Where in The Constitution are the unborn or their rights even mentioned?

[Nomad]

The right talks a lot about the Constitution.

They talk about the rights of the unborn, describing them as people who have the right to live.

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the unborn?

Where in the Constitution are the unborn defined as people?

Where in the Constitution are their rights laid out or enumerated?

Do the unborn have the right of free speech? Freedom of expression?

Can the unborn possess a personal firearm? Or do they have to be part of a well regulated militia?

Do they have the right against unreasonable search and seizure?

Do the unborn have the right against self incrimination?

Can the unborn vote? Should pregnant women be allowed to discern or divine who their unborn citizen wants in office to govern them and as such, fill out a ballot for them?

If as the right claims, any right not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is non-existent, then how do the unborn, who are mentioned NOWHERE in the Constitution, have any rights whatsoever?

Why are conservatives such massive hypocrites on every issue?

 

[Grokmaster]

 

[Grokmaster]

It's NOT; THEREFORE, IT IS UP TO THE STATES, AND THE PEOPLE.

 

[archives]

Forget it, no matter how many times one points out the absurdity of strict construtionalism, those on the right who think we live in the 17th Century will never get it, they can't, admitting the truth would devastate what they want to believe.

Similar to them swallowing the Big Lie

 

[Grokmaster]

Forget it, no matter how many times one points out the absurdity of strict construtionalism, those on the right who think we live in the 17th Century will never get it, they can't, admitting the truth would devastate what they want to believe.

Similar to them swallowing the Big Lie

Just can't get it through your baby-killer mind ,can you?


What "TRUTH"? It's a STATES' RIGHTS ISSUE.

 

[Celticguy]

[h=2]AMENDMENT XIV[/h][h=2]SECTION 1[/h]All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Grokmaster]

[h=2]AMENDMENT XIV[/h][h=2]SECTION 1[/h]All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

BINGO!!!

 

[dukkha]

Forget it, no matter how many times one points out the absurdity of strict construtionalism, those on the right who think we live in the 17th Century will never get it, they can't, admitting the truth would devastate what they want to believe.

Similar to them swallowing the Big Lie

you can say far worse about the "living document" crowd that cooked up this concoction of a right to privacy and somehow due process.
That horrid decision was always invalid ( even though I would have just let it stand)

The difference is Textualists have the Constituion to point to

 

[Nomad]

ANYTHING INSIDE YOUR BODY IS PART OF YOUR BODY!!!!

Moron.

 

[Nomad]

It's NOT; THEREFORE, IT IS UP TO THE STATES, AND THE PEOPLE.

Show us where the constitution gives the states the right to decide what constitutes a person.

 

[BartenderElite]

ANYTHING INSIDE YOUR BODY IS PART OF YOUR BODY!!!!

Moron.

Not sure how they consistently miss this concept.

 

[Nomad]

BINGO!!!

BULLSHIT!!!

 

[BidenPresident]

[h=2]AMENDMENT XIV[/h][h=2]SECTION 1[/h]All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A fetus is not a person. We should have learned that in junior high biology.

 

[BidenPresident]

Not sure how they consistently miss this concept.

They think God's spirit is in every fetus.

 

[BartenderElite]

It's NOT; THEREFORE, IT IS UP TO THE STATES, AND THE PEOPLE.

So, on the same thread where you say it's "killing," you also assert that it's up to states & the voters?

Voters decide on murder?

 

[Nomad]

you can say far worse about the "living document" crowd that cooked up this concoction of a right to privacy and somehow due process.
That horrid decision was always invalid ( even though I would have just let it stand)

The difference is Textualists have the Constituion to point to

So you think there is no right to privacy or due process?

You're confusing America with your motherland, comrade.

You really do need to get your ass back there where you belong.

You could be invading Ukraine right now.

Raping and killing.

 

[archives]

[h=2]AMENDMENT XIV[/h][h=2]SECTION 1[/h]All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"deprive any person of life," that being the case, how can you claim assault weapons are Constitutionally protected when their primary purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time?

 

[archives]

you can say far worse about the "living document" crowd that cooked up this concoction of a right to privacy and somehow due process.
That horrid decision was always invalid ( even though I would have just let it stand)

The difference is Textualists have the Constituion to point to

So a 21st century society really interpret its Constitution by the standards of 1787 — an era before the introduction of semi-automatic weaponry, steam power, penicillin, automobiles, trains, electric lights, indoor plumbing, etc?

And the "textualism" is just another sophomoric term the Court uses to rationalize their decisions, the wording alone opens whole portions of the Constitution to interpretation based upon "textualism"

 

[Nomad]

[h=2]AMENDMENT XIV[/h][h=2]SECTION 1[/h]All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So once again, the constitution specifically says PERSONS BORN and in no place does it refer to the unborn as a PERSON.

Wrong as always.

.

 

[Grokmaster]

"deprive any person of life," that being the case, how can you claim assault weapons are Constitutionally protected when their primary purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time?

Because they are more often used to protect innocent lives from democrat voters.