Missouri Lawmaker Seeks To Stop Residents From Obtaining Abortions Out Of State

[choiceone]

Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human life, done without the indictment for a crime, done without permitting the accused to confront his accusers, done without trial or jury.

How is abortion not worse than what happens to people pushed in front of a NY subway train?

To be completely honest, the 50% figure is one I've seen and heard and cannot and will not attest to as being founded on any sort of published crime statistic. The figure cited was intended more as a rhetorical device. Remember this, OJ Simpson is still not guilty of murdering Nicole Brown and whatever his name was. The fact intended to be conveyed was that crimes are defined under the law with the knowledge that people will continue to commit those acts, but that the acts are criminalized in the hopes that the penalties will deter the behavior.

If there was no law against shoplifting, more shoplifting will happen. Just ask the Target stores in San Francisco. Same is true for any crime you'd care to identify, if there was lesser penalty there'd be more of the behavior.

Criminalize abortion and there will be fewer abortions and hopefully more women, and men, paying more attention to the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.

Why do you want babies killed by irresponsible women?

Abortion is not the deliberate termination of a human life. It is the removal of an embryo from a woman's body. If it dies as a consequence, that is because it can't live without using her body to give it continued life. Induced abortion is self-defense, while spontaneous abortion is not induced and so rarely if ever deliberate.

Induced abortion is self-defense in two distinct ways:

1) for those who do not believe that an embryo is a person, such as myself

Because the embryo is part of the woman's body and increases her risk of eventual death, illness, or injury in late pregnancy/childbirth, she certainly has a right to stop any pregnancy.

2) for those who believe that an embryo is a person

Even if a woman consented to sex with one particular man, if she did not officially consent to sex with one of his children, an embryo involving his DNA has no right to to form in her body and implant in her endometrial wall in her uterus. That would be rape.

In my state, a woman who is being threatened with rape or is being raped has the right to use lethal force if necessary to stop it and a third party has the right to help her. It should not matter than the embryo, like an escapee of an asylum for the criminally insane, is not competent to stand trial, or has no intention of raping, because the objective use of force for sexual contact defines the crime.

Where did you get the idea that manslaughter and murder are crimes against human life? They aren't. They're crimes against living persons. And where did you get the notion that homicide in self-defense is murder?

Embryos and fetuses are not persons according to the constitution. Moreover, sensible anti-abortion people know that, which is the reason they have formed and tried to pass a Fetal Personhood Amendment in more than one state. Even the state with the largest populations against abortion (Mississippi, about 55%) could not get a majority of voters to vote for such an amendment.

 

[Sled Dog]

It is our choice...as recognized in the Const and codified in RvW. Kind of silly for you to write that.

Since when has the Constitution permitted the Courts to "codify" anything?

The Constitution states that the Congress writes the code, the President approves it into law, and the courts adjudicate if the code is in accordance with the Constitution. And that last step is not in the Constitution itself but an usurpation under Marbury v Madison.

Yes, women do have the right to kill the unborn humans inside them. Again, this is protected by the Const and our laws support that.

No, they don't, and that's obvious because the Constitution does not mention pregnancy. But the Fifth Amendment protects the right of the people to jury trials, and does not specify that the person has to be breathing.

Since people do not have a right to kill other people, a power reserved to the government by the Fifth Amendment, women do not actually have a right to kill others.

Since the Fifth Amendment requires an indictment and a trial and a jury and witnesses and all that other somewhat inconvenient jazz, a Constitutional abortion law would involve putting the baby on trial. Anything else would be an abomination of Constitutional law.

Just showed you how the 14th Amendment does not recognize the unborn as persons. Why are you wasting all that writing?

No, you didn't. The 14th declares that "persons born in the US" are citizens, which implies nothing about unborn persons. Nowhere else does the Constitution address the fact of birth.

And you didn't show where the 14th Amendment overrides any part of the Fifth Amendment.

 

[Sled Dog]

Science has no authority on equality, status, rights, laws, value, etc. And the Const. doesnt recognize the unborn as persons.

More to the point, the Constituiton does not declare that unborn people are not people. Since unborn people are, in fact, people, then the duty of the Republic is to err on the side of caution and treat those people hanging on their umbilical cords with the full rights of people who have had their umbilicals cut.

And then it comes down to a matter of weighing the relative rights of two people, the woman who managed to get herself pregnant and child who is totally innocent.

The woman may suffer a small inconvenience for carrying a child to term. The child suffers permanent mortal harm when it it killed to avoid the mother's minor inconvenience.

Here are some specifics that prove you are wrong. I mean, you can personally invent all the new definitions for words and legal terms, but it doesnt make them rational or valid.

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""

--and--

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights; 2. The right of his mother to kill that non-person is a “ liberty Charles E. Rice 3 interest” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The states may impose some marginal restrictions on abortion but are barred from effectively prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy; 4. Efforts undertaken in the vicinity of an abortuary to dissuade women from abortion are subject to more stringent restrictions than are other forms of speech, assembly and association.

http://www.uffl.org/vol%209/rice9.pdf

--and--

Here is clarification on our laws that recognize the 14th Amendment (and the RvW decision):

(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.

What is the legal authority granted to the courts to sever the Constitutional protections guaranteed to "we the people" on a political whim?

There's no biological science supporting this action, so what actions justify that?

What allows the courts to usurp to role of the legislature and commence writing definitions? Since the court is not a legislative body, the court has no business writing definitions and pretending said definitions have the effect of law.

Also, if the child is a human being at time of birth, what is it before it is born? When does it become "human"? What law authorized the court to enact arbitrary definitions when the national legislature flatly refused to do so?

 

[Sled Dog]

(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.

I realize that you probably wont like all that but it is the legal clarification of the legal status of the unborn. And when you consider the mother in the equation as well, her pain, suffering, losses, self-determination, it becomes clear that it's also moral. Do you consider the mother?

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more. And they cannot be treated equally under the law, it's not possible. Or, if you have some legal basis to demonstrate how, I'd be happy to hear it.

The court does not have the authority to create it's own science and it does not have the authority to enact law.

A human is either a human and no segregation is permitted, or some humans have no rights under the law. And if some humans have no rights under the law, no humans have inviolable rights under the law.

If a human is not human until it is born, then a man convicted of TWO homicides for the murder of a pregnant female has been unjustly convicted and all penalties accruing to the "special circumstances" are invalid. Yet the same Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and sentencing based on such special circumstances in the past.

Pregnant woman are recognized by the traffic courts in California as being eligible to use the "High Occupancy Vehicle" (carpool) lanes in the freeways, because the woman claims her ticket is invalid because there were TWO people in the car.

So the courts do whatever the hell they want, citing court decisions as rebuttal to any argument is merely the logical failure of Argument From Authority, and as I have just shown, the courts themselves are not consistent on the matter.

Again, who is harmed more, the child killed in the abortion, or the woman who failed to avoid getting pregnant when she had every opportunity to skip the risk by making better decisions.

 

[Indlib]

There's nothing wrong with banning all abortions,

Except it violates the constitution.

and it should be done on a federal level, of course. Such a law would be perfectly constitutional.

Thank you for proving my point.

But individual states really don't have any business trying to prevent people crossing state lines to engage in commerce, even vile and evil baby-murdering commerce.

Agreed with part in bold.

Babies are not murdered.

It being evil is your opinion.

But banning the interstate sale of abortions is clearly something covered under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8n and further supported by the Fourth Amendment's requirement that no person shall be executed without a trial by jury.

Roe v Wade disagrees with you.

It is unfortunate you were not present as a member of SCOTUS when Roe v Wade was decided. I am sure your legal expertise would have been a game changer and women would be using coat hangers for abortions like in the good old days.

 

[Sled Dog]

Abortion is not the deliberate termination of a human life. It is the removal of an embryo from a woman's body. If it dies as a consequence, that is because it can't live without using her body to give it continued life. Induced abortion is self-defense, while spontaneous abortion is not induced and so rarely if ever deliberate.

Induced abortion is self-defense in two distinct ways:

1) for those who do not believe that an embryo is a person, such as myself

Because the embryo is part of the woman's body and increases her risk of eventual death, illness, or injury in late pregnancy/childbirth, she certainly has a right to stop any pregnancy.

2) for those who believe that an embryo is a person

Even if a woman consented to sex with one particular man, if she did not officially consent to sex with one of his children, an embryo involving his DNA has no right to to form in her body and implant in her endometrial wall in her uterus. That would be rape.

In my state, a woman who is being threatened with rape or is being raped has the right to use lethal force if necessary to stop it and a third party has the right to help her. It should not matter than the embryo, like an escapee of an asylum for the criminally insane, is not competent to stand trial, or has no intention of raping, because the objective use of force for sexual contact defines the crime.

Where did you get the idea that manslaughter and murder are crimes against human life? They aren't. They're crimes against living persons. And where did you get the notion that homicide in self-defense is murder?

Embryos and fetuses are not persons according to the constitution. Moreover, sensible anti-abortion people know that, which is the reason they have formed and tried to pass a Fetal Personhood Amendment in more than one state. Even the state with the largest populations against abortion (Mississippi, about 55%) could not get a majority of voters to vote for such an amendment.

Fascism's First Law: When seeking to scapegoat a target population, dehumanize them and refer to them in objectifying terms. Hence Jews are subhuman and unborn babies are "embryos".

The reality is that those embryos are HUMAN embryos, and thus human beings, a bit of settled science that the pro-death crowd finds to be most inconvenient.

 

[Sled Dog]

Except it violates the constitution.

Too bad I included in my post how such a law is consistent with the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the Fourteenth Amendment AND the Commerce Clause. That's pretty good for something that the pro-death crowd wants to insist is unconstitutional.
'
Unborn babies are babies. Unborn human babies are human babies. Human babies are persons by any definition.

 

[Lursa]

Since when has the Constitution permitted the Courts to "codify" anything?

It is the document, the authority, that recognizes our rights. Laws are based on protecting/enforcing those rights.

Is this new information for you?

The Constitution states that the Congress writes the code, the President approves it into law, and the courts adjudicate if the code is in accordance with the Constitution. And that last step is not in the Constitution itself but an usurpation under Marbury v Madison.

Ok

No, they don't, and that's obvious because the Constitution does not mention pregnancy. But the Fifth Amendment protects the right of the people to jury trials, and does not specify that the person has to be breathing.

It doesnt mention consensual sex, it doesnt mention reproducing, it doesnt mention travelling to other states.

The 9th Amendment protects such unenumerated rights and RvW mentioned the 9th A also.

Again, the 5th does not protect non-persons. The unborn are not persons. I provided that information to you.

Since people do not have a right to kill other people, a power reserved to the government by the Fifth Amendment, women do not actually have a right to kill others.

Since the Fifth Amendment requires an indictment and a trial and a jury and witnesses and all that other somewhat inconvenient jazz, a Constitutional abortion law would involve putting the baby on trial. Anything else would be an abomination of Constitutional law.

See above.

No, you didn't. The 14th declares that "persons born in the US" are citizens, which implies nothing about unborn persons. Nowhere else does the Constitution address the fact of birth.

Feel free to go find out how the 14th is interpreted by legal authorities then, I didnt make mine up, nor did SCOTUS where it very specifically also referred to the 14th A and in what I posted for you, was clear the unborn have no rights.

That introductory sentence in the 14th specifies who the rest of the amendment applies to. If you need assistance with reading comprehension, that's not my job.

And you didn't show where the 14th Amendment overrides any part of the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth A protects women in the context of abortion, LOL. But I cant be bothered going into it now, you wont even acknowledge the other facts and rights recognized in the Const...so why would this one be any different?

In any case, the fact that the 14th does not recognize the unborn as persons or citizens, the 5th also does not protect the unborn...they are not persons.

 

[j brown's body]

While Republicans try and pull back into the dark ages, Latin Amwrican countries are recognizing a woman's right to control their own bodies.

 

[choiceone]

I notice Sled Dog didn't have the guts to answer my post, where I am way too careful to call the unborn "humans" and get his negative-IQ going.

 

[Lursa]

More to the point, the Constituiton does not declare that unborn people are not people. Since unborn people are, in fact, people, then the duty of the Republic is to err on the side of caution and treat those people hanging on their umbilical cords with the full rights of people who have had their umbilicals cut.

Source where the unborn have any rights. Let's see it. I provided SCOTUS decision that interpreted it clearly for you and you ignored it. They are not persons and have no rights.

Then I provided how the law is to be applied based on such decision, the US Code.

And then it comes down to a matter of weighing the relative rights of two people, the woman who managed to get herself pregnant and child who is totally innocent.

The woman may suffer a small inconvenience for carrying a child to term.

The woman may die, she may suffer permanent health damage, in the US, 86,700 women die or nearly die from pregnancy/childbirth every year. Women do die and it's not always predictable or preventable.

And if you consider not being able to work, pay your rent, feed your family, keep your obligations and commitments to family, church, community, society as merely 'conveniences' well that's up to you, but most of us value our responsibilities and keeping our word.

The child suffers permanent mortal harm when it it killed to avoid the mother's minor inconvenience.

The unborn suffers nothing. Feels no pain. Early abortions, 98% of all abortions, take place before the ability to feel pain. They consist of the pea-sized unborn being flushed painlessly from the womb.

The very uncommon remaining abortions are almost all due to medical reasons and by law, lethal injection must be applied first, so again, no pain, no suffering. So that common but false emotional manipulation doesnt work.

What is the legal authority granted to the courts to sever the Constitutional protections guaranteed to "we the people" on a political whim?

There's no biological science supporting this action, so what actions justify that?

What allows the courts to usurp to role of the legislature and commence writing definitions? Since the court is not a legislative body, the court has no business writing definitions and pretending said definitions have the effect of law.

Also, if the child is a human being at time of birth, what is it before it is born? When does it become "human"? What law authorized the court to enact arbitrary definitions when the national legislature flatly refused to do so?

Please source where the Const or the laws in the US have to recognize rights for unborn humans? Source the authority that says it must include all those with Homo sapiens DNA.

I'll wait. You keep on insisting that the courts must use biological classification for their decisions. Let's see you source that.

If you cant, it's not valid as anything more than your personal belief and not going to be forced on women that dont believe the same.

 

[Lursa]

Too bad I included in my post how such a law is consistent with the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the Fourteenth Amendment AND the Commerce Clause. That's pretty good for something that the pro-death crowd wants to insist is unconstitutional.

Nothing in the Const protects the unborn. Science is not an authority on subjective matters like value, rights, laws, or any other man-made concepts.

If what you're saying is true, then science weighs ALL LIFE equally...and humans are no different than any other animal species. Why would biology weigh Homo sapiens as being protected by rights but not other species?

'
Unborn babies are babies.

No

Unborn human babies are human babies.

No

Human babies are persons by any definition.

yes

 

[Peter]

Yep, the US really is the land of the free.

Unless you're pregnant in which case screw you.

 

[Lursa]

The court does not have the authority to create it's own science and it does not have the authority to enact law.

It doesnt create any science...that's a very stupid sentence. It uses science to inform decisions sometimes...like using science to inform when Homo sapiens is a person with rights and when it's not. Just like the 14th A does. Just like RvW did. Theyd dint change any science...please tell me what "science" they created. Let's see it...what science did they discover or create?

A human is either a human and no segregation is permitted, or some humans have no rights under the law. And if some humans have no rights under the law, no humans have inviolable rights under the law.

See above.

If a human is not human until it is born, then a man convicted of TWO homicides for the murder of a pregnant female has been unjustly convicted and all penalties accruing to the "special circumstances" are invalid. Yet the same Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and sentencing based on such special circumstances in the past.

Such laws dont recognize any rights for the unborn...they all explicitly say that the mother can still have an abortion. Those laws are based on the state protecting the rights of the mother and/or the state...Because it is the mother/state that are harmed by the loss, like damages.

Just protecting something by law doenst mean it has rights. People can put their pets to sleep or kill their livestock, but other people can be charged with crimes if they kill those them. See? No rights.

We protect historic buildings and people can be charged with damaging them, but they have no rights We protect our forests, but trees have no rights We protect deer and other wildlife and yet they have no rights. We protect endangered species and you can face major charges for killing them...but those species have no rights. Get it? Your 'connections' dont actually 'connect' with reality.

If you think they recognize rights for the unborn...source some? Let's see it.

Pregnant woman are recognized by the traffic courts in California as being eligible to use the "High Occupancy Vehicle" (carpool) lanes in the freeways, because the woman claims her ticket is invalid because there were TWO people in the car.

Sounds like a stupid law. Has it been challenged in a federal court?

So the courts do whatever the hell they want, citing court decisions as rebuttal to any argument is merely the logical failure of Argument From Authority, and as I have just shown, the courts themselves are not consistent on the matter.

Again, who is harmed more, the child killed in the abortion, or the woman who failed to avoid getting pregnant when she had every opportunity to skip the risk by making better decisions.

The mother is harmed more. She suffers pain and possibly health damage, even death. She loses her right to decide how she uses her right to liberty (The positive enjoyment of social, political, or economic rights and privileges)...her self-determination. The unborn suffers nothing.

What justifies taking from a woman her self-determination in order to give the exact same 'self-determination' to the unborn instead? Please explain why the unborn is more deserving?

I value quality of life over quantity. You seem to value 'more boots on the ground no matter what.' The focus on numbers is dehumanizing.

 

[Sled Dog]

It is the document, the authority, that recognizes our rights. Laws are based on protecting/enforcing those rights.

That document? It's called the Constitution. The Constitution sets up a specific body to write legal code for the federal government. That body is NOT the Judiciary.

It's the Congress.

Did the Congress define "human" in any law yet? Nope. So where does the court get off usurping the role of Congress?

That introductory sentence in the 14th specifies who the rest of the amendment applies to. If you need assistance with reading comprehension, that's not my job.

1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hmmmm.....not one word about killing babies there. Except that it does require, at the end of the clause, that no person shall be denied life or liberty without due process.

And you need to notice something VERY important in the First Clause. The first line defines citizenship, not "person", the last line declares "any person" not just citizens are given the protections of due process. Since modern science has established beyond dispute that a person becomes a person when fertilization occurs, the unborn are granted due process by the 14th Amendment.

The FIRST sentence of that clause merely stopped the Democrats from declaring former slaves and the children of former slaves as non-citizens and thereby disenfranchising them after they lost that Civil War they started. And don't forget the intent and import of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause. That clause denies citizenship to the children of pregnant females in the country illegally, because they're subject to some other nation's laws.

The Fifth A protects women in the context of abortion, LOL. But I cant be bothered going into it now, you wont even acknowledge the other facts and rights recognized in the Const...so why would this one be any different?

In any case, the fact that the 14th does not recognize the unborn as persons or citizens, the 5th also does not protect the unborn...they are not persons.

Both the 5th and the 14th protect the rights of persons, period. Being born is nothing but a requirement for citizenship. The 14th makes it perfectly clear that all persons, not just citizens, are guaranteed due process.

But that's only if you read the Amendment to discover what it says and aren't trying to make it say what you want, instead.

 

[beefheart]

Marijuana is legal in AZ but illegal in MO, so...come arrest me bitches...

 

[Lursa]

That document? It's called the Constitution. The Constitution sets up a specific body to write legal code for the federal government. That body is NOT the Judiciary.

It's the Congress.

Did the Congress define "human" in any law yet? Nope. So where does the court get off usurping the role of Congress?

What BS. Why should Congress define 'human,' there's a very specific definition for humans, having Homo sapiens DNA.

What authority says that unborn humans have any rights? Where did Congress say so? Where does it say all humans do?

1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hmmmm.....not one word about killing babies there. Except that it does require, at the end of the clause, that no person shall be denied life or liberty without due process.

OF course not but to prevent a woman from having an abortion violates her Const rights that are protected there. ANd since the unborn have no rights, of course her protections supersede protecting the unborn...and the laws based on that protect her, not the unborn.

And you need to notice something VERY important in the First Clause. The first line defines citizenship, not "person", the last line declares "any person" not just citizens are given the protections of due process. Since modern science has established beyond dispute that a person becomes a person when fertilization occurs, the unborn are granted due process by the 14th Amendment.

And it goes on to be very clear that the rights apply to the citizen, and only the born and naturalized people are citizens.

Like I wrote, feel free to google this stuff, you clearly only want it to mean what you want it to mean. Go see what the legal scholars say.

The FIRST sentence of that clause merely stopped the Democrats from declaring former slaves and the children of former slaves as non-citizens and thereby disenfranchising them after they lost that Civil War they started. And don't forget the intent and import of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause. That clause denies citizenship to the children of pregnant females in the country illegally, because they're subject to some other nation's laws.

see above.

Both the 5th and the 14th protect the rights of persons, period. Being born is nothing but a requirement for citizenship. The 14th makes it perfectly clear that all persons, not just citizens, are guaranteed due process.

But that's only if you read the Amendment to discover what it says and aren't trying to make it say what you want, instead.

That's right....you're right and everyone else is wrong You've sourced zero showing where the unborn are recognized as having rights.

 

[Sled Dog]

It doesnt create any science...that's a very stupid sentence. It uses science to inform decisions sometimes...like using science to inform when Homo sapiens is a person with rights and when it's not. Just like the 14th A does. Just like RvW did. Theyd dint change any science...please tell me what "science" they created. Let's see it...what science did they discover or create?

The court declared the unborn to be non-persons, something directly contradictory to what real science says.

How is that not creating their own science?

Such laws dont recognize any rights for the unborn...they all explicitly say that the mother can still have an abortion. Those laws are based on the state protecting the rights of the mother and/or the state...Because it is the mother/state that are harmed by the loss, like damages.

Really?

The law is declaring that the unborn who was killed when it's mother was murdered is a person, thereby qualifying the convicted for additional punishments. How would the unborn matter in any way if the second dead body wasn't a human person? Shouldn't it be counted in the law as an incidental dead cat? It's just a mass of cells, isn't it?

And other law specifically requires more than one person in the vehicle to use the car pool lane. How does that baby transition from being a non-person, to being a person when the pairs of double yellow lines are crossed from the right, back to being a non-person when those double yellow lines are recrossed from the left, and what science covers this amazing transition? Is this magical non-person-person-non-person cycle merely a fiction for the convenience of the pregnant woman so when she's driving to the abortion clinic she can benefit from having a person inside her before she has that magically non-person slaughtered with a vacuum tube a few minutes later? And how can she bear to face the awful ride home after, alone in her car in the jammed single person traffic of the 405 in LA?

Just protecting something by law doenst mean it has rights. People can put their pets to sleep or kill their livestock, but other people can be charged with crimes if they kill those them. See? No rights.

No, a person has rights regardless of the law. Rights are inherent....that word again. What's the premise regarding human rights that forms the very foundation of the United States?

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness....

Inalienable rights aren't alienable just because a person is located in a position inconvenient to another person. People have these rights at all times, merely because they are people.

That is the foundation of the United States of America.

And the Left wants to pretend some people don't have those rights because of where they live. That's a pretty nasty form of redlining, isn't it?

 

[Sled Dog]

We protect historic buildings and people can be charged with damaging them, but they have no rights

This type of argument is called "hail Mary", isn't it? And if someone doesn't own a "historic building" they really have no business telling the owners what they can and cannot do with. Want to convert the argument you lost about infanticide to an argument you can lose about the Takings Clause?

The mother is harmed more. She suffers pain and possibly health damage, even death. She loses her right to decide how she uses her right to liberty (The positive enjoyment of social, political, or economic rights and privileges)...her self-determination.

Hmmm....two ways to address this...

You're saying the mother feels pain giving birth, therefore it's okay to make an innocent baby feel the pain of either burning in a saline or being ripped apart by a steel suction tube.

As for the rest, not only do stolen elections have negative consequences for world peace and national security, but bad sex decisions can lead to being embarassed at parties when they can't wear that cute little dress any more. Much much better to murder the baby than to not go to that next party.

Let's skip a bunch of the irrelevancies. A woman does not surrender her right to chose. She's required to live with the consequences of her poor choices. She could have chosen to not have sex. She could have chosen to use better means of contraception. Her choices led her to create a new life. As the mother, she's responsible to protect her child until her child can be safely placed for adoption or surrendered to a medical facility that can provide life affirming care.

Nobody is taking choices that she should be able to make away from her. It's just that the choice to murder one's own offspring, or anyone else's for that matter, is a choice that's not allowed under the Constitution of the United States.

And your recycling of arguments is a sign of desperation.

 

[Sled Dog]

What BS. Why should Congress define 'human,' there's a very specific definition for humans, having Homo sapiens DNA.

That works.

Know who else has 100% human DNA?

Unborn babies.

And...the rest of your posting is mere repetition of arguments you've already presented and lost, and I don't like swirlies. You're done with me.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

LOL.

Good luck with that one.

 

[Indlib]

Too bad I included in my post how such a law is consistent with the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the Fourteenth Amendment AND the Commerce Clause. That's pretty good for something that the pro-death crowd wants to insist is unconstitutional.

And yet SCOTUS ruled it was a constitutional right

'
Unborn babies are babies.

No. Unborn babies are fetuses.

Unborn human babies are human babies. Human babies are persons by any definition.

Except the definition provided by SCOTUS.

 

[Lursa]

The court declared the unborn to be non-persons, something directly contradictory to what real science says.

TL;dr I'm not going any further until you source where the unborn have any rights recognized?

Show me where 'science' does then?

Since rights, laws, morality, value, etc are all subjective man-made concepts, objective science never even acknowledges any of those things.

 

[Lursa]

The law is declaring that the unborn who was killed when it's mother was murdered is a person, thereby qualifying the convicted for additional punishments. How would the unborn matter in any way if the second dead body wasn't a human person? Shouldn't it be counted in the law as an incidental dead cat? It's just a mass of cells, isn't it?

Post the part of the law that recognizes any rights for the unborn. Each one explicitly states that the woman still has the right to abortion. Every single one.

Source where the unborn have any rights recognized?​

​

Show me where 'science' does then?​

​

Since rights, laws, morality, value, etc are all subjective man-made concepts, objective science never even acknowledges any of those things.​

 

[Lursa]

And your recycling of arguments is a sign of desperation.

LOL no, I have it all saved in OneNote and just cut and paste it. You havent come up with anything original yet. Why should I waste more of my time?

Now,

Source where the unborn have any rights recognized?​

​

Show me where 'science' does then?​

​

Since rights, laws, morality, value, etc are all subjective man-made concepts, objective science never even acknowledges any of those things.​