ALL individuals have a right to bodily autonomy... UNLESS they get pregnant... THEN the state suddenly has more rights over what they do with their own body than the pregnant individual. Somehow they become a second-class individual with lesser rights.
But I don't necessarily have a problem with some persons having greater rights for example a child has the right to a parent up to a certain age where practical, then after that age they don't have that right.
Only, a child DOESN'T have a right to a parent. A parent can relinquish...
99% have no side effects afterwards.... really?
Many women experience long-term health issues after giving birth, including:
Pain during sex: Also known as dyspareunia, this affects 35% of women.
Low back pain: Affects 32% of women.
Incontinence: Anal incontinence affects 19% of women, and...
Not necessarily in my view. Suppose they don't want the responsibility and aren't responsible enough to give the child up for adoption. For example suppose they felt that letting the child wander into traffic was less hassle than going through an adoption process, you are forcing them to go...
Hmm... blood donations have little to no health risks, so it's really not equivalent to enforced pregnancy. Mandatory organ donations would actually be a better analogy. Would you support forcing someone with two healthy kidneys to face the potential health risks involved in donating one to...
Parents willingly agree to accept legal responsibility for their children. Anyone who doesn't want to accept that responsibility can give their off spring up for adoption, and then any adopting parent would willingly agree to accept those responsibilities. So the concept of enforcing slavery...
Why would she waste time responding to obvious b.s.? She's busy running for president. If she took the time to sue every Republican who spoke obvious lies about her she'd have no time to campaign. It's hard to believe that you're actually confused by any of this.
Actually, it's not evidence at all. It's simply you saying that you think life is REALLY cool and for some reason you think that means there MUST be a god being involved. Personally I think life is REALLY cool too... it's just that there's absolutely no verifiable evidence to suggest that any...
Clearly not... I'm not so sure you even know what actual evidence is. Just saying "Look how cool everything is, there MUST be a god!" is probably the worst claim of 'evidence' I've ever heard.
Nope... when acceptable loss of innocent life is baked into the equation, it IS intentional. The fact that I saw my uncle in a crowd means NOTHING, since I STARTED off deciding a certain number of dead innocents was acceptable. It just means that seeing him in a crowd didn't STOP me from...
It doesn't matter if you consider it acceptable. The ones who used the tactic defined the tactic as acceptable collateral (a less shocking way of saying innocent) damage (a less shocking way of saying deaths). So they intentionally used a tactic that would kill their targets as well as an...
That's why I said IF... from your post it wasn't clear. I guess I'm confused by the concept of believing that a being died for people's sins while not believing in the being that defines what sin is.
If you're saying that you think Jesus was a cool dude who said a bunch of wise things and that his words still effect the world today, but you don't believe he died - at least for a long weekend - and was resurrected to pay for the sins of humanity then I don't see why you would call yourself a...
I said: What verifiable evidence do we have that we should consider it anything other than a secular literary work?
You responded: None. But I am certain of several divine laws.
You didn't say there was verifiable evidence, but you just weren't going to provide it to me. You said there was...