How many men have no clue

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Do you honestly believe that...

Of course, because I like the and understand the Constitution.

No, no you don't understand. You lack the comprehension to do so.
My friend, can you tell me where exactly, in the Constitution, that it states the unborn are not human beings?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I would say that premeditated homicide laws are always easy to understand.

That was not my question. Is "often" the same as "always"?

Come on, man, you were on a roll!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Not in every state. Not even in most states. The state laws were already on the books.

They weren't in play, therefore there will be changes.

Would you consider it accurate to say that the Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution changed?

No, I don't think it changed. But I've already stated that I don't disagree with their ruling, I disagree with the people who are trying to eliminate all abortions within a reasonable time frame.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
My friend, can you tell me where exactly, in the Constitution, that it states the unborn are not human beings?

What is the definition of a citizen?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Is "often" the same as "always"?

No, but premeditated murder definitions are ALWAYS easy to understand as they are not legalese.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
My friend, can you tell me where exactly, in the Constitution, that it states the unborn are not human beings?

What is the definition of a citizen?

So, you agree. It's not in the Constitution.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They weren't in play, therefore there will be changes.

That's an interesting spin on words. They weren't enforced, because Roe v. Wade said they could not be enforced. However, the laws did exist.

No, I don't think it changed.

3 for 3.

I would disagree, however. The majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health specifically details where it finds the Roe v. Wade decision an incorrect interpretation. That would, by definition, be a change in interpretation.

So did the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision lie? Or did it shift/change the interpretation of the Constitution?

But I've already stated that I don't disagree with their ruling, I disagree with the people who are trying to eliminate all abortions within a reasonable time frame.

That's good. However, could it be that what you define as "reasonable" and what someone else defines as "reasonable" are not exactly the same?

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No

Good. I agree, "often" and "always" have different meanings.

premeditated murder definitions are ALWAYS easy to understand as they are not legalese.

However, your definition does not require that all legaleeze be hard to understand. It only requires that some legaleeze is hard to understand. "Premeditated murder" can be legaleeze and not hard to understand.

I still don't know why you choose to switch words so much. I was talking about "premeditated killing." You have substituted "premeditated murder" and "homicide" without an explanation. Why?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

That's good. However, could it be that what you define as "reasonable" and what someone else defines as "reasonable" are not exactly the same?

TheRedneck

This is why having 50 states in a republic works rather well as one can live where it matches their view of what is reasonable. With Roe gone the worst case scenario is a woman would need to setup an appt in a neighboring state and make a short road trip with a friend, or get some abortion bills as they have today. Things might not be so easy as the abortion clinic on the street corner within 5 mins of walking, but it is still very accessible. There will be no less legal abortions in 2023 as there was in any other year prior to this ruling.

The reality has been that Congress could have fixed this a number of times and they didn't as protecting Roe has been the Liberal's leading voting agenda point for 50 years. Everything can go to crap, but hell we will protect abortions, and if congress made Roe moot then they would have lost their key point in why you all need to vote Democrat.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
So, you agree. It's not in the Constitution.

No, it is actually. Do you know it?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
That's good. However, could it be that what you define as "reasonable" and what someone else defines as "reasonable" are not exactly the same?

I've defined this for you already in the other thread.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
However, your definition does not require that all legaleeze be hard to understand.

It's the actual definition of legalese:

the formal and technical language of legal documents that is often hard to understand

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's the actual definition of legalese:

the formal and technical language of legal documents that is often hard to understand

You do realize all those words are part of the definition, right? That's how definitions work.

"Often" is not "always," remember?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
"Often" is not "always," remember?

We're discussing the definition of premeditated murder, is it a hard one for you to grasp? It isn't for me. Seems pretty straight forward.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I've defined this for you already in the other thread.

Then why not just repeat it here? I don't keep every thread on ATS open, you know.

Highlight the text by dragging your cursor across it, CTRL-C to copy, come back here, put your cursor where you want the text to start, and CTRL-V to paste. Then you just click on "reply" and voila! It's not that hard.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Actually, you are discussing the definition of premeditated murder. I was talking about premeditated killing. Murder is a legal term; killing is a common term.

If you'll explain why you keep changing words, that might help.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
So, you agree. It's not in the Constitution.

No, it is actually. Do you know it?

No, it's actually not. No Where.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Then why not just repeat it here?

Viability outside the mother, somewhere in the 20 week range. I might even be fine with slightly less than that but there needs to be caveats for rape and incest and also one for the entire term for the mother's health.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Actually, you are discussing the definition of premeditated murder.

With the other poster, which you interjected yourself and your confusion about homicide into.

I was talking about premeditated killing. Murder is a legal term; killing is a common term.

That's nice, the other poster clearly said the 'premeditated killing of another human being' which is the absolute legal definition of murder one.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
No, it's actually not. No Where.

NO?

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.

Try again.