- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Strong on Second Amendment, Strongly Pro Choice
Posted on 8/23/19 at 5:55 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 8/23/19 at 5:55 pm to AggieHank86
You portray yourself as a constitutional advocate.
What is your basis for denial of rights to the 11 week old developing infant?
What is your basis for denial of rights to the 11 week old developing infant?
1
Posted on 8/23/19 at 5:55 pm to moneyg
quote:
I recognize that some don't think it's murder.
Good for you. That changes nothing that I said.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 5:57 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
DisplacedBuckeye
Conveniently ignores science.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:07 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:First, Roe is a poorly-reasoned decision, but it IS nonetheless the law of the land.
You portray yourself as a constitutional advocate.
What is your basis for denial of rights to the 11 week old developing infant?
The privileges and immunities of citizenship do not vest until birth. 14A. Thus, a fetus has no such rights.
I have tried multiple times to explain the difference between analysis of that which the law SHOULD be and that which the law actually IS.
You never seem to understand the distinction. I have no reason to believe that trying again today would lead to a different result.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:12 pm to Crimson1st
quote:You mean the moral reality of your indefensible position? Yes, I can see why you don't want to look that in the face.
Oh good grief, not this shite again!
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:18 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:I am Pro-Choice, and I too get tired of seeing this silly-assed, disingenuous argument.quote:You mean the moral reality of your indefensible position? Yes, I can see why you don't want to look that in the face.
Oh good grief, not this shite again!
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:19 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
First, Roe is a poorly-reasoned decision, but it IS nonetheless the law of the land.
The privileges and immunities of citizenship do not vest until birth. 14A. Thus, a fetus has no such rights.
I have tried multiple times to explain the difference between analysis of that which the law SHOULD be and that which the law actually IS.
You never seem to understand the distinction. I have no reason to believe that trying again today would lead to a different result.
Your post is fair, albeit inaccurate. I did not say Roe was not "law of the land."
quote:
privileges and immunities of citizenship do not vest until birth. 14A. Thus, a fetus has no such rights
An unborn infant can be killed because not yet a citizen. Interesting.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:22 pm to baybeefeetz
Let me help you not be an idiot:
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:24 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:Not what I said. I SAID that it is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of the US Constitution.
An unborn infant can be killed because not yet a citizen.
I have a broken hand and can barely type. I am NOT going to engage in this extended discussion. If you actually care about my views, you can search for and view PAGES of them and the reasons for them.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:24 pm to DeusVultMachina
The right of an innocent to be born free from being terminated by another is certainly not to be determined based on "privileges or immunities granted by the 14 amendment" and is not tied to questions of citizenship.
You understand this line of reasoning yes?
You understand this line of reasoning yes?
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:28 pm to DeusVultMachina
In two paragraphs or less, you must determine when the negative right to NOT have life terminated must vest at SOME point in time. I think it is silly to vest such a right in a non-sentient organism. That is not a Constitutional interpretation, it is an ideological opinion.
Again, Roe is awful from the perspective of a Textualist. THAT is Constituional interpretation.
Again, Roe is awful from the perspective of a Textualist. THAT is Constituional interpretation.
This post was edited on 8/23/19 at 6:30 pm
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:29 pm to AggieHank86
Also, to continue being fair: there is more than a single sentence in section 1 of the 14th.
Any person. I suspect the definition of person is what your whole argument actually hinges on. This is relevant yes?
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Any person. I suspect the definition of person is what your whole argument actually hinges on. This is relevant yes?
This post was edited on 8/23/19 at 6:30 pm
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:29 pm to FlexDawg
What a stupid meme.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:32 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
In two paragraphs or less, you must determine when the negative right to NOT have life terminated must vest at SOME point in time. I think it is silly to vest such a right in a non-sentient organism. That is not a Constitutional interpretation, it is an ideological opinion.
Again, fair. But you recognize that your position is tenuously based on an ideological opinion of worth.
I just wanted you to state as such, and you have. Fair.
Where we disagree is obvious.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:34 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:Abortion is NOT REMOTELY an instance of the STATE depriving anyone of anything.
Any person. I suspect the definition of person is what your whole argument actually hinges on. This is relevant yes?
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:35 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Abortion is NOT REMOTELY an instance of the STATE depriving anyone of anything
It is if the state funds and provides for the act. And we do.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:39 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:Non sequitur. Your reasoning would apply ONLY if the STATE were COMPELLING abortion. The State is only allowing a citizen to CHOOSE a course of action.
It is if the state funds and provides for the act. And we do
Full answers are more complex. Limited typing ability with full cast on dominant hand
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:46 pm to AggieHank86
Allowing a choice deprives the person in question of life.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:50 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:No. It gives a citizen the ability to decide whether to deprive another organism of life. The 14th precludes the State from DIRECTLY depriving life, liberty or property. Unless the State is trying to FORCE an abortion, the STATE is NOT doing so.
Allowing a choice deprives the person in question of life.
This post was edited on 8/23/19 at 6:53 pm
Posted on 8/23/19 at 6:52 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Even when they're knocked up inconveniently and laying on the clinic table
Deflection
Your ability to engage in liberals tropes is comical.
Page 5 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News