14th Amendment

[redbeer]

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.

Of course, victims of rape should have the right to an abortion, as I don't argue against that situation. At the beginning stages of life, of course its entire existence is dependent upon the woman....that's a given.

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.

I disagree with both far sides of this issue. I think denying all abortions is wrong, as I disagree with allowing abortion at any time because they have no rights.

 

[redbeer]

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.

Can women make this choice within the first trimester? Why should it be permitted beyond this time frame unless there's medical issues? Certainly, if it's used strictly for birth control or they don't want to have a child for whatever reason.

Pregnancy: What to Expect in Your Second Trimester (Weeks 13-26)

Explore what to expect during the second trimester of pregnancy with UnityPoint Health. Get weekly insights into your baby's growth, changes in your body, and helpful tips for a healthy pregnancy journey.

www.unitypoint.org

 

[redbeer]

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.

Yes, hence the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, albeit exempt abortion, yet it still gives the unborn rights of protection and to life. I think the emphasis regarding this issue should be more education on the consequences of sex and pre-pregnancy birth control. Abortion has become a huge money maker and through this education on responsibility of pre-pregnancy birth control hurts their bottom line, hence the push for using abortion as a form of 'birth control'.

 

[btthegreat]

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.

Geez you have to know these replies before I even type them. The 'context' you are talking about is by definition, one with a time, a culture and a place stamped on it. That is the way legal documents come. The framers did not provide for a sunset provision for the 14th, nor did they narrow the scope of the language as trained lawyers (which they largely were) are want to apply. If they meant for it to apply only to slavery, involuntary servitude etc as you would prefer they could have written that.. They debated scope and language, and it was their own imaginations that became the boundries. They were not foolish as to think that their collective hypotheticals would ever be enough It was the anticipated job of the Supreme Court to apply sections of this document to messy unanticipated situations beyond the context of time, culture, and place where the founders imaginations could not reach. They offered a solution to a court misapplication or a need for a new amendment, clarification or the deletion of problematic language . Its in the form of an amendment clause we all know.

You asked a very specific question, and you got your answer. the rights to a a woman's body belongs to a legal person who asserts those rights. A fetus is not seen as a legal person yet, so that 'body' is assigned as quasi-property to another party to assert those rights or not. The pro choice position is that the woman is the logical party to hold such authority similar to the closest 'next of kin' ,might be after death. They are the logical deciders rather than an inpersonal, distant and nessisarily ignorant govt body ( read legislature, courts etc) applying a cookie cutter approach to very personal, intimate and complex family situations. In short the pregnant woman has two bodies, she is responsible for making decisions about during pregnancy and she is best and only logical person to leave that authority in.

 

[quip]

Of course, victims of rape should have the right to an abortion, as I don't argue against that situation.

Wherefore your inconsistency when it comes to rape? Does the product of rape lose its alleged right-to-life by rape's particular mode of conception?

As a pure matter of conception, the only glaring difference between the two scenarios are the issues of free-willed sex vis-a'-vis forced sex.

Therefore, is your essential anti-choice end moreso a contention with women's sexual freedoms, as such, working through the means of this so-called "right" of the unborn in achieving it?

 

[BabaVoss]

Sperm and egg have no rights.
A fertilized egg has no rights,

 

[quip]

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.

Actually "down the middle" would be elective abortions up until around month 4.5

Is this a compromise you're willing to cede?

 

[redbeer]

Geez you have to know these replies before I even type them. The 'context' you are talking about is by definition, one with a time, a culture and a place stamped on it. That is the way legal documents come. The framers did not provide for a sunset provision for the 14th, nor did they narrow the scope of the language as trained lawyers (which they largely were) are want to apply. If they meant for it to apply only to slavery, involuntary servitude etc as you would prefer they could have written that.. They debated scope and language, and it was their own imaginations that became the boundries. They were not foolish as to think that their collective hypotheticals would ever be enough It was the anticipated job of the Supreme Court to apply sections of this document to messy unanticipated situations beyond the context of time, culture, and place where the founders imaginations could not reach. They offered a solution to a court misapplication or a need for a new amendment, clarification or the deletion of problematic language . Its in the form of an amendment clause we all know.

I showed you specifically wherein 1 US code 8c the writers spoke directly to the unborn, yet it's still ignored and you present the sophistry above.....look here it is again....read and ponder:


1 US code 8c:
"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."


Yet, you still take the words from 1 US code 8a and apply it to the unborn, implying and forcefully asserting that the unborn have no rights, yet in context the writers made it clear it was not applied to the unborn. Why are you doing this?

You asked a very specific question, and you got your answer. the rights to a a woman's body belongs to a legal person who asserts those rights. A fetus is not seen as a legal person yet, so that 'body' is assigned as quasi-property to another party to assert those rights or not. The pro choice position is that the woman is the logical party to hold such authority similar to the closest 'next of kin' ,might be after death. They are the logical deciders rather than an inpersonal, distant and nessisarily ignorant govt body ( read legislature, courts etc) applying a cookie cutter approach to very personal, intimate and complex family situations. In short the pregnant woman has two bodies, she is responsible for making decisions about during pregnancy and she is best and only logical person to leave that authority in.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 specifically garners rights to the unborn, even calling them "a child", yet exempt it from abortion but it clearly means they don't see the unborn as nonpersons without zero rights as you are espousing. That all stems from the misinterpretation of 1 US code 8a as shown.

 

[quip]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 specifically garners rights to the unborn, even calling them "a child", yet exempt it from abortion but it clearly means they don't see the unborn as nonpersons without zero rights as you are espousing. That all stems from the misinterpretation of 1 US code 8a as shown.

Alternatively, the unborn wouldn't require such selective protections if indeed they've achieve bona fide personhood.

 

[redbeer]

Wherefore your inconsistency when it comes to rape? Does the product of rape lose its alleged right-to-life by rape's particular mode of conception?

As a pure matter of conception, the only glaring difference between the two scenarios are the issues of free-willed sex vis-a'-vis forced sex.

Therefore, is your essential anti-choice end moreso a contention with women's sexual freedoms, as such, working through the means of this so-called "right" of the unborn in achieving it?

You also believe women who were raped have the right to abortion.....is there any satisfying you? Free-willed sex has the choice/option/responsibility of birth control as forced sex does not and is against her will.

I understand some abortion is necessary, as in the above scenario or other reasons, yet shouldn't a woman who doesn't want the child for whatever reason have a time constraint placed upon when the abortion take place? Why should she wait till the second trimester or later to expel and kill an unborn child? If the baby is not wanted the decision should be quick without the unborn growing within her womb developing more and more to a human being.

Now, of course if there develops health conditions which threaten the womans life in continuing the pregnancy, this should be between the woman and her doctor. It's another human developing within the womb who will have a future full of all the rights we possess.

 

[redbeer]

Actually "down the middle" would be elective abortions up until around month 4.5

Is this a compromise you're willing to cede?

Possibly, at the second trimester mark things spiral quickly to humanity in all its levels.

 

[redbeer]

Alternatively, the unborn wouldn't require such selective protections if indeed they've achieve bona fide personhood.

I think it's a symptom of lawmakers then as it is today. Noone wants to remove all the rights from women while they don't want to be responsible for something against future human beings, along with whatever faith they have. Regardless, it's more of a moral issue/symptom, imo.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Why not? The woman has that right to bodily autonomy, among others The life inside her has no federally recognized rights.

They don't count during a census. As far as the federal government is concerned, they don't even exist.

 

[quip]

You also believe women who were raped have the right to abortion.....is there any satisfying you? Free-willed sex has the choice/option/responsibility of birth control as forced sex does not and is against her will.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, 'unborn rights' are merely incidental to the retributive action which must be wrought upon a woman (seeking abortion) who conceives via unprotected or failed protection sex. Yes?

I understand some abortion is necessary, as in the above scenario or other reasons, yet shouldn't a woman who doesn't want the child for whatever reason have a time constraint placed upon when the abortion take place? Why should she wait till the second trimester or later to expel and kill an unborn child? If the baby is not wanted the decision should be quick without the unborn growing within her womb developing more and more to a human being.

Appears your rape exception is disingenuous, as the legal pace of providing the burden of evincing a rape leaves little time for a timely abortion.

More to the point: You still didn't address your blatant inconsistency.
If you grant moral incumbency to women via a rape exception....all else remaining equal, how can you rationally justify its arbitrary denial for non-rape situations?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

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.

OK, so you're not opposed to abortion, you simply want a say when a woman's motivations meet with your approval. In other words, your position is that women should seek permission from folks like you when considering an abortion. If her motive meets with your approval, she can have the abortion. Otherwise, no.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

There is nothing in the constitution allowing the EPA to make laws. Should the IRS be able to establish and enforce tax laws?

The EPA does not "make laws" unless you want to call environmental regulations "laws." The EPA was given the authority to meet the goals of the legislation as passed by Congress, just like the FAA does not have to go to Congress every time they want to improve a flight safety procedure.

Polluters still have the option of going to court to challenge the EPA, but until they get a court ruling in their favor, the have to stop polluting at will.

 

[Gordy327]

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 14th speaks of the born and establishes rights and personhood for the born. The unborn are a non-issue and have neitther rights or persohood.

Although exempting abortion, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 gives the unborn legal rights.

Specify precisely where and what rights it does that!

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.

That is based on harm inflicted against the woman. It does not establish de facto rights for the unborn. A woman can still have an abortion without legal repurcussion too, which alone refutes any notion of unborn rights being established. THis has been explained to you before. So I fail to see why you continue to be dishonest about it.

Do mothers give birth to themselves or is it a different/separate human being?

Is it separate from the woman before birth?

I do not support abortion out of convenience or as a measure of birth control.

Then don't have an abortion. Others may choose differently. It's that simple.

The above post solely represents a severe lack of knowledge.

Oh the irony is dripping!

Of course, victims of rape should have the right to an abortion, as I don't argue against that situation. At the beginning stages of life, of course its entire existence is dependent upon the woman....that's a given.

That is a hypocritical position.

I disagree with both far sides of this issue. I think denying all abortions is wrong, as I disagree with allowing abortion at any time because they have no rights.

You haven't provided any source which establishes or enumerates rights for the unborn. Neither have you provided any legal or rational reasoning to restrict abortion in the first place beyond your own feelings.

Possibly, at the second trimester mark things spiral quickly to humanity in all its levels.

At what approximate week gestation would that be?

Can women make this choice within the first trimester? Why should it be permitted beyond this time frame unless there's medical issues? Certainly, if it's used strictly for birth control or they don't want to have a child for whatever reason.

Why should it be restricted beyond the first trimester? What is the significant difference of gestation at 12 weeks compared to say 15 or 20 weeks, or whatever other arbitrary point some states dictate?

 

[Gordy327]

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.

Fetal homicide laws are certainly illogical and should be rescinded.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Fetal homicide laws are certainly illogical and should be rescinded.

If you feel that strongly about baby killing, talk to your representatives.

 

[Gordy327]

If you feel that strongly about baby killing, talk to your representatives.

Who said anything about baby killing? You must be confused. But your non-answer is noted.

 

[redbeer]

So, if I'm reading you correctly, 'unborn rights' are merely incidental to the retributive action which must be wrought upon a woman (seeking abortion) who conceives via unprotected or failed protection sex. Yes?

Why are you twisting my words? I was clear as a bell in saying that a woman who has been raped against her will has a right to abortion. There's no need to add or subtract from that simple statement. Birth control even if used correctly 100% of the time can still fail to protect from pregnancy. I would think this is a given, seeing how it's common knowledge. Do I have to spell everything out to you and why do I have to keep repeating myself?

Appears your rape exception is disingenuous, as the legal pace of providing the burden of evincing a rape leaves little time for a timely abortion.

I'm sure it would widen the accusation of rape tenfold if it could get them an abortion from only having unprotected sex. So, in this your solution would be to let them have an abortion without reason or excuse, yes?

More to the point: You still didn't address your blatant inconsistency.
If you grant moral incumbency to women via a rape exception....all else remaining equal, how can you rationally justify its arbitrary denial for non-rape situations?

Because I simply do not believe in the killing of innocent future life because of the false pretense they are not persons without rights, so it's perfectly alright to end its life. Many great people have arisen from severe poverty and lifelong hardships being born into 'not so good' families or circumstances and removing these future persons from society would diminish the greatness of our nation.....there is always light at the end of the tunnel. It has been living through these hard-life experiences which helped and caused these great persons to spring forth. Simply to kill them like they are garbage to be throwed away and forgotten is a true sign of a degraded society, imo.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Because I simply do not believe in the killing of innocent future life because of the false pretense they are not persons without rights, so it's perfectly alright to end its life. Many great people have arisen from severe poverty and lifelong hardships being born into 'not so good' families or circumstances and removing these future persons from society would diminish the greatness of our nation.....there is always light at the end of the tunnel. It has been living through these hard-life experiences which helped and caused these great persons to spring forth. Simply to kill them like they are garbage to be throwed away and forgotten is a true sign of a degraded society, imo.

That is the worst part of the pro-abortion crowd. When it comes to a procedure that wipes out an entire lifetime of potentially 70,80, 90 years or so, they are so cold hearted that they refuse to accept that it's anything other then a lump of fetal tissue

 

[BabaVoss]

<
<<<=== “They let you do it if you’re a star. You can do anything.” - Donald Felonious Trump
<

Can women make this choice within the first trimester?

Of course. Why should the government ever have anything to say about it at all?

Why should it be permitted beyond this time frame unless there's medical issues?

It is no one's business beyonr the woman involved - and whoever she chooses to be involved. The government should NOT be involved at all.
Woudl you support the government getting involved in determining what you do with your sperm?

 

[redbeer]

OK, so you're not opposed to abortion, you simply want a say when a woman's motivations meet with your approval. In other words, your position is that women should seek permission from folks like you when considering an abortion. If her motive meets with your approval, she can have the abortion. Otherwise, no.

You all sure do like to read words into a discussion out of thin air, lol. Not at all, I'm saying and now need to repeat it once again for the slower or those who cannot keep up that abortion should NOT be used for some excuses or reasons, matters not if they believe that unborn is her actual body, it's not to be used as a birth control alternative.

Why can't the shoplifter walk into a store and steal his hearts content.....who are you to tell him differently and second guess his motivations with your disapproval.
Why can't a murderers motivation meet with your approval....who are you to look down and attempt to know his reasons.

Your argument falls on flat feet. We are not trying to control women, make them second class citizens or any of that nonsense. We are trying to protect the life of the unborn and cease the movement they are nothing but to be killed out of being unwanted, needed, or some imagined threat to society. They are innocent children, once born.

 

[Gordy327]

That is the worst part of the pro-abortion crowd. When it comes to a procedure that wipes out an entire lifetime of potentially 70,80, 90 years or so, they are so cold hearted that they refuse to accept that it's anything other then a lump of fetal tissue

Define "potential." Potential for what? Potential is not the same as "actual" and nothing more than wishful thinking-hardly a solid basis to forcefully alter a gestator's actual life and their own "Potential."
And yes, it is a lump of fetal tissue. That's simple biology, but also irrelevant. It seems the only argument you can make is an appeal to emotion, which isn't even am argument.