or people in a coma, or people with severe mental handicaps. Logic goes out the window for Guiss when he's got an agenda to push.Originally Posted by PawDawg
|
|
|
|
|
or people in a coma, or people with severe mental handicaps. Logic goes out the window for Guiss when he's got an agenda to push.
And those folks aren’t given liberty either. Your examples prove my point.
Yes, they are. They are born with it. Living in this great country is liberty. Two key words here that upset your false reasoning are born and living. Your logic...the court says a fetus in not born therefore not living, therefore has no rights.
As the writer of Ecclesiastes wrote many years ago: There is nothing new under the sun.
Another take from Jefferson on liberty:
In a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "tree of liberty":
I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.1 The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.2
The court never said they were not living.
So they just don’t matter. I realize that’s a tough admit for a leftist supporter of idiots in teachers unions…remember it’s ALL about the kids
They aren’t legally cognizable “persons.”
Neither are newborns
Yes they are. That was what Roe v Wade is all about.
how convenient to have a law that defines life. So your body your choice only applies to women who may want to terminate their child. Is that accurate?
It doesn’t define “life.” It is “persons” that have protection under the 14th Amendment.
So life is not persons. That’s brilliant. Word games count as long as dark skin is not involved. Then we have a new set of rules.
No, the two are not exactly the same. In Roe, the court concluded that a fetus is not a person but the state has a legitimate interest in protecting a fetus once it is viable.
I don’t get your reference to skin color. The words chosen in the 14th Amendment were explicitly chosen to provide equal protection under the law to all persons.
You are so effed up. Good night
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote