Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

[AZRWinger]

Here is section C again:

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.


Translation: No person, no organization, no institution, no court, no government body or organization can use this legal definition of person to expand the current legal status or legal rights of an entity before it is born alive nor can any person, organization institution, court or government body or organization deny this current legally defined or legal rights of any entity before it is born. Nobody can change the legal fact that a person is defined as an entity that is born alive.And you can't twist this definition of person so you give rights or deny rights to a fetus, embryo, zygote or fertilized egg.

The plain wording of the law states it cannot be used to deny any
"legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section."

Emphasis added.

No "twisting" involved, simply reading the law as written. The unborn child is a member of the species homo sapiens prior to being born alive, a person. The abortionists have to create a distinction of subhuman for the unborn as a rationalization for slaughtering them.

 

[Gordy327]

The plain wording of the law states it cannot be used to deny any
"legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section."

Emphasis added.

No "twisting" involved, simply reading the law as written. The unborn child is a member of the species homo sapiens prior to being born alive, a person. The abortionists have to create a distinction of subhuman for the unborn as a rationalization for slaughtering them.

'Persons' are specifically born. The unborn are not persons. You have yet to explain why neither the federal government or the states recognize unborn personhood or rights if they are persons as you claim.

 

[AZRWinger]

'Persons' are specifically born. The unborn are not persons. You have yet to explain why neither the federal government or the states recognize unborn personhood or rights if they are persons as you claim.

You have yet to address the plain wording of the Federal law quoted above. All uou can do is parrot the abortionists talking point.

 

[Gordy327]

You have yet to address the plain wording of the Federal law quoted above. All uou can do is parrot the abortionists talking point.

It was addressed. Hence my question, you you have yet to answer.

 

[AZRWinger]

It was addressed. Hence my question, you you have yet to answer.

Your denial of the plain wording in the law as quoted isn't addressing the slaughter of the unborn.

 

[Gordy327]

Your denial of the plain wording in the law as quoted isn't addressing the slaughter of the unborn.

I see you can't address the question posed!

 

[weaver2]

You have yet to address the plain wording of the Federal law quoted above. All uou can do is parrot the abortionists talking point.

Your problem is that you seem to think the phrase "any member of the species homo sapiens" means a born and alive person. It doesn't, it simply means that an entity whether it is a cadaver or a living person, a skeleton or a walking human, an embryo, or an eight year old or human remains washed up on shore are all members of the species homo sapiens.

 

[Lursa]

It clearly says: "This is the official definition of a person. Don't try to interpret this meaning of person so that it expands or denies rights. Just leave it alone""

I have to explain it all the time. Either people's general reading skills are poor or their bias on the issue blinds them.

 

[Lursa]

The plain wording of the law states it cannot be used to deny any
"legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section."

Nor "affirm" any. Holy shit, it's like you dont even see the words.

Emphasis added.

No "twisting" involved, simply reading the law as written. The unborn child is a member of the species homo sapiens prior to being born alive, a person. The abortionists have to create a distinction of subhuman for the unborn as a rationalization for slaughtering them.

It is a Homo sapiens. That's a biological fact. "Person" is a legal status and everything else in this code is very clear that that status only applies to born Homo sapiens.

Again, you ignored my example demonstrating the law:

If the federal govt/Const considered the unborn "persons", how could Dobbs rule that states could allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn with no due process? And blue states do, and so do most red states, up to a point. Can any state allow that for the born?

 

[weaver2]

The plain wording of the law states it cannot be used to deny any
"legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section."

Emphasis added.

No "twisting" involved, simply reading the law as written. The unborn child is a member of the species homo sapiens prior to being born alive, a person. The abortionists have to create a distinction of subhuman for the unborn as a rationalization for slaughtering them.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[AZRWinger]

Nor "affirm" any. Holy shit, it's like you dont even see the words.

Affirm or deny rights of the unborn is what the statute reads. You want to edit out what you disagree with.

It is a Homo sapiens. That's a biological fact. "Person" is a legal status and everything else in this code is very clear that that status only applies to born Homo sapiens.

Bingo, the unborn are humans. Everything else in the "code" includes section C.
Again, the scope of section C is everything that may confirm or deny the rights of the unborn in the so-called code.

Again, you ignored my example demonstrating the law:

If the federal govt/Const considered the unborn "persons", how could Dobbs rule that states could allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn with no due process? And blue states do, and so do most red states, up to a point. Can any state allow that for the born?

After violent Leftist mobs terrorized Justices families over the illegal publication of the Dobbs opinion hoping they could sway the SCOTUS vote you cite Dobbs as justification. Oh the irony.

 

[Lursa]

Affirm or deny rights of the unborn is what the statute reads. You want to edit out what you disagree with.

I cut out nothing. Do you know what "affirm" means? It means "recognize", "confirm". Part C says it does not "recognize" (affirm) any rights for the unborn.

Yes or no? If you need a dictionary to answer, please use one.

Bingo, the unborn are humans. Everything else in the "code" includes section C.
Again, the scope of section C is everything that may confirm or deny the rights of the unborn in the so-called code.

LOL no it doesnt. If what you claim is true...why is section C needed? Why do A & B very clearly and specifically define "born? Why dont they just say "Homo sapiens"?

I swear your posts just look stupider with each attempt. C is a disclaimer confirming the exclusion of the unborn from "person" status.

After violent Leftist mobs terrorized Justices families

over the illegal publication of the Dobbs opinion hoping they could sway the SCOTUS vote you cite Dobbs as justification. Oh the irony.

The "irony" is...you cant answer my question because you'd have to admit I'm right

If the federal govt/Const considered the unborn "persons", how could Dobbs rule that states could allow women/their doctors to kill their unborn with no due process? And blue states do, and so do most red states, up to a point. Can any state allow that for the born?​

 

[weaver2]

Affirm or deny rights of the unborn is what the statute reads. You want to edit out what you disagree with.

Nobody edited anything out.

Bingo, the unborn are humans. Everything else in the "code" includes section C.

No, Section C does not say fetuses or the unborn are human beings or persons. It says they are members of the species homo sapiens. . All that means is that what ever one is looking at dead or alive, in utero or born if it has the genetic code of homo sapiens it belongs to that species. It does not mean they alive and born and living in this world.

Again, the scope of section C is everything that may confirm or deny the rights of the unborn in the so-called code.

Section C is just an advisement that defining a person as a born entity doesn't give any member of the species any additional rights nor does it take away any existing legal rights.

You and anti-abortion advocates have defined a fetus as a person with all the rights of a person and you think section C protects that definition. It doesn't because your definition is not a legal one. It's a religious definition and a propaganda definition of the anti-abortion movement.


Your anti-abortion definition of the fetus as a person is not a legal definition and Section C does not protect your claim of rights for the fetus nor does it contradict the definition of person in section A

After violent Leftist mobs terrorized Justices families over the illegal publication of the Dobbs opinion hoping they could sway the SCOTUS vote you cite Dobbs as justification. Oh the irony.

There is a pretty strong indication that Alito himself published the Dobbs opinion before it was released by the SC. I remember some noisy bitching about the pre-publication of Dobbs by Democrats with some Republicans carrying supportive signs and some very angry women yelling around Alito's home about his Dobbs decision but I don't remember any terrorizing or violent mobs. How about posting some pictures of those terrorizing mobs?

 

[The Brad Dad]

No "twisting" involved, simply reading the law as written. The unborn child is a member of the species homo sapiens prior to being born alive, a person. The abortionists have to create a distinction of subhuman for the unborn as a rationalization for slaughtering them.

Fetuses aren't people. You're asking for laws to be changed to create a distinction insisting they're people.

 

[quip]

No "twisting" involved, simply reading the law as written. The unborn child is a member of the species homo sapiens prior to being born alive, a person human. The abortionists have to create a distinction of subhuman for the unborn as a rationalization for slaughtering them.

Not at all, it's fully human.The distinction lies between personhood and a lack thereof. A moral standing bestowed upon the unborn you've established by mere unsupported association.

 

[Lursa]

Not at all, it's fully human.The distinction lies between personhood and a lack thereof. A moral standing bestowed upon the unborn you've established by mere unsupported association.

And he's struggling to re-interpret plain English to say otherwise. To make the words fit his agenda.

 

[AZRWinger]

Not at all, it's fully human.The distinction lies between personhood and a lack thereof. A moral standing bestowed upon the unborn you've established by mere unsupported association.

You concede that unborn children are fully human. Then, you insist that the slaughter of millions of fully human unborn children is authorized by a so-called moral standing which can be bestowed or withdrawn by political sentiment. The affirmation of humanity is contradicted by degrading unborn children to subhuman status.

Kindly explain what is unsupported about associating fully human unborn children with human persons? The law recognizes many stages of human life but in none of them does it license the at will extermination of human beings.

 

[Gordy327]

You concede that unborn children are fully human. Then, you insist that the slaughter of millions of fully human unborn children is authorized by a so-called moral standing which can be bestowed or withdrawn by political sentiment. The affirmation of humanity is contradicted by degrading unborn children to subhuman status.

Kindly explain what is unsupported about associating fully human unborn children with human persons? The law recognizes many stages of human life but in none of them does it license the at will extermination of human beings.

No one has argued the unborn are not human. It's simply not relevant. The unborn are not legal persons. Science recognizes stages of life. Law recognizes persons. They are not equivalent and this has been explained to you many times.

 

[AZRWinger]

No one has argued the unborn are not human. It's simply not relevant. The unborn are not legal persons. Science recognizes stages of life. Law recognizes persons. They are not equivalent and this has been explained to you many times.

The slaughter of millions of humans is simply not relevant because... science. Science identifies different stages of life but strips the humanity of none of them. Abortion on a whim ignores the scientific truth the unborn are humans.

 

[quip]

You concede that unborn children are fully human. Then, you insist that the slaughter of millions of fully human unborn children is authorized by a so-called moral standing which can be bestowed or withdrawn by political sentiment. The affirmation of humanity is contradicted by degrading unborn children to subhuman status.

Kindly explain what is unsupported about associating fully human unborn children with human persons? The law recognizes many stages of human life but in none of them does it license the at will extermination of human beings.

As per the typical anti-abortion stance, your knee-jerk association with (otherwise uncontroversial) persons of legal standing neglects obvious consideration concerning the necessary physicality entitled gestation. Specifically, the mortal dependency requirements of incipient human life, necessitated and sustained by its - equally human - host; her rights, her risks, her legal thus moral latitude to continue further trespass from this conceptually (though, physically conditional) extrinsic personage.

 

[weaver2]

The slaughter of millions of humans is simply not relevant because... science. Science identifies different stages of life but strips the humanity of none of them. Abortion on a whim ignores the scientific truth the unborn are humans.

You think women are too stupid to understand the full implication of pregnancy, that women abort on a silly whim? I think you should give up anti-abortion posting and take up a hobby more congruent with mis-understanding complicated situations; beer pong comes to mind.

 

[Gordy327]

The slaughter of millions of humans is simply not relevant because... science. Science identifies different stages of life but strips the humanity of none of them. Abortion on a whim ignores the scientific truth the unborn are humans.

Its not relevant because there are no persons involved and because the law recognizes bodily autonomy and rights, which do not apply to non-persons. Science does not make law nor determine right/wrong on an issue, including abortion. Thats a matter of law, not science. And neither you or any abortion opponent can provide a rational and legal reality to restrict abortion in the least, wheyher on a whim or not. It seems all you have are buzz words with emotional appeals.

 

[Lursa]

Its not relevant because there are no persons involved and because the law recognizes bodily autonomy and rights, which do not apply to non-persons. Science does not make law nor determine right/wrong on an issue, including abortion. Thats a matter of law, not science. And neither you or any abortion opponent can provide a rational and legal reality to restrict abortion in the least, wheyher on a whim or not. It seems all you have are buzz words with emotional appeals.

Once again, as do so many anti-abortites, he does not consider that there is another human inextricably involved, who DOES have rights and undergoes pain and suffering and is a moral agent all on her own, and has dependencies in society and with loved ones. The unborn has none of that...so when weighing in on balancing a moral stance, science and morality support the life...this considers the entirety of a life, not just a heartbeat...to protect and support the woman and morally...leave the choice up to her.

Right @AZRWinger? Isnt the moral view based on protecting and respecting the woman? Who may not want to bring a child into the world to an abusive father who will have rights to that child? Or knowing she or the father have a genetic disorder they dont want to risk passing on, like Huntington's disease? Birth control is not 100%. How is it the moral High Ground to intentionally impose pain and suffering on another human being that has done nothing wrong?

 

[Lursa]

You concede that unborn children are fully human. Then, you insist that the slaughter of millions of fully human unborn children is authorized by a so-called moral standing which can be bestowed or withdrawn by political sentiment. The affirmation of humanity is contradicted by degrading unborn children to subhuman status.

What "authority" says that unborn humans have rights or are persons? We have a document that sets our laws and does not recognize any legal status for the unborn. This is a legal and moral matter. Yes, law is based on politics to some extent.

The unborn is not an independent entity. Any protections or actions by the govt for the unborn cannot be performed without the consent of the woman. If she does not consent, then the govt would be violating her rights. So then the unborn would have rights superseding women and we'd become 2nd class citizens again. Do you think that's in the "political cards?" Maybe it is, we do seem to be headed back to the Dark Ages.

Kindly explain what is unsupported about associating fully human unborn children with human persons? The law recognizes many stages of human life but in none of them does it license the at will extermination of human beings.

So according to you, as soon as that fertilized egg is implanted, it's got the same rights as born human beings, is that right? No abortion for any reason unless the woman is in immediate danger of dying (like in self-defense.) Is that your position?

No more IVF treatments then either, it cant be right to store frozen embryos.

 

[Gordy327]

Once again, as do so many anti-abortites, he does not consider that there is another human inextricably involved, who DOES have rights and undergoes pain and suffering and is a moral agent all on her own, and has dependencies in society and with loved ones. The unborn has none of that...so when weighing in on balancing a moral stance, science and morality support the life...this considers the entirety of a life, not just a heartbeat...to protect and support the woman and morally...leave the choice up to her.

Right @AZRWinger? Isnt the moral view based on protecting and respecting the woman? Who may not want to bring a child into the world to an abusive father who will have rights to that child? Or knowing she or the father have a genetic disorder they dont want to risk passing on, like Huntington's disease? Birth control is not 100%. How is it the moral High Ground to intentionally impose pain and suffering on another human being that has done nothing wrong?

I have always said many anti abortionists are very short sighted and narrow minded. They only see a fetus, but never see the bigger picture. Then they sanctimoniously think one's personal medical decisions like abortion is somehow their business or concern. They cannot even provide one rational or legal reason why abortion should be restricted. They offer nothing but feelings and appeals to emotion.