-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
How so, that one guarantees life first and foremost...14th Amendment Section #1 ==="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."
This is the whole issue, reasonable people don't agree on this part and what that means. To me it says all states have been breaking the 14th Amendment for a long time by depriving citizen persons in the womb of life. Granted that needs to be outlines in terms of when, how, why, that life becomes the protect form of life granted to all citizen persons. Point being we need to be able to let the states do their job when they sharply disagree on what life, citizens, and persons are. Once again, I know you are a lawyer, but can you not see both sides of this argument as having strong points and weak ones? Can you see where we may need to decided on when life and personhood begin and agree on when protection of that personhood should start? I can certainly see that both women and babies need to be protected and granted life, but definitions are going to very by state due to when they believe personhood starts..are the courts not designed as are the states to work this out?
This is the whole issue, reasonable people don't agree on this part and what that means. To me it says all states have been breaking the 14th Amendment for a long time by depriving citizen persons in the womb of life. Granted that needs to be outlines in terms of when, how, why, that life becomes the protect form of life granted to all citizen persons. Point being we need to be able to let the states do their job when they sharply disagree on what life, citizens, and persons are. Once again, I know you are a lawyer, but can you not see both sides of this argument as having strong points and weak ones? Can you see where we may need to decided on when life and personhood begin and agree on when protection of that personhood should start? I can certainly see that both women and babies need to be protected and granted life, but definitions are going to very by state due to when they believe personhood starts..are the courts not designed as are the states to work this out?
Last edited:
Please don't take offense to this example, I just want you to feel the depth of the argument for many...AND also know that the life of the women is EQUALLY important to someone who is truly pro life and is so in a loving meaningful way. I'm conflicted on the issue as I'm pro life but I know we must make exceptions in cases of extreme hardship...
To many, this is more like Dread Scott, than gays doing business. Dread said if a slave is a slave in one state and he/she goes to a free state, when he returns they are still a slave. Btw, they were also not a "person" under the law, because if they were you couldn't own them as they did. This is the depth that people feel about life in the womb, the rub is where this begins and when personhood should be granted. Slaves were not seen as persons, that is why I used that example...life in the womb is not seen as persons by the unrestricted abortion on demand side... with this example one get's to think about it even more deeply. Also this is the issue that has to be "worked out."
To many, this is more like Dread Scott, than gays doing business. Dread said if a slave is a slave in one state and he/she goes to a free state, when he returns they are still a slave. Btw, they were also not a "person" under the law, because if they were you couldn't own them as they did. This is the depth that people feel about life in the womb, the rub is where this begins and when personhood should be granted. Slaves were not seen as persons, that is why I used that example...life in the womb is not seen as persons by the unrestricted abortion on demand side... with this example one get's to think about it even more deeply. Also this is the issue that has to be "worked out."
Last edited:
-
2
- Show all
You just said that you can't be infringed on if there's another state you can go to that shares your beliefs. That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've seen you say on this board. By your own words, one state can freely violate the rights/freedoms of individuals and as long there's another state nearby that doesn't they aren't infringing. Is that not what you meant? Because, as shown by the responses to your post, that's definitely how it came across to many of us.
I wasn’t either, just pointing out that a similar thing has already happened historically and a war resulted to end it. I think if Row never happened we wouldn’t even be in this situation of abortion states (slave states in my example) vs pro life ones (free states in my example). Once again this all revolves around the central issue of when life and personhood begins….if a baby in the womb is a person at what point are they given rights afforded as such…when we hand this to the states to decide this is what will need to be determined…hopefully not in the very costly anti life way we had to settle the thing in my example.
-
1
- Show all
Oh lord....let me see if I can explain the post you quoted in a manner that even you can understand because I've already given my analysis of RvW and I'm not interested in dumbing that down further for you.
The post you quoted was in response to this post:
Wherein someone argued that it is a stretch to claim infringement of freedom in one state when there remains states within the republic that will gladly welcome your visit to their state. That when one state violates someone's Constitutional rights, it's not an infringement on freedoms simply and solely because there are other states that don't.
That's absurd because the 14th Amendment says that Constitutional rights apply across the board regardless of what state you are in....it's not contingent upon other states recognizing those rights or not.
Constitutional rights are not subject to letting "the states do their job when they sharply disagree on what life, citizens, and persons are"....they are either Constitutional rights which ALL states cannot violate or they aren't. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court is arbiter of whether a Constitutional right exists or it doesn't.
Until the Loving v. Virginia decision of the Supreme Court states "sharply disagreed" on whether marriage between a white man and a black women should be allowed to marry. That fact is completely and wholly....ridiculously even....irrelevant to whether the Lovings rights and freedom to marry were infringed upon. The fact that they could have gone to another state to get married is completely and wholly...ridiculously even....irrelevant to whether the Lovings rights and freedom to marry were infringed upon by Virginia.
Because of the 14th Amendment.
You're focused on RvW and the upcoming decision. I long ago gave my analysis on RvW.
My post you quoted was not in anyway a statement that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to abortion. It was a response to the idiotic notion that a citizen can't claim that one state infringes upon their Constitutional rights because others states give them those rights.
Because of the 14th Amendment.
The post you quoted was in response to this post:
Wherein someone argued that it is a stretch to claim infringement of freedom in one state when there remains states within the republic that will gladly welcome your visit to their state. That when one state violates someone's Constitutional rights, it's not an infringement on freedoms simply and solely because there are other states that don't.
That's absurd because the 14th Amendment says that Constitutional rights apply across the board regardless of what state you are in....it's not contingent upon other states recognizing those rights or not.
Constitutional rights are not subject to letting "the states do their job when they sharply disagree on what life, citizens, and persons are"....they are either Constitutional rights which ALL states cannot violate or they aren't. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court is arbiter of whether a Constitutional right exists or it doesn't.
Until the Loving v. Virginia decision of the Supreme Court states "sharply disagreed" on whether marriage between a white man and a black women should be allowed to marry. That fact is completely and wholly....ridiculously even....irrelevant to whether the Lovings rights and freedom to marry were infringed upon. The fact that they could have gone to another state to get married is completely and wholly...ridiculously even....irrelevant to whether the Lovings rights and freedom to marry were infringed upon by Virginia.
Because of the 14th Amendment.
You're focused on RvW and the upcoming decision. I long ago gave my analysis on RvW.
My post you quoted was not in anyway a statement that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to abortion. It was a response to the idiotic notion that a citizen can't claim that one state infringes upon their Constitutional rights because others states give them those rights.
Because of the 14th Amendment.
-
3
- Show all
I never said you can’t be infringed because I understand the definition of infringement. I simply stated that it was a stretch to make that claim. Will you have to drive or fly to another state? Maybe, but if this draft is made final then abortions will still be legal and available in this country.
-
3
-
1
- Show all