Bronx Zoo Elephant Not a Person Court Rules

Just to help you out


Thank you! I'm thankful the judges took into account the deaths of the unborn. I'm surprised as well.
 
Surprised? Everyone has always known it's a separate human being.
I was surprised the judge acknowledged a murder of an unborn child when there is a law that makes abortion legal.
I don't see a difference. I don't understand how they can accuse one and defend another when both result in the intentional killing of an unborn child.
 
I was surprised the judge acknowledged a murder of an unborn child when there is a law that makes abortion legal.
I don't see a difference. I don't understand how they can accuse one and defend another when both result in the intentional killing of an unborn child.
There is no "law" that makes it legal. The supreme court decided inappropriately that there is a "right" to abortion which made state prohibitions of abortion unconstitutional.
 
There is no "law" that makes it legal. The supreme court decided inappropriately that there is a "right" to abortion which made state prohibitions of abortion unconstitutional.
Okay, I see. There are individual state laws that can call the killing of an unborn child murder even though the Federal law makes it a right for a pregnant woman to abort an unborn child and not call it murder.

If they were consistent, the men who murdered the pregnant women and their unborn children would not be guilty of two deaths (or 3 in the case of the man who killed 2 women and 1 unborn child). They would only be guilty of murder of the women and not the unborn.
 
T
Okay, I see. There are individual state laws that can call the killing of an unborn child murder even though the Federal law makes it a right for a pregnant woman to abort an unborn child and not call it murder.

If they were consistent, the men who murdered the pregnant women and their unborn children would not be guilty of two deaths (or 3 in the case of the man who killed 2 women and 1 unborn child). They would only be guilty of murder of the women and not the unborn.
There is no federal law or right to abortion. It was manufactured out of thin air.

I'm not sure how this is complicated? It's a human life. No one has a right to terminate a human life!
 
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!

How do you explain what that chapter says about paying taxes to the authorities?
Yes absolutely pay taxes and obey the authorities because God is a God of order, but the inference is the authorities are there to do good.
I do agree with all you said, I just said one has to be careful with the passage.
 
I was surprised the judge acknowledged a murder of an unborn child when there is a law that makes abortion legal.
I don't see a difference. I don't understand how they can accuse one and defend another when both result in the intentional killing of an unborn child.
I agree with you, its a contradiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
The laws on abortion differ in their restrictions state by state. I found this site informative. I'm annoyed that my state does not require any mandatory education on fetal pain or negative psychological effects or ultrasounds. They should also discuss alternatives to abortion.

Yes this is one of my points. The pro-choice rationale fails because if they use one criteria such as sentience or survivability to justify it, how come they arent bothered when another nation doesnt use the same criteria. The pro-choice position is, as long as abortion can take place they dont care how or when
 
There is no federal law or right to abortion. It was manufactured out of thin air.
Just like the right to have sex with someone the same sex as you, and to marry someone of a different race to you...no federal law or right to any of them. And all in danger thanks to this court.
 
There is no federal law or right to eat chocolate.

Did you have a point you were trying to make?
Correct just like there is no right to an abortion and the federal government has no more authority to declare it a right any more than they do for chocolate
 
Correct just like there is no right to an abortion and the federal government has no more authority to declare it a right any more than they do for chocolate
With "the federal government" being the SCOTUS.

And yes, they have exactly that kind and amount of authority.
 
Correct just like there is no right to an abortion and the federal government has no more authority to declare it a right any more than they do for chocolate
The federal government has no authority to declare it a right, nor did they.

SCOTUS, however, does have the authority, and did so.
 
Back
Top