15th Texan City Becomes ‘Sanctuary’ For The Unborn, Outlaws Abortion Within City Limits

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Seriously though even that is a matter for international courts...

Anyone who thinks our civil laws should be decided upon by some sort of international court is a globalist nut.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But you asked that if kills the host is it innocent. Innocence is the lack of guilt, you said if kill the host isn’t guilty because didn’t have the intention, so it is innocent. You asked the question and you answered it yourself, but dance around the fact of the innocence of the unborn. You are not making any sense.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Hey if I am a nut you must be an soft fruit, sorry but in some cases international is the only way to maintain global peace.
But on national scale I believe your current president is a breath of fresh air, he stands up for your nation and a strong US is good for my nation (usually though you lot did steal our best minds during the blood brain drain but then you also then sold all your own jobs to Asia and built up China whom are laughing at you and us today because of allowing corporations to over rule national common sense)

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Hey if I am a nut you must be an soft fruit, sorry but in some cases international is the only way to maintain global peace.

Sorry, not interested in your globalist nonsense.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And I am not interesting in your domestic dribble, I am not a Globalist but equally I hate National Front pricks.
We are all human's, you are not an alien being or are you and I am certainly not or am I?.
We need borders we need our national identity's and we need patriotism but equally we do not need protectionist idiots putting us into a new dark age.

Hold that thought limited protectionism is actually good common sense but not closed borders crap, you lot forced us to give up our empire on the misguided belief it would be good for your business but in fact it backfired, you built up Japan and even China (despite them being commies but because they had an argument with Stalin) and look what that has gotten you.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
And I am not interesting in your domestic dribble...

My 'domestic dribble' is about American sovereignty and not kowtowing to some foreign body that has no legal basis for dictating United States civil law.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then why are you answering ME, I am British.

a reply to: LABTECH767

It's my polite way of telling you where you can place that court.

i still have no clue why people dont use condoms

a reply to: CafeconLeche1

But you asked that if kills the host is it innocent. Innocence is the lack of guilt, you said if kill the host isn’t guilty because didn’t have the intention, so it is innocent.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker

People should have the right to protect the innocent lives of the unborn.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

If "the unborn" can kill or maim its host mother, is it really that innocent?

If the first question is legitimate, then so is the second question. However, guilt or innocence isn't a factor, in reality. It's empty virtue signaling, because a fertilized egg, an embryo, a fetus bears no guilt or innocence in the mother's joy or pain. It's original sin is its existence, just like the rest of us. And for that sin it must die, sooner or later.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Noooo I am going to have the last word ha.

Seriously though, I have no wish to interfere in US sovereignty my argument is about human rights and various interpretations thereof, does a child in the womb have right's, at what age is a human foetus a human being, at what age does it feel pain, at what age does it start to dream, at what age is there a person, a soul call it as you shall there.

And is it right to abort it just because it is inconvenient, now I can see situations were a mother has seven kid's, no income and can not afford to feed another mouth but what then about adoption there is another woman somewhere who feel's broody but has found out she can not have kid's and would make a lovely, loving mother and probably spoil the kid too much BUT my point is in some circumstances there are argument for and also against abortion.

In other scenarios were a mothers life is in danger, she is the victim of a rape etc well it is rather more in favour though it remains not the Childs fault (or the mothers in those scenario's).

What it really boils down to for me is do you believe in God, nationality is a pile of crap if you do, yes we need our nations but in this moral debate they are irrelevant and people WILL hide behind various laws etc but that is another debate we have gotten sucked into, partially my fault I am sure.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Seriously though, I have no wish to interfere in US sovereignty my argument is about human rights and various interpretations thereof, does a child in the womb have right's, at what age is a human foetus a human being, at what age does it feel pain, at what age does it start to dream, at what age is there a person, a soul call it as you shall there.

That's none of a foreign court's business in the United States. They can GFT.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If it's God's business then it is humanity's business, if it offends God then it should offend Humanity.

Were would you be without international eh, no white people, no black people, were would you be today assuming you even existed?.
The nuclear bomb, BRITISH researchers are estimated to have been up to two years ahead of the NAZI's, they were stalled because of a lack of resources during the war but we still would have developed it by 1946, we gave our research, our papers and our EXPERTS over to US control only for the US then to try to keep control of what was mostly built on British Research and Oppenheim to be given the credit and title father of the atomic bomb - step father more like it.
We were nearly at war with YOU in the 1930's because you had a particular anti British president a real prick in charge, Hitler was planning to offer us his support and naval assets and the world may have been very much darker AND you had a huge Nazi party at home, Canada was geared up to launch a counter invasion when you invaded them, don't mock they are bloody good soldiers perhaps even better than the best of yours, be believed we did not have the strength and had drawn up plans to hold you in the Atlantic and not go beyond that leaving Canada to there own fate - they would never have forgiven us BUT with Germany re-arming and coming to our aid the world would have been very different (and much, much more evil).
You only entered the war because of Hawaii, we desperately needed your support and at that time you did have a good man in Charge (more like Trump than many of you will give credit).

So you see sometimes you don't see the hand of God but in some event's you can not ignore it, you say it does not matter and it is yours to decide what hubris, what pride, what SIN, GOD is very real and it's HIS WORLD, the land your nation and My nation occupies belongs not to YOU or me or even the native (just earlier migrants) American's but to him, the world and the fullness thereof belongs to GOD.

You ignore and deny him at your own peril, he cares about these children, HE CARES.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
If it's God's business then it is humanity's business, if it offends God then it should offend Humanity.

Yeah, okay, you go justify your globalist nonsense however you want.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

According to The Supreme Court and Roe V Wade, the 14th Amendment says that little American doesn't become an American until it's born. They ruled that states have certain authority over that soon to be American once it achieves viability. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies to the "born".

Let's take that argument a bit farther...

The 14th Amendment does indeed say that persons "born" under certain conditions become American and state citizens. OK, so the unborn child is not a citizen. But you then say that this means the unborn child, because they are not a citizen, are not entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If we follow that reasoning, then anyone not a citizen is not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That means all immigrants may be killed without consequence. Should we enforce our borders by simply opening fire on anyone attempting to cross? They are not citizens, so according to you they have no rights.

Of course that is not the way it works. The First Amendment does not limit the rights contained therein to citizens. Therefore, these rights still apply to the unborn... especially since by making your 14th amendment argument you are admitting that the unborn are "persons," just not "citizens."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Not sure why either of you are arguing about citizenship in regards the Roe v. Wade decision, that was about privacy and due process rights.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I never made a citizenship argument. No one who hasn't yet been born is subject to the jurisdiction of the US Government. Even non citizens within our borders are still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of where they were born, and have the right to life, liberty and equal protection of the laws of the land.

Amendment XIV
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.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I never made a citizenship argument.

Amendment XIV
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.

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.

When you invoke this clause of the 14th Amendment, you certainly are making a citizenship argument! That is what it says.

It also indicates clearly that all persons not born or naturalized are still persons. Otherwise the wording is redundant. If there are "persons born" it then follows that there can be "persons unborn." Ergo, an unborn child is still a person by the 14th Amendment.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
As per your legal position, that excludes the unborn... they are not citizens.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
If you want to invoke the 14th Amendment, abortion without due process is unconstitutional. Thank you for showing the unconstitutionality of abortion and therefore of Roe v. Wade. If a woman wishes to have an abortion, she must first provide the unborn child within her the chance to undergo due process of law. That means she will have to file suit against her unborn child and have it represented in court by an attorney.

I wonder if that process will take more than 9 months?

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If the child is subject to an abortion, so is the mother. They are both persons within (not subject to, but within) the jurisdiction of the United States. There must be equal protection of the laws.

ETA: That was not clear. If a woman can kill a person within her body due to an argument that said person is endangering her, then a child has the same right to kill a woman who is endangering it. Better not smoke or drink while pregnant! Your unborn child can petition to have you executed!

The Right-to-Life movement thanks you for your contribution.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not sure why either of you are arguing about citizenship in regards the Roe v. Wade decision, that was about privacy and due process rights.

To point out the idiocy of her argument.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

When you invoke this clause of the 14th Amendment, you certainly are making a citizenship argument! That is what it says.

Only in regards to Labtech's argument that the unborn here are little Americans. They are not Americans until they're born. The Fourteenth Amendment qualifies that "persons" are born [somewhere], in order to be subject to the jurisdiction of government whilst within its borders.

To point out the idiocy of her argument.

That's what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973. So, I guess I'm in good company with my argument.

When the Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution, what percentage of personage did it give to the unborn? Not 3/5ths.