USMB Abortion poll

[JakeStarkey]

Of course, you are not obligated to support your assertion I can't force you to explain how your claim is supported by the concept of "equal rights" as required by the Constitution, either. That said, I can't imagine why you would make such a claim and then not support it with something / anything in the way of a legal document or precedent.

I can't imagine why you would make a prior claim and then not support it with something / anything in the way of a legal document or precedent.

Chuz, that's the way it works. You make a claim, you support it, then someone can answer your evidence. Get to it.

I already gave the support for my claim.

That being our fetal homicide laws and the Constitution.

So far, you have not provided anything to support your claims, however and I am still waiting to see what you have to support the claim that the mother's life "always" take precedent over her child's life.

You have to explain clearly what the laws entail and in what situations do they apply. You have not done that. Since you are not a Constitutional expert, you need to explain how that applies to abortion; SCOTUS disagrees with your interpretations. When you do that, we can move forward.

I do now owe you any further explanation of my views and you don't owe me any further explanation of yours. YOU made the assertion that the mother's life ALWAYS takes precedence over her child's life. I asked for you to support that opinion and you have so far refused to do so. That's fine. You don't owe me anything more than and neither do I owe you anything more in the way of an explanation of mine.

So you don't want to explain. That's fine. The mother's life always takes precedence over the child's.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz, fetuses are not authentic human beings in law or science. In no way have you been able to prove that claim. Your claim then that they can claim due process and protection falls. The feticide laws apply criminal sanctions to third parties, yet you wish to apply them to women. Don't going to happen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Also, your comment suggests that you are completely unaware of how many women are just as anti-abortion as anyone else is.

Really? Wonder why the staunch anti abortion nuts such as yourself are always men?

Seriously, I can name a dozen or more leaders of the pro-life movement and by far, the majority are women.

Lila Rose, Rebecca Kiessling, Jill Stanek, Abby Johnson, Alveda King, Claire Culwell, Melissa Ohden, Gianna Jesson. . . just to name a few.

How many Male leaders can I name?

Two or three.

Frank Pavone, Troy Newman and Bryan Kemper

How many unwanted kids are you willing to support after you outlaw abortion?

That's a red herring.

Children's Constitutional rights are not contingent upon that sort of thing. They are Constitutionally entitled to the Equal protection of our laws. . . regardless of whether they are planned, wanted or face a certain future.

Why do you want to support kids that even the mother didn't want?

You are obviously confused about what my "wants" and about how my "wants" have any bearing at all on this issue.

Will you or have you put up lots of your money to.support the millions of kids who have been born to live in abject poverty?

I reject the idea that the poor conditions of children in one area of our society or world is a Constitutional justification for the denial of rights and protections in that or in any other area of our society. If you are that bothered by poverty, that you see it as a justification for killing children who MIGHT face a life of poverty. . . why aren't you lining up and executing homeless people on the street who are already living a life of poverty?

What business is it of yours what women do with their bodies?

If women were only doing things with their own body, I would not be in their business at all.

There is more than one life and body involved in any abortion and the other life has rights too. Same as the woman did when she too was once in her own mother's womb.

Children don't have constitutional rights. If they did, then children would be allowed to vote and bear arms. Constitutional rights are for adults.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I believe in the right to an abortion whenever. My reasoning is simply based upon weighing freedom of choice (for the woman and her body) and sanctity of life (for the unborn child) and leaning in favor of freedom of choice. It is primarily based upon the fact that I see that, until the woman stops supporting the child physically, it is part of her body and her decision on how to handle that body.

With that said, believing in the right to an abortion is not necessarily the same as encouraging abortion. I think that, especially given the decreasing birth rates of first world countries, that adoption should be the primary option for unwanted child...there are tons of families out there without the ability to reproduce that would love for the opportunity to raise a child of their own.

The obvious response to that for me is to ask you if you believe that all persons have a right to their life?

If your answer to that is Yes. . . then please explain what good a person's right to their life is if it doesn't begin when their life does?

Of course. However, I believe this in more respects than one. I believe that an individual should be allowed to conduct their life in the manner they best deem fit. I would much rather suffer a mother killing an unborn child over the scenario of a mother raising an unwanted child...in one case you ruin one life, in the other case you likely ruin two (or more considering how much of a burden the mother is on her family).

This is probably one of my main reasons in valuing the freedom of choice over sanctity of life in this situation. I've seen a lot of parents having unexpected children and being stuck in a rut near the bottom of society. Likewise, I've seen a lot of children that, in my mind at least, might would have been happier without existing rather than suffering under constant abuse or neglect due to being unwanted. I want all children to have great childhood full of happiness and parents that love and support them. It is almost torture to force some children to grow up in a home of neglect or hatred because their mothers were forced to have something they did not want. Being pro-choice, in theory at least, should help to keep the number of unwanted children to a minimum, hopefully, increasing the care for the children that we do have.

Correct and well put. If a crack head gets knocked up and knows she can't stop using, what chances does her baby have in life? It's F'd up before it's even born.

So, why don't we just take that to its logical conclusion and start killing the BORN children who are facing a F'd up life too?

Because then you are taking a life. We don't consider life until children are born. And if you disagree with that, then at what stage is a life before birth? The moment of conception? Two weeks? Two months? When?

 

[Chuz Life]

Chuz, fetuses are not authentic human beings in law or science. In no way have you been able to prove that claim. Your claim then that they can claim due process and protection falls. The feticide laws apply criminal sanctions to third parties, yet you wish to apply them to women. Don't going to happen.

Try selling that to those who are doing time in prisons right now for the MURDERS of children who you claim were not recognized as "persons" under our laws.

So far, the Supreme Court has refused to give their arguments any consideration.

 

[Never3ndr]

So, yeah. . . I have the audacity to claim that I know MORE about the subject of abortion and even the Constitutional aspects surround the issue than our Justices did during Roe.

That is quite a bold claim sir, I, for one, acknowledge that I don't even come close to the knowledge base they hold (I never studied law) or their actual wisdom as human beings...I've read some of their work and I have been astounded by some of the insights that they have delivered that I don't think I could have came up with on my own. So, good on you, but I'll keep letting people I consider far more educated and wiser than I, debate upon the high laws of our land.

 

[Chuz Life]

Also, your comment suggests that you are completely unaware of how many women are just as anti-abortion as anyone else is.

Really? Wonder why the staunch anti abortion nuts such as yourself are always men?

Seriously, I can name a dozen or more leaders of the pro-life movement and by far, the majority are women.

Lila Rose, Rebecca Kiessling, Jill Stanek, Abby Johnson, Alveda King, Claire Culwell, Melissa Ohden, Gianna Jesson. . . just to name a few.

How many Male leaders can I name?

Two or three.

Frank Pavone, Troy Newman and Bryan Kemper

How many unwanted kids are you willing to support after you outlaw abortion?

That's a red herring.

Children's Constitutional rights are not contingent upon that sort of thing. They are Constitutionally entitled to the Equal protection of our laws. . . regardless of whether they are planned, wanted or face a certain future.

Why do you want to support kids that even the mother didn't want?

You are obviously confused about what my "wants" and about how my "wants" have any bearing at all on this issue.

Will you or have you put up lots of your money to.support the millions of kids who have been born to live in abject poverty?

I reject the idea that the poor conditions of children in one area of our society or world is a Constitutional justification for the denial of rights and protections in that or in any other area of our society. If you are that bothered by poverty, that you see it as a justification for killing children who MIGHT face a life of poverty. . . why aren't you lining up and executing homeless people on the street who are already living a life of poverty?

What business is it of yours what women do with their bodies?

If women were only doing things with their own body, I would not be in their business at all.

There is more than one life and body involved in any abortion and the other life has rights too. Same as the woman did when she too was once in her own mother's womb.

Children don't have constitutional rights. If they did, then children would be allowed to vote and bear arms. Constitutional rights are for adults.

Children's rights: an overview
A child is a person and not a subperson over whom the parent has an absolute possessory interest. The term "child" does not necessarily mean minor but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children. Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution. See Civil Rights of Children. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born. There are both state and federal sources of child-rights law.

And yes. . . the part where it says it (for now) excludes prenatal children? That's the part that is obviously being challenged.

 

[Chuz Life]

I believe in the right to an abortion whenever. My reasoning is simply based upon weighing freedom of choice (for the woman and her body) and sanctity of life (for the unborn child) and leaning in favor of freedom of choice. It is primarily based upon the fact that I see that, until the woman stops supporting the child physically, it is part of her body and her decision on how to handle that body.

With that said, believing in the right to an abortion is not necessarily the same as encouraging abortion. I think that, especially given the decreasing birth rates of first world countries, that adoption should be the primary option for unwanted child...there are tons of families out there without the ability to reproduce that would love for the opportunity to raise a child of their own.

The obvious response to that for me is to ask you if you believe that all persons have a right to their life?

If your answer to that is Yes. . . then please explain what good a person's right to their life is if it doesn't begin when their life does?

Of course. However, I believe this in more respects than one. I believe that an individual should be allowed to conduct their life in the manner they best deem fit. I would much rather suffer a mother killing an unborn child over the scenario of a mother raising an unwanted child...in one case you ruin one life, in the other case you likely ruin two (or more considering how much of a burden the mother is on her family).

This is probably one of my main reasons in valuing the freedom of choice over sanctity of life in this situation. I've seen a lot of parents having unexpected children and being stuck in a rut near the bottom of society. Likewise, I've seen a lot of children that, in my mind at least, might would have been happier without existing rather than suffering under constant abuse or neglect due to being unwanted. I want all children to have great childhood full of happiness and parents that love and support them. It is almost torture to force some children to grow up in a home of neglect or hatred because their mothers were forced to have something they did not want. Being pro-choice, in theory at least, should help to keep the number of unwanted children to a minimum, hopefully, increasing the care for the children that we do have.

Correct and well put. If a crack head gets knocked up and knows she can't stop using, what chances does her baby have in life? It's F'd up before it's even born.

So, why don't we just take that to its logical conclusion and start killing the BORN children who are facing a F'd up life too?

Because then you are taking a life. We don't consider life until children are born. And if you disagree with that, then at what stage is a life before birth? The moment of conception? Two weeks? Two months? When?

If it's not considered a life until it is "born" then you (your ilk) should have no trouble overturning the MURDER convictions of those convicted of MURDER under our fetal HOMICIDE laws.

With all this knowledge you have about how their victims were not "persons" why are you letting those people rot in jail?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Chuz, fetuses are not authentic human beings in law or science. In no way have you been able to prove that claim. Your claim then that they can claim due process and protection falls. The feticide laws apply criminal sanctions to third parties, yet you wish to apply them to women. Don't going to happen.

Try selling that to those who are doing time in prisons right now for the MURDERS of children who you claim were not recognized as "persons" under our laws.

So far, the Supreme Court has refused to give their arguments any consideration.

Makes you wonder how many criminals have ever been found guilty of murder by a jury when it comes to a fetus. Wish I had time to do the research.

I think the difference between abortion and a criminal act that caused a miscarriage of a baby is that the criminal took something away from the mother (or father, or family or whatever) that they wanted. I don't know about murder, but certainly they should be charged with something.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The obvious response to that for me is to ask you if you believe that all persons have a right to their life?

If your answer to that is Yes. . . then please explain what good a person's right to their life is if it doesn't begin when their life does?

Of course. However, I believe this in more respects than one. I believe that an individual should be allowed to conduct their life in the manner they best deem fit. I would much rather suffer a mother killing an unborn child over the scenario of a mother raising an unwanted child...in one case you ruin one life, in the other case you likely ruin two (or more considering how much of a burden the mother is on her family).

This is probably one of my main reasons in valuing the freedom of choice over sanctity of life in this situation. I've seen a lot of parents having unexpected children and being stuck in a rut near the bottom of society. Likewise, I've seen a lot of children that, in my mind at least, might would have been happier without existing rather than suffering under constant abuse or neglect due to being unwanted. I want all children to have great childhood full of happiness and parents that love and support them. It is almost torture to force some children to grow up in a home of neglect or hatred because their mothers were forced to have something they did not want. Being pro-choice, in theory at least, should help to keep the number of unwanted children to a minimum, hopefully, increasing the care for the children that we do have.

Correct and well put. If a crack head gets knocked up and knows she can't stop using, what chances does her baby have in life? It's F'd up before it's even born.

So, why don't we just take that to its logical conclusion and start killing the BORN children who are facing a F'd up life too?

Because then you are taking a life. We don't consider life until children are born. And if you disagree with that, then at what stage is a life before birth? The moment of conception? Two weeks? Two months? When?

If it's not considered a life until it is "born" then you (your ilk) should have no trouble overturning the MURDER convictions of those convicted of MURDER under our fetal HOMICIDE laws.

With all this knowledge you have about how their victims were not "persons" why are you letting those people rot in jail?

I don't let them do anything. I'm not in charge of that. I certainly can disagree with it, but have no control over it either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Also, your comment suggests that you are completely unaware of how many women are just as anti-abortion as anyone else is.

Really? Wonder why the staunch anti abortion nuts such as yourself are always men?

Seriously, I can name a dozen or more leaders of the pro-life movement and by far, the majority are women.

Lila Rose, Rebecca Kiessling, Jill Stanek, Abby Johnson, Alveda King, Claire Culwell, Melissa Ohden, Gianna Jesson. . . just to name a few.

How many Male leaders can I name?

Two or three.

Frank Pavone, Troy Newman and Bryan Kemper

How many unwanted kids are you willing to support after you outlaw abortion?

That's a red herring.

Children's Constitutional rights are not contingent upon that sort of thing. They are Constitutionally entitled to the Equal protection of our laws. . . regardless of whether they are planned, wanted or face a certain future.

Why do you want to support kids that even the mother didn't want?

You are obviously confused about what my "wants" and about how my "wants" have any bearing at all on this issue.

Will you or have you put up lots of your money to.support the millions of kids who have been born to live in abject poverty?

I reject the idea that the poor conditions of children in one area of our society or world is a Constitutional justification for the denial of rights and protections in that or in any other area of our society. If you are that bothered by poverty, that you see it as a justification for killing children who MIGHT face a life of poverty. . . why aren't you lining up and executing homeless people on the street who are already living a life of poverty?

What business is it of yours what women do with their bodies?

If women were only doing things with their own body, I would not be in their business at all.

There is more than one life and body involved in any abortion and the other life has rights too. Same as the woman did when she too was once in her own mother's womb.

Children don't have constitutional rights. If they did, then children would be allowed to vote and bear arms. Constitutional rights are for adults.

Children's rights: an overview
A child is a person and not a subperson over whom the parent has an absolute possessory interest. The term "child" does not necessarily mean minor but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children. Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution. See Civil Rights of Children. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born. There are both state and federal sources of child-rights law.

And yes. . . the part where it says it (for now) excludes prenatal children? That's the part that is obviously being challenged.

So then they can vote and bear arms? That would make for an interesting country, wouldn't it?

 

[Chuz Life]

Chuz, fetuses are not authentic human beings in law or science. In no way have you been able to prove that claim. Your claim then that they can claim due process and protection falls. The feticide laws apply criminal sanctions to third parties, yet you wish to apply them to women. Don't going to happen.

Try selling that to those who are doing time in prisons right now for the MURDERS of children who you claim were not recognized as "persons" under our laws.

So far, the Supreme Court has refused to give their arguments any consideration.

Makes you wonder how many criminals have ever been found guilty of murder by a jury when it comes to a fetus. Wish I had time to do the research.

I think the difference between abortion and a criminal act that caused a miscarriage of a baby is that the criminal took something away from the mother (or father, or family or whatever) that they wanted. I don't know about murder, but certainly they should be charged with something.

Ok, well. . . the charge is murder.

So, can you appreciate how the charge of murder in a fetal homicide case tends to support the claim that a child in the womb is a "person?"

You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything other than another person. . . can you?

 

[Chuz Life]

Of course. However, I believe this in more respects than one. I believe that an individual should be allowed to conduct their life in the manner they best deem fit. I would much rather suffer a mother killing an unborn child over the scenario of a mother raising an unwanted child...in one case you ruin one life, in the other case you likely ruin two (or more considering how much of a burden the mother is on her family).

This is probably one of my main reasons in valuing the freedom of choice over sanctity of life in this situation. I've seen a lot of parents having unexpected children and being stuck in a rut near the bottom of society. Likewise, I've seen a lot of children that, in my mind at least, might would have been happier without existing rather than suffering under constant abuse or neglect due to being unwanted. I want all children to have great childhood full of happiness and parents that love and support them. It is almost torture to force some children to grow up in a home of neglect or hatred because their mothers were forced to have something they did not want. Being pro-choice, in theory at least, should help to keep the number of unwanted children to a minimum, hopefully, increasing the care for the children that we do have.

Correct and well put. If a crack head gets knocked up and knows she can't stop using, what chances does her baby have in life? It's F'd up before it's even born.

So, why don't we just take that to its logical conclusion and start killing the BORN children who are facing a F'd up life too?

Because then you are taking a life. We don't consider life until children are born. And if you disagree with that, then at what stage is a life before birth? The moment of conception? Two weeks? Two months? When?

If it's not considered a life until it is "born" then you (your ilk) should have no trouble overturning the MURDER convictions of those convicted of MURDER under our fetal HOMICIDE laws.

With all this knowledge you have about how their victims were not "persons" why are you letting those people rot in jail?

I don't let them do anything. I'm not in charge of that. I certainly can disagree with it, but have no control over it either.

Also, your comment suggests that you are completely unaware of how many women are just as anti-abortion as anyone else is.

Really? Wonder why the staunch anti abortion nuts such as yourself are always men?

Seriously, I can name a dozen or more leaders of the pro-life movement and by far, the majority are women.

Lila Rose, Rebecca Kiessling, Jill Stanek, Abby Johnson, Alveda King, Claire Culwell, Melissa Ohden, Gianna Jesson. . . just to name a few.

How many Male leaders can I name?

Two or three.

Frank Pavone, Troy Newman and Bryan Kemper

How many unwanted kids are you willing to support after you outlaw abortion?

That's a red herring.

Children's Constitutional rights are not contingent upon that sort of thing. They are Constitutionally entitled to the Equal protection of our laws. . . regardless of whether they are planned, wanted or face a certain future.

Why do you want to support kids that even the mother didn't want?

You are obviously confused about what my "wants" and about how my "wants" have any bearing at all on this issue.

Will you or have you put up lots of your money to.support the millions of kids who have been born to live in abject poverty?

I reject the idea that the poor conditions of children in one area of our society or world is a Constitutional justification for the denial of rights and protections in that or in any other area of our society. If you are that bothered by poverty, that you see it as a justification for killing children who MIGHT face a life of poverty. . . why aren't you lining up and executing homeless people on the street who are already living a life of poverty?

What business is it of yours what women do with their bodies?

If women were only doing things with their own body, I would not be in their business at all.

There is more than one life and body involved in any abortion and the other life has rights too. Same as the woman did when she too was once in her own mother's womb.

Children don't have constitutional rights. If they did, then children would be allowed to vote and bear arms. Constitutional rights are for adults.

Children's rights: an overview
A child is a person and not a subperson over whom the parent has an absolute possessory interest. The term "child" does not necessarily mean minor but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children. Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution. See Civil Rights of Children. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born. There are both state and federal sources of child-rights law.

And yes. . . the part where it says it (for now) excludes prenatal children? That's the part that is obviously being challenged.

So then they can vote and bear arms? That would make for an interesting country, wouldn't it?

Of course. However, I believe this in more respects than one. I believe that an individual should be allowed to conduct their life in the manner they best deem fit. I would much rather suffer a mother killing an unborn child over the scenario of a mother raising an unwanted child...in one case you ruin one life, in the other case you likely ruin two (or more considering how much of a burden the mother is on her family).

This is probably one of my main reasons in valuing the freedom of choice over sanctity of life in this situation. I've seen a lot of parents having unexpected children and being stuck in a rut near the bottom of society. Likewise, I've seen a lot of children that, in my mind at least, might would have been happier without existing rather than suffering under constant abuse or neglect due to being unwanted. I want all children to have great childhood full of happiness and parents that love and support them. It is almost torture to force some children to grow up in a home of neglect or hatred because their mothers were forced to have something they did not want. Being pro-choice, in theory at least, should help to keep the number of unwanted children to a minimum, hopefully, increasing the care for the children that we do have.

Correct and well put. If a crack head gets knocked up and knows she can't stop using, what chances does her baby have in life? It's F'd up before it's even born.

So, why don't we just take that to its logical conclusion and start killing the BORN children who are facing a F'd up life too?

Because then you are taking a life. We don't consider life until children are born. And if you disagree with that, then at what stage is a life before birth? The moment of conception? Two weeks? Two months? When?

If it's not considered a life until it is "born" then you (your ilk) should have no trouble overturning the MURDER convictions of those convicted of MURDER under our fetal HOMICIDE laws.

With all this knowledge you have about how their victims were not "persons" why are you letting those people rot in jail?

I don't let them do anything. I'm not in charge of that. I certainly can disagree with it, but have no control over it either.

You can disagree with it all you want. . .

I mention it only to show how it brings us incrementally closer to establishing the 'personhood' of children in the womb in cases like abortion.

 

[Chuz Life]

Also, your comment suggests that you are completely unaware of how many women are just as anti-abortion as anyone else is.

Really? Wonder why the staunch anti abortion nuts such as yourself are always men?

Seriously, I can name a dozen or more leaders of the pro-life movement and by far, the majority are women.

Lila Rose, Rebecca Kiessling, Jill Stanek, Abby Johnson, Alveda King, Claire Culwell, Melissa Ohden, Gianna Jesson. . . just to name a few.

How many Male leaders can I name?

Two or three.

Frank Pavone, Troy Newman and Bryan Kemper

How many unwanted kids are you willing to support after you outlaw abortion?

That's a red herring.

Children's Constitutional rights are not contingent upon that sort of thing. They are Constitutionally entitled to the Equal protection of our laws. . . regardless of whether they are planned, wanted or face a certain future.

Why do you want to support kids that even the mother didn't want?

You are obviously confused about what my "wants" and about how my "wants" have any bearing at all on this issue.

Will you or have you put up lots of your money to.support the millions of kids who have been born to live in abject poverty?

I reject the idea that the poor conditions of children in one area of our society or world is a Constitutional justification for the denial of rights and protections in that or in any other area of our society. If you are that bothered by poverty, that you see it as a justification for killing children who MIGHT face a life of poverty. . . why aren't you lining up and executing homeless people on the street who are already living a life of poverty?

What business is it of yours what women do with their bodies?

If women were only doing things with their own body, I would not be in their business at all.

There is more than one life and body involved in any abortion and the other life has rights too. Same as the woman did when she too was once in her own mother's womb.

Children don't have constitutional rights. If they did, then children would be allowed to vote and bear arms. Constitutional rights are for adults.

Children's rights: an overview
A child is a person and not a subperson over whom the parent has an absolute possessory interest. The term "child" does not necessarily mean minor but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children. Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution. See Civil Rights of Children. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born. There are both state and federal sources of child-rights law.

And yes. . . the part where it says it (for now) excludes prenatal children? That's the part that is obviously being challenged.

So then they can vote and bear arms? That would make for an interesting country, wouldn't it?

You seem to be confusing the idea of Constitutional rights with the idea of absolute rights or something. Children do have the same rights as do adults under our Constitution. That doesn't mean they are unbridled or that certain conditions don't have to be met. Just as adults have to reach a certain age to run for president (35 I think) they still have a Constitutional right to do so - once they reach/ meet the requirements.

Not all rights are conditional, however. And the right to life (the right to not be murdered) is one of those rights that a child has without such conditions.

 

[Wilbur Right]

This is why we have a democracy and why everyone gets to vote. Sensitive issues like this should be decided by society as a whole, not dictated by one side or the other. The majority opinion should always prevail in a free society.

Goddamn dude. We have already done the law of the land thing about abortions and you fucks are STILL going on about it.

Abortions are none of your business. It's a private act. No government necessary.

You are one of those that hates government. Till you want government to impose your morals on others.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Are we to be a nation of Constitutional laws or are we to be a nation where each individual is free to follow each their own idea of morality. . . even to the demise of prenatal children who can not speak for nor defend themselves?

Yes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Really? Wonder why the staunch anti abortion nuts such as yourself are always men?

Seriously, I can name a dozen or more leaders of the pro-life movement and by far, the majority are women.

Lila Rose, Rebecca Kiessling, Jill Stanek, Abby Johnson, Alveda King, Claire Culwell, Melissa Ohden, Gianna Jesson. . . just to name a few.

How many Male leaders can I name?

Two or three.

Frank Pavone, Troy Newman and Bryan Kemper

How many unwanted kids are you willing to support after you outlaw abortion?

That's a red herring.

Children's Constitutional rights are not contingent upon that sort of thing. They are Constitutionally entitled to the Equal protection of our laws. . . regardless of whether they are planned, wanted or face a certain future.

Why do you want to support kids that even the mother didn't want?

You are obviously confused about what my "wants" and about how my "wants" have any bearing at all on this issue.

Will you or have you put up lots of your money to.support the millions of kids who have been born to live in abject poverty?

I reject the idea that the poor conditions of children in one area of our society or world is a Constitutional justification for the denial of rights and protections in that or in any other area of our society. If you are that bothered by poverty, that you see it as a justification for killing children who MIGHT face a life of poverty. . . why aren't you lining up and executing homeless people on the street who are already living a life of poverty?

What business is it of yours what women do with their bodies?

If women were only doing things with their own body, I would not be in their business at all.

There is more than one life and body involved in any abortion and the other life has rights too. Same as the woman did when she too was once in her own mother's womb.

Children don't have constitutional rights. If they did, then children would be allowed to vote and bear arms. Constitutional rights are for adults.

Children's rights: an overview
A child is a person and not a subperson over whom the parent has an absolute possessory interest. The term "child" does not necessarily mean minor but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children. Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution. See Civil Rights of Children. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born. There are both state and federal sources of child-rights law.

And yes. . . the part where it says it (for now) excludes prenatal children? That's the part that is obviously being challenged.

So then they can vote and bear arms? That would make for an interesting country, wouldn't it?

You seem to be confusing the idea of Constitutional rights with the idea of absolute rights or something. Children do have the same rights as do adults under our Constitution. That doesn't mean they are unbridled or that certain conditions don't have to be met. Just as adults have to reach a certain age to run for president (35 I think) they still have a Constitutional right to do so - once they reach/ meet the requirements.

Not all rights are so conditional, however and the right to life (the right to not be murdered) is one of those rights that a child has without such conditions.

That wouldn't make any sense at all. The age to run for President is outlined in the Constitution--Constitutional rights are not. When it comes to Constitutional rights, you either have all the rights or you don't. If a child is afforded "some" of those rights, why not all of them?

Under the law, children in the United States are fully formed human beings with the same basic constitutional rights that adults enjoy. Like every other citizen, children have the right to due process under the law and the right to counsel. They're also protected against cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the law also recognizes that children aren't physically and emotionally mature enough to handle the responsibility attached to legal activities like drinking, let alone the right to vote or run for public office. The law reconciles these two ideas by implementing ages of majority designed to define when a person has the ability to exercise his or her rights responsibly. These usually vary by state, but they govern everything from the right to drive to the right to marry.

Do children and teenagers have constitutional rights?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz, fetuses are not authentic human beings in law or science. In no way have you been able to prove that claim. Your claim then that they can claim due process and protection falls. The feticide laws apply criminal sanctions to third parties, yet you wish to apply them to women. Don't going to happen.

Try selling that to those who are doing time in prisons right now for the MURDERS of children who you claim were not recognized as "persons" under our laws.

So far, the Supreme Court has refused to give their arguments any consideration.

Thank you for agreeing that the laws apply to third parties and never mothers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If it's not considered a life until it is "born" then you (your ilk) should have no trouble overturning the MURDER convictions of those convicted of MURDER under our fetal HOMICIDE laws.

With all this knowledge you have about how their victims were not "persons" why are you letting those people rot in jail?

Already answered and dismissed.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Better build a lot more jails. Jails.for the millions of women murderers.
Right chums? That's where we send murderers. Prison.

But the one thing I dislike more than the reality of abortions is fucking people sticking their noses in my business. I really hate that.