14th Amendment

[Lursa]

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.

No such rights are "inferred"...are they inferred when people are charged with killing protected endangered species or destroying someone else's livestock? No.

 

[Lursa]

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?

Holy shit! That still means what it meant in the other thread...that NO legal status or legal rights are applicable to any human PRIOR to being born alive. That's what it means!

And 'prior to being born alive' was clearly defined in parts a and b:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant​

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

​

The levels of incredibly poor grammar and reading comprehension exposed in threads on this issue are appalling. It's basic English.

 

[Lursa]

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?

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?

Exactly!

 

[Lursa]

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?

Why is it ok to "murder a baby" in cases of rape, but not later into the 2nd trimester?

Is it wrong to kill it or not? Yes or no? If it is...how is it an acceptable "compromise" to kill it incases of rape? Do we do that with 3 month olds?

 

[Lursa]

But you sure do love taking a high moral ground position by accusing me of wanting to control women, lol......that's rather hypocritical, imo. You open a door for the woman to be rid of the pregnancy to remove yourself from responsibility. It looks as if you have it backwards.

What's "our responsibility?" And I've already listed for you that abortion can be a very responsible option. Remember? Shall I repost the list or will you just cede that point now?

 

[Lursa]

I cannot dumb it down any further for you. If you do not understand, that is your (unique) problem, not mine.

It's an (obvious) means to escape.

 

[Lursa]

Other than rape or medical reasons to save her life, that unborn child has the right to life, imo. To you, it's nothing with no rights whatsoever to be killed on a whim. The problem lies in educating and pre-pregnancy birth control.

Nope, your 'feelings' are not any kind of legal or moral justification for having them forced on women without their consent. And you have yet to provide a legal foundation (that's still failing) or moral one.

Another reason is scientific.....did you know an unborn has their own dna and a different circulatory blood supply from the maternal circulatory blood supply, as there are two, the maternal and fetal blood circulatory systems. Even though in the early states the unborn is entirely dependent upon the mother, it has these things mentioned with a completely separate circulatory blood system. Kind of makes the slogan, "my body, my choice" a thing of the past.

How does a fetus retain a blood group different from its mother?

It's a well-established fact that blood group is decided by genotype. But, when a new child starts its journey in the womb, the mother's blood (along with it's agglutinins and agglutinogens) flows ...

biology.stackexchange.com

This again??? Holy shit squared. Science recognizes no value or rights for any species. "Science" doesnt care who lives or dies or who kills who. Right? OTOH, the US Code 8 clearly shows how it uses scientific definitions to show how the Const. "legally" recognize rights, or not.

Because law, value, rights, are all man-made concepts.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Why is it acceptable to "murder a baby" if the mother was raped? Even as a compromise, please explain that?

This!^^^^

I am of the opinion that the the only pro-life position that is viable is no exceptions - ever.

If they claim it is about the sanctity of life, they cannot simultaneously say "If your contraception fails, you can't kill the baby, but you can kill the baby if it is a result of rape or incest."

But they want to sound 'reasonable and compassionate' so they offer exceptions. Unfortunately for them, it belies the truth behind their position. "If we approve, you may kill the baby. Now, don't you feel better?"

 

[Lursa]

This!^^^^

I am of the opinion that the the only pro-life position that is viable is no exceptions - ever.

If they claim it is about the sanctity of life, they cannot simultaneously say "If your contraception fails, you can't kill the baby, but you can kill the baby if it is a result of rape or incest."

But they want to sound 'reasonable and compassionate' so they offer exceptions. Unfortunately for them, it belies the truth behind their position. "If we approve, you may kill the baby. Now, don't you feel better?"

What he and others also cannot explain is if the federal govt recognizes a right to life for the unborn, why does the Dobbs decision enable state laws allowing women to have them killed?

 

[Gordy327]

It's an (obvious) means to escape.

Indeed. Intellectual cowardice at its finest.

 

[redbeer]

Holy shit! That still means what it meant in the other thread...that NO legal status or legal rights are applicable to any human PRIOR to being born alive. That's what it means!

And 'prior to being born alive' was clearly defined in parts a and b:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant​

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

​

The levels of incredibly poor grammar and reading comprehension exposed in threads on this issue are appalling. It's basic English.

Yes, it is incredulous how people can see things which aren't present in the text, read ideology into the text, then they wonder wtf is wrong with everyone else, lol....it's hilarious.

(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.

See that word "construed"....do you know what it means?.....then those words affirm or deny? Put them together with legal status or legal right and clearly the writers are letting us know that "in this section" they are not speaking of the rights or legal status of the unborn. Remember those two words you just read, "affirm or deny", they come into play in case you don't know. They simply are letting us know in this section they are only speaking of those who are already 'born alive' and not the unborn.

Your usage here has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Noodlegawd]

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.

Nobody has the right to live inside another person against their will.

 

[Gordy327]

Nobody has the right to live inside another person against their will.

Indeed. And no one can be forced to have their body or body resources used to benefit another without consent. Those 2 points demonstrate why abortion restrictions are unconstitutional at their core.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Indeed. And no one can be forced to have their body or body resources used to benefit another without consent. Those 2 points demonstrate why abortion restrictions are unconstitutional at their core.

Not really. People are forced to have their body resources used to benefit others without consent all the time, and the constitution has nothing to do with it.

 

[Gordy327]

Not really. People are forced to have their body resources used to benefit others without consent all the time, and the constitution has nothing to do with it.

How so? Unless any such compulsion is illegal.

 

[Lursa]

Yes, it is incredulous how people can see things which aren't present in the text, read ideology into the text, then they wonder wtf is wrong with everyone else, lol....it's hilarious.

(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.

See that word "construed"....do you know what it means?.....then those words affirm or deny? Put them together with legal status or legal right and clearly the writers are letting us know that "in this section" they are not speaking of the rights or legal status of the unborn. Remember those two words you just read, "affirm or deny", they come into play in case you don't know. They simply are letting us know in this section they are only speaking of those who are already 'born alive' and not the unborn.

Your usage here has been thoroughly debunked.

Nope...see the word 'any?' So it means the words defined: 'person,' 'child', 'human being,' and 'individual' do not apply to "any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.'

Again, you exemplify a major failure in English education.

 

[Lursa]

How so? Unless any such compulsion is illegal.

There's only one I can think of...and then no other examples. Would be interested in seeing his examples.

 

[Lursa]

They simply are letting us know in this section they are only speaking of those who are already 'born alive' and not the unborn.

Please cite where the federal govt does recognize rights for the unborn then? Specifically.

I can give an easy example you keep choosing to ignore, proving you're wrong: Could the Dobbs decision enable states to legalize killing the unborn if they had rights?

 

[Gordy327]

There's only one I can think of...and then no other examples. Would be interested in seeing his examples.

Me too. I am curious.

Please cite where the federal govt does recognize rights for the unborn then? Specifically.

I can give an easy example you keep choosing to ignore, proving you're wrong: Could the Dobbs decision enable states to legalize killing the unborn if they had rights?

Here, please allow me to reiterate:

 

[Gordy327]

They simply are letting us know in this section they are only speaking of those who are already 'born alive' and not the unborn.

Please cite where the federal govt does recognize rights for the unborn then? Specifically.

I can give an easy example you keep choosing to ignore, proving you're wrong: Could the Dobbs decision enable states to legalize killing the unborn if they had rights?

 

[Noodlegawd]

How so? Unless any such compulsion is illegal.

Taxes and the draft immediately come to mind.

 

[Lursa]

Taxes and the draft immediately come to mind.

The draft is the only one and that is in the interest of national security (that's the explanation anyway; I still disagree with it)

No one forces you to have a job that reaches taxable levels.

 

[Gordy327]

Taxes and the draft immediately come to mind.

Taxes is monetary, not bodily autonomy. There is no draft either.

 

[Noodlegawd]

No one forces you to have a job that reaches taxable levels.

Oh please. No one forces you to have recreational sex either. If that's your argument, you might as well stop now.

Taxes is monetary, not bodily autonomy. There is no draft either.

Taxation is taking from people against their will. Of course it's bodily autonomy.

 

[Lursa]

Oh please. No one forces you to have recreational sex either. If that's your argument, you might as well stop now.

No, that's not an accurate parallel. Sex is a normal, social and legal behavior, but accident happen...we dont force skiers or drivers to "live with the consequences" of their accidents, do we? Force them to risk their lives by denying them the safest treatment? No, they get the safest medical procedures to help them...so then why would the govt deny the safest medical procedure, abortion, to women?

Per the Dobbs decision, the federal govt does not. But...some states do.

Different comparison but one I use often. But very different from what we're discussing. Btw we're mostly on the same side here, I was just making a singular point.