nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What about the unborn babies? Are they not allowed equal protection?
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What about the unborn babies? Are they not allowed equal protection?
An "unborn baby" is not a person. And the phrase itself is an oxymoron, because it's not a baby until it's born. Stupid Tommie-poo.
That you and your kind think that a fetus is a person doesn't change the established fact--as in, established legally, academically, and medically--that it isn't.
Conservitards want this country to be governed by their religious beliefs (as well as their bigotry).
Originally posted by: Boilerman
You guys certainly latched onto the word "stretch" quite agressively. Since you've offered nothing but a crazy stretch to what the 14 Amendment words mean, it's obvious that you Libs are very confortable with judges legislating from the bench.
But we already knew that. No surprises here.
Speaking of "latching on"--you've really fallen in love with that moronic "legislating from the bench" phrase. Your constant parroting of that idiot mantra shows us that you don't understand how US courts work. No court has EVER created or passed a piece of legislation. That's not what courts do.
DUHHHHH, Boiler. God, you're a fucking idiot.
And yeah, we're "crazy" to insist on a broad interpretation of the basic, fundamental human rights enumerated in the 14th Amendment. That's so LIBURRUL of us!!!
I'd rather "liberally" embrace the 14th Amendment than be a fascist, bigoted conservitard who thinks it only applies to people they like (i.e., white males).
Originally posted by: tom
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What about the unborn babies? Are they not allowed equal protection?
24 weeks (roughly 6 months) is when a fetus is generally considered viable. Not six weeks. And certainly not at conception.
What else can I help with today?
I don't know how old stupid Tommie-poo is, but he's obviously not viable yet. Therefore, he can definitely still be aborted. It's not too late!
It is not as clear cut as the liberals think. Apparently a heartbeat doesn't count. Feeling pain at 15-20 weeks also doesn't count, in the eyes of liberals
ttps://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/#:~:text=A%20recent%20review%20of%20the%20evidence%20concludes%20that,to%20prevent%20the%20suffering%20of%20the%20fetus.”%20
https://paw.princeton.edu/book-report/embryo-defense-human-life
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
Originally posted by: tom
It is not as clear cut as the liberals think. Apparently a heartbeat doesn't count. Feeling pain at 15-20 weeks also doesn't count, in the eyes of liberals
ttps://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/#:~:text=A%20recent%20review%20of%20the%20evidence%20concludes%20that,to%20prevent%20the%20suffering%20of%20the%20fetus.”%20
https://paw.princeton.edu/book-report/embryo-defense-human-life
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
Or the law.
There is no scientific consensus. Your definition is based upon religous beliefs that you want to legislate upon other people. And thats the kind of thing you shit your pants about when it comes to Sharia Law.
And it was bipartisanly settled for 50 years until your psychotic religious group paid to have their judges on the Supreme Court.
Thanks for stopping by !
Stupid Tommie-poo thinks that having a heartbeat and being able to feel pain makes you human.
My cat has a heartbeat and she's able to feel pain. For that matter, so does my goldfish.
Guess that makes them human. I'd better register both of them to vote.
Pj - you guys are always saying follow the science. I posted several scientific studies & you ignored them.
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
The multi-generatonal court judges that set up 50 years of precedent weren't bought and paid for by a scumbag, activist group. Thats what it took to get judges to agree with Boilerman.
Boiler, can the government force you to get chemotherapy if you get cancer? If you say "no" then you are making the same Constituional argument as the Roe judges.
It all comes down that some believe that the baby growing within a woman shouldn't be killed. Some, like you don't believe that this creature is a baby. No one believes that the cancer being killed is a baby. The Constitution mandates that this issue be addressed at the state level.
The 14th amendment text that I posted proves my point. Nothing in that amendment addresses abortion, expect by an obscene stretch of the imagination. Some Lib in this mix told us that the Consitution's mentioning of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness applies to abortion. What a joke.
