Bronx Zoo Elephant Not a Person Court Rules

Another example of this infringement comes with anti-prostitution laws. The government tells women that though they have bodily autonomy and sovereignty over their body, they may NOT sell their body for sex. This, despite the woman's belief that she can best make money in doing so. The government has decided that prostitution is bad, whatever the woman thinks and so violates her sovereignty with said laws.
Prostitution is legal, in some countries.

Rightly, IMO.
Yet still another example of this infringement comes with anti-drug laws. Woman may not put drugs into their body. The government has decided doing so is bad--and so outlaws drug use.
Same again - I think that all drugs should be legal.
So government violates sovereignty all the time and I hear no complaints from liberals.
You just heard two from me.
 
Yes it is about the right to live. Why is this a biological question. Rights are not given us by biology.
For us, ultimately rights are given by God, its called grace. For you, people give rights and many are based on biology. For example its no good giving a human being at the child stage of development the right to drive, or indeed the human being at foetal stage the right to drive, because the human being isnt capable of driving a car at those stages of development.
We recognise the development of the human being us biology. For example a human being in the womb will by default have XX or XY chromosomes which means they are female or male, whereas you dont acknowledge any of that either.
 
Nailed it.
It is by definition where it is illegal.

Now Downs syndrome. Why do you people support the abortion of people with Downs syndrome up to birth but not transpeople? Apart from the fact that people with Downs syndrome exist and transwomen dont, and people with Downs syndrome mostly live happy lives whereas men and women who call themselves trans seem to be suicidally unhappy.

Why your discrimination and prejudice in abortion against Downs syndrome?
 
It is by definition where it is illegal.

Now Downs syndrome. Why do you people support the abortion of people with Downs syndrome up to birth but not transpeople?
Three reasons:
Downs is detectable in the womb, while Transgender is not detectable until close to puberty.
They don't.
It's illegal.
Apart from the fact that people with Downs syndrome exist and transwomen dont, and people with Downs syndrome mostly live happy lives whereas men and women who call themselves trans seem to be suicidally unhappy.

Why your discrimination and prejudice in abortion against Downs syndrome?
Why your total and irrelevant obsession with people you claim do not exist?
 
Three reasons:
Downs is detectable in the womb, while Transgender is not detectable until close to puberty.
They don't.
It's illegal.

Why your total and irrelevant obsession with people you claim do not exist?
Downs is detectable in the womb, they can do biological tests. All people are men women or intersex so I have never said anyone doesn't exist. How is transgender detectable at all? All one has to go on is what someone claims. How do you know they aren't lying (which they are of course if they claim to be the opposite sex)
 
Downs is detectable in the womb,
Exactly what I said. You have failed to disagree with my every word. Go back three spaces.
they can do biological tests. All people are men women or intersex so I have never said anyone doesn't exist.
You: "Transwomen don't (exist)."
How is transgender detectable at all?
By medically qualified people.
All one has to go on is what someone claims. How do you know they aren't lying (which they are of course if they claim to be the opposite sex)
Dunning-Krugerism at its finest.
 
You are attempting to warp the terminology. Your falsehoods regarding murder being but one example. You also repeat falsehoods about what pro-choice means, what pro-choice advocates think and say, what abortion is and how it is carried out in most cases. You don't understand the motivations that drive people to abortion or the most effect ways of preventing and reducing abortions.
What do motives driving people to have abortion have to do with anything? Why do I need to understand motives?

It isn't THAT difficult, sir, to prevent abortion. Women have a number of options available to them to avoid pregnancy.

The most effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancy is---not to have sex unless or until you are ready and willing to get pregnant. Short of that, women have the following methods available to them to avoid pregnancy:

1) Contraception

2) Condom use- male, female, or both and

3) Surgery-male, female, or both and

4) All of the above.

This isn't rocket science sir. It really isn.t But abortion supporters have to make it complicated, don't they? The more complicated they can make this, the easier it is to justify abortion. As I said, liberals intelligence is their down fall. They lack common sense.

What if a pregnancy happens anyway and a woman is not prepared to raise a child? Bring the child to term, then put the child up for adoption.

There you have it. Easy peasy. Tell me why we need abortion again---outside of RARE cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother?

Of course they control the agenda. Most people, not just "liberals", but most thinking, ordinary, regular people, know that you are wrong,
Funny you should mention this. Back before Roe was decided in 1973, this was actually true. By this I mean----prior to Roe, one's stance on abortion was not necessarily connected to their political party, nor could one predict what their stance would be on other issues. So---prior to 1973, one could be pro-abortion, yet staunchly Republican. One could be pro-life, yet staunchly Democrat. Or one could be whatever.

Today, at least in American, one's stance on abortion is usually a very accurate indicator of one's ideology and a good indicator of where the person is likely to stand on other serious moral issues. Thus, it is rare to find an abortion supporter who isn't liberal and Democrat--and supports the liberal Democrat agenda. It is rare to find a pro-lifer who is not Republican and conservative and supportive of the Republican agenda.

Where am I getting this from? I read an article on YAHOO. I forget the name and author of the article.
that your arguments don't hold water and that your policies would lead to a huge increase in misery, injury and death if by mischance they were ever carried out. There is a sensible, moral case to be made for limiting abortion very markedly. "It is murdering children" isn't it.
Yes, abortion supporters insist that abortion isn't murder. Yet when pressed as to what happens during an abortion-----they can't tell us without resorting to euphemisms or couching what happens in wonkish medical jargon.
 
The only reason I am pro-choice is that I think a person should have the right to decide what is and is not allowed to live inside them, using their bodies.
Well, good, becasue I am pro-choice also. I believe women have the right to decide what is and is not allowed to live inside them "using" their bodies.

If a woman does not want a child living inside of her, "using" her body, she does not have to get pregnant, now does she? Is any pro-lifer forcing women to choose to have unsafe sex?
 
Well, good, becasue I am pro-choice also. I believe women have the right to decide what is and is not allowed to live inside them "using" their bodies.
Even if they already happen to be pregnant?

No.
That's the difference between us - you think that the right not to be pregnant should only apply if you are not currently pregnant.
 
Do you believe we are all equally human?

If so, how does one human being get to grant another human being rights--unless--we are not equally human?
Are you an anarchist? Have you never heard of systems of government?

Besides, you have overlooked the title of the thread. Society could decide to grant full rights to elephants, or dolphins or whatever. If that happens, then guess what? Elephants, dolphins or whatever will have rights.
 
Exactly what I said. You have failed to disagree with my every word. Go back three spaces.

You: "Transwomen don't (exist)."

By medically qualified people.

Dunning-Krugerism at its finest.
Yes, I know what I said. Posturing wont help you, you cant answer the questions
All people are men women or intersex so I have never said anyone doesn't exist. 'Transwomen' have a sex, usually male.
How is transgender detectable at all then? If you think there is medical evidence shows us.
 
Are you an anarchist? Have you never heard of systems of government?

Besides, you have overlooked the title of the thread. Society could decide to grant full rights to elephants, or dolphins or whatever. If that happens, then guess what? Elephants, dolphins or whatever will have rights.
Of course they will.

The POINT is that--if this is your assertion, then rights and what it is to be human in the first place are all subjective and depend on the whims of society.

That being the case, what is to stop us from turning your logic on you--and deciding that you are subhuman, and thus not subject to rights? Because--THAT is where your logic ultimately leads.
 
How do we determine which rights to grant and which rights not to grant?

How do we determine, for example, that minorities are human--and thus--have the right not to be slaves?
By the same method we determine all aspects of public policy. We empower decision-makers in our societies.
 
Back
Top