A case for teen pregnancy?

[Lisa]

That's up to you to create.

That is not how it works in a interdependent society.

I'm not commenting on the Op

Then stay out of the thread if you dont want to keep your replies on-topic.

 

[CLAX1911]

That is not how it works in a interdependent society.

You care for your own kids?

Then stay out of the thread if you dont want to keep your replies on-topic.

They are on topic.

 

[Real blank]

You could argue that, from an evolutionary perspective, if people consistently have children later in life, life expectancy will increase over time as a result

 

[Gordy327]

Mostly posturing

Just fact

Then it disagrees with itself because the supreme Court is charged with whether or not it applies.

Unborn personhood has not gone before the SCOTUS. Even the states do not establish or acknowledge full personhood for the unborn.

What do you think would generate more wealth more people are fewer people? What do you think mix wealth?

What do you think requires more resources and finances to provide for and maintain, more or less people?

You think the Constitution is wrong.

Strawman

You didn't comprehend it you won't comprehend it a second or third time either because it didn't.

More projection!

Opinion noted.

Just fact

 

[CLAX1911]

Unborn personhood has not gone before the SCOTUS.

Didn't say that it did. So nonsense response noted.

What do you think requires more resources and finances to provide for and maintain, more or less people?

We have an entire planet of resources are you really that selfish?

 

[Gordy327]

Didn't say that it did. So nonsense response noted.

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.

We have an entire planet of resources are you really that selfish?

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?

 

[CLAX1911]

You said, "the supreme Court is charged with whether or not it applies."

So point out where in that sentence I made any comment about personhood.

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?

So the entire planet isn't enough for you?

 

[Gordy327]

So point out where in that sentence I made any comment about personhood.

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 the entire planet isn't enough for you?

The planet does not have infinite resources. Even less so if we significantly alter and destroy the environment.

 

[CLAX1911]

Your post #188, where you think the unborn is a "person."

They are.

You even confuse biology with legality.

No you bounce around from biology to the reality grasping at straws.

The planet does not have infinite resources. Even less so if we significantly alter and destroy the environment.

I don't think we're in any danger.

 

[Gordy327]

They are.

Proven wrong! And you certainly have not proven otherwise, despite being challenged to do so.

No you bounce around from biology to the reality grasping at straws.

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.

I don't think we're in any danger.

Keep your head buried in the sand if you want.

 

[CLAX1911]

Proven wrong!

Legally perhaps

And you certainly have not proven otherwise, despite being challenged to do so.

Not with the laws. But as you pointed out laws can be wrong.

 

[Gordy327]

Legally perhaps

Thats what matters and is applied.

Not with the laws. But as you pointed out laws can be wrong.

You haven't offered or refuted any laws to support your assertion.

 

[CLAX1911]

Thats what matters

Says who? I don't think something is moral just because it is legal.

You haven't offered or refuted any laws to support your assertion.

My statement wasn't based on law.

 

[Gordy327]

Says who? I don't think something is moral just because it is legal.

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.

My statement wasn't based on law.

Then you have no real argument to make. Just your feelings.

 

[CLAX1911]

Says the Constitution and federal law,

The Constitution and federal law also says that women's right to choose is left up to the states.

as i previously mentioned. Morality is subjective too and cannot and should not be legislated.

What do you think the law is based on?

Your moral qualms are your own.

I vote for politicians that make laws

Then you have no real argument to make. Just your feelings.

I didn't mention my feelings at all you are projecting

 

[Gordy327]

The Constitution and federal law also says that women's right to choose is left up to the states.

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.

What do you think the law is based on?

The Constitution.

I vote for politicians that make laws

That's your preogative.

I didn't mention my feelings at all you are projecting

You certainly didn't mention any legal or rational argument.

 

[CLAX1911]

The Constitution.

What do you think the Constitution is based on?

 

[Gordy327]

What do you think the Constitution is based on?

English Common Law and the principles of Enlightenment.

 

[CLAX1911]

English Common Law and the principles of Enlightenment.

What do you think the principles of enlightenment are based on? We can do this all day.

 

[Gordy327]

What do you think the principles of enlightenment are based on?

The use of reason, logic, criticism, and freedom of thought over dogma, blind faith, and superstition.

We can do this all day.

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

The use of reason, logic, criticism, and freedom of thought over dogma, blind faith, and superstition.

Sounds like a moral standpoint to me.

Go ahead.

I think you came to the end of it see above.

 

[Gordy327]

Sounds like a moral standpoint to me.

I think you came to the end of it see above.

Not even a little.

 

[CLAX1911]

Not even a little.

Your religion is quite a bit more ridiculous than any other.

 

[Gordy327]

Your religion is quite a bit more ridiculous than any other.

Which religion would that be?

 

[CLAX1911]

Which religion would that be?

Not sure it has a name I suppose you don't want it to.

But the crazy crap you believe.