Constitutional Blunder

C Hamilton wrote:

Justice DOES NOT come from a non-existent being -- regardless of the author's opinion. The Constitution only applies to persons born or naturalized and this does not include an embryo.

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not true, prove it.

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>How about Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
First, this is speaking of citizenship, not life.

Kerdy 1 wrote:

Second, if it were then you looked over this little part.
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life"
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Judged:

3

2

1

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>True, but we were speaking as to whom the Constitution covers.
<quoted text>And where in the Constitution do you see an embryo or fetus defined as "person?"

Judged:

2

2

1

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You said, "The Constitution only applies to persons born or naturalized and this does not include an embryo."
Where does it exclude an embryo? It doesnt.

Judged:

1

1

1

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>You're right. It also doesn't exclude dolphins, hippos or gnats either. Are you telling me they're covered as well?

Judged:

3

2

2

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
That is an entirely ridiculous response, so I will give you another try.

Judged:

2

2

2

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry, I don't need another try. It is ridiculous to assert Constitutional protections where there aren't any. If you think they exist, give me some evidence.

Judged:

2

2

1

Kerdy 1 wrote:

We were talking of persons, not animals. The constitution clearly gives individual rights to people, not animals. How you coul compare the them is beyond me.
I said it doesnt exclude the fetus as you would have us to believe so you responded in the way we see above. A desperate response when you know you cant argue the facts. Sad really. You usually do much better than this so that is why I gave you another chance, but alas, I guess thats is all you have on this subject.

Atheist wrote:

Hello
LS..
I'm not saying what and what a woman shouldn't do with their bodies,, I'm personally agains abortion Except in extreme cases...
However it isn't my place to tell them what to do..
Atheist

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Here let me explain. You said the following:
C Hamilton wrote:
<quoted text>True, but we were speaking as to whom the Constitution covers.
<quoted text>And where in the Constitution do you see an embryo or fetus defined as "person?"
C Hamilton wrote:
<quoted text>You're right. It also doesn't exclude dolphins, hippos or gnats either. Are you telling me they're covered as well?
We were talking of persons, not animals. The constitution clearly gives individual rights to people, not animals. How you coul compare the them is beyond me.
I said it doesnt exclude the fetus as you would have us to believe so you responded in the way we see above. A desperate response when you know you cant argue the facts. Sad really. You usually do much better than this so that is why I gave you another chance, but alas, I guess thats is all you have on this subject.

Light Sensitive wrote:

<quoted text>
but you have not refuteed the point that a fetus is not an individual with rights - so therefore not protected by the Const.
like the other posters point or not, you are not refuting it, simply displaying your distaste for their use of an analogy...you havent "argued" a fact yet...

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>I think the Supreme Court did that when they decided Roe. If a fetus was an individual with rights then abortion would be illegal.

Judged:

1

1

1

Light Sensitive wrote:

<quoted text>
I think we're in agreement on this...
Im just sort of tired of men, white men mostly telling women in general what they can do, and if they can do it, how they should feel about it once they've done it, etc...

Judged:

1

1

1

Light Sensitive wrote:

<quoted text>
but you have not refuteed the point that a fetus is not an individual with rights - so therefore not protected by the Const.
like the other posters point or not, you are not refuting it, simply displaying your distaste for their use of an analogy...you havent "argued" a fact yet...

Judged:

1

1

1

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text>I think the Supreme Court did that when they decided Roe. If a fetus was an individual with rights then abortion would be illegal.