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.

 

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

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Only in regards to Labtech's argument

Irrelevant. If you are going to present an argument, as you have done, stand behind it.


The Fourteenth Amendment qualifies that "persons" are born [somewhere], in order to be subject to the jurisdiction of government whilst within its borders.

No, it does not. It says that persons who are born can be citizens, implying that persons includes both born and unborn. It further clarifies that no person, which includes the unborn, can be denied life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law.

You do not get to change words around in legal documents. They say what they say.


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

It can also be overturned, especially with your argument. The Supreme Court has that ability. Especially once a certain Justice is approved. I will personally celebrate when that happens... mainly because of people like you.

Ironically, you seem to have found an actual reference to the unborn in the 14th Amendment. Now, I was hoping that laws could be enacted after Roe v. Wade is overturned to protect both the unborn and the mothers... but thanks to this little revelation you have found, I guess that will take a Constitutional Amendment now.


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

The 14th Amendment was not written nor ratified by the Founding Fathers. Therefore the opinions of the Founding Fathers are irrelevant when considering it. The views of those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment might provide relevancy.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Irrelevant. If you are going to present an argument, as you have done, stand behind it.


I do stand behind my argument. The unborn are not American citizens and they are not "persons" subject to the jurisdiction to the government, because they haven't been born.



No, it does not. It says that persons who are born can be citizens, implying that persons includes both born and unborn.


No, not implied. Why would that be implied?



The 14th Amendment was not written nor ratified by the Founding Fathers. Therefore the opinions of the Founding Fathers are irrelevant when considering it. The views of those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment might provide relevancy.


Did northerners stop beating their wives? Pass laws to protect pregnant women for domestic violence, in the name of the unborn? Did southern slave owners suddenly start respecting the rights of newly freed black women's unborn, while denying them, their husbands and offspring equal rights? Why would the 14th Amendment imply fetal rights when women still didn't even have rights?


edit on 4-10-2020 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


I do stand behind my argument. The unborn are not American citizens and they are not "persons" subject to the jurisdiction to the government, because they haven't been born.

No, not implied. Why would that be implied?

Directly stated: "persons" "born."
Implied to exist: "persons" "unborn."

What is an unborn child? Is it not a person that has not been born, according to that statement? If not, what does constitute an unborn person? If there are "born persons" it follows that there must be "unborn persons."

If I mention a "red car," it implies that there are other colors of cars besides red. Otherwise why would I mention the color red? If I make the statement "red cars are fast," does that mean that cars of different colors cannot be fast? No, it means all red cars are fast. It says nothing about yellow cars.

"All persons born or naturalized" also implies that there are persons who are unborn and that there are persons who are not naturalized. It does not state that such are not citizens, only that those born or naturalized are. So your argument fails on two points, actually: the 14th Amendment implies that a person can be unborn, thus granting it the rights granted to persons; the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to persons born or naturalized, but it does not specifically deny citizenship to persons unborn or unnaturalized.


Did northerners stop beating their wives? Pass laws to protect pregnant women for domestic violence, in the name of the unborn? Did southern slave owners suddenly start respecting the rights of newly freed black women's unborn, while denying them, their husbands and offspring equal rights? Why would the 14th Amendment imply fetal rights when women still didn't even have rights?

Completely irrelevant points. Somewhere in the country, someone just assaulted someone while I was typing. That does not mean assault is legal.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 06:33 PM
link   
FACT: An unborn individual has a genotype and phenotype different from the mother.

FACT: An unborn individual is living, cells are dividing, Kreb's Cycle is occuring.

FACT: An unborn individual is human.


So a distinct living individual, a human, under current law, can have it's life extinguished based on the arbitrary whims of the mother.



posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Directly stated: "persons" "born."
Implied to exist: "persons" "unborn."



All persons born or naturalized in the United States


No. What's implied is that people are born elsewhere.



"All persons born or naturalized" also implies that there are persons who are unborn and that there are persons who are not naturalized. It does not state that such are not citizens, only that those born or naturalized are. So your argument fails on two points, actually: the 14th Amendment implies that a person can be unborn, thus granting it the rights granted to persons; the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to persons born or naturalized, but it does not specifically deny citizenship to persons unborn or unnaturalized.



nor shall any state deprive any person


Nope. It's a stretch to believe that the mention of a group of people addresses also the absence of a group of people.

No, the 14th Amendment is implying people born elsewhere and not naturalized are still subject to and protected under the laws whilst within US borders.



posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


What's implied is that people are born elsewhere.

That still does not change the fact that the 14th Amendment only makes such people citizens. It then goes on to specify one sentence as pertaining to citizens and the other two, which are the ones that contain the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are specified as applying to persons.


It's a stretch to believe that the mention of a group of people addresses also the absence of a group of people.

Seems quite straightforward to me. If there are "born persons," there must also be "unborn persons." Of course, you are also claiming that at the second a child comes out of the birth canal, personhood, individuality, and personality all suddenly magically materialize. So I guess it's no stretch to use such a vivid imagination to make some of these claims.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Seems quite straightforward to me. If there are "born persons," there must also be "unborn persons."


To you and Justice Scalia and Amy Coney Barrett it does. But even Justice Rehnquist did make that leap in his dissent in Roe V Wade.



posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then I suppose it's a good thing we now have (or will have shortly) three new Constitutionalist Justices.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

We'll see. Justice Rehnquist's dissent was about State's rights, not fetal rights.
edit on 4-10-2020 by Sookiechacha because: Want to correct previous post that Justice Rehnquist did NOT make that leap...



posted on Oct, 5 2020 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Justice Rehnquist has a legal basis. Neither abortion nor healthcare is enumerated as a duty of the Federal government in the Constitution, nor is it prohibited to the states. The 10th Amendment means that it is then the respponsibility of the several states.

That's two Amendments broken by the Roe v. Wade decision. Shall we go for three?

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 5 2020 @ 03:30 AM
link   
** General Reply **

Regardless of where you stand, the future of this is the coming together of Roe V. Wade and The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and similar State laws.

Which is humorously contradictory in my current state of residence.

There are approximately 4 months of in utero development in which a person could kill a woman on her way to get a legal abortion (before 24 weeks) and be charged with double murder. (After 8 weeks)

It's a mess of federal enforcement vs. states rights. Just like everything else of controversy.
edit on 5-10-2020 by Degradation33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2020 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Doesn’t mean I want my tax $ supporting them, or they should be legal. People also gonna rape, we should keep that illegal and not provide resources to make it easier.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog



posted on Oct, 5 2020 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Degradation33

There are approximately 4 months of in utero development in which a person could kill a woman on her way to get a legal abortion (before 24 weeks) and be charged with double murder. (After 8 weeks)



There is a difference between choice and having that choice taken from you.



posted on Oct, 5 2020 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Degradation33

There are approximately 4 months of in utero development in which a person could kill a woman on her way to get a legal abortion (before 24 weeks) and be charged with double murder. (After 8 weeks)



There is a difference between choice and having that choice taken from you.



That is a perfect tagline for what an unborn fetus might say.



posted on Oct, 5 2020 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I gave a compromise. No one want to debate the merits and flaws? Or would that argument cause a problem countering why a baby shouldn’t be killed?



posted on Oct, 5 2020 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

what blows my mind the most is that its the perception of the mother than determines if it is "life" or not. That is such a flimsy, lousy hurdle.

If the mom doesn't want it, and its removed/kill, its abortion. If the mom wants it and its removed/killed, it murder.

In what other realm does criminal law leave it up to the perception of an individual to determine a crime or not?



posted on Oct, 5 2020 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck




Irrelevant. If you are going to present an argument, as you have done, stand behind it.


I do stand behind my argument. The unborn are not American citizens and they are not "persons" subject to the jurisdiction to the government, because they haven't been born.


So the assault of a pregnant woman that results in her and her unborn childs death isn't 2 murders?

guess that needs to be taken back to SCOTUS then.



posted on Oct, 5 2020 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Degradation33

There are approximately 4 months of in utero development in which a person could kill a woman on her way to get a legal abortion (before 24 weeks) and be charged with double murder. (After 8 weeks)



There is a difference between choice and having that choice taken from you.



That is a perfect tagline for what an unborn fetus might say.


I expected this. Sorry it was you.

Person pregnant has the legal right to terminate. It’s no one else’s business.

No one else has that right.



posted on Oct, 5 2020 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee


I expected this. Sorry it was you.

Person pregnant has the legal right to terminate. It’s no one else’s business.

No one else has that right.


This is an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Yes, SCOTUS ruled this. It doesn't mean it is correct.
edit on 10/5/2020 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2020 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Annee


I expected this. Sorry it was you.

Person pregnant has the legal right to terminate. It’s no one else’s business.

No one else has that right.


This is an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Yes, SCOTUS ruled this. It doesn't mean it is correct.


It’s not a belief.

Law should not be determined by personal belief.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join