- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
- Messages
- 47,846
- Reaction score
- 40,813
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
That is not how it works in a interdependent society.
Then stay out of the thread if you dont want to keep your replies on-topic.
That's up to you to create.
Then stay out of the thread if you dont want to keep your replies on-topic.I'm not commenting on the Op
You care for your own kids?That is not how it works in a interdependent society.
They are on topic.Then stay out of the thread if you dont want to keep your replies on-topic.
Just factMostly posturing
Unborn personhood has not gone before the SCOTUS. Even the states do not establish or acknowledge full personhood for the unborn.Then it disagrees with itself because the supreme Court is charged with whether or not it applies.
What do you think requires more resources and finances to provide for and maintain, more or less people?What do you think would generate more wealth more people are fewer people? What do you think mix wealth?
StrawmanYou think the Constitution is wrong.
More projection!You didn't comprehend it you won't comprehend it a second or third time either because it didn't.
Just factOpinion noted.
Didn't say that it did. So nonsense response noted.Unborn personhood has not gone before the SCOTUS.
We have an entire planet of resources are you really that selfish?What do you think requires more resources and finances to provide for and maintain, more or less people?
You said, "the supreme Court is charged with whether or not it applies." To which I replied it has not gone before the SCOTUS. Therefore, it is still in effect the unborn are not legal persons with rights.Didn't say that it did. So nonsense response noted.
We have an entire planet of finite resources and increasingly depleting resources, some of which is harder to access than others. Are you really that naive?We have an entire planet of resources are you really that selfish?
So point out where in that sentence I made any comment about personhood.You said, "the supreme Court is charged with whether or not it applies."
So the entire planet isn't enough for you?We have an entire planet of finite resources and increasingly depleting resources, some of which is harder to access than others. Are you really that naive?
Your post #188, where you think the unborn is a "person." You even confuse biology with legality. Then your post #202, where you demonstrate the lack of understanding of personhood. Since the unborn are not persons, they do not have legal rights or protections, and therefore states have no legal reason to restrict abortion. Then you complain I'm making a legalistic argument, as if it's anything else. On top of that, you fail to make any such argument yourself.So point out where in that sentence I made any comment about personhood.
The planet does not have infinite resources. Even less so if we significantly alter and destroy the environment.So the entire planet isn't enough for you?
They are.Your post #188, where you think the unborn is a "person."
No you bounce around from biology to the reality grasping at straws.You even confuse biology with legality.
I don't think we're in any danger.The planet does not have infinite resources. Even less so if we significantly alter and destroy the environment.
Proven wrong! And you certainly have not proven otherwise, despite being challenged to do so.They are.
More projection. I already discussed biology and legality. The only one bouncing around here is you, desperately trying to grasp whatever little straw you can grab and not underdstanding why you keep failing.No you bounce around from biology to the reality grasping at straws.
Keep your head buried in the sand if you want.I don't think we're in any danger.
Legally perhapsProven wrong!
Not with the laws. But as you pointed out laws can be wrong.And you certainly have not proven otherwise, despite being challenged to do so.
Thats what matters and is applied.Legally perhaps
You haven't offered or refuted any laws to support your assertion.Not with the laws. But as you pointed out laws can be wrong.
Says who? I don't think something is moral just because it is legal.Thats what matters
My statement wasn't based on law.You haven't offered or refuted any laws to support your assertion.
Says the Constitution and federal law, as i previously mentioned. Morality is subjective too and cannot and should not be legislated. Your moral qualms are your own.Says who? I don't think something is moral just because it is legal.
Then you have no real argument to make. Just your feelings.My statement wasn't based on law.
The Constitution and federal law also says that women's right to choose is left up to the states.Says the Constitution and federal law,
What do you think the law is based on?as i previously mentioned. Morality is subjective too and cannot and should not be legislated.
I vote for politicians that make lawsYour moral qualms are your own.
I didn't mention my feelings at all you are projectingThen you have no real argument to make. Just your feelings.
They say birth is a requirement for personhood. They do not take away the right to choose or bodily autonomy. The states do that with abortion restrictions. Although women can still have an abortion without due process.The Constitution and federal law also says that women's right to choose is left up to the states.
The Constitution.What do you think the law is based on?
That's your preogative.I vote for politicians that make laws
You certainly didn't mention any legal or rational argument.I didn't mention my feelings at all you are projecting
What do you think the Constitution is based on?The Constitution.
English Common Law and the principles of Enlightenment.What do you think the Constitution is based on?
What do you think the principles of enlightenment are based on? We can do this all day.English Common Law and the principles of Enlightenment.
The use of reason, logic, criticism, and freedom of thought over dogma, blind faith, and superstition.What do you think the principles of enlightenment are based on?
Go ahead. It's your choice to continue to have me show off your ignorance on the issue and embarass you all day. I don't mind.We can do this all day.
Sounds like a moral standpoint to me.The use of reason, logic, criticism, and freedom of thought over dogma, blind faith, and superstition.
I think you came to the end of it see above.Go ahead.
Not even a little.Sounds like a moral standpoint to me.
I think you came to the end of it see above.
Your religion is quite a bit more ridiculous than any other.Not even a little.
Which religion would that be?Your religion is quite a bit more ridiculous than any other.
Not sure it has a name I suppose you don't want it to.Which religion would that be?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?