A case for teen pregnancy?

[Gordy327]

Your explanation was poor.

Your failure to understand is your own failure. Perhaps you should review law, particularly the constitution and federal law.

That's not an explanation that's just him claim you make.

Its not a claim. I cited the Constitution and federal law. Its legal fact!

That has to do with citizenship.

Continu Continuing to demonstrate your lack of comprehension. Note the capitalized "ALL PERSONS BORN...."

That's my way of mocking you that's how ridiculous your view is.

Mocking is all you see able to do. Certainly not engage in a rational discussion.

No I don't really.

Yeah, you should. Then your argument wouldn't be so ignorant.

It's self refuting.

In other words, you have no refutation!

It's not their body.

The person being murdered does not have a body? Your arguments are getting more and more disjointed with each post.

No your explanation wasn't really an explanation it was kind of just you declaring things because you want them to be true

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.

You did I didn't see any arguments. I saw you make absurd claims that I rejected but no arguments so far.

Then you either weren't paying attention or didn't get it. Probably both.

I don't refute claims you have to prove them.

Which means you can't refute them. Thanks for tacitly admitting that.

The amendment your sighting has to do with citizenship.

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

Your failure to understand is your own failure. Perhaps you should review law, particularly the constitution and federal law.

You didn't cite any law you're putting it law that talks about citizenship.

Its not a claim. I cited the Constitution and federal law. Its legal fact!

You decided something having to do with citizenship not personhood.

Continu 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.

The clause in the 14th amendment you're talking about has to do with citizenship

 

[Gordy327]

You didn't cite any law you're putting it law that talks about citizenship.

I cited the Constitution and 1 US Code. Are those not law to you?

You decided something having to do with citizenship not personhood.

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

You're making it legalistic argument.

 

[Gordy327]

You're making it legalistic argument.

Yes, and? Clearly you have no rational or valid counter argument. Just feelings apparently.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes, and?

The law once said black people were 3/5 of a person so they don't really have a good track record.

Clearly you have no rational or valid counter argument. Just feelings apparently.

Valid counter argument to what that the law is flawed? Is it your position that it's perfect?

 

[Gordy327]

The law once said black people were 3/5 of a person so they don't really have a good track record.

Irrelevant.

Valid counter argument to what that the law is flawed? Is it your position that it's perfect?

Not at all. I specifically said fetal homicide laws are absurd and not legally defensible.

 

[CLAX1911]

Irrelevant.

Why is it relevant it shows a track record of error

Not at all. I specifically said fetal homicide laws are absurd and not legally defensible.

Based on what?

 

[Gordy327]

Why is it relevant it shows a track record of error

It was addressed.

Based on what?

The Constitution and federal law, which I cited. Have ypu not been following?

 

[CLAX1911]

It was addressed.

What post? I don't recall.

The Constitution and federal law, which I cited.

So why is constitutional on federal law correct?

 

[Gordy327]

What post? I don't recall.

The Constitution addressed it, duh!

So why is constitutional on federal law correct?

It respects individual rights, liberty, and autonomy.

 

[CLAX1911]

The Constitution addressed it, duh!

Which post?

It respects individual rights, liberty, and autonomy.

When do you have autonomy over someone else?

 

[Gordy327]

Which post?

Refer to the 13th Amendment.

When do you have autonomy over someone else?

You dont! Thats 1 reason why the idea of unborn personhood is absurd and legally flawed.

 

[CLAX1911]

Refer to the 13th Amendment.

So the abolition of slavery means you're not a person until you're born?

I don't understand can you explain that?

You dont! Thats 1 reason why the idea of unborn personhood is absurd and legally flawed.

When a woman is pregnant the fetus is not her body. Any more than your body is part of your mother.

So explain why it's flawed you still haven't done that you're just making claims that don't explain anything.

 

[noonereal]

aka norms for when a woman is financially, emotionally, and from a maturation standpoint - ready to birth and take care of a child

Yep, these dumb rules.
What do/does creepy men have to do with any of this.

 

[noonereal]

When do people stop being kids?

When fake laws say so.

 

[Gordy327]

So the abolition of slavery means you're not a person until you're born?

I don't understand can you explain that?

The 14th Amendment and federal law says you're not a person until you're born.

When a woman is pregnant the fetus is not her body. Any more than your body is part of your mother.

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.

So explain why it's flawed you still haven't done that you're just making claims that don't explain anything.

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.
I have explained everything. Your inability to comprehend is your problem. I can't make it any simpler than that. If you still dont get it, I suggest you take a basic civics and law course.

 

[CLAX1911]

The 14th Amendment and federal law says you're not a person until you're born.

And?

The fetus is occupying and feeding off her body and bodily resources.

So?

Its most definitely connected and therefore part of her body.

Why?

Legal precedent also establishes that one cannot be compelled to have their body used without their consent.

This is false have you never heard of the draft?

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 jurisdiction so therefore the law is arbitrary and not really based on facts.

Not to mention it is impossible to establish fetal personhood without infringing on the rights and autonomy of the woman.

Depending on jurisdiction

I have explained everything.

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.

Your inability to comprehend is your problem.

It's not inability to comprehend I comprehend just fine. It's understanding that you're argument rests on very very shaky ground.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

Then your position is poor maybe you should rethink it.

If you still dont get it, I suggest you take a basic civics and law course.

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.

It's just a terrible argument to support your position you need to try harder. Or be happy in your fallacy.

 

[Gordy327]

And?

So?

Explanations are provided

Why?

Umbilical

This is false have you never heard of the draft?

Yes, and it's true.

Depending on jurisdiction so therefore the law is arbitrary and not really based on facts.

Depending on jurisdiction

False! Fetal personhood is not established or recognized in any state.

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.

The Constittuion and federal law covers all juristictions.

It's not inability to comprehend I comprehend just fine. It's understanding that you're argument rests on very very shaky ground.

No, it's your lack of comprehension. You offer nothing to refute my argument either.

Then your position is poor maybe you should rethink it.

It's not my position that's the problem. Especially given your lack of understanding.

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.

It's just a terrible argument to support your position you need to try harder. Or be happy in your fallacy.

No, it's solid and you still haven't offered anything counter to it beyond a 'nuh-uh' style respnse.

 

[Aristaeus]

What would a 13 year old girl need to be on birth control?

Acne, heavy periods.

 

[CLAX1911]

Acne, heavy periods.

I've answered this several times already.

 

[BirdinHand]

I've answered this several times already.

A gay man really does know all about the menstrual periods of young girls, right?

 

[CLAX1911]

Explanations are provided

Is poor as they may be

Umbilical

Yes, and it's true.

Prove it

False! Fetal personhood is not established or recognized in any state.

Whatever that means.

The Constittuion and federal law covers all juristictions.

And

No, it's your lack of comprehension. You offer nothing to refute my argument either.

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 does

It's not my position that's the problem. Especially given your lack of understanding.

It's not lack of understanding it's refusal to accept bullshit. Are you understand your bullshit it's very primitive and simple minded

No, it's solid and you still haven't offered anything counter to it beyond a 'nuh-uh' style respnse.

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

A gay man really does know all about the menstrual periods of young girls, right?

Why would I need to have that experience to speak on this subject?

 

[BirdinHand]

Why would I need to have that experience to speak on this subject?

I think it creepy you are so invested in what birth control girls do/do not take and why.

More invested than anyone else that has replied to the thread.