Roe vs Wade vs facts

[JBvM]

A Fetus is not a Citizen. It has no rights. Unless of course you want activists to step in and claim representation

An obstetrician is trained that they are treating two patients when treating a woman who is pregnant. Therefore two Individuals. Medically speaking anyway.

By the way. In terms of Legal rights, the unborn do have them. And theyre fully enforceable. the unborn will be represented in a court. We can start with inheritance rights if something happens to the parents. For one thing.

For one thing
You're being disingenuous and specious here

 

[hazlnut]

Abortion is not legal under American constitutional law.

Please cite the specific prohibitive legislation.

that's not the way the Constitution works

You said constitutional law -- which included SCOTUS decisions and precedent.

You proved you don't know what you are talking about right out of the gate.

no fact, just wishful thinking...

 

[hazlnut]

Roe Vs Wade Vs facts
Abortion is not legal under American constitutional law.
Too bad the founders of the nation can't come back to tell us what a bunch of idiots we are.
For the U.S. government to execute someone, or give authority to execute someone, a person has to be found guilty of committing a crime in a court of law.
The U.S. government was never given authority to randomly choose people to be executed.
No state that authorizes abortion can do so without being in violation of federal constitutional rights.
There is no greater form of corruption that one innocent person having to die because another person claims they have a RIGHT under the law.
The Atheist Democrats have an answer for everything, they say "it's not a person until it's born"
OK well, i'm going to go to the Ford plant and drive a truck off the property without paying for it, before they install the antenna, because it's not a truck yet.
What are we? 12 years old?
I guess bullsht is more believable when it comes from someone in a suit with a big title.
We know the Democrats are going to take the side of evil, but what is staggering to think about is how many Republicans have been going along with this.
Every politician who considers themselves a proponent of the Constitution should have been banging pots and pans together in every interview, saying we need to stop these unconstitutional executions.
The Democrats took a few horror stories of "back alley abortions" and legalized a holocaust with them.
We call ourselves a Christian nation and we kill far more people than the pagans did in human sacrifice, and we have surpassed barbarism of the Aztecs ripping someone's heart out and pushing them down a pyramid.
The whole time the Atheist Democrats are laughing their ass off of what they do to our country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
People say there may be a time when a woman has to choose between her life and the kid's.
Well, i guess that decision is up to her, but if the Democrats are going to use that to get their foot-in-the-door for an abortion clinic on every corner, then we have to stop it completely.

Let's be reminded that Ron Paul has been a doctor his whole life, and never saw one case where a woman had to choose between her life or the baby's life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If we're going to be telling woman they're not going to be having abortions, then we're going to have to do an emergency clean up of the adoption / foster care system.
Currently 70% to 80% of children who enter the system suffer some form of abuse.
The child molester Democrats are going to be standing by waiting to expand
their control over that too.
We're going to need wise people in politics to solve these problems, not these dopes in suits we got.

Except you missed out the part that life is considered to start when the baby is born.

Oppsie, missed that one.

What Republicans need to do is, deem all fetuses corporations, then they’ll be given rights as persons.

Since corporations don't have a soul, they'd be mostly right...

 

[JBvM]

A Fetus is not a Citizen. It has no rights. Unless of course you want activists to step in and claim representation

An obstetrician is trained that they are treating two patients when treating a woman who is pregnant. Therefore two Individuals. Medically speaking anyway.

By the way. In terms of Legal rights, the unborn do have them. And theyre fully enforceable. the unborn will be represented in a court. We can start with inheritance rights if something happens to the parents. For one thing.

You're just too willfully ignorant in your desire to push an ideological agenda masked as some sort of moral crusade. You're one of those self-appointed Tribunes. But not of any living breathing people, just of the unborn

Medically speaking? Okay, let's have at it

Refusal of Medically Recommended Treatment During Pregnancy - ACOG
Recommendations
On the basis of the principles outlined in this Committee Opinion, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College) makes the following recommendations:

• Pregnancy is not an exception to the principle that a decisionally capable patient has the right to refuse treatment, even treatment needed to maintain life. Therefore, a decisionally capable pregnant woman’s decision to refuse recommended medical or surgical interventions should be respected.

 

[JBvM]

A Fetus is not a Citizen. It has no rights. Unless of course you want activists to step in and claim representation

An obstetrician is trained that they are treating two patients when treating a woman who is pregnant. Therefore two Individuals. Medically speaking anyway.

By the way. In terms of Legal rights, the unborn do have them. And theyre fully enforceable. the unborn will be represented in a court. We can start with inheritance rights if something happens to the parents. For one thing.

Even people who would take you side are usually conflicted in their arguments, but at least some (unlike you) try and be honest

"The entire legal case is utterly confused. Given that fetuses are not individuated persons with rights, Stodghill and his attorneys had no proper legal grounds to sue under the wrongful-death statute, which is specifically restricted to “the death of a person.”"
Fetuses Don’t Have Rights; Pregnant Women Do; This Distinction is Crucial - The Objective Standard

You people are no different than Muslim sects in Mumbai. Which shows you to be more of an American Taliban, than patriots or true Christians

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY? (In Mumbai, India)
The 1971 MTP act specifically mentions laws regarding:

• When a pregnancy can be terminated.
• By whom it can be terminated.
• Place where pregnancy can be terminated.
• The punishments of violation.

The major point of discussion in relation of these laws is that no pregnancy can be terminated after 20 weeks have elapsed in any circumstance unless there is a life-threatening medical emergency to the mother, like in a situation of a threatened abortion. Hence, even if a mother is diagnosed to have a baby with anencephaly or multiple defects incompatible to life after birth, she will be forced to keep the baby once the time limit of 20 weeks has been crossed.
Rights of an unborn baby versus the social and legal constraints of parents: Birth of a new debate

In the USA

Fetal Rights Fetal Rights
The rights of any unborn human fetus, which is generally a developing human from roughly eight weeks after conception tobirth.

Like other categories such as Civil Rights and Human Rights, fetal rights embraces a complex variety of topics and issuesinvolving a number of areas of the law, including criminal, employment, health care, and Family Law.

Historically, under both English Common Law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights.Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the fetus treated as a part of her. Nevertheless, U.S. law has in certain instances granted the fetus limited rights, particularly as medical science has made it increasingly possible to directly view, monitor, diagnose, and treat the fetus as a patient.

The term fetal rights came into wide usage following the landmark 1973 Abortion case roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct.705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a constitutionally guaranteed unqualified right to abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy. She also has a right to terminate a pregnancy in the second trimester,although the state may limit that right when the procedure poses a health risk to the mother that is greater than the risk of carrying the fetus to term. In making its decision, the Court ruled that a fetus is not a person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, the Court also maintained that the state has an interest in protecting the life of a fetus after viability—that is, after the point at which the fetus is capable of living outside the womb. As a result, states were permitted to outlaw abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy except when the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

 

[fncceo]

You people are no different than Muslim sects in Mumbai.

Um... Mumbai (nee Bombay) is a city in India, capitol of Maharashtra state and isn't predominently Muslim.

 

[JBvM]

What Republicans need to do is, deem all fetuses corporations, then they’ll be given rights as persons.

What really sucks is when people misrepresent the law on corporations.

I have a distaste for having to share the conservative view, but intellectual honesty and principle demands I do


When conservatives point out, as Mitt Romney notably did in his presidential campaign, that corporations are and should be considered people for certain purposes, they're pointing out what the left seems to have forgotten. They're pointing out that, though corporations may not be natural persons — that is, discrete, individual human beings whose rights somehow originate in nature — corporations nevertheless are and should be entitled to certain legal and constitutional rights.

This is not to say that corporate rights operate in the same way as do the rights of natural persons. In many cases the law justifiably treats the rights of natural persons and artificial persons differently.
Are Corporations People?

The other side that is honest and not throwing out "truthful hyperbole" ala Trump:

"With the invention of the railroad, you needed a great deal of capital to exploit its purpose, " Columbia professor Coffee says, "and only the corporate form offered limited liability, easy transferability of shares, and continued, perpetual existence."

In addition, the end of the Civil War and the adoption of the 14th Amendment provided an opportunity for corporations to seek further legal protection, says Moglen, also a Columbia University professor.

"From the moment the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, lawyers for corporations — particularly railroad companies — wanted to use that 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection to make sure that the states didn't unequally treat corporations," Moglen says.

Nobody was talking about extending to corporations the right of free speech back then. What the railroads sought was equal treatment under state tax laws and things like that.
When Did Companies Become People? Excavating The Legal Evolution


Then we get the disingenuous progressive viewpoint:

Archives | 1988
Corporations Are Not Persons
By RALPH NADER and CARL J. MAYER

Corporations Are Not Persons

 

[JBvM]

You people are no different than Muslim sects in Mumbai.

Um... Mumbai (nee Bombay) is a city in India, capitol of Maharashtra state and isn't predominently Muslim.

Never said it was predominantly Muslim.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/mumbai-population/

and going as far back as 8 years ago
Bandra Diaries: Muslims move in, supplanting Catholics

 

[Cecilie1200]

Abortion is not legal under American constitutional law.

Please cite the specific prohibitive legislation.

 

[Doc1]

For the U.S. government to execute someone, or give authority to execute someone, a person has to be found guilty of committing a crime in a court of law.

A person also has to be a person.

person an individual human being.

human being a member of the human race; a person.
​

edited

Your point being that women can have dogs?

 

[Cecilie1200]

For the U.S. government to execute someone, or give authority to execute someone, a person has to be found guilty of committing a crime in a court of law.

A person also has to be a person.

person an individual human being.

human being a member of the human race; a person.
​

edited

And in what way does a fetus not meet that description? He is an individual, with DNA unique from everyone else's. He is human, also re: DNA. Where in your definition is a fetus excluded?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Roe Vs Wade Vs facts
Abortion is not legal under American constitutional law.
Too bad the founders of the nation can't come back to tell us what a bunch of idiots we are.
For the U.S. government to execute someone, or give authority to execute someone, a person has to be found guilty of committing a crime in a court of law.
The U.S. government was never given authority to randomly choose people to be executed.
No state that authorizes abortion can do so without being in violation of federal constitutional rights.
There is no greater form of corruption that one innocent person having to die because another person claims they have a RIGHT under the law.
The Atheist Democrats have an answer for everything, they say "it's not a person until it's born"
OK well, i'm going to go to the Ford plant and drive a truck off the property without paying for it, before they install the antenna, because it's not a truck yet.
What are we? 12 years old?
I guess bullsht is more believable when it comes from someone in a suit with a big title.
We know the Democrats are going to take the side of evil, but what is staggering to think about is how many Republicans have been going along with this.
Every politician who considers themselves a proponent of the Constitution should have been banging pots and pans together in every interview, saying we need to stop these unconstitutional executions.
The Democrats took a few horror stories of "back alley abortions" and legalized a holocaust with them.
We call ourselves a Christian nation and we kill far more people than the pagans did in human sacrifice, and we have surpassed barbarism of the Aztecs ripping someone's heart out and pushing them down a pyramid.
The whole time the Atheist Democrats are laughing their ass off of what they do to our country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
People say there may be a time when a woman has to choose between her life and the kid's.
Well, i guess that decision is up to her, but if the Democrats are going to use that to get their foot-in-the-door for an abortion clinic on every corner, then we have to stop it completely.

Let's be reminded that Ron Paul has been a doctor his whole life, and never saw one case where a woman had to choose between her life or the baby's life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If we're going to be telling woman they're not going to be having abortions, then we're going to have to do an emergency clean up of the adoption / foster care system.
Currently 70% to 80% of children who enter the system suffer some form of abuse.
The child molester Democrats are going to be standing by waiting to expand
their control over that too.
We're going to need wise people in politics to solve these problems, not these dopes in suits we got.

A Fetus is not a Citizen. It has no rights. Unless of course you want activists to step in and claim representation

Illegal immigrants are also not citizens, but I'm pretty sure you still think they have the right not to be dismembered for inconveniently being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Doc1]

Are these human?

 

[Doc1]

A Fetus is not a Citizen. It has no rights. Unless of course you want activists to step in and claim representation

Nor is it a person, which does have Constitutional rights.

Not a person?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pain. Liberals are fine with ripping developing babies and throwing them into the baby equivalent of a wood chipper dipped in acid. They do not care about others. They are self-centered. It used to be an insult. Now it is a badge of honor.

I care about other people. I have little concern with a fetus in a woman's womb. None of my business. It's her body, not mine

Your scientific acumen is just staggering.

A fetus is not part of his mother's body. Again, interminably, I must refer you to the DNA evidence. Every ACTUAL part of a woman's body carries the same DNA as every other part of her body. The fetus, however, has a unique DNA signature from his mother's. He is a separate organism. Unlike your position, this is not biased opinion; this is biological, scientific fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The OP seems remarkably short on facts.

Then why is it YOU have no response except one-sentence "You're wrong" and "You're stupid" retorts?

 

[JBvM]

Illegal immigrants are also not citizens, but I'm pretty sure you still think they have the right not to be dismembered for inconveniently being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Do you know how very sick you sound here?

 

[JBvM]

Pain. Liberals are fine with ripping developing babies and throwing them into the baby equivalent of a wood chipper dipped in acid. They do not care about others. They are self-centered. It used to be an insult. Now it is a badge of honor.

I care about other people. I have little concern with a fetus in a woman's womb. None of my business. It's her body, not mine

Your scientific acumen is just staggering.

A fetus is not part of his mother's body. Again, interminably, I must refer you to the DNA evidence. Every ACTUAL part of a woman's body carries the same DNA as every other part of her body. The fetus, however, has a unique DNA signature from his mother's. He is a separate organism. Unlike your position, this is not biased opinion; this is biological, scientific fact.

Your dishonesty, disingenuousness and ignorance is astounding

please allow me to share a previous post, as it is normal for people like you to jump in with outrage having no clue what you are commenting on

A Fetus is not a Citizen. It has no rights. Unless of course you want activists to step in and claim representation

An obstetrician is trained that they are treating two patients when treating a woman who is pregnant. Therefore two Individuals. Medically speaking anyway.

By the way. In terms of Legal rights, the unborn do have them. And theyre fully enforceable. the unborn will be represented in a court. We can start with inheritance rights if something happens to the parents. For one thing.

You're just too willfully ignorant in your desire to push an ideological agenda masked as some sort of moral crusade. You're one of those self-appointed Tribunes. But not of any living breathing people, just of the unborn

Medically speaking? Okay, let's have at it

Refusal of Medically Recommended Treatment During Pregnancy - ACOG
Recommendations
On the basis of the principles outlined in this Committee Opinion, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College) makes the following recommendations:

• Pregnancy is not an exception to the principle that a decisionally capable patient has the right to refuse treatment, even treatment needed to maintain life. Therefore, a decisionally capable pregnant woman’s decision to refuse recommended medical or surgical interventions should be respected.

 

[JBvM]

The OP seems remarkably short on facts.

Then why is it YOU have no response except one-sentence "You're wrong" and "You're stupid" retorts?

I notice you do not deny cnm 's suggestions. How very telling

 

[Doc1]

Pain. Liberals are fine with ripping developing babies and throwing them into the baby equivalent of a wood chipper dipped in acid. They do not care about others. They are self-centered. It used to be an insult. Now it is a badge of honor.

I care about other people. I have little concern with a fetus in a woman's womb. None of my business. It's her body, not mine

Your scientific acumen is just staggering.

A fetus is not part of his mother's body. Again, interminably, I must refer you to the DNA evidence. Every ACTUAL part of a woman's body carries the same DNA as every other part of her body. The fetus, however, has a unique DNA signature from his mother's. He is a separate organism. Unlike your position, this is not biased opinion; this is biological, scientific fact.

Your dishonesty, disingenuousness and ignorance is astounding

please allow me to share a previous post, as it is normal for people like you to jump in with outrage having no clue what you are commenting on

A Fetus is not a Citizen. It has no rights. Unless of course you want activists to step in and claim representation

An obstetrician is trained that they are treating two patients when treating a woman who is pregnant. Therefore two Individuals. Medically speaking anyway.

By the way. In terms of Legal rights, the unborn do have them. And theyre fully enforceable. the unborn will be represented in a court. We can start with inheritance rights if something happens to the parents. For one thing.

You're just too willfully ignorant in your desire to push an ideological agenda masked as some sort of moral crusade. You're one of those self-appointed Tribunes. But not of any living breathing people, just of the unborn

Medically speaking? Okay, let's have at it

Refusal of Medically Recommended Treatment During Pregnancy - ACOG
Recommendations
On the basis of the principles outlined in this Committee Opinion, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College) makes the following recommendations:

• Pregnancy is not an exception to the principle that a decisionally capable patient has the right to refuse treatment, even treatment needed to maintain life. Therefore, a decisionally capable pregnant woman’s decision to refuse recommended medical or surgical interventions should be respected.

CLEARLY these aren't "human".