How many men have no clue

originally posted by: Quadrivium
So by your backwards logic we should be able to abort illegal immigrants...

No, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that they are afforded certain rights as opposed to ruling zero times that an embryo is a person.

Not complex if you bother to check the case law.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

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

So you agree with aborting illegal immigrants as well?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
So by your backwards logic we should be able to abort illegal immigrants...

No, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that they are afforded certain rights as opposed to ruling zero times that an embryo is a person.

Not complex if you bother to check the case law.

So (again, trying to use your backwards logic), the only reason we don't kill them is because the Supreme Court says so?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
So you agree with aborting illegal immigrants as well?

They are people, unlike embryos.

a reply to: Quadrivium

It's not my call to make, neither is it for a few agenda-driven hotshots in the Supreme Court. The majority of the population in the country should make that decision.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
So (again, trying to use your backwards logic), the only reason we don't kill them is because the Supreme Court says so?

It's actually your logic that is backwards, they are people. Embryos are not.

The bad logic in all this is this stupid argument that people make where once the baby's head is out it is a human, but a second before it is not. I'm not against abortions (safe, legal and RARE) and so people need to just stop fighting this point that is totally ridiculous in thought. The main point everyone should agree on is that it IS a developing human throughout the entire process, and we must decide when we can kill it within a time frame that is well before it is fully developed. If one wants to say 12 week, or even 14 weeks, I'm good with all that as I do not have a religious view on all this, but I still think there is a fine line when it is socially acceptable and when it is not. I Think the heartbeat bill is a little too early as many women might not even know they are pregnant yet.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
So you agree with aborting illegal immigrants as well?

They are people, unlike embryos.

Both are human beings.
The reason we do not kill illegal immigrants is, regardless of the US Constitution, they have basic human rights as human beings and human rights transcend the US Constitution.

You have to admit, at some point, you possess the same thought process as Slavers, Nazis, etc.
There is no way around it.
You can try to excuse it, as I am sure they did.
The bottom line is that you, and those like you, believe one set of human beings are "less than" and/or Property.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I think the majority of the people should decide by vote.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Both are human beings.

The law and the Constitution both say 'nope'.

originally posted by: quintessentone

I think the majority of the people should decide by vote.

The proper way is NOT with the SCOTUS which is like doing surgery with a chainsaw. You either vote per state, OR Congress can pass it federally which is basically all of us voting still. Congress could have fixed this a number of times in the past to make Roe moot, but they didn't as this is their top election year cry, and they would not want to lose that as they have very little else in their quiver to use.

We all need to understand that the left doesn't want this fixed...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The law and the Constitution both say 'nope'.

In general
According to W. Michael Reisman, "in many of the most hideous international crimes, many of the individuals who are directly responsible operate within a cultural universe that inverts our morality and elevates their actions to the highest form of group, tribe, or national defense".[6][7] Bettina Arnold observed, "It is one of the terrible ironies of the systematic extermination of one people by another that its justification is considered necessary." She also argued that archaeology and ancient history was sometimes used to justify genocide.[8] Robert Zajonc wrote, "I was not able to find any accounts of massacres not viewed by their perpetrators as right and necessary."[9] Rationalizing genocide helps perpetrators accept their actions and role in the genocide, preserving their self-image.[10]

According to the Encyclopedia of Genocide, eugenics advocate Francis Galton bordered on the justification of genocide when he stated, "There exists a sentiment, for the most part quite unreasonable, against the gradual extinction of an inferior race."[11]

en.wikipedia.org...

Think we are done here.
You can deny it but your thought process is the very definition of what you consider "scumbaggery".
Have fun with that.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Nice irrelevant quote. No one is mentioning race in this except you.

Nice irrelevant quote. No one is mentioning race in this except you.

Race was an excuse.
Like the ones you are using.

I know you can't read more than one sentence before replying so I edited the other post and put the relevant part in bold.
Your welcome.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Race was an excuse.

Not a very relevant one to the topic.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Of course your President is Catholic that's why not much is being done about it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Race was an excuse.

Not a very relevant one to the topic.

There is never a relevant excuse for the premeditated killing of another human being.
Only excuses and "scumbaggery".

Bettina Arnold observed, "It is one of the terrible ironies of the systematic extermination of one people by another that its justification is considered necessary." She also argued that archaeology and ancient history was sometimes used to justify genocide.[8] Robert Zajonc wrote, "I was not able to find any accounts of massacres not viewed by their perpetrators as right and necessary."[9] Rationalizing genocide helps perpetrators accept their actions and role in the genocide, preserving their self-image.[10]

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Quadrivium]
There is never a relevant excuse for the premeditated killing of another human being.

Which abortion isn't, otherwise it would be First Degree Murder.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium]
There is never a relevant excuse for the premeditated killing of another human being.

Which abortion isn't, otherwise it would be First Degree Murder.

See?
You have the same thought process.

The law provided that an enslaver's killing of an enslaved person could not constitute murder because the “premeditated malice” element of murder could not be formed against one’s own property.

calendar.eji.org...

There really is no way around it. You can deny it. You can excuse it but it is the same "scumbaggery".

a reply to: Quadrivium

I'm not interested in the 1600's. We currently live in 2022 United States of America with the Constitution and our laws. Your analogy is poor since abortion is not murder.