Abortions Rights Win (Again)

#151
#151
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I quoted the 14th which DID fix the problem.

You guys were crowing that it "should be a state decision" which is entirely wrong. It's already decided: states can't pass laws that deprive human rights in America.

A fetus is human or if not, what is it? A cat? An amoeba? A mushroom?

If it's not human, the state AND Feds need to butt out. But what else could it be?

I abhor this manmade "gender fluid" crap. Your DNA is right there. You might not like it, you might be gay, but you aren't both. You are what your DNA says you are.

Now we're heading toward "human fluid." It's alive, it's got human DNA, but it's not quite got basic human rights not to be killed yet.

Pure BS.
Click to expand...

No, you really have no understanding of the 14th amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#152
#152
Another election, another bust for Republicans. It turns out that voters don’t care about inflation, open borders, rampant crime or censorship…they care about abortion.

www.foxnews.com

Election 2023: 3 key takeaways on abortion, Trump and Biden

Elections on Tuesday in Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and elsewhere had disappointing results for Republicans. Can they heed the messages voters sent and turn things around for 2024?
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
#153
#153
85SugarVol said:
Grow a pair, and bend the knee.
Click to expand...
Bend the knee to the state is okay, not the Feds?

There's a lot of legal crap the states AND Feds need to not touch.

Basic human rights, the right not to be killed when you're innocent and have no voice for yourself, isn't one of them.
 
#154
#154
hog88 said:
No, you really have no understanding of the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...
Easy to say, but it's very clear the 14th provides protection from the states and feds creating laws which infringe on the basic human rights in America.

If you're okay with states being able to create laws which kill fetuses, that's fine. Just don't see it as a "victory" for America, for state's rights, or for human rights.

It's awful. It further dehumanizes the fetus to say the decision in Ohio is "as it should be." Human rights should be universal in America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: creekdipper
#155
#155
Franklin Pierce said:
Another election, another bust for Republicans. It turns out that voters don’t care about inflation, open borders, rampant crime or censorship…they care about abortion.

www.foxnews.com

Election 2023: 3 key takeaways on abortion, Trump and Biden

Elections on Tuesday in Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and elsewhere had disappointing results for Republicans. Can they heed the messages voters sent and turn things around for 2024?
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
Then the Republicans should stop running loser candidates on loser issues.

Especially abortion - it’s a loser. Guaranteed.

But I bet you they won’t stop. And they will continue to lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Orangeslice13 and hog88
#156
#156
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Easy to say, but it's very clear the 14th provides protection from the states and feds creating laws which infringe on the basic human rights in America.

If you're okay with states being able to create laws which kill fetuses, that's fine. Just don't see it as a "victory" for America, for state's rights, or for human rights.

It's awful. It further dehumanizes the fetus to say the decision in Ohio is "as it should be." Human rights should be universal in America.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can't help stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Orangeslice13 and volfanhill
#157
#157
tvolsfan said:
“Dear GOP, we aren’t as backwards as you think.”

-Red States
Click to expand...
“Dear Pols - don’t mess with anybody’s body. All Americans have the right to agency over their own body.”

- America


How wonderful would that be?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#158
#158
hog88 said:
Are you bitching because SCOTUS turning the issue back to state control hasn't worked like you thought it would?
Click to expand...


No, I'm making fun of the movements which innocently claimed that their opposition to abortion rights was genuinely not based on their imprinting their morality on others, but instead was a simple wish to return to state's rights.

Then Dobbs came down and they rejoiced. Again claiming it as a victory for state's rights.

But now, now that women in the states are revolting and securing abortion rights within state law, suddenly those same movements and groups have done and about face and are starting to argue for a national law on the issue.

The very thing they said they opposed, out of principle, they are turning to embrace, because the fraud of their position leading up to Dobbs has been exposed.




Understand -- I do not mind people who oppose abortion based on morality and say so. I most certainly DO mind people who oppose abortion based on morality but won't admit it and instead hide behind "state's rights" as the principle driving them. When it clearly is not.
 
#160
#160
lawgator1 said:
No, I'm making fun of the movements which innocently claimed that their opposition to abortion rights was genuinely not based on their imprinting their morality on others, but instead was a simple wish to return to state's rights.

Then Dobbs came down and they rejoiced. Again claiming it as a victory for state's rights.

But now, now that women in the states are revolting and securing abortion rights within state law, suddenly those same movements and groups have done and about face and are starting to argue for a national law on the issue.

The very thing they said they opposed, out of principle, they are turning to embrace, because the fraud of their position leading up to Dobbs has been exposed.




Understand -- I do not mind people who oppose abortion based on morality and say so. I most certainly DO mind people who oppose abortion based on morality but won't admit it and instead hide behind "state's rights" as the principle driving them. When it clearly is not.
Click to expand...

People clamoring for a federal ban on abortion are dumb as Biden voters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Gandalf, 85SugarVol and 1 other person
#161
#161
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Easy to say, but it's very clear the 14th provides protection from the states and feds creating laws which infringe on the basic human rights in America.

If you're okay with states being able to create laws which kill fetuses, that's fine. Just don't see it as a "victory" for America, for state's rights, or for human rights.

It's awful. It further dehumanizes the fetus to say the decision in Ohio is "as it should be." Human rights should be universal in America.
Click to expand...
Her is section 1 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1​



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All mention of citizenship in the constitution is based on birth (see the third word BORN) or naturalization. You may not like that, but that is how the constitution is written. Since this is the way that it is written, the federal government has no authority in the matter. You can try to stretch the 14th amendment any way you want, but nothing is in there to support your argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
#162
#162
825VOL said:
Her is section 1 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1​



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All mention of citizenship in the constitution is based on birth (see the third word BORN) or naturalization. You may not like that, but that is how the constitution is written. Since this is the way that it is written, the federal government has no authority in the matter. You can try to stretch the 14th amendment any way you want, but nothing is in there to support your argument.
Click to expand...
Then the states don't either as their language is also birth based, for the most part.

So, by this logic, NEITHER the Feds nor the states would have authority, right?
 
#164
#164
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Then the states don't either as their language is also birth based, for the most part.

So, by this logic, NEITHER the Feds nor the states would have authority, right?
Click to expand...
No, that isn't the way it works. The federal government only recognizes born or naturalized (obviously already born) citizens. The states have the ability to change their constitutions to recognize citizenship at any stage, such as a fetus. It is up to the individual to states to do this and fight it out in state court over the legality of such a change.

Even if they do that, it does not make the unborn fetus a U.S. citizen based on the constituion. It would only make them a citizen of that state. Therefore, the 14th does not and will not ever apply to your argument.
 
#165
#165
825VOL said:
No, that isn't the way it works. The federal government only recognizes born or naturalized (obviously already born) citizens. The states have the ability to change their constitutions to recognize citizenship at any stage, such as a fetus. It is up to the individual to states to do this and fight it out in state court over the legality of such a change.

Even if they do that, it does not make the unborn fetus a U.S. citizen based on the constituion. It would only make them a citizen of that state. Therefore, the 14th does not and will not ever apply to your argument.
Click to expand...
I know TN has that language but it seems ridiculous that the United States can allow someone to be a "state citizen" and not a citizen of America.

I just don't see how that serves America any better than the states which amended their Constitutions to make black people citizens while slavery was still allowed in other states in America. It couldn't and didn't abide, nor was it good for America.

It's the same mess, for me, that we saw in the 1800s where the Feds refused to acknowledge basic human rights for people that were obviously human.

As I said, this won't end well for America.
 
#167
#167
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I know TN has that language but it seems ridiculous that the United States can allow someone to be a "state citizen" and not a citizen of America.

I just don't see how that serves America any better than the states which amended their Constitutions to make black people citizens while slavery was still allowed in other states in America. It couldn't and didn't abide, nor was it good for America.

It's the same mess, for me, that we saw in the 1800s where the Feds refused to acknowledge basic human rights for people that were obviously human.

As I said, this won't end well for America.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to argue with you over the abortion issue. i am just trying to explain to you that you can't use the 14th amendment argument in this case. The constitution clearly states, "Born or naturalized". It does not state anything about unborn children. Therefore, the issue is left up to the states and the 14th amendment does not apply.

Does that help you understand why you can't base your argument on the 14th amendment?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 85SugarVol, hog88 and 2 others
#169
#169
825VOL said:
I am not trying to argue with you over the abortion issue. i am just trying to explain to you that you can't use the 14th amendment argument in this case. The constitution clearly states, "Born or naturalized". It does not state anything about unborn children. Therefore, the issue is left up to the states and the 14th amendment does not apply.

Does that help you understand why you can't base your argument on the 14th amendment?
Click to expand...
Lolol
No.
 
#172
#172
825VOL said:
I am not trying to argue with you over the abortion issue. i am just trying to explain to you that you can't use the 14th amendment argument in this case. The constitution clearly states, "Born or naturalized". It does not state anything about unborn children. Therefore, the issue is left up to the states and the 14th amendment does not apply.

Does that help you understand why you can't base your argument on the 14th amendment?
Click to expand...
I see it, I just don't think it will stand for long nor work.

Imagine, a citizen of Indiana (a fetus) being killed in Ohio and Indiana having no recourse. At some point this becomes a state vs state issue if Indiana tries to charge a physician with killing a "state citizen" while Ohio insists it was a medical procedure with no citizen involved.

Eventually, these things have to hit the Supreme Court. It can't abide that the states can't agree on who is a human and who is not.
 
#174
#174
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I see it, I just don't think it will stand for long nor work.

Imagine, a citizen of Indiana (a fetus) being killed in Ohio and Indiana having no recourse. At some point this becomes a state vs state issue if Indiana tries to charge a physician with killing a "state citizen" while Ohio insists it was a medical procedure with no citizen involved.

Eventually, these things have to hit the Supreme Court. It can't abide that the states can't agree on who is a human and who is not.
Click to expand...

If two Indiana residents go to Ohio and one murders the other while in Ohio, Indiana has no recourse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Gandalf
#175
#175
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I see it, I just don't think it will stand for long nor work.

Imagine, a citizen of Indiana (a fetus) being killed in Ohio and Indiana having no recourse. At some point this becomes a state vs state issue if Indiana tries to charge a physician with killing a "state citizen" while Ohio insists it was a medical procedure with no citizen involved.

Eventually, these things have to hit the Supreme Court. It can't abide that the states can't agree on who is a human and who is not.
Click to expand...
We already do that with tons of laws. This was already pointed out to you. See guns.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top