Still a nonsensical hypothetical nonsequitur and deflection. Meanwhile, still waiting for you to show where the '"right to life" is enumerated.
Once again you make an ignorant assertion (and Strawman) in a desperate attempt to steer attention away from yourself, especially given how you cannot seem to specify where the "right to life" is enumerated. Keep flailing! It only makes you look more foolush and desperate.Your evasion is answer enough. Of course you wouldn't support a law which withdrew an enumerated right to life for blacks. Which means you believe rights exist whether they're enumerated or not.
No, your posts are irrelevant, as they do not address the challenge and then go off topic. There is no debate: the unborn are not legal persons and do not have rights per the constitution and federal law. Simple fact. Neither have you offered any rational or legal argument as to why they should.So all of this has been irrelevant. The debate isn't whether the unborn have a legal right to life. We already know they don't. The debate is whether they should.
Once again you make an ignorant assertion (and Strawman) in a desperate attempt to steer attention away from yourself, especially given how you cannot seem to specify where the "right to life" is enumerated. Keep flailing! It only makes you look more foolush and desperate.
No, your posts are irrelevant, as they do not address the challenge and then go off topic. There is no debate: the unborn are not legal persons and do not have rights per the constitution and federal law. Simple fact. Neither have you offered any rational or legal argument as to why they should.
Glad you agree. You are dismissed.Okay, admitted, again. The unborn are not legal persons and have no rights in the constitution or federal law. The right to life for unborn people is not enumerated anywhere in the US.
Alright? I answered your challenge
Nonsequitur and off topic hypothetical.Now. If we were to pass a law which withdrew enumerated rights for blacks, you would then agree that blacks have no right to life. That would follow the logic of your statements above.
Correct?
Glad you agree. You are dismissed.
Nonsequitur and off topic hypothetical.
No, the question was where is the right to life enumerated, as it pertains to the unborn. You're trying to deviate from that with so.e hypothetical that has nothing to do with the focus of the topic.It's a yes or no question, and it's directly relevant to the argument you've made about rights being enumerated.
You can't answer? Why come to a debate forum if you refuse to debate?
No, the question was where is the right to life enumerated, as it pertains to the unborn. You're trying to deviate from that with so.e hypothetical that has nothing to do with the focus of the topic.
Then....no we don't.
What other human beings can we deny a right to life to?
Check the law books. Either way, it doesn't apply to the unborn. So it's irrelevant.Can someone have a right to life even though it's not legally enumerated?
Can someone have a right to life even though it's not legally enumerated?
Check the law books. Either way, it doesn't apply to the unborn. So it's irrelevant.
Can the law ever be wrong in your view?
It's not about me. If one thinks a law is wrong, they can make a legal argument and challenge to it. I have yet to see anyone make a rational legal argument to restrict abortion.Can the law ever be wrong in your view?
Why are you answering questions with questions? We know that interpretations of the Const change...right?
See RvW and Dobbs. So why are you asking that question? Do you agree with the Dobbs decision?
It's a diversionary tactic.Why are you answering questions with questions? We know that interpretations of the Const change...right?
See RvW and Dobbs. So why are you asking that question? Do you agree with the Dobbs decision?
Because your questions are irrelevant hypotheticals that do not pertain to the topic at hand.I didn't. I answered Gordy's questions. Gordy refuses to give straight answers to my questions.
Yes I agree with Dobbs.
It's not about me. If one thinks a law is wrong, they can make a legal argument and challenge to it. I have yet to see anyone make a rational legal argument to restrict abortion.
That's not an argument. That is simply a declaration. Make the legal argument....okay. So my argument is that the unborn are human beings and are entitled the rights of all other human beings. Therefore the law should recognize that.
That's not an argument. That is simply a declaration. Make the legal argument.
Start child support from day one....and also get the fetus a SSN number.Here we go...fetuses have personhood. Bolding is mine.
"A flurry of executive orders that President Donald Trump signed into place Monday night included one that cemented language at the executive level to delegitimize transgender identities. But within the fold of that order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” lay another damaging detail: the elevation of fetal personhood to the national stage.
“‘Female’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,” the order reads in part. “‘Male’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”
By describing a fetus as a person from conception, Trump has legitimized fetal personhood. Pro-abortion activists have long warned that fetal personhood, an ideology that calls for providing equal human rights to a fetus (even if it’s a cluster of cells), will effectively strip pregnant people of their own rights. The legal language employed by fetal personhood also effectively categorizes any person receiving an abortion at any stage as a murderer."
Trump Sneaks Dangerous Rights for Fetuses Into Executive Order
Donald Trump slipped the anti-abortion language into an otherwise unrelated order.newrepublic.com
Again, make the argument. Why should they be legally recognized? A you're offering is your own opinion or feelings.But the unborn aren't recognized legally as human beings. That's what I want to change.
Again, make the argument. Why should they be legally recognized? A you're offering is your own opinion or feelings.
What reason is that? Be specific! Human being is a scientific designation, not a legal one. Trying to direct attention to me is avoiding an argument, not making one.For the same reason black slaves were. They're human beings, and are entitled to the most basic human rights.
You don't agree?
I didn't. I answered Gordy's questions. Gordy refuses to give straight answers to my questions.
Yes I agree with Dobbs.
For the same reason black slaves were. They're human beings, and are entitled to the most basic human rights.
You don't agree?
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?