- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 138,434
- Reaction score
- 95,955
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
There is one clause that refers to life, and it applies to any person, not just born or unborn ones.
Why isn't the US Constitution enough for you? Why would Congress need to write a law that says the same thing as the US Constitution?Still waiting for you to prove this claim. Cite something that proves it...besides the actual text of the 14th which you have misinterpreted.
Your question makes no sense. Why would Congress need to write and pass a bill that says the same thing as the US Constitution?Or...prove your claim.
Yawn............ I gave you my point of view. Take it or leave it.But again, if it's really a baby, why would it be acceptable to murder it even in those cases? That's the thing...the anti-choicers insist it's a baby, the same as a born infant...but then hypocritically many still would accept murdering them in those cases you named.
This is the foundational dishonesty of the great majority of anti-choicers. They want to claim and 'use' the idea the unborn are the same as babies...and refuse to admit they are not.
Because a person has to also be born first under the Constitution and federal law. Funny how you omit that part. It certainly doesn't help your argument, whatever that is.I'd consider that to be this:
But even if you don't, I don't see how that helps your argument.
Are they born?Where's your proof it considers midgets persons?
What about it?Why would it need to? Have you never heard of the 10th amendment?
You first! You're the one going on and on about the unborn being persons or having rights, when that is clearly and legally not the case.So will you finally stop whining about abortion?
Neither you or the states have provided any legal explanation as to why not.Well that's just too bad. You cannot have an unrestricted or unregulated abortion.
Yo have made it clear what restrictions you would impose or at least support. What you haven't explaoned is why those restrictions should be imposed at all.How many times do I need to say it. the point is that the issue is decided in the individual states where they are accountable to the voters. Yes, some states may have more restrictions, some les, some even none. It's not about what restrictions I would impose.
Based on what? Nothing more than your feelings?And I gave you my own personal stances.
How so? What would be a "common sense" restriction and under what parameter makes it "common sense?"Restrictions are common sense.
Yes abortion is regulated. Why does it need the level of "regulation" by politicians that it gets as opposed to actual medical professionals and medical standards?Abortion is regulated like any other medical procedure and not everyone supports the concept of "let's kill the baby merely because I did not intend to get pregnant".
No one is murdering babies as that is already illegal, period! But were talking about abortion, which has nothing to do with babies or murder.I prefer not to murder babies, period.
If the states then allowed abortion or "murdering babies" as you say, would you have any issue with it, as it's a "states matter?"For the trillionth time, constitutionally the individual states is where your fight is if you want to make changes.
Left it! Let us know when you have something of substance to offer.Yawn............ I gave you my point of view. Take it or leave it.
I am not obligated to provide you anything. Pose your question to the individual states and their voters.Neither you or the states have provided any legal explanation as to why not.
Again, I am under no oblgation to.Yo have made it clear what restrictions you would impose or at least support. What you haven't explaoned is why those restrictions should be imposed at all.
based on my point of view.Based on what? Nothing more than your feelings?
If there were no restrictions, baby murdering would become just routine birth control. like the pills. Some would murder the baby as late is a day before birth.How so? What would be a "common sense" restriction and under what parameter makes it "common sense?"
Meeical professionals unless they become congress critters do not write laws. Pollytishuns do.Yes abortion is regulated. Why does it need the level of "regulation" by politicians that it gets as opposed to actual medical professionals and medical standards?
Nothing to do with babies???????????????No one is murdering babies as that is already illegal, period! But were talking about abortion, which has nothing to do with babies or murder.
What matters is that constitutionally it is a state issue.If the states then allowed abortion or "murdering babies" as you say, would you have any issue with it, as it's a "states matter?"
Yawn............Left it! Let us know when you have something of substance to offer.
Your question makes no sense. Why would Congress need to write and pass a bill that says the same thing as the US Constitution?
There is one clause that refers to life, and it applies to any person, not just born or unborn ones.
Yawn............ I gave you my point of view. Take it or leave it.
In other words, you're not really interested in any meaningful discussion. Just typical talking points with no substance, all feelings. Got it.I am not obligated to provide you anything. Pose your question to the individual states and their voters.
Again, I am under no oblgation to.
based on my point of view.
If there were no restrictions, baby murdering would become just routine birth control. like the pills. Some would murder the baby as late is a day before birth.
Meeical professionals unless they become congress critters do not write laws. Pollytishuns do.
Nothing to do with babies???????????????
What matters is that constitutionally it is a state issue.
Yawn............
It's part of a different sentence, and refers to the requirements for citizenship, not personhood:Because a person has to also be born first under the Constitution and federal law. Funny how you omit that part. It certainly doesn't help your argument, whatever that is.
And actually, one does not merely have to be born, but born in the United States, or naturalized there, to be a citizen. Again, this has nothing to do with personhood, unless you want to take the position that green card holders are not persons.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Are they born?
What about it?
You first! You're the one going on and on about the unborn being persons or having rights, when that is clearly and legally not the case.
Not an explanation, but another revision.Dont bother quoting the 14th Amendment again, it clearly says (explanation, not quoted) that only persons born or naturalized in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. (Jurisdiction: The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law link) . And the rest of that section and the entire amendment are based on that.
Why would the 14th specify 'born?' Because it only born persons or those naturalized in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US...which authority or right isnt under that jurisdiction?)
Why dont you tell us, cite it from federal law, federal court decisions, the Const, etc. where the federal govt recognizes the unborn as persons, recognizes their rights? Quote it specifically, since you wont accept anything from us.Like my Aunt Etta always said, "either shit or get off the pot." Stop all the avoidance and obstructions and tell us. I've asked you enough...why wont you? Can you?The Dobbs decision is an example of proof the unborn are not persons. Where is your proof otherwise?
Green card holders are not citizens. But they are persons, as they are already born. You still fail to specify how the unborn are considered legal persons with rights under the Constitution, federal law, or even state laws which permit elective abortion which, if the unborn were persons with rights, it would be legally considered to be murder, which it is not in any state. You utterly and continuously failed to reconcile all those points with regards to personhood.It's part of a different sentence, and refers to the requirements for citizenship, not personhood:
And actually, one does not merely have to be born, but born in the United States, or naturalized there, to be a citizen. Again, this has nothing to do with personhood, unless you want to take the position that green card holders are not persons.
...but not in the United States as the sentence you brought up requires.Green card holders are not citizens. But they are persons, as they are already born.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
First we need to teach you basic sentence structure. Then we'll move onto more complex subjects.You still fail to specify how the unborn are considered legal persons with rights under the Constitution, federal law, or even state laws which permit elective abortion which, if the unborn were persons with rights, it would be legally considered to be murder, which it is not in any state. You utterly and continuously failed to reconcile all those points with regards to personhood.
You still overlook the "persons born" part. ANd if they become naturalized, they are also citizens. You still haven't demonstrated how the Constitution (or federal law) applies to the unborn. Or reconciled the previous points made. It's like you think ignoring them will make them invalid....but not in the United States as the sentence you brought up requires.
So if you want to abuse this clause to say the unborn are not persons, then neither are green card holders.
First we need to teach you basic sentence structure. Then we'll move onto more complex subjects.
You have to read the whole sentence, not just two words. Do you not get how "sentences" work? You can't just ignore words arbitrarily. Let's try again:You still overlook the "persons born" part.
If you think the part in red is the requirement for personhood (I disagree, but we'll get to that later; we're going to start slowly so you don't get overwhelmed), that would mean tourists, work visa holders, refugees, and green card holders are not persons, as they were neither born in the United States nor naturalized in the United States.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Like I said, we have to start slowly. Let's see if you can do better than Lursa in learning how sentences work.ANd if they become naturalized, they are also citizens. You still haven't demonstrated how the Constitution (or federal law) applies to the unborn. Or reconciled the previous points made. It's like you think ignoring them will make them invalid.
Snark, along with your lack of comprehension, only demonstrates the weakness of your argument. It's no surprise @Lursa repeately blows your arguments out of the water. Still waiting for you to explain how states can allow elective abortion and those that do allow elective abortion do not consider abortion murder of a presumed "person" nor does the federal govenment.You have to read the whole sentence, not just two words. Do you not get how "sentences" work? You can't just ignore words arbitrarily. Let's try again:
If you think the part in red is the requirement for personhood (I disagree, but we'll get to that later; we're going to start slowly so you don't get overwhelmed), that would mean tourists, work visa holders, refugees, and green card holders are not persons, as they were neither born in the United States nor naturalized in the United States.
Like I said, we have to start slowly. Let's see if you can do better than Lursa in learning how sentences work.
Not an explanation, but another revision.
Again, no point in arguing with someone who lives in an alternate reality with their own constitution.
There is one clause that refers to life, and it applies to any person, not just born or unborn ones.
And another leftist fails to understand how sentences work...Snark, along with your lack of comprehension, only demonstrates the weakness of your argument. It's no surprise @Lursa repeately blows your arguments out of the water. Still waiting for you to explain how states can allow elective abortion and those that do allow elective abortion do not consider abortion murder of a presumed "person" nor does the federal govenment.
I'm not a leftist. So that's another thing you're wrong about. And if you have to turn this into a left/right thing (which is irrelevant to the discussion), it's clear you have a bias and a weak-@ss argument, which only further demolishes your credibility. Although Lursa already did that in spades.And another leftist fails to understand how sentences work...
And another leftist fails to understand how sentences work...
Ho hum.....In other words, you're not really interested in any meaningful discussion. Just typical talking points with no substance, all feelings. Got it.
In NY state, if someone is threatening your life but you have the ability to flee readily to safety, you have an obligation to do so, except in four circumstances, namely, if someone is threatening to rape, sexually assault, kidnap, or felony rob you. In those cases, and cases where you are actually being raped, sexually assaulted, kidnapped, or felony robbed, you have the right to use lethal means if necessary to prevent or stop that felony, and so does a third party trying to help you.Nope. There is a federal ban on unrestricted PBAs. If it's a matter of saving the mother's life, it's legal. Short of that there is no legitimate reason to murder a baby that close to birth.
I do enjoy them. Because I know that, though it will take some time, as long as we remain a democratic republic that holds elections, eventually, people who oppose the constitutional philosophy of the SC's conservative Catholics will replace them and that philosophy. Then, Dobbs will be overturned, just as Roe was overturned. So will not be allowed to have Dobbs forever - it's an even worse decision than Roe was.You won't try to refute it because you CAN'T! The words in the US Constitution are the words in the US Constitution. If we can't agree on which way is up, or that trees exist, or what's written in the Constitution is what's written in the Constitution, there's little reason to continue the discussion.
Wonderful. Enjoy your version of the US Constitution and your version of the Supreme Court.
They can count the exact number, even though it is probable that mistakes will be made. That latter is unimportant. What's important is that they can't possibly count the exact number of the unborn. The ambiguity guarantees error.We've been over this. They can't count the exact number of people to begin with.
You can't clearly tell whether a woman got an induced abortion or had a spontaneous abortion. Of known pregnancies, as many as 20 to 25% end in spontaneous abortion. You want the government to waste all its money and time investigating miscarriages now? Women will stop having sex with men and having kids at all - just wait until you outrage even the anti-choice women!Who said anything about forcing pregnancy tests as far as investigating abortions is concerned? What would that even prove? If the person is pregnant, she obviously didn't get an abortion.
The above only applies in cases of rape or incest. Consensual sex is another matter. To nature, it's an invitation. And the concept of comparing an embroyo or fetus brought about by consensual intercourse to a rapist or kidnapper is beyond the pale.For me, it's the same for any embryo or fetus. Without the woman's consent, no embryo or fetus has a legal right to implant in the woman's body and use it as a habitat or use her tissue to make a placenta or shut down part of her immune system for nine months or take oxygen and nutrients out of her blood for its use.
What difference does it make? Conception can occur regardless of the circumstances, be it rape, incest, or consensual. That's nature. All you're doing is selecting which circumstances are appropriate or not for abortion, which is also a hypocritical position. And regardless of the circumstances, an embryo/fetus inhabits and feeds off the woman's body & bodily resources. She cannot be legaly compelled to have her body used to support another without consent, just as no one else can have their bodies used for another, per established legal precedent.The above only applies in cases of rape or incest. Consensual sex is another matter. To nature, it's an invitation. And the concept of comparing an embroyo or fetus brought about by consensual intercourse to a rapist or kidnapper is beyond the pale.
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?