Your failure to understand is your own failure. Perhaps you should review law, particularly the constitution and federal law.Your explanation was poor.
Its not a claim. I cited the Constitution and federal law. Its legal fact!That's not an explanation that's just him claim you make.
Continu Continuing to demonstrate your lack of comprehension. Note the capitalized "ALL PERSONS BORN...."That has to do with citizenship.
Mocking is all you see able to do. Certainly not engage in a rational discussion.That's my way of mocking you that's how ridiculous your view is.
Yeah, you should. Then your argument wouldn't be so ignorant.No I don't really.
In other words, you have no refutation!It's self refuting.
The person being murdered does not have a body? Your arguments are getting more and more disjointed with each post.It's not their body.
It's not about what I want. Its about what the law says,particularly the Constitution and federal law, which i have cited multiple times now.No your explanation wasn't really an explanation it was kind of just you declaring things because you want them to be true
Then you either weren't paying attention or didn't get it. Probably both.You did I didn't see any arguments. I saw you make absurd claims that I rejected but no arguments so far.
Which means you can't refute them. Thanks for tacitly admitting that.I don't refute claims you have to prove them.
Also with the definition of personhood. This is also affirmed by Federal law, which i also previous previously cited. You cant seem to argue against established federal law.The amendment your sighting has to do with citizenship.
You didn't cite any law you're putting it law that talks about citizenship.Your failure to understand is your own failure. Perhaps you should review law, particularly the constitution and federal law.
You decided something having to do with citizenship not personhood.Its not a claim. I cited the Constitution and federal law. Its legal fact!
The clause in the 14th amendment you're talking about has to do with citizenshipContinu Continuing to demonstrate your lack of comprehension. Note the capitalized "ALL PERSONS BORN...."
Mocking is all you see able to do. Certainly not engage in a rational discussion.
Yeah, you should. Then your argument wouldn't be so ignorant.
In other words, you have no refutation!
The person being murdered does not have a body? Your arguments are getting more and more disjointed with each post.
It's not about what I want. Its about what the law says,particularly the Constitution and federal law, which i have cited multiple times now.
Then you either weren't paying attention or didn't get it. Probably both.
Which means you can't refute them. Thanks for tacitly admitting that.
Also with the definition of personhood. This is also affirmed by Federal law, which i also previous previously cited. You cant seem to argue against established federal law.
I cited the Constitution and 1 US Code. Are those not law to you?You didn't cite any law you're putting it law that talks about citizenship.
Note how it's saying a person is born. Ergo, unborn =/= personYou decided something having to do with citizenship not personhood.
You're making it legalistic argument.I cited the Constitution and 1 US Code. Are those not law to you?
Note how it's saying a person is born. Ergo, unborn =/= person
Neither do the federal government or the states recognize personhood for the unborn.
Yes, and? Clearly you have no rational or valid counter argument. Just feelings apparently.You're making it legalistic argument.
The law once said black people were 3/5 of a person so they don't really have a good track record.Yes, and?
Valid counter argument to what that the law is flawed? Is it your position that it's perfect?Clearly you have no rational or valid counter argument. Just feelings apparently.
Irrelevant.The law once said black people were 3/5 of a person so they don't really have a good track record.
Not at all. I specifically said fetal homicide laws are absurd and not legally defensible.Valid counter argument to what that the law is flawed? Is it your position that it's perfect?
Why is it relevant it shows a track record of errorIrrelevant.
Based on what?Not at all. I specifically said fetal homicide laws are absurd and not legally defensible.
It was addressed.Why is it relevant it shows a track record of error
The Constitution and federal law, which I cited. Have ypu not been following?Based on what?
What post? I don't recall.It was addressed.
So why is constitutional on federal law correct?The Constitution and federal law, which I cited.
The Constitution addressed it, duh!What post? I don't recall.
It respects individual rights, liberty, and autonomy.So why is constitutional on federal law correct?
Which post?The Constitution addressed it, duh!
When do you have autonomy over someone else?It respects individual rights, liberty, and autonomy.
Refer to the 13th Amendment.Which post?
You dont! Thats 1 reason why the idea of unborn personhood is absurd and legally flawed.When do you have autonomy over someone else?
So the abolition of slavery means you're not a person until you're born?Refer to the 13th Amendment.
When a woman is pregnant the fetus is not her body. Any more than your body is part of your mother.You dont! Thats 1 reason why the idea of unborn personhood is absurd and legally flawed.
Yep, these dumb rules.aka norms for when a woman is financially, emotionally, and from a maturation standpoint - ready to birth and take care of a child
When do people stop being kids?
The 14th Amendment and federal law says you're not a person until you're born.So the abolition of slavery means you're not a person until you're born?
I don't understand can you explain that?
The fetus is occupying and feeding off her body and bodily resources. Its most definitely connected and therefore part of her body. Legal precedent also establishes that one cannot be compelled to have their body used without their consent.When a woman is pregnant the fetus is not her body. Any more than your body is part of your mother.
In addition to the previous statements, The fetus is not a person under the law and therefore has no recognized rights, protections, or personhood. Not to mention it is impossible to establish fetal personhood without infringing on the rights and autonomy of the woman.So explain why it's flawed you still haven't done that you're just making claims that don't explain anything.
And?The 14th Amendment and federal law says you're not a person until you're born.
So?The fetus is occupying and feeding off her body and bodily resources.
Why?Its most definitely connected and therefore part of her body.
This is false have you never heard of the draft?Legal precedent also establishes that one cannot be compelled to have their body used without their consent.
Depending on jurisdiction so therefore the law is arbitrary and not really based on facts.In addition to the previous statements, The fetus is not a person under the law and therefore has no recognized rights, protections, or personhood.
Depending on jurisdictionNot to mention it is impossible to establish fetal personhood without infringing on the rights and autonomy of the woman.
But your explanation isn't satisfactory you say legally they're not a person but that depends on jurisdiction meaning the law is arbitrary and thus meaningless.I have explained everything.
It's not inability to comprehend I comprehend just fine. It's understanding that you're argument rests on very very shaky ground.Your inability to comprehend is your problem.
Then your position is poor maybe you should rethink it.I can't make it any simpler than that.
I get it it's not complicated. You cherry pick only laws that support your viewpoint and ignore laws that don't that's not clever it's really kind of remedial.If you still dont get it, I suggest you take a basic civics and law course.
Explanations are providedAnd?
So?
UmbilicalWhy?
Yes, and it's true.This is false have you never heard of the draft?
False! Fetal personhood is not established or recognized in any state.Depending on jurisdiction so therefore the law is arbitrary and not really based on facts.
Depending on jurisdiction
The Constittuion and federal law covers all juristictions.But your explanation isn't satisfactory you say legally they're not a person but that depends on jurisdiction meaning the law is arbitrary and thus meaningless.
No, it's your lack of comprehension. You offer nothing to refute my argument either.It's not inability to comprehend I comprehend just fine. It's understanding that you're argument rests on very very shaky ground.
It's not my position that's the problem. Especially given your lack of understanding.Then your position is poor maybe you should rethink it.
I get it it's not complicated. You cherry pick only laws that support your viewpoint and ignore laws that don't that's not clever it's really kind of remedial.
No, it's solid and you still haven't offered anything counter to it beyond a 'nuh-uh' style respnse.It's just a terrible argument to support your position you need to try harder. Or be happy in your fallacy.
What would a 13 year old girl need to be on birth control?
I've answered this several times already.Acne, heavy periods.
A gay man really does know all about the menstrual periods of young girls, right?I've answered this several times already.
Is poor as they may beExplanations are provided
Prove itUmbilical
Yes, and it's true.
Whatever that means.False! Fetal personhood is not established or recognized in any state.
AndThe Constittuion and federal law covers all juristictions.
Your argument is that the law is absolutely true no it's not. It's wrong all the time when you think the supreme Court doesNo, it's your lack of comprehension. You offer nothing to refute my argument either.
It's not lack of understanding it's refusal to accept bullshit. Are you understand your bullshit it's very primitive and simple mindedIt's not my position that's the problem. Especially given your lack of understanding.
It's solid to think that the law is absolute truth? You couldn't believe that horse shit if you want. I'm not that stupid.No, it's solid and you still haven't offered anything counter to it beyond a 'nuh-uh' style respnse.
Why would I need to have that experience to speak on this subject?A gay man really does know all about the menstrual periods of young girls, right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?