CDZ Why President Trump will have no 'Choice' but to ban Abortion.

[Divine Wind]

You're straw man is that I'm comparing a zygote to a fully developed human person. ...

Dude, that's the topic of the thread. What's your point here? Other than straw men and red herrings?

Do you think a zygote is a person? Yes or no, please.

If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.

 

[TheOldSchool]

This thread is funny because of how badly republicans have been wanting to repeal the 14th amendment upon which this whole argument is based around

 

[sakinago]

You're straw man is that I'm comparing a zygote to a fully developed human person. ...

Dude, that's the topic of the thread. What's your point here? Other than straw men and red herrings?

Do you think a zygote is a person? Yes or no, please.

If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.

I already stated my position, nor am I the OP. And already stated that you're posistion is a STRAW MAN, that you keep turning to (yet again). But my posistion is it's human life, by every scientific definition, and therefore should be under that protection.

 

[sakinago]

This thread is funny because of how badly republicans have been wanting to repeal the 14th amendment upon which this whole argument is based around

Amendments have been repealed, I fail to see the humor.

 

[TheOldSchool]

This thread is funny because of how badly republicans have been wanting to repeal the 14th amendment upon which this whole argument is based around

Amendments have been repealed, I fail to see the humor.

Clearly

 

[Divine Wind]

I already stated my position....

Awesome.

 

[Chuz Life]

This thread is funny because of how badly republicans have been wanting to repeal the 14th amendment upon which this whole argument is based around

The right to life is also expressed in the 5th amendment as is also indicated in the OP.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Chuz Life]

You're straw man is that I'm comparing a zygote to a fully developed human person. ...

Dude, that's the topic of the thread. What's your point here? Other than straw men and red herrings?

Do you think a zygote is a person? Yes or no, please.

If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.

Again, we already have laws which say that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb in ANY stage of development. Those laws (for now) make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal.

How does all of that not recognize the personhood status of the victims killed?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Divine Wind]

You're straw man is that I'm comparing a zygote to a fully developed human person. ...

Dude, that's the topic of the thread. What's your point here? Other than straw men and red herrings?

Do you think a zygote is a person? Yes or no, please.

If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.

Again, we already have laws which say that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb in ANY stage of development. Those laws (for now) make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal.

How does all of that not recognize the personhood status of the victims killed?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I sure sakinago appreciates you covering for him.

Correct, as I've posted several times when you brought this up, our laws are convoluted on the issue. Also, I'm certain there are many laws in which you disagree.

 

[Chuz Life]

You're straw man is that I'm comparing a zygote to a fully developed human person. ...

Dude, that's the topic of the thread. What's your point here? Other than straw men and red herrings?

Do you think a zygote is a person? Yes or no, please.

If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.

Again, we already have laws which say that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb in ANY stage of development. Those laws (for now) make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal.

How does all of that not recognize the personhood status of the victims killed?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I sure sakinago appreciates you covering for him.

Correct, as I've posted several times when you brought this up, our laws are convoluted on the issue. Also, I'm certain there are many laws in which you disagree.

Current laws and the precedence they set / establish is relevant to the debate whether we agree with those laws or not.

One day (soon I hope) the scouts will have to reconcile the disparity between those laws.

Trump's picks matter.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Divine Wind]

The right to life is also expressed in the 5th amendment as is also indicated in the OP.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Nice circular argument.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[xyz]

Personally, I don't think this depends as much on Trump as it does on lobbyists and other political pressure groups.

He was at one time pro-abortion, and I don't think he cares that much about this issue that he would put it on the agenda himself, especially with more pressing issues.

Do you disagree that this issue will be front and center, when Trump appoints a Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Scalia?

No, I don't disagree that this issue will be front and center, just that he will nominate someone based mostly on other criteria, mainly on what he'll get out of it.

 

[Mr Natural]

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

Only a serious matter to women who find themselves unwantedly pregnant.

Nothing more than a wedge issue to everyone else.

 

[Chuz Life]

The right to life is also expressed in the 5th amendment as is also indicated in the OP.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Nice circular argument.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

How does quoting the 5th support your claim about circular logic?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Chuz Life]

Personally, I don't think this depends as much on Trump as it does on lobbyists and other political pressure groups.

He was at one time pro-abortion, and I don't think he cares that much about this issue that he would put it on the agenda himself, especially with more pressing issues.

Do you disagree that this issue will be front and center, when Trump appoints a Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Scalia?

No, I don't disagree that this issue will be front and center, just that he will nominate someone based mostly on other criteria, mainly on what he'll get out of it.

Pretend that You are a Supreme Court Justice and the court is asked to reconcile the disparity between our abortion laws which deny a child in the womb is a "person" and our fetal homicide laws which by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb during a criminal activity.. .


Take us through your thought process as you arrive at your final decision.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

Only a serious matter to women who find themselves unwantedly pregnant.

Nothing more than a wedge issue to everyone else.

You say this as if no one genuinely cares about basic human rights and when those rights should begin in a new human being's life.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[xyz]

Personally, I don't think this depends as much on Trump as it does on lobbyists and other political pressure groups.

He was at one time pro-abortion, and I don't think he cares that much about this issue that he would put it on the agenda himself, especially with more pressing issues.

Do you disagree that this issue will be front and center, when Trump appoints a Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Scalia?

No, I don't disagree that this issue will be front and center, just that he will nominate someone based mostly on other criteria, mainly on what he'll get out of it.

Pretend that You are a Supreme Court Justice and the court is asked to reconcile the disparity between our abortion laws which deny a child in the womb is a "person" and our fetal homicide laws which by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb during a criminal activity.. .


Take us through your thought process as you arrive at your final decision.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I am completely unable to think like a judge or lawyer, and never went to law school.

 

[Divine Wind]

The right to life is also expressed in the 5th amendment as is also indicated in the OP.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Nice circular argument.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

How does quoting the 5th support your claim about circular logic?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

You claim a zygote is a person without proving it first then use the Constitution to say that a "person" shall not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property".

Using that kind of silly logic, then a mother can say she's just giving the zygote it's liberty by removing it from her womb. After all, the little fucker isn't paying rent, so why not deport him just like you do Mexican babies?

 

[Chuz Life]

Personally, I don't think this depends as much on Trump as it does on lobbyists and other political pressure groups.

He was at one time pro-abortion, and I don't think he cares that much about this issue that he would put it on the agenda himself, especially with more pressing issues.

Do you disagree that this issue will be front and center, when Trump appoints a Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Scalia?

No, I don't disagree that this issue will be front and center, just that he will nominate someone based mostly on other criteria, mainly on what he'll get out of it.

Pretend that You are a Supreme Court Justice and the court is asked to reconcile the disparity between our abortion laws which deny a child in the womb is a "person" and our fetal homicide laws which by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb during a criminal activity.. .


Take us through your thought process as you arrive at your final decision.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I am completely unable to think like a judge or lawyer, and never went to law school.

Just





Wow.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Chuz Life]

The right to life is also expressed in the 5th amendment as is also indicated in the OP.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Nice circular argument.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

How does quoting the 5th support your claim about circular logic?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

You claim a zygote is a person without proving it first then use the Constitution to say that a "person" shall not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property".

Using that kind of silly logic, then a mother can say she's just giving the zygote it's liberty by removing it from her womb. After all, the little fucker isn't paying rent, so why not deport him just like you do Mexican babies?

Isn't a law that defines a zygote as a human being, a CHILD in the womb and makes it a crime of MURDER to kill it in a criminal activity PROOF enough that the CHILD killed was a person?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app