FoxHastings said: ↑ WRONG as usual....the UVVA gives the fetus PROTECTION NOT RIGHTS....it did give harsher penalties for killing pregnant women based on the age of the fetus.... UGGADUH, NO, they are NOT the same thing that's DUH why there are two DIFFERENT words for them. An eagle has protection, that doesn't give it RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL, and so you think the words "rights" and "protections" mean the same thing !! Why did they make two different words then? No, rights are rights and protections are protections and the eagle does NOT have a right to not be shot..... Eagles didn't have a right not to be killed....that's WHY they got protection... Sorry if that confuses you but most people know the difference......and that's why there's two different words for two different things...DUH
Abortion is not in the U.S. Constitution. No one back then would think of such an act of evil like murdering the innocent of innocent. Because the U.S. Supreme Court of liberalism decided to write new law doesn't make it part of the Constitution. Therefore, today's SCOTUS can overturn the mistake of 1973 because it's not part of the Constitution. Show me the word "Abortion" in the Constitution. You can't. End of your imagination. A fetus is a person. therefore, it has rights. Of course a fetus can't take legal action. That's why we adults have to protect the most vulnerable persons, the unborn and the young born persons from the wicked big heartless people that like to rip out the body of the helpless who can't defend themselves. And, women who have to justify their murderous acts to eliminate cramping their lifestyle need to be punished for their lack of hospitality that they produced and evil desires to kill. And, there are plenty of Democrat Liberals who help woman to kill unborn babies.
Let's just cut this off right there as this is going NOWHERE. Abortion has been around since old testament times. In fact, in Exodus 21:22-25 it is made clear by the law of these early followers of your God that a fetus is viewed as PROPERTY. So, first of all you are wildly wrong about what "back then" means on this topic. And, you are arguing AGAINST the early believers in your god and their God-inspired law. And, your guess that our founders knew nothing of abortion is totally unsupportable. AND our constitution is not a set of laws, so claiming that it is meaningful that a law doesn't exist in the constitution is no more than an indication of how little you understand our constitution.
So, you then believe fetuses are like slaves, property. To do whatever the landlord wants to do. Like murder their tenants because of their inconvenience. Again, Abortion is not in the Constitution. Funny how you won't admit this but jump over the Bible for your support. LOL!
Apparently it is. Maybe you can point out where a woman has a right to abort their young. I must have glanced over that section.
. ./..and you believe women are slaves, property...to be forced to breed like animals. If a tenant is harming the landlord the landlord can stop the harm in any way they can. Just because you'd let people beat you up dosen't mean everyone has to. IF you knew anything about the Constitution you'd know it doesn't list seat belt laws either ... and I would think you would back the bible since, according to you, it's your words
OMGAWD! Are you one of those who think abortion was invented in 1973 ? Too funny....abortion has been around since women discovered herbs could get rid of a pregnancy...thousands of years... GET EDUCATED. The Supreme Court does not make laws. Educate yourself. You have NEVER proven it is.....and IF it was it would have to abide by the laws and restriction that rule us all... YOU want The Royal Fetus to have more rights than anyone else!!! The Anti-Choicers whole purpose : " women must be punished."" ...and protect women's rights even though Anti-Choicers don't want women to have rights...
No, I'm saying that those early believers in YOUR God saw fetuses as property under their God-inspired law. Now, YOU want to claim something VERY different. In fact, you want to claim that YOUR views should be imposed on those who don't share your religious belief, but instead believe in the Old Testament. And, THAT is counter to our 1st amendment. The rest of those three sentences are you trying to claim I said something I obviously did not say - a surprising argument style for a Christian. Abortion is supported by the constitution as our Supreme Court has said for many years. It's just not there as a law. Again, the constitution is not a repository for law. That's not how it works.
Suppose I don’t. Cause many point to the fourteenth and to my knowledge that amendment was created to give rights to blacks from states that were restricting their rights. It wasn’t created for abortion at all
First of all, there isn't anything in the constitution that can be considered limited due to factors like skin color, etc. Beyond that, we've had SC rulings on abortion. They state the basis. Of course, the Christian Right Supreme Court of today doesn't even take arguments on the topic - they just rule from the back room, even on issue that have been decided for many years and without disclosing their "logic".
Your response is an example of double talk. You have a right to the 1st amendment but people that the first amendment is really there to protect are the religious from people like you who condemn and slander the religious. Again, I'm not a Christian in your religious viewpoint of what Christians are. Abortion is not in the Constitution and therefore subject to legislation from the bench. In 1973, that is what happened. And, now it's law and supported by the greatest genocidal maniacs of all time. Let's talk about "property." There are two main types of property, one you own and one you rent. The fetuses are actually God's property in which he rents to you for a time. Your responsibility is to take care of his property until the property can take care of itself. To protect the Lord's property that he atoned for. To nurture it to adulthood. Not to trash it, kill it or abuse it. Our governments see the same thing as we are to protect children, nurture them and help them grow into productive members of our societies. Not to kill them.
Likewise there is nothing in the constitution that can be interpreted as to make abortion a constitutional right, unless you’re an activist judge
And, what is the logic of the Atheist Right Supreme Courts? They just rule from the back room making up things to the the 14th amendment that don't exist to get legislated from the bench the right of a woman to murder their own child for the purpose of convenience. The 14th amendment was specific for the purpose of skin color. At no time was it for anything else. "The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former enslaved people—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery..." If anything, this is granting citizenship to the unborn. But, it's specific for granting citizenship rights to blacks. By the way, "equal protection of the laws." How does anyone get abortion out of this? I say by twisted minds of hate and murder.
No, the 1st amendment blocks the idea that religion is a justification for laws. I'm fine with you claiming to be a Christian, by the way. I don't attack people for their religion. Like with other religions and philosophies, I note that there are good parts in the Bible. So, you don't have to carry around your false assumptions. This is to ridiculous for words. Read the verses from Ezekiel that I posted. The law that God inspired held that a fetus is the property of the husband.
No, this idea of overturning a long held Supreme Court ruling in some back room is novel to this Supreme Court. Other rulings on the subject have been made fully in public and have been documented concerning what arguments were involved. You need to do better than that with the truth, especially if you are a Christian. There is NOTHING in the constitution that is specific to any race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
How do people read things and twist them around so badly. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that remotely blocks using beliefs for laws. The first 10 amendments are to limit government meddling into our lives restricting our opportunities to exercise our faith in our religions. There is nothing in it that blocks using tenants of religion to build laws from such as "Thou shalt not kill." As for "property" I am correct. The husband is the head of the household in the Biblical usage. That does not mean the woman is any less than he. Nor does it give the man the right to kill an unborn child. It means the husband is to protect his property, nurture it and help it grow into a productive member of the society. You assume the word property means a negative thing when it comes to persons. In some cases it is like in slavery. But, not with a child born or unborn.
Well, you need to consider the outside possibility that you are just plain wrong about the 1st amendment. The deal there is that there need to be actual justifications for laws - not just personal religious beliefs. I'd bet you don't like same sex marriage, either. But, whatever your reasons are, they are NOT good enough for you to impose your beliefs on other people. No, the point of the passage in Ezekiel is that a fetus is property. And, I don't view property in a negative light. I like my property! I'm sure that husband in Ezekiel liked HIS property, too!
Now you are getting confused. All Supreme Court rulings are not done in public. They are all done in the back rooms. Then, the rulings are announced to the public. There are always explanations written by one or more of the judges, one for the majority and one for the minority in the vote. Speaking of back rooms, the other justification for abortion is "the right to privacy" in the 14th amendment. With this stupid legislation from the bench, anyone who wishes to kill someone has a right to privacy and should not be subject to the law or punishment. Amendment 15 - Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Amendment 19 - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Amendment 26 - Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Clearly you are talking out your butt, bruv. Do you know what the difference between a fetus and an infant is or does the foreigner really have to teach the native his own language? They don't. That is because the woman wants it. The standard of value is still her life. I think you should read those documents again. Evolution is a Marxist lie?
The one wrt Texas abortion law was ALL in the back room. And, that is NOT usual for cases where it involves overturning long held Supreme Court principles. ??
The difference of a fetus and an infant is which side of the boarder the child is on. That's it. Both are still human beings. Why treat one different just because one is on the different side of the railroad tracks??? They do. I want it is an answer that justifies murder? Most drug cartel kings want to murder their enemies. Does wanting them murdered make it okay? I want a billion dollars. So is it okay to steal it from Bill Gates? I want a lot of things but the way it's done makes the difference. Have the baby and give it up for adoption is the right thing to want. Maybe it will teach the woman to keep her knees locked at the knees. I think you should learn to read when you read the Constitution. That first amendment is clear that the Government shall not infringe upon religious liberty. The converse is not true. Evolution is used by Marxists to take away liberty and freedom. It reduces humans to just animals and thus can be controlled, abused and murdered. That was Jeffrey Dahlmer's statement in his book on why he didn't feel it was wrong to kill and eat people. They were just another animal. He said he repented of this when he found Christ and realized he'd been duped my evolutionist marxists.
