If society will be judged by how we treat our most vulnerable, what does that say about the Democrats?

Do you know the difference between an activist and a constitutionalist?

This is a first. Twice in one thread. You are on fire.

Thanks

Whether you like them or not

You wish. It's actually simple. Does the judge look at the Constitution as it was written and as the founding fathers intended it (there are tons of information written by the founders just in case anyone wonders what they meant) and apply it to a case.

Or does the judge ignore the Constitution and just makes up stuff to appease the left.

It was a majority of the latter that ruled on Roe v Wade.

It was a majority of the former that over turned Roe v Wade.

The left HATES the Constitution because it won't let them get away with murder.

"The left HATES the Constitution because it won't let them get away with murder"

That's not only a stupid statement, it doesn't even make sense

It's accurate.

So where does the Constitution say that embryos have human rights?

What is life? Does life only matter when it is convenient?

The Declaration of Independence states that our fundamental and inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The 14th amendment to the Constitution reiterates that but changes pursuit of happiness to what Jefferson originally wrote. Jefferson changed it to pursuit of happiness because he didn't want what he originally wrote to be used to defend slavery.

In the 14th amendment pursuit of happiness was changed to property. It couldn't be used to support slavery this time because the 14th amendment also ended slavery.

Clearly when a fertilized egg begins to divide it is life and it is a separate life from that of the mother. By its DNA it is clearly human life. At that point it falls under the protection of the Declaration of Independence and the 14th amendment.

"The Declaration of Independence states that our fundamental and inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

And who does that apply to?

"the 14th amendment also ended slavery"

13th ended slavery

"Clearly when a fertilized egg begins to divide it is life and it is a separate life from that of the mother. By its DNA it is clearly human life. At that point it falls under the protection of the Declaration of Independence and the 14th amendment."

Neither the DOI nor Constitution say that

The 13th and 14th ended slavery. Technically you are correct about the 13th but the 14th made former slaves citizens which gave them all the rights of a citizen. Then it reiterates the first to inalienable rights, life and liberty and adds property. The 13th ended slavery so the 14th could enumerate the right to own property without fear that property rights would be invoked to defend slave ownership.

Property rights is one of the next things on the left's chopping block. Of course you will say it isn't but that's because the left is mired down in playing spot the racist and trying to frighten kindergarteners with transexuals. We are paying attention. We know of Bidens commitment to the World Economic Forum's great reset. We know that the WEF has stated that their goal is to end capitalism. We watched their video that come right and said, "You will own nothing, and you will be happy". Which is a terrifying and bold statement. Property owner is the very foundation of liberty. Without it we serve whom ever owns the property we rent from them. And the statement that "you will be happy" is absurd. Not even the Declaration of Independence tells you that you will be happy, it just says you have the right to pursue happiness. If you own nothing then your rights are dictated by the person(s) who are claiming ownership. Pursuing happiness is gone just as life and liberty are gone.

Please. Where do you come off with the right to murder a living entity (federal law protects an American bald eagle embryo from destruction) just because it is inconvenient.

Why is every Democrat commercial lying, saying that every opponent wants to ban every abortion even in the case of incest, rape and if it endangers the life of the mother.

"Where do you come off with the right to murder a living entity"

I'm not talking about murder. That's already illegal.

"Why is every Democrat commercial lying, saying that every opponent wants to ban every abortion even in the case of incest, rape and if it endangers the life of the mother."

Every Democrat commercial isn't saying that. But it's true that many conservatives don't want any exceptions for abortion

How many?

While you COULD argue that it doesn't give human embryos rights, it also does NOT guarantee the right to an abortion.
My personal stance is it's morally okay in the first trimester. I'm uncomfortable about it (but not prepared to make it illegal) in the second trimester. In the third trimester it should only be allowed for medical reasons. It is developed enough to be unquestionably human, and is usually already viable.
If democrats weren't pushing "for any reason up until birth" they could likely get certain protections passed as an amendment. Most Americans support a right to abortions early in the pregnancy or for medical reasons. It's the Democrats "all or nothing" approach that's the problem.

"While you COULD argue that it doesn't give human embryos rights, it also does NOT guarantee the right to an abortion"

That is true, but the 10th amendment says that just because the constitution doesn't enumerate something as a right should not be construed as that thing not being a right

"My personal stance is it's morally okay in the first trimester. I'm uncomfortable about it (but not prepared to make it illegal) in the second trimester. In the third trimester it should only be allowed for medical reasons. It is developed enough to be unquestionably human, and is usually already viable."

And I understand that position. I don't agree with it fully, but I do see your argument.

"It's the Democrats "all or nothing" approach that's the problem"

I agree

" "It's the Democrats "all or nothing" approach that's the problem"

I agree"

Perhaps I haven't been paying enough attention, but they only time I've heard the assertion that Democrats were pushing "for any reason up until birth" was from Republican asserting it as part of their basic reactionary the-bogeymen-are-coming propaganda which tends to overly rely on fanfic fabrications a lot.

"If democrats weren't pushing "for any reason up until birth" "

Where have you heard this?

That's pretty convenient

“Says who?” Here.
1: It is a biological fact that it is a human life.
2: The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights defines human rights as “rights we have simply because we exist as human beings,” explicitly calls them inalienable, and includes the right to life as one of them.

Does it say that applies to embryos?

“ rights we have simply because we exist as human beings” That should answer it.

I hate speaking up for Conservatives, but I don't think they say it's a fully formed infant one second after conception, Octavia. Where do you get this stuff? (not holding my breath waiting for you to source your claim...)

I'm pretty sure they say it's a human life one second after conception, viable or not.

Regardless, it would make the debate much more transparent if those in favor of abortion would admit that they're okay with killing a human being in order to protect the right to choice.

As for those whackos on your side of the issue (apparently) who are fine with "aborting" at 8 or 9 months, or even after birth, shame on them. A person can be in favor of a woman's right to choose, but still recognize that doing so at those points of the pregnancy is nothing less than killing a human being.

Difference between killing and murdering is that murdering requires intention.

but but germs are life - Lib 101

AT the moment of conception, a fetus has fully formed and entirely unique HUMAN DNA

The argument here (and it's a scientific one) is that it is a unique human life.
I don't necessarily agree with that assessment, but I do understand it.

I'm more concerned with whether or not the fetus/embryo/zygote/whatever has a consciousness and/or a capacity to suffer. As I think our moral goal should not be to arbitrarily protect life, but to minimize pain and suffering. Once the fetus is capable of perceiving pain, elective abortion is morally wrong, and at that point I have little sympathy for the mother, as she has already had a chance (likely multiple) to be proactive and prevent the pregnancy from progressing to that point.

I specified elective because I acknowledge medical circumstances could create a situation where death and/or suffering is inevitable, and aborting the fetus may cause the least total pain out of the viable options. But that is a medical exception.

You can explain it all you want, but it's a double standard that makes no sense. And all you did here is restate what I already said. If you can't see the double standard, its because you refuse to.
SMH

You're nit picking like you always do. Clump of cells or not, if it can be aborted at 8 1/2 or 9 months then it has been deemed to be unworthy of life regardless of what you call it.
I'm sure you believe what you said, which is amazing to me. Some serious mental gymnastics there.

"You can explain it all you want, but it's a double standard that makes no sense"

It's not a double standard. It's two different things.

"I'm sure you believe what you said, which is amazing to me. Some serious mental gymnastics there"

How so?

"Get over yourself. Much as they seem to want to believe to the contrary, Transgenders are actually not the center of the universe."

Transgender people don't claim to be the center of the universe. They just want to live their lives and be themselves, and be left alone by conservatives who don't even want them to exist. They don't want perverted politicians to be obsessed with where they go to the bathroom.

First of all, I didn't say they said they "claim to be the center of the universe". I said they SEEM to want to believe that they are. If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly.

Secondly, The comment you referenced was on a completely different thread, OM.

But since we're here, I don't agree that they "just want to live their lives and be themselves..." They may want that, but not JUST that. It seems they also have a need for affirmation from others who simply cannot give it, nor is it their responsibility to give. They want affirmation from others, but are missing one of the critical components critical to living a contented life. And that is that happiness comes from within, not without. If anyone, and this applies across the human spectrum, you and me included, needs affirmation from others besides themselves to be happy, they are in for a long wait. The responsibility for their happiness is their own. Not mine, not yours, but THEIRS.
I, along with many others are fed up with the transfer of blame for others' unhappiness. It isn't my responsibility to make anyone happy, and I refuse to take the blame for someone else's inability to cope with life on life's terms and make their own happiness.
I don't hate them, or want them to not exist, although I will agree with you that many do feel that way. I just refuse to play their blame game for their own misery.
And really, if they wanted to be left alone, why is their obsession with proclaiming and parading their Trans-ness so prevalent? Be who you are and STFU about it. I do.

"First of all, I didn't say they said they "claim to be the center of the universe". I said they SEEM to want to believe that they are. If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly."

Close enough

"Secondly, The comment you referenced was on a completely different thread, OM."

Yes, it was on the real_politics stream. But I'm banned from commenting on that stream so I couldn't reply there directly.

"I don't agree that they "just want to live their lives and be themselves..." They may want that, but not JUST that"

Pretty sure that's primarily it for most trans people

"They want affirmation from others, but are missing one of the critical components critical to living a contented life. And that is that happiness comes from within, not without. If anyone, and this applies across the human spectrum, you and me included, needs affirmation from others besides themselves to be happy, they are in for a long wait. The responsibility for their happiness is their own. Not mine, not yours, but THEIRS"

There's a big difference between needing or wanting affirmation from others, and other people being deliberately hostile to you. It's difficult for transgender youth to be happy in life when their own parents won't accept them for who they are or in some cases even kick them out of the house. Saying "happiness comes from within" is easier said than done.

"I, along with many others are fed up with the transfer of blame for others' unhappiness"

Even when those people intentionally make life unbearable for those people? It's like denying somebody a job and then criticizing them for being upset that they don't have a job.

"I don't hate them, or want them to not exist"

Okay, but others do feel that way

"I just refuse to play their blame game for their own misery"

And again, it's not "their own misery" when other people are treating them horribly.

"And really, if they wanted to be left alone, why is their obsession with proclaiming and parading their Trans-ness so prevalent?"

For many or most trans people, it isn't

"Be who you are and STFU about it"

Why don't those conservatives do the same?