Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion and give the fetus no rights.

If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Isn't it funny how wrong-wingers can find “rights” like this in the Constitution, which makes no mention of them, and yet they cannot see rights that are explicitly affirmed and protected, especially in the First and Second Amendments?

They see all sorts of words that simply aren't there yet have a problem with words that are.

Someone should explain to NYcarbineer that the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. That a bunch of morons that said it was in 1973 should show it to us if it is.

Someone should explain to you that specific words don't have to appear in the Constitution, but, hey,

if you wish to play that game, then where does the word fetus appear in the Constitution? It doesn't, therefore there is no Constitutional establishment or protection for fetal rights, which means the abortion of a fetus cannot be deemed constitutionally as a violation of any person's rights.

The pregnant woman, however, is a person, and has constitutional privacy rights.

You lose either way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong.

An embryo/fetus is not a 'baby.'

Yes, it is life. You're wrong

You lost, get over it. The fetus is not a person in the US. It has no rights.

By that logic, you agree that slavery should be reinstated in this country. After all, at one time slaves were not considered persons, but property.

Prove it.

With ease.

We'll start with the human life cycle. Life Cycle, Human - Biology Encyclopedia - cells, body, process, system, different, DNA, organs, blood, hormone, produce, major

To get a basic understanding what makes up a human being, there's the genome project, here's a primer for you on that. Human Genome Project Completion: Frequently Asked Questions

Taxonomy definition - Biology. the science dealing with the description, identification, naming, and classification of organisms. This btw is how your species are classified, due to species specific characteristics.

We proceed from here to Aristotle's law of identity. To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else.

Now to argue that a fetus is not a human being, you must define it via taxonomy to another species...which you can't. Or you must state that it's not human, which the genome project, and the human life cycle tell you it is.

And the law of identity requires that it is human, what is human, can be nothing else, and vice versa.

This is why no scientist will even blink in the direction that said fetus conceived of human....is anything but human. And why no abortion proponent will suggest anything of the sort.

It's too easy to make them look like morons in that instance.

It doesn't matter if the fetus is a human being. The idea that a two cell zygote is no different than you is so preposterous that it's almost difficult to imagine you believe that.

It's called a scientific fact. Each is exactly the same, 1 member of the species.

You see....I don't differentiate by whatever reason to strip away the rights of human beings.

You do. Who next will you say is not a person in order to enslave or kill them? Jews perhaps...it's not been so long since someone thought that was a good idea.

The Constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion and give the fetus no rights.

If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Roe v Wade dumbass.

 

[Conservative65]

The Constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion and give the fetus no rights.

If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Isn't it funny how wrong-wingers can find “rights” like this in the Constitution, which makes no mention of them, and yet they cannot see rights that are explicitly affirmed and protected, especially in the First and Second Amendments?

They see all sorts of words that simply aren't there yet have a problem with words that are.

Someone should explain to NYcarbineer that the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. That a bunch of morons that said it was in 1973 should show it to us if it is.

Someone should explain to you that specific words don't have to appear in the Constitution, but, hey,

if you wish to play that game, then where does the word fetus appear in the Constitution? It doesn't, therefore there is no Constitutional establishment or protection for fetal rights, which means the abortion of a fetus cannot be deemed constitutionally as a violation of any person's rights.

The pregnant woman, however, is a person, and has constitutional privacy rights.

You lose either way.

Someone should explain to you that when words actually do, trying to pretend they don't makes you look idiotic.

I have a right to vote and can see that right in the Constitution. I have rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment because I can see them in the Constitution. Sad how you morons think something is there because you want to see it there.

The word fetus doesn't. The word illegal immigrant doesn't either but you want them to have rights guaranteed by the Constitution. See how that works?

You bleeding hearts constantly talk about human rights yet deny them to unborn children then justify it by claiming they aren't really human.

If she has privacy rights and wants things to remain private, why do so many women go to the public trough to feed when they can't afford those private choices? That's the problem with you guys. You want things to remain private until there is a need for the public to fund privacy. Doesn't work that way.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes, it is life. You're wrong

You lost, get over it. The fetus is not a person in the US. It has no rights.

By that logic, you agree that slavery should be reinstated in this country. After all, at one time slaves were not considered persons, but property.

With ease.

We'll start with the human life cycle. Life Cycle, Human - Biology Encyclopedia - cells, body, process, system, different, DNA, organs, blood, hormone, produce, major

To get a basic understanding what makes up a human being, there's the genome project, here's a primer for you on that. Human Genome Project Completion: Frequently Asked Questions

Taxonomy definition - Biology. the science dealing with the description, identification, naming, and classification of organisms. This btw is how your species are classified, due to species specific characteristics.

We proceed from here to Aristotle's law of identity. To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else.

Now to argue that a fetus is not a human being, you must define it via taxonomy to another species...which you can't. Or you must state that it's not human, which the genome project, and the human life cycle tell you it is.

And the law of identity requires that it is human, what is human, can be nothing else, and vice versa.

This is why no scientist will even blink in the direction that said fetus conceived of human....is anything but human. And why no abortion proponent will suggest anything of the sort.

It's too easy to make them look like morons in that instance.

It doesn't matter if the fetus is a human being. The idea that a two cell zygote is no different than you is so preposterous that it's almost difficult to imagine you believe that.

It's called a scientific fact. Each is exactly the same, 1 member of the species.

You see....I don't differentiate by whatever reason to strip away the rights of human beings.

You do. Who next will you say is not a person in order to enslave or kill them? Jews perhaps...it's not been so long since someone thought that was a good idea.

The Constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion and give the fetus no rights.

If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Roe v Wade dumbass.

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

 

[rightwinger]

You lost, get over it. The fetus is not a person in the US. It has no rights.

By that logic, you agree that slavery should be reinstated in this country. After all, at one time slaves were not considered persons, but property.

It doesn't matter if the fetus is a human being. The idea that a two cell zygote is no different than you is so preposterous that it's almost difficult to imagine you believe that.

It's called a scientific fact. Each is exactly the same, 1 member of the species.

You see....I don't differentiate by whatever reason to strip away the rights of human beings.

You do. Who next will you say is not a person in order to enslave or kill them? Jews perhaps...it's not been so long since someone thought that was a good idea.

The Constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion and give the fetus no rights.

If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Roe v Wade dumbass.

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Individual freedoms are in the Constitution

 

[NYcarbineer]

You lost, get over it. The fetus is not a person in the US. It has no rights.

By that logic, you agree that slavery should be reinstated in this country. After all, at one time slaves were not considered persons, but property.

It doesn't matter if the fetus is a human being. The idea that a two cell zygote is no different than you is so preposterous that it's almost difficult to imagine you believe that.

It's called a scientific fact. Each is exactly the same, 1 member of the species.

You see....I don't differentiate by whatever reason to strip away the rights of human beings.

You do. Who next will you say is not a person in order to enslave or kill them? Jews perhaps...it's not been so long since someone thought that was a good idea.

The Constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion and give the fetus no rights.

If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Roe v Wade dumbass.

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Yes. Case law is binding.

 

[Conservative65]

By that logic, you agree that slavery should be reinstated in this country. After all, at one time slaves were not considered persons, but property.
It's called a scientific fact. Each is exactly the same, 1 member of the species.

You see....I don't differentiate by whatever reason to strip away the rights of human beings.

You do. Who next will you say is not a person in order to enslave or kill them? Jews perhaps...it's not been so long since someone thought that was a good idea.

The Constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion and give the fetus no rights.

If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Roe v Wade dumbass.

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Yes. Case law is binding.

What article and section can I look to and find those specific words?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion and give the fetus no rights.

If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Isn't it funny how wrong-wingers can find “rights” like this in the Constitution, which makes no mention of them, and yet they cannot see rights that are explicitly affirmed and protected, especially in the First and Second Amendments?

They see all sorts of words that simply aren't there yet have a problem with words that are.

Someone should explain to NYcarbineer that the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. That a bunch of morons that said it was in 1973 should show it to us if it is.

Someone should explain to you that specific words don't have to appear in the Constitution, but, hey,

if you wish to play that game, then where does the word fetus appear in the Constitution? It doesn't, therefore there is no Constitutional establishment or protection for fetal rights, which means the abortion of a fetus cannot be deemed constitutionally as a violation of any person's rights.

The pregnant woman, however, is a person, and has constitutional privacy rights.

You lose either way.

Someone should explain to you that when words actually do, trying to pretend they don't makes you look idiotic.

I have a right to vote and can see that right in the Constitution. I have rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment because I can see them in the Constitution. Sad how you morons think something is there because you want to see it there.

The word fetus doesn't. The word illegal immigrant doesn't either but you want them to have rights guaranteed by the Constitution. See how that works?

You bleeding hearts constantly talk about human rights yet deny them to unborn children then justify it by claiming they aren't really human.

If she has privacy rights and wants things to remain private, why do so many women go to the public trough to feed when they can't afford those private choices? That's the problem with you guys. You want things to remain private until there is a need for the public to fund privacy. Doesn't work that way.

There are no rights for the fetus in the Constitution's original text.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion and give the fetus no rights.

If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Roe v Wade dumbass.

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Yes. Case law is binding.

What article and section can I look to and find those specific words?

Where does it say you have to?

 

[Conservative65]

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Isn't it funny how wrong-wingers can find “rights” like this in the Constitution, which makes no mention of them, and yet they cannot see rights that are explicitly affirmed and protected, especially in the First and Second Amendments?

They see all sorts of words that simply aren't there yet have a problem with words that are.

Someone should explain to NYcarbineer that the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. That a bunch of morons that said it was in 1973 should show it to us if it is.

Someone should explain to you that specific words don't have to appear in the Constitution, but, hey,

if you wish to play that game, then where does the word fetus appear in the Constitution? It doesn't, therefore there is no Constitutional establishment or protection for fetal rights, which means the abortion of a fetus cannot be deemed constitutionally as a violation of any person's rights.

The pregnant woman, however, is a person, and has constitutional privacy rights.

You lose either way.

Someone should explain to you that when words actually do, trying to pretend they don't makes you look idiotic.

I have a right to vote and can see that right in the Constitution. I have rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment because I can see them in the Constitution. Sad how you morons think something is there because you want to see it there.

The word fetus doesn't. The word illegal immigrant doesn't either but you want them to have rights guaranteed by the Constitution. See how that works?

You bleeding hearts constantly talk about human rights yet deny them to unborn children then justify it by claiming they aren't really human.

If she has privacy rights and wants things to remain private, why do so many women go to the public trough to feed when they can't afford those private choices? That's the problem with you guys. You want things to remain private until there is a need for the public to fund privacy. Doesn't work that way.

There are no rights for the fetus in the Constitution's original text.

There are for humans and they are as human as you.

There are no rights for illegals in the Constitution's original text but you lefties want them to have those rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution gives a woman a right to an abortion and give the fetus no rights.

If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Roe v Wade dumbass.

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Yes. Case law is binding.

What article and section can I look to and find those specific words?

How would you protect gun rights without a Supreme Court?

 

[Conservative65]

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Roe v Wade dumbass.

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Yes. Case law is binding.

What article and section can I look to and find those specific words?

Where does it say you have to?

You were asked to line the relevant portion of the Constitution that says a woman has a right to an abortion. In other words, the text that uses the word abortion. You posted Roe v Wade. I asked what section it was in. Your response of Roe v Wade indicated that it was written in the Constitution based on the question asked of you. Where is it baby killer?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Isn't it funny how wrong-wingers can find “rights” like this in the Constitution, which makes no mention of them, and yet they cannot see rights that are explicitly affirmed and protected, especially in the First and Second Amendments?

They see all sorts of words that simply aren't there yet have a problem with words that are.

Someone should explain to NYcarbineer that the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. That a bunch of morons that said it was in 1973 should show it to us if it is.

Someone should explain to you that specific words don't have to appear in the Constitution, but, hey,

if you wish to play that game, then where does the word fetus appear in the Constitution? It doesn't, therefore there is no Constitutional establishment or protection for fetal rights, which means the abortion of a fetus cannot be deemed constitutionally as a violation of any person's rights.

The pregnant woman, however, is a person, and has constitutional privacy rights.

You lose either way.

Someone should explain to you that when words actually do, trying to pretend they don't makes you look idiotic.

I have a right to vote and can see that right in the Constitution. I have rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment because I can see them in the Constitution. Sad how you morons think something is there because you want to see it there.

The word fetus doesn't. The word illegal immigrant doesn't either but you want them to have rights guaranteed by the Constitution. See how that works?

You bleeding hearts constantly talk about human rights yet deny them to unborn children then justify it by claiming they aren't really human.

If she has privacy rights and wants things to remain private, why do so many women go to the public trough to feed when they can't afford those private choices? That's the problem with you guys. You want things to remain private until there is a need for the public to fund privacy. Doesn't work that way.

There are no rights for the fetus in the Constitution's original text.

There are for humans and they are as human as you.

There are no rights for illegals in the Constitution's original text but you lefties want them to have those rights.

Don't lie about what I believe. Where are rights in the Constitution for the unborn?

 

[Conservative65]

Please link the relevant portion of the Constitution that says this. Or just copy and paste it, that'll be fine.

Roe v Wade dumbass.

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Yes. Case law is binding.

What article and section can I look to and find those specific words?

How would you protect gun rights without a Supreme Court?

In that cased, the Court would look at words actually in the Constitution. You have yet to show me the words you say are rights from the Constitution. What it amounts to is you want it to be so you're willing to see them. Not how it works.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Roe v Wade dumbass.

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Yes. Case law is binding.

What article and section can I look to and find those specific words?

Where does it say you have to?

You were asked to line the relevant portion of the Constitution that says a woman has a right to an abortion. In other words, the text that uses the word abortion. You posted Roe v Wade. I asked what section it was in. Your response of Roe v Wade indicated that it was written in the Constitution based on the question asked of you. Where is it baby killer?

Roe v Wade is a binding Supreme Court decision that gives a woman a limited right to an abortion, with some powers left to the state.

 

[Conservative65]

They see all sorts of words that simply aren't there yet have a problem with words that are.

Someone should explain to NYcarbineer that the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. That a bunch of morons that said it was in 1973 should show it to us if it is.

Someone should explain to you that specific words don't have to appear in the Constitution, but, hey,

if you wish to play that game, then where does the word fetus appear in the Constitution? It doesn't, therefore there is no Constitutional establishment or protection for fetal rights, which means the abortion of a fetus cannot be deemed constitutionally as a violation of any person's rights.

The pregnant woman, however, is a person, and has constitutional privacy rights.

You lose either way.

Someone should explain to you that when words actually do, trying to pretend they don't makes you look idiotic.

I have a right to vote and can see that right in the Constitution. I have rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment because I can see them in the Constitution. Sad how you morons think something is there because you want to see it there.

The word fetus doesn't. The word illegal immigrant doesn't either but you want them to have rights guaranteed by the Constitution. See how that works?

You bleeding hearts constantly talk about human rights yet deny them to unborn children then justify it by claiming they aren't really human.

If she has privacy rights and wants things to remain private, why do so many women go to the public trough to feed when they can't afford those private choices? That's the problem with you guys. You want things to remain private until there is a need for the public to fund privacy. Doesn't work that way.

There are no rights for the fetus in the Constitution's original text.

There are for humans and they are as human as you.

There are no rights for illegals in the Constitution's original text but you lefties want them to have those rights.

Don't lie about what I believe. Where are rights in the Constitution for the unborn?

It's not a lie when lefties had made and defended such statements.

The same rights as I have as someone that is born. Just because you want to justify being a baby killer by saying an unborn isn't human doesn't make it so. It makes you look like what you are baby killer.

 

[Conservative65]

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Yes. Case law is binding.

What article and section can I look to and find those specific words?

Where does it say you have to?

You were asked to line the relevant portion of the Constitution that says a woman has a right to an abortion. In other words, the text that uses the word abortion. You posted Roe v Wade. I asked what section it was in. Your response of Roe v Wade indicated that it was written in the Constitution based on the question asked of you. Where is it baby killer?

Roe v Wade is a binding Supreme Court decision that gives a woman a limited right to an abortion, with some powers left to the state.

I'm still looking for the words you claimed were in the Constitution baby killer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Roe v Wade dumbass.

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Yes. Case law is binding.

What article and section can I look to and find those specific words?

How would you protect gun rights without a Supreme Court?

In that cased, the Court would look at words actually in the Constitution. You have yet to show me the words you say are rights from the Constitution. What it amounts to is you want it to be so you're willing to see them. Not how it works.

And where is the power in the Constitution for Supreme Court decisions you don't like to be overturned?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes. Case law is binding.

What article and section can I look to and find those specific words?

Where does it say you have to?

You were asked to line the relevant portion of the Constitution that says a woman has a right to an abortion. In other words, the text that uses the word abortion. You posted Roe v Wade. I asked what section it was in. Your response of Roe v Wade indicated that it was written in the Constitution based on the question asked of you. Where is it baby killer?

Roe v Wade is a binding Supreme Court decision that gives a woman a limited right to an abortion, with some powers left to the state.

I'm still looking for the words you claimed were in the Constitution baby killer.

They are in the Roe v Wade decision.

 

[Conservative65]

Roe v Wade are words in the Constitution? You really are that stupid. That's why we have another unqualified black in a government job as President.

Yes. Case law is binding.

What article and section can I look to and find those specific words?

How would you protect gun rights without a Supreme Court?

In that cased, the Court would look at words actually in the Constitution. You have yet to show me the words you say are rights from the Constitution. What it amounts to is you want it to be so you're willing to see them. Not how it works.

And where is the power in the Constitution for Supreme Court decisions you don't like to be overturned?

Where are the words you say are in the Constitution about abortion BABY KILLER? Can't provide them because just like idiots who upheld Roe v. Wage, they can't either. They're like you and the rest of the Liberals. They want it to say that so they pretend it's there.