Regardless, you are now again moving the goalposts .. in fact this is the second time you have done that from your original advocation of "The 14th should be abolished .. Put the 14th in the trash pile along with the 18th Amendment (prohibition of alcohol)." which of course means it would be abolished not just for illegal aliens but for USA citizens as well. You do realise that your assertion of no trial etc for illegal aliens violates human rights under International law.
There are lots and lots of bad laws here in the US. There are also millions of criminal illegal aliens that along with Muslim Sharia-Lovers, that need to be gone from here. International Justice Courts---certainly for war crimes---are just a pathetic joke. And they have been. I could not give a rat's behind about laws that say refugees and illegals must be allowed in. No they don't. So how many Islamic terrorists have been taken to the Hauge and charged for breaking Int. Laws against using land mines and IED's??? I'd say about zero. How many Communist Leaders who have committed so many acts of genocide and mayhem been convicted in Int. Courts? What maybe 3 or 4? For all the millions spent on Cambodian trials for genocide by the Khmer Rouge over the last decades, how many convictions? 3. And Pol Pot got to die of old age. Give me something else to laugh about.
So you still ignore the result of your original assertion - "The 14th should be abolished .. Put the 14th in the trash pile along with the 18th Amendment (prohibition of alcohol)." which of course means it would be abolished not just for illegal aliens but for USA citizens as well. As to the rest, I'm sure you are content to lower yourself to the level of the like of Pol Pot etc by acting as they did.
I'm not ignoring, but reasserting my position to dump the 14th en toto. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/14th-Amendment-Summary.htm I am a fan of State's rights, and for protecting the US Constitution by understanding only in the context by which it was written by the Founders. The USC is not a wad of Silly Putty to be stretched and distorted to mean anything. Your Leftist community is far, far closer to Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao than any Conservative here in the US. Know your history!
You are not harmed from being pregnant. Once again, this is not about the left. Your refusal to back up your claim is proof you are blowing smoke.
Then I suggest you take it up with your fellow pro-abortion folks, since they're the ones making that claim. Yeah it's conservatives that are pushing for gun control.
Then go jump off a building and demand the state take care of you. Let's see how that works out for ya.
The self-defense argument is ridiculous on it's face. The woman initiated the placement of the fetus....her own actions created the pregnancy. You can't punch someone then claim self defense. Keep making guesses about my emotional state, and I'll keep laughing at you about it.
Consent to risk is consent to potential consequences. I don't buy into the progressive idea that personal responsibility isn't a thing. Roe Vs. Wade is built on shaky ground. I don't know what it's like in merry ole England, and neither do I care.
Your entire diatribe boils down to the inflicted harm/self defense argument. Any argument you can place on an unborn child can be used as justification for the murder of an infant. There is no enumerated protection of a right to abortion in the Constitution, you just want it to be inferred from what the Constitution does say. Go ahead and throw some more court cases at me as if this is some kind of done deal, because I assure you it is not.
Shaky ground ? It's been around over 40 years and we've had "Anti-Abortion" Presidents........and it's still here ...and even if by some freak chance it would be overturned abortions won't stop. Yup, conservatives want to take away "personal responsibility" by making laws against things they don't like instead of giving people the freedom to choose....they seem to like bigger more intrusive government...
Please point me to a post where a pro CHOICER says the father's body is harmed by pregnancy and I will take it up with him/her. Not all liberals are for gun control. You evidently can't back up your claim so you have lost the debate.
Even if she did, which is debatable since it's the implantation of a fertilized egg that causes pregnancy, it doesn't matter. She can still take action to prevent her body from being harmed. The smoker's actions put a tumour in his/her lungs, but we still allow him/her to have the cancer removed.
BASE jumping? If you do so in a remote location or trespassing you'll probably have to reimburse the unit that flies in to rescue you, or you might have to pay a fine, but if you break your nose in the process you have every right to choose the rugged look or use your insurance (subsidized by premiums of others) to get plastic surgery. As you must now realize (based on your tangent), nobody will stand at the clinic or hospital and STOP you from getting a nose job based on whether you got the broken nose due to your own risk-taking behavior or an unprovoked attack. Your opinion of the risk she took does not allow you to interfere with a woman's right to choose an abortion.
False: Two obvious arguments stand out: (1) The unborn human fetus is INSIDE an actual person. The infant does not impose on the biological processes of any other person after birth, and there is no equivalent for that state for an infant. You cannot even force the mother to spend a couple of days in the hospital to donate liver tissue to sustain the life of an infant after birth, but you would force a pregnant woman to spend nine months gestating the unborn. You don't have the right to demand either. (2) The unborn human fetus does not get enough oxygen to activate its mind. Even if an infant goes into a coma, you cannot change the fact that its mind was activated on or about the moment of birth, so there is a thread of person-hood already started for the infant that does not exist for the fetus. That means low oxygen levels in the infant do not justify killing the infant unless the cerebrum is so damaged that mental function is impossible.
Hey I got a swell idea....why don't you explain how overturning RvW, the misogynists dream, will stop abortions .... C'mon, none of your fellow Anti people have ever done that....you could be the first
I never said we should stop abortions. I just said we need some common sense laws to make sure they are well regulated. - - - Updated - - - I like how you think the brain flips on as it travels through a vagina. That's a good one.
What do you mean "well regulated" ? Why "regulate" something f you don't want it stopped? Right now they are illegal after 23 weeks except for the life/health of the woman or the fetus. How much more big government regulation do you want? You: """I like how you think the brain flips on as it travels through a vagina. """ He doesn't. Once again your total lack of knowledge of what is involved in pregnancy and child birth hinders comprehension.
Oh the irony of the left calling for "less regulation". Also, I'm not the one that said the human fetus doesn't have enough oxygen to "activate" it's mind, that was your like minded brethren.
Oh the irony of the righties calling for more regulation. Now, can you address the questions that have you stumped? What do you mean "well regulated" ? Why "regulate" something if you don't want it stopped? Right now they are illegal after 23 weeks except for the life/health of the woman or the fetus. How much more big government regulation do you want? You: """I like how you think the brain flips on as it travels through a vagina. """ He doesn't. Once again your total lack of knowledge of what is involved in pregnancy and child birth hinders comprehension.
Reference: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ From this article I learn about the science that proves: (1) meaningful thought is impossible until sometime within the last 4-6 weeks of gestation (i.e. the onset of global neuronal integration). (2) the operation of the cerebrum (where we think meaningful thoughts) is inhibited in the womb by blood chemistry (natural sedatives and low oxygen). What happens at birth? We cut the umbilical cord and the baby starts breathing (sedatives are removed and oxygen increases) so the cerebrum is activated. Look at that... science says the mind flips on at that point. Do you have some evidence that it does not happen that way? Or just wishful thinking from some pro-life website?
Maybe I have been misinterpreting your intentions... You just want to regulate abortions so they will be as safe as possible (so women don't have to get abortions in some seedy hotel by somebody who trained as a medical examiner). Is that it? That's fine as long as you aren't just trying to use "safety" as an excuse to close down the abortion clinics.
Even if the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, it would revert back to a State's right, each individual state would create it's own rules on abortion.
Let's clear up one little thing shall we, I am not a leftist. So you want to get rid of the 14th amendment for all legal American citizens as well, meaning that you and every other legal American citizen will not have "equal protection of the law" .. basically you are saying that you want the state to be able to decide who the law applies to, and that the state can violate "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" ie you want the state to be the dictator. Thomas Jefferson - I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." So you are a fan of State rights .. would you then accept your states determination that abortion was a right that a woman should have and that the state had a duty of care to pay for it .. or would you then decide that your interpretation of 'Gods' laws superseded State rights? Except that in the case of abortion it hasn't been "stretched and distorted to mean anything." that is just your interpretation based upon your own bias. LOL, how funny, considering the reality that I hold that each person should have the freedom from State interference to decide who, what, where and when their body is used by another person and you don't. Perhaps you should know your history, if you did you would understand that one of the first steps to a dictatorship is removing or distorting the rights of the individual.
