Re: Born alive executive order

On 9/26/20 8:47 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
>   OrigInfoJunkie <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> "Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws"
>> https://tinyurl.com/upy36n6
>>
>> Why haven't these laws been ruled unconstitutional?
> 
> CPC 187 (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a
>      human being, or a fetus, with malice
>      aforethought.
> 
> The law addresses a fetus as a thing separate from a legal human
> being.

And yet it admits it's a human life... and that isn't logical.

If it weren't alive it couldn't be "Murdered" could it?

And when was a dog "murdered" they kill them and abuse them but it's NOT 
described as MURDER.  So while they suggest a "fetus" isn't a human life 
by adding that language ,they want to treat it as a human life when 
"murdered"?

But NON human life is simply killed or abused. According to the rest of 
the law, but NOT murdered.

> We can amend CPC 187 to the unlawful killing of
> republicans. That would also address republicans as things
> seperate from legal human beings.
>

Yes we know, Democrats tried that when they wanted to keep the BLACKS as 
slaves prior to the civil war. They determined they were separate from 
HUMAN BEINGS. Those Democrat Confederates who owned those PLANTATIONS 
were willing to bend the facts so they could keep raking in the 
money.... from the slavery. This is who Democrats really are.


Democrats use this type of Kabuki dance to avoid the truth and reality 
all the time.

> CPC 597. (a) Except as provided in subdivision
>      (c) of this section or Section 599c, every
>      person who maliciously and intentionally
>      maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a
>      living animal, or maliciously and
>      intentionally kills an animal, is guilty
>      of a crime punishable pursuant to
>      subdivision (d).


I said above that they don't call it murder, and look at this, they 
called it everything but murder.  Funny since I hadn't formulated any 
answer to this until I just got here to read this paragraph.

> 
> CPC 597 protects animals without conferring legal personhood on
> them.
> 

It also does it without the word Murder but it also recognized that the 
animals are alive  "LIVING ANIMAL" so a living animal "fetus" must also 
be protected from torture and mutilation and wounds.  Much the same as a 
HUMAN LIFE is. The key point being they're alive in the uterus amd they 
are either a HUMAN or an ANIMAL.

The Constitution says that persons have RIGHTS and that's what Rowe v 
Wade was hinged on. No where does the Constitution say that a human life 
that is BLACK or GAY or WHITE or FEMALE and inside a uterus is NOT a 
person.

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.


A person is born and becomes a citizen at the time of birth.  Where the 
"person" is born determines their citizenship, apparently NOT their 
person-hood since they were already a person when they became a citizen 
and they became a citizen at birth so the time they were a person has to 
be from before the birth. The act of BIRTH confers citizenship NOT 
person-hood since person-hood is pre existing.

As in... All persons "born or naturalized in the United States".
Meaning that the human life in the uterus is a person who is then later 
born or NATURALIZED.

If persons born in other countries were NOT born here or naturalized 
here they would have ZERO RIGHT in the constitution where it says "No 
person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous 
crime" since they would NOT be born here and not be a person who was 
born in this jurisdiction.  Which means they would have neither 
person-hood or citizenship.

You can't have it both ways, if "person-hood" is at birth then they have 
to be born here or naturalized here to be a U.S. Constitutionally 
recognized person or citizen (because babies born in the U.S. are made 
persons by the Constitution) and protected under the constitution.   So 
which is it, if all human life are persons then people immigrating can 
be given RIGHTS under the U.S. Constitution but if you read it as being 
born here confers the RIGHT of person-hood at birth then no immigrant or 
visitor is constitutionally required to have the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE.

Which means that ILLEGALS have no RIGHTS of the "persons" that are 
enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.  So the Fetus is a person or the 
illegals are NOT persons, which is it?


> 
> CPC 187 continues and allows abortions as not the unlawful
> killing of a fetus.
> 

And yet there is no lawful conviction so that they can be allowed to be 
killed like death row felon.

Where is the due process... they first need to convict each fetus of a 
crime and then find them guilty and sentence the human life in the 
uterus to the death penalty.

Because it's a human life and a person with all the RIGHTS of a person. 
The USSC got it wrong.


-- 
That's karma