Nope. It doesn't. All I haver to demonstrate is all woman can get pregnant by having sperm swim into contact with the living egg inside a woman. Like I sated as fact pregnancy does not continue it has a end in which the woman must seek a place to announce citizen ship as united state. Well unless maybe woman move into international water or outer-space?Plaffelvohfen said:@John_C_87
John, unless you can demonstrate that the right to life ENTAILS a right to someone else body without continuous consent, you have no arguments...
Your argument here is irrelevant and fallacious, consensual sexual activity is in no way a consent for pregnancy and this consent NEEDS to be continuous...
So what your saying is free speech should only be allotted to people who agree with you opinion?AlofRI said:Well, youtube conservatives and centrist "patriots" have been targeting our democracy and rights …. and the NYT, WP, and any other media that doesn't like "their way" for some time now. It's not one sided. May I say Thank God? (As a figure of speech, of course ;-).
So what your saying is free speech should only be allotted to people who agree with you opinion?
but I say that it is everyones responsibility to assure freedom of speech is allowed across all platforms.Not privately owned platforms... The right to free speech doesn't entail a right to an audience...
By all means lets encourage private companies to censor decending opinions like North Korea and China do.North Korea and China are governments, they are not private entities...
A fetus is using someone's body parts. Therefore, under bodily autonomy it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a person continuous consent. if they deny or withdraw consent, for any reason whatsoever, the pregnant person has a right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else's body parts to live, they also can legally deny me their use.
The woman’s permission was given with all consensual sexual activity and is a poor argument for a united state constitutional right. The biggest argument is as a united state is sexual activity would need to be documented in writing as consensual.
The united state all woman creates by sacrificing the privacy of all women with publicly disclosure is citizenship not body autonomy. A woman is arguing the right to decline the crossing of a border into America as the basic principles.
Body control would be made, proven by not having sexual intercourse which ended in fertilization of the already living egg.As common defense pregnancy abortion needs a coaching influence to help hide the self-incrimination described as crime publicly by all woman to complete the idea of alibi as a justification to use lethal force, or lie about original consent of sex. In whole truth the pro-choice, pro-life innuendo is a method to limit any woman's united state constitutional right, however the overall principle may be designed to create a civil legal practice which has failed in attempts to protect the union of Marriage as a civil union. As far-fetched as that sounds, truth stranger than fiction.
Need I say anymore?Akhenaten said:@ZeusAres42
Quote - You do realize these are the kind of people that also probably think the sun goes up in the morning and goes down in the evening right?
Reply - The universe in general doesn't have a north, south, east, west ,up, down or centre. Thus, your last statement is totally illogical. Neither the Earth nor the Sun goes around anything unless you use a reference point first. Then, when you have first nominated a reference point, then and only then, will the Sun or Earth will move according to that reference point.
In the case of your above statement. You have nominated the Earth as being the universe's sole reference point. Note - This is only your own personal opinion and doesn't apply to any other person except to yourself.
"Climate change is a total nonsense. It is just a political game which is played by communist governments that want to disrupt and damage the capitalist society."
"It has become obvious to open-minded and well-informed observers that the climate change issue is being exploited to consolidate power and control and to divert trillions of dollars into the pockets of people who support the leftist power base"
"True Believers have morphed into a band of religious fanatics and their beliefs are now based more on faith than on science."
"This is the same phenomenon you see with extreme leftists who advocate for socialism and communism. Despite the spectacular failure of leftist governments all over the world during the last century and the hundred million people that they murdered."
"The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true."
These tactics have been in use by powerful people for centuries in their quest to exert control over the masses. They are very transparent to those of us who have studied history and their use in promoting AGW doomsday scenarios is so obvious as to be laughable.
CYDharta Said:GenericName said:Hey TK, if it is that obvious, what reasoning do you suggest for why the overwhelming majority of the global scientific community cant see it?
If you are able to see how false it is so easily, why can't the people all over the world who spend their lives studying this not see it?
They start from the assumption that it's true and their jobs are simply to find proof.
CYDharta Said:LOL, "science" by consensus is the opposite of science. When you hire and fire people based on whether or not they believe in the global warming dogma, you're bound to get a high consensus. Of course group-think is unavoidable. If you open the question up to scientists in related fields, the "consensus" drops considerably;