True conservatives are pro-choice

[NYcarbineer]

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

Then show me in the constitution where a fetus has the right to life equivalent to, say, a 3 year old child.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The Peterson case is based on a law that specifically excludes legal abortion, so birth has everything to do with it. There is no post-birth legal 'abortion'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Then respond to all the posts where I don't limit it to citizens.

First trimester abortion is a constitutional right under constitutional law established by the Supreme Court.
The simplest of rights, i.e., the right to life, is thus by constitutional law denied to a first trimester fetus.

In fact, since Roe v. Wade goes on to allow the states to further expand legal abortion beyond the first trimester, if they so choose,

therefore life, for the fetus, as a right, does not exist, constitutionally.

 

[Ravi]

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?

None. But you are talking nonsense, as usual.

 

[JBeukema]

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

Then show me in the constitution where a fetus has the right to life equivalent to, say, a 3 year old child.

How 'bout showing us where age is mentioned as a qualifier?

 

[JBeukema]

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.

The Peterson case is based on a law that specifically excludes legal abortion, so birth has everything to do with it.

Nope. Abortion generally excludes live birth, which means birth isn't a factor. A more accurate comparison would be the days when it was fine to kill a mormon in some places but not to kill someone else

 

[JBeukema]

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

Citizenship is not relevant to the matter

Then respond to all the posts where I don't limit it to citizens.

First trimester abortion is a constitutional right under constitutional law established by the Supreme Court.

Scotus doesn't make Constitutional law. The Constitution is law. Scotus is tasked with enforcing it as any court acts to see the law enforced.

We're back to civics 101.

The simplest of rights, i.e., the right to life, is thus by constitutional law denied to a first trimester fetus.

Without the right to life, there are no other rights. Ergo, the right to life is the right upon which all others rest. COTUS rests upon the premise of natural rights, which belong to all persons. SCOTUS can't give away or retract natural rights, which means they have no constitutional, natural, or moral authority to declare what persons do or do not have such rights.

In fact, since Roe v. Wade

-is not a valid ruling, as it is a matter of public record that the entire case that was heard was perjury. This is cause for appeal and the overturning of the ruling in the case pending a new hearing.

 

[JBeukema]

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?

None.

I love when you idiots refute yourselves

 

[Wingsofwind]

JBeukema

I am not going to bother responding to you in this thread anymore. You rather attack the person and call names than actually discussing the topic with reason. This thread has more post by you than anyone else and most of them are 1-2 lined responses. Not once have I seen a responsible and reasonable response from you. And you ask if I am retarded...lol.

Seem to me like you rather argue than discuss. I think they call that ....trolling?

 

[BenNatuf]

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

If the Fetus is an individual, then they deserve to be protected under the Constitution, if it is not an individual then it does not deserve to be protected under the constitution.

The question really is: "What constitues an individual"?

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?

The Constituion protects all persons lives against forfieture without due process (14th). Person as such is undefined in the constitution therefore the congress is free by law to define it (neccessary and propper), they have not. It should therefore by virtue of the 9th and 10th amendments fall to the states to define for themselves and the courts should honor those deffinitions, but the courts have stripped the states of this authority instead. The courts have no authority to do such a thing, but they have and thier userpation stands.

 

[manifold]

JBeukema

...

Seem to me like you rather argue than discuss. I think they call that ....trolling?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[JBeukema]

The Constituion protects all persons lives against forfieture without due process (14th). Person as such is undefined in the constitution therefore the congress is free by law to define it (neccessary and propper), they have not. It should therefore by virtue of the 9th and 10th amendments fall to the states to define for themselves and the courts should honor those deffinitions.

Since it is a Constitutional matter, SCOTUS has the authority to rule on what constitutes a 'person' for the purposes of such constitutional law.

This is the authority they exercised in Roe v. Wade.

 

[Anguille]

Abortion is death, nobody deserves to die, the least of all, those living inside the womb, its torture, pure and simple, abortion is torture.

And what would you call forced pregnancy?

What do you call deflection.

What you just said.

Can't answer the question, I see.

No surprise.

 

[Anguille]

Abortion is death, nobody deserves to die, the least of all, those living inside the womb, its torture, pure and simple, abortion is torture.

And what would you call forced pregnancy?

if the woman was raped, you have a point
if not, she partook of the act to become pregnant
she had her choice

If the birth control failed she also did not chose to become pregnant.
However even a woman who initially choses to get pregnant has just as much right to abort as a woman who was raped. It's her body and her choice alone to end the pregnancy or not.

You cannot for a woman to remain pregnant against her will any more than you can force her to have an abortion against her will.
Both are injust.

 

[Anguille]

Abortion is death, nobody deserves to die, the least of all, those living inside the womb, its torture, pure and simple, abortion is torture.

And what would you call forced pregnancy?

If someone keeps you prisoner, rapes you, and impregnates you, then we can talk.

Until then, your failure to avoid pregnancy due to your own irresponsibility is not an excuse for homicide. If you're big enough to fuck, you're big enough to be responsible for your decisions in life.

Translation: Women who enjoy sex should be punished. And appropriate punishment is forcing her to be pregnant for 9 months and then bear an unwanted child.

How does using fetuses and children to punish women show respect and concern for the welfare of fetuses and children?

Forced birthers make no sense. They claim they are looking out for and protecting the "unborn". Yet they see nothing wrong in using them as intruments of torture and punishment on women.

 

[Anguille]

What someone should do is immaterial to the discussion.

Exactly.

 

[DiveCon]

And what would you call forced pregnancy?

if the woman was raped, you have a point
if not, she partook of the act to become pregnant
she had her choice

If the birth control failed she also did not chose to become pregnant.
However even a woman who initially choses to get pregnant has just as much right to abort as a woman who was raped. It's her body and her choice alone to end the pregnancy or not.

You cannot for a woman to remain pregnant against her will any more than you can force her to have an abortion against her will.
Both are injust.

are you not aware that all methods of birth control have failure rates?
and shouldnt women( and men) know that there is still a chance that even with birth control there is still a risk?
again, they both chose to ignore the risks, they MADE the choice

 

[Anguille]

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

This was true until quite recently even in some first world countries. I imagine it may still be the case in some third world countries.
You've made a good point.

 

[Avatar4321]

Translation: Women who enjoy sex should be punished. And appropriate punishment is forcing her to be pregnant for 9 months and then bear an unwanted child.

How does using fetuses and children to punish women show respect and concern for the welfare of fetuses and children?

Forced birthers make no sense. They claim they are looking out for and protecting the "unborn". Yet they see nothing wrong in using them as intruments of torture and punishment on women.

A child is a punishment now?

And how is it punishment to face the natural consequences of your actions? Consequences equal punishment?

At some point you have to take responsibility for your actions. killing your children doesnt help you avoid it. It just weighs more on your shoulders.

Oh. And you can enjoy sex without killing children.

 

[Anguille]

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.

In this country it is illegal to murder non citizens as well as citizens. The point is that fetuses are not persons and therefore it is impossible to murder one. It does not matter that they are not citizens, only that they are not considered persons under the law.
Rightly so.