Are women's rights a distraction from "important" issues?

[Ray From Cleveland]

On Wednesday, Trump said during a forum on MSNBC that women who undergo abortions, if there were a ban on the procedure, should be punished. He later walked back his comment in a statement, but the remark drew backlash from leaders in both parties.

He (Bernie Sanders) then referred to it as “another stupid remark” by Trump that, Sanders suggested, is a distraction from “serious issues facing America.”

Clinton Knocks Sanders Over Response to Trump’s Abortion Comments

John Kasich prompts firestorm after telling female student not to 'go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol'

A first-year student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, asked the Ohio governor during a Watertown, New York, town-hall event how he'd help her "feel safer and more secure regarding sexual violence, harassment, and rape" should he be elected president.

Kasich responded with what he called a "bit of advice."

"Don't go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol. OK? Don't do that," he said, as some in the audience applauded.

---------------------------------------

You would expect Republicans to ignore minority issues because they are 90% white. It was only a year ago that USMB Republicans were saying there was no more discrimination in their party. Now they go to kill the gays rallies and call Mexicans Rapists. So clearly, they are not "over it".

But even Bernie Sanders sees women's issues as "distracting". Do women feel their issues are just a distraction?

This is certainly no promotion of this socialist Bernie Sanders who would get creamed in a National election. But the Republican party has had serious issues with women since 2012.

Republicans chased off women in 2012--by making their platform about abortion, who's not going to pay for birth control pills and what is legal-legitimate rape questions. Women went running into Obama's column by double digits, younger women by 36 points which is what secured a 2nd term for Obama.
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing

Women are the largest voting block in this country today--and they're not to be messed with. Hillary Clinton is going into this race with a 6 to 10 point advantage as the 1st woman Presidential nominee in this nations history. Women will be voting heavily for her. Trump and the Trumpkins have chased off every voting block you can shake a stick at. Specifically Hispanics, or 17% of the population that are now solidly in Clinton's column. This when the GOP nominee, since Reagan needed at least 40% of this block to win the White House, Trump is polling at an historic Negative 80%,
Latino conservatives: If Donald Trump is the nominee, we will not work to elect him
New data suggest GOP 2016 nominee will need to win nearly half of Latino vote
Poll: 75% of Latinos Have Negative View of Donald Trump

Now add in 47% of Republican women that will not cast a vote for Trump and will be voting for Hillary instead, along with millions of Republican men that won't take the bait on Donald Trump.
Poll: Nearly half of Republican women wouldn't vote for Trump
I’ll Take Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump

These numbers are already indicating that Hillary Clinton is going to paint this country blue from sea to shining sea.

SO FOR YOU BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS---You can now see why the nominee MUST be HILLARY CLINTON.

Republicans only hope to win the White House was a Bernie Sanders nominee. Believe me, Republican mouths were watering for him.

Amazing. Leftists want to force women and girls to take showers and go to public bathrooms with men in dresses, but the Republicans are the ones that have the war on women.

 

[kaz]

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

Murder isn't a Constitutional issue. It's dealt with by state law.

The US CODE is Federal law.

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder

The US Codes are basically definitions, they have to be enacted through the legislature. What do you think you're demonstrating exactly? The only murders that are punishable through the US legislature rather than State legislatures are Federal crimes, like an interstate murder spree or a kidnapping/murder where they crossed State lines. Shooting your ho or going to the clinic for an abortion aren't Federal crimes.

So you haven't established anything

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you asked that, I missed it. But I wondered how you were going to go with tying the I'm connected scenario to the baby. Clearly other than in extreme lunatic cases, women don't do the connection on purpose then kill the baby without a reason like health risk or a severe defect. You didn't say that, you went with assumption of risk. Well stated.

In terms of what's right to do, I totally agree. They assumed the risk most of the time. There are quite a few exceptions, if the mother learns she has serious health risks, if the baby does have severe defects, if she was raped or it was incest. Another problem is if the guy who assumed the risk too isn't manning up and she's totally screwed. So from a right/wrong perspective, I agree.

The problem is we're discussing the law, not right and wrong. And there the question is who decides? I see only one answer, the mother. Leaving it up to the father, a judge, the doctor or someone else who doesn't have to carry the baby's not right. She's the one who has to carry the baby for the balance of nine months physically inside her. So great question, the legal result doesn't change.

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

Murder isn't a Constitutional issue. It's dealt with by state law.

The US CODE is Federal law.

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder

Yes, there is a crime of murder under the US Code, but it does not apply to the crime of murder in general. It applies to those murders committed under federal jurisdiction. For example, if you kill a government employee while they're on-the-job (such as a few years back, when a postal worker was shot and killed while delivering the mail), you are prosecuted for a federal crime. If you kill someone on a US military base overseas, but are not a serving member of the military yourself (which would fall under the jurisdiction of the US Military Code of Justice), then you are prosecuted for the federal crime of murder.

Everyday, garden-variety murders by private citizens in a US state, however, are prosecuted by that state under state law.

And it's still not a Constitutional issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

On Wednesday, Trump said during a forum on MSNBC that women who undergo abortions, if there were a ban on the procedure, should be punished. He later walked back his comment in a statement, but the remark drew backlash from leaders in both parties.

He (Bernie Sanders) then referred to it as “another stupid remark” by Trump that, Sanders suggested, is a distraction from “serious issues facing America.”

Clinton Knocks Sanders Over Response to Trump’s Abortion Comments

John Kasich prompts firestorm after telling female student not to 'go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol'

A first-year student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, asked the Ohio governor during a Watertown, New York, town-hall event how he'd help her "feel safer and more secure regarding sexual violence, harassment, and rape" should he be elected president.

Kasich responded with what he called a "bit of advice."

"Don't go to parties where there's a lot of alcohol. OK? Don't do that," he said, as some in the audience applauded.

---------------------------------------

You would expect Republicans to ignore minority issues because they are 90% white. It was only a year ago that USMB Republicans were saying there was no more discrimination in their party. Now they go to kill the gays rallies and call Mexicans Rapists. So clearly, they are not "over it".

But even Bernie Sanders sees women's issues as "distracting". Do women feel their issues are just a distraction?

This is certainly no promotion of this socialist Bernie Sanders who would get creamed in a National election. But the Republican party has had serious issues with women since 2012.

Republicans chased off women in 2012--by making their platform about abortion, who's not going to pay for birth control pills and what is legal-legitimate rape questions. Women went running into Obama's column by double digits, younger women by 36 points which is what secured a 2nd term for Obama.
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing

Women are the largest voting block in this country today--and they're not to be messed with. Hillary Clinton is going into this race with a 6 to 10 point advantage as the 1st woman Presidential nominee in this nations history. Women will be voting heavily for her. Trump and the Trumpkins have chased off every voting block you can shake a stick at. Specifically Hispanics, or 17% of the population that are now solidly in Clinton's column. This when the GOP nominee, since Reagan needed at least 40% of this block to win the White House, Trump is polling at an historic Negative 80%,
Latino conservatives: If Donald Trump is the nominee, we will not work to elect him
New data suggest GOP 2016 nominee will need to win nearly half of Latino vote
Poll: 75% of Latinos Have Negative View of Donald Trump

Now add in 47% of Republican women that will not cast a vote for Trump and will be voting for Hillary instead, along with millions of Republican men that won't take the bait on Donald Trump.
Poll: Nearly half of Republican women wouldn't vote for Trump
I’ll Take Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump

These numbers are already indicating that Hillary Clinton is going to paint this country blue from sea to shining sea.

SO FOR YOU BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTERS---You can now see why the nominee MUST be HILLARY CLINTON.

Republicans only hope to win the White House was a Bernie Sanders nominee. Believe me, Republican mouths were watering for him.

Amazing. Leftists want to force women and girls to take showers and go to public bathrooms with men in dresses, but the Republicans are the ones that have the war on women.

Would you like to know, as a woman, whether I feel more mistreated by restrictions on abortions or being told my privacy is less important than some guy in a dress's "feelz"?

 

[Chuz Life]

Our Constitution says that all 'persons' are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

So, if the "baby" is a "person" - they are Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Aren't they?

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

Not having constitutional rights does not mean we can't chose to give them the rights we chose to give them, it just means they aren't automatically entitled to them.

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

If they had Constitutional rights, think about it, can a 10 year old vote? If they have Constitutional rights, it would be illegal to deny them the vote.

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

Think about how many other things they can't do. You can't pick and choose where the Constitution applies. We can pick and chose which ones we decide to grant them.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

 

[kaz]

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

Not having constitutional rights does not mean we can't chose to give them the rights we chose to give them, it just means they aren't automatically entitled to them.

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

If they had Constitutional rights, think about it, can a 10 year old vote? If they have Constitutional rights, it would be illegal to deny them the vote.

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

Think about how many other things they can't do. You can't pick and choose where the Constitution applies. We can pick and chose which ones we decide to grant them.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

The mother has the right to liberty as well. The Constitution doesn't weight them.

And why can the Federal government make it illegal for a 14 year old to buy a gun from a gun dealer if they have Constitutional rights? That isn't a "qualified" right in the Constitution

 

[Cecilie1200]

Babies and children don't have constitutional rights.

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

Not having constitutional rights does not mean we can't chose to give them the rights we chose to give them, it just means they aren't automatically entitled to them.

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

If they had Constitutional rights, think about it, can a 10 year old vote? If they have Constitutional rights, it would be illegal to deny them the vote.

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

Think about how many other things they can't do. You can't pick and choose where the Constitution applies. We can pick and chose which ones we decide to grant them.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

I understand that our nation enshrines the idea of a natural, absolute right to life. The point is that the Constitution itself does not address the issue except to say that the several governments within the United States cannot deprive you of your life without due process of law. The responsibility for actually protecting the right to life and punishing the taking of it falls on lesser laws passed by the specific jurisdiction.

 

[kaz]

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

Not having constitutional rights does not mean we can't chose to give them the rights we chose to give them, it just means they aren't automatically entitled to them.

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

If they had Constitutional rights, think about it, can a 10 year old vote? If they have Constitutional rights, it would be illegal to deny them the vote.

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

Think about how many other things they can't do. You can't pick and choose where the Constitution applies. We can pick and chose which ones we decide to grant them.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

I understand that our nation enshrines the idea of a natural, absolute right to life. The point is that the Constitution itself does not address the issue except to say that the several governments within the United States cannot deprive you of your life without due process of law. The responsibility for actually protecting the right to life and punishing the taking of it falls on lesser laws passed by the specific jurisdiction.

Exactly, Chuz's argument was a non-sequitur. Government cannot deprive you of your life without due process. The only applicability to abortion were if say government were mandating you can't have more than 2 children or you're forced by government to get an abortion.

On the other hand, the mother's right to liberty is clearly a Constitutional protection from government preventing her from getting an abortion without due process

 

[Chuz Life]

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

Not having constitutional rights does not mean we can't chose to give them the rights we chose to give them, it just means they aren't automatically entitled to them.

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

If they had Constitutional rights, think about it, can a 10 year old vote? If they have Constitutional rights, it would be illegal to deny them the vote.

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

Think about how many other things they can't do. You can't pick and choose where the Constitution applies. We can pick and chose which ones we decide to grant them.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

I understand that our nation enshrines the idea of a natural, absolute right to life. The point is that the Constitution itself does not address the issue except to say that the several governments within the United States cannot deprive you of your life without due process of law. The responsibility for actually protecting the right to life and punishing the taking of it falls on lesser laws passed by the specific jurisdiction.

If someone murders you. . . Are they simply violating a local law. . .or are they also violating your Constitutional rights?

 

[Chuz Life]

Really?

If what you say is true, then what is the basis for the charge of MURDER under any of our Fetal Homicide laws?

Not having constitutional rights does not mean we can't chose to give them the rights we chose to give them, it just means they aren't automatically entitled to them.

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

If they had Constitutional rights, think about it, can a 10 year old vote? If they have Constitutional rights, it would be illegal to deny them the vote.

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

Think about how many other things they can't do. You can't pick and choose where the Constitution applies. We can pick and chose which ones we decide to grant them.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

The mother has the right to liberty as well. The Constitution doesn't weight them.

And why can the Federal government make it illegal for a 14 year old to buy a gun from a gun dealer if they have Constitutional rights? That isn't a "qualified" right in the Constitution

I owned several guns at 14. The constitution says we have a right to keep and bear them. That doesn't mean the right can not have any qualifications or regulations at all. So, I think that is what must be confusing for some.

 

[kaz]

Not having constitutional rights does not mean we can't chose to give them the rights we chose to give them, it just means they aren't automatically entitled to them.

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

If they had Constitutional rights, think about it, can a 10 year old vote? If they have Constitutional rights, it would be illegal to deny them the vote.

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

Think about how many other things they can't do. You can't pick and choose where the Constitution applies. We can pick and chose which ones we decide to grant them.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

I understand that our nation enshrines the idea of a natural, absolute right to life. The point is that the Constitution itself does not address the issue except to say that the several governments within the United States cannot deprive you of your life without due process of law. The responsibility for actually protecting the right to life and punishing the taking of it falls on lesser laws passed by the specific jurisdiction.

If someone murders you. . . Are they simply violating a local law. . .or are they also violating your Constitutional rights?

As we both pointed out, it depends. But generally, they are violating a State law. Which is how the FFs set up our system. They wanted government to do certain, specific things and nothing else. It was meant to be limited government. They thought the States could handle those things

 

[kaz]

Not having constitutional rights does not mean we can't chose to give them the rights we chose to give them, it just means they aren't automatically entitled to them.

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

If they had Constitutional rights, think about it, can a 10 year old vote? If they have Constitutional rights, it would be illegal to deny them the vote.

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

Think about how many other things they can't do. You can't pick and choose where the Constitution applies. We can pick and chose which ones we decide to grant them.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

The mother has the right to liberty as well. The Constitution doesn't weight them.

And why can the Federal government make it illegal for a 14 year old to buy a gun from a gun dealer if they have Constitutional rights? That isn't a "qualified" right in the Constitution

I owned several guns at 14. The constitution says we have a right to keep and bear them. That doesn't mean the right can not have any qualifications or regulations at all. So, I think that is what must be confusing for some.

Evading the question. You are arguing a fetus has full Constitutional rights. How then can based on age government deprive you of your right when you are arguing you have full Constitutional rights regardless of your age?

 

[Katzndogz]

Not having constitutional rights does not mean we can't chose to give them the rights we chose to give them, it just means they aren't automatically entitled to them.

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

If they had Constitutional rights, think about it, can a 10 year old vote? If they have Constitutional rights, it would be illegal to deny them the vote.

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

Think about how many other things they can't do. You can't pick and choose where the Constitution applies. We can pick and chose which ones we decide to grant them.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

I understand that our nation enshrines the idea of a natural, absolute right to life. The point is that the Constitution itself does not address the issue except to say that the several governments within the United States cannot deprive you of your life without due process of law. The responsibility for actually protecting the right to life and punishing the taking of it falls on lesser laws passed by the specific jurisdiction.

If someone murders you. . . Are they simply violating a local law. . .or are they also violating your Constitutional rights?

They are violating a local law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not having constitutional rights does not mean we can't chose to give them the rights we chose to give them, it just means they aren't automatically entitled to them.

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

If they had Constitutional rights, think about it, can a 10 year old vote? If they have Constitutional rights, it would be illegal to deny them the vote.

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

Think about how many other things they can't do. You can't pick and choose where the Constitution applies. We can pick and chose which ones we decide to grant them.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

I understand that our nation enshrines the idea of a natural, absolute right to life. The point is that the Constitution itself does not address the issue except to say that the several governments within the United States cannot deprive you of your life without due process of law. The responsibility for actually protecting the right to life and punishing the taking of it falls on lesser laws passed by the specific jurisdiction.

If someone murders you. . . Are they simply violating a local law. . .or are they also violating your Constitutional rights?

They're violating state law, and possibly federal law, depending on who and/or where you are. Private individuals cannot violate your Constitutional rights, because the Constitution is a framework limiting what GOVERNMENT can do.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Womens' "rights" are the rights to make our own decisions about our bodies and our health. Womens' "rights" are the rights to make as much money as men in the same postition. Womens' "rights" are the rights to be taken seriously when it comes to making policy decisions in this country. We are half of the population and over half of the voters. Men who want to treat us as if we're still "the little woman" in the kitchen are in for a rude awakening. Jobs, the economy, military defense, all these things affect our lives, too. As for Kasich's remark, once again, the onus is on the woman to be vigilant against the man who may be a predator. Why isn't the man taught from birth that women are not his to abuse as he likes? Why are we fair game? If you're around alcohol, out after dark,dressed a certain way, or with a man in general, you're "asking for it".

Nobody that I know says a women is asking for it. Youve been watching too much sports pop culture thug talk.

99% of the crap Americans argue over is not important

Russia is buzzing our naval ships, but let's argue about a man using the girl's restroom....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Womens' "rights" are the rights to make our own decisions about our bodies and our health. Womens' "rights" are the rights to make as much money as men in the same postition. Womens' "rights" are the rights to be taken seriously when it comes to making policy decisions in this country. We are half of the population and over half of the voters. Men who want to treat us as if we're still "the little woman" in the kitchen are in for a rude awakening. Jobs, the economy, military defense, all these things affect our lives, too. As for Kasich's remark, once again, the onus is on the woman to be vigilant against the man who may be a predator. Why isn't the man taught from birth that women are not his to abuse as he likes? Why are we fair game? If you're around alcohol, out after dark,dressed a certain way, or with a man in general, you're "asking for it".

Nobody that I know says a women is asking for it. Youve been watching too much sports pop culture thug talk.

99% of the crap Americans argue over is not important

Russia is buzzing our naval ships, but let's argue about a man using the girl's restroom....

If you're the parent whose daughter is in the bathroom at that moment, which one has more importance and relevance to your life?

 

[kaz]

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

I understand that our nation enshrines the idea of a natural, absolute right to life. The point is that the Constitution itself does not address the issue except to say that the several governments within the United States cannot deprive you of your life without due process of law. The responsibility for actually protecting the right to life and punishing the taking of it falls on lesser laws passed by the specific jurisdiction.

If someone murders you. . . Are they simply violating a local law. . .or are they also violating your Constitutional rights?

They're violating state law, and possibly federal law, depending on who and/or where you are. Private individuals cannot violate your Constitutional rights, because the Constitution is a framework limiting what GOVERNMENT can do.

Exactly, Constitutional rights limit the government's ability to tread on your rights. Think of the incredible power we'd be giving them if we assigned them the task of protecting our rights from other citizens? In the name of life, liberty and property, they could justify anything

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

I understand that our nation enshrines the idea of a natural, absolute right to life. The point is that the Constitution itself does not address the issue except to say that the several governments within the United States cannot deprive you of your life without due process of law. The responsibility for actually protecting the right to life and punishing the taking of it falls on lesser laws passed by the specific jurisdiction.

If someone murders you. . . Are they simply violating a local law. . .or are they also violating your Constitutional rights?

They're violating state law, and possibly federal law, depending on who and/or where you are. Private individuals cannot violate your Constitutional rights, because the Constitution is a framework limiting what GOVERNMENT can do.

Exactly, Constitutional rights limit the government's ability to tread on your rights. Think of the incredible power we'd be giving them if we assigned them the task of protecting our rights from other citizens? In the name of life, liberty and property, they could justify anything

They already do try to usurp that authority, and nothing good ever comes from it.

 

[Chuz Life]

If a child in the womb is a 'person' they are automatically Constitutionally entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

True or False?

Ummmm, not all rights are the same. Are they?

The right to vote is a 'qualified' vote. It's still a Constitutional right but you have to first meet the age and other 'qualifications.'

The ONLY legal qualification for 'personhood' is that you be a living Human Being and a "human being" even in the womb MEETS that legal definition.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualified right (like the right to vote) and an unqualified right (like the right to the protections of our laws.)

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

The mother has the right to liberty as well. The Constitution doesn't weight them.

And why can the Federal government make it illegal for a 14 year old to buy a gun from a gun dealer if they have Constitutional rights? That isn't a "qualified" right in the Constitution

I owned several guns at 14. The constitution says we have a right to keep and bear them. That doesn't mean the right can not have any qualifications or regulations at all. So, I think that is what must be confusing for some.

Evading the question. You are arguing a fetus has full Constitutional rights. How then can based on age government deprive you of your right when you are arguing you have full Constitutional rights regardless of your age?

Quote the post where I have ever declared that a child in the womb has FULL RIGHTS that include the right to vote or to buy guns while in the womb.

You can't do it because I have never said anything close to that.

Constitutional rights are something every PERSON is entitled to. . . Regardless of age. . . But some of those constitutional rights (like voting) have an age requirement before they can be exercised.

 

[kaz]

You are picking and choosing here. No, a fetus nor a child has constitutional rights. A 10 year old does not have the right to bear arms. If a school calls the police to search a kids locker because he was acting suspicious, they do not need to obtain a warrant and the child cannot sue the city for a violation of his Forth Amendment rights. He or she doesn't have any rights.

Funny that you guys don't comprehend the difference between a natural / absolute Constitutional right (like the right to life) and a qualified right. . Like the right to vote.

The mother has the right to liberty as well. The Constitution doesn't weight them.

And why can the Federal government make it illegal for a 14 year old to buy a gun from a gun dealer if they have Constitutional rights? That isn't a "qualified" right in the Constitution

I owned several guns at 14. The constitution says we have a right to keep and bear them. That doesn't mean the right can not have any qualifications or regulations at all. So, I think that is what must be confusing for some.

Evading the question. You are arguing a fetus has full Constitutional rights. How then can based on age government deprive you of your right when you are arguing you have full Constitutional rights regardless of your age?

Quote the post where I have ever declared that a child in the womb has FULL RIGHTS that include the right to vote or to buy guns while in the womb.

You can't do it because I have never said anything close to that.

Constitutional rights are something every PERSON is entitled to. . . Regardless of age. . . But some of those constitutional rights (like voting) have an age requirement before they can be exercised.

I already conceded the voting one. It does have an age. Where in the second amendment is age mentioned