Should abortion be regulated, or abolished?

John_C_87

@AlofRI ;

The Supreme Court in Roe Versus Wade simply states the loss of privacy is illegal. This is the basic principle of the Court case. Privacy. How that was interpreted to pregnancy abortion as an amnesty, immunity is a lie. The loss of privacy occurs due to the fact an admission and accusation is being allowed to transpire in the same statement without judicial separation by Constitutional principle.

Female specific amputation simple states before the Supreme Court a person will not participate in that lie held by admission and accusation made at the same time

Ampersand

PropagandaSlayer said:

Ampersand said:

PropagandaSlayer said:

Ampersand said:

PropagandaSlayer said:

John_C_87 said:

@PropagandaSlayer ;

Until you can prove that abortion does not remove liberty from our posterity, then you must agree it is constitutional.

The people’s liberty is sacrificed to promote the liberty of someone who is not a citizen of the United States. The United States of America has a process of rejection in its introduction of citizen ship or who it will sponsor. Female specific Amputation is the common defense of that process.

First: Pregnancy abortion is not murder it is only the admission/ confession of murder. It should not be allowed as it is not a choice that describes innocents. It describes only a guilt as united state.

Second: It is a lie presented as a united state to the people. Which is unconstitutional. It forms a questionable union by its basic principle described as only crime and is attacked by verbal use to all woman.

Third: we are not holding truth, that all woman are created equal by their creator. As the egg of a woman is alive and by not having sex a woman is aborting a child.

Forth: Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion.

If pregnancy terminates life, then it is murder. The 4 characteristics of life are present at fertilization, therefore abortion is murder. [1]

Murder is not a constitutional right.

Secondly, it is a Tu Quoque fallacy to suggest that because freedom is violated in some other area of government that something else should not be considered constitutional. If it deprives of the right to life it is unconstitutional.

Our constitution demands that the government "provide for the common defense" of its citizens. Allowing people to murder millions of babies each year is in direct violation of this command as outlined in our Constitution.

References:
[1] https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Science

Strange as it seems, the laws of the USA aren't based around random dictionaries

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. - www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

It is possible for a fetus to qualify as a human being, but according to the actual US Code it doesn't automatically do so and hence it is not murder.

Nothing in the constitution defines at what point a collection of cells transitions to become a human being so nothing in the constitution is violated.

Even if it isn't truly "murder" to deprive a baby in the womb of life, it is, at the very least, a premeditated killing.

But that doesn't change the fact that a baby in the womb is fully protected under the U.S. Constitution. It has a right to life because the laws of our country apply "to ourselves and our posterity" as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution and Federal Laws thereof are the supreme ruling document of the land, according to Article VI paragraph 2. [1]

A baby in the womb is a "posterity" and as such it has a right to life, regardless of whether it is in or out of the fetus.

The fact that, once again, it is fully alive in the womb [2] proves that, to have an abortion means to deprive a posterity of this country of life, and as such it is unconstitutional to do so.


References:
[1] https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html
[2] https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Science

A pre-meditated killing is murder, so I'm not sure what kind of semantic quibble you're trying to make. Regardless, neither of them apply to a legal abortion.

Feel free to quote to or link the part of the US Constitution which defines a fetus as "a posterity".Of course you won't be able to because no such passage exists.

You would like it to mean that, but what you like and what occurs in reality are two different thing. It is established in law that a fetus does not have an inalienable right to life until it is viable (able to live outside of the womb, with artificial aid if necessary), at which point it receives rights and protections. The Constitution doesn't delve into specifics, leaving the interpretation of the Constitution up to the lawmakers and  the judiciary. While you should feel free to make the case that you think it should be interpreted in the way you like due to whatever moral reasoning you wish to provide, trying to claim that that's what the constitution explicitly says is absurd and an outright lie.

The very definition of "posterity" according to Black's law Dictionary is as follows:

"All the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest gen POSTHUMOUS CHILD 920 POTENTIAL eration. Breckinridge v. Denny, 8 Bush (Ky.) 027." [1]

This means that the Constitution protects ALL DESCENDANTS of a person's right to life. An abortion effectively takes away that right. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

But, just to cement this further, the U.S. Code does, indeed define "child":

"A person’s “children” are that person’s immediate offspring, whether legitimate or not, and any children legally adopted by that person." [2]

Being as "immediate offspring" is present at the womb at the moment of conception, then, clearly, their right to life is constitutionally protected and the Government has a duty to protect it since it must "provide for the common defense" of its citizens and posterity.

Therefore, constitutionally, abortion must be abolished. It deprives a posterity of the right to life, and the government must oppose such things to fulfill its constitutional duty.

References:
[1] https://thelawdictionary.org/posterity/
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101

You're now just repeating your disprove arguments without adding anything new and merely repeating your blind assumptions..

Your quote from the Constitution makes no mention of descendent including fetuses - you merely make the blind assumption that it does. If I make the blind assumption that it only refers to humans from the point of live birth then you are wrong. 

Even more-so with the US Code where not only do you blindly assume fetuses = children despite it making no mention of that, but you ignore the parts of the US Code I've already pointed out to you which DO specifically clarify that "children" and "person" doesn't cover fetuses

So at this point let me be very clear to you as you seem to not understand a very basic point: There is no point in you quoting texts if they do nothing to support your argument and you just make up false claims unrelated to what they actually say.

Now with the US Code you have no standing at all because I've already provided a direct link to the text clarifying the specific definition is infants "born alive" who have had "complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother" and "breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles". That does not include fetuses in the womb, as then have not been expelled from their mother.

With the Constitution though, you may well say "Well sure, it doesn't in any way support the false claims I made about protecting fetuses, but it doesn't specifically say it doesn't either - so aren't you wrong?" The answer is no, because the Constitution also covers how decisions are made about things it doesn't specify or nail down - to whit the powers of the legislature and the judiciary. As the judiciary have ruled, the Constitution DOES NOT provide protection to non-viable fetuses.

Moreover, even if the Constitution did literally say: "Fetuses are children and should be protected" even that wouldn't guarantee the that abortion was illegal. For instance despite people's right to free speech, the US government can restrict people's speech if there is a pressing concern because it also has to weigh up it's constitutional duty to protect the citizens and safeguard the state. This is because when both sides of an issue have rights that conflict with another, a middle ground has to be found and some rights will have to be abridged.

As women have the right to terminate their pregnancy under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the privacy by the penumbras of the Bill of Rights or its penumbras and under those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment - even a clear right of protection for the fetus would not be enough to make any abortion illegal. You would merely hypocritically be demanding that the right you care about is sacrosanct, while other people's rights that you don't care about are thrown in the trash.

John_C_87

“The shortest distance to liberty is that death only changes the position of posterity to Posthumous.”

“We stand here righteous, so no woman dies in darkness, for freedom is the light for which many have given lives in darkness.”

Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion. The idea of marriage in a society has changed the common defense to the general welfare of woman as a United State. The choice withheld to the court in regard to pregnancy of woman can be described within a legal precedent and scope of Capital Punishment. Justifiable.