Trump Sneaks Dangerous Rights for Fetuses Into Executive Order

[Gordy327]

That's for the terminally ill. "Withdrawing care" for a healthy newborn would be illegal, and horrifying.

Nobody is doing that. Withdrawal of care for a neonate can be performed if the neonate has medical issues incompatable with life. But the issue is about abortion, not neonates. Once birth occurs, abortion becomes a moot point.

I said a newborn, not the unborn. Would you justify killing a newborn to address those hardships?

Nobody is doing that. And i already said it's not for me to justify. Nor you!

Okay, so if the unborn were legal persons, you'd oppose abortion?

But they're not.

Practically every authority I can think of, legal, religious, etc, says it's wrong to kill innocent human beings. Can you think of one that doesn't?

Which of those am I obligated to follow? And there are legal circumstances when I am allowed to kill.

Do you think you should be able to kill such people without their consent?

It's not about being allowed to kill anyone. It's about what is medically feasible and realistic.

Just as when it came to slavery, only slavers had any say. One party was deprived of human rights.

Who besides the pregnant woman gets to make decisions regarding their gestation?

I'm saying their quality of life is entirely potential, not their actual life. A child may be born into poor circumstances and become vice president of the United States. We can't possibly know that when they're unborn. Or 5 years old either.

That's not for me to determine, just as it's not for you to determine for anyone else. That's for the pregnant woman to determine.

Sorry, but there is. Look at a 3D ultrasound.

No, there is no child. Only an embryo/fetus.

 

[AZRWinger]

The DOI is not a legally binding document and the 1st A has been interpreted as "separation of church and state" respecting the direct meaning of the text "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and its intent as well. This is fact, not a false claim. It came from Thomas Jefferson and his words are what we see in the 1st A and here is his "intent" and meaning:

"The expression “separation of church and state” can be traced to an 1802 letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of men affiliated with the Danbury Baptists Association of Connecticut. In this letter he stated that religion was “a matter which lies solely between Man & his God,” and that government should not have any influence over opinions. Therefore, he asserted: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”" link​

Thomas Jefferson is the principal author of the DoI specifying a Creator given right to life you claim is not binding despite 56 Founders signing it. He is also the author of a letter to a worried constituent in the congregation of Danbury Baptists
reassuring her the Constitution bars government interference with religion such as the King declaring himself the Supreme authority over the Church of England. In the first instance a document painstakingly drafted by Jefferson declaring treason and endorsed by 55 other Founders is dismissed as nonbinding. But, the second instance of Jefferson's writing, a letter to a constituent, is treated as sacred text. It's classic selective distortion of history.


Then there is the finding of Congress that incorporates the DoI.

22 U.S. Code § 8201 - Findings

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Gordy327]

Thomas Jefferson is the principal author of the DoI specifying a Creator given right to life you claim is not binding despite 56 Founders signing it.

The DoI is still not legally binding and is only a declaration of our sovereignty. If your entire argument hinges on the DoI, then it's clear you've lost!

He is also the author of a letter to a worried constituent in the congregation of Danbury Baptists

A letter which has been used as a "declarative authority" by the SCOTUS, thus affirming the separation of church and state.

reassuring her the Constitution bars government interference with religion such as the King declaring himself the Supreme authority over the Church of England. In the first instance a document painstakingly drafted by Jefferson declaring treason and endorsed by 55 other Founders is dismissed as nonbinding. But, the second instance of Jefferson's writing, a letter to a constituent, is treated as sacred text. It's classic selective distortion of history.

And religion cannot interfere with government. Hence the separation.

Then there is the finding of Congress that incorporates the DoI.

22 U.S. Code § 8201 - Findings

www.law.cornell.edu

Which does not apply to the unborn. It basically says people have a say in their government, much like we did when the DoI established our sovereignty as a nation separate from a monarchy. Try again, and fail again.

 

[Deuce]

The left's hysteria is mind numbing.

Then log off.

 

[AZRWinger]

The DoI is still not legally binding and is only a declaration of our sovereignty. If your entire argument hinges on the DoI, then it's clear you've lost!

The DOI declares the rejection of a government that denied human rights like the right to life. The DOI explicitly states a Creator has endowed us with a right to life. It's clear you are in denial.

A letter which has been used as a "declarative authority" by the SCOTUS, thus affirming the separation of church and state.

And religion cannot interfere with government. Hence the separation.

Jefferson's letter pertained to the government interfering with religion. It's been "interpreted" as just the opposite. Never mind what the letter contains or the.context in which it was written, it's the so-called interpretation that counts

Which does not apply to the unborn. It basically says people have a say in their government, much like we did when the DoI established our sovereignty as a nation separate from a monarchy. Try again, and fail again.

The Congressional finding groups the DOI and Constitution along with other documents as cornerstones of democracy. But that's nothing compared to your denial of human rights to the unborn. Absurd.

 

[follower7371]

This will be challenged and will be stopped.

Trump does not have the authority to do this.

Which is really weird as the term "assigned at birth" simply means that the child has either male genitalia or female genitalia as assigned by genetics (or nature if you prefer) and seen at the point of birth.

It actually has nothing to do with trans or gender, it is a simple, recorded statement of fact by the doctor on which genitalia the child was born with.

God, these ****ing people are so goddamn stupid.....

Exactly. How can these people misinterpret what is clearly being stated?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Exactly. How can these people misinterpret what is clearly being stated?

The right-wing will use that to discriminate and attack.

 

[follower7371]

The right-wing will use that to discriminate and attack.

And the "left wing" can't read or interpret what's being said. Got it.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

And the "left wing" can't read or interpret what's being said. Got it.

The reason we're objecting too it is because we know what is being said and WHY it's being said.

 

[Gordy327]

The DOI declares the rejection of a government that denied human rights like the right to life. The DOI explicitly states a Creator has endowed us with a right to life. It's clear you are in denial.

Once again, not legally binding nor establishes & enumerates right like the Constitution.

Jefferson's letter pertained to the government interfering with religion. It's been "interpreted" as just the opposite. Never mind what the letter contains or the.context in which it was written, it's the so-called interpretation that counts

False. The SCOTUS itself interpreted the letter to establish separation. Who is more qualified to interpret "context" of the Founding Fathers than the SCOTUS?

The Congressional finding groups the DOI and Constitution along with other documents as cornerstones of democracy. But that's nothing compared to your denial of human rights to the unborn. Absurd.

And none of them establish or govern our democracy. Only the Constitution does. And it does not recognize rights for the unborn.

 

[Lursa]

Thomas Jefferson is the principal author of the DoI specifying a Creator given right to life you claim is not binding despite 56 Founders signing it. He is also the author of a letter to a worried constituent in the congregation of Danbury Baptists
reassuring her the Constitution bars government interference with religion such as the King declaring himself the Supreme authority over the Church of England. In the first instance a document painstakingly drafted by Jefferson declaring treason and endorsed by 55 other Founders is dismissed as nonbinding. But, the second instance of Jefferson's writing, a letter to a constituent, is treated as sacred text. It's classic selective distortion of history.


Then there is the finding of Congress that incorporates the DoI.

22 U.S. Code § 8201 - Findings

www.law.cornell.edu

How does that change what I wrote, about what he wrote, his actual words and intent? He clearly intended separation of church and state, as sourced.

 

[choiceone]

A minor but key, in my opinion, correction.



You are saying exactly what I am here. You have presented nothing that would show how an unborn with rights could violate the bodily autonomy of a woman when a man with rights cannot. If a man is raping a woman, and the only way she can stop him is to kill him, does his right to life say that she is not allowed to kill him in order to stop his violation of her right? Of course not.
So then how does an unborn with a right to life prevent a woman from ending its violation of her bodily autonomy when the born man's right to life does not?

Yes, I'm aware that we very much agree. However, I must correct you and have bolded the relevant part above.

Though I agree with what you wrote, in fact there are lots of states where you don't have the right to use lethal means if necessary to stop the guy who's raping you, because his right to life is considered more important than your right not to be raped.

I don't recall which states they are, but knowing they existed made me love living in NY, where we have better sense.

 

[choiceone]

Wow, demand proof for the Creator you claim is irrelevant. Then, falsely claim the Constitution "acknowledges" the separation of church and state. The DoI expressly states the Creator is the source of human rights. Cite the Constitutional text specifing separation of church and state. On the one hand you deny the explicit words of the DoI while on the other you claim something that isn't in the Constitution. It's a house of cards attempt to rationalize taking the lives of the unborn.

No question you believe unborn children have no right to life. What other forms of human life do you believe can be liquidated at will?

The first amendment states that individuals have freedom of religion. That means the government, including both the federal and state governments, cannot force anyone to participate in a religious practice that they don't want to participate in or force anyone to say that they believe in some religious doctrine that they don't believe in.

That's why the DoI may refer to "the Creator," but the Constitution leaves out this concept.

You do not have the right to know that any of the unborn exist if they are inside the bodies of individual women with basic rights as persons. That is the best reason why the Constitution recognizes no rights for them.

The rights to life, liberty, and property are a package, and only persons have them. Human life forms per se are not persons. A person has demonstrated an individual living human or human-like mind and does not appear to have died.

When an unborn is inside the body of a woman, she, as a person, has the right to prevent you from accessing what is inside of her body, and an unborn human isn't capable of demonstrating a living human mind so that you can witness its existence.

Hence, it has no personhood or right to life. If it wanted one, it would have to be removed from her body. But it can't continue living if it's removed before viability, so at least up to that point, it would be absurd to argue that it had a right to life.

 

[follower7371]

I just don't understand why some people believe in killing babies. It just doesn't make sense. Having said that my understanding is there are prolife organizations out there that will support a pregnant woman throughout her pregnancy & up to 2 years after the birth. They also offer adoption alternatives if the woman doesn't want to keep the child. I think this should be more in the way we should be thinking thus reducing the whole "abortion" business.

These Prolife organizations should be better promoted rather than being attacked & destroyed by people who don't care about life. It would also solve some of the population issues that are currently being applied by increasing immigration, not that I'm against immigration at all. We all (families) came from somewhere else. But there are those who don't like our values & instead, want us to adapt to them!! This whole situation would improve by HONEST DISCUSSIONS & DEBATES rather than the hateful rhetoric that continues to plague our country on this issue. Common Sense would prevail if we were actually honest about what is taking place.

 

[maquiscat]

Yes, I'm aware that we very much agree. However, I must correct you and have bolded the relevant part above.

Though I agree with what you wrote, in fact there are lots of states where you don't have the right to use lethal means if necessary to stop the guy who's raping you, because his right to life is considered more important than your right not to be raped.

I don't recall which states they are, but knowing they existed made me love living in NY, where we have better sense.

I think that is where we get into the concept of where rights come from. If the claim is that rights come from the law, then rights are not violated when they are not listed in the law.

 

[AZRWinger]

The first amendment states that individuals have freedom of religion. That means the government, including both the federal and state governments, cannot force anyone to participate in a religious practice that they don't want to participate in or force anyone to say that they believe in some religious doctrine that they don't believe in.

Protecting the lives of innocent unborn children is not a religious practice. Unlike bloodthirsty abortion zealots pro life advocates aren't demanding safe zones curtailing free speech to protect pregnant women from the truth about abortion.

That's why the DoI may refer to "the Creator," but the Constitution leaves out this concept.

The DOI specifically refers explicitly to the Creator as the source of our unalienable rights, not the King. So-called Progressives use denial to substitute the Federal government for the King so as to cement the concept of subhuman humanity.

You do not have the right to know that any of the unborn exist if they are inside the bodies of individual women with basic rights as persons. That is the best reason why the Constitution recognizes no rights for them.

We all have the right to protest and advocate against the brutal slaughter of unborn children as well as the denial of the most basic human right by treating them as subhuman.

The rights to life, liberty, and property are a package, and only persons have them. Human life forms per se are not persons. A person has demonstrated an individual living human or human-like mind and does not appear to have died.

So, human life is not a person with rights. Who draws this distinction? Who sets this line? Why, it's the plaything of politicians defining policy in the public interest of course. Welcome to the new age of eugenics where you can be a person with rights today but tomorrow your eligible for liquidation as a nonperson.

When an unborn is inside the body of a woman, she, as a person, has the right to prevent you from accessing what is inside of her body, and an unborn human isn't capable of demonstrating a living human mind so that you can witness its existence.

The issue is killing the unborn child not observing it.

Hence, it has no personhood or right to life. If it wanted one, it would have to be removed from her body. But it can't continue living if it's removed before viability, so at least up to that point, it would be absurd to argue that it had a right to life.

Abortion zealots insist there is no problem with ramming a steel rod into the brain of the unborn child as it transits the birth canal. But you imply a distinction for viability.

 

[Gordy327]

Protecting the lives of innocent unborn children is not a religious practice.

It's also no one else's business what a pregnant woman chooses to do regarding her body and heatlth.

Unlike bloodthirsty abortion zealots pro life advocates aren't demanding safe zones curtailing free speech to protect pregnant women from the truth about abortion.

Safe zones exist because of harrassment and threats, and in certain cases, violence by pro-life zealots!

The DOI specifically refers explicitly to the Creator as the source of our unalienable rights, not the King.

Which in reality means nothing and is not legally binding. "Rights" are just a social construct established by whatever governmental power in place at the time. Fortunately, the rights established by the Founding Fathers were enumerated in the Constitution for our government for this time. In effect, they are proverbially written in stone and referenced when the issue of rights comes up. THey do not recognize rights for the unborn.

So-called Progressives use denial to substitute the Federal government for the King so as to cement the concept of subhuman humanity.

No, the Constitution and federal law is used and nowhere do they state the unborn have rights.

We all have the right to protest and advocate against the brutal slaughter of unborn children as well as the denial of the most basic human right by treating them as subhuman.

As lonf as you stay outside the buffer zone and do not harrass anyone. And the rest of us have the right to tell protesters to F*** OFF and mind your own business!

So, human life is not a person with rights. Who draws this distinction? Who sets this line?

For starters, the distinction is scientific & legal. "Human life" is a scientific designation, not a legal one. So it's irrelevant to the issue. Legally, the unborn do not have personhood or rights, per the Constitution. But the pregnant woman is a person with rights.

Why, it's the plaything of politicians defining policy in the public interest of course. Welcome to the new age of eugenics where you can be a person with rights today but tomorrow your eligible for liquidation as a nonperson.

Such hyperbole.

The issue is killing the unborn child not observing it.

Not seeing the issue here. Sounds like a 'you' issue.

Abortion zealots insist there is no problem with ramming a steel rod into the brain of the unborn child as it transits the birth canal. But you imply a distinction for viability.

Aside form your ignorance as to how & when abortions are performed, what exactly is the problem? How is it my or society's problem? Abortion does not affect anyone or society itself. Or are you trying to be melodramatic in an attempt to appeal to others emotions?

 

[Deuce]

Thomas Jefferson is the principal author of the DoI specifying a Creator given right to life you claim is not binding despite 56 Founders signing it. He is also the author of a letter to a worried constituent in the congregation of Danbury Baptists
reassuring her the Constitution bars government interference with religion such as the King declaring himself the Supreme authority over the Church of England. In the first instance a document painstakingly drafted by Jefferson declaring treason and endorsed by 55 other Founders is dismissed as nonbinding. But, the second instance of Jefferson's writing, a letter to a constituent, is treated as sacred text. It's classic selective distortion of history.


Then there is the finding of Congress that incorporates the DoI.

22 U.S. Code § 8201 - Findings

www.law.cornell.edu

Thomas Jefferson didn't think either were binding. He owned human beings.

 

[Lursa]

I just don't understand why some people believe in killing babies. It just doesn't make sense. Having said that my understanding is there are prolife organizations out there that will support a pregnant woman throughout her pregnancy & up to 2 years after the birth. They also offer adoption alternatives if the woman doesn't want to keep the child. I think this should be more in the way we should be thinking thus reducing the whole "abortion" business.

These Prolife organizations should be better promoted rather than being attacked & destroyed by people who don't care about life. It would also solve some of the population issues that are currently being applied by increasing immigration, not that I'm against immigration at all. We all (families) came from somewhere else. But there are those who don't like our values & instead, want us to adapt to them!! This whole situation would improve by HONEST DISCUSSIONS & DEBATES rather than the hateful rhetoric that continues to plague our country on this issue. Common Sense would prevail if we were actually honest about what is taking place.

You dont understand the pain and suffering and risks to her long-term health, losing her job and income and not being able to pay rent and feed her kids? Finish college? Things that can end up affecting the rest of her life and the lives of others that matter to her, or that she has obligations and commitments to? Do strangers or the govt know her risks and circumstances? Will strangers pay her consequences or those of her loved ones?

Would you tell your kids that those things in life arent important? That your working for a living, supporting others, being responsible TO others, improving their lives with education, etc...arent important?

There are ~100,000 kids waiting to be adopted in the US...IMO it's unconscionable to unnecessarily just produce a kid to then dump it in that giant pool. Where so many kids are already hoping for families...each unnecessary infant dumped means one less of them will be adopted. It's inhumane. Dont you think that's cruel and unnecessary?

 

[choiceone]

I just don't understand why some people believe in killing babies. It just doesn't make sense. Having said that my understanding is there are prolife organizations out there that will support a pregnant woman throughout her pregnancy & up to 2 years after the birth. They also offer adoption alternatives if the woman doesn't want to keep the child. I think this should be more in the way we should be thinking thus reducing the whole "abortion" business.

These Prolife organizations should be better promoted rather than being attacked & destroyed by people who don't care about life. It would also solve some of the population issues that are currently being applied by increasing immigration, not that I'm against immigration at all. We all (families) came from somewhere else. But there are those who don't like our values & instead, want us to adapt to them!! This whole situation would improve by HONEST DISCUSSIONS & DEBATES rather than the hateful rhetoric that continues to plague our country on this issue. Common Sense would prevail if we were actually honest about what is taking place.

There is no baby in an abortion because what is inside the body of a woman is an embryo or fetus. You are projecting future status on the present and the pro-choice person isn't.

When women are pregnant, the longer they are pregnant, the more dangerous pregnancy is to her body and childbirth is bad for her body, too. Some women die of pregnancy related causes up to one year after childbirth. Women's teeth can loosen. They can lose much of their hair. They can become incontinent, temporarily or permanently. If they have to have caesarians, they can have damaged abdominal muscles for the rest of their lives. When they give birth vaginally, the emergence of the child can chip the pelvic bone. There are injuries and or diseases from which they may never recover.

You are absolutely trivializing all of this and more. But that's not simply what's wrong with your values.

In this nation, the single most important thing we have going for us is that individuals have packages of basic rights of personhood that include life, liberty, and property. Since our inception, we have all understood that the only property of true value that we have is our bodies and our labor. They depend on our life and liberty.

A minority of people in America stress that liberty depends on life, but in fact, it doesn't. If you try to rape a
woman, she can try to fight you off to the death, and if you kill her, you will be unable to rape her as a person, because she will have ceased to be a person at death.

Some of us believe that it is far better to fight to the death than be raped, not the least because rape impregnation is a possibility, and giving birth to a child of rape is stating that you are one flesh with a rapist and are, therefore, married to that rapist. I wouldn't do that even if I had to commit suicide to prevent my body from telling that lie.

I don't expect you to share my value. People who care about life supremely would rather give birth to rape babies. They want to save Ukrainian lives by selling out Ukraine to the country that has been raping it since 2014. They did not understand the film, The Manchurian Candidate, with Laurence Harvey and Frank Sinatra - they'd sell out their own country in a heartbeat to save their own narrow lives. They would say, with Trump, over the graves of dead military heroes from WWII, "I don't understand what was in it for them."

But I do expect you to understand that a country that came into being by military revolution did so by brave people being willing to risk their lives and give their lives up for liberty, and that means liberty is the supreme value of that country, and life just isn't. To me, I'm not even sure you're a person if you can't grasp that.

 

[follower7371]

There is no baby in an abortion because what is inside the body of a woman is an embryo or fetus. You are projecting future status on the present and the pro-choice person isn't.

When women are pregnant, the longer they are pregnant, the more dangerous pregnancy is to her body and childbirth is bad for her body, too. Some women die of pregnancy related causes up to one year after childbirth. Women's teeth can loosen. They can lose much of their hair. They can become incontinent, temporarily or permanently. If they have to have caesarians, they can have damaged abdominal muscles for the rest of their lives. When they give birth vaginally, the emergence of the child can chip the pelvic bone. There are injuries and or diseases from which they may never recover.

You are absolutely trivializing all of this and more. But that's not simply what's wrong with your values.

In this nation, the single most important thing we have going for us is that individuals have packages of basic rights of personhood that include life, liberty, and property. Since our inception, we have all understood that the only property of true value that we have is our bodies and our labor. They depend on our life and liberty.

A minority of people in America stress that liberty depends on life, but in fact, it doesn't. If you try to rape a
woman, she can try to fight you off to the death, and if you kill her, you will be unable to rape her as a person, because she will have ceased to be a person at death.

Some of us believe that it is far better to fight to the death than be raped, not the least because rape impregnation is a possibility, and giving birth to a child of rape is stating that you are one flesh with a rapist and are, therefore, married to that rapist. I wouldn't do that even if I had to commit suicide to prevent my body from telling that lie.

I don't expect you to share my value. People who care about life supremely would rather give birth to rape babies. They want to save Ukrainian lives by selling out Ukraine to the country that has been raping it since 2014. They did not understand the film, The Manchurian Candidate, with Laurence Harvey and Frank Sinatra - they'd sell out their own country in a heartbeat to save their own narrow lives. They would say, with Trump, over the graves of dead military heroes from WWII, "I don't understand what was in it for them."

But I do expect you to understand that a country that came into being by military revolution did so by brave people being willing to risk their lives and give their lives up for liberty, and that means liberty is the supreme value of that country, and life just isn't. To me, I'm not even sure you're a person if you can't grasp that.

Total nonsense!

 

[Gordy327]

Total nonsense!

Care to elaborate and explain which part/s are nonsense and why? That might make better of a point for you than merely a 'nuh-uh' response.

 

[choiceone]

Total nonsense!

Some prefer saying, Heil Hitler. Everybody's different.

 

[CLAX1911]

Where is a "right to life" enumerated? Rights belong to persons.

If you don't have right to life. Right to not be killed you have no rights at all.

 

[CLAX1911]

Some prefer saying, Heil Hitler. Everybody's different.

Good old Godwin's law.