Question For Lefties, What Is Abortion?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Unborn baby at 4 weeks.

"ET, phone home"

 

[ChristisKing]

He's in the wrong profession.

 

[otto105]

Fortunate-Son Worship

Christofascists are as nasty as the Campus Commie Scum who called the working-class heroes in Vietnam "baby-killers." This copycatting is evidence of a similar Born to Rule source controlling their dogma.

Working class military in Vietnam?

It was fought by the young and lower income men.

 

[alang1216]

It is impossible to hold that belief and the belief that a human being is entitled to any protections of their basic human rights from the moment their life begins, at the same time.

I it not impossible, it is not even difficult, because, unlike you, I make a distinction between a sack of DNA (a fertilized egg) and a recognizable human with senses and a brain. That sheep has legal rights, it can't be mistreated by people, but it's right to life doesn't protect it from wolf's right to kill it.

 

[Chuz Life]

alang1216

Begin:

Given the definitions and meanings of the word "begin," do explain how (in detail) how the view that a human being's right to their life and to the equal protections of our laws should begin when their life does can be consistent with your claim that "abortions should be safe, legal, and rare."

Give sources that support your claim that a human being's life and rights do not begin, until they have a brain or any other arbitrarily decided attribute.

 

[alang1216]

View attachment 1179110
alang1216

Begin:
View attachment 1179106

Given the definitions and meanings of the word "begin," do explain how (in detail) how the view that a human being's right to their life and to the equal protections of our laws should begin when their life does can be consistent with your claim that "abortions should be safe, legal, and rare."

Give sources that support your claim that a human being's life and rights do not begin, until they have a brain or any other arbitrarily decided attribute.

What you don't seem to understand is that every living thing has a 'right to life'. The sheep has a right but so does the wolf. If the wolf was not able to violate the sheep's rights, it would mean sacrificing the wolf's rights. The same applies to soldiers fighting for their lives. The same applies to mothers and fertilized eggs. The rights of one must be balanced by the rights of the other.

 

[Chuz Life]

What you don't seem to understand is that every living thing has a 'right to life'. The sheep has a right but so does the wolf. If the wolf was not able to violate the sheep's rights, it would mean sacrificing the wolf's rights. The same applies to soldiers fighting for their lives. The same applies to mothers and fertilized eggs. The rights of one must be balanced by the rights of the other.

Do all animals have a 14th Amendment Constitutional right to the "equal protection" of our laws?

 

[alang1216]

Do all animals have a 14th Amendment Constitutional right to the "equal protection" of our laws?

Fertilized eggs are not citizens. So you agree that our rights and protections come from the laws of the land?

 

[Chuz Life]

Fertilized eggs are not citizens. So you agree that our rights and protections come from the laws of the land?

If you aren't going to afford me the courtesy of giving a direct answer to my questions, why should I do the same for yours?

Also.

Is this not you?

 

[alang1216]

If you aren't going to afford me the courtesy of giving a direct answer to my questions, why should I do the same for yours?

I didn't realize you thought you were asking a serious question. The 14th applies to 'persons' born in the US so animals are not included, neither are the unborn.

Also.

Is this not you?

View attachment 1179460

It's me but I don't recall what I voted for nor why.

 

[Chuz Life]

I didn't realize you thought you were asking a serious question. The 14th applies to 'persons' born in the US so animals are not included, neither are the unborn.


It's me but I don't recall what I voted for nor why.

Do you have an answer for why (how) a person can be charged with "murder" for killing a child in the womb, if the "child" they killed is not a "person?"

 

[alang1216]

Do you have an answer for why (how) a person can be charged with "murder" for killing a child in the womb, if the "child" they killed is not a "person?"

Have a state pass a law that says killing a child in the womb is murder. You can also pass a state law that says killing a child in the womb is not murder. I don't believe there is a single legal definition of 'person' so states can define anything to be a 'person', including born or unborn humans, animals, natural resources, corporations, etc. AI may soon be included.

 

[Chuz Life]

Post in thread 'Question For Lefties, What Is Abortion?'

Oct 31, 2025

Do you have an answer for why (how) a person can be charged with "murder" for killing a child in the womb, if the "child" they killed is not a "person?"

Have a state pass a law that says killing a child in the womb is murder. You can also pass a state law that says killing a child in the womb is not murder. I don't believe there is a single legal definition of 'person' so states can define anything to be a 'person', including born or unborn humans, animals, natural resources, corporations, etc. AI may soon be included.

• alang1216

As that ^^^^ seems to be your belief.

I realize that you are just another faceless voice on the interwebs (same as I am), but I wonder if you can explain how/ why you believe the language of the Constitution ". . . 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." leaves room to discriminate against any human beings, based on their age, size, location of (especially temporary) level of development?

Do you at least agree with the contradiction that I pointed out, between the legality of abortion in demand, the wording of the Constitution, and the criminality of killing "children in the womb" per the nation's more than 40 "Fetal Homicide Laws?"

Edit to add: In short, if it is not Constitutional for the legal definition and recognition of a man-made construct like "marriage" to vary State by State. . . please explain how it can possibly be Constitutional for the legal definition and recognition of "personhood" to vary State by State.

 

[alang1216]

I realize that you are just another faceless voice on the interwebs (same as I am), but I wonder if you can explain how/ why you believe the language of the Constitution ". . . 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." leaves room to discriminate against any human beings, based on their age, size, location of (especially temporary) level of development?

I'm confident the writers of the Constitution considered the unborn NOT to be persons UNTIL they are born.

Do you at least agree with the contradiction that I pointed out, between the legality of abortion in demand, the wording of the Constitution, and the criminality of killing "children in the womb" per the nation's more than 40 "Fetal Homicide Laws?"

Laws are what we make them and I'm confident the writers of the Constitution considered the unborn NOT to be persons UNTIL they are born. I believe the "Fetal Homicide Laws" do not redefine what it means to be a person but only the punishment when someone other than the mother (or her doctors) cause the death of fetus. They are a way of increasing the severity of the crime (and I have no problem with them).

Edit to add: In short, if it is not Constitutional for the legal definition and recognition of a man-made construct like "marriage" to vary State by State. . . please explain how it can possibly be Constitutional for the legal definition and recognition of "personhood" to vary State by State.

The Constitution covers basic rights but usually leaves the details to the states. Doesn't mean it makes sense.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm confident the writers of the Constitution considered the unborn NOT to be persons UNTIL they are born.

And blacks (slaves) were non-persons, women were lesser persons and had no right to vote or own property. . . on and on.

We already know the framers of the Constitution were not infallible.

Don't we?

Laws are what we make them and I'm confident the writers of the Constitution considered the unborn NOT to be persons UNTIL they are born.

See above.

Then, how can we make this conversation about the 'principles established in the Constitution' rather than the obvious misapplication of those principles by others in the past?

I believe the "Fetal Homicide Laws" do not redefine what it means to be a person but only the punishment when someone other than the mother (or her doctors) cause the death of fetus.

A redefinition is not what was being argued.

It (again) is the application of the existing definitions that is at the center of this.

This is easy to see, even in the language of the federal Fetal Homicide Law.

They are a way of increasing the severity of the crime (and I have no problem with them).

As I linked to before, the language of the Fetal Homicide law itself, the criteria and definitions for murder, manslaughter, and homicide remained the same. It is how those definitions are applied that is affected by the law.

The Constitution covers basic rights but usually leaves the details to the states. Doesn't mean it makes sense.

Thus, the 'petition for redress' mentioned in the 1st Amendment will continue.

 

[alang1216]

And blacks (slaves) were non-persons, women were lesser persons and had no right to vote or own property. . . on and on.

We already know the framers of the Constitution were not infallible.

Don't we?

True but more to the point they reflected the morals of the people at that time.

See above.

Then, how can we make this conversation about the 'principles established in the Constitution' rather than the obvious misapplication of those principles by others in the past?

You want to use a flawed document, written by flawed people, to support your case? Good luck.

A redefinition is not what was being argued.

It (again) is the application of the existing definitions that is at the center of this.

This is easy to see, even in the language of the federal Fetal Homicide Law.

As I linked to before, the language of the Fetal Homicide law itself, the criteria and definitions for murder, manslaughter, and homicide remained the same. It is how those definitions are applied that is affected by the law.

Thus, the 'petition for redress' mentioned in the 1st Amendment will continue.

The law redefined a fetus as a person with legal rights, something that they had never been before. I have no problem with the law so long as it doesn't supersede the rights of the mother.

 

[ChristisKing]

This is sick. That child is beautiful and God bless the mother for choosing life for her beautiful baby girl. Some people can just be SO disgusting!! (I'm Rilly1347 btw.)

 

[Chuz Life]

And blacks (slaves) were non-persons, women were lesser persons and had no right to vote or own property. . . on and on.



We already know the framers of the Constitution were not infallible.

Don't we?

All of the people?

Or just those in power?

See above.

Then, how can we make this conversation about the 'principles established in the Constitution' rather than the obvious misapplication of those principles by others in the past?

You want to use a flawed document, written by flawed people, to support your case? Good luck.

The Constitution, flawed or executed justly in the past or not. . . It is the Supreme Law of our land.

Good Luck changing my mind. Indeed.

A redefinition is not what was being argued.

It (again) is the application of the existing definitions that is at the center of this.

This is easy to see, even in the language of the federal Fetal Homicide Law.


As I linked to before, the language of the Fetal Homicide law itself, the criteria and definitions for murder, manslaughter, and homicide remained the same. It is how those definitions are applied that is affected by the law.


Thus, the 'petition for redress' mentioned in the 1st Amendment will continue.

The law redefined a fetus as a person with legal rights, something that they had never been before. I have no problem with the law so long as it doesn't supersede the rights of the mother.

You can say 'redefined,' but we all know it is more of a recognition. Human beings (natural persons) are not legal constructs like a corporation (legal person) is.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says "all persons" are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

That's all that is being sought in these arguments. Nobody is arguing that a child in the womb should have any more rights than their mother did. . . when she too was a "child in the womb."

Equal protection.

 

[alang1216]

View attachment 1180163

All of the people?

Or just those in power?

No morality could apply to ALL the people but they were elected by at least

You can say 'redefined,' but we all know it is more of a recognition. Human beings (natural persons) are not legal constructs like a corporation (legal person) is.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says "all persons" are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

That's all that is being sought in these arguments. Nobody is arguing that a child in the womb should have any more rights than their mother did. . . when she too was a "child in the womb."

Equal protection.

Unfortunately for your argument, the 14th says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" so it doesn't apply to a fetus.

 

[Chuz Life]

Unfortunately for your argument, the 14th says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" so it doesn't apply to a fetus.

Unfortunately, (for you?) the 14th only uses "born" as a qualification for 'Citizenship' and not for personhood.

The 14th does not limit the 'equal protection of our laws' to 'Citizens.'

It clearly says, "All persons (citizens or not) are entitled to the 'equal protection' of our laws.
"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."


The Supreme Court of the United States even acknowledged this point, as far back as when the oral arguments for Roe vs Wade were taking place.