Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion

[Monk-Eye]

" Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is Under Sedition By States As A Result Of US Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion "

* Constitutional Originalism Versus Judicial Activism *

Blackmun wrote this - ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands the " Logically , of course " statement of Blackmun , that a state is comprised of citizens and without citizens a state interest does not exist and as citizens and their constitutional protections are instantiated by birth , birth is a requirement for equal protection .

Without judicial activism , by following a rigorous methodology of constitutional originalism , the Roe V Wade court had only one option which was to render a ruling that as a fetus had not met the requirement of live birth and 10th amendment state interest does not exist until parturition , whereby abortion can not be outlawed under any circumstance .

Through judicial activism , the Roe V Wade court decided that at post natural viability a live birth was imminent and a state interest could begin .

By deciding that state interests begin prior to birth of a fetus , equal protection of citizenship is under duress and in a state of sedition exists .

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Really? Is that why a person is often charged with 2 murders when a pregnant woman & unborn baby are killed?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Us Supreme Court Issued An Order Of Sedition "

* Letter Of The Law Violated By Ruling *

That the current supreme court ignored this matter of factual law is terribly concerning .

14th Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

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.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant​

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Differences Between Facts And Conjectural Posturing "

* Theistic Biological Life Versus Constitutional Wrights *

Really? Is that why a person is often charged with 2 murders when a pregnant woman & unborn baby are killed?

Notice that there is not an option in those laws for capital punishment , because to be sentenced to death one must remove the wright to life of another , and since a fetus is without constitutional protections - a wright to life .

Had capital punishment been included in such laws , the entire precept would have unraveled .

An individual which kills an animal in an inhumane manner may be charged with a crime with a crime commensurate with the crime , however none would rave that the animal had a constitutional wright to life by which it could not be killed .

Notice the legal jargon for the punishment of " had the injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother. " , as all offenses are actually against the mother .

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children​

(a)
(1)
Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
...
(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By deciding that state interests begin prior to birth of a fetus , equal protection of citizenship is under duress and in a state of sedition exists .

What person has their citizenship threatened?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Letter Of The Law Broken By Leap And Then Look Legal Incompetence "

* Sedition By Constitutionally Unauthorized Authorization For State Interests *

What person has their citizenship threatened?

The clause for equal protection with a citizen ( citizenship ) in us 14th amendment is being violated .

Us supreme court has issued an order authorizing state interests in violation of us constitution , by authorizing a state to provide equal protection to a fetus , which is not entitled to equal protection with a citizen , because the fetus has not met the requirement of birth .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

" Letter Of The Law Broken By Leap And Then Look Legal Incompetence "

* Sedition By Constitutionally Unauthorized Authorization For State Interests *

The clause for equal protection with a citizen ( citizenship ) in us 14th amendment is being violated .

Us supreme court has issued an order authorizing state interests in violation of us constitution , by authorizing a state to provide equal protection to a fetus , which is not entitled to equal protection with a citizen , because the fetus has not met the requirement of birth .

Thanks.

But what person has their citizenship threatened?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Extrapolation Of A Super Set "

* Wrights Of A Citizen Ship *

Thanks.

But what person has their citizenship threatened?

How would you have phrased it ?

 

[johngaltshrugged]

" Letter Of The Law Broken By Leap And Then Look Legal Incompetence "

* Sedition By Constitutionally Unauthorized Authorization For State Interests *

The clause for equal protection with a citizen ( citizenship ) in us 14th amendment is being violated .

Us supreme court has issued an order authorizing state interests in violation of us constitution , by authorizing a state to provide equal protection to a fetus , which is not entitled to equal protection with a citizen , because the fetus has not met the requirement of birth .

No, it isn't. Recognizing the rights of an unborn human being neither takes protection from someone else or provides extra protections to others.
You know what does violate equal protection? affirmative action, baby murder, mask mandates, clot shot mandates, censorship, red flag laws

I guess that's why someone killing an unborn baby is charged with HOMICIDE, because they aren't human?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Ouroboros Sanctimonious Beast Swallowing Its Own Tail "

* Suck The Poison Out If You Can *

No, it isn't. Recognizing the rights of an unborn human being neither takes protection from someone else or provides extra protections to others.
You know what does violate equal protection? affirmative action, baby murder, mask mandates, clot shot mandates, censorship, red flag laws

I guess that's why someone killing an unborn baby is charged with HOMICIDE, because they aren't human?

Just remember , facts do not care about how you feel .

Catholic church does not agree with abortion or capital punishment because it involves a biological life , but that is a theistic argument to establish religion against us first amendment .

Constitutional originalism accepts both abortion and capital punishment based only on whether a wright to life exists .

A fetus has not met the requirement for equal protection and an individual sentenced to death has had their wright to life removed .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

" Extrapolation Of A Super Set "

* Wrights Of A Citizen Ship *

How would you have phrased it ?

How would I have phrased your claim?
What was your claim?

 

[hadit]

" Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is Under Sedition By States As A Result Of US Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion "

* Constitutional Originalism Versus Judicial Activism *

Blackmun wrote this - ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands the " Logically , of course " statement of Blackmun , that a state is comprised of citizens and without citizens a state interest does not exist and as citizens and their constitutional protections are instantiated by birth , birth is a requirement for equal protection .

Without judicial activism , by following a rigorous methodology of constitutional originalism , the Roe V Wade court had only one option which was to render a ruling that as a fetus had not met the requirement of live birth and 10th amendment state interest does not exist until parturition , whereby abortion can not be outlawed under any circumstance .

Through judicial activism , the Roe V Wade court decided that at post natural viability a live birth was imminent and a state interest could begin .

By deciding that state interests begin prior to birth of a fetus , equal protection of citizenship is under duress and in a state of sedition exists .

Interesting that an unborn child can have property rights but not the right to life.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Non Sequitur Actually "

* Prosecution Rests *

Interesting that an unborn child can have property rights but not the right to life.

Criminal vs. Civil Law: What's the Difference? - St Francis School of Law

Explore the differences between criminal and civil law, including salary ranges for both criminal and civil lawyers.

stfrancislaw.com

The key difference between civil and criminal law comes in the courts themselves, as criminal cases are typically prosecuted by state officials, whereas civil cases take place between plaintiffs, or private individuals/organizations. The overall processes are different, as is how they’re ultimately found guilty (criminal court) or liable (civil court).

 

[johngaltshrugged]

" Ouroboros Sanctimonious Beast Swallowing Its Own Tail "

* Suck The Poison Out If You Can *

Just remember , facts do not care about how you feel .

Catholic church does not agree with abortion or capital punishment because it involves a biological life , but that is a theistic argument to establish religion against us first amendment .

Constitutional originalism accepts both abortion and capital punishment based only on whether a wright to life exists .

A fetus has not met the requirement for equal protection and an individual sentenced to death has had their wright to life removed .

Exactly, facts don't care about your strong emotions on infanticide.
An unborn baby is a human being from the moment of conception.
Killing one is murder hence the homicide charges against someone who kills one during the commission of a crime.
Nobody cares that you feel real strong that you should get to murder babies, it's not a Constitutional right.
A human being will always qualify for the natural rights of a human being.
Try it on a fellow progbot, they're dumb enough to believe you

 

[Monk-Eye]

" A'Priori Political Science Deduction "

* Partisan Deceit Versus Patriotic Allegiance *

How would I have phrased your claim?
What was your claim?

The choice to introduce a constitutional originalism basis for abortion continues to be that the entitlement is based on " citizenship " , as the requirement to become a citizen is birth and birth is required for equal protection .

Logically , of course , equal protection requires birth and the only constitutional originalism option for the Roe v Wade court was to issue a ruling that state interests did not begin until the equal protection requirement of birth was met .

The court ignored the requirement for onset of state interests by virtue of a birth requirement , by malicious negligence it ignored the overt letter of law in title 1 section 8 that clarifies the definition of a person as one which must be born .

For both reasons the current supreme court has committed an act of sedition .

* Challenging To Participate For Establishing Ignorance Or Partisan *

Assuming one is able to articulate an argument would confirm an ability to understand it .

Consider the myopia of those who want and an answer to their question , even though the same question had already been answered within the thread but they were too impotent to read it .

 

[TNHarley]

Really? Is that why a person is often charged with 2 murders when a pregnant woman & unborn baby are killed?

If i cut your legs off, its assault.
If a doctor does it with your support, its an amputation.

 

[TNHarley]

Exactly, facts don't care about your strong emotions on infanticide.
An unborn baby is a human being from the moment of conception.
Killing one is murder hence the homicide charges against someone who kills one during the commission of a crime.
Nobody cares that you feel real strong that you should get to murder babies, it's not a Constitutional right.
A human being will always qualify for the natural rights of a human being.
Try it on a fellow progbot, they're dumb enough to believe you

The def of a human being is a male or female. At fertilization, it is neither. IE Its literally not a human being at conception. That is just your emotion coming out.
Remember, you said this, "facts don't care about your strong emotions."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

" A'Priori Political Science Deduction "

* Partisan Deceit Versus Patriotic Allegiance *

The choice to introduce a constitutional originalism basis for abortion continues to be that the entitlement is based on " citizenship " , as the requirement to become a citizen is birth and birth is required for equal protection .

Logically , of course , equal protection requires birth and the only constitutional originalism option for the Roe v Wade court was to issue a ruling that state interests did not begin until the equal protection requirement of birth was met .

The court ignored the requirement for onset of state interests by virtue of a birth requirement , by malicious negligence it ignored the overt letter of law in title 1 section 8 that clarifies the definition of a person as one which must be born .

For both reasons the current supreme court has committed an act of sedition .

* Challenging To Participate For Establishing Ignorance Or Partisan *

Assuming one is able to articulate an argument would confirm an ability to understand it .

Consider the myopia of those who want and an answer to their question , even though the same question had already been answered within the thread but they were too impotent to read it .

The choice to introduce a constitutional originalism basis for abortion continues to be that the entitlement is based on " citizenship " , as the requirement to become a citizen is birth and birth is required for equal protection .

The "right to abortion" was never based on citizenship, Illegal aliens have abortions all the time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The def of a human being is a male or female. At fertilization, it is neither. IE Its literally not a human being at conception. That is just your emotion coming out.
Remember, you said this, "facts don't care about your strong emotions."

At fertilization, it is neither.

Why not?

IE Its literally not a human being at conception.

What is it? A fish? A bird?

 

[TNHarley]

At fertilization, it is neither.

Why not?

I am wrong. My bad.