• 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!

Sorry, i just don't get it.

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Read the 14th./quote
Why? Citizenship is not the issue.
Specify where!/quote
The last line.
I looked at all parts. They do not support your position./quote
They do, you have comprehension and reason problems.
Specify precisely where the Federal or any state government grants rights for the unborn! Simply claiming the unborn have rights does not automatically make it true./quote
The 9th Amendment.
Where is a the law that says an unborn is a person?/quote
1 US s 8
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And just to clear ...
Part C of US Code >title 1 refers to a born alive infant.

The requirements of this Section shall not be construed to prevent an infant’s parent(s) or guardian(s) from refusing to give consent to medical treatment or surgical care which is not medically necessary or reasonable, including care or treatment which either:
(1) Is not necessary to save the life of the infant;
(2) Has a potential risk to the infant’s life or health that outweighs the potential benefit to the infant of the treatment or care; or
(3) Is treatment that will do no more than temporarily prolong the act of dying when death is imminent.
Not the Deny part. As it says: Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive as defined in this section."
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It does in my country.

When child becomes human being

  • 223 (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother,whether or not
    • (a) it has breathed;
    • (b) it has an independent circulation; or
    • (c) the navel string is severed.
  • Marginal note:Killing child
    (2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

  • Marginal note:Killing child
    (2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.
Well 1, I care very little about Canada, as do most. 2, how about Identifying the law you quoted so I can see it's context.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,192
Reaction score
56,656
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
From Citizenship, Pythagoras.

No because it applies to "persons" born and naturalized. Everything after that in the amendment applies to those persons.

Hey, if you can find any legal interpretations that say otherwise, I've asked many times...source them. There's no need to take my word for it.

the 9th Amendment.

What about it?

No, becuase the code specifically states that nothing in the code denies anything to the unborn members of the species homo sapien. Seriously, it's like kindergarten in here.

It also says nothing affirms it. It's a disclaimer, good lord.

It's clarifying there are no considerations given AT ALL "prior to being born alive." :rolleyes:​
LOL, why would they include something that completely negates sections a and b? Good lord, think!
Otherwise, what level of writing do you require? I'm not sure it's been translated for grammar school.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,676
Reaction score
4,282
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No because it applies to "persons" born and naturalized. Everything after that in the amendment applies to those persons.

Hey, if you can find any legal interpretations that say otherwise, I've asked many times...source them. There's no need to take my word for it.



What about it?



It also says nothing affirms it. It's a disclaimer, good lord.

It's clarifying there are no considerations given AT ALL "prior to being born alive." :rolleyes:​
LOL, why would they include something that completely negates sections a and b? Good lord, think!
Otherwise, what level of writing do you require? I'm not sure it's been translated for grammar school.
How many chromosomes do you have?
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,192
Reaction score
56,656
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
How many chromosomes do you have?

Where are the sources I asked for? Where are you doing anything but writing 'na huh?'

No one else can understand it for you. If you're not up to the level of the conversation...that's no one else's fault.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
75,290
Reaction score
25,474
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree. The castle doctrine applies when a reasonable person would be in imminent fear of death. I just think that the "castle doctrine"/self-defense scenario doesn't apply to most abortions. Why try to shoehorn all abortions into it? In most cases, it is not reasonable to assume that an otherwise healthy woman with a healthy fetus would be in imminent threat of death. The pro-life have a point when they balk at this. It's a spurious comparison legally speaking. It only allows for abortion to save the life of the mother. The notion that 100% of pregnancies are an imminent danger to the life of the mother doesn't hold water. There would be no humans if that were the case.
but thats just it, i dont buy that as rational. Because if we always looked at stats or played back seat driver after the fact then every situation becomes a question and i think thats the absolute opposite way of how to do that.
and way try to jazz it up with the word "imminent" that isnt a legal requirement not needed.

nobody should be forced against thier will to risk health and or life. that's every pregnancy.
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
10,988
Reaction score
8,739
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The law doesn't deny it, either. However something occured to me regarding your misinterpretation of 1 USC s 8. Section (c) actually states that it is not meant to deny any legal status or right to any member of the species Homo Sapien prior to being born alive. That actually means 2 things: (1) being born alive is not "legally" a requirement of being considered a member of the species homo sapien; and (2) that the law does not deny any legal status or right to any member of the species homo sapien prior to being born alive.

You need to read for comprehension.
You do not have a right to assume that a human embryo is a "member" of the species Homo s. sapiens.
And where is that law that says PERSON, or Human Being (as described in 1 USC s 8) is only those that have been BORN ALIVE?

Stick with me.....we're making progress, sorta....
Mac, the issue is not that the Constitution says the unborn are not persons. The issue is that is does not say the unborn ARE persons AND it clearly implies they are not persons.

The Census passage in Article 1, Section 2, says the Census has to count all persons in the US, including debt servants, but not Native Americans who don't pay taxes. There were both male and female debt servants at all times while indentured servitude existed.

Because the definition of persons was started but incomplete, we have warrant to see who was counted in the 1790 Census: householders, free white men (2 categories by age), free white women, other free persons, black slaves. The other free persons differ from the earlier ones for men and women only by not specifying color and so include black and Native American (tax-paying). The age distinction for men (16+above, below 16) uses a year-age marker, but it clearly began at birth, and pregnancy was known not to last a full year.

Thus, women were implies by Art 1 Sec 2, and had a category in the first Census. They were included in every Census.

In Art 1, Sec 2, there is no implication of the unborn. In the 1790 Census, the men's age distinction implies that men are counted from birth because of the year-age distinction. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Census Acts proposed several changes to counting, e.g., including everyone's place of birth and date of birth, ending the slave category, etc., but they never listed the unborn.

The Roe court had only 7 justices agree to the majority opinion, but all 9 concurred that at no time did the Constitution or legal cases decided on its basis recognize the unborn per se as persons. In the closest case, the unborn had rights of inheritance conditional on their being born alive, i.e., if they were born after their father died but were his, they had a right to inherit equally with his other kids, but had to be born alive to qualify.

So give up this attempt to say they could be persons. The unborn can only be persons if the people who want that manage to pass a Fetal Personhood Amendment. So far, no state has done so when a vote has been floated for it.
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
10,988
Reaction score
8,739
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
How many chromosomes do you have?
Please do not use this criterion for human species membership thinking that 46 chromosomes = human will win a case for you.

People with Down, Edwards, and Patau Syndromes have a trisomy and 47 chromosomes.
People with Turner Syndrome have a monosomy and 45 chromosomes.

They're still human and they're persons if born.
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
10,988
Reaction score
8,739
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
but thats just it, i dont buy that as rational. Because if we always looked at stats or played back seat driver after the fact then every situation becomes a question and i think thats the absolute opposite way of how to do that.
and way try to jazz it up with the word "imminent" that isnt a legal requirement not needed.

nobody should be forced against thier will to risk health and or life. that's every pregnancy.
Yes, and nobody should be forced against their will to have a body part of someone inside their sex organs, because that may not exactly fit the federal definition of rape, but it comes extremely close.
 

AZRWinger

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
1,333
Reaction score
341
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I didnt ask you to take my word for it. I sourced mine and then asked you to source yours. Where is it?

Here's a reminder:

The 14th Amendment states that persons must be born or naturalized citizens to have their rights recognized. Very first sentence...and yes, that has been interpreted to apply to the entire amendment. Unless you can find interpretations otherwise?
So the 5th does not apply to the unborn.​
No federal laws or court decisions recognize any rights for the unborn. Here is legal guidance defining that: (US Code, see post 429)​
Did this clarify it for you? If not, please provide sourced examples where the fed govt recognizes any rights for the unborn.?
You claim you don't expect the reader to take your word for it then offer unsupported declarations that exclusive "interpretations" of the 14th Amendment exclude the unborn while ignoring the obvious implications for illegal aliens. Your word declares the enumerated Constitutional right to life in the 5th Amendment does not apply. Your word declares rights explicitly documented in the Constitution must be "recognized" or they aren't applicable, contradicting the meaning of rights on your edict. Your refuse to recognize that the Federal statute you quote has a section that nullifies your argument.

I note the absence of any attempt to refute the unalienable right to life specified by the DOI. We supposed to just take your silence as proof?
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
10,422
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There are legal guidelines, things like 'disparity of force' and your ability to defuse or retreat, your involvement in escalation, etc.
If you are going by the current legal guidelines, then the mere fact that there is a fetus in your womb does not rise to the level of imminent threat to life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mac

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
10,422
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I never said it did. Why do you keep posting like I did?
I think the confusion on my part here is that you do not accept that the unborn are humans with rights, and yet you talk about the risks of pregnancy and defense of the mother's life. If the unborn are not humans with rights, then who cares whether a pregnancy is a risk or not? As humans with the right to privacy and bodily autonomy women can do whatever they want with their own bodies and any clumps of cells that may happen to be growing inside them. The government has no say in the matter. "Risk" would not be a factor here if the unborn have no rights, so why argue the point in the first place?

I am arguing the point because I am debating a pro-life person who believes that the unborn are humans with rights, and I am accepting this premise for the sake of argument. IF the unborn are humans and do have rights, then...

I think we are ultimately in agreement here. My argument is that all women should have the right to determine what they do with their own bodies because everyone has the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, and that any rights that the unborn may or may not have should be utterly subordinate to the woman's rights because the unborn are inside of her body. The safe removal of an unborn human from a woman's body removes its subordination to the woman. At that point, its right to life is equal to that of every other human. I feel that this would be a solid legal doctrine with no inherent contradictions. The pro-life may not like it, but it makes more sense than any of the arguments I've heard against the right to abortion.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
10,422
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, it would surely be impractical! Then again so is this analogy since exactly who is this anonymous "they" and how'd she ever pin-point who "they" are? (I mean she's fully aware of the fetus inside her body and its possible threat to said body.)
Though....🤔
Perhaps, if she's a psychic would she then be justified in killing the driver prior to the accident? Nah!

But there is another analogous option: She could simply abort the car from the scenario, no car, no accident to be had ..... nothing gets dead! 🥳 Wholly unlike the human abortion dillema or your misdirected analogy!
You are correct. My analogy implies that the unborn is a human with the right to life. If you do not believe this, then the analogy doesn't work. But in that case, there is no reason to bring up the risks of pregnancy at all.

To use the "self-defense" justification for abortion, you have to believe the unborn are humans with rights. If you do not believe this, then self-defense doesn't apply and the risks of pregnancy are irrelevant. The government simply has no reason and no right to take away a woman's right to determine what she does with her own body, unless something she does results in the violation of another human's rights. If no other human is involved, then you don't need to use self-defense to justify your actions.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
10,422
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
but thats just it, i dont buy that as rational. Because if we always looked at stats or played back seat driver after the fact then every situation becomes a question and i think thats the absolute opposite way of how to do that.
and way try to jazz it up with the word "imminent" that isnt a legal requirement not needed.

nobody should be forced against thier will to risk health and or life. that's every pregnancy.
The legal requirement is the "reasonable person" standard. A reasonable healthy person would not be in fear for their life because "they got pregnant and, technically speaking, every pregnancy is a risk." To argue that a reasonable person would be in fear for their life in this scenario is to play semantic games with the words "reasonable," "fear," and "risk," that the pro-life and honest people don't have time for.

Keep in mind that my analogy assumes the unborn are humans with equal rights to the mother. Do you believe the unborn are humans with equal rights to the mother? If so, then your above argument is unsound for the reasons I stated. If you don't believe this, then who cares whether a pregnancy is a risk to the mother or not? A woman can choose to do whatever she wants with her own body, including removing unwanted cells. She doesn't need to justify it to you, me, or anyone else using "level of risk" and "self-defense."

My analogies in this thread assume that the unborn are humans with equal rights to the mother. I am using this premise to show the absurdity of those who believe this premise who also want to make exceptions for rape victims. (Namely, the poster I originally responded to.) If the unborn are humans with equal rights to the mother, then it doesn't make sense to make exceptions for rape victims. or to justify these abortions in the name of "self-defense." The only consistent pro-life position as far as I am concerned is: "No abortions for anyone at any time unless it is reasonable to assume that the mother's life is in imminent danger and the only way to save her life is to induce an abortion." And this assumption would not be reasonable outside of more or less an emergency room scenario.

If you don't accept the premise that the unborn are humans with rights equal to the mother, then feel free to reject the above pro-life argument and conclusion. I certainly reject it.
 
Last edited:

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
75,290
Reaction score
25,474
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The legal requirement is the "reasonable person" standard. A reasonable healthy person would not be in fear for their life because "they got pregnant and, technically speaking, every pregnancy is a risk."
this is again where the wheels fall off for me
its a FORCED risk that people want to do to others so thats unreasonable to me and its a persons body

pregnancy is not like any other situation, the risk is INSIDE the person, so its alwasy reasonable IMO for a person to fear that and choose not to have that risk.

similar to how we REASONABLY view threats with two people in a field, vs two people in a public place, vs two people in a room, vs two people in a house but one is the home owner and one is not welcome etc etc
this threat is INSIDE the person, to me thats all that is needed and whole different ball game
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
10,422
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
this is again where the wheels fall off for me
its a FORCED risk that people want to do to others so thats unreasonable to me and its a persons body

pregnancy is not like any other situation, the risk is INSIDE the person, so its alwasy reasonable IMO for a person to fear that and choose not to have that risk.

similar to how we REASONABLY view threats with two people in a field, vs two people in a public place, vs two people in a room, vs two people in a house but one is the home owner and one is not welcome etc etc
this threat is INSIDE the person, to me thats all that is needed and whole different ball game
How do you reconcile this with the fact that women survive and fully recover from 99.99% of pregnancies? This seems like a very low risk activity to me.

I agree that no one should be forced to get pregnant or remain pregnant against their will. But to argue that the reason why they shouldn't be forced to get or remain pregnant is solely because it is "risky" is ridiculous, and worse, misses the point entirely. If pregnancy carried no risk whatsoever, would it be ok to force it on women?
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
75,290
Reaction score
25,474
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How do you reconcile this with the fact that women survive and fully recover from 99.99% of pregnancies? This seems like a very low risk activity to me.
i dont feel any reason to care or see any reason to reconcile it
define "recover"
how many women "recover" from sexual assault? from rape? from Assult?

how many homeowners "recover" from a home invasion or burglary?

I agree that no one should be forced to get pregnant or remain pregnant against their will. But to argue that the reason why they shouldn't be forced to get or remain pregnant is solely because it is "risky" is ridiculous, and worse, misses the point entirely.
i disagree 100% because it is a risk, it is her body and the laws would FORCE her to take that risk of life
i value her rights and freedom and i cant justify taking them away and treating her as a lesser,
If pregnancy carried no risk whatsoever, would it be ok to force it on women?
in fantasy world if it was 100% ZERO risk and just like now the women would be forced take on those burdens against her will and could use adoption, safe havens etc
YES . . i could be open to that idea but first id want our failed foster system totally reformed
 

Fearandloathing

How long is now?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
25,685
Reaction score
22,434
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How can anyone be against abortion but allow loopholes like "because of rape" or "because of incest"?

Seems to me, if you believe life begins instantaneously hence you are against abortion, cutting out these loopholes are nothing but hypocrisy.

Someone what to challenge me on this?,


Anti-abortion is a false issue to begin with.

It became a rallying point of 'too far-ism" beginning in the 60's, and the Religious Right suddenly found they had national support on a "hot button" issue.

Now they own 85% of a supreme court all-too ready to claw back every piece of progressive legislation passed since HST.

I have always said that the means of appointment to the supreme court were the weakest part of American democracy. FDR's 4 election tripped a new amendment for that reason; presidential term limits were supposed to prevent tampering with an objective court.
 

Gordy327

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
9,178
Reaction score
5,708
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think the confusion on my part here is that you do not accept that the unborn are humans with rights, and yet you talk about the risks of pregnancy and defense of the mother's life.
The unborn are not humans/persons with rights. That is just simple legal fact.
If the unborn are not humans with rights, then who cares whether a pregnancy is a risk or not?
I would imagine the pregnant woman cares.
As humans with the right to privacy and bodily autonomy women can do whatever they want with their own bodies and any clumps of cells that may happen to be growing inside them. The government has no say in the matter. "Risk" would not be a factor here if the unborn have no rights, so why argue the point in the first place?
Ideally, women would be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies, including pregnancy decisions, and the government should have no say. Neither should anyone else!
I am arguing the point because I am debating a pro-life person who believes that the unborn are humans with rights, and I am accepting this premise for the sake of argument. IF the unborn are humans and do have rights, then...
Your beliefs are your own and do not apply to everyone else. Neither does belief equal fact.
I think we are ultimately in agreement here. My argument is that all women should have the right to determine what they do with their own bodies because everyone has the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, and that any rights that the unborn may or may not have should be utterly subordinate to the woman's rights because the unborn are inside of her body.
There is no way to grant equal rights to both the woman and the unborn. The problem is, some want the unborn to have rights over the rights and autonomy of the woman.
The safe removal of an unborn human from a woman's body removes its subordination to the woman. At that point, its right to life is equal to that of every other human. I feel that this would be a solid legal doctrine with no inherent contradictions. The pro-life may not like it, but it makes more sense than any of the arguments I've heard against the right to abortion.
That point is called birth.
How do you reconcile this with the fact that women survive and fully recover from 99.99% of pregnancies? This seems like a very low risk activity to me.
At least with modern medicine.
I agree that no one should be forced to get pregnant or remain pregnant against their will. But to argue that the reason why they shouldn't be forced to get or remain pregnant is solely because it is "risky" is ridiculous, and worse, misses the point entirely. If pregnancy carried no risk whatsoever, would it be ok to force it on women?
It's even simpler than that. A woman should not be forced to be or remain pregnant if she simply does not want to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf

Gordy327

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
9,178
Reaction score
5,708
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why? Citizenship is not the issue.
Maybe you should read the 14th again.
The last line.
Which one? Post and line please.
They do, you have comprehension and reason problems.
Speak for yourself! Lursa even explained it to you.
The 9th Amendment.

1 US s 8
Neither cite or grant rights to the unborn. Neither have you sourced and legal text or authority determining or establishing actual rights for the unborn.
 

Fearandloathing

How long is now?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
25,685
Reaction score
22,434
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
this is again where the wheels fall off for me
its a FORCED risk that people want to do to others so thats unreasonable to me and its a persons body

pregnancy is not like any other situation, the risk is INSIDE the person, so its alwasy reasonable IMO for a person to fear that and choose not to have that risk.

similar to how we REASONABLY view threats with two people in a field, vs two people in a public place, vs two people in a room, vs two people in a house but one is the home owner and one is not welcome etc etc
this threat is INSIDE the person, to me thats all that is needed and whole different ball game

Good points.

In our society it is only the woman who is suffered harm in an unwanted pregnancy, no men.

I'd call that ugly.

Anti-slavery laws prevent such actions, why not all laws?

What drives me crazy is the Christian right, such bastions of morality, claiming authority over another person's body & will, rendering women second to men

Typical hypocrisy as Jesus empowered women, washed their feet to deference, his first "apostle" was female, a prostitute in fact telling the woman at the well "....now go, and tell them (Samaritans) I have come.

Seems sombody's thumping the wrong bible here
 

Fearandloathing

How long is now?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
25,685
Reaction score
22,434
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The unborn are not humans/persons with rights. That is just simple legal fact.

I would imagine the pregnant woman cares.

Ideally, women would be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies, including pregnancy decisions, and the government should have no say. Neither should anyone else!

Your beliefs are your own and do not apply to everyone else. Neither does belief equal fact.

There is no way to grant equal rights to both the woman and the unborn. The problem is, some want the unborn to have rights over the rights and autonomy of the woman.

That point is called birth.

At least with modern medicine.

It's even simpler than that. A woman should not be forced to be or remain pregnant if she simply does not want to.


"The unborn are not humans/persons with rights. That is just simple legal fact."

Oh, do you mean there is a specific law that states fetuses have no "rights:

Shit. All this time I've been lied to.....

In school since the 50's I've been taught the infallible Constitution guaranteed rights to all....

Oh, right, when it was written it didn't include women and slave, both were chattel.

"Not human!" Wow that's really ****ing ugly!

I guess Americans' rights are conveniently set aside and forgotten at times.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mac

Gordy327

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
9,178
Reaction score
5,708
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"The unborn are not humans/persons with rights. That is just simple legal fact."

Oh, do you mean there is a specific law that states fetuses have no "rights:
There is no law, federal or state, which grants, recognizes, or textualizes rights for the unborn. I defy you to prove otherwise!
Shit. All this time I've been lied to.....

In school since the 50's I've been taught the infallible Constitution guaranteed rights to all....
Sure, to BORN citizens.
Oh, right, when it was written it didn't include women and slave, both were chattel.
And the Constitution was amended to recognize rights for women and slaves. There is no Amendment recognizing rights for the unborn.
"Not human!" Wow that's really ****ing ugly!
Your emotional reaction has no bearing on actual legal fact!
I guess Americans' rights are conveniently set aside and forgotten at times.
Especially if one becomes pregnant it seems.
Oh, do you mean there is a specific law that states
States what precisely?
 
Top Bottom