- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 22,676
- Reaction score
- 4,282
- Location
- DC Metro
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Why? Citizenship is not the issue.
The last line.
They do, you have comprehension and reason problems.
The 9th Amendment.
1 US s 8
Why? Citizenship is not the issue.Read the 14th./quote
The last line.Specify where!/quote
They do, you have comprehension and reason problems.I looked at all parts. They do not support your position./quote
The 9th Amendment.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
1 US s 8Where is a the law that says an unborn is a person?/quote
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."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.
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.
From Citizenship, Pythagoras.
the 9th Amendment.
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.
How many chromosomes do you have?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?
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.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.
You do not have a right to assume that a human embryo is a "member" of the species Homo s. sapiens.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.
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.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....
Please do not use this criterion for human species membership thinking that 46 chromosomes = human will win a case for you.How many chromosomes do you have?
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.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.
So you've never actually read the 14th amendment. Why I am not surprised.Why? Citizenship is not the issue.
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 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.?
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.There are legal guidelines, things like 'disparity of force' and your ability to defuse or retreat, your involvement in escalation, etc.
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 never said it did. Why do you keep posting like I did?
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.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!
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.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.
this is again where the wheels fall off for meThe 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."
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.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
i dont feel any reason to care or see any reason to reconcile itHow 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 disagree 100% because it is a risk, it is her body and the laws would FORCE her to take that risk of lifeI 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.
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 etcIf pregnancy carried no risk whatsoever, would it be ok to force it on women?
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?,
The unborn are not humans/persons with rights. That is just simple legal fact.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.
I would imagine the pregnant woman cares.If the unborn are not humans with rights, then who cares whether a pregnancy is a risk or not?
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!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?
Your beliefs are your own and do not apply to everyone else. Neither does belief equal fact.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...
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.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.
That point is called birth.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.
At least with modern medicine.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.
It's even simpler than that. A woman should not be forced to be or remain pregnant if she simply does not want to.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?
Maybe you should read the 14th again.Why? Citizenship is not the issue.
Which one? Post and line please.The last line.
Speak for yourself! Lursa even explained it to you.They do, you have comprehension and reason problems.
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.The 9th Amendment.
1 US s 8
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
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.
There is no law, federal or state, which grants, recognizes, or textualizes rights for the unborn. I defy you to prove otherwise!"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:
Sure, to BORN citizens.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....
And the Constitution was amended to recognize rights for women and slaves. There is no Amendment recognizing rights for the unborn.Oh, right, when it was written it didn't include women and slave, both were chattel.
Your emotional reaction has no bearing on actual legal fact!"Not human!" Wow that's really ****ing ugly!
Especially if one becomes pregnant it seems.I guess Americans' rights are conveniently set aside and forgotten at times.
States what precisely?Oh, do you mean there is a specific law that states
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?