an "enormous victory" by
one anti-abortion group, before state Democrats forced through a repeal
bill with the help of two Republicans in the senate.

At both state and national levels, Democrats have made the abortion issue
key to their campaign ahead of 5 November.

That is the date of the presidential election as well as the Democratic-
supported abortion initiative of the kind seen in Arizona, which was
confirmed to be going ahead earlier this week.

Many of the states in which these ballots are taking place are key
battlegrounds that could have a bearing on the presidential result.

Many Republican politicians, meanwhile, have sided with religious
conservatives who want abortion banned or limited in the US.

In Arizona, the abortion ballot will determine whether or not to amend the
state constitution to allow a woman to end a pregnancy up to the time at
which a foetus could survive outside the womb. That tends to be about 23
or 24 weeks.

The move would prevent future laws being introduced to restrict abortion
access - something that opponents say would go too far.

The decision of Arizona's top court to allow a foetus to be described an
"unborn human being" is reminiscent of a decision by Alabama's own supreme
court earlier this year. This ruled that frozen embryos could be
considered children.

Most Americans believe abortion should be legal in at least some
situations, recent polling presented by the firm Gallup has indicated.
--
We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that
stupid people won't be offended.

Durham Report: The FBI has an integrity problem. It has none.

No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.

Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.

President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed
dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.
Just Wondering
2024-08-19 04:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
Governor Swill
2024-08-19 15:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more argument where
there is none.

#NEVERtrump
Chips Loral
2024-08-19 16:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Governor Swill
manufacturing yet one more argument where
there is none
Typical Demotard collectivism - socialize the drug companies:

https://x.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1824635772558823557

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Video emerges of Kamala Harris openly telling a crowd
she will STEAL A COMPANIES PATIENT and take it over..

“I will snatch their patent, so that we will take over.”

“I have the will to do it!”

"Yes we can do that, yes we can do that"

“So, essentially what we’re going to do – and you can visit the
website if you will, and if not, get you some documents – but
essentially what we’re going to do is set drug prices so that American
consumers are charged a price for drugs that’s the average price that’s
being charged around the globe.”

“And there’s a huge difference, insulin being an example,” Harris
continued. “The other thing is this, if people don’t want to cooperate
with that, I’m also going to do the next thing, which is this: A lot of
drugs, prescription medication, was born out of the federal funding for
the research and development of that drug. Your taxpayer dollars.”

“So, for any drug where they fail to play by our rules, and if that drug
came about from federal funding for what’s called ‘R&D,’ research and
development, I will snatch their patent so that we will take over,”


Contrast that taking with Trump's free market-based July 2020 plan:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/articles/congress-didnt-act-on-prescription-drug-prices-so-president-trump-did/

The President signed four sweeping executive orders on Friday, which
together will significantly lower the cost of prescription drugs while
increasing access to life-saving medications such as insulin:

The first order directs federally qualified health centers to pass along
massive discounts on insulin and epinephrine from drug companies to
low-income Americans.

The second order will allow the safe, legal importation of prescription
drugs from Canada and other countries where the price for identical
drugs is lower.

The third order will prohibit secret deals between drug manufacturers
and pharmacy “benefit manager” middlemen, ensuring patients directly
benefit from available discounts at the pharmacy counter.

The fourth order ensures the United States pays the lowest price
available among economically advanced countries for Medicare Part B
drugs. The United States often pays 80 percent more for these drugs than
other developed nations.

“The four orders that I’m signing today will completely restructure the
prescription drug market, in terms of pricing and everything else, to
make these medications affordable and accessible for all Americans,”
President Trump said.


And damned if the Demotards didn't do a single thing to support,
implement, or enhance any of his work!

Now they want to "snatch patents"!

It's always a taking with the left, take your rights, take away your
guns, take your free speech, take your children's gender identity, so
why not just snatch a few drug patents?!?!

Funny thing that, Biden just sat there and veg'd out on drug costs for 4
long years and now Kamalabama is going to rush in and snatch some patents!

This is the same rancid rhetoric The Obamessiah spouted with his "you
didn't build that" bullshit.

These marxists want to turn our nation into a totalitarian state in
which they control every aspect of our lives and gender, all of it!

That's what is at stake in this election@!@!@!@!
Just Wondering
2024-08-19 17:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not.
Folks use "fetus" which means an unborn human child in order to
dehumanize unborn humans. Of course that's biased. It's easier
to kill a person if you can convince yourself that what you're
killing is not a person.
Attila
2024-08-19 22:49:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 11:47:51 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not.
Folks use "fetus" which means an unborn human child
No it doesn't.

"an offspring of a human or other mammal in the stages of
prenatal development that follow the embryo stage "
Post by Just Wondering
in order to
dehumanize unborn humans.
All humans have been born alive.
Post by Just Wondering
Of course that's biased. It's easier
to kill a person if you can convince yourself that what you're
killing is not a person.
A pregnancy is terminated. All else is secondary.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Governor Swill
2024-08-20 03:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Folks use "fetus" which means an unborn human child in order to
dehumanize unborn humans. Of course that's biased. It's easier
to kill a person if you can convince yourself that what you're
killing is not a person.
Does that also apply to "embryo", "egg" and "sperm"?

#NEVERtrump
Chris Ahlstrom
2024-08-20 11:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Folks use "fetus" which means an unborn human child in order to
dehumanize unborn humans. Of course that's biased. It's easier
to kill a person if you can convince yourself that what you're
killing is not a person.
Does that also apply to "embryo", "egg" and "sperm"?


Every Sperm is Sacred - Monty Python's The Meaning of Life
--
At once it struck me what quality went to form a man of achievement, especially
in literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously -- I mean negative
capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties,
mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.
-- John Keats
Gronk
2024-08-27 04:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Folks use "fetus" which means an unborn human child in order to
dehumanize unborn humans. Of course that's biased. It's easier
to kill a person if you can convince yourself that what you're
killing is not a person.
Does that also apply to "embryo", "egg" and "sperm"?
http://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk
Every Sperm is Sacred - Monty Python's The Meaning of Life
it's MURDER, MURDER i tell you, not to fertilze them!
Lil dwarf Rudey
2024-08-20 15:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Governor Swill
"egg" and "sperm"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Canoza wrote:

I might go to some swing state that is very close in the polls, and try
to become a mole saboteur in the Trump campaign. That sound like fun!

MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Walz
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
References: <v9ii37$ghmu$***@dont-email.me> <DS5vO.397441$***@fx14.iad>
<***@4ax.com>
<F4pvO.377409$***@fx11.iad> <v9ldna$11k49$***@dont-email.me>
<hLrvO.40347$***@fx43.iad> <v9lhsh$122sj$***@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Rudy Canoza <***@hendrie.con>
In-Reply-To: <v9lhsh$122sj$***@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <tZrvO.40349$***@fx43.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse(at)newshosting.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:41:29 UTC
Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price!
www.newshosting.com
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 11:41:28 -0700

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

..adding in electoral fraud to your public death threats...


YOUR DEATH THREATS AGAINST TRUMP ARE WELL-DOCUMENTED:


Governor Swill /Rudy Canoza/Lou Bricano/J Carlson/Michael A Terrell/Al
Feldhauser/Malte Runz and a dozen other socks wrote:

Multiple death threats against Trump:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!netnews.com!s1-4.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Governor Swill <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Triumphant Trump Photo After Assassination Attempt
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <***@earthlink.com>
<***@185.151.15.160>
<ONIkO.102541$***@fx11.ams4> <***@185.151.15.190>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 55
X-Complaints-To: ***@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.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: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:38:43 -0400

Oh poor me I got shot at ...

Swill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!s1-3.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Governor Swill <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Triumphant Trump Photo After Assassination Attempt
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <***@earthlink.com>
<***@185.151.15.160>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
X-Complaints-To: ***@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.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: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:37:51 -0400


Cheer up, maybe someone else will try.

Swill

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: J Carlson <***@gmx.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.nationalism.white,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: AP Lies by Ommission About Identity of Invaders Charged with
Rape, Murder of 12-Year-Old
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:35:52 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <v5f66o$1mps9$***@dont-email.me>
References: <v54h6j$39cuk$***@dont-email.me> <v54hrs$38mfs$***@dont-email.me>
<moKcnZP3dbqUm-***@giganews.com>
<v58c4f$6squ$***@dont-email.me>
<v5df1n$1caue$***@dont-email.me> <v5edju$1hv3p$***@dont-email.me>
<***@4ax.com>
<v5erpf$1jkrf$***@dont-email.me>
<O9acnRiefIZol-***@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:35:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me;
posting-host="f3de9d0c1e618b255237332494133eec";
logging-data="1795977";
mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195k8uMNmZfnyDG9tQmsu21WqljX3bfQxM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PNoPW9d+9gKJj0fX+YCk+YFslQg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <O9acnRiefIZol-***@giganews.com>
Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.politics.immigration:383549
alt.politics.nationalism.white:10913 talk.politics.misc:1295918
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3024985
Post by Governor Swill
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to
thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
Post by Governor Swill
is an important step to getting there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That constitutes a DEATH THREAT against a former President, Rudey:


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871
18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the
Presidency
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail
or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any
letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon
the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office
of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or
knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the
President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the
order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both.
(b)The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in
this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful
candidates for the offices of President and Vice President,
respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections
held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in
accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The
phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of
President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the
order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3,
United States Code, sections 19 and 20.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 740; June 1, 1955, ch. 115, § 1, 69
Stat. 80; Pub. L. 87–829, § 1, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 956; Pub. L.
97–297, § 2, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1318; Pub. L. 103–322, title
XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

9-65.200 - Threats Against the President and Successors to the
Presidency; Threats Against Former Presidents; and Certain Other Secret
Service Protectees
The Counterterrorism Section of the National Security Division has
supervisory authority over 18 U.S.C. §§ 871 and 879 cases. As great
caution must be taken in matters relating to the security of the persons
protected by 18 U.S.C. § 871, United States Attorneys are encouraged to
consult with the Counterterrorism Section (CTS) of the National Security
Division when they have doubts on the prosecutive merit of a case. For
the same reason, dismissal of complaints under 18 U.S.C. § 871, when the
defendant is in custody under the Mental Incompetency Statutes (18
U.S.C. §§ 4244, 4246), requires approval from CTS. In other cases,
United States Attorneys must consult prior to dismissing a count
involving, or entering into any sentence commitment or other case
settlement involving a § 871 charge.


https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2024/01/phoenix-man-arrested-making-online-death-threats-against-president-and

PHOENIX –David Michael Hanson, 41, of Phoenix, was arrested on Wednesday
for making online threats against the President and Vice-President.
Hanson was charged by Federal criminal complaint on Tuesday with five
counts of Threats Against the President and Successors to the Presidency
and five counts of Interstate Communication of Threats.

The complaint alleges that in November and December of 2023, while
living in Arizona, Hanson used a social media platform to post threats
to murder the President and Vice President of the United States. On
November 19, 2023, Hanson posted online a series of threatening
statements including one that stated, “#joeAndKamala I’m asking you to
resign on Monday your alternative is death brutally murdered.” After the
U.S. Secret Service spoke to Hanson and warned him that it was a Federal
crime to post such threats, on December 23, 2023, Hanson posted another
series of similar threats aimed at the President and Vice-President.

Each count of Threats Against the President and Successors to the
Presidency carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a fine of
up to $250,000, and up to three years of supervised release. Each count
of Interstate Communication of Threats carries a maximum sentence of
five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and up to three years of
supervised release.

A complaint is simply a method by which a person is charged with
criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. An individual is
presumed innocent until evidence is presented to a jury that establishes
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The United States Secret Service is conducting the investigation in this
case. The United States Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, is
handling the prosecution.


Those can be reported here:

https://tips.fbi.gov/home

https://www.justice.gov/action-center/report-crime-or-submit-complaint

https://www.secretservice.gov/contact

https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something/reporting/california


Fellow citizens, won't you join in ending Rudey's terrorism here?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scout
2024-08-19 17:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
develop:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus

I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Chris Ahlstrom
2024-08-20 15:25:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where there is none.
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
I'm not seen how a dictionary is a source of definitions determined by
law. Especially since the law seems to change depending who is in power.
--
Let's go back to the days of "no fetus can beat us".
NoBody
2024-08-21 10:45:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 11:25:17 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where there is none.
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
I'm not seen how a dictionary is a source of definitions determined by
law. Especially since the law seems to change depending who is in power.
Well there's some twisted logic going on.
Chris Ahlstrom
2024-08-21 12:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 11:25:17 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where there is none.
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
I'm not seen how a dictionary is a source of definitions determined by
law. Especially since the law seems to change depending who is in power.
Well there's some twisted logic going on.
I'm glad you agree.
--
You will step on the night soil of many countries.
Governor Swill
2024-08-20 15:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Apparently troll Soetero does.

#NEVERtrump
Lil dwarf Rudey
2024-08-20 15:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Governor Swill
troll Soetero
Governor Swill /Rudy Canoza/Lou Bricano/J Carlson/Michael A Terrell and
a dozen other socks wrote:

Multiple death threats against Trump:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!netnews.com!s1-4.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Governor Swill <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Triumphant Trump Photo After Assassination Attempt
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <***@earthlink.com>
<***@185.151.15.160>
<ONIkO.102541$***@fx11.ams4> <***@185.151.15.190>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 55
X-Complaints-To: ***@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.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: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:38:43 -0400

Oh poor me I got shot at ...

Swill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!s1-3.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Governor Swill <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Triumphant Trump Photo After Assassination Attempt
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <***@earthlink.com>
<***@185.151.15.160>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
X-Complaints-To: ***@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.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: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:37:51 -0400


Cheer up, maybe someone else will try.

Swill

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: J Carlson <***@gmx.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.nationalism.white,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: AP Lies by Ommission About Identity of Invaders Charged with
Rape, Murder of 12-Year-Old
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:35:52 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <v5f66o$1mps9$***@dont-email.me>
References: <v54h6j$39cuk$***@dont-email.me> <v54hrs$38mfs$***@dont-email.me>
<moKcnZP3dbqUm-***@giganews.com>
<v58c4f$6squ$***@dont-email.me>
<v5df1n$1caue$***@dont-email.me> <v5edju$1hv3p$***@dont-email.me>
<***@4ax.com>
<v5erpf$1jkrf$***@dont-email.me>
<O9acnRiefIZol-***@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:35:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me;
posting-host="f3de9d0c1e618b255237332494133eec";
logging-data="1795977";
mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195k8uMNmZfnyDG9tQmsu21WqljX3bfQxM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PNoPW9d+9gKJj0fX+YCk+YFslQg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <O9acnRiefIZol-***@giganews.com>
Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.politics.immigration:383549
alt.politics.nationalism.white:10913 talk.politics.misc:1295918
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3024985
Post by Governor Swill
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to
thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
Post by Governor Swill
is an important step to getting there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That constitutes a DEATH THREAT against a former President, Rudey:


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871
18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the
Presidency
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail
or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any
letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon
the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office
of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or
knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the
President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the
order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both.
(b)The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in
this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful
candidates for the offices of President and Vice President,
respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections
held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in
accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The
phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of
President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the
order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3,
United States Code, sections 19 and 20.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 740; June 1, 1955, ch. 115, § 1, 69
Stat. 80; Pub. L. 87–829, § 1, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 956; Pub. L.
97–297, § 2, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1318; Pub. L. 103–322, title
XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

9-65.200 - Threats Against the President and Successors to the
Presidency; Threats Against Former Presidents; and Certain Other Secret
Service Protectees
The Counterterrorism Section of the National Security Division has
supervisory authority over 18 U.S.C. §§ 871 and 879 cases. As great
caution must be taken in matters relating to the security of the persons
protected by 18 U.S.C. § 871, United States Attorneys are encouraged to
consult with the Counterterrorism Section (CTS) of the National Security
Division when they have doubts on the prosecutive merit of a case. For
the same reason, dismissal of complaints under 18 U.S.C. § 871, when the
defendant is in custody under the Mental Incompetency Statutes (18
U.S.C. §§ 4244, 4246), requires approval from CTS. In other cases,
United States Attorneys must consult prior to dismissing a count
involving, or entering into any sentence commitment or other case
settlement involving a § 871 charge.


https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2024/01/phoenix-man-arrested-making-online-death-threats-against-president-and

PHOENIX –David Michael Hanson, 41, of Phoenix, was arrested on Wednesday
for making online threats against the President and Vice-President.
Hanson was charged by Federal criminal complaint on Tuesday with five
counts of Threats Against the President and Successors to the Presidency
and five counts of Interstate Communication of Threats.

The complaint alleges that in November and December of 2023, while
living in Arizona, Hanson used a social media platform to post threats
to murder the President and Vice President of the United States. On
November 19, 2023, Hanson posted online a series of threatening
statements including one that stated, “#joeAndKamala I’m asking you to
resign on Monday your alternative is death brutally murdered.” After the
U.S. Secret Service spoke to Hanson and warned him that it was a Federal
crime to post such threats, on December 23, 2023, Hanson posted another
series of similar threats aimed at the President and Vice-President.

Each count of Threats Against the President and Successors to the
Presidency carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a fine of
up to $250,000, and up to three years of supervised release. Each count
of Interstate Communication of Threats carries a maximum sentence of
five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and up to three years of
supervised release.

A complaint is simply a method by which a person is charged with
criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. An individual is
presumed innocent until evidence is presented to a jury that establishes
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The United States Secret Service is conducting the investigation in this
case. The United States Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, is
handling the prosecution.


Those can be reported here:

https://tips.fbi.gov/home

https://www.justice.gov/action-center/report-crime-or-submit-complaint

https://www.secretservice.gov/contact

https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something/reporting/california


Fellow citizens, won't you join in ending Rudey's terrorism here?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Swill
2024-08-20 21:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Well, all I can say is that if they haven't come for me by now, they aren't going to.

Now, continue to waste your time and bandwidth, motherfucker.

#NEVERtrump
Skeeter
2024-08-20 22:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Governor Swill
Well, all I can say is that if they haven't come for me by now, they aren't going to.
Now, continue to waste your time and bandwidth, motherfucker.
#NEVERtrump
Wasting bandwidth is stupid. What? Do you think we're going to run out?
NoBody
2024-08-21 10:44:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
Attila
2024-08-21 14:06:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,

What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
NoBody
2024-08-22 10:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
Attila
2024-08-22 13:57:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.

Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.

Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.

If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?

Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Skeeter
2024-08-22 14:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
What's a Foetuse?
Governor Swill
2024-08-22 17:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
+1

Kamala Harris has a resume, Donald Trump has a rap sheet.
--
#NEVERtrump
Lil dwarf Rudey
2024-08-22 18:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Governor Swill
a resume
Governor Swill /Rudy Canoza/Lou Bricano/J Carlson/Michael A Terrell and
a dozen other socks wrote:

Multiple death threats against Trump:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!netnews.com!s1-4.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Governor Swill <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Triumphant Trump Photo After Assassination Attempt
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <***@earthlink.com>
<***@185.151.15.160>
<ONIkO.102541$***@fx11.ams4> <***@185.151.15.190>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 55
X-Complaints-To: ***@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.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: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:38:43 -0400

Oh poor me I got shot at ...

Swill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!s1-3.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Governor Swill <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Triumphant Trump Photo After Assassination Attempt
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <***@earthlink.com>
<***@185.151.15.160>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
X-Complaints-To: ***@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.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: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:37:51 -0400


Cheer up, maybe someone else will try.

Swill

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: J Carlson <***@gmx.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.nationalism.white,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: AP Lies by Ommission About Identity of Invaders Charged with
Rape, Murder of 12-Year-Old
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:35:52 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <v5f66o$1mps9$***@dont-email.me>
References: <v54h6j$39cuk$***@dont-email.me> <v54hrs$38mfs$***@dont-email.me>
<moKcnZP3dbqUm-***@giganews.com>
<v58c4f$6squ$***@dont-email.me>
<v5df1n$1caue$***@dont-email.me> <v5edju$1hv3p$***@dont-email.me>
<***@4ax.com>
<v5erpf$1jkrf$***@dont-email.me>
<O9acnRiefIZol-***@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:35:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me;
posting-host="f3de9d0c1e618b255237332494133eec";
logging-data="1795977";
mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195k8uMNmZfnyDG9tQmsu21WqljX3bfQxM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PNoPW9d+9gKJj0fX+YCk+YFslQg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <O9acnRiefIZol-***@giganews.com>
Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.politics.immigration:383549
alt.politics.nationalism.white:10913 talk.politics.misc:1295918
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3024985
Post by Governor Swill
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to
thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
Post by Governor Swill
is an important step to getting there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That constitutes a DEATH THREAT against a former President, Rudey:


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871
18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the
Presidency
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail
or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any
letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon
the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office
of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or
knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the
President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the
order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both.
(b)The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in
this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful
candidates for the offices of President and Vice President,
respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections
held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in
accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The
phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of
President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the
order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3,
United States Code, sections 19 and 20.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 740; June 1, 1955, ch. 115, § 1, 69
Stat. 80; Pub. L. 87–829, § 1, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 956; Pub. L.
97–297, § 2, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1318; Pub. L. 103–322, title
XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

9-65.200 - Threats Against the President and Successors to the
Presidency; Threats Against Former Presidents; and Certain Other Secret
Service Protectees
The Counterterrorism Section of the National Security Division has
supervisory authority over 18 U.S.C. §§ 871 and 879 cases. As great
caution must be taken in matters relating to the security of the persons
protected by 18 U.S.C. § 871, United States Attorneys are encouraged to
consult with the Counterterrorism Section (CTS) of the National Security
Division when they have doubts on the prosecutive merit of a case. For
the same reason, dismissal of complaints under 18 U.S.C. § 871, when the
defendant is in custody under the Mental Incompetency Statutes (18
U.S.C. §§ 4244, 4246), requires approval from CTS. In other cases,
United States Attorneys must consult prior to dismissing a count
involving, or entering into any sentence commitment or other case
settlement involving a § 871 charge.


https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2024/01/phoenix-man-arrested-making-online-death-threats-against-president-and

PHOENIX –David Michael Hanson, 41, of Phoenix, was arrested on Wednesday
for making online threats against the President and Vice-President.
Hanson was charged by Federal criminal complaint on Tuesday with five
counts of Threats Against the President and Successors to the Presidency
and five counts of Interstate Communication of Threats.

The complaint alleges that in November and December of 2023, while
living in Arizona, Hanson used a social media platform to post threats
to murder the President and Vice President of the United States. On
November 19, 2023, Hanson posted online a series of threatening
statements including one that stated, “#joeAndKamala I’m asking you to
resign on Monday your alternative is death brutally murdered.” After the
U.S. Secret Service spoke to Hanson and warned him that it was a Federal
crime to post such threats, on December 23, 2023, Hanson posted another
series of similar threats aimed at the President and Vice-President.

Each count of Threats Against the President and Successors to the
Presidency carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a fine of
up to $250,000, and up to three years of supervised release. Each count
of Interstate Communication of Threats carries a maximum sentence of
five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and up to three years of
supervised release.

A complaint is simply a method by which a person is charged with
criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. An individual is
presumed innocent until evidence is presented to a jury that establishes
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The United States Secret Service is conducting the investigation in this
case. The United States Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, is
handling the prosecution.


Those can be reported here:

https://tips.fbi.gov/home

https://www.justice.gov/action-center/report-crime-or-submit-complaint

https://www.secretservice.gov/contact

https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something/reporting/california


Fellow citizens, won't you join in ending Rudey's terrorism here?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NoBody
2024-08-23 10:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
Attila
2024-08-23 12:27:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.

I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Skeeter
2024-08-23 13:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Attila
2024-08-23 20:04:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
NoBody
2024-08-24 12:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...

You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it. At
least admit what you stand for.
Attila
2024-08-24 22:05:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:24:01 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it. At
least admit what you stand for.
All babies have been born alive.

I stand for exactly what I said.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
NoBody
2024-08-25 13:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:24:01 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it. At
least admit what you stand for.
All babies have been born alive.
So when an abortion results in a child that is showing signs of life,
you would demand they treat it, right?
Post by Attila
I stand for exactly what I said.
Yes you do. You have "stood by" your definition of calling a baby
whatever you want it to mean.
Attila
2024-08-25 16:44:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:43:57 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:24:01 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it. At
least admit what you stand for.
All babies have been born alive.
So when an abortion results in a child that is showing signs of life,
you would demand they treat it, right?
Post by Attila
I stand for exactly what I said.
Yes you do. You have "stood by" your definition of calling a baby
whatever you want it to mean.
That almost never happens, but if it is born alive it is a
person with the rights and legal protection of any person.

You seem to think it is a frequent occurrence.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
NoBody
2024-08-26 10:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:43:57 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:24:01 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it. At
least admit what you stand for.
All babies have been born alive.
So when an abortion results in a child that is showing signs of life,
you would demand they treat it, right?
Post by Attila
I stand for exactly what I said.
Yes you do. You have "stood by" your definition of calling a baby
whatever you want it to mean.
That almost never happens, but if it is born alive it is a
person with the rights and legal protection of any person.
I suspect it happens far more frequently than you know.
Post by Attila
You seem to think it is a frequent occurrence.
Your response to my question was rather weak. In these cases, is it
mandatory to save the life of the child if possible? It's a simple
question.
Attila
2024-08-26 12:00:01 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 06:56:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:43:57 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:24:01 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it. At
least admit what you stand for.
All babies have been born alive.
So when an abortion results in a child that is showing signs of life,
you would demand they treat it, right?
Post by Attila
I stand for exactly what I said.
Yes you do. You have "stood by" your definition of calling a baby
whatever you want it to mean.
That almost never happens, but if it is born alive it is a
person with the rights and legal protection of any person.
I suspect it happens far more frequently than you know.
What you suspect is irrelevant. The facts show most
abortions occur very early and very few occur during late
term and most of these are based upon medical necessary.

The earlier the procedure the less impact it has on the
woman so only an idiot who could find an equal idiot doctor
would have a late term abortion by choice. It would be
easier on her to just give birth unless there was a medical
reason involved.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
You seem to think it is a frequent occurrence.
Your response to my question was rather weak. In these cases, is it
mandatory to save the life of the child if possible? It's a simple
question.
The delineation is very clear. After live birth there is an
individual with rights. Before live birth there is no such
individual. No "child" yet exists.

For medical reasons at some point it would be much safer and
easier for the woman to complete the pregnancy than to abort
it. All of the gruesomely described late term abortions are
almost always presented and pure anti-abortion propaganda
with nothing to show they are not simply made up.

I am sure there are doctors who are willing to do just about
anything if the price is right but that is more of a medical
legal and ethics situation than a pro-choice situation.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
NoBody
2024-08-27 10:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 06:56:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:43:57 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:24:01 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it. At
least admit what you stand for.
All babies have been born alive.
So when an abortion results in a child that is showing signs of life,
you would demand they treat it, right?
Post by Attila
I stand for exactly what I said.
Yes you do. You have "stood by" your definition of calling a baby
whatever you want it to mean.
That almost never happens, but if it is born alive it is a
person with the rights and legal protection of any person.
I suspect it happens far more frequently than you know.
What you suspect is irrelevant. The facts show most
abortions occur very early and very few occur during late
term and most of these are based upon medical necessary.
Goal post moving noted.
Post by Attila
The earlier the procedure the less impact it has on the
woman so only an idiot who could find an equal idiot doctor
would have a late term abortion by choice. It would be
easier on her to just give birth unless there was a medical
reason involved.
Kill em early eh?
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
You seem to think it is a frequent occurrence.
Your response to my question was rather weak. In these cases, is it
mandatory to save the life of the child if possible? It's a simple
question.
The delineation is very clear. After live birth there is an
individual with rights. Before live birth there is no such
individual. No "child" yet exists.
What's your delineation? Are you one of those who try to tell us that
until the baby is fully out of the womb and cord snipped and
breathing, it's not a baby?
Post by Attila
For medical reasons at some point it would be much safer and
easier for the woman to complete the pregnancy than to abort
it. All of the gruesomely described late term abortions are
almost always presented and pure anti-abortion propaganda
with nothing to show they are not simply made up.
I am sure there are doctors who are willing to do just about
anything if the price is right but that is more of a medical
legal and ethics situation than a pro-choice situation.
You manage to not answer the question put to you. Typical of those
who think killing babies is ok as long as the mother doesn't want it.
Attila
2024-08-27 19:46:29 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 06:55:11 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 06:56:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:43:57 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:24:01 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it. At
least admit what you stand for.
All babies have been born alive.
So when an abortion results in a child that is showing signs of life,
you would demand they treat it, right?
Post by Attila
I stand for exactly what I said.
Yes you do. You have "stood by" your definition of calling a baby
whatever you want it to mean.
That almost never happens, but if it is born alive it is a
person with the rights and legal protection of any person.
I suspect it happens far more frequently than you know.
What you suspect is irrelevant. The facts show most
abortions occur very early and very few occur during late
term and most of these are based upon medical necessary.
Goal post moving noted.
Nonsense, as we both know. Your "suspect" is still
irrelevant. It is hardly fact.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
The earlier the procedure the less impact it has on the
woman so only an idiot who could find an equal idiot doctor
would have a late term abortion by choice. It would be
easier on her to just give birth unless there was a medical
reason involved.
Kill em early eh?
Terminate the process early to reduce the physical impact on
the woman involved.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
You seem to think it is a frequent occurrence.
Your response to my question was rather weak. In these cases, is it
mandatory to save the life of the child if possible? It's a simple
question.
The delineation is very clear. After live birth there is an
individual with rights. Before live birth there is no such
individual. No "child" yet exists.
What's your delineation? Are you one of those who try to tell us that
until the baby is fully out of the womb and cord snipped and
breathing, it's not a baby?
Exactly. That was the historical definition.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
For medical reasons at some point it would be much safer and
easier for the woman to complete the pregnancy than to abort
it. All of the gruesomely described late term abortions are
almost always presented and pure anti-abortion propaganda
with nothing to show they are not simply made up.
I am sure there are doctors who are willing to do just about
anything if the price is right but that is more of a medical
legal and ethics situation than a pro-choice situation.
You manage to not answer the question put to you. Typical of those
who think killing babies is ok as long as the mother doesn't want it.
All babies have been born alive.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
NoBody
2024-08-28 11:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 06:55:11 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 06:56:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:43:57 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:24:01 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it. At
least admit what you stand for.
All babies have been born alive.
So when an abortion results in a child that is showing signs of life,
you would demand they treat it, right?
Post by Attila
I stand for exactly what I said.
Yes you do. You have "stood by" your definition of calling a baby
whatever you want it to mean.
That almost never happens, but if it is born alive it is a
person with the rights and legal protection of any person.
I suspect it happens far more frequently than you know.
What you suspect is irrelevant. The facts show most
abortions occur very early and very few occur during late
term and most of these are based upon medical necessary.
Goal post moving noted.
Nonsense, as we both know. Your "suspect" is still
irrelevant. It is hardly fact.
The goalpost moving is attempting to dismiss the subject because of
your unproven premise. Even then it's irrelevent to the subject.
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
The earlier the procedure the less impact it has on the
woman so only an idiot who could find an equal idiot doctor
would have a late term abortion by choice. It would be
easier on her to just give birth unless there was a medical
reason involved.
Kill em early eh?
Terminate the process early to reduce the physical impact on
the woman involved.
Except for the deaths of the babies involved. Lot of phyiscal impact
there.

Your matter of fact attitude towards the destruction of human life is
sickening.
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
You seem to think it is a frequent occurrence.
Your response to my question was rather weak. In these cases, is it
mandatory to save the life of the child if possible? It's a simple
question.
The delineation is very clear. After live birth there is an
individual with rights. Before live birth there is no such
individual. No "child" yet exists.
What's your delineation? Are you one of those who try to tell us that
until the baby is fully out of the womb and cord snipped and
breathing, it's not a baby?
Exactly. That was the historical definition.
Only by the pro-abortion crowd. That's how we ended up with partial
birth abortion.
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
For medical reasons at some point it would be much safer and
easier for the woman to complete the pregnancy than to abort
it. All of the gruesomely described late term abortions are
almost always presented and pure anti-abortion propaganda
with nothing to show they are not simply made up.
I am sure there are doctors who are willing to do just about
anything if the price is right but that is more of a medical
legal and ethics situation than a pro-choice situation.
You manage to not answer the question put to you. Typical of those
who think killing babies is ok as long as the mother doesn't want it.
All babies have been born alive.
You again refuse to answer the question, likely because you know you
can't. I doubt I'll be wasting much more time with you.
Attila
2024-08-28 12:09:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 07:10:40 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 06:55:11 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 06:56:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:43:57 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:24:01 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it. At
least admit what you stand for.
All babies have been born alive.
So when an abortion results in a child that is showing signs of life,
you would demand they treat it, right?
Post by Attila
I stand for exactly what I said.
Yes you do. You have "stood by" your definition of calling a baby
whatever you want it to mean.
That almost never happens, but if it is born alive it is a
person with the rights and legal protection of any person.
I suspect it happens far more frequently than you know.
What you suspect is irrelevant. The facts show most
abortions occur very early and very few occur during late
term and most of these are based upon medical necessary.
Goal post moving noted.
Nonsense, as we both know. Your "suspect" is still
irrelevant. It is hardly fact.
The goalpost moving is attempting to dismiss the subject because of
your unproven premise. Even then it's irrelevent to the subject.
I am not moving any goalpost. I am stating what you may
"suspect" is irrelevant since you can "suspect" anything
that will support your position. Suspect is not fact.

The actual timeline along with other facts can be see at:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/06/21/abortion-procedures/
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
The earlier the procedure the less impact it has on the
woman so only an idiot who could find an equal idiot doctor
would have a late term abortion by choice. It would be
easier on her to just give birth unless there was a medical
reason involved.
Kill em early eh?
Terminate the process early to reduce the physical impact on
the woman involved.
Except for the deaths of the babies involved. Lot of phyiscal impact
there.
All babies have been born alive.
Post by NoBody
Your matter of fact attitude towards the destruction of human life is
sickening.
Where is the requirement that every possible individual must
exist?

Your intrusion into a private situation involving people you
don't even know is beyond arrogant.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
You seem to think it is a frequent occurrence.
Your response to my question was rather weak. In these cases, is it
mandatory to save the life of the child if possible? It's a simple
question.
The delineation is very clear. After live birth there is an
individual with rights. Before live birth there is no such
individual. No "child" yet exists.
What's your delineation? Are you one of those who try to tell us that
until the baby is fully out of the womb and cord snipped and
breathing, it's not a baby?
Exactly. That was the historical definition.
Only by the pro-abortion crowd. That's how we ended up with partial
birth abortion.
It usually happens when there is an inept doctor involved.
Only 1% of abortions occur beyond 20 weeks.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
For medical reasons at some point it would be much safer and
easier for the woman to complete the pregnancy than to abort
it. All of the gruesomely described late term abortions are
almost always presented and pure anti-abortion propaganda
with nothing to show they are not simply made up.
I am sure there are doctors who are willing to do just about
anything if the price is right but that is more of a medical
legal and ethics situation than a pro-choice situation.
You manage to not answer the question put to you. Typical of those
who think killing babies is ok as long as the mother doesn't want it.
All babies have been born alive.
You again refuse to answer the question, likely because you know you
can't. I doubt I'll be wasting much more time with you.
Your question is meaningless since abortions can only occur
before birth and all babies have been born alive. No babies
are involved in an abortion.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Chris Engstrom
2024-08-28 14:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 06:55:11 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 06:56:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:43:57 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:24:01 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it. At
least admit what you stand for.
All babies have been born alive.
So when an abortion results in a child that is showing signs of life,
you would demand they treat it, right?
Post by Attila
I stand for exactly what I said.
Yes you do. You have "stood by" your definition of calling a baby
whatever you want it to mean.
That almost never happens, but if it is born alive it is a
person with the rights and legal protection of any person.
I suspect it happens far more frequently than you know.
What you suspect is irrelevant. The facts show most
abortions occur very early and very few occur during late
term and most of these are based upon medical necessary.
Goal post moving noted.
Nonsense, as we both know. Your "suspect" is still
irrelevant. It is hardly fact.
The goalpost moving is attempting to dismiss the subject because of
your unproven premise. Even then it's irrelevent to the subject.
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
The earlier the procedure the less impact it has on the
woman so only an idiot who could find an equal idiot doctor
would have a late term abortion by choice. It would be
easier on her to just give birth unless there was a medical
reason involved.
Kill em early eh?
Terminate the process early to reduce the physical impact on
the woman involved.
Except for the deaths of the babies involved. Lot of phyiscal impact
there.
Your matter of fact attitude towards the destruction of human life is
sickening.
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
You seem to think it is a frequent occurrence.
Your response to my question was rather weak. In these cases, is it
mandatory to save the life of the child if possible? It's a simple
question.
The delineation is very clear. After live birth there is an
individual with rights. Before live birth there is no such
individual. No "child" yet exists.
What's your delineation? Are you one of those who try to tell us that
until the baby is fully out of the womb and cord snipped and
breathing, it's not a baby?
Exactly. That was the historical definition.
Only by the pro-abortion crowd. That's how we ended up with partial
birth abortion.
The subject is the killing of organisms you consider to be "babies." You're
caught in a trap and you don't know how to extricate yourself, so you start
blabbering about "change of topic." There is no change of topic.
Chris Engstrom
2024-08-28 15:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 06:55:11 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 06:56:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:43:57 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:24:01 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it. At
least admit what you stand for.
All babies have been born alive.
So when an abortion results in a child that is showing signs of life,
you would demand they treat it, right?
Post by Attila
I stand for exactly what I said.
Yes you do. You have "stood by" your definition of calling a baby
whatever you want it to mean.
That almost never happens, but if it is born alive it is a
person with the rights and legal protection of any person.
I suspect it happens far more frequently than you know.
What you suspect is irrelevant. The facts show most
abortions occur very early and very few occur during late
term and most of these are based upon medical necessary.
Goal post moving noted.
Nonsense, as we both know. Your "suspect" is still
irrelevant. It is hardly fact.
The goalpost moving is attempting to dismiss the subject because of
your unproven premise.
There is no "goalpost moving" being attempted. You're impaled on the horns of a
dilemma, and you don't have a clue how to get off. If a developing fetus is a
"baby," and if a not-yet-implanted viable embryo is a "baby," and if aborting a
fetus is murder, then destroying the embryo is murder.

The subject or topic is the murder of "babies." That's the topic. Stay on it.
Maureen Dowd
2024-08-26 15:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it.
A fetus is not a baby.
Skeeter
2024-08-26 16:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maureen Dowd
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it.
A fetus is not a baby.
Tell that to most mothers. Don't we wish your mother thought like that.
Mitchell Holman
2024-08-26 18:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Maureen Dowd
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 10:06:18 -0400, Attila
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 22:49:41 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a
foetus an "unborn human being" in public information
leaflets ahead of a statewide vote on abortion in
November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the
phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from
manufacturing yet one more argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetu
s
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term
used by those Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a
babie when you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with
calling it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to
call it what it is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the
primary one but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby
which is typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it.
A fetus is not a baby.
Tell that to most mothers.
What would you know about "most mothers"?
Governor Swill
2024-08-26 19:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Skeeter
Post by Maureen Dowd
A fetus is not a baby.
Tell that to most mothers.
What would you know about "most mothers"?
"Paw, junior done said his first half word."
"Half word? What's a half word?"
"I dropped him on his haid an' he said, "MOTHER!"

The tiger whisperer
<https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cgb40TpjDL8>

--
#NEVERtrump
Chris Ahlstrom
2024-08-26 20:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Skeeter
Post by Maureen Dowd
A fetus is not a baby.
Tell that to most mothers.
The thing is, many aspects of human life are defined, practically, by custom or
law.

For example, the death penalty and service in war... killing human beings
generally allowed.

Or the Spartans:

The “well-built and sturdy” children were allowed to live, while those who
were deemed unhealthy or deformed were left at the foot of a mountain to
die. At age seven, Spartan boys were turned over by their parents to the
state, where they were organized into companies that lived, studied and
trained together.
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Mitchell Holman
What would you know about "most mothers"?
"Paw, junior done said his first half word."
"Half word? What's a half word?"
"I dropped him on his haid an' he said, "MOTHER!"
--
Long life is in store for you.
Skeeter
2024-08-26 21:09:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@185.151.15.190>, ***@aol.com
says...
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Skeeter
Post by Maureen Dowd
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 10:06:18 -0400, Attila
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 22:49:41 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a
foetus an "unborn human being" in public information
leaflets ahead of a statewide vote on abortion in
November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the
phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from
manufacturing yet one more argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetu
s
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term
used by those Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a
babie when you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with
calling it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to
call it what it is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the
primary one but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby
which is typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it.
A fetus is not a baby.
Tell that to most mothers.
What would you know about "most mothers"?
Obviously you didn't know yours.
NoBody
2024-08-27 10:57:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 10:39:11 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Maureen Dowd
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
Not at all. I support the right of a woman to choose
whether or not to have a baby.
Which means.....drumroll please...
You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it.
A fetus is not a baby.
Tell that to most mothers. Don't we wish your mother thought like that.
It's always a baby - unless the woman doesn't
NoBody
2024-08-24 12:22:21 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 07:26:36 -0600, Skeeter
Post by Skeeter
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
You approve of killing babies.
His answer: I'll ignore the dictionary and claim a baby "is a
generalized term".
Governor Swill
2024-08-23 17:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Other than in an abortion context does anyone actually
consider a fetus to be a baby? Or is a fetus a special case
of an overused general purpose term. It is simply a generic
term used for any immature member of any species.
I've never heard a wife tell her husband "I've having a fetus".
Irrelevant. The terms involved are generalized terms used
by the general public and are vague and non-specific. Two
doctors would have an entirely different conversation.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Some societies in the past did not name a baby or consider
it to be a member of the society due to the high infant
mortality until it had survived for a year.
Oh look at where you're going...
Where do you think I am going? I am simply pointing out the
opposite extreme - you consider a fetus a person from
conception while others commonly considered it a person only
after it survived for a year. To cut off one of your
obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such
societies considered killing a child before it reached the
age to be recognized as a tribal member.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply
she will give birth to a doughnut?
<eyeroll>
Post by Attila
Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the
woman and her doctor only.
You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is
typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.
I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or terminate it. How and why she would make
her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that
decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either
option.
I consider it none of my business and something that should
be strictly between her and her doctor.
Walz trope. "Make your own choices and mind your own, damned business when I
make mine."

--
#NEVERtrump
Lil dwarf Rudey
2024-08-23 18:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Governor Swill
Walz trope.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Canoza wrote:

I might go to some swing state that is very close in the polls, and try
to become a mole saboteur in the Trump campaign. That sound like fun!

MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Walz
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
References: <v9ii37$ghmu$***@dont-email.me> <DS5vO.397441$***@fx14.iad>
<***@4ax.com>
<F4pvO.377409$***@fx11.iad> <v9ldna$11k49$***@dont-email.me>
<hLrvO.40347$***@fx43.iad> <v9lhsh$122sj$***@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Rudy Canoza <***@hendrie.con>
In-Reply-To: <v9lhsh$122sj$***@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <tZrvO.40349$***@fx43.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse(at)newshosting.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:41:29 UTC
Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price!
www.newshosting.com
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 11:41:28 -0700

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

..adding in electoral fraud to your public death threats...


YOUR DEATH THREATS AGAINST TRUMP ARE WELL-DOCUMENTED:


Governor Swill /Rudy Canoza/Lou Bricano/J Carlson/Michael A Terrell/Al
Feldhauser/Malte Runz and a dozen other socks wrote:

Multiple death threats against Trump:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!netnews.com!s1-4.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Governor Swill <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Triumphant Trump Photo After Assassination Attempt
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <***@earthlink.com>
<***@185.151.15.160>
<ONIkO.102541$***@fx11.ams4> <***@185.151.15.190>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 55
X-Complaints-To: ***@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.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: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:38:43 -0400

Oh poor me I got shot at ...

Swill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!s1-3.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Governor Swill <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Triumphant Trump Photo After Assassination Attempt
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <***@earthlink.com>
<***@185.151.15.160>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
X-Complaints-To: ***@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.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: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:37:51 -0400


Cheer up, maybe someone else will try.

Swill

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: J Carlson <***@gmx.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.nationalism.white,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: AP Lies by Ommission About Identity of Invaders Charged with
Rape, Murder of 12-Year-Old
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:35:52 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <v5f66o$1mps9$***@dont-email.me>
References: <v54h6j$39cuk$***@dont-email.me> <v54hrs$38mfs$***@dont-email.me>
<moKcnZP3dbqUm-***@giganews.com>
<v58c4f$6squ$***@dont-email.me>
<v5df1n$1caue$***@dont-email.me> <v5edju$1hv3p$***@dont-email.me>
<***@4ax.com>
<v5erpf$1jkrf$***@dont-email.me>
<O9acnRiefIZol-***@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:35:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me;
posting-host="f3de9d0c1e618b255237332494133eec";
logging-data="1795977";
mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195k8uMNmZfnyDG9tQmsu21WqljX3bfQxM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PNoPW9d+9gKJj0fX+YCk+YFslQg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <O9acnRiefIZol-***@giganews.com>
Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.politics.immigration:383549
alt.politics.nationalism.white:10913 talk.politics.misc:1295918
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3024985
Post by Governor Swill
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to
thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
Post by Governor Swill
is an important step to getting there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That constitutes a DEATH THREAT against a former President, Rudey:


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871
18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the
Presidency
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail
or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any
letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon
the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office
of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or
knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the
President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the
order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both.
(b)The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in
this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful
candidates for the offices of President and Vice President,
respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections
held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in
accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The
phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of
President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the
order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3,
United States Code, sections 19 and 20.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 740; June 1, 1955, ch. 115, § 1, 69
Stat. 80; Pub. L. 87–829, § 1, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 956; Pub. L.
97–297, § 2, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1318; Pub. L. 103–322, title
XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

9-65.200 - Threats Against the President and Successors to the
Presidency; Threats Against Former Presidents; and Certain Other Secret
Service Protectees
The Counterterrorism Section of the National Security Division has
supervisory authority over 18 U.S.C. §§ 871 and 879 cases. As great
caution must be taken in matters relating to the security of the persons
protected by 18 U.S.C. § 871, United States Attorneys are encouraged to
consult with the Counterterrorism Section (CTS) of the National Security
Division when they have doubts on the prosecutive merit of a case. For
the same reason, dismissal of complaints under 18 U.S.C. § 871, when the
defendant is in custody under the Mental Incompetency Statutes (18
U.S.C. §§ 4244, 4246), requires approval from CTS. In other cases,
United States Attorneys must consult prior to dismissing a count
involving, or entering into any sentence commitment or other case
settlement involving a § 871 charge.


https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2024/01/phoenix-man-arrested-making-online-death-threats-against-president-and

PHOENIX –David Michael Hanson, 41, of Phoenix, was arrested on Wednesday
for making online threats against the President and Vice-President.
Hanson was charged by Federal criminal complaint on Tuesday with five
counts of Threats Against the President and Successors to the Presidency
and five counts of Interstate Communication of Threats.

The complaint alleges that in November and December of 2023, while
living in Arizona, Hanson used a social media platform to post threats
to murder the President and Vice President of the United States. On
November 19, 2023, Hanson posted online a series of threatening
statements including one that stated, “#joeAndKamala I’m asking you to
resign on Monday your alternative is death brutally murdered.” After the
U.S. Secret Service spoke to Hanson and warned him that it was a Federal
crime to post such threats, on December 23, 2023, Hanson posted another
series of similar threats aimed at the President and Vice-President.

Each count of Threats Against the President and Successors to the
Presidency carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a fine of
up to $250,000, and up to three years of supervised release. Each count
of Interstate Communication of Threats carries a maximum sentence of
five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and up to three years of
supervised release.

A complaint is simply a method by which a person is charged with
criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. An individual is
presumed innocent until evidence is presented to a jury that establishes
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The United States Secret Service is conducting the investigation in this
case. The United States Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, is
handling the prosecution.


Those can be reported here:

https://tips.fbi.gov/home

https://www.justice.gov/action-center/report-crime-or-submit-complaint

https://www.secretservice.gov/contact

https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something/reporting/california


Fellow citizens, won't you join in ending Rudey's terrorism here?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedidos
2024-08-23 20:08:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <vaal1l$10l85$***@dont-email.me>
Lil dwarf Rudey <***@invalid.org> wrote:

Flush.
NoBody
2024-08-24 12:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.

You lose.
Attila
2024-08-24 22:06:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:20:53 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.
You lose.
No, the only loser is the woman involved.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
NoBody
2024-08-25 13:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:20:53 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.
You lose.
No, the only loser is the woman involved.
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by their mothers
every time an abortion happens.

You have a serious logic flow problem.
Attila
2024-08-25 16:47:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:45:16 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:20:53 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.
You lose.
No, the only loser is the woman involved.
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by their mothers
every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
Post by NoBody
You have a serious logic flow problem.
Not at all. Once a baby is born the pregnancy is concluded
and cannot be terminated or interrupted. Abortion pertains
to the pregnancy, which no longer exists.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Just Wondering
2024-08-25 23:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Attila
2024-08-26 07:42:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?

All babies have been born alive.

Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.

Have you?
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
NoBody
2024-08-26 10:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
You're dodging.
Post by Attila
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
You've gone from dodging to dancing.
Attila
2024-08-26 12:12:35 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 06:53:14 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
You're dodging.
Post by Attila
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
You've gone from dodging to dancing.
You are continuing your avoidance. Do you have a problem in
answering questions?
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
NoBody
2024-08-27 11:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 06:53:14 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
You're dodging.
Post by Attila
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
You've gone from dodging to dancing.
You are continuing your avoidance. Do you have a problem in
answering questions?
Your question has no relevance to the discussion in that it's a
diversion which is why it doesn't get an answer. Your ridiculous
statement that no babies are killed in an abortion also shows you are
completely disconnected from reality.
Attila
2024-08-27 19:52:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 07:04:35 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 06:53:14 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
You're dodging.
Post by Attila
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
You've gone from dodging to dancing.
You are continuing your avoidance. Do you have a problem in
answering questions?
Your question has no relevance to the discussion in that it's a
diversion which is why it doesn't get an answer.
That is just an excuse for not answering.
Post by NoBody
Your ridiculous
statement that no babies are killed in an abortion also shows you are
completely disconnected from reality.
It is not ridiculous. All babies have been born alive.
Without live birth there was no baby, just a fetus or a
corpse.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Just Wondering
2024-08-26 19:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
Attila
2024-08-26 20:35:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
NoBody
2024-08-27 11:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Only to those who favor killing them before delivery. I know of no
one who said "we're having a fetus".

<eyeroll>
Attila
2024-08-27 19:58:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 07:05:58 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Only to those who favor killing them before delivery. I know of no
one who said "we're having a fetus".
I do not deny the term 'baby' is a generalized word used as
a vague label to indicate a person who has parents, which is
everyone. It is a generalization that is used in many
cases, including by a 90 year old man or woman speaking of a
70 year old child.

It is a favorite of the anti-choice faction because it pulls
up a mental picture of a perfect baby such as is found in
advertising therefore it is a strong propaganda.tool.

If a woman says she has a bun in the oven is she expecting
to give birth to a doughnut?
Post by NoBody
<eyeroll>
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Governor Swill
2024-08-27 23:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven is she expecting
to give birth to a doughnut?
Donuts are fried, silly. "A bun in the oven" is a cinnamon roll.

"RFK Jr says that Trump told him he wants to cut off all aid to Ukraine because
“we could use that money back here in the United States.”"
<https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1827137557995421942>



--
#NEVERtrump
NoBody
2024-08-28 11:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 07:05:58 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Only to those who favor killing them before delivery. I know of no
one who said "we're having a fetus".
I do not deny the term 'baby' is a generalized word used as
a vague label to indicate a person who has parents, which is
everyone. It is a generalization that is used in many
cases, including by a 90 year old man or woman speaking of a
70 year old child.
It is a favorite of the anti-choice faction because it pulls
up a mental picture of a perfect baby such as is found in
advertising therefore it is a strong propaganda.tool.
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven is she expecting
to give birth to a doughnut?
You took three paragraphs to absolutely nothing.
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
<eyeroll>
x2
Attila
2024-08-28 12:13:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 07:12:27 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 07:05:58 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Only to those who favor killing them before delivery. I know of no
one who said "we're having a fetus".
I do not deny the term 'baby' is a generalized word used as
a vague label to indicate a person who has parents, which is
everyone. It is a generalization that is used in many
cases, including by a 90 year old man or woman speaking of a
70 year old child.
It is a favorite of the anti-choice faction because it pulls
up a mental picture of a perfect baby such as is found in
advertising therefore it is a strong propaganda.tool.
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven is she expecting
to give birth to a doughnut?
You took three paragraphs to absolutely nothing.
In your opinion, which is worth exactly one opinion. Just
about nothing.

But it appears your only other option would be to not answer
at all.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Chris Engstrom
2024-08-28 15:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 07:05:58 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Only to those who favor killing them before delivery. I know of no
one who said "we're having a fetus".
I do not deny the term 'baby' is a generalized word used as
a vague label to indicate a person who has parents, which is
everyone. It is a generalization that is used in many
cases, including by a 90 year old man or woman speaking of a
70 year old child.
It is a favorite of the anti-choice faction because it pulls
up a mental picture of a perfect baby such as is found in
advertising therefore it is a strong propaganda.tool.
If a woman says she has a bun in the oven is she expecting
to give birth to a doughnut?
You took three paragraphs to absolutely nothing.
No, he pinned you again.

Just Wondering
2024-08-27 18:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
Attila
2024-08-27 20:03:53 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:35:03 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
The laws involving a fetus and a born child prove you wrong.
After birth a child can inherit, be a tax deduction, be
counted in a census, own property, be a citizen under the
proper laws, and need a passport, again under certain laws
in certain locations among other things. None of this can
apply to a fetus.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Just Wondering
2024-08-27 21:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:35:03 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
The laws involving a fetus and a born child prove you wrong.
After birth a child can inherit, be a tax deduction, be
counted in a census, own property, be a citizen under the
proper laws, and need a passport, again under certain laws
in certain locations among other things. None of this can
apply to a fetus.
There's your problem. You write of statutes. I speak of
biological reality.
Governor Swill
2024-08-27 23:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
The laws involving a fetus and a born child prove you wrong.
After birth a child can inherit, be a tax deduction, be
counted in a census, own property, be a citizen under the
proper laws, and need a passport, again under certain laws
in certain locations among other things. None of this can
apply to a fetus.
There's your problem. You write of statutes. I speak of
biological reality.
You're speaking of religious fantasy.

Recent aid pledges:
Lithuania is adding air defense systems and 5,000 drones before winter to their
support pledges.
Netherlands to donate advanced mobile drone detection radars to Ukraine.
US has announced a 125M package of ammo and equipment. Tows, Javelins and
HIMARS ammo.
115 Ukrainians swapped in most recent prisoner exchange.
Jake Broe/NAFO Fundraiser status: After six days, they have over 800,000
towards their goal of a million.
Donate here:
<https://help99.webflow.io/patches/jake-broe---1000-days-of-war-campaign>
--
#NEVERtrump
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-08-28 00:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:35:03 -0600, Just Wondering
{snip}
Post by Attila
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by Just Wondering
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that.  The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence.  Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
The laws involving a fetus and a born child prove you wrong.
After birth a child can inherit, be a tax deduction, be
counted in a census, own property, be a citizen under the
proper laws, and need a passport, again under certain laws
in certain locations among other things.  None of this can
apply to a fetus.
There's your problem.  You write of statutes.  I speak of
biological reality.
There is no "biological reality" about whether a fetus is a person. And
personhood, not "human life" or "unborn human" is the debate.
Attila
2024-08-28 05:41:12 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:05:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:35:03 -0600, Just Wondering
{snip}
Post by Attila
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by Just Wondering
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that.  The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence.  Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
The laws involving a fetus and a born child prove you wrong.
After birth a child can inherit, be a tax deduction, be
counted in a census, own property, be a citizen under the
proper laws, and need a passport, again under certain laws
in certain locations among other things.  None of this can
apply to a fetus.
There's your problem.  You write of statutes.  I speak of
biological reality.
There is no "biological reality" about whether a fetus is a person. And
personhood, not "human life" or "unborn human" is the debate.
And that is a socio/legal determination not involving
science or medicine.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
NoBody
2024-08-28 11:15:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 17:05:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:35:03 -0600, Just Wondering
{snip}
Post by Attila
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by Just Wondering
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that.  The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence.  Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
The laws involving a fetus and a born child prove you wrong.
After birth a child can inherit, be a tax deduction, be
counted in a census, own property, be a citizen under the
proper laws, and need a passport, again under certain laws
in certain locations among other things.  None of this can
apply to a fetus.
There's your problem.  You write of statutes.  I speak of
biological reality.
There is no "biological reality" about whether a fetus is a person. And
personhood, not "human life" or "unborn human" is the debate.
Actually you avoided the use of the term "baby" which is the term
we've been discussing from the beginning. Why is that?
Attila
2024-08-28 00:15:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:11:39 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:35:03 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
The laws involving a fetus and a born child prove you wrong.
After birth a child can inherit, be a tax deduction, be
counted in a census, own property, be a citizen under the
proper laws, and need a passport, again under certain laws
in certain locations among other things. None of this can
apply to a fetus.
There's your problem. You write of statutes. I speak of
biological reality.
The language we use to describe pregnancy and the developing
embryo or fetus is important. Unfortunately, language has
become part of the fight over access to abortion. Media
outlets have put out guidance for their journalists on how
to use certain terms when reporting on abortion, noting that
language can be manipulated for political gain and not
medical accuracy

The Clue Pregnancy Mode uses medically accurate terminology
when referring to embryos, fetuses (feti), and infants, but
you can choose to use the language that makes sense for you
when talking about your pregnancy. Some people may choose to
call their embryo or fetus a “baby” because it helps them
feel more bonded, while other people may prefer the more
scientific language. Feel free to let people know what terms
you would like them to use in reference to your pregnancy.

https://helloclue.com/articles/pregnancy-birth-and-postpartum/what-is-the-difference-between-an-embryo-a-fetus-and-a-baby#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20fetus%3F,and%20tissues%20will%20be%20maturing.

Biological reality uses biological terms to describe the
stages of development involved. The word "baby" is not a
biological term.

Society recognizes those stages through the laws it enacts.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Chris Ahlstrom
2024-08-28 00:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
There's your problem. You write of statutes. I speak of
biological reality.
:-D
--
The notes blatted skyward as they rose over the Canada geese, feathered
rumps mooning the day, webbed appendages frantically pedaling unseen
bicycles in their search for sustenance, driven by cruel Nature's maxim,
'Ya wanna eat, ya gotta work,' and at last I knew Pittsburgh.
-- Winning sentence, 1987 Bulwer-Lytton bad fiction contest.
NoBody
2024-08-28 11:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:35:03 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
The laws involving a fetus and a born child prove you wrong.
After birth a child can inherit, be a tax deduction, be
counted in a census, own property, be a citizen under the
proper laws, and need a passport, again under certain laws
in certain locations among other things. None of this can
apply to a fetus.
There's your problem. You write of statutes. I speak of
biological reality.
Ever notice how his responses always involve swerving into completely
different topics?
Attila
2024-08-28 12:15:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 07:14:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:35:03 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
The laws involving a fetus and a born child prove you wrong.
After birth a child can inherit, be a tax deduction, be
counted in a census, own property, be a citizen under the
proper laws, and need a passport, again under certain laws
in certain locations among other things. None of this can
apply to a fetus.
There's your problem. You write of statutes. I speak of
biological reality.
Ever notice how his responses always involve swerving into completely
different topics?
Do you always use that excuse to avoid addressing the post
involved?
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Governor Swill
2024-08-28 14:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 07:14:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:35:03 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
The laws involving a fetus and a born child prove you wrong.
After birth a child can inherit, be a tax deduction, be
counted in a census, own property, be a citizen under the
proper laws, and need a passport, again under certain laws
in certain locations among other things. None of this can
apply to a fetus.
There's your problem. You write of statutes. I speak of
biological reality.
Ever notice how his responses always involve swerving into completely
different topics?
Do you always use that excuse to avoid addressing the post
involved?
Yes. Yes she does. Meet Kremlin Girl, the Russian troll with a dozen different
nyms.

You'll know you've won when, ten minutes after she asks you a question, she'll
post, "And Atilla has fled."

--
"Of all the things that I hated about my childhood, nothing
compared to the revolving door of father figures." -- JD Vance

#NEVERtrump
NoBody
2024-08-28 11:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
Apparently Atilla thinks if he insists something is true it must be...
Attila
2024-08-28 12:18:09 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 07:13:19 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
Apparently Atilla thinks if he insists something is true it must be...
I can support my position with fact.

Where can the definition that a fetus is a baby be found?
Please be specific.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Governor Swill
2024-08-28 14:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 07:13:19 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:48:21 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:21:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by
their mothers every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
https://www.hli.org/resources/people-who-survived-abortion/
Obviously there was an attempted abortion which failed. You
are implying this is a frequent occurrence. How often do
you think this would occur?
All babies have been born alive.
Your web site is an anti-abortion site so it would be
anything but hones, but the site lists five such "survivors"
who appear to be from different countries and over an
unmentioned time frame yet it also mentions "With tens of
millions of abortions occurring every year". I have no idea
of the actual number or the time frame involved but the
population continues to grow and I have heard nothing about
humans becoming an endangered species.
Have you?
The fact that any of them even exists shows that fetuses
are unborn humans.
No one questions the species involved - simple DNA proves
that. The issue is at what point an individual human being
comes into existence. Historically it has never been prior
to live birth.
Historically you are wrong.
Apparently Atilla thinks if he insists something is true it must be...
I can support my position with fact.
Where can the definition that a fetus is a baby be found?
Please be specific.
And the other way you can know you've won a debate with Nobody/Kremlin Girl/Bit
of Nothingness is she'll stop responding when challenged with a simple question.

--
"Of all the things that I hated about my childhood, nothing
compared to the revolving door of father figures." -- JD Vance

#NEVERtrump
Gronk
2024-08-27 04:12:52 UTC
Permalink
it's MURDER, MURDER i tell you, not to fertilze them!
Attila
2024-08-27 10:05:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 22:12:52 -0600, Gronk
Post by Gronk
it's MURDER, MURDER i tell you, not to fertilze them!
Obviously any woman who is capable of being pregnant must be
arrested for murder if at any point she is not pregnant.
After all, that means a potential human will not be born.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
ambiguation
2024-08-26 03:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:45:16 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:20:53 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun C mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.
You lose.
No, the only loser is the woman involved.
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by their mothers
every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
So it's okay if an abortionist kills an unborn baby, but if Trayvon gets some peehole and pokes a baby to death it's a crime?

§ 14‑23.2. Murder of an unborn child; penalty. (a) A person who unlawfully causes the death of an unborn child is guilty of the separate offense of murder of an unborn child if the person does any one of the following: (1) Willfully and maliciously commits an act with the intent to cause the death of the unborn child.
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
You have a serious logic flow problem.
Not at all. Once a baby is born the pregnancy is concluded
and cannot be terminated or interrupted. Abortion pertains
to the pregnancy, which no longer exists.
According to the law in many states, it's a baby with rights prior to popping out.
Attila
2024-08-26 07:23:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 05:10:20 +0200, ambiguation
Post by ambiguation
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:45:16 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:20:53 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun C mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.
You lose.
No, the only loser is the woman involved.
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by their mothers
every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
So it's okay if an abortionist kills an unborn baby, but if Trayvon gets some peehole and pokes a baby to death it's a crime?
All babies have been born.
Post by ambiguation
§ 14‑23.2. Murder of an unborn child; penalty. (a) A person who unlawfully causes the death of an unborn child is guilty of the separate offense of murder of an unborn child if the person does any one of the following: (1) Willfully and maliciously commits an act with the intent to cause the death of the unborn child.
As long as there is an exception for an abortion. And I
disagree with "unborn child". All children have been born
alive.
Post by ambiguation
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
You have a serious logic flow problem.
Not at all. Once a baby is born the pregnancy is concluded
and cannot be terminated or interrupted. Abortion pertains
to the pregnancy, which no longer exists.
According to the law in many states, it's a baby with rights prior to popping out.
That doesn't mean I agree with such laws.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
NoBody
2024-08-26 10:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:45:16 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:20:53 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.
You lose.
No, the only loser is the woman involved.
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by their mothers
every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
Interesting how people can be convinced that a child in the womb isn't
a baby. Evil is very good at distorting itself to appear acceptable.
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
You have a serious logic flow problem.
Not at all. Once a baby is born the pregnancy is concluded
and cannot be terminated or interrupted. Abortion pertains
to the pregnancy, which no longer exists.
If a baby survives an abortion attempt and show signs of life, do you
believe it should be mandatory to try to save it?
Attila
2024-08-26 12:08:19 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 06:52:05 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:45:16 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:20:53 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:48:17 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:50:13 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 06:44:21 -0400, NoBody
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is
"biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more
argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie when
you get an abortion.
In your opinion. Mine differs,
What about the woman involved? She is being forced to risk
her life and health.
What does the woman who is carrying the baby have to do with calling
it a baby? Does it make people too uncomfortable to call it what it
is and make it too real for you?
The term is mostly a propaganda tool because it is too vague
to be of much actual use. A 70 year old man can be her baby
to a 90 year old mother. It is frequently applied to the
youngest of a related group without regard for the actual
ages involved.
This is a secondary definition for the term. You know the primary one
but you don't want to accept.
Nonsense. The term is too vague to be anything other than
propaganda. But since that doesn't fit your agenda you will
never admit it.
Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.
You lose.
No, the only loser is the woman involved.
Yeah, don't worry about the 100% of the babies killed by their mothers
every time an abortion happens.
No because no babies are killed in an abortion.
Interesting how people can be convinced that a child in the womb isn't
a baby. Evil is very good at distorting itself to appear acceptable.
You act as if I am "convinced" about something and
"distorting" reality.

It is interesting how people can be convinced a fetus is the
same as a baby that has survived live birth. Propaganda is
very good at distortion and lies in order to present and
support a preconceived agenda.
Post by NoBody
Post by Attila
Post by NoBody
You have a serious logic flow problem.
Not at all. Once a baby is born the pregnancy is concluded
and cannot be terminated or interrupted. Abortion pertains
to the pregnancy, which no longer exists.
If a baby survives an abortion attempt and show signs of life, do you
believe it should be mandatory to try to save it?
If a 30 year old survives an assassination attempt and shows
signs of life do you believe it should be mandatory to save
it?
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
brian lamb
2024-08-21 14:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:00:59 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Governor Swill
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
No it's not. But don't let us stop you from manufacturing yet one more argument where
there is none.
#EVERtrump
fetus
noun [ C ] mainly US (UK usually foetus)
US /'fi?.t??s/ UK /'fi?.t?s/
a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fetus
I'm not seeing the basis for any controversy over the term used by those
Judges.
Because it calls to attention that you are indeed killing a babie [sic] when
you get an abortion.
No.
Chips Loral
2024-08-21 19:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoBody
you are indeed killing a babie [sic] when
you get an abortion.
No.
Yes.
Attila
2024-08-21 22:07:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 13:21:03 -0600, Chips Loral
Post by NoBody
you are indeed killing a babie [sic] when
you get an abortion.
No.
Yes.
"a very young child, especially one newly or recently born."
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Attila
2024-08-19 22:46:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 22:49:41 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn
human being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote
on abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
as if the word "fetus" is not biased.
"unborn human being" is.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Scout
2024-08-19 14:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn human
being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote on
abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
but the state's top court said the wording did not break impartiality
rules.
Are you suggesting this term is wrong?

So which are you claiming is false, the part that they are unborn or that
they are human beings?
Attila
2024-08-19 22:50:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 09:55:05 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn human
being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote on
abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
but the state's top court said the wording did not break impartiality
rules.
Are you suggesting this term is wrong?
So which are you claiming is false, the part that they are unborn or that
they are human beings?
Is an acorn an oak tree? Is an egg a chicken?
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Just Wondering
2024-08-20 15:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 09:55:05 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn human
being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote on
abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
but the state's top court said the wording did not break impartiality
rules.
Are you suggesting this term is wrong?
So which are you claiming is false, the part that they are unborn or that
they are human beings?
Is an acorn an oak tree? Is an egg a chicken?
Acorns and eggs are single cells. Is a fetus, with a functioning
brain that can experience pain, a beating heart, two arms, two
legs, etc. a single cell?
Governor Swill
2024-08-20 21:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Acorns and eggs are single cells.
No, actually, they aren't. Did you not take biology?

The "sperm" fertilizes the "ovum" in the flower. The flower then grows into a fruit, nut
or whatever kind of reproductive object that species uses. The seed, under the right
conditions, can then sprout and grow into an adult plant, if it doesn't get eaten first.
And we all know that the vast majority of seeds are eaten or fall on barren ground.

Example: Is an avocado a single celled organism? Can you not sprout the pit in a glass
of water? And then move it to dirt and nurture it into a tree? Is it a tree before you
move it out of the water?

How about an apple? An apple seed?
Post by Just Wondering
Is a fetus, with a functioning
brain that can experience pain, a beating heart, two arms, two
legs, etc. a single cell?
Is a sprouted acorn a tree?

#NEVERtrump
Attila
2024-08-21 05:11:53 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:49:16 -0600, Just Wondering
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Attila
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 09:55:05 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lvr3yq3go
Judges in Arizona have allowed officials to call a foetus an "unborn human
being" in public information leaflets ahead of a statewide vote on
abortion in November.
Pro-choice activists criticised the ruling, saying the phrase is "biased",
but the state's top court said the wording did not break impartiality
rules.
Are you suggesting this term is wrong?
So which are you claiming is false, the part that they are unborn or that
they are human beings?
Is an acorn an oak tree? Is an egg a chicken?
Acorns and eggs are single cells.
Nonsense. Both are complex biological organisms which carry
the information necessary to insure an acorn does not grow
into a pine tree or a chicken egg hatch into a duck.
Post by Just Wondering
Is a fetus, with a functioning
brain that can experience pain, a beating heart, two arms, two
legs, etc. a single cell?
Only after it develops beyond a certain point. even then it
cannot survive without the life support system provided by
the woman involved.
--
Build a Wall.
Deport them all.

Go WOKE. Go Broke.

Stop DEI (Dumbass Egotistical Idiocy),
the Green Raw Deal, Income redistribution,
and Social anything.

Let them DIE.

Did the last sane person leaving California
remember to turn out the lights? The Rotten
Apple?
Loading...