Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

[Lursa]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

Humans beget offsprings thru sexual intercourse. That's how the human specie has evolved from whatever, right? Nothing is 100% guaranteed. :shrug:

Just admit that since most people intentionally try to avoid accidental pregnancy, your entire premise fails.

We all know where 'babies' come from. That has nothing to do with the law and is nowhere addressed in the Const., esp. not in the 14th.

Who would've thought they'd pull right of privacy from those statement! :lol:
Do you see the terms right of privacy stated plainly anywhere in the Constitution?
In the end, it depends on how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

So you dont understand 'any' of the Constitutional amendments? See the 9th then, where it says that anything not enumerated (named) in the Const. is still assumed to belong to the people.

Do you see any right to marriage in the Const? To have sex? To have kids? Do we need to specifically name those in amendments to protect people's rights to them?

I'm saying, there is another human being involved that's also entitled to what the woman is entitled to - in fact, more so entitled since unlike the woman (who's had options and had exercised her right to choose), this fetus has had no say at all!

That's your opinion. (And one you have not upheld with your OP premise) One not shared by the majority of Americans and one that would impose immoral and unconstitutional consequences on women. So it's only fair that each individual woman, since many do not share your opinion, get to choose for themselves.

(Jeebus, you are actually imagining that a fetus can 'say' or comprehend anything)

 

[maquiscat]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

If the guest had come all the way from a very far place, surely the host cannot just withdraw the invitation after he's arrived, and turn him out just like that without any justifiable cause! I can just see a lawsuit happening.

DUE PROCESS. The guest is entitled to that in his lawsuit.

Not how it works. While in poor form, the property rights of the owner absolutely allows such. Ask any lawyer. Sure the guest could sue, but he would lose, with the only possible exception of a written contract having been executed. Then standard eviction procedures would have to be followed.

In my argument, it should. Why? Because it was the woman's decision that has made his arrival happen. His arrival was the result of the woman's decision.

If the fetus is regarded legally as a person - then, there is a good chance that he is entitled to the same rights as everyone else.
This one that was particularly cited in RvW:

“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

That would include the woman as well. Yet you would have the state deprive her of her bodily autonomy. Furthermore, while scientifically and medically, the ZEF is indeed human, the question of whether it is a being or not, especially at the point where 95% of all abortions occur, is very much up into the air. Can you come up with the criteria of personhood in medical and scientific terms? Try to do so without the circular reasoning being human.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

I never said it isn't human. But it is NOT a human being. That is indisputable FACT.

Sez who? This is a load of bovine excrement.

BTW, there are no humans inside of humans.

Once again, there are no humans inside of humans.

And I never got a say about being born.

Rest of novel tl;dr.

You said it twice. The only thing I edited was excessive space. You never used the word being, or the phrase human being.

 

[weaver2]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that continues to divide the nation to this day. In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision has proven to be one of the most controversial cases in the Court’s history.
Drawing on the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Court said that the Constitution protects an individual’s “zones of privacy.”
Ever since the Roe v. Wade decision was issued in 1973, the case has remained one of the most contentious in the public sphere. It has inspired political campaigns and movement, and sparked debates throughout the nation around ethics, religion, biology, and constitutional law.

What makes Roe so controversial: the Constitution of the United States. It took away the right of kings and despots to control the public, private, personal lives of their subjects and gave everyone the right to make decisions about how we lived our lives, what we read, wrote, and listened to, what religion we believed in, where we went to school, what jobs we held, what we did with our non-working lives, who we choose for friends, how we managed our money our relationships and our family. There was one exception to those rights: child-bearing was controlled by men only. Roe took that right of control away from men and gave it to women. Women now had the ability to control their pregnancies, their time, their work, their money.

In relationships built on trust, companionship and respect child bearing was already a mutual decision and Roe had very little impact. In relationships where conservative religion dominated, respect was a one way street based on control , companionship was outside of the relationship, men had the right to decide child-bearing and Roe was a significant threat. It stripped away men's control over many aspect of a relationship not just child-bearing. The fight to reverse Roe and make abortion illegal is a fight by conservative men to regain control.

There is just no way that campaigning for dominance over women can be made to look or sound legitimate. But, saving the lives of little unborn babies is the perfect campaign combination indignation, horror and maudlin sympathy. It outlaws the procedure that negated men's control of child-bearing. It returns that control to men and it makes women into the perpetrators of death.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

You said it twice. The only thing I edited was excessive space. You never used the word being, or the phrase human being.

I NEVER said it isn't (genetically) human. Please learn the difference between an adjective and a noun. And the noun "human" is just a short form of "human being".

 

[Bodi]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

I'm not a lawyer,

Thanks for clearing that up...

but I would like to present this argument to challenge that ruling.

Fail.

It kinda makes me think of someone inviting a person to his home, and when the person takes him up on his offer – the owner of the house gets the invited guest charged with, and arrested for trespassing!

Great analogy... thanks... unfortunately it works AGAINST YOU.

The woman invites the possibility of a human within her.
The homeowner invites a person into their home

The woman wants the human out of her
The homeowner wants the person out of their home

The woman asks the human to leave her body, it does not, and she forcibly removes the human from her body
The homeowner asks the person to leave their house, the person refuses, and the homeowner has the police forcibly remove the person from their house.

Like I said... thank you.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

I NEVER said it isn't (genetically) human. Please learn the difference between an adjective and a noun. And the noun "human" is just a short form of "human being".

In a topic where we are getting on people to use the terms "baby" and "fetus" properly, then we need to make the proper distinctions between "human" and "human being".

 

[jamesbyoung]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

I really wish people would quit with the settled law bit as if the law could not change. The right to drink alcohol was settled law, until it wasn't. Then drinking alcohol as unconstitutional was settled law, until it wan't. Abortions was legal, until it wasn't, and then was illegal until it was. SCOTUS can overturn previous decisions, as well as Congress pass amendments.

Think what you want, maquiscat, but the justices will not gut R v W. If it did, the GOP would become a permanent minority party in the next election. The soccer moms of America are not going to let anyone interfere with their daughters getting an abortion if needed.

 

[Lursa]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

If the fetus is regarded legally as a person - then, there is a good chance that he is entitled to the same rights as everyone else.
This one that was particularly cited in RvW:

“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.[/B

The unborn arent 'persons' in RvW either. And the justices specifically say so. But here's clarification for you from a different source:

1 U.S. Code SS 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(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.

 

[Lursa]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

Thanks for clearing that up...



Fail.



Great analogy... thanks... unfortunately it works AGAINST YOU.

The woman invites the possibility of a human within her.
The homeowner invites a person into their home

The woman wants the human out of her
The homeowner wants the person out of their home

The woman asks the human to leave her body, it does not, and she forcibly removes the human from her body
The homeowner asks the person to leave their house, the person refuses, and the homeowner has the police forcibly remove the person from their house.

Like I said... thank you.

No no no! Even simpler and more clear:

--The couple uses birth control/the homeowner locks the door
--The birth control fails/someone illegally breaks into the home

 

[Bodi]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

If the guest had come all the way from a very far place, surely the host cannot just withdraw the invitation after he's arrived, and turn him out just like that without any justifiable cause! I can just see a lawsuit happening.

DUE PROCESS. The guest is entitled to that in his lawsuit.







The house belongs to the host - same principle.







In my argument, it should. Why? Because it was the woman's decision that has made his arrival happen. His arrival was the result of the woman's decision.

If the fetus is regarded legally as a person - then, there is a good chance that he is entitled to the same rights as everyone else.
This one that was particularly cited in RvW:

“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a fetus is a person.

 

[Bodi]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

No no no! Even simpler and more clear:

--The couple uses birth control/the homeowner locks the door
--The birth control fails/someone illegally breaks into the home

I like that although that should be used in conjunction to what I said... yours would precede mine because your is about keeping it out and mine is about getting it out.

The couple uses birth control/the homeowner locks the door
The birth control fails/someone illegally breaks into the home

OR

The woman invites the possibility of a human within her.
The homeowner invites a person into their home

THEN

The woman wants the human out of her
The homeowner wants the person out of their home

The woman asks the human to leave her body, it does not, and she forcibly removes the human from her body
The homeowner asks the person to leave their house, the person refuses, and the homeowner has the police forcibly remove the person from their house.

 

[Lursa]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

I like that although that should be used in conjunction to what I said... yours would precede mine because your is about keeping it out and mine is about getting it out.

The couple uses birth control/the homeowner locks the door
The birth control fails/someone illegally breaks into the home

OR

The woman invites the possibility of a human within her.
The homeowner invites a person into their home

THEN

The woman wants the human out of her
The homeowner wants the person out of their home

The woman asks the human to leave her body, it does not, and she forcibly removes the human from her body
The homeowner asks the person to leave their house, the person refuses, and the homeowner has the police forcibly remove the person from their house.

Or aborts them/shoots them!

 

[maquiscat]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

Think what you want, maquiscat, but the justices will not gut R v W. If it did, the GOP would become a permanent minority party in the next election. The soccer moms of America are not going to let anyone interfere with their daughters getting an abortion if needed.

I'm pretty sure that before RvW, abortion opponents were saying that SCOTUS would never allow it, and if so the Democrats would be a permanent minority party. Hell look at SSM in our modern times. How many people were going on that OSM only was settled law and that SCOTUS couldn't and wouldn't allow SSM?

Nothing is ever settled law. Sure we can show that the odds right now are low for a turnover. That doesn't mean it can't and won't. Hell for that matter, I'm pretty sure back in the 1860's people were sure that abortion would never be made illegal.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

I like that although that should be used in conjunction to what I said... yours would precede mine because your is about keeping it out and mine is about getting it out.

The couple uses birth control/the homeowner locks the door
The birth control fails/someone illegally breaks into the home

OR

The woman invites the possibility of a human within her.
The homeowner invites a person into their home

THEN

The woman wants the human out of her
The homeowner wants the person out of their home

The woman asks the human to leave her body, it does not, and she forcibly removes the human from her body
The homeowner asks the person to leave their house, the person refuses, and the homeowner has the police forcibly remove the person from their house.

To keep with accuracy the line should probably be more like:
The woman asks the human to leave her body, it does not, and she has the doctor forcibly removes the human from her body

 

[Bassman]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

Abortion is still the ultimate expression of selfishness. Liberals don't understand the meaning of duty, honor, obligation, and responsibility. Over 95% of all elective abortions performed, and to date more than 75 million unborn children slaughtered in our own Dachau Death Camps, are out of pure selfish convenience.

 

[Bassman]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

To keep with accuracy the line should probably be more like:
The woman asks the human to leave her body, it does not, and she has the doctor forcibly removes the human from her body

And the doctor should be charged with assault on the mother, murder 2 at minimum on the child.

 

[Bodi]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

To keep with accuracy the line should probably be more like:
The woman asks the human to leave her body, it does not, and she has the doctor forcibly removes the human from her body

Yeah... it is not like she is reaching up and in and ripping the thing out... :lol:

 

[Bodi]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

Abortion is still the ultimate expression of selfishness. Liberals don't understand the meaning of duty, honor, obligation, and responsibility. Over 95% of all elective abortions performed, and to date more than 75 million unborn children slaughtered in our own Dachau Death Camps, are out of pure selfish convenience.

Who gives a **** about your stupid post?

And the doctor should be charged with assault on the mother, murder 2 at minimum on the child.

The doctor should be given a high-five and a medal.

 

[Bassman]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

Who gives a **** about your stupid post?

People who have souls do.

The doctor should be given a high-five and a medal.

Good doctors with souls will refuse to perform abortions. And there isn't a tinker's damn you, nor anyone else can do about it. Now go Austrailian Crawl back under your rock.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

And the doctor should be charged with assault on the mother, murder 2 at minimum on the child.

On what basis?

 

[calamity]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

On this day, the Roe v. Wade decision - National Constitution Center



I'm not a lawyer, but I would like to present this argument to challenge that ruling.



When the woman created another human within her – she had waived away that right to her privacy (pertaining to her fetus).
That she's CREATED another human to be inside her is proof of that she had given away that right. Surely this human wouldn't have been inside her without her consent and cooperation?

It kinda makes me think of someone inviting a person to his home, and when the person takes him up on his offer – the owner of the house gets the invited guest charged with, and arrested for trespassing!




May I remind you that this newly-created human has had no say whatsoever about the whole situation. He didn't create himself, nor did he place himself in that womb! He's here now – thanks to the woman!

Therefore, the fourteenth ammendment due process, also applies to him:

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.


The fetus is a human being. Human life begins at conception. That is a scientific fact!



Science Deniers Notwithstanding, Human Life Begins at Conception | Evolution News





Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception




Now, this newly created human should also be entitled to his own zone of privacy!
How much more physically invasive can you get to have someone not only get in your space (the womb) with instruments of death, but to actually want to kill you?

The pro-choice people must realize that this new person is entitled to the same rights as any other person
at whatever stage of development you are.....

..................thus, they try their best to de-humanize the fetus.

Uh, no.

 

[Lursa]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

Abortion is still the ultimate expression of selfishness. Liberals don't understand the meaning of duty, honor, obligation, and responsibility. Over 95% of all elective abortions performed, and to date more than 75 million unborn children slaughtered in our own Dachau Death Camps, are out of pure selfish convenience.

That's so true :doh

It's so much better to go thru pregnancy and then lose your job cuz you were so sick, or have a kid and then you cant provide food and a safe home for the other dependents you do have. Or to not be able to fulfill all the other obligations and commitments you have, like to employer, church, community, society, etc.

Yeah...much better to have that kid and not have the resources to take care of everyone else and everything else in life, that is soooooooooooooo selfish! :doh

I wonder if you could even read what you wrote, what I wrote, you're so blinded by self-righteousness :roll: I suppose you consider all the responsibilities and commitments you have in life just 'conveniences?' Yes? No?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

In a topic where we are getting on people to use the terms "baby" and "fetus" properly, then we need to make the proper distinctions between "human" and "human being".

Human is an adjective, unless preceded by "a", in which case it's the same as "human being".

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: 14th Ammendment (Roe v Wade)

Abortion is still the ultimate expression of selfishness. Liberals don't understand the meaning of duty, honor, obligation, and responsibility. Over 95% of all elective abortions performed, and to date more than 75 million unborn children slaughtered in our own Dachau Death Camps, are out of pure selfish convenience.

EML (Emotionally Manipulative Language) has no place in the debate.

There is nothing wrong with being selfish. Everyone is selfish.