You said YOUR NOSE. Your figurative nose isn't part of the discussion. It's a state's interest against the individual's rights which are being weighed, not FAW's right vs. a woman's right.
You are confusing reality with the analogy. So not my nose. Societys nose I suppose. The analogy was not intended to be taken that literally. It was merely intended to illustrate a concept. Is this really a distinction with relevance?
You have the time to read dozens of cases involving unenumerated rights? Maybe some self-reflection and educating yourself on how the Constitution would be helpful to you. UNless you've been in a coma for over 200 years, you might have heard about this. https://www.learnreligions.com/basic-rights-not-spelled-out-in-the-constitution-249643
I have, my painfully uninformed amigo. Now go fix your post so that native speakers of the English language can understand what you're struggling to say.
A proper analogy would involve having the correct parties in the correct pew. You don't have an individual "right" to prevent abortion. It's the state's compelling interest we're trying to figure out. You aren't one of the parties here. So quit inserting yourself into the middle of things.
Was that a veiled and cliche 'foreign agent' accusation, or do you just have reading comprehension issues? Perhaps you could point out which part(s) you need assistance in understanding so I'm not just playing the tired old game of pointless repetition.
FWIW, I am pro-abortion. I get the feeling you are attempting to personalize this, and, of course it has nothing to do with me. I am not even fighting against the notion of abortion being legal. In no manner, shape, or form am I trying to imply this is about me in any fashion. As far as the analogy illustrating the concept, I don't think arguing the semantics of the illustration holds any probative value. If you want to label what to call the state's interest, if in fact it were determined that personhood begins before birth, then the compelling state interest would be precisely what it is with any crime that involves a victim (murder, rape, assault etc). I am not sure why you feel that labeling this interest is all that important. What is the state's interest labeled with murder or rape? I am not sure I have heard a specific word for that (protecting the public perhaps). I am not sure that it is all that relevant to the debate, but what do you call the state's interest with rape, murder, assault etc.? If you can answer that, you will also have the proper label for the state's interest with an abortion if personhood were determined to be at some point prior to birth.
why would I need to if you can't explain then you don't understand. posturing is rather transparent. I don't do links if you can't explain it's because you don't understand.
I do understand, my living in a cave friend. I have decades of being informed on these issues. You, in sharp contrast, have perused a few memes, and much to your misfortune, haven't learned the basics of Constitutional law. Look up unenumerated rights. The light bulb above your head will be illuminated for the very first time. "I don't do links"--why, so you can engage in self-delusion like this?
She is not a state and will lose on the science. Hormonal iud's prevent ovulation and even were it to occur they also make the woman infertile, she never becomes fertile.
Yah but that's not 100% and the secondary effect is to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. The pill can do the same thing. Lose on the science lol Does science change a states rights? You agree they’d have no legal issue with banning it right?
Did I say I could prove it ? already tis u engating in magical deception .. did you use a Ouija board for that mate ? You don't even know what's coming out of your mouth .. so confused are u. "Souls" you wish me to prove the soul exist .. says the Joker to the Clown .. thinking she is smart when the clown smiles. humor your request.. should we ? I think we shall.. or at least try .. will be fun you'll see. Define the Soul .. Define what it is that you wish be proven - and perhaps it will be done .. So it is written.
Yes as I said it keeps her from becoming fertile in the first place just as she is 3 out of 4 weeks every month. And the pill too works 99.99% of the time by preventing ovulation in the first place, that is how modern hormonal birth control works. Thus this person will lose on the science because he claim about BC is not scientifically true. Remember I follow the science.
This isn't about science, it's about the law. That's all the gov't can enforce is law. The 14th amendment even addresses ALL BORN PERSONS. Some make it at conception, which makes as much unscientific, objective(which doesn't exist), or reasonable basis. When does a functioning brain happen? Where in the constitution does it address the unborn as being a person? We do have an end of life definition, typically when brain wave activity ceases, so I can see using beginning of life happening at brain wave activity. Typically 12-20 weeks? But that is just one line in the sand that can be drawn. Which really is the whole debate. Where to draw some arbitrary line in the sand.
Not really. One's nose could be grazed so slightly that the person of said nose never felt the grazing. But would be against that person's rights.
Actually, the GOP is about dictating the way people must think, act, feel, and live. There's very little freedoms they want people to have.
Is a person's personal opinion the best you've got? Really lame. And that personal opinion has nothing at all to do with the OP. More lame. You want a reason why this moron personal opinion is worthless? Here: from your link:... Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee." ... The moron is to stupid to know humans are animals.
