Sorry, i just don't get it.

[AGENT J]

No argument from me there.

But either way, 99.99% of pregnancies do not result in the death of the mother. So if we assume that the unborn have entirely equal rights with the mother, then 99.99% of pregnancies wouldn't qualify for abortion under the current legal concept of "self-defense." The self-defense scenario would only apply when the life of the mother is at risk. The argument that "all mothers lives are at risk" is unreasonable. Statistically, almost none of them are.

actually its very reasonable since it involves forcing against the woman will, that's what is key . . not odds
forcing the woman to risk her health and life against her will is where the wheels fall off and due to the location of the child equal rights is factually impossible

using that logic if you are a sky diving instructor, you have two chutes and you have done 10000 jumps but for some reason, you don't want to jump today and i force you to jump against your will and somehow you die I'm totally not to blame them right?i mean it was only like a 1% change of you dying, that's not my fault right? because of odds

what are the changes that anybody in your home are going to kill you? do odds matter there?
what if its a bigger stronger, trained guy and its a smaller woman the broken in to his house . . whats the odds he can be killed? not allowed to use self-dense?

im not saying you are im just speaking in general and ill never be ok with treating the woman as a lesser, as a human incubator and this is why the vast majority of 1st world countries with governments based on rights and freedom have prochoice laws

 

[Lursa]

I never said "they're all self-defense", and legal or not, t

Yeah ya did. Lemme go find where, after you bobbed and weaved so much to avoid direct answers, you finally got lost and did so.

I'll get back to ya with the quotes.

hey're all homicides

Never denied that. Simply put, 'homicide' means 'man kill,' (killing man). It doesnt have to have any legal meaning at all. That status is attached by our justice system.

, justifiable or not.

Oh yes, that was exactly our conversation. I'll remind you with some quotes.

 

[Lursa]

So it's perfectly legal to shoot illegal immigrants, got it.

Why did you leave out (C)? Oh, I know why.... "(c) 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."

That's just dishonest, Lursa, shame on you.

LMAO why are you asking this again? I told you the first time...it's a disclaimer....oh lord, did you forget or are you pretending?

Here it is, post 110:

LMAO, that's a 'disclaimer.' You, like many people, apparently dont understand it. It also says it doesnt 'affirm' it.

It's clarifying there are no considerations given AT ALL "prior to being born alive." :rolleyes:

You should not be 'interpreting anything legally-oriented' without supporting links/documentation. You clearly have no facility with it at all.

 

[Lursa]

The Constitution specifies negative rights, what the government may not do to you. The 5th amendment specifies the requirement for due process before a life may be terminated. You asked me to document it, there it is.

The 14th Amendment

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

It specifies the conditions for citizenship rights. It's not an exclusive declaration for all rights. If it were illegal aliens, neither born here nor naturalized ought to be treated as you claim the unborn ought to be disposables with no rights. Instead, illegal aliens are even allowed to vote legally in some elections.

Of course the illegals don't have a powerful lobby like Planned Parenthood campaigning for their mass execution.

Your 'na huh' didnt refute my sourced proof. Let's see yours.

Cool beans. 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.?​

 

[Lursa]

Exactly, the 9th Amendment actually says that a Right does not have to be federally recognized to be "valid".

True but a state recognized right may not supersede a federal one if in conflict. See: Supremacy Clause.

 

[Lursa]

No argument from me there.

But either way, 99.99% of pregnancies do not result in the death of the mother. So if we assume that the unborn have entirely equal rights with the mother, then 99.99% of pregnancies wouldn't qualify for abortion under the current legal concept of "self-defense." The self-defense scenario would only apply when the life of the mother is at risk. The argument that "all mothers lives are at risk" is unreasonable. Statistically, almost none of them are.

Every single pregnancy risks the woman's life and at a much higher rate, severe health damage, even permanent. (86,700 women/yr in the US)

This is not always predictable or preventable. What entitles the govt to demand women take this significant risk against our will?

It certainly affects those individual women. The deaths/disability of those women affect everyone around them. Their loved ones, dependents, ability to provide, to fulfill obligations to employer, community, society. The loss of the unborn affects no one except the woman and perhaps the father. It does not negatively affect others or society.

 

[Lursa]

No argument from me there.

But either way, 99.99% of pregnancies do not result in the death of the mother. So if we assume that the unborn have entirely equal rights with the mother, then 99.99% of pregnancies wouldn't qualify for abortion under the current legal concept of "self-defense." The self-defense scenario would only apply when the life of the mother is at risk. The argument that "all mothers lives are at risk" is unreasonable. Statistically, almost none of them are.

Just as a sidebar, think of this reality: when a woman is in labor, the waiting room is full of family/friends praying/hoping that she and baby will "be ok." The deaths and severe health ramifications are common and real enough that people wait for hours, 'holding their breath' for that hopefully wonderful moment of birth. But no one takes it for granted.

 

[mac]

Yeah ya did. Lemme go find where, after you bobbed and weaved so much to avoid direct answers, you finally got lost and did so./quote

good luck with that.

I'll get back to ya with the quotes. /quote

can't wait.

Never denied that. Simply put, 'homicide' means 'man kill,' (killing man). It doesnt have to have any legal meaning at all. That status is attached by our justice system. /quote

Oh yes, that was exactly our conversation. I'll remind you with some quotes.

 

[mac]

LMAO why are you asking this again? I told you the first time...it's a disclaimer....oh lord, did you forget or are you pretending? /quote

of course it's a f#$kin disclaimer. What's it disclaimiing?

 

[mac]

LMAO why are you asking this again? I told you the first time...it's a disclaimer....oh lord, did you forget or are you pretending?

Here it is, post 110:

Holy lack of reading comprehension, reason and logic batman! You're taking a code whose sole purpose is to define how Congress uses a word and then not understanding that it's disclaimer means that it has nothing to do with defining a person, granting or taking away any rights! Rediculous.

 

[mac]

Then your analogy that it should be legal for a rape victim to have an abortion based on self-defense doesn't apply.

Not so, the reasoning is: action is waranted when the risk rises above normal.

 

[mac]

It doesn't have to. It's not textualized or recognized in law./quote

Read the 9th.

Except it's not yet human and abortion is not homicide. Repeating that nonsense is neither convincing or persuasive!/quote

Actually the very law you quote says otherwise.

That would solve the illegal immigration problem.

Why didn't you emphasize "affirm...expand, or contract" in your post of section c? It seems you're trying to gloss over that part, which is also dishonest. This section is basically not taking the unborn into any consideration./quote

Because those aren't the parts you're ignoring.

When questions or issues of rights come up, then it's up to the Court to make the determination. No court, state, or federal government has ever conferred or recognized rights for the unborn.

So what? Unless it specifically denies them, then they exist. Read the 9th.

 

[Lursa]

good luck with that.

can't wait.

No worries, when I have time. Stay tuned

 

[Lursa]

of course it's a f#$kin disclaimer. What's it disclaimiing?

Wow...I tried colors and everything. Here, third time:

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.

 

[Lursa]

Holy lack of reading comprehension, reason and logic batman! You're taking a code whose sole purpose is to define how Congress uses a word and then not understanding that it's disclaimer means that it has nothing to do with defining a person, granting or taking away any rights! Rediculous.

And the way they use that word is to be explicitly applied to and used in laws.

Wow, again, what level of writing do you require? I'm not sure it's been translated for grammar school.

 

[mac]

And the way they use that word is to be explicitly applied to and used in laws.

Wow, again, what level of writing do you require? I'm not sure it's been translated for grammar school.

DING! DING! DING! YES, IT IS. It is not to deny personhood, in and of itself. Now go find a law that uses the words as defined in this code that does!

It's like pulling teeth....

 

[Lursa]

YES, IT IS. It is not to deny personhood, in and of itself. Now go find a law that uses the words as defined in this code that does!

It's like pulling teeth....

It's clarifying the federal legal definition to be applied in such laws and explicitly states 'born alive.'

And the laws use the defined words....as defined in the US Code (OMG!)...so that they dont have to spell it out. They can use the code as reference of course. Why do we have dictionaries? So that we dont have to explain the definitions of words every time we use them!

 

[mac]

It's clarifying the federal legal definition to be applied in such laws and explicitly states 'born alive.'

And the laws use the defined words....as defined in the US Code (OMG!)...so that they dont have to spell it out. They can use the code as reference of course. Why do we have dictionaries? So that we dont have to explain the definitions of words every time we use them!

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....

 

[Lursa]

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....

Wow. If the laws use those words, they use the definition in that code.

Look, this can only be explained so simply...and then it's beyond the reader. If you are that reader, I cant help you.

 

[mac]

Wow. If the laws use those words, they use the definition in that code.

Look, this can only be explained so simply...and then it's beyond the reader. If you are that reader, I cant help you.

Oh, my. I thought we were making progress. So, read slowly.....1 US s 8 does noting either for or against the the rights of the Unborn. It does not grant any rights or recognition of any kind. It ALSO does not deny any rights or recognition to the unborn. Capice?

 

[Mika-El]

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?,

Why would anyone challenge you when your statements indicate you deliberately choose to be blind? You clearly can't grasp reality until it knocks you down.





The red flag on this thread starter was "life begins instantaneously". Those are simply the words of an immature male who can't imagine a woman as being anything but a servant sent to serve them milk out of a tit.


He clearly lives a privileged life where he has no clue what incest or rape is and what it means to be raped.

I never waste time with such people. There are too many genuinely blind people in need of help crossing the street to waste on such people.

 

[Lursa]

I never said "they're all self-defense", and legal or not, they're all homicides, justifiable or not.

Let's see...

But we do recognize many types of legal homicide, such as killing in war, self-defense, abortion, "pulling the plug, the death penalty, assisted suicide, etc.

Our society, for the most part, considers these things justifiable killing. Not all agree on all of them, but as a society overall.

And if a woman needs an abortion, how is that not justifiable? Do strangers believe they know her risks and circumstances and needs better than she does? America is founded on a belief in individual liberty.

In a nutshell, the only justifiable homicide is in self defense.

So killing in war is wrong? Or unjustifiable? Is "pulling the plug" on someone in a vegetative state "justifiable?"

Some people might say both or either are not justifiable but most Americans believe they are. Just like most Americans believe abortion is justifiable and believe it should be available to women.

And your avoidance of a direct answer:

If somoeone placed you in a war zone do you think you might need to defend yourself? In the event that the medical consensus is that the patient can not recover then terminating life support (which is artificailly postponing death) is ethcal.

Me, course-correcting you:

Then the govt is responsible for the killing, right? Is it justifiable or not? Look at you again, trying to manipulate the conversation to avoid committing to the tough answers. Why is it so tough for you to give straightforward answers? Seems like a lack of conviction.

So that's justifiable then. And it's not self-defense.

So there is justifiable "homicide" (killing a human), including besides self-defense. Many others believe the death penalty and assisted suicide are also justifiable...but again, not everyone. Just like abortion.

And yet he still refuses to admit (or deny) it's justifiable:

Yes, the government is responible for the killing, the agressor government. And for the rest of that...bless your heart, again.

And is it justifiable? Odd you have such a hard time giving direct answers...are you ashamed of the truth? Embarrassed? Your convictions are weak?

All those things are justifiable 'homicide', as recognized by a majority of Americans for most of them. And not 'self-defense.'

Can you at least admit that not all justifiable homicides are self-defense? The original post goes back to post 170.

And yet...no such admission :

But here is where you did admit that "all the examples" in our conversation "boiled down to self defense." So that would include abortion. And it would be justifiable.

You asked is the government responsible and I answered. Perhaps you need to take your meds?

Self defense is justifiable homicide. /shrug

Actually they all boil down to self dfense. You should take a logic and deductive reasoning class. You kinda suck at both.

 

[Lursa]

Oh, my. I thought we were making progress. So, read slowly.....1 US s 8 does noting either for or against the the rights of the Unborn. It does not grant any rights or recognition of any kind. It ALSO does not deny any rights or recognition to the unborn. Capice?

It doesnt 'do' anything but define terms. Which are then applied accordingly in laws and courts.

I never said it granted nor denied anything. Please quote where I did?

It's used in debate to support the fact that no federal laws or federal court decisions recognize rights for the unborn. It clearly defines why the unborn are not included.


Look, this can only be explained so simply...and then it's beyond the reader. If you are that reader, I cant help you.

 

[uptower]

Who is against food for children? What does this have to do with abortion?
Same with medical care. Who is against this for kids and what is this question doing in my thread?

Well if the broader theme is inconsistency he has a point. The pro-life crowd repeated vote against measures that protect and preserve the lives of children already born.

 

[noonereal]

Well if the broader theme is inconsistency he has a point. The pro-life crowd repeated vote against measures that protect and preserve the lives of children already born.

You mean the anti-abortion crowd.

Pro-life people protect the lives of children already born.

see what I did there?