Bronx Zoo Elephant Not a Person Court Rules

I know this is may sound like a ridiculous question but please indulge me, do you think we will have the right to leave the kingdom once we are there?
If by "kingdom" you mean heaven? No I don't think so and can't think why anyone would want to if it is what we believe it to be.

If by "kingdom" you dont mean heaven then you need to explain a bit more what to do mean please.
 
Last edited:
What does that mean? They are female so they can terminate a human life?????? No I don't believe they should and I've never heard a good argument for such a thing.
Isn't that what prochoice advocates argue ...I have a right to do with my body what I want to do?
 
A woman has a right to prevent conception but otherwise its the human reproductive process.
Imagine the nerve of God creating a reproductive process that doesn't take into account a woman's "right" to abort? What was he thinking?
 
God doesn't give the authority for anyone to take someone elses life away. The government doesn't but that's not saying they have a right to do it. I am opposed to capital punishment.
Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval, 4 for it is God’s agent for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the agent of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s agents, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.
The other rights we have a basic to human nature. No one who is healthy physically and/or mentally wants to be killed, enslaved, lied to or about or have their property taken from them. Slaver owners didn't want to the slaves and bank robbers would should complain if their house got broken into.
What you pointed out is why God instituted governments and why we have laws. Laws instituted by men define our rights.

The writers of the declaration of independence were elitist hypocrites, imo. Slaves weren't allowed to vote. Slaves and women didn't have the same unalienable rights as white, free, landowners.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

What about the sick, infirmed, elderly, young, blind, impaired in some way and those with cognitive impairments (dementia)? Do they have rights?
 
One has to be careful with Romans 13, otherwise one may think that a government that is corrupt is what believers should follow regardless. It can set up a contradiction. Holistically it does urge believers to be obedient to government, and to let God judge, but since the world is opposed to the Kingdom of God, it cant be advocating human government. Do good and be at peace with people as far as one is able.

But crucially
"for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God" is probably referring to church authorities saying those authorities ordained by God.
 
One has to be careful with Romans 13, otherwise one may think that a government that is corrupt is what believers should follow regardless. It can set up a contradiction. Holistically it does urge believers to be obedient to government, and to let God judge, but since the world is opposed to the Kingdom of God, it cant be advocating human government. Do good and be at peace with people as far as one is able.
But that is what God uses. If the governments are corrupt, then God takes them down and allows another to take their place. Paul is advocating praying for the people in human government, paying taxes to support them. He allows them to punish evil doers. Paul supposedly wrote this when he was held as a prisoner by the Roman government in jail!
But crucially
"for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God" is probably referring to church authorities saying those authorities ordained by God.
How do you explain what that chapter says about paying taxes to the authorities?
 
It's entirely separate DNA
Yes, the baby is a different person than the mother. It is not a part/appendage of the mother's body.
Look it up. No need to take my word it
Please supply the link to support your assertions.
Then I'm not sure what youre on about. A fetus is NOT her body.
But it (the fetus is IN her body. I know it's not like a tumor or an abscess or a blob or unorganized cells. It's a human in prenatal development. But does a woman have the right over what is in her body to do with what she wants?
 
Yes, the baby is a different person than the mother. It is not a part/appendage of the mother's body.

Please supply the link to support your assertions.
You really have never seen such stories?????? Really?
But it (the fetus is IN her body. I know it's not like a tumor or an abscess or a blob or unorganized cells. It's a human in prenatal development. But does a woman have the right over what is in her body to do with what she wants?
Yes she does and when she decided to engage in baby making behavior she exercised that right. What's she can't do is what she wants with somebody elses body.
 
Yes, the baby is a different person than the mother. It is not a part/appendage of the mother's body.

Please supply the link to support your assertions.

But it (the fetus is IN her body. I know it's not like a tumor or an abscess or a blob or unorganized cells. It's a human in prenatal development. But does a woman have the right over what is in her body to do with what she wants?
Just to help you out


 
Yes, the baby is a different person than the mother. It is not a part/appendage of the mother's body.

Please supply the link to support your assertions.

But it (the fetus is IN her body. I know it's not like a tumor or an abscess or a blob or unorganized cells. It's a human in prenatal development. But does a woman have the right over what is in her body to do with what she wants?
How can there be a law to protect victims if it's the woman's body?

 
You really have never seen such stories?????? Really?
No, I haven't. I rarely watch the news.
Yes she does and when she decided to engage in baby making behavior she exercised that right. What's she can't do is what she wants with somebody elses body.
Even if that somebody else lives within her body for~ 9 months?

I would also add to "it's not like a tumor or an abscess or a blob of unorganized cells" nor is it an infection or a parasite.
 
Back
Top