Image

Notable/Quotable: The 14th Amendment, citizenship and abortion

User avatar


Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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.




Do you see what is wrong with her argument that abortion is fine because the unborn aren't citizens as per the 14th Amendment?

My answer:

        Mystery item No. 1

User avatar
I'd like to report Law Professor Michele Goodwin for online, and congressional inquiry, hooliganism. As this is unlawful.

User avatar
The other side of the argument:

twitter apr27 2023 1.jpg
twittrer apr23 2023 2.jpg

Do you think that individual watched the full hearing? Do you think the Senator said that the constitution gives the unborn rights? Do you think the individual I was talking to on twitter is full of shit?

I cannot find the full hearing.

User avatar
Who cares if Comrade Call Me Bob watched the entire hearing or not, he still doesn’t know what happened.

Senator Kennedy’s question do you support abortion until citizenship wasn’t answered. In the jurisprudence of Law professor Michele Goodwin, the business of harvesting body parts of non citizens is the true intent of 14th Amendment to verify liberty for those once denied life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. To hear the enslavement of non citizens existing outside the 14th Amendment promoted by someone seeking confirmation votes from Senators should be absurdly funny. Right?

Non-citizens were enslaved by the 14th Amendment…who knew?

User avatar
jackalopelipsky wrote:
4/27/2023, 7:52 pm
Who cares if Comrade Call Me Bob watched the entire hearing or not, he still doesn’t know what happened.

Senator Kennedy’s question do you support abortion until citizenship wasn’t answered. In the jurisprudence of Law professor Michele Goodwin, the business of harvesting body parts of non citizens is the true intent of 14th Amendment to verify liberty for those once denied life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. To hear the enslavement of non citizens existing outside the 14th Amendment promoted by someone seeking confirmation votes from Senators should be absurdly funny. Right?

Non-citizens were enslaved by the 14th Amendment…who knew?

Furthermore, she's taken the Dred Scott decision and run with it.

I posted the Call Me Bob exchange mainly to show the other side's intellectual arguments in defense of her position on abortion: "Shut up!," he explained.

User avatar
Ehh…not sure why killing babies must be linked to the status of their US citizenship. How that is in any way related to the morality of taking human life, or how it explains the complete idiocy of the mantra, ‘My body, my choice.’ How complete must the intellectual paralysis be to not see that two human lives are involved here. Or do women actually give birth to their own bodies?

User avatar
Papa Kalashnikook wrote:
4/27/2023, 9:15 pm
Ehh…not sure why killing babies must be linked to the status of their US citizenship. How that is in any way related to the morality of taking human life, or how it explains the complete idiocy of the mantra, ‘My body, my choice.’ How complete must the intellectual paralysis be to not see that two human lives are involved here. Or do women actually give birth to their own bodies?

Exactly. It's a non sequitur. Just about every argument from the Left on any topic is in the same vein. Mainly non sequiturs but also the whole gamut of logical fallacies. To get sucked into their logical fallacies and try and counter a logical fallacy as if it's a point to be taken seriously in the heat of an exchange is to go down a rabbit hole of confusion and get lost in the crazy. So the best thing to do is point out that a non sequitur is a non sequitur, a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy, an excuse for a reason is just an excuse for a reason. 

Surprisingly when you employ this method you will then get countered with another logical fallacy. Typically, without fail. The only thing to do is to then point out the logical fallacy the individual is employing as their counter argument. It's usually the logical fallacy of the ad hominem which is very popular with the intellectually special. In fact it is de rigger. 

User avatar
Absolutely. Facts, logic, truth and reality mean nothing to a leftist with an entrenched political view and a membership in Intellectual Quadriplegics Anonymous. The fallback when it has been pointed out that their arguments consist of fabulist, fatuous drivel is name calling. Autistic screeching and spastic arm waving. Not Boris Spassky either.


 
POST REPLY