A Rebellious People

[Authari]

You made the assertion that infants do not have the RIGHT to live within the womb, ergo sir

And they do not there is nothing you have appealed to thus far that would grant them such an intrusive right.

 I want you to explain why the woman has more of a 'right' to end her child's life because of her own poor life decision.

Because the fetus exists in her body and the state of pregnancy is a function of her body as well as the act of sex. No one has the right to curtail her sexual freedoms nor any right to keep her in a state of pregnancy against her will. And nothing you have presented thus far can give such a prescription that it does.

 Prove to me that the infant does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT. 

Prove to me that it does. Give the prescription that gives it the right to live in someone else's body against will. You can't because it doesn't exist. Appealing to DNA won't do it. Appealing to anatomy won't do it. It's fiction.

And if you say its her body its not, the infant as I have proved has its own cognizance.

The fetus's ability to think is irrelevant to the fact it's living in her body and she has the right to expel it and no fact you can't point to says she doesn't.


Now keep waving your surrender flag



Meanwhile


The glorious Maple Leaf flies proudly!!!

The moment you have to fall back on the 'prove to me it does' and saying that nothing I have 'appealed' to would give them the Right I have appealed using reason and logic and all my points still stand, you rejected all of them saying flagrantly 'they have no right! they have no right!' yet when I asked you to prove that they have no right after illustriously proving to you that they do have a right you fall back on the 'prove to me it does' after I already have done so. Saying 'they have no right' doesn't mean they do not have that right even if you believe in your carnal heart that would rather end the life of a sentient being because you've convinced yourself to value a life free of consequences rather than take responsibility for your actions we give rights to Sentient Beings because our society demands equality, you think that one's age determines whether one receives such rights or not, that the unborn ought to be sacrificed over the altar of the gratification of the carnal desires of men and women, why stop at ones age when determining what rights they should receive, why don't you take it a step further and say that the rights one will receive is dependent on their race. In Nazi Germany you would be yelling at the Jews going to the concentration camps, "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT!"

But you would never do such a thing! Really? Your prejudice against the unborn children for their age speaks differently, and you support the murder of millions of innocent sentient beings capable of emotions capable of feeling both fear and love because you believe 'they have no right' despite the fact as we have proven that they are their own individual being.

You lost because you were not fighting for the cause of God, I won this argument because you have proven yourself incapable of saying anything to support your claim 'they have no right' only stating how you believe a promiscuous woman ought to also, in lieu of her poor decisions, be able to take the life of an innocent sentient being who is her very own child, a mother should never take the life of her own child, such things are sacrilege.