How many men have no clue

originally posted by: Quadrivium
You can't be serious..

I'm sooper serious, you had no idea that the definition of a citizen is in the Constitution.

It's okay, now you do.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
You can't be serious..

I'm sooper serious, you had no idea that the definition of a citizen is in the Constitution.

It's okay, now you do.

With your reading comprehensions skills, it is not a surprise you're "sooper serious"..

But facts, they tell all.
You said:

The Constitution says they are not human beings and are not afforded any rights since they are not born.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The constitution does not say that, anywhere.

And my reply, over and over and over?

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?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Quadrivium
The constitution does not say that, anywhere.

It clearly describes what constitutes a citizen and an embryo is neither born nor naturalized.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
The constitution does not say that, anywhere.

It clearly describes what constitutes a citizen and an embryo is neither born nor naturalized.

And again.....
They are Human Beings.
Human rights transcend the Constitution.
Abortion is the premeditated killing of another Human Being.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
The constitution does not say that, anywhere.

It clearly describes what constitutes a citizen and an embryo is neither born nor naturalized.

Furthermore, just to drive the point home a little further and to show you exactly how moronic your "argument " is.....

By your backwards logic, illegal immigrants are not "people" and have no right to life.
Do you suggest we abort them as well?
Why, when they don't fit the definition of "citizen" layed out in the 14th anymore than a human being in the womb does.

Again, your view is "scumbaggery" by your own "personal" definition.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It clearly describes what constitutes a citizen and an embryo is neither born nor naturalized.

You're paraphrasing the 14th Amendment:

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.

All persons born or naturalized... I believe that would mean there are "persons" who are not born and "persons" who are not naturalized.

Congratulations... you just proved that legally an unborn person is not a citizen. That wasn't even the question.

The question is whether the unborn is a "person"... and I read that to mean that since some "persons" are born, it follows there are some "persons" who are unborn.

*mic drop*

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Quadrivium
By your backwards logic, illegal immigrants are not "people" and have no right to life.

They don't have the full rights of a citizen afforded by the Constitution. You should really do some reading on the subject.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
All persons born or naturalized... I believe that would mean there are "persons" who are not born and "persons" who are not naturalized.

And those persons not born or naturalized here are, wait for it, NOT citizens. What a concept. I know it can appear complex on it's surface but it really is very, very, very simple.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And those persons not born or naturalized here are, wait for it, NOT citizens.

Yeah, that's pretty much what i said.

Unborn persons are not citizens. But that means they are persons.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Unborn persons are not citizens. But that means they are persons.

In Rooks v. Rooks the Colorado Supreme Court said they did not consider embryos to be humans in their decision which was remanded back to the lower courts for further disposition of the former couple's preserved embryos, A.K.A. the 'marital property'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

When did we all move to Colorado?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Doesn't matter, it's legal precedent.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

it's legal precedent

...in Colorado. Look to your left. See the place where it says "location"? I'm in Alabama.

Earlier you admonished a poster for bring up the Declaration of independence instead of the US Constitution. Now you want to bring up a Colorado state judicial decision instead of the US Constitution.

Shame, shame, shame.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
...in Colorado.

In everywhere until a conflicting ruling takes place.

And I did not bring up the Colorado State Constitution, I brought up the Colorado Supreme Court, FFS.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

In everywhere until a conflicting ruling takes place.

Nope. The Colorado Supreme Court does not make Federal decisions. That's the US Supreme Court. Colorado courts decide based on Colorado's constitution and laws.

And I corrected my error before you posted.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Nope. The Colorado Supreme Court does not make Federal decisions.

Who said they do? Out of state/jurisdiction rulings are frequently cited when no home ruling exists.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Out of state/jurisdiction rulings are frequently cited when no home ruling exists.

Federal decisions are based on the US Constitution and US law. Occasionally state rulings and laws are cited, but only where they are appropriate to a Constitutional question, not as "precedent." See Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, where the existence of state law was used to determine if a right was implied in the US Constitution.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Occasionally state rulings and laws are cited...

Looks like you're repeating what I said.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I agree it clearly states a person born or naturalized, nowhere do I see person unborn or unnaturalized.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
You are contradicting yourself, again.

You quoted this part of the 14th to justify the premeditated killing of human beings:

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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You went on to say they were not citizens so they had no rights (including the right to life).

They don't have the full rights of a citizen afforded by the Constitution.

So by your backwards logic we should be able to abort illegal immigrants (don't back-peddle now, own your faulty logic, embrace it).

You should really do some reading on the subject.

Says the guy who thinks its ok to kill illegal immigrants.
You should really work on your reading comprehension, laws of thought and correct reasoning.