It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This Epitomizes Why Abortion Is Wrong !

page: 16
8
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Bone75

You should start a thread about it. I'd also like to know why shows like Modern Family would portray pregnant women as crazy.



OR portraying

# All blondes as dizzy?

# The aged as having ..... senior moments?

LOL!!!


You forgot about # women drivers.




posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: igor_ats

The right to usurp anothers bodily integrity against their will was what Roe was about. Having "equal rights" won't change that.

Baloney.

What the court said in Roe was that, while the state had a compelling interest in protecting the unborn, during the first trimester, abortion was "safer than allowing gestation to continue", so the state had to butt out and leave the decision of whether to abort the child to the woman and her doctor.


Again, granting "equal rights" won't change that. Because even persons born don't have such rights. The right to usurp another's bodily resources against their will.

If you actually read Roe, the decision wasn't based solely on "oh it's safer than childbirth".


originally posted by: adjensen
Roe hinges on a claim to privacy, which is a stretch of epic proportions.


How so? You cannot mandate that a woman *will* bear a pregnancy without invading her right to her own bodily integrity.

The "stretch of epic proportions" is on the shoulders who think Roe has no legal precedence.


originally posted by: adjensen
Under Roe/Doe, the unborn have no rights, invalidating the statement in the Declaration of Independence that they have inalienable rights, which the abortion industry gets around by saying that they are not alive, and thus not entitled to such protection.


Nice try, it's not alive it's "All persons born..." Even under recent fetal homicide laws, the fetus isn't a person, it is still classified as a fetus.

Pro-lifers talk about interpreting the Constitution "the way it was written", unfortunatley for them it leads to just the opposite conclusion they want.

Ever read the 14th Amendment? The very first section reads "All persons born..." An infant has been born...a fetus, of course, has not. A fetus isn't a citizen, thus it doesn't have the rights a newborn would have, or an adult.

The historic meaning of personhood is born persons! Fetuses could not own property, or be heirs to a will. The event that perfected their rights as persons was birth. A fetus has never been considered the same as born person, it has never had legal status independent of the mother. Abortion, even prior to Roe v Wade, has never been considered murder in any US state.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: igor_ats


Ever read the 14th Amendment? The very first section reads "All persons born..." An infant has been born...
The historic meaning of personhood is born persons! The event that perfected their rights as persons was birth.







Bottom line



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: igor_ats


Ever read the 14th Amendment? The very first section reads "All persons born..." An infant has been born...
The historic meaning of personhood is born persons! The event that perfected their rights as persons was birth.
Bottom line


The 14th amendment was drafted in 1868, during Reconstruction and was a response to the status of former slaves.


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.


As the United States was experiencing an explosion of immigrants, then not only citizens born but naturalized as well.


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


At this time, not even Native Americans who were not taxed could be considered persons under the 14th amendment and as it directly relates to Representatives and voting, the 14th Amendment establishes the age of voters at 21 years of age. As this then is directly related to males voting, then women could not be considered citizens (persons) under the 14th Amendment.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


This means that you may not run for office if you are engaged in rebellion or insurrection, unless Congress takes a vote.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


This was a direct response to how much the Federal government is willing to pay for Reconstruction of the Southern states. And again, slaves are mentioned in this section. The 14th amendment is not about establishing personhood, but the rights of former slaves.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article


Only Congress has the power to determine who is a person. But since all of the 14th Amendment is directly related to, connected and derived from the issue of slavery and Reconstruction, this amendment can not be used to establish personhood, because women and Native Americans did not have the right to vote at this time. So according to the 14th Amendment, a woman is not a person.

This was an overturn of the Dred Scott decision, that had declared that slaves were not citizens as they were property of the owner. But Roe vs. Wade is about privacy, and yet by using the 14th amendment to support the argument is not about who is a person, but who is a citizen. And because it depends upon the term, "born" simply addressed the status of black slaves, but yet it never gave citizenship status to Native Americans or women.

The right to vote was the first fundamental right of citizens, therefore if one is basing the 14th amendment to make the argument that "citizen means one who is born", not exactly, because the 14th amendment gives the right to vote. Except for Native Americans and women.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy



I don't need to know the history of US laws. Other countries besides the

US have laws too ... and concerning abortions ....


I would say the majority including the US? go along with the bottom line being:-


The historic meaning of 'personhood' is born persons... and the event that

perfected their rights as a 'person' was "BIRTH"



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: WarminIndy



I don't need to know the history of US laws. Other countries besides the

US have laws too ... and concerning abortions ....


I would say the majority including the US? go along with the bottom line being:-


The historic meaning of 'personhood' is born persons... and the event that

perfected their rights as a 'person' was "BIRTH"



You gave the thumbs up for the post asking whether the other poster ever read the 14th Amendment, so I gave you the 14th Amendment as it was written. If you want to argue US law, then I suggest you know US law.

Whether or not the historic meaning of person is "birth", then show it by our Constitution. It is our Constitution that is prevailing law in the United States. I am not on here arguing UK law or Chinese law, this whole discussion is US law, so don't get upset when I post the very law you are debating.

Are you saying the US needs to do away with our Constitution to accommodate your views?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

You gave the thumbs up for the post asking whether the other poster ever read the 14th Amendment, so I gave you the 14th Amendment as it was written. If you want to argue US law, then I suggest you know US law.




You either misread or misunderstood my post!


Why on earth would I want to argue US law
The chances of it ever effecting

my life is nil.


If you had looked you would have noted that I had condensed most of the quote

of the poster I had replied to, to the couple of sentences to which I gave them

the
to a point with which I am in full agreement



I am not discussing 'law' .... LOL I leave that to the lawyers



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: WarminIndy

You gave the thumbs up for the post asking whether the other poster ever read the 14th Amendment, so I gave you the 14th Amendment as it was written. If you want to argue US law, then I suggest you know US law.




You either misread or misunderstood my post!


Why on earth would I want to argue US law
The chances of it ever effecting

my life is nil.


If you had looked you would have noted that I had condensed most of the quote

of the poster I had replied to, to the couple of sentences to which I gave them

the
to a point with which I am in full agreement



I am not discussing 'law' .... LOL I leave that to the lawyers


And the interpretation of laws are what affect our lives, daily. It is incumbent upon us to understand what our laws do say and the motives behind interpreting such laws. You interpreted the law to suit a particular view, but yet didn't know the very law that was in discussion or how those laws affected the people they did.

I feel that by using the 14th Amendment was a poor example, because it gave no rights to women as women were not considered full citizens. Did you know that with each immigration law, a woman actually gave up citizenship to marry an immigrant from a particular country that had not been guaranteed citizenship. Throughout our history, the immigration laws changed over and over that by the 1970s, in which Roe vs. Wade was argued, there should have been other amendments argued that would have fully explained her rights as a citizen. That didn't happen until 1920, and Native Americans did not receive citizenship until 1923.

If this whole debate is structured upon the definition of citizen = person by birth, only males were granted that right and only became full citizens upon reaching the age of 21.

The 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision. There has been a slow progress toward recognizing what a person is, however, with each states' laws regarding definitions of persons, some states define persons as the unborn. These were provided in an earlier link about Fetal Homicide laws.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Just offering up some alternative view point on this from a site I found just today. After decades of riot from the Christian Right, it was a relief to see the other side of the coin finally finding its voice.

The bible tells us when a fetus is a living being


Ro
edit on 8-5-2014 by Rosha because: typo gremlins



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join