14th Amendment

[weaver2]

Hmm… which (constitutional) amendment(s) define viability?

The Constitution doesn't establish viability, medical science does. There are charts showing the rate of survival of premature babies. The survival rate of those born before 26 weeks is not good at all. This is a fact. Religion, culture, the Constitution, wishful thinking, and people that ask dumb questions don't get to define viability.

 

[Gordy327]

Maybe because abortion is the killing of life and donating a kidney is in saving a life.

Are you opposed to people being forced to donate a kidney (or any other organ/blood) to save another's life? Would you protest if you were forced to donate an organ to save another's life? A yes or no answer will suffice. A refusal to answer will also speak volumes too.

Regardless, I believe abortion should be available to women experiencing major health issues during pregnancy. I am not opposed to it entirely.

Your "belief" is your own. Why should anyone else be required to follow your belief, especially through force of law, if they believe differently?

The law begs to differ, harm or death done to an unborn, whether maternally or any person is against the law:

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

www.law.cornell.edu

Please quote anywhere in those laws where the unborn have any rights recognized? OTOH, they explicitly exempt abortion and still allow women to kill their unborn, so obviously there is no right to life recognized. The govt uses laws to protect many things, endangered species, forests, livestock, coral reefs, etc. None of them have any rights recognized, correct?Protect/penalize does not = rights

Protecting the rights of both the mother and unborn child does not treat women as second class citizens. It protects them equally, one cannot kill the other and vice versa. But when the life of the mother is in danger that choice should be up to the woman and her doctor, if she wishes to proceed or have an abortion to protect her life.

Explain how both woman and embryo/fetus can have rights equally! It's impossiible.

That's the huge difference between men and women. Have they spoken to this to the man involved.....do they even know who....what about his rights.....? It's not treating women lesser, it's that men and women are different, or haven't you noticed? Thus my opinion that far more pre-pregnancy education is much needed to help resolve this issue.

What rights does a man have over a woman regarding her pregnancy and related choices? Do explain!

 

[noonereal]

that unborn inside the womb has equal rights

Here is your problem with logic.

It is UNBORN hence absent of rights till born.

It is a part of the women up until that point.

If you want to forbid tattoos, plastic surgery and piercing than you can also make a case that women or men have no choice over their body, society does.

Is this the way you want to go?

 

[Lursa]

Here is your problem with logic.

It is UNBORN hence absent of rights till born.

I dont know where he gets that the unborn have rights...he tries to use the 14th A but that clearly states 'born.' And then it discusses the protections for those specified, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (the United States) : persons born and naturalized.

It is a part of the women up until that point.

If you want to forbid tattoos, plastic surgery and piercing than you can also make a case that women or men have no choice over their body, society does.

Is this the way you want to go?

I've asked...if you dont have right to control your own body...why do any of the other rights matter? The American slaves had no right to bodily autonomy. Of course I support legal prostitution and decriminalizing drugs also. But even such restrictions re: drug use has public health/safety impacts which may be considerations. Abortion has no negative impacts on society...no one's ever produced any when asked.

 

[Bodi]

The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.

Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.

I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.

Interesting how you did not include the actual 14th Amendment part that you are arguing makes your argument.

Kinda makes your whole post irrelevant.

 

[Teatime]

The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.

Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.

I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.

You haven't made a point.

 

[choiceone]

The wonderful thing about Dobbs - yes, Virginia, there is one wonderful thing about it - is that nowhere does it even remotely suggest that embryos have rights. Everything in Dobbs is about the state's right to regulate the practice of medicine, so that the issue isn't about the unborn and personhood. The anti-choice people should take a lesson.

 

[redbeer]

So just flush the Constitution? You believe that your rights to free speech, owning firearms, your own bodily autonomy, due process, etc should all be decided by the states?

Did I say that?

 

[Aristaeus]

The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.

Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.

I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.

A cancerous tumor is also 'her body', so cancer has equal rights?

 

[redbeer]

You haven't made a point.

The 14th Amendment speaks nothing of the unborn. It's speaking during the time after the Civil War to heal the nation and give liberties to those oppressed. They're similar to trinitarians who read false doctrine into the text. Then their slogan, "my body, my choice" is an oxymoron even in their false rendering of the 14th amendment.

 

[redbeer]

That's nowhere near an agreement, it's just ground-level perspicacity.
Take your faux middle-ground elsewhere.

Actually it is, for there's no religious zealots preventing all abortions and no radicals taking abortion too far in killing unborn at any time.....down the middle.

 

[weaver2]

The 14th Amendment speaks nothing of the unborn. It's speaking during the time after the Civil War to heal the nation and give liberties to those oppressed. They're similar to trinitarians who read false doctrine into the text. Then their slogan, "my body, my choice" is an oxymoron even in their false rendering of the 14th amendment.

The longer you post the less there is about protecting little innocent pre-born babies and the more the misogyny is in evidence.

 

[redbeer]

Not only did the authors of the fourth amendment not contemplate equipment with which to record telephone calls, it did not envision telephones or telephone wires, or overseas calls, or satellites or cell phones. And yet justices are obliged to apply the language and principles well beyond federal marshals rummaging through your desk drawers, your pockets and unlocking your safe. Its a given that the written words of the constitution will lead to applications, not anticipated by people of that generation, culture or space. The fact that there was no discussion of a fetus' rights or those of its mother in the post civil war era, and that virtually nobody's imagination took the debate there, does not mean Justices should not, do not, and have not since. Fetuses are not legal persons with bodily rights that they can express, anymore that cadavers are. That means that another party, person or institution must have the vested quasi legal property rights over those decisions instead. Many many many states decided that the legal person in who's body they are encased, should bear those rights and responsibilities.

That makes sense to me.

Taking language out of the 14th amendment which was written to give rights to slaves post civil war then placing them falsely upon the unborn is the perfect example of "out of context". The racists of that time didn't give them any rights whatsoever, even not thinking they were human beings, hence the language of the 14th amendment.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, albeit exempts abortion, still the recognition is there.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.


Then of course section c here shows the error of using their 2nd 'go to' law for support......does it need explanation? Just two sections later in the same context proves their 'out of context' error.

Aren't we to support the defenseless? The real need here is education pre-pregnancy.....teach, teach, teach the repercussions of unprotected sex and the possible results which can occur even with protected sex, the responsibilities involved, the risks and bodily changes incurred during pregnancy. Instead, we have....have sex, enjoy yourself, take a pill before or a pill after, damn any responsibility, if it happens simply kill it.....don't worry, be happy.

 

[choiceone]

The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.

Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.

I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.

It wouldn't matter even if the unborn were persons, because unless the woman gave her specific consent to the unborn to implant in her uterus, it wouldn't have a right to be there. If a woman doesn't give a person specific consent to PIV sex with her, that person has no right to have it. Even if she does, that doesn't give that person the right to have anal sex with her. If she gives it on Thursday night, that doesn't give that person the right to PIV sex on Saturday night. If she gives consent to X for PIV sex on Thursday night, that doesn't give consent to X's child for uterine implantation a week later.

Give it up. One reason the unborn are not persons is that they can't meet the existing criteria logically implied by the Constitution, including their capability of being exactly enumerated and not just counted by projection. They have never been considered persons in the history of the US.

A person has rights to life, liberty, and property as a package deal. The implanted embryo has no right to property - you have to be born alive to have inheritance rights. The implanted embryo has no right to liberty, because, to give it liberty, you would have to separate it from the woman's body, and if you did this before fetal viability, it would just die. It's not capable of the package of personal rights, which is one way you know it's not a person.

A major reason the implanted embryo has no rights and isn't a person is that a person is a living human mind with the capacity to convey human expression to other living human minds objectively, by facial or vocal means. That's the reason that, in the case of conjoined twins, if two heads are functional, there are two persons born, but if only one head is functional and the other is parasitic, there is only one person born and the parasitic head can be removed for its well-being.

 

[redbeer]

And having the right to refuse donating a kidney means there will be a death. You have no problem that a man can refuse to donate a kidney which will cause a death .

The law does not beg to differ as there is no law that says a women cannot drink alcohol or smoke tobacco both of which harms a fetus.

But you are not protecting the right of the mother to choose what happens to her body when you put the right of the fetus to live above her right to make choices. It does not protect them equally as women are now dying because they are not allowed to have an abortion
https://nationalpartnership.org/rhw-a-dramatic-rise-is-pregnant-women-in-texas-dying-after-abortion-ban/#:~:text=The number of women in,federal public health data finds.


Yes, there is a difference. Women become pregnant, not men. Yet men want to make the decision for women.

Wtf are you talking about? Please pay more attention to the postings of those you respond before posting such nonsense. Anyone with a little sense and reading comprehension knows by now that I support abortion if the mothers or babies health are in danger, then it's a medical procedure to save the life of the woman. I do not support abortion out of convenience or as a measure of birth control.

The above post solely represents a severe lack of knowledge.

 

[redbeer]

Interesting how you did not include the actual 14th Amendment part that you are arguing makes your argument.

Kinda makes your whole post irrelevant.

Fourteenth Amendment​

Section 1​

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Even though written post Civil War to heal the nation and give liberties to the oppressed, it doesn't stop pro-abortion supporters to take some of these words out of context. An unborn, fetus, embryo or a mother/woman is not even hinted at in this section....it's simply nonexistent....read it over and over.


Take their error along with the phrase, "my body, my choice" easily debunked. Do mothers give birth to themselves or is it a different/separate human being?

​

 

[redbeer]

The longer you post the less there is about protecting little innocent pre-born babies and the more the misogyny is in evidence.

Lol, pointing out the errors of pro-abortionists makes me a misogynist...., hilarious. It's your way or the highway, isn't it?....the intolerant left.

 

[choiceone]

Maybe because abortion is the killing of life and donating a kidney is in saving a life. Regardless, I believe abortion should be available to women experiencing major health issues during pregnancy. I am not opposed to it entirely.


The law begs to differ, harm or death done to an unborn, whether maternally or any person is against the law:

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

www.law.cornell.edu

Protecting the rights of both the mother and unborn child does not treat women as second class citizens. It protects them equally, one cannot kill the other and vice versa. But when the life of the mother is in danger that choice should be up to the woman and her doctor, if she wishes to proceed or have an abortion to protect her life.

That's ridiculous. When an embryo makes a placenta and implants, it causes the placenta to produce an enzyme that partly shuts down the woman's immune system, leaving her liable to all sorts of diseases for the duration of the pregnancy. Having a partly disabled immune system is, by its very nature, a health problem and a risk to her health and life. You cannot, therefore, equally protect the woman and the embryo, because the embryo harms the woman by its inherent nature and the woman doesn't. Women sacrifice their own well-being for the duration of a pregnancy and in childbirth.

The notion that women have to sacrifice their well-being for embryos is disgraceful and unworthy of human beings.

That's the huge difference between men and women. Have they spoken to this to the man involved.....do they even know who....what about his rights.....? It's not treating women lesser, it's that men and women are different, or haven't you noticed? Thus my opinion that far more pre-pregnancy education is much needed to help resolve this issue.

 

[redbeer]

It wouldn't matter even if the unborn were persons, because unless the woman gave her specific consent to the unborn to implant in her uterus, it wouldn't have a right to be there. If a woman doesn't give a person specific consent to PIV sex with her, that person has no right to have it. Even if she does, that doesn't give that person the right to have anal sex with her. If she gives it on Thursday night, that doesn't give that person the right to PIV sex on Saturday night. If she gives consent to X for PIV sex on Thursday night, that doesn't give consent to X's child for uterine implantation a week later.

Give it up. One reason the unborn are not persons is that they can't meet the existing criteria logically implied by the Constitution, including their capability of being exactly enumerated and not just counted by projection. They have never been considered persons in the history of the US.

A person has rights to life, liberty, and property as a package deal. The implanted embryo has no right to property - you have to be born alive to have inheritance rights. The implanted embryo has no right to liberty, because, to give it liberty, you would have to separate it from the woman's body, and if you did this before fetal viability, it would just die. It's not capable of the package of personal rights, which is one way you know it's not a person.

A major reason the implanted embryo has no rights and isn't a person is that a person is a living human mind with the capacity to convey human expression to other living human minds objectively, by facial or vocal means. That's the reason that, in the case of conjoined twins, if two heads are functional, there are two persons born, but if only one head is functional and the other is parasitic, there is only one person born and the parasitic head can be removed for its well-being.

Although exempting abortion, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 gives the unborn legal rights. Any person including the mother does hurts or kills that unborn child, exempting abortion, they will answer to the authorities with possible imprisonment. They do have some rights and are not some type of nonhuman dehumanized blob that can be killed at any time such nonsense.

 

[redbeer]

That's ridiculous. When an embryo makes a placenta and implants, it causes the placenta to produce an enzyme that partly shuts down the woman's immune system, leaving her liable to all sorts of diseases for the duration of the pregnancy. Having a partly disabled immune system is, by its very nature, a health problem and a risk to her health and life. You cannot, therefore, equally protect the woman and the embryo, because the embryo harms the woman by its inherent nature and the woman doesn't. Women sacrifice their own well-being for the duration of a pregnancy and in childbirth.

The notion that women have to sacrifice their well-being for embryos is disgraceful and unworthy of human beings.

The billions and billions of women who have suffered through pregnancy and proudly raised families might tend to disagree with your hypothesis, lol.

 

[choiceone]

Taking language out of the 14th amendment which was written to give rights to slaves post civil war then placing them falsely upon the unborn is the perfect example of "out of context". The racists of that time didn't give them any rights whatsoever, even not thinking they were human beings, hence the language of the 14th amendment.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, albeit exempts abortion, still the recognition is there.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.


Then of course section c here shows the error of using their 2nd 'go to' law for support......does it need explanation? Just two sections later in the same context proves their 'out of context' error.

Aren't we to support the defenseless? The real need here is education pre-pregnancy.....teach, teach, teach the repercussions of unprotected sex and the possible results which can occur even with protected sex, the responsibilities involved, the risks and bodily changes incurred during pregnancy. Instead, we have....have sex, enjoy yourself, take a pill before or a pill after, damn any responsibility, if it happens simply kill it.....don't worry, be happy.

Girls and women can be impregnated by physical force when they are unconscious or by violence when conscious. They cannot be held responsible for all pregnancies. Embryos certainly would never have a right to life inside of and off of the woman under this circumstance, so there's no good reason for any embryo to have such a right.

It's worth noticing that the only difference between rape and consensual sex is the woman's consent, and if she was conscious, she herself knows whether or not she gave it, but you have to use her word to decide. That's not different in the case of rape pregnancy and intentional pregnancy.

Personally, I think the governments of the anti-choice states would deserve it if women just decided never to have sex with any man again, as it was too dangerous, and were prepared to protect themselves from rape with acts of violence and at the risk of dying. There wouldn't be any children born at all. Good riddance to the anti-abortion idiots.

 

[choiceone]

The billions and billions of women who have suffered through pregnancy and proudly raised families might tend to disagree with your hypothesis, lol.

Women who have no choice about pregnancy but are required by long to continue any pregnancy, including a rape pregnancy, have nothing to be proud about in giving birth, because, when they have no choice, they are merely performing a duty for which they deserve no a lick of credit.

It is only if pregnancy and childbirth are chosen that the sacrifice of those who suffer them is a meaningful act of love. Doing one's duty is not love.

 

[multivita-man]

I personally don't believe that the 14th Amendment was a solid basis for abortion rights, which are more strongly founded on the 9th Amendment, I believe. The equal protection clause was intended to prohibit discrimination under the law on the basis of race and other protected classes. Being poor, however, isn't one of those classes.

 

[weaver2]

Lol, pointing out the errors of pro-abortionists makes me a misogynist...., hilarious. It's your way or the highway, isn't it?....the intolerant left.

Yup, pro-choice for everyone. Then everybody does what they think will be best for their family, their fetus and their lives. Even misogynists. They still have their wives, partners and daughters to force into giving birth, they just don't get to terrorize all women. Pro-choice sounds like a fair solution.

 

[MAGAnificent]

They say the unborn have 'no' rights because they are not mentioned, then turn around and use the phrase, "my body, my choice". Claiming that phrase means the unborn inside the woman is part of her body, then needless to say the unborn have the same rights as the mother, because it's part of her body.

Deny the obvious contradiction is willful blindness. Try again.

Yep. Stangely some of the same states that want to deny the unborn any rights infer those rights when they sometimes charge the killers of pregnant women with two murders.