True conservatives are pro-choice

[JBeukema]

3/5 of a person.

exactly what i said
not a FULL person

But they WERE actually full persons. Fetuses are not.

Nor jews, nor libruls, nor republicans, nor the Roma....

 

[DiveCon]

But they WERE actually full persons. Fetuses are not.

but the LAW didnt
you are missing the point

No, I'm not. Buttemia is trying to pretend that since the law said slaves were not full persons that somehow the law was valid. It never was. It was always unconstitutional to allow slavery...it just took awhile before people understood that.

And fetuses still are not full persons, no matter what the law says.

no, that is NOT his argument

 

[JBeukema]

I didn't say that. My premise is that fetuses are not equal to living, breathing humans.

It can be argued that the constitution applies to non-citizens but it is pretty hard to argue that it applies to not alive beings.

you are deviating from his premise which is what the LAW was

and again, the law applies if you want to define when "LIFE" begins


btw, if "life" doesnt begin till birth, why was Scot Peterson convicted for killing 2 people (AKA PERSONS)

Because he was not entitled to make the decision.

to kill a person?


it's even more hilarious when you recall that raping and murdering a woman or girl used to be a property crime committed against her father or husband

 

[JBeukema]

But they WERE actually full persons. Fetuses are not.

but the LAW didnt
you are missing the point

No, I'm not. Buttemia is trying to pretend that since the law said slaves were not full persons that somehow the law was valid.

And fetuses still are not full persons, no matter what the law says.

Because they're more convenient that way?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The issue of slavery should not be a political issue, it should be entirely a judicial issue. It's simple:

If the slave is a citizen, then they deserve to be protected under the Constitution, if they are not a citizen then they do not deserve to be protected under the constitution.

The question really is: "What constitutes a citizen"?

The judicial decision?

Dred Scott v. Sanford...1857.

Where in the Constitution, or in constitutional law, is it, or has it ever been, determined that a fetus is a citizen?

It wasn't so long ago people asked the same question about blacks

What's the answer to the question? Don't think I haven't noticed how scrupulously you're avoiding the simple truth,

there is no protection for fetuses as citizens in the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

but the LAW didnt
you are missing the point

No, I'm not. Buttemia is trying to pretend that since the law said slaves were not full persons that somehow the law was valid.

And fetuses still are not full persons, no matter what the law says.

Because they're more convenient that way?

The reason doesn't matter. If you want citizenship for fetuses, you have to amend the Constitution.

 

[Ravi]

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

I didn't say that. My premise is that fetuses are not equal to living, breathing humans.

It can be argued that the constitution applies to non-citizens but it is pretty hard to argue that it applies to not alive beings.

Not alive?


Did you ever take biology in school?

You always get hung up on semantics. No matter how you try to pretend otherwise, a fetus is not the same thing as a birthed person.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The entire premise you nitwits raised was that they're not citizens

I didn't say that. My premise is that fetuses are not equal to living, breathing humans.

It can be argued that the constitution applies to non-citizens but it is pretty hard to argue that it applies to not alive beings.

you are deviating from his premise which is what the LAW was

and again, the law applies if you want to define when "LIFE" begins


btw, if "life" doesnt begin till birth, why was Scot Peterson convicted for killing 2 people (AKA PERSONS)

The imposition of a punishment for killing a fetus (outside of a legal abortion) does not convey comprehensive personhood to the fetus; you would have to outlaw almost all abortion (for starters).

 

[NYcarbineer]

exactly what i said
not a FULL person

But they WERE actually full persons. Fetuses are not.

Nor jews, nor libruls, nor republicans, nor the Roma....

Will you PLEASE cite to us where in the Constitution or constitutional law personhood, or citizenship, of fetuses is established and protected?

 

[DiveCon]

But they WERE actually full persons. Fetuses are not.

Nor jews, nor libruls, nor republicans, nor the Roma....

Will you PLEASE cite to us where in the Constitution or constitutional law personhood, or citizenship, of fetuses is established and protected?

thats not the point he is making
he is saying that at one time other persons did not have those protections under the law that they DO have now
meaning the law can be CHANGED

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nor jews, nor libruls, nor republicans, nor the Roma....

Will you PLEASE cite to us where in the Constitution or constitutional law personhood, or citizenship, of fetuses is established and protected?

thats not the point he is making
he is saying that at one time other persons did not have those protections under the law that they DO have now
meaning the law can be CHANGED

Well, he's certainly not admitting that it requires a Constitutional Amendment to convey equal rights as citizens/persons on fetuses.

 

[JBeukema]

Where in the Constitution, or in constitutional law, is it, or has it ever been, determined that a fetus is a citizen?

It wasn't so long ago people asked the same question about blacks

What's the answer to the question? Don't think I haven't noticed how scrupulously you're avoiding the simple truth,

there is no protection for fetuses as citizens in the Constitution.

The rights and protections outlined in the Constitution are not limited to citizens.

Non-citizens, too, get jury trials and aren't allowed to be boiled alive in oil.

 

[JBeukema]

No, I'm not. Buttemia is trying to pretend that since the law said slaves were not full persons that somehow the law was valid.

And fetuses still are not full persons, no matter what the law says.

Because they're more convenient that way?

The reason doesn't matter. If you want citizenship for fetuses, you have to amend the Constitution.

Citizenship is not relevant to the matter

 

[JBeukema]

I didn't say that. My premise is that fetuses are not equal to living, breathing humans.

It can be argued that the constitution applies to non-citizens but it is pretty hard to argue that it applies to not alive beings.

Not alive?


Did you ever take biology in school?

You always get hung up on semantics. No matter how you try to pretend otherwise, a fetus is not the same thing as a birthed person.

What fundamental aspect of the child's nature changes when it is moved three feet to the left?

 

[JBeukema]

I didn't say that. My premise is that fetuses are not equal to living, breathing humans.

It can be argued that the constitution applies to non-citizens but it is pretty hard to argue that it applies to not alive beings.

you are deviating from his premise which is what the LAW was

and again, the law applies if you want to define when "LIFE" begins


btw, if "life" doesnt begin till birth, why was Scot Peterson convicted for killing 2 people (AKA PERSONS)

The imposition of a punishment for killing a fetus (outside of a legal abortion) does not convey comprehensive personhood to the fetus; you would have to outlaw almost all abortion (for starters).

No, you wouldn't. Only the abortion of those who meet the criterion for personhood. The peterson case and Roe v. Wade make it clear that, in the eyes of the Law, birth has nothing to do with it.

 

[JBeukema]

But they WERE actually full persons. Fetuses are not.

Nor jews, nor libruls, nor republicans, nor the Roma....

Will you PLEASE cite to us where in the Constitution or constitutional law personhood, or citizenship, of fetuses is established and protected?

After you show where it says the basic right to life is limited to citizens.

 

[JBeukema]

Nor jews, nor libruls, nor republicans, nor the Roma....

Will you PLEASE cite to us where in the Constitution or constitutional law personhood, or citizenship, of fetuses is established and protected?

thats not the point he is making
he is saying that at one time other persons did not have those protections under the law that they DO have now
meaning the law can be CHANGED

And that it can be wrong

 

[JBeukema]

Will you PLEASE cite to us where in the Constitution or constitutional law personhood, or citizenship, of fetuses is established and protected?

thats not the point he is making
he is saying that at one time other persons did not have those protections under the law that they DO have now
meaning the law can be CHANGED

Well, he's certainly not admitting that it requires a Constitutional Amendment to convey equal rights as citizens/persons on fetuses.

Citizen and Person are not synonymous

Non-citizens !-> Non-persons

Nor is citizenship a prerequisite for possessing a right to one's life

 

[mdn2000]

It is apparent that since its beginning legalized abortion has been a disaster. This is just the start, the worst that could happen does, babies survive and are left to die.

Where do we start, everything we are told to believe about this "CHOICE" is easily described as torture, babies mutilated, ripped from the womb, and suffer for hours trying to live. Sick. I can see no justification for a procedure that has always resulted in this result.

66 British Babies Survived Abortion - All Were Left to Die Without Medical Aid | LifeSiteNews.com

66 British Babies Survived Abortion - All Were Left to Die Without Medical Aid
BY LIFESITENEWS.COM
Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:15 ESTComments (0)
By Hilary White

LONDON, February 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In line with similar revelations in Canada and the US as well as previous UK reports, a government report has shown that babies who survive abortion attempts in the UK are often left to die. According to the fine print of a government report, at least 66 infants survived NHS-funded abortion attempts in one year alone.

According to the report, by the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH), about half of the surviving children lived for an hour, while one survived ten hours breathing unaided.

Under current British law, a child can be aborted up to 24 weeks gestation if there are no "abnormalities" detected. A child judged to be abnormal may be legally killed up to the time of natural birth.

In Britain, the report shows that once a child slated for death by abortion is born alive, no medical help is offered him. On the contrary, guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists offered doctors the recommendation that babies over 22 weeks old who survive abortion be killed by lethal injection.

The Daily Telegraph notes that this instruction to murder a living child "can be a difficult procedure for doctors".

The CEMACH Perinatal Mortality report, data for which was gathered from hospitals in England and Wales during 2005, reveals that 16 babies who survived abortion were born after 22 weeks old. The remaining 50 were under that age

 

[JBeukema]

It is apparent that since its beginning legalized abortion has been a disaster.

Seeing as everything is legal until made illegal, I'll not bother reading any more of what is sure to be a very moronic post