Re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS
You are making a straw man argument here. No one has claimed that the constitution says that the word person, as used in the constitution, does not include the unborn. What was actually said, and what you have offered nothing to refute, is that under the constitution the govt does not have the power to protect the unborn
Have actually offered plenty, but, alas, one often cannot expect those blind to just immediately be able to see, the deaf to hear, not so high wattage bulbs in the pack just suddenly to become bright. Guess you missed the 9th and 10th Amendment rights points, eh? Might consider a visit to an optometrist, check for sufficient diopter strength, then you may see how these 9th and 10th previously mentioned points show the Constitution provides for and allows the people, and the states' governments, rights that I hazard would not be long neglected, would quickly move to provide prudent legislation restricting humans from being allowed to freely, premeditatedly, butcher their innocent fellows.
One would hope we are all for maintaining our civilization, no need to head heedlessly down that path of chaos.
Straw man, huh... you audaciously assert that the Constitution only allows for born persons... let me, again, cut and paste what you said as you are doing your very best to boogie upwind from the fact that you said it, "
"Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." You have yet nothing to back that up within our Constitution...and now you are saying I am using a straw man because I called you on it.
Nice...
try.
Then, you keep asserting this folly
as if you had actually provided evidence that proved it... kinda cheeky, does this tactic generally work for you, does it?
The DOI is not a legal document and there's no evidence to suggest that they considered "creation" to be synonymous with "conception"
Not a legal document? I would say, with all their bold signatures, this was initially an illegal document, one for which they could hang. But legal in that it was, in writing, identifying a breach of contract between King and colonists. Plus it outlined what was intended of a new nation with a new government... so how do you figure it not to be legal?
For one thing, the ZEF has no right to life. Also, it is a demonstration of verbal gymnastics you deplore to claim that when a woman has sex, she is consenting to birth a baby if she gets pregnant. In addition, at the moment of conception, the ZEF does not have "separate DNA"
Here again, about a ZEF [ a child in utero to the caring], you assert the innocent and living unborn no right, but never deign to prove that... or even make much effort to state anything persuasive, apparently we are just to take your dictates on the matter...sorry, that is not how debate goes...this
is a debate website isn't it, not an imperial assert-your-unsubstantiated-opinions site, right?