USMB Abortion poll

[Chuz Life]

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

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.

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

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?

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?

That article says the same thing I was saying too.

"Children have the same basic Constitutional rights that adults do."

Remember? You are the one who said they don't.

Not me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

That article says the same thing I was saying too.

"Children have the same basic Constitutional rights that adults do."

Remember? You are the one who said they don't.

Not me.

No, they don't. Where does it say that? They can't drink or drive or smoke or join the military or get married. A fetus can't do any of that. You are a strange one.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

That article says the same thing I was saying too.

"Children have the same basic Constitutional rights that adults do."

Remember? You are the one who said they don't.

Not me.

No, they don't. Where does it say that? They can't drink or drive or smoke or join the military or get married. A fetus can't do any of that. You are a strange one.

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?

That article says the same thing I was saying too.

"Children have the same basic Constitutional rights that adults do."

Remember? You are the one who said they don't.

Not me.

No, they don't. Where does it say that? They can't drink or drive or smoke or join the military or get married. A fetus can't do any of that. You are a strange one.

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?

That article says the same thing I was saying too.

"Children have the same basic Constitutional rights that adults do."

Remember? You are the one who said they don't.

Not me.

No, they don't. Where does it say that? They can't drink or drive or smoke or join the military or get married. A fetus can't do any of that. You are a strange one.

You are still ASSuming that it is an all or nothing thing.

The recognition of the fact that Children have the same Constitutional Rights that adults do is not a claim that they can immediately exercise those rights. Some rights, like voting have additional requirements.

So, while a child in the womb does have the Constitutional right to vote. . . . they can not exercise that right until they meet ALL of the other voting requirements too.

I understand your need to muddy the waters but most people (including legal minded people) understand that Children have the same Constitutional right to the protections of our laws that adults do. And that is the context for what my comments are.

Your attempts to mis-characterize them not withstanding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, a fetus has no right to vote. You are mentally unbalanced if you truly believe that.

Trot out some law that deals with exactly that: you can't.

You won't be allowed to mischaracterize fetal rights, Chuz.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

That article says the same thing I was saying too.

"Children have the same basic Constitutional rights that adults do."

Remember? You are the one who said they don't.

Not me.

Picking and choosing I see. I expected that which is why I put this in bold and Italic when I posted the excerpt:

"fully formed human beings"

A fetus is not a fully formed human being, it is in development.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

That article says the same thing I was saying too.

"Children have the same basic Constitutional rights that adults do."

Remember? You are the one who said they don't.

Not me.

Picking and choosing I see. I expected that which is why I put this in bold and Italic when I posted the excerpt:

"fully formed human beings"

A fetus is not a fully formed human being, it is in development.

And AGAIN you are citing what IS to argue what "SHOULD" be.

Your only argument for why it should NOT include children in the womb is to point your finger to where it says it DOESN'T include children in the womb.

That is a classic "appeal to tradition" and "appeal to authority" fallacy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"That is a classic "appeal to tradition" and "appeal to authority" fallacy." Yet Chuz cites the authority of law: complete inconsistency of Chuz's part.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

That article says the same thing I was saying too.

"Children have the same basic Constitutional rights that adults do."

Remember? You are the one who said they don't.

Not me.

Picking and choosing I see. I expected that which is why I put this in bold and Italic when I posted the excerpt:

"fully formed human beings"

A fetus is not a fully formed human being, it is in development.

And AGAIN you are citing what IS to argue what "SHOULD" be.

Your only argument for why it should NOT include children in the womb is to point your finger to where it says it DOESN'T include children in the womb.

That is a classic "appeal to tradition" and "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Exactly. It doesn't include children in the womb.....at least that's what my article said. It said Fully Formed Human Beings which a fetus is not.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

That article says the same thing I was saying too.

"Children have the same basic Constitutional rights that adults do."

Remember? You are the one who said they don't.

Not me.

Picking and choosing I see. I expected that which is why I put this in bold and Italic when I posted the excerpt:

"fully formed human beings"

A fetus is not a fully formed human being, it is in development.

And AGAIN you are citing what IS to argue what "SHOULD" be.

Your only argument for why it should NOT include children in the womb is to point your finger to where it says it DOESN'T include children in the womb.

That is a classic "appeal to tradition" and "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Exactly. It doesn't include children in the womb.....at least that's what my article said. It said Fully Formed Human Beings which a fetus is not.

And for as many times as it needs to be repeated.

Your claim that it should not include children in the womb because it currently "does not" include children in the womb is what makes you argument fallacious as an "appeal to tradition."

 

[Chuz Life]

"That is a classic "appeal to tradition" and "appeal to authority" fallacy." Yet Chuz cites the authority of law: complete inconsistency of Chuz's part.

I am saying our laws have it wrong because of the contradictions and the inconsistencies that I have pointed out.

Your position is that our laws have it right - despite those contradictions and inconsistencies.

YOU are the one who is using the laws as an authority unto themselves.

Not me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

That article says the same thing I was saying too.

"Children have the same basic Constitutional rights that adults do."

Remember? You are the one who said they don't.

Not me.

Picking and choosing I see. I expected that which is why I put this in bold and Italic when I posted the excerpt:

"fully formed human beings"

A fetus is not a fully formed human being, it is in development.

And AGAIN you are citing what IS to argue what "SHOULD" be.

Your only argument for why it should NOT include children in the womb is to point your finger to where it says it DOESN'T include children in the womb.

That is a classic "appeal to tradition" and "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Exactly. It doesn't include children in the womb.....at least that's what my article said. It said Fully Formed Human Beings which a fetus is not.

And for as many times as it needs to be repeated.

Your claim that it should not include children in the womb because it currently "does not" include children in the womb is what makes you argument fallacious as an "appeal to tradition."

I see, so when you find some court ruling that goes you way, it's an acceptable point in a debate. Find one that doesn't, it's appeal to tradition.

 

[Chuz Life]

That article says the same thing I was saying too.

"Children have the same basic Constitutional rights that adults do."

Remember? You are the one who said they don't.

Not me.

Picking and choosing I see. I expected that which is why I put this in bold and Italic when I posted the excerpt:

"fully formed human beings"

A fetus is not a fully formed human being, it is in development.

And AGAIN you are citing what IS to argue what "SHOULD" be.

Your only argument for why it should NOT include children in the womb is to point your finger to where it says it DOESN'T include children in the womb.

That is a classic "appeal to tradition" and "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Exactly. It doesn't include children in the womb.....at least that's what my article said. It said Fully Formed Human Beings which a fetus is not.

And for as many times as it needs to be repeated.

Your claim that it should not include children in the womb because it currently "does not" include children in the womb is what makes you argument fallacious as an "appeal to tradition."

I see, so when you find some court ruling that goes you way, it's an acceptable point in a debate. Find one that doesn't, it's appeal to tradition.

Not Quite.

Whether I like it or not, the Constitution is the supreme law of our land but even it can be changed with a Constitutional Amendment. So, it's not infallible either.

That said, when we have a law or laws which conflict with or contradict one another, it comes back to what the Constitution says or at the very least, the spirit of what the Constitution says.

And what our Constitution says is clear. . . where it says "all persons" are entitled to "due process" and the "equal protections" of our laws. . . That is an ALL inclusive statement.

isn't it?

So, when we have one law that recognizes a child in the womb as a person/ murder victim. . . but says they are not to be protected if their mother wants them dead. . .

I can't help but see that as contrary to what the Constitution requires.

 

[BreezeWood]

So, when we have one law that recognizes a child in the womb as a person/ murder victim. . . but says they are not to be protected if their mother wants them dead. . .

I can't help but see that as contrary to what the Constitution requires.

the subject is what an individual chooses to do to themselves is not the same as when someone else chooses to do the same "to" someone without their consent is unlawful, is all the law is saying.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your claim that it should not include children in the womb because it currently "does not" include children in the womb is what makes you argument fallacious as an "appeal to tradition."

Take a logic class. A statement of fact is not an appeal to tradition.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz you can see it however you wish.

That's your right.

But the law couts, and right now your opinion does not in terms of law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

 

[Chuz Life]

So, when we have one law that recognizes a child in the womb as a person/ murder victim. . . but says they are not to be protected if their mother wants them dead. . .

I can't help but see that as contrary to what the Constitution requires.

the subject is what an individual chooses to do to themselves is not the same as when someone else chooses to do the same "to" someone without their consent is unlawful, is all the law is saying.

.

There is arguably more than one person involved where abortions are concerned.

 

[Agit8r]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

 

[Chuz Life]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

Rights are inherent and non living things can not grow and mature in the wombs of their mother. . . Ayn RAND was an idiot if she actually wrote that pap.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

Rights are inherent and non living things can not grow and mature in the wombs of their mother. . . Ayn RAND was an idiot if she actually wrote that pap.

That is a weak basis for limiting abortion.