How many men have no clue

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, here is the venn diagram it lays out. Just for you, AM, a nice purty pitcher*:

D contains all of B and C, which are both subsets of A, where

A = all persons
B = all persons born
C = all persons naturalized
D = all citizens

* because a person must be born to be naturalized, I also show B as a subset of C.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Nowhere on that graph includes the unborn though, that's the point. Your constitution and laws don't specify any rights for the unborn.

a reply to: quintessentone



Every person not born is unborn.

You can read a Venn diagram?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't disagree with you but your laws and constitution do.

a reply to: quintessentone

In Alabama, they do not.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Sure, state laws are by the people obviously, but the constitution may soon be changed to provide for constitutional personhood for the unborn, but it does not provide for that yet.

a reply to: quintessentone

Whoever wants to try that, I wish them luck. They'll need 38 states to ratify it. With people going around trying to claim that the unborn is just a clump of cells or a dead piece of dog ("It's not alive!" "It's not human!"), that's going to be quite the feat.

There's probably a better chance of getting the Constitution to say abortion is murder...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

For sure this is a difficult moral problem for humanity as is taking away a woman's rights to have dominion over her own body.

a reply to: quintessentone

But there's another body there. Don't forget about that.

That's really the question: at what point does the woman's right to convenience overrule the child's right to life and vice versa?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

As I stated previously, those that want to force the issue need to provide supports for the woman and child all along the way and you can bet your bottom tax dollar that most, not all, women will not have that abortion. But that won't happen because it appears that nobody really cares about the lessened quality of life that the woman and child will end up with if the woman can't afford childcare to work, can't afford childcare and transportation and tuition to get that quality of life.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Quadrivium

He's not agreeing with the law, he is just trying to explain the reasoning behind the law to you. Don't you see that?

No, no he is not and no I don't see anything of the sort.
What I see is someone trying to use what they want the constitution to mean.
He, like countless others, are trying to excuse their belief in a form of genocide.

He first engaged me, in this thread, because I said "abortion is the premeditated killing of a human being".
There is absolutely ZERO mention of human beings in the US constitution.
He simply does not understand the definition of the words he is using, as I have showed numerous times.

Do you agree that abortion is the premeditated killing of a human being, quint?

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: TheRedneck

For sure this is a difficult moral problem for humanity as is taking away a woman's rights to have dominion over her own body.

Ahhhhh....
There it is.
What rights (in 99% of abortions) is being "taken away"?
Is it "reproductive rights"?
They have those. After the pregnancy occurs the reproductive part is done.

Is it the right of a "Woman's choice"?
In 99% of cases, they have TOTAL freedom of choice.
They and their partner made a choice, a choice to have sex (which, following simple biology, is how ALL mammals reproduce).
When both parties agreed to engage in the act of reproduction, they KNEW pregnancy was a possibility.
This is the point at which they have a choice.
Once they bring another human being into the equation they no longer have a choice, without violating another human beings basic right to life.
So, in short, women (and men) have COMPLETE freedom of choice.

What they want is freedom of choice over another humans life.

a reply to: Quadrivium
OH!
I almost forgot!
In the words of the Red Neck.....

*Mic-drop*

originally posted by: TheRedneck
All four terms have different definitions.

Still waiting on your legal evidence.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
I am stuck in the 1600s because I am conversing with someone with a 1600s state of mind.

If you think your comparison of the 1600's to my support of the Constitution and modern laws is equal that's on you.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's a lovely diagram, the legal case I gave you had a fifth description, 'property', it's missing from yours.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

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.

I don't see the word "property" in that. Apparently the Venn diagram has gone the way of cursive writing.

Yeah, it's like trying to explain quantum mechanics to an earthworm...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I don't see the word "property" in that.

I don't see the word 'unborn' in there either. But I did see that embryos are property in the legal case I cited. In the legal cases you haven't cited I haven't seen anything.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Did you see the word "unborn" in that Venn diagram?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Is the diagram the legal case you're citing?