Bronx Zoo Elephant Not a Person Court Rules

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.
can one have sex with a person of the same sex? they dont have corresponding anatomies ie genitalia. You have assumed its sex rather than a deviation of sex.
 
The federal government has no authority to declare it a right, nor did they.

SCOTUS, however, does have the authority, and did so.
No they merely decide the constitutionality of written laws. Understand? They dont create rights but they sure as heck found one for abortion out of thin air. That's why this had to be overturned because roe made them look as incompetent as Dred Scott.
 
Need to "treat" the pregnancy?

Is pregnancy a disease?
If the pregnant woman thinks so, yes.
Neither of us should have any say in the matter.
Now here is a question for Eightcraker, Eightcraker and Thirdname: if women get to arbitrarily and whimsically declare what their offspring are, based on nothing but their personal whims, should the equal protections clause of the Constitution grant me the same right to do that to anyone I want?
If they are inside your body, yes.
Can I arbitrarily and whimsically declare who is and is not a person based on my personal convenience too?
If they are inside your body, yes.
 
If the pregnant woman thinks so, yes.
Neither of us should have any say in the matter.

If they are inside your body, yes.

If they are inside your body, yes.
Okay: here is the question you aren't answering:

What does LOCATION of the offspring have to do with anything? Why do we get to kill something based solely on its location?

Women do not have to get pregnant, sir. If they do not want a child, they do not have to get pregnant.
 
Okay: here is the question you aren't answering:

What does LOCATION of the offspring have to do with anything? Why do we get to kill something based solely on its location?
Because if it's inside you and you don't want it there, it is a question of bodily autonomy.

Should you be forced to donate an organ to somebody that will die without it?
IMO, no.

Forced pregnancy is the same as forced organ donation.
Women do not have to get pregnant, sir.
"Get" being the operative word.
Where abortion is illegal, though, once they are pregnant, they have to be pregnant.
 
And we cease to agree.

I think a woman's right not to be - be - pregnant trumps the life of her unborn.
We both agree a woman has a right NOT to be pregnant.

But the solution to NOT being pregnant is NOT to get pregnant in the first place.

If I go to a Casino and bet my life savings on red and it comes up black and I loose----I am not getting my money back simply becasue I didn't want to loose. If I didn't want to loose, I had no business gambling in the first place.

In a similar way, if a woman does not want to be pregnant, then DON'T GET PREGNANT. Once a woman is pregnant it is too late to decide "Gee, I don't want to be pregnant!" If she didn't want to get pregnant, why did she get pregnant?
 
We both agree a woman has a right NOT to be pregnant.
We don't agree - you don't think that a pregnant woman should have the right not to be pregnant.
I think she should have a right not to be pregnant whether or not she it pregnant.
But the solution to NOT being pregnant is NOT to get pregnant in the first place.
That is a solution.
Abortion is another.
If I go to a Casino and bet my life savings on red and it comes up black and I loose----I am not getting my money back simply becasue I didn't want to loose. If I didn't want to loose, I had no business gambling in the first place.
If there were a way to get your money back instantly, you would want it.
In a similar way, if a woman does not want to be pregnant, then DON'T GET PREGNANT. Once a woman is pregnant it is too late to decide "Gee, I don't want to be pregnant!"
No, it's not too late.
Because of abortion.

You want it to be too late, is what you mean.
If she didn't want to get pregnant, why did she get pregnant?
She gambled, as you put it, and lost.

And she availed herself of the option to get her money back.
It's just that you don't think this way should exist.
 
Because if it's inside you and you don't want it there, it is a question of bodily autonomy.
If a woman doesn't want a child inside of her, why did she get pregnant?
Should you be forced to donate an organ to somebody that will die without it? IMO, no.
No. I can't believe you even think there is ANY analogy here.

The reason I should not be forced to give an organ to someone who is dying is becasue I have nothing to do with their condition. I did nothing to cause it. The reason they are dying has nothing whatever to do with me. There is no connection between me and their dying.

When a woman is pregnant, there IS a direct connection between the pregnancy and the choices she made to allow that to happen.

The argument you gave above might apply if a woman is raped, because the woman did not consent to the sexual relationship in that case. Your argument does NOT apply where it concerns abortion on demand.
Forced pregnancy is the same as forced organ donation.
Correct.
"Get" being the operative word. Where abortion is illegal, though, once they are pregnant, they have to be pregnant.
Correct. Yes. You catch on quick! Just like if I gamble and loose all my money, I do not get a mulligan. The solution to not loosing money is not getting my money back if I choose to gamble and loose, it is not to gamble in the first place.

The solution to not wanting to be pregnant is NOT TO GET PREGNANT.
 
We don't agree - you don't think that a pregnant woman should have the right not to be pregnant.
Right--becasue once the woman is pregnant, the woman already consented to the pregnancy through her choice to be sexually active--and not use protection.
I think she should have a right not to be pregnant whether or not she it pregnant.
Do you think people who gamble and loose should have the right to get their money back? Do you not see a connection between the choice of the woman to be sexually active and not use protection and the pregnancy?
 
If a woman doesn't want a child inside of her, why did she get pregnant?
If you didn't want your leg broken, why go rock climbing?
Do you think people who gamble and loose should have the right to get their money back?
If it doesn't cost me more than I want to pay, why not?
Correct. Yes. You catch on quick! Just like if I gamble and loose all my money, I do not get a mulligan.
But if you were offered one, you would take it.
The solution to not loosing money is not getting my money back if I choose to gamble and loose, it is not to gamble in the first place.
The problem with the gambling analogy is that there are no mulligans.
With pregnancy, there is.

You may want pregnancy to be like gambling, but it's not.
 
Okay: here is the question you aren't answering:

What does LOCATION of the offspring have to do with anything? Why do we get to kill something based solely on its location?

Women do not have to get pregnant, sir. If they do not want a child, they do not have to get pregnant.
You have it the wrong way round. If they do not want to be pregnant, then they can have an abortion. The aim of abortion is to end the pregnancy. The death of the unborn child is what the American military would call unavoidable and regrettable collateral damage.
 
Welcome back! That was a long vacation.

The new life within her trumps her inconvenient situation.
This sums up the issue. A great many people disagree with this statement. A great many people do agree with it. How do you resolve this? Other nations have found a workable compromise, as have other religious traditions. Why cannot the American debate be brought to a close that all will accept, if not actively agree with?
 
Back
Top