Aufan59

You did.

This is news to me!

Any conservatives here willing to take a swing at this? Do people conceived of rape have fewer rights than those conceived of consensual sex?

Do you think it’s constitutional for “the police to storm in”?

I don’t think it’s apples and airplanes. They are rights guaranteed by the constitution. If you can be legally murdered by government when exercising a right in your own home, then I think it’s fair to say that it isn’t really a right. I agree we’ve backed ourselves into a corner with the second amendment. There is no good answer to this, except amending the constitution, of which I would be in favor. But the fascinating part is the contradicting place this puts conservatives in(and this is not directed at you specifically): The second amendment is constantly argued as necessary, especially to empower the people against a tyrannical government. However they somehow defend the government coming to your door and murdering you when you exercise this right. And it is fascinating that any conservative could end up defending the government murdering its citizens for exercising their rights.

You’ll have to explain this one. When does this get you murdered by the government?

I’m not immediately disagreeing with that premise, but it is a right. Imagine the government showing up to your home and murdering you when you exercise other rights, like your right to free speech, or your right to remain silent.

What was not responsible? What other rights can get you murdered in your own home by government when you exercise them?

I know it was a question that is why I answered it for you. Is it really a right if it makes you fair game for the government to murder you inside your home?

Well certainly that is not the answer, as simply exercising your rights does not make you a combatant.

Don’t open your own door, in your own house, exercising your own rights?

Wait, you are arguing against the science because you don’t want to eat bugs? You realize it is possible to argue against proposed solutions without disagreeing with the problem. Two people can agree on a problem and disagree on the solution…

I get my news and information from neither. But if I had to choose my information source, I’d go with whichever source didn’t recently lose a lawsuit for almost $800 million for intentionally lying.

I am convinced they are correct, CO2 doesn’t impact the temperature of the earth by way of enthalpy increases. However, this is like saying that umbrellas don’t absorb much water, therefore they don’t protect you from rain. It is true that umbrellas don’t absorb much water. But that isn’t the mechanism they use to protect you from rain.

No interest. I thought you might have interest in the validity of what you post. But I remember the last discussion is that your only criteria is that it matches your viewpoint, not accuracy or validity.

Same garbage though. The mechanism of global warming is not CO2 getting hotter (enthalpy) which makes the atmosphere hotter.

This is the same garbage you posted before. Confounds enthalpy with radiative forcing.

A mother can legally give up all obligation to their child through safe haven laws and adoption. So yes, you can legally create a child and refuse to feed or clothe it. Your examples about consequences of your actions are when committing a crime, consensual sex is not a crime. Finally, and the real question that hasn’t been answered, what does the consent of the mother have to do with the rights of the person in the womb? Why is it an “exception” that we can “treat differently”? In my opinion there is no exception, a person conceived of rape has the same rights as a person conceived through consensual sex. How can a person’s rights be so arbitrary, that they are taken away because of the actions of a third party?

I am not disagreeing that people in the womb don’t have rights. But not the rights to use another person’s body.

There is precedent in the UK, which is why I specified not the US. For what it’s worth, it was decided that the twins be separated, knowing it would kill one of them, without the agreement of the parents.

You are having such a hard time finding opposing views that are valid, that you have posted lies just to give an alternate viewpoint. Maybe they have looked for reasonable alternative views, and have found none?

Good point, I didn’t think of that example. Though I don’t know of any case where this has been an issue or been challenged, at least in the US.

It is not a lie that we will pass one of the total carbon emissions goal that was set in the Paris accord around that time. This is a matter of simple arithmetic. The negative consequences of not limiting warming, are predictions based on the evidence at hand. You presume that the global warming alarmists are lying, so you feel justified in posting lies from differing view points?

Other opinions are fine, as long as they aren’t blatantly lying. Which is why I associated the lies you posted with the flat earthers, as they also are blatant liars. You may think it helps your case by posting different sides, but that isn’t the case if they are just blatantly lying.

I still think that it is extra rights, as they have the right to use another person’s body. There is no other example of this right being exercised and upheld. It simply does not exist. My point was not to equate kidnapping to pregnancy, or for you to explain to me that they are different, but to give a clear example of bodily autonomy being a right that is exercised even when intentional death of another is a consequence. Bodily autonomy rights are well established and exercised in a variety of different ways. For me to better understand the rights that the person in the womb has: If a woman does not kill the person in the womb, but instead has them removed and given the best available medical care, is that a violation of the person’s rights to not be killed? If a woman is raped and gets an abortion, is that a violation of the person’s rights to not be killed? Or in a different example: if the woman did not know sex could result in pregnancy and gets an abortion, is that a violation of the person’s rights to not be killed?