What Constitutional Rights Apply to an Unborn Fetus: Judicial Interpretation as opposed to Legal/JudicialPhilosophy

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Yep you don't care. If the mother can't afford to raise the child, that's her problem!

Sorry about your illiteracy problem. Feel free to neck yourself.

 

[Rye Catcher]

No. You're an insane fuck who is out of touch with reality.


I support human rights and individual freedom; people who attack and kill others should go to prison.

People who own weapons for self-defense, hunting, recreational target practice etc. should not be punished for doing nothing wrong.

It is already very illegal to attack and kill born humans, retard, gun or no gun - it's called the criminal charge of "murder." You know, the same thing abortionists do, and the same charge they should get.


Get them if you want them. Non sequitur.


Health care is a service, not a right. Non sequitur.

Abolish all of the mentioned unconstitutional programs.


Groomer filth shouldn't be allowed near kids, so they shouldn't work in schools.


I'm sick and tired of morons like you lying about this.

It is already illegal to attack and kill born humans. That's all that need be said, and you have no rebuttal. It proves you utterly wrong.

You claiming we do not support this thing, this thing that is already the status quo and incredibly stably so (if not for the disruptions provided by leftists, i.e. your camp, with your defund the police, no cash bail, soft on crime weakness) is a fucking lie.

Then you deflect and start talking about things that have nothing to do with the topic.

You call having the literal same standard for everyone "hypocrisy," because you're too fucking stupid to know the definition of a simple English word, so you call the opposite of that thing that word. Consistency is not inconsistency, and I can't believe this ever needs to be pointed at, but then here you are, another moron on the perpetual conveyor belt of pro-abort morons, spouting your meritless defamatory drivel told to you by your masters.

GFYourself.

 

[Blues Man]

It is Human life.

And to quote slave owners, a n***r is not a human.

See how close the two are?

It's a human cell it's not a child it's only a potential child

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

GFYourself.

Great lack of rebuttal, I accept your concession on all points.

 

[BothWings]

How about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[Blues Man]

How about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

How about it?

 

[HeyNorm]

It's a human cell it's not a child it's only a potential child

Not at all.

 

[Blues Man]

Not at all.

If it was a child it could live outside of the womb until it can do that it it merely a potential person.

 

[HeyNorm]

If it was a child it could live outside of the womb until it can do that it it merely a potential person.

Many, eligible for death by abortion in many states, absolutely could live outside the womb if delivers early.

But now we are getting somewhere

 

[Blues Man]

Many, eligible for death by abortion in many states, absolutely could live outside the womb if delivers early.

But now we are getting somewhere

22 weeks is the far edge of fetal viability outside of the womb and only 1% or less of all abortions occur after 21 weeks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But is it the job of the government to establish an official Starting Time for human life?

No.

It shouldn’t be, but it is now.

It is now up the to people to defend a woman’s right to privacy through the political process, as the judicial process is no longer available to the people to defend that right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A fetus has no Constitutional rights and never will

Tom Cotton disagrees with you, in 2019 he stated that a fetus does have Constitutional rights:

“Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton said Sunday he believes a fetus has constitutional rights and that life begins at conception.”

Sen. Tom Cotton: Fetus Has Constitutional Rights, Life Begins At Conception

Senator Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, repeatedly blamed "unelected justices" of the U.S. Supreme Court for establishing abortion rights that he said should be set by legislatures.

www.newsweek.com

Now, one might respond that that’s just Cotton’s opinion devoid of legal authority.

But that would be naïve.

The fact is that Cotton is far from alone on the authoritarian right and would indeed support a Federal abortion ban based on the Constitutional rights of an embryo/fetus.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Many, eligible for death by abortion in many states, absolutely could live outside the womb if delivers early.

22 weeks is the far edge of fetal viability outside of the womb and only 1% or less of all abortions occur after 21 weeks.

HeyNorm230116-#149 HeyNorm Many, eligible for death by abortion in many states, absolutely could live outside the womb if delivers early. •••• But now we are getting somewhere


NFBW230116-#6,745 English Common Law establishes the “legalistic” moment of viability when we are contemplating secular law. •••• The legalistic moment that a fetus attains the ability to be viable as a new constitutionally recognized person, is not created to be the precise biological moment that a living human organism that is not physically capable to live ourselves the womb actually dies. It is a moment set in our legal system to determine when cause of death by the mother to her own fetus by abortion, is murder or it is not murder. •••• You are still obviously very confused. So you are getting nowhere HeyNorm . You are stuck on your fanatic desire to impose Divine Law on all pregnant women to override the true and only binding secular law that is grounded in English Common that we go by.

END2301160946

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, people like you said the same thing about slavery, yet the 13th exists.

We’ll get the same thing done here via Constitutional Amendment and then you can die mad about it.

As if on cue…

The authoritarian right seeks to amend the Constitution to increase the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you'll never get an amendment declaring a fetus a person because you will never meet the requirements.

…and Roe would never be overturned.

One shouldn’t underestimate the authoritarian right.

 

[Blues Man]

…and Roe would never be overturned.

One shouldn’t underestimate the authoritarian right.

Not the same thing at all your analogy fails

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

As if on cue…

The authoritarian right seeks to amend the Constitution to increase the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

Oh look, you being a deluded retard divorced from reality... yet again.

This here libertarian rightist who respects human rights has recognized that the lack of enumeration of the DoI's principles in the Constitution has led to you authoritarian leftist inhuman bigoted scum once again dehumanizing those you want dead or exploited and denying them the necessary protection under law.

You have no "individual liberty" to attack others, you psychotic fuck.

It required a amendment banning slavery to make psychotic bigot sociopaths like you behave, and apparently you didn't get the memo with that one, so you need another one.

 

[HeyNorm]

22 weeks is the far edge of fetal viability outside of the womb and only 1% or less of all abortions occur after 21 weeks.

Cool, and the 21 week fetus is not “similarly situated” to a 22 week fetus because why?

 

[Rye Catcher]

Great lack of rebuttal, I accept your concession on all points.

Once again, a stupid comment ^^^ by a neofascist jerk.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cool, and the 21 week fetus is not “similarly situated” to a 22 week fetus because why?

Not in the legal an Constitutional sense of English Common Law based upon secular common law including natural law

The 21 week fetus is not a quick fetus but a 22 week fetus can be a quick fetus based upon the scientific and modern medical technology of when a baby has survived after being separated from its mother prematurely.