Read the Declaration of Independence if you want to see the Founder's motivation for going to war with England. It wasn't just about property.

It is clear that you are the one who isn't quite clear on the origin of the nation and the purpose of our government and laws. The Declaration of Independence is the document that brought the legal entity known as the USA into being. It established the reason the entity was brought into being and established its responsibilities. The Constitution is the set of bylaws by which the entity known as the USA will fulfil its charter. The Declaration was never revoked and remains the charter and the direction for the entity known as the USA even today. That charter establishes as the primary responsibility of the US government the protection of each and every individual's right to life liberty and property.

Note that the founders placed life and liberty above property. They did it for a very specific reason. When writing a list in a legal document, the order in which items are placed establishes thier relative importance. Their logic was flawless. The right to property is meaningless if your right to live and be free is not first protected. The right to be free is meaningles if your right to live isn't first protected. Further, the supreme court has stated numerous times that it is perfectly correct to read the constitution in the spirit of the declaration.

My argument isn't moral in nature. My argument is founded solidly in science and the law. I suggest that you review the 5th and the 14th amendments and then tell me where in the constitution you see a right for one individual to kill another individual for any or no reason without legal consequences.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Would you like to show me a moral argument on my part?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Your argument is not based on science, because science can say nothing about whether we as a society want to treat a fetus as a citizen, worthy of protection under the constitution.

And it isn't based on law since for citizenship rights, the constitution clearly states that BIRTH not CONCEPTION is the requirement for citizenship.

Not sure I get your question. Care to expand? The moral argument against abortion is fairly clear. You should stick with it instead of insisting that "science and law" back you up.

I think you believe it strengthens your argument, but it really doesn't. You can use it to support your argument, but it is a mistake to base it on it because as people here have shown, we can get the argument away from abortion and onto your arguments, which in debate will always be a loss for you.

So by this logic...or lack thereof, its perfectly acceptable to kill all non US Citizens, BECAUSE they lack the basic defining characteristics of being considered ALIVE? US Citizenship! The child is alive, regardless if it is a citizen or not. As always, the right to make and establish Law rests primarily with the states/peoples, unless there is direct contradictory wording of these laws that prohibit another's right to exercise their equality in an equal fashion. And these basic rights are in very bold print and unmistakable in their presentation of being "unalienable"...or non-transferable, as stated, because these basic rights were not "granted" by man or his law...but by the transcending authority of the Creator....as we 'proudly' proclaimed in our national independence which rests upon such established principals. There is nothing in the constitution nor following amendments thereof that addresses the circumstance of defining LIFE...and by ignoring 200 years of established precedence that clearly established the fact the PEOPLE/STATES, had indeed defined LIFE as being an example of a gestating child...Woman with Child. SCOTUS clearly overstepped its authority of judicial review. As the case should have been directly given back to the originating state, and the precedent thereof.

To grasp at declaring one amendment as superior to another....is the only fashion in which SCOTUS could even attempt to opine away the right of life as being inferior to the right of privacy. Clearly articles 10 and 9 of the "STATES BILL OF RIGHTS" (WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED TO PLACE LIMITS UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT INVERSELY TO LIMIT EVEN THE RIGHT TO LIVE) were totally ignored in reading this OPINION of Roe v. Wade....as even the authority granted under Judicial review was grossly abused by using WORDS OMITTED FROM THE CONSTITUTION instead of defending words that were WRITTEN to establish certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS..such as the right to life in its transcending foundation that is paramount even to the laws of this land.

The same old circular argument that demonstrates NOTHING except the disregard for human life and the acceptance of self indulgence and pomposity is all that "feminism" presents. This clear injustice of liberal FASCISM will be overturned, much like the example and inhumanity of slavery was overturned after several attempts. Children are not property to be disposed of simply on the whim of a social inconvenience. BD

Let the doubletalk begin. As you know, only science is capable of saying what a creature is. In this case, only science is qualified to state with any credibility that unborns are in fact living human beings at any stage of development.

Since you know you can offer up no rational argument against this, you suggest that only citizens have rights under the constitution. I would hope that you know that isn't true at all. All human beings in this country have rights that are protected by the constitution. No one is suggesting that the unborn have the rights of citizenship, but the right to live is not dependent upon being a citizen in this country.

If you understood the constitution, you would know that citizenship is not a requirement to have the right to live in this country. Try killing an illegal alien in front of a police officer and tell the judge that he was not a citizen so he had no right to live and therefore you are not guilty of murder. Let me know how it works out for you.

Was that whole line of argument deliberately dishonest or do you really know so little about the Constitution?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

I have never made a moral argument against abortion. If I did, it would be no more valid than any pro choicer's opinion that abortion is OK.

So you admit that the pro choice argument is nothing more than a series of strawmen designed specifically to draw the discussion away from the facts. It has been obvious to me for some time now but it is nice to have one of you finally admit it.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Ya know, I usually try to play nice with others. But when you completely change my post and out quotes around it, attributing it to me, you have just lost every ounce of respect you might have had. You see where it says "originally posted by Back Atcha"? Do you see the little white arrow in the blue box next to it? It leads directly back to the post you are quoting me from. Easy to see that you have just engaged in the most dishonest of practices on a forum. Nothing you say can ever be trusted from now on. Your a fraud attempting to protray others as losing the argument or to be in agreement with you. This is only done by people who have so thoroughly been defeated that this is the only way they can continue to play the game, deceptively.

What I actually said...

Really, tell me... who am I? Am I pro choice or pro life? You don't have a cue. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your position of constitutionality. It's called intellectual honesty regardless of my own position. Something that is apparently completely foreign to you.

I will make damn sure you never live this one down. You are a fraud.

Either apologize or consider me your own little ghost, reminding everyone that comes to your threads of this transgression.

Back Atcha,

Everyone who posts in the abortion forum knows Paleface is full of shit. He is a spineless coward who's only wish is to control women,,, mommy issues I guess.

Truth is, there is no point in arguing with him, he's fuckin' wacked in the head. He makes shit up, edits posts (as you pointed out), and denies the truth when put in his face. He is a total wack job.... Save your breath, he doesn't care. He likes attention, makes him feel smarter about himself and authoritative in some way.... But we all know he is an idiot and a fraud. Probably works as a janitor in a college, and has just enough information to harm himself, and others.

__________________
A house divided against itself, cannot stand.
-Abraham Lincoln

Thanks for the heads up momma