You are discriminating based on race and religion. I'll repeat that until it sinks in.
Yep, no disagreement
I'll explain it once more. The woman chooses whether or not to continue the pregnancy. If the woman INTENDS to carry to term, and does anything to endanger the health of the fetus, we have intent.
Unless she excepts responsibility for caring a child.
You keep missing the main point.
The issue is you don't understand what I'm talking about and seem more interested in getting a dunk on me than an explanation.
Whether or not to continue the pregnancy.
It's related to child endangerment. If you get drunk and pass out on your day off, what ever. I'd you do the same while being responsible for children, that's a crime.
What dodge? I never said abortion was human right.
This is bait
Except that first amendment. I know you are just going to keep baiting me at this point.
So? The employer who fires someone for not being vaccinated is discriminating against him. Not allowing his 'bodily immunity' right. You see, you like the 14th amendment when you use it as you want to. You reject it when it is used contrary to the way you want to. Just like with the racist affirmative action. So, explain how the 14th amendment is against me as a business and an employer for not wanting to do business with non-whites or non-christians.
That is not true. Your statement is dishonest. You don't agree. You simply used a small sentence you can say you agree with, yet ignored the emphaiss of the paragraph where it was stated. What was being said was that 'intent' plays no role with your 'bodily autonomy'. The woman is free to do whatever as it is her body. Yet courts have said otherwise. Thus you have the contradiction between 'bodily autonomy', and 'courts prosecuting women for endangering the fetus', and 'abortion'.
I will explain it once more. Intent plays no role in your bodily autonomy. If bodily autonomy allows a woman to destroy a fetus by abortion, then bodily autonomy must allow the woman her right to drink or drugs even though it results in the death or harm of the fetus. It's her body. In other words, the use of 'bodily autonomy' to allow a woman to have an abortion is a joke. It is simply the liberal anti-god, anti-christian people using it for their own ends.
'Accepting Responsibility'? Then women should not be allowed to have abortions unless they were raped or the mothers life is in danger. When you have sex you know that there is the possibility of becoming pregnant. If your intent is to disregard that, you are not acting responsible. If your intent is to kill the fetus if that happens, then you are guilty of killing the fetus. Actually you are guilty of murder.
No, I haven't missed the point at all. At first you preach the right of bodily autonomy to allow the woman to do what she wants to with her body concerning abortion. But the laws of several states prove that wrong when they prosecute women for endangering a fetus when they drink or do drugs. In other words, your bodily autonomy just went out the window. So, you now add 'intent' to get around that. But that is a contradiction as has been explained. So you cloak it in 'responsibility'. But that too is a contradiction because if you have sex you are taking responsibility for the fetus. Unless your a liberal, then you just go ahead and kill it. Problem solved.
I understand what you are talking about. Do you? Sadly, I know you do.
If getting drunk is related to child endangerment for the fetus, then abortion must also be related to child endangerment for the fetus. Don't you see? A crime is committed both ways. The severity of the crime may change, just like with murder verses manslaughter. But the crime is committed both ways.
Then you agree that abortion is not a human right and that rights only apply to the government one is under. Correct?
Bait? In other words you won't answer to your error. Liberalism and conservatism must be defined in the generations they are used. Simple history.
Bait? The first amendment doesn't say abortion is a right. Where in the world do you get that?