Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The words we use to call things are constructs but the fetus is still objectively different from every other human being from a baby, to a toddler, a teenager and an adult. It can't survive outside the body of another human being.Isn't the term fetus just a social construct? We call a person at that stage of development a fetus, but how does that make him any less of a human? Aren't all humans the same, or are you saying that a preborn baby is not a human being? How can you say that? A preborn baby has all the DNA of a human being.
I have no problem whatsoever with that.Okay. Just don’t complain to me when even fewer white kids get into college because they accept more Asian kids.
Why does “history” have any relevance as to whether it deserves equal protection?
By the way same sex unions also go back millennia.
You have nothing.
If you read my posts, what I am saying is fetuses are aborted, not babies.Isn't the term fetus just a social construct? We call a person at that stage of development a fetus, but how does that make him any less of a human? Aren't all humans the same, or are you saying that a preborn baby is not a human being? How can you say that? A preborn baby has all the DNA of a human being.
If you read my posts, what I am saying is fetuses are aborted, not babies.
What the heck is a preborn baby? That doesn't even make sense. That would be like calling a 1 year old a postborn fetus.
...the term sounds suspiciously like a religious construct.
We have all sorts of justifications for killing living things, what society are you living in?And you sound like you are using semantics to justify killing a living thing.
I didn't use semantics to justify aborting a fetus, I used the constitution. Now thanks to SCOTUS axing 50 years of constitutional precedent I use state laws to justify aborting a fetus...where applicable.And you sound like you are using semantics to justify killing a living thing.
Neither could Christopher Reeve from the moment his head hit that rock. Yet no one could cut his body into pieces with a chain saw without being charged with murder. It's perfectly legal, however, to do that to an unborn baby. The viability argument holds no water.The words we use to call things are constructs but the fetus is still objectively different from every other human being from a baby, to a toddler, a teenager and an adult. It can't survive outside the body of another human being.
They're all human.If you read my posts, what I am saying is fetuses are aborted, not babies.
What the heck is a preborn baby? That doesn't even make sense. That would be like calling a 1 year old a postborn fetus.
...the term sounds suspiciously like a religious construct.
I didn't use semantics to justify aborting a fetus, I used the constitution. Now thanks to SCOTUS axing 50 years of constitutional precedent I use state laws to justify aborting a fetus...where applicable.
Rome. China. Mesopotamia. All had same sex unions.Show me where same sex MARRIAGE goes back millennia. as a tradition, not as some one off occasional thing.
History shows precedent, and precedent shows what things can be considered "equal" in a Constitutional sense.
Rome. China. Mesopotamia. All had same sex unions.
I asked why history had anything to do with equal protection and all you do is say because it does.
There’s no legal principle here.
Who gives a shit what history says? People deserve equal protection under the law regardless of precedent. If there were precedent for these things, they wouldn’t need to be constitutionally protected.
Christopher Reeves also wasn't gestating inside them I'm guessing.Neither could Christopher Reeve from the moment his head hit that rock. Yet no one could cut his body into pieces with a chain saw without being charged with murder. It's perfectly legal, however, to do that to an unborn baby. The viability argument holds no water.
The priest at my wedding said our marriage was a union.Proof?
Marriages, not unions.
It has to do with what is considered "equal".
Again, pass this through legislative actions and enforce full faith and credit between the States I have no issue. My issue is Obergfell is wishful thinking and revisionist constitutional bullshit.
The point remains, viability is not good argument for personhood. Otherwise, every premee in the NICU could be killed with impunity.Christopher Reeves also wasn't gestating inside them I'm guessing.
The priest at my wedding said our marriage was a union.
If it were already considered equal, we wouldn’t need a court ruling saying so. This is completely illogical.
The fact that they are in the NICU and not the morgue argues otherwise. I agree all viable life should be protected from violence but in this case it's not just viability, again the fetus is gestating inside another human being. We can shoot people who are just in our homes uninvited, why can't women scrape unwanted, gestating humans off their uteral wall?The point remains, viability is not good argument for personhood. Otherwise, every premee in the NICU could be killed with impunity.
Semantics is all you have. You claim that equal protection doesn’t apply because marriages aren’t equal.Semantics is the first resort of the idiot.
Sorry, SSM and Hetero marriage are not equal just because you want them to be, at least not as far as the Constitution is concerned. There is no basis for it beyond the desire of progressive SC jurists, and that is confirmed in the dissents from the more realistic jurists, i.e. the constructionists, on the bench.
Semantics is all you have. You claim that equal protection doesn’t apply because marriages aren’t equal.
But there’s no principle to say so other than they weren’t equal before.
If they were equal before, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
The basis for declaring them protected under equal protection is that you can’t constitutionally and discriminate based on gender. If a man wants to marry a man, you can’t discriminate because you made a rule against a person’s gender.
Your favored approach would have maintained Plessy. It would have maintained laws against sodomy. It would have maintained interracial marriage bans.
Because the person sneaking into our homes in the dead of night are doing so purposely, knowing that they are breaking laws and desiring to either rob or harm us in some way. The unborn baby does not decide to be there, he/she is created as the result of decisions his/her parents made. IOW, they're completely innocent. You do see the difference, right?The fact that they are in the NICU and not the morgue argues otherwise. I agree all viable life should be protected from violence but in this case it's not just viability, again the fetus is gestating inside another human being. We can shoot people who are just in our homes uninvited, why can't women scrape unwanted, gestating humans off their uteral wall?
