if you can’t discern the difference between a medical procedure and an inanimate object, there’s really nothing more i can say.
You're basically claiming that you have rights to own and carry a gun - but that the woman standing next to you does not have the right to own her own uterus.
I cannot waste your time. Only you can waste your time. I am not going away. Hey, don't feel bad. You just cannot answer the question. I understand.
Says the guy who becomes apoplectic at the mention of any new gun laws. Whereas I prefer people to have the choice to have an abortion and have the choice to carry a gun. When did people start to think they should be able to tell others what to do with their life?
It certainly is -a- solution for rape, just not the -only- one, or one that will -always- prevent the woman form being raped. If your only acceptable solution to rape is one which will -always- prevent the woman from being raped, you will not find one.
So you're claiming the State takes ownership of a uterus the moment an egg is fertilized and attaches to the uterus - which is no longer a uterus.
So when the State takes control of the uterus, which is no longer a uterus - but apparently becomes a Fetus Condo, can the State levy property taxes on the full value of the "condo" or just part of the condo ...?
And if the State does take ownership of the uterus (or Fetus Condo as we'll call it) at some point in a pregnancy, doesn't it also take ownership of the costs of upkeep?
It worse than that, limitations on the right to life, abortion is ok in some circumstances vs limitations on the right bare arms, bad, I need my guns. I’d just like them to justify the different standpoints on the same issue, limitation of rights. I think limitations on rights is a commons sense approach, I can’t see how murder (their term, which I don’t agree with) of some babies (again their term, which I don’t agree with) is OK but don’t touch on my right to own an inanimate inert object is a valid standpoint
On the other side of the coin... those that seek restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are the first to squeal like a stuck pig when someone suggests the same restriction on the right to an abortion.
To me this is like claiming my neighbor Joe doesn’t have the right to live in my house, inviting him in for coffee, and then shivving him in the back.
No. A valid comparison would be joe coming into your house, uninvited. Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.
Well, then that’s where we disagree. Unless it’s rape, it’s invited. Your analogy is like skydiving without a parachute but not consenting to broken bones.
But it isn’t though. They are two separate things. The purpose of having sex for said couple, is strictly for pleasure. Actual intended procreation is extremely rare. No it isn’t.
any law abiding citizen who chooses to carry a weapon faces the same circumstances. you MUST be able to articulate reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm (as rape) in order to legally squeeze the trigger.
If you're a woman, you've got to be pretty damn stupid not to realize that having sex won't result in pregnancy. If a woman is incapable of understanding that consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy, then consent is not the issue. It's like asking if a comatose woman is capable of consent. The chick is a vegetable, so consent has as much to do with it as an apple tree consenting to the wind carrying pollen from a male apple tree to a female apple tree?
So where's the proof that a gun is the best bet? Seems that could be, more often than not, a huge mistake.
Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. But it’s is the issue. You can consent to have sex, and not consent to be pregnant. Neither of those are valid comparisons to consent to sex or pregnancy.
Fooled by evolution. My bulls think they are having sex for pleasure, too! Using logic explain how it’s different.
Then you're talking about some women far too stupid to be allowed to consent. Downs syndrome, maybe? Look, I'm not trying to be hard, but I was a young man once, and I knew that there was always the possibility. If somebody understands that there is a chance of pregnancy and they still decide to risk it, then they did consent to the possibility. How is consenting to the possibility that reproduction is possible different from consenting to reproduction?