A challenge for people who refused to vote for trump OR Hillary

[Flash]

Well, it is the pursuit, rather than the acquisition, of happiness. Obviously, the right to life precludes certain debased acts, and the right to liberty precludes certain forms of ownership and control.

The unborn have never had rights under U. S. law--they can't inherit, enter into contracts, etc. The government cannot really guarantee somebody the right to life because any person could choose to take your life at any time. All they can do is punish the person who took your life. Still, the Declaration of Independence contains no legally enforceable rights and has never been used in that manner.

[Flash]

Could? People already have.

None have ever been successful in using the Declaration to obtain any rights. Are these court cases?

[Ralph]

Roe has nothing to do with when life begins but when a child is viable. The Declaration of Independence has no legally enforceable rights.

That is a "blatant" Lie. Have you ever read and comprehended the LAW legislated from the bench called the ROE v. Wade decision? The decision defines when in THEIR OPINION human life begins. They have (against all scientific evidence) determined that human life begins when it breaches the female vagina. Science tells us that (Just like the endangered species act) Life, even in unborn state is representative of life within that species. An opinion made from the bench and made into LAW directly contracts an act of law made via representation when it comes to defining the point when LIFE BEGINS and is VIABLE as an example of life within that species. The endangered Species Act of 1973 Got it right....SCTOUS got it wrong and science can prove it via the established precedent of DNA evidence.

Any decision that comes from SCOTUS is subject to being overturned, under the right circumstance. 1st When the court is filled with more constitutionalists than radical leftists. 2nd when NEW EVIDENCE is introduced that proves that life begins at conception in the form of HUMANITY. Changing the wording does not change the scientific, demonstrable and repeatable via experimentation FACTS OF SCIENCE when it is applied to logic and reason instead of emotional idiocy.

"IF" it has "Nothing" to do with "life".....why attempt to define when LIFE BEGINS in the decision? Science proves that human life begins at conception when a viable, independent, and separate human DNA is present from that time until DEATH.

If it has nothing to do with life.....why attempt to determine when its (wink, wink) VIABLE, as if human life can be determined to be viable or non-viable....just like the Nazi's determined when they decided that all JEWS where a non viable form of human life not worthy of being protected by Government fiat.

This is priceless and most illogical and non-scientific. On one hand liberalism defines certain unborn animal life as a VIABLE representative of life within that species (The endangered species act, in an UNBORN state of gestation (in the egg). Just try to destroy a Bald Eagle nest of unborn bald eagle infants while in the egg (unborn).

Sad to say.....with HUMAN LIFE....there is no such protection of DNA established HUMAN LIFE before its born...its a personal choice to determine if that life is worthy of being protected by its Mother? Really? What mother, other than an evil mother, would offer up her children at the alter of human secularism?

Again....IF it has NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE....WHY ABORT: the ending/killing of a developing human life....that which has nothing to do with LIFE? If its non-viable at any stage of development.....JUST LEAVE IT ALONE and see what happens....you would not HAVE TO KILL IT.

No one has the authority to redefine SCIENCE. Either that unborn infant is alive or its dead.

Leftists have no logical or reasonable argument against SCIENCE or SOCIAL MORE'S when it comes to the attempt to defend the killing of unborn human children by CHOICE. Either you decide to KILL/ABORT that developing human life and profess that life has no RIGHT TO LIVE as determined by YOU void of any form of DUE PROCESS...in a free society that choice is called MURDER....as you do not get to decide what human life is viable and which one is not.

[Flash]

That is a "blatant" Lie. Have you ever read and comprehended the LAW legislated from the bench called the ROE v. Wade decision? The decision defines when in THEIR OPINION human life begins. They have (against all scientific evidence) determined that human life begins when it breaches the female vagina. Science tells us that (Just like the endangered species act) Life, even in unborn state is representative of life within that species. An opinion made from the bench and made into LAW directly contracts an act of law made via representation when it comes to defining the point when LIFE BEGINS and is VIABLE as an example of life within that species. The endangered Species Act of 1973 Got it right....SCTOUS got it wrong and science can prove it via the established precedent of DNA evidence.

Any decision that comes from SCOTUS is subject to being overturned, under the right circumstance. 1st When the court is filled with more constitutionalists than radical leftists. 2nd when NEW EVIDENCE is introduced that proves that life begins at conception in the form of HUMANITY. Changing the wording does not change the scientific, demonstrable and repeatable via experimentation FACTS OF SCIENCE when it is applied to logic and reason instead of emotional idiocy.

"IF" it has "Nothing" to do with "life".....why attempt to define when LIFE BEGINS in the decision? Science proves that human life begins at conception when a viable, independent, and separate human DNA is present from that time until DEATH.

If it has nothing to do with life.....why attempt to determine when its (wink, wink) VIABLE, as if human life can be determined to be viable or non-viable....just like the Nazi's determined when they decided that all JEWS where a non viable form of human life not worthy of being protected by Government fiat.

This is priceless and most illogical and non-scientific. On one hand liberalism defines certain unborn animal life as a VIABLE representative of life within that species (The endangered species act, in an UNBORN state of gestation (in the egg). Just try to destroy a Bald Eagle nest of unborn bald eagle infants while in the egg (unborn).

Sad to say.....with HUMAN LIFE....there is no such protection of DNA established HUMAN LIFE before its born...its a personal choice to determine if that life is worthy of being protected by its Mother? Really? What mother, other than an evil mother, would offer up her children at the alter of human secularism?

Again....IF it has NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE....WHY ABORT: the ending/killing of a developing human life....that which has nothing to do with LIFE? If its non-viable at any stage of development.....JUST LEAVE IT ALONE and see what happens....you would not HAVE TO KILL IT.

No one has the authority to redefine SCIENCE. Either that unborn infant is alive or its dead.

Leftists have no logical or reasonable argument against SCIENCE or SOCIAL MORE'S when it comes to the attempt to defend the killing of unborn human children by CHOICE. Either you decide to KILL/ABORT that developing human life and profess that life has no RIGHT TO LIVE as determined by YOU void of any form of DUE PROCESS...in a free society that choice is called MURDER....as you do not get to decide what human life is viable and which one is not.

Then why did the Court allow states to prohibit abortion during the 3rd trimester which is 3 months before birth?

Before Roe each state determined abortion laws and many states already allowed it.

Almost all Supreme Court decisions amount to legislating law from the bench since they involve interpretations of federal law or the Constitution.

[Mason Michaels]

None have ever been successful in using the Declaration to obtain any rights. Are these court cases?

Good point

[Flash]

I think it is inaccurate to say the Supreme Court "defines when in THEIR OPINION human life begins. They have (against all scientific evidence) determined that human life begins when it breaches the female vagina" [Ralph].

The court writes "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

They specifically allow the states to prohibit abortion in the 3rd trimester because that is when they believed viability occurred. It is not when it "breeches the female vagina." If I am wrong, please show the passage from the actual case.

[Ralph]

Then why did the Court allow states to prohibit abortion during the 3rd trimester which is 3 months before birth?

Before Roe each state determined abortion laws and many states already allowed it.

Almost all Supreme Court decisions amount to legislating law from the bench since they involve interpretations of federal law or the Constitution.

Really? And this sustains your illogical argument that Court legislated abortions have nothing to do with defining life and when it begins or supports your illogical lie that Roe v. Wade can never be overturned? How? The states have every right to legislate law....no court has the right to INTERPRET the constitution as the constitution is the Standard by which law is defined in denying anyone to "alienate" certain unalienable rights...among them LIFE AND LIBERTY....void of DUE PROCESS. Just as explained via the very first legal document drafted by the United States of America...et.al, The Declaration of Independence.

If that document is not a legal and binding document......we are still subjects of Great Britain are we not? Simply because something might be considered LEGAL by the courts does not make it constitutional nor moral. Laws are but a reflection of the peoples social more's.....moral people make moral laws...immoral people make immoral laws.

This nation has a greater "transcending" moral code of ethics as pronounced in clear unambiguous language in that first legal document ratified by the United States of America....the Declaration of Independence. Read it........ And the US CONSTITUTION...show me the Article, Section and Clause that allows the courts to interpret/change one word from its verbatim meaning...written at an 8th grade level. Proceed show me in the constitution where the court...any court, Especially the Supreme Court gets to Interpret the meaning of the simple English text and context presented in the Constitution. That right is self professed by the courts.

Would it not be great if one of the parties that has signed a contract gets to self interpret that contract and change the language via OPINION void of any type of representation from the other signatory group of principle (as that is what the Constitution is...a contract among the STATES granting the central government certain powers and limiting those powers to those defined? The very contract was drawn up to place limits upon the power and scope of the central government as defined by the STATES...those entities that make up the Untied States of America.

Now you are attempting to tell me that same entity (the central government...in one of its branches...the Judicial) that was limited by that contract has the RIGHT to "interpret" that limiting document as it sees fit and change the words and meanings of that contract via OPINION void of representation of the states/people instead of the legal method of allowing THE PEOPLE to change it through a 75% majority ratification? Really? Again....show me, in the Constitution where that right rests.


"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator (God implied) with certain unalienable (non-transferable, to you, to any mother, to any woman, to any man, void of the due process of being charged and found guilty of crimes against humanity....tell us what crime is an unborn child being charged with might less proven guilty of by its parent...unless you count inconvenience a crime against humanity)....among them (these rights endowed by the creator, not man)...LIFE AND LIBERTY.......

Thus no court, no man, no woman has the right to self define what life is (wink, wink) viable and worthy of living....only the PEOPLE et.al., has that right to alienate (charge through due process any life of crimes against humanity that transfers that life to the STATE/PEOPLE). Its the very first mission statement in the US RULE OF LAW...and given as a reason for declaring the US to be INDEPENDENT and self governing through the ascending principles governed by THE CREATOR.

The truth never hurt anyone except one that attempts to hide behind lies of indoctrination.

[CFM]

I did not include changed court interpretation because my point was that abortion is largely a symbolic issue because Republicans have made no real effort to change Roe which they could do by proposing an amendment. There is nothing they can do to bring about a new court interpretation. The court chooses which cases it will hear and that is only about 10% of those appealed to it each year.

You didn't include it because you don't have a clue.

Interesting how, as you claim, nothing can be done to bring about a new Court interpretation yet the very reason the Court heard the case on faggot marriages was because things were done at a level in which you say it can't happen.

Keep trying.

[PostmodernProphet]

Roe has nothing to do with when life begins but when a child is viable. The Declaration of Independence has no legally enforceable rights.

obviously, if it is ever legally recognized that a fetus is a human being it will be impossible for the court to support any arbitrary denial of the rights afforded to all other human beings.......

[CFM]

None have ever been successful in using the Declaration to obtain any rights. Are these court cases?

Since that was not was I was referencing, try again, fool.

[PostmodernProphet]

because my point was that abortion is largely a symbolic issue

sixty million dead children are not symbols......

[CFM]

obviously, if it is ever legally recognized that a fetus is a human being it will be impossible for the court to support any arbitrary denial of the rights afforded to all other human beings.......

The science already recognizes it. Wonder why the lefties that support abortion and are constantly yammering about science on all sorts of issues, deny science here.

[PostmodernProphet]

The unborn have never had rights under U. S. law--they can't inherit, enter into contracts, etc.

actually that isn't true.......unborn children are always included in inheritance if the settlor dies before their issue are born.......

[PostmodernProphet]

The government cannot really guarantee somebody the right to life because any person could choose to take your life at any time. .

the law does in fact guarantee a right to life.......obviously, as you state, they cannot guarantee life, which is what you inexpertly try to substitute in......the difference here is that while you would be prosecuted if you took my life, you would not be prosecuted if you were an abortionist who killed dozens of unborn children every day.......that should change by the way.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Almost all Supreme Court decisions amount to legislating law from the bench since they involve interpretations of federal law or the Constitution.

only when a majority of the bench is made up of "living breathing document" justices as opposed to "strict construction" justices.......that's what got Trump elected, you know.......