Libby von H
Platinum Member
- Nov 10, 2023
- 2,830
- 1,370
- 893
It means even baby females had a right to life.So does that mean that in 1868 women did not have legal rights to their bodies?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It means even baby females had a right to life.So does that mean that in 1868 women did not have legal rights to their bodies?
Are you stupid and unable to read????So does that mean that in 1868 women did not have legal rights to their bodies?
ANd you commit 2 fallacies while trying to show off.The questions raised in the OP illustrate the poor and inconsistent ‘reasoning’ both with regard to the ‘personhood’ status of frozen embryos and absolute abortion bans.
Indeed, in order to be consistent, those who advocate for such wrongheaded policies should also seek to prohibit the use of birth control pills and IUDs, which would be just as reckless and irresponsible.
You always seem to lean to the historically false narrative and I guess (and this tends to prove it) it is because you are truly ignorant of history.You are so full of shit.
This is an issue that has been pushed for years by the anti choice crowd. They saw their opportunity and seized it.
Now it has been ruled in a court of law that frozen embryos are people. And so it remains, until legislation is passed saying otherwise in Alabama.
They didn’t revise the US Constitution to apply to “conceived” persons rather than “born” persons ."When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, the states widely recognized unborn children as persons.
what about the men that think they are women,, should the laws apply to them to??They didn’t revise the US Constitution to apply to “conceived” persons rather than “born” persons .
All laws passed by white male Christians that affect women prior to women having the right to vote should be Shit canned.
All reproductive control laws passed by white Christian males in the 19th century should be stricken from the books. Any transgender men living during that time would have absolutely no impact on improving the laws to be more respectful to women as equals to men.what about the men that think they are women,, should the laws apply to them to??
can they get abortions when ever they want??
if they need an abortion reproduction has already happened,,All reproductive control laws passed by white Christian males in the 19th century should be stricken from the books. Any transgender men living during that time would have absolutely no impact on improving the laws to be more respectful to women as equals to men.
Filthy mouht on an abortion booster. Keep it up. I want people to see what your heart is likeThey didn’t revise the US Constitution to apply to “conceived” persons rather than “born” persons .
All laws passed by white male Christians that affect women prior to women having the right to vote should be Shit canned.
Just one issue... the mother is also a human life. And you want your iron age magical fetishes enforced on her at the end of a gun, because you think zygotes have souls.It is human life and therefore it is taking a human life
Fetal homicide decided this for many many years. Whether you are headed to the store with your unborn baby or to kill it , if someone commits a crime that takes the baby's life THAT IS HOMICIDE
This is easy to understand if you are not stupid ( or already guilty)
and you want those Babies killed because you do not think they are living and human. Okay, if you tar yourself with that brush, GREAT !!!!Just one issue... the mother is also a human life. And you want your iron age magical fetishes enforced on her at the end of a gun, because you think zygotes have souls.
Let's speak honestly, here.
Are you stupid and unable to read????
You are independent just to be different. It screams from your posts.No, I am neither stupid nor unable to read. Yes, English is my primary language.
You're having trouble with my posts because I'm an independent person and thinker. Thus, you are likely shocked by the thoughts of one who doesn't follow the crowd you do.
Well , you are indeed stupid.if they need an abortion reproduction has already happened,,
so that law should remain to protect children,,
as it is now the laws are in favor of the mother,,
they can get put of being a mother in several different ways,, the father has none,,
only stupid people tell other people they are stupid without explaining how they are stupid,,Well , you are indeed stupid.
Here is a non-believer historian
YOu should know who he is
‘Christianity gave women a dignity that no previous sexual dispensation had offered’: Tom Holland
The idea of a post-Enlightenment, de-Christianised West is false, argues the historian in this interview.https://scroll.in/article/953904/christianity-gave-women-a-dignity-that-no-previous-sexual-dispensation-had-offered-tom-holland
This is probably the most popular historian of this century, not a Christian and initially taking your position. But your position is entirely untenable when you examine the history.only stupid people tell other people they are stupid without explaining how they are stupid,,
How can one conscious human being have competing rights with herself?I only see human beings and competing natural rights. You seem to want to dismiss the child's rights and treat them as property. I'll never ever agree with that.