How Old Do You Have To Be Before You Get Your Constitutional Rights.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Quadrivium

Nope, I didn't. What is this?

Looks like an embryo to me. Maybe it's animal, maybe it's not. Kinda hard to tell when it's in that stage. Frankly I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish. You think you're going to make me change my mind on the subject? It's like you enjoy smacking your head against a wall.

What is this?

a reply to: Quadrivium

A s****y meme.

This has gotten more responses than I planned on. I'm still going to expand on my reasons for asking, but, it is going to take longer than I thought. I have this question in several other places and have gotten more answers than I know what to do with. I'm leaning towards a pie graph of responses followed by my intentions. There's a long weekend coming up and I'll probably get to it then.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Science is a "puritan argument"?

You aren't arguing science. You're arguing intent, consent, semantics, feelz and psuedo-science, like that photoshopped unscientific meme you posted, to give legs to your religiously biased moral outrage.

Biologically speaking, why do you think we have a sexual appetite? To ensure PROCREATION.

That, and to ensure physical intimacy, bonding, love and devotional ties. People have been exercising their mind over matter intellect to overcome biology to create inventions like the IUD, condoms and herbal abortifacient concoctions, for tens of thousands of years.

a reply to: shooterbrody

ALL existing people in the usa are afforded protection by the constitution.

No. Only people born or naturalized in the USA are afforded all the constitutional rights bestowed on American citizens, according to the 14th Amendment.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
Really?

Interesting

a reply to: shooterbrody

You believe an embryo is an existing person. The US Constitution does not provide rights or protections for such believed to exist people.

a reply to: shooterbrody
The argument is irrelevant. You have two inseparable beings and you want to give them both equal protection under the law. Only, the two beings can have competing interests and I can become impossible to provide them both with equal protection. One half of yas want to make the women's rights supreme and the default. the other wants to make the fetus' rights supreme and the default.
My answer is try to find a way to balance the two, choose the way that does the least harm to all concerned, which by the way, doesn't include the opinion of the masses of people voicing their opinions. It includes drs advisement on the related health matters, the father and how it might affect him, the mother, and other family members such as dependent children.. weighed against the unborn babies life. The unborn child's life should not always win.
Think about all the "justifiable" reasons govts and people come up with to kill people. We have been known to bomb entire villages filled with children and often times, the public support was ginned up by politicians provoking unreasonable fear in to the population while their real reason was not the least bit noble.
Think about the 1/6 attack on the capitol, watch the videos and see just how many people were trying to seriously injure or kill people while they shouted hang mike pence. All because they couldn't accept an election.
Think about what you would consider a justifiable reason to engage in conflict with another that could lead to the death of that other person.
Then come back and tell me there is no reason to abort an unborn child!

Heck the way some women are being treated, denied standard care, allowed to suffer for hours, or days...
For the sake of fetuses that have no chance of life..
I find myself asking..
Is it really life they are protecting, or are they just wanting to punish the women because her body failed to carry a living healthy baby to term?
Please though, continue on with your non-relevant argument that is in a thread where the op stated on the first page this wasn't about the abortion issue.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

You believe an embryo is an existing person. The US Constitution does not provide rights or protections for such believed to exist people.

Quit with the lies.
The state of California had defined an existing person, not me you liar.

www.humanrights.com...

The first ten amendments to the Constitution—the Bill of Rights—came into effect on December 15, 1791, limiting the powers of the federal government of the United States and protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors in American territory.

It appears to me they are protected.
Why would you deny people rights?

How absolutely tolerant of you.
T
L
B

a reply to: dawnstar
Interestingly I presented the actual law, you brought ifs and buts.
Not suprising.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The state of California had defined an existing person, not me you liar.

You are mistaken to believe that California gives any rights, whatsoever, to the unborn. It does give the right to an abortion to minors and illegal immigrants though.

California is covering their financial asses, looking to place financial responsibility for the needs of an abandoned pregnant woman on interested parties first, before invoking public welfare to support the special needs of a pregnant women.

protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors in American territory.

Not the unborn.
Is an illegal immigrant a resident? Nope. A visitor with a VISA? Nope.

Do non-American visitors or residents have the right to vote in federal elections? Nope. Are they entitled to Social Security? Not necessarily.

a reply to: shooterbrody
Interesting... sometimes I wonder if you even read my posts...
You presented one California law, not even a federal law to prove that a fetus is a human being...
I am saying that it is irrelevant!! It can be a living human and if it is perceived to be a threat to someone's life, that someone has the right to self defense!
I then proceed to through a number of things that are happening where I show that the current standard of how different laws are not being enforced equally that for some reason... can't imagine why... pregnant women are being denied equal protection, equal treatment by the govt and the courts. Their rights seem to be playing second fiddle to the rights if the unborn child that is within them... even if that unborn is known not to be able to survive.
We are talking about infractions of the 14th ammendment of the constitution, not some california law that is governing divorce and separation proceedings here. A constitutional right every born citizen is supposed to have!
Even if you were to include the unborn in those protections, it would not justify stripping the 14th from the pregnant women.

a reply to: dawnstar
The actual law has relevance.
Ifs and buts do not.

Sorry you don't like the law.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
Your attempted description of the laws "intention" does not change it.
Hilariously it is Californias law, one of the MOST liberal states in the union.

"an existing person"

a reply to: shooterbrody

The 14th ammendment has more relevance. And, still wondering if you are even reading my posts...

a reply to: shooterbrody

"an existing person"

For purposes of custody and support, that has no constitutional rights, not under the US Constitution and not under the California State Constitution, not even under "Nature's Laws".

So. Let me see..
Equal protection under the law.. what laws does it seem women's right to equal protection have flown out the window?

Right to self defense.
The right to AMA's recommended standard of care.
The right to standing in lawsuits for pain and suffering.

How about the right to privacy next and we will focus on Texas' idea that and tom, dick or harry can have standing... (something that was, denied women by by at least one judge who actually endured a great amount of pain and suffering, a lengthened recovery time in the hospital, and loss of wages)...
To sue anyone who was involved in an abortion, from the person who drove them to the doctor (sure they knew why the women was going to the doctor, or if she was even?), provided money to the women for that purpose (again, you sure they knew?). How are the tom, dick or harry gonna prove she had the abortion? The dr. can't just turn over the women's medical records to any tom, dick, or harry, without the women's permission. And, if course, those medical records would have to be complete enough to certify why the dr. believed that an abortion was necessary...
So, I guess everybody except pregnant women can rest assured that their medical histories are protected, while the pregnant women might find her records handed over to a bunch of prolife groups and their lawyers to be plastered all over the internet probably manipulated to serve their needs because well, that is what they do. Zip!! There goes that law protecting you medical rights out the window.
But how many women will find it hard to get a ride anywhere near a planned parenthood or ob/gyn clinic, because people are cautious because of this law? Or find it hard to borrow money from that close friend till payday to cover her rent? One big zip accompanied by the possibility of their lives made harder because of the reaction of other people to this law.
By what I read, a texas judge has declared this part of the law unconstitutional but I don't know if it has been left standing or is still being enforced while more than likely, the question will proceed to the next court level.
But, the supreme court left the law standing so I guess that equal protection under the 14th can be tossed out of the window as far as they are concerned.

Reply to sookiechacha:

No. Only people born or naturalized in the USA are afforded all the constitutional rights bestowed on American citizens, according to the 14th Amendment.
_________________________

LOL - you evidently are NOT watching the news - for instance, ILLEGALS are allowed to vote in NYC elections, I realize that is just local elections, but how long until the MILLIONS of them elect OUR president for us?
And we can all predict exactly what kind of president that will be - one that will continue their free lifestyle at taxpayers' expense!
You are now looking at a Third World mess.

a reply to: RonnieJersey
Ling before women were given the right to vote nationally, there was one or two states that allowed women to vote. How long was it before we had millions of women across the nation electing our president?

A third world mess was the Capitol attack on jan 6...
And the changes Republicans are making in states they control.
Having election officials and volunteers, and school board members resigning because of all the threats they are getting from right wing trumpists.

Oh so I guess it is fine to allow ILLEGALS to run OUR country -
and the conservative guess is at least 50 million of them, increasing every day.
And at least President Trump was trying to keep this country in American control, not just any Third World nitwits who don't even work, speak English, or pay taxes. When YOUR vehicle is totaled by an illegal with no insurance, don't complain. They are driving with no licenses and NO insurance, our parked vehicle was hit by an illegal man and we had to pay $5,000 to have the damages repaired. Law enforcement did absolutely nothing to this man, yet if an American citizen hit a parked vehicle and they have no license, they are immediately arrested. Get the picture now?
When our country is completely out of control, maybe all the dems will finally come to their senses and see what they have done. Allowing protests where people's livelihoods and businesses are burned down is a crime right there. No one has to work, they are being paid to stay at home and have as many kids as they want, what the heck they don't have to pay for them. They are busy stuffing this country with just anybody, no paperwork required.
Being liberal is fine, but this is just silliness. No other country on this planet allows undocumented people to vote in THEIR elections.