• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

14th Amendment

Noodlegawd said:
Oh please. No one forces you to have recreational sex either. If that's your argument, you might as well stop now.
Click to expand...
Sex isn't the issue. Although consent is required from the parties involved.
Noodlegawd said:
Taxation is taking from people against their will. Of course it's bodily autonomy.
Click to expand...
Taxation is used for services by the government which people utilize. Paying taxes may infringe on my finances, but it does not infringe or affect my autonomy.
 

You should look closely at suing for return of college expenses and tuition, for they did a hilarious job of educating.
 
redbeer said:
Somebody needs properly educated on the results of sex.
Click to expand...
And somebody need an education on relevance and the Constitution.
redbeer said:
You should look closely at suing for return of college expenses and tuition, for they did a hilarious job of educating.
Click to expand...
Says the one apparently not understanding the Constitution.
 
redbeer said:
You should look closely at suing for return of college expenses and tuition, for they did a hilarious job of educating.
Click to expand...

Your "na huh" is just more proof you cant understand it. You have not "corrected" me...you failed to understand the basic sentence structure and words.

If the federal govt recognized rights for the unborn, why does the Dobbs decision allow the unborn to be killed?
 
Per the Unborn Victims of Violence Act:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—​
‘‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law​
​
Are you continuing to deny the obvious?
 

Thank you. Obviously there's no right to life recognized, again demonstrating his poor competence with the English language.
 
Lursa said:
Thank you. Obviously there's no right to life recognized, again demonstrating his poor competence with the English language.
Click to expand...
The word 'right' shows up zero times within the act.
 

You take a tid bit here, tid bit there, take them out of context and draw a wrong conclusion.
 

Yes, I know abortion is exempted.....please pay attention before posting. That doesn't mean an unborn child is without rights.
 
redbeer said:
Yes, I know abortion is exempted.....please pay attention before posting. That doesn't mean an unborn child is without rights.
Click to expand...
You haven't demonstrated where the unborn have rights. Just empty claims not backed by the Constitution or federal law!
 
redbeer said:
Yes, I know abortion is exempted.....please pay attention before posting. That doesn't mean an unborn child is without rights.
Click to expand...
No, they've no formal rights. Rather, they're legally recognized as to be protected from third-party violence. That's all.
Don't conflate recognition with rights.
 
redbeer said:
You take a tid bit here, tid bit there, take them out of context and draw a wrong conclusion.
Click to expand...
She just applied reason and logic to the situation. It would behoove you to do the same.
 
quip said:
She just applied reason and logic to the situation. It would behoove you to do the same.
Click to expand...

That's what trinitarians say, when they attempt to prove 3 persons are 1 being. The exact same type of reason and logic.....it's faulty and a vain attempt to prove a negative. They'll take a little here and there, combine them together and invent a doctrine absent in the actual text.
 
redbeer said:
You take a tid bit here, tid bit there, take them out of context and draw a wrong conclusion.
Click to expand...

That's a lie, I did no such thing. I've explained them, trying to simplify as much as possible and you still cant understand. But the entire US Code 8 has been posted, as has the entire first section of the 14th Amendment. It's not my fault you cant understand them.

As for your citations, if the feds recognize rights for the unborn, how many times do you have to be asked to quote where? And why wont you address this?

If the federal govt recognized rights for the unborn, why does the Dobbs decision allow the unborn to be killed?
 
redbeer said:
Yes, I know abortion is exempted.....please pay attention before posting. That doesn't mean an unborn child is without rights.
Click to expand...

The Dobbs decision clearly means they dont.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.