How many men have no clue

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They are people, unlike embryos.

Wait a minute... are we talking about citizens, people, or persons? The Constitution doesn't say anything about what a "people' or a "person" is. It says what they can be under certain conditions and what rights they have, but that's not a definition.

Would you agree that a "person" the singular form of the plural "people"?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The Constitution doesn't say anything about what a "people' or a "person" is.

Who said it does?

a reply to: JAGStorm

I know exactly where every sperm that entered where it should, every single time.

If you don't, that's your issue.

Fred..

a reply to: Xtrozero

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.

Finally! Someone gets it! Thank you!

It sounds so simple, really, but some people will simply not give even that much. Without give-and-take, there can be no compromise and this will continue to be a hot-button issue for eternity with no solution.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The law and the Constitution both say 'nope'.

No, the Constitution does not. I just showed you that. According to the 14th Amendment, a person can still be a person without being born, just not necessarily a citizen.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I just showed you that.

No, you said where you 'believed' that to be but offered no legal backing for your opinion.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The Constitution doesn't say anything about what a "people' or a "person" is.

Who said it does?

You did.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Both are human beings.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

The law and the Constitution both say 'nope'.

I believe a "person" would also be a "human being."

You are getting very good at swapping words around as you see fit. Can we stick to a single definition, please?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

See above.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, you said where you 'believed' that to be but offered no legal backing for your opinion.

Try to keep up.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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: TheRedneck
...I believe...

What you 'believe' is not relevant unless you have some legal evidence to back up your beliefs. I've already supplied legal rulings, you, not so much.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

See what above? Damn, man, you change words so fast I can't keep track of whether you are talking about a citizen, a person, people, human beings... you are all over the damn map!

I hope you got wheels and a motor on those goal posts.

I will not "look above." If you have an argument, make it. So far you've changed the argument you make several dozen times.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I stated my legal evidence. The fact that a phrase would be redundant without an assumption is used in law constantly to verify that assumption. Do you believe that there are no unborn persons? If so you believe that the wording in the 14th Amendment is redundant.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I will not "look above."

I already addressed your feelings about your personal interpretation of the Constitution and your lack of supporting legal evidence.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I stated my legal evidence.

That was your opinion, I see no cases cited.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I already addressed your feelings about your personal interpretation of the Constitution and your lack of supporting legal evidence.

No, you addressed a different question than the one you yourself posed.

You want to talk law? OK. If I were sitting on a jury right now (and I have, multiple times) I would have already discounted everything you said or will say three pages ago. You can't keep your statements consistent.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xtrozero

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.

Finally! Someone gets it! Thank you!

It sounds so simple, really, but some people will simply not give even that much. Without give-and-take, there can be no compromise and this will continue to be a hot-button issue for eternity with no solution.

TheRedneck

Both of you summed it up quite nicely and this is why this is more of a 10th Amendment issue more than anything else. The federal government cannot represent the vast amount of opinions on this issue. Even within the 50 states there will be a lot of issues, especially in Midwestern States where you see city politics decide politics for Rural communities. However, states have a better chance of representing the will of the people in regards to abortion than a blanket law or judicial decision regarding the issue. I'm sorry it's too much of an issue and it's too big with too many opinions out there for our federal government to handle. It's best left to the states and the will of the individuals in those states to govern what they believe to be right.

We have bigger fish to fry at the end of the day. Social issues are just used to divide us, and abortion is the best example of this. When I used to teach, during the first week of class I would have my students write down the issues they are most passionate about and where they stand. Then I made them debate the other side of the issue. It wasn't as a punishment it was to show them that both sides are valid in their opinions and it is all based on opinions and at the end of the day we need to respect one another's beliefs regardless of how appalling we my feel them to be. Religion teaches us not to judge one another and the choices someone else makes. It's not up to me it's not up to you, but what I can tell you is that we must live amongst one another and we must work together. That is the lesson I fought tooth and nail for. I had parents try and refuse on behalf of their students becuase of the topics they had to research. I held meetings with these parents and by the end most agreed to the assignment and saw the validity in it. I was trying to teach critical thinking, and mutual respect. Abortion was always one of my favorites. Civil discourse on these issues is something we can and should have, but we always need to keep in mind that we need mutual respect for one another's beliefs.

This is a # issue and I understand where both sides are coming from. But I am glad it was overturned, but I am also saddened, as now the My Body, My Choice argument is being chipped away at. This and the vaccine was a chance for both sides to come to a mutual respect and work together. The give and take was right there, but our idioitic citizenry is too stupid to see that we can have a simple compromise here. Stand together under My Body, My Choice and protect one another from the government infringing upon our medical rights. Regardless we either have all the protection or we have the government chip away at it. We can't have bits and pieces we don't like thrown out. It's sadly an all or nothing issue long term.

So Abortion. Send it to the states and be done with it. If you feel that passionate about it, get out, organize and get state representatives who hold abortion near and dear to their hearts and make state laws that represent the citizenry of that state. It will be different across state lines, but if you don't live there, that's none of your business. Sadly if a state makes laws about abortion that upset you, well I have good news for you, you're allowed to move to a different state that is better representative of your values. There are many jobs out there and we are allowed to go anywhere and start a new life for ourselves. We have those freedoms, don't forget. Is this perfect? No becuase children will suffer in some states. But I hate to tell you this, this country has been built on sacrifice, and death. Sometimes the few have to be sacrificed for the many. It's imperfect, but it's worked very well for 200+ years. Maybe we should heed the lessons of the past. This is a nation of compromise.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Quadrivium

Your analogy is poor since abortion is not murder.

Sounds a lot like.....

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...
Huh?

originally posted by: quintessentone
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.

Aborting Illigal immigrants should be left to the Supreme Court?
Wow....

a reply to: TheRedneck

and this will continue to be a hot-button issue for eternity with no solution.

I disagree, truly.
I think science, logic and truth will eventually solve the issue as it has with many other forms of "scumbaggery" (aka genocide).

originally posted by: TheRedneck
You want to talk law?

Sure, just as soon as you post some legal evidence that backs up your 'opinion'.