I think the fundamental misunderstanding you are having is in relation to the default position of rights. In America you have the right unless it is explicitly taken by the state. The default position is that you can get an abortion. A state making a law to allow abortion in the American legal system isn't the state granting you the right to get an abortion, and therefore the state is responsible for abortions. It's the state stepping out of the picture.

Bro.

There is a law.

You said the state makes the law those are your words.

If the state upholds the law.

The state is then upholding a law.

That is not the state creating laws and then pretending they never created the law.

That is the state creating a law, then upholding that law.

Now go read the 14th amendment again.

Again what do you not understand about that. A five year old could understand that.



This post was edited by WickedDarkJuggalos on Dec 4 2021 02:56am

Right I'm asking you. If a fetus is a person, is it a US citizen or is it a stateless refuge? Being a person comes with a host of rights and responsibilities so I'm asking you about one.

I already answered the question yes a fetus is a person. The word citizen in 100% irrelevant.

If you would like to create a completely new argument that has never even reached the courts, feel free to explain how the fetus doesn’t count as a US citizen, therefore doesn’t count.




It is very clear you guys are not aware of what the actual arguments are. People are lawyers for a living. They usually get one shot at the case. If there was a legal case it would have already have been brought up this is not a new issue.

A state does not allow you to do something. A state can only restrict you from doing something.

That is the very foundation of the 9th and 10th amendments, and a fundamental aspect of our legal system.

I say this a lot sarcastically to get a rise out of people, but this time I am dead serious. If you weren't taught this in your high school civics class you were failed by your teachers.

I'm not asking you for a legal run around or what's being argued in the current supreme Court case. I'm asking you if fetuses are persons under the law, do you believe they're automatically US citizens too? Or does that right only get assigned as they slide out the birth canal.

Okay, then at least read what I have already said in response to you.



You are playing silly games trying to discredit me.

Again, the word citizen is irrelevant. The fetus is a person.

You can ask the same questions again and will get the same answer please stop wasting my time.




So the legal argument is that simple. You should hurry on down to Mississippi and let them know because they are absolutely blowing their case.


I am sorry but you can insult me all you want, which is where you go 100% of the time when you are just flat out wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are incorrect on basically all of your reasoning here.



I have been extremely clear what my positions are and where they are found in the constitution. Souix wants to play fuck boy games and ask me about citizenship of the fetus over and over. You are pretty much telling me the baby is not a person therefore doesn’t deserve basic rights. And apparently a law that is written and upheld by a state isn’t actually being upheld by the state…



What is your justification for this. I cannot make my points any clearer, so instead of playing your fuck fuck games, let’s hear your side before we go back and forth where you just insult me because you have nothing else to say.

I have the right to eat a sandwich. The state passes a law saying "eating sandwiches is illegal". The state has taken away my right to eat the sandwich. A week later the state passes a law saying "eating sandwiches is legal again". Therefore, the state ate my sandwich.

That is the argument you are making. It doesn't work because me having the right to eat the sandwich is the default, and the state doesn't come and make me eat the sandwich. It merely gives me the option by stepping out of the equation. A state passing a law saying "you have the right to do X" isn't the state encouraging X nor performing X. It is returning a right that I already had before it made X illegal.


Now if the state was paying women to get abortions, or funding abortions specifically (not as medical procedures in general, but singling out abortions and incentivizing them), then you would have a case, but right now you don't.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 4 2021 03:27am

The right to take a life is not a right.


You are disgustingly comparing killing a person to eating a sandwich.


Just answer with a yes or no. Is a fetus a person. I am absolutely not going to debate with you because a fetus is a person. I don’t care how you define life or what time frame you believe changes a fetus from not being alive to being alive.

Is a fetus a person?

In absence of a society taking away your rights, you have every right possible. Including the right to take the lives of others. All rights are enforced by violence, and the ones with the greatest capacity for violence create the rules. Kings have the rights to kill their subjects. Dictators have the right to starve their people. In a Democracy we have, as a society, pooled our capability of violence and created largely agreed upon rights. One of them is that if you kill another person without justification, you will be punished. Thereby establishing the "right to life". This hasn't always been the case even in the United States. A slave did not have a right to life. Neither do death row inmates. So yes, the right to take a life exists, and by default stands with all individuals until it is removed by the state.

As for the question of personhood, I think the earliest we could possibly establish personhood is around 23 weeks, when there is enough of a brain that we can infer consciousness. Prior to that a fetus is an object since it has never developed a consciousness. You can define personhood however you want, it's ultimately opinion, but not all opinions are equally valid.

To illustrate my point let's consider the possibility that in the future we have a device that can replace any organ. Born without a kidney? We implant a device that acts as your kidney. Born without lungs? Same thing. The ONLY part of your body that defines you as a person is your conscious brain. You can remove literally everything else, piece by piece, and you will still be a person until your conscious brain is removed. A device that "replaces your brain" can't exist, because you are your brain. You are the neuronal connections and all the idiosynchraties that comes with being made of neurons.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 4 2021 03:39am