It's her body, her decision. Not one to be criminalized by the government. Sorry, I'm intellectually consistent, not a Republican who wants there to be "in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
If you want that you're welcome to advocate for it. But it isn't currently the case.
No, they are human. What else would they be? That's like saying your leg isn't human.
They only do when an exception is specifically mentioned and carved out. As we've been over.
It will probably sound a lot like ESPN analysts crying about why there aren’t more black coaches in the league, if I had to guess.
I think I read that his contract has to do with him and other NETWORKS. Twitter is not a network.
Gametes are human though. What you seem to be arguing is that gametes are not a human person(or being or individual or whatever), which is my exact point about legality. The argument is when a fetus becomes an independent human being with full legal rights, not when it becomes human. It's always human, even when born with extra chromosomes instead of forty six. Are you arguing people with Down's Syndrome aren't human?
Puritans talking freedom ad nauseam also legislate morality to punish their enemies.
False. It indicates that a fetus is treated as a person under the law.
False. Can a pregnant woman drive in the carpool lane? Or any number of a thousand different examples? Fetuses are not legally recognized as persons under the law unless specifically instructed to as an exception, like fetal homicide laws. This is universally recognized even by your side, as Republicans in many states are trying to get fetal personhood laws passed.
Wow! look at all those nazi flags. Lefties are so ignorant
True. There's a nursing home near my business that specializes in folks with that problem. I see it regularly in those people.
No. The scientific argument is when does human life begin. I realize that, in typical fashion, you want to change the issue so you can skirt around and offer an opinion about a non sequitur, but that is not the issue for anyone, except those who wish to ignore science.
That's insane tortured logic to try to defend your position. Carpool lanes are only legal to drive in with multiple persons in the vehicle. That's the only requirement, doesn't matter whether they even have a license, a car, or are old enough to drive. If fetuses were persons it would be legal. Period. Change to any other of the myriad examples and your position falls apart. Like taxes. Can you file a fetus as a dependent on your taxes? It's dependent on you, an expense, and your child, satisfying all of your contextual conditions. Yet no, you can't.
Human life began somewhere around a couple million years ago. As science says.
Enjoy your time in the sun, James. Remember that these folks rarely suffer like the rest of us do.
Number of persons in a vehicle is what matters for a carpool lane. And a fetus doesn't count.
