A fetus is not a citizen of the US and therefore is not entitled to any rights under the constitution.

__________________
http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php


When you want to know the truth, search all articles available on your topic. The truth lies somewhere between it all.

You don't debate me because I hand you your ass every time you try.

Observe.

So right out of the blocks, you demonstrate that you aren’t familiar with Roe and begin to build your case on an untrue statement. The court used the terms “potential human life” and “potential life” repeatedly and never even defined the act of abortion and sidestepped the issue of whether or not unborns were human beings entirely. Blackmun wrote:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

And then Blackmun went on to justify that statement with a set of the most arcane and bizarre references ever to be presented by a Supreme Court Justice. He makes reference to the beliefs of the Stoics. He goes on to call on the Jewish faith, and the Prodestant community. If that weren’t enough, he invokes the Aristotelian theory of “mediate animation,” Roman Catholic dogma and ensoulment.

The simple fact is that the onset or reality of a human life is not now, nor was then an issue that required either theologians or philosophers to agree with science. With regard to what a creature is, and whether it is alive or not, science is the only authority qualified to speak.

Had they not engaged in a blatant logical fallacy and simply assumed that unborns were not human beings and proceeded from that point, they would have had to show that the Constitution protects the act of one human being killing another. This is the most blatant flaw in the Roe decision and has resulted in the worst human rights violation of our time.

That is my position, not my evidence. My evidence proves my position.

I don’t depend only upon my own knowledge. Some great legal minds on both sides of the debate have condemned the roe decision on its face stating flatly that it was one of the worst decisions the court has ever rendered. In fact, in planned parenthood vs casey in 1992, 6 of the 9 justices went on record stating that roe had no valid constitutional basis

The blatant evasion of fact used to justify the decision is perfect evidence that the decision was made in advance by the majority. And the fact that the majority, in effect, completely ignored the matter of who wrote the Constitution, the laws and precedents that came before (which seems to be very important to you) is more evidence that attests to a prior agenda at work.

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. At the time of its ratification, there were 36 states or territories that had duly legislated law restricting abortion and not one of those who wrote and ratified the 14th amendment brought up the fact that most of the states restricted or banned abortion outright. The court, in fact, found a right within the 14th amendment that was completely unknown to the drafters, and signers, of the amendment.

And this is goes back to your foundational misunderstanding with regard to the court denying the humanity of the unborn. They simply assumed that the unborn were not human beings (logical fallacy) and built their case from there. Had they not been agenda driven, and considered the humanity of the unborn, then the case would rightly have been entirely one of human rights.

Further, there have been state laws restricting or banning abortion outright in most states and those laws predate the 14th amendment. The right to an abortion was a completely unknown right prior to roe.

As to the bill of rights, the federalist and anti federalist papers and all the law that came before, the evidence is there that there never has been a right to personal privacy.

Justice Blackmun stated this clearly when he said:

A.“The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. “

Today, that question has been answered and there is a growing body of legal precedent establishing the personhood of the unborn.


The universal declaration of human rights has nothing to do with the US Constitution or decisions of the constitutionality of laws by the US Supreme Court. For one who claims to understand the law and the supreme court, bringing up the universal declaration to prove the constitionality of a court decision in any way is a real faux pas.


Again, we go back to your original error in declaring that the court did not deny the humanity of the unborn. Clearly they did and in the logical fallacy of simply assuming that unborns were not human beings, they completely ignored the real issue of abortion. There is no legal tradition of allowing one individual to kill another for reasons of self defense and no legal tradition of personal privacy which is the foundation upon which the court built its case.

Those two facts render your argument moot.

(continued)

__________________
"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

(continuation)

If you mean that I reject the qualifications of metaphysics and philosophy to determine what is or isn’t a living member of any given species and determine the onset of the life of an individual of that species, then you are right. You may prove me wrong by providing evidence of new species being found and brought to philosophers or theologians so that they can determine exactly what they are.

Your argument with regard to definitions is laughable. There would be no legal definition for “human being” as human being already has an undeniable scientific definition. There is no argument within either the legal or the scientific community as to what a human being is. If, however, you look up the legal term “person” in a legal dictionary, you will find that the law defines person as it relates to homo sapiens as nothing more and nothing less than “a human being.” That is, there are no qualifications to being a person beyond being a human being. The court side stepped this issue in their denial of the humanity of the unborn when they made the indefensible claim that they were “potential” human beings or “potential” human life.

By the way, I have never “blythly” ignored the issue of personhood. I have repeatedly provided definitions from numerous legal dictionaries, including the one used by most courts and the definition of person as it relates to homo sapiens is universally “a human being”. It is you and yours who obfuscate with regard to personhood and the law.


Wikipedia? You are kidding aren’t you? No. I bet you aren’t. The fact is that in the medical community, unborns are now considered to be patients. The idiocy of your “reference” is brought into sharp relief when it suggests that certain adults are also not persons according to medicine and philosophy. Do bring some credible science forward that suggests that the medical field considers certain adults to be non persons or that unborns at any stage of development are not living human beings.

To begin with, I take an arrogant tone with you because clearly, I do know more about the subject than you. You keep referring to the creators of the documents in question and obviously have no clue that when the document in question was written, most states had laws that either restricted or banned abortion outright. The writers of the document did not take issue with these laws as it is clear that they had no intention of giving anyone the right to arbitrarily take the life of another human being. Roe created a right from whole cloth that never previously existed.

The foundation upon which roe is founded was a previously unknown “right” to privacy. In fact, in his majority decision, Justice Blackmun states explicitly:

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy."
After his clear and explicit admission that there is no Constitutionally protected right to privacy, he begins to muse to himself that perhaps this newfound right may be hidden somewhere in the 9th or the 14th amendment. Blackmun wrote:

“In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.”

Translated into English: Without discussing what abortion is or what is being killed, Blackmun declares that killing unborns is a protected fundamental right. He isn’t quite sure whether the mysteriously elusive “right to privacy” and the even more ethereal “right to abortion” is to be found in the 9th amendment or as his coconspirators on the court “feel” it is to be found in the 14th amendment. Just to cover his ass, he writes “"at least the roots of that right" can be divined from the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.” His decision indicates that he and his coconspirators somehow just “knew” that there was a right to personal privacy in the constitution somewhere even if neither he nor any of those in the majority could say exactly where it was.

__________________
"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 problem stems from your fundamental misunderstanding of the Roe decision. The approach I take brings into sharp relief the fundamental problem with the roe decision. In not even defining what abortion is, much less addressing what exactly is dying when an abortion is performed, the justices dodged the fundamental issue of abortion.

The majority made some critical errors when deciding the case and those errors are the reason the debate still rages. First, they refused to address the humanity of the unborn and instead stated that since science, theology and philosophy could not agree, that they simply did not know what the unborn was and therefore would assume that the unborn was not, in reality, a human being.

In effect, the court committed a heinous ethical violation of their office when they admit that they were acting when in doubt. In allowing abortion, the court simply “assumed” (logical fallacy) that the unborn was not, in fact, a human being. They certainly could not have constitutionally sanction the killing of human beings so they begged the question and simply assumed. By their own admission, the majority was in doubt as to whether a human being was present from the time of conception and whether a human being was present at the time of abortion. By their own admission, the majority ignored their legal and ethical responsibility not to act in a hurtful manner in the presence of doubt and possible serious harm.


Opening a can of worms is irrelevant to whether or not the unborn are living human beings entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. You simply can’t help but engage in logical fallacy can you?

Calling me a dumbass while engaging in a logical fallacy. Now that is rich.

Since the question of the personhood of the unborn has been established and the body of precedent is growing, the ramifications of birth control are equally irrelevant. If unborns are indeed living human beings, their right to live is protected by the 14th amendment and the ramifications of that protection on birth control are meaningless in the context of their right to live.

As I explained to you at length, citizenship is a non issue with regard to the 14th amendment. One need not be a citizen in order to have one’s right to live protected within the borders of the US. This is just one more example of either your fundamental dishonesty, or blatant ignorance of the legal issue. Citizenship has no bearing on the issue. Like birth control, citizenship is a red herring that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not unborns are living human beings entitled to the protections of the 14th amendment.

Free will has nothing to do with being protected by the constitution. Yet another red herring. A conflict of rights exists in all legal matters. The more fundamental right takes precedence. As Justice Blackmun stated, if the question of personhood is established, roe will collapse without regard to whether or not it would be a mess because the unborn would be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. Once more, that question has been established and the body of precedent is growing.

First, the Supreme Court is only supposed to decide on the constitutionality or unconsitutionality of law. If they are unable to justify a decision within the constitution, then their decision is not justified and by definition, unconstitional.

You can try to make a moral argument if you like, but I don’t. As I have demonstrated, I am versed enough in the law to expose the fundamental flaws in your argument and topple the whole thing.

Once again, refer to the roe decision.

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

The fact is that the matter of when life begins is the core issue of abortion and the court, by its own admission of doubt violated its legal and ethical responsibility to not act in a potentially hurtful manner in the presence of doubt.

More fundamental dishonesty on your part. I have never attempted to extend “rights” to unborns, I attempt to extend one right to the unborn. The most fundamental of human rights.

As to whether or not the court will open the can of worms, you couldn’t possibly be more wrong. Obviously you aren’t aware that the 1989 Supreme Court actually voted to overrule roe. But Sandra O’Connor folded under pressure and it was reaffirmed. In 1992 in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, 6 of the 9 judges were on record stating Roe lacked any valid Constitutional basis.

My constitutional argument is alive and well and the fact that in planned parenthood v Casey 6 of the 9 justices went on the record stating that roe lacked any valid constitutional basis proves that it not only isn’t dead, but is going to be the death of abortion on demand.

Typical know nothing idiot. You make a completely invalid argument that is flawed from its most basic premise and pretend that you have accomplished something more than getting bitch slapped in public for your efforts. The fact that a majority of justices in which the majority was liberal admitted that roe has no valid constitutional basis proves my argument beyond any doubt.

Now go and learn something before you waste any more bandwidth.

__________________
"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

And oddly enough, You don't seem to be able to defeat even one small part of my "feeble" argument. How sad is that?

Yeah, it is best that you remain a spectator, even if your team is loosing. You aren't up to the game. Maybe you can join lexi down on the sidelines waving those pom poms though.

__________________
"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

The day I need to call someone to tear you a new one will be the day. And I have no doubt that you have more. Those who traffick in bullshit always seem to have an unending supply.


You failed. And why should I change my argument when the one I have is iron clad?

__________________
"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

Do you believe that only the rights of citizens are protected by the constitution? Clearly you don't know the first thing about it. Tell you what. Go out and kill an illegal alien in front of a policeman. When you get to court, tell the judge that you killed a non citizen and not being a citizen, that illegal's right to live was not protected.

Let me know how that works out for you. I believe they will let you spend some time on the internet when you are serving out your life sentence for violating that illegal's right to live.

__________________
"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

No one really debates Palerider because he doesn't know the meaning of the word. He thinks his word is law and there's no other way a person can think so no use to even bother with him , lost cause...

__________________
"its potential, its potential, its potential because I said so, there's your proof" --- Palerider

I recognize that you and people like wolf are flat earthers who believe what you believe in spite of mountains of credible science that states in no uncertain terms that you are wrong. I also understand that you hold to these beliefs so strongly because you desperately need to assuage your own guilt in the death of your own child or the child of someone close to you.

And I never said my word was law. My word is, however, accurate and factual, and all one need do to defeat my argument is prove me wrong. You certainly don't posess the intellectual wattage to even begin to prove me wrong and that is why you are restricted, where I am concerned, to cheerleading for those who you hope can make a valid argument against me, or engaging in small minded insult devoid of any actual point that is germain to the subject, or simply telling mindless and meaningless lies.

__________________
"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

And now you have lived a life Palerider, what if you mother aborted you.
Knowing what you know now, would you be happy.
Never been able to experience the wonders of the flesh.

__________________
To Love and be Loved, thats all that is required.

CHIEF CRAZY CROTCH